From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 00:28:06 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 00:28:06 -0000 Subject: Did Hagrid nearly killed Draco? WAS: Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143788 > Leslie > > That's because Hagrid *is* an oaf. Hagrid is the very definition of > the word, which means "simple" and "clumsy". This is true. *Oaf* means *simple* and *clumsy*, and that's what Hagrid is. However, *oaf* is also a derogatory appelation. A difference rather like between *afro-American* and *nigger*. You can say for instance "Our new football coach is afro-American". Or you can say "Our new football coach is a nigger". Both statements may be true, but one of them is also an insult. a_svirn From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu Dec 1 00:34:40 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 00:34:40 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals Message-ID: <20051201003440.80471.qmail@web86211.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 143789 a_svirn wrote: >>Irene: >>Bringing it back to Snape, if we use the same standard, it must be > > all > >>Neville's fault, right? > > a_svirn: > > Er.. what is Neville's fault? His poor performance at potions? Well, > yes, I suppose it is. I take my hat off to you. With the herd of double standards usually roaming around this issue, our discussion is an unexpected pleasure. :-) > > a_svirn: > Do you know I believe one doesn't necessarily have to be a git, > sadistic or otherwise, to maintain discipline in the classroom? Take > Slughorn for instance a perfectly amiable gentleman, and yet he > experiences no difficulties whatsoever in holding his pupils > attention. Ah yes, old Slughorn. If I haven't had larger problems with the way Snape has turned out in book 6, I'd be really peeved with JKR for introducing Slughorn. Because I so wanted to see if Snape runs his class any different with students who are both willing and capable to learn. I suspect he does (based on Snapeish teachers I've met in real life), but of course we'll never know now. Alla wrote: > But I would be surprised if > Neville did not struggle with them, if his thoughts are probably > concentrated on whether Trevor will live or die Trevor was involved in one lesson out of what, 180? And let's go over this lesson in more detail if you don't mind. I don't have the book with me, but I'm pretty sure that Snape didn't say a word, nor sent a glare Neville's way during that lesson until the potion was already ruined. Only then he threatened to feed it to Trevor whether Neville can put it right or not. I think Neville is a metaphor for a special needs pupil, and I also think that Snape is a very wrong teacher for this kind of children. But it does not change the fact that Neville makes mistakes with very straightforward instructions *all on his own*, through no fault of Snape. Sherry wrote: >> >> If I had to pick, I'd take Hagrid over a sadist like Snape any day >> of the year. I went over my educational history, and I can frankly say that several times I've chosen "Snape" over "Hagrid" when presented with such choice. But then I don't see Snape's teaching methods as sadistic for sadism sake. That's the root of our difference in choices, I believe. Alla wrote: > I take a Hagrid over Snape in a > heartbeat as a loyal protector for my child; I would take Hagrid > over Snape as a friend for my child. I would take Hagrid over Snape > as one on one tutor for my child, I am not sure if I will be very > comfortable leaving my child in the group setting leaded by Hagrid. I was not ironic when I said Hagrid has a heart of gold. He is a very nice person in his way, and can be a wonderful friend for a responsible adult. However, I would not like him near my children in any capacity: friend, protector, tutor, anything. You see, he dumps his problems on the children, repeatedly. Norbert, Aragog, Buckbeak trial, Grawp. They have to tell him to stop drinking. They have to tell him how to plan his lessons to keep his job. He does not mean any of it, but it does not matter IMO. I know JKR loves him, and she seems to value good intentions above other things, but we don't always have to agree with her. Irene ___________________________________________________________ WIN ONE OF THREE YAHOO! VESPAS - Enter now! - http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/features/competitions/vespa.html From muellem at bc.edu Thu Dec 1 00:35:46 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 00:35:46 -0000 Subject: Did Hagrid nearly killed Draco? WAS: Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143790 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > > Leslie > > > > That's because Hagrid *is* an oaf. Hagrid is the very definition of > > the word, which means "simple" and "clumsy". > > This is true. *Oaf* means *simple* and *clumsy*, and that's what > Hagrid is. However, *oaf* is also a derogatory appelation. A > difference rather like between *afro-American* and *n*****. You can > say for instance "Our new football coach is afro-American". Or you can > say "Our new football coach is a n*****". Both statements may be true, > but one of them is also an insult. > a_svirn > edited out your use of that word - your example is not even in the same catagory as oaf. Oaf is an acceptable word, whereas your example of an insult is so much more than just an insult. both statements of the football coach would not be true. I don't know any respectable person who uses that word unless they want to be mean, hateful and bigoted. Oaf is not even in the same universe as that word colebiancardi (who recognizes that there are insults and then there are INSULTS) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 00:44:59 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 00:44:59 -0000 Subject: Did Hagrid nearly killed Draco? WAS: Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143791 colebiancardi: > edited out your use of that word - your example is not even in the > same catagory as oaf. Oaf is an acceptable word, whereas your example > of an insult is so much more than just an insult. > > both statements of the football coach would not be true. I don't know > any respectable person who uses that word unless they want to be mean, > hateful and bigoted. Oaf is not even in the same universe as that word > > colebiancardi > (who recognizes that there are insults and then there are INSULTS) Well, yes it's certainly a MUCH bigger insult. But *oaf* is also an insult, and Draco used it to precisely because he wanted to be to be "mean, hateful and bigoted". a_svirn From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Dec 1 01:13:37 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:13:37 -0000 Subject: Snape: Crime and Punishment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143792 Steve wrote: > Many people, for a variety of reasons, are insisting that Snape suffer in some way for the way he treated Harry and Neville. Many futher feel that the book will not make sense if this doesn't come to pass. LUPINLORE: Oh, absolutely. Snape must be punished for the books to reach a balance point. Now, there are a lot of ways to get there. As you and others have pointed out, there is a great deal to be done in the last book, and I expect most of it will be handled in a telegraphic, by the numbers fashion that we have already scene in HBP. Snape, Wormtail, Percy, others will almost certainly be dealt with an a paragraph or a condensed scene. In fact, I don't see that JKR has time to spend very much time on anything in the last book, any way you cut it. STEVE: > > I'm here to say, that it is very likely that it will NOT come to pass. Why? Because, in real life, this rarely happens. LUPINLORE: Sure. And terrorists very often escape punishment as well. But I think it would be a terrible move on JKR's part to let Voldemort off the hook. No, Snape and Voldemort are not the same. But both must be punished for their sins. STEVE: > The universal appeal of the books is that they are morally ambiguous. The good guy doesn't always win, the bad guys aren't clearly defined, and it isn't always fair; just like real life. LUPINLORE: Is that their "universal" appeal? I'm not so sure they will be morally ambiguous, of if they are that such is their appeal at all (which isn't very universal, the vast majority of people in the world wouldn't give you a set of fingernail clippings for the Potterverse). Many people think that in the end the morality willbe very clear and quite poetic, or karmic to use one of Alla's terms. You know this reminds me a lot of some of the discussions we saw before HBP came out (all of these are paraphrases): "We have heard everything we are going to hear about Dumbledore and his decision to leave Harry at the Dursleys. Life isn't fair and Harry must learn to accept that with no further explanation." "The Dursleys will never be called to task for how they treated Harry." "The Umbridge affair is over. She and her quill and Harry's scar will never be mentioned again. Harry must accept that life isn't fair and that Umbridge will never be punished for her acts." Will Snape be the exception? Maybe, but it will be an extraordinarily bad move on JKR's part. And yes, even morally suspect in many people's eyes. She may not care, but hey, that's the way it is. STEVE: To some extent this is reflected in Snape pushing Harry hand Ron's heads down and wacking them with a composition notebook in the latest film. But the reality is, that Snbape's action in the film were extremely mild compared to real British schools of not that long ago. LUPINLORE: Yes, and slavery was allowed in the U.S. until 1865 and Jim Crow laws until the 1960s. Does this excuse the WW for keeping slaves (and I do think we need to see some movement on that issue as well)? The mores of a backward and corrupt society provide no defense and do not excuse Snape from punishment, such is a special case of "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." STEVE: > > I think accusations of /abuse/ on his part are not so much a matter of reality, as they are a matter of overblown, overhyped, ultra-liberal thinking. (Sorry, I know that stings a bit, and for the record, I do consider myself a liberal; just not an overhyped ultra-liberal.) LUPINLORE: Well, I will have to most severely disagree. Child abuse fits quite well, IMO, even if it is not as bad as many other situations. I do like being grouped with ultra-liberals, however. I generally get put on the opposite end of the spectrum. STEVE: > In short, in real life, the bad guys don't always get punished. > LUPINLORE: Nope. And that's why we read novels. If I wanted to be caught in the dreary realities of the unjust world I'd sit in front of C-Span, and no doubt eventually perish from Russian Roulette. STEVE: > Let's see if I can add one more short note about Snape. I have already said the even under the most ideal circumstances,the wizard world will never forgive or forget that Snape killed Dumbledore. LUPINLORE: Which has no pertinence whatsoever to the abuse situation. Snape must be punished for the way he has abused Harry and Neville, quite regardless of his status with regard to Dumbledore or what happened in the tower. STEVE: > > I do believe that Snape is the only source of help for Harry in finding the Horcrux. That knowledge reside inside Voldemort's inner circle, and it is information that is held by an EXTREMELY FEW people.Now that Snape is trusted above all others, I think he will help > Harry. LUPINLORE: Which would be lazy and cheesey writing, in addition to making a hero out of a child abuser. Not a good move, that would be, as Yoda might say. STEVE: I have futher said that Snape understood he was commitingan unforgivable act for which he would surely suffer, either in prison or by death, a great punishment. That is the foundation of Snape objection to Harry calling him a coward. Snape has done both an immensely brave and simultaniously cowardly thing in killing Dumbledore. He has made a sacrific in the extreme by his action, a sacrifice that may indeed cost him his life. LUPINLORE: And our Lord and Savior Severus Snape ascends to his calvary, offering himself as a sacrifice for the Wizarding World. Which would turn the saga into "The Redemption of Severus Snape," preserve DD as wise, and turn Harry into a buffoon who needs to learn that being abused is only the path to greater understanding of your true friends. Problematic, to put it mildly. STEVE: > But I think in the end, Snape will in some way > redeem himself, but that act of redemption, while it will mitigate his prior actions, will never erase them. LUPINLORE: Well, if he includes somewhere in there a sincere apology for the way he's treated Harry and Neville, he will be redeemed. Otherwise, well, I guess there's always room in the hot place(and probably work for a good potion maker, too). Lupinlore From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 01:39:21 2005 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:39:21 -0000 Subject: The Legend of the Lost Day Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143793 There are conflicting views of what happened during the so-called lost day (the period from the time the Potters were murdered until Hagrid showed up with Harry at the Dursleys). One of the main controversies involves whether or not the "missing" 24 hours will prove significant to the ongoing story. Brandon Ford who styles himself as "The Underground Lake" on Mugglenet believes that the lost day, once the events thereon are revealed, will be of great significance in the resolution of the series. Red Hen has an excellent article in which she postulates that the missing 24 hours will be of little or no significance in the resolution of the series with some speculation as to what happened. My own view is that the true picture lies somewhere in between and the purpose of this post is to examine the potentially significant matters, analyse the same and draw some conclusion. My starting point is to set out the known facts from canon. I will then proceed to make some guesses as to what may have happened and what can reasonably be inferred to have happened from what we have been given. Finally I will draw certain conclusions that may or may not be completely off the wall. The facts: (i) Sometime on the evening (here meaning anytime up to midnight) of October 31st 1980 Lord Voldemort arrived at the Potter's home in the village of Godric's Hollow based on information received or extracted from Peter Pettigrew. Peter had earlier either stated where the Potter's house was or written it on a piece of paper a la Dumbledore when revealing the secret of Number Twelve Grimmaud Place. (ii) Lord Voldemort then dueled with and killed James Potter before proceeding to kill Harry. (iii) Prior to aiming his killing curse at Harry Lord Voldemort gave Lily Potter the opportunity to save herself, which she declined. He then killed her and incanted the killing curse once more to kill Harry but was unsuccessful and the curse rebounded onto him while at the same time giving Harry his scar and certain powers. (iv) Due to his having created several Horcruxes Lord Voldemort did not die and the piece of his soul then resident in his body was ripped from it and escaped, later using animals as hosts on the way to the forests of Albania. (v) The Potter's house was reduced to rubble, possibly by a third party or possibly as a result of the failed curse (although I prefer the former explanation). (vi) The first person on the scene was Rubeus Hagrid who had been sent by Albus Dumbledore and while he was there retrieving Harry Sirius Black turned up on his flying motorcycle that he subsequently gave to Hagrid to take Harry away. (This last took place before either the Muggle authorities arrived or anybody from the Ministry of Magic and probably in the early hours of 1st November 1980) (vii) On the morning of 1st November Vernon Dursley went to work at Grunnings as usual and noticed certain unusual events. These included multiple owls swooping around and groups of people in robes muttering to each other (who he induced himself to believe were students on some kind of prank). Vernon overheard the name Harry Potter at some point during the day and by the time he arrived home in the early evening he had tried to convince himself (successfully) that it was not his nephew. (viii) Minerva McGonagall in her Animagus form spent practically all day at Privet Drive observing the Dursley's house and its environs and by the time Dumbledore later arrived had formed the conclusion that the Dursleys were not good Muggles. (ix) Dumbledore arrived sometime after nightfall and put out the street lamps with his put outer, met McGonagall and had a chat with her about the Potter's death and Harry's survival. He at no point mentioned to McGonagall what he had been doing all day. (x) Hagrid arrived at Privet Drive, somewhat late according to Dumbledore, with Harry on Sirius's flying motorbike in the late evening. (xi) At some point on 1st November Sirius and Peter have their showdown after Sirius tracks Peter down having discovered that Peter was not at his hiding place and Peter sets up Sirius for the murder of a dozen Muggles and his own murder. Sirius is laughing when taken by Ministry of Magic personnel (one of the first to arrive being Cornelius Fudge) and soon after placed in Azkaban without trial on Barty Crouch Snr.'s orders (probably because he finally realised that Peter was a good deal smarter than he had believed). (xii) Daedalus Diggle assumed to have set off shooting stars in Kent during the period in question as a celebration of LV's downfall. The guesses and inferences: (a) Someone else was at Godric's Hollow that night of 31st October. Someone who demolished the Potter's house I assume to break the Fidelius Charm and hide his tracks. The prime suspect is Peter Pettigrew and there will be more on this to come in book 7. This person then left before Hagrid arrived and LV's wand also must have gone from the scene. (b) Dumbledore became aware of what had happened at Godric's Hollow, including the fact that Harry survived and needed retrieving, very quickly. This was possibly through Severus Snape telling him his Dark Mark had disappeared (although this would not account for Dumbledore's knowledge that Harry had survived), but more probably through the mechanism of one of the instruments in his office or from a Patronus sent by one of the Potters. (c) Dumbledore dispatched Hagrid to retrieve Harry either by side along Apparation or by Portkey directly to Godric's Hollow. (d) According to McGonagall Hagrid informed her what had happened, which is why she went to Privet Drive to await Harry's arrival and seek confirmation as to the brief details she had gleaned from Hagrid. This I propose was achieved by means of a Patronus from Hagrid to McGonagall and not by his diverting to Hogwarts after picking up Harry. Relevant canon (page 15 Bloomsbury paperback edition of PS): "Hagrid's late. I suppose it was he who told you I'd be here, by the way?" "Yes", said Professor McGonagall. (e) Dumbledore spent some time placing the necessary blood protection enchantments for Harry to be protected while staying with the Dursleys, informed various parties (the Ministry and Order members) of what he proposed to do, and then set out to Privet Drive himself to rendezvous with Hagrid at the time he had previously told Hagrid to be at Privet Drive, although in the event Hagrid was late. He passed at least a dozen celebratory parties on the way to Privet Drive (f) Based on Hagrid's known propensity for drinking and general celebration, coupled with the following quote from PS (page 13 of Bloomsbury paperback edition): "I must have passed a dozen feasts and parties on my way here" (Dumbledore to McGonagall), I contend that Hagrid stopped off to join in a little celebration, or possibly initiate one or two, between the time he picked up Harry and the time he arrived at Privet Drive. This would account for the widespread celebration also as Hagrid would have hardly been able to contain himself from mentioning LV's defeat and putting the word out. (g) Part of Hagrid's time would also have been spent traveling from Godric's Hollow to Privet Drive, but as I state above with several detours. Feel free to add or correct any of these if you disagree or offer alternatives. So then, what is the significance of the lost day and will we be filled in on what happened? I personally do not believe that anything other than Hagrid and Harry stopping off at celebrations accounts for the time discrepancy with them. I do not adhere to the view that Harry was experimented on in any way, either at Hogwarts or at the Department of Mysteries as has been put forward by others. For one thing I do not for a second contemplate that Dumbledore would have allowed such a thing to happen. Neither for that matter do I think that Harry and Hagrid went to Sirius Black's place simply because Sirius was himself rather busy tracking down Peter Pettigrew. What I do think we will be filled in on rather more are the steps that Dumbledore took to ensure that Harry would be protected until he reached the age of majority by staying with his blood relative Petunia Dursley. This magic appears, from what can reasonably be inferred, to be either unknown to LV or strong enough to resist any counters he may have contemplated to break it. The other matter that arises from the death of the Potters, which is "How did Lily Potter protect Harry from the killing curse?" would be addressed in a later post. For now I put this up in the hope that some good discussion can flow from it. Goddlefrood From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Dec 1 01:41:27 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:41:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals References: Message-ID: <01eb01c5f618$58f757a0$aa7f400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 143794 > Magpie: > > LOL--yeah, pretty much. There's a reason that amongst the people who > really > > have to take the classes, Snape is actually more popular. > > Sherry now: > > If i had to pick, I'd take Hagrid over a sadist like Snape any day of the > year. i had a sadist for a teacher, and no, he didn't inspire me to try > harder or any other such nonsense. I also had some tough teachers who > were > not sadists and could get the very best out of me. i actually like being > challenged. But I had to suffer a verbally and emotionally abusive > teacher > for all of high school. I got an ulcer because of that, among other > things. > No child should ever have to tolerate Snape's kind of abuse. I'd never > let > a child of mine tolerate him. I'd home school my kids before I'd let that > happen. But I'd let them take classes from Hagrid in a heartbeat. He's > loyal, lovable, innocent and would die to protect them. ... and in > fact, I'm slightly astonished that people think Hagrid is worse than > Snape, > if you take those two situations side by side. Magpie: If it comes down to sending our own kids to class, we'd have to take the kids' feelings into consideration--though I might overrule a kid if his safety was at stake. (Unfortunately kids wind up having to protect Hagrid a lot when they shouldn't.) If my kid told me about that first class and said it was Malfoy's fault I'd probably first ask if the kid is alright, then explain to them exactly what responsibilities a teacher had and not to get too cocky in imagining that they were too smart to ever make a mistake like that. If my kid came home and said, "The teacher keeps making us deal with lots of fanged animals and people get burned and stung and one kid got attacked while he was petting the animal and bled all over the grass and had to get stitches," I'd probably say, "What is this maniac doing?" not "You shouldn't be scared of dangerous animals that could very well harm you. If he got hurt he did something to deserve it--I told you to watch out for the Skrewts that Hagrid ordered you to shove (respectfully) into a box for school." Nor would I respond to a kid who was genuinely scared and hurt by Snape by saying, "He's not serious. You're silly to be scared of a genuinely scary man who calls you names, says you'll never amount to anything, and threatened to poison your toad." But Neville's gran probably would. I know it's kind of pointless to apply real life standards, but if Malfoy is supposed to act the way "we" would around animals (and Malfoy's behavior is absolutely fine by those standards), then Hagrid would have to act that way too--by real life standards, he's just not responsible. Canonically, Hagrid is less popular a teacher. Even Hermione has more problems with Hagrid than she does with Snape. Snape doesn't even seem to be an issue with many students. Does this make Snape the better person? No, but that's a whole different issue. Jen Reese: I do think if Hogwarts is open and there is a COMC class next year, he will have one student: Luna. Someone who understands the beauty of the creatures and doesn't mind the danger. Magpie: Though Luna, in her first scene, angers the Trio by announcing that "we in Ravenclaw think Hagrid's a bit of a joke." Alla: And still nobody else gets hurt, NOBODY but Malfoy, who we know did not listened and most likely plotted to disrupt the lesson. Magpie: The lesson ends after Malfoy gets hurt. Ever since then everyone has been properly on their guard (and still suffering stings and burns without warning). Neville is the only student who seems terrified of Snape--that doesn't mean Snape has nothing to do with Neville being scared. Alla: Hagrid NEVER to the best of my recollection shows the desire to harm ANYBODY, Magpie: The joke with Hagrid is that he's not intending to hurt people but doesn't get it when they are or that they could be--like when Ron gets hurt in PS and Hagrid scolds him for it, or Dean gets burnt and Hagrid just says, "Yeah, they do that." Alla: and I think it is very telling that the one who gets hurt during the lesson is Malfoy, who to my mind was needed a dose of karmic punishment especially for CoS and badly. And he gets it. Magpie: Telling that there is an author god who needed Malfoy to be the one who got it, not so much telling that Hagrid really did a good job--Neville was not doing too well with his hippogriff either. The kids in canon do not seem that confident that only bad kids will get hurt by the animal--which is good, because that would be a foolish thing to think. I don't know what karmic punishment it is that Malfoy is in for due to CoS, but I think the better answer for him in that book HBP, when he gets his wish and is helping the Heir and it's a nightmare, and the only person he can talk to is the Muggleborn ghost of the Heir's first victim. That's a satisfying follow-up, imo, because it's about Draco facing his own ideas and not just random smacking around which probably won't be enough no matter how often he takes his lumps. Not that JKR doesn't ever do that, but I don't think everything is always about that, especially since this kind of "punishment" is not the type that seems to lead anywhere. Alla: Should Hagrid made sure that all kids heard his instructions? Yes, I suppose he should have done so, but again it is very telling to me that the one who gets hurt was plotting to disrupt the lessons, if narrator is correct of course Magpie: Yes, he should have done so, absolutely. That's what Hagrid--the teacher--is supposed to be doing there. Even if the narrator isn't correct about what Malfoy was talking about in that scene, he still wouldn't have heard him. Alla: (And I don't believe that Neville EVER plotted to disrupt Snape lesson). Magpie: No, but if he did I don't think that would make him deserve having his toad poisoned (not that Snape did that). But Snape's class is safer, so missing an instruction isn't as dangerous in the same way. Malfoy isn't even a particularly disruptive student--even in this class. He thinks he's following the instructions quite well and is a big success, then he tries to show off. Could have been Ron very easily, or any number of boys from my eighth grade class. Far from its being Malfoy who's hurt being proof that Hagrid's a good teacher, I think it being Malfoy is there to add to the dilemma: the Trio wants Hagrid to be a better teacher, because it's Malfoy. Alla: But again, this is IMO the key, I believe that JKR has much higher opinion of Hagrid's character as a "person" than she has of Snape's and that is why she will let him get away with his fallings as a teacher. Magpie: Of course, but we're not talking about him as a human being, but as a teacher. A discussion of what Hagrid does wrong in class has nothing to do with how he is as a person in other situations. a_svirn: Well, Neville didn't make much progress with his hippogriff, still he wasn't in any danger. Magpie: Yes, he was. Hippogriffs are dangerous. And Neville is *exactly* the kind of kid (along with cocky Malfoy) who wouldn't be shoved into a paddock with big animals and left on his own by a responsible teacher. In real life Neville is the one that was at the most risk because of his panic. Magpie: > > That's hardly the attitude with which to approach a class of 13- year-olds on > dangerous animals. I went to classes involving less-dangerous animals as a > kid and believe me, that was not the way it went, especially since no class > of kids or adults has everyone listening all the time. But even if Hagrid > was being heard, that's not the utmost clarity at all. That's more the way > you warn your friend to not touch your beer than the way you teach a kid to > deal with a giant fanged predator. a_svirn: I confess, I am a little baffled with your argumentation. First, you acknowledge that the children in question are around 13 year-old, and then you say something about warning not to touch your teddy-bear - surely an altercation that belongs to the nursery? Magpie: I said *beer*--as in, saying "it will be the last thing you'll do" is more the kind of vague threat I'd associate with casually talking to a friend to not touch your beer when you went to the restroom than a teacher supervising kids with wild animals where there was actual danger involved. This situation called for a far more detailed and serious lesson before the kids got anywhere near the hippogriffs--much less tossed onto their backs. Actually, they shouldn't be seeing hippogriffs at all, because they're far too advanced. a_svirn: What's more, with your friend you are on the equal social footing, which makes his or her utterances somewhat lacking in the illocutive power department. When, however, an adult, and a teacher at that, tells you - very clearly Magpie: I went to zoo camp for two years as a kid--teachers were more clear and more serious about proper behavior around small non-predators than Hagrid is in this moment. He's just zooming on to the part he likes--petting the animals. a_svirn: - that insulting hippogriffs may well prove fatal, you have only yourself to blame if you disregard his warning. Magpie: This is the part of the job interview where the principal would probably thank you for coming by and suggest you consider a career other than supervising 13-year-olds as they work with large wild animals. As a teacher you are accepting more responsibility than that. > Magpie: > I definitely don't think this was the way Hagrid was thinking. It doesn't > seem like he even considered the idea that someone would get hurt to prove > his point, he just didn't (continues to not) consider the animals hurting > people as a possibility he really has to focus on. If this was Hagrid's > attitude it sounds like getting somebody hurt was the point of the class. a_svirn: Then why he was so devastated having achieved his ambition? Magpie Because he was surprised at this horrible turn of events that he never prepared for. -m From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com Thu Dec 1 00:57:46 2005 From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 00:57:46 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat as Horcrux? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143795 > CH3ed: > So the memory and the soul aren't separate. They were just put in > the diary at different times. MercuryBlue: This is what's known as a 'self-contradictory statement'. > Carol again: > I don't think there *is* a "soul fragment Tom." What Tom Riddle > originally put into the diary is a memory of himself in his fifth > year, before he had acquired the ring or killed his parents and > therefore before he had talked to Slughorn about Horcruxes. When he > finally did make the diary into a Horcrux, the memory of Tom already > present apparently acquired new powers (DD says in HBP that a mere > memory could not have possessed Ginny), but he wouldn't have acquired > any new memories. He's still sixteen-year-old, fifth-year Tom. > Anything he knows that occurred after the diary was written comes from > Ginny, not from the addition of the soul fragment (which is the > immortal part of the self, distinct, IMO, from the personality or > identity of the earthly self). MercuryBlue: Here's what we know about the timing of the enchantment of the diary: Tom was sixteen when he made it. That's all we know. The Chamber adventure took place in his fifth year, yes. Does it necessarily follow that the enchantment of the diary took place in his fifth year also? He was sixteen right through till New Year's Eve in his sixth year, after all. And he was sixteen when he murdered his father and grandparents over the summer. And, according to Dumbledore, he was sixteen when he asked Slughorn about Horcruxes. Funny coincidence, that. Tom Riddle is portrayed as one of the most brilliant students Hogwarts has ever seen. Is it so difficult to believe that, given a couple months to ponder, he figured out how to create a Horcrux before he turned seventeen? Or that he figured out how to make the damn thing a self-guided weapon? And, given Occam's Razor (simplest explanation is most likely to be true), does it really make sense for him to have enchanted the blasted book TWICE? Carol: > DD says in HBP that a mere memory could not have possessed Ginny. MercuryBlue: True. But Dumbledore's next sentence is "No, something much more sinister had lived inside that book..." Something much more sinister THAN a mere memory. Not a mere memory AND something much more sinister. Carol: > The original purpose of the diary is exactly what Diary!Tom states > that it was... MercuryBlue: Not arguing that. But of at least equal importance was its role in preventing Voldemort's death. Which Tom didn't bother to tell us about, partly because Harry didn't ask. > > MercuryBlue: > > Dumb question: Why do you think Grindelwald made a Horcrux? My > > thought was he's famous only for being defeated by Dumbledore, and > > is utterly irrelevant now. > > Carol again: > Not a dumb question at all. Dumbledore indicates in HBP that at least > one other wizard that both he and Voldemort know about created a > single Horcrux. (Sorry I don't have the quote at my fingertips. I'm > sure it's in the chapter called "Horcruxes," or at least, that's where > I'd expect it to be.) MercuryBlue: Yes, it's that chapter. The quote reads, "'As far as I know--as far, I am sure, as Voldemort knew--no wizard had ever done more than tear his soul in two.'" Note the element of uncertainty in that statement. Carol: > We know that Dumbledore defeated (not killed) > the Dark Wizard Grindelwald in 1945... > > I realize that this is all speculation, but why would JKR have > Dumbledore defeat a Dark Wizard in a year of such significance to > Voldemort if there's no connection? Grindelwald is carefully mentioned > early in SS/PS, just as Scabbers and Sirius Black were. Chances are he > was mentioned for a reason. But, of course, I could be wrong. MercuryBlue: Since we've never seen the slightest reference to Grindelwald anywhere but Harry's very first Chocolate Frog card (and Scabbers and Sirius had a whole book and more devoted to them), I'm betting that this is something JKR put in without thinking it through all the way, and has since realized she did an oops and is hoping nobody will notice. Like Hermione's kid sister and Ron's cousin Mafalda, except them she told us about and they aren't mentioned in the books. (And where you point out that Grindelwald was defeated, not killed, I'd like to point out that 'defeated' means 'not necessarily killed'. I doubt Dumbledore did kill Grindelwald, but there is the possibility.) > > Carol earlier: > > > Moreover, we've seen that the Sorting Hat has a mind of its own > > > over and above the "brains" of the four Founders poured into it > > > when the school was divided into four Houses. It's clearly not > > > influenced by Tom Riddle's thinking. (JKR says it has never been > > > wrong.) > > > > MercuryBlue: > > JKR didn't actually say it's never been wrong, just that it is > certainly sincere. So it honestly believes it has sent everyone into > the best House for them, whether it's actually the best House for them > or not. > > Carol again: > Actually, I can prove you wrong on this one. :-) > That first "No" is pretty definitive. MercuryBlue: Well, yes. Oops. But surely you've noticed that JKR interview statements are sometimes contradictory to other JKR statements in books and/or interviews. The elder Weasley boys' ages seems a good example. If I recall correctly, JKR was specifically asked at this earlier interview whether the Hat had ever been wrong. 'The Sorting Hat is certainly sincere' is really a cheat half-answer (and very JKR). Carol: > No suggestion that the Hat is a Horcrux. MercuryBlue: No kidding. Key element of Book Seven here, people, she won't tell us about it till the book's published! Carol: > Its opinions come from "the founders themselves." And > sincerity (from a different interview > http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm ) would be > an odd virtue in a hat infested or possessed by a fragment of Tom > Riddle's soul. MercuryBlue: Yes, it would. Just as odd as the virtues of courage and loyalty in a kid with a fragment of Voldemort (of his soul?) glued to his forehead. Accept the one, and you have to accept the possibility of the other, however slim that possibility may or may not be. Carol: > The unknown fifth Horcrux (the tiara?) may have been created at about > the same time and obtained through similar means, but I don't have a > specific theory regarding it. It was certainly made before he began > recruiting followers around 1971 because his appearance was fully > altered at that point. (DD says that he was unrecognizable as the > formerly handsome Tom Riddle when he began recruiting followers.) MercuryBlue: You know, he wasn't recognizable as handsome Tom Riddle at his job interview. Why would 1971 be the turning point? We have no clue what he looked like between 1957 and 1995, only that at some point in there he got uglier, having made another Horcrux (or two?). (What tiara?) MercuryBlue. From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Thu Dec 1 02:04:15 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 03:04:15 +0100 Subject: International wirardry WAS On the subject of Umbridge References: <438CFEE5.4080804@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <01f301c5f61b$88a3c030$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 143796 Bart Lidofsky wrote: > And are there any other magical governing bodies? What are they doing > about the situation? If not, then why aren't non-British wizards or > witches involved in the Ministry of Magic? > Amontillada: > Very good questions! It seems to me that the Ministry of Magic has > been presented as specifically governing the Magical branch of the > United Kingdom. The Minister of/for Magic reports (in times of crisis, > when the WW is seen as inevitably intersecting with the Muggle world) > to the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street. Miles: I'm afraid we should avoid to dig deep on this topic. Because if we do, we very soon come to the conclusion, that the wirzarding world of Rowling simply does not work, if we try to transfer the impressions we have in canon to a consistent (not to speak of complete) underlying system. Just two points to illustrate. a) Why should wizards stick to the borders set by muggles? We all know that these borders are somehow silly in general, and especially concerning specific borders. Do you think there were separated East- and Western-German wizards until 1989? Is there a wizard's IRA bombing for the Catholic wizards in Northern Ireland? There is simply no need to keep in contact with muggle institutions - the prime minister of the UK does not have any benefit from the information Fudge and Scrimgeour give him. All muggles affected by wizard's actions are manipulated to forget them. No, it simply is just a piece of entertainment and, I'm afraid, Rowling did not think too much about the ministry and muggle borders and states and their relation to the wizards' world. b) Something from Professor Binn's lessons - there are wizards representing Liechtenstein in international wizarding organisations? If we think of 100,000 wizards and witches in the UK (there should be much less, see Redhen http://www.redhen-publications.com/WizPopulation.html), than Liechtenstein would inhibit five (!) wizards and witches, and Luxemburg, as well mentioned as an official country for wizards, would have about 50. Just don't count, enjoy. And don't ask for things you'd better not want to know ;). Miles From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 02:46:56 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 02:46:56 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143797 Irene wrote: > Bringing it back to Snape, if we use the same standard, it must be all > Neville's fault, right? Because Snape's instructions are perfectly > clear, and Hermione can brew perfect potions from them, so why can't > Neville? > Oh, and when Harry deliberately disrupts a lesson, Snape would not be at fault at all if some children were seriously hurt as a result? It's lucky that he's a "sadistic git" then, not another teacher "with a heart of gold", like Hagrid. I'm not sure Hogwarts could take two. Carol adds: I agree. In addition to providing perfectly clear instructions and leaving them on the board throughout the lesson, Snape always "sweeps" through the class examining everyone's potions, and he always has the appropriate antidote on hand, for example, deflating draft for those who have been splattered by swelling solution. (Harry, of course, is directly responsible for the splattering, which can in no way be attributed to Snape.) Snape immediately restores order after each crisis, Evanescoing spilled potions, sending people to the hospital wing if needed, and then resuming class. Hagrid, in contrast, is easily flustered, forgets his lesson plans, and has no bandages or medicine available in case of injury. Snape is always prepared. Hagrid isn't. It doesn't occur to him that an "interestin' creature" might injure a student. (At least, he never used Acromantulas as objects of study. Maybe they'd have been used for the nonexistent NEWT CoMC classes?) If, rather than taking the precautions cited above, Snape simply told the students what to do at the beginning of class (when Ron and Harry weren't listening), spent his classtime talking to Draco Malfoy as Hagrid spends his talking to Harry, and made no provisions for accidents in his classes, he would be at fault for endangering his students. And I think the same applies to Hagrid. Snape challenges his students, presenting them with potions that are advanced for their year (OoP), but he has carefully prepared them for these advanced potions by starting relatively simple and always pointing out where the potion went wrong. Hagrid's third-year students have never had a single CoMC lesson when he brings in the hippogryffs. The lesson is completely inappropriate for their level. (Even the textbooks bite, and there's no indication of their being used after the students learn how to open them. All references to them disappear after that first lesson.) However well-meaning Hagrid may be, he is probably the worst teacher at Hogwarts, even considering the boring Binns and weirdly ineffectual Trelawney. Dumbledore's affection for Hagrid seems in this instance to adversely affect his judgment since a perfectly competent CoMC teacher, Professor Grubbly-Plank, is available. (Admittedly, the story would be considerably less interesting. Imagine the students in the TWT enountering Bowtruckles and Unicorns instead of Blast-ended Skrewts.) With regard to Draco, who admittedly should have been paying attention in Hagrid's first class as a matter of common sense if not common courtesy, it seems to me that his attitude toward Hagrid is roughly analogous to Ron's and Harry's attitude toward Snape. To quote Ron in CoS: "Do you think I've got nothing better to do in Potions than listen to Snape?" (But at least Ron did cut up his daisy roots "beautifully" in PoA, so possibly he's learned his lesson at that point.) Carol, who fortunately never had, or met, a teacher whose methods resembled Hagrid's From va32h at comcast.net Thu Dec 1 00:06:35 2005 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 00:06:35 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143798 Leslie41 wrote: > Truthfully, and this is not a dig in any way to the Hagrid > supporters, I actually wonder how many of them have kids of their > own. va32h: I do have kids. Of my own (is there any other way to have kids?) And should they receive Hogwart's letters on their 11th birthday, I may be concerned about the quality of the teachers. As that is unlikely to happen, I am not inclined to fret about the quality of a fictional teacher at a fictional school of magic. Do any real-life teachers look to Harry Potter as a guidebook for classroom methods? Is there a science teacher out there saying "hmmm...that Hagrid has a good idea, bringing deadly animals to class, I think I'll bring a scorpion into my 4th grade science class and let it loose." What if Hagrid is a bad teacher? How does that affect the central themes of the books? Is Voldemort going to be able to kill Harry and reign as an evil lord forever because of Hagrid's failure to properly teach the 5th years about bowtruckles? Who knows, perhaps Voldemort's ultimate plan involves Blast Ended Skrewts and flobberworms, and Hagrid's lessons will ultimately save the day. Are we supposed to hate Hagrid, and not care what happens to him, because he's a bad teacher? Is Draco's injury supposed to make him more sympathetic? (if so, the author failed on both counts, as I neither dislike Hagrid more nor like Draco more after the Buckbeak incident). I don't necessarily agree that Hagrid is a terrible teacher, but even if he is --- what of it? That's the way the book was written, we can't go back and change it. va32h, who probably shouldn't even get involved in threads like this From sydpad at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 03:14:40 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 03:14:40 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143799 \ > va32h: >\ > > Are we supposed to hate > Hagrid, and not care what happens to him, because he's a bad teacher? > Is Draco's injury supposed to make him more sympathetic? (if so, the > author failed on both counts, as I neither dislike Hagrid more nor > like Draco more after the Buckbeak incident). But nobody, absolutely nobody, has argued that anyone should hate Hagrid! Several of us arguing about his responsibility for Draco's injury have repeatedly said how much we LIKE Hagrid as a person. The whole point of this thread is, is there any blame to Hagrid for what happened to Draco? Can we not love Hagrid, not be too fond of Draco, and still think the hippogryph class was a disaster waiting to happen? There is no point in trying to argue people into or out of liking or hating a character. It's quite simply a matter of one's personality and background and what they find personally more appealing. I like both Snape and Hagrid a great deal. I also think Snape is the teacher I would personally much prefer-- he reminds me of my current coach who is by no means to everybody's taste but if you let the yelling and insults roll over you, I've learned more from her than from the cuddlier teachers I've had who let me get lazy. On the other hand I would never recommend her to a sensitive soul. Regarding the comparison of Hagrid and Snape as teachers, to be fair to Hagrid it IS only his first lesson as a teacher. I would pay money to watch Snape's first Potion's lesson-- what was he, 21 years old? The spectacle of young double-agent Dark wizard Severus in charge of a classroom of 11-year-olds is ... mezmerizing. -- Sydney From leslie41 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 03:22:20 2005 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 03:22:20 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143800 a_svirn: *Oaf* means *simple* and *clumsy*, and that's what Hagrid is. However, *oaf* is also a derogatory appelation. A difference rather like between *afro-American* and *nigger*. You can say for instance "Our new football coach is afro-American". Or you can say "Our new football coach is a nigger". Both statements may be true, but one of them is also an insult. Leslie: Faulty analogy. First of all, calling someone "simple" or "clumsy" is also derogatory, when speaking of a teacher anyway. Would it have been any different if Draco had said "I'm going to see to it that my dad gets rid of that simple, clumsy Professor"? Secondly, the word "nigger," at least when used by whites to refer to blacks, has absolutely no other use than pejorative. And I rather take umbrage at your assertion that the statement "our new football coach is a nigger" could be, as you suggest, "true" (though an insult). The word most like "nigger" in the wizarding world is not oaf, but "mudblood." And Lily and Hermione are NOT "mudbloods," any more than African-Americans are "niggers", if you get my drift. In other words, if someone asked me if our new coach was a "nigger," I would think the only response to that question would be a resounding, disgusted "no!" even if the new coach was Samuel L. Jackson. va32h: Are we supposed to hate Hagrid, and not care what happens to him, because he's a bad teacher? Leslie: No one ever ever suggested that. I myself really like Hagrid. I like him a lot. But he's not suited to teach at Hogwarts, on about eleven different levels. And truthfully, since Hagrid values very dangerous animals more even than he does people (or at least his affection blinds him to their danger to people), I would not want my kid to foster a relationship with him, any more than I would want my kid to foster a relationship with the extremely nice guy up the road who has a lovely gun collection and breeds fighting dogs. va32h: Is Draco's injury supposed to make him more sympathetic? (if so, the author failed on both counts, as I neither dislike Hagrid more nor like Draco more after the Buckbeak incident). Leslie: I don't like Draco more. I don't dislike Hagrid less. Draco is Draco. Hagrid is Hagrid. What I question is Dumbledore's judgement in letting Hagrid teach the course, and I would say that Hagrid is ill-equipped to serve as an instructor. va32h: I don't necessarily agree that Hagrid is a terrible teacher, but even if he is --- what of it? That's the way the book was written, we can't go back and change it. Leslie: It's not a matter of going back and changing it. Rowling puts it there for a reason. And it's not "wrong" that it's there. I think it's great that it's there. But I'm in favor of keeping things in perspective. A huge amount of scorn gets heaped on Snape, and everyone claims he's "abusive." He does certainly hate Harry. But he has, as has been pointed out more ably by others, a teacher who commands and receives excellent results from his students, who monitors them every step of the way, and who keeps them coming back even when they don't have to take his class anymore. Hagrid does none of those things. The "what of it?" that you bring up is really a great question. The "what of it?" for me is that discussing the difference between Hagrid and Snape allows us to see how often the person who seems the nastiest in terms of their demeanor is the one who actually DOES the most good. Hagrid nearly gets Harry (and other students) killed. Snape saves Harry. And Snape teaches him in ways that Hagrid is completely incapable. Leslie (who loves these kinds of arguments, and who firmly believes that Snape is Dumbledore's man because it would be too easy and offer no lesson if he weren't) From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Dec 1 04:01:11 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 04:01:11 -0000 Subject: house elf without a house In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143801 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > a_svirn: > Yes, we do. Dumbledore was quite clear on the subject. House-elves > go with houses, and the No.12 passes to the next male Black in the > line of succession. Were Regulus alive Harry could not inherit. > Allie: Which brings up something I've wondered about - what happens if a wizard family sells their house and moves? Does the elf go with them, or does it keep working in the house? Suppose it stays with the house, but the family moving in is a muggle family - then what? From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Dec 1 04:34:57 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 04:34:57 -0000 Subject: Snape: Crime and Punishment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143802 ((DUNE spoilers below - has anybody else out there read that series?)) --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > Let's see if I can add one more short note about Snape. I have already > said the even under the most ideal circumstances, the wizard world > will never forgive or forget that Snape killed Dumbledore. They may > come to understand, they may even understand to the point where the > courts will grant leniency to Snape, but they will never forgive his > actions. SNIP > This is vital; don't get me wrong, just because Snape helps Harry > doesn't mean he will be elevated to the rank of hero. I've already > said that Snape has commited an unforgivable act in killing > Dumbledore. I have futher said that Snape understood he was commiting > an unforgivable act for which he would surely suffer, either in prison > or by death, a great punishment. That is the foundation of Snape > objection to Harry calling him a coward. Snape has done both an > immensely brave and simultaniously cowardly thing in killing > Dumbledore. He has made a sacrific in the extreme by his action, a > sacrifice that may indeed cost him his life. A sacrifice that will > doom him for all time even under the very best of circumstances. > SNIP > But I think in the end, Snape will in some way > redeem himself, but that act of redemption, while it will mitigate his > prior actions, will never erase them. > > You heard it here first...again. > > Steve/bboyminn > Allie now: In the prequels of the Dune series, we find out the reason a family was branded as cowards and traitors for generations upon generations. Thousands of years ago, the patriarch of that family flew a plane carrying a "great" religious leader into a sun because he found out that the man was manipulating the empire and was anything but holy. One other man knew the truth, but he would never be believed. He tried to make his voice heard but finally gave up. I think Snape will suffer a similar fate. Somewhere along the journey, Harry will find out that Snape was DDM! all along. Snape will die (killed either by the Aurors or by the Death Eaters) and go down in history as the man who murdered The Great Albus Dumbledore. Harry, and maybe a few others, will know the truth, but a) nobody will believe them, and b) there will be no point in telling the truth after the fact. So Snape goes down as the worst villain ever, and Harry suddenly finds that he can't hate Snape anymore, because what worse punishment could there be than being dead and all of the WW thinking you are worse than Voldemort? Is that enough punishment for all of the Snape-haters? (Not that I really like him either!) I don't think this would take the focus off Harry, either, because Harry would really have to grow and mature to forgive (even dead) Snape for all that he's done. From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 04:39:15 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:39:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] house elf without a house In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051201043915.82463.qmail@web53115.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 143803 Allie: what happens if a wizard family sells their house and moves? Does the elf go with them, or does it keep working in the house? Suppose it stays with the house, but the family moving in is a muggle family - then what? Juli: Dobby has the answer for you. In CoS when he first meets Harry, he explains that he is bound to a family (in his case, the Malfoys), and unless he's given a piece of clothing he has to serve them 'til the end of his days. I don't think it really matters where the family lives, the "house" elf has yo stay with them. Then, why aren't they called "Family" elves? Juli Aol: jlnbtr Yahoo: jlnbtr --------------------------------- Yahoo! Personals Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet. Lots of someones, actually. Try Yahoo! Personals [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Dec 1 04:47:52 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:47:52 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] house elf without a house In-Reply-To: <20051201043915.82463.qmail@web53115.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <009b01c5f632$641b5e00$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 143804 Juli: Dobby has the answer for you. In CoS when he first meets Harry, he explains that he is bound to a family (in his case, the Malfoys), and unless he's given a piece of clothing he has to serve them 'til the end of his days. I don't think it really matters where the family lives, the "house" elf has yo stay with them. Then, why aren't they called "Family" elves? Juli Sherry: i think the word "house" is not being used here to mean a physical place. It seems more like a family, the generations of a family. as in the Noble House of Black, or the house of Gaunt. like the four houses in Hogwarts aren't literal houses but more like symbols. Sherry From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Dec 1 05:03:24 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 05:03:24 -0000 Subject: house elf without a house In-Reply-To: <20051201043915.82463.qmail@web53115.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143805 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli wrote: > > > > Allie: > what happens if a wizard family sells their house and moves? Does the elf go with them, or does it keep working in the house? Suppose it stays with the house, but the family moving in is a muggle family - then what? > > > Juli: Dobby has the answer for you. In CoS when he first meets Harry, he explains that he is bound to a family (in his case, the Malfoys), and unless he's given a piece of clothing he has to serve them 'til the end of his days. I don't think it really matters where the family lives, the "house" elf has yo stay with them. Then, why aren't they called "Family" elves? > > > Juli > Aol: jlnbtr Allie again: Maybe I'm being too literal on my re-read of CoS. Dobby says, "Dobby is a house-elf - bound to serve one house and one family forever..." Maybe it should read, "bound to serve one House (capital) and one family..." Later on, Fred/George says, "Mum's always wishing we had a house-elf to do the ironing.... House-elves come with big old manors and castles and places like that." To me, that indicates literally, the house itself. > Yahoo: jlnbtr > > > > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! Personals > Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet. > Lots of someones, actually. Try Yahoo! Personals > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Dec 1 05:05:48 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 05:05:48 -0000 Subject: Punishment and Reward of characters (Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143806 Alla: > Again, I believe, that JKR often emphasizes that all characters > have something in them who they ARE and getting their rewards or > punishments for that, IMO. > > Hagrid indeed HAS a "heart of gold" IMO, you know nice guy and all > that, despite NOT being a very good teacher and that is why I feel > pretty safe betting that Hagrid will get a reward for that - > either surviving the war and keeping his position in Hogwarts, or > if Harry dies, maybe dying a Hero death and living a nice > afterlife. Jen: I'm not sure this really happens consistently though, if I'm understanding you right. Take Cedric, who was punished simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time (not to mention his parents who suffered miserably). Sirius didn't deserve to live his entire adult life in Azkaban or on the run after committing no crime. Dumbledore deserved better than to end his life surrounded by enemies who were threatening and belittling him, before he finished the job he desperately wanted to do for Harry. JKR does toy with secondary characters as we see with Lockhart and Umbridge, and some characters do experince what I think of as natural consequences, like Lupin having to leave Hogwarts after forgetting to take his potion or Fudge having to step down after his small oversight about Voldemort returning. But the biggest example is Harry! Poor guy never catches a break, he has been punished more than anyone in my mind, and does pitifully little wrong to deserve it. Jen From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 06:47:03 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 06:47:03 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143807 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > Leslie > (who loves these kinds of arguments, and who firmly believes that > Snape is Dumbledore's man because it would be too easy and offer no > lesson if he weren't) Of course there's a lesson if he's not. It's just not the lesson that much of the fandom wants Rowling to be offering. If he's not, there's a story of someone being unable to genuinely renounce past actions and inclinations (the DE lifestyle), in part because of holding on to old grudges where they could be let go by opening one's awareness (Harry is not James). It's a story of a soul curdled by resentment and a devotion to some value other than love. It's only one possibility, but there's hardly 'no lesson' in something that's not a nice sparkling lovely DDM!Snape. -Nora is probably a little cranky at this time in the morning, but notes that has no bearing on the argument From lealess at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 07:37:00 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:37:00 -0000 Subject: Punishing Draco (was:Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143808 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" > wrote: > > > Betsy Hp: > > See, this is the thing I *really* don't get. Draco is the series' > > punching bag in, I believe, each and every book. > > So, why does Rowling *make* him the punching bag, the object of a > kind of Schadenfreude that gets a good degree of overt authorial > approval? [And it's even more overt when she disapproves (albeit > jokingly) of certain attitudes fans take towards this character.] > > I think the answer is that she cares a great deal about intention > and character. > > I came to a disturbing conclusion this afternoon, one which I would like to be wrong about, so ... bring it on! It seems to me that the Slytherins in the HP series fill the role of certain traditionally scapegoated groups in our real life society. Slytherins are portrayed as cunning and materialistic. They hold themselves separate, not always voluntarily, from the innocent and the respectable wizards who are "just like us" (brave, loyal, intelligent). Slytherins are often presumed to have ulterior motives, and will deal in dark ways and slanted means. They stick together against others. Finally, their combined actions result in the death of the god-like Dumbledore. So, they deserve everything they get, don't they? They commit the ultimate sins. That the Slytherins murder Muggles and non-Purebloods shows to me (1) how deeply the author abhors them or (2) -- I just don't know -- they've internalized the dominant society's view of Slytherins as power-hungry? They are defined this way, and shown to be untrustworthy, slippery, opportunistic, unable to promote achievement without self-interest, preferring connnections to hard work, calculating in personal relationships, generally unpleasant in personality when interacting with non-Slytherins ... and then you have the base animal characteristics of the Gaunts, the very heirs of Slytherin. Suddenly, this really disturbs me. It is the "deserve what they get" hatred that disturbs me the most, I guess. Honestly ? is there a good Slytherin? And if there isn't, what does this really mean? I am hoping that, in the end, JKR will show that bravery can lead to injustice as easily as to nobility. I am hoping that, in the end, ambition will be shown to not exclude making choices based on morality. Hooray house unity! But I wonder if the Slytherins will have to discard part of themselves to make it happen. I want to see faith, hope and charity prevail, but perhaps only retribution will rule the day. Throw bricks now, lealess From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 1 07:39:50 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:39:50 -0000 Subject: Does DD understand parseltongue? (was: Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143809 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kristen" wrote: MercuryBlue: > > > We know Dumbledore met with a known Parselmouth while in possession > > of the memory, because he got it from Morfin Gaunt. Is it too much > > of a stretch to suppose he asked Morfin for a translation? Kristen: > I don't think that DD could understand Parseltongue. If he could would he not have at least know what the monster in the chamber of secrets was. Yet no one knew. As to Morfin, he could speak English, he just didn't. He would have had to speak normal in his trial. Geoff: Why should he know that the monster was a Basilisk? The only person who heard it was Harry and he didn't tell Dumbledore at the time... 'Harry squinted at his friends' darkened faces. "D'you think I should have told them about the voice I heard?" "No," said Ron without hesitation. "Hearing voices no one else can hear isn't a good sign, even in the wizarding world." Something in Ron's voice made Harry ask, "You do believe me, don't you?" "Course I do," said Ron quickly. "But - you must admit it's weird..."' (COS "The Writing on the Wall" p. 110 UK edition) So, unless Dumbledore hears the Basilisk himself, he's not going to get any clues from Harry. From kjones at telus.net Thu Dec 1 07:46:36 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:46:36 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Legend of the Lost Day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <438EAA5C.3000407@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 143810 KJ writes snip Excellent post. It brings up some interesting questions and allows for some different theories. I will have a shot. There is nothing wrong with "off the wall". > The facts: > > (i) Sometime on the evening (here meaning anytime up to midnight) of > October 31st 1980 Lord Voldemort arrived at the Potter's home in the > village of Godric's Hollow based on information received or > extracted from Peter Pettigrew. KJ: I suggest that Snape had arrived at the house prior to the arrival of Voldemort to warn the Potters of their danger. He believed that Sirius was the traitor and the Secret Keeper and stated as much to James. James refused to believe it and undoubtedly told Snape to get lost. He may have been trying to convince Lily, when Voldemort arrived, forcing him to leave to protect his position. Voldemort, in company with Peter, and perhaps other DE's, then killed James. When Voldemort entered the house, events played out much as you have suggested. The clues presented to back up this theory are: 1. Snape believed that Sirius was the traitor so he was not present with Voldemort during the attack. 2. Dumbledore also believed that Sirius was the traitor and would only have been given that information by Snape who was actively spying at that time. He also knew that there was a spy in the Order but not which person. 3. There was the comment by Snape to the effect that James was too arrogant to believe that his friend was a traitor, so it would seem that an actual warning had been made. 4. Snape would have immediately gone to Dumbledore or sent a message to the effect that the Potters had been attacked. This is the most likely way for Dumbledore to know about it. 5. I believe that Peter was there as well because he is the only person seen in the books who had active control of Voldemort's wand. 6. Dumbledore also knew that Voldemort was not dead, which Snape would have been able to tell him as well. Most of the DE seemed to know that V was still alive somewhere. > (iii) Prior to aiming his killing curse at Harry Lord Voldemort gave > Lily Potter the opportunity to save herself, which she declined. He > then killed her and incanted the killing curse once more to kill > Harry but was unsuccessful and the curse rebounded onto him while at > the same time giving Harry his scar and certain powers. KJ writes: There was obviously some kind of magical exchange of a life for a life, and possibly blood for blood, incanted non-verbally by Lily, which would have set up the basis for Dumbledore's later protections. Voldemort's killing curse appeared to have been reflected back upon the caster. This idea of reflection is used in the constant mention of Harry's appearance being just like his father's and his eyes just like those of his mother. snip > (v) The Potter's house was reduced to rubble, possibly by a third > party or possibly as a result of the failed curse (although I prefer > the former explanation). KJ: While I really like the theory you have that the house was destroyed to break the Fidelius and give warning to the Order, I prefer to believe that it was the backlash of the killing curse multiplied by Lily's protective magic. As I am convinced that Harry carries a Voldemort soul part, the explosive nature of the rebound is a better explanation of how that piece seemed to be cut into Harry. > (vi) The first person on the scene was Rubeus Hagrid who had been > sent by Albus Dumbledore and while he was there retrieving Harry > Sirius Black turned up on his flying motorcycle that he subsequently > gave to Hagrid to take Harry away. KJ writes: As above, I don't think that Hagrid was first on the scene. Snape may not have known that Harry was alive when he left to tell Dumbledore. There would have been a considerable explosion and people would have been arriving very quickly. I don't think that Dumbledore would have known quickly enough to set the things in motion that seem to have happened. Dumbledore would have been the only one to know that Harry was alive because of the prophesy. As JKR refused to answer any questions about time turners, I suspect that by the time all of our actors were in place, it woud have been necessary to send Hagrid back via time turner to retrieve Harry before he became a ward of the Muggle government. Hagrid's lateness could easily be explained by the necessity of remaining completely hidden from the view of others. Hagrid did meet Sirius there but as there is considerable confusion about how time turners work to change events, this meeting would have done little to change history. In the original events, Sirius may have arrived too late to meet Hagrid before the Muggles showed up, or he may have arrived at the Potter's after Hagrid had taken Harry. In this alternative time, he and Hagrid met, and Hagrid borrowed the motorcycle. As a result of the time turner, Dumbledore had much more time to set things up, get the protections in place, write Petunia a letter, talk to whoever he had to talk to at the Ministry, etc. > (viii) Minerva McGonagall in her Animagus form spent practically all > day at Privet Drive observing the Dursley's house and its environs > and by the time Dumbledore later arrived had formed the conclusion > that the Dursleys were not good Muggles. KJ: To me it is impossible for Dumbledore to have told Hagrid near the time of the attack on the Potter's that he would be going to the Potter's to get Harry. Hagrid would have had to have told Minerva near midnight or shortly after that he was going to pick up Harry. It seems more likely to me that, having made his arrangements, Dumbledore gave the TT to Hagrid and told him when to go get Harry. He would have had to know the exact time to send Hagrid back, but that would have been provided by Snape. Hagrid would have mentioned to Minerva at breakfast perhaps that he was going to pick Harry up and take him to the Dursleys. In this way, Hagrid could have left anytime after DD had his arrangements made. Dumbledore's trip to the Ministry may have been to acquire a TT. Dumbledore had a much better idea of the time that Hagrid would be arriving, just as he knew when to lock the hospital wing door when Harry and Hermione returned. > (xi) Sirius is laughing when takenby Ministry of Magic personnel >(one of the first to arrive beingCornelius Fudge) and soon after placed in >Azkaban without trial onBarty Crouch Snr.'s orders (probably because he >finally realised that Peter was a good deal smarter than he had believed). KJ: Also, because of the irony of the situation. Sirius felt incredible guilt for choosing Peter as the SK and talking James and Lily into accepting Peter. I think that he felt that he was responsible for their deaths and that Azkaban was a suitable punishment. He was still admitting to Harry in PoA that he was the cause of their deaths. From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Dec 1 08:26:27 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 08:26:27 -0000 Subject: Snape: Crime and Punishment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143811 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > I'm here to say, that it is very likely that it will NOT come to pass. > Why? Because, in real life, this rarely happens. JKR is writing a > somewhat light and classic "Hero's Journey", but it is a journey with > dark subtext and a very real gritty sense of real-life reality. The > truth is there are mean nasty teachers out there, and they spend there > entire and very long teaching careers making the lives of their > charges miserable. Gerry: What we have seen in the books is that the bully always gets some kind of punishment. Dudley, Draco, Umbridge. What happens to Snape is I think more dependent on his actions in book 7, than in the former books, but in the end I think there will be some kind of summing up. DDM Snape will cancel out his bullying, EES Snape will make it almost insignificant besides his other crimes. > I think Snape's lack of direct punishment or ever being called to task > for his mean nasty demeanor is just part of the harsh gritty reality > of these books. The universal appeal of the books is that they are > morally ambiguous. The good guy doesn't always win, the bad guys > aren't clearly defined, and it isn't always fair; just like real life. Gerry: The thing I like about the books is that though in the WW things are not always fair, in what happens to the characters there is a fair amount of poetic justice. Take the Hagrid - Dudley scene. Yes, Hagrids intentions had nothing to do with Dudley, but for the first time in his life Dudley got a richley deserved punishment. > > The next reason I don't believe Snape will be called to task for his > actions is because we are looking at the events from the perspective > of modern American education; Gerry: I's sure you and the other Americans do, but why should the rest of the world? > Further, in the modern and not so modern world, Catholic Schools the > world over are noted for their harsh physical punishments of students, > and their absolute no-nonsense ridged rules and blunt authoritarian > enforcement, and yes, even their unfairness. Gerry: Are they? I've spent my complete educational life in Catholic schools, we have quite a lot of them here and this statement is completely ridiculous. I don't know much about Belgian or Italian education, but as far as I know their schools do not have this kind of reputation at all. I'm sure there are lots of places in South America and Africa where people would laugh about this too. This may very well true in your country, but that does not say anything about the rest of the world. > I think accusations of /abuse/ on his part are not so much a matter of > reality, as they are a matter of overblown, overhyped, ultra-liberal > thinking. (Sorry, I know that stings a bit, and for the record, I do > consider myself a liberal; just not an overhyped ultra-liberal.) Gerry: The toad incident would certainly classify as abuse in any school over here. > > In short, in real life, the bad guys don't always get punished. Gerry: But up til now in the Potterverse quite a lot of them have in rather unexpected ways. I think that is one of the universal appeals of the story myself. That there is justice in the universe, when in the world of people there often is none. > > Let's see if I can add one more short note about Snape. I have already > said the even under the most ideal circumstances, the wizard world > will never forgive or forget that Snape killed Dumbledore. They may > come to understand, they may even understand to the point where the > courts will grant leniency to Snape, but they will never forgive his > actions. Gerry I think you are right. That is why I believe if he is DDM his action could have been very couragious, depending on why he took the UV. can we really expect Harry to accomplish in less than a > year what Dumbledore could not accomplish in many years? I don't think > so. Even starting with Dumbledore's information; Harry has a > monumental task ahead of him. One that, as I have also said before, he > is woefully unprepared for. Conclusion: there has to be some type of > shortcut, and I see that shortcut as Snape. Gerry: Well, DD had to start from scratch. And he gave a lot of all that knowledge he learned over the years to Harry, so their starting positions are very different. I do agree Harry needs help, because LV must realize some time Harry is after the Horcruxes. And yes, Snape as helper would make sense (besides I'd love it). > Yet, despite sealing his own doom, I think the wizard world is capable > of understanding the nature and motivation of Snape's action after the > fact. And while that understanding may brind a degree of leniency, > Snape will still suffer imprisonment for his actions. That is, if he > isn't killed first. Depends on the why and how. I can easily see it happen that mentally people will recognize the heroic act while emotionally they will have nothing to do with this kind of here. If he does not die, this sets him up for a very lonely life. I hope JKR will pull something out of her hat but I'm pessimistic. Gerry From aanchalmehra7 at yahoo.co.in Thu Dec 1 08:06:14 2005 From: aanchalmehra7 at yahoo.co.in (aanchalmehra7) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 08:06:14 -0000 Subject: The Marauder's Map Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143813 In the 3rd book of HP Series Fred and George gave Harry the Marauder's Map which they had stolen from Argus Filch's office, if Filch did'not know how do use the map then how come Fred and George were able to say the exact words which revealed the secret of the Marauder's Map? "aanchalmehra7" From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Dec 1 08:44:42 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 08:44:42 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143814 > Truthfully, and this is not a dig in any way to the Hagrid > supporters, I actually wonder how many of them have kids of their > own. Gerry I have, one daughter almost five months old. I feel very protective of her. > > The idea that Draco, who could have been killed, is completely at > fault for what happens to him is absolutely ludicrous. Draco makes > a lot of trouble, sure, but he's still a kid, and he doesn't respect > Hagrid for a reason. And it's not just because Hagrid is half > giant. Hagrid is only marginally more educated than he is. Gerry Hagrid knows his subject. Draco is there to learn about magical creatures, not about transfigurations. > > As for Hagrid, he deliberately exposes his students to a horde of > animals who he himself admits will KILL if "offended." And, as > we've said often enough, deliberately sends Harry and Ron into a > spider's nest of his "pets" from which they barely escape with their > lives. > Gerry Well, it is care of magical creatures class. Lots of magical creatures are not nice, and as members of the WW the kids should know about them. The hyppogrifs live in the forbidden forest. How dumb can you be if you do not listen at the teacher when you can see that they are not nice looking kittens? Gerry From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 08:46:03 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 08:46:03 -0000 Subject: Snape: Crime and Punishment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143815 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > Steve wrote: > > > > Many people..., are insisting that Snape suffer in some way > > for the way .... Many futher feel that the book will not make > > sense if this doesn't come to pass. > > LUPINLORE: > > Oh, absolutely. Snape must be punished for the books to reach > a balance point. Now, there are a lot of ways to get there. > ... Snape, Wormtail, Percy, others will almost certainly be > dealt with an a paragraph or a condensed scene. ... > > STEVE: > > > > I'm here to say, that it is very likely that it will NOT come > to pass. Why? Because, in real life, this rarely happens. > > LUPINLORE: > > ... And terrorists very often escape punishment as well. But I > think it would be a terrible move on JKR's part to let Voldemort > off the hook. No, Snape and Voldemort are not the same. > But both must be punished for their sins. > bboyminn: Oh this has gotten so difficult because this thread has gotten so complex and deals with so many diverse facets. I'll try my best to hold it all together. Absolutely, Voldemort must be punished because he is irredeemably evil and corrupt. Snape, on the other hand, is still up for grabs, and as I will point out later, will be punished in a Karmic sense, even if he is not punished in the formal sense. Still if you read what I said closely, I said Snape would not be directly punished for his treatment of Harry, but I did imply that there would be some punishment for his killing of Dumbledore. Even with that said, under the very best of circumstances, Snape will suffer a Karmic punishment that covers everything. > >STEVE: > > > The universal appeal of the books is that they are morally > ambiguous. The good guy doesn't always win, the bad guys > aren't clearly defined, and it isn't always fair; just like > real life. > > LUPINLORE: > > Is that their "universal" appeal? I'm not so sure they will > be morally ambiguous, of if they are that such is their > appeal at all (which isn't very universal, the vast majority > of people in the world wouldn't give you a set of fingernail > clippings for the Potterverse). Many people think that in the > end the morality will be very clear and quite poetic, or karmic > to use one of Alla's terms. > bboyminn: Well my comment on 'universal appeal' refered to an aspect of the stories. True they are not univeral in the sense that every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth has read and loved them, but that is a very unrealistic level of 'universal appeal'. On a more realistic level, the Harry Potter series is probably the most widely read, generally love, and money making series of books that has every existed. It's appeal transends national borders and world religions. It is probably translated into more languages that any book other than the Bible, and while I can't prove it, it may even be translated into more languages than the Bible. So, while that isn't universal in the absolute sense of the word, I think it more than qualifies in the more general sense of the word. Again, when I said 'morally ambiguous', I was making a shortcut comment about the general grittiness and harsh realities of the books. Unlike Sunday School TBN morality tales; life in the Potter world in not black and white. Good and bad are not crystal clear. Right and wrong is not an easy choice. JKR is a master of shades of grey, and those realistic shades of grey are what make her world so endearing to so many readers. Little kids read these books and they see Harry struggling with the things that we all struggle with, and they see him sometime failing in his struggles as we all also do, but in the end, as we would all /hope/ to do, we see Harry make the morally right decision. It is this fact that what is morally right is not crystal clear, that it is indeed a flawed and anquished struggle, that allow such a mass of readers world wide crossing many diverse cultural boundaries to identify with these books. I've said before in many different forms that it is these shades of grey and moral struggle and occassional moral failure and ultimately an agonizing and difficult choice for the greater good that gives these books their /generally/ universal appeal. > LUPINLORE: > ...edited... > > STEVE: > > To some extent ... Snape pushing Harry hand Ron's heads down > and wacking them with a composition notebook.... But the > reality is, that Snape's action in the film were extremely > mild compared to real British schools of not that long ago. > > LUPINLORE: > > Yes, and slavery was allowed in the U.S. until 1865 > and Jim Crow laws until the 1960s. Does this excuse the WW > for keeping slaves (...)? The mores of a backward and corrupt > society provide no defense and do not excuse Snape from > punishment, such is a special case of "Ignorance of the law > is no excuse." > bboyminn: So many issues, it hard to decide which one I should respond to. First, slavery and Jim Crow laws hardly comparable to corporal punishment in British boarding schools. The truth is corporal punishment was also very common in American schools, just not as recently as British schools. But we and they have become more enlightened. Yet in the fullest sense, the wizard world is not living in an equally enlightened world. Now it is true, we never really see any physical punishment at the school, so in some sense, the wizard world does have modern enlightenment. But at the same time, remnants of the old ways run just below the surface. We see how quickly Filch was able to bring out his whips and shackles when Umbridge took over. The point is, that while anyone would see Snape's treatment of Harry and Neville as /not very nice/, and others might see it as down right mean, in the context of British Schools, it would not be seen as that extreme. As I said, mean nasty teachers exist in the real world; and mean nasty irrational people exist in the real world, these are just harsh realities that we have to learn to deal with. JKR said as much. So, I use this as my basis for saying that Snape will never be formally punished on-page for the way he treated Harry and Neville. Plus, I think Snape's classroom action are too mild to waste page time on. Yes, he's mean, but the world is mean, and you need to get used to it. That said, I never said Snape wouldn't be punished for killing Dumbledore, and I implied that he would be karmically punished. More on that later. > > STEVE: > > > > > I think accusations of /abuse/ on his part are not > so much a matter of reality, as they are a matter of overblown, > overhyped, ultra-liberal thinking. (Sorry, I know that stings a bit, > and for the record, I do consider myself a liberal; just not an > overhyped ultra-liberal.) > > LUPINLORE: > Well, I will have to most severely disagree. Child abuse fits > quite well, IMO, even if it is not as bad as many other > situations. I do like being grouped with ultra-liberals, however. > I generally get put on the opposite end of the spectrum. > bboyminn: Again, we are into using that impossible word 'Abuse'. I will say that Snape's actions were /abusive/ in nature. I will say that by the modern liberal standards, Snape's actions would not be tolerated. But I just can't reach the level of flat out calling his actions Abuse with a capital 'A', nor can I apply that measure to the Dursleys. Though, I think the Dursleys come closer to Abuse with a capital 'A' than Snape's action. Even in the perfect field of flowers called life, we must accept that we will encounter a torn bush here and there. That's just the way life is. > > STEVE: > > > In short, in real life, the bad guys don't always > >get punished. > > > > LUPINLORE: > > Nope. And that's why we read novels. If I wanted to be caught > in the dreary realities of the unjust world I'd sit in front > of C-Span, .... > bboyminn: But part of the escape of books is to live another person's life in those pages, and to see them struggle with life's dilemmas. It is in their struggle and heroic actions that we see ourselves and learn the deeper lessons that help us in our own life. In a sense, which is more important, to see the hero win in the end, or to see the villain lose? You seem to be saying that the villain losing is more important, and if that is true for you, then so be it. Personally, I am more interested in the struggling to win and ultimately succeeding of the hero. > STEVE: > > > Let's see if I can add one more short note about Snape. I > > have already said the even under the most ideal > > circumstances, the wizard world will never forgive or forget > > that Snape killed Dumbledore. > > LUPINLORE: > > Which has no pertinence whatsoever to the abuse situation. Snape > must be punished for the way he has abused Harry and Neville, > quite regardless of his status with regard to Dumbledore or what > happened in the tower. > > STEVE: > > > > I do believe that Snape is the only source of help for Harry > > in finding the Horcrux. That knowledge reside inside > > Voldemort's inner circle, and it is information that is held > > by an EXTREMELY FEW people.Now that Snape is trusted above all > > others, I think he will help Harry. > > LUPINLORE: > > Which would be lazy and cheesey writing, in addition > to making a hero out of a child abuser. ... > bboyminn: Apparently you missed the part where I flat out said Snape would not be a hero. An as far as cheesy writing, it could be, but then again, if handled right, it won't be. I'm of the belief that Snape is still on the side of good, but being on the side of good doesn't make Snape a nice guy; remember - shades of grey. Perhaps you remember my reference to Snape dooming himself for all time. This brings us to Snape's Karmic Punishment. Let us take the absolute best case scenario. First, I think Snape will die, and dying is it's own Karmic punishment. But that's not relevant to the current argument, so let's forget it for the moment. Snape has commited an unforgivable act in killing Dumbledore. Now again we assume for the moment that Snape explains that he made a sacrifice of Dumbledore's life because he was in a no-win situation. Either they all died, and all was lost; or Snape commited his terrible act, that bad as it was, contributed to the winning of the war and the downfall of Voldemort. Remember for the moment, these are merely supposition to set up a later point. Now, having hear his story, the wizard world shows him leniency, and he serves a few years in prison, or if you wish, for sake of arguement, Snape goes free. Now we must ask what Snape's life will be like after this. I say he will be an outcast. He will be utterly shunned by the bulk of the wizard world. As I clearly said, the wizard world will never forgive him for killing Dumbledore. Even later history and an accounting of the circumstances will never let Snapes escape his infamy. As I said, Snape has doomed himself for all time. He will suffer to his dying day for his act. When he walks down the street, if he even dare venture out in daylight, wizards and witches will turn their faces away, or look at him with unmistakable distain. Like I said he will be shunned and alone, and being made an outcast in the society he so greatly sacrificed for will be his Karmic punishment. Just because the many characters in the books like Snape and Umbridge don't face formal accusations and associated punishment doesn't mean the cruel hand of fate won't punish them in some karmic way. So, what you are saying is you will settle for nothing less than in-your-face direct confrontational accusation and punishment, and what I am saying is that there is simply not enough book left to waste time on that; yet, we all know that what goes 'round - comes 'round. Life will punish these people in ways the courts never could. In my scenario, the rest of Snape's life will be his constant punishment for his actions. As to Snape helping Harry, I see a lot of that happening off-page. Since Harry will not willingly accept or trust Snape's help, Snape will have to find some other way. Further, Snape will only help pave the way for Harry's final vanquishing of Voldemort as will many other people. The fact that Snape helped doesn't in anyway undo what he has done. It may contribute to the mitigating and leniency, but nothing will ever undo Snape's previous actions. Personally, I believe that in or near the final battle Snape will be killed. But even his death in the aid of Harry, while is may soften many attitudes towards him, will not undo what he has done. In life or death, Snape's actions have doomed him for all time. I'd say that adds up to punishment. Just a few (he said sarcastically) thoughts. Steve/bboymonn From Nanagose at aol.com Thu Dec 1 08:47:45 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 08:47:45 -0000 Subject: The Legend of the Lost Day In-Reply-To: <438EAA5C.3000407@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143816 Yes...I LOVE the missing 24-hour theories.... > KJ writes: > There was obviously some kind of magical exchange of a life for a > life, and possibly blood for blood, incanted non-verbally by Lily, > which would have set up the basis for Dumbledore's later > protections. Christina: Unfortunately, JKR has dismissed any idea that Lily may have performed a charm or other magic to ensure Harry's survival. (QUOTE) MA: Did [Lily] know anything about the possible effect of standing in front of Harry? JKR: No - because as I've tried to make clear in the series, it never happened before. No one ever survived before. And no one, therefore, knew that could happen. (END QUOTE) > KJ: > As JKR refused to answer any questions about time turners, I > suspect that by the time all of our actors were in place, it woud > have been necessary to send Hagrid back via time turner to > retrieve Harry before he became a ward of the Muggle government. Christina: I also suspect that time-turners will come back into play, but I never quite figured out how, considering the fact that they have all supposedly been "destroyed." This would be a good way to get them back in the storyline without having anyone actually use one in real- time; however, I have quite a few problems with this idea. JKR has shown us that in her world of time-travel, time-travelling parties exist in the same realm as their original copies (ie, Harry2 casts a patronus to save Harry1, even before Harry1 knows that he will be time-travelling at some point). Therefore, there would never be a set of events where Harry would be taken by the Muggles; if Dumbledore sent Hagrid back in time, the only timeline in existance would be the one in which Hagrid gets to Harry in time. In PoA, it is Dumbledore that gives Harry and Hermione the idea of using the time-turner, but it is not clear how he knew that a time-turner had been used, if that makes sense. Unfortunately, JKR never specifies how Dumbledore knew that a time-travelling trip would be necessary to save Buckbeak, because he never lived through a time where Buckbeak was slaughtered. I suspect that during the Buckbeak scene, Dumbledore perhaps saw or otherwise detected Harry2 and Hermione2 and knew that they took Buckbeak. Maybe Dumbledore has a sort of Marauder's Map-type device that can locate students, and Dumbledore saw two copies of H&H. We just don't know, but at least in that situation, Dumbledore is in a place to be able to figure out that time-travel is necessary before he recommends it. I just don't see how it could happen in the GH scenario. The only possible way I can think of that it could work would be if Dumbledore gave Hagrid instructions to go back in time, *wake him up*, and then get Harry. In that scenario, Hagrid would go back in time, Hagrid2 would wake Dumbledore up and tell him that he's time- travelling and that something has happened to the Potters. In that case, Dumbledore would have the time to make his arrangements and then he would definitely know that he would have to tell Hagrid1 in the morning (or whenever) to time-travel in the first place. I don't know, but this just sounds SO contrived to me that I don't like it. Of course, it's impolite to refute your idea without supplying one of my own :) I think that Dumbledore could feel the Fidelius Charm breaking. We know that people that have been told the secret cannot share the news with others. Snape even says specifically, "You know I cannot speak the name of the place." Interesting choice of words, which suggests that Snape is physically unable to share the secret. Obviously, if somebody went to Dumbledore at some point after the Fidelius was broken and asked Dumbledore where the Potters were, he would realize that he could give that information and that the spell had been borken. But I wonder if a wizard as powerful as Dumbledore could *feel* the spell give way, bringing him the knowledge that he could say the name of the place aloud. If so, that would tip him off immediately to the fact that the Fidelius was broken. We know that Dumbledore can sort of sense magic (ie, at the cave). I think he could also feel the breaking of the Fidelius (a "disturbance in the force," perhaps...sorry). Also possible: Lily (or James I suppose, but I think Lily would have had more time), sent a message via patronus to Dumbledore. Considering that we know that Dumbledore uses this fast, easy method of communication, I see this as a distinct possibility (although, does your patronus die out when you do?). > KJ: > In the original events, Sirius may have arrived too late > to meet Hagrid before the Muggles showed up, or he may have > arrived at the Potter's after Hagrid had taken Harry. Christina: What Sirius may or may not have done without a time-travel event is irrelevant because we know that when time-travel occurs, no copy of the original events survives. There literally are no "original events," because nothing really ever changes- the only events that happen are the ones that happen during the time-travelling. So Sirius arriving at the Potters to meet Hagrid would have happened whether Hagrid was time-travelling or not. > KJ: > To me it is impossible for Dumbledore to have told Hagrid near the > time of the attack on the Potter's that he would be going to the > Potter's to get Harry. Hagrid would have had to have told Minerva > near midnight or shortly after that he was going to pick up Harry. Christina: I don't think Hagrid would have delayed in getting Harry. There's no evidence that shows that Hagrid stayed with Harry for the entire 24 hours. It's entirely possible that Hagrid took Harry, brought him somewhere, went to find McGonagall to send her to Privet Drive (and possibly do some other errands), and then get Harry back, watch him for a bit, and then bring him to Privet Drive. > KJ: > Dumbledore had a much better idea of the time that Hagrid > would be arriving, just as he knew when to lock the hospital wing > door when Harry and Hermione returned. Christina: He didn't know when to lock the hospital wing door. He locked the door on his way out so that he could *tell* Fudge that he locked the door. The only reason that the trio aren't suspected in the release of Sirius is because Dumbledore points out that they were locked in the hospital wing the whole time and *couldn't possibly* have gone out. Dumbledore doesn't guess at what time Harry2 and Hermione2 will have finished their business, he tells outright them that they only have until that point in time to make it back. > KJ: > Also, because of the irony of the situation. Sirius felt > incredible guilt for choosing Peter as the SK and talking James > and Lily into accepting Peter. Christina: It's so sad- Sirius thinks he's being so clever and sneaky by switching the Secret Keeper, and in the end, it all blows up in his face. Poor kid. Christina From Nanagose at aol.com Thu Dec 1 08:50:07 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 08:50:07 -0000 Subject: The Marauder's Map In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143817 aanchalmehra7: > In the 3rd book of HP Series Fred and George gave Harry the > Marauder's Map which they had stolen from Argus Filch's office, if > Filch did'not know how do use the map then how come Fred and > George were able to say the exact words which revealed the secret > of the Marauder's Map? Christina: This is one of those questions that bothered me for the LONGEST TIME; JKR gave her answer in an interview: (QUOTE) MA: How did they figure out how to work the map? JKR: Don't you ? well. This is how I explained it to myself at the time, and this does sound glib. Don't you think it would be quite a Fred and Georgeish thing to say in jest, and then see this thing transform? MA: Yeah. JKR: Can't you just see them? ES: But the exact word combination? Is that just a lot of luck, or Felix Felicis ? JKR: Or, the map helped. MA: Yep, yeah. You can see them sort of answering and joking with each other ? JKR: And the map flickering into life here and there when they got closer and closer, and finally they hit upon the exact right word combination and it just erupts. (ENDQUOTE) Christina From Nanagose at aol.com Thu Dec 1 09:13:21 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:13:21 -0000 Subject: Using the Mirror of Erised to find Horcruxes (was Re: Harry's Army) In-Reply-To: <20051130222532.73440.qmail@web35905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143818 > NymphandoraCallel: > Ok, so the mirror shows you desires, not reality, assuming Harry > could use it to find the horcruxes, would it be able to show the > actual location of them, or would it be just showing Harry finding > them, in a fictional location. The truth which the mirror is > showing Harry would then be the desire to find the horcrux but not > actually telling him where to look. Christina: Exactly. Quirrel wants to find the stone, and so he sees himself with the stone. If Harry's deepest desire is to find a Horcrux, who's to say that he won't just see himself standing there with the Horcrux. > NymphandoraCallel: > Harry's deepest desire may be Dumbledore helping him find the > horcruxes or victory over Voldemort or again his parents only now > with Sirius and Dumbledore joining the group (and Ginny, Ron and > Hermione) after the defeat of Voldemort. Christina: ...or Snape lying dead, or himself growing up with his parents, or any number of other things. What Harry really wants is the happy ending, and I think that *that* is what he would see in the Mirror 0of Erised. > NymphandoraCallel: > Again, and correct me if I'm wrong, every instance in which we > have seen the mirror in use it has shown the observer with > something that he has, at one point or another, seen or come in > contact with (Harry's parents, head boy badge, warm socks ). Christina: IIRC, you've answered your own question! I don't think Harry's ever seen a picture of his parents, and so he wouldn't know what they looked like. He figures out that the people in the mirror are his parents not because he recognizes them, but because he realizes that he looks exactly like them. I suppose you could say that Harry has the memory of his parents' faces in his brain *somewhere* from when he was a baby, but with the Potters on the run, he certainly *never* would have come into contact with all the cousins and extended family that the mirror showed him. So the mirror conjured up the images of Harry's extended family without Harry ever having knowledge of them. So yes, the mirror can show you something when you don't know what it looks like. Christina From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Thu Dec 1 09:34:56 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:34:56 -0000 Subject: Intended Horcrux at Godric's Hollow Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143819 The following conjecture assumes that Harry was not the intended Horcrux at Godric's Hollow. If Voldemort entered Godric's Hollow with the intention of using Harry's death to set up his last Horcrux (as DD suggests in HBP), then surely he possessed one of the founders objects in which he intended to place the soul piece or the object he intended to use was already at Godric's Hollow. THE SWORD! I think it would appeal to Voldemort to use Gryffindor's possession whilst in Godric's Hollow. DD states that the sword is the last remaining relic of Gryffindor's, but I don't think it was mentioned whilst Riddle & DD chatted in DD's office in HBP. Perhaps DD later reclaimed it from the rubble at Godric's Hollow. It would certainly be poetic justice, that Voldemort's intended Horcrux was actually used to help destroy another Horcrux i.e. the diary! Brothergib From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com Thu Dec 1 02:16:25 2005 From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 02:16:25 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew / Wormtail, DEs (Re: PoA - Snape Knew? (w/ canon)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143820 > > Ginny: > > > Did Snape really still think Sirius was the Secret Keeper? > > > Even though LV's supporters knew Peter gave the information? > colebiancardi: > > Where are you getting this information from? There is NO canon > > that states that the DEs knew Peter was the secret keeper. And > > there is canon that everyone in the wizarding world knew that > > Sirius was the Secret Keeper who betrayed James & Lily. Ginny343: > PoA, Am. 368- > > Okay, this is the canon that makes me think that the DEs knew > Peter was the one who "double-crossed" and gave the information > to Voldemort, even though the rest of the wizarding world > thought it was Sirius. At any rate, it sounds like > Voldemort's supporters are mad at Peter for some reason. MercuryBlue: Okay, people, slow down, take a step back, THINK. Who were they talking about in Azkaban? Peter Pettigrew? Or Wormtail? Subtle difference. The Death Eaters knew Wormtail == Spy. But not a one of them knew Wormtail == Peter. The Death Eaters outside 'knew' Sirius == Spy, and assumed Wormtail == Sirius. Remus knew Wormtail == Peter, but not that Wormtail == Spy. No one else knew Wormtail == anything. From iamthepandaboo at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 05:28:26 2005 From: iamthepandaboo at yahoo.com (Sandra Caron) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:28:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] International wirardry WAS On the subject of Umbridge In-Reply-To: <01f301c5f61b$88a3c030$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: <20051201052826.88105.qmail@web36304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 143821 Bart Lidofsky wrote: > And are there any other magical governing bodies? Oblansk (or Obalonsk), Mr. - the Bulgarian Minister for Magic introduced in Chapter 8 of the GOF. "iamthepandaboo" From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Dec 1 11:21:53 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:21:53 -0000 Subject: Punishing (Draco) (was:Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143822 lealess: > I came to a disturbing conclusion this afternoon, one which I would > like to be wrong about, so ... bring it on! > > It seems to me that the Slytherins in the HP series fill the role of > certain traditionally scapegoated groups in our real life society. > Slytherins are portrayed as cunning and materialistic. They hold > themselves separate, not always voluntarily, from the innocent and the > respectable wizards who are "just like us" (brave, loyal, > intelligent). Slytherins are often presumed to have ulterior > motives, and will deal in dark ways and slanted means. They stick > together against others. Finally, their combined actions result in > the death of the god-like Dumbledore. So, they deserve everything > they get, don't they? They commit the ultimate sins. Ceridwen: I doubt that this is the way the story will go. I don't have any canon to back me up on this, though. But, in an interview, JKR said that the houses each represent the elements our society deems necessary for balance (extremely parphrased). Since this is the author's intent, then the 'scapegoat' house won't happen. Instead, it will be integrated back into the whole, and everyone will be better for it. And, Our Heroes will learn that everyone has their place, and that ambition etc. has its place, right alongside bravery and intelligence and loyalty. lealess: > I am hoping that, in the end, JKR will show that bravery can lead to > injustice as easily as to nobility. I am hoping that, in the end, > ambition will be shown to not exclude making choices based on > morality. Hooray house unity! But I wonder if the Slytherins will > have to discard part of themselves to make it happen. Ceridwen: I think she's already shown that bravery can lead to unnecessary danger. And, though Bellatrix isn't a Hufflepuff, that blind loyalty can be dangerous as well. Bravery = Injustice? Yes, if the brave hero jumps in blindly, with emotion instead of fact. How many brave souls have died for a faulty ideal in the millenia of Man's existence? Changing topic: I, too, came to a disturbing conclusion. Though it is of much less cosmic importance than the Redemption of Slytherin House, which IMO will probably actually be a change in perception on the part of the other houses. After reading the Hagrid the Bad Teacher thread, and agreeing that Hagrid is too close to his subject to realize its potential for harm, I began to wonder... Aragog is dead. Hagrid has no fear of the animals that live in the Forbidden Forest. Aragog says in CoS, p. 279, paperback Scholastic (US): "My sons and daughters do not harm Hagrid, on my command..." Aragog has a lot of children. Will his children forget his command now that he is dead, and find Hagrid a tasty banquet at some point in book 7? Though no one has called for retribution against Hagrid's admittedly poor teaching (through his zeal for the subject, not meanness), would this be the sort of retribution one might expect if he were to be punished? Because it goes to the heart of his problem - his trust and lack of fear of dangerous creatures. Just thought I'd mention it, since this is about things we'd rather not see but wonder if we might. Ceridwen, who can't see bravery without ambition anyway. From wisdominolympia at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 05:33:21 2005 From: wisdominolympia at yahoo.com (wisdominolympia) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 05:33:21 -0000 Subject: Snape isn't evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143823 Lucianam: > Only one Huge Thing stands in the way of Snape's warning the > Order proving he's good: why didn't Voldemort punish him > heavily for ruining the Prophecy mission? Voldemort must have > had reasons to believe Snape's actions were acceptable. If > Voldemort didn't question Snape's loyalty as a DE because he > warned the Order, why should we believe the only explanation > for Snape's doing so is his being loyal to Dumbledore? ----- I think that we are seeing Snape pulled in two directions. He is/was a DE, yet he maintains his loyalty to DD. In GoF we see at the end that two DE are missing, Snape and Karakof. Yet in it is Karakof who ends up dead in OoTP. So, we know that Snape has told Bellatrix in HBP that Voldemort has questioned Snape (chapter 2, pg 26 hardcover). He asks Bellatrix, "Do you think he is mistaken?...the most accomplished Legilimens...?" And LV found his answers satifactory. I think it is important to point out that Bellatrix is a fanatic. She believes with her whole heart that LV is back for good, that he is unstoppable, and very powerful. Snape knows this and is playing off of this. He also tells her to take his words back to those like her, who are talking about him. I feel that this is important because Bellatrix is the one person in the series who didn't turn tail and run, she brings up her time in Azkaban. I wonder if Snape is just as accomplished in Legilimens as LV or DD. If you can control your mind shouldn't you be able to control what people see if they look in? What if *big if here* Snape was able to let LV see what he wanted him to see. The would allow Snape to manuver his way around with out getting busted. When I read OoTP one thing that made me wonder about Snape was that if he was truly loyal to LV why did he warn the Order in time to get the MoM. It would have been easy to delay the message, but in OoTP in Chapter 37, DD tells Harry that when he didn't return from the forest in a timely manner he alerted the members of the order. Snape had to know that Harry would smash the prophecy, anything to keep it out of Voldemort's hands. So, back to why didn't LV punish Snape. I think that it is because of the fact that several adult wizards, including Bellatrix and Lucius Malfoy were bested by a bunch of children. Yes, they did have help in the end from the Order, but seriously, which is the worse trangression? Alerting the other side what you are doing or letting a group of students thwart you? I think LV looked at what happened and blamed Bellatrix and Lucius. They should have been able to handle it. And LV thinks that Snape is spying for him. So, maybe it was ok for him to warn the Order, if he had to. My basis for this is the beggining of book six when Bellatrix revels that she is out of favor with the Dark Lord and Narcissa theorizes that LV is punishing Lucius by using Draco. Snape pretty much confirms it, not a solid yes, but tells her that LV is not happy. But Snape still has his confidence. As always, this is JMO and would love to have someone rip it to shreds. Melanie, who is sorry that she didn't sign her post last time and the list elf had to do, and now wants to re-read the series for the 5th time. From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Dec 1 06:41:35 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 01:41:35 -0500 Subject: Snape's temper; Draco's malignancy; Teaching Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143824 Steve: "and Snape throwing a jar at Harry, which missed by the way, when he found Harry in his pensieve also doesn't count since very few people would have been that restrained under the circumstances." I suppose the nearest real world equivalent would be finding someone riffling through one's private papers, or reading one's diary. Who wouldn't be moved to rage, or even violence, under the circumstances? horridporrid03: "Now, you might object that Umbridge is really and truly evil and Draco is not in her category. I'd say this is generally true; there's no way that Draco is as nasty of a person as Umbridge." He's young yet. Give him time. That "Cedric was first" crack is absolutely unforgivable, and whatever he got for that he richly deserved. If you MUST shake hornets' nests, endure the stings. Ginger: "If this is the case, then Hagrid was only teaching the way that he was taught. It's not easy teaching one's pet subject to a group that couldn't care less. Hagrid wouldn't understand that in his first year of teaching. It's disheartening to find that your passion is someone else's drudgery. Expecially, as in Hagrid's case, where he went out of his way to find things to teach that he thought the students would find interesting." I used to be a teacher myself. I got out of it because I realized that, although I know my subject inside and out I just don't have the gift of inspiring others to love it as much as I do. I wish I did, but I don't. Bruce From maria.elmvang at gmail.com Thu Dec 1 09:58:19 2005 From: maria.elmvang at gmail.com (Maria Elmvang) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:58:19 +0100 Subject: house-elf without a house Message-ID: <17785fc30512010158p3cc733a9yaaf455b63d50a134@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 143825 Allie wrote: > Maybe I'm being too literal on my re-read of CoS. Dobby > says, "Dobby is a house-elf - bound to serve one house and > one family forever..." Maybe it should read, "bound to > serve one House (capital) and one family..." Later on, > Fred/George says, "Mum's always wishing we had a house-elf > to do the ironing.... House-elves come with big old manors > and castles and places like that." To me, that indicates > literally, the house itself. Maria: I read that more like somebody would say "Butlers come with big old manors etc...." That's not to mean the butler stays with the house if the family moves, but rather that a butler would be pretty out-of-place in a smaller house. Maria (who just had to add her two knuts) -- I believe in God like I believe in the sun not because I see it, but by it I see everything else --- C.S. Lewis From unlikely2 at btopenworld.com Thu Dec 1 10:37:40 2005 From: unlikely2 at btopenworld.com (unlikelyauthor) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:37:40 -0000 Subject: Snape: Crime and Punishment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143826 > bboyminn said: > > Oh this has gotten so difficult because this thread has gotten > so complex and deals with so many diverse facets. I'll try my > best to hold it all together. snip unlikely 2: Quite. I've probably overdone the cutting but I don't think that Snape is that bad a teacher. The WW appears to be at least a half a century behind the times. I'm not that old but I have been struck (with a ruler) by a teacher for very minor misdemeanors. Potions are dangerous. Harry throws a firework into one. From a muggle perspective, any child doing such a thing would probably be facing a legal investigation. That doesn't happen. It is unfair to judge Snape by muggle standards. By either muggle or magical standards, the Dursleys are abusive. Snape talks the talk but I think Binns does more real damage than Snape and, given the choice, I'd prefer Snape to Binns any day. As to killing Dumbledore: if Voldemort wins, everyone else loses. Snape is probably not all that much better off if Harry wins. In war it is sometimes necessary to make sacrifices. I think Dumbledore accepted, even demanded, that. Snape has had the courage to make a terrible decision and has, as a consequence, lost probably the only person who could have saved him from Azkaban. He's in a lose lose situation. Talk of punishment is redundant. unlikely2 From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Dec 1 12:00:56 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:00:56 -0000 Subject: Does DD understand parseltongue? (was: Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143827 > Geoff: > Why should he know that the monster was a Basilisk? The only person who > heard it was Harry and he didn't tell Dumbledore at the time... > Potioncat: In one of the Harry/DD lessons, toward the end of the book (I think) DD says something sort of off hand. It's along the line of "you've seen that Parseltongue can be spoken by great and good wizards..." I'd love to provide that canon, except I can't find it. Does anyone else know what I'm talking about? I may have completely mis-remembered it, of course, but I don't think I made it up. DD understands Mermish, he appeared to understand the Parseltongue memories, and he speaks in a language that Harry doesn't recognise. I believe these examples would at least indicate that he did speak/understand Parseltongue. From leslie41 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 13:29:10 2005 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:29:10 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143829 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > > > > > Leslie > > (who loves these kinds of arguments, and who firmly believes that > > Snape is Dumbledore's man because it would be too easy and offer no > > lesson if he weren't) > > Of course there's a lesson if he's not. It's just not the lesson that > much of the fandom wants Rowling to be offering. > > If he's not, there's a story of someone being unable to genuinely > renounce past actions and inclinations (the DE lifestyle), in part > because of holding on to old grudges where they could be let go by > opening one's awareness (Harry is not James). It's a story of a soul > curdled by resentment and a devotion to some value other than love. > > It's only one possibility, but there's hardly 'no lesson' in something > that's not a nice sparkling lovely DDM!Snape. Well, that's a good point. But remember Rowling's readership. She's not really thinking mostly about the "lesson" adults will get, and that's a very sophisitcated "adult" take on it I think. But should my instincts fail me, and should Snape actually be "bad," the child reading the story would just think "Oh of course Snape is evil. He's ugly and not very nice. Harry was right about him all along." The child would then feel vindicated in their assessment of Snape, which is an assessment that draws mostly on surface demeanor and appearance. The "lesson" there that's reinforced is that people who aren't nice and aren't attractive don't usually turn out to be good. The far more valuable lesson for a child would be to demonstrate that often times "nice" has absolutely nothing to do with "good," that the two are entirely separate things. That "nice" people can and do seemingly mean things all the time, and that when you examine the actions of people who seem very cranky and mean at first glance you find someone who has in truth done a lot of good. Harry continually makes excuses for anything good that Snape does, much as he ignores the incompetence of Hagrid. This is because he likes Hagrid and he does not like Snape. A child who is presented with an evil Snape at the end of Book VII gets the message that it's okay to judge a book by its cover, and I don't think that's the message Rowling wants to send. Leslie From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Dec 1 15:10:51 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 07:10:51 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001701c5f689$6bb98540$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 143830 Leslie But should my instincts fail me, and should Snape actually be "bad," the child reading the story would just think "Oh of course Snape is evil. He's ugly and not very nice. Harry was right about him all along." The child would then feel vindicated in their assessment of Snape, which is an assessment that draws mostly on surface demeanor and appearance. The "lesson" there that's reinforced is that people who aren't nice and aren't attractive don't usually turn out to be good. Sherry now: As i've said several times before, this feeling that Snape being ultimately bad sends a terrible lesson to kids, because it confirms a surface impression that unattractive means bad, just does not hold up when you look at the characters and their physical descriptions. Lupin is described as shabby and worn looking. definitely not a handsome hunk. But except for a couple people who have a different take on him, he's generally believed to be a good guy. Hagrid is part giant, being described as looking too big to be allowed. He has a wild beard and hair I believe and he sure does act strangely. And he's a good guy. molly is constantly described as being overweight, which gives Draco plenty of fodder for insulting the Weasleys. Arthur is balding. Again not described as a distinguished looking older man or anything. Have you ever gotten the impression that Minerva is a stunning beauty? Hermione, here one of the definite good guys, is certainly not pretty by kids' standards, with bushy hair and big teeth and a bossy know-it-all attitude. Ron is gangly and awkward, growing boy and all that. Sirius earns Harry's trust in the Shrieking Shack, even though he is gaunt and wasted from his years in Azkaban, his hair matted and dirty. And acting very wildly. But here's the clincher. What about Harry? Harry is a skinny kid, too small for his age, with messy black hair and of all things, a scar right smack on his forehead. He even has knobby knees. In short, he's not attractive, not ugly but not a drop dead gorgeous hunk of a kid. i have surgical scars on my legs and i well remember how kids react to kids with scars. but of course, he's the famous Harry Potter. But he's not a handsome hero, just an average everyday kid kind of hero. Now let's take the so-called bad guys. The impression I get from reading the series is that the Malfoys are not only rich and well-connected, but that they are all very attractive. Perfect hair, well-groomed. i've always had the sense that Narcissa is beautiful, and Draco is probably a very handsome boy. Lucius too. And Lucius is most definitely a death eater who purposely put that diary in Ginny's books. Not very nice. Bella seems to be attractive too, though her attitude and demeanor seem to put even her fellow death eaters off. But let's move to the big bad guy, good old Voldemort himself. Tom Riddle is described as very handsome, very charming. He knew how to say and do the right things to charm everyone around him. everyone but Dumbledore fell under his charm at school. He was so well liked, that everyone but Dumbledore accepted his words about Hagrid being the one who released the monster that killed Myrtle. Through the first war, he still had his Riddle body and was most likely to draw people to him with his looks and his charm. He's the evil in the series, and he's the most physically attractive character in the bunch. In fact, except for fleur are there any really stunning good guys at all? In conclusion, i just don't buy the idea that if Snape turns out to be evil it confirms any nonsense about bad looks means bad character and pretty looks means goodness. In fact, I'd say it's almost close to being the opposite. the good guys are basic average sort of people, and the bad guys seem to be the gorgeous ones. Hmmm. Interesting thought that. Sherry From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Dec 1 15:20:19 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 07:20:19 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape isn't evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001801c5f68a$be223600$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 143831 Melanie Yes, they did have help in the end from the Order, but seriously, which is the worse trangression? Alerting the other side what you are doing or letting a group of students thwart you? I think LV looked at what happened and blamed Bellatrix and Lucius. They should have been able to handle it. And LV thinks that Snape is spying for him. So, maybe it was ok for him to warn the Order, if he had to. Melanie Sherry now: Well, well, well, i can't believe this, but I am going to post a defense of Snape message! Ok, perhaps it would be a neutral on Snape message. however, No matter which side he is truly on, as a spy, both Dumbledore and Voldemort must know that a spy has to help the other side now and then. No spy would last as a double agent, as Snape has done, if he wasn't providing accurate information to both sides. If Dumbledore was always coming out ahead and Snape's info to Voldemort proved to be incorrect or worse led to too many death eaters being captured for instance, Voldemort would have good reason to doubt Snape. The same holds true if Snape is really on Voldemort's side. If he didn't occasionally give Dumbledore accurate information, Dumbledore would begin to question his loyalty. no matter what side Snape is on, he has to walk a very thin line, serving two masters in a way, but ultimately trying to help most whichever side he favors. Even those who think Snape is DDM, don't believe he's never had to give Voldemort true information from Dumbledore's side or help Voldemort in some way.. Or at least, I believe most of them understand that is just a part of being a good spy. Sherry From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 16:42:46 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:42:46 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143832 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > Well, that's a good point. But remember Rowling's readership. > She's not really thinking mostly about the "lesson" adults will > get, and that's a very sophisitcated "adult" take on it I think. I don't think it's that sophisticated, and laying out why answers your objection below. The reading of "Oh, I was right all along" requires one to be reading solely for facts; but I think Rowling's greatest strength as a writer is in the process she leads us through, even more than the ultimate conclusions. She's laid out various kinds of evil and various kinds of wrongdoing for her readers to think about, and she's shown us how people can fall into these things. Why else was so much of HBP taken up with the presentation of past events for their understanding, as opposed to the action-packed hands-on practical training that so many readers wanted and thought they were going to get? > The far more valuable lesson for a child would be to demonstrate > that often times "nice" has absolutely nothing to do with "good," > that the two are entirely separate things. That "nice" people can > and do seemingly mean things all the time, and that when you > examine the actions of people who seem very cranky and mean at > first glance you find someone who has in truth done a lot of good. You might not be surprised to discover that I, *when thinking about Rowling's world*, don't put a great deal of stock in the 'good but not nice' vindication theory. First is that 'nice' is often used in the most superficial way possible, while it can actually be a profound and deep virtue. Second is that I think Rowling is playing with deep ideas of character--our choices *show* what we are, not make--and this idea of character determines a lot of how she thinks about her characters. [That would connect into her enjoyment of comeuppance, as well.] Sherry has laid out how the 'beautiful=good, ugly=bad' dichotomy doesn't hold up. I'd suggest that we may end up with distinctions between people who are good and do good things (and occasionally things which end up being not good), and people who do things which may end up being considered 'good' but are not good in and of themselves. I'm not an essentialist myself, but again, I see it in Rowling. > A child who is presented with an evil Snape at the end of Book VII > gets the message that it's okay to judge a book by its cover, and I > don't think that's the message Rowling wants to send. What if Snape's bitter and resentful actions aren't cover? What if they're the core, and not a mask? This is definitely not where I expected things to go post-GoF, but the more I think, it may be that we were deeply signaled from the beginning that something just ain't right with a man immediately gunning for an 11-year old orphan based on past factors. I'm not saying that Snape is painted as a totally negative character--far from it. I'm just suggesting that maybe the self-consumed and resentful parts have come to be the dominant, that these are expressed in any number of daily actions, and that Rowling is fine with portraying that kind of character. -Nora notes that she's fully aware this could be utterly wrong, and will bow to textual reality when it arrives From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 1 16:55:24 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:55:24 -0000 Subject: Harry's fear of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143833 > Alla: > > Erm... I snipped the other part of your post, but I am confused by > this one. You seem to acknowledge that Harry's fear of Snape is > real, right? But you are also saying that it is not realistic. What > does it mean? > > Harry IS afraid of Snape, but he should not be, because Snape did > not do anything to cause Harry's fear? Is that what you are arguing? > > To repeat from my other post - Harry is feeling that he is > imprisoning himself when he goes to Occlumency lessons with Snape. > Are you saying that Harry has no reasons to be afraid of Snape? Are > you saying that somebody else caused Harry to be afraid of Snape? > > If so, who was it? Who caused Harry to be afraid of Snape? > > While we are arguing this moment, are you also saying that Neville's > fear of Snape is unrealistic? And if I understand your argument > correctly, who caused Neville to be afraid of Snape? > > Did I misunderstood you completely? > Pippin: Harry and Neville both lost their parents just at the time when separation anxiety develops. They both, from very early childhood, discovered that their worst fears can come true. They both were raised in environments which further conditioned them to not to dismiss their fears. As Lupin points out, Harry's real fear is not Voldemort, or dementors, but fear itself. In fact, Harry is so afraid of his fear that, IMO, he never dares to doubt it. Most people do some kind of reality check when they're scared. One of the reasons we do things like ride on roller-coasters and read fantasy is to remind ourselves that scary feelings are easily provoked regardless of actual danger. Dementors are plenty scary, but no one's ever been harmed by one yet. We might give ourselves a little shiver the next time it's foggy outside -- the dementors are breeding- whoooooooo! And then we'll grin and give ourselves permission to dismiss the fear because guess what, dementors aren't real. But Harry doesn't do this reality check, probably because at the Dursleys he couldn't afford to. He didn't have enough knowledge or experience to tell whether his fears were realistic or not, and it would have been very unsafe to rely on the Dursleys, who did things like abandoning him at King's Cross. But things are different now. Harry has knowledge, he has experience, most of all as a teen he has the ability no child has to reason abstractly, and he can use these tools to assess his fears. But he doesn't. He's handicapped because his emotions are so close to the surface... it's the fact that he can't just turn off his fear that makes him so lousy at Occlumency in the first place. But he has learned to compensate by thinking through his fear, just as he thinks through the bliss of imperius. But while he uses this ability to avoid being paralyzed by his fear, he doesn't use it to help him decide whether the fear itself is justified. Harry feels imprisoned when Snape shuts the door, though Snape has explained the need for secrecy and there's no indication in canon that Snape wouldn't most happily have let Harry leave. In fact, Snape complains that this is going to be a tedious task which he is doing only because Dumbledore asked it of him. In the end of course Snape not only doesn't stop Harry from leaving, he literally throws him out. Harry spends his first year in the fear that Snape will get him expelled and never bothers to find out if Snape actually has the authority (he doesn't.) Even Harry's friends laugh at him for thinking that Dumbledore would have let Gabrielle drown. Worst of all, of course, Harry didn't realize that Voldemort was manipulating his fears for Sirius, though Hermione tried and tried to make him see that it just didn't make sense that Voldemort and Sirius could turn up in a top secret area of the ministry in the middle of the afternoon. I mean, The Quibbler would blush. In short, Harry believes whatever his fear tells him to believe. He can think through his fear, and that's what makes him so brave, but he's never learned to doubt it. He remains at the mercy of anyone who can use his fears against him. I think he needs to get past that. As for Neville, we don't know whether his boggart represents a literal fear of Snape, or whether, as with Harry, the boggart is a representation of something more abstract. That Neville suggests the boggart might turn into his grandmother makes me think the latter, that it represents Neville's fear that he's an inadequate wizard, not the fear of Snape himself. Pippin From becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk Thu Dec 1 10:15:58 2005 From: becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk (Rebecca Williams) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:15:58 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Snape: Crime and Punishment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051201101558.64029.qmail@web25303.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 143834 Hi all I am new to this group and was interested to read your posts and the differing viewpoints. I would like to add my own dimension to this idea of seeing Snape suffer. I believe he is already being punished for his actions - you see I am not entirely convinced that Snape is evil. I believe that Snape killed Dumbledore on Dumbledore's orders. I believe he told him about Draco's orders and about the unbreakable vow. I believe that when he made the vow it was his intention not to kill Dumbledore but to die. I think that Dumbledore and Snape's argument in the Forest during HBP was because Dumbledore was insisting that Snape kill him when the time came. He would have cared for Draco and would have wanted Snape to do it to protect Malfoy from Voldemort if he couldn't. He also wouldn't have wanted Snape to die - he would feel that Snape was more useful to the Order in his capacity as spy. He also was aware that he was old and his powers had weakened (i.e the injury to the hand). I fell that the greatest evidence for this is that Dumbledore begged 'severus...please'. It is not in keeping with Dumbeldore's character to beg for his life. I believe the only way he would have begged was if he was begging Severus to do it - to kill him. He was not afraid of death. In fact in the very first book he even told Harry that 'to an organised mind, death is just the next adventure'. I believe he was preparing to die throughout the book - this was why he shared those memories with Harry while he still could. I find Snape a fascinatingly complex character. I do not say he is all good ? we all know he is not. He bullies those weaker than him, holds grudges ? he is a nasty teacher and a bitter man. But I do believe that he is a victim of his own upbringing and circumstances. As we saw in OOTP he had an abusive father and was bullied and mocked at school. He has been oppressed and humiliated all his life and strives to achieve recognition for the fact that he is a highly accomplished wizard and moreover he wants respect. The students, especially Harry, do disrespect him in ways they don?t with the other teachers. As Dumbledore, Mrs Weasley and many others keep reminding Harry, he is ?Professor Snape? and not just Snape. I believe this is why he was so touchy when Harry called him a coward ? I believe it is such a sore point for him, reminiscent of the taunts he endured as a teenager, especially considering he had risked his life for so long being a double agent, and if my theory is correct had just done something he didn?t want to do in order to maintain his cover. In a way sort of feel sorry for Snape. If it was on Dumbledore?s orders, he has made a huge sacrifice by putting himself in a position where the good side will believe he is Voldemort?s right hand man. And what better way to prove your allegiance to Voldemort and be trusted with his deepest secrets ? he may prove to try to protect Harry in future. When Harry was chasing him he did not fight back, he merely blocked him and even continued trying to teach him ? i.e. ?learn to keep your mouth closed and your mind blocked? plus he wouldn?t allow the other Death Eater to hurt him. He said that Harry was ?the Dark Lord?s? but the Death Eater wasn?t trying to kill him, just hurt him. I?ll be interested to hear all your thoughts. Becky From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Dec 1 14:23:38 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 14:23:38 -0000 Subject: Snape: Crime and Punishment/Punishing Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143835 Sorry for the complicated post, but I'm replying to Steve and Gerry and Nora on related issues: STEVE: -- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > So, what you are saying is you will settle for nothing less than > in-your-face direct confrontational accusation and punishment, and > what I am saying is that there is simply not enough book left to waste > time on that; yet, we all know that what goes 'round - comes 'round. > Life will punish these people in ways the courts never could. > NORA: And make no mistake, Rowling really, really likes comeuppance. LUPINLORE: I agree with both of you. Now, the question is what constitutes comeuppance? I think that comeuppance or karmic justice or poetic justice, whatever term you want to use for it, is a kind of Newtonian morality. That isn't an exact analogy, of course, so I'm not arguing you can map things out with equations. But, as you say, Steve, what goes around comes around. So, in order for justice to be poetic or karmic or comeuppance, the reaction has to fit the action. I.E. the punishment has to fit the crime. Which is why what happened on the tower and Snape's punishment for that will in no way satisfy the demands of comeuppance for his treatment of Harry and Neville, whatever side Snape is shown to be on. However, for the punishment to fit the crime does not mean that the punishment is formal or involves a court hearing or is even in-your- face. Rather it means that the punishment flows quite obviously from the crime. Thus, in Snape's case his punishment has to be linked directly to his treatment of Harry and Neville. Saying, as Gerry says might be the case (and I'm paraphrasing): that "he's DDM and that counterbalances his teaching methods" or "he's being punished enough for the murder of Dumbledore" just doesn't cut it. Nor would it be in any way a "waste" of the book to deal with these issues. As these issues have been a constant thread through all seven books, it would be very bad writing on JKR's part NOT to deal with them relatively explicitly. Once again, I'm reminded of all the opining about Umbridge and the Dursleys, i.e. "It would be a waste of time to deal with those issues." Well, evidently JKR did not think so, and I, who often disagree with her, think in this case she was right on the money. NORA: That's why (contra Steve) I actually *do* expect some kind of overt comeuppance for Snape, probably a little more than his flight at the end of book 6. Why? Because I think she regards his behavior towards the students as nasty and unpleasant. She's the one who calls it an abuse of power, after all. LUPINLORE: Exactly. Like Nora, I suspect that JKR is in the end a believer that character is fate. She might not put it that way, in fact I suspect she isn't working from any rigorously systematic set of beliefs or philosophy or theology at all. But there is a great deal in her writing that leans in that direction. Added to that is a delight in the turning of fate's wheel. Now, this raises all sorts of questions about essentialism and free will, but that is for another discussion. Once again, comeuppance does not have to be formal. But it does have to be direct and fairly obvious. Saying "he's being punished for this so he doesn't need to be punished for that" doesn't cut it, and neither does "well, he's done this and that makes up for this unrelated situation." Thus, Snape's punishment for his actions on the Tower don't apply to his child abuse (which I agree with Gerry he does engage in), nor does the fact of him being DDM (if he is) release him from punishment. NORA: It's not realistic, of course, but that's the joy of writing fiction. You get to determine the moral rules of your universe-- indeed, you get to determine *if* you're writing a universe with some kind of definite moral structure to it. This isn't George R. R. Martin, writing a story explicitly lacking in the punishment and reward regulators of fiction. Rowling's in a different part of the genre. LUPINLORE: Very good. It is true that there are fictional universes that do not act according to karmic laws. JKR's doesn't appear to be one of them. Realism is good to an extent, because it carries with it believability and, as Steve has pointed out, helps us in entering into the emotional lives of the characters. However, for a novel to approximate reality in all its grimness and injustice would not be a particularly good move, at least in this case. As Hitchcock once said (and once again I'm paraphrasing): "What's so great about reality? It's difficult and horrible and we flee from it every chance we get. People don't come to a movie [or read a novel] to find reality." Very wise man, Hitchcock. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Dec 1 14:35:39 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 14:35:39 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143836 leslie41 wrote: > But should my instincts fail me, and should Snape actually > be "bad," the child reading the story would just think "Oh of > course Snape is evil. He's ugly and not very nice. Harry was > right about him all along." > > The child would then feel vindicated in their assessment of Snape, > which is an assessment that draws mostly on surface demeanor and > appearance. The "lesson" there that's reinforced is that people > who aren't nice and aren't attractive don't usually turn out to be > good. But it isn't based on appearance, at least not totally. Hagrid isn't exactly a beauty plate, and neither is Lupin or Molly Weasley or Dumbledore or McGonnagall. It is based on Snape's attitudes and actions, and that most definitely means he is not good. He is, in fact, guilty of child abuse, if not in its most flagrant form. I think the much more insidious and harmful message would be: "It's okay if someone is nasty and hateful and abusive as long as they do good in the world." Absolute and total nonsense - and also not something I think JKR believes. Which, I think, is one reason that many of us see various versions of Grey!Snape. Grey!Snape allows him to do genuine good without denying or excusing the evil, or releasing him from punishment for it. Which teaches the valuable lesson that "yes, nasty people can do good, but they are still nasty, and that is still very wrong and must be dealt with." Which would be a much more valuable lesson than "nice isn't the same as good." Lupinlore From kelleyaynn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 16:20:29 2005 From: kelleyaynn at yahoo.com (kelleyaynn) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:20:29 -0000 Subject: Using the Mirror of Erised to find Horcruxes (was Re: Harry's Army) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143837 In all of the posts on this topic I may have missed this, but the biggest problem I see for the Mirror helping Harry find the horcruxes is if that were possible, why didn't/couldn't Dumbledore use it as well? I'm pretty sure we haven't seen the last of the mirror of erised, but I don't think it will provide any direct help in finding the horcruxes. Kelleyaynn From kelleyaynn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 16:23:19 2005 From: kelleyaynn at yahoo.com (kelleyaynn) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:23:19 -0000 Subject: The Marauder's Map In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143838 aanchalmehra7 wrote: > In the 3rd book of HP Series Fred and George gave Harry the > Marauder's Map which they had stolen from Argus Filch's office, if > Filch did'not know how do use the map then how come Fred and George > were able to say the exact words which revealed the secret of the > Marauder's Map? What about the fact that Moody borrows the map in GoF? I've gone back to the book and as far as I can find (or not), the map is never given back to Harry. Yet it shows up again in OotP without explanation. Kelleyaynn From va32h at comcast.net Thu Dec 1 14:37:56 2005 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 14:37:56 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143839 Leslie wrote: > But I'm in favor of keeping things in perspective. A huge amount of > scorn gets heaped on Snape, and everyone claims he's "abusive." va32h: "everyone" doesn't - I haven't said two words about Snape, as a teacher. Leslie again: > The "what of it?" that you bring > up is really a great question. Well, I'll tell you why I brought it up. This whole discussion about Hagrid & animals was reminding me of Senior Honors English class way back in high school. My teacher was always pounding into our heads - "literary analysis is about explanations, not just identifications". It isn't enough to say "the author uses lots of spider imagery and here are examples" or "this character is reprehensible and here are examples" without explaining why that is meaningful to the story. A lenghty debate on whether or not Hagrid is a good teacher should at least include discussion of whether it serves the story better to have Hagrid be a good teacher (or not). va32h From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Thu Dec 1 17:42:02 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 18:42:02 +0100 Subject: Punishment for Snape, evil Slytherins, and the crux of Harry's perception References: Message-ID: <00b401c5f69e$8a92cf70$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 143840 I'm quite sure that most of the list members know about the problem I want to bring up. But while reading several posts concerning Snape's actions and why they or not deserve punishment, and concerning the role of Slytherin in Hogwarts and the wizards' world, I somewhat have the impression that we all tend to forget about it. So, the easy enough truth is, nearly all we learn about the Potterverse, we learn through the eyes of Harry Potter. And although he is truthful and fair-minded, his impressions are quite often wrong, superficial or at least inaccurate. Have a look on the lessons with Snape. Snape dislikes Harry and vice versa - we can take this for granted. Gryffindors are bound to dislike Slytherins and vice versa. So, what do we see? The House teacher of Slytherin and Harry. And we see Snape being unfair, insulting, sometimes abusive with Harry and his friends. But we should not take *this* for granted. If there is any situation we should expect selective perception from Harry, than this is it. We have no hidden camera in Snape's dungeon. If we had, I'm sure we would see Snape much less unfair, insulting and abusive than he is in the perception of Harry. By all means, we should not judge Snape alone on what Harry thinks he is acting. The same with Slytherin. Yes, all Slytherins, with exception of Slughorn, are presented as more or less 'evil', better say unkind, some nasty folk. But again, this is the perception of Harry, the Gryffindor, Harry, who hates Snape. I'm quite sure, that in 'reality' not all Slytherins were in Umbridge's IS, and there would have been trustful Slytherins that would have joined the DA, if only someone would have asked them. I just wanted to recall this to all of us, because it is quite normal to forget about it when we read the books. Miles From va32h at comcast.net Thu Dec 1 15:23:42 2005 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 15:23:42 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143841 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: >Well, that's a good point. But remember Rowling's readership. > She's not really thinking mostly about the "lesson" adults will get, > and that's a very sophisitcated "adult" take on it I think. va32h: But who is Rowling's readership, at least now? Hasn't she said she expects the readers to age with the characters? That would make her target audience 17-18; who ought to be capable of a few adult takes on subjects. I would be highly disappointed if JKR pandered to the youngest possible audience, and provided an outcome merely for the sake of the "good moral" involved. Leslie writes: > The child would then feel vindicated in their assessment of Snape, > which is an assessment that draws mostly on surface demeanor and > appearance. The "lesson" there that's reinforced is that people >who aren't nice and aren't attractive don't usually turn out to be > good. va32h: I disagree that this would be the lesson. We've seen several good characters who are not conventionally "attractive" (Luna, Neville, Moody, Arabella Figg, Molly and Arthur, Hagrid, Madam Maxime - none of them are going to win any Beauty contests, and some of them are downright scary looking). Even the Trio are not described as being especially physically good looking. Harry is skinny with untidy hair. Hermione has bushy hair and is hidden behind piles of books. Ron is tall and gangly with freckles. Characters that are specifically described as beautiful have failings. Lockhart - need I say more? Fleur is rather snobby, and Cho - Harry was attracted to her looks and found her personality lacking. It's telling that although Pansy Parkinson tells us that Ginny is considered very attractive, Harry never does. What attracts Harry to Ginny is apparently NOT her looks, as clearly was the case with Cho. In fact, very few characters are described using the qualifers ugly OR beautiful. Most characters are simply - described. This height, that kind of nose, etc. And it is left up to the reader to assess whether the description qualifies as attractive or not. Leslie writes: > The far more valuable lesson for a child would be to demonstrate > that often times "nice" has absolutely nothing to do with "good," > that the two are entirely separate things. That "nice" people can > and do seemingly mean things all the time, and that when you >examine the actions of people who seem very cranky and mean at >first glance you find someone who has in truth done a lot of good. va32h: I think that lesson is already in the books. The Trio do all kinds of "not nice" things! My daughter is 9 - she has commented to me that while she knows that Ron is supposed to be one of the heroes, she doesn't think he is a very nice person. She doesn't like the way he insults girls, and Hermione in particular. Speaking of Hermione, our heroine has kidnapped someone (Rita Skeeter) attacked a teacher (Snape) and attempted to kill a Ministry of Magic employee (Umbridge). Sirius Black is a "good guy" who was even once an attractive good guy too - but he has numerous flaws. Recklessness, a cruel streak, irrationality to name a few. Draco is not "nice". But we are shown he is not capable of evil - when push came to shove, he couldn't kill Dumbledore. Slughorn is a Slytherin - but he's no Death Eater, and is horribly ashamed at the part he played in Voldemort's success. Unfortunately, the perspective of the books does not allow us to see more of the "other side" Leslie writes: > A child who is presented with an evil Snape at the end of Book VII > gets the message that it's okay to judge a book by its cover, and I > don't think that's the message Rowling wants to send. va32h: With characters like Lupin, Slughorn, Moody, and Umbridge, how can you possibly suggest that JKR hasn't already delivered the message "you can't judge a book by its cover"? Snape is not the be-all and end-all of the books. Every lesson JKR wants to send doesn't have to be delivered via Snape. There is a world of other characters who already embody the lessons that Snape's redemption could teach. I don't particularly care one way or the other whether Snape is ultimately good or evil. It will serve the story well either way. But it isn't all about Snape. va32h, who has never really been that into Snape in the first place. From leslie41 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 17:57:29 2005 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:57:29 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: <001701c5f689$6bb98540$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143842 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > Lupin is described as shabby and worn looking. definitely not a handsome > hunk. But except for a couple people who have a different take on him, he's > generally believed to be a good guy. "Shabby and worn" is one thing, and that's definitely true about Lupin. But it's mostly that he's tired, and poor. We're not supposed to be repulsed by him physically. That's not true with Snape. I would say some variant of this with all your other examples of "good" guys. > > Now let's take the so-called bad guys. > > The impression I get from reading the series is that the Malfoys are not > only rich and well-connected, but that they are all very attractive. > Perfect hair, well-groomed. i've always had the sense that Narcissa is > beautiful, and Draco is probably a very handsome boy. Lucius too. And > Lucius is most definitely a death eater who purposely put that diary in > Ginny's books. Not very nice. Well, that seems more like an opinion formed by the movies than the books. Draco is not an attractive kid. He's pale and he has a pointy face. He's a bit ferret-y. His father is the same. > > Bella seems to be attractive too, though her attitude and demeanor > seem to put even her fellow death eaters off. Bella WAS attractive. She's not anymore after Azkaban. > But let's move to the big bad guy, good old Voldemort himself. Tom Riddle > is described as very handsome, very charming. He knew how to say and do the > right things to charm everyone around him. everyone but Dumbledore fell > under his charm at school. He was so well liked, that everyone but > Dumbledore accepted his words about Hagrid being the one who released the > monster that killed Myrtle. Through the first war, he still had his Riddle > body and was most likely to draw people to him with his looks and his charm. > He's the evil in the series, and he's the most physically attractive > character in the bunch. Come on now. You think that's what children call to mind when they think of Voldemort? Tom Riddle? No. They're going to think of the bloody-eyed man who visited Dumbledore to ask for a teaching position. The slit-eyed scaly monstrosity he is at the beginning of GoF. The slit-nostriled skeletal monstrosity that emerges at the end of GoF. The snakelike thing at the end of OotP. Not to mention the talking head under the turban. We're most definitely supposed to be physcially repulsed by Voldemort. Leslie From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 1 18:05:58 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:05:58 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143843 Leslie: > > A child who is presented with an evil Snape at the end of Book VII > > gets the message that it's okay to judge a book by its cover, and I > > don't think that's the message Rowling wants to send. Nora: > What if Snape's bitter and resentful actions aren't cover? What if > they're the core, and not a mask? This is definitely not where I > expected things to go post-GoF, but the more I think, it may be that > we were deeply signaled from the beginning that something just ain't > right with a man immediately gunning for an 11-year old orphan based > on past factors. Pippin: It's laid out in canon that Snape wasn't gunning for Harry from the beginning. He doesn't even try to convince Bella of that. He claims that wanted Harry expelled, but there isn't much evidence even for that in the first book. Snape dislikes Harry at first sight, based on past factors, but is that so unusual? Even Sirius, trying to explain why Snape and James didn't get along, falls back on "James and Snape hated each other from the moment they set eyes on each other, it was just one of those things, you can understand that, can't you?" Snape looks at Harry and doesn't see "eleven year old orphan", he sees "the One" who looks, and appears to be acting, in Snape's prejudiced opinion, just like the arrogant, rules-are-for-other- people James. Meanwhile Harry doesn't look at Snape and see the man who, "at great personal risk" defied the Dark Lord and is trying to expose his servants -- he sees the greasy-haired, hook-nosed Head of Slytherin, which he thinks of as the House of Voldemort and of Draco Malfoy. They judge each other by their looks and their labels and they get it wrong. At least I hope so, because I don't think looks and labels are very smart. Even in an essentiallist universe, they don't tell you what a person is. And if the Hat is never wrong, is that not because everyone has something of each House within them? Pippin From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 18:22:42 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:22:42 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143844 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > It's laid out in canon that Snape wasn't gunning for Harry from the > beginning. He doesn't even try to convince Bella of that. He claims > that wanted Harry expelled, but there isn't much evidence even for > that in the first book. > > Snape dislikes Harry at first sight, based on past factors, but is > that so unusual? The strength and the persistence; yes, that's a little strange. Particularly from an authority figure in a position of responsibility to a clueless child. I'd be deeply ashamed of myself (and rightly so) if I'd clung to the immediate impressions I formed of my students, because they tended to confound them and grow in very different directions. But Dumbledore tells us at the end of book one that Snape's thing with Harry is pretty much about James--and have we ever gotten that denied? Don't we believe Dumbledore? :) I can't say that the arguments for how Snape's perception of Harry has evolved have ever convinced me, really. I seem to recall attempts at L.O.O.N.y word patterning telling us nothing coherent; wishing for something textually explicit has been a vanishing dream. I wouldn't disagree that there's a good deal of misevaluation going on here; but I wonder if there hasn't also been some accurate picking up on character, too. I think of how she comments about how children are very aware (and we're kidding ourselves if we don't think that they are) of how people can abuse power. I'm not saying that children aren't presented as having things to learn and needing to develop, but there *is* an innate moral sense at work in many situations, IMO, and Rowling associates it most strongly with Gryffindor. -Nora shrugs and just thinks it's how Rowling prioritizes things From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Dec 1 18:32:48 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 13:32:48 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals References: Message-ID: <010101c5f6a5$ac2834c0$2c6c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 143845 va32h > A lenghty debate on whether or not Hagrid is a good teacher should at > least include discussion of whether it serves the story better to have > Hagrid be a good teacher (or not). Magpie: I think one would only have to wonder that if one thought it was a flaw in the text that Hagrid was not a good teacher. My own interest in the thread wasn't to say that Hagrid is bad or the writing is bad, but that re-imagining Hagrid's scenes where he's competent completely changes the story. That, to me, was the point of the thread, that a Hagrid who isn't a menace isn't the Hagrid of the story--you lose the joke, lose the character, lose the grey areas of right and wrong and lose the developing arc of the way Harry relates to him as well. So I guess I would say we lose something if Hagrid is a great teacher whose disasters all come down to someone else, just as it is with all the characters in canon--this kind of thing is very common, for characters to be pushed more into the black or white area, so anything Snape has done that seems bad was really for the greater good if he is good, or whatever a bad character does has to down to some bad motivation because they are bad. Like conversations where you know that if anyone talks about someone being responsible for his/her own actions you know they must be talking about a bad guy, because the good guy's actions are always the only thing he could do under the circumstances--or it makes him/her human rather than a plaster saint (as opposed to making them a bad person in need of karmic retribution).:-) For me the more interesting moments in the books are the ones that seem to suggest that the author knows that's what's going on and is planning to turn it on its head eventually--though it doesn't always seem like that's the way it's going. I'm not talking about saying all the impressions the good guys have are wrong, but that they will get a wider perspective that makes them see things differently--that's more the way I think she's worked in the past. -m From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 19:04:29 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 19:04:29 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143846 Magpie: I said *beer*--as in, saying "it will be the last thing you'll do" is more the kind of vague threat I'd associate with casually talking to a friend to not touch your beer when you went to the restroom than a teacher supervising kids with wild animals where there was actual danger involved. This situation called for a far more detailed and serious lesson before the kids got anywhere near the hippogriffs--much less tossed onto their backs. Actually, they shouldn't be seeing hippogriffs at all, because they're far too advanced. a_svirn: My apologies. That was a stupid mistake on my part. However, your example illustrates my point even better. The meaning of our utterances is always contextual. When my friend says "I'll murder you" I know he's joking. If however, some desperate individual ambushed me in the dark and said the same words, while holding a knife to my throat I would be strongly inclined to believe him. There is no reason in the world why Hagrid's students should disbelieve him. He's an adult, a teacher, and they, moreover, have a "true and sensible avouch" of their own eyes: after all, hippogriffs do look rather ferocious and have long talons. The only reason Draco fails to get Hagrid's message is because he does NOT regard him as a teacher and a superior. For him Hagrid is an "oaf". A servant, an underling undeservingly elevated to a high social position, probably for no better reason than to spite the Malfoys. After all, it is a well-known scientific fact that the Universe is revolved around the Malfoy's Wiltshire mansion. Now, how can *that* be a Hagrid's fault? I am not saying that he's a good teacher, I know he's lousy. But the hippogriff's lesson calamity is a Draco's responsibility, and Draco's alone. Leslie: Faulty analogy. First of all, calling someone "simple" or "clumsy" is also derogatory, when speaking of a teacher anyway. Would it have been any different if Draco had said "I'm going to see to it that my dad gets rid of that simple, clumsy Professor"? Secondly, the word "nigger," at least when used by whites to refer to blacks, has absolutely no other use than pejorative. And I rather take umbrage at your assertion that the statement "our new football coach is a nigger" could be, as you suggest, "true" (though an insult). The word most like "nigger" in the wizarding world is not oaf, but "mudblood." And Lily and Hermione are NOT "mudbloods," any more than African-Americans are "niggers", if you get my drift. In other words, if someone asked me if our new coach was a "nigger," I would think the only response to that question would be a resounding, disgusted "no!" even if the new coach was Samuel L. Jackson. a_svirn: It would certainly be a faulty analogy if I had compared *nigger* and *oaf*. I did no such thing, however. What I said, is that relationship between *afro-American* and nigger is the same as between *simple and clumsy person* and *oaf*. And so they are. In both cases we have two signifiers for the same signified (*a black person* and *simple, unsophisticated person* respectively, one of them is neutral while the other has an insulating connotation and therefore should not be used or tolerated. And I am personally am at loss to understand why would you prefer to treat an insult as if it were a false statement. It would only mean that there *are* actually niggers out there, but your new coach, fortunately, is not one of them ? something, I am sure, you would not wish to imply. Taking up your analogy with "mudbloods" ? no one in the WW reacts to the word as if it were a charge to be repudiated. On the contrary everyone recognizes it for what it is ? an insult -- and reacts accordingly. The same goes to "oaf". When Draco calls Hermione a "mudblood" he got shouted at and cursed (albeit unsuccessfully). When he calls Hagrid an "oaf" he got slapped. A normal reaction to an insult. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 19:07:15 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 19:07:15 -0000 Subject: Snape: Crime and Punishment/ Will JKR punish Snape and Umbridge or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143847 Steve: Good and bad are not crystal clear. Right and > wrong is not an easy choice. JKR is a master of shades of grey, and > those realistic shades of grey are what make her world so endearing to > so many readers. Alla: I think I have to disagree here, sort of. I do NOT believe that morality in JKR's books is so grey as you seem to argue, Steve. The people are flawed, yes, but do you ever doubt where the major characters stand in Good v Evil fight?. ( Snape's loyalty being the one to uncover yet of course) > bboyminn: As I said, mean nasty teachers exist in the real world; and > mean nasty irrational people exist in the real world, these are just > harsh realities that we have to learn to deal with. JKR said as much. > > So, I use this as my basis for saying that Snape will never be > formally punished on-page for the way he treated Harry and Neville. > Plus, I think Snape's classroom action are too mild to waste page time > on. Yes, he's mean, but the world is mean, and you need to get used to it. > > That said, I never said Snape wouldn't be punished for killing > Dumbledore, and I implied that he would be karmically punished. More > on that later. Alla: OK, here is where I struggle. Let's put aside the "whether Snape abuses Harry and Neville" question for a second, because I don't think we will ever agree on that, but you DO agree that Snape is not treating them fair, right? So, my argument is and that is similar to what Nora argues in the other thread is that JKR LIKES punishing characters for the bad actions they are committed and NEVER lets them punishment free. Dursleys indeed are very good example. JKR did not forget about them, she made a nice humiliation show (IMO)for them to endure and that actually was quite enough for me to feel satisfied that they got what they deserved. I guess my question is why are you so sure that Snape will go punishment free for his treatment of Harry and Neville? Is that because you think that his actions are not severe enough to deserve punishment? But then even if you don't think that what he does is an "abuse" with capital A, my argument is that less severe actions were punished, IMO. Voldemort had not been punished yet, true, but do we have any doubt that he will be? I was very surprised to read that people think that Umbridge will go punishment free and happy that Nora brought up that quote yesterday. Jo says that it is fun to torture her(Umbridge) more. I have no doubt that Umbridge will get her dues, personally in book 7. Why are you so sure that Snape will not? > bboyminn: As I said, > Snape has doomed himself for all time. He will suffer to his dying day > for his act. When he walks down the street, if he even dare venture > out in daylight, wizards and witches will turn their faces away, or > look at him with unmistakable distain. Like I said he will be shunned > and alone, and being made an outcast in the society he so greatly > sacrificed for will be his Karmic punishment. Alla: Well, I will be happy with this punishment for Dumbledore's murder, especially since I am thinking that Snape wants to be a hero big time and most likely people will never think of him as savior of the day now, but will think of him as Dumbledore's killer. Yeah, that woud do quite nicely. But again I am not sure why are you so sure that Snape's treatment of his students will not go punished, especially when we have such a nice example that Dursleys did not. Really, one scene would go nicely. Ooo, maybe Snape's boggart will turn into Lily who will lecture him for how he treated her son and Harry will witness it or something like that. Steve: > Just because the many characters in the books like Snape and Umbridge > don't face formal accusations and associated punishment doesn't mean > the cruel hand of fate won't punish them in some karmic way. Alla: I offered someone a bet on different topic yesterday, but I am happily offering the same bet to you. Ten butter beers that Umbridge WILL be punished for her actions in book 7. :) And although I will not offer the same degree of certainty about Snape, based on how I read JKR intentions, I am offering five butter beers that Snape will be punished somehow too or will be apologising. It will not be long punishment or apology but it will be effective:-) JMO, Alla, preparing to buy those five butter beers for Steve. :-) From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Dec 1 19:04:58 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:04:58 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002101c5f6aa$20835bc0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 143848 I said: > The impression I get from reading the series is that the Malfoys are not > only rich and well-connected, but that they are all very attractive. > Perfect hair, well-groomed. i've always had the sense that Narcissa is > beautiful, and Draco is probably a very handsome boy. Lucius too. And > Lucius is most definitely a death eater who purposely put that diary in > Ginny's books. Not very nice. Leslie answered: Well, that seems more like an opinion formed by the movies than the books. Draco is not an attractive kid. He's pale and he has a pointy face. He's a bit ferret-y. His father is the same. > I respond: Well, actually, no, not on my part. i usually begin my rebuttal to the ugly means bad threads by stating that I am totally blind, but I didn't this time. Just forgot. anyway, I am totally blind and have been since I was five. i have been to the movies, but I have never *seen* them or the actors. So, all my impressions of the visual aspects of characters and whether or not they are presented as attractive come strictly from reading the books. So, my impression of the Malfoy family being attractive comes from the books. i can't even explain why, because of course, from Harry's POV, Malfoy isn't attractive or really unattractive. And yes, I was a child and read books with characters who were ugly on the outside and ended up being good or who were attractive and ended up being bad. in fact, it's a pretty common theme in much of literature, both kids and adult. So, yes, I believe JKR has made the point very well, that Voldemort began life as very handsome and attractive, and i believe kids will remember it. Sherry From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 19:30:39 2005 From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 19:30:39 -0000 Subject: Does DD understand parseltongue? (was: Saving Ginny (was Re: Lockhart's incompet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143849 > > Potioncat wrote: > In one of the Harry/DD lessons, toward the end of the book (I think) DD > says something sort of off hand. It's along the line of "you've seen > that Parseltongue can be spoken by great and good wizards..."[snip] > > DD understands Mermish, he appeared to understand the Parseltongue > memories, and he speaks in a language that Harry doesn't recognise. I > believe these examples would at least indicate that he did > speak/understand Parseltongue. Lyra's research service to the rescue: Here it is, from Chapter 13, The Secret Riddle. (p276, U.S.) "And he was a Parselmouth," interjected Harry. "Yes, indeed; a rare ability and one supposedly connected with the Dark Arts, although as we know, there are Parselmouths among the great and the good too. In fact, his ability to speak to serpents did not make me nearly as uneasy as his obvious instincts for cruelty, secrecy, and domination." (that's DD speaking, tho the attribution doesn't come until the next paragraph) I also took this little speech, in conjunction with the fact that he seems to understand what the Riddles are conversing about durng the memory, as an indication that Dumbledore probably was a Parselmouth. As I recall, there are only three known parselmouths named in the series: Slytherin himself, Voldemort and Harry. I guess Harry could be the one Dumbledore is thinking of as "among the great and the good" but it certainly seems possible Dumbldore is referring to himself as well. Lyra > From literature_Caro at web.de Thu Dec 1 10:46:09 2005 From: literature_Caro at web.de (literature_Caro) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:46:09 +0100 Subject: What exactly is the AK? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <995481832.20051201114609@web.de> No: HPFGUIDX 143850 I think this was discussed a lot around and it could be that the thing I am searching for has already appeared here: In book four the dead Riddles are all described to have the expression of utmost terror on their faces. This was of course due to the AK. But what with DD, who was also AKed in book six. His expression was written as if he was asleep, except for the weird angle of his limbs. Does this mean that the face of the killed ones expresses their attitude towards death? (DD said in book one that dying is like going to sleep after a very long day!) Or does he look like this because he agreed with his death (or even pleaded for it) to save Severus Snape? What did the Potters look like after their deaths? I am interested in your thoughts because I cannot make up my mind about it and I think it all possible. Yours Caro From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com Thu Dec 1 17:45:13 2005 From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:45:13 -0000 Subject: Lord Voldemort the Happy Chappy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143851 Goddlefrood: > My little thought regarding LV's happiness is that he was happy > because Snape was to give Harry Occlumency lessons and he saw his > opportunity to probe Snape's loyalty. MercuryBlue: I was thinking that Harry's glimpse of the kneeling Rookwood was something Voldemort was remembering at the time, not what was actually happening. The scene probably took place the night of the breakout. So Voldemort's insane happiness would be due to his new realization that he's got a vastly better chance at getting the prophecy and finding out how to take down the Potter brat than he had before. MercuryBlue. From agdisney at msn.com Thu Dec 1 18:23:53 2005 From: agdisney at msn.com (Andrea Grevera) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 13:23:53 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ministry storyline, Harry's army and Mrs Figg References: <020901c5f554$98b2f490$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143852 agdisney wrote: > > We can assume that Mrs. Figg is not really Mrs. Figg due > > to the comments that her house smells like cabbage which > > is probably a constant supply of poly juice potion. Miles: > Is there any information about the smell of polyjuice potion > in canon? And isn't the smell in Mrs Figg's house cat's smell? In SS pg 22 English version it says: "Harry hated it there. The whole house smelled of cabbage and Mrs. Figg made him look at photographs of all the cats she'd ever owned." I still think polyjuice comes into here someway, shape or form. agdisney From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Dec 1 19:41:40 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 14:41:40 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals/Crime and Punishment References: Message-ID: <013701c5f6af$423841e0$2c6c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 143854 a_svirn: There is no reason in the world why Hagrid's students should disbelieve him. He's an adult, a teacher, Magpie: Which is why he's expected to have take responsibility and have more control over the environment than he does. In no other class would missing one line mean you are in this kind of danger. If it did all the kids would be dead. He's not only the teacher when it makes Malfoy look bad. a_svirn: and they, moreover, have a "true and sensible avouch" of their own eyes: after all, hippogriffs do look rather ferocious and have long talons. Magpie: And yet Hagrid is sticking them on top of them and releasing them into a paddock with instructions to pet away on their own. This is the essence of Hagrid. Why do the kids even need a class if they're supposed to be such pros via common sense? a_svirn: The only reason Draco fails to get Hagrid's message is because he does NOT regard him as a teacher and a superior. For him Hagrid is an "oaf". A servant, an underling undeservingly elevated to a high social position, probably for no better reason than to spite the Malfoys. Magpie: Actually, he follows Hagrid's instructions that he hears. The main reason he doesn't get this message is that he's whispering at the time Hagrid says it, something Harry's done a lot in his classes without thinking any of his teachers is an oaf. Hagrid has his own problems listening to others. a_svirn: After all, it is a well-known scientific fact that the Universe is revolved around the Malfoy's Wiltshire mansion. Now, how can *that* be a Hagrid's fault? I am not saying that he's a good teacher, I know he's lousy. But the hippogriff's lesson calamity is a Draco's responsibility, and Draco's alone. Magpie: Hagrid's a bad teacher no matter which kid gets hurt in his class and how and why you imagine them to feel about him. And I still don't see this situation any differently than I did before, because it's presented pretty clearly: Malfoy has responsibility for his own actions that led to his getting hurt, and Hagrid has responsibility for all the things he did that led to trouble--which was a lot. Malfoy certainly listens in class now, having learned what could happen. The rest of the school continues to fear for their lives in his class. Hagrid continues to be pretty much the same. -m From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 20:33:44 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 20:33:44 -0000 Subject: Snape: Crime and Punishment -Nature of Punishment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143855 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > ...edited... > > bboyminn: > > > As I said, Snape has doomed himself for all time. He will > > suffer to his dying day for his act. ... > > ...edited... > > Steve: > > Just because the many characters... don't face formal ... > > punishment doesn't mean the cruel hand of fate won't punish > > them in some karmic way. > > Alla: > > I offered someone a bet ... I am happily offering the same bet > to you. Ten butter beers that Umbridge WILL be punished for her > actions in book 7. :) > > And although I will not offer the same degree of certainty about > Snape, based on how I read JKR intentions, I am offering five > butter beers that Snape will be punished somehow too or will be > apologising. It will not be long punishment or apology but it > will be effective:-) > > > JMO, > > Alla, preparing to buy those five butter beers for Steve. :-) > bboyminn: I think the arguement has somwhat fallen into the area of Semantics. Just exactly what constitutes 'punishment'. In some ways it seems that people will be happy if a person is merely confronted regarding his actions. What happened to the Dursleys in the latest book could hardly be called 'punishment', yet it satisfies many people's desire to see the Dursleys confronted for their actions, to not simply have the world ignore it, but for someone to speak it out loud and to their face. So, I have to wonder if we are really talking about punishment? I've already said Snape will be /punished/ for killing Dumbledore, and while people may not agree on the method, they seem to agree that my suggestion is sufficient /karmic/ punishment. So, again, are we really talking about punishment, or are we talking about a character's action not going unnotice and, more importantly, unacknowledged? As I read Lupinlore's previous post, I could see a situation in which Snape could be confronted about his actions. For example, Snape is desperately trying to convince Harry to accept his help. That leads to a row between them in which a lot of shouting is done on both side, and nothing is left unsaid. Would it be sufficient for readers, if a situation like this occured, assume the situation leads to some degree of resolution and cooperation between said characters? Let's shift for a moment to Umbridge. People absolutely want the evil and vile Umbridge punished. But in real life, few politicians ever suffer punishment in proportion to their crimes. Congress in the USA has pretty much insulated themselves from ever facing true justice for their actions. In Umbridge's case, wouldn't (or would) you say that Umbridge being dragged off into the forest by Centaur, an action that left her in a catatonic state, and with a deep seated fear of Centaurs, and a substantial lose of humility, was enough of a punishment? As Dumbledore might put it 'impaled upon her own sword'. That is, Umbridge's self-absorbed all-superior self-important actions lead to her being taken by the Centaurs. If she was smart and a good diplomat she could have probably talked her way out of it. But in her mind she is all-powerful and all-important, and the idea that the world ever would or ever could oppose her, doesn't even remotely occur to her. This I think is Karmic punishment. Umbridge was 'impaled on her own sword' of arrogance and stupidity. I could see Harry and Umbridge verbally having it out as some point in a manner similar to what I suggested for Snape (above). If Harry or one of the other characters close to Harry confronts Umbridge in this way, leaving nothing unsaid, would that satisfy you? Actually, I have visions of Harry going to the Ministry and saying I want this and that, I want free unrestrained access to Aurors, I want Stan Shunpike freed, I want free, open, and unrestrained access to all the Ministry's resouces and information, and in return, I will tell you what I think you need to know and when I think you need to know it. Would the Ministry accept such one sided terms for even the slightest hint of Harry's cooperation? I know I left Umbridge out of the above paragraph, but if Harry could secure the Ministry's cooperation under such terms, it could easily set up a shouting match between Harry and Umbridge in which Harry reminds Umbridge of her very substantial crimes and of the many witnesses to her confession of such substantial crimes. That would certainly put her in her place. In a sense, it would be Harry threatening her in return for her future restraint and cooperations. Would that be enough to satisfy people? Again, I'm in the same boat with 'punishment' as I am with 'abuse'. To hear people bandy this term about seems like overkill. But if you simply mean that in someway the crimes of the individual must be acknowledge and those people confronted with their crimes then I agree with you. Snape's actions must be acknowledge, not just swept under the rug and ignore. Umbridge's actions must be acknowledged and not just sweep under the rug and ignored. But does it actually have to be punishment, or are we simply looking for face-to-face acknowledgement? I would say that the scenario I painted between Harry and Umbridge certainly qualifies as 'comeuppance', Harrysoundly puts her in her place, but not as punishment. What say you all? Steve/bboyminn From heos at virgilio.it Thu Dec 1 20:40:38 2005 From: heos at virgilio.it (chrusotoxos) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 20:40:38 -0000 Subject: Why is Snape important? Re: What exactly is the AK? In-Reply-To: <995481832.20051201114609@web.de> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143856 I think that AK doesn't cause its victim to bear a particular expression. Your dead face simply reflects your last living attitude: LV probably revealed himself to his father and scared them all in a way or the other, and therefore they were terrified in the end. DD, IMO, 1) never feared death in the first place (see when he talks with LV at the end of book 5, "you always failed to understand that death does not mean a thing etc etc", quoting freely) 2) he was actually dying when they were on the tower (that drink in the cave didn't sound so harmless to me) and 3) was prepared to die because 3.1) he thought that HP had all he needed to kill LV (horcruxes, understanding of LV's personality, knowledge about his own power) and because 3.2) he knew it was important for Snape to survive. At this point the biggest question for me is, why is it so important that Snape should survive? Ok he's a spy, and so? I don't think that's all there was. And I don't believe JKR when she said DD kept him away from DADA because it could wake up his obscurity. The job was simply cursed, and DD needed Snape alive. Therefore, DD knew something big was going to happen in book 6, because he was prepared to lose his Potions/DADA professor in June. So why why why? What will Snape do? And what's his Patronus, and his Boggart? JKR said it's important and we'd find out, but now we have to wait...grgrgrgrgrrrrrgrrr! --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, literature_Caro wrote: > > I think this was discussed a lot around and it could be that the thing > I am searching for has already appeared here: > > In book four the dead Riddles are all described to have the expression > of utmost terror on their faces. This was of course due to the AK. > But what with DD, who was also AKed in book six. His expression was > written as if he was asleep, except for the weird angle of his limbs. > > Does this mean that the face of the killed ones expresses their > attitude towards death? (DD said in book one that dying is like going > to sleep after a very long day!) Or does he look like this because he > agreed with his death (or even pleaded for it) to save Severus Snape? > What did the Potters look like after their deaths? > > I am interested in your thoughts because I cannot make up my mind > about it and I think it all possible. > > Yours > Caro > From crypticamoeba at gmail.com Thu Dec 1 20:41:52 2005 From: crypticamoeba at gmail.com (CrypticAmoeba) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 15:41:52 -0500 Subject: What exactly is the AK? In-Reply-To: <995481832.20051201114609@web.de> References: <995481832.20051201114609@web.de> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143857 Literature_Caro wrote: > > In book four the dead Riddles are all described to have the expression of > utmost terror on their faces. This was of course due to the AK. This may or may not be true. Voldemort could have be "played with" the Riddle household before their killing them. The look of terror may be from other events. If Dumbledore was at peace with the events around him and how they were playing out it would make sense that he was at peace with his death. This also adds a little circumstantial proof for DDM!Snape as this only works if Dumbledore was expecting to die. CrypticAmoeba From redeyedwings at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 20:38:05 2005 From: redeyedwings at yahoo.com (redeyedwings) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 20:38:05 -0000 Subject: Another DDM!Snape pointer? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143858 Just off a re-read (must be 4 or 5 noiw) of HPB, and I found something I'm not sure has been discussed yet. I'm at work, so I have no book to quote from, but I puzzled over it long enough last night and today that I think I have it down. When Flitwick is sent to fetch Snape for the order, and whips past Hermione and Luna 'without even noticing them,' (all quotes are paraphrashed, sorry), and then they hear a thump and Snape comes tearing out of his office, Hermione says that 'they just let (him) go.' She adds (I think) something to the effect of "We messed up," and apologizes to Harry. Now, wasn't Hermione at least (and possibly Luna, though I don't think so) under the influence of Felix Felicis at the time? The potion that guides the user into making the right decisions -- I read Hermione's we just let him go' along the lines of Harry's decision, under the FF influence, that Hagrid's, despite his original plan, was 'the place to be tonight.' So, if FF acts in such a way that makes the user instinctively make the right choice, then doesn't it follow that there was a good reason (even if Hermione and Co. don't know it) that Snape needed to be allowed to sprint off to the tower without delay? If FF is REALLY supposed to make the user do the right thing instinctively, and Snape really is Evil and was killing Dumbledore solely for LV's (or his own) purposes, wouldn't the FF make Hermione (at least) act differently, at least by making her 'just shoot a curse at him,' without thinking, or act in some other way that would slow him up? Just wondering about it -- I think some of us might be able to take from this a sign that Snape was *meant* to get up to the tower to perform his deed, otherwise Hermione (and Ginny and Ron when he runs through the battle) would have thought that stopping Snape was, 'the thing to do tonight,' to paraphrase Harry's experience with the potion.... Wanted to get the question out there... redeyedwings From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 21:02:41 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 21:02:41 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Hagrid Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143859 Several threads going on now about Hagrid, and the Malfoy/Hippogriph incident. I'm going to make a general defense of Hagrid which will probably only touch tangentally on other discussions. Actually, I've posted this before, so to some of the old-timers, this in nothing new. Though I admit in computer time, that previous post was in the stoneage. Let's look carefully at Hagrid. He is, if not uneducted, then at least under-educated. He is a simple man with definitely no formal training in teaching methods. Dumbledore appoints him as the new Care of Magical Creatures professor, but is content to let Hagrid find his own way in the task. In a sense, I believe Dumbledore to be of the same school that I am, he (and I) believe that the lessons you learn best are the lessons you teach yourself. Revelation is a far greater teacher than explanation. Hagrid's real problem is that he doesn't understand his job. He hears the words 'Magical Creatures' in his job title and thinks it's his job to show the student 'interesting' magical creature. Unfortunately, and what Hagrid is missing, the opperative words in his job title are 'Care of'. Hagrid's job it to teach students the CARE OF magical creatures that they are likely to encounter in the normal course of their lives, and to priorities the care of those creatures from the most common first to the most interesting last. We see Hagrid trying several teaching methods. First, he introduces the spectacular Hypogriphs; extremely interesting, and to some extent a realistic and practical lesson... for NEWTs, but not necessarily for First Years. Next he tries to get the students interest in the Skrewt project. That's a prefectly valid teaching method, but again, Hagrid's focus is on interesting Magical Creatures rather that 'Care of...' general magical creatures. Each year we see Hagrid getting better, in Harry's OWL year, he does cover a range of magical creatures great and small, he is very forthcoming with detailed and relavant information, and further introduces the more advanced Thestrals. Certainly a fascinating magical creature. I predict that gradually Hargid will figure it out. He will come to understand that he is a teacher, and that his job is to teach CARE OF Magical Creature. Further that he is not a circus or a zoo, and it is not his job to simply display interesting creatures. I predict that in the future, once Hagrid sees what his true job is, he will set up a gradually advancing curriculum that introduces basic creatures first and advanced creature to more advanced students. I futher predict that once he has his 'legs', so to speak, his classes will become very popular and Hagrid will become a very well respected teacher. We have to understand the disadvantage that Hagrid is starting with and the many lessons he must teach himself first. Only when he has overcome these obsticals will his classes and his teaching become more popular. As to the Draco/Hypogriph incident, it was just a cut on his arm. I have no doubt that Madame Pomfrey heal it instantly, and that Draco milked it for all it was worth. As others have pointed out, it is probably Draco's distain and complete disregard for Hargid that lead him to NOT PAY ATTENTION to what was clearly an advanced and dangerous creature. Harry certainly didn't take that attitude. So, in a sense, it was really Draco's own lack of interest and attention, and his own arrogance that got him hurt. All the other students including Neville seemed to eventual get on with the Hypogriphs and have no trouble at all. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 21:25:39 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 21:25:39 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco (was:Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143860 > >>Lealess: > I came to a disturbing conclusion this afternoon, one which I would > like to be wrong about, so ... bring it on! > It seems to me that the Slytherins in the HP series fill the role > of certain traditionally scapegoated groups in our real life > society. > > That the Slytherins murder Muggles and non-Purebloods shows to me > (1) how deeply the author abhors them or (2) -- I just don't know - > - they've internalized the dominant society's view of Slytherins as > power-hungry? > > Suddenly, this really disturbs me. It is the "deserve what they > get" hatred that disturbs me the most, I guess. Honestly ? is > there a good Slytherin? And if there isn't, what does this really > mean? > Betsy Hp: See, I think the Slytherins are seen as the "bad" house *within the Potterverse*, but I don't think that view is shared by JKR. For one, not all Muggle murderers are Slytherin. Actually, the biggest known Muggle murderer, number-wise, is a Gryffindor. In many ways Peter Pettigrew is the best example of all sins usually heaped at House Slytherin's door. He's a coward, a turn-coat, a liar, and a murderer. I have believed, pretty much from my first reading of PS/SS that the so-called sins of Slytherin are really in the eye of the beholder. JKR's world is far too multifaceted for an entire fourth of the WW to be written off as bad. HBP, to my mind, has completely born this out. Draco is not only, not an evil child, he's rather nobly concerned with the safety of his family. Harry's "Slytherin side" is not an aspect of his character he needs to repress, rather it's something he needs to cultivate and use if he's to succeed in his task to take down Voldemort. (It's also, apparently, something he got from his mother.) I think it's rather telling that when the Sorting Hat tells us of the trouble that brewed up between the Founders, Slytherin does not receive the blame. All four fought amongst each other until Slytherin finally left. And his leaving weakened Hogwarts as a whole. This suggests, IMO, that Slytherin was not an unclean character who needed to be cast out. Instead, the Slytherins need to be brought back into the fold in order for Hogwarts to be whole again. What I think HBP did was instead of finding one good Slytherin, it showed us that Slytherins as a whole are just as good as any other House. I believe book 7 will probably drive this point home. > >>Lealess: > Hooray house unity! But I wonder if the Slytherins will have to > discard part of themselves to make it happen. > Betsy Hp: I think HBP has shown us that no, Slytherins will not need to "reform" somehow to rejoin with Hogwarts. Or at least, their reformation will only be equal to the reformation of the other houses. (After all, it is partially on the other houses that Slytherin was allowed to remain in their "outsider" status.) I think JKR likes Slytherin quite a bit. Perhaps second only to Gryffindor. I think she actually *does* like Draco and Snape, and I'm betting they will each show Harry that being Slytherin does not mean being evil. After all, Harry wouldn't be Harry if he didn't have such a strong Slytherin streak. (And Snape wouldn't be Snape if he didn't have such Gryffindor-ish tendencies.) I'm betting that when book 7 draws to a close, the Sorting Hat will finally be content. Betsy Hp (who blathered on a bit and hopes this post is at least a tiny bit coherent ) From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Dec 1 22:01:05 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:01:05 -0000 Subject: Snape: Crime and Punishment -Nature of Punishment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143861 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Snape's actions must be acknowledge, not just swept under the rug and > ignore. Umbridge's actions must be acknowledged and not just sweep > under the rug and ignored. But does it actually have to be punishment, > or are we simply looking for face-to-face acknowledgement? I would say > that the scenario I painted between Harry and Umbridge certainly > qualifies as 'comeuppance', Harrysoundly puts her in her place, but > not as punishment. > I think you are onto the heart of the matter, Steve. Confrontation is a very important part of the process. I would not agree, necessarily, that confrontation, acknowledgment, and punishment can be readily separated. Often, they are deeply tied together. Look at the situation in South Africa, where the Truth Commissions are empowered to forego jail sentences, etc., if the witnesses testify fully and truthfully about what was done and their part in it. The reports coming from the commissions are very powerful. A similar situation occurred in New England churches of the colonial period, where persons accused of certain sins were welcomed back into the church after they had confessed and asked for forgiveness, with a major part of the process consisting of being confronted and cross-examined by members of the congregation. But the testimony we have from those people (i.e. their letters and diaries in which they talk about the experience) indicate that very few of them regarded themselves as having escaped punishment. In fact, many of them said they would rather be whipped than go through that again (an exaggeration, I suspect). Now, as to the scenario of Harry and Umbridge or Harry and Snape "having it out," I don't quite think that would quite do. Let us look at what is so deeply satisfying about the Dursley episode (and what is so powerful about both the Truth Commission and the church examples). I think what pleases a huge number of people isn't that the Dursleys were confronted, but that they were confronted by a THIRD PARTY who was roughly a peer of the Dursleys (i.e. not one of Harry's schoolmates or age group). If Harry had lost his temper and had it out with the Dursleys, that would have been amusing, but what makes the confrontation an issue of justice is that a third person has taken up Harry's cause. Think of it this way -- the third person represents society as a whole. If you are confronted by someone who claims you've wronged them, you can simply dismiss their claims as being a personal disagreement between you and them. If, however, a third party accuses you of wronging another person, in some substantial way society itself is now involved. This is very important, because it emphasizes to the person being accused that this isn't just about a personal disagreement between them and one other person. And it emphasizes to the person on whose part the accusation is lodged that they are not alone -- thus providing evidence for trust in humanity and people in general, an evidence usually very much needed for people who have been deeply wronged and treated unfairly. So, to get back to your scenarios, to make them truly parallel to the situation at the Dursleys, and thus satisfying in the same way, Snape and Umbridge would have to be confronted by a third party speaking "for" Harry -- a third party who, moreover, Snape and/or Umbridge must listen to because it would be a rough peer. What was so satisfying about Dumbledore was he was saying, in effect, to the Dursleys "I, your peer if not your superior, am here to speak for a person I care about, a person you have wronged. It is not just between you and him. I, a member of the rest of humanity beyond your personal relationship, say that you have wronged this person, and on behalf of the rest of humanity, I hold you in contempt." And to Harry he was saying, "I, a member of the rest of humanity, care about you and feel that these people have treated you abominably. We, the people of the world, are not all like them." Oh, let me hasten to say to those who might object "Yes, but now Harry is an adult," that such intervention by a third-party, while absolutely necessary in the case of a child, is also very, very important for adults as well. And to those who say that Lockheart, etc. was not necessarily confronted by a third party, I would say that Lockheart and others were passing figures. Third party involvement is necessary where the wrong is repeated and longstanding, as with Snape and the Dursleys, or particularly grievous, as with Umbridge. And of course, Harry's status as an orphan makes intervention even MORE important, as he starts out cut off from trust in people and society. Dumbledore is no longer present to do this for Harry, so who else could? Who would be a rough peer of Umbridge or Snape who could speak out? Any number of people, actually. We expect Lupin to be a bigger player in Book VII. If he manages to shake off some of his reticence and passivity, perhaps he might upbraid Snape in a manner analogous to Dumbledore and the Dursleys. He would be in a great position to do so, as both a friend of Harry and a person intimately familiar with the Snape/James situation, as well as a peer of Snape as a professor and in age. McGonnagall would be a good candidate for this as well -- and would also be a good candidate to confront Umbridge. Another good candidate for confronting Umbridge as part of a Ministry subplot might be Arthur Weasley. Lupinlore From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 22:19:10 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:19:10 -0000 Subject: ..., evil Slytherins, ... In-Reply-To: <00b401c5f69e$8a92cf70$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143862 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > > ...edited.. > > The same with Slytherin. Yes, all Slytherins, with exception > of Slughorn, are presented as more or less 'evil', better say > unkind, some nasty folk. But again, this is the perception of > Harry, the Gryffindor, Harry, who hates Snape. ...edited > > I just wanted to recall this to all of us, because it is quite > normal to forget about it when we read the books. > > Miles > bboyminn: I'm going to make a very small and short point with apologies. You say, generally, 'all Slytherins ...are presented as ...evil', but that's not actually true. The truth is MOST Slytherins simply aren't presented at all. On occassion we see Slytherins, in general, laughing at Draco's jokes, but other than that, we only see a very small handful of Slytherins; Draco's gang and associates. I have always contended that while Draco and his associates are the most obvious Slytherins, the rest, and the bulk, of Slytherins are just kids like any other kids. They are going to school, keeping their head down, and trying to do the best they can. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 22:39:54 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:39:54 -0000 Subject: Another DDM!Snape pointer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143863 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "redeyedwings" wrote: > If FF is REALLY supposed to make the user do the right thing instinctively, and > Snape really is Evil and was killing Dumbledore solely for LV's (or his own) > purposes, wouldn't the FF make Hermione (at least) act differently, at least by > making her 'just shoot a curse at him,' without thinking, or act in some other > way that would slow him up? zgirnius: I like this thought, I do! However, even though I am kinda hoping for a DDM!Snape, I think there might be an Evil Snape explanation of this point, too. Namely, what goal is the FF pursuing? Maybe Hermione's decision was the right one for her to make because it is the one that got her through the night alive. Evil Snape might have decided the unblockable Avada Kedavra was the quickest way to deal with Hermione, instead of messing with Freezing Charms and such which she might counter (thus prolonging the duel). From agdisney at msn.com Thu Dec 1 22:42:02 2005 From: agdisney at msn.com (Andrea Grevera) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 17:42:02 -0500 Subject: Spinner's End ---- From a different perspective References: <438D1550.4010305@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143864 Bart: I just reread the chapter. I noticed (maybe I was careless, though) that the name, "Spinner's End" doesn't occur within the chapter. agdisney: Pg 21 HBP English addition says: Narcissa hurried up a street named Spinner's End over which the towering mill chimney seemed to hover like a giant admonitory finger. agdisney From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 23:10:11 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 23:10:11 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals/Crime and Punishment In-Reply-To: <013701c5f6af$423841e0$2c6c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143865 > Magpie: > > And yet Hagrid is sticking them on top of them and releasing them into a > paddock with instructions to pet away on their own. This is the essence of > Hagrid. Why do the kids even need a class if they're supposed to be such > pros via common sense? a_svirn: This is not an accurate account of Hagrid's first lesson. He did not release the kids to the paddock with only the "pet-away" guideline. First, he got the theory part explained ? that hippogriffs are proud, that one offends them at one's peril (on account of their talons), that one has to bow and wait for a hippogriff to bow back. And if it doesn't ? well, then "get away from him sharpish, 'cause those talons hurt". After this theory bit there was a demonstration with a volunteer, and a successful one at that. During the demonstration Hagrid did exactly what he ought to have done ? watched every move and was prepared to intervene in case anything went wrong. Nothing did, however, because his instructions were to the purpose. The petting bit only came up during the demonstration, after the first successful round. And only after the demonstration did he allowed his students to the paddock. They were all following his instructions and most were doing rather well. And those who didn't (like Neville) still adhered to the instructions and, therefore, were not in danger. Neville, for instance, did not succeed in receiving a bow from his hippogriff and knew better than to proceed to the next stage. From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Dec 1 23:20:09 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 23:20:09 -0000 Subject: Using the Mirror of Erised to find Horcruxes (was Re: Harry's Army) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143866 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kelleyaynn" wrote: > > In all of the posts on this topic I may have missed this, but the > biggest problem I see for the Mirror helping Harry find the horcruxes > is if that were possible, why didn't/couldn't Dumbledore use it as > well? > > I'm pretty sure we haven't seen the last of the mirror of erised, but > I don't think it will provide any direct help in finding the horcruxes. > > Kelleyaynn > I don't think that Harry's deepest desire would be to find the Horcruxes, so the mirror couldn't help him in that sense. He might see himself vanquishing Voldemort, or he might see himself with Sirius and Dumbledore again. His desire to find the HOrcruxes would be much weaker than his desire for those two things. In PS, he DESPERATELY needed to find the stone before Quirrell - Quirrell and Turbanmort were trying to kill him. At that moment, it truly was his deepest desire. I don't think the same would be true of Horcruxes. Allie From blairb82 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 23:32:37 2005 From: blairb82 at yahoo.com (blairb82) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 23:32:37 -0000 Subject: Unknown Horcrux Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143867 Usually I just prefer to lurk, but something caught my eye recently in a re- reading of HBP. I'm not sure if what I am about to say has been posted before so I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes. We saw in HBP that Voldemort came back to Hogwarts to ask for a job from Dumbledore, and that Dumbledore believed that this was not the real reason for his visit. Voldemort says nothing about what this might be. Others on the list have posted that Voldemort's reason for coming might be to make a new Horcrux, which seems possible. But what if Voldemort came to hide a Horcrux. We know that Voldemort loved Hogwarts, and knew all about it's hidden secrets, so why not hide a valuable piece of his soul in this revered place, plus the last place someone might look would be right under Dumbledore's nose. So the question is what Dumbledore hid and where. It seems fitting that he would put it in a place that you had to really be looking for to find - the room of requirement. When Harry really needs to hide his potions book that's where he goes, and wouldn't it be nice of JK to show us something that would be important in a passing casual matter. Looking at the scene where Harry hides his book, the one thing that stuck out for me was the tarnished tiara that Harry uses as a marker to find his way back at a later time. It's tarnished as it might have been there for a while and isn't said to have any distinct majical powers as other objects are. It's set up to be nothing but could be more. Plus when looking at rings, lockets cups and swords doesn't a tiara seem like something of Ravenclaw. As an added bonus we are reminded late in the book of tiara's when Mrs Weasley tells Fluer that the family has one that would be lovely for the wedding. It all seems to fit, something we've seen but don't realize, something that Harry has already been close to, but doesn't realize, and something that might pop in Harry's head when the wedding occurs. It's just a guess but I like it Blair From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Dec 1 23:48:59 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 23:48:59 -0000 Subject: Snape: Crime and Punishment -Nature of Punishment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143868 Lupinlore: > I think what pleases a huge number of people isn't that > the Dursleys were confronted, but that they were confronted by a THIRD > PARTY who was roughly a peer of the Dursleys (i.e. not one of Harry's > schoolmates or age group)... *(snip)* > "I, your peer if not your superior, am here to speak for a > person I care about, a person you have wronged. It is not just > between you and him. I, a member of the rest of humanity beyond your > personal relationship, say that you have wronged this person, and on > behalf of the rest of humanity, I hold you in contempt." Ceridwen: I was going to mention that Dumbledore is not quite a peer of the Dursleys, since they're young enough to be his children or grandchildren. They both have similar positions in Harry's life - caregivers, and (potentially but not realized in the case of the Dursleys) mentors. But, as you then mentioned in the speech, Dumbledore is also the superior of the Dursleys, I'd say he is an authority figure for them. Lupinlore: > Dumbledore is no longer present to do this for Harry, so who else > could? Who would be a rough peer of Umbridge or Snape who could speak > out? Any number of people, actually. We expect Lupin to be a bigger > player in Book VII. If he manages to shake off some of his reticence > and passivity, perhaps he might upbraid Snape in a manner analogous to > Dumbledore and the Dursleys. He would be in a great position to do > so, as both a friend of Harry and a person intimately familiar with > the Snape/James situation, as well as a peer of Snape as a professor > and in age. Ceridwen: Lupin is indeed a peer to Snape. And, if he gets comeuppance, then this is probably where it should come from. Judged by someone who has the same life experiences and similar background (Hogwarts ten months of every year makes for a lot of similarities) would probably have more of an impact on him, IMO. Lupinlore: > McGonnagall would be a good candidate for this as well -- > and would also be a good candidate to confront Umbridge. Another good > candidate for confronting Umbridge as part of a Ministry subplot might > be Arthur Weasley. Ceridwen: What about Percy? I think Umbridge has such a high-falutin' idea of herself that she'd dismiss anyone who might be considered a 'peer' (since, in her own mind, she seems to be above peers), but an upstart like Percy, who has moved up rapidly in the ministry and who is close to the MM at a relatively tender age, a bureaucratic prodigy that perhaps people talk about as having a bright career in the MoM, a threat to her if she and he don't play nicely together, might get her attention. And, it could figure in the Percy subplot while tying up the Umbridge loose ends at the same time, 'creating' space for other threads in the process. Otherwise, McGonagall as *approved* headmistress of Hogwarts, as Umbridge was not, would suit me fine. Ceridwen. From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Dec 2 00:18:40 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 19:18:40 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] In Defense of Hagrid References: Message-ID: <01ec01c5f6d5$f31b0b70$2c6c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 143869 Steve: All the other students including Neville > seemed to eventual get on with the Hypogriphs and have no trouble at all. Magpie: I remember Neville being the student who is having trouble. Malfoy himself is fine until he says the wrong thing--and yes, that's his arrogance being the thing that gets him, but what he does is also totally normal for a kid. He's showing off. I agree that Hagrid's trouble is that he doesn't really get what his job is and so is not really approaching it correctly--I don't think anyone has tried to claim any differently (at least not in a negative way). I would not say that his problem is so much that he's missing the "care of" part because he's fine when it comes to caring for the animals (well...sort of, since he sees all animals as pets, even wild ones). What he doesn't get--and I think the text has underlined this clearly--is that the class is about the students and not the magical creatures. All the students--students who are not just extensions of himself. Like when Hagrid looks out on the students being dragged across the grass and burnt by the Skrewts (animals created by Hagrid to see what would happen) he smiles and says "they" are having a good time--they, Harry assumes, being the animals and not the students who are angry and miserable. Just as Hagrid allows for the different personalities of the animals, it is his job to deal with the classful of students he gets--that's the main part of any teacher's job, isn't it? Not showing off your animals or doing your own Potions well, but giving that information to the flawed, often reluctant students in your class, be they the ones pre-disposed to back you up even when they don't really agree with you, those with a chip on their shoulder or those who are openly challenging until you establish your authority as a teacher--they're not rare. Hagrid, throughout the books, tends to see what he wants to see and not see what he doesn't want to see. Harry does not have this ability, which is what makes the class stressful for him. Hagrid may get this in the future and he may not, but I think the books have made it part of "who Hagrid is" to have trouble with it so he may not any more than Snape ever got over his biggest problems or Binns did. They're all still teaching--you don't have to be perfect. Canon says Hagrid has a real way with animals and can be a good friend to children--he can also be trouble to them. It has not shown him being a natural teacher or authority figure. He usually doesn't relate to Harry that way. His personality outside of class bleeds over to his class, just as Snape's does. He's got this funny thing about animals and kids often have to help him with his problems. a_svirn: This is not an accurate account of Hagrid's first lesson. Magpie: You're right. Hagrid should not be judged on the parts of his class that didn't go well. Hagrid's class was a resounding success that lasted fifteen minutes and ended with his students shaken, crying or bleeding--but that's no concern of the teacher's. The fact that Hagrid is continually described as a bit mental about animals and this wasn't the first time he sent a kid to the infirmary or the last time he sent kids running for cover and that the text outright says how much better the class is with a different teacher certainly could not at all suggest that Hagrid did anything wrong that first day when he brought the herd advanced deadly animals and the kid with the big house we don't like got hurt. No one could possibly have forseen that. Really, Malfoy should have been expelled for ruining Hagrid's first day as teacher. -m From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Dec 2 01:11:28 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 01:11:28 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143870 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > Let's look carefully at Hagrid. He is, if not uneducted, then at least > under-educated. He is a simple man with definitely no formal training > in teaching methods. Hickengruendler: That's why he shouldn't teach. At least not without some training. Actually, you are right that you can hardly blame him. Dumbledore either shouldn't have appointed him as a teacher or at least he should have somehow helped him. Steve: Dumbledore appoints him as the new Care of > Magical Creatures professor, but is content to let Hagrid find his own > way in the task. In a sense, I believe Dumbledore to be of the same > school that I am, he (and I) believe that the lessons you learn best > are the lessons you teach yourself. Revelation is a far greater > teacher than explanation. Hickengruendler: I can't agree with this. At least not in this special case. Because Dumbledore's strategy here endagers the students. It's maybe one thing to throw Hagrid in the arena without any guidance, assuming that he'll learn from his experiences. But this should never lead to any student being endangered. Sorry, but if Dumbledore put Hagrid above the students, he simply has his priorities wrong. As the Hogwarts headmaster, the students should come first for Dumbledore. Hagrid should have some proper training before being let loose on the students. Steve: > Each year we see Hagrid getting better, Hickengruendler: IMO, the Skrewts were the absolute low-point. What bothers me here is that Hagrid bred them, meaning they probably didn't even exist prior to that. Therefore the students had to endure them, just because Hagrid experimented a bit with some creatures. He really cannot complain that nobody wanted to continue his classes. Who would? Steve: > As to the Draco/Hypogriph incident, it was just a cut on his arm. I > have no doubt that Madame Pomfrey heal it instantly, and that Draco > milked it for all it was worth. As others have pointed out, it is > probably Draco's distain and complete disregard for Hargid that lead > him to NOT PAY ATTENTION to what was clearly an advanced and dangerous > creature. Harry certainly didn't take that attitude. So, in a sense, > it was really Draco's own lack of interest and attention, and his own > arrogance that got him hurt. Hickengruendler: Yes and no. While I agree with you here, that it was to a big part Draco's fault, I want to point out, that Draco was 13 at that time, and that the whole class was 13 at that time. They were teenagers, and it's a fact, that many teenagers don't listen, particularly in class. Therefore Hagrid still bears some responsibility for the injury, because he cannot expect, that a whole class of 13 year olds listens to his instructions. That's why the bigger animals are meant for the older students. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 01:58:25 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 01:58:25 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Hagrid In-Reply-To: <01ec01c5f6d5$f31b0b70$2c6c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143871 > Magpie: The fact that Hagrid is continually described > as a bit mental about animals and this wasn't the first time he sent a kid > to the infirmary a_svirn: Really? When was the first time? I remember only one time when he sent someone to the infirmary, or, rather, carried someone. Goyle even had to make up an unconvincing story about being bitten by a flobberworm for Rita, since there was too little real evidence for her to make the convincing "dangerous and violent teacher" case. And this is a notoriously accident-prone subject we are speaking about. Previous Professor had even lost a couple of limbs. From t2datizzang at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 01:20:22 2005 From: t2datizzang at yahoo.com (t2datizzang) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 01:20:22 -0000 Subject: Using the Mirror of Erised to find Horcruxes (was Re: Harry's Army) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143872 Allie: > I don't think that Harry's deepest desire would be to find the > Horcruxes, so the mirror couldn't help him in that sense. He might see > himself vanquishing Voldemort, or he might see himself with Sirius and > Dumbledore again. His desire to find the HOrcruxes would be much > weaker than his desire for those two things. > > In PS, he DESPERATELY needed to find the stone before Quirrell - > Quirrell and Turbanmort were trying to kill him. At that moment, it > truly was his deepest desire. I don't think the same would be true of > Horcruxes. Will: How about the Mirror of Erised being a Horcrux itself? JKR did say in one of her interviews that careful readers who re-read the previous books should have picked up on at least another Horcrux. I'm sure that we have to go to the previous books to pick up all the clues. Even Dumbledore tells Harry that the Mirror of Erised is a object of magical power. The giveaway in my opinion, is the two clawed feet on which the mirror stands. I don't have my book in front of me so i don't know the exact quote, but i don't think JKR would put it in for no reason. This leads me to think of the mirror as the Ravenclaw heirloom. Moaning Myrtle, i believe, was also in Ravenclaw's house. Could her death be the one that Tom Riddle uses to create that Horcrux? I want to say that because it would be hard for Voldemort to create a Horcrux out of osmething that resided in Hogwarts unless he was at Hogwarts at the time. The Diary Horcrux could have be created anytime and given to Lucius Malfoy. There is an article on Mugglenet that explains the whole theory much better than i did i believe. What does Voldemort see when he looks in the mirror? Most likely himself immortal. Well he's a step closet by making a Horcrux out of it. Now that we have seemed to discover a Horcrux from every book, do you think that JKR delibertly placed one horcrux in each book? I haven't had time to review the third and fourth book, but it seems that the first, second, fifth, and sixth all have a Horcrux mentioned in them. I don't think it's a coincidence that there are 7 books, and 7 Horcruxes. Feel free to respond! Will From radasgat at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 02:47:35 2005 From: radasgat at yahoo.com (radasgat) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 02:47:35 -0000 Subject: Horcrux in each book?Using the Mirror of Erised to find Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143873 > Will: > Now that we have seemed to discover a Horcrux from every book, do you > think that JKR deliberately placed one Horcrux in each book? I haven't > had time to review the third and fourth book, but it seems that the > first, second, fifth, and sixth all have a Horcrux mentioned in them. > I don't think it's a coincidence that there are 7 books, and 7 Horcruxes. > Radasgat: I like the idea that there is a horcrux in each of the 7 books. There's a logical neatness about that idea that appeals. But I don't think it holds water; and I don't think that the mirror is one of them. Seems to me that Myrtle was killed by the Basilisk, and even if the murder doesn't have to be directly from the wand of the horcrux creator, seems like the mirror would have to be in the bathroom at the time. Hmmm...maybe.. but that's a lot of stretching. Seems like we know what many of the horcrux's are already. The locket, the diary, ravenclaw's thing, and hufflepuff's thing. (sorry, no book in front of me and its been several months since I last read it). That's 4 already. Maybe we can attribute the locket to book 5. But the Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw objects were never brought to light until book 6. I think I better re-read book 6, its been too long. Radasgat From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 03:21:49 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 03:21:49 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143874 > >>Magpie: > > The fact that Hagrid is continually described > > as a bit mental about animals and this wasn't the first time he > > sent a kid to the infirmary > >>a_svirn: > Really? When was the first time? > Betsy Hp: Ron in PS/SS after being bitten by Norbert. Actually, Hagrid, more worried that Ron had scared the baby dragon, did not send Ron to the infirmary. And Ron, worried that he might get his friend in trouble, did not go to the infirmary. Then the bite became so infected and he was in so much pain, Hermione finally forced him to go. Which tends to support the "bit mental about animals" theory, IMO. Betsy Hp From h2so3f at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 03:23:35 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 03:23:35 -0000 Subject: Horcrux in each book?Using the Mirror of Erised to find Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143875 Will wrote: "How about the Mirror of Erised being a Horcrux itself?" CH3ed: I have no idea. It would seem that if the Mirror of Erised is housing a piece of LV's soul it should have helped LV/Quirrell find the philosopher's stone in book 1, ay? Will wrote: "Moaning Myrtle, i believe, was also in Ravenclaw's house. Could her death be the one that Tom Riddle uses to create that Horcrux?" CH3ed: I missed any clues about which house Myrtle belonged to altogether. Now I'll have to snatch back my copy of CoS to re-read for it. :O) Anyhow, I don't think Myrtle's death was used to make a Horcrux. LV didn't learn how to make one until later (he was older during the Horcrux chat with Slug). Also Myrtle wasn't someone LV would consider significant (being a "mudblood" and all. Will wrote: " Now that we have seemed to discover a Horcrux from every book, do you think that JKR deliberately placed one horcrux in each book? I haven't had time to review the third and fourth book, but it seems that the first, second, fifth, and sixth all have a Horcrux mentioned in them. I don't think it's a coincidence that there are 7 books, and 7 Horcruxes." CH3ed: Hey! That's quite a thought. Just something JKR would do. The trick is if she had done that she didn't identify them as DD did in HBP (Hufflepuff's cup, Slytherine's locket, etc). Now I've got to re- read all the books. Thanks for the suggestion! :O) CH3ed is wishing for a long Christmas vacation so there would be time to do other things beside re-reading all the books. Wish I know a wizard I can bum a time-turner from. ;O) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 03:32:53 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 03:32:53 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat as Horcrux? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143876 Carol earlier: > > We know that Dumbledore defeated (not killed) the Dark Wizard Grindelwald in 1945... > > > > I realize that this is all speculation, but why would JKR have Dumbledore defeat a Dark Wizard in a year of such significance to Voldemort if there's no connection? Grindelwald is carefully mentioned early in SS/PS, just as Scabbers and Sirius Black were. Chances are he was mentioned for a reason. MercuryBlue responded: > Since we've never seen the slightest reference to Grindelwald anywhere but Harry's very first Chocolate Frog card (and Scabbers and Sirius had a whole book and more devoted to them), I'm betting that this is something JKR put in without thinking it through all the way, and has since realized she did an oops and is hoping nobody will notice. (And where you point out that Grindelwald was defeated, not killed, I'd like to point out that 'defeated' means 'not necessarily killed'. I doubt Dumbledore did kill Grindelwald, but there is the possibility.) Carol responds: Sorry for being unclear; I meant that the card reads "defeated," not "killed," and I'm pretty sure that if DD had been the one to kill Grindelwald, the card would have stated the fact directly. I think that the date 1945, the same year that Tom Riddle left Hogwarts, is important. (JKR herself has made the connection between a war in the Wizarding World and the Muggles' World War II. How that ties in with Tom, I don't know.) Grindelwald is mentioned not once but twice in SS/PS (chapters 6 and 13), and JKR did her hemming and hawing bit when asked in an interview whether he was important, which almost certainly means that he is. (She did definitively state that Grindelwald is dead, but not that DD killed him.) If you want to read her comments, which to me imply pretty clearly that we'll get the back-story on GW in Book 7, here's the link: http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-3.htm I can't imagine him featuring in a book whose main focus is going to be Horcruxes and the road to the final battle with Voldemort unless there's a Horcrux/Tom Riddle/Grindelwald connection. No other wizard whose name has come up in the books fits the bill as the one both LV and DD knew of who had made at least one Horcrux. Previous experience dealing with GW's Horcrux may have helped him to destroy the ring Horcrux (though it didn't prevent the nearly fatal injury from the curse protecting the Horcrux. Only Snape's "timely action" saved him from that). Carol earlier: > > Its [the Sorting Hat's] opinions come from "the founders themselves." And sincerity (from a different interview http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm ) would be an odd virtue in a hat infested or possessed by a fragment of Tom Riddle's soul. > MercuryBlue responded: > Yes, it would. Just as odd as the virtues of courage and loyalty in a kid with a fragment of Voldemort (of his soul?) glued to his forehead. Accept the one, and you have to accept the possibility of the other, however slim that possibility may or may not be. Carol again: But I *don't* accept the one. I'm not sure why you think that I believe Harry has part of Voldie's soul in him. I've actively argued *against* the Harry the Horcrux theories. I think Harry has some of Voldemort's *powers* (as DD himself deduced), including Parseltongue and possibly some form of Legilimency (which he doesn't yet know how to use) or even the power of possession, which I've speculated may be the way he destroys LV (through Love or the Veil or some as yet unforeseen mechanism). As for Harry's courage and loyalty are apparently inborn, inherited from his parents as he inherits his Quidditch skill from James. Those virtues have nothing to do with Voldemort and were IMO present in Harry (as undeveloped potential) before Godric's Hollow. The one has nothing to do with the other. And I believe that the Sorting Hat has the Founder's "brains" in it (obviously only copies of their values and the gift of Legilimency, not actual brain fragments), but I don't think it's a Horcrux. (Arguments on that topic can be found upthread.) > > Carol earlier: > > The unknown fifth Horcrux (the tiara?) may have been created at about the same time and obtained through similar means, but I don't have a specific theory regarding it. It was certainly made before he began recruiting followers around 1971 because his appearance was fully altered at that point. (DD says that he was unrecognizable as the formerly handsome Tom Riddle when he began recruiting followers.) > > MercuryBlue: > (What tiara?) Carol: The tiara that Harry used to mark the place where he hid the HBP's Potions book in the Room of Requirement. (I've speculated that Harry might go back to the RoR looking for the book, find the Mirror of Erised there, look in it and see himself finding a Horcrux--that same tiara. Just a thought, a "shortcut" to finding the Horcruxes without taking a whole book to search for them.) Since the tiara is in Hogwarts, it could be the missing Ravenclaw Horcrux. For all we know, Tom could have placed it there for safekeeping (having hidden it under his cloak) when he went for the DADA interview. At any rate, it's a valuable object mentioned for no apparent reason in HBP, so it's probably either a clue or a red herring. (I hope it's a clue!) MercuryBlue: You know, he wasn't recognizable as handsome Tom Riddle at his job > interview. Carol again: Not quite true. His features were blurred, but DD recognized him. My point is that he didn't yet have his snakelike features, so he was either one or two Horcruxes short of the full six at that point. (I think but can't prove that making Nagini the last Horcrux and in essence sharing a soul with her is what made him snakelike.) > MercuryBlue: > Why would 1971 be the turning point? We have no clue what he looked > like between 1957 and 1995, only that at some point in there he got > uglier, having made another Horcrux (or two?). Carol again: I should have said 1970--eleven years before Godric's Hollow--which is when LV returned to England and started recruiting followers. (1971 is the year that MWPP and Severus snape started Hogwarts.) I'm just saying that the first change in his appearance occurs between the interview with Slughorn (which precedes any Horcruxes) and the visit to Hepzibah Smith to acquire the cup and locket. So he has apparently converted the diary (written on June 13 and perhaps other earlier dates in his fifth year) and the ring (no longer on his finger) into Horcruxes at that point. When we next see him at the DADA interview, his features are blurred, indicating that he's made the cup and locket into Horcruxes. (If I'm right about the tiara being the fifth Horcrux, which he hides at Hogwarts, then he's probably made that one as well.) When he appears again to recruit followers, he's apparently in his final transformation, fully snakelike and completely unrecognizable (except presumably to his original followers), indicating that he's made the sixth Horcrux, Nagini. (He can't have made a Horcrux when he was in Vapor or Fetal form, and at that point, he's already snakelike and able to drink Nagini's venom like mother's milk. Almost certainly, he made her into a Horcrux before Godric's Hollow, and I'm speculating that he did so before recruiting his followers around 1971.) If you're not familiar with the Timeline at the Lexicon, you may want to check it out. While it's probably not 100 percent accurate, it's quite close to the mark given JKR's known problems with "maths." (There's really no way to reconcile Charlie Weasley's age with the Gryffindors having lost the Quidditch cup for the seven years before Harry begins Hogwarts, for example. And if the Weasleys married just out of school when VW1 began, how could the gamekeeper not have been Hagrid and the caretaker not have been Filch? But those are JKR's inconsistencies, not the Lexicon's.) Carol, who's beginning to think that the "missing 24 hours" may just be one of those oversights or inconsistencies on JKR's part and not significant From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 03:34:03 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 03:34:03 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143877 > >>Steve/bboyminn: > > I predict that in the future, once Hagrid sees what his true job > is, he will set up a gradually advancing curriculum that > introduces basic creatures first and advanced creature to more > advanced students. I futher predict that once he has his 'legs', > so to speak, his classes will become very popular and Hagrid will > become a very well respected teacher. > Betsy Hp: I think the potential is certainly there. And Hagrid has a wealth of knowledge the students could certainly benefit from. But... > >>Steve/bboyminn: > So, in a sense, it was really Draco's own lack of interest and > attention, and his own arrogance that got him hurt. > Betsy Hp: If Hagrid shares this "I did no wrong" attitude, his potential will never be realised. Instead, Hagrid will remain the least popular teacher at Hogwarts; a joke at the best, hated at the least. Until, of course, an arrogant little thirteen year old misses a vital piece of instruction and is killed. Or a rare creature gets out of hand and is killed. At which point I think the board of goveners would have no choice but to step in and have Hagrid removed. Betsy Hp (who probably should have combined her posts a bit better) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 04:32:11 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 04:32:11 -0000 Subject: Snape's teaching methods (Was: Snape, Hagrid and Animals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143878 > Leslie wrote: > > But I'm in favor of keeping things in perspective. A huge amount of > scorn gets heaped on Snape, and everyone claims he's "abusive." He > does certainly hate Harry. But he has, as has been pointed out more > ably by others, a teacher who commands and receives excellent > results from his students, who monitors them every step of the way, > and who keeps them coming back even when they don't have to take his > class anymore. > Carol responds: Not "everyone" claims that Snape is abusive. (See my post 143797http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143797 for a similar view.) Some half dozen people on this list insist on the "fact" of his psychological abuse of Neville in particular, without considering that Neville melted *Seamus's* cauldron before Snape had said a word to him (other than calling his name in the roll). Also, despite numerous accusations by members of this list, Snape never threatened to poison Trevor, only to test the potion on him as a way of getting Neville to follow directions. He doesn't even mention poison until he has Trevor in his hand (and the antidote in his pocket), and he knows quite well that the potion is the correct color and that Hermione has been helping Neville to set it right. So, as I said, I agree with you that Snape is not "abusing" Neville. He's using an approach analogous to "tough love" because nothing else seems to work. Granted, Lupin's approach is more effective for Neville, but that doesn't make Snape's approach "abuse" (except by standards external to the WW--a dangerous world that coddled children would be ill-prepared to cope with once they left Hogwarts. Snape, who teaches the importance of following directions and handling dangerous potions carefully is the antithesis not only of Hagrid, who exposes the children to danger without protection, but of Delores Umbridge, who wants happy little students who learn theory because (in her view) they're too young and delicate to practice real magic. Another point: At least two of Snape's lessons, one from Potions class and one from the duelling club in CoS, have been particularly useful to Harry: a bezoar, mentioned in the very first lesson and reinforced via young Snape's Potions book, saves Ron's life; Expelliarmus disarms Lockhart, saving both Ron and Harry from having their memories destroyed, and Harry uses it again on Voldemort in the Priori Incantatem scene. So Snape's lessons have quite literally saved both Ron's and Harry's lives. I expect that some of his other lessons will also prove useful (particularly nonverbal spells--and maybe even Occlumency). Carol, wishing that JKR had left Snape as Potions master, well away from that accursed DADA position, and figured out a way to get Harry into his NEWT Potions class for Books 6 *and* 7 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 04:37:36 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 04:37:36 -0000 Subject: Snape: Crime and Punishment -Nature of Punishment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143879 > bboyminn: > > I think the argument has somewhat fallen into the area of Semantics. > Just exactly what constitutes 'punishment'. Alla: Could be. Steve: > So, I have to wonder if we are really talking about punishment? I've > already said Snape will be /punished/ for killing Dumbledore, and > while people may not agree on the method, they seem to agree that my > suggestion is sufficient /karmic/ punishment. So, again, are we really > talking about punishment, or are we talking about a character's action > not going unnoticed and, more importantly, unacknowledged? Alla: Yes, let me clarify first about punishment for "killing Dumbledore". I completely agree with you that Snape being ostracized by the society and hated by many would be nice karmic punishment, but ONLY if Snape indeed killed Dumbledore because he felt that he was doing a necessary thing and honestly felt that he had no other choice, not only that but if he is still loyal to the light. As you probably know by now I am very wary of sharing your confidence that Snape did both heroic and cowardly thing. My most charitable reading is that Snape was being a coward who thought first and foremost of saving his life and less charitable that he was being a murderer, but if you are right, yeah that punishment will be enough. It fits well with McGonagall comment that it was unheard in the History of Hogwarts that Headmaster is killed by one of the teachers ( paraphrase) It would be nice if in the Hogwarts A History Snape will occupy a place as someone who killed great Albus Dumbledore, even if Snape will indeed somehow help Harry. If Snape killed Dumbledore because he betrayed his trust, the only punishment I see sufficient for Snape is death. As to Snape being punished for his treatment of Harry and Neville, I do agree with what Lupinlore said . I would be very happy to see the acknowledgement of Snape's actions as wrong, but definitely by somebody else other than Harry. So, I guess I am in partial agreement with you Steve, I don't really need to see Snape punished as someone would be punished in RL for what he did to Harry and Neville, acknowledgement would be fine, BUT just acknowledgement to me would not be very satisfying ( and that is of course JMO) - I want to see Snape experience discomfort or what Dursleys experienced - humiliation. In any event, ANYTHING would be fine as long as someone else besides Harry confronts Snape AND Snape does not have an upper hand in such conversation. I don't know, if it would be Remus, I could imagine Remus silencing Snape and not allowing him to move till Remus done talking or something like that. If this conversation will grow into Snape throwing insults back, to me it would not be emotionally satisfying. Just going into speculative lands here of course, so feel free to ignore me. :) Steve: > Let's shift for a moment to Umbridge. People absolutely want the evil > and vile Umbridge punished. But in real life, few politicians ever > suffer punishment in proportion to their crimes. Congress in the USA > has pretty much insulated themselves from ever facing true justice for > their actions. > > In Umbridge's case, wouldn't (or would) you say that Umbridge being > dragged off into the forest by Centaur, an action that left her in a > catatonic state, and with a deep seated fear of Centaurs, and a > substantial lose of humility, was enough of a punishment? Alla: Sorry, Steve, but you keep missing my point about Umbridge. My point is not that I really, really want her to be punished, although of course I do and make no secret of it. :) My main point is that I am pretty confident that Umbridge will be punished. Why? Because Jo said so. I believe and again JMO, that Jo is that kind of writer, where contrary to reality ( where as you correctly stated corrupt politicians do not always get punished), she is not shy of giving their dues to the bad guys and those who are not punished yet, will be, IMO "MA: Are we going to see more of her? [Jo nods.] You say that with an evil nod. JKR: Yeah, it's too much fun to torture her not to have another little bit more before I finish." To me it is quite clear that Jo WILL torture Umbridge before she finishes the books. I am quite OK with that, you know, as long as the punishment is realistically woven into the plot. So, to answer your question, spending time with the centaurs COULD be nice karmic punishment, but since JKR said that more is coming, I personally can't wait. :) Steve: > Snape's actions must be acknowledge, not just swept under the rug and > ignore. Umbridge's actions must be acknowledged and not just sweep > under the rug and ignored. But does it actually have to be punishment, > or are we simply looking for face-to-face acknowledgement? I would say > that the scenario I painted between Harry and Umbridge certainly > qualifies as 'comeuppance', Harry soundly puts her in her place, but > not as punishment. Alla: Well, see above, we don't actually disagree that much, although we do disagree I guess on who will be doing the confrontations. :-) I also want to stay for the record that even if Snape will not be punished, I will not call Jo a bad writer. :-) I will just be disappointed, I suppose. :-) JMO, From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 04:45:03 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 04:45:03 -0000 Subject: Snape's teaching methods (Was: Snape, Hagrid and Animals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143880 > Carol responds: So, as I > said, I agree with you that Snape is not "abusing" Neville. He's using > an approach analogous to "tough love" because nothing else seems to > work. Granted, Lupin's approach is more effective for Neville, but > that doesn't make Snape's approach "abuse" .... Alla: But you DO acknowledge that Lupin's approach is better for Neville, no? So, if Snape is genuinely concerned with teaching Neville something, anything , why does not he change his approach? Why not compare notes with his colleagues and use approach that actually WORKS for Neville? There is always professor Sprout of course who could also teach dear Sevvy a thing or two which can help Neville perform better. That is the main reason I never bought and will probably never buy the argument that Snape cares tiny bit about Neville learning anything - because he SEES that his approach does not work and does not change. JMO of course, Alla. From aenea at verizon.net Fri Dec 2 04:23:16 2005 From: aenea at verizon.net (Jenny) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 23:23:16 -0500 Subject: Intended Horcrux at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c5f6f8$1fff1420$6401a8c0@waterdeep> No: HPFGUIDX 143881 Brothergib > THE SWORD! I think it would appeal to Voldemort to use Gryffindor's > possession whilst in Godric's Hollow. DD states that the sword is the > last remaining relic of Gryffindor's, but I don't think it was > mentioned whilst Riddle & DD chatted in DD's office in HBP. > Perhaps DD later reclaimed it from the rubble at Godric's Hollow. Jenny: But didn't Harry pull that sword out of the sorting hat in chamber of secrets? DD also says in book 6 that the sorting hat had been safely at the school, so the sword appears some 30 or 40 years after he was last at the school looking for horcrux items. Jenny From t2datizzang at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 04:26:55 2005 From: t2datizzang at yahoo.com (t2datizzang) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 04:26:55 -0000 Subject: Horcrux in each book?Using the Mirror of Erised to find Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143882 > Will wrote: > "How about the Mirror of Erised being a Horcrux itself?" > > > CH3ed: > I have no idea. It would seem that if the Mirror of Erised is > housing a piece of LV's soul it should have helped LV/Quirrell find > the philosopher's stone in book 1, ay? Will: I think the mirror only has the ability to show your greatest desire. When Quirrell looks into the mirror he sees himself presenting the stone to Voldemort. Voldemort does not/isn't capable of looking in the mirror, but i believe that he does know how to work it because he tells Quirrell to use Harry to get the Stone. We know that Dumbledore magically placed the Stone in the mirror, and only those that only wanted to get the stone out, but not use it could successfully get the stone. As we can see, you can PUT things in the mirror, or have it as the guardian of such things. You also see voldemort interfere when Quirrell is talking to himself and says something along the lines of "...should i break it?" If the Horcrux was inside the mirror, i don't think that Voldemort would want Quirrell breaking it. As for the Horcrux helping out LV/Quirrell, well Dumbledore has that spell on it, right? I also believe that Voldemort finds the Mirror to have great power and significance. The mirror shows him his greatest desire, and when he achieves it, won't he someday go back to the Mirror and look into it again? When you have achieved your greatest desire, what's left for you? The mirror could have been Tom Riddle's starting point, showing him his greatest desire of becoming all powerful, and pushing him along the way to the dark side to achieve it. It's getting late, hope this all makes some sort of coherent sense lol, if not i'd be happy to explain it again, at some normal hour of the day haha! Hoping to get a good discussion on Horcruxes going! ;) ~Will From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 05:25:25 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 05:25:25 -0000 Subject: Snape's teaching methods (Was: Snape, Hagrid and Animals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143883 > >>Alla: > But you DO acknowledge that Lupin's approach is better for > Neville, no? So, if Snape is genuinely concerned with teaching > Neville something, anything , why does not he change his approach? > Why not compare notes with his colleagues and use approach that > actually WORKS for Neville? Betsy Hp: Probably because Snape's method *does* work for Neville. In that Neville goes through his biggest crises in Potions in his third year. And Snape drags him through it. I'm also doubting Snape would spend much time chatting up the man who's helping a mass-murderer sneak into Hogwarts sussing out his teaching methods. Trust issues, etc. I'd also add, that I'm not sure Lupin was the best teacher ever when it came to Neville. He was still considered a DADA joke when Harry was teaching. No one wanted to partner with him anyway. I'm not saying Lupin was a failure as a teacher, by any means. But he didn't pull off any miracles either. > >>Alla: > There is always professor Sprout of course who could also teach > dear Sevvy a thing or two which can help Neville perform better. > Betsy Hp: Prove that he didn't talk to Sprout. Actually, tell me about Sprout's teaching methods. Canon is pretty blank when it comes to Sprout. I can easily see Sprout telling Snape (and Neville's other professors) that he's not an idiot and he generally lacks confidence and to not let up on him because even if he thinks he can't, Neville really can perform under pressure. > >>Alla: > That is the main reason I never bought and will probably never buy > the argument that Snape cares tiny bit about Neville learning > anything - because he SEES that his approach does not work and > does not change. Betsy Hp: Erm... How do you figure? Neville passes potions every year, his cauldrons-melted-or-otherwise-destroyed statistics decrease steadily, and his potions improve. So what Snape actually sees (if we go by the books, anyway) is a challenged student improving. If it's working, why should Snape change his methods? Betsy Hp (fourth post! Sorry!) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Dec 2 05:45:03 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 05:45:03 -0000 Subject: Sorting hat always right (Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143884 Pippin: > Even in an essentiallist universe, they don't tell you what a > person is. And if the Hat is never wrong, is that not because > everyone has something of each House within them? Jen: Harry is the only one we hear sorted and he does have attributes from every house: Courage, talent, a thirst to prove himself and a good mind. But then a little problem crops up--is he only considered for Slytherin because Voldemort put a bit of himself in Harry? I used to think so, but reading Dumbledore's explanation again, perhaps not. Except for Parseltoungue, the other Slytherin qualities in Harry like resoucefulness and a 'certain disregard for the rules' are all Harry, I think. And this idea fits with Jo's explanation that the houses represent the four elements which, if unified, create perfect harmony and balance. Because it does seem like Harry is a microcosm of Hogwarts as a whole--he splits off his Slytherin side, as the student body splits of Slytherin house. And if the basic drive is for wholeness and unity, then split-off parts will always clamor for attention, sometimes in negative ways. Jen From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Dec 2 02:15:29 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 21:15:29 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Hagrid References: Message-ID: <021901c5f6e6$4549e9b0$2c6c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 143885 Magpie: this wasn't the first time he sent a kid > to the infirmary > a_svirn: > Really? When was the first time? Magpie: Ron in PS/SS. -m From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri Dec 2 06:37:06 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 22:37:06 -0800 Subject: something else about Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001901c5f70a$d13bfbb0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 143886 Betsy Hp: Ron in PS/SS after being bitten by Norbert. Actually, Hagrid, more worried that Ron had scared the baby dragon, did not send Ron to the infirmary. And Ron, worried that he might get his friend in trouble, did not go to the infirmary. Sherry now: Actually, this made me think of the one and only thing that has ever really disturbed me about Hagrid. i love Hagrid, and I don't consider him a joke or stupid or anything. in fact, I think he's a lot smarter than some in his world imagine. However, having said all that, here is the thing that has always upset me. When the kids got caught after handing over Norbert, and they got detention and lost so many house points, why didn't Hagrid confess that he'd had an illegal dragon and that the kids were trying to help him by getting rid of it? i've always felt that whole thing was his fault, and as the adult, he should have come forward and said something. yes, the kids would still have been out of bounds and lost points and gotten detention, but perhaps it wouldn't have been as bad. Of course, then we might not have had the forest and the centaurs and all that. sherry From h2so3f at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 07:29:26 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 07:29:26 -0000 Subject: Horcrux in each book?Using the Mirror of Erised to find Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143887 Will wrote: "I think the mirror only has the ability to show your greatest desire. When Quirrell looks into the mirror he sees himself presenting the stone to Voldemort. Voldemort does not/isn't capable of looking in the mirror, but i believe that he does know how to work it because he tells Quirrell to use Harry to get the Stone." CH3ed: Well, before LV put his memory and a piece of his soul in it the diary was just a diary that couldn't interact with its reader. So I figure we can expect some change in the Horcruxed object's ability. In PS/SS Quirrell was the one looking in the mirror, but I think LV could have looked too. If I remember correctly (my copies of book 1- 3 are currently lent to my pals) LV told Quirrell to take his turban off so LV could look at Harry. Will wrote: "We know that Dumbledore magically placed the Stone in the mirror, and only those that only wanted to get the stone out, but not use it could successfully get the stone. As we can see, you can PUT things in the mirror, or have it as the guardian of such things. You also see voldemort interfere when Quirrell is talking to himself and says something along the lines of "...should i break it?" If the Horcrux was inside the mirror, i don't think that Voldemort would want Quirrell breaking it. As for the Horcrux helping out LV/Quirrell, well Dumbledore has that spell on it, right?" CH3ed: Yep, you can put things in the mirror. But I wonder if there was really a piece of soul in the mirror and then DD added a philosopher's stone in it, shouldn't there have been some interesting spontaneous reactions? After all the stone has life sustaining properties. I reckon a soul piece would do with the philosopher's stone what the diary soul piece tried to do with Ginny. Also wouldn't DD have detected the soul and/or the horcrux-making spells when he put the stone in? He must have suspected that LV had a horcrux or two hidden away somewhere since he knew LV did not die at GH. DD wouldn't have particularly suspected the mirror of Erised, of course, but seeing as he is good at recognizing traces of magic (as he showed Harry in the cave in HBP) something should have smelled fishy to him. CH3ed is skeptical about the mirror being a horcrux, but enjoys thinking about it. :O) From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Fri Dec 2 07:56:39 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 07:56:39 -0000 Subject: Intended Horcrux at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: <000001c5f6f8$1fff1420$6401a8c0@waterdeep> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143888 > But didn't Harry pull that sword out of the sorting hat in chamber of > secrets? DD also says in book 6 that the sorting hat had been safely at > the school, so the sword appears some 30 or 40 years after he was last > at the school looking for horcrux items. > > Jenny > I'm assuming that DD retrieved the sword from the rubble of GOdric's Hollow. Brothergib From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 08:15:08 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 08:15:08 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco (was:Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143889 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > See, I think the Slytherins are seen as the "bad" house *within the > Potterverse*, but I don't think that view is shared by JKR. For > one, not all Muggle murderers are Slytherin. Actually, the biggest > known Muggle murderer, number-wise, is a Gryffindor. Not even canonically: Voldemort is responsible for the bridge collapse (or a minion), and that killed more people. Even going on what ancedotes we have in the text, you get to stack that up against Lucius "always up for a spot of Muggle torture" Malfoy... > I have believed, pretty much from my first reading of PS/SS that > the so-called sins of Slytherin are really in the eye of the > beholder. All? Oh, my. I think she's saying that they're needed and not all bad, but she's hardly extremely complimentary: "...I suppose it's that craving for unity and wholeness that means that they keep that quarter of the school that **maybe does not encapsulate the most generous and noble qualities**, in the hope, in the very Dumbledore-esque hope that they will achieve union, and they will achieve harmony." Emphasis is mine, but that's not what you say if you consider their qualities to be of equal 'quality' with the others. She's said before that courage is the quality that she values the most highly, but that's obvious, isn't it? -Nora yawns and takes off to sleep... From agdisney at msn.com Thu Dec 1 22:26:41 2005 From: agdisney at msn.com (Andrea Grevera) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 17:26:41 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ministry storyline, Harry's army and Mrs Figg References: <020901c5f554$98b2f490$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143890 Miles: > I can add another detail: the inside of one of the tents the > Weasley's use at the Quidditch Worldcup is identical with the > interieur of Mrs Figg's house. And Mr Weasley borrowed the > tent from a fellow witch at the Ministry (I have no quote, > no English version of GoF at hand). We can be quite sure, that > this detail will be important. Maybe kind of witness-protection > programme? But I doubt, that there will be polyjuice potion > involved. To use it, "Mrs. Figg" would have to drink it every > hour, and the real Mrs Figg must be hidden somewhere - for some > 15 years. The canon from GOF regarding the tent reads: "He had walked into what looked like an old-fashioned three-room flat, complete with bathroom and kitchen. Oddly enough, it was furnished in exactly the same sort of style as Mrs. Figg's house. There were crocheted covers on the mismatched chairs and a strong smell of cats.." - pg 80 English version. It was like her house but not really her house. The taste of polyjuice potion is in COS pg 216 English version: "Pinching his nose, Harry drank the potion down in two large gulps. It tasted like overcooked cabbage." I'm sure I read somewhere that it smelled like cabbage too. agdisney From spillipha at yahoo.ie Thu Dec 1 22:40:28 2005 From: spillipha at yahoo.ie (Phillips) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:40:28 -0000 Subject: Coincidence? The Rowling code. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143891 Okay, I'm actually glad to find a group that isn't a bunch of kids, but I think, and this is a big think, that I have figured out where a lot of the characters originated and from that should be able to see where they are going, this could all be just one big coincidence or it could be a lot more, so bear with me: Basically, J K Rowling enjoys hiding plot twists in people's names, the obvious being REMUS LUPIN, everone knowning the story of the founding of Rome, and the story of Romulus and Remus, and Lupin meaning 'wolf' although I can't remember what language, I think it was Latin. Next we have Sirius Black, Sirius being the Dog Star and Black, well that's pretty much self-explanatory, again telling you Sirius Black is a Black Dog. And then the most obvious, when reading over it is TOM MARVOLO RIDDLE turning into I AM LORD VOLDEMORT. Here Is a Two that People Might not know: NAMES- Lavender Brown- There was a woman in 1964 who was believed to have been able to talk to the dead, she was called Rosemary Brown, basically the name changed from one flower to another. Rosemary Brown was said to recieve messages from composers (Beethoven, Chopin, Bach) to basically write the works that they couldn't finish in their lifetime, and experts have said that the styles have all been the same as the composers that Rosemary claimed they came from. Parvati Patil- At the moment I can't remember if it was the first or second name that was important, but anyway one of the names is shared by an Indian prophet, which is ironic because of in the HP books Parvati's favourite, (and best) subject is Divination, the art of predicting the future. This last one I only predict not incredibly sure but you can make your own mind up: LILY POTTER- (Evans) It's the name Evans that makes me interested in it because of JANE EVANS, who in 1976 was hypnotised and is probably the most famous case of re- incarnation, it was recoded and broadcast as the BLOXHAM TAPES. So it's been my goal for the last three years to get other people's views on the possibility that we will see Lily Potter re-incarnated. I understand that it's repeated a lot in the books that no spell can resurrect the dead, but what people tend to forget is that it also says that no-one can survive the Avada Kedava killing curse, plus it's said in the third book, that if a wizard saves another wizard's life it creates a bond that can NEVER be broken, well did Lily not save Harry's life? If anyone has any points of view on this subject, or any more "coincidences" e- mail me at SPILLIPHA at HOTMAIL.COM with your views and I'll get back to you. "spillipha" From redeyedwings at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 23:01:34 2005 From: redeyedwings at yahoo.com (redeyedwings) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 23:01:34 -0000 Subject: Another DDM!Snape pointer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143892 > ReW wrote: > > If FF is REALLY supposed to make the user do the right thing > > instinctively, and Snape really is Evil wouldn't > > the FF make Hermione (at least) act differently, at least by > > making her 'just shoot a curse at him,' without thinking, or > > act in some other way that would slow him up? > > zgirnius: > However, even though I am kinda hoping for a DDM!Snape, > I think there might be an Evil Snape explanation of this point, > too. Maybe Hermione's decision was the right one for her > to make because it is the one that got her through the night > alive. Evil Snape might have decided the unblockable Avada > Kedavra was the quickest way to deal with Hermione, instead of > messing with Freezing Charms and such which she might counter > (thus prolonging the duel). ReW again: Yes, I debated that theory too. It seems like an equal possibility. But then, the Felix didn't seem to prevent Ron and Ginny from engaging in highly dangerous combat with the DEs in the castle. And we also have canon that states both that the DEs they were fighting were using the AK (can't remember which DE took an accidental one) and canon on what FF does when its user is under an attack from such an AK (I believe it's Ginny who says that 'everything seemed to just miss us'). Which, of course, would indicate that should Hermione (due to Felix or her own pluck) have attacked an ESE!Snape and he decided to fight back, the quick AK would likely go as it did for Ginny and Ron and 'just miss' her. The fact that it seemed the right thing to do nothing at all, and just let him go seems to me to be the potion acting in the best interests of all concerned, just the way it let Ron and Ginny rush off into a dangerous battle, but worked to *luckily* keep them from taking serious harm. Hope that makes sense, ReW From aker21 at hotmail.com Fri Dec 2 06:05:49 2005 From: aker21 at hotmail.com (Sara) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 06:05:49 -0000 Subject: Muggle-borns and their parents Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143893 I want to apologize ahead of time if this has already been discussed, but I am new to the list and I just want to throw it out there: What are your thoughts of the parents of muggle-born witches/ wizards concerning their safety and such?? I know that in many fanfics there tends to be a common theme of these parents being in mortal danger, and also of Hermione not even telling her parents about the danger of Death Eaters and Voldemort, etc, so as not to alarm them. It really hasn't been discussed in the books, so I often wonder to myself how these parents may come into play. Is it not unrealistic to assume they have some sort of immunity from Voldemort's desire for world-domination? Much appreciated. "aker21" From leora at nycap.rr.com Fri Dec 2 05:50:43 2005 From: leora at nycap.rr.com (musicgal3001) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 05:50:43 -0000 Subject: Horcrux in each book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143894 Will: "Now that we have seemed to discover a Horcrux from every book, do you think that JKR delibertly placed one horcrux in each book? I haven't had time to review the third and fourth book, but it seems that the first, second, fifth, and sixth all have a Horcrux mentioned in them. I don't think it's a coincidence that there are 7 books, and 7 Horcruxes." Musicgal says: Well, I don't think so. Two reasons for this. 1) I have no idea where the Horcruxes are from the first book, the third book and the fourth book...the Mirror can not be a Horcrux because everyone keeps forgetting, but it's very important to this idea- Tom Riddle/Voldemort would hide the items because he obviously wouldn't want his soul to be destroyed by accident, or put into storage somewhere that he doesn't know where it is. Think about that locket. How many obsticles did they have to get through to even get to the locket itself? It won't be as easy as finding the mirror or something... 2) Seven is a magically powerful number-in fact, that's the reason Riddle chose to have seven Horcruxes and not...seventy-two or something. Most bording schools (that I know of), start at the middle school age, which would mean that there are seven more years of schooling. Nothing else... The Horcruxes have to have been with Voldemort after he became the Dark Lord. They would have to be hidden. We probably will not guess the actual Horcrux-except for the locket, which was most likely the horcrux that Rowling was talking about when she said we could find one in the earlier books. What we can do, however, is wonder where they could be, or who is the decendant of Gryffindor and Ravenclaw. Isn't anyone a little curious about that? We know Slytherin and Hufflepuff...I personally think the Gryffindor decendant is a Weasley. The whole "seven" thing comes into play again, AND they're all pureblood, AND they have red hair AND they've all been in Gryffindor...they also have special relics of olden times, like the tiara that belonged to Mrs. Weasley's great aunt or something. From t2datizzang at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 07:55:28 2005 From: t2datizzang at yahoo.com (t2datizzang) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 07:55:28 -0000 Subject: Horcrux in each book?Using the Mirror of Erised to find Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143895 > CH3ed: > Well, before LV put his memory and a piece of his soul in it > the diary was just a diary that couldn't interact with its > reader. So I figure we can expect some change in the Horcruxed > object's ability. There is no proof that the diary can't interact without the piece of soul imprisioned inside it. The Mauraduers Map can interact with the reader and there isn't a soul within it. I'm sure there is a magical way for a diary to interact, especially with Voldemort's magic. If the Mauraduers could do it, I'm sure Voldemort could. The Diary is only proof of Voldemort's direct line to Slytherin. > CH3ed: > Yep, you can put things in the mirror. But I wonder if there > was really a piece of soul in the mirror and then DD added a > philosopher's stone in it, shouldn't there have been some > interesting spontaneous reactions? After all the stone has life > sustaining properties. I reckon a soul piece would do with the > philosopher's stone what the diary soul piece tried to do with > Ginny. > > Also wouldn't DD have detected the soul and/or the horcrux- > making spells when he put the stone in? He must have suspected > that LV had a horcrux or two hidden away somewhere since he > knew LV did not die at GH. DD wouldn't have particularly > suspected the mirror of Erised, of course, but seeing as he is > good at recognizing traces of magic (as he showed Harry in the > cave in HBP) something should have smelled fishy to him. Remember that before HPB, Dumbledore suspected, but didn't know about Voldemort using Horcruxes. AND in HPB Dumbledore was wrong about the Horcrux at the cave, because it was a fake. Dumbledore is fallible as we can see here. Horcruxes are not to be detected by others I believe, if they were easily detectable, then there wouldn't be a point of making them. Even if Dumbedore did detect a Horcrux inside the Mirror, he would have to destroy it, then what's to protect the stone? Also sometimes, the most obvious anwswer (If Dumbledore did suspect the mirror) is overlooked as too easy. Why? Because the mirror seemed to be available to the school. It was placed in an empty room, where pretty much everyone could get to it. Perhaps Dumbledore is not strong enough to destroy the mirror in the first place, perhaps because the mirror shows him a desire that is still achievable. Dumbledore may not have the will, but the mirror shows Harry something that is only a dream. Harry's parents are dead and therefore Harry should be able to find the strength to destroy it. I still stand by the fact, that since the mirror shows Voldemort as all powerful, that it would be ironic/reasonalbe (haha) that Voldemort would use it to hide his Horcrux. What better place to hide a Horcrux than something that shows him as all powerful? There seems to be an element of superstition on using that mirror to make the image he sees a reality. Keep 'em comin ;) ~Will From brahadambal at indiatimes.com Fri Dec 2 08:18:21 2005 From: brahadambal at indiatimes.com (scamjunk22) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 08:18:21 -0000 Subject: Prefect's Table? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143896 I was re-reading the earlier HPs .. and I noticed that when Percy was the prefect, he always used to sit at a Prefect's table for the meals -- now, how come, Hermione and Ron always sit at the house table instead of at the prefect's table???? Thankx ... regards, scam. From h2so3f at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 10:14:48 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:14:48 -0000 Subject: Horcrux in each book?Using the Mirror of Erised to find Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143897 Will wrote: "There is no proof that the diary can't interact without the piece of soul imprisoned inside it. The Marauders Map can interact with the reader and there isn't a soul within it. I'm sure there is a magical way for a diary to interact, especially with Voldemort's magic. If the Marauders could do it, I'm sure Voldemort could. The Diary is only proof of Voldemort's direct line to Slytherin. " CH3ed: Not a proof, but I recall that Harry recognized it as muggle-made. So the diary was originally an ordinary diary. LV bewitched it to first become a pensieve, then a horcrux. So the magical qualities came from LV's magic (which, I believe, had DD had his hands on it before it was destroyed he should have recognized that it wasn't an ordinary diary). I just thought that the addition of a soul piece into the mirror should have changed its property or ability somewhat. Also, I think what really proved that LV was and is the heir of Slytherine was not the diary itself but the fact that LV found the chamber of secret and could control Slytherin's basilisk.... as demonstrated by the memory/soul that resided in the diary. Will wrote: "Remember that before HBP, Dumbledore suspected, but didn't know about Voldemort using Horcruxes. AND in HPB Dumbledore was wrong about the Horcrux at the cave, because it was a fake." CH3ed: Somebody beat DD to the cave horcrux, that is true, but DD was not wrong about the cave being the hiding place of a horcrux. I mentioned the cave to illustrate that DD was good at detecting traces of magic. What I wonder about the cave episode is whether DD detected that someone other than LV had been there last (if he did, he didn't mention it to Harry). He was talking about the spells that defended the horcrux and the cave, but I don't recall him talking about trace magical evidence of security breach there (how did RAB get in and out of that place without leaving traces?). Will wrote: " Dumbledore is fallible as we can see here. Horcruxes are not to be detected by others I believe, if they were easily detectable, then there wouldn't be a point of making them." CH3ed: I agree that DD is fallible and that horcruxes are probably generally made to be as undetectable as possible (or is it just the way they are hid?), but DD did find 2, the ring and the locket (tho RAB beat him to the latter). The diary horcrux was an exception because it was to serve another purpose beside being a simple horcrux. I don't know if DD noticed that the locket in the basin at the cave was fake when he scooped it up and pocketed it. He was very weakened from the potion and there wasn't time for him to discuss it with Harry as they escaped from the inferi. And then DD was really suffering from the potion so that he wanted to see Snape ASAP... and then he saw Snape...and, well,.... that was that. No more discussing things for DD. ;O) Will wrote: "Even if Dumbedore did detect a Horcrux inside the Mirror, he would have to destroy it, then what's to protect the stone?" CH3ed: Perhaps DD could have kept the stone with him? or at his house and use the fidelius charm to hide it? or the room of requirement (unless it was really true that he didn't find out about that room until the night before the yule ball in GoF...while looking for a bathroom)? Basically anything but putting the life-sustaining philosopher's stone in a thing that was also housing one of LV's soul piece. Also I really can't see DD having less will power than Harry does. After all DD was the one who told Harry not to put too much into what the mirror shows and that it is not good to dwell in what the mirror shows so that one forgets to live (I don't have the book at the moment so I'm paraphrasing). I find your theory about LV liking that mirror because it might show him being all powerful interesting, though. Hey, isn't there a psychologist among us (sorry, I don't remember who)? I wonder what he thinks of that. CH3ed likes the speed the net goes at 2AM...tho not the insomnia that keeps him up at such ungodly hour. :O) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Dec 2 10:59:31 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:59:31 -0000 Subject: Sorting hat always right (Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143898 Jen: > And this idea fits with Jo's explanation that the houses represent > the four elements which, if unified, create perfect harmony and > balance. Because it does seem like Harry is a microcosm of Hogwarts > as a whole--he splits off his Slytherin side, as the student body > splits of Slytherin house. And if the basic drive is for wholeness > and unity, then split-off parts will always clamor for attention, > sometimes in negative ways. Ceridwen: You know, it looks like ill-advised splitting is a pattern, too. Ignoring part of yourself; rejecting one out of four houses which balance each other; cleaving bits of soul alone fits in, then locking them away makes it clearer. So, the fate of Harry, and of Hogwarts, taken to extreme, is shown by Voldemort's unnatural appearance. Just a thought. Ceridwen. From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Dec 2 14:26:37 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 14:26:37 -0000 Subject: Sorting hat always right (Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143899 > Jen: Harry is the only one we hear sorted and he does have > attributes from every house: Courage, talent, a thirst to prove > himself and a good mind. But then a little problem crops up--is he > only considered for Slytherin because Voldemort put a bit of himself > in Harry? Potioncat: We have Hermione's statement that the Sorting Hat considered Ravenclaw. Hermione also has attributes from all the Houses, Slytherin not the least of them. Jen: Except for Parseltoungue, the other Slytherin > qualities in Harry like resoucefulness and a 'certain disregard for > the rules' are all Harry, I think. Potioncat: I agree, and very much like James. For that matter, we can't be sure the Parseltongue is from Voldy. While it seems logical, it aint necessarily so. Jen: > And this idea fits with Jo's explanation that the houses represent > the four elements which, if unified, create perfect harmony and > balance. Because it does seem like Harry is a microcosm of Hogwarts > as a whole--he splits off his Slytherin side, as the student body > splits of Slytherin house. And if the basic drive is for wholeness > and unity, then split-off parts will always clamor for attention, > sometimes in negative ways. Potioncat: DD seems to value Slytherin qualities and expects them to be used. Not only do we have the above comments from CoS, we have this from HBP, chapter 20. DD is speaking to Harry about his failure to get Slughorn's memory. "And you feel you have exerted your very best efforts in this matter, do you? That you have exercised all of your considerable ingenuity? That you have left do depth of cunning unplumbed in your quest to retrieve the memory?" There is no doubt that JKR esteems Gryffindor above the other Houses, but she also recognises the importance of the others. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 2 15:15:18 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:15:18 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143900 > > Pippin: > > It's laid out in canon that Snape wasn't gunning for Harry from the > > beginning. He doesn't even try to convince Bella of that. He claims > > that wanted Harry expelled, but there isn't much evidence even for > > that in the first book. > > > > Snape dislikes Harry at first sight, based on past factors, but is > > that so unusual? Nora: > The strength and the persistence; yes, that's a little strange. > Particularly from an authority figure in a position of responsibility > to a clueless child. > > I can't say that the arguments for how Snape's perception of Harry > has evolved have ever convinced me, really. I seem to recall > attempts at L.O.O.N.y word patterning telling us nothing coherent; > wishing for something textually explicit has been a vanishing dream. Pippin: Yeah, let's talk about the clueless child thing. Snape says in Spinner's End that he didn't at once see Harry as clueless but he does now. In fact his description of Harry as a talentless clod who gets by on luck and the help of others is oddly reminiscent of Harry's own in OOP. But the text, as you say, shows a much more consistent picture, in which Snape starts sneering at Harry's cluelessness with his very first roll call and continues unabated through six volumes and hundreds of pages right up to his grand exit, pursued by hippogriff. Except. Except for all the times when Snape suspects Harry of doing something no clueless child could do. Petrifying Mrs. Norris. Helping Sirius escape. Confunding the Goblet of Fire. Stealing from Snape's office. And most astonishing of all, escaping from Umbridge, transporting himself and five others to London at tremendous speed, and invading a top security area of the Ministry of Magic. How on earth do you start from the premise of clueless, talentless Harry and deduce that? Either Snape's thought processes aren't as logical as we've been led to believe, or he has a rather higher opinion of Harry than he's let on. Nora: I'd be deeply ashamed of myself (and rightly > so) if I'd clung to the immediate impressions I formed of my > students, because they tended to confound them and grow in very > different directions. Pippin: Ah, but you're not an essentialist, right? I don't think that JKR and Dumbledore are either. "Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater. [...] He is now no more a Death Eater than I am" sounds about as baldy and succinctly anti-essentialist as you can get, IMO. But *Harry* is an essentialist, IMO. He fears that if he was a clueless child when he got to Hogwarts, he'll be one when he leaves. *That's* what riles him so about Snape's insults, and that's why simply shutting them off at the source wouldn't satisfy me. Harry has to understand that he's not doomed to be what he was. Harry doesn't get it about Snape, he doesn't see how his father could have been an arrogant berk as a teenager and a hero later on, and he doesn't get it about his own self. That's what he needs DDM!Snape for, IMO. Not to teach him nifty magic, not to be superspy, not to jump out of the woodwork and save the day, but to prove to Harry that change is possible. I don't know how Harry can defeat Voldemort, but I think it will involve a choice, a choice which Harry can only make rightly if he believes he is a loving, knowledgeable adult, not a fearful, ignorant child. Nora: But Dumbledore tells us at the end of book one > that Snape's thing with Harry is pretty much about James--and have we > ever gotten that denied? Don't we believe Dumbledore? :) Pippin: I believe him. But Dumbledore tells us that Harry's pure desire to use his power for good is unusual. We believe that, don't we? :) I think if Dumbledore wasn't able to forgive those of his friends who occasionally abuse their power, he'd have very few allies left. And even Harry doesn't complain about the abuse of power when it favors him. When has he ever told anyone he didn't want the rules bent just for him? Nora: > > I wouldn't disagree that there's a good deal of misevaluation going > on here; but I wonder if there hasn't also been some accurate picking > up on character, too. I think of how she comments about how children > are very aware (and we're kidding ourselves if we don't think that > they are) of how people can abuse power. Pippin: Exactly. Children know perfectly well when Snape has crossed the line in his classroom. They don't need a sermon about it, and they don't need to see fire and brimstone raining on his head. I'm not saying Snape hasn't got humiliation and abuse in front of him. What else could he expect from Voldemort? But I don't see that Harry has to be the agent of it, or that it precludes Snape being on the side of good. Yes, the innate moral sense is associated with Gryffindor. But it is even more strongly associated with courage, and that is not an exclusively Gryffindor trait. Pippin From Nanagose at aol.com Fri Dec 2 15:59:27 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:59:27 -0000 Subject: Horcrux in each book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143901 > Will: > "Now that we have seemed to discover a Horcrux from every book, > do you think that JKR delibertly placed one horcrux in each book? > I haven't had time to review the third and fourth book, but it > seems that the first, second, fifth, and sixth all have a Horcrux > mentioned in them. I don't think it's a coincidence that there > are 7 books, and 7 Horcruxes." > Musicgal says: > Well, I don't think so. Two reasons for this. > 1) I have no idea where the Horcruxes are from the first book, > the third book and the fourth book Christina: Well if Nagini is a Horcrux (I don't like the idea of LV putting a Horcrux into something with free will, but Dumbledore seemed pretty sure about it), then she was introduced in book four. That only leaves Horcruxes for the third and first books. There has been some speculation of LV making a Horcrux out of Rowena Ravenclaw's wand, which may have been the way displayed by Ollivander in the first book. That's quite an appealing scenario, because it would help explain the reasons behind Ollivander's kidnapping. So all that would be left is finding one of the Horcruxes in the third book. Hmm...does there happen to be a reference in PoA to a cup, ie, Hufflepuff's cup? > Musicgal > 2) Seven is a magically powerful number-in fact, that's the > reason Riddle chose to have seven Horcruxes and not...seventy-two > or something. Most bording schools (that I know of), start at the > middle school age, which would mean that there are seven more > years of schooling. Nothing else... Christina: I think there might be a Horcrux in every book, but not just because there happen to be seven of both. Seven is a number that has huge significance in JKR's world, and tons of things are related to the number seven. The idea that there is a Horcrux in each book comes from JKR's frequent habit of putting things in the earlier books that come back later with a renewed significance, or things whose true meaning we do not understand yet (the most obvious of these is Tom's diary). She's done it with characters (Sirius Black, Dedalus Diggle, Arabella Figg), magical creatures (Dementors, Boggarts), and bits of magic (polyjuice potion, the Imperious Curse, Animagi). JKR loves to play with us, and it would be SO easy to hide her other Horcruxes in the books without us knowing. After all, if she hadn't told us specifically that one of the Horcruxes was a locket, we would never have given a second thought to the throw-away comment in OotP about the locket at 12GP. Now we can weave whole theories about that one line. I think of the Horcrux-in-every-book idea as running in a similar vein as matching each of the seven tasks in PS/SS to the seven books, or the seven potions bottles to the seven DADA professors. JKR writes in so many layers that I don't think it's far-fetched to try and make connections this way- that's the pleasure of reading a series that was planned out in its entirety from book one. > Musicgal > The Horcruxes have to have been with Voldemort after he became > the Dark Lord. They would have to be hidden. We probably will not > guess the actual Horcrux-except for the locket... Christina: Well, I think that just by chance a few people will guess it before the seventh book comes out, but I know what you mean. I think you're right, but that doesn't mean that the remaining Horcruxes aren't hidden somewhere in the books we already have. > Musicgal > I personally think the Gryffindor decendant is a Weasley. The > whole "seven" thing comes into play again, AND they're all > pureblood, AND they have red hair AND they've all been in > Gryffindor...they also have special relics of olden times, like > the tiara that belonged to Mrs. Weasley's great aunt or something. Christina: I think that they are a very good candidate (I think that Harry as the heir of Gryffindor is so cliche, but that's just me); however, you run into some thematic problems with that one I think. If JKR wants to make the descendents of Gryffindor thematically important, it'd be easiest for her to do if there was basically one surviving descendent (like with Tom Riddle). If the entire Weasley clan is heir to Gryffindor, then who steps up to represent it? Remember, it's not just our 9 Weasleys that are in the family; they have cousins and other relatives too. Christina From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Dec 2 16:03:56 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:03:56 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid and Snape's teaching method Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143902 > Betsy Hp: So what Snape actually sees (if > we go by the books, anyway) is a challenged student improving. If > it's working, why should Snape change his methods? Magpie: I think what it mostly comes down to is that this is Snape. Teachers are who they are in class, and for Snape when somebody isn't doing what he wants, he does what he does to Neville. I suspect he does a modified version for Crabbe and Goyle, though they don't have the same problems Neville does in class. I think Snape does what he does with Neville because it's his instinctual reaction. His instincts are different with kids he likes or doesn't hate, but this is his personality. Does he see it working? I'd guess anything he doesn't see working he chalks up to Neville being hopeless or still not listening--but I do think he probably does on some level think that this will work. I don't mean that he's got some plan or that he really wants Neville to improve as a student, but more that he is locked into his own logic about the situation. Snape's not exactly the type to always drop old patterns when they're not helping him.:-) How many people in the world usually gears when their natural first approach doesn't work? If Snape has decided Neville is hopeless he's not going to blame himself for Neville being a star student, and he'll probably take credit for Neville's success. Also, I do tend to agree with Pippin that, for instance, Snape's being Neville's boggart isn't about Snape so much as Neville. Hermione's boggart is a teacher too, saying she's failed everything. Now, I'm not saying they're the same or that Snape himself has nothing to do with why he's Neville's boggart, he does. But I think Snape represents many adults who consider Neville a failure and useless, and the part of himself that believes it and can't get away from it. It's funny in HBP that a lot of people think McGonnagall is great for saying that Neville's grandmother should start appreciating the grandson she has instead of the one she wishes she has--but dude, that's a humiliating thing for a teacher to say, isn't it? I suspect that's a lot more painful for Neville than Snape--Snape just takes all those unsaid things and says them out loud. No wonder Neville's so upset by him. There's times where I think the books go really overboard on the idea that Neville just needs "confidence" and will improve, but I do think that Neville has had less fear of Snape as he's gotten older, particularly after he's had some success under his belt and faced some of his fears. Actually, I suspect Rowling sees that as very important for all kids. Dumbledore seems to stress that with Draco at the end of HBP too, and it seemed like a good thing to do--Harry doesn't know why he's responding to Draco's nefarious plans as if they were an "ambitious homework assignment," but that's what it is. A boy, whether they are Draco or Neville, who has inner confidence because he sees himself do something on his own, is stronger and stronger is better. Not to draw too much of a parallel between Neville and Draco there, but they both suffered under their family histories in different ways. Just as Neville needs to stop seeing himself as not his father, Draco improves when he's testing himself instead of being his name. ("Malfoy would have to rely on his talent if he wanted to do well in Advanced Potions"--was good for Malfoy.) I think the important classes for Neville are often the ones where he's singled out somehow. He does well with Lupin not just because Lupin is a good teacher who's good with Neville, but because he stands there and makes Neville do it. It's always seemed to me that Neville's way of dealing with constantly being told he's useless is to say he's useless, sort of passively giving up to avoid the hassle. It makes sense, but he can't do it with Snape. If Neville says he can't do it, Snape makes him do it anyway. I'm not congratulating Snape for this like he's got good intentions--Sprout is no doubt better by not letting Neville give up because he's *talented*--but I wouldn't be surprised if Rowling ultimately saw the lesson of Neville/Snape being about Neville getting through it rather than Neville's childhood hurts being soothed. Sherry: When the kids got caught after handing over Norbert, and they got detention and lost so many house points, why didn't Hagrid confess that he'd had an illegal dragon and that the kids were trying to help him by getting rid of it? i've always felt that whole thing was his fault, and as the adult, he should have come forward and said something. yes, the kids would still have been out of bounds and lost points and gotten detention, but perhaps it wouldn't have been as bad. Magpie: Yes! But that's central to Hagrid's personality. Here he is in a situation where he's acting completely inappropriately, not taking responsibility as an adult when he should have, dragging the kid into something illegal he's doing, expecting them to lie for him, and never seeming to consider this wrong. Iirc, all he continually cares about is the dragon he wants--and he's looking longingly at the dragon eggs in GoF as well. As Betsy mentioned, his response to Ron being bitten by Norbert is to yell at Ron for scaring the dragon. Ron spends the next day not getting medical care for his bite because he's worried Pomfrey will recognize the bite and Hagrid will get in trouble--this while his hand is swelling to twice its normal size. They know this is the guy teaching the CoMC class. -m From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Fri Dec 2 16:10:45 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:10:45 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143903 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: > Draco is not "nice". But we are shown he is not capable of evil - > when push came to shove, he couldn't kill Dumbledore. Draco is not a killer, but he is definitely evil. He used the Imperius curce on Roberta, and had no problems at all with killing indirectly. Katy could have died from the necklace, Ron from the mead. It is only when he has to look his victim in the face, that 'poor Draco' cannot follow through. He is an evil little git that has much changing to do will he ever be acceptible. > Leslie writes: > Snape is not the be-all and end-all of the books. Every lesson JKR > wants to send doesn't have to be delivered via Snape. There is a > world of other characters who already embody the lessons that > Snape's redemption could teach. But Snape is the only one who was actually a Death Eater. If he is evil, it is an easy conclusion that it's once a Death Eater, allways a Death Eater. Once evil, always evil. The others were on the side of good in the first place. > Gerry From Sherry at PebTech.net Fri Dec 2 16:46:26 2005 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:46:26 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143904 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > > > > > Let's look carefully at Hagrid. He is, if not uneducted, then at > least > > under-educated. He is a simple man with definitely no formal > training > > in teaching methods. > > Hickengruendler: > > That's why he shouldn't teach. At least not without some training. Amontillada: That raises an interesting question: What sort of preparation do the Hogwarts teachers have for lesson planning, classroom management, discipline, or any of the other specific skills called for in teachers. The WW in Great Britain contains nothing comparable, for example, to Education or Teacher-Training at colleges in the United States (I don't know how such programs would be offered or structured elsewhere). As has been mentioned here at various times, Hogwarts contains elements of British school structures from some time in the past, rather than those of today. Education or Teacher-Training programs have only existed for about the last 100 years in the U.S. We have also been told, in canon, that there isn't a Magical university system comparable to that found in Great Britain. Magical specialists in fields that call for further education seem to receive it in job-specific training. In general, Hogwarts faculty may well learn teaching skills in practice, or by help and advice from their colleagues. If that's the case, Hagrid's big problem may be that he's relatively solitary, doesn't often interact with the other teachers, or that he can't bring himself to ask for help. In that case, as much as I hate to blame things on Dumbledore, this may be a case where he should have taken more direct action instead of waiting for Hagrid to act on his own behalf. Amontillada From quigonginger at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 17:16:22 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:16:22 -0000 Subject: Binns (was Snape) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143906 unlikely 2 wrote: > (snip) > Snape talks the talk but I think Binns does more real damage than > Snape and, given the choice, I'd prefer Snape to Binns any day. (snip) Ginger: This caught my eye as I had just had a conversation the other day along the lines of "if you were at Hogwarts, who would be your favourite teacher?" It lead to "which teacher would you do best under?" I had said Binns would be the one in whose class I would excel. I'm surprised to hear that you think he does more damage than Snape. Would you mind elabourating on this? Binns knows his subject, presents the information and then tests his students on what they have learned. He also has them look things up themselves and write reports, which is a good method for some people. (I know if I look something up I am more likely to remember it than if it is simply told to me.) Binns sticks to his subject. Certainly a teacher can get to know the students, but the subject ought to be the focal point of the lesson. Binns comes to class prepared to lecture on the topic of the day. The students are expected to listen and learn. What I like about Binns is that each student gets out of it *exactly* what that student puts into it. If a student wants a good grade, the student simply has to take what the student is given and apply it. There is no "spoonfeeding" or coddling in which the teacher does all the work, nor does Binns force the students to guess what they are supposed to learn and figure it out for themselves. (If anyone wonders what I am referencing, it is RL teachers, not Hogwarts ones- just wanted to make that clear.) I realize that Binns wouldn't work for everyone, and that the vast majority of us (myself included) would rather spend our time with someone more interesting, but I am wondering how his teaching could be described as "damaging". It seems to me that the worst that could happen in his class would be the waste of time (barring head/desk injuries, of course ;0)) Ginger, who always did well in the "memorize and regurgitate" classes and was hopeless at anything that required actual logic and thought. From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com Fri Dec 2 12:58:25 2005 From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 12:58:25 -0000 Subject: Dead, Alive, Hiding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143907 Andie Wrote: > Could there really be no record of her because that is not who she > is? Can Regulas be in hiding in the form of Mrs. Figg? Marianne S.: > While I kinda like this theory, I don't think Kreacher (and 12 > Grimmauld Place) would have passed into Harry's possession if > Regulus was alive in any shape or form. MercuryBlue: Last I checked, Harry got the house because that's what Sirius's will said to do with the place. Wills override 'everything goes to next-of- kin' laws. From kchuplis at alltel.net Fri Dec 2 14:52:28 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 14:52:28 -0000 Subject: Why is Snape important? Re: What exactly is the AK? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143908 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "chrusotoxos" wrote: > At this point the biggest question for me is, why is it so important > that Snape should survive? Ok he's a spy, and so? I don't think > that's all there was. My personal feeling is that Snape is SUCH an ambivalent character, that he is the only possible successful spy. We know what LV thinks of those bound to him by fear. I don't think there is a DE out there he can really call a right hand man (since the aprehension of Artie) besides, perhaps Snape. Snape really does loathe Harry (which must usefully cover doubts from occlumency) and he is an evil person, however, I can't believe DD would be SO mistaken in the amount of trust he has in Snape. Yes, brilliant people make mistakes, but DD couldn't be that far wide of the mark, IMO. But part of his usefulness to both parties would be the fact that you can't see Snape's true colors...on either side. "kchuplis" From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 18:06:29 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 18:06:29 -0000 Subject: Prefect's Table? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143909 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scamjunk22" wrote: > > > I was re-reading the earlier HPs .. and I noticed that when Percy > was the prefect, he always used to sit at a Prefect's table for > the meals -- now, how come, Hermione and Ron always sit at the > house table instead of at the prefect's table???? > > Thankx ... > > regards, > scam. bboyminn: Sorry, could you come up with a reference in the books (page number, etc...) that mentions the Prefect's Table? There is a Prefectss Carriage on the train; actually, most likely, only a Perfect's compartment. But in Socerer's Stone, Percy is sitting right next to Harry, and answers Harry's question about Snape. So, he wasn't sitting at the Prefect's table then. To the Best of my knowledge, there are four House tables and the Head Table (teachers and headmaste plus guests). Perhaps, you have mixed up a couple of features of the book. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Dec 2 18:07:04 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 18:07:04 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Snape's teaching method In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143910 > Sherry: snip i've always felt that whole thing was his fault, > and as > the adult, he should have come forward and said something. yes, the > kids > would still have been out of bounds and lost points and gotten > detention, > but perhaps it wouldn't have been as bad. > > Magpie: > > Yes! But that's central to Hagrid's personality. Here he is in a > situation where he's acting completely inappropriately, not taking > responsibility as an adult when he should have, dragging the kid into > something illegal he's doing, expecting them to lie for him, and > never seeming to consider this wrong. > Potioncat: Wow, this puts a different spin on things. I snipped the part about Ron delaying getting care for the bite because he doesn't want to get Hagrid in trouble. Now, look at his from Draco's standpoint. Not only is he in trouble because of Hagrid's dragon, he gets detention with the oaf...in the Forbidden Forest! I never could decide "who" assigned that detention. I'm starting to wonder if Hagrid wasn't being punished as well. Potioncat...not sure how she ended up defending Draco of all things or of calling Hagrid an oaf. From gebroni2 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 07:26:45 2005 From: gebroni2 at yahoo.com (gebroni2) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:26:45 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter's appeal Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143911 Hello everyone, I'm a freshman in college writing a resreach paper on Harry Potter and its huge appeal. My thesis is that a huge reason for the series's sucess is the 7 book, extended mystery format. I think all of the many interesting theories and speculations circling around in this group and many other places online with the hard-core fan base rubs off on the casual readers, many whom, like me, get sucked in to the much deeper aspects of the series and become hardcore fans. What do you all think of this? Are you most interested in the series for its mystery, or for its other very strong elements? Thanks a lot! "gebroni2" From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 18:16:25 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 18:16:25 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143912 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" > wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Let's look carefully at Hagrid. He is, if not uneducted, > > > then at least under-educated. He is a simple man with > > > definitely no formal training in teaching methods. > > > > Hickengruendler: > > > > That's why he shouldn't teach. ... not without some training. > > Amontillada: > > That raises an interesting question: What sort of preparation do the > Hogwarts teachers have for lesson planning, classroom management, > discipline, or any of the other specific skills called for in > teachers. ... > > ...edited... > > In general, Hogwarts faculty may well learn teaching skills in > practice, or by help and advice from their colleagues. If that's > the case, Hagrid's big problem may be that he's relatively > solitary, ..., or that he can't bring himself to ask for help. > In that case, as much as I hate to blame things on Dumbledore, > this may be a case where he should have taken more direct action > instead of waiting for Hagrid to act on his own behalf. > > Amontillada bboyminn: Hagrid (and other teachers)is qualified because he knows his subject, and for many, that is qualification enough. True in the USA, we have Teaching Colleges designed specifically to given future teacher specific training in the area of applied education. But as you said, that is a very new innovation. However, even today, many techical and vocational schools do not require a teacher to have teacher training. The primary qualification is that they know the specific subject they are teaching. This is also true at the college level in the USA, college professors know their subject (usually), but they rarely have formal teacher training. This is also true in foreign schools. I suspect it is only in extremely recent years that any applied education classes were taken by primary and secondary level teachers. In a school of /applied/ arts like Hogwarts, I think we are more on the level with technical and trade schools. They are all learning a specific applied /trade/, so it wouldn't be that uncommon for the teachers to be selected for their knowledge of the subject rather than their skill as teachers. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk Fri Dec 2 15:26:49 2005 From: becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk (Rebecca Williams) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 15:26:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Snape isn't evil In-Reply-To: <20051130231906.74982.qmail@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051202152649.31709.qmail@web25310.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 143913 Lucianam wrote: Only one Huge Thing stands in the way of Snape's warning the Order proving he's good: why didn't Voldemort punish him heavily for ruining the Prophecy mission? Becky says: In response to the above, I know there have been lots of discussions about it, lots of good theories all plausible but there is just one thing - how do you know Voldemort even knew that Snape was the one who tipped off the order? It was never mentioned, not even Bellatrix mentioned it when questioning Snape about everything in HBP and it is very unlikley that the warning from Harry in umbridge's office would ever have got back to Voldemort or have been deciphered by anyone else in that room. For all we know Voldemort assumed the Order found out another way. From kchuplis at alltel.net Fri Dec 2 15:48:31 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:48:31 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143914 I'm a tad baffled by the entire reaction to the Hippogryff Incident. I admit I've only read the books once. I'll pay attention this next time more closely, but I can't see the teacher being responsible for a student blatantly disregarding important instructions. It isn't as though Hagrid wasn't forthcoming on the danger of the creature. Since we are holding these teachers to contemporary teaching standards and not the less litigious times of yore, I would suppose that there would be some kind of understanding about personal responsibility. I have to sign a waiver that says "it's not your fault if I am maimed or killed" before I began taking horse riding lessons. It's the same for the 8 y.o.'s there (well, the parents sign it). Harry is a special case as his guardians wouldn't care but I think we can assume that the other parents are well aware of the dangers of wizardry. Half their friends were probably killed by the first reign of LV. Their kids fly around on brooms without safety harnesses. Life, overall, is just a little more hazard prone at wizarding school and in the wizarding community (let's look at St. Mungo's and see how even innocent wizardry can land you there). Now had Hagrid just said "All right everybody let's just come on up here and take turns pettin' this baby. C'mon, cowboy up and don' be a baby." I'd consider him negligent. But he made quite clear that impolite behaviour toward the hippogryff could get you killed. I would think someone as intelligent as Malfoy would know that "big ugly brute" is not polite behaviour. Maybe it's because I had a forth grade teacher who yanked people out of their chair by the ear if they looked like they were thinking about possibly breaking a rule, but Hagrid's class, for the type of school they are in, and the other dangers they are facing, didn't seem overtly careless or cruel to me. "kchuplis" From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Dec 2 18:08:32 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 18:08:32 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143915 Pippin wrote: > > > Either Snape's thought processes aren't as logical as we've been led > to believe, or he has a rather higher opinion of Harry than he's let on. Lupinlore: But when have we ever been led to believe that Snape's thought processes are essentially logical? He is certainly capable of logic, as his puzzle guarding the PS/SS shows. But he is also capable of great leaps of emotionalism, indeed near hysterics, when it comes to Harry and James Potter. I don't see why it is particularly odd for him to hold contradictory opinions of Harry. People do that all the time -- particularly deeply neurotic and near- hysterical people. > Pippin: > Exactly. Children know perfectly well when Snape has crossed the > line in his classroom. They don't need a sermon about it, and they don't > need to see fire and brimstone raining on his head. > Lupinlore: Ah, but is this still a children's book? :-) I don't know and I don't think it's pertinent, actually. The question is what would make for an ending that brings the story's wheel to a balanced and well-written end. That requires, IMO, an amount of sermonizing about Snape in the form, as we have discussed on another thread, of a third party intervening to confront, chastise, and yes, humiliate Snape in much the same way Dumbledore confronted, chastised, and humiliated the Dursleys. And yes, it requires a certain amount of fire and brimstone raining onto Snape's head for his abusive behavior toward Harry and Neville. Allowing him to go unpunished for that would be questionable on any number of fronts, literary, emotional, and yes, indeed, moral. Lupinlore From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 19:24:13 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 19:24:13 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter's appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143916 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gebroni2" wrote: > > Hello everyone, I'm a freshman in college writing a resreach > paper on Harry Potter and its huge appeal. My thesis is that > a huge reason for the series's sucess is the 7 book, extended > mystery format. ... Are you most interested in the series > for its mystery, or for its other very strong elements? Thanks > a lot! > > "gebroni2" bboyminn: Well, certainly the extended mystery format is very appealing. In a sense we are all dying to know what happens next. That's not necessarily true in other multi-volume series. In many of them ,the extend mystery doesn't exist. By that I mean that each books stands completely on it's own, and each new book is merely the same characters in a new situation. JKR's Harry Potter books have both many, internal to each book, mysteries, as well as the overal series mysteries. So, certainly the mystery aspect is very important. However, mere mystery doesn't explain how these books can cross so many cultural boundaries. Why is it a Buddhist in Thailand is just as enthralled, enchanted, and captivated by the books as a Christian in Chicago? Further, why do children from age 8 to age 80 enjoy the books. The demographic spread of the appeal of the books seems far out of proportion with any other book ever published. Why? I think it is because there are some universal aspects of JKR's story that touch us beyond basic entertainment, much like myths and legends that have endured for many centuries, and in some cases, millennia. In another post, I said that JKR's work touches us at our ancient soul. Yes, I know that sounds hopelessly melodramatic, but I still think it is true. Consider that not only does Harry Potter appeal to people around the world, but it's captivating sense of enchantment survives many difficult language translations. What other book has such univeral appeal. So, while JKR draws her story from many ancient myths and legends, I think she also tape into the essense of those myths and legends. Many books have Centaurs, elves, and dragons, but they don't have the appeal of Harry Potter. So, it is more than just copying or drawing from myths and legends. I think she has captured the spirit of myth and legend. She has drawn on the universal underlying aspect that makes myths and legends endure. In a sense, JKR is telling The Universal Story. She is telling the story of all people for all time. This isn't just the story of Harry's hero's journey, but the story of every hero's journey. So, in summary, I think that JKR has tapped into some very basic and universal mythos that transends culture and language. Next, JKR has a very terse compact writing style. Where else do you find books with short to-the-point three and four word sentences. More over, part of JKR's talent is to use this terse writing style to stimualte our imaginations. Instead of detail word-picture descriptions of the world you are in, she gives us just enough to stimulate our imaginations to fill in the blanks. For example, if you look a the original discription of Ron, or for that matter combine all descriptions of Ron through the whole series, you will discover we have no more than the most basic description, yet as readers, how many of us have vividly painted pictures of Ron in our mind. I think, in a manner of speaking, that this is also one of the universal appeals of the books. In a sense, she doesn't create the world for me, my mind and my imagination, stimuatled by her, have created this world. In this world, I am not just a passive viewer, I am an active participant. Another aspect of the compact writing style is that the books move fast. Tremendous amounts of story are told in so very few pages. Because it moves so fast, there isn't time to get bored. If the book does get dull, excitement is only a very few pages away. For example, in Order of the Phoenix, the Dementor attack occurs on page 15 and by page 57 Harry has arrived at 12 Grimmauld Place. That's a lot of story in so very few pages. One last point, unlike much modern entertainment, the underlying nature of the characters isn't clearly draw. Harry is not the perfect virtuous hero, we really can't tell at this stage which side Snape is on, Sirius was both good and bad. In otherwords, the fact that no one in these books is perfect, that even the most evil has elements of sympathy, and the most virtuous has his degree of darkness, adds a deep reality to the books that is appealing and captivating to readers. In these books all the characters are drawn in agonizing, frustrating, disconcerting shades of grey; just like real-life. When a child, or adult for that matter, reads these books, in the struggles of the characters, they see their own daily struggles. In the Sunday School lessons, right and wrong are always clear and the decision is always easy, but not so in real-life. In real-life it is sometimes impossible to know what is right, before or after the fact. In life, we struggle, and Harry, his friends, and all the other characters also struggle. I think many readers, deep down, identify with and sympathize with the uncertain agonizing moral struggles that Harry and his friends have to make. Further, Harry doesn't always get it right; we can certainly identify with that. People have died as an indirect result of Harry's choices. You can be certain that even the happiest ending for this series will still be very bittersweet. In nearly all books, movies, and TV characters struggle against outside forces, and some do so very heroically. But in JKR's books, Heroes and villains struggle against internal forces, and in real-life that is where the real battle is. It is this agonizing shades of grey in which the books are painted that touch us to our deepest core. Well, I've rambled on enough for now. I hope this helps. Steve/bboyminn From eragon04 at aliceposta.it Fri Dec 2 15:24:52 2005 From: eragon04 at aliceposta.it (=Matteo=) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:24:52 -0000 Subject: New member, HBP comments Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143918 Hi everyone!! My name's Matteo and I'm writing from Italy. Last Saturday I went to the cinema and saw "HP4"... absolutely awesome!!! Certainly there are too many cuts: for example there are so few scenes (almost no one) about the correspondence between Harry and Sirius, which is so important in my opinion to understand better what's going on in the fifth chapter of the saga. By the way, could you please tell me how Harry, Ron and Hermione have to call Sirius in the fourth book? I know it in Italian but I'd like to know it in English too. Thanks in advance!! Anyway, I've read the sixth book in English cos I couldn't wait to read it in Italian (here in Italy the book will be out in Italian January, the 6th... too late!!!): I couldn't believe that Piton could use a "Avada Kadevra" against Dumbledore!!! What's gonna happen then? I think that McGonagall will be the next Headmastress... and I have thought about the prophecy: it's difficult to say who will die!!! Well... I hope not to have bored you. Bye ==Matteo= From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Dec 2 19:53:05 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 19:53:05 -0000 Subject: Prefect's Table? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143919 > bboyminn: > > Sorry, could you come up with a reference in the books (page number, > etc...) that mentions the Prefect's Table? There is a Prefectss > Carriage on the train; actually, most likely, only a Perfect's > compartment. But in Socerer's Stone, Percy is sitting right next to > Harry, and answers Harry's question about Snape. So, he wasn't sitting > at the Prefect's table then. >> Steve/bboyminn Potioncat: Not much help here. But one Christmas there is a scene with the twins insisting that Percy join them for the meal rather than sitting at the Prefects table. Is that year one maybe? From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 19:55:10 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 19:55:10 -0000 Subject: Snape isn't evil In-Reply-To: <20051202152649.31709.qmail@web25310.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143920 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Rebecca Williams wrote: > > Lucianam wrote: > Only one Huge Thing stands in the way of Snape's warning the > Order proving he's good: why didn't Voldemort punish him heavily > for ruining the Prophecy mission? > > Becky says: > ... - how do you know Voldemort even knew that Snape was the one > who tipped off the order? It was never mentioned, not even > Bellatrix mentioned it when questioning Snape about everything > in HBP and it is very unlikley that the warning from Harry in > umbridge's office would ever have got back to Voldemort or have > been deciphered by anyone else in that room. For all we know > Voldemort assumed the Order found out another way. > bboyminn: First, we have to look at Snape's job from Voldemort's perspective. Voldemort sent Snape to Dumbledore's camp to PRETEND to work for Dumbledore. Snape's action are consistent with appearing to work for Dumbledore, the exact job Voldemort assigned him. Next, we have to wonder if Snape was able to discern that Harry getting in trouble with Umbridge and dragged her off into the forest on some hairbained scheme was actually part of Voldemort's plan unfolding. And that assumes that Snape knew what Voldemort's plan was, and further that this incedent was indeed that plan unfolding, something of which we have no evidence. Next, Snape has no reason to think that Harry had actually managed to get to London when he is suppost to be lost in the forest with Umbridge. Just on the off chance that Harry might have escaped Umbridge, which would seem unlikely, and that he had managed to find some means of tranportation, and that he had managed to find his way to London, Snape ask the Order to go check it out. All that said, I agree with Becky, that Snape most like acted in Dumbledore's true best interests, and informed the Order /on the sly/. In other words, no need to inform Voldemort that it was Snape who sent the Order to rescue Harry. In a sense, from Snape's perspective, we are assuming he knew things that he didn't necessarily know, and that the details of his actions are known by everyone, which they probably are not. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Dec 2 20:04:17 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:04:17 -0000 Subject: Snape and Piton (was Re: New member, HBP comments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143921 Matteo wrote: >snip< > Anyway, I've read the sixth book in English cos I couldn't wait to > read it in Italian (here in Italy the book will be out in Italian > January, the 6th... too late!!!): I couldn't believe that Piton > could use a "Avada Kadevra" against Dumbledore!!! What's gonna > happen then? Potioncat: Welcome to our group, Matteo. I agree the cough*movie*cough was great. So, Snape in the Italian translation is Piton? What is his first name? In English, as I guess you know, the SS sound of his name sets up a snake-like mood and with the loose translations of both Severus and Snape fit his personality. Does it work the same way in Italian? Does the name have any meanings? JKR does like wordplay Potioncat, hoping this is enough canon for the list-elves. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 20:07:15 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:07:15 -0000 Subject: Prefect's Table? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143922 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > bboyminn: > > > > Sorry, could you come up with a reference in the books (page > > number, etc...) that mentions the Prefect's Table? There is > > a Prefectss Carriage on the train; actually, most likely, > > only a Perfect's compartment. But in Socerer's Stone, Percy > > is sitting right next to Harry, and answers Harry's question > > about Snape. So, he wasn't sitting at the Prefect's table then. > >> Steve/bboyminn > > Potioncat: > Not much help here. But one Christmas there is a scene with > the twins insisting that Percy join them for the meal rather > than sitting at the Prefects table. Is that year one maybe? > bboyminn: I think this is just a turn of a phrase and not so much literal. Since there are so few people around, they probably abondon the House Table format. So, when Fred/George say 'sit at the Prefects table' what he is really saying is 'sit with the Prefects' who may or may not have congregated at their own table. Just from a logical sense, groups of friend from varous Houses might have gathered together in a mixed group, and with equal logic, the /big-shot/ Prefects might not have wanted to sit with the riffraff (speaking somewhat humorously). So, what the twins are really saying is the Percy should sit with family and not his friends the other Prefects. I guess the point is that I don't think this instance of 'Prefects Table' should be taken literally, nor should it imply a permanent Prefects Table. It's merely a way of saying sit with us instead of them. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Fri Dec 2 20:08:07 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:08:07 -0000 Subject: Snape's teaching methods (Was: Snape, Hagrid and Animals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143923 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Another point: At least two of Snape's lessons, one from Potions class > and one from the duelling club in CoS, have been particularly useful > to Harry: a bezoar, mentioned in the very first lesson and reinforced > via young Snape's Potions book, saves Ron's life; Expelliarmus disarms > Lockhart, saving both Ron and Harry from having their memories > destroyed, and Harry uses it again on Voldemort in the Priori > Incantatem scene. So Snape's lessons have quite literally saved both > Ron's and Harry's lives. Hagrid's lessons introduced him to Buckbeak, which saved Sirius' life and the Thestrals, which enabled him to go to the MoM, though the last was not a good idea. Gerry, who thinks it is ridiculous to blame a teacher for an accident From AllieS426 at aol.com Fri Dec 2 20:08:56 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:08:56 -0000 Subject: Another DDM!Snape pointer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143924 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "redeyedwings" wrote: > > > ReW wrote: > > > If FF is REALLY supposed to make the user do the right thing > > > instinctively, and Snape really is Evil wouldn't > > > the FF make Hermione (at least) act differently, at least by > > > making her 'just shoot a curse at him,' without thinking, or > > > act in some other way that would slow him up? > > > > zgirnius: > > However, even though I am kinda hoping for a DDM!Snape, > > I think there might be an Evil Snape explanation of this point, > > too. Maybe Hermione's decision was the right one for her > > to make because it is the one that got her through the night > > alive. Evil Snape might have decided the unblockable Avada > > Kedavra was the quickest way to deal with Hermione, instead of > > messing with Freezing Charms and such which she might counter > > (thus prolonging the duel). > > > ReW again: > > Yes, I debated that theory too. It seems like an equal > possibility. But then, the Felix didn't seem to prevent Ron and > Ginny from engaging in highly dangerous combat with the DEs in > the castle. And we also have canon that states both that the DEs > they were fighting were using the AK (can't remember which DE > took an accidental one) and canon on what FF does when its user > is under an attack from such an AK (I believe it's Ginny who > says that 'everything seemed to just miss us'). Which, of course, > would indicate that should Hermione (due to Felix or her own > pluck) have attacked an ESE!Snape and he decided to fight back, > the quick AK would likely go as it did for Ginny and Ron and > 'just miss' her. > > The fact that it seemed the right thing to do nothing at all, > and just let him go seems to me to be the potion acting in the > best interests of all concerned, just the way it let Ron and > Ginny rush off into a dangerous battle, but worked to *luckily* > keep them from taking serious harm. > > Hope that makes sense, > ReW > Allie now: Someone else on this forum proprosed that, due to the fact that the Felix had been divided between 3 people, and that Harry had already taken some previously, only a tiny amount was taken by each Ron, Hermione, and Ginny. Since it was so tiny, the effects of the Felix might have worn off by the time Hermione ran into Snape. (But why then would the curses keep missing Ron and Ginny?) From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Fri Dec 2 20:16:27 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:16:27 -0000 Subject: Snape's teaching methods (Was: Snape, Hagrid and Animals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143925 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > Probably because Snape's method *does* work for Neville. In that > Neville goes through his biggest crises in Potions in his third > year. And Snape drags him through it. Nope, Hermione does > I'd also add, that I'm not sure Lupin was the best teacher ever when > it came to Neville. He was still considered a DADA joke when Harry > was teaching. No one wanted to partner with him anyway. I'm not > saying Lupin was a failure as a teacher, by any means. But he > didn't pull off any miracles either. I don't see anyone considering him a joke. What I did see is that Lupin gave Neville enough confidence to face a boggart, a very scary thing. > Betsy Hp: > Erm... How do you figure? Neville passes potions every year, his > cauldrons-melted-or-otherwise-destroyed statistics decrease > steadily, and his potions improve. So what Snape actually sees (if > we go by the books, anyway) is a challenged student improving. If > it's working, why should Snape change his methods? I don't believe he passes potions. I remember one comment made about his potions grade, being that his high mark in herbology compensates his abysmal mark in potions, exam results in PS. For the rest of the years I cannot remember any comment given on him passing the subject, but I assume he does not. Gerry > > Betsy Hp (fourth post! Sorry!) > From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Dec 2 20:17:47 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:17:47 -0000 Subject: Snape's teaching methods (Was: Snape, Hagrid and Animals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143926 > > Gerry, who thinks it is ridiculous to blame a teacher for an accident > Potioncat: Hi, Gerry, I've been glad to see you posting again lately. I agree, and poor Snape took so much heat for that dropped vial of potion Harry made after Occlumency was cancelled. Oops, accidents do happen. Post HBP, I feel even stronger that it was Draco who broke the bottle and Snape merely letting him get away with it. Not sure, come to think of it, how that makes Snape look much better. From AllieS426 at aol.com Fri Dec 2 20:21:55 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:21:55 -0000 Subject: Horcrux in each book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143927 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spotsgal" wrote: > Musicgal > I personally think the Gryffindor decendant is a Weasley. The > whole "seven" thing comes into play again, AND they're all > pureblood, AND they have red hair AND they've all been in > Gryffindor...they also have special relics of olden times, like > the tiara that belonged to Mrs. Weasley's great aunt or something. Christina: I think that they are a very good candidate (I think that Harry as the heir of Gryffindor is so cliche, but that's just me); however, you run into some thematic problems with that one I think. If JKR wants to make the descendents of Gryffindor thematically important, it'd be easiest for her to do if there was basically one surviving descendent (like with Tom Riddle). If the entire Weasley clan is heir to Gryffindor, then who steps up to represent it? Remember, it's not just our 9 Weasleys that are in the family; they have cousins and other relatives too. Allie: Don't know why, but when you said "one suviving descendant" my brain said NEVILLE LONGBOTTOM. The unlikeliest of unlikely but who knows! I'm still waiting for Neville's shining moment - he made so much progress in OoTP and then couldn't hit a single death eater with a curse when it counted! From eragon04 at aliceposta.it Fri Dec 2 20:19:37 2005 From: eragon04 at aliceposta.it (=Matteo=) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:19:37 -0000 Subject: Snape and Piton (was Re: New member, HBP comments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143928 Hi!! I've just realized that I wrote Piton instead of Snape... sorry, it's the habit!!!! ;-P Anyway, yeah Piton is the Italian translation of Snape and his first name is the same, Severus. The surname "Piton" gives the same idea of "Snape"; in fact as Snape is similar to "snake", "Piton" is similar to "pitone" which is a particular kind of snake. I hope to have answered correctly to your request and if you have any possible question about the Italian versions of the books, don't hesitate to ask me for it. Good evening (here in Italy it's 9.20pm) Anyway bye bye =Matteo= From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 20:20:01 2005 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:20:01 -0000 Subject: Is Snape the only character who can teach lessons WAS: Snape, Hagrid and animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143929 va_32h writes: There is a world of other characters who already embody the lessons that Snape's redemption could teach. > >Gerry replies: > But Snape is the only one who was actually a Death Eater. If he is > evil, it is an easy conclusion that it's once a Death Eater, allways a > Death Eater. Once evil, always evil. The others were on the side of > good in the first place. hpfan_mom: We also have Regulus as a Death Eater who attempted to recant. If he turns up in Book 7, he could also be a vehicle for a lesson on redemption. Of course, he might be too busy explaining how he destroyed the locket horcrux. ;) hpfan_mom From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 20:06:09 2005 From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 12:06:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Hagrid and Snape's teaching method/Draco's detention with Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051202200609.47747.qmail@web61320.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 143930 Potioncat: Wow, this puts a different spin on things. I snipped the part about Ron delaying getting care for the bite because he doesn't want to get Hagrid in trouble. Now, look at his from Draco's standpoint. Not only is he in trouble because of Hagrid's dragon, he gets detention with the oaf...in the Forbidden Forest! I never could decide "who" assigned that detention. I'm starting to wonder if Hagrid wasn't being punished as well. Potioncat...not sure how she ended up defending Draco of all things or of calling Hagrid an oaf. Joe: Ah but Draco wasn't in trouble because of Hagrid's dragon. Draco was in trouble because of being out of bounds. He was just being a nosey little git. Part of the problem with the discussion is trying to apply "real world" values to Hogwarts. In the real world Draco would not have followed them because he would have gotten the crap kicked out of him by various other House members. After spending a lot of time stuffed in his locker he would probably have lost all interest in following the trio. JKR seems to place a very high value on personal responsibility. Draco was personally responsible for getting a four hoof beatdown. That is why it was funny, because he basically had to ignore Hagrid and then walk up and ask to be clawed. If anyone is to blame it is Mr. and Mrs. Malfoy for not teaching Draco not to be an insufferable jerk. No one else tried what he did because they understood what might happen to them, because Hagrid explained it to them and they listened. Not to mention that Hagrid was the one who had to carry Scarlet Malfoy off to the fainting couch because he didn't pay attention because he was an arrogant git. Joe. From ornawn at 013.net Fri Dec 2 20:36:55 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:36:55 -0000 Subject: Horcrux in each book?Using the Mirror of Erised to find Horcruxes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143931 >CH3ed: >Somebody beat DD to the cave horcrux, that is true, but DD was not >wrong about the cave being the hiding place of a horcrux. I >mentioned the cave to illustrate that DD was good at detecting >traces of magic. >What I wonder about the cave episode is whether DD detected that >someone other than LV had been there last (if he did, he didn't >mention it to Harry). He was talking about the spells that defended >the horcrux and the cave, but I don't recall him talking about trace >magical evidence of security breach there (how did RAB get in and >out of that place without leaving traces?). Orna: There are many more questions there ? it's not just getting in and out, without leaving traces ? it's replacing the horcrux with a fake one, filling the basin with the potion (you have to drink the potion in order to get to the horcrux), and staying alive Well, that part is less important, since RAB could have died there, and joined the inferi swimming in the pool But still, I think it's improbable, that he could do it, and alone. DD said it was well protected, and one wizard couldn't have done it. So I come (back) to my (also slightly improbable ? but possible theory) ? RAB was sent by Voldemort to place the horcrux there, with instructions concerning the potion, etc. Voldemort would rely on his legilimency skills to question him afterwards, if the job had been done. Of course, Voldemort wouldn't tell him it was a horcrux ? he might tell him, it was just a job for whatever reason. I don't know how RAB managed to lie to Voldemort, but I have an idea. Perhaps, Voldemort planned, that whoever put the horcrux there, would die on the spot, thus leaving no witness to its place. RAB might have recognized what was going on, switched the locket before, and put the fake one there. Voldemort would have some way of knowing, if the locket was placed there ? perhaps through the Inferi. But since DD didn't recognize, it was a fake one, I assume that also Voldemort, and certainly the Inferi could be fooled on this one. Or, since he was perhaps underage ? he accompanied Voldemort to the cave for some aid ? perhaps Voldemort needed some blood, bones or flesh () to seal the charm. And used him for a servant. Still, I can't imagine him switching the horcrux under Voldemort's nose. But he might have learned this way, how to get there. Still, he would have to drink the potion and replace it. Perhaps, if he accompanied Voldemort, the security wouldn't work on him, because it would recognize him as a legitimate owner, so to speak. If he was underage, Voldemort would perhaps underestimate his powers, and therefore not being careful enough. Orna, puzzled, but doing her best on the horcrux hunt From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 20:42:13 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:42:13 -0000 Subject: Snape's teaching methods of Neville v Lupin's teaching methods of Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143932 > > Betsy Hp: > > I'd also add, that I'm not sure Lupin was the best teacher ever when > > it came to Neville. He was still considered a DADA joke when Harry > > was teaching. No one wanted to partner with him anyway. I'm not > > saying Lupin was a failure as a teacher, by any means. But he > > didn't pull off any miracles either. Gerry: > I don't see anyone considering him a joke. What I did see is that > Lupin gave Neville enough confidence to face a boggart, a very scary > thing. Alla: I am going to post long reply to Betsy's post when I am home, but I just have to add on Gerry's comment. I believe that Lupin DID pull off miracle as in he made Neville laugh at his biggest fear. I don't remember anywhere in the books Neville laughing at Snape again. Besides, Lupin was not there in their fourth year, wasn't he? I speculate that he would have pull off some long term miracles, if he was their teacher and yeah, I don't remember Neville being called a joke either. What I DO remember is how FAST he became one of the best DADA students when teacher employed the style directly opposite to what Snape does. JMO, Alla From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Dec 2 20:37:29 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:37:29 -0000 Subject: Snape, Draco, and Wormtail (was Re: Is Snape the only character ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143933 > hpfan_mom: > We also have Regulus as a Death Eater who attempted to recant. If he > turns up in Book 7, he could also be a vehicle for a lesson on > redemption. Of course, he might be too busy explaining how he > destroyed the locket horcrux. ;) > Lupinlore: We also have Wormtail, who seems to have some role to play. Which is an interesting question. Wormtail, Snape, and Draco. Are they ALL going to be redeemed? Will just one or two of them? If so, which ones? I can see one or possibly two (especially if one of them is Draco, who is the most inconsequential of the lot, all told) but all three seems overkill (or over-salvation) as the case may be. Lupinlore From ornawn at 013.net Fri Dec 2 21:09:56 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 21:09:56 -0000 Subject: Horcrux in each book?Using the Mirror of Erised to find Horcruxes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143934 >CH3ed >I find your theory about LV liking that mirror because it might show >him being all powerful interesting, though. Hey, isn't there a >psychologist among us (sorry, I don't remember who)? I wonder what >he thinks of that. Orna: There seem some of them-us I'll try: I am not sure the mirror would show Voldemort all powerful. It's too abstract and general. The mirror shows very concrete things which are relevant to the moment ? like Harry's ancestors, Ron being presented the quiddich cup, and DD getting socks. So Voldemort would see what he would like most at the special moment he would look into it. (The prophecy, Harry dead, or something like this). Since it just shows it and doesn't really aid you on this way (apart from the PS, which was DD's enchantment of the mirror), I suggest that the mirror would be a very frustrating object for Voldemort. Showing him what he wants, without giving it to him, or helping him on the way, would either enrage him, or get him to sneer upon the mirrors function. Usually Voldemort is very abhorrent to feel or even admit human characteristics ? like wishes, dreams ? which always point to some weakness or neediness in yourself. Since the mirror acts on desires, which sometimes are not known or fully conscious ? like Harry's longing for his parents, I think Voldemort would strongly dislike, degrade, and perhaps even fear this mirror. (What if it showed him being molly-cuddled in Merope's arms? ). Having said that, I'll try to look at it from the other way: what if the mirror showed Voldemort in some event, which showed him to be the most powerful wizard of all times? Still I think Voldemort wouldn't like being captured in fantasy ? it's too human to get comfort from imagination. When he "caught" himself in GoF telling Harry his family history, he sneered at himself for getting sentimental. And I can't remember Voldemort ever enjoying anything except power, coercion and again power. I can't imagine him listening to music, going to the theater, or enjoying anything which is not satisfying his hunger for power. I think Voldemort would despise the mirror, as a toy for weaklings. Or want to destroy it, since the mirror would feel to him like an object doing legilimency on him. I very much doubt he would entrust it with a horcrux, but (And personally also don't like this idea ) Only if he thought, the mirror was some way of showing the future; he would have given it some value. JMHO, Orna From jelly92784 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 21:23:30 2005 From: jelly92784 at yahoo.com (jelly92784) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 21:23:30 -0000 Subject: Prefect's Table? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143935 Potioncat: Not much help here. But one Christmas there is a scene with the twins insisting that Percy join them for the meal rather than sitting at the Prefects table. Is that year one maybe? Janelle: Actually there is no mention of a prefects table here at all, here's the quote: "'And you're not sitting with the Prefects today, either,' said George. 'Christmas is a time for family.'"(pg. 149, Bloomsbury paperback edition). I can't think of any other mentions of a prefects table either. I hope this helps! From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Fri Dec 2 21:37:31 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 21:37:31 -0000 Subject: Snape's teaching methods (Was: Snape, Hagrid and Animals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143936 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Potioncat: > Hi, Gerry, I've been glad to see you posting again lately. So am I. Actually I'm glad to be able to catch up with the list again, and too often I want to reply but with a five months old (since today) on my lap, I don't want to type lengty messages. At the moment she's asleep so mummy has both her hands free, bliss. > > I agree, and poor Snape took so much heat for that dropped vial of > potion Harry made after Occlumency was cancelled. Gerry Oh, I absolutely think that was pure maliciousness on Snape's part. I love the man, but I do think he can be a very nasty person if he wants to. And he is not so happy with Harry just then. For a pro-Snape argument, the zero does not really matter because the exams results are what really counts that year. > > Oops, accidents do happen. > > Post HBP, I feel even stronger that it was Draco who broke the bottle > and Snape merely letting him get away with it. Not sure, come to think > of it, how that makes Snape look much better. Gerry I'm not sure how to picture that, how would Draco have managed, if it happend when Harry handed the potion to Snape? Gerry, who is back to typing with one hand and cannot look up the scene as she wants to keep the book in one piece. > From ornawn at 013.net Fri Dec 2 21:40:50 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 21:40:50 -0000 Subject: Dead, Alive, Hiding Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143937 >Andie Wrote: > Could there really be no record of her because that is not who she > is? Can Regulas be in hiding in the form of Mrs. Figg? >Marianne S.: > While I kinda like this theory, I don't think Kreacher (and 12 > Grimmauld Place) would have passed into Harry's possession if > Regulus was alive in any shape or form. >MercuryBlue: >Last I checked, Harry got the house because that's what Sirius's >will said to do with the place. Wills override 'everything goes to >next-of-kin' laws. Orna: Don't you have any mercy for the Blacks? There is Sirius stuck years in Azkaban, then in Grimmauld place, alternating with living as a dog in caves. And here comes Regulus, hiding years in Mrs. Figgs form (cats and everything included)? Sounds not much better than Wormtail's fate. (Not to mention "the old lady on the portrait ? well she is at least dead ) But my real objection to the theory is that DD would know that Regulus is alive and hiding as Mrs. Figg. Someone would have to do this witness protection program, and DD would seem to be in it. And if it's Regulus who changed the horcrux in the cave, DD would know about it. Not to mention, that he might have hinted something to Sirius, so Mrs. Figg could have added a dog to her household Perhaps that's what Sirius had be doing in PoA, when he scared Harry on Privet Drive ? visiting Regulus? I like the idea, but it seems unlikely. Or do you suggest that Regulus just by himself took Mrs. Figgs cover and placed himself near to Harry? Doesn't seem very probable. DD would check out, who this squib was. From OotP it seems he knows her, and has his way of contacting her, or whoever she is. Orna From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 21:56:33 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 21:56:33 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco (was:Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143938 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Actually, the biggest known Muggle murderer, number-wise, is a > > Gryffindor. > >>Nora: > Not even canonically: Voldemort is responsible for the bridge > collapse (or a minion), and that killed more people. Betsy Hp: Please note my use of the qualifier "known". And then please point to the canon stating the number of Muggle deaths *directly* caused by Voldemort. I'm fairly confident that Voldemort has been the root cause of many more deaths than Peter Pettigrew. (Voldemort is the root cause of Peter's killings, after all.) But by the numbers we've been given, Peter is a little killing machine. > >>Nora: > Even going on what ancedotes we have in the text, you get to stack > that up against Lucius "always up for a spot of Muggle torture" > Malfoy... Betsy Hp: Since torture doesn't always lead to killing (while killing can only mean that, well, people were killed) I actually should *not* stack Malfoy's work up against Peter's. Apples and oranges in the end. Especially since I wasn't trying to identify "most evil minion". Though I think Peter could give both Lucius and Bellatrix (who is a leading candidate for my vote) a run for their money. > >>Betsy Hp: > > I have believed, pretty much from my first reading of PS/SS that > > the so-called sins of Slytherin are really in the eye of the > > beholder. > >>Nora: > All? > Betsy Hp: I don't think I'd go that far. As each house has it's strengths, each house has it's weaknesses. And I don't think Slytherins' weaknesses have been made up wholecloth. However, I do think the idea that Slytherin is somehow inherently evil or has a greater propensity for evil is an illusion the other houses (or some of the more simplistic thinkers in the Potterverse) use to keep themselves warm at night. Every house has the potential for turning out the next dark lord. > >>Nora: > > "...I suppose it's that craving for unity and wholeness that means > that they keep that quarter of the school that **maybe does not > encapsulate the most generous and noble qualities**, in the hope, > in the very Dumbledore-esque hope that they will achieve union, > and they will achieve harmony." > > Emphasis is mine, but that's not what you say if you consider > their qualities to be of equal 'quality' with the others. She's > said before that courage is the quality that she values the most > highly, but that's obvious, isn't it? Betsy Hp: As obvious as her valuing cunning, yes. I'm trying to figure out what's "generous" about courage. Or "noble" about wit. Both qualities could be used generously or nobly, but so could ambition. And that's my point. Each house has qualities it favors, and each of those qualities can be used in a negative or positive fashion. And that does, it must, include Slytherin. A harmonious union generally requires equality. At least, IMO. Betsy Hp From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 2 22:02:13 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:02:13 -0000 Subject: Coincidence? The Rowling code. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143939 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Phillips" wrote: spillipha: > Okay, I'm actually glad to find a group that isn't a bunch of > kids, but I think, and this is a big think, that I have figured > out where a lot of the characters originated and from that > should be able to see where they are going, this could all be > just one big coincidence or it could be a lot more, so bear with > me: Geoff: I don't think that these are strictly coincidences because they have been planned. It is more often JKR's plays on words which have been commented on previously. spillipha: > Basically, J K Rowling enjoys hiding plot twists in people's > names, the obvious being REMUS LUPIN, everone knowning the story > of the founding of Rome, and the story of Romulus and Remus, and > Lupin meaning 'wolf' although I can't remember what language, I > think it was Latin. Next we have Sirius Black, Sirius being the > Dog Star and Black, well that's pretty much self-explanatory, > again telling you Sirius Black is a Black Dog. And then the most > obvious, when reading over it is TOM MARVOLO RIDDLE turning into > I AM LORD VOLDEMORT. Geoff: In Latin, "lupus" is the word for wolf while "lupinus" means "belonging to a wolf;made of wolfskin". Sirius is the brightest star in the sky, belonging to the constellation Canis Major (Greater Dog), hence the appellation "Dog Star". The Blackfamily liked star names - Sirius' brother Regulus is named after a star in the constellation Alpha Leonis. spillipha: > I understand that it's repeated a lot in the books that no spell > can resurrect the dead, but what people tend to forget is that > it also says that no-one can survive the Avada Kedava killing > curse, plus it's said in the third book, that if a wizard saves > another wizard's life it creates a bond that can NEVER be broken, > well did Lily not save Harry's life? Geoff: But remember: '"Avada Kedavra!" Moody roared. There was a flash of blinding green light and a rushing sound as though a vast invisible something was soaring through the air - instantaneously the spider rolled over onto its back, unmarked, but unmistakeably dead... ...Moody swept the dead spider off the desk onto the floor, "Not nice," he said calmly. "Not pleasant. And there's no know counter-curse. There's no blocking it. Only one person has ever survived it and he's sitting right in front of me."' (GOF "The Unforgiveable Curses" pp. 190-91 UK edition) There are lots of other little plays on words and in-jokes which have been used by JKR: Diagon Alley, Knockturn Alley, Malfoy, Grimmauld Place, Professor Unbridge, Dumbledore to mention but a handful. All designed to keep us grubbing around looking for links. :-) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 2 22:11:40 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:11:40 -0000 Subject: Dead, Alive, Hiding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143940 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mercurybluesmng" wrote: > > Andie Wrote: > > Could there really be no record of her because that is not who she > > is? Can Regulas be in hiding in the form of Mrs. Figg? > > Marianne S.: > > While I kinda like this theory, I don't think Kreacher (and 12 > > Grimmauld Place) would have passed into Harry's possession if > > Regulus was alive in any shape or form. > > > MercuryBlue: > Last I checked, Harry got the house because that's what Sirius's will > said to do with the place. Wills override 'everything goes to next-of- > kin' laws. Geoff: Not according to Dumbledore... "Black family tradition decreed that the house was handed down the direct line to the next male with the name of Black. Sirius was the very last of the line as his younger brother Regulus predeceased him and both were childless. While his will makes it perfectly plain that he wants you to have the house, it is nevertheless possible that some spell or enchantment has been set upon the placeto ensure that it cannot be owned by anyone other than a pureblood." ..."I bet there has," he (Harry) said. "Quite," said Dumbeldore. "And if such an enchantment exists, then the ownership of the house is most likely to pass to the eldest of Sirius' living relatives, whicn would mean his cousin, Bellatrix Lestrange." (HBP "Will and Won't" p.52 UK edition) So a situation could exist where the will was overridden. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 2 22:17:31 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:17:31 -0000 Subject: New member, HBP comments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143941 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "=Matteo=" wrote: =Matteo=: > By the way, could you please tell me how Harry, Ron and Hermione > have to call Sirius in the fourth book? I know it in Italian but I'd > like to know it in English too. Thanks in advance!! Geoff: Do you mean the name which they used to refer to him in his Animagus dog form? If so, it was Snuffles. From Nanagose at aol.com Fri Dec 2 22:18:16 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:18:16 -0000 Subject: Snape, Draco, and Wormtail (was Re: Is Snape the only character ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143942 > > hpfan_mom: > > We also have Regulus as a Death Eater who attempted to recant. > > If he turns up in Book 7, he could also be a vehicle for a > > lesson on redemption. Of course, he might be too busy > > explaining how he destroyed the locket horcrux. ;) Christina: I'm sure we'll be learning a lot more about Regulus, but I suspect that he never was truly "evil," and got into the Death Eaters without really understanding what they would require of him. He was VERY young when he died, and so he couldn't have possibly been a Death Eater for too long. It seems as though he got himself in over his head, and then panicked and tried to back out (perhaps taking the locket with him as a last hurrah). So I personally don't find Regulus a very good candidate for redemption, just because I don't believe he was ever really evil, or has ever done any real evil. He hasn't even been presented as such in the books; even Sirius says that his biggest fault was basically being stupid. > Lupinlore: > We also have Wormtail, who seems to have some role to play. Which > is an interesting question. Wormtail, Snape, and Draco. Are they > ALL going to be redeemed? Will just one or two of them? If so, > which ones? I can see one or possibly two (especially if one of > them is Draco, who is the most inconsequential of the lot, all > told) but all three seems overkill (or over-salvation) as the case > may be. Christina: Peter's life-debt to Harry basically guarantees that he'll come back in the picture. We don't know how a life-debt works, so it is VERY hard to speculate on how it might come into play. In GoF, Peter cuts Harry's arm, so we know that he can still harm him, regardless of their bond. In any case, the idea of Peter being redeemed turns my stomach in a way that redemption of Snape or Draco does not. I think he's the most morally bankrupt character in the entire series, and has a *lot* of blood on his hands. JKR has been pretty ambiguous in regards to Snape, and we have very little information about ills he may have done back when he was a loyal Death Eater (there has been a lot of speculation on whether Snape was actually doing in-the-field work for LV during the first war, or whether he was a behind-the- scenes potion maker or something similar). We know a lot of information on the bad things that Peter has done, and I can't see anything that could redeem him at this point. Even if Peter dies for Harry, it still would not redeem him because it wouldn't be a selfless choice (because of the debt). I'm shaky on Draco. He does do some real harm and it's hard to excuse him for that, but I think that his place will be to demonstrate what some people will do is desperate situations. There are a lot of truly evil people in the books that I think we can all agree will never be redeemed (Lucius Malfoy, Bellatrix Lestrange, Voldemort himself, Umbridge to an extent, the other Death Eaters), so I'm not too concerned with redemption overkill if both Snape and Draco turn out to be good or semi-good. My worry with a ESE!Snape is that it will leave with us without a very clear example of somebody that was truly bad at one time and turns to the right side. It also takes away from Snape's role in the story as the mean guy who sides on the side of good when it counts. I also think that we're looking at "redemption" in a very black and white way, which seems to me to be incompatible with the story JKR has been telling. I don't think that it's between a character being "redeemed" or "not redeemed." I think that there's ample room for middle ground. For me, I don't need Snape to die heroically for Harry for him to be an example of someone who has "seen the light," so to speak. If Snape comes to the point where he realizes that he's done things that have been wrong and is truly regretful of those things, I think that shows character growth *without* true redemption. Christina From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 22:18:27 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:18:27 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Hagrid In-Reply-To: <021901c5f6e6$4549e9b0$2c6c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143943 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: > > Magpie: > this wasn't the first time he sent > a kid > > to the infirmary > > > a_svirn: > > Really? When was the first time? > > Magpie: > > Ron in PS/SS. > > -m > Oh, forgot about that one. Still no one except Draco came to any harm during his lessons. a_svirn From muellem at bc.edu Fri Dec 2 22:21:48 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:21:48 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143944 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: > > > > Magpie: > > this wasn't the first time he sent > > a kid > > > to the infirmary > > > > > a_svirn: > > > Really? When was the first time? > > > > Magpie: > > > > Ron in PS/SS. > > > > -m > > > Oh, forgot about that one. Still no one except Draco came to any harm > during his lessons. > a_svirn > question - did anyone in Snape's class come to any harm whatsoever during Snape's lessons, other than Harry splashing the swelling potion on the Slytherians on purpose(which was not Snape's fault)? colebiancardi From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 22:22:43 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:22:43 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco (was:Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143945 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > I don't think I'd go that far. As each house has it's strengths, > each house has it's weaknesses. And I don't think Slytherins' > weaknesses have been made up wholecloth. However, I do think the > idea that Slytherin is somehow inherently evil or has a greater > propensity for evil is an illusion the other houses (or some of the > more simplistic thinkers in the Potterverse) use to keep themselves > warm at night. Every house has the potential for turning out the > next dark lord. Actually, I think there *is* a greater propensity for evil in Slytherin House, plain and simple. I am not as sanguine as many readers in eliding out the blood factor, which seems to have faded from this whole consideration. But it's expurgation to do that. Whether for safety or general bias, the Sorting Hat and Binns both tell us about Slytherin's principles. The SH makes it pretty explicit, the valorization of bloodline. *None* of the other Founders discriminated on similar categories. > Betsy Hp: > As obvious as her valuing cunning, yes. I'm trying to figure out > what's "generous" about courage. Courage puts oneself on the line, facing difficulty and danger, quite often not only for one's sole benefit. One can be courageous for oneself, but it's more often in the service of a group endeavour. > Each house has qualities it favors, and each of those qualities can > be used in a negative or positive fashion. And that does, it must, > include Slytherin. A harmonious union generally requires > equality. At least, IMO. I think (I think) JKR tends to think of the qualities of Gryffindor as tending to positive uses more often than negative, while ambition is inherently genuinely amoral: it has no regulation even implied. Courage and the Gryffindor like can be twisted, yes, but they're thought of as virtues in the medieval sense instead of the Aristotelian for a reason, I think. -Nora finds the blood foundation of Slytherin House about as distasteful, in the realm of education, as it gets From leslie41 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 22:25:30 2005 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:25:30 -0000 Subject: Retribution for Snape the Teacher (was Snape, Hagrid and Animals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143946 Lupinlore: But when have we ever been led to believe that Snape's thought processes are essentially logical? He is certainly capable of logic, as his puzzle guarding the PS/SS shows. But he is also capable of great leaps of emotionalism, indeed near hysterics, when it comes to Harry and James Potter. I don't see why it is particularly odd for him to hold contradictory opinions of Harry. People do that all the time -- particularly deeply neurotic and near-hysterical people. Yes, this is a good point. Many supremely logical people are only logical when their emotions are not engaged. (As for Snape's "hysteria," the only time I recall him becoming hysterical was in PoA, when he nearly lost it at the end there when Black escaped. Yet, of course, everything he was accusing Harry of was absolutely true, and DD was trying to shut him up despite that. I might have gotten hysterical myself.) Plus, to take anything Snape said at Spinner's end, about Harry or anyone else, as gospel in terms of what he thinks and feels is very problematic. He may be trying to downplay Harry's power by trying to paint him as clueless at this point. I'm firmly in the camp of DDM Snape, and it makes perfect sense that Snape would make Harry seem less threatening than he really is. The question is what would make for an ending that brings the story's wheel to a balanced and well-written end. That requires, IMO, an amount of sermonizing about Snape in the form, as we have discussed on another thread, of a third party intervening to confront, chastise, and yes, humiliate Snape in much the same way Dumbledore confronted, chastised, and humiliated the Dursleys. Oh my, no. Truthfully, we don't exactly know what DD might have said to Snape during the summer after the occlumency lessons. He did refer to them as a "fiasco," and thus I think it might be logical to believe that DD and Snape had words about it. But I have no doubt that there was no humiliation involved. DD has an enormous amount of pity and understanding of Snape. He made a mistake in letting Harry take occlumency lessons with him, but he regards it as his own mistake, for not understanding how deep Snape's wounds ran, and that they were in fact, to his mind, unhealable. It's also obvious that Snape's relationship with Dumbledore in HBP is extremely trusting and close, closer ever than before, no matter what Snape might have done. Certainly Dumbledore, I think, would never choose to humiliate Snape publicly over Snape's teaching methods. And there's no one left, really, who can humiliate him. Lupin? McGonnagal? How could they possibly humiliate SNAPE? And yes, it requires a certain amount of fire and brimstone raining onto Snape's head for his abusive behavior toward Harry and Neville. Allowing him to go unpunished for that would be questionable on any number of fronts, literary, emotional, and yes, indeed, moral. There will be no fire and brimstone raining down upon Snape, at least for his teaching methods. If it turns out he's a supporter of Voldemort, there will be fire and brimstone of another sort. There won't be fire and brimstone because there's no one who is in a position at this point to humiliate him. The person who could have done that is Dumbledore. And Dumbledore made it evident at every step of the way that he valued Snape as a friend, healer, member of the order, and as a teacher. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 2 22:27:57 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:27:57 -0000 Subject: Snape, Draco, and Wormtail (was Re: Is Snape the only character ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143947 > Lupinlore: > We also have Wormtail, who seems to have some role to play. Which is > an interesting question. Wormtail, Snape, and Draco. Are they ALL > going to be redeemed? Will just one or two of them? If so, which > ones? I can see one or possibly two (especially if one of them is > Draco, who is the most inconsequential of the lot, all told) but all > three seems overkill (or over-salvation) as the case may be. > Pippin: Hmm...four missing horcruxes, three characters who must have a role to play. Must each in some way help Harry find and destroy a horcrux? Plenty of room for twists and turns there, especially if relative guilt is not distributed the way Harry thinks it is. Pippin From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Dec 2 22:31:55 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:31:55 -0000 Subject: Heir of Gryffindor (Re: Horcrux in each book?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143948 > Musicgal > I personally think the Gryffindor decendant is a Weasley. The > whole "seven" thing comes into play again, AND they're all > pureblood, AND they have red hair AND they've all been in > Gryffindor... > Christina: > I think that they are a very good candidate (I think that Harry as > the heir of Gryffindor is so cliche, but that's just me); however, > you run into some thematic problems with that one I think. If JKR > wants to make the descendents of Gryffindor thematically important, > it'd be easiest for her to do if there was basically one surviving > descendent (like with Tom Riddle). If the entire Weasley clan is > heir to Gryffindor, then who steps up to represent it? Jen: It seemed like JKR nixed any Heir of Gryffindor in the TLC/MN interview, but both the question and answer were vaguely worded. JKR was talking about Harry's family, so when Melissa said "that sort of shuts down Heir of Gryffindor theories" and JKR paused before answering 'yeah' in regard to Harry, it seemed to me she may have been considering how much to say about the issue. Here's the quote: JKR: "And because I do like my backstory: Petunia and Lily's parents, normal Muggle death. James's parents were elderly, were getting on a little when he was born, which explains the only child, very pampered, had-him-late-in-life-so-he's-an-extra-treasure, as often happens, I think. They were old in wizarding terms, and they died. They succumbed to a wizarding illness. That's as far as it goes. There's nothing serious or sinister about those deaths. I just needed them out of the way so I killed them." MA: "That sort of shuts down Heir of Gryffindor [theories], as well." JKR: [Pause.] "Yeah. Well - yeah." > Allie: > Don't know why, but when you said "one suviving descendant" my > brain said NEVILLE LONGBOTTOM. The unlikeliest of unlikely but > who knows! I'm still waiting for Neville's shining moment - he > made so much progress in OoTP and then couldn't hit a single death > eater with a curse when it counted! Jen: Or two surviving descendants, one recently deceased--the Dumbledore brothers. When Dumbledore found out the Potters were the ones to be targeted rather than the Longbottoms (POA, chap, 10) he advised them to go into hiding. Maybe he offered his isolated and well-protected ancestral home in Godric's Hollow? If this turns out to be true, I think the last heirs of Slytherin and Gryffindor, the feuding duo, will be put to rest in book 7. Jen From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 22:36:45 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:36:45 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143949 m > > > > > Oh, forgot about that one. Still no one except Draco came to any > harm > > during his lessons. > > a_svirn > > > > question - did anyone in Snape's class come to any harm whatsoever > during Snape's lessons, other than Harry splashing the swelling > potion on the Slytherians on purpose(which was not Snape's fault)? > > colebiancardi > No, no one did. Harry's diversion wasn't Snape's fault, just like Draco's insulting Buckbeak wasn't Hagrid's. In fact I'd say that there is a certain similarity between the two teachers. Both have atrocious reputations that would give a pause to a prudent parent. After all they have both nearly ended up in Azkaban, and Hagrid even landed there for a spell in POA. Their teaching methods are questionable, albeit for different reasons, nevertheless they both know their respective subjects very well. a_svirn From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 22:41:40 2005 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:41:40 -0000 Subject: Does Regulus's fate foreshadow Draco's? (was Re: Snape, Draco, and Wormtail ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143950 > Christina wrote: > > I'm sure we'll be learning a lot more about Regulus, but I suspect > that he never was truly "evil," and got into the Death Eaters > without really understanding what they would require of him. He was > VERY young when he died, and so he couldn't have possibly been a > Death Eater for too long. It seems as though he got himself in over > his head, and then panicked and tried to back out (perhaps taking > the locket with him as a last hurrah). hpfan_mom: When I read your description of Regulus's life, it brought Draco to mind. Whether or not Draco became an actual Death Eater (forgive me, I've only read HBP once and don't remember this point), he got in over his head when he was very young, possibly without really understanding what he was getting into. At the moment of truth, he panicked and could not complete his assigned task. Will Draco be killed as Regulus was? Both are from pureblood-obsessed families, both were a favored son (OK, Draco is the only child). hpfan_mom From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Fri Dec 2 23:06:33 2005 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 18:06:33 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143951 Betsy Hp: >So at the end of the day, the students of Hogwarts, every single one >of them, prefer Snape to Hagrid when it comes to teaching. Which >fits in with my own personal experience that students much prefer an >unfriendly teacher who can teach to a friendly teacher who can't. I don't think it has anything to do with teacher preference but instead is due to the shortage of career options in that field. Many career paths depend on taking NEWT Potions, Charms and Transfiguration but in what field would NEWT level COMC be considered mandatory? We haven't heard of any as yet that I know of... If COMC were considered an important subject that class would be full whether anyone thought Hagrid was a good teacher or not. They couldn't afford to avoid it any more than Harry can consider dropping Potions. His future as an Auror depends on that knowledge Snape or no Snape. Think about it, even if you loved your phys. ed. teacher and thought your math teacher was the biggest jerk on the planet you wouldn't use up your precious school time taking phys ed if you had your heart set on being an engineer after graduation. You'd bite the bullet and take the math. Well, the kids would take COMC if they *needed* to but since there is no need, they concentrate on the courses they require. just my .02 :) PJ From manawydan at ntlworld.com Fri Dec 2 23:12:30 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 23:12:30 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape: Crime and Punishment References: <1133549756.2067.97572.m33@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001401c5f795$e099f0e0$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 143952 Ginger wrote: > Binns knows his subject, presents the information and then tests his > students on what they have learned. He also has them look things up > themselves and write reports, which is a good method for some people. > (I know if I look something up I am more likely to remember it than > if it is simply told to me.) The big question I would ask about Binns is whether he's still learning himself. History is a dynamic rather than a static subject but of course Binns, having died, could well just be repeating the old lessons that he had worked out while he was alive rather than taking into account anything that's happened since or any new interpretations of what happened before. How long has he been teaching for example? There's never any reference to modern history in what he teaches and his "enthusiasm" seems to be the 18th century and the goblin rebellions. Could even be that that was a part of history that he actually lived through. If pressed, I'd suspect he lived from around 1690 to around 1900 - a time span which would allow him to have actually experience the 18th century he focuses on and then to have come to Hogwarts in the 19th century. His teaching style, with its emphasis on memorising facts rather than interpreting events, does seem to belong to the 19th rather than the 20th century. Is he a good teacher? I had two teachers for my A level history: one of them went around the class talking to us in small groups about the subject, the other wrote reams of notes on the blackboard for us to copy down. It's the second one who imparted the information I needed to pass the exam but it was the first who nurtured my lifelong love of history... hwyl Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 23:19:53 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 23:19:53 -0000 Subject: Snape and Neville (was:Re: Hagrid and Snape's teaching method) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143953 > >>Magpie: > I think what it mostly comes down to is that this is Snape. > Teachers are who they are in class, and for Snape when somebody > isn't doing what he wants, he does what he does to Neville. > Betsy Hp: Yes, exactly. I don't think Snape somehow picked Neville out from the herd as a boy he could gleefully torture. I think he's merely teaching Neville as he'd teach any non-Slytherin having such big problems with Potions. > >>Magpie: > I suspect he does a modified version for Crabbe and Goyle, though > they don't have the same problems Neville does in class. Betsy Hp: I suspect that Snape is just as hard on his Slytherins but in a very private way. He's too well respected and listened to by his Slytherins (Draco's rebellion in HBP came as a shock to Snape, I think) for me to believe that Snape coddles them excessively. I think what Slytherins get from Snape is a break on the public humiliation. If either Crabbe or Goyle had Neville's potion problems I think Snape would either point out their problems quietly or give them a detention and work with them (with the same refusal to accept failure) privately. It's not fair, but I think it's Snape's way of supporting his Slytherins and sticking it to the man, while at the same time making sure his Slytherins meet his expectations as well. > >>Magpie: > > Does he see it working? I'd guess anything he doesn't see working > he chalks up to Neville being hopeless or still not listening--but > I do think he probably does on some level think that this will > work. I don't mean that he's got some plan or that he really wants > Neville to improve as a student, but more that he is locked into > his own logic about the situation. > Betsy Hp: Hmmm, I actually think Snape really *does* want Neville to succeed. Not necessarily because he wants *Neville* to succeed, but because he doesn't want to fail as a teacher. I think Snape is the type to see his students' performance as a reflection of his own performance as a teacher. So I think he'd do everything possible to keep a student from out and out failing, because Snape just does not accept failure. I think the fact that he teaches above level is a reflection of that drive. Otherwise, I think Snape would leave Neville alone. Maybe use Neville as a convenient target for his acid wit, but not take so much time to force Neville to do the potion correctly. He'd go on and on about how Neville is sure to fail out and how much Snape is looking forward to that blessed day, and then probably throw in something about disappointed family, since that would really wound. But working and working and working with Neville (I get this from Harry's comment that Snape kept bullying Neville in PoA) is hard on Snape as well. And I don't see Snape putting forth that effort unless he really did plan on Neville passing Potions. > >>Magpie: > Also, I do tend to agree with Pippin that, for instance, Snape's > being Neville's boggart isn't about Snape so much as Neville. > > But I think Snape represents many adults who consider Neville a > failure and useless, and the part of himself that believes it and > can't get away from it. > Betsy Hp: I recall reading a theory (Redhen, I think?) about Neville having a great fear of magic, and his long time under the Sorting Hat was him trying to convince the Hat that sorry, he really is a squib and he'll just go home now, thanks. The theory, as I remember it, was that Neville sort of self-sabotages himself for a while because he'd really, really prefer to have nothing to do with magic. And I think it's interesting that Neville's grandmother is his second choice on the boggart list. Because I get the impression that Mrs. Longbottom would greatly approve of Snape's methodology. So I wonder if part of his boggart (I like Pippin's theory, too) isn't for those adults who force him to engage with his magic. I think it is tied in to Neville's feeling that he's a failure, but I think it might have more to do with those who don't let him remain a failure. Does that make sense? > >>Magpie: > > I think the important classes for Neville are often the ones where > he's singled out somehow. He does well with Lupin not just > because Lupin is a good teacher who's good with Neville, but > because he stands there and makes Neville do it. It's always > seemed to me that Neville's way of dealing with constantly being > told he's useless is to say he's useless, sort of passively giving > up to avoid the hassle. Betsy Hp: I think this is what I'm trying to get at. I think Neville would prefer to just be left alone to fail quietly in a corner. Lupin, by making it into a sort of game, kind of snuck up on Neville. > >>Magpie: > It makes sense, but he can't do it with Snape. If Neville says he > can't do it, Snape makes him do it anyway. I'm not > congratulating Snape for this like he's got good intentions-- > Sprout is no doubt better by not letting Neville give up because > he's *talented*--but I wouldn't be surprised if Rowling ultimately > saw the lesson of Neville/Snape being about Neville getting > through it rather than Neville's childhood hurts being soothed. Betsy Hp: I *do* think well of Snape for not giving up on Neville. I think Snape had a harder row to hoe in many ways, because Neville wasn't all that great at Potions. It's hard to judge Sprout's methods since we really don't get a good glimpse of her interaction with Neville, but she may have benefited from Neville being naturally gifted with plants. What we *do* see about Neville is that when he puts his mind to something, he can learn. We see this in Harry's DA club. Neville started out as the worst student in the club; no one would partner with him. But by the end of the year, after a huge amount of effort on Neville's part (Harry comments on it, IIRC) he reaches a point where he's the last of the kids to fall to the Death Eaters at the DoM battle. I agree that JKR was looking more towards Neville being made of sterner stuff than his classmates credit him for when she put the Snape/Neville clash in the books. Because Neville doesn't fold, he raises up to Snape's challenge and he's back for Potions the next year. And, IIRC, after PoA Neville is much more consistent in Potions. He's not the next half-blood Prince by any means, but I think he does all right. (Better than Harry, at times, IIRC.) [I snipped that part of your post, but I think there's a good sized theme in the books about boys stepping out of the shadow of their families. Neville and Draco, of course, but Ron needs to as well in his own way, and even Harry seems to be breaking away from the almost mythical view he has of his parents.] Betsy Hp From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Dec 2 23:30:50 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 23:30:50 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143954 Nora: > Actually, I think there *is* a greater propensity for evil in > Slytherin House, plain and simple. > > I am not as sanguine as many readers in eliding out the blood > factor, which seems to have faded from this whole consideration. > But it's expurgation to do that. Whether for safety or general > bias, the Sorting Hat and Binns both tell us about Slytherin's > principles. The SH makes it pretty explicit, the valorization of > bloodline. *None* of the other Founders discriminated on similar > categories. Jen: There's no way around the fact all the Founders except Hufflepuff were discriminatory about who should go into their houses, based on what they believed to be most important. All were elitist whether it was the 'pure ancestry' of Slytherin, the intelligence of Ravenclaw or the brave deeds of Gryffindor. Rowling said at one time she values courage beyond almost anything, but her comments on unity and this statement here sound very Hufflepuff to me: "Well, the deeper answer, the non-flippant answer, would be that you have to embrace all of a person, you have to take them with their flaws, and everyone's got them." (TLC/MN) When Hogwarts was built, there was fear of persecution for witches and wizards from non-magic folk, according to Binns, which may have contributed to Slytherin's initial desire to train only those of pure ancestry. And in the beginning the other founders didn't have any problem with his decision. Possibly Slytherin's had an initial desire to protect the WW, and that turned into an obsession with pure blood, starting the feud. And the obsession ran throughout the centuries, further corrupting itself in families like the Gaunts, and reaching its nadir in the form of Voldemort. Nora: > I think (I think) JKR tends to think of the qualities of > Gryffindor as tending to positive uses more often than negative, > while ambition is inherently genuinely amoral: it has no > regulation even implied. Courage and the Gryffindor like can be > twisted, yes, but they're thought of as virtues in the medieval > sense instead of the Aristotelian for a reason, I think. Jen: Is that why Dumbledore twinkles when he notes Harry has a certain disregard for the rules, and urges him to plumb the depths of his cunning for retireving the memory from Slughorn ? Ambition, cunning and a disregard for the rules have made Dumbledore who he is, too. He chose to use these very skills, along with immense courage and ingenuity, when he decided to take on Voldemort and to create a group like the OOTP outside the bureaucracy of the MOM. All skills are valuable, it's simply whether you choose to use them for the side of Good that matters in Rowlings world. Jen > -Nora finds the blood foundation of Slytherin House about as > distasteful, in the realm of education, as it gets Jen, who agrees while noting that JKR said we are seeing Slytherin house mainly through the eyes of DE's children. From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Fri Dec 2 23:43:33 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 23:43:33 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End ---- From a different perspective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143955 > ...And the Acromantula, while > venomous and anti-social (and wizard-created), is also the mortal > enemy of the Basilisk, according to the entry in Wikipedia, > referencing Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. > > lealess > Also in CoS, where we see the spiders leaving the castle because the Basilisk is on the move. --La Gatta From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sat Dec 3 00:08:24 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 00:08:24 -0000 Subject: On the subject of Umbridge and Book VII In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143956 > > There is an International Council of Wizardry, which Dumbledore > presided over as Supreme Mugwump... > > Sherry > I'd forgotten that! I wonder how and why JKR came up with that title. TTBOMK, a mugwump is a bird so-called because it sits on the fence with its mug on one side and its wump on the other. One thinks of Dumbledore as being much more decisive. --La Gatta From unlikely2 at btopenworld.com Fri Dec 2 20:46:59 2005 From: unlikely2 at btopenworld.com (unlikelyauthor) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:46:59 -0000 Subject: Binns (was Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143957 > unlikely 2 wrote: > > (snip) Snape talks the talk but I think Binns does more real > > damage than Snape and, given the choice, I'd prefer Snape to > > Binns any day. (snip) > > Ginger wrote: > I'm surprised to hear that you think he does more damage > than Snape. Would you mind elabourating on this? > > Binns knows his subject, presents the information and then > tests his students on what they have learned. He also has them > look things up themselves and write reports, which is a good > method for some people. > > Binns sticks to his subject. Binns comes to class > prepared to lecture on the topic of the day. The students are > expected to listen and learn. > > What I like about Binns is that each student gets out of it > *exactly* what that student puts into it. Hello Ginger, Please forgive my being brief but RL intrudes. So, a partial argument at least. Harry James Potter achieved: History of Magic D Potions E So despite the fact that Harry hates Snape he does well. (Only one outstanding, for DADA, probably awarded because the his patronus). Otherwise, mostly, he gets Es. His worst result is for History of Magic. Binn's style gives students like Hermione the chance to shine. On the other hand, I suspect that most students are like Harry and did not do well. Learning is not only about academic performance. An understanding of content may have value. It has been remarked that those who fail to understand history repeat it. I wonder if a poor understanding of history is not part of the WW's problem. unlikely2 From aprilsmiles1 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 21:19:43 2005 From: aprilsmiles1 at yahoo.com (Ann Marie) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 13:19:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: What exactly is the AK? / Snape killing Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051202211943.74284.qmail@web50213.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 143958 > Literature_Caro wrote: > > In book four the dead Riddles are all > > described to have the expression of > > utmost terror on their faces. This was > > of course due to the AK. > > CrypticAmoeba wrote: > This may or may not be true. Voldemort could > have be "played with" the Riddle household > before their killing them. The look of terror > may be from other events. If Dumbledore was at > peace with the events around him and how they > were playing out it would make sense that he > was at peace with his death. This also adds a > little circumstantial proof for DDM!Snape as > this only works if Dumbledore was expecting to > die. As being new and this being my first post, I'm not sure if this has been hit upon before, so please forgive me if I'm repeating someone. I think, under the circumstances, Dumbledore expected to die, there were too many Deatheaters surrounding him, and he was too weak to properly defend himself. And maybe because of this, and because it was Snape who actually did the deed, Dumbledore became at peace. When I first read that passage, I hated Snape with all the emotions I could spare a fictitious character, but then after re-reading it and actually sitting down and thinking about it, I came to this conclusion. What if Snape killed Dumbledore to save Draco from a life of a true Deatheater? From what we know of Draco, he's a bully, mostly when his cronies are around. But we've seen just how much of a coward he can be also. Now, it was made clear that Draco was to kill Dumbledore, and no other Deatheater would, they kept egging him on...forcing him too. Now Dumbledore knew that Draco didn't have the heart of a murderer. You can feel his inner struggle all during that scene. I think Snape killed Dumbledore to save Draco from losing his soul to the darkness of Voldemort. Does any of that make sense? What do others think? Ann Marie Check out my website: http://aprilsmiles.bravehost.com _Zero 1 (featuring Hal Sparks)_ (http://myspace.com/zero1band) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 00:43:21 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 00:43:21 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143959 > >>Nora: > Actually, I think there *is* a greater propensity for evil in > Slytherin House, plain and simple. Betsy Hp: And black and white, and basically doing exactly as Sydney and Lealess spoke of -- creating a scapegoat that everyone can jeer at and hate and comfort themselves by saying "Oh yes, those Slytherins, bad sort them". And diametrically opposed to everything Dumbledore, and I believe JKR, has been saying all along. Because if you're right than it means that blood does shape a person. It's just that Slytherin chose the wrong blood to champion and Gryffindor picked the right one. (Oh, and please ignore the little rat-like man behind the curtain. ) > >> Nora: > I am not as sanguine as many readers in eliding out the blood > factor, which seems to have faded from this whole consideration. > But it's expurgation to do that. Whether for safety or general > bias, the Sorting Hat and Binns both tell us about Slytherin's > principles. The SH makes it pretty explicit, the valorization of > bloodline. *None* of the other Founders discriminated on similar > categories. Betsy Hp: Girl, your vocabulary! Thank goodness for online dictionaries! I guess you're trying to say that all those who say Slytherin is not the universal source of all evil are avoiding the blood issue. And yes, that was Slytherin's bugaboo. But it's an interest that *can* be positive. An interest in your family, your culture, your traditions; a desire to maintain such things; all of that can be positive. Draco's love of his family is positive. Percy's rejection of same is considered bad form. Everyone gets on Harry for not being more interested in his parents, his blood. For that matter, Dumbledore uses Harry's blood to protect him. An interest in bloodlines can certainly be used negatively, but it's not necessarily negative or evil in and of itself. (Or should I tell my grandmother to stop researching our family tree? Should the various Highland games that occur all over the USA be stopped as a bad idea? Should Native Americans get over their desire to teach their children their own culture and language?) [Actually, I think it goes towards Slytherin being the feminine house (water, potions, etc.) keeper of the hearth, etc.] > >>Jen: > There's no way around the fact all the Founders except > Hufflepuff were discriminatory about who should go into their > houses, based on what they believed to be most important. > Betsy Hp: Exactly. And even Hufflepuff encouraged its students to give up their individuality for the sake of the group. Each form of discrimination would be ugly if left totally on its own. Someone once picked out "dark lords" throughout history and sorted them into each house. (Does this ring any bells for anyone, 'cause I can't remember who or where.) It really brought home the fact that each house has its negative aspect that is actually tempered by the other houses. > >>Betsy Hp: > > I'm trying to figure out what's "generous" about courage. > >>Nora: > Courage puts oneself on the line, facing difficulty and danger, > quite often not only for one's sole benefit. One can be courageous > for oneself, but it's more often in the service of a group > endeavour. Betsy Hp: Courage is an individual trait. It's not inherently generous. It *can* be generous, but it doesn't have to be. Just as ambition can be generous, though it doesn't have to be. Again, both are just qualities, neither better nor lesser than the other, both able to be used for good or ill. > >>Nora: > I think (I think) JKR tends to think of the qualities of > Gryffindor as tending to positive uses more often than negative... Betsy Hp: Ah, so we really *are* ignoring Peter Pettigrew than? I'm more of the opinion that JKR likes the qualities of Gryffindor better. She's more comfortable with those aspects of herself, IOW. But I don't think she's saying that Gryffindor is inherently *better* than all the other houses. Or if she is trying to say that, she's being incredibly unclear. > >>Nora: > ...while ambition is inherently genuinely amoral: it has no > regulation even implied. > Betsy Hp: Actually, young Tom Riddle, striding into magical London all by his little eleven year old self, or confronting his father when only sixteen, could be seen as quite courageous. Harry wanting to be a great quidditch captain, or taking NEWT level Potions could be seen as quite ambitious. They're both rather neutral, in the end. > >>Jen: > > Ambition, cunning and a disregard for the rules have made > Dumbledore who he is, too. He chose to use these very skills, > along with immense courage and ingenuity, when he decided to take > on Voldemort and to create a group like the OOTP outside the > bureaucracy of the MOM. All skills are valuable, it's simply > whether you choose to use them for the side of Good that matters > in Rowlings world. Betsy Hp Which is why I think JKR does admire the Slytherin qualities. She loads her most beloved characters down with them, after all. Though I think the fact that Dumbledore is so balanced between his Gryffindor self and his Slytherin self is what made him such a formidable foe to Voldemort. I think Harry will have all four houses behind him, both within himself and represented by those around him, when he confronts Voldemort. And that is what will allow him to win. (Unless he tries to repress his Slytherin side as evil or unclean, which would reverse everything he learned in HBP, so it ain't going to happen.) Betsy Hp From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Dec 3 00:48:24 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 16:48:24 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's teaching methods of Neville v Lupin's teaching methods of Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005701c5f7a3$44d1b090$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 143960 Alla: I believe that Lupin DID pull off miracle as in he made Neville laugh at his biggest fear. I don't remember anywhere in the books Neville laughing at Snape again. What I DO remember is how FAST he became one of the best DADA students when teacher employed the style directly opposite to what Snape does. Alla Sherry adds: And to add to Alla and Jerry, no defense of Snape's abysmal people skills as a teacher can excuse his publicly humiliating Neville at the beginning of the boggart DADA lesson. That was so outrageous and sends my blood boiling every time I read it. Snape mocked a student in front of his class and another teacher in a viciously unkind manner. Sherry From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Dec 3 01:35:05 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 20:35:05 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Hagrid-and some Snape References: Message-ID: <028d01c5f7a9$cccfc7b0$b786400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 143961 kchuplis: I'm a tad baffled by the entire reaction to the Hippogryff Incident. ... Magpie: Seriously, I'm equally baffled by how saying, "It's a running joke that Hagrid does not have a realistic perspective on animal danger management and this is always causing him problems" is somehow controversial. To me it's about on the same level as saying that Snape lets his hatred for James influence his dealings with Harry. kchuplis: Maybe it's because I had a forth > grade teacher who yanked people out of their chair by the ear if they > looked like they were thinking about possibly breaking a rule, but > Hagrid's class, for the type of school they are in, and the other > dangers they are facing, didn't seem overtly careless or cruel to me. Magpie: I don't quite understand. You had a fourth grade teacher who was in control of the class, and was prepared for children breaking rules. Not seeing what that has to do with Hagrid. Gerry: Gerry, who thinks it is ridiculous to blame a teacher for an accident Magpie: Oh, we're not even close to blaming the teacher for the accident. We're too busy fighting to suggest the teacher had anything to do with anything that happened in the class at all, except for the brilliant success of kids like Neville and Harry. My problem is I persist in seeing this pattern of Hagrid's being kind of a joke, something that causes plot complications and problems for Harry. JKR relies on Malfoy's nastiness for plot complications too, but this scene is a team effort. Joe Goodwin: JKR seems to place a very high value on personal responsibility. Magpie: Except for Hagrid, apparently. Slytherins may be guilty of plenty of things, but that doesn't keep them from being convenient scapegoats as well. (And Hagrid is quite handy with the guilt trip in canon.) Malfoy is in detention because he was outside. Harry was outside because Hagrid was illegally keeping a dragon and dragging the kids into lying for him. Yet Hagrid is the guy giving the detention. Poor Hagrid. Joe Goodwin: If anyone is to blame it is Mr. and Mrs. Malfoy for not teaching Draco not to be an insufferable jerk. Magpie: And that's the key, isn't it? Malfoy's the jerk, so he gets the blame. (Malfoy's friends think Hagrid's the jerk--but they don't count because they're jerks too.) Only that's not actually the way things always work out. Being accurate about what happened often requires looking beyond finding the jerk and treating that person the same way you'd treat someone else. Sometimes even when one person is sure of who the bad guy is, another person might take Lily's pov that "you're just as bad as he is." Particularly when one person is 13 and the other one is, what, 57? I suspect the biggest difference-perhaps the only one that really makes a difference at all to what happens--between Ron's injury and Malfoy's is Ron's attitude towards Hagrid. Betsy: Hmmm, I actually think Snape really *does* want Neville to succeed. Not necessarily because he wants *Neville* to succeed, but because he doesn't want to fail as a teacher. I think Snape is the type to see his students' performance as a reflection of his own performance as a teacher. Magpie: Yes, I do think Snape sets up his class with the goal of students getting good grades on their OWLS and NEWTS and actually knowing Potions well. It's funny, actually, to go through and look at what Snape likes as a teacher, because he's not lazy, that's one thing to say about him. I think he really is annoyed by Hermione as a student--and Neville as well. Double that when Hermione does Neville's work for him. -m From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Sat Dec 3 02:00:58 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 02:00:58 -0000 Subject: Dead, Alive, Hiding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143962 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ornadv" wrote: > > >Andie Wrote: > > Could there really be no record of her because that is not who she > > is? Can Regulas be in hiding in the form of Mrs. Figg? > > >Marianne S.: > > While I kinda like this theory, I don't think Kreacher (and 12 > > Grimmauld Place) would have passed into Harry's possession if > > Regulus was alive in any shape or form. > > >MercuryBlue: > >Last I checked, Harry got the house because that's what Sirius's > >will said to do with the place. Wills override 'everything goes to > >next-of-kin' laws. > Orna: > Don't you have any mercy for the Blacks? There is Sirius stuck > years in Azkaban, then in Grimmauld place, alternating with living > as a dog in caves. And here comes Regulus, hiding years in Mrs. > Figgs form (cats and everything included)? Sounds not much better > than Wormtail's fate. > (Not to mention "the old lady on the portrait ? well she is at least > dead ) > > But my real objection to the theory is that DD would know that > Regulus is alive and hiding as Mrs. Figg. Someone would have to do > this witness protection program, and DD would seem to be in it. And > if it's Regulus who changed the horcrux in the cave, DD would know > about it. > > Not to mention, that he might have hinted something to Sirius, so > Mrs. Figg could have added a dog to her household Perhaps that's > what Sirius had be doing in PoA, when he scared Harry on Privet > Drive ? visiting Regulus? I like the idea, but it seems unlikely. > > Or do you suggest that Regulus just by himself took Mrs. Figgs cover > and placed himself near to Harry? Doesn't seem very probable. DD > would check out, who this squib was. From OotP it seems he knows > her, and has his way of contacting her, or whoever she is. Marianne: I agree with Orna. If DD went through the whole "let's make sure there are no enchantments on the house to prohibit it from going to a non-pureblood...and oh, let's see if you can control Kreacher" routine, only to have the end result be Regulus springing out of Mrs. Figg's ill-fitting slippers, well, it seems like a stretch to me. Plus, there was a death date for Regulus on the Black tapestry. I can't imagine that Mrs. Black would accept someone's word that her "good" son was dead. I'd bet she'd want to see his corpse. If I have to put money on a person who everyone thinks is dead, but who has actually been successfully hidden, I'd bet on Caradoc Dearborn. All we know of him is that he vanished. Marianne From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Dec 3 02:24:09 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 02:24:09 -0000 Subject: A Horcrux in each book Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143963 I am not sure how this reply will fit in the thread that has been discussing this topic, so I am just posting a general reply to the topic. To start I agree that it makes sense in the context of book patterns that one Horcrux is revealed in each book, in fact I go further here to say I think that there is even more method to the revealing of those Horcruxes than that. So far there are at least Four we can be fairly sure of (notwithstanding opposing speculation)- Book Two The Diary. Book Four Nagini. Book Five The Locket. Book Six The Ring. Now in all these cases not only is the object revealed, but also it is first 'seen' within the book 'before Harry goes to Hogwarts' in every case. First references to the Diary are made while Harry is in Diagon Alley, Nagini is first seen in Harry dreams in Book Four (right at the beginning of the book), The Locket almost certainly is found at Grimmauld Place before the Hogwarts year starts, and Dumbledore is seen wearing the ring at Sluggy's place the first we are introduced to it. A succession of this pattern in the remaining books would place - The Ravenclaw/Hufflepuff Object at the start of Book One The Ravenclaw/Hufflepuff Object at the start of Book Three I have given one of my guesses before, a theory backed by some other of typical Potterverse patterns is that the Ravenclaw Object is a wand. We do see a mysterious wand at the beginning of book One, and additionally Harry finds himself sensing 'secret magic' while he is near that particular wand. All in all it fits the profile. Hence my guess is that we see the Ravenclaw Wand Horcrux at the beginning of Book one. This leaves us only one other Horcrux to find, the Hufflepuff Cup. I searched and re - searched the beginning of POA for it, then my neice took it home because it was her copy amd mine is still lent out to someone else :( In the beginning of POA I found plenty of references to Cups and Goblets but none that I could see possibly being "the" cup we are looking for. Since then, however, I have come to be fond of another theory involving Aberforth Dumbledore and Caradoc Dearborn. I hypothesise that, either known or unknown to Albus Dumbledore, these two people *did* discover the Hufflepuff Horcrux somewhere in the vicinity of Hogwarts/Hogsmeade (the pig references here are coincedental to the mythology that seems to support this theory). Caradoc and Aberforth tried to destroy the Hufflepuff Cup but the one who cast at it (Caradoc, I believe) was struck by a similar curse to the one that inflicted the damage to Albus Dumbledore's hand in HBP. The two of Aberforth and Caradoc, without Albus' prodigious wit and Snape's skill at their disposal, were unable to restore Caradoc to his previous self and he became instead some kind of half Voldemort monster Horcrux, the Voldemort side of which was (and still is, I propose) draining the life from the Caradoc side in order to return to power. I know it's an elaborate theory but I assure you all sources for it are objective, and for those who are interested Google 'myth Caradoc' and 'labours of Heracles' to see them. Now with that in mind, I cannot look through the beginning of POA again for any references to people, possession, monsters etc one of which might be the actual Horcrux we are looking for. Just for completion I'll add that in my theory I also suppose that Voldie!Caradoc is hidden in the Forbidden Forest and that Aberforth's inapproriate experiments on goats (seeming to relate to bezoars) and his keen eavesdropping on Harry in OOtP are among his efforts to save his friend and complete the destruction of the Hufflepuff Cup Horcrux. Valky From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Sat Dec 3 02:11:27 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 03:11:27 +0100 Subject: Retribution for Snape the Teacher References: Message-ID: <019901c5f7ae$df76eb50$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 143964 lupinlore wrote: > The question is what would > make for an ending that brings the story's wheel to a balanced and > well-written end. That requires, IMO, an amount of sermonizing > about Snape in the form, as we have discussed on another thread, of > a third party intervening to confront, chastise, and yes, humiliate > Snape in much the same way Dumbledore confronted, chastised, and > humiliated the Dursleys. And yes, it requires a certain amount of > fire and brimstone raining onto Snape's head for his abusive > behavior toward Harry and Neville. Allowing him to go unpunished > for that would be questionable on any number of fronts, literary, > emotional, and yes, indeed, moral. Miles: I completely disagree. To begin with your last "front", moral: I am not quite sure whether I understand your idea of moral in this situation. Let's have a look. If Snape is evil and on LVs side, then we can expect him either die (most probable) or being sent to Azkaban for the rest of his life. Or he is DDM!Snape, then he may survive (I doubt it very much), but will be doomed and an outcast for the rest of his life. And your opinion is, that apart from this (dead, doomed, or both) he should be punished for his deeds in potion classes? This is kind of kicking someone who is on the ground already or whipping a corpse, isn't it? I understand your idea of confrontation, and I agree that it can do good under certain circumstances. (Your example of Churches in New England sounds awful to me, but to discuss this would be too much off-topic.) But IMO those circumstances will not arise from the situation we can expect in the last book. Just recall the starting position - there is a lethal threat to the WW, and Harry is on his way to 'finish' the most powerful wizard of the world (or at least of Britain...). We can be sure, that there are people to die and suffer. And you really expect, that in such a situation Snape, Harry, Neville and some arbitrator will sit down, confront Snape with his faults and make him apologise? And *this* is to be good literature, and if Rowling fails in doing this, the entire series has decisive weaknesses concerning it's literary worth? Your understanding of moral seems to be kind of mathematical, and IMO it is not appropriate to take this as a criterion for literature in general or Harry Potter in specific. To jump into the story, it would not be inside the character Harry Potter as well. Yes, he loathes Snape, and he seeks revenge. But not for anything that happened in any potion class. He wants revenge for Dumbledore's death. If he will learn that Snape is DDM, his desire for revenge will run dry, and he will be unconcerned about potion classes. (If Snape is not DDM, he will not care for them either). Just imagine the situation: Harry: You killed Dumbledore! Snape: Dumbledore ordered me to do it! (proves it). Harry: Oh, I see. But you were nasty in potions! Snape: I'm so sorry! Harry: Ok, let's kill Voldemort. Speaking of bad literature and emotional inconsistencies of characters... Sorry, getting a bit sarcastic, but I really cannot think of a solution that would meet lupinlore's and my own demands on good literature. Miles From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 02:52:09 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 02:52:09 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143965 > Jen: There's no way around the fact all the Founders except > Hufflepuff were discriminatory about who should go into their > houses, based on what they believed to be most important. All were > elitist whether it was the 'pure ancestry' of Slytherin, the > intelligence of Ravenclaw or the brave deeds of Gryffindor. Alla: Sorry, Jen there IS a way around of that to me. :-) All founders discriminated, sure, BUT none of them except Slytherin discriminated based on something you cannot change, IMO. You CAN work on your courage, you probably cannot work on your IQ, but hard work can get even not very "naturally talented" student very very far. Slytherin's discrimination is the worst to me and I believe that it is the worst to Rowling too. Besides, all founders wanted specific qualities in their students, but NONE of them said that those students who don't meet those qualities should not be admitted to Hogwarts, none except Slytherin. THAT was the cause of the fight, even though all four were fighting, the cause for such fight was Slytherin and Slytherin alone IMO. I said it many times - I do think that unity would be achieved at the end, but I am also pretty sure that there would be no "blood supremacy" ideology lurking in Slytherin house anymore. I don't know it would be achieved, I am very inclined to think that Houses will dissolve at the end, but we wil just have to wait and see, of course. > > -Nora finds the blood foundation of Slytherin House about as > > distasteful, in the realm of education, as it gets > > Jen, who agrees while noting that JKR said we are seeing Slytherin > house mainly through the eyes of DE's children. Alla: Well, yes, yes, of course we do see through the eyes of DE children, but don't you find it telling, Jen that with only ONE book left for all the talk about "good" Slytherin student before HBP, we actually STILL see none of them. Unless of course one considers Draco to be a good Slytherin, which I most definitely don't. That was Gerry, right, who said that Draco only did not manage to kill when he was looking his victim into the face, but had no problem doing those other deeds. So to me he has a very, very, very long way to travel for me to ever call him a "good" person. I am not even talking about "great" person or "saintly" person, but good, normal person. So, IMO good Slytherins may exist somewhere unknown to us, they may even indeed exist in JKR mind, but JKR does not show them to Harry, she does not show them to us. I intepret it not very favorably, personally. JMO, Alla From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Dec 3 03:03:22 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 03:03:22 -0000 Subject: Retribution for Snape the Teacher (was Snape, Hagrid and Animals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143966 Leslie: As for Snape's "hysteria," the only time I recall him becoming hysterical was in PoA, when he nearly lost it at the end there when Black escaped. > > Yet, of course, everything he was accusing Harry of was absolutely true, and DD was trying to shut him up despite that. I might have gotten hysterical myself. Valky: As would I probably have gotten a bit hysterical. But, to be honest, Snape had no proof of his accusations so I don't think DD was trying to shut him up as trying to help him see reason. The only proof of what Harry and Hermione had done was Hermione's time-turner, if Crouch had gotten his hands on that Timeturner the kids would face the worst of punishments imaginable for saving an innocent man from a fate worse than death, there's no comparison between that and Snape's self-centred vengeful bloodthirst is there? I mean would you really think that it was preferable for DD to encourage Snape to uncover this incriminating evidence on the two kids, how could the penalty for what they had done possibly be fairer than Snape being made to go to his bedroom and think over his behaviour? Snape clearly got what he deserved, he did after all, show himself keen to destroy two men over some silly childhood frustration. Leslie: > Truthfully, we don't exactly know what DD might have said to Snape during the summer after the occlumency lessons. He did refer to them as a "fiasco," and thus I think it might be logical to believe that DD and Snape had words about it. But I have no doubt that there was no humiliation involved. DD has an enormous amount of pity and understanding of Snape. He made a mistake in letting Harry take occlumency lessons with him, but he regards it as his own mistake, for not understanding how deep Snape's wounds ran, and that they were in fact, to his mind, unhealable. > Valky: I wouldn't say unhealable so much as just unhealed. IIRC Dumbledore hoped that Snape had overcome his problems from his childhood but he was mistaken about that. I don't think he alludes as such to being resigned that Snape couldn't heal, I don't think it would be in Dumbledore's nature to believe that an emotional hurt couldn't eventually be overcome if the person really wanted that. IOW it seems to me that DD is saying Snape wasn't ready, rather than Snape was permamnently damaged. He hasn't found "how" to heal yet. I'd go as far as to say he really doesn't "want' to let go of the pain because it defines him in some way, but that's just IMHO. Lupinlore?: > And there's no one left, really, who can humiliate him. Valky: Harry is in the perfect position to humiliate Snape about his teaching methods as well as his evil deeds. Snape's worst regret of his life, according to Dumbledore, was having been involved in James and Lily's deaths. Quite frankly I think that DD DID know this for sure and the "Don't call me coward!" scene where *James* is the subject proves that this reason is as ironclad as Dumbledore said it was. Harry is the orphan of that great regret. Harry has more power to humiliate Snape than anyone ever has had (more than James and Sirius had too!). OTOH Harry has a whole lot of mercy and compassion to go with that Snape won't need to beg for that. I see Snape on his kness for forgiveness. Valky From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 03:13:59 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 03:13:59 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143967 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > And black and white, and basically doing exactly as Sydney and > Lealess spoke of -- creating a scapegoat that everyone can jeer at > and hate and comfort themselves by saying "Oh yes, those > Slytherins, bad sort them". And diametrically opposed to > everything Dumbledore, and I believe JKR, has been saying all along. Stemming from the adherence to the blood ideology. I do believe that Dumbledore and JKR have been solidly condemning that principle all along. > Because if you're right than it means that blood does shape a > person. It's just that Slytherin chose the wrong blood to champion > and Gryffindor picked the right one. That's not what I was saying. I'm saying that Slytherin's insistance on the blood principle itself is something with tendencies to evil, because of how it conceptualizes human worth. It's not a case of half-bloods being better than purebloods or any reverse consequence; it's the case of saying "you have predetermined value from these abstractions regarding your parentage" that's wrong. > Betsy Hp: > I guess you're trying to say that all those who say Slytherin is > not the universal source of all evil are avoiding the blood issue. > And yes, that was Slytherin's bugaboo. Hyperbole does nothing to bolster your point. :) It does look more and more like the blood issue is really one of JKR's prime motivators and what she considers one of the most important thematic issues that she's addressing. 'Half-Blood' makes it into the title of a book, and it's now somehow mixed into Snape's murky motivations as well as Voldemort's entire program: we get to see his history and we thus see even more clearly how he takes it and runs with it. > But it's an interest that *can* be positive. An interest in your > family, your culture, your traditions; a desire to maintain such > things; all of that can be positive. Draco's love of his family is > positive. Percy's rejection of same is considered bad form. > Everyone gets on Harry for not being more interested in his > parents, his blood. For that matter, Dumbledore uses Harry's blood > to protect him. There's a massive difference here. Harry should be more interested in his parents because of *who* they are as people, not *what* they are as exemplars of some category...especially when, as JKR says, the category labels are created by people to whom they matter. And for the people who they matter for, like Lucius Malfoy, they're immutable and completely essentialist. They're not only or even primarily cultural, because culture can be acquired and adopted, one can be accepted into a culture (even hereditary ones, like musical gharanas in India). Unless, of course, the definition of the group is done like the DE pureblood factions do...and Slytherin's own "whose blood was the purest" seems to toe a very similar line. > An interest in bloodlines can certainly be used negatively, but > it's not necessarily negative or evil in and of itself. (Or should > I tell my grandmother to stop researching our family tree? Should > the various Highland games that occur all over the USA be stopped > as a bad idea? Should Native Americans get over their desire to > teach their children their own culture and language?) Interest is not negative. But again, Slytherin as described by the Sorting Hat, and Slytherin as carried out by its dominant exponents in wizarding society goes way beyond 'interest'. The issue at stake is also not only tight-knit cultural groups, but the very concept of civil society. The DE ideology wins, and the wizarding world loses the idea of an open society with a culture which people can become members of and argue over and change, in favor of something defined strictly essentially. > > >>Jen: > > There's no way around the fact all the Founders except > > Hufflepuff were discriminatory about who should go into their > > houses, based on what they believed to be most important. > > But they're not discriminatory with the same kinds of factors. Slytherin is the genuine essentialist, Ravenclaw and Gryffindor look for virtues (now in the Aristotelian sense), and Hufflepuff opens up to everyone. >>>Nora: >> I think (I think) JKR tends to think of the qualities of >> Gryffindor as tending to positive uses more often than negative... > > Betsy Hp: > Ah, so we really *are* ignoring Peter Pettigrew than? No, being as I said 'tending'. Peter is, of course, the exception which helps keep things from resolving into too clean of patterns. But I suspect I know what the answer would be if you asked her about the ratio of Gryffindors to Slytherins in the Death Eaters. > Betsy Hp: > Actually, young Tom Riddle, striding into magical London all by his > little eleven year old self, or confronting his father when only > sixteen, could be seen as quite courageous. Harry wanting to be a > great quidditch captain, or taking NEWT level Potions could be seen > as quite ambitious. > > They're both rather neutral, in the end. I don't think they are, because I think JKR is slanting things in her favor quite a bit on how she conceptualizes courage (Neville standing up to his friends to do what is right serves as her model for that) and how she thinks of ambition. Slytherin blood ideology reminds me very uncomfortably of the old (and not so old) admissions criteria of the Ivies. Deliberately slanted to admit those who went to the approved prep schools and came from the proper families; modified to keep it that way when too many Jews were being admitted because they were allowing merit too much weight in the system. Women--absolutely right out. Priority given to the children of alumni, which creates the legacy system. William Buckley complained bitterly about Yale ceasing to become the kind of place where your whole family went, and thought it was ridiculous that some boy from P.S. 12 somewhere had equal chances as someone from Andover. Do I think that way of thinking about people is evil? Solidly in the ordinary vices, and the kind of cancer which does profound damage to a society as a whole. -Nora notes there's good readin' out there on that subject From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sat Dec 3 04:37:54 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 04:37:54 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143968 > > Sirius Black is a "good guy" who was even once an attractive good > guy too - but he has numerous flaws. Recklessness, a cruel streak, > irrationality to name a few. > *Is* he? I hope (and would not be greatly surprised if we do) that we will find out a few more things about the character (or lack of it) of Sirius Black, in re Snape and otherwise, before we are through with Book VII. I think he was innocent of the crime for which he was sent to Azkaban, but I don't think he is innocent period, and I suspect Snape has good reason to become hysterical when the guy turns up at Hogwarts. Personal issues aside, Snape is a teacher, and as we have been so busily pointing out recently, responsible for the *safety* of the students. I would add, emotional safety as well as physical safety. I can relate, having been a teacher myself and having had to deal with a similar situation. (The perp in that case was a bishop in the LDS Church, which is even better than the Wizarding community at keeping the dirt under the rug.) *Sigh...* O.K., let's go back to Snape's worst memory (OoP), and ask ourselves once again *why* it was Snape's worst memory. I think it had nothing to do with the grunginess of his underpants, and everything to do with the fact that James proposed to remove them, with Sirius on hand to enjoy the show. And then let's ask ourselves why, both times Harry turns up at 12 Grimauld Place for an extended stay (OoP), he finds Molly and Arthur Weasley *in residence*, even though we know from CoS that they live within a reasonable drive of King's Cross Station (and like the rest of the Wizarding world, they also have other means of getting quickly from one place to another). I'll forgive JKR if she doesn't choose to rake up this particular patch of muck. We *are* talking about a series of children's books after all. But Sirius Black has always made my skin crawl, and once I started asking myself why, the answer wasn't too far to find. --La Gatta From Nrsedany2be at aol.com Sat Dec 3 04:38:40 2005 From: Nrsedany2be at aol.com (Nrsedany2be at aol.com) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 23:38:40 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Binns (was Snape) Message-ID: <2bc.614379.30c27b50@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 143969 It should be pointed out that harry left the history of magick owl early because of the dream that lord thingy sent to him via the scar. Harry got a dreadful because he didn't finish it. Danielle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 04:40:38 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 04:40:38 -0000 Subject: Snape's teaching methods / Do they work for Neville at all or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143970 > > >>Alla: > > There is always professor Sprout of course who could also teach > > dear Sevvy a thing or two which can help Neville perform better. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Prove that he didn't talk to Sprout. Actually, tell me about > Sprout's teaching methods. Canon is pretty blank when it comes to > Sprout. I can easily see Sprout telling Snape (and Neville's other > professors) that he's not an idiot and he generally lacks confidence > and to not let up on him because even if he thinks he can't, Neville > really can perform under pressure. Alla: Canon is indeed pretty blank when it comes to Sprout, BUT there is a circumstantial evidence, IMO which shows us that Sprout's attitude and teaching methods are VERY different from those that dear Sevvie employs. " "Mimbulus mimbletonia," he said proudly. Harry stared at the thing. It was pulsating slightly, giving it the rather sinister look of some diseased internal organ. "It's really, really rare," said Neville, beaming. "I don't know if there is one in the greenhouse in Hogwarts, even. I can't wait to show it to Professor Sprout. My Great Uncle Algie got it for me in Assyria. I am going to see if I can breed from it." - OOP, p.186, paperback, am.ed. Erm... can you imagine Neville wanting to show Snape ANYTHING and actually be excited about it? It tells me that Neville has very different relationship with professor Sprout from that with Snape So, can I see Sprout telling other teachers than Neville can perform under pressure? Sure, why not. But do I see her interpreting the "pressure' as threatening to poison Neville's toad. Sorry, no can do here. :-) > > > >>Alla: > > That is the main reason I never bought and will probably never buy > > the argument that Snape cares tiny bit about Neville learning > > anything - because he SEES that his approach does not work and > > does not change. > > Betsy Hp: > Erm... How do you figure? Neville passes potions every year, his > cauldrons-melted-or-otherwise-destroyed statistics decrease > steadily, and his potions improve. So what Snape actually sees (if > we go by the books, anyway) is a challenged student improving. If > it's working, why should Snape change his methods? Alla: Well, how do you figure that Neville does not flunk the potions every year? I can absolutely see him getting zeros from Snape over and over again. Keep in mind, I think he is MUCH more able student than Snape can ever imagine because he passes OWLS, but I do think that Snape terrified him that much that anything that Neville COULD do well, he does not. It was VERY telling to me that Neville performed well enough when Snape was not there to frighten him. Are you arguing that because Neville is not expelled, it means that he passes the potions? If so, I don't remember canon being clear that direct link between flunking a subject and being expelled exists. After all, when Harry at the end of third year worries that he could have flunked potions but for Dumbledore's interference, he does NOT worry that he could have been expelled. "Harry was amazed when he got through Potions. He had a shrewd suspicion that Dumbledore might have stepped in to stop Snape falling him on purpose. Snape's behavior towards Harry over the past week had been quite alarming. Harry wouldn't have thought it possible that Snape's dislike for him could increase, but it certainly had. A muscle twitched unpleasantly at the corner of Snape's thin mouth every time he looked at Harry, and he was constantly flexing his fingers, as thought itching to place them around Harry's throat" - PoA, am.ed, paperback, pp.429-430. As an aside, it is amazing to me how our perspective changes when we have more information about characters. I remember when I read this quote much earlier that I found the last sentence to be quite funny. I did not think that Snape would ever itch to place his fingers around Harry's throat. I thought that those thoughts were Harry's overactive imagination at work, because back then I thought that Snape spit out nasty words, but would not hit him ever. Well, after book 5 and of course especially after HBP I think that maybe Harry WAS reading Snape's body language correctly after all. :) Just my opinion, Alla From Nanagose at aol.com Sat Dec 3 05:19:17 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 05:19:17 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143971 > > Jen: > > There's no way around the fact all the Founders except > > Hufflepuff were discriminatory about who should go into their > > houses, based on what they believed to be most important. All were > > elitist whether it was the 'pure ancestry' of Slytherin, the > > intelligence of Ravenclaw or the brave deeds of Gryffindor. > > Alla: > > Sorry, Jen there IS a way around of that to me. :-) All founders > discriminated, sure, BUT none of them except Slytherin discriminated > based on something you cannot change, IMO. You CAN work on your > courage, you probably cannot work on your IQ, but hard work can get > even not very "naturally talented" student very very far. Christina: First of all, just because Slytherin himself was prejudiced, does not mean that everybody that is in his house is as well. If a racist starts a University, does that mean that every single student accepted into the school (even *hundreds* of years later) is a racist? Of course not! We know about a lot of people who were Nazis in Germany in the 1940's; does this mean every German person at that time period was a Nazi? Of course not! Rash generalizations are unfair and inaccurate, and are the basis of pureblood ideology in the first place, the very thing we are condemning! We know that the entire house of Slytherin is not filled with purebloods. At least two half-bloods that we know of, Snape and Tom Riddle, were also sorted into the house. Also, there's no strong argument that everybody in Slytherin is prejudiced, either. People disagree on whether the Sorting Hat was really going to put Harry in Slytherin, or if it only brought up the subject because Harry did first. With the emphasis that JKR (and DD) places on choice, I think that the former is the case; either way, the Sorting Hat talks about Slytherin as a *real possibility* for Harry (ending his sentence "well, if you're sure...better be GRYFFINDOR"). Harry, who is neither pureblooded, nor prejudiced (and at that point had already shown his distaste for Malfoy, the pureblood darling), could have been put into Slytherin house. The Sorting Hat stands by it's reasoning, telling Harry in CoS that it maintains that Harry would have done well in Slytherin, despite clearly lacking the two traits you specifically state are pretty much requirements for membership in the Slytherin club. So wait- if the Sorting Hat doesn't put people into Slytherin based on being pureblood or prejudiced, what does it use? The Sorting Hat tells us straight out what the so-called "Slytherin traits" are -- *cunning* and *ambition*. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the problem with these traits. I also find it a *very* dangerous thought to be automatically equating "Slytherin" with "bad." The HP books practically scream, "Do not discriminate against people. It is bad. Do not do it," and yet people openly bash Slytherin house on the whole for being evil. > Alla: > > Well, yes, yes, of course we do see through the eyes of DE children, > but don't you find it telling, Jen that with only ONE book left for > all the talk about "good" Slytherin student before HBP, we actually > STILL see none of them. Christina: No, I don't think that's odd. How many Slytherin students do we know (as in, know well enough to know anything at all about their stances on blood)? We know Draco, Crabbe, Goyle, Pansy, Blaise, and I think we've been introduced to Nott as well. In other words, basically Draco and his *friends*, who of course are going to share his ideologies, just as Harry's friends possess similar ideologies to his own. Assuming that there are at least 10 children per house per year, there are something like 64 Slytherins we don't know at all. JKR has said herself that not all Slytherins are bad. Can't we at least believe the source herself? Imagine what our perceptions would be like if we judged Ravenclaw house based solely on the people we know from it--we'd imagine the whole house as full of human hosepipes and barmy dreamers. As an aside, if Regulus turns out to be RAB, he would be an excellent example of a good Slytherin. I also think that Andromeda was in Slytherin as well, but that's just speculation. I know that some people think that Slughorn is ESE, but he certainly doesn't seem to buy into the pureblood ideology. Anybody that is well-connected or has particular talent is more than welcome. He embraces Lily (a Muggle-born with no connections), Ginny (a member of the Weasleys, the biggest bunch of "blood-traitors" around, who also has no connections), Harry (whose parents died fighting the ultimate supporter in blood purity), and Neville (whose parents were also famous for defying the Dark Lord). He's certainly not selfless, but he doesn't show an inherant preference for purebloods. People keep using Slytherin's opinion to exclude Muggle-borns from magical education as an example of the ills of the entire house. Salazar Slytherin himself was wrong, but Slytherin house is not made up of little photocopies of Slytherin. The Death Eaters and their pureblood ideology are wrong. This doesn't mean that every Slytherin is a Death Eater-in-Training. Christina From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sat Dec 3 05:19:56 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 05:19:56 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143972 > > Slytherin blood ideology reminds me very uncomfortably of the old > (and not so old) admissions criteria of the Ivies. Deliberately > slanted to admit those who went to the approved prep schools and came > from the proper families; modified to keep it that way when too many > Jews were being admitted because they were allowing merit too much > weight in the system. Women--absolutely right out. Priority given > to the children of alumni, which creates the legacy system. William > Buckley complained bitterly about Yale ceasing to become the kind of > place where your whole family went, and thought it was ridiculous > that some boy from P.S. 12 somewhere had equal chances as someone > from Andover. > > Do I think that way of thinking about people is evil? Solidly in the > ordinary vices, and the kind of cancer which does profound damage to > a society as a whole. > > -Nora notes there's good readin' out there on that subject > The pure-blood snobbishness of the Wizarding World reminds me not of the Old-Boyism of the British and Ivy-League educational systems, but of Germany and the NAZI Party. The parallels are remarkable--WWI and WWII, the pure-blood perception that Muggles, mud-bloods, and even mixed-blood Wizards are somehow infra dig (and the belief of extreme cases that Muggles and mud-bloods at least are subhuman and should be destroyed), the Aryan blondness of the Malfoys, a leader (fuhrer?) so powerful and so vile that most of the Wizarding World won't even speak his name... And if you want to *really* creep yourself out, take a look at the SS Gestapo insignia. (Ever wonder where JKR got Harry's scar?) And we're sitting here asking ourselves if this kind of thinking is *evil*? Earth to HPfGU... --La Gatta --La Gatta From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 06:02:01 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 06:02:01 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143973 > >>Nora: > That's not what I was saying. I'm saying that Slytherin's > insistance on the blood principle itself is something with > tendencies to evil, because of how it conceptualizes human worth. Betsy Hp: All four houses have their own way of measuring worth. And between the four of them every child finds a home. No house, including Slytherin, is saying that only *their* sort should come to Hogwarts. Lets not make the mistake of confusing the Death Eater philosophy with Slytherin philosophy. JKR has been too careful in drawing a line between the two beliefs, IMO. > >>Nora: > It's not a case of half-bloods being better than purebloods or any > reverse consequence; it's the case of saying "you have > predetermined value from these abstractions regarding your > parentage" that's wrong. Betsy Hp: But that particular brush tars Hogwarts in it's entirety. Every house has its families, the Weasleys in Gryffindor, possibly the Smiths in Hufflepuff. Plus, Hogwarts *does* predetermine every child's value based on their magical blood. If a child is not magical, that child does not get into Hogwarts. I'd also add that it's fairly obvious that blood is not the *only* determining factor in becoming a Slytherin. Let's not go to the other extreme. Otherwise Ron would be a Slytherin. As would Smith and Neville. And Snape would have been in Gryffindor. And Tom Riddle in... Ravenclaw, maybe? > >>Nora: > It does look more and more like the blood issue is really one of > JKR's prime motivators and what she considers one of the most > important thematic issues that she's addressing. > Betsy Hp: Really? I don't think I'm seeing that theme, despite the HBP title. After all, the shock of Snape's blood is that it runs *against* the "it's all blood" view of Slytherin. Instead, JKR seems to be dealing with family relationships, self-knowledge, self- determination, and prejudice or pre-judgment. Actually, I think JKR is a bit contradictory about her views on blood lines. Harry will understand himself only as he understands his parents? Why? They barely affected his life. Unless she *does* believe in certain inheritable traits. Plus, there's the whole only someone of Lily's bloodline can protect her son. We've been told over and over again that Lily used a pure form of good magic to protect her son. If bloodlines, or an interest in them is inherently bad, why is Lily's blood magic so inherently good? > >>Nora: > There's a massive difference here. Harry should be more > interested in his parents because of *who* they are as people... > Betsy Hp: Why? Harry know he's brave. Why does he need to find out if his father was as well? > >>Nora: > And for the people who they matter for, like Lucius Malfoy, > they're immutable and completely essentialist. > > Unless, of course, the definition of the group is done like the DE > pureblood factions do...and Slytherin's own "whose blood was the > purest" seems to toe a very similar line. Betsy Hp: Ah, but we're confusing the Death Eater line with the Slytherin line again. It's easy to do because the Death Eaters were formed by a Slytherin who twisted his house philosophy to its most evil or negative aspect. But a Gryffindor could come up with just an exclusionary and twisted philosophy, as could a Hufflepuff or a Ravenclaw. Of course the other three houses are more united so I think they're harder to attack, to an extent. Their exclusion of Slytherin does weaken them. However, Slytherin, standing alone, is a bit more susceptible to an attack. > >>Nora: > The issue at stake is also not only tight-knit cultural groups, > but the very concept of civil society. The DE ideology wins, and > the wizarding world loses the idea of an open society with a > culture which people can become members of and argue over and > change, in favor of something defined strictly essentially. Betsy Hp: But that would be true of any of the houses. *All* of them are exclusionary in some form or fashion. A Ravenclaw Dark Lord may force tests on young wizards and witches and sterilize those who aren't deemed smart enough. A Gryffindor Dark Lord may set up tests of valor or bravery, and those who fail are killed. A Hufflepuff Dark Lord would probably turn out like Madeleine L'Engle's horror world in "A Wrinkle in Time". (Frankly, I think a Hufflepuff would make the most terrifying Dark Lord.) Yes, the Death Eater ideology is wrong and incredibly short sighted. But it is not the Slytherin ideology. > >>Jen: > > There's no way around the fact all the Founders except > > Hufflepuff were discriminatory about who should go into their > > houses, based on what they believed to be most important. > > > >>Nora: > But they're not discriminatory with the same kinds of factors. > Slytherin is the genuine essentialist, Ravenclaw and Gryffindor > look for virtues (now in the Aristotelian sense), and Hufflepuff > opens up to everyone. Betsy Hp: Hufflepuff opens up to anyone willing to submit to the Hufflepuff way. (Neville or Luna would do horribly there.) But they *all*, including Slytherin, look for virtues. Blood is a factor in Slytherin, but it's not the defining factor. I think it's as big a mistake to dwell too much on the blood factor as it is to overlook it. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Ah, so we really *are* ignoring Peter Pettigrew than? > >>Nora: > No, being as I said 'tending'. Peter is, of course, the exception > which helps keep things from resolving into too clean of > patterns. > But I suspect I know what the answer would be if you asked her > about the ratio of Gryffindors to Slytherins in the Death Eaters. Betsy Hp: So we'll just throw out Peter as an unexplainable anomaly, *despite* the fact that JKR says the Sorting Hat is never wrong? And *of course* there are more Slytherin Death Eaters than Gryffindor Death Eaters. Voldemort started out in Slytherin. They were his family. That's how these things tend to work. It's why Harry was adopted by the Weasleys and not the Bones. Though, speaking of patterns, I think it's certainly worth noting that there *aren't* any totally recognizable patterns within the characters whose houses we do know. Sirius is a completely different animal from Neville. Smith is not at all like Ernie or Cedric. Draco is quite different from Goyle or Snape. Luna is nothing like Cho. That's because the houses sort by virtues and virtues can be interpreted and expressed in many, many different ways, both positive and negative. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Actually, young Tom Riddle, striding into magical London all by > > his little eleven year old self, or confronting his father when > > only sixteen, could be seen as quite courageous. Harry wanting > > to be a great quidditch captain, or taking NEWT level Potions > > could be seen as quite ambitious. > > They're both rather neutral, in the end. > >>Nora: > I don't think they are, because I think JKR is slanting things in > her favor quite a bit on how she conceptualizes courage (Neville > standing up to his friends to do what is right serves as her model > for that) and how she thinks of ambition. Betsy Hp: But JKR wrote little Tom Riddle walking alone into magical London. Do you think she missed the fact that it was an act requiring a certain amount of bravery? Do you think JKR doesn't realize that Harry's desire to become a Auror, or win a quidditch match shows ambition? I'm only using what she wrote. > >>Nora: > Slytherin blood ideology reminds me very uncomfortably of the old > (and not so old) admissions criteria of the Ivies. > > Do I think that way of thinking about people is evil? Solidly in > the ordinary vices, and the kind of cancer which does profound > damage to a society as a whole. Betsy Hp: So then you must utterly *despise* the Weasleys. I mean, talk about a Gryffindor legacy. Again, you're confusing the Death Eater philosophy with the Slytherin philosophy. It's the Death Eaters who want to confine the WW to just those with a certain type of blood. Slytherin doesn't even want to confine *Hogwarts*. It wants students with a certain respect for and interest in the WW traditions (a bit hard for a Muggleborn to pick up on) and a certain amount of ambition and cunning in its *own* house. But the Hat doesn't ever suggest that only Slytherins need apply. Just as it doesn't tell the not so book-smart kids to get back on the train. Or the timid children to maybe try homeschooling. Hogwarts takes in everyone with magical ability (an exclusion heavily blood based, but a necessary one). The houses are merely the places the different children will feel most comfortable, and I'd imagine, where they'd most thrive. The Sorting Hat catagorizes, but it doesn't exclude. Betsy Hp (seriously over her limit, and off to iron her fingers and then go to bed) (ooh, hey wait, it's midnight! yay! still off to bed though) From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 06:33:22 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 06:33:22 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143974 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: To answer one objection up front: I'd love to see something which very clearly demarcates "Slytherin philosophy" from "Death Eater philosophy". The practical side of Slytherin House is more tolerant in some ways, accepting purebloods. But Salazar Slytherin, canonically, did only want to allow students into Hogwarts based on their bloodlines. We're still arguing over the rationales behind leaving a giant killer snake in the school, and what that says about someone who would do it. Five books is a long, long time to wait for genuinely positive spin to be put on that. > > >>Nora: > > That's not what I was saying. I'm saying that Slytherin's > > insistance on the blood principle itself is something with > > tendencies to evil, because of how it conceptualizes human worth. > > Betsy Hp: > All four houses have their own way of measuring worth. But I think it's clear that there's something both nasty and fundamentally different about the blood valuation from any other way of measuring worth. >>>Nora: >> It's not a case of half-bloods being better than purebloods or any >> reverse consequence; it's the case of saying "you have >> predetermined value from these abstractions regarding your >> parentage" that's wrong. > > Betsy Hp: > But that particular brush tars Hogwarts in it's entirety. Every > house has its families, the Weasleys in Gryffindor, possibly the > Smiths in Hufflepuff. Plus, Hogwarts *does* predetermine every > child's value based on their magical blood. If a child is not > magical, that child does not get into Hogwarts. That's a question to be faced within wizarding society as a whole; I don't think Rowling is going to really deal with the issues of wizards vs. Muggles. But it's bad logic, I think to say "Oh, well, Hogwarts itself is discriminatory because only magical children go there" and thereby say that "Only pureblooded magical children should go to Hogwarts" is the same thing. That's a classic slippery slope. > Betsy Hp: > Really? I don't think I'm seeing that theme, despite the HBP > title. After all, the shock of Snape's blood is that it runs > *against* the "it's all blood" view of Slytherin. Instead, JKR > seems to be dealing with family relationships, self-knowledge, self- > determination, and prejudice or pre-judgment. The shock of Snape's blood is also the intense hypocrisy of a half- blooded Death Eater, as well as the reinforcement of Voldemort's own irrationality in that area. It's so fascinating how he freaks out when he finds out it's his mother who's the magical parent, and what his relatives are actually like. The blood issue is the fundamental matrix that she's working the prejudice angle through. No blood angle, then no links back to the founding of Hogwarts, no Heir of Slytherin mythology, no real spark in the pants motivation for Voldemort...no plot. > Actually, I think JKR is a bit contradictory about her views on > blood lines. Harry will understand himself only as he understands > his parents? Why? They barely affected his life. Unless she > *does* believe in certain inheritable traits. Plus, there's the > whole only someone of Lily's bloodline can protect her son. We've > been told over and over again that Lily used a pure form of good > magic to protect her son. If bloodlines, or an interest in them is > inherently bad, why is Lily's blood magic so inherently good? Again, you're conflating two things. Your relatives and the things you inevitably inherit from them: important. A *classification* of your relatives into a category that doesn't matter in reality, doesn't really exist, and is harmful: bad. I'm sorry that I really don't understand how this distinction isn't being made clear in the text, that the crux of the Salazar Slytherin originated problem is not an 'interest' in bloodlines but a particular way of thinking about them. >> >>Nora: >> There's a massive difference here. Harry should be more >> interested in his parents because of *who* they are as people... >> > > Betsy Hp: > Why? Harry know he's brave. Why does he need to find out if his > father was as well? Because, as you said above, Rowling is writing a story in which the concrete details of inheritance and legacies are important. Harry is explicitly created as someone who has inherited virtues/excellences from his parents. But none of them have to do with James being a pureblood or Lily being a Muggleborn. And you just can't get around those kinds of classifications being written into Slytherin House by its founder from the start. > Betsy Hp: > Hufflepuff opens up to anyone willing to submit to the Hufflepuff > way. (Neville or Luna would do horribly there.) But they *all*, > including Slytherin, look for virtues. Blood is a factor in > Slytherin, but it's not the defining factor. I think it's as big a > mistake to dwell too much on the blood factor as it is to overlook > it. I admit, I don't get where the Hufflepuff BDSM training camp image comes from, but maybe it's just me. However, I'm just going with what the Sorting Hat told us in book 5. I remember onlist it was quite the nasty shock to get told that bluntly that the blood issue was so foundational to Slytherin House. At least for Salazar himself, blood was a sine qua non. The Hermiones of his day were unacceptable. > Betsy Hp: > > Slytherin doesn't even want to confine *Hogwarts*. It wants > students with a certain respect for and interest in the WW > traditions (a bit hard for a Muggleborn to pick up on) and a > certain amount of ambition and cunning in its *own* house. Canon for this 'respect for and interest in'? It still excludes, by principle, even the most eager Muggleborn ready and willing to learn these traditions. It says categorically: you are not for us! Maybe that's well-balanced out by the rest of Hogwarts. I don't think it's healthy at all, and I suspect the house itself will have to deal with this legacy in an explicit way. -Nora notes that not all Slytherin students have to or probably believe that they are superior because of their blood, but it's certainly one of the major flaws and conflicts ripping through wizarding society--why else would Dumbledore chew Fudge out about it? From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Dec 3 06:39:35 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 06:39:35 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143975 > Alla: > Sorry, Jen there IS a way around of that to me. :-) All founders > discriminated, sure, BUT none of them except Slytherin > discriminated based on something you cannot change, IMO. You CAN > work on your courage, you probably cannot work on your IQ, but > hard work can get even not very "naturally talented" student very > very far. Slytherin's discrimination is the worst to me and I > believe that it is the worst to Rowling too. Nora: > But they're not discriminatory with the same kinds of factors. > Slytherin is the genuine essentialist, Ravenclaw and Gryffindor > look for virtues (now in the Aristotelian sense), and Hufflepuff > opens up to everyone. Jen: I do agree that Rowling views discrimination based on purity of blood as the most reprehensible form of discrimination we see in Potterverse, for the reasons both of you spell out--blood cannot be changed. What I'm trying to understand is why at the founding of Hogwarts, the other three founders did not outright reject Slytherin's wish to "teach those whose ancestry is purest." (chap. 11. OOTP) The fact that there was harmony and friendship between the founders for several years prior to the rift seems meaningful to me for understanding the story, as well as the reality that people are sorted into Slytherin who come from Muggle parentage. Thinking about the state of the WW at the time of the founding of Hogwarts, when active persecution was taking place and witches and wizards were an oppressed minority, I do think it's possible that Slytherin's initial ideas about pure ancestry had more to do with saving an importance race and culture from extinction rather than the pure-blood ideology present in the current WW. And the other founders may have shared that fear, although not to the same extent. But then Slytherin's fears may have turned into an obsession with blood superiority, causing the rift with the others. Alla: > Besides, all founders wanted specific qualities in their students, > but NONE of them said that those students who don't meet those > qualities should not be admitted to Hogwarts, none except > Slytherin. THAT was the cause of the fight, even though all four > were fighting, the cause for such fight was Slytherin and > Slytherin alone IMO. Jen: Apparently Slytherin didn't believe in that standard either, when Hogwarts began. The hat was made early on and each Founder was able to 'take only those they wanted' according to the Sorting Hat, and there was harmony. Slytherin wasn't actively opposing the admission of other students. Slytherin may turn out to be a good example of how discrimination can grow out of fear, how fear can take root and cloud a person's judgement to what is good and true. Or he could simply be an example of the type of person who feels certain others are innately superior. It doesn't seem completely obvius to me yet. Alla: > I said it many times - I do think that unity would be achieved at > the end, but I am also pretty sure that there would be no "blood > supremacy" ideology lurking in Slytherin house anymore. I don't > know it would be achieved, I am very inclined to think that > Houses will dissolve at the end, but we wil just have to wait and > see, of course. Jen: I hope the blood superiority idea is gone, gone, gone in the end. If, a big if, Slytherin's initial ideas were formulated at a time when there were few protections for magical people and the race truly was in danger of dying out, that certainly is no longer the case. > Alla: > Well, yes, yes, of course we do see through the eyes of DE > children, but don't you find it telling, Jen that with only ONE > book left for all the talk about "good" Slytherin student before > HBP, we actually STILL see none of them. Unless of course one > considers Draco to be a good Slytherin, which I most definitely > don't. So, IMO good Slytherins may exist somewhere unknown > to us, they may even indeed exist in JKR mind, but JKR does not > show them to Harry, she does not show them to us. I intepret it > not very favorably, personally. Jen: Well, we don't agree on Slughorn, but I do think he was brought into the story not only for plot reasons but to show an example of a Slytherin who presumably went through Hogwarts before the time of Voldemort. I do think Voldemort had a tremendous influence on the house and his influence continues to shape students year after year. Harry has the realization more than once that everything can be traced back to Voldemort in the end. I'd rather be able to feel and see this happening than hear about it in exposition, but I do think we're meant to believe his influence was tremendous and started the moment he entered the WW. Neither you nor Nora addressed the idea that Dumbledore exhibits qualities of the four houses, and that ambition was at least one of the forces behind his desire to defeat Voldemort. Do you not see that idea being present or fell it is unimportant? Nora: > Slytherin blood ideology reminds me very uncomfortably of the old >(and not so old) admissions criteria of the Ivies. Do I > think that way of thinking about people is evil? Solidly in > the ordinary vices, and the kind of cancer which does profound > damage to a society as a whole. La Gatta: > The pure-blood snobbishness of the Wizarding World reminds me not > of the Old-Boyism of the British and Ivy-League educational > systems, but of Germany and the NAZI Party. Jen: Evil born out of the belief that a person or race is superior is as old as time and there's no doubt that is a big part of JKR's story. When all is said and done, the ink dry on the page, I think the main message will be the cyclical nature of individuals and societies, how fractures in the moral fabric swell into evil, how evil is faced and overcome, and how goodness can grow in the cracks where evil once flourished. Jen From sydpad at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 06:46:41 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 06:46:41 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco (was:Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143976 Betsy Hp: > See, I think the Slytherins are seen as the "bad" house *within the > Potterverse*, I'm surprised that nobody's yet brought up the role that the psychological symbolism is playing in this-- you only need a passing knowledge of Jung (who was such an influence on the dreaded Joseph Campbell!), to identify Slytherin with the unintegrated Shadow-side. JKR nearly says as much in the Leaky interview: "Well, the deeper answer, the non-flippant answer, would be that you have to embrace all of a person, you have to take them with their flaws, and everyone's got them. It's the same way with the student body. If only they could achieve perfect unity, you would have an absolute unstoppable force, and I suppose it's that craving for unity and wholeness that means that they keep that quarter of the school that maybe does not encapsulate the most generous and noble qualities, in the hope, in the very Dumbledore-esque hope that they will achieve union, and they will achieve harmony. Harmony is the word." Compare to Jung: "Unfortunately there can be no doubt that man is, on the whole, less good than he imagines himself or wants to be. Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual's conscious life, the blacker and denser it is. If an inferiority is conscious, one always has a chance to correct it. Furthermore, it is constantly in contact with other interests, so that it is continually subjected to modifications. But if it is repressed and isolated from consciousness, it never gets corrected." "Psychology and Religion" (1938). In CW 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East. P.131 Freud seems like a bigger influence (I say this not least because of the whacking big book saying Freud JKR has on her bookshelf), but Rowling's worked out a mightly meticulous symbolic structure to the series and the Shadow theme is an awfully big one IMO. You could write a whole book on the subject and you'd need a better essayist than me to sound really clever about it. But I think there's three major elements carrying Shadow imagery in the series and their functions are different. First obviously if Voldemort, who is pure inhuman or pre-human selfishness, fear, and hatred, but who nevertheless is profoundly spiritually connected to the Hero. In Book V Vmort is explicity identified with Harry's primitive emotions iirc. I suppose at some point Harry will merge with Voldemort in some esoteric sequence featuring ancient magic and V-mort will vanish in the process, rather like the end of "Wizard of Earthsea"; in any case Harry's realization that this primitive evil is part of him in some way is pretty well set up and I'd be astonished if he wasn't a Horcrux, because it's such a neat solution to the connection. The second Shadow-figure is Snape, who is so closely identified with repression that he actually teaches it as a subject, Occlumeny; wearing black and lurking in Shadows and having untellable secrets and buried guilts and so on are his job description, poor fellow. Harry has to 'merge' with Snape as another Shadow-figure, this one personal as opposed to primal, thankfully this can merely take the form of the catharsis scene we've all been waiting for, where the past secrets are brought to light and Snape is released from his prison of repression and Harry can move into a healthy relationship with his dark opposite. Regarding the whole apology thing, I think it may happen as part of a dam-busting psychic event; in general I'm dying to see Snape just LOSE it, so I'm really looking forward to that! So anyways the subject that started this was Slytherin House, that is the Shadow side of the wider society; they are the repository of all the negative traits and live in a dungeon and are excluded from the community of the rest of the school. This is where JKR, IMO, runs into a bit of trouble because the symbolic role of Slytherin, which necessitates them actually being full of negative, ugly, nasty things, is colliding uncomfortably with the surface role of being a bunch of kids sorted in there at age 11. The whole idea of dividing up little kids like that struck me as so horrifying and pernicious I just couldn't get my head around the easy acceptance of it; happily in OoP the Hat has told us that this is a BAD thing and I dare say the series will end with the dissolution of this system. Like with the voldemort-shadow, the Hat being a Horcrux seems like an obvious solution for a climax and resolution of this division. The social crisis within Hogwarts, which is the social world that the Hero will bring the benefit of his personal integration to, can thus start to be resolved. Which brings me to the last bit of this thread: Betsy: >I think it's rather telling that when the Sorting Hat tells us of >the trouble that brewed up between the Founders, Slytherin does not >receive the blame. All four fought amongst each other until >Slytherin finally left. And his leaving weakened Hogwarts as a >whole. I tried to figure out a Tarot structure for HP once, but gave up, because I couldn't make Slytherin fit in-- it seemed clearly watery, but the Cups tend to have positive associations of love and happiness. The Swords are the ugly, conflict cards, but as the air suit they didn't seem to work at all in opposition to Gryffindor the Fire/Wands suit. In the Leaky interview JKR set it straight: she did indeed want the Houses to correspond to the elements. Slytherin is the water/Cups house of emotion. Far from being the cool, rational House, we see Slytherins freaking out, bursting into tears, roiling with repressed rage, and so on. It makes sense now for the Cups to be a negative sign in the books, because the whole point is that the emotional world of Hogwarts is out of balance. The love aspect of the Cups is blocked. The image of a blocked pipe keeps coming to me-- I really think she's going to go back in the next book all the way to the Founders, to clear up what caused the conflict in the first place. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Slytherin exile is so closely connected to the bathrooms overflowing in CoS. And I don't see how the books can end without some sort of bringing to light of this repressed past of the Founders and their initial split. I think it's significant that there's a contradiction between the 'official' history of the split, as laid out by Binns in CoS, and the new version the Sorting Hat gives in it's song in OoP. Part of the point of the integration of the Shadow side is the acknowledgement of how close the behaviour of 'those' people is to 'us', a mirror of how our consciously constructed thoughts are rationalized versions of the selfish drives of the Shadow side, which is why it's so important to bring them to light. This dynamic that's laid out really clearly in JKR's acknowledged favorite children's book, "The Little White Horse", where the heroine is told a simple story of the ancient enmity between the 'sun' kingdom and the 'moon' kingdom; in the end the real story is much more complicated one of mutual selfishness and misunderstanding. Sorry, I seem to have wandered around a lot in this post! It's a really big subject obviously, but I just wanted to highlight this element. Um... can't think of a way to wrap it up with a bang so I'll just sign off, -- Sydney, long-winded one. From lealess at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 07:05:24 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 07:05:24 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143977 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lagattalucianese" wrote: > > The pure-blood snobbishness of the Wizarding World reminds me not of > Old-Boyism of the British and Ivy-League educational systems, but > of Germany and the NAZI Party. The parallels are remarkable--WWI and > WWII, the pure-blood perception that Muggles, mud-bloods, and even > mixed-blood Wizards are somehow infra dig (and the belief of extreme > cases that Muggles and mud-bloods at least are subhuman & should be > destroyed), the Aryan blondness of the Malfoys, a leader (fuhrer?) > so powerful and so vile that most of the Wizarding World won't even > speak his name... And if you want to *really* creep yourself out, > take a look at the SS Gestapo insignia. (Ever wonder where JKR got > Harry's scar?) > > And we're sitting here asking ourselves if this kind of thinking is > *evil*? Earth to HPfGU... > > --La Gatta > You see, I actually had a completely different take on this. What disturbed me was the characterization of a whole house based on stereotypes that, even including blood concerns, would make characters like Shylock or Fagin, if placed in the Potterverse, Slytherins. This was the realization I reluctantly came to. Slytherin is the house in which all the negative stereotypes are collected. To summarize the Sorting Hat, Slytherins are cunning, ambitious, power-hungry, concerned with family background, and capable of using any means to get what they want. The behavior of the Slytherins we have seen adds many more negative qualities to the Hat's list, such as opportunism, use of connections over hard work, slyness... These qualities could apply to any villain, or to the Nazis, I guess. But they are also often applied in fear to outsiders traditionally demonized by a dominant society: Jews, homosexuals, maybe the Gypsies to some degree, in the West those of whom it was said their fate was deserved because of who they were. The things in HBP which brought me to wonder about this were first, the depiction of the Gaunts as ape-like subhumans, similar to the manner in which marginalized groups have been drawn for centuries, and second, the all-Slytherin complicity in the murder of the sainted and probably sacrificial Dumbledore, in the context of Western and ostensibly Christian-themed books. The thing in HPfGU which catalyzed this was the "deserve what they get" postings calling for retribution against certain characters based on supposed character traits and unforgivable actions. It sounded to me like the Slytherins were the Jews, and they had killed Christ, so they deserved what they got. And look, they had a whole bunch of "not like us" characteristics which made it easier to hate and marginalize them. I see the Slytherins as marginalized and forced by this to band together. Yes, the Slytherins form the bulk of the Death Eaters, a sinister international conspiracy to rule the world and remake it in their image. They may espouse a pureblood ideology, but I don't think they are National Socialists, not even in a nascent, thuggish form -- I think they are terrorists. I also think most of them would get out if they could. I don't think the Order or the Ministry will have to do much to destroy the Death Eaters, as they will no doubt disintegrate from within, if given the opportunity, further solidifying the image of Slytherins as slippery, self-interested, and corrupt; out for themselves. "We Slytherins are brave, yes, but not stupid. For instance, given the choice, we will always choose to save our own necks." Yes, a number of Gryffindors demonstrate Slytherin traits, but those traits are generally clumsy in execution (McLaggen's ambition, Hermione's scheming, Ron's bigotry come to mind ? Harry is the best at integrating the houses within himself, probably significant). The Death Eater exception of Peter Pettigrew, on the other hand, is meant to be especially heinous because he was one of the pure ones, one of the brave and daring. It was probably out of incredible character weakness, or coercion as he suggests, or, who knows, impure lust for Lily, that he became one of the tainted ones. None of the Slytherins overtly counters the broad negative stereotypes of the house, with the possible exception of Snape, *if* he is brave, loyal, more intelligent than cunning, and not a Judas, with whom I have seen him compared. Draco shows intelligence and courage, and his Polyjuiced friends show loyalty, but this may all have been in the service of ambition, and so they remain as ambiguous as Snape. Yes, we haven't met all the Slytherins. But six books into the series, we have only seen Slytherins who are, at their absolute best, opportunistic networkers or irresistibly drawn into the plans of others. Is this the basis on which Slytherin will be integrated into the culture of Hogwarts as a whole? It seems Rowling will have to develop some currently name-only characters or introduce a whole raft of new ones in book seven to tie up this and other dangling threads. Anyway, I realize my perspective is a little odd, and my actual understanding of stereotypes is fairly limited. I had to get a book out of the library to see if I was way off base on this, and I'm still not sure. Also, I doubt the author had the intention to do more than create a negative house at Hogwarts to give Harry an enemy to define himself against. But Slytherin house is shown to be, again and again, not really powerful. It is on the outside. It is drawn in such a way that, if character equals destiny in these books, I am a little disturbed in wondering about the genesis of its character. As I noted earlier, I do want to see the houses come together. It will be interesting to see how this happens. lealess From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 08:20:36 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 08:20:36 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143978 > "nrenka" wrote: > To answer one objection up front: I'd love to see something which > very clearly demarcates "Slytherin philosophy" from "Death Eater > philosophy". The practical side of Slytherin House is more tolerant > in some ways, accepting purebloods. But Salazar Slytherin, > canonically, did only want to allow students into Hogwarts based on > their bloodlines. >And "nrenka" in an earlier post wrote: >Actually, I think there *is* a greater propensity for evil in >Slytherin House, plain and simple. >I am not as sanguine as many readers in eliding out the blood factor, >which seems to have faded from this whole consideration. But it's >expurgation to do that. Whether for safety or general bias, the >Sorting Hat and Binns both tell us about Slytherin's principles. The >SH makes it pretty explicit, the valorization of bloodline. *None* >of the other Founders discriminated on similar categories. It seems to me we ought to make not two but three distinctions. Death Eater ideology (bad); Slytherin's ideology (I don't think we know enough about him, but will stipulate it was bad too); and the selection criteria and traditions of Slytherin House at Hogwarts. This third, I think, is not necessarily bad at all. Where in canon does it say that Muggleborns cannot be Sorted into Slytherin House? The Sorting Hat sings three songs we hear. The criteria it gives in PS/SS are "Or perhaps in Slytherin/you'll find your real friends/those cunning folk use any means/to achieve their ends". In GoF, we hear that "And power-hungry Slytherin/loved those of great ambition". Finally in OotP we have a song which tells us "For instance, Slytherin/Took only pureblood wizards/Of great cunning,just like him,". Here we see three different criteria. Pureblood is only one of them. Given how many purebloods land in other houses, and how few purebloods there are supposed to be, I doubt this criterion plays too big a role. So most people selected in are there because of their ambition and/or their cunning, I would say. How this makes its members more disposed to evil is unclear to me. From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sat Dec 3 09:41:54 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 09:41:54 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143979 > > What disturbed me was the characterization of a whole house based on > stereotypes that, even including blood concerns, would make characters > like Shylock or Fagin, if placed in the Potterverse, Slytherins. This > was the realization I reluctantly came to. Slytherin is the house in > which all the negative stereotypes are collected. To summarize the > Sorting Hat, Slytherins are cunning, ambitious, power-hungry, > concerned with family background, and capable of using any means to > get what they want. The behavior of the Slytherins we have seen adds > many more negative qualities to the Hat's list, such as opportunism, > use of connections over hard work, slyness... These qualities could > apply to any villain, or to the Nazis, I guess. But they are also > often applied in fear to outsiders traditionally demonized by a > dominant society: Jews, homosexuals, maybe the Gypsies to some degree, > in the West those of whom it was said their fate was deserved > because of who they were. > I think you have a good idea here, but it's gotten off the track. I don't think the Wizarding world demonizes the Death Eaters out of fear because they're outsiders. It demonizes the Death Eaters out of fear because the Death Eaters have an unfortunate habit of torturing and murdering and (at their least objectionable) manipulating (Lucius Malfoy's in with the MoM) to get what they want. They aren't just "different" people being persecuted because they aren't "just like us". They really are nasty, deadly, unprincipled power-grabbers who will do anything to seize control of the world. I am old enough to remember that in the decades following WWII (the Muggle one), it could be the ruin of a political figure to have it revealed that a parent or other near relative was high up in the NAZI regime. Does this mean that the NAZIs were being demonized by a dominant society because they were "different"? Or were they being demonized because they were demons who finally got what they had coming to them? > > The things in HBP which brought me to wonder about this were first, > the depiction of the Gaunts as ape-like subhumans, similar to the > manner in which marginalized groups have been drawn for centuries, and > second, the all-Slytherin complicity in the murder of the sainted and > probably sacrificial Dumbledore, in the context of Western and > ostensibly Christian-themed books. The thing in HPfGU which catalyzed > this was the "deserve what they get" postings calling for retribution > against certain characters based on supposed character traits and > unforgivable actions. It sounded to me like the Slytherins were the > Jews, and they had killed Christ, so they deserved what they got. And > look, they had a whole bunch of "not like us" characteristics which > made it easier to hate and marginalize them. > Erm... Except that most of the Slytherin families are anything but marginal. They are ancient, rich, powerful, the landed aristocracy of the Wizarding World. (It's been awhile since I encountered the Gaunts, but as I recall they are that standard trope beloved of Gothic literature, the noble house that has fallen into decay and unsavory habits. The Earnshaws in _Wuthering Heights_ spring to mind.) Those who go to the bad (and I would be the first to argue that *not* all Slytherins are evil) make common cause with a clever, murderous, utterly unscrupulous little nobody because they think he can confirm them in the power they already have and give them more at a time when the world is moving forward and they are in danger of becoming societal dodos, very much the way the German military elite fell into step behind Hitler as long as they thought he could do something for them. > > I see the Slytherins as marginalized and forced by this to band > together. Yes, the Slytherins form the bulk of the Death Eaters, a > sinister international conspiracy to rule the world and remake it in > their image. They may espouse a pureblood ideology, but I don't think > they are National Socialists, not even in a nascent, thuggish form - - > I think they are terrorists. I also think most of them would get out > if they could. > ??? I doubt it, right up to the time when they find themselves seriously losing. And once again, while Slytherins may make up the bulk of the Death Eaters, I don't think Death Eaters make up the bulk of Slytherins. > > ...The Death Eater exception of Peter Pettigrew, on the other hand, is meant > to be especially heinous because he was one of the pure ones, one of > the brave and daring. It was probably out of incredible character > weakness, or coercion as he suggests, or, who knows, impure lust for > Lily, that he became one of the tainted ones. > I'll grant you that Pettigrew is a thoroughly nasty little package. I think he goes in for impure lust generally, and follows Sirius around because he can gratify it voyeuristically. But this is a personal theory, influenced no doubt by a personal experience with a real- life, equally nasty package. > > None of the Slytherins overtly counters the broad negative stereotypes > of the house, with the possible exception of Snape, *if* he is brave, > loyal, more intelligent than cunning, and not a Judas, with whom I > have seen him compared... > I have my personal doubts about Snape. I suspect he is was sorted into Slytherin not because he was typical of the house (among other things, he's a half-blood) but because he was for some reason needed there, and in his case the Sorting Hat did as it was told. > > Yes, we haven't met all the Slytherins. But six books into the > series, we have only seen Slytherins who are, at their absolute best, > opportunistic networkers or irresistibly drawn into the plans of > others. Is this the basis on which Slytherin will be integrated into > the culture of Hogwarts as a whole? It seems Rowling will have to > develop some currently name-only characters or introduce a whole raft > of new ones in book seven to tie up this and other dangling threads... > > lealess > I doubt we're going to see a late-breaking contingent of good Slytherins. JKR has already introduced the ones she needs to provide the conflict that drives the story. A pity, in a way, but the book isn't about Slytherin House, it's about Harry Potter, and Slytherin House is there mainly to provide him with some hissable antagonists. --La Gatta From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 12:36:03 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 12:36:03 -0000 Subject: Binns (was Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143980 unlikely2 wrote: > Please forgive my being brief but RL intrudes. So, a partial > argument at least. > > Harry James Potter achieved: > > History of Magic D > Potions E Ginger: As Danielle pointed out, Harry didn't finish his exam, so I would hesitate to use that as a point against Binns. unlikely2 continues: (snip) Binn's style gives students like Hermione > the chance to shine. On the other hand, I suspect that most > students are like Harry and did not do well. Learning is not > only about academic performance. An understanding of content may > have value. > It has been remarked that those who fail to understand history > repeat it. I wonder if a poor understanding of history is not part > of the WW's problem. Ginger: That quote popped into my head as well. I agree with your comment concerning understanding of content. Binns' strength is his knowledge of the facts. His weakness is the application of these facts. I noticed that the students are required to do research and write up essays on various parts of history. In doing this research, I would think that the students are exposed to more than just dates and places; they are exposed to the people who made theses dates and places important. IMO, that's where the value of studying history lies. Not in the what happened, but in the why it happened. My high school history teacher was a combination of Binns and Snape. He was a very dry lecturer who took would make his tests come out so no one could score over 50%. (25% on the books, 25% on the lectures, 50% on stuff he had researched out of class. At the end of the year, he simply doubled our test grades for the final grade.) If a student did score a 51%, he would seat them in the front of the class so he could roll up future test papers and bop them on the head if they failed to continue their "passing" scores. His point was that there was much more to history than we would learn in text books or in class. He also liked marking F--- (that's triple minus, not the F word) on tests in big red pen. But at the end of the year, it translated into a C. My college history teacher was a story teller. He got into the personalities of the people involved and made it come alive. He could mesmerize a class for an hour and a half on the dullest of topics. Probably one of the best teachers I ever had. In either case, as well as with Binns, it was up to the students to pay attention and get the facts straight. With Binns' essays, the student has to look into the facts, organize them, and, in doing so, is likely to draw conclusions on their own. With my hs teacher, this was not done, and with my college teacher, it was done for us. For some reason, I get the feeling that Binns didn't give much feedback on the essays (and probably graded by measuring the parchment rather than reading them), so the students still got out only what they put into it. I think Binns could have been highly effective had they discussed the essays and conclusions in class. I don't think this happened, just that it would have been a good thing if it had. Back to the original comment that got my attention, I don't think I'd classify Binns' methods as "damaging". Even the dullest student who only did the barest of requirements would still walk away with some sense of history. They may forget the specifics once the exam was over, but they learned it, so a bit of it will stick in their minds. I would never classify Binns as an inspiring teacher, but I would say he was adequate for the average student, and good for those like Hermione who were willing to put something into it. But I'd argue the assessment of "damaging". Ginger, who got far more longwinded than she intended. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Dec 3 12:54:28 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 12:54:28 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143981 > > Alla: > > Sorry, Jen there IS a way around of that to me. :-) All founders > > discriminated, sure, BUT none of them except Slytherin > > discriminated based on something you cannot change, IMO. You CAN > > work on your courage, you probably cannot work on your IQ, but > > hard work can get even not very "naturally talented" student very > > very far. Slytherin's discrimination is the worst to me and I > > believe that it is the worst to Rowling too. > > Nora: > > But they're not discriminatory with the same kinds of factors. > > Slytherin is the genuine essentialist, Ravenclaw and Gryffindor > > look for virtues (now in the Aristotelian sense), and Hufflepuff > > opens up to everyone. > > Jen: I do agree that Rowling views discrimination based on purity of > blood as the most reprehensible form of discrimination we see in > Potterverse, for the reasons both of you spell out--blood cannot be > changed. > > What I'm trying to understand is why at the founding of Hogwarts, > the other three founders did not outright reject Slytherin's wish to > "teach those whose ancestry is purest." (chap. 11. OOTP) > > The fact that there was harmony and friendship between the founders > for several years prior to the rift seems meaningful to me for > understanding the story, as well as the reality that people are > sorted into Slytherin who come from Muggle parentage. > > Thinking about the state of the WW at the time of the founding of > Hogwarts, when active persecution was taking place and witches and > wizards were an oppressed minority, I do think it's possible that > Slytherin's initial ideas about pure ancestry had more to do with > saving an importance race and culture from extinction rather than > the pure-blood ideology present in the current WW. And the other > founders may have shared that fear, although not to the same extent. > But then Slytherin's fears may have turned into an obsession with > blood superiority, causing the rift with the others. Ceridwen: I'm glad to see that everyone so far believes that reverse discrimination is bad. Because if the WW was in the straits Jen suggests in her above paragraphs, that's pretty much what Slytherin was advocating. Keep the oppressor race out and school our own. And while I do understand that, in many, many cases, this sort of viewpoint is absolutely necessary at the height of discrimination, since most likely the children are *not* getting a decent education due to hiding from possible capture and death, it doesn't fly once the situation has been resolved, or at least patched enough to resume usual business. In the case of Hogwarts, the situation is taken care of by a hidden school which teaches the minority Wizarding population's children. I don't know if modern standards would see this as having actually taken care of the *problem*, since the majority Muggles don't know the WW exists, and it smacks of 'seperate but equal'. But, it does effectively remove the threat and has been successful for a thousand years. This thread has given me a different perspective on the Blood Purity issue. I also believe that discrimination based on something so intrinsic to the individual - ancestry; blood, is bad. It leaves no room for individual talents to shine forth. But, Slytherin House also has the criteria of cunning and ambition, and it has accepted half-bloods in the past, while other purebloods are sorted into other houses. Slytherin House doesn't take all purebloods just because they're purebloods, leaving the rest for the other houses. If purity was all that mattered, the Weasleys would have been Slytherin, I think. And Snape and Riddle would have been in any other house. Salazar Slytherin's views on blood purity are not the criteria for acceptance into his house. Slughorn, who is apparently a racist who is actively trying to submerge, or even rid himself of, that trait, accepts half-bloods and Muggle-borns into his club. He is an example of pre-Voldemort Slytherins. His criteria involve ambition, talent, connections, and not necessarily all in one person. Since Slughorn was Head of Slytherin House, he probably exhibited the traits of Slytherin best of all possible candidates for that post, at the time of his selection. Slytherin's views may have been necessary to the foundation of Hogwarts. I don't know, we don't know a lot about the time of the Founders. But if the conditions were as Jen suggests, then exclusion of students coming from a dangerous enemy population would make sense. It's an extreme view. But other groups who have suffered persecution have done the same thing since. As of the seperation of the WW from the Muggle world, and the fading memory among the Muggle population of such things as *real* witches and wizards, Slytherin's concerns no longer exist. At least for the moment. But, his people probably want some way to emulate him, in a world where it is no longer necessary. Which has resulted in the Pureblood Supremacist thought. It has gone beyond the necessary, yet has not been put away once the need was over. This is the problem of Slytherin House today, I think. And, a lot of it is due to Tom Riddle, heir of Slytherin, and his extremism. He co-opted the House and I think that what we see is also the victim of Voldemort's rise. Ceridwen. From ornawn at 013.net Sat Dec 3 13:21:00 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 13:21:00 -0000 Subject: Retribution for Snape the Teacher (was Snape, Hagrid and Animals) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143982 >Leslie: >As for Snape's "hysteria," the only time I recall him becoming >hysterical was in PoA, when he nearly lost it at the end there when >Black escaped. >Valky: >As would I probably have gotten a bit hysterical. But, to be honest, >Snape had no proof of his accusations so I don't think DD was trying >to shut him up as trying to help him see reason. Orna: I think it's a little bit of underestimating the situation. Snape has a strong (and correct) intuition about what is going on. He just "knows" Harry has done something ? and he is dead right. Now he finds himself unable to get any support, or even mild attention to his suspicions. DD "helping to see him reason", is a way of driving him crazy, literally. Because he doesn't help him to interrogate Harry, (with or without Verisatrum), and he does make Snape (who after all has got it right!) look like a fool. He even sort of tantalizes him in front of his pupils, when he says that unless he wants to suggest that Harry can be in two places at the same time I'm not saying I would like it different ? I'm happy Sirius and Buckbeak were rescued; I even enjoyed DD making fun of Snape ? because he was after all in a raving mood to get his revenge on Sirius ? no matter what. And since Snape didn't stop to listen to Sirius' and Lupins story about Wormtail, it was only fair and poetic justice, that DD dealt with him the way he did. But "trying to help him see reason" ? that's stretching the truth a little bit far, IMO. I feel DD was driving him crazy. Orna P.S. and IMO he did get hysterical or at least very "mad", when Harry looked in his pensieve, when Harry called him a liar, when Harry "caught" him in PS with his leg injured, when Hermione tried to sneak on him at the staff room in PS. All incidents, when we would ourselves get quite angry, but still ? quite a lot of times. As a matter of fact, Snape being a superb occlument, it is a little bit puzzling ? are these incidents when his occlumency skills brake down? That's how I understand it, but Are these parts of his ways to build his frightening image towards other, and therefore more under control, than it seems? Is the strain needed for continuous occlumency too much, and therefore he brakes down in those times? From ornawn at 013.net Sat Dec 3 13:57:24 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 13:57:24 -0000 Subject: Retribution for Snape the Teacher Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143983 >Miles >Just imagine the situation: >Harry: You killed Dumbledore! >Snape: Dumbledore ordered me to do it! (proves it). >Harry: Oh, I see. But you were nasty in potions! >Snape: I'm so sorry! >Harry: Ok, let's kill Voldemort. >Speaking of bad literature and emotional inconsistencies of >characters... >Sorry, getting a bit sarcastic, but I really cannot think of a >solution that >would meet lupinlore's and my own demands on good literature. Orna: Trying to improvise: Just imagine the situation: Harry: You killed Dumbledore! Snape: Dumbledore ordered me to do it! (proves it). Harry: Oh, I see. But you were nasty in potions! Snape: But that was part of the plan. To be as horrible as could be, so no filthy Slytherin would ever suspect me of being DDM /or: Snape: Look, I just couldn't stand you, because of (something emotional and understandable). It was too much for me. And you are after all an arrogant, irresponsible cheeky line-crosser, who enjoyed DD's favoritism all the way long, and got all the applause for things I helped under great personal risk to aquire. You nearly killed Draco, you endangered your friends, because you "forgot" I was in the order and could help you in OotP, you never thanked me for the times I saved your life - so let's say, we are both human beings sometimes carried away with our emotions, (OK - me being an adult, being carried away in a greasier way ). Harry: Ok, let's kill Voldemort. Personally, I think one of the things I like about JKR's writing, is that nobody is faultless, and I think Snape will parish with his IMO human faults, while enlightening the main issue ? whose side is he, and how came he to be on it, and also the kind of person he is (which includes his potion behavior, but does not necessarily involve great retribution). That quite satisfies my standards for good literature. I would be happy, if on the way, some way of true dialogue would happen between them. But I would find it disappointing, if Snape's turns out to be good or redeemed in every aspect of his behavior, or bad in every aspect of his behavior. Humans are after all complicated species, and I wouldn't like the books to resolve into just good and bad persons. Orna From hg_skmg at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 15:38:09 2005 From: hg_skmg at yahoo.com (hg_skmg) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:38:09 -0000 Subject: Mad-Eye and the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143984 Jen: So assuming Mad-Eye was the one to bring the Pensieve four into custody, losing his eye in the process, he might have something left to share that he learned from the defendants. A clue he didn't realize was meaningful at the time, possibly something to do with the horcruxes. It seems possible Bella knew there was at least one horcrux when she said: The Dark Lord, in the past, entrusted me with his most precious--" (chap. 2, p. 29, Scholastic) At the very least she thought his immortality experiments worked and he was not dead, and that lead to the torture of the people looking for him. hg: What if the reason he wasn't there was that he was recovering at St. Mungo's -- could we assume that had he come, he'd have told everything? I'm wondering if he had information he DID realize was critical, and if he'd withhold it. But would he have discussed it with Dumbledore? I'd think so. That's not to say I think Moody understood that Voldemort had Horcruxes, but I do wonder if he'd tell something to Dumbledore that he wouldn't bring up at trial, even if he could have been there. Perhaps there are some Moody/Dumbledore discussions swirling around in Dumbledore's Pensieve. Jen: And if any of those elaborate memory-charmed Neville theories in the archives are true, this would be the point to bring them into the story! I suspect his memory loss is more symbolic though, that life has always been difficult for him and there are many things he would rather forget. :( hg: I think there's more to it than symbolism, especially seeing his power emerge in OoP, as compared to the sledgehammered point JKR had made since book 1 about his forgetfulness and fumbling. How this could play out in the story, though, I'm at a loss to envision. Any ideas? What I want to know is why Dumbledore didn't try to get memories from Alice & Frank, or if maybe he did and we just aren't aware of it yet. It seems it might be possible, despite their inability to cooperate (because of Dumbledore's interview with Morfin Gaunt -- he was able to get information from Morfin despite his addled state). Perhaps the purpose of the Longbottoms being so badly impaired was to deter speculation that they'd have something to contribute, but one might think they'd be dead if that was the case, rather than alive and brain damaged. hg. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Dec 3 16:35:58 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:35:58 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco (was:Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143985 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: > > So anyways the subject that started this was Slytherin House, that > is the Shadow side of the wider society; they are the repository of > all the negative traits and live in a dungeon and are excluded from > the community of the rest of the school. This is where JKR, IMO, > runs into a bit of trouble because the symbolic role of Slytherin, > which necessitates them actually being full of negative, ugly, nasty > things, is colliding uncomfortably with the surface role of being a > bunch of kids sorted in there at age 11. Pippin: Wonderful post, Sydney! I think we need to be very careful in distinguishing the reputations of the Houses from the criteria which the Hat actually uses to select. I think we will discover that Slytherin's reputation has become unfairly tarnished, and Gryffindor's unfairly bright. Gryffindor is being judged by the best of the individuals that join it, and Slytherin by the worst. That is hardly fair. The Sorting Hat tells us that the each of the Houses "divided, sought to rule". The substance of their quarrel, according to Binns, was that Slytherin thought the purebloods were most to be trusted with power. But if all four sought to rule, then *all* were elitist. Each thought the members of their own House were most to be trusted. And they were *all* wrong, because Dumbledore tells us that only those very rare individuals who are pure of soul can truly be trusted with power and *none* of the Founders were selecting for that. It might be that the pure of soul are drawn to Gryffindor because courage is a marker for purity. Perfect love has been said to cast out fear. But courage can also arise from recklessness, as we've seen. Likewise, those whose instincts are bent towards cruelty and domination may gravitate to Slytherin because ambition is a marker for the will to dominate. But ambition may also arise from the innocent desire to better oneself, as it does in Harry. In any case, purity of soul is rare, and so, fortunately, are eleven year olds who have rejected love and dedicated themselves solely to the pursuit of cruelty and power. Slytherin himself was not such a person, if his friendship with Gryffindor was any guide. If he turned Dark, it must have been later, out of fear, and in the mistaken belief that those of pure blood were inherently noble and could not succumb to evil. Slytherin was surely mistaken to think that blood was a guarantee of virtue, but IMO, the other Founders were just as wrong to think it was guaranteed by egalitarianism, or intelligence or even courage. So to me it's elitism based on false criteria that has caused the separation of the Houses, and they all need to lower their pride and admit that there are few in any House who can be trusted with power. For some of us in the real world, the idea of race as a guarantee of virtue has been so thoroughly discredited that it's difficult to imagine any well-meaning person could believe such a thing. But you don't have to go very far back into the past to find highly respected individuals (who are used as examples of good character *to this day*) who believed just that, though the history books aren't always careful to mention it. I don't think JKR is saying that racism is worse than other kinds of elitism based on false criteria. I think she used it because it's very easy for us Western liberal types to recognize that it's false. But I think the wizarding world is largely ignorant of the change in Muggle thinking that happened post 1945, a year which Wizards seem to remember mostly for the fall of Grindelwald, so it's unfair to judge them as if they should know better. >From what Dumbledore says, it is almost certain that those who have power will abuse it. IMO, courage is important to JKR not because it's a guarantee of virtue but because it gives us the strength to resist abuse, which we can do even if we're not pure of soul ourselves. Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Dec 3 16:31:32 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:31:32 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) References: Message-ID: <008101c5f827$05e78880$a6ba400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 143986 La Gatta: I think you have a good idea here, but it's gotten off the track. I don't think the Wizarding world demonizes the Death Eaters out of fear because they're outsiders. It demonizes the Death Eaters out of fear because the Death Eaters have an unfortunate habit of torturing and murdering and (at their least objectionable) manipulating (Lucius Malfoy's in with the MoM) to get what they want. They aren't just "different" people being persecuted because they aren't "just like us". They really are nasty, deadly, unprincipled power-grabbers who will do anything to seize control of the world. I am old enough to remember that in the decades following WWII (the Muggle one), it could be the ruin of a political figure to have it revealed that a parent or other near relative was high up in the NAZI regime. Does this mean that the NAZIs were being demonized by a dominant society because they were "different"? Or were they being demonized because they were demons who finally got what they had coming to them? Magpie: I think her point is that they are both these things, as anti-Semitic prejudice often makes Jews. They are controlling everything, but are also outsiders. The Slytherins are both marginalized in that they are disliked by 3/4 of the school, but they are also somehow well-connected with unfair advantages. They aren't just one thing. To me the crux is that yeah, they do conform to a lot of those stereotypes--only it's real. The Jews' in the Prioress' Tale (I think it is) really do slit the little Christian Boy's throat, too, so within her fictional universe they really are evil. But Jews are real people and there are no Slytherins in real life, so it's not like you can say the books are putting across an unfair presentation that promotes bigotry towards Slytherins. To relate it to Sydney's point, I think it's because they are fulfilling the role of Shadow. Sydney: It makes sense now for the Cups to be a negative sign in the books, because the whole point is that the emotional world of Hogwarts is out of balance. The love aspect of the Cups is blocked. The image of a blocked pipe keeps coming to me-- I really think she's going to go back in the next book all the way to the Founders, to clear up what caused the conflict in the first place. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Slytherin exile is so closely connected to the bathrooms overflowing in CoS. And I don't see how the books can end without some sort of bringing to light of this repressed past of the Founders and their initial split. I think it's significant that there's a contradiction between the 'official' history of the split, as laid out by Binns in CoS, and the new version the Sorting Hat gives in it's song in OoP. Part of the point of the integration of the Shadow side is the acknowledgement of how close the behaviour of 'those' people is to 'us', a mirror of how our consciously constructed thoughts are rationalized versions of the selfish drives of the Shadow side, which is why it's so important to bring them to light. Magpie: That is the way it seems to be working so far for me. Sometimes it's even explicit in the text that this is what is going on, where Harry will even be aware of the fact that he uses Slytherin as a negative touchstone, something to define himself *against* or he'll come close to making a connection between himself and something he doesn't like and then avoid it by pushing it onto a Slytherin. HBP obviously makes this even more clear--he feels a real connection to the Prince when he doesn't know he's Slytherin. I did a post on the last four books being focused on the four houses once, but the basic thing was: PoA=the Gryffindor book, where we learn about MWPP, the villain is Peter the coward and Harry learns to deal with Dementors, creatures that kill via fear. GoF=the Hufflepuff book, where Cedric is the true Champion and Harry puts working together and Hogwarts above personal glory. OotP is the Ravenclaw book where Hermione reigns supreme, everyone is scheming and figuring stuff out, Harry teaches a class because his real one is denied him, Ron gets attacked by a brain, Snape and Voldemort get into Harry's mind and everyone studies for tests. (Cho's emotions make her a "hosepipe" and completely confuse Harry, while Hermione tries to reduce them to an intellectual thing.) HBP is the Slytherin book with water everwhere--bathrooms, drinks, Potions, shipping, love Potions, tears, blood and liquid luck. Harry is constantly having to "submerge" himself in Slytherin, being just a passive observer (the train car, the Pensieves, the Tower, the textbook). This was the first book I could remember when Harry actually spoke of Slytherins as being like himself in some way, in order to figure them out, and he ultimately sees some emotions there that he would not have before. He's even separated from his own friends by his closer ties with that house. (Dumbledore allows him to tell Ron and Hermione about Riddle in the Pensieve, but Harry's obsession with the Prince and Malfoy cause conflict.) They are, as you say, the emotional house, and just as "love" is the thing that Harry has that V doesn't, it seems like their own love is their hope as well. They don't lack the ability the way Voldemort does, but by following him it tends to get twisted to bad ends, even to hate. (Lollipops definitely seems like a possibility post-HBP.) -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 17:21:08 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 17:21:08 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) LONGish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143987 > > >>Nora: > > That's not what I was saying. I'm saying that Slytherin's > > insistence on the blood principle itself is something with > > tendencies to evil, because of how it conceptualizes human worth. > > Betsy Hp: > All four houses have their own way of measuring worth. And between > the four of them every child finds a home. No house, including > Slytherin, is saying that only *their* sort should come to > Hogwarts. Lets not make the mistake of confusing the Death Eater > philosophy with Slytherin philosophy. JKR has been too careful in > drawing a line between the two beliefs, IMO. Alla: And I am saying that Slytherin's way of measuring the worth is the very worst out of four. Slytherin was advocating precisely that - that child who does not meet HIS criteria of worth will not find his home in Hogwarts in ANY house. I think that canon gives no support to the argument that Slytherin Philosophy and Death Eater philosophy are not the same. JMO, obviously. On the contrary, IMO Voldemort found his home in the Slytherin so fast precisely because his beliefs were similar to what Slytherin believed. Voldemort did NOT transform Slytherin house, on the contrary IMO Slytherin found one of his owns. Dumbledore tells us in HBP how FAST Tom Riddle was sorted in Slytherin. I used to think that the only thing Voldemort wants is power and the only reason he adopted Slytherin's beliefs was because he wanted purebloods with him, but now I am not so sure. Maybe dear Tommie was so upset with his dad and idolized his mother that he truly wants purebloods to prevail. Not sure. > Betsy Hp: > Really? I don't think I'm seeing that theme, despite the HBP > title. After all, the shock of Snape's blood is that it runs > *against* the "it's all blood" view of Slytherin. Alla: No, to me the shock of Snape's blood is that him the half-blood denying his true heritage and wanting pureblood cause to prevail. It is fairly clear IMO that even if he is not a racist now, he was in his youth. So, I am thinking about his hypocrisy and such. > Betsy Hp: > Ah, but we're confusing the Death Eater line with the Slytherin line > again. It's easy to do because the Death Eaters were formed by a > Slytherin who twisted his house philosophy to its most evil or > negative aspect. Alla: No, I don't think we confuse anything here. I don't think Voldemort twisted his house philosophy, but embraced it and proclaimed himself the champion of the cause. That is why all those guys followed him, IMO, because he said what they believed in, what they wanted to hear. > Jen: I do agree that Rowling views discrimination based on purity of > blood as the most reprehensible form of discrimination we see in > Potterverse, for the reasons both of you spell out--blood cannot be > changed. Alla: Thank you,Jen. That is probably one of the most important points of my argument. Jen: > What I'm trying to understand is why at the founding of Hogwarts, > the other three founders did not outright reject Slytherin's wish to > "teach those whose ancestry is purest." (chap. 11. OOTP) Alla: I have no problem thinking of it as three friends trying to placate another dear friend, especially of course since they all had the criteria to choose their students. They were probably thinking - you want to teach purebloods in your house, by all means does it as long as muggleborns can get into other houses. But when such friend went crazy and started insisting that muggleborns should not be accepted to Hogwarts at all, then I speculate other three had enough and discord started. Jen: > Thinking about the state of the WW at the time of the founding of > Hogwarts, when active persecution was taking place and witches and > wizards were an oppressed minority, I do think it's possible that > Slytherin's initial ideas about pure ancestry had more to do with > saving an importance race and culture from extinction rather than > the pure-blood ideology present in the current WW. And the other > founders may have shared that fear, although not to the same extent. > But then Slytherin's fears may have turned into an obsession with > blood superiority, causing the rift with the others. Alla: But by denying muggleborns admission, Slytherin WAS throwing young wizards and witches of muggle heritage at the mercy of their persecutors, no? I see what you are saying, but my most charitable reading of Slytherin interprets him as a tragic figure, who maybe suffered a lost of loved one who was killed by a Muggle and decided that that is why everybody who comes from Muggle heritage is not to be trusted. My least charitable reading of Slytherin is as someone who leaves a monster at Hogwarts precisely for the reason we were given - to kill Muggleborns ( don't have my CoS, so cannot give a quote) > Jen: I hope the blood superiority idea is gone, gone, gone in the > end. If, a big if, Slytherin's initial ideas were formulated at a > time when there were few protections for magical people and the race > truly was in danger of dying out, that certainly is no longer the > case. Alla: YES, thank you again, but that is why I am having a hard time to see four houses existing at the end of the books. I mean, the unity would be probably achieved, but it is quite clear to me that Slytherin must reject this part of their philosophy. Would Slytherin still be Slytherin without it or entirely different entity? > Jen: Well, we don't agree on Slughorn, but I do think he was brought > into the story not only for plot reasons but to show an example of a > Slytherin who presumably went through Hogwarts before the time of > Voldemort. Alla: I am not sure I know your position on Slughorn, actually, Jen, so I don't know if we agree or disagree on him :-) Mine is I love him, have my suspicions about him, but REALLY don't want them to come true. He is a great character and if he is an example of good Slytherin, great. But again, isn't it funny that the most that good Slytherin can do is RUN from DE not fight them? I really hope we hear more about Regulus, personally. Maybe he would be a good Slytherin who fought bravely. I think he is a good candidate for "fake death" or something like that, because the only reference JKR made to his death as far as I remember is that he is "dead these days, so he is quiet" ( paraphrase). I remember being quite suspicious after reading this quote, because being dead these days could easily mean IMO that he can be alive tomorrow. Jen: > Neither you nor Nora addressed the idea that Dumbledore exhibits > qualities of the four houses, and that ambition was at least one of > the forces behind his desire to defeat Voldemort. Do you not see > that idea being present or fell it is unimportant? > Alla: Hee, I was not sure it needs addressing. I am not really arguing against the unity of all four houses, you know. Harry also has a lot of qualities from different houses, no argument from me here either. :-) What I am arguing against is that Slytherin House stands on equal footing with other three houses, where admission of their mistakes needs to be done. IMO, Slytherin has much more amends to make and right the wrongs AND cross out the "pureblood supremacy" from their beliefs. But could that be done that easily? I don't know. Hee, as to ambition playing part in Dumbledore's plans? I am not sure. I can just easily interpret Dumbledore fight against Voldemort to make sure that "pureblood supremacy" will not win. Is it ambitious? I suppose, but it is a good ambition. JMO, Alla From sydpad at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 17:29:12 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 17:29:12 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco (was:Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143988 pippin wrote: > I don't think JKR is saying that racism is worse than other kinds of > elitism based on false criteria. I think she used it because it's very > easy for us Western liberal types to recognize that it's false. Yes! I think the Slytherins aren't bad because they're racist: they're racist because they're bad. It's the sort of prejudice that most of us-- most of us with the education to read books at least-- are comfortable knowing is wrong; and most important it's the UNACCEPTABLE prejudice. Shadow-sides is where unacceptable feelings are stuffed rather than being dealt with. The other Houses have prejudices of their own, including race-prejudice, but they don't really have to confront them because they can say, 'oh, I can't be racist, I'm not one of those Slytherins', even as they discriminate against werewolves and play ugly tricks on Muggles. Or how James and Sirius could congratulate themselves on their purity of heart even as they were beating up on Snape, because, hey, they're Gryffindors and he's one of Them. As Lily says, "You're just as bad as he is!", to which James has the easy counter, "I'd never call you a.. a..". Because if Slytherins are racist it's impossible for a Gryffindor to be a bully. Or something. Ah, projection! You only need a brief glance at the news to see how this hideous dynamic plays out every day. -- Sydney From radasgat at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 15:44:44 2005 From: radasgat at yahoo.com (radasgat) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:44:44 -0000 Subject: A Horcrux in each book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143989 Again, I like this theory and I'm beginning to have more faith in it; dispite my initial gut reaction. M. Clifford: > > Now in all these cases not only is the object revealed, but also it is > first 'seen' within the book 'before Harry goes to Hogwarts' in every > case. Radasgat: This is interesting indeed. For book one my husband and I immediatly latched on to Either Sirius' motorcycle (could it have been purchased used from a DE?) OR the wand in Olivander's front window. The wand sits on a purple cloth; not the color of any house. (I don't think) But this leads us to another possiblity at the beginning (and throughout the PS), could Quirrel be the product of a horcurx? What do we know about Quirrel: 1. He seems to have been teaching at Hogwarts for more than a year because they make the comment, "Snape's been after his job for years" even though in later books it is suggested that no one has held the DADA job for more than a year. Perhaps Quirell used to teach some other subject. 2. He was studying something in the field when he went abroad and met LV in the "Black Forest" and became possesed. 3. He becomes more and more possesed as the book goes on 4. He is defeated in the end Ok.. What if Quirrel came across a horcrux on his travels (perhaps something of Ravenclaw's) and became possesed by it (like Ginny was in CoS) and was in the last stages of it taking over Quirrel's body when the last scene in PS occurs. Still quite confused about what could be the horcrux in PoA. could it be something in the Leaky Cauldron? On the Night Bus? What about Percy's Head Boy badge (didn't the twins keep bewitching it to make it say 'Dork Boy" or something) Was this badge once Riddle's? Radasgat From unlikely2 at btopenworld.com Sat Dec 3 09:16:24 2005 From: unlikely2 at btopenworld.com (unlikelyauthor) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 09:16:24 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143990 > Jen: Evil born out of the belief that a person or race is superior > is as old as time and there's no doubt that is a big part of JKR's > story. When all is said and done, the ink dry on the page, I think > the main message will be the cyclical nature of individuals and > societies, how fractures in the moral fabric swell into evil, how > evil is faced and overcome, and how goodness can grow in the cracks > where evil once flourished. unlikely2 May I suggest that, over the centuries, a misunderstanding may have arisen as to the nature of Slytherin's objections? An argument in the form of a drabble (100 words)): `You cannot take, from a woman who has lost everything else, her only remaining children.' `But they are our kind.' Godric swung to his feet. `Yes, if they were in danger. Yes, if their magic was so powerful that it couldn't be hidden.' Salazar tugged at his beard. `Would you steal from such poor people the very little they have?' `Yes,' replied Godric, `if it empowers us. The children will have better lives. If you, yourself, were ready to give up Hogwarts, I would concede.' `You've lost,' laughed Rowena. In the morning Salazar was gone and rumours began to fly. unlikely2 From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Dec 3 07:55:51 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 02:55:51 -0500 Subject: Reactions to various posts. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143991 Andie Wrote: > Could there really be no record of her because that is not who she > is? Can Regulas be in hiding in the form of Mrs. Figg? Marianne S.: > While I kinda like this theory, I don't think Kreacher (and 12 > Grimmauld Place) would have passed into Harry's possession if > Regulus was alive in any shape or form. MercuryBlue: Last I checked, Harry got the house because that's what Sirius's will said to do with the place. Wills override 'everything goes to next-of- kin' laws." Bruce: Not necessarily. If the property is entailed it goes to the next in line, anything in will notwithstanding. The question is if 12 Grimmauld Place was Sirius' in fee simple or in fee tail, and if entailed how. Some entailments can pass on in the female line in default of a direct male heir, but some will go to the next male her--in a collatral line if there is no direct one; it depends on how the original grant was written. And we should also consider if house-elves are more like serfs than like slaves; there is a difference. Potioncat: "I never could decide "who" assigned that detention. I'm starting to wonder if Hagrid wasn't being punished as well." Bruce: Reminds me of a comic strip I saw once. A teenaged girl is babysitting a toddler, whose mother says, "Oh, by the way, dear, Katie has been a very naughty girl, and she's not to watch any videos as her punishment." The babysitter says, "HER punishment?" I agree--being saddled with Draco would be punishment enough. There are few flies on Prof. McG (who, IIRC, assigned the detention.) bboymin: "Next, JKR has a very terse compact writing style." Bruce: *cough* Order of the Phoenix *cough* 870 pages *cough* You obviously have a very different definition of 'terse' or 'compact' than I do. When I think 'terse and compact style,' I think first of Hemmingway; I can't think of any 20th or 21st C. author more UNlike Hemmingway than Rowling. festuco "I don't believe he passes potions. I remember one comment made about his potions grade, being that his high mark in herbology compensates his abysmal mark in potions, exam results in PS. For the rest of the years I cannot remember any comment given on him passing the subject, but I assume he does not." Bruce: I don't think that is says that he FAILED potions--just that he didn't do very well. Geoff: "There are lots of other little plays on words and in-jokes which have been used by JKR: Diagon Alley, Knockturn Alley, Malfoy, Grimmauld Place, Professor Unbridge, Dumbledore to mention but a handful." Bruce: 'Delores' means 'sorrows'; Umbridge is from 'umbra', Latin for 'shadow.' 'Malfoy' means 'bad faith.' 'Bellatrix' means 'female warrior'. 'Hedwig', Harry's owl, is the German form of St. Edvigia, the patron saint of orphans. (In Ibsen's 'The Wild Duck', the girl Hedwig isn't really an orphan, but for all the attention her parents paid to her she might as well have been.) Sometimes I wonder how people who don't have much knowledge of Romance languages, Classical mythology, and related subjects can really appreciate the HP books nrenka: "Courage puts oneself on the line, facing difficulty and danger, quite often not only for one's sole benefit. One can be courageous for oneself, but it's more often in the service of a group endeavour." Bruce: C.S. Lewis says that courage is the highest virtue because all others are useless without it; you can have any or all of the others in abundance, but unless you have the courage to act it/them when it is difficult or dangerous to do so, what good is/are it/them? As an example, he says that Pilate was inclined to be merciful until it looked risky. Bruce Wilson From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Dec 3 17:56:17 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 17:56:17 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143992 > Lupinlore: > But when have we ever been led to believe that Snape's thought > processes are essentially logical? Pippin: Harry thinks so. "Harry could tell he was putting two and two together, as only Snape could..." --GoF ch 25 Lupinlore: He is certainly capable of logic, as his puzzle guarding the PS/SS shows. But he is also capable of great leaps of emotionalism, indeed near hysterics, when it comes to Harry and James Potter. Pippin: The more facts we have, the less vaulting Snape's leaps become. Since he could look into Harry's mind whenever he had eye contact, his seemingly weird conclusions that Harry has been up to something needn't be based on obsession alone. We also don't know whether Snape really believes his offbase accusations or is just using them to get Harry to think about what Snape wants to know. Lupinlore: > People do that all the time -- particularly deeply neurotic and near- > hysterical people. Pippin: Snape is seldom near-hysterical, and even deeply neurotic people do know, as has been said, that two and two make four. They just can't stand it. > > > > Pippin: > > > Exactly. Children know perfectly well when Snape has crossed the > > line in his classroom. They don't need a sermon about it, and they > don't need to see fire and brimstone raining on his head. > > > > Lupinlore: > Ah, but is this still a children's book? :-) I don't know and I > don't think it's pertinent, actually. The question is what would > make for an ending that brings the story's wheel to a balanced and > well-written end. That requires, IMO, an amount of sermonizing > about Snape in the form, as we have discussed on another thread, of > a third party intervening to confront, chastise, and yes, humiliate > Snape in much the same way Dumbledore confronted, chastised, and > humiliated the Dursleys. Pippin: Well, that's the debate, isn't it? Was Snape doing as Dumbledore asked or not? If not, then surely he deserves whatever he gets. But if he was doing the best that he could, given his strong instinct for cruelty and his undoubted anger, he has little to be ashamed of, IMO. You stress the importance of confrontation and redress in the healing of childhood traumas. Snape believes that someone tried to murder him when he was sixteen. That seems to be a major source of his anger, and anger enables cruelty even in people like Harry and Sirius who are not generally cruel. I think Harry has to solve this mystery, and when he does, it might go a long way toward helping Snape deal with his tendencies. Not that I expect Snape to become a sweet and gentle soul by any means but it might help, even if all he learns is that it was indeed just a stupid childish joke and no one meant for him to die. (I don't think so, but we'll see.) It's often healing if people can just agree about what happened, even if no one is blamed. I have no problem with Harry expressing his anger to Snape over the way that Snape has treated him. I do have a problem with Harry conflating his anger about that with his anger over the loss of Sirius and Dumbledore, especially if those losses turn out to have little to do with Snape. Pippin From kchuplis at alltel.net Sat Dec 3 18:24:26 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 18:24:26 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Hagrid-and some Snape In-Reply-To: <028d01c5f7a9$cccfc7b0$b786400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143994 > kchuplis: > I'm a tad baffled by the entire reaction to the Hippogryff Incident. ... > > Magpie: > > Seriously, I'm equally baffled by how saying, "It's a running joke that > Hagrid does not have a realistic perspective on animal danger management and > this is always causing him problems" is somehow controversial. To me it's > about on the same level as saying that Snape lets his hatred for James > influence his dealings with Harry. kchuplis: I did not say that Hagrid does not have some problems with seeing how animals affect non-giants (since he has natural protection that humans do not, I can certainly understand that he doesn't necessarily grasp the seriousness to others. I see too many people who cannot understand other people's perspective on a daily basis to believe Hagrid can be just as blind.) What I don't see is how this class, this school can be compared to modern day "muggle" institutions, which is what I am seeing in these debates. When Malfoy complains about the detention going into the dangerous forest and says "if my dad knew" Hagrid tells him his dad would say that's how it is at *Hogwarts*. This does shut Malfoy up, presumably because it is the truth. The detention is a school sanctioned discipline that is considered exceedingly dangerous. This to me is yet another angle on Hogwart's students being more in jeapardy than the average student. I also do not see how Malfoy gets off in the ongoing arguments here for being blatantly to blame for his own injury. The teacher (Hagrid) gave specific important instructions that were purposely ignored by the student (Malfoy) with predictable and someone obviously overblown (by the student himself) results. Again, students routinely practice dangerous lessons at Hogwarts, not the least of which include broom flying and the dangerous game of Quidditch as well as potions and charms that turn out badly or backfire. I do not see how one can condemn Hagrid and not condemn virtually every aspect of Hogwarts for putting students at the possible risk of injury. Hagrid's class in not in a vacuum. > > Magpie: > I don't quite understand. You had a fourth grade teacher who was in control > of the class, and was prepared for children breaking rules. Not seeing what > that has to do with Hagrid. > kchuplis I've also had teachers that were plenty bendable about rules. The point is that being extraordinarily severe isn't a clear pass to "good teacher practices". Not to mention that ear pulling can have serious consequences of itself. To be quite honest, living in fear of the 4th grade teacher did nothing toward furthering my learning but I learned plenty from teachers of whom I was not afraid. Once again, in my mind, the "witch hunt" (ha ha) over Hagrid's action or inaction seems rooted in the litigious mind set of today's society where no one, and I mean no one has any control and no one is prepared to take responsibility because they are afraid of being sued. I just don't believe that mentality can apply to Hogwarts, where students are routinely in the way of danger of injury even withOUT LV on the loose or Hagrid's Care of Magical Creatures class. > Gerry: > Gerry, who thinks it is ridiculous to blame a teacher for an accident > > Magpie: > > Oh, we're not even close to blaming the teacher for the accident. We're too > busy fighting to suggest the teacher had anything to do with anything that > happened in the class at all, except for the brilliant success of kids like > Neville and Harry. > kchuplis: I'm a little confused with this statement seeing as how Harry and Neville rarely come off as brilliant *in class*. They both are outstanding at nerve in real life situations, however. > Joe Goodwin: > > JKR seems to place a very high value on personal responsibility. > > Magpie: > > Except for Hagrid, apparently. Slytherins may be guilty of plenty of things, > but that doesn't keep them from being convenient scapegoats as well. (And > Hagrid is quite handy with the guilt trip in canon.) > > Malfoy is in detention because he was outside. Harry was outside because > Hagrid was illegally keeping a dragon and dragging the kids into lying for > him. Yet Hagrid is the guy giving the detention. Poor Hagrid. kchuplis: Poor Malfoy. I can think of no other instances where he was given detention and plenty where Harry was (I guess there was the ferret incident but as Mad-eye wasn't really a teacher, I don't know if that can count. Had it been any other teacher would he have been punished for trying to curse a student when his back was turned? I don't recall seeing any proff that he would have been punished unlike Harry who is often punished ever for things that are not really justly punishable! I'll keep an eye out on this reread. Feel free to point out all the other times that Malfoy was punished for his behaviour.) This is scapegoating? > Joe Goodwin: > If anyone is to blame it is Mr. and Mrs. Malfoy for not teaching Draco not > to be an insufferable jerk. > > Magpie: > > And that's the key, isn't it? Malfoy's the jerk, so he gets the blame. kchuplis: Malfoy's a jerk and does NOT get the blame. I think that is more to the point. In the Hippogriff incident he is directly to blame for his injury. He is often a jerk other times and is let off because it is under Snape's watch. > (Malfoy's friends think Hagrid's the jerk--but they don't count because > they're jerks too.) Only that's not actually the way things always work > out. Being accurate about what happened often requires looking beyond > finding the jerk and treating that person the same way you'd treat someone > else. Sometimes even when one person is sure of who the bad guy is, another > person might take Lily's pov that "you're just as bad as he is." > Particularly when one person is 13 and the other one is, what, 57? I > suspect the biggest difference-perhaps the only one that really makes a > difference at all to what happens--between Ron's injury and Malfoy's is > Ron's attitude towards Hagrid. kchuplis Well, that is certainly why Ron did not go to Pomfrey. This is, however, some how laid at Hagrid's doorstep. Why is Hagrid constantly responsible for the students behaviour? Malfoy (whom Hagrid DID whip off to the infirmary immediately) made an injury out to be worse than it is and Ron downplayed one (to his own disadvantage.) It's Hagrid's fault that Ron values his friendship? I highly doubt Hagrid said "now don't go running to Pomfrey" after being bitten by the dragon, and no, he didn't frog march Ron up there either, but that is off page so I guess we can assume Hagrid laid a guilt trip on Ron. I didn't read it that way in Ron's response about the bite. And Hagrid's actions do not appear to be hidden from Ron as Ron appeared to be fully sensible of Hagrid's blindness on the danger of the dragon. His words make it appear that way at least. And yet the only responsible party is Hagrid. These kids aren't 5 they are 11 or 12 year olds with more than your average exposure to this type of thing (aside from Harry who did not grow up around it, but still seems to understand the gravity of most situations). I also don't believe parents live in total oblivioun to the dangers of Hogwarts, or have seen no real evidence of this. Perhaps the ones who are muggles only. but still, these arguments seem to indicate Hagrid is the only person at fault in any of these situations. That's baffling to me. kchuplis From rosered2318 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 18:19:00 2005 From: rosered2318 at yahoo.com (rosered2318) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 18:19:00 -0000 Subject: A Horcrux in each book and how it became one (Was: A Horcrux in each book) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143995 "M.Clifford" > To start I agree that it makes sense in the context of book patterns > that one Horcrux is revealed in each book, Rose Recalls: This was my first reaction on finding out that the diary was a horcrux. My second reaction was that we have also seen every character whose death was the used to make a horcrux. In HBP, Dumbledore tells Harry that Voldemort reserved his horcrux making for special victims. I have come up with some names that might or might not apply. The connections should be obvious except for #4 1) Moaning Myrtle - diary 2) Marvolo Gaunt - ring 3) Tom Riddle Sn - Locket 4) Regulus Black - Nagini (he discovered the plot and was a "snake in the grass" - waiting to take Voldemort down without his seeing it) Rose prepares for howlers: The seventh part of Voldemort soul still resides in his body so there are only two left to count. I don't venture to guess the Prisoner of Azkaban horcrux and death, but I think that the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's stone is this: 5) Harry - Harry In order to make a horcrux, the person must split their soul by committing a murder. Perhaps the soul accompanies the spell and when the murdered person's soul leaves their body for the veil, the murderer's soul piggy backs out of the body and can then be captured and put into someplace else. However, Harry's soul did not leave his body. Therefore, the sixth part of Voldemort's soul is still in there and cannot get out. There it is, up for speculation Rose From kchuplis at alltel.net Sat Dec 3 17:38:09 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 17:38:09 -0000 Subject: Question re: Snape and James Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143996 I'm rereading the books now and at the end of book 1 DD tells Harry that the reason Snape so detested James is because James saved Snape's life and that that "debt" is probably why Snape was concerned with protecting Harry even while loathing him that first year. I cannot remember this being returned to in any of the books. In posts I see people referring to the memory of James bullying Snape. Did we find out how James saved Snape's life? kchuplis From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sat Dec 3 19:47:19 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 19:47:19 -0000 Subject: Reactions to various posts. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143997 > > Bruce: > 'Delores' means 'sorrows'; Umbridge is from 'umbra', Latin for 'shadow.' > ... > > Bruce Wilson > "Umbrage" means (1) "Offense; resentment", and also (2) "A vague or indistinct indication; a hint" Maybe her umbrageous ("easily offended") personality is a hint that dear Dolores is really VW. ;) --La Gatta From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sat Dec 3 20:02:09 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:02:09 -0000 Subject: Question re: Snape and James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143998 > > I see people referring to the memory of James bullying Snape. Did we find out how > James saved Snape's life? > > kchuplis > James stopped Snape from going down the tunnel to the Shrieking Shack when Lupin was there in his werewolf form. (It was Sirius who suggested going there to Snape.) --La Gatta From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 20:02:36 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:02:36 -0000 Subject: Reactions to various posts. - The Thick & Thin of It. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 143999 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > ....edited... > > bboymin: > "Next, JKR has a very terse compact writing style." > > Bruce: > *cough* Order of the Phoenix *cough* 870 pages *cough* > > You obviously have a very different definition of 'terse' > or 'compact' than I do. When I think 'terse and compact > style,' I think first of Hemmingway; I can't think of any > 20th or 21st C. author more UNlike Hemmingway than Rowling. > > ...edited... > > Bruce Wilson bboyminn: Point well taken, but... the measure of compactness is not the number of pages contained between the covers, but the amount of story contained therein. I used that very book (OotP) as an example in my post. The Dementor attack occurs on page 15, on page 57, Harry has reached 12 Grimmauld Place, by page 112, Harry is on his way to his Hearing at the Ministry of Magic. Using the example of time between Harry's arrival and his hearing, on superficial review that doesn't seem like much. Summarized, Harry is at Grimmauld Place. But if you go back and read those roughly 50 pages, you will see that a great deal of story is contain in them. While OotP may contain a massive 870 pages, the story contained in those pages is filled with many plots, subplots, and sub-subplots. It moves at an amazing pace; true, it doesn't move as fast as the previous books, but it still covers a huge huge amount of story telling in those 870 pages. My comment on was on JKR writing style, not the thickness of her books. It's fine point. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 3 20:05:29 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:05:29 -0000 Subject: Reactions to various posts. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144000 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > Geoff: > "There are lots of other little plays on words and in-jokes which have > been used by JKR: > Diagon Alley, Knockturn Alley, Malfoy, Grimmauld Place, Professor > Unbridge, Dumbledore to mention but a handful." > > Bruce: > 'Delores' means 'sorrows'; Umbridge is from 'umbra', Latin for 'shadow.' Geoff: In this case, it's a play on teh english expression "to take umbrage" which means to take offence at something, to bridle at something done or said.... From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 3 20:10:10 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:10:10 -0000 Subject: Reactions to various posts. - The Thick & Thin of It. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144001 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: Steve/bboyminn: > While OotP may contain a massive 870 pages, the story contained in > those pages is filled with many plots, subplots, and sub-subplots. It > moves at an amazing pace; true, it doesn't move as fast as the > previous books, but it still covers a huge huge amount of story > telling in those 870 pages. > > My comment on was on JKR writing style, not the thickness of her books. > > It's fine point. Geoff: And, of course, if you use the UK editions, you are down to a mere 766 pages. Smaller font and no illustrations are the answer... :-) From eragon04 at aliceposta.it Sat Dec 3 09:44:34 2005 From: eragon04 at aliceposta.it (=Matteo=) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 09:44:34 -0000 Subject: New member, HBP comments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144002 Thanx a lot Geoff!! Anyway, I wanna answer to another person who wrote about my message: yes, Piton is the Italian translation of Snape and the concept is the one you wrote!! If you like to know something else about the Italian versions, I'm here. Bye ==Matteo= From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 20:15:51 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:15:51 -0000 Subject: Question re: Snape and James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144003 kchuplis wrote: > I'm rereading the books now and at the end of book 1 DD tells Harry that the reason > Snape so detested James is because James saved Snape's life and that that "debt" is > probably why Snape was concerned with protecting Harry even while loathing him > that first year. I cannot remember this being returned to in any of the books. In posts > I see people referring to the memory of James bullying Snape. Did we find out how > James saved Snape's life? Ginger: It is assumed that James going after Snape when he went into the Shrieking Shack in their 5th year was the saving in question. Sirius told Snape how to get in, and Snape got far enough to see Lupin in werewolf form before James pulled him out. Onlist, the incident has been commonly referred to as "the Prank", although some think this too lighthearted for such a serious act. Snape alludes to it in PoA chapter 14 (Snape's Grudge) and Lupin tells Harry about it at the end of chapter 18. Cheers, Ginger From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Sat Dec 3 20:18:15 2005 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:18:15 -0900 Subject: [HPforGrownups] A Horcrux in each book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144004 > >This leaves us only one other Horcrux to find, the Hufflepuff Cup. I >searched and re - searched the beginning of POA for it, then my neice >took it home because it was her copy amd mine is still lent out to >someone else :( > >In the beginning of POA I found plenty of references to Cups and >Goblets but none that I could see possibly being "the" cup we are >looking for. >Valky I snipped a lot, but I want to say that I find this idea intriguing. I looked through the PoA beginning chapters and the closest thing I could find to an object that might fit the parameters was Percy's Head Boy badge. 1) It is seen early on in the book. 2) There is some indication that there might be some unusual magic associated with it (the sneakoscope). 3) There might be some way to use it to explain Percy's later actions. Just the beginnings of an idea. Laura From mudblood68 at yahoo.de Sat Dec 3 16:24:18 2005 From: mudblood68 at yahoo.de (Claudia) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:24:18 -0000 Subject: Slytherin / Nazi Parallels (was Re: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco )) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144005 La Gatta wrote: > The pure-blood snobbishness of the Wizarding World reminds > me of Germany and the NAZI Party. The parallels are > remarkable--WWI and WWII, the pure-blood perception that > Muggles, mud-bloods, and even mixed-blood Wizards are somehow > infra dig (and the belief of extreme cases that Muggles and > mud-bloods at least are subhuman and should be destroyed), > the Aryan blondness of the Malfoys, a leader (fuhrer?) so > powerful and so vile that most of the Wizarding World won't > even speak his name... And if you want to *really* creep > yourself out, take a look at the SS Gestapo insignia. (Ever > wonder where JKR got Harry's scar?) Claudia: There is another parallel: there was a subdivision of Hitler's SS-army, the "SS-Totenkopfverbande" (SS Deaths Head Organization) which was mainly responsible for guarding the konzentration camps. Their insignia was a scull on the collar of their uniform. Claudia From rosered2318 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 19:02:48 2005 From: rosered2318 at yahoo.com (rosered2318) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 19:02:48 -0000 Subject: The Significance of the Foe-Glass Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144006 At first this may seem more appropriate for the movie sister group, but bear with me and I think you will see where I am going. I remember reading somewhere that when Steve Kloves was writing the script for Chamber of Secrets he had wanted to cut something and JKR would not let him because it became very significant in later books (HBP). That something turned out to be Borgin and Burkes, the Cabinet and Knockturn Alley. I even remember it showing up the the Chamber of Secrets video game. None of that was necessary to the plot development of Chamber of Secrets, the book or the movie, but it was very necessary to Half Blood Prince. I have seen Goblet of Fire three times now. They left out a LOT of stuff. But they did not leave out the Foe Glass. They didn't even use it to the same effect they did in the book (Harry seeing McGonagall, Dumbledore, and Snape coming to his rescue). In the book of Goblet of Fire, they mention that the foe-glass has a crack in it at the bottom. I think the same foe glass also appears twice in Order of the Pheonix. Once in the headquarters for the DA "...and a large, cracked Foe-Glass that Harry was sure had hung, the previous year, in the fake Moody's office." pg 390, US ed and once in Voldemort's hideout "Left alone in the dark room, Harry turned toward the wall. A cracked, age-spotted mirror hung on the wall in the shadows. Harry moved toward it. His reflection grew larger and clearer in the darkness...A face whiter than a skull...red eyes with slits for pupils." pg 586, US ed. The passage refers to when Harry was dreaming of Rookwood being tortured. I can't recall if the foe-glass was mentioned in HBP but I find it very curious that it deserves all of this attention. I don't have any theories because I am not a very good theory person, but I feel that the true significance of the foe-glass has not been revealed yet. Theories, anyone? Rose From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Dec 3 19:47:17 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 14:47:17 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Hagrid-and some Snape References: Message-ID: <010301c5f842$5e901cc0$a6ba400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 144007 >> kchuplis: What I don't see is how this class, this school can > be compared to modern day "muggle" institutions, which is what I am seeing > in these > debates. Magpie: I don't need it to conform to the rules of our own schools, I'm just stating that Hagrid as the teacher did stuff that contributed to what happens in his class as well--particularly when he himself decides to go against the school's guidelines because it's more interesting for him. Btw, I also think that Snape has some responsibility for Neville's disasters in Potions when he frightens him, because his behavior actually does effect Neville--though that's a different situation entirely. I just tend to see life as a series of people doing stuff that effects what happens. Nobody escapes. kchuplis: > I also do not see how Malfoy gets off in the ongoing arguments here for > being > blatantly to blame for his own injury. Magpie: Nobody has once let Malfoy off for what he actually did. Everyone has acknowledged what happens in the class, that Malfoy is whispering to his friends at the point when an important instruction is given, and that he tries to show off and that's what gets him attacked. What I'm seeing--still--is the opposite--Hagrid getting off for his own actions that led to disaster. He is the only person being described as "in no way responsible." In a way that no teacher at Hogwarts except him as ever even tried to do. Yes, they're wizards and yes the classes are more dangerous. They're still based somewhat on actual teachers. Which is why the text always points out how much better Grubbly-Plank is. kchuplis: I do not see how one can condemn Hagrid and not > condemn virtually every aspect of Hogwarts for putting students at the > possible risk > of injury. Magpie: No one has "condemned" him at all. "He made some mistakes" is not condemning. kchuplis: Hagrid's class is not a vacuum. Magpie: Though it's becoming closer to one as people drop it. > kchuplis > I've also had teachers that were plenty bendable about rules. The point is > that being > extraordinarily severe isn't a clear pass to "good teacher practices". Magpie: No, it's not. Though Hagrid can be severe when he wants to be, usually when he feels personally defensive. kchuplis: Not to mention > that ear pulling can have serious consequences of itself. To be quite > honest, living in > fear of the 4th grade teacher did nothing toward furthering my learning > but I learned > plenty from teachers of whom I was not afraid. Magpie: But the kids do live in fear of Hagrid in terms of being nervous in his class. That's the joke--that he's a joke as a teacher. They don't respect him or trust him as a teacher. kchuplis: > kchuplis: > I'm a little confused with this statement seeing as how Harry and Neville > rarely come > off as brilliant *in class*. They both are outstanding at nerve in real > life situations, > however. Magpie: Their brilliance in this class is due to Hagrid's faultless planning and presentation. > kchuplis: > Poor Malfoy. I can think of no other instances where he was given > detention and > plenty where Harry Magpie: ??? And now we're off on another topic again. What do Malfoy's detentions that we may or may not see (he gets one from McGonagall is the only other one I can think of) have to do with anything? I didn't once say that Malfoy shouldn't have been in that detention (though perhaps you don't think he does, since it makes him afraid of Hagrid?). What does that have to do with Hagrid of the illegal dragon that bites Ron in that book? kchuplis: Feel free to point out all the other times that Malfoy was punished for his > behaviour.) This is scapegoating? Magpie: Um, no, that's a totally different thread. Malfoy does often suffer the consequences of his own actions. I have never tried to make Malfoy into a completely passive character at the mercy of things beyond his control. I don't like it when people do that with characters--including Hagrid. > kchuplis: > Malfoy's a jerk and does NOT get the blame. I think that is more to the > point. In the > Hippogriff incident he is directly to blame for his injury. He is often a > jerk other times > and is let off because it is under Snape's watch. Magpie: And plenty of times he does get the blame because he's under the watch of everyone else! And when he doesn't get the blame it's usually chalked to someone being unfair in protecting him. He is most certainly blamed outright by plenty of people for what happened with Buckbeak, and ultimately Buckbeak goes free and Hagrid keeps his job. Btw, I don't even usually think in terms of "getting the blame." I just think people do stuff that results in things happening. > kchuplis > Well, that is certainly why Ron did not go to Pomfrey. This is, however, > some how laid > at Hagrid's doorstep. Magpie: Somehow? Yes, it's a real mystery. kchuplis: Why is Hagrid constantly responsible for the students > behaviour? Malfoy (whom Hagrid DID whip off to the infirmary immediately) > made an > injury out to be worse than it is and Ron downplayed one (to his own > disadvantage.) > It's Hagrid's fault that Ron values his friendship? I highly doubt Hagrid said "now don't > go running to Pomfrey" after being bitten by the dragon, and no, he didn't > frog march > Ron up there either, but that is off page so I guess we can assume Hagrid > laid a guilt > trip on Ron. I didn't read it that way in Ron's response about the bite. > And Hagrid's > actions do not appear to be hidden from Ron as Ron appeared to be fully > sensible of > Hagrid's blindness on the danger of the dragon. His words make it appear > that way at > least. And yet the only responsible party is Hagrid. These kids aren't 5 > they are 11 or > 12 year olds with more than your average exposure to this type of thing > (aside from > Harry who did not grow up around it, but still seems to understand the > gravity of > most situations). I also don't believe parents live in total oblivioun to > the dangers of > Hogwarts, or have seen no real evidence of this. Perhaps the ones who are > muggles > only. but still, these arguments seem to indicate Hagrid is the only > person at fault in > any of these situations. That's baffling to me. Magpie: Let me just make sure I've got it: an adult who is being paid to protect children at their school gets an illegal animal, enlists the help of an 11-year-olds to care for it, yells one when he is bitten by it, takes no interest in the injury and keeps quiet while they receive punishment when they're caught helping him. You're right, I can't see any reason people should be focusing on Hagrid here. He's a model adult. Only a crazy Muggle with a lawyer would consider him the more responsible party there. (Note me nobly resisting any allusion to child-predator mentality.) . This, however, is not the type of reasoning I am using regarding Malfoy. Malfoy gets blame from me for his own actions. As does Hagrid with Ron, as the adult, the one on staff at the school, the one who's supposed to be protecting kids. Hagrid chooses to invert this relationship at every opportunity, which is why he doesn't get the respect of a teacher--even a teacher like Snape. -m From h2so3f at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 21:36:46 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 21:36:46 -0000 Subject: A Horcrux in each book and how it became one (Was: A Horcrux in each book) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144008 rose wrote: "My second reaction was that we have also seen every character whose death was the used to make a horcrux. In HBP, Dumbledore tells Harry that Voldemort reserved his horcrux making for special victims. I have come up with some names that might or might not apply. The connections should be obvious except for #4 1) Moaning Myrtle - diary 2) Marvolo Gaunt - ring 3) Tom Riddle Sn - Locket 4) Regulus Black - Nagini (he discovered the plot and was a "snake in the grass" - waiting to take Voldemort down without his seeing it) Rose prepares for howlers:" CH3ed: No howler from me. :O) I like the idea that we have seen all the people whose death was used to make a horcrux, but I don't think Myrtle's death was used to make one. She is not someone LV would consider significant, being a moping muggleborn (she was killed by the basilisk --tho considering that it happened in the bathroom that houses the entrance to CoS and she popped out of her stall to confront LV, that murder could have been something of an accident. Malfoy told Harry & Ron (disguised as Crabbe and Goyle) that a mudblood died the last time the CoS was opened. Also the diary was not made into a pensieve until later that year... after LV realized he couldn't open the CoS again without causing the school to close and himself sent back to the orphanage. And then LV didn't learn how to make a horcrux out of it until after his 6th year at Hogwarts (the horcrux conversation with Slug). The 6th year was when he murdered his father and took the Slytherin ring. Marvolo Gaunt died before LV could find him and Morfin died in prison, so their deaths were not used to make a horcrux (Morfin told LV of Marvolo's death in the first memory Harry saw in "Sluggish Memory" in HBP). Regulus' significance to LV was downplayed by Sirius, but he could have been wrong. I don't know. Rose wrote: "5) Harry - Harry In order to make a horcrux, the person must split their soul by committing a murder. Perhaps the soul accompanies the spell and when the murdered person's soul leaves their body for the veil, the murderer's soul piggy backs out of the body and can then be captured and put into someplace else. However, Harry's soul did not leave his body. Therefore, the sixth part of Voldemort's soul is still in there and cannot get out." CH3ed: Well.. I'm of the opinion that the only thing that got transferred to Harry at GH was some of LV's magical power. Anyhow, I am curious about how a horcrux is made. Like does one have to be made right after the murder, or if the soul fragments remain with the murderer until he later makes a horcrux out of it (there would probably be a time period for how long could one wait to make a horcrux out of a murder, ay?). It seems plausible that Tom Riddle, Sr's death was used to make the ring horcrux (and what an wretched man Senior was... first got killed by his son, and his death made to create a horcrux... then still have to give up his bones for his murderer for use to resurrect himself!), but his murder took place before the horcrux conversation with Slug (LV was already wearing the ring in that memory). CH3ed :O) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 22:03:55 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 22:03:55 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) LONGish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144009 > Jen: > > What I'm trying to understand is why at the founding of Hogwarts, > > the other three founders did not outright reject Slytherin's wish > to > > "teach those whose ancestry is purest." (chap. 11. OOTP) > > Alla: > > I have no problem thinking of it as three friends trying to placate > another dear friend, especially of course since they all had the > criteria to choose their students. They were probably thinking - you > want to teach purebloods in your house, by all means does it as long > as muggleborns can get into other houses. > > But when such friend went crazy and started insisting that > muggleborns should not be accepted to Hogwarts at all, then I > speculate other three had enough and discord started. > a_svirn: Besides which, even if the other three founders were OK with Slytherin's beliefs and values, it doesn't mean that subsequent generations of wizards should. The founders all lived a thousand years ago, after all. Views on what is right, what is wrong and what is permissible do change even within considerably lesser periods of time. Yet, the underlying principle of selection to Hogwarts houses ? if the Hat to be believed ? hasn't changed one jota. And ? again, if the Hat to be believed ? a patent-card Slytherin must be cunning, very ambitious and bigoted, there is no way around this particular requirement. > > Jen: > > > Thinking about the state of the WW at the time of the founding of > > Hogwarts, when active persecution was taking place and witches and > > wizards were an oppressed minority, I do think it's possible that > > Slytherin's initial ideas about pure ancestry had more to do with > > saving an importance race and culture from extinction rather than > > the pure-blood ideology present in the current WW. And the other > > founders may have shared that fear, although not to the same > extent. > > But then Slytherin's fears may have turned into an obsession with > > blood superiority, causing the rift with the others. a_svirn: Binns words don't really tally with everything else we know of the muggle and wizarding history. But even supposing he's right and your version of the events is true, I don't see how it matters for the present situation. It may *explain* it but it by no means *excuses* it. There was a time when no student of other religious persuasion than Anglicanism was allowed to Oxford and no women were admitted until 1920. There were perfectly understandable reasons for this sate of affairs too. So what? If anyone rejects an application on these grounds *now* it would be devil to pay for them. In Hogwarts, however, students are sorted according to the same principles as they were a thousand years ago. From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sat Dec 3 22:18:02 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 22:18:02 -0000 Subject: Snape and Piton (was Re: New member, HBP comments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144010 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "=Matteo=" wrote: > > Hi!! I've just realized that I wrote Piton instead of Snape... sorry, > it's the habit!!!! ;-P Anyway, yeah Piton is the Italian translation of > Snape and his first name is the same, Severus. > The surname "Piton" gives the same idea of "Snape"; in fact as Snape is > similar to "snake", "Piton" is similar to "pitone" which is a > particular kind of snake. > I hope to have answered correctly to your request and if you have any > possible question about the Italian versions of the books, don't > hesitate to ask me for it. > > Good evening (here in Italy it's 9.20pm) > Anyway bye bye > > =Matteo= > Hi, Matteo! Whereabouts in Italy are you? I minored in Italian back in my misspent youth, so I could go to the Stanford-in-Italy campus in Florence. That is still one of my favorite cities on earth. "Pitone" in Italian is "python" in English. I wonder if JKR had any say in the choice of characters' names in the non-English editions. The python, interestingly, is a *non-poisonous* snake, and (putting on my Classicist hat now) it also had some positive associations with the ancient Greek and Roman gods. For example, it is one of the attributes of Pallas Athena, and appears either on her shield or coiled at her feet. Athene, a prehellenic goddess before Hellenic Zeus demoted her to the status of daughter, seems to have had a strong association with snakes, probably in her manifestation as a goddess of prophecy; in addition to her python, she wears a goatskin cape called the Aegis, trimmed with a fringe of serpents. Apollo's oracular priestesses at Delphi were also referred to as Pythonesses. Are you familiar with this wonderful Italian Web site dedicated to Snape: http://www.forla.net/severus/ Benvenuto, Matteo! --La Gatta From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sat Dec 3 22:24:49 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 22:24:49 -0000 Subject: Slytherin / Nazi Parallels (was Re: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco )) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144011 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Claudia" wrote: > > La Gatta wrote: > > The pure-blood snobbishness of the Wizarding World reminds > > me of Germany and the NAZI Party. The parallels are > > remarkable--WWI and WWII, the pure-blood perception that > > Muggles, mud-bloods, and even mixed-blood Wizards are somehow > > infra dig (and the belief of extreme cases that Muggles and > > mud-bloods at least are subhuman and should be destroyed), > > the Aryan blondness of the Malfoys, a leader (fuhrer?) so > > powerful and so vile that most of the Wizarding World won't > > even speak his name... And if you want to *really* creep > > yourself out, take a look at the SS Gestapo insignia. (Ever > > wonder where JKR got Harry's scar?) > > > Claudia: > There is another parallel: there was a subdivision of Hitler's > SS-army, the "SS-Totenkopfverbande" (SS Deaths Head Organization) > which was mainly responsible for guarding the konzentration camps. > Their insignia was a scull on the collar of their uniform. > > Claudia > There was also the thunderbolt insignia that formed a stylized "SS", also worn on the collar. --La Gatta From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Dec 3 22:34:06 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 22:34:06 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) LONGish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144012 Jen: > I hope the blood superiority idea is gone, gone, gone in the > end. If, a big if, Slytherin's initial ideas were formulated at a > time when there were few protections for magical people and the > race truly was in danger of dying out, that certainly is no longer > the case. > Alla: > YES, thank you again, but that is why I am having a hard time to > see four houses existing at the end of the books. I mean, the > unity would be probably achieved, but it is quite clear to me that > Slytherin must reject this part of their philosophy. Would > Slytherin still be Slytherin without it or entirely different > entity? Jen: Actually, now that I look back on my response I was a tad bit optimistic. So far the human race has been unable to eradicate discrimination and prejudice, so it's unlikely JKR is gunning for utopia in her books . Her view, I think, is more along the lines of Dumbledore's "it will merely take someone else who is prepared to fight what seems a losing battle...(PS,chap 17) Abolishing the house system might be a first step in fighting the good fight, though. The rest wouldn't happen right away. Entrenched beliefs don't just go away overnight, like you said. > Alla: > I am not sure I know your position on Slughorn, actually, Jen, so > I don't know if we agree or disagree on him :-) Jen: Oops! I was thinking of the last chapter discussion and some of our comments on that thread. Basically I took a more favorable view of his actions. More below. Alla: > He is a great character and if he is an example of good Slytherin, > great. But again, isn't it funny that the most that good Slytherin > can do is RUN from DE not fight them? Jen: Here's where I felt like we had a different take. For Harry, who acts so courageously and selflessly, Slughorn running from the DE's and giving up the memory aren't much in the fight against Voldemort and Evil. Similarly, Draco spilling his fears to Dumbledore on the tower and dropping his wand hand a fraction were small potatoes compared to all the bravey and honorable deeds of Harry and his protectors. But looking at those deeds in the context of each person's life and not from Harry's POV, those actions were very difficult to take for those particular people. Slughorn did make a choice to give up his comforts and run from the DE's rather than being used by them for evil purposes. He did act bravely by giving the memory when to do so could bring him great harm should Voldemort ever discover his treachery. Draco also acted in a way he hasn't been 'programmed' to act his entire life. He was groomed to follow his father, to not flinch at the idea of torturing or killing someone should he be called upon to do so (and given Lucius, probably to even find pleasure in such activities). Crying in the bathroom, worrying about his mom, not being able to kill Dumbledore--no, those are not on par with the deeds Harry is capable of. But they are so much more than Harry (and I) expected of Draco. Sorry to go over worn out examples, but I do think JKR is saying small movement in the right direction is a Big Deal. Moments when selfish people act unselfishly, when cowards act courageously, when biggots act humanely....it's a crack where change can grow if a person chooses to do so. I would not even be surprised if some form of humanity brings Voldemort down in the end. Not redemption, no, that's impossible. But some crack in his carefully constructed facade which defeats him from the inside. He is, as Ceridwen noted in another thread, the ultimate example of what happens to a person who splits himself off from human feelings, compassion, love, etc. I just don't read essentialism in the series, or want to see an 'eye for an eye' justice in the end, no matter how bravely and intelligently you, Nora, Lupinlore, and others have given a voice to these views. I DO appreciate hearing your views though, because it helps me see the story from every angle, consider every possibilty and separate out what I *think* I'm reading in text from personal desire. Alla: > I really hope we hear more about Regulus, personally. Maybe he > would be a good Slytherin who fought bravely. I think he is a good > candidate for "fake death" or something like that, because the > only reference JKR made to his death as far as I remember is that > he is "dead these days, so he is quiet" ( paraphrase). I remember > being quite suspicious after reading this quote, because being > dead these days could easily mean IMO that he can be alive > tomorrow. Jen: HAHAHA--ain't that the truth? I hope we hear about Regulus too, because I think he might prove to be a match with Sirius, one of the 'set' of Black brothers who acted courageously. Alla: > Hee, as to ambition playing part in Dumbledore's plans? I am not > sure. I can just easily interpret Dumbledore fight against > Voldemort to make sure that "pureblood supremacy" will not win. > Is it ambitious? I suppose, but it is a good ambition. Jen: Yes. It's not the characteristics so much as what each person uses them for. That's all I was trying to get at. And as Betsy and I think, Pippin, pointed out, the Hufflepuff egalitarinsim can be a form of elitism just as surely as blood, intelligence and courage, if used in the wrong way. Jen, showing her bias as a Hufflepuff to the end, although very admiring (and occasionally envious of) bravery, intelligence and ambition ;). From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 22:39:24 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 22:39:24 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco (was:Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144013 > >>Sydney: > I'm surprised that nobody's yet brought up the role that the > psychological symbolism is playing in this-- you only need a > passing knowledge of Jung (who was such an influence on the > dreaded Joseph Campbell!), to identify Slytherin with the > unintegrated Shadow-side. > Betsy Hp: Yes, yes, yes! I totally agree. I'm far enough away from my literature classes to have just that passing knowledge (or less ), but I seem to recall that the Shadow aspect is often identified with the feminine or female. Water is a huge element for that, I believe, having connections with life and death and sensuality and emotion. (I was thrilled with JKR's elemental breakdown of the houses.) Bringing in Magpie's HBP is the Slytherin book theory (I loved that particular essay) it's highly telling that we learn so much about Voldemort's mother and finally something about Lily. And it's interesting that both women have ties to Slytherin. Merope through her blood and Lily through her inclinations. > >>Sydney: > So anyways the subject that started this was Slytherin House, that > is the Shadow side of the wider society; they are the repository > of all the negative traits and live in a dungeon and are excluded > from the community of the rest of the school. This is where JKR, > IMO, runs into a bit of trouble because the symbolic role of > Slytherin, which necessitates them actually being full of > negative, ugly, nasty things, is colliding uncomfortably with the > surface role of being a bunch of kids sorted in there at age 11. > Betsy Hp: I feel like JKR is covering this by showing how Slytherin has been scapegoated from the beginning. Slytherin becomes the mad woman on the moors (Virginia Woolf's imagery, I believe?) kept from realizing her full self and doomed to be a prisoner of her emotion rather than a master of it. (Snape is such an excellent example of this, I think.) > >>Pippin: > > I think we need to be very careful in distinguishing the > reputations of the Houses from the criteria which the Hat actually > uses to select. > > The Sorting Hat tells us that the each of the Houses "divided, > sought to rule". The substance of their quarrel, according to > Binns, was that Slytherin thought the purebloods were most to be > trusted with power. But if all four sought to rule, then *all* > were elitist. Each thought the members of their own House were > most to be trusted. And they were *all* wrong, because Dumbledore > tells us that only those very rare individuals who are pure of > soul can truly be trusted with power and *none* of the Founders > were selecting for that. > Betsy Hp: Yes, exactly. The split, when it occured, was between *all four* founders. That Slytherin left meant that his "children" received the blame. The Slytherins were repressed and pushed down and became susceptible to the type of twisting Tom Riddle (badly twisted himself) put it through. And then we had the Death Eaters -- not true Slytherins but certainly the very worst a Slytherin could be made into. For Hogwarts to be whole the rift needs to be healed. The DA club was incredibly strong, but because they didn't include Slytherins they were vulnerable. It's a bit chicken and egg, I think, but I believe the Slytherins joined with Umbridge because of their outcast status. So for Harry to be strong he must embrace his Slytherin side (as he's embraced his Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff sides), which he does start to do in HBP. And it's interesting that part of using that side is using a bit of "feminine wiles". In a sense Harry flirts with Slughorn to get the information he's after. (Something Hermione is unable to do in "Draco's Detour" but something Tom Riddle does easily with Mrs. Smith.) Yeah, so I babbled a bit too. Heh. But I think this can also go to Lealess's thoughts on Slytherin being the "unclean" house and worthy of derision. Because that's how woman or the female aspect of mankind was viewed for so long; the bringer and barer of sin. Betsy Hp From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Dec 3 22:49:59 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 14:49:59 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005501c5f85b$e4dabce0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 144014 *Is* he? I hope (and would not be greatly surprised if we do) that we will find out a few more things about the character (or lack of it) of Sirius Black, in re Snape and otherwise, before we are through with Book VII. I think he was innocent of the crime for which he was sent to Azkaban, but I don't think he is innocent period, and I suspect Snape has good reason to become hysterical when the guy turns up at Hogwarts. Personal issues aside, Snape is a teacher, and as we have been so busily pointing out recently, responsible for the *safety* of the students. I would add, emotional safety as well as physical safety. O.K., let's go back to Snape's worst memory (OoP), and ask ourselves once again *why* it was Snape's worst memory. I think it had nothing to do with the grunginess of his underpants, and everything to do with the fact that James proposed to remove them, with Sirius on hand to enjoy the show. And then let's ask ourselves why, both times Harry turns up at 12 Grimauld Place for an extended stay (OoP), he finds Molly and Arthur Weasley *in residence*, even though we know from CoS that they live within a reasonable drive of King's Cross Station (and like the rest of the Wizarding world, they also have other means of getting quickly from one place to another). --La Gatta Sherry now: i've been thinking all day about how to respond to this. i absolutely and completely disagree with your assessment of Sirius here. But personal feelings aside, because he is my favorite adult character, I don't think it holds up against the facts either. First of all, *anyone* adult or child, would be humiliated about having themselves turned upside down and their underwear showing in front of a crowd of their peers. Can you imagine not feeling upset about such a terrible thing? It doesn't need to be any more sinister than that. Your comments about the supposed real reason for James turning poor Sevvy upside down implies that James did it for Sirius, which means you think James knew of his terrible behavior. If that is true, why would he have made Sirius the godfather and guardian to his son? There is no way any parent would knowingly make a child molester his son's guardian. Remember, Sirius isn't just a godfather, a position that has no legal validity, he is also Harry's guardian. It would have been criminal for Lily and James to have considered leaving their son in the hands of someone who they knew had done the terrible things you think Sirius did. Whatever you think of James as a teenager, unless you think he never did change and that he was incredibly evil and sadistic, he would not subject his son to that! Also, there are JKR'S words about Sirius. Would she cry when she killed Sirius, if he was the monster you think? Would she say the good things about him that she does? This would make Sirius into a creature as evil and disgusting as Voldemort. As for why the Weasleys are at Grimauld place, that seems so obvious to me and doesn't need sinister plots to explain. It was the headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix after all. they were all guarding the prophecy at the time and must have been easier to report and have meetings there. As well as being convenient to have all the kids there. Since it was unplotable and under the Fidelius Charm, it was safer than anywhere else. Sherry From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 23:07:20 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:07:20 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) LONGish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144015 > a_svirn: > Besides which, even if the other three founders were OK with > Slytherin's beliefs and values, it doesn't mean that subsequent > generations of wizards should. The founders all lived a thousand > years ago, after all. Views on what is right, what is wrong and > what is permissible do change even within considerably lesser > periods of time. Yet, the underlying principle of selection to > Hogwarts houses ? if the Hat to be believed ? hasn't changed one > jota. And ? again, if the Hat to be believed ? a patent-card > Slytherin must be cunning, very ambitious and bigoted, there is no > way around this particular requirement. First, the requirement (such as it is) stated by the Sorting Hat, which ought to know, is not that they be bigoted, but that they be pureblood. The two are not equivalent, as we have seen from numerous canon examples of non-bigoted purebloods. Further, we are told that pureblooded families are rare. And yet, it seems that the Houses are each of roughly the same size. (JKR tells us Harry's class had 40 students, 10 per House. I doubt she meant it to be a highly anomalous incoming class.) If the vast majority of Slytherins are purebloods, then 'rare' means "comprising at least 25% of the student population". Especially because we have lots of canon purebloods sorted into other Houses, especially Gryffindor. While yes, JKR is apparently not noted for her mathematical prowess, I think she is well aware that the idea of purebloods being rare is incompatible with the idea that Slytherin House, 25% of the Hogwarts student population, is almost entirely pureblooded. How to resolve this apparent contradiction? To me it seems the only way is to admit that purity of blood is a criterion which MAY in the absence of other relevant criteria lead to sorting into Slytherin. But most often it is not present in Slytherins. They get Sorted in for the other reasons. (Cunning/ambition). Then why, we may ask, is it that most of the Slytherins we know ARE purebloods? JKR has given the answer in an interview, IMO. She has said that we know Slytherin House mostly through the children of Death Eaters. And yes, Death Eaters are definitely far more likely to be purebloods than the general population, (half bloods like Snape appear to be exceptions) and far more likely to marry other purebloods (thus producing pureblooded children to send to Hogwarts). I would say that the Slytherins we do not know are therefore quite likely to be half-bloods or even Muggle-borns. Who are ambitious and/or cunning, and not particularly good fits for other Houses. But they do not belong to Draco's clique for obvious reasons, so we have no reason to meet them. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 3 23:48:26 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:48:26 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) LONGish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144016 zgirnius: > > First, the requirement (such as it is) stated by the Sorting Hat, > which ought to know, is not that they be bigoted, but that they be > pureblood. The two are not equivalent, as we have seen from numerous > canon examples of non-bigoted purebloods. > a_svirn: If the admission to Slytherin House restricted or at least ideally should be restricted to the pureblood (and according to the Hat it is), it means discrimination. Depends on how you see "the blood problem" in the WW it may be racial or social discrimination. Bigotry is just another (milder) term for it. Those purebloods who are not bigots obviously choose other houses, don't they? It's all about choices, after all. From leslie41 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 00:02:05 2005 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 00:02:05 -0000 Subject: The Significance of the Foe-Glass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144017 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rosered2318" wrote: > I can't recall if the foe-glass was mentioned in HBP but I find it > very curious that it deserves all of this attention. I don't have > any theories because I am not a very good theory person, but I > feel > that the true significance of the foe-glass has not been revealed > yet. Theories, anyone? Well, for one thing, it seems to me to be incontrovertable proof that, at least as of the end of GoF, Snape was on the side of good, or at least opposed to Barty Crouch Jr. If he were not, he would not have appeared in Barty Crouch Jr.'s foe glass. You can theorize all you want about how perhaps Snape was crouch's foe "just at that moment," etc. etc. etc. But it would have been quite easy for Rowling to avoid the matter entirely by not having Snape in that particular scene. Clearly we're meant to see Snape as with the forces of good here. And if the foe glass reflected the polyjuice Moody, why would Dumbledore and McGonnagal appear there? I haven't yet heard of any reasonable explanation of this which could show anything otherwise, though I'm open to persuasion. And of course if Snape is with the forces of good at the end of GoF, he goes back to Voldemort as a double-agent for DUMBLEDORE, not for the Dark Lord. Leslie From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 00:24:14 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 00:24:14 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Hagrid - Jumping into the Fray In-Reply-To: <010301c5f842$5e901cc0$a6ba400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144018 This discussion has gone on for quite a while (at least in Internet time), and I thought I should drop back in and once again try to add some perspective to the debate. Again, I say that Hagrid's problem is that, in the beginning, he doesn't understand his job. He hears "Care of Magical Creatures" and all that stands out is the 'Magical Creatures' part. In the beginning, he has decided that it would be cool and impressive, and certainly make him well liked, if he shows the students a series of Impressive Magical Creature. But as I've said, the operative words in his job description are not "...Magical Creature", but "Care of...". When his first year is a total failure, he thinks about it over the summer and decides to try an new approach. That next year, he decides to make a project out of it; the Blast-End Skrewts. Again, in his enthusiasm to show the student Impressive Magical Creatures, he forgets the 'Care of...' part. Since Hagrid /invented/ the Skrewts, they are not magical creatures that anyone is likely to every have to take care of. So, he is improving, and clearly trying, but again his emphasis is on the wrong aspect. In Harry's OWL years, Hagrid's focus changes because of his friendship with Harry. Now Hagrid sees that Harry and friends must pass their OWLs, and it is Hagrid responsibility to make sure that happens. Now that he has gained a new perspective, his classes change, and even the student who don't like him have to admit that he is doing a much better job. Why? Because with OWLs hanging over his head, Hagrid has not choice but the teach CARE OF Common Magical Creatures, and you will notice that a majority of his student do well on their OWLs. He must have done something right. As the the Draco/Hippogriff incident, naturally, as the teacher, Hagrid can not escape some responsibility. When ever you are in charge, in the real or fictional world, anything that happens on your watch is your responsibility. But while it is your official responsibility, that doesn't mean that the incident in /necessarily/ your fault. It's a fine distinction. When the hippogriffs appear, it is clear from everyone's reactions that they are fearful. The very large, and menacingly equipped (talons and beak) creatures are nothing to be triffled with. When Hagrid invite the class forward, none of them except the inviation to step up to the fense. Eventually, only with great reluctance, and in support of Hagrid, do Harry, Ron, and Hermione move to the fense. The danger is clear. It is further clear that Malfoy can't be bothered to listen. None the less, Malfoy is watching when Harry is invited to approach the hippogriff. Clearly anyone and everyone see the potential danger. The problem is Harry is successful, and Malfoy in his arrogance, can't abide Harry out doing him. With that same arrogance and distain, Malfoy ignore everything he should have heard, and everything he HAD seen, and does exactly the opposite of what any reasonable and rational person would do. After Harry's success, and before Malfoy acts like the idiot he is, the rest of the class are interacting with the Hippogriff with reasonable caution and reasonable success; all of which Malfoy witnesses. Pg 117 PB - "Emboldened by Harry's success, the rest of the class climbed cautiously into the paddock. Hagrid untied the hippogriffs one by one, an dsoon people were bowing nerviously, all over the paddock. Neville ran repeatedly backward from his, which didn't seem to want to bend its knee. Ron and Hermione practiced on the chestnut, while Harry watched." Clearly, all the student including Neville are excesizing do and reasonable caution with large and obviously dangerous creatures. pg 117-118 pb - "Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle had taken over Buckbeak. He had bowed to Malfoy, who was now patting his beak, looking distainful. "This is very easy," Malfoy drawled, loud enough for Harry to hear him. "I knew it must have been, if Potter could do it.... I bet you're not dangerous at all, are you?" he said to the hippogriff. "Are you, you great ugly brute?" Under no circumstance could anyone say that Malfoy is justified in making such a statement. It's fine that he is minimizing Harry role in the hippogriffs, but there really is no reason or point in insulting the hippogriff itself. Malfoy has clearly decided he knows more that that oaf of a teacher, and chooses to freely and unnecessarily insult a dangerous creature that all others are very cautions around. As a result Malfoy pays for his self-absorbed arrogance. Again, by virtue of the fact the Hagrid was in charge, he bares a degree of responsibility, just as Snape bares a degree of responsibility for Harry throwing a firecracker into a potion in his class, causing several students to be injured. Just as McGonagall is responsible for Transfiguration mishaps, and Flintwick is responsible for Charms mishaps, and I am sure there are plenty of both. But, in fiction and in real-life, we do not live in an 'idiot proof' world. There are idiots and they will hurt themselves, and they will certainly whine and cry that the world should have protected them, and that, idiots that they are, they shouldn't be held responsible for their own idiotic actions. So, in this one incident, Hagrid can't escape responsibility because he was in charge and that makes it his responsibility, but on the other hand, you can't blame the world or Hagrid because some people are idiots. Idiots can and will get hurt because they are self-absorbed, self-indulgant, irresponsible idiots; that's life. Further, injuries, in and out of the classroom, are common at Hogwarts. Harry has had all kinds of extreme injuries that Madame Pomfrey has mended easily. Just as she easily mended Malfoy's cut. Certainly, Malfoy's cut was cause for concern, but Hagrid got him to the hospital wing as soon as possible. Of course, there is no denying that hippogriffs were too advanced for third years. But again, I'm back to Hagrid not understanding his job. He is focusing on '...Magical Creature' when he should be focusing on 'Care of...'. Still, in Harry OWL year, Hagrid seems to have mellowed. He seems to be getting his teaching legs. And while it is a slow process, I think he will finally figure his job out. In the future I have no problem seeing Hagrid presenting age appropraite creatures with full information on their care and feeding, enhanced by an occasional 'interesting creature' presented in an age appropriate way. For example, while he may let 4th or 5th years approach and pet a hippogriff, he would only let younger student see them while he explained some of their interesting characteristics. I think we need to give Hagrid a chance as a teacher. Students do seem to be passing their OWLs, and I suspect as he melllows a bit, his classes will fall in line, and eventually "Care of Magical Creatures" will become a very popular class. Though out the series we see Hagrid both trying to improve, and indeed improving, in his teaching methods. I think that now that Harry is past his OWLs, Hagrid is beginning to get the hang of it. One last note on the Draco/Hippogriff incident. I think people on polar sides of this argument are simply trying to present a perspective. Those who say Draco is at fault are not totally absolving Hagrid, they are merely saying the Draco cause his own injuries. Those who are saying Hagrid is at fault, are not absolving Draco of being an arrogant idiot who acted in an unbelievably stupid manner and against all common sense and obvious signs. They are merely saying that Hagrid was in charge, he was responsible for the safety of his students, and he can never escape that responsibility. In a sense, both sides are rigth; Hagrid is in charge therefore he is responsible. Draco acted like a thoughtless arrogant idiot and suffered for his actions. Now combine that with the fact the people are being magically and physically hurt all the time at Hogwarts, all of which is easily fixed by Madame Pomfrey, and I think you have a fair perspective. Malfoy's attempt at getting Hagrid fired and Buckbeak killed was his own petty spitefull revenge against Hagrid. It was something of a crime of opportunity; he did it because he could, and because he enjoyed it and because he knew it would indirectly hurt Harry. A fair and balanced approach. Steve/Bbboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 01:04:52 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:04:52 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144019 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > zgirnius: > > > > First, the requirement (such as it is) stated by the Sorting > > Hat, which ought to know, is not that they be bigoted, but > > that they be pureblood. The two are not equivalent, as we > > have seen from numerous canon examples of non-bigoted > > purebloods. > > > a_svirn: > If the admission to Slytherin House restricted or at least > ideally should be restricted to the pureblood (and according > to the Hat it is), it means discrimination. Depends on how you > see "the blood problem" in the WW it may be racial or social > discrimination. Bigotry is just another (milder) term for it. > Those purebloods who are not bigots obviously choose other > houses, don't they? It's all about choices, after all. > bboyminn: Sorry, this might have already been covered in the discussion; I haven't been following it that close. But Slytherin IS NOT resticted to PUREBLOOD. Snape is mixed blood, Voldemort himself is mixed blood. So, I don't think Slytherin himself made pure-blood an absolute criteria of admitance into Slytherin House. True he did not want to let muggles and muggle borns into Hogwarts, and certainly not into his house, but that was primarily for security reasons. Salazar didn't hate muggle-borns, he just didn't trust them. The school was founded in a time of great persecution, and any leak of the location or existance of the school could have meant the end of the wizard world, or at the very least, been extremely dangerous to the wizard world. Even mixed-blood families that had a few generation in the wizard world would have a clear understanding of it and a vested interest in protecting it. But people newly introduced to the wizard world, in other words muggle-borns, would not have the strong innate desire to protect it. In fact, they could even be easily persuaded by religious zealots to reveal the secret of the wizard world. We must remember that starting a Wizarding School itself was extremely dangerous. It seems fair and reasonable to suppose that up until this point individual wizards took on one or more apprentices to train them. The problem was the each wizard couldn't train very many people, BUT they could do it in relative secrecy. Further if their individual secret were reveal, only they and their apprentices would be at risk. The rest of the wizard world would be safe. Now however, they are proposing to bring every young wizard in their domain to a single location for training. If Hogwarts were discovered, several generations of wizards could be wiped out in one stroke. So Salazar was certainly justified in his fear of muggles and muggle-borns. Yes, I have no doubt that Salazar favored pureblood, but I think his real prejudice and mistrust was against 'freshly-minted' muggle-borns. The fact that the Sorting Hat, who carries on the founder's desires and preferences, still admits people of mixed-blood into Slytherin House supports my position. Later in history, as so often happens, people have taken Salazar's justificable mistrust of freshly-minted muggle-borns and twisted into their own Nazi-like hatred of anything and anyone that is not pureblood. Fanatics have been doing this for centuries. Christian fanatics have kill coutless people in a misguided pervertion of Christianity. Muslim fanatics, now and in the past, have perverted Muslim teachings to serve their own selfish end to the death and detriment of many innocent people. Wizard Pureblood fanatics have done the same thing with their own pervertion of Salazar Slytherin's beliefs. Slytherins aren't bad; /fanatic/ Slytherins are. I remind everyone again against stereotyping /most Slytherins/ because we have never seen /most Slytherins/ in this series of books. We see the Slytherins who get into Harry's face, and they certainly aren't a majority. Though I will admit, that JKR as the author is trying to give the false impression of Slytherins, but by her own admission, Slytherin are not universally bad. How, or if, this aspect will play out in the final story, I don't know. Perhaps, it is a red-herring, we are suppose to take the few Slytherins we see are being representative of all Slytherin, only for it to simply not hold up in the end. Regardless, you will never convince me that all Slytherins or even a vast majority of Slytherins are bad based on the small sampling we are allowed in the books. Just passin it along. Steve/bboyminn From rh64643 at appstate.edu Sun Dec 4 01:08:58 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:08:58 -0000 Subject: The Significance of the Foe-Glass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144021 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > Well, for one thing, it seems to me to be incontrovertable proof > that, at least as of the end of GoF, Snape was on the side of good, > or at least opposed to Barty Crouch Jr. > I haven't yet heard of any reasonable explanation of this which > could show anything otherwise, though I'm open to persuasion. > > And of course if Snape is with the forces of good at the end of GoF, > he goes back to Voldemort as a double-agent for DUMBLEDORE, not for > the Dark Lord. > > Leslie I am not decided about Snape, however, if you look for both good Snape and bad Snape from this scene you can. If Snape is still a true Death Eater, then one could simply say that all Death Eaters who renounced Voldemort for whatever reason are Crouches enemies. When he is talking to Harry after the graveyard scene, he does seem quite militant about those who returned to Voldemort. I personally do not believe that Rowling will give anything away about Snape until the very moment that truth becomes paramount. truthbeauty1 From Nanagose at aol.com Sun Dec 4 01:28:41 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:28:41 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) LONGish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144022 zgirnius: > First, the requirement (such as it is) stated by the Sorting Hat, > which ought to know, is not that they be bigoted, but that they be > pureblood. Christina: At one point, the Sorting Hat says that, in the beginning, Salazar Slytherin chose to take only purebloods that were cunning. But we KNOW that Slytherin has students of other ancestries, so obviously it does not take only purebloods anymore. Therefore, it is NOT currently a requirement to be in Slytherin house, nor do we have evidence that it is even so much as a preference. > zgirnius: > How to resolve this apparent contradiction? To me it seems the only > way is to admit that purity of blood is a criterion which MAY in the > absence of other relevant criteria lead to sorting into Slytherin. > But most often it is not present in Slytherins. They get Sorted in > for the other reasons. (Cunning/ambition). Christina: I agree that this is a huge contradiction. To be honest, I really don't think purity of blood has much to do with being sorted into Slytherin at all anymore. Like LV allowing half-bloods to work with him, there just isn't a way around it. How many pureblood families do we know that currently have children at Hogwarts? The Malfoys, the Longbottoms, and the Weasleys. That doesn't mean that there aren't more, but I doubt there are very many additional pureblooded families that we haven't seen. As Sirius said, most of them are interrelated. Just by looking at the numbers, Slytherin house must have a fair number of non-purebloods. Even Slytherin's head of house is a half-blood. I'm reminded of the curious case of Percy Weasley, who I personally just can't figure out. He's one of the most ambitious characters we've ever seen, and a pureblood, and yet he still is sorted into Gryffindor. > zgirnius: > I would say that the Slytherins we do not know are therefore quite > likely to be half-bloods or even Muggle-borns. Who are ambitious > and/or cunning, and not particularly good fits for other Houses. But > they do not belong to Draco's clique for obvious reasons, so we have > no reason to meet them. Christina: Exactly. It's just like being surprised that we don't any first-year Gryffindors. Why would we? Harry doesn't hang out with them, so we have reason to see them. The only Slytherin students we ever get to meet are though Draco Malfoy. We all know the kinds of people that he is going to hang out with. Christina From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 01:54:15 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:54:15 -0000 Subject: Lily, Voldemort, AK and the atomic bomb analogy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144023 Saraquel: Who has been out of the loop for some time now, life events having taken over, but doubts whether this idea has been discussed in her absence. I've been pondering, as ever, about Godric's Hollow and the nature of Lily's protection and Voldemort's power. There are certain ideas which have formed in my mind which I like so much I'm having great difficulty letting go of them. Often theories and inspirations catch fire for a short time, but then fade and drift off, but this one in particular is still burning ? see if it smoulders for you. It starts with the idea that the Avada Kadavra curse is created by splitting the soul, rather like the splitting of the atom, where a huge amount of energy is released, along with radiation. The rushing sound which is heard when the spell is cast is the blast wave rolling out from the splitting of the soul. Unlike Rose in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143995 I don't, at the moment, think that the murderer's split soul actually leaves their bodies, although, I do think that it is an interesting idea, but I do think that the shock wave contains traces of the powers of the caster, in an analogous way to radiation being spread. So we have a situation where Lily stands between Harry and Voldemort. Voldemort casts an Avada Kedavra, when the shockwave hits Lily (or any victim) it literally sweeps the victims soul out of their body, along with their life force/powers ? hence the look of surprise, but no physical marks. So now we possibly have a situation where Lily's soul/powers are swept back out of her body and onto Harry who is directly behind her. The purpose of her sacrifice was to protect Harry, so Lily's soul and powers cling to Harry as she passes, knowing that Voldemort will continue on to try and kill Harry. Then Voldemort stands in front of Harry and blasts him with an AK too. But maybe, Lily's soul repels the curse and takes the hit and is blasted out of Harry's body, leaving Harry's soul and body still intact. In this way Lily in fact, sort of dies twice. JKR has said in the Mugglenet/LC interview, that Lily did not do anything special in terms of charms or anything, she simply stood in front of Harry. This theory doesn't need anything special except the fact that she stands directly in front of him, which we know is what happened. The lingering protection is the remnants of Lily's powers perhaps which were not totally blasted out of his body. Taking the atomic bomb analogy further, if we equate powers to atomic radiation, then if Lily left some of her powers lingering in Harry, then when Voldemort touched him it would have been akin to being exposed to radiation burns. In CoS, Voldemort/Quirrel was unable to touch Harry because his touch literally burned them. Another thought that links in with this is to do with patronuses. When Tonks fell for Lupin, her patronus changed. We don't know exactly what it became, but in my reading, the implication was that it became a wolf. So her patronus took the form of the person she loved. If this is so, apart from being a big give away :-) it might suggest that Lily's patronus would represent James ? hence, a stag would seem highly appropriate. (It also suggests that Snape's patronus could well reveal his secret (not-so-secret now, mate) love.) So the fact that Harry has a stag patronus, might be because it was Lily's patronus, which nicely implies that not just James but Lily is also implicate in Harry's current protection and greatest happiness. However, this still does not really explain exactly how Harry's scar came about and why it is positioned on Harry's forehead, but perhaps that is the result of what the soul of Lily did in order to protect Harry. Although I'm open to being convinced, I'm still just about in the Harry is not a horcrux camp. But that some of Voldemort's powers became lodged in him, is very possible in this scenario. The second AK sends the blastwave of LVs magical powers radiation at Harry, and although Lily's soul prevents Harry's soul from being blasted from his body, keeping him alive, some of LV's powers invade Harry's body. Hoping someone feels moved enough to respond and perhaps take the idea forward to suggest what might have caused the scar in more detail. Saraquel From Nanagose at aol.com Sun Dec 4 01:55:44 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:55:44 -0000 Subject: The Significance of the Foe-Glass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144024 > Leslie: > You can theorize all you want about how perhaps Snape was crouch's > foe "just at that moment," etc. etc. etc. But it would have been > quite easy for Rowling to avoid the matter entirely by not having > Snape in that particular scene. Christina: Not to mention the fact that JKR draws our attention specifically to Snape's reflection in the foe-glass by having him stare at it. We discussed the foe-glass way back in August in this thread: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/136806 > truthbeauty1: > I am not decided about Snape, however, if you look for both good > Snape and bad Snape from this scene you can. If Snape is still a > true Death Eater, then one could simply say that all Death Eaters > who renounced Voldemort for whatever reason are Crouches enemies. Christina: That's a fair point. However, the value in a foe-glass seems to be that you can see your enemies approaching so that they cannot attack you by surprise. This suggests to me that the foe-glass shows not people that you don't like, but people that are a *danger* to you. In this way, the foe-glass warns of impending danger. BCJ is pretty angry at the other Death Eaters, but they aren't really a threat to him. >Leslie: >And of course if Snape is with the forces of good at the end of GoF, >he goes back to Voldemort as a double-agent for DUMBLEDORE, not for >the Dark Lord. Christina: I don't so much mind a Currently!LV'sMan Snape as I mind a Snape that was evil all along. I think there's too much to explain away if you try and make the case that Snape has always been on LV's side (the foe-glass, Dumbledore's iron-clad reason for trusting Snape). I find it much easier to believe that Snape legitimately turned back to good and then just became sick of Dumbledore's demands on him and decided to return to his old ways. Or came upon the situation in the tower and said to himself, "Well now I'm in a pickle," and saw no other option for himself. Of course, none of these scenarios holds the appeal for me that DDM!Snape (or, mostlyDDM!Snape) does, but I still find them reasonable and defendable. > truthbeauty1: > I personally do not > believe that Rowling will give anything away about Snape until the > very moment that truth becomes paramount. Christina: Well, of course she won't be giving anything blatant to us, but there are certainly clues. She's given us enough that all of the three major theories (DDM, OFH, ESE) can be relatively well-argued (which is the basic problem for us now, isn't it?). However, no matter what direction she goes in the end, there has to be the groundwork for it in the other books. I believe that the foe-glass issue would be particularly difficult to explain away (and was a completely unnecessary addition to the book). Christina From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sun Dec 4 02:08:36 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:08:36 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: <005501c5f85b$e4dabce0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144025 > > Sherry now: > > i've been thinking all day about how to respond to this. i absolutely and > completely disagree with your assessment of Sirius here. But personal > feelings aside, because he is my favorite adult character, I don't think it > holds up against the facts either. > > First of all, *anyone* adult or child, would be humiliated about having > themselves turned upside down and their underwear showing in front of a > crowd of their peers. Can you imagine not feeling upset about such a > terrible thing? It doesn't need to be any more sinister than that. > Upset, yes, but not to the point that it obsesses you for life. As it clearly does with Snape. I think what we are seeing in the Pensieve is just the tip of the iceberg, one of many similar assaults on young Severus' physical and emotional space. As I see it, this harrassment has gone on for years, to the point that it is making Snape physically sick (see the description of him in the O.W.L.S. test). > > Your comments about the supposed real reason for James turning poor Sevvy > upside down implies that James did it for Sirius, which means you think > James knew of his terrible behavior. > Well, yes... I think all four of the Marauders are in on the dirty little secret, and responding to it in their individual ways: James, as Sirius' best buddy, right-hand man, and facilitator; Remus as the "protected" outcast, supporting the others and hating himself for it; and Peter tagging along and drooling down his bib at Severus' pain and humiliation. (Go back and read the whole episode, and watch what each of the Marauders is doing. It's pretty enlightening.) > > ...If that is true, why would he have > made Sirius the godfather and guardian to his son? There is no way any > parent would knowingly make a child molester his son's guardian. Remember, > Sirius isn't just a godfather, a position that has no legal validity, he is > also Harry's guardian. It would have been criminal for Lily and James to > have considered leaving their son in the hands of someone who they knew had > done the terrible things you think Sirius did. Whatever you think of James > as a teenager, unless you think he never did change and that he was > incredibly evil and sadistic, he would not subject his son to that! > Here, I think we're back to a home-grown Gryffindor version of that "us" versus "them" thinking that everybody has been decrying lately in Slytherin. Sirius is a pure-blood and a spoiled brat, as, in all fairness, is James. Sirius comes from a family that beheads its house elves and uses their mounted heads to decorate the front hall (and I find it interesting that having inherited the house and thrown out a fair amount of stuff he finds offensive, Sirius has left the heads in place, which argues at the very least a certain lack of sensitivity toward his household staff); a family that has petitioned the MoM to legalize Muggle hunting. Not a nice family, and some of that thinking had to have rubbed off on Sirius; little as he likes most of his relatives, he seems to dislike them for personal reasons, not because of their social elitism. James can entrust Harry to Sirius' guardianship believing that Sirius would never let down "our" side by taking advantage of Harry, and betraying James' friendship and the kindness of James' parents. And I dare say James is perfectly right, though Molly Weasley is unconvinced. (Interestingly, I don't think we are told what Lily thinks of this arrangement.) Whereas Severus is this weedy half-blood kid from a nuthin' family, and as such fair game to be victimized by Sirius and his Marauders, and even killed outright if he doesn't cooperate. (Interesting that that was what stuck in James' craw, whereas he seemed perfectly comfortable with the hazing.) > > Also, there are JKR'S words about Sirius. Would she cry when she killed > Sirius, if he was the monster you think? Would she say the good things > about him that she does? This would make Sirius into a creature as evil and > disgusting as Voldemort. > Well, no, there are degrees of evil and disgusting, after all. And Sirius may have reformed, having lost James and Lily so shockingly and having had all that nice spare time at the Azkaban Club and Day Spa to think things over. But I wouldn't bet the farm on it, and neither, I think, would Snape. As for JKR, we have only her word for what she feels about Sirius, and JKR, IMHO, is a past master of misdirection. > > As for why the Weasleys are at Grimauld place, that seems so obvious to me > and doesn't need sinister plots to explain. It was the headquarters of the > Order of the Phoenix after all. they were all guarding the prophecy at the > time and must have been easier to report and have meetings there. As well > as being convenient to have all the kids there. Since it was unplotable and > under the Fidelius Charm, it was safer than anywhere else. > > Sherry > And is that why *inside the house* she escorts the kids everywhere? Does she think something nasty is going to come down the chimney and grab them if she takes her eyes off them for a minute? I'd love to be wrong about Sirius, but I'm afraid I don't have a very high opinion of him and his Marauders, and I don't think the Prank was even remotely innocent. --La Gatta From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 02:23:22 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:23:22 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) LONGish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144026 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > a_svirn: > If the admission to Slytherin House restricted or at least ideally > should be restricted to the pureblood (and according to the Hat it > is), it means discrimination. Depends on how you see "the blood > problem" in the WW it may be racial or social discrimination. Bigotry > is just another (milder) term for it. Those purebloods who are not > bigots obviously choose other houses, don't they? It's all about > choices, after all. We have seen, so far, three songs of the Hat about Sorting. (Cited by me in an earlier post to this thread.) In two of those three songs, blood status is not even mentioned. If the Sorting is just the Hat getting each child to make their choice, your pureblood bigots would surely choose Slytherin, as you say. It is the tradition in their families. But why would anyone else? Presumably because the House stands for other things which ARE appealing to some non-purebloods. It seems to me that Sorting into Slytherin can occur for a number of reasons, being a purebllod bigot being only one. And probably, not even the most important one. It is certainly not a criterion all members have to meet. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Dec 4 02:08:04 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 21:08:04 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Hagrid - Jumping into the Fray References: Message-ID: <022401c5f877$90152a30$a6ba400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 144027 Steve: > This discussion has gone on for quite a while (at least in Internet > time), and I thought I should drop back in and once again try to add > some perspective to the debate. Magpie: Which means I guess I'm back too. (And believe me, I'm not enjoying it any more than anyone else, but I knew it'd be a long haul when I brought the subject up and perversely decided to stick it out.) Steve: > When his first year is a total failure, he thinks about it over the > summer and decides to try an new approach. That next year, he decides > to make a project out of it; the Blast-End Skrewts. Magpie I don't think the Skrewts are the kind of idea you're presenting them as here. It's weeks of kids fooling around with things that sting and burn--classes Hermione describes as not "proper lessons"--that Hagrid finds interesting because he's enchanted by his creations (presumably not on any OWLS or NEWTS) and isn't really aware of how the class is responding to them for weeks. One class ends with half the class running away. In fifth year he gets caught out saying the Thestrels as "not dangerous" when he means they "will take a piece out of you if you annoy 'em." But yes, it's not like Hagrid is getting worse and worse--there are times we're told he's getting better or hasn't been so bad lately (maybe his focus on Grawp helps him in class). But your characterization of him here sounds unnecessarily rose-colored. Steve: > None the less, Malfoy is watching when Harry is invited to approach > the hippogriff. Clearly anyone and everyone see the potential danger. > The problem is Harry is successful, and Malfoy in his arrogance, can't > abide Harry out doing him. With that same arrogance and distain, > Malfoy ignore everything he should have heard, and everything he HAD > seen, and does exactly the opposite of what any reasonable and > rational person would do. > > After Harry's success, and before Malfoy acts like the idiot he is, > the rest of the class are interacting with the Hippogriff with > reasonable caution and reasonable success; all of which Malfoy witnesses. > Magpie: I feel canon subtly changing again, and seeing a difference between this description and what you've quoted: Malfoy whispers with his friends at the beginning of Hagrid's talk, when Hagrid says the insulting thing--he's possibly whispering something mean or plotting something bad. Malfoy watches the demonstration. He does not do anything near "the opposite of what a reasonable, rational person would do." He does exactly what the rest of the class does: he bows to the hippogriff etc. He's not watching everyone else, stewing, and then deciding to do something dumb. He's just one of the class, doing the same thing as everyone else. He pets the hippogriff, like everyone else. As he's petting it, he calls it a great ugly brute. It's not like he takes out a frying pan and starts hitting the thing or climbs up on its back for a ride like Hagrid just had Harry do. He certainly does make a big mistake, all on his own, because he wasn't listening when he should have been, but he's not acting like a maniac. Having, he thinks, done everything right, he's cockily saying, "Ha, that wasn't so scary." Steve: > Under no circumstance could anyone say that Malfoy is justified in > making such a statement. Magpie: No, he's not justified in making it. He's a kid in a class trying to look cool. Steve: It's fine that he is minimizing Harry role in > the hippogriffs, but there really is no reason or point in insulting > the hippogriff itself. Malfoy has clearly decided he knows more that > that oaf of a teacher, and chooses to freely and unnecessarily insult > a dangerous creature Magpie: He has not decided he knows more than the teacher (about this at least). That suggests he heard Hagrid say not to insult the hippogriff, understood that this meant they understood English like a human being, and does not believe Hagrid so decides to do it anyway. I don't think Malfoy is that brave to chance that. He'd rather just be snotty and safe at the same time. (Oops, should have been more attentive then, Draco.) If he was deciding he knew better he wouldn't have bowed etc. Steve: > As a result Malfoy pays for his self-absorbed arrogance. Magpie Yes, he pays for not listening closely to Hagrid at all times in class, and learns that some animals (hippogriffs) know when you're insulting them and react accordingly! Cause and effect there. It wasn't Hagrid who insulted the animal. Steve: > But, in fiction and in real-life, we do not live in an 'idiot proof' > world. There are idiots and they will hurt themselves, and they will > certainly whine and cry that the world should have protected them, and > that, idiots that they are, they shouldn't be held responsible for > their own idiotic actions. Steve: Yes, which is why if Hagrid can be held accountable for his idiotic actions too. And is sometimes pretty good at the whining and crying thing as well. Steve: > So, in this one incident, Hagrid can't escape responsibility because > he was in charge and that makes it his responsibility, but on the > other hand, you can't blame the world or Hagrid because some people > are idiots. Idiots can and will get hurt because they are > self-absorbed, self-indulgant, irresponsible idiots; that's life. Magpie And that's Hagrid, plenty of times. Self-absorbed would cover weeks of classes on Hagrid's private creations, the Skrewts, without noticing the real reactions of the students. Irresponsible would be most of his dealings with Norbert with the kids first year. Some people would probably suggest that "self-absorbed, self-indulgant, irresponsible idiots" could for short be said "kids." Though it could sometimes also apply to Hagrid, which is why he's often described as being a big kid. Steve: > Of course, there is no denying that hippogriffs were too advanced for > third years. But again, I'm back to Hagrid not understanding his job. > He is focusing on '...Magical Creature' when he should be focusing on > 'Care of...'. Magpie So Malfoy being an idiot is him being an idiot, but Hagrid being an idiot is Hagrid not understanding his job in some understandable way that does not make him an idiot. Malfoy's a self-absorbed jerk for not hearing "don't insult one," but Hagrid's missing the first two words of his class is just the first step on his Mr. Chips-like career. Can't they both have moments when they're idiots? Steve: > > Still, in Harry OWL year, Hagrid seems to have mellowed. He seems to > be getting his teaching legs. Magpie: Mm-hmm. And Malfoy's a Prefect who seems to do pretty well on his OWLS and makes a point of not only listening in Hagrid's class, but asking "dumb questions" about safety. Steve: And while it is a slow process, I think > he will finally figure his job out. In the future I have no problem > seeing Hagrid presenting age appropraite creatures with full > information on their care and feeding, enhanced by an occasional > 'interesting creature' presented in an age appropriate way. For > example, while he may let 4th or 5th years approach and pet a > hippogriff, he would only let younger student see them while he > explained some of their interesting characteristics. Magpie: We can imagine Hagrid any way we like in the future, sure. Steve: > I think we need to give Hagrid a chance as a teacher. Magpie: I've got no problem giving him a chance as a teacher. With one book to go, we may only hear about CoMC being a wildly popular class in future. If not, lots of classes aren't wildly popular. He doesn't have to be perfect. Steve: > One last note on the Draco/Hippogriff incident. I think people on > polar sides of this argument are simply trying to present a > perspective. Those who say Draco is at fault are not totally absolving > Hagrid, they are merely saying the Draco cause his own injuries. Those > who are saying Hagrid is at fault, are not absolving Draco of being an > arrogant idiot who acted in an unbelievably stupid manner and against > all common sense and obvious signs. They are merely saying that Hagrid > was in charge, he was responsible for the safety of his students, and > he can never escape that responsibility. Magpie: Hey, I'm all for balance. But that's why I only accept a balance that gives both Hagrid and Malfoy responsibilty for his worse actions. Not one where Hagrid's responsibility is just a technicality. That, to me, is not a fair and balanced approach any more than it would be to say this: "Those who say Hagrid is at fault are not totally absolving Draco, they are merely saying Hagrid caused his injuries. Those who are saying Draco is at fault, are not absolving Hagrid of being an arrogant idiot who acted in an unbelievably stupid manner and against all common sense and obvious signs. They are merely saying that Draco was a student, he was responsible for listening to the teacher, and he can never escape that responsibility." Now, does that sentence really sound balanced? Or does it sound like Hagrid's really to blame but I'm paying lip-service to Draco's responsibility? That's not what I saw happening. (And yet it's scary how easily it switches around.) Canon-wise, I am perfectly satisfied with the way Rowling handled this incident. Malfoy gets a bad gash on the arm for insulting a hippogriff and not listening to Hagrid. He has to continue dealing with Hagrid--he doesn't get to blame it all on the teacher--and learns if he doesn't listen he might get hurt. That Malfoy is shown being comically jumpy about missing something Hagrid's said implies he gets that much. Hagrid also deals with consequences of his actions--Malfoy becomes a Greek Chorus in his class. He's an unpopular teacher, a "bit of a joke." In sixth year his main supporters are not going to go so far as to take his class. -m From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 02:54:16 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:54:16 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144028 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lagattalucianese" wrote: > Upset, yes, but not to the point that it obsesses you for life. As > it clearly does with Snape. I think what we are seeing in the > Pensieve is just the tip of the iceberg, one of many similar > assaults on young Severus' physical and emotional space. As I see > it, this harrassment has gone on for years, to the point that it is > making Snape physically sick (see the description of him in the > O.W.L.S. test). Some listies would argue that Snape is actually not obsessed about this, although I wouldn't necessarily. :) However, when you factor in the whole "responsible in some way for the deaths of two people" factor and add that onto whatever other teenage baggage never got worked through...that seems enough to flash-fry it into the memory. YMMV. What is left out of this argument is any kind of reciprocality. No, we haven't *seen* any scene like that, but we haven't had a chance to go look into Lupin's memories, or anyone else from that time period. Finding out that Snape was the inventor of the magic being used here, though...I think that's designed to make us think hard about sympathies, and I wouldn't be surprised if we get the picture shifted in another direction yet again. > Well, yes... I think all four of the Marauders are in on the dirty > little secret, and responding to it in their individual ways: > James, as Sirius' best buddy, right-hand man, and facilitator; > Remus as the "protected" outcast, supporting the others and hating > himself for it; and Peter tagging along and drooling down his bib > at Severus' pain and humiliation. (Go back and read the whole > episode, and watch what each of the Marauders is doing. It's pretty > enlightening.) That makes a whole lot of people at Hogwarts nasty voyeurs too, then; remember that a number of people are watching and laughing. I'll simply reiterate the danger of taking one glimpse as utterly paradigmatic. Think of all the moments in the series where going on only one thing would produce strangely off-kilter readings. > Not a nice family, and some of that thinking had to have rubbed off > on Sirius; little as he likes most of his relatives, he seems to > dislike them for personal reasons, not because of their social > elitism. OotP, American HB, p. 111: "Because I hated the whole lot of them: my parents, with their pure- blood mania, convinced that to be a Black made you practically royal...my idiot brother, soft enough to believe them..." I suppose if you want to argue that no, for Sirius it's actually personal and he's just throwing that out there as a justification, that you can. But then it's so easy to get rid of the explicit canon that you don't like. > (Interestingly, I don't think we are told what Lily thinks of this > arrangement.) >From the glimpses that we've gotten of Lily, do you really think she'd approve of something like that? Do you think she'd do something that she considered a bad idea, that would endanger her child--and do you think James values her so little that he'd do that to her? This reminds me of the Secret Keeper situation, where it also makes no sense that Lily wouldn't have been deeply involved. > As for JKR, we have only her word for what she feels about Sirius, > and JKR, IMHO, is a past master of misdirection. I see your "JKR is super sneaky" argument and raise you a ton of poleaxed shippers (some still holding on to sweet, sweet hope out there). She turned out not to be playing any misdirection games whatsoever there. Can you give me a good example, a really nice solid example, of where JKR has engaged in outright misdirection about how she regards a character? She's sneaky about future plot points, but she's always been remarkably candid about what she thinks of the character of her characters. > I'd love to be wrong about Sirius, but I'm afraid I don't have a > very high opinion of him and his Marauders, and I don't think the > Prank was even remotely innocent. If you have the edition of the books that actually gives the details on the so-called Prank in a way that it all makes sense and works out without having to fill in two-thirds of the information ourselves, please do share. We've been promised an explanation of that via interview, and as it didn't happen this book, it must happen the next. Until then, all arguments on the topic are more provisional than you can shake a stick at. But I ask *you* this question: was Dumbledore unaware of sex offender Sirius at Hogwarts, and would he have let him off lightly solely to protect Remus Lupin? Or was it that they were so smoove at hiding it that Dumbledore had no idea? -Nora thinks that this is the first time this particular allegation has been made about Sirius Black, but there must be a first time for everything From leslie41 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 02:56:29 2005 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:56:29 -0000 Subject: The Significance of the Foe-Glass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144029 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "truthbeauty1" wrote: > I personally do not believe that Rowling will give anything away > about Snape until the very moment that truth becomes paramount. Well, she doesn't give away the ultimate answer, but she's quite good at gesturing broadly. Ron's rat is far too old. Lupin's boggart looks like a white orb. Just small examples. She gives quite a lot away, all the time. It seems to me that Snape was a character in her mind that she thought about quite a bit, and mapped out before she even began the books. He's key, absolutely key to the overall plot arc. He, more than any other character, is Harry's foil. She certainly knew what was going to happen to him in the last book as she began the first. I think if we look, there are tons of hints there about all sorts of things, including Snape, many of which she might not have even realized she provided. The foe glass is one such hint, I think. She may not even have "meant" for it to be closely analyzed, or provide a hint. Perhaps, knowing Snape as she does, she just put him in it because she knows that beside DD and McG is where he really belongs. I'll tell you this, if Snape has been Voldemort's from the very beginning, the woman has an awful lot of explaining to do. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Dec 4 03:07:59 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 03:07:59 -0000 Subject: Lily, Voldemort, AK and the atomic bomb analogy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144030 Saraquel: > Hoping someone feels moved enough to respond and perhaps take the > idea forward to suggest what might have caused the scar in more > detail. Ceridwen: Okay, I'll play. I've already stuck my foot in my mouth today, I might as well stick both feet! ;) Saraquel: > It starts with the idea that the Avada Kadavra curse is created by > splitting the soul, rather like the splitting of the atom, where a > huge amount of energy is released, along with radiation. The > rushing sound which is heard when the spell is cast is the blast > wave rolling out from the splitting of the soul. Ceridwen: Interesting. I like that. I had imagined that the splitting occurred once the victim was properly dead, though. But, the rushing sound being equated with something magically powerful, as when the atom splits, is something to think about. The AKs we've 'heard' almost all have that sound. Saraquel: > Unlike Rose in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143995 I don't, > at the moment, think that the murderer's split soul actually leaves > their bodies, although, I do think that it is an interesting idea, > but I do think that the shock wave contains traces of the powers of > the caster, in an analogous way to radiation being spread. Ceridwen: I don't think the soul leaves the body either, unless it's purposely removed. I do think that *removing* the soul piece makes the soul's owner that much less human, until we get to Voldemort, who is, physically at least, not very human at all. Traces of the powers of the caster. If your idea is correct, then that would have to happen. In fact, whether it's the soul splitting at this point, or some other explosion of power (emotions welding to the power and intent?), then you'd have to see some sort of collapse going on, which would send out *something* of the originator. Since Harry ends up with powers like Voldemort's, then it would stand to reason that this rushing wind carries bits of the intrinsic powers of the caster. Saraquel: > So we have a situation where Lily stands between Harry and > Voldemort. Voldemort casts an Avada Kedavra, when the shockwave > hits Lily (or any victim) it literally sweeps the victims soul out > of their body, along with their life force/powers ? hence the look > of surprise, but no physical marks. So now we possibly have a > situation where Lily's soul/powers are swept back out of her body > and onto Harry who is directly behind her. The purpose of her > sacrifice was to protect Harry, so Lily's soul and powers cling to > Harry as she passes, knowing that Voldemort will continue on to try > and kill Harry. Ceridwen: So, the rushing sound is, in your idea, the splitting of the caster's soul, which then tears as the power pushes outward from the center of the explosion, carrying debris along the way. When it connects with an object, like the houses in the old A-bomb testing footage, it affects the *soul and powers* of the person that it hits. The soul and powers of the victim them blow back, like the houses in the old footage, and if something's behind, of course the blast debris would slam into it, and perhaps cling. The body, of course, would not be affected. Neither would the physical body of whatever is behind, in this case, baby Harry. Yet, there's life in Harry, so Lily's soul and powers, her essence, can cling to its counterpart inside her son. Saraquel: > Then Voldemort stands in front of Harry and blasts him with an AK > too. But maybe, Lily's soul repels the curse and takes the hit and > is blasted out of Harry's body, leaving Harry's soul and body still > intact. In this way Lily in fact, sort of dies twice. Ceridwen: Like a shield of sorts, then, which, since the components have no body of their own, merely cover the body underneath them while reflecting LV's own force back at him. Like the debris of the destroyed house plastering against the side of a concrete bunker, protecting the concrete from blast marks, burns, or other debris coming into contact with it. Which, to me, leads naturally to the significance of Harry having Lily's eyes. How so? That he has her eye color? That maybe they're the same shape as well? Or, because naturally, his face wasn't covered by clothes but bare to everything that went on? If your idea is correct, then Lily's soul and powers would have touched his skin directly on his face, unlike where it covered his PJs. Enter through the eyes, leave through the scar? Or, I like this better, enter through the scar and leave through the eyes, leaving traces of Lily's essence. Saraquel: > JKR has said in the Mugglenet/LC interview, that Lily did not do > anything special in terms of charms or anything, she simply stood in > front of Harry. This theory doesn't need anything special except > the fact that she stands directly in front of him, which we know is > what happened. *(snip patronus part)* > However, this still does not really explain exactly how Harry's scar > came about and why it is positioned on Harry's forehead, but perhaps > that is the result of what the soul of Lily did in order to protect > Harry. Ceridwen: The situation is supposedly something that had never been done before. Which is why Harry is the only person to ever have survived the AK. I find it hard to believe, with all the WW wars, Goblin Rebellions, other Dark Lords, etc., that no mother ever before stood in front of her children to protect them from harm. So, the one thing Lily must have done, is prepare for the liklihood that she would need to do this, instead of it being a spur of the moment thing. She was mentally prepared, and prepared in her heart, for this very moment. And she meant to protect her child for as long as was humanly possible. So, prepared, and the soul being unavoidably linked to the person, the soul is prepared as well to continue protection as long as it can. When it is blasted back out of Lily's body by the shock wave from the AK, it connects with Harry, then *penetrates* his skin, hence the scar. Scars come from violent interaction with something. Since the later AK had no effect on him, unless as you say, the Harry! or Scar!Horcrux theories are correct, then what hit him, other than Lily's soul as it was blasted from her body? And, if the AK meant for Harry is in the main repelled by Lily's soul- and-powers covering, what LV powers he receives from the shock of the second AK enters through the scar, which is already there, while the destruction is repelled. Because the rushing sound comes first, IIRC, then the full force of the power follows in its wake, takes up a larger amount of space since it contains more raw power, so would be prevented from damaging baby Harry. The entry of the powers through the scar, or perhaps just the limited time a soul can survive without its body, forces Lily's soul etc. out through the nearest exit, his eyes, leaving *traces* of what can honestly remain in him, her powers. I have to say I'm not convinced, and could just as easily be arguing against this tomorrow. I like to play with ideas. And, you've just presented it, so this is my first reaction. But, it certainly is possible, based on what little we actually know. It would explain the scar, Harry having some of LV's powers, and the mention of Harry having Lily's eyes as being somehow significant. It'll be interesting to see other people's takes, and I too am open to being convinced either way. Ceridwen. From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Dec 3 23:15:01 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:15:01 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) In-Reply-To: <019901c5f7ae$df76eb50$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144031 Miles wrote: > And your opinion is, that apart from this (dead, doomed, or both) > he should be punished for his deeds in potion classes? This > is kind of kicking someone who is on the ground already or > whipping a corpse, isn't it? > > I understand your idea of confrontation, and I agree that it can > do good under certain circumstances. (Your example of Churches in > New England sounds awful to me, but to discuss this would be too > much off-topic.) But IMO those circumstances will not arise from > the situation we can expect in the last book. Just recall the > starting position - there is a lethal threat to the WW, and Harry > is on his way to 'finish' the most powerful wizard of the world > (or at least of Britain...). We can be sure, that there are people > to die and suffer. And you really expect, that in such a situation > Snape, Harry, Neville and some arbitrator will sit down, confront > Snape with his faults and make him apologise? And *this* is to be > good literature, and if Rowling fails in doing this, the entire > series has decisive weaknesses concerning it's literary worth? Absolutely and completely. To allow Snape to go unpunished for his child abuse (and it IS child abuse) would be reprehensible beyond belief. However, I don't think it's necessarily true that this cannot be done in a manner that does not satisfy most everyone on all sides without taking an undue amount of time. I offer two scenes that would do the trick. SCENE ONE (Snape has returned to the Order and claimed to be DDM. He offers a plausible tale, but does not reveal DD's reason for trusting him to start with. Harry refuses to believe him. In this scene #### stands for someone other than Harry speaking for the Order, it could be Lupin, Moody, Minerva, or whoever). SNAPE: Precious Potter doesn't believe me, does he? ####: Surely you don't think he should, Severus. SNAPE: I have explained... ####: You have spent seven years being vicious, cruel, childish and brutal. How do you expect anyone to react? SNAPE: If you are talking about me trying to teach that arrogant... ####: I am. You have behaved in a manner that brings all wizards to shame, not to mention all teachers. SNAPE: Dumbledore... ####: Is gone. Whatever his reasons for putting up with you, they don't matter now. SNAPE: Dumbledore trusted me enough to teach the arrogant brat Occlumency! ####: And look how that came out. You let your childish grudge interfere with one of the most important tasks you had ever been given! SNAPE: Dumbledore trusted me! ####: So he always said when any of us complained about you. Reveal his reasons, and we will consider them. (Snape reveals Dumbledore's reasons. #### takes him into another room, where shouting can be heard. They return.) SNAPE (looking like he's taken poison): Mr. Potter, Mr. Longbottom, I... if.... uh.... please... accept my .... (looks sick) apologies. SCENE TWO: (Snape is DDM. Voldy is defeated. Harry, Snape, and Minerva are in the Head's office after all is said and done). SNAPE: I will be in my rooms. MINERVA: Pardon me, Mister Snape, what rooms are those? SNAPE: My professor's rooms, Headmistress. MINERVA: You are not a Hogwarts Professor, Mister Snape. SNAPE: Slughorn is staying, I know. But DADA... MINERVA: Is open. Why are you presuming I would ask you to fill the position? SNAPE: But who... MINERVA: I rather thought of offering the position to Mister Potter, here. SNAPE: But I.... MINERVA: Was instrumental in bringing about the fall of Voldemort. But Mister Potter actually defeated the Dark Lord. Who would be better to teach young wizards and witches than that? SNAPE: I have taught at Hogwarts for sixteen years! MINERVA: Taught? You have imparted information efficiently, I admit. You have also been childish, cruel, and stupidly irresponsible in your behavior. SNAPE: Dumbledore was satisfied with my methods! MINERVA: Albus doubtless had his reasons for putting up with your antics. But Albus is gone. I am Head now, and I do not choose to extend you the same leniency. SNAPE: This is all about Gryffindor! MINERVA (sighing): Everything is about Gryffindor to you, isn't it Severus? You have never been able to put your grudges away, not even after all these years, not even after everything! SNAPE: I demand my rightful rewards! MINERVA: I will determine what your rightful rewards are at Hogwarts, Mister Snape. And a teaching position are not among them. SNAPE(flushed and pale): Where am I supposed to go? MINERVA(sighing again): You may stay in guest rooms until you determine that, Severus. But you must be gone by the start of term in the fall. SNAPE: But where.... MINERVA (briskly): That is for you to determine, Mister Snape. I am sure everyone at Hogwarts will help you as much as we can. Now, if you will excuse us, Mister Potter and I must talk a little about the formalities of his taking over the DADA position. SNAPE: But.... MINERVA (firmly): Goodbye, Mister Snape. END SCENE There. Neither of those scenes would take much more than a couple of pages, and either could fit nicely into the final book without constituting a diversion or a "bump" in the narrative. Furthermore, I think either would satisfy almost everyone. They are short and to the point, fitting into the flow of the final book as Miles and Steve desire. They provide karmic retribution and third party intervention as Nora, Alla, and I desire. And they even allow for a DDM!Snape. The last even allows for Snape to survive the final book. So, I don't think the nature of the final book in any way makes it impossible for most of us to be more-or-less happy with Snape's final place on the wheel of karma. Lupinlore From radasgat at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 03:46:35 2005 From: radasgat at yahoo.com (radasgat) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 03:46:35 -0000 Subject: Who does Snape really hate? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144032 I spent some time alone in a car recently, thinking about the interview I read with Rowling and all the messages I've read on-line here. A thought occured to me and I wanted to open it up to discussion. Who does Snape hate? In book one, we meet Snape on the first day of class are lead to believe that Snape doesn't like Harry because he is "famous". Implying that Harry is a spoiled brat.... ... similar to his father... In book 5 we find out that Snape's impression of James is as a spoiled brat. So this explains why Snape doesn't like Harry in books 1-4.5 (maybe 1-5.5). We have confirmation from Sirius (and maybe a bit from Lupin and Dumbledore), and more importantly JK that indeed, James was a completely spoiled brat in high school. If you think about where Snape comes from. From the one snippet of memory we have of Snape's childhood, we can assume he is the sniveling child abused and scared in the corner. No wonder he hates spoiled brats. No wonder he lothes people who have been handed their every desire throughout their lives. And who are those people? Sirius (rich), James (only child), Harry (famous). But, Snape's hatred in book 1-5.2 is Snape's perspective; what HE percieves is true (that Harry is a famous spoiled brat just like his dad). I have to believe that after the Occulemncy lesson commence, he sees that Harry is NOT the spoiled brat that he thought, that he is more like than Snape that Snape ever imagined. Does Snape get softer on Harry after this point, or harder because he knows what a good beating can do for strength of character? For a bit of dramatic irony.. who does Snape "appear" to love? Draco. What is Draco? The only son of an older couple who has been doted on his whole life and given his every wish and desire...similiar so James? .. or am I seeing Draco from Harry's POV? Maybe Draco isn't as spoiled as I think he is. Maybe Draco has some redeeming quality. Afterall, he couldn't bring himself to AK Dumbledore... Thoughs? Radasgat From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 04:16:45 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 04:16:45 -0000 Subject: Snape's teaching methods In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144033 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Neville passes potions every year, his cauldrons-melted-or- > > otherwise-destroyed statistics decrease steadily, and his > > potions improve. So what Snape actually sees (if we go by the > > books, anyway) is a challenged student improving. If it's > > working, why should Snape change his methods? > >>Alla: > Well, how do you figure that Neville does not flunk the potions > every year? > Betsy Hp: Because Neville progresses with the rest of the class. I strongly doubt Hogwarts has adopted the social advancement theory of education. (Did any traditional English boarding school of the type Hogwarts is fashioned after pass students despite performance?) IIRC, in CoS Harry and Ron allude to students flunking out of Hogwarts when they're disappointed to learn Goyle or Crabbe has returned. I'm not sure if merely flunking Potions would fail you out of Hogwarts, though I believe it is a part of the core curriculum. But I'm pretty sure that if Neville didn't pass third year Potions he'd have to repeat it and would not take fourth year Potions with his classmates in GoF. (Unless Hogwarts offered some form of summer school, though everything in the books suggests it doesn't.) There's also some points where Neville outperforms Harry (in OotP, IIRC), and I'm fairly sure he's not nearly as destructive (read, his potions are much closer to correct) after PoA. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Hmmm, I actually think Snape really *does* want Neville to > > succeed. Not necessarily because he wants *Neville* to succeed, > > but because he doesn't want to fail as a teacher. I think Snape > > is the type to see his students' performance as a reflection of > > his own performance as a teacher. > >>Magpie: > Yes, I do think Snape sets up his class with the goal of students > getting good grades on their OWLS and NEWTS and actually knowing > Potions well. It's funny, actually, to go through and look at what > Snape likes as a teacher, because he's not lazy, that's one thing > to say about him. I think he really is annoyed by Hermione as a > student--and Neville as well. Double that when Hermione does > Neville's work for him. Betsy Hp: I think Hermione can be a disruptive student in her own way, sometimes. She's so eager to be the first to answer, to be the most correct and give the most thorough answers that she can intimidate the other students into not bothering. I believe there's even a moment in one of the books where the rest of the class is described as just waiting for Hermione to answer a question rather than try themselves. And that's not a really great classroom environment, I think. Snape, especially, tends to not call on Hermione, and he gets down right pissy when she answers out of turn. Because he knows she knows. Everyone knows she knows, and he's trying to suss out the rest of the class. And when she effectively sabatoges his assigment to Neville I do think Snape was quite annoyed. Not because he was all about seeing Trevor die and Neville cry, but because he was about forcing Neville to succeed. > >>Sherry: > And to add to Alla and Jerry, no defense of Snape's abysmal people > skills as a teacher can excuse his publicly humiliating Neville at > the beginning of the boggart DADA lesson. That was so outrageous > and sends my blood boiling every time I read it. Snape mocked a > student in front of his class and another teacher in a viciously > unkind manner. Betsy Hp: Oh yes, this is a perfect example of Snape behaving badly. When he gets angry he does tend to lash out. I understand where his anger is coming from. Neville has just cheated, and then Lupin brings the entire class marching into the staff room where Snape has obviously settled in for some down time. (IIRC, Lupin does some of his passive-aggressive "Severus"-ing, too.) But, it was bad form for Snape to attack Neville like that, I agree. And kudos to Lupin for turning it around on him. (I'm betting the hat in the Christmas cracker was an example of Dumbledore lightly chiding Snape, as well.) Snape is certainly not a perfect individual, and he does have an instinct for cutting cruelty that he's not always able to reign in. And it does sometimes lead him into petty behavior he should consider beneath him. But, within the classroom, I still think his motivation with Neville is getting him through the class, rather than mere sadistic humiliation. Betsy Hp From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Dec 4 04:21:39 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 04:21:39 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144034 Nora: > But I ask *you* this question: was > Dumbledore unaware of sex offender Sirius at Hogwarts, and would he > have let him off lightly solely to protect Remus Lupin? Ceridwen: EEK! I mean, EEEEEEEK! Yes, I know that's what La Gatta was apparently saying. But, still. Eek? La Gatta: > > Upset, yes, but not to the point that it obsesses you for life. As > > it clearly does with Snape. I think what we are seeing in the > > Pensieve is just the tip of the iceberg, one of many similar > > assaults on young Severus' physical and emotional space. Ceridwen: Okay. That's possible. Pantsing someone is a form of humiliation that has been done on schoolyards for... well, since before my time. And, it is exactly what you say: harassment, an invasion of space, humiliation. And, once a gang of bullies gets hold of a particular punching bag, they don't let him go all that easily. When that punching bag is possibly a match for any one of them on their own, as Snape may well be, it's just more of a challenge. I never did buy my mother's bit about standing up to people who bullied me making them leave me alone. It just doesn't work that way. Sherry: > Your comments about the supposed real reason for James turning poor > Sevvy upside down implies that James did it for Sirius, which means > you think James knew of his terrible behavior. La Gatta: > > Well, yes... I think all four of the Marauders are in on the dirty > > little secret, and responding to it in their individual ways: * (snip)* Nora: > That makes a whole lot of people at Hogwarts nasty voyeurs too, then; > remember that a number of people are watching and laughing. Ceridwen: Ah. Okay. Let's hold on a minute. Pantsing someone is a longtime tradition among people with the upper hand and a particular way of seeing themselves with power, on the schoolyard. How many jokes are there about running someone's underwear up the flagpole? Such a situation inforces the view of the pantsee as some sort of 98 lb. geeky weakling being bested by the jocks. It's humiliation, in the same way that rape is not about sex, but power and humiliation, and other very *un*romantic impulses. The jocks are portrayed as simple brutes in the jokes, while the geek gets derided for not being a jock. (*sigh* Some people want it both ways) The laughing students are behaving like the people who laugh at the joke. It's funny to see the jocks give the geek, who shows them up in class, 'the business'. And if Snape's been as agressive about hexing the Marauders, and possibly other students, they may be laughing about the comeuppance. Each portrayal plays into the stereotype: The jocks can't compete in class, but they're more than physically able; the geek is more able in class, but out of his league in the muscle department. No matter how it actually works out in real life. *(snip)* La Gatta: > > I'd love to be wrong about Sirius, but I'm afraid I don't have a > > very high opinion of him and his Marauders, and I don't think the > > Prank was even remotely innocent. > -Nora thinks that this is the first time this particular allegation > has been made about Sirius Black, but there must be a first time > for everything Ceridwen: Oh, dear. I did snip all the innuendos. But, I can't see anything that suggests that Sirius was a 'sex offender'. Even if he had a penchant for boys, it would have been age-appropriate. He and Snape are about the same age. They're in the same year at school. Even if one had been held back a year, that's still within normal parameters for a relationship - see Harry (6th year) and Ginny (5th year). Sex offender? Sexual predator? Child molester? How do you get from liking someone his own age, and pedophelia? *IF* James is upending Snape for Sirius's lascivious pleasure, and *IF* pantsing Snape would give Sirius a rush and James knows that, it still doesn't equate to Sirius having an unnatural liking for someone twenty years his junior, whose only claim to sex is obvious organs, as in baby Harry. Sirius and Snape are the same age. Harry, the Weasley children, and Hermione, are young enough to be Sirius's own children. Seeing this memory doesn't imply unnatural feelings on the part of any of the Marauders, esp. pedophelia. The big problem with the scenario, whether or not Sirius is getting a rush and the other Marauders are supporting and enabling this, is that Snape is not willing. And, it's public. It's a humiliating incident that shows the Marauders in a bad light (the muscle-bound jocks), as well as Snape (the geeky weakling). Since pantsing has been a staple of a joke in schoolyard humor for ages, I can't see JKR meaning anything beyond the obvious stereotypes of Jock and Geek in this showing. And, enjoying the traits of people the same age, doesn't automatically lead to sexual offenses. Fifteen might be a bit old for such juvenile games. But at the same time, it's also an age more and more, where kids are still trying to cling to the favorite remnants of childhood, like bathroom humor, jokes about bodily funcitons, and pantsing people just because, not for the sexual rush. I guess what I'm struggling to say is that, even if Sirius is inappropriate toward people his own age, that doesn't mean he'll be inappropriate with children. Or, that the memory shows him being inappropriate *with a child*, since he was a child then himself. They were peers, contemporaries. No way can I see this memory of Snape's as Sirius being... well, anything but an immature brat who just likes to see someone he doesn't like, being humiliated. And, if anyone was getting excited, it was Peter. But, I rush to add, it was the excitement of the capture, IMO, not the creepier variety. Ceridwen, who is still resembling a google-eyed emoticon. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 04:34:09 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 04:34:09 -0000 Subject: Snape's teaching methods In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144035 > > >>Alla: > > Well, how do you figure that Neville does not flunk the potions > > every year? > > > > Betsy Hp: > Because Neville progresses with the rest of the class. I'm not sure if merely flunking Potions would fail you out of > Hogwarts, though I believe it is a part of the core curriculum. But > I'm pretty sure that if Neville didn't pass third year Potions he'd > have to repeat it and would not take fourth year Potions with his > classmates in GoF. (Unless Hogwarts offered some form of summer > school, though everything in the books suggests it doesn't.) Alla: Is there a canon which supports what you are suggesting? I don't remember it, could you point me out to student flunking the class and having to repeat it? My memory could be faulty of course. With the quote I brought up upthread about Harry worrying that he will fail Potions, he does not mention anything about possible repetition of the class. I don't see Neville progressing in Potions at all, well we have not been shown much Potions in GoF, so maybe he was, but I won't base the argument of Neville's progress based on the classes we don't see, because anything could have happenned there. Going back to the original point, NO, I don't see Snape method working on Neville, not even tiny bit. And it is extremely telling to me that he performs better on his OWL when Snape is not there tormenting him. JMO, Alla From rosered2318 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 02:50:13 2005 From: rosered2318 at yahoo.com (rosered2318) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:50:13 -0000 Subject: The Significance of the Foe-Glass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144036 Christina: I believe that the foe-glass issue would be > particularly difficult to explain away (and was a completely > unnecessary addition to the book). Rosered: You made my point better than I could by saying the opposite of what I think. Snape is not seen looking into the foe-glass in the movie, and yet the foe-glass is still in the movie. Then it shows up again twice in book 5. If it was completely unnecessary, why have we been reminded of it and why was it kept in the movie? I find it very suspect. Rosered. From rosered2318 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 01:40:02 2005 From: rosered2318 at yahoo.com (rosered2318) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:40:02 -0000 Subject: The Significance of the Foe-Glass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144037 Leslie: I haven't yet heard of any reasonable explanation of this which > could show anything otherwise, though I'm open to persuasion. > > And of course if Snape is with the forces of good at the end of GoF, > he goes back to Voldemort as a double-agent for DUMBLEDORE, not for > the Dark Lord. Rosered: I think I was misunderstood. I have read the discussions on whether or not the foe-glass is instrumental in determining Snape's loyalties. What I had hoped to start a topic on was if JKR has something planned for the foe-glass because it has been so subtlely placed into the text and yet is consistently brought up and made a point of. Similar to the vanishing cabinets that we saw in book 2 and book 5. Rosered. From kchuplis at alltel.net Sat Dec 3 23:52:36 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:52:36 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Hagrid-and some Snape In-Reply-To: <010301c5f842$5e901cc0$a6ba400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144038 > Magpie: > Nobody has once let Malfoy off for what he actually did. Everyone has acknowledged what happens in the class, that Malfoy is whispering to his friends at the point when an important instruction is given, and that he tries to show off and that's what gets him attacked. What I'm seeing--still--is the opposite--Hagrid getting off for his own actions that led to disaster. kchuplis: Disaster? Are we referring to the Hippogriff incident as a disaster? > > Magpie: > > No one has "condemned" him at all. "He made some mistakes" is not > condemning. kchuplis: Then I must be reading these threads incorrectly. "Made some mistakes"is not the sense of sentiment I get. > > Magpie: > But the kids do live in fear of Hagrid in terms of being nervous in his > class. That's the joke--that he's a joke as a teacher. They don't respect > him or trust him as a teacher. kchuplis: I'll look for it upon second reading. I never got that feeling from my first reading. I did sense boredom when he switched to slugworms. > Magpie: > Their brilliance in this class is due to Hagrid's faultless planning and > presentation. > kchuplis: What brilliance? They followed instructions. > Magpie: > ??? And now we're off on another topic again. What do Malfoy's detentions > that we may or may not see (he gets one from McGonagall is the only other > one I can think of) have to do with anything? kchuplis It is just the sense I've been getting that Malfoy was seriously injured, when he was not and that Hagrid is somehow to blame that Malfoy was really screwing around during an important bit of instruction. Pretty stupid in "magic" school. I just haven't seen that acknowledged. I don't see him reprimmended for it either. > Magpie: > As does Hagrid with Ron, as the adult, the one on staff at the school, the > one who's supposed to be protecting kids. Hagrid chooses to invert this > relationship at every opportunity, which is why he doesn't get the respect > of a teacher--even a teacher like Snape. kchuplis: I don't think Hagrid *chooses* to invert the relationship. I think it is just in the nature of Hagrid. And yet, he *does* know more about the creatures and how to handle them then the students and he does impart that knowledge. I have to finish rereading, but it seems that it was implied that the students *were* pretty knowledeable on the subject despite Umbridges trying to find a problem. I could be wrong though. I'll keep it in mind on my reread. Adult/child relationship reversal is almost an underlying leitmotif in the books. Perhaps a statement, or just something observed in life that leaks out in the books rather than a pointed statement. Sirius is another case that was well on the way to an inverted adult/child (well, probably more like "young person") relationship, except he was killed. Dudley certainly rules over his parents. There may be others that I can't think of off hand but those stick out. However, that aside, if these reems of threads are just about Hagrid making mistakes, I've completely misread them. I think of myself as fairly bright, but I could be wrong. kchuplis From lealess at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 05:15:09 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 05:15:09 -0000 Subject: The Significance of the Foe-Glass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144039 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rosered2318" wrote: > > Rosered: > I think I was misunderstood. I have read the discussions on whether > or not the foe-glass is instrumental in determining Snape's > loyalties. What I had hoped to start a topic on was if JKR has > something planned for the foe-glass because it has been so subtlely > placed into the text and yet is consistently brought up and made a > point of. Similar to the vanishing cabinets that we saw in book 2 > and book 5. > > Rosered. > Well, instead of Fawkes, maybe the foe-glass will demonstrate to Harry at some point that a certain person is not his enemy... maybe Snape, or Draco, or (choke) even Pettigrew? Or maybe Harry will see someone he didn't expect to see, like Lupin, or Tonks, or... McGonagall. That's all I can think of, assuming the foe-glass resurfaces and performs its function as specified. I don't know if the crack is significant or not. Perhaps it has already served its function, however, of showing that Snape and Harry are, for whatever reason, on the same side against Voldemort and his followers. Or maybe it's a horcrux! lealess From bawilson at citynet.net Sun Dec 4 04:55:06 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 23:55:06 -0500 Subject: Kinds of snake as names for Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144040 Mateo: Thanx a lot Geoff!! Anyway, I wanna answer to another person who wrote about my message: yes, Piton is the Italian translation of Snape and the concept is the one you wrote!! If you like to know something else about the Italian versions, I'm here. Bruce: Is a 'piton' what we in English call a python, a large snake that kills its victims by crushing and smothering them in its coils, as opposed to biting them with poisonous fangs? I wonder if this is significant? I would have thought that as a Potions teacher 'vipra' or 'aspa' would be a better name, as those are names for poisonous snakes. Bruce From leslie41 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 06:12:47 2005 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 06:12:47 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144041 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > Absolutely and completely. To allow Snape to go unpunished for > his > child abuse (and it IS child abuse) would be reprehensible beyond > belief. If it is, it's an "abuse" that Dumbledore himself has never obviously sought to remedy. In fact Snape is promoted and DD takes him even further into his trust. The "fiasco" of the occlumency lessons, and Snape's overall classroom demeanor, are not something that trouble Dumbledore, any more than Hagrid's performance does. Dumbledore, it seems to me, is the only person with enough authority over Snape to humiliate him, or even persuade him. We saw what Snape did to Bellatrix. Cut her up into tiny little ribbons. > However, I don't think it's necessarily true that this > cannot be done in a manner that does not satisfy most everyone on > all sides without taking an undue amount of time. I offer two > scenes that would do the trick. Scene One, or anything like it, would never happen. It's not that I can't see Snape apologizing, or coming to some sort of understanding with Harry, or of his own behavior. I simply cannot see Snape allowing himself to be dressed down and forced to apologize by someone else. It would not happen. Simply because that's not Snape. Scene Two is not faithful to either Snape OR Minerva. It would mean that we would have to all of a sudden acecpt that Minerva, deputy headmistress of the school and DD's confidante, has actually disapproved mightily of Snape's teaching methods all along. Disapproved of them enough to toss him out of Hogwarts. This is not in keeping with canon, or the relationship between Snape and Minerva as it exists in the books. If she loathed him that mightily we would have found out about it by now. It would be a sucker punch out of the blue, as much a sucker punch as Hermione all of a sudden deciding to go out with Draco. > I think either would satisfy almost everyone. They are short and > to the point, fitting into the flow of the final book as Miles and > Steve desire. They provide karmic retribution and third party > intervention as Nora, Alla, and I desire. And they even allow for > a DDM!Snape. The last even allows for Snape to survive the final > book. It does indeed allow for all those things. It just doesn't allow them in a manner that provides a believable Snape. Which I myself would find VERY unsatisfying. Leslie From Nanagose at aol.com Sun Dec 4 06:16:26 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 06:16:26 -0000 Subject: Snape's teaching methods In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144042 > > Betsy Hp: > > I'm not sure if merely flunking Potions would fail you out of > > Hogwarts, though I believe it is a part of the core curriculum. > > But I'm pretty sure that if Neville didn't pass third year > > Potions he'd have to repeat it and would not take fourth year > > Potions with his classmates in GoF. (Unless Hogwarts offered > > some form of summer school, though everything in the books > > suggests it doesn't.) > Alla: > > Is there a canon which supports what you are suggesting? I don't > remember it, could you point me out to student flunking the class > and having to repeat it? My memory could be faulty of course. Christina: "If your friends Crabbe and Goyle intend to pass their Defense Against the Dark Arts O.W.L. this time around, they will need to work a little harder than they are doing at present." (From Chapter 15 in HBP) Now I know that the OWL is the specific exam that Snape is referring to, but it seems likely that Crabbe and Goyle are repeating their fifth year DADA class again. How else could they be expected to pass an OWL when they are spending the year learning more advanced material that isn't even on it? I'm not sure if the repeat-a-year solution to failing grades holds for all seven years; however, this quote does show that there are certain requirements for students to meet, and if those requirements are not met, then the student must continue until they succeed (it also validates Betsy's argument that Hogwarts has a core curriculum, as Harry fails his HoM and Divination OWLs and isn't required to retake them). And before you say that maybe it's just passing OWLs that is a requirement, I think it's ridiculous to think that *any* student that has habitually failed years of a subject could ever pass an OWL in that subject. The student would need to repeat years just to have a fighting chance. The truth of the matter is, you don't have any canon to support your stance either because, IIRC, the books never state explicity that a person has failed a class. So we can't know for sure what Hogwarts does with students who fail classes, but I just can't see Dumbledore letting kids float through a subject failing it year after year. > Alla: > And it is extremely telling to me that he performs better on his > OWL when Snape is not there tormenting him. Christina: I saw Neville's performance on the OWLs as more of a testiment to Snape's success as a teacher, as opposed to a physical absence of Snape during the exam. Remember, Harry does also surprisingly well on his Potions OWL (better than his Potions grades should have predicted), and even though he hates Snape, he is certainly rarely intimated or flustered by him in class. The bottom line to the Potions OWL is that Snape taught the kids what they needed to know. When it came down to an objective exam, the students excelled because Snape taught them well. The most basic form of assessing whether or not Snape taught successfully is looking at whether or not his students learned the subject he was teaching. Neville did decently well on his Potions OWL; therefore, he learned Potions. So Snape's methods *did* work. Neville left his Potions schooling knowing what he needed to know. Christina From Nanagose at aol.com Sun Dec 4 06:32:34 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 06:32:34 -0000 Subject: Snape's teaching methods / Do they work for Neville at all or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144043 > Alla: > Are you arguing that because Neville is not expelled, it means that > he passes the potions? > If so, I don't remember canon being clear that direct link between > flunking a subject and being expelled exists. Christina: Tada! "Harry had almost forgotten that the exam results were still to come, but come they did....They had hoped that Goyle, who was almost as stupid as he was mean, might be thrown out, but he had passed, too. It was a shame, but as Ron said, you couldn't have everything in life." (PS/SS, Chapter 17) Wow, that took forever to find. Christina From radasgat at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 05:09:53 2005 From: radasgat at yahoo.com (radasgat) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 05:09:53 -0000 Subject: Slytherin / Nazi Parallels (was Re: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144044 La Gatta wrote: > The pure-blood snobbishness of the Wizarding World reminds > me of Germany and the NAZI Party. The parallels are > remarkable--WWI and WWII, the pure-blood perception that > Muggles, mud-bloods, and even mixed-blood Wizards are somehow > infra dig Not to mention that Hitler himself was a half-breed or a mudblood himself... just like.... Voldemort. "radasgat" From juli17 at aol.com Sun Dec 4 07:10:38 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 02:10:38 EST Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) LONGish Message-ID: <251.29753f2.30c3f06e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144045 Alla: Hee, I was not sure it needs addressing. I am not really arguing against the unity of all four houses, you know. Harry also has a lot of qualities from different houses, no argument from me here either. :-) What I am arguing against is that Slytherin House stands on equal footing with other three houses, where admission of their mistakes needs to be done. IMO, Slytherin has much more amends to make and right the wrongs AND cross out the "pureblood supremacy" from their beliefs. But could that be done that easily? I don't know. Julie: I may be confused, but you are saying that Slytherin, the *House*, has to make amends and right wrongs, as well as cross out pureblood supremacy from their beliefs, correct? To which question is, just WHO is Slytherin House? My understanding is that Slytherin House consists of dozens of CHILDREN, along with one professor who is the House advisor. So who is to make amends and right the wrongs of Slytherin House, and rewrite the House charter to delete all mention of incorrect ideologies? The children? The advising professor (Snape, for most of the books)? The Headmaster of Hogwarts? The school board or similar institution, should there be one? I'm not questioning that the codes and mores of Slytherin House could use some revising (it may be true for *all* the Houses), just that this duty shouldn't fall on "Slytherin House"--i.e., a bunch of children--but on the adults (be they professors, headmaster, board members, etc) who run Hogwarts and who have allowed--nay, encouraged--this situation to grow and fester. Equally, if any amends are to be made and wrongs righted, that should come from those same people. The children are simply the victims of the system, at least while they are still children. Julie (who is very uncomfortable with the idea of Slytherin House being the repository of evil-leaning children, who by the very sorting process are all but *forced* to embrace their worst tendencies, in which case the WW deserves everything it gets) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Sun Dec 4 07:11:05 2005 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 07:11:05 -0000 Subject: too many posts to list in the subject line, ctrl-F for YOUR name or subject Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144046 La Gatta Lucianese wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143566 : << For some reason, from the first moment I met Sirius, he absolutely made my skin crawl, especially when Harry proposed moving in with him. I'm not sure why, but on mature reflection I have my suspicions. He's a Black, after all... >> He's a dog, after all, and we are cats. Btw, a_svirn quoted in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143737 : << Arabella Figg does a roaring trade in cross-bred cats and Kneazles >> Why would anyone want to buy a cross-bred cat/Kneazle? If you want a beautiful, lovable cat to adore, you can adopt one for free lots of places. If you want an animal that can detect unworthiness and help you find your way home, why not buy a pureblood Kneazle? Carol wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143578 : << Certainly neither eleven-year-old Severus nor the students six years ahead of him were casting the Unforgiveables at Hogwarts, and he hadn't invented Sectumsempra yet. Unless we count Serpensortia, the spell that Snape had Draco cast in CoS (and which Snape easily dealt with by silently Evanescoing the snake, so maybe it doesn't qualify as Dark), the only genuinely Dark curse that I can think of is the one with the jet of purple light that Dolohov used to injure Hermione in OoP (unfortunately, we don't know its name because Hermione had just Silencio'd Dolohov). >> I am pursuaded by whichever listie pointed out that it was the Entrail-Expelling Curse invented by Urquhart Rackharrow, 1612-1697, according to the caption of his portrait on the wall of Arthur's ward at St Mungo's in chapter 22 of OoP. What does it mean about wizarding society if the known inventor of a Dark Curse has his portrait on the wall of St Mungo's? Potioncat wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143595 : << Actually Hermione's comment is "[Tobias Snape was a Muggle] from what it said" Darn it, what did it say? >> Maybe it said something like: 'The bride is the daughter of Joe Prince, a security guard at the Ministry of Magic. She was educated at Hogwarts. The groom is a mopper/waxer at the Bubbly Blatherton Company textile mill and was educated at Bubbly Blatherton Comprehensive." By the way, this discussion has made me wonder if Tobias was the boy on the bucking broomstick and Eileen was the girl laughing. Snape could remember something from before he was born if it had been put in a Pensieve. Krista wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143598 : << (Total aside: I never had the mental picture that Durmstrang is all-boys, as we saw in the movie. Do we know Dumstrang is all-boys? >> I don't believe that Durmstrang is all-boys, but I've never found a reference to a Durmstrang girl in canon -- perhaps part of their evilness is that they didn't allow their girl students to try to enter the Triwizard Tournament? NymphandoraCallel wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143608 : << "unless your fear of death causes you to become a ghost." Is this true? Is that how you become a ghost? Were Myrtle and Professor Binns, the History of Magic teacher, scared of death? >> I think that wizards and witches become ghosts when they die if they have a very strong reluctance to leave their lives. In Sir Nick's case, he was reluctant because of fear of death (how did he become a Gryffindor?). I think in Myrtle's case, her reluctance was because she was determined to harass Olive Hornsby. I don't know about Binns -- maybe he was unwilling to do ANYTHING but his established habits. I don't get the impression that ghosts can do magic, but I have no idea what power the Bloody Baron has that Peeves is scared of -- is he the unusual ghost who can do magic? WHy? Colloquially, releasing ghosts from this world so they can go can on to the next is called 'laying ghosts'. I don't know if Potterverse ghosts can be released (maybe by throwing themselves through that Veil in the Department of Mysteries) but since CoS I have hoped that it is possibly because Myrtle is such a miserable ghost that I hoped she will be laid. n_longbottom01 wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143619 : << I'm not sure were someone goes when they are vanished... but they aren't dead, hopefully (otherwise, Hermione is a kitten killer). >> Canon shows NO SIGN of JKR being bothered about killing animals, other than hippogryffs and unicorns. "kit_1_99" asked in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143653 : << What did Dumbledore see in the Mirror of Erised? >> I always suggest that he saw himself holding not just any pair of woolly socks, but a pair of the specific hideously ugly and somewhat uncomfortable socks that his beloved late wife or mother used to knit for him every Christmas. The wish is to be with that person again, a very ordinary human heart's desire for the greatest wisest wizard. Of course, it could be that he saw himself being given socks by Harry when Harry is a grown man and a father himself, indicating his hope that Harry will survive and achieve a normal wizarding life. My off-list friend always suggests that he is actually Nicolas Flamel's House Elf disguised as a human and he sees himself being given socks (ie his freedom) by Flamel. Some listies have suggested that he sees himself freeing all Hogwarts House Elves, when they're willing to accept it, because he does not like being a slaveowner. Still, Dumbledore is such a big idealist, maybe even his heart's desire is idealistic rather than selfish, and it is for all wizards, witches, and magical beings to live in peace and respect, not fighting among themselves nor trying to oppress each other. Miles wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143724 : << But we know, that Elves *do* know if they are abused and they appreciate a friendly attitude towards them >> We know from Dobby that the Malfoys enjoyed abusing him, such as reminding him to punish himself, and it seems likely that the Blacks treated their House Elves in a similar way -- one clue is that Narcissa Malfoy was raised a Black, and another is that Black family custom of beheading their House Elves when they got too old to work. But Kreacher loved his Blacks, including Narcissa. And someone made the comment that Kreachur's great ambition was to have his head mounted on the wall alongside his mother's. It does not appear that Kreachur knew he was being abused. (That makes Dobby even more unusual.) Is there any evidence that Kreachur appreciated a friendly attitude toward him? Alla wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143764 : << Hagrid NEVER to the best of my recollection shows the desire to harm ANYBODY >> Whenever Hagrid hears anyone insult Albus Dumbledore, he shows the desire to harm that person. Vernon Dursley insulted Dumbledore and Hagrid gave Dudley a pig tail. Karkaroff insulted Dumbledore and Hagrid picked him up and banged him head first into a tree trunk. And I was completely on Hagrid's side in both incidents. KJ wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143810 : << I suggest that Snape had arrived at the house prior to the arrival of Voldemort to warn the Potters of their danger. >> How could Snape go to the house unless the Secret Keeper told him where it was? Perhaps Dumbledore summoned James to Hogwarts so that Snape could warn James there and be disregarded. (I believe that Dumbledore, Hagrid, and Sirius could find the house because they had been told the Secret. Dumbledore and Hagrid could be told the Secret without knowing who was the Secret Keeper by reading it in a note written by the Secret Keeper. I believe that the Potters wanted to tell Dumbledore the Secret. I can believe that they wanted to tell Hagrid or that Dumbledore showed Hagrid his own note. I can't believe that Dumbledore would be so disloyal to James and Lily as to show *Snape* his own note.) << 1. Snape believed that Sirius was the traitor so he was not present with Voldemort during the attack. >> How does that follow? Kelleyaynn wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143838 : << What about the fact that Moody borrows the map in GoF? I've gone back to the book and as far as I can find (or not), the map is never given back to Harry. Yet it shows up again in OotP without explanation. >> http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/faq_view.cfm?id=20 says: << Q: How did Harry get the Marauder's Map back at the end of 'Goblet of Fire'? JKR: He simply took it back from the fake Moody's office, but I never show him doing so. Maybe I'll insert a line in the next edition. I'm afraid I took it for granted that you'd all assume that next time he passed the untenanted office he'd go and get it! >> Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143843 : << It's laid out in canon that Snape wasn't gunning for Harry from the beginning. >> If that 'our new celebrity' business wasn't Snape gunning for Harry, what was it? "kchuplis" wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143908 : << I don't think there is a DE out there he can really call a right hand man (since the aprehension of Artie) besides, perhaps Snape. >> Who is Artie? colebiancardi wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143944 : << did anyone in Snape's class come to any harm whatsoever during Snape's lessons, other than Harry splashing the swelling potion on the Slytherians on purpose(which was not Snape's fault)? >> When Neville's cauldron exploded in his very first Potions lesson, "Neville, who had been drenched in the potion when the cauldron collapsed, moaned in pain as angry red boils sprang up all over his arms and legs." Snape sent him to hospital wing between calling him 'Idiot boy!' and taking points from Harry for not having told Neville to take the cauldron off the fire before adding the porcupine quills. La Gatta Lucianese wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143956 : << I wonder how and why JKR came up with that title [Supreme Mugwump]. TTBOMK, a mugwump is a bird so-called because it sits on the fence with its mug on one side and its wump on the other. One thinks of Dumbledore as being much more decisive. >> A politician rather than a bird. At least, that's what I thought before joining this group led me to lok it up in the dictionary. The Online Etymology Dictionary at http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mugwump says << 1832, jocular for "great man, boss," Amer.Eng., from Algonquian (Natick) mugquomp "important person," used since 1884 of Republicans who refused to support James G. Blaine's presidential candidacy, hence "one who holds himself aloof from party politics." >> Steve bboyminn wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144018 : << I think we need to give Hagrid a chance as a teacher. Students do seem to be passing their OWLs, and I suspect as he melllows a bit, his classes will fall in line, and eventually "Care of Magical Creatures" will become a very popular class. >> But not if he leaves Hogwarts and moves to Beauxbatons in order to marry Olympe. Now that Dumbledore is dead, Hagrid's loyalty to Dumbledore will not keep him at Hogwarts. And Hagrid will become neither a beloved teacher at Hogwarts nor a husband/gamekeeper at Beauxbatons if he dies in Book 7, as the Granger theory predicts. The Granger theory: the three stages of the alchemical transformation are the nigredo ('blackening') followed by the albedo ('whitening') ending with the rubedo ('reddening'), and Sirius BLACK died in the nigredo book and ALBUS Dumbledore died in the albedo book, therefore RUBEUS Hagrid will die in the rubedo final book. From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Dec 4 06:35:08 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 06:35:08 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144047 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > = > > If it is, it's an "abuse" that Dumbledore himself has never > obviously sought to remedy. In fact Snape is promoted and DD takes > him even further into his trust. The "fiasco" of the occlumency > lessons, and Snape's overall classroom demeanor, are not something > that trouble Dumbledore, any more than Hagrid's performance does. > Do we know the failure of occlumency didn't trouble him? DD seems to hold his cards very tightly to his chest. We know that people have complained to him about Snape before, evidently repeatedly. What were his thoughts and reasons? I don't think we know. You are right, however, that DD's tolerance of Snape needs to be explained a LOT better than it has been. Tolerance of child abuse (and once again, Snape most definitely IS a child abuser) is certainly not in keeping with an "epitome of goodness." DD's tolerance of Snape is indeed inexplicable and reprehensible, especially given the picture of him that JKR wants to project. But, she has told us more is coming concerning DD's "detachment," so maybe that will rescue him from the moral disgrace his tolerance of Snape implies. Lupinlore > From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Dec 4 06:48:29 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 06:48:29 -0000 Subject: Minerva NOT DD's Confidant (was Two scenes for most everyone) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144048 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > > Scene Two is not faithful to either Snape OR Minerva. It would mean > that we would have to all of a sudden acecpt that Minerva, deputy > headmistress of the school and DD's confidante, has actually > disapproved mightily of Snape's teaching methods all along. > Disapproved of them enough to toss him out of Hogwarts. But Minerva ISN'T DD's confidant. Neither is Snape. JKR has flat said that DD HAS no confidant. And Minerva herself, when Harry reveals what happened on the tower, immediately believed Harry and implied that she had entertained severe doubts about Snape for years and had possible said as much to DD. Therefore the idea that she was in with DD, or knew what he was thinking about Snape, or approved necessarily, is to flatly contradict both canon and JKR herself. Also, the relationship she had with Snape, if we go by what she said at the end of HBP, was not warm, friendly, or approving. Once again, JKR has flatly stated that Minerva was NOT DD's confidant, and therefore that simply because something was DD's policy does NOT mean that Minerva knew about it or would have agreed with it had she known. But I am not arguing that she would do anything like in that scene, necessarily. It was merely an example of something that might happen with Snape to satisfy nearly everyone -- and I do maintain that if some similar scene does not happen to punish Snape for his child abuse, JKR is a very poor writer who has no idea how to satisfactorily deal with important moral issues. In any case, an interesting question is what will be Minerva's policies assuming she continues as Head? How might they differ from Dumbledore's? How might they be the same? How might they surprise people? Lupinlore From juli17 at aol.com Sun Dec 4 07:31:23 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 07:31:23 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144049 Lupinlore wrote: > > > Absolutely and completely. To allow Snape to go unpunished for his > child abuse (and it IS child abuse) would be reprehensible beyond > belief. However, I don't think it's necessarily true that this > cannot be done in a manner that does not satisfy most everyone on all sides without taking an undue amount of time. I offer two scenes that would do the trick. > > > There. Neither of those scenes would take much more than a couple of pages, and either could fit nicely into the final book without > constituting a diversion or a "bump" in the narrative. Furthermore, > I think either would satisfy almost everyone. They are short and to > the point, fitting into the flow of the final book as Miles and Steve desire. They provide karmic retribution and third party intervention as Nora, Alla, and I desire. And they even allow for a DDM!Snape. The last even allows for Snape to survive the final book. > > So, I don't think the nature of the final book in any way makes it > impossible for most of us to be more-or-less happy with Snape's final place on the wheel of karma. > > > Lupinlore Julie: These two scenes aren't karmic retribution, they are scenes of abject humiliation. In the first scene Snape is not genuinely apologizing or remorseful for his actions, and in neither scene is there any indication that Snape has grown beyond his prejudices and grudges and come to understand himself or those around him better (which is what Dumbledore wants to see, and why he won't *force* Snape to change/apologize/make amends). If you simply want to see Snape humiliated, that's fine. And I don't agree that either of these scenes will satisfy most anyone, though I can only say with certainty that they won't satisfy me. I want to see Snape genuinely understand where he went wrong, how he misjudged people and situations, and make a decison to change his ways (even if only marginally). And if Snape apologizes, it has to be what he *wants* to do, or at least needs to do, for himself as well as those he's wronged. Otherwise, it's completely pointless. Julie (channeling Dumbledore) > From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Dec 4 07:55:14 2005 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 4 Dec 2005 07:55:14 -0000 Subject: chap. disc. of HBP5 (An Excess of Phlegm), 12/5/2005, 12:00 am Message-ID: <1133682914.11.66306.m31@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144050 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal chap. disc. of HBP5 (An Excess of Phlegm) Monday December 5, 2005 All Day (This event does not repeat.) Notes: Since the dissection of HBP ch. 5 (An Excess of Phlegm) is now in the offing, we would like to suggest that everyone who is interested in participating meaningfully *reread* this chapter and refresh your memory of canon. Look for the post from Juli in the week of December 5th! The discussion schedule is at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database Click on the "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" table. If you'd like to take one of the available chapters, please let the elves know: HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com Thanks and enjoy! Set up birthday reminders! http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13 Copyright 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/ Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Dec 4 08:07:13 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 08:07:13 -0000 Subject: Who does Snape really hate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144051 Radasgat: > For a bit of dramatic irony.. who does Snape "appear" to love? > Draco. What is Draco? The only son of an older couple who has been > doted on his whole life and given his every wish and > desire...similiar so James? > .. or am I seeing Draco from Harry's POV? Maybe Draco isn't as > spoiled as I think he is. Maybe Draco has some redeeming quality. > Afterall, he couldn't bring himself to AK Dumbledore... > > Thoughts? Valky: Sorry I snipped so many of your excellent points, Radasgat (Others please look upthread for them.) Just on this particular topic I'd like to put forward a theoretical basis for this apparent double standard of Snape's. While by no means am I trying to wiggle Snape off the hook for his hypocrisy, I think there is something in his point of view that could explain this. Father figures. It wouldn't be much of a reach to imagine that Snape has needed a Father figure for all his life. As I see the backdrop of Snape's life he, unlike Tom Riddle, probably had a very good and nurturing relationship with his mother. There are a lot of pointers that way and I do think the name Half-Blood Prince is one of them because - a. Prince is *Eileen's* Pureblood? Maiden Name, and not actually Snape's name. b. In the midst of the blood prejudices of the WW it would make sense that knowing you are Half-Blooded (ie from a 'pure' line rather than a 'blood traitor' line) would be the kind of comfort a mother might offer her insecure child. c. Half-Blood Prince seems a childish name for an intelligent young teenager to give himself, hence I am more inclined to believe that it could be a pet name given to him by his mother. Draco, too, is loved dearly by his mother, Narcissa. She is protective of him and nurturing toward him. In this way Snape and Draco have similar homelife. Now in the foreground of these two stories is another striking similarity. Neither seem to be treated well or loved by their father. Lucius is cold and indifferent to Draco, he probably loves Draco with every sense of that emotion he is capable of, but there is no comfort or joy in the kind of love he shows for his child. Draco hence grows and matures with the feeling of something missing in his life that takes the shape of his absent, cold and indifferent father figure. It's no stretch to imagine that Snape could be very similar to Draco here. We come into Snape's life at the other end of the road, what we find out is that he has followed two great mentors in his life. Voldemort and Dumbledore and both of them are very fatherly in their relationship with their followers. Indeed Bella loves him like a father and even Draco gravitates towards Voldemort when his own father is put in prison and he is left without the all important father figure. Also we have the snippet of memory which shows that Snape's father was probably abusive to his wife and cold to his son. With all of that in mind, I think, and again just qualifying that I don't mean Snape gets off the hook for being wrong and prejudicial toward Harry, Snape probably sees a lot of himself in Draco and empathises more readily with him, so in contrast Harry is a spoiled celebrity brat because from Snape's POV he will always have a fathers love. Just some thoughts. Thanks, Radasgat for the opportunity to discuss them. Valky > From leslie41 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 08:31:12 2005 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 08:31:12 -0000 Subject: Minerva NOT DD's Confidant? (was Two scenes for most everyone) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144052 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > But Minerva ISN'T DD's confidant. Neither is Snape. JKR has flat > said that DD HAS no confidant. No, not on everything. I should have confined that explicitly to educational matters, as she is deputy headmistress, but as we were discussing Snape as teacher and McG's reaction to it, I merely let that be implied. I would think that the two of them discuss, at length, the various teachers and teacherly approaches. > And Minerva herself, when Harry > reveals what happened on the tower, immediately believed Harry and > implied that she had entertained severe doubts about Snape for > years and had possible said as much to DD. No. She merely lumps herself in with all the others who wondered about him. She believes Harry, yes. But after saying "we all wondered..." she says "I can't believe it..." She says "people were bound to wonder." Which is of course true. (I believe Snape's ultimately going to be proved one of the good guys, but I have my doubts, too.) Then, when Harry, sure that Snape was clearly on the side of the DEs during the battle, asks her about that, Minerva says "I don't know how it happened," and can't say that verify that Snape even fought in the battle at all. (another sign, imho, that Snape is DDM) It's Harry who immediately believes the absolute worst of Snape and beyond, and Harry who has entertained sever doubts about him and said as much to DD, not Minerva. Even when faced with seemingly overwhelming proof that Snape is evil, she merely says that she questioned DD about Snape, because she "wondered," considering his background. She never gives the impression that she had been entertaining "severe doubts". > Therefore the idea that she was > in with DD, or knew what he was thinking about Snape, or approved > necessarily, is to flatly contradict both canon and JKR herself. I don't know that she was in with DD about the horcruxes, etc. (though I think it a possibility), but I think we can assume her position as confidante to educational matters. And we were discussing the proper punishment for Snape as a teacher, whether or not he's "good," not his status as spy. Your scenarios specifically deal with punishing him for his teaching. > Also, the relationship she had with Snape, if we go by what she > said at the end of HBP, was not warm, friendly, or approving. It's obvious at the very least their relationship was respectful and collegial. Mostly I cannot believe McG intensely dislikes Snape because we haven't seen a hint of that, not at all. Their interaction is not fraught with any sort of simmering discontent, or resentment. We'd have seen that by now. Generally, when characters dislike each other, or completely disapprove of each other, we know about it. Even the adults. Or maybe especially the adults. > But I am not arguing that she would do anything like in that > scene, necessarily. It was merely an example of something that might happen > with Snape to satisfy nearly everyone -- and I do maintain that if > some similar scene does not happen to punish Snape for his child > abuse, JKR is a very poor writer who has no idea how to > satisfactorily deal with important moral issues. Rowling is wise enough to know, I think, that sometimes nasty people don't necessarily get punished for their nastiness. People who demonstrate transgressive behavior aren't always held accountable, or they are held accountable in less obvious ways. Snape, who mistreats his students, is a fairly miserable person, and it's hard to imagine him taking true joy in anything. That's a moral lesson right there. That a person can be miserable, nasty, but ultimately essentially good is an even more pungent one. Rowling inasmuch reveals why Snape is allowed to treat students the way he does in a Barnes and Noble interview in 2000, when asked why DD would tolerate Snape's behavior. In a way she's being asked why SHE would tolerate the behavior. She says "Dumbledore believes there are all sorts of lessons in life; horrible teachers like Snape are one of them!" Not "horrible" in the sense of being a "bad" teacher. Snape is unequivocally an effective teacher, as fear is often a great motivator. He's just entirely unpleasant. No one enjoys his class, least of all him. They may learn, but they don't enjoy the process. To my mind, Snape gets his cumuppance every day of his life. Being him is its own worst punishment. From Nanagose at aol.com Sun Dec 4 09:47:51 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 09:47:51 -0000 Subject: Minerva NOT DD's Confidant? (was Two scenes for most everyone) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144053 > > Lupinlore: > > Also, the relationship she had with Snape, if we go by what she > > said at the end of HBP, was not warm, friendly, or approving. > Leslie: > It's obvious at the very least their relationship was respectful > and collegial. Mostly I cannot believe McG intensely dislikes > Snape because we haven't seen a hint of that, not at all. Their > interaction is not fraught with any sort of simmering discontent, > or resentment. We'd have seen that by now. Christina I'm going with Leslie on this one. As a matter of fact, the subject that is brought up in canon the most concerning Snape/McG relations is Quidditch! Ch 9, PS/SS: "I shall speak to Professor Dumbledore and see if we can't bend the first-year rule. Heaven knows, we need a better team than last year. Flattened in that last match by Slytherin, I couldn't look Severus Snape in the face for weeks...." Ch 12, PoA: "Seriously," said Professor McGonagall, and she was actually smiling. "I daresay you'll need to get the feel of it before Saturday's match, won't you? And Potter -- do try and win, won't you? Or we'll be out of the running for the eighth year in a row, as Professor Snape was kind enough to remind me only last night...." So McG and Snape are Quidditch rivals, which I think seems quite playful. McG is even smiling when she tells Harry to try and win, which gives the impression that Snape's goading was friendly, as was her desire to beat him. Also: OotP, chapter 38: 'Professor McGonagall!' said Snape, striding forwards. 'Out of St Mungo's, I see!' The only times I can ever recall Snape using exclamation points is when he's yelling at people in anger. Severus Snape, giving a cheerful greeting? Huh? So that is my canon-supported way of saying that I find it hard to believe that McG has any sort of deep-seated dislike for Snape. McG is shocked by the news of what happened on the tower because she never had serious thoughts that Snape had been betraying them. She responds to the news with "I can't believe it." That doesn't sound like somebody who has "entertained severe doubts." > Lupinlore: > and I do maintain that if some similar scene does not happen to > punish Snape for his child abuse, JKR is a very poor writer who > has no idea how to satisfactorily deal with important moral issues. Christina: Well first of all, I cringe a bit whenever somebody lays out a criteria that, if not met, would make JKR a "very poor writer." In particular, I don't understand why punishment for Snape specifically is such a criterion. Sometimes people just don't get what they deserve. Sorry, but that's just life. I don't see how mirroring life in books is the path to poor writing, particularly when JKR has been doing it for the entire series. *All* of the characters are flawed, but they don't all need to be punished for their ills, do they? I think we can all agree that Voldemort will die in the end of the book, but where's *his* comeuppance, his moral punishment? Apparently having Snape die is not sufficient payback for the "child abuse" that he has inflicted in the classroom, but IMO Voldemort's evils are 100 times worse than Snape's. Does Voldemort need to be gutted and quartered before he dies to satisfy you? At worst, Snape can be said to be emotionally abusing Harry, but Voldemort is trying to kill him (and I would argue that the emotional damage done by Voldemort is in a league entirely its own, which surpasses any possible damage Snape has done *by far*)! Certainly that is cause for some extreme punishment. I don't think there is a book long enough to include sufficient retribution against Voldemort, and you're worried about Snape? The number of characters who have done wrong is HUGE- Voldemort, Peter Pettigrew, Snape, Lucius Malfoy, Bellatrix Lestrange, Umbridge, Percy... there is no time in a single book for retribution against all of these people. A single book that is part of a series whose greatest message is the power of *love,* where Harry is held in high moral standard for being not vengeful, but merciful. My second problem with what you are saying is that everybody's moral code is different. There is no one "moral" story. Even when people agree on an aspect of morality (ie, Snape must be punished for being mean to Harry), there is still room for disagreement about what exactly constitutes suitable punishment. > Leslie: > To my mind, Snape gets his cumuppance every day of his life. Being > him is its own worst punishment. Christina: I couldn't agree more. He's quite a sad man; at times, downright pathetic, as many have said. He doesn't seem to enjoy life much, and is lonely and bitter. I don't need to see him called out by McGonagall or forced to apologize; IMO, he's already been punished enough. His quality of life is poor, and it's entirely his own fault. Even though I don't see Snape's wrongdoings as being nearly as severe as Lupinlore does, Snape's situation really represents the best form of retribution if you ask me, because he did it to himself. He is the instrument of his own misery. Christina From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sun Dec 4 11:02:05 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 11:02:05 -0000 Subject: Who does Snape really hate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144054 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > Lucius is cold and indifferent to Draco, he probably loves Draco with > every sense of that emotion he is capable of, but there is no comfort > or joy in the kind of love he shows for his child. Draco hence grows > and matures with the feeling of something missing in his life that > takes the shape of his absent, cold and indifferent father figure. > Actually, Lucius love for Draco reminds me a lot of Uncle Vernon. Draco wants to be a seeker, Lucius buys him the position. Draco makes it clear throughout the books that he comes from considerable wealth and is used to getting lots of stuff from home. Lucius has some standards Vernon obviously has not (Lucius wants him to perform well, but then again, he actually has brains as opposed to Dudley), but both of them spoil their kid rotten instead of being a true parent. Gerry From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Dec 4 15:07:39 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 07:07:39 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005801c5f8e4$78c0f270$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 144055 And is that why *inside the house* she escorts the kids everywhere? Does she think something nasty is going to come down the chimney and grab them if she takes her eyes off them for a minute? I'd love to be wrong about Sirius, but I'm afraid I don't have a very high opinion of him and his Marauders, and I don't think the Prank was even remotely innocent. --La Gatta Sherry: i've read OOTP a number of times and don't recall Molly escorting the kids from place to place ever, except when Harry first arrived. Well, naturally, she did have to show him where his room was. But other than that, those kids are all over that place and no molly escorting them around. In fact, she even leaves them there to go shopping in Diagon Alley! As for escorting them outside, that is for protection against Voldemort and perhaps the ministry. again, as i believe Nora said, there's no way the lily we've seen would have allowed her son to be given into the care of a child molester. And nothing would convince me that James would either. Whatever they were or were not in school, they seemed to have grown into responsible adults and great parents. Sherry, who smiles at Cat Lady's comment about you and she being cats and Sirius a black dog. I'm actually part cat too, and have cats who cuddle up against my black lab guide dog at night to stay warm. Sweet! From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Dec 4 15:04:02 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 15:04:02 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144056 > Julie: > These two scenes aren't karmic retribution, they are scenes of abject > humiliation. In the first scene Snape is not genuinely apologizing or > remorseful for his actions, and in neither scene is there any > indication that Snape has grown beyond his prejudices and grudges and > come to understand himself or those around him better (which is what > Dumbledore wants to see, and why he won't *force* Snape to > change/apologize/make amends). > > Lupinlore: Ah, but karmic retribution is NOT the same as personal growth. Let us look at the situation with Lockheart. He ends up with his mind wiped, as he had done to so many others, and confined to a mental institution - - as one suspects many of his victims have been. Now, does that mean he has undergone personal growth? Absolutely not. It merely indicates that the punishment has fit the crime in a particularly fitting and satisfying way. That is the meaning of karmic retribution. Now, Snape's sins involve public and crushing humiliation of his students. Therefore, appropriate retribution for Snape would be public humiliation. What goes around comes around, etc. Now, poetic justice CAN lead to personal growth. Perhaps we will see that with regard to the Dursleys. The karmic justice dished out by Dumbledore may, in the seventh book, lead to some movement, although JKR has seemed to discount that in terms of Vernon and Petunia. I have no objection at all to personal growth from Snape, but the needs of poetic justice MUST be met, if JKR can be said to have dealt with the incredibly important moral issue of child abuse and Snape's reprehensible behavior, not to mention Dumbledore's reprehensible policies in allowing it. But the problem is I just don't see it. I really can't see any scenario in which growth on Snape's part would be believable. He has had sixteen years to nurse his grudges. Nothing that has happened since Harry came to Hogwarts, including finding out he was wrong about Sirius being a DE and that he was wrong about Harry's childhood, has moved him as much as a centimeter. I agree that genuine growth and a genuine, heartfelt apology on his part would be best -- oh yes, I absolutely agree with that. But what on Earth could happen after all this time that would make such a change believable? Many fans claimed, on the basis of the most slender evidence, that such a change had begun at the end of OOTP. Well, HBP put the old kabosh on THAT. What could possibly happen to cause a change that would not be a MUCH bigger deus ex machina/non-sequitur than something like the scenes I've proposed (and by the way, I agree that they would each be something of a non- sequitur, but no worse than the third chapter of HBP -- face it, JKR just ain't that much for consistency and coherence)? One would be for Snape to suddenly say "It was all an act! I had to treat you badly to maintain my status with the DEs! I really think you are a pretty good kid and I'm really, really sorry if anything I did hurt you. Come, take my hand and we'll go destroy Voldemort together!" Okaaaay. That would do it, I suppose. But if, for instance, Minerva objecting to Snape is a left hook, that would be a left-right-left and a kick in the groin. Perhaps Snape loved Lily and he will be reminded of this fact, some way. Lily's ghost? I guess that would do it, if she came back and gave him a thorough scalding for how he's treated Harry. But we would have to change her name to Lily Potter nee Deus Ex Machina. That would only be a case of the externally forced growth you dislike. Maybe looking at Harry's green eyes will do it. Uh huh. He's been looking at those green eyes all this time and it ain't done squat. JKR has implied that there is magic that wizards do with their eyes. Maybe Harry will use this magic on Snape, and the fact that he does it with eyes like Lily's will be significant. That would fit with JKR's pattern of introducing new magic in each book that is important in that book. But where will Harry learn this new magic? I guess he could if he goes back to Hogwarts for seventh year or finds an ancient book in Dumbledore's things, etc. And how to avoid this being just a nice little "magic bullet" to kill one plot thread and move on, methodically, to the next (which, to be fair, I expect we will see a lot of in Book VII)? And it's externally forced growth, again. Here's an original one. Perhaps the liquid around the false locket contains Snape's true feelings? They were SOMEBODY'S feelings, after all. Maybe the problem with Snape is that, like many wizards and witches out of literature, he has LITERALLY separated himself from his better emotions in order to survive. He doesn't change because the parts of his soul that would LET him change aren't in his body, anymore. Maybe DD wanted Snape so badly so he could tell him, "Good news, Severus! I've found your better emotions!" It would also fit with the whole horcrux/splitting your soul set of themes. So Snape is reunited with his better feelings, he collapses in remorse, apologizes to Harry, explains he's been emotionally dead all these years, etc. All right, but if that ain't using a magic bullet to deal with a plot issue I don't know what is. You bring up the issue of DD. Very good, as he does rest at the heart of so many of these discussions (which, by the way, I do not believe JKR intended, but that is another issue). Now, DD is a living Deus Ex Machina. But presumably he's been working on Snape for years, and nothing's come of it. Now, I grant you that JKR's view/portrayal of DD has not been very consistant or clear -- in part because I suspect it has evolved over the years in response to various things, in part because DD is mainly a walking plot device who has to be adapted to the needs of a particular situation. So what will happen that DD hasn't tried? But I acknowledge that's not a fair question, since Harry will have to find four horcruxes DD hasn't been able to find in all these years, so I guess reforming Snape isn't that much of a leap on that front. What would cause personal growth that doesn't involve a magic bullet, a Deus Ex Machina, or the external force you don't like? Well, I guess JKR could go with something simple -- Harry saves Snape from death/torture by the DEs, maybe after Snape saves him. Snape could then say, "Oh, you wonderful boy who saved me when you were under no obligation to do so! I see I have been wrong all these years!" Uh huh. Never mind that Snape has just come under yet another life debt to a Potter -- although I suppose if he saves Harry FIRST, the score might be even, how do those pesky life debts work, anyway? Or, to obviate the whole life debt problem, Harry saves Snape from torture only to have Snape die in his arms (or maybe Harry saves Draco, to boot, just to sweeten the pot). Snape could say "Oh, wondrous and exemplary man! With my dying breath that doth waft from my shattered body I beg forgiveness for any hurt I have inflicted on you in my most abominable ignorance! I humbly beg leave to rise on the wings of your forgiveness to whatever reward awaits this poor wretch in the eternal source of all life and magic!" And Harry could say, "Go in peace, noble Slytherin. With mine whole heart I do forgive thee. Rise to thy reward knowing that noble Dumbledore's confidence in thee has been fulfilled, aye, and doubly! Rest in thy reward knowing that my children shall honor thy name, and thy house shall hold thee in their hearts, the most noble of thy kind, yea unto the end of generations!" Excuse me while I use those pages to replenish my toilet paper stocks. So, in summary, I agree totally with your main point. What I have proposed is a non-sequitur that doesn't make that much sense when put against some of the rest of the plot. I don't think these scenes are any worse in terms of inconsistancy than many we have in canon, but oh well. It would be by far for the best for Snape to experience internal growth and offer apologies out of his own expanded understanding -- if that could be accomplished in any way that wouldn't involve a much bigger non-sequitur or Deus Ex Machina than any of the scenarios I was toying with. But, if you have any scenarios you think COULD accomplish internal growth and voluntary apology from Snape WITHOUT such a large wrench to the plot, or without using hand-waving and magic bullets, I, for one, would love to hear them! Lupinlore From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Sun Dec 4 14:29:38 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 15:29:38 +0100 Subject: Snape's worst memory, WAS Snape, Hagrid and Animals References: Message-ID: <004e01c5f8df$2919a870$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144057 > Sherry now: > First of all, *anyone* adult or child, would be humiliated about having > themselves turned upside down and their underwear showing in front of a > crowd of their peers. Can you imagine not feeling upset about such a > terrible thing? It doesn't need to be any more sinister than that. lagattalucianese wrote: > Upset, yes, but not to the point that it obsesses you for life. As it > clearly does with Snape. I think what we are seeing in the Pensieve > is just the tip of the iceberg, one of many similar assaults on young > Severus' physical and emotional space. As I see it, this harrassment > has gone on for years, to the point that it is making Snape > physically sick (see the description of him in the O.W.L.S. test). I'd like to bring in an idea from mugglenet, more precisely from the Northern Tower. The basic thought is, that Snape's memory Harry saw in the Pensieve is *not* Snape's worst memory, but that Snape put this memory into the pensieve for Harry to find and see it. This theory answers some questions very well: - why should Snape put a memory he wants to hide in a Pensieve and let Harry see this? - why should Snape let Harry stay in his office without locking up the Pensieve, knowing that Harry is very curious and does not respect privacy too much? - why should the situation we saw in the Pensieve be Snape's worst memory? It was mortifying for him when he was 16, we can be sure about that. But now? Just put it the other way round - this memory is Snape's worst memory *for Harry*. It deeply impressed (and somehow depressed) Harry, didn't it? In the first occlumency lesson(s) Snape could see Harry's memories, being bullied by Dudley and his friends. So Snape knew, that Harry is in a more or less similar situation when he is in the muggle world, as Snape was as a student in Hogwarts. Maline (the author of Northern Tower) compares the situation after Snape's return to his office pulling Harry out of the Pensieve with Snape losing emotional control - and points out, that Snape may be furious in the office, but he doesn't lose control then. I don't want to repeat her evidences, if you are interested: http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/thenorthtower/nt36.shtml Miles From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 16:28:51 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 16:28:51 -0000 Subject: Snape's teaching methods/Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144058 > Christina: > > I saw Neville's performance on the OWLs as more of a testiment to > Snape's success as a teacher, as opposed to a physical absence of > Snape during the exam. The bottom line to the > Potions OWL is that Snape taught the kids what they needed to know. > When it came down to an objective exam, the students excelled > because Snape taught them well. The most basic form of assessing > whether or not Snape taught successfully is looking at whether or > not his students learned the subject he was teaching. Neville did > decently well on his Potions OWL; therefore, he learned Potions. So > Snape's methods *did* work. Neville left his Potions schooling > knowing what he needed to know. Alla: I believe that whatever Neville and Harry learned at Potions , they learned despite Snape, not because of him, but I realise that we are disagree. I think that it speaks to abismal failure of Snape as a teacher if students KNOW that they perform better when the teacher is not there. But you convinced me that Neville gets a passing grade in Potions, since quote from PS/SS seems to be strong evidence that student can be expelled if flunked the subject. I indeed had those objections you stated to the Crabb and Goyle repeating their OWLs, but Harry's thought about Goyle not returning seems to be a proof that he could have been expelled. Moreover, even though as I said I am convinced that Neville passes the Potions, I am not convinced that he is learning everything he could. Because if he performs better when Snape is not there, that means to me that Neville could learn much MORE with different teacher. So, to me it shows that Snape actually stops Neville from learning, not helps him. JMO obviously, Alla From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sun Dec 4 16:52:27 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 11:52:27 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: too many posts to list in the subject line, ctrl-F fo... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144059 In a message dated 12/4/2005 2:11:30 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, catlady at wicca.net writes: If you want an animal that can detect unworthiness and help you find your way home, why not buy a pureblood Kneazle? ------------------ Sherrie here: According to FANTASTIC BEASTS, a witch or wizard has to obtain a special license to own a pureblood Kneazle. (One must assume that, as a Squib of whom there was no record - at least until Harry's trial - Mrs. Figg has managed to dodge that rule, thus maintaining her breeding stock.) It seems that no such license is required for crossbreeds like Crookshanks. Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From muellem at bc.edu Sun Dec 4 16:53:09 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 16:53:09 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144060 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > Absolutely and completely. To allow Snape to go unpunished for his > child abuse (and it IS child abuse) would be reprehensible beyond > belief. However, I don't think it's necessarily true that this > cannot be done in a manner that does not satisfy most everyone on all sides without taking an undue amount of time. I offer two scenes that would do the trick. > > SCENE ONE > > (Snape has returned to the Order and claimed to be DDM. He offers a > plausible tale, but does not reveal DD's reason for trusting him to > start with. Harry refuses to believe him. In this scene #### stands for someone other than Harry speaking for the Order, it could be Lupin, Moody, Minerva, or whoever). > > SNAPE: Precious Potter doesn't believe me, does he? > ####: Surely you don't think he should, Severus. > SNAPE: I have explained... > ####: You have spent seven years being vicious, cruel, childish and > brutal. How do you expect anyone to react? > SNAPE: If you are talking about me trying to teach that arrogant... > ####: I am. You have behaved in a manner that brings all wizards to shame, not to mention all teachers. > SNAPE: Dumbledore... > ####: Is gone. Whatever his reasons for putting up with you, they > don't matter now. > SNAPE: Dumbledore trusted me enough to teach the arrogant brat > Occlumency! > ####: And look how that came out. You let your childish grudge > interfere with one of the most important tasks you had ever been > given! > SNAPE: Dumbledore trusted me! > ####: So he always said when any of us complained about you. Reveal his reasons, and we will consider them. > (Snape reveals Dumbledore's reasons. #### takes him into another > room, where shouting can be heard. They return.) > SNAPE (looking like he's taken poison): Mr. Potter, Mr. Longbottom, > I... if.... uh.... please... accept my .... (looks sick) apologies. > > SCENE TWO: > > (Snape is DDM. Voldy is defeated. Harry, Snape, and Minerva are in > the Head's office after all is said and done). > > SNAPE: I will be in my rooms. > MINERVA: Pardon me, Mister Snape, what rooms are those? > SNAPE: My professor's rooms, Headmistress. > MINERVA: You are not a Hogwarts Professor, Mister Snape. > SNAPE: Slughorn is staying, I know. But DADA... > MINERVA: Is open. Why are you presuming I would ask you to fill the position? > SNAPE: But who... > MINERVA: I rather thought of offering the position to Mister Potter, here. > SNAPE: But I.... > MINERVA: Was instrumental in bringing about the fall of Voldemort. > But Mister Potter actually defeated the Dark Lord. Who would be > better to teach young wizards and witches than that? > SNAPE: I have taught at Hogwarts for sixteen years! > MINERVA: Taught? You have imparted information efficiently, I > admit. You have also been childish, cruel, and stupidly > irresponsible in your behavior. > SNAPE: Dumbledore was satisfied with my methods! > MINERVA: Albus doubtless had his reasons for putting up with your > antics. But Albus is gone. I am Head now, and I do not choose to > extend you the same leniency. > SNAPE: This is all about Gryffindor! > MINERVA (sighing): Everything is about Gryffindor to you, isn't it > Severus? You have never been able to put your grudges away, not even after all these years, not even after everything! > SNAPE: I demand my rightful rewards! > MINERVA: I will determine what your rightful rewards are at > Hogwarts, Mister Snape. And a teaching position are not among them. > SNAPE(flushed and pale): Where am I supposed to go? > MINERVA(sighing again): You may stay in guest rooms until you > determine that, Severus. But you must be gone by the start of term > in the fall. > SNAPE: But where.... > MINERVA (briskly): That is for you to determine, Mister Snape. I am > sure everyone at Hogwarts will help you as much as we can. Now, if > you will excuse us, Mister Potter and I must talk a little about the > formalities of his taking over the DADA position. > SNAPE: But.... > MINERVA (firmly): Goodbye, Mister Snape. > > END SCENE > > There. Neither of those scenes would take much more than a couple of pages, and either could fit nicely into the final book without > constituting a diversion or a "bump" in the narrative. Furthermore, > I think either would satisfy almost everyone. They are short and to > the point, fitting into the flow of the final book as Miles and Steve desire. They provide karmic retribution and third party intervention as Nora, Alla, and I desire. And they even allow for a DDM!Snape. The last even allows for Snape to survive the final book. > > So, I don't think the nature of the final book in any way makes it > impossible for most of us to be more-or-less happy with Snape's final place on the wheel of karma. > > > Lupinlore LOL. For someone who complains that redemption for Snape is *cheesy* and would be bad writing, those scenes outlined above are downright laughable. The WW in the HP books has never shown this type of *punishment* for a wizard or witch that is sarcastic and frightening. Snape is supposed to be scary. It is pretty amazing that other than a few students(Harry and Neville), no one else is tormented by Snape's teaching methods - in fact, he answers questions raised by other Gryffindors without a problem. So you think Snape is SO horrible as a teacher, yet students managed to pass his class, which means he has a) taught them something in the classes, b) he is a fair grader, despite being the head of Slytherian(because it isn't just his house that passes and matter of fact, he leaves behind students in his own house) and c) not every student is terrified of Snape. The only person that is truly scared of Snape is Neville, IMHO. If Harry was *so scared*, he would not be goofing off in Snape's class, talking to Hermione & Ron when he should be paying attention - he would not *talk back* to Snape(being cheeky) - and he would not be so dismissive of Snape. Snape has never hit a student in class - he is sarcastic, but when does being sarcastic equate to child abuse? Really. I grew up in an abusive household, and trust me, sarcasism is not child abuse. If these were 5, 6, 7 year olds, yes, Snape's teaching methods leave a bit to be desired. But these are pre-teens and teenagers who say much worse things to each other than Snape has ever mustered up in his classroom. Even McGongall has been sarcastic to her students in her class. when we were introduced to Snape in PS/SS, Percy does not tell Harry that Snape is a horrible teacher, an unfair teacher, a sarcastic git, or that Snape is abusive. All he states is that Quirrell looks nervous because he is talking to Snape, teaches Potions(although, according to Percy, Snape doesn't want to) and that Snape knows a lot about the Dark Arts. Ron, in the next chapter, states that Snape favors Slytherins because he is HoH for them. That is it. Nothing about abusive teaching methods. colebiancardi (who wonders where is the canon that states Snape is a child-abuser because he is sarcastic?) From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Dec 4 17:02:33 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 17:02:33 -0000 Subject: FF: Re: Who does Snape really hate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144061 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "radasgat" wrote: > > > I spent some time alone in a car recently, thinking about the > interview I read with Rowling and all the messages I've read on-line > here. A thought occured to me and I wanted to open it up to discussion. > > > Who does Snape hate? In book one, we meet Snape on the first day of > class are lead to believe that Snape doesn't like Harry because he is > "famous". Implying that Harry is a spoiled brat.... > > But, Snape's hatred in book 1-5.2 is Snape's perspective; what HE > percieves is true (that Harry is a famous spoiled brat just like his > dad). I have to believe that after the Occulemncy lesson commence, he > sees that Harry is NOT the spoiled brat that he thought, that he is > more like than Snape that Snape ever imagined. > > Does Snape get softer on Harry after this point, or harder because he > knows what a good beating can do for strength of character? > Pippin: I think the person Snape hates is....Snape. For being weak, ugly, and unpopular, for wearing his heart on his sleeve and for being gullible...and boy is he ever. Gulled by the Marauders, gulled by Voldemort, and gulled by the ever so lovely and desperate Narcissa. So seeing more of himself in Harry probably doesn't improve things between them at all, at all. But Harry seeing himself in Snape... Imaginary dialogue from Book Seven: -------- Snape: Come to finish me off, Potter? Harry: Yeah, well, I'd really, really like to. But seeing as how we're on the same side [rescues Snape] Snape [sneering, as usual] Finally got there, did we? Harry: [laughs] I don't believe it. I do not believe it. I've just saved your miserable skin and you're still sneering? What does it take to get through that thick skull of yours? Tell you what, let's pretend I already know what a worthless excuse for a wizard I am, okay? Snape: Worthless? Oh, I do hope not, Potter, not after all I've gone through to keep you alive. Harry: Come off it, Snape. Tell the truth for once. You've been taking it out of me since my first day of school. Snape: Well, someone had to. Harry: Look, I know I'm thick and everything, but why? WHY? Snape: You fool, Potter! You ignorant, arrogant fool! For years I served the Dark Lord, do you think I couldn't see his power in you? And there you stood in the Great Hall, waiting to be Sorted, worried you weren't magical enough for Hogwarts! And when you were chosen for Gryffindor you thought your troubles were over. You weren't watching me, but I was watching you. I would have thought the condition of the House Ghosts might have given you some clue that you had entered a dark and dangerous world, but you weren't afraid, oh not you. There you sat, chatting with your new friends, stuffing your face, and all the time you were sitting not ten yards away from a man who would have given his heart and soul to see you dead. Or worse. I couldn't make you fear him. But by heaven, I made you fear me! Harrry: Well, Hagrid said Hogwarts was safe. Snape [staggered]: Hagrid! Harry: Er, well, all right, I was a bit of an idiot, wasn't I? But did you have to make it your life's business to frighten a clueless child?-- Proud of yourself, are you? Snape:Oh, not just you, Potter. And if you thought, if any of you thought being a clueless child would shield you from Voldemort, you were mistaken. You couldn't afford your innocence. Not if you wanted to live. Harry: Don't give me that, you enjoyed it, I know you did! Snape: Well, I must admit, I did take pleasure in my work. You wouldn't deny me that, surely? Harry, somewhat at a loss for words: You took pleasure in being a sadistic jerk, you, you sadistic jerk! Snape: Your father and his friends tormented me for seven years, Potter. What would you call them, I wonder? Harry: Oh, no, Snape. You don't hate me because I'm like them. You hate me because...I'm like you. Snape: I...I what? That's absurd! Harry: I don't think so. Both halfbloods, both unwanted, both desperate to fit in and sure we never would, people muttering about us all the time... Snape: But precious Potter, pure of soul. You weren't tempted, not by the Dark Arts. Harry: Really? So when I tried to use the Cruciatus Curse on you, I was just kidding, was I? Snape: You couldn't have done it, Potter. Harry: I didn't notice you being willing to let me try. Want me to try now? [menaces Snape with his wand.] Snape: You won't do it. You're a Gryffindor. Harry: Yeah, like my father before me. Listen, Gryffindor lived a thousand years ago, nobody knows what he was like. It's just a name. D'you think you're so different from me? Snape: [whispers] I killed your parents! Harry, furious: WHY DO I HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS WITH EVERYONE I NEED! VOLDEMORT KILLED MY PARENTS! ---- Well, it doesn't prove anything, except that JKR is a better writer than I am. And I don't know if it would satisfy anyone but me. But that's what I'd like to see, more or less. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 17:21:15 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 17:21:15 -0000 Subject: FF: Re: Who does Snape really hate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144062 > Pippin: > I think the person Snape hates is....Snape. Imaginary dialogue from Book Seven: > Snape: [whispers] I killed your parents! > > Harry, furious: WHY DO I HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS WITH EVERYONE I NEED! > VOLDEMORT KILLED MY PARENTS! > > ---- > Well, it doesn't prove anything, except that JKR is a better writer than I am. > And I don't know if it would satisfy anyone but me. But that's what I'd > like to see, more or less. Alla: You ARE a very good writer, Pippin and I understand that you want Harry to let Snape off the hook, just as I hope he won't do it. Nevertheless I think that Harry IS kind and forgiving soul and it is possible that you are right and he will forgive Snape for how he persecuted him while being his teacher IMO ( yes, I think mistreating the person for who his parents were is persecution). In fact, if I see genuine remorse on Snape's behalf, I would even be happy with Harry forgiving him, if he is DD!M of course. But I do hope that even in your scenario at least Harry won't let Snape off the hook for his parents deaths' because no matter how you look at it, without Snape telling Voldemort the prophecy, Voldemort may not have gone after Potters and they may have been alive. Of course, then the books would not have happened, but we are talking about the story from within here, right? So, yes, I do want Harry to answer - yes, you contributed to my parents' deaths, but Voldemort is the one who killed them. Again, won't call Jo a bad writer or anything if she won't do as I would love to, just describing what would satisfy me the most as a reader. JMO, Alla From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 18:11:13 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:11:13 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144063 > bboyminn: > > Sorry, this might have already been covered in the discussion; I > haven't been following it that close. But Slytherin IS NOT resticted > to PUREBLOOD. Snape is mixed blood, Voldemort himself is mixed blood. > So, I don't think Slytherin himself made pure-blood an absolute > criteria of admitance into Slytherin House. Well, you might not think so, but that what's the Hat says. Either it's lying, or you must be mistaken. We do know that not everyone in Slytherin is pureblood, but then we do know that not everyone in Gryffindor is brave. Snape and Voldemort would have made the best Slytherins ever, but most lamentably fall short of the ideal where their ancestry is concerned. a_svirn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 18:25:56 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:25:56 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) LONGish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144064 zgirnius: > We have seen, so far, three songs of the Hat about Sorting. (Cited by > me in an earlier post to this thread.) In two of those three songs, > blood status is not even mentioned. a_svirn: But it did mention it once. Do you think it was deliberately lying? Why would it? zgirnius: > > If the Sorting is just the Hat getting each child to make their choice, > your pureblood bigots would surely choose Slytherin, as you say. It is > the tradition in their families. But why would anyone else? Presumably > because the House stands for other things which ARE appealing to some > non-purebloods. > > It seems to me that Sorting into Slytherin can occur for a number of > reasons, being a purebllod bigot being only one. And probably, not even > the most important one. It is certainly not a criterion all members > have to meet. a_svirn: This is certainly true. But that's the question of priorities and choices again. If you are not a pureblood bigot, you may choose not to ally yourself with the House famous for its bigotry, or you may think that bigots or not it's the elite of the WW and it would be stupid to pass up such a splendid career opportunity for a mere scruple. Which would be a very slytherin way of reasoning of course. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Dec 4 18:35:05 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:35:05 -0000 Subject: Forgiving Snape was FF: Re: Who does Snape really hate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144065 > Alla: > > You ARE a very good writer, Pippin Pippin: Thank you! Alla: and I understand that you want > Harry to let Snape off the hook, just as I hope he won't do it. > Nevertheless I think that Harry IS kind and forgiving soul and it is > possible that you are right and he will forgive Snape for how he > persecuted him while being his teacher IMO ( yes, I think > mistreating the person for who his parents were is persecution). In > fact, if I see genuine remorse on Snape's behalf, I would even be > happy with Harry forgiving him, if he is DD!M of course. > > > But I do hope that even in your scenario at least Harry won't let > Snape off the hook for his parents deaths' because no matter how you > look at it, without Snape telling Voldemort the prophecy, Voldemort > may not have gone after Potters and they may have been alive. > Pippin: I re-read HBP cover to cover yesterday (why isn't there a way to skip the first reading, where you're going Aha, I knew it! or No Way! or Huh?? and it takes you out of the story) and I came across this bit ... Slughorn raised a pudgy hand and pressed his shaking fingers to his mouth; he looked for a moment like an enormously overgrown baby. "I am not proud..." he whispered through his fingers. "I am ashamed of what -- of what that memory shows....I think I may have done great damage that day..." "You'd cancel out anything you did by giving me the memory," said Harry. "It would be a very brave and noble thing to do." --HBP ch 22 Slughorn contributed to the deaths of six people, all of whom might be alive if he hadn't told Voldemort about Horcruxes, plus everyone who's been killed by the renascent Voldemort. Unlike Snape, Sluggy kept silent about it for, what, fifty years or so? How many people could have been saved if he'd gone to Dumbledore, like Snape did? At least Snape tried to make up for what he'd done, even if he didn't entirely succeed -- even if he didn't manage to save the Potters, the information he brought back as a spy surely saved other lives, if you believe DDM!Snape, of course. And Harry offered redemption, though to be sure he didn't know yet what Sluggy actually did. All the same, it'd be a pretty smarmy hypocrite, IMO, who couldn't forgive Snape after that. Pippin From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sun Dec 4 18:52:21 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 13:52:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Potter's appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051204185221.97258.qmail@web53304.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144066 gebroni2 wrote: Hello everyone, I'm a freshman in college writing a resreach paper on Harry Potter and its huge appeal. My thesis is that a huge reason for the series's sucess is the 7 book, extended mystery format. I think all of the many interesting theories and speculations circling around in this group and many other places online with the hard-core fan base rubs off on the casual readers, many whom, like me, get sucked in to the much deeper aspects of the series and become hardcore fans. What do you all think of this? Are you most interested in the series for its mystery, or for its other very strong elements? Thanks a lot! "gebroni2" Luckdragon: My interest in the series is due to the tremendous, seemingly unlimited use of imagination. Jo never ceases to amaze me with the things she comes up with. As an adult reader these books allow me to escape from everyday pressures and reality and again relive my childhood which was made so enjoyable by my own lively imagination, daydreams and fantasy world. Jo reopens this world to me, allowing me to share in her magical world where anything and everything seems possible. As for the mystery aspect, that is quite enticing as well. I love the fact that she plants clues in each book and keeps us wondering about the numerous ways in which the plot might turn, twist, or come to an unequivocal stop. --------------------------------- Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From leslie41 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 19:00:27 2005 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 19:00:27 -0000 Subject: Snape's punishment a "moral" issue? Was "Two Scenes..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144067 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > I have no objection at all to personal growth from Snape, but the > needs of poetic justice MUST be met, if JKR can be said to have > dealt with the incredibly important moral issue of child abuse and > Snape's reprehensible behavior, not to mention Dumbledore's > reprehensible policies in allowing it. Er, no. The needs of poetic justice need not be met at all, and often are not, in literature. Part of the reason these books are so popular is that Rowling knows, as kids do, that sometimes people aren't dealt out "poetic justice." To me the biggest cheat would be everyone neatly getting everything they supposedly deserve. I can suspend my disbelief about magic. About human nature and the often chaotic nature of the world, no. Cedric Diggory wasn't dealt out poetic justice. There was no justice at all there. No justice in a 6-year-old boy being bitter by a werewolf either. Crappy things like that happen all the time and kids know it. To my mind the immorality would be to gloss over that and make everything "seem" to fit. That works on the Teletubbies, not in Rowling's world. > I really can't see any scenario in which growth on Snape's part > would be believable. And? So what? He's a deeply flawed person, has had a terrible life, and for the past few years he's been under an enormous amount of stress, his life constantly in danger. If Snape is on the side of good, it is the attitude of others that will change towards him. It is Harry who will make the first move, at least to recognize that he and Snape were always on the same side, and that Snape has done more good in his own way than Harry ever had. This doesn't mean Harry will approve or appreciate his teaching methods. It simply means that Harry will attempt to understand him beyond viewing him as a "greasy git." Could Snape manage the reverse? I don't know. Probably not. He's wounded beyond healing, and cannot get beyond those wounds. Dumbledore realizes that. Harry is the more evolved person emotionally. Harry is capable of it. > But, if you have any scenarios you think COULD accomplish internal > growth and voluntary apology from Snape WITHOUT such a large > wrench to the plot, or without using hand-waving and magic > bullets, I, for one, would love to hear them! Sometimes, in my experience, the only way to thaw another human being is by complete and utter sympathy and understanding, whether or not they deserve it. Snape has a close relationship with DD, and I think as may in the future be revealed, a loving one. I think DD loves him. I think Snape loves DD. And loathes him. The way that children both love and loathe their parents. DD has the power to truly control him, which I've no doubt deeply upsets Snape. Snape does not deserve gentle treatment from Harry. Nevertheless, I think it is kindness and understanding and respect from Harry (not pity, never pity) that would allow Snape to evolve. Snape was notoriously abused by Sirius and James. Harry should admit to himself and to Snape that his father and Sirius were far from perfect, and that they hurt him. He cannot apologize for that fact, but he can at least recognize it. Much of Snape's resentment of Harry, I think, springs not from the fact that Harry is a reminder of his past, but that Harry idolizes his father and Sirius, and makes excuses for their behavior. Some series of scenes, post Voldemort's defeat, where Harry recognizes Snape's contributions, and that Sirius and James were not perfect and hurt and almost killed Snape, might open a door. Is this a lot to ask? Sure. But as I said, Harry is a far more evolved person than Snape is. Snape is ossified emotionally, and deeply bitter, and cannot come to this understanding without being led to it by someone willing to be incredibly generous with him. Again, does Snape necessarily "deserve" this? No. By no means. Absolutely not. But again, people don't always get what they deserve. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Dec 4 19:23:30 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 19:23:30 -0000 Subject: FF: Re: Who does Snape really hate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144068 Pippin: > Well, it doesn't prove anything, except that JKR is a better writer > than I am. And I don't know if it would satisfy anyone but me. But > that's what I'd like to see, more or less. Jen: LOL! Thank you Pippin. I love all these possible scenarios people are offering, it makes me think about what I'd like to see. But I wanted to address your first thought in the post: "I think the person Snape hates is....Snape. For being weak, ugly, and unpopular, for wearing his heart on his sleeve and for being gullible...and boy is he ever. Gulled by the Marauders, gulled by Voldemort, and gulled by the ever so lovely and desperate Narcissa." Jen: I think so, too: "Fools who wear their hearts proudly on their sleeves, who cannot control their emotions, who wallow in sad memories and allow themselves to be provoked this easily--weak people in other words-- they stand no chance against his powers!" (chap. 24, Occlumency) Those words sounded like someone who learned a lesson the hard way. I really don't think we've heard the end of the Snape backstory. Snape thinks Occlumency is the only way to 'stand a chance against his powers' because it has worked so far from him, or at least he believes it has. Thus he believes Harry must learn it too, that it is the only possible way he can be protected from the Dark Lord. Snape either doesn't know or doesn't believe that Harry will be adequately protected by love. Or he does know and does believe, and deep down is extremely envious that Harry will get off easy while he has had to get off hard. That Harry is respected by Dumbledore for simply being who he is, while in Snape's mind, he has had to earn Dumbledore's respect through his actions. If any of this is true, I don't believe Dumbledore actually felt that way, he seems to admire all sorts of people, but it would very Snapey to percieve it that way. (Personally, I would substitute "love" for "respect" in the above sentences, but then I'm a cheesy sentimentalist at heart). More and more I'm growing to believe Snape's actions, and the ones we have left to hear about, have been his own sometimes misguided attempts to atone for his sins. Jen From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Dec 4 19:23:06 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 19:23:06 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) LONGish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144069 > a_svirn: > This is certainly true. But that's the question of priorities and > choices again. If you are not a pureblood bigot, you may choose not > to ally yourself with the House famous for its bigotry, or you may > think that bigots or not it's the elite of the WW and it would be > stupid to pass up such a splendid career opportunity for a mere > scruple. Which would be a very slytherin way of reasoning of > course. > Pippin: Or it might occur to you that there must be bigots in all the Houses, bigotry being an all too common failing, alas, so passing up Slytherin because it's known for bigotry would be, well, a rather bigotted way to think, IMO. Sirius said it, "If you're only going to let your sons and daughters marry purebloods, your choice is very limited, there are hardly any of us left. Molly and I are cousins by marriage, and Arthur's something like my second cousin once removed." --OOP ch 6 Arthur and Molly didn't object to sharing a House with Muggleborns, and that's all very well. But how are they going to feel when their son wants to marry one? Pippin From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 19:38:48 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 19:38:48 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) LONGish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144070 > Pippin: > Or it might occur to you that there must be bigots in all the Houses, > bigotry being an all too common failing, alas, so passing up Slytherin > because it's known for bigotry would be, well, a rather bigotted way to > think, IMO. Yes, but only in Slytherin House bigotry is regarded as virtue. Of course it is not called *bigotry* there. It is called "natural nobility" or some such thing. In other houses, however, bigots are not encouraged. Do you think that shunning the establishment famous for promoting bigotry is in itself bigotry? I can't imagine why. a_svirn From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 19:51:43 2005 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 19:51:43 -0000 Subject: Another Foe-Glass Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144071 All this talk of the foe glass has me wondering. Does the foe glass have to "belong" to someone so that it shows only their enemies? Or can it show the enemies of whoever is looking into it at that time? Alora :) From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Dec 4 19:57:16 2005 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 4 Dec 2005 19:57:16 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 12/4/2005, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1133726236.20.76794.m34@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144072 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday December 4, 2005 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Notes: 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. To get into Chat, just go to the group online: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups and click on "Chat" in the lefthand menu. If you have problems with this, go to http://www.yahoo.com and in the bottom box on the left side of the page click on "Chat". Once you're logged into any room, type /join *g.HPforGrownups ; this should take you right in. If you have an Set up birthday reminders! http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13 Copyright 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/ Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tifflblack at earthlink.net Sun Dec 4 20:06:21 2005 From: tifflblack at earthlink.net (Tiffany Black) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 12:06:21 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Another Foe-Glass Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144073 Alora :) All this talk of the foe glass has me wondering. Does the foe glass have to "belong" to someone so that it shows only their enemies? Or can it show the enemies of whoever is looking into it at that time? Tiffany: I got to wondering that too, the other day, when I was watching the GOF movie. But, I suppose, if Harry could see Crouch JR. in the foe glass when he looked into it, he probably wouldn't recognize him until the pensieve scene and then he might still not be able to put it all together. Sorry if I'm not making sense. I'm really sleep deprived. Tiffany ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Life without art & music? Keep the arts alive today at Network for Good! http://us.click.yahoo.com/7zgKlB/dnQLAA/Zx0JAA/s4wxlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups Links From muellem at bc.edu Sun Dec 4 20:07:07 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:07:07 -0000 Subject: Snape's punishment a "moral" issue? Was "Two Scenes..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144074 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > Sometimes, in my experience, the only way to thaw another human > being is by complete and utter sympathy and understanding, whether > or not they deserve it. > > Is this a lot to ask? Sure. But as I said, Harry is a far more > evolved person than Snape is. Snape is ossified emotionally, and > deeply bitter, and cannot come to this understanding without being > led to it by someone willing to be incredibly generous with him. > > Again, does Snape necessarily "deserve" this? No. By no means. > Absolutely not. > > But again, people don't always get what they deserve. > colebiancardi: I would like to add that people who seem not to deserve redeemption or forgiveness are the ones who should get it. Forgiveness & compassion given to those people who *deserve* is the easy way out. It takes a much bigger person to give that compassion, forgiveness, love, respect (whatever one wishes to call it) to those that don't "seem" to deserve it and this is what I believe Harry will do in book 7. This is very important: The ones who should get absolution are the ones who do not *deserve* it, but they are the ones in most need of it. It is not the other way around. I did a search on forgivness and several websites helped me in producing this list: Forgiveness is letting go of what you feel is owed to you by another; forgiveness is an act of will, an act of courage - It entails letting go of an upset even though there is justification for holding it. Forgiveness does not mean that Harry should condone what was done by Snape. Forgiveness is not dependent on apology from Snape to Harry. Forgivness does not signify that reconciliation must occur. Forgiving is not *losing*. How is holding on to your resentments winning? Forgiveness is the process of taking back control - in this case, Harry's power and focus, which currently, thru his resentment of Snape existance, he has given to Snape. Forgiveness is often easier if the person who has hurt us apologizes or changes their behavior, but these are not necessary for forgiveness to occur. Gandhi said: "The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong." And that is how I view the relationship of Harry to Snape in book 7. Currently, in Harry's eyes, Snape doesn't deserve anything but to be killed. If Snape is DDM!Snape and Harry recognizes this, Harry will *forgive* Snape of his horrible ways as a teacher - not because Snape deserves it, but because Snape *needs* it. And Harry will be the bigger person for it. Harry doesn't need Snape to apologize for anything, because Harry & Snape both know what Snape is. Harry can change; alas, I don't think Snape can. But perhaps with giving Snape what he *needs*, not what he *deserves*, perhaps Snape can then move on with his life - if he survives book 7, of course. colebiancardi From rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu Sun Dec 4 20:12:19 2005 From: rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu (susanbones2003) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:12:19 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144075 SNIP , but the needs of > poetic justice MUST be met, if JKR can be said to have dealt with the > incredibly important moral issue of child abuse and Snape's > reprehensible behavior, not to mention Dumbledore's reprehensible > policies in allowing it. > > Lupinlore > I can think of loads of great authors who introduced difficult moral problems and did not demonstrate any attempt to "deal" with them. Dickens and David Copperfield come to mind right off the bat. Snape and Harry will have some kind of interchange, I hope and pray, but it will not be to redress great moral issues and I just can not see anyone else doing it either. If there is a world left at the end of Book 7, the survivors will have to put so many things behind them, bigger I would imagine than Snape's treatment of Harry. JenD From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sun Dec 4 20:20:43 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:20:43 -0000 Subject: too many posts to list in the subject line, ctrl-F for YOUR name or subject In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144077 Catlady: > > La Gatta Lucianese wrote in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143566 : > > << For some reason, from the first moment I met Sirius, he absolutely > made my skin crawl, especially when Harry proposed moving in with him. > I'm not sure why, but on mature reflection I have my suspicions. He's > a Black, after all... >> > > He's a dog, after all, and we are cats. > Maybe it's the fleas... > > Btw, a_svirn quoted in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143737 : > > << Arabella Figg does a roaring trade in cross-bred cats and > Kneazles >> > > Why would anyone want to buy a cross-bred cat/Kneazle? If you want a > beautiful, lovable cat to adore, you can adopt one for free lots of > places. If you want an animal that can detect unworthiness and help > you find your way home, why not buy a pureblood Kneazle? > Sometimes the sum is greater than the parts. For example, you can get extraordinary black cats when you cross a moggie with a Siamese. > > Carol wrote in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143578 : > > I am pursuaded by whichever listie pointed out that it was the > Entrail-Expelling Curse invented by Urquhart Rackharrow, 1612-1697, > according to the caption of his portrait on the wall of Arthur's ward > at St Mungo's in chapter 22 of OoP. What does it mean about wizarding > society if the known inventor of a Dark Curse has his portrait on the > wall of St Mungo's? > For the same reason Muggles have photographs hanging up in the Post Office? > ... > > Colloquially, releasing ghosts from this world so they can go can on > to the next is called 'laying ghosts'. I don't know if Potterverse > ghosts can be released (maybe by throwing themselves through that Veil > in the Department of Mysteries) but since CoS I have hoped that it is > possibly because Myrtle is such a miserable ghost that I hoped she > will be laid. > Judging from the latest movie, she's certainly working on it. ;D > ... --La Gatta From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 20:38:08 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:38:08 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144078 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > > > bboyminn: > > > > Sorry, this might have already been covered in the discussion; > > I haven't been following it that close. But Slytherin IS NOT > > resticted to PUREBLOOD. Snape is mixed blood, Voldemort himself > > is mixed blood. ... So, I don't think Slytherin himself made > > pure-blood an absolutecriteria of admitance into Slytherin > > House. > a_svirn: > > Well, you might not think so, but that what's the Hat says. Either > it's lying, or you must be mistaken. We do know that not everyone in > Slytherin is pureblood, but then we do know that not everyone in > Gryffindor is brave. Snape and Voldemort would have made the best > Slytherins ever, but most lamentably fall short of the ideal where > their ancestry is concerned. > a_svirn > bboyminn: I assume this is what you are refering to- OotP Pg 203 - The Sorting Hat Song - "Said Slytherin, "We'll teach just those whose ancestry is purest." "For instance Slytherin took only pure-blood wizards of great cunning, just like him..." First, we must understand that it is not likely that the Sorting Hat is speaking in absolute truths. I believe that in the specific context of a song, and for the purpose of illustrating the completely different point of unity, the Sorting Hat was speaking in /general/ truths. In general, Slytherin preferred his students to have a strong connection to the wizard world because HE FELT that made them less of a security risk. So, pureblood wizards with generations in the wizard world would be the least security risk. The greatest security risk would come, as I previously pointed out, from /freshly-minted/ muggle-born wizards. Freshly-minted muggle-borns don't have long historical ties to the wizard world and its culture. They don't fully understand, by way of wizard-objective history, the potential dangers nor have the proper perspective. So, to some extent, Salazar's fears were justified, or at least they had a valid foundation. Yet, if the Sorting Hat /IS/ making an absolute statement of indisputable fact, then how can we explain the presents of half-bloods and mixed-bloods in Slytherin House? Snape himself is a perfect example, he is a first generation mixed-blood; mother a witch, father a muggle. How can we explain his presents in Slytherin House if we are going to insist on the absolute purity of blood? I explain it like this, while it may be true that Snape's father was a muggle, I speculated his mother was from a magical family. That is, her family, which may or may not be pureblood, at least had a significant history in the wizard world. That history and long time presences in the wizard world is the connection that allowed a mixed-blood like Snape and/or Tom Riddle to be placed in Slytherin House. Not the purity of blood, but the historical connection to the wizard world. This further re-enforces my belief that Salazar was not a pureblood racist. First let us consider the Sorting Hat's statement that Gryffindor and Slytherin were the best of friends. Would Gryffindor likely be friends with a pureblood racist? Well, we can only speculate but I don't think so. However, if Salazar merely had a justifiable distrust of muggles, muggle-borns, and those who were new to the wizard world, that is not so much a prejudice, as a fearful practical consideration. There was indeed a great deal at risk, as I clearly pointed out in my previous post, should the location of Hogwarts be revealed to fanatic over-zealous muggles. So we are left with believing that the Sorting Hat is a liar that is not doing it job, or is at least compromising its mandate, or that Salazar is not the pureblood racist he is made out to be. Note that we have seen mixed-bloods in Slytherin House, but we have never seen a muggle-born. Of course, the books haven't flat out said there are no muggle-born in Slytherin, but I don't think we have any evidence that they ARE there. Further, on the nature of the Sorting Hat, perhaps it doesn't not pick the House in which a student is absolutely and ideally suited, a somewhat impossible task, but instead picks the House in which a student is /best/ suited. That is, you don't have to match the criteria of a House to perfection, you only have to be more /that/ House than any other. In Harry's case, he seemed suitable to more than one House, but in the end, the Sorting Hat decided his best fit was Gryffindor. The same is true of Hermione, she could have been Ravenclaw or Gryffindor, but in the end, the Sorting Hat decided that Gryffindor was the best fit. In either Harry or Hermione's case, the choice wasn't a perfect fit, but merely better than the rest. That could also explain the presence of non-purebloods in Slytherin House. Regardless of whether that is true is somewhat irrelavant, because we are discussing the nature of Slytherin House, and not the nature of the Sorting Hat. My main point was that it is rediculous to believe that all Slytherins are evil pureblood racist, when we have NOT indeed seen all Slytherins nor have we seen a majority of Slytherins. We have seen a very select group though Harry's eyes. Slytherins may be proud, cunning, nasty, ambitious, greedy and many other things, but that doesn't automatically make them evil pureblood racists. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Sun Dec 4 20:58:53 2005 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 11:58:53 -0900 Subject: [HPforGrownups] A Horcrux in each book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144079 > > >>This leaves us only one other Horcrux to find, the Hufflepuff Cup. I >>searched and re - searched the beginning of POA for it, then my neice >>took it home because it was her copy amd mine is still lent out to >>someone else :( >> >>In the beginning of POA I found plenty of references to Cups and >>Goblets but none that I could see possibly being "the" cup we are >>looking for. >>Valky > >I snipped a lot, but I want to say that I find this idea intriguing. I >looked through the PoA beginning chapters and the closest thing >I could find to an object that might fit the parameters was Percy's >Head Boy badge. 1) It is seen early on in the book. 2) There is >some indication that there might be some unusual magic associated >with it (the sneakoscope). 3) There might be some way to use it to >explain Percy's later actions. > >Just the beginnings of an idea. >Laura And, to follow up on my own post, it could explain why James had to die and Lily didn't when Voldemort tried to kill Harry. Both James and Voldemort were Head Boys. Perhaps there is only one Griffindor Head Boy badge and it gets passed down from year to year if a Griffindor is Head Boy. It would therefore have special meaning to Voldemort, and by using James' death to make it into a Horcrux, it would have something from Griffindor in it. Since the Horcrux was already made before Voldemort attacked Harry, Lily would not have had to die. It could have been just lying around in the rubble when wizards came to clean up after the disaster and have been reclaimed then. A bit convoluted, but still might work. Laura From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sun Dec 4 21:15:28 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 21:15:28 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144080 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > Nora: > > But I ask *you* this question: was > > Dumbledore unaware of sex offender Sirius at Hogwarts, and would he > > have let him off lightly solely to protect Remus Lupin? > > Ceridwen: > EEK! I mean, EEEEEEEK! Yes, I know that's what La Gatta was > apparently saying. But, still. Eek? > O.K., La Gatta understands your feelings. But part of the reason kids like Sirius get away with the things they do (and Sirius has made a career of getting away with things ever since he came to Hogwarts) is that far too many adults have this EEK! reaction, and go and stick their heads under the covers. (No, not *those* covers, you gubbins!) > > La Gatta: > > > Upset, yes, but not to the point that it obsesses you for life. > As > > > it clearly does with Snape. I think what we are seeing in the > > > Pensieve is just the tip of the iceberg, one of many similar > > > assaults on young Severus' physical and emotional space. > > Ceridwen: > Okay. That's possible. Pantsing someone is a form of humiliation > that has been done on schoolyards for... well, since before my time. > And, it is exactly what you say: harassment, an invasion of space, > humiliation. And, once a gang of bullies gets hold of a particular > punching bag, they don't let him go all that easily. When that > punching bag is possibly a match for any one of them on their own, as > Snape may well be, it's just more of a challenge. I never did buy my > mother's bit about standing up to people who bullied me making them > leave me alone. It just doesn't work that way. > The problem here is the difference between "pantsing" in American public schools and "bagging" in British "public" schools. The American version is akin to a panty raid (which of course has no sexual connotations at all...), in that the objective is to get off with a naughty article of clothing and do something conspicuous with it. Whereas in the British version, the thrust, if you will excuse the expression, is not the bags but what's inside them: Older/more popular boys taking symbolic (and often not symbolic) sexual advantage of younger/less popular boys. There is a considerable difference between having your underpants run up the flagpole and having your naked lower body suspended in mid-air, where everybody, including your attackers, can enjoy the view. > > Sherry: > > Your comments about the supposed real reason for James turning poor > > Sevvy upside down implies that James did it for Sirius, which means > > you think James knew of his terrible behavior. > > La Gatta: > > > Well, yes... I think all four of the Marauders are in on the > dirty > > > little secret, and responding to it in their individual ways: * > (snip)* > > Nora: > > That makes a whole lot of people at Hogwarts nasty voyeurs too, > then; > > remember that a number of people are watching and laughing. > > Ceridwen: > Ah. Okay. Let's hold on a minute. Pantsing someone is a longtime > tradition among people with the upper hand and a particular way of > seeing themselves with power, on the schoolyard. How many jokes are > there about running someone's underwear up the flagpole? Such a > situation inforces the view of the pantsee as some sort of 98 lb. > geeky weakling being bested by the jocks. It's humiliation, in the > same way that rape is not about sex, but power and humiliation, and > other very *un*romantic impulses. The jocks are portrayed as simple > brutes in the jokes, while the geek gets derided for not being a > jock. (*sigh* Some people want it both ways) > > The laughing students are behaving like the people who laugh at the > joke. It's funny to see the jocks give the geek, who shows them up > in class, 'the business'. And if Snape's been as agressive about > hexing the Marauders, and possibly other students, they may be > laughing about the comeuppance. Each portrayal plays into the > stereotype: The jocks can't compete in class, but they're more than > physically able; the geek is more able in class, but out of his > league in the muscle department. No matter how it actually works out > in real life. > *(snip)* > JKR makes the point, when James is playing with the Snitch, that he has lightning-fast reflexes, and I think she says somewhere that both James and Sirius are bigger than Snape. She certainly implies in the aftermath to the Pensieve, when she describes Snape as "full-grown" that fifteen-year-old Snape had some growing still to do. > > La Gatta: > > > I'd love to be wrong about Sirius, but I'm afraid I don't have a > > > very high opinion of him and his Marauders, and I don't think the > > > Prank was even remotely innocent. > > > -Nora thinks that this is the first time this particular allegation > > has been made about Sirius Black, but there must be a first time > > for everything > > Ceridwen: > Oh, dear. I did snip all the innuendos. But, I can't see anything > that suggests that Sirius was a 'sex offender'. Even if he had a > penchant for boys, it would have been age-appropriate. He and Snape > are about the same age. They're in the same year at school. Even if > one had been held back a year, that's still within normal parameters > for a relationship - see Harry (6th year) and Ginny (5th year). Sex > offender? Sexual predator? Child molester? How do you get from > liking someone his own age, and pedophelia? > I don't. I'm suggesting that Molly knows about his behavior toward Snape (and possibly other "non-U" kids as well), and is taking no chances when Harry is around him. You can't miss her biddy-hen protectiveness in the first Grimauld Place interlude, and I don't think it's because she thinks something is going to come down the chimney and blaspheme the aspidistra if she takes her eyes off Harry for a moment (and she's just as protective of Ron and Hermione, as I recall). > > *IF* James is upending Snape for Sirius's lascivious pleasure, and > *IF* pantsing Snape would give Sirius a rush and James knows that, it > still doesn't equate to Sirius having an unnatural liking for someone > twenty years his junior, whose only claim to sex is obvious organs, > as in baby Harry. Sirius and Snape are the same age. Harry, the > Weasley children, and Hermione, are young enough to be Sirius's own > children. Seeing this memory doesn't imply unnatural feelings on the > part of any of the Marauders, esp. pedophelia. > > The big problem with the scenario, whether or not Sirius is getting a > rush and the other Marauders are supporting and enabling this, is > that Snape is not willing. And, it's public. It's a humiliating > incident that shows the Marauders in a bad light (the muscle-bound > jocks), as well as Snape (the geeky weakling). Since pantsing has > been a staple of a joke in schoolyard humor for ages, I can't see JKR > meaning anything beyond the obvious stereotypes of Jock and Geek in > this showing. > > And, enjoying the traits of people the same age, doesn't > automatically lead to sexual offenses. Fifteen might be a bit old > for such juvenile games. But at the same time, it's also an age more > and more, where kids are still trying to cling to the favorite > remnants of childhood, like bathroom humor, jokes about bodily > funcitons, and pantsing people just because, not for the sexual > rush. I guess what I'm struggling to say is that, even if Sirius is > inappropriate toward people his own age, that doesn't mean he'll be > inappropriate with children. Or, that the memory shows him being > inappropriate *with a child*, since he was a child then himself. > They were peers, contemporaries. No way can I see this memory of > Snape's as Sirius being... well, anything but an immature brat who > just likes to see someone he doesn't like, being humiliated. > > And, if anyone was getting excited, it was Peter. But, I rush to > add, it was the excitement of the capture, IMO, not the creepier > variety. > > Ceridwen, who is still resembling a google-eyed emoticon. > As for Harry vis-a-vis Sirius, I think I said that he'd be safe enough, because he is (a) James' son, (b) one of "us", and (c) not someone that Sirius has control issues with. As for Snape, as you so aptly pointed out, the analogy really is to rape. Sirius' penchant isn't for boys per se, or for sex per se (though he obviously isn't adverse to a little whoopsie-do on the side if one is offered), it's for power and control. He just can't stand it that this weedy little half-blood kid stands up to him, and like your average fifteen-year-old male, he uses sex as a bludgeon to get back at him and humiliate him. I was hit between the eyes by the similarity between the Sirius/Snape dynamic and what went on between a herd of Mormon jocks and other Young Men Who Are an Inspiration to Us All at the high school where I used to teach, and a "non-U", gentile girl who refused to go out with one of them. They stopped short of outright rape (I think), but the harrassment had a definite sexual subtext (grabbing, skirt flipping, pantsing), and it for sure didn't have anything to do with love. In the end, her parents gave up and transferred her to another school. I wonder what that taught the poor kid about how the world wags. I realize that this is one of those discussions like Hagrid versus Snape that is never going to be resolved in this life, so I'm bowing out of it before somebody throws a bust of Paracelsus at me. To paraphrase the hair-dye commercial, "Only your Rowling knows for sure." --La Gatta From norjihan at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 14:11:34 2005 From: norjihan at yahoo.com (Wan Norjihan) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 14:11:34 -0000 Subject: Who does Snape really hate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144081 > Radasgat: > > For a bit of dramatic irony.. who does Snape "appear" to > > love? Draco. What is Draco? The only son of an older > > couple who has been doted on his whole life and given his > > every wish and desire...similiar so James? > Valky: > I think there is something in his [Snape's] point of view > that could explain this. Father figures. > > It's no stretch to imagine that Snape could be very similar > to Draco here. Also we have the snippet of memory > which shows that Snape's father was probably abusive to his > wife and cold to his son. > > Snape probably sees a lot of himself in Draco and > empathises more readily with him, so in contrast Harry is > a spoiled celebrity brat because from Snape's POV he will > always have a fathers love. In the first five books, it looks like Snape likes Draco very much, or is it really? Because in the HBP their relationship seems to deviate, Draco no longer try to get Snape's attention because he doubt Snape's true identity and loyalty. And Snape no longer treats Draco the way he used to, is it because Lucius is now in Azkaban, so he need not to pretend anymore. Snape came from a troubled family, there're lots of things that he wanted in his life that he never got, so, there're certain emotions trapped inside him, a father who gave attention (in a child and teenager POV)- like how Draco got from Lucius, a popularity like what James and Sirius had, a friend loyalty and great friendship like James-Sirius-Lupin-Pettigrew(?) got. So, when the emotions was trapped inside, he can't let go his childish grudge, even though he is a genius. Remember, high IQ doesn't promised any high EQ.... "norjihan" From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Sun Dec 4 17:19:16 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 18:19:16 +0100 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone References: Message-ID: <00fb01c5f8f6$db7c0af0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144082 lupinlore wrote: > Absolutely and completely. To allow Snape to go unpunished for his > child abuse (and it IS child abuse) would be reprehensible beyond > belief. However, I don't think it's necessarily true that this > cannot be done in a manner that does not satisfy most everyone on all > sides without taking an undue amount of time. I offer two scenes > that would do the trick. > You put much more effort into these scenes than I did to mine, and obviously you are more talented in writing. But - sorry - your scenes as part of HP 7 would make me shut the book immediately in anger. Ok, maybe only for a second ;). Admit me a small loop. I don't know whether Bertolt Brecht is well-known beyond the German language area. He was one of greatest German authors of the 20th century, most talented as a poet and an outstandig dramatist. And he was a communist. For the purpose of political propaganda he wrote several so called "Lehrstcke" (teaching dramas), dramas with very clear political messages. The characters of these dramas were very typical for their professions or their role in society (The Exploiter, The Worker, The Churchman ...), acting according stereotypes just in order to make the point of the lesson. What happens in these dramas is what "has to happen" according to communist ideology. The Exploiter exploits, The Churchman helps him exploiting, The Worker starts the revolution. And all get what they deserve in the end. You may suspect it - these dramas are dreadful and boring. In his better dramas, Brecht failed to show the characters as stereotypes, the story is unpredictable, and the "heroes" aren't the people who should be the heroes according to the ideological message. And - yes, some people get away without being rewarded or punished for what they did. What you seem to expect from Rowling is Harry Potter as a moral "Lehrstck". The main characters having their moral account with debit and credit, and in the end they have to have their account in balance. Ok, we should agree that we disagree. I do not like "Lehrstcke", not communist ones and not moral ones. Even if we all had the same moral standards (which seems to be unlikely), I would rate literature of that kind as boring. I'm a grownup, I do not like being taught lessons ;). Miles From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sun Dec 4 21:57:10 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 21:57:10 -0000 Subject: Snape's teaching methods In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144083 > > Alla: > > Is there a canon which supports what you are suggesting? I don't > remember it, could you point me out to student flunking the class and > having to repeat it? My memory could be faulty of course. > > With the quote I brought up upthread about Harry worrying that he will > fail Potions, he does not mention anything about possible repetition > of the class. > I think we find out in HBP that Crabbe and Goyle are still trying to pass their O.W.L.s in the fall of Year 6, which suggests some sort of holding back. But I could be misremembering. --La Gatta From mcjuels at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 18:21:13 2005 From: mcjuels at yahoo.com (mcjuels) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:21:13 -0000 Subject: Muggle-centric views of abuse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144084 As far as I know every member of this list is a muggle. Therefore, any views we have of the Wizarding World are viewed through the lens of muggledom. When we look at the treatment of students at the hands of Hagrid, Snape, Lockhart, etc, we can agree that we would be horrified if these were our children. Children growing up in the wizarding world are growing up in a very dangerous place. They need to be exposed to danger in order to learn to survive it. Fortunately, these children are quite hardy and are not permanently harmed by attacks from hippogriffs or rogue bludgers. When students are injured, they go to the hospital wing and Madam Pomfrey sorts them out. These injuries seldom require the parents to be summoned. My sense is that parents of Hogwarts students expect that they will sustain injuries while at school. Molly Weasley did not come to Hogwarts when Ron's leg was broken at the end of his third year. She did come when he had been poisoned. The hippogriff incident did not seriously injure Draco. I am sure that Lucius would not have been sympathetic to his injury if he had not seen some gain in it for himself. Madam Pomfrey had treated him and he was fine. Draco was exaggerating the injury in order to get rid of Hagrid. When Lockhart removed all the bones in Harry's arm, he was not rushed to St. Mungo's, he was treated with Skelegro at school. When students were petrified by the Basilisk, I assume their parents were notified, but felt it wasn't necessary to come to the school. I think that parents expect their children to be tougher than muggle children. They have magic. Am I the only muggle on this list to think that it is no big deal when students get injured? When you live in a world with evil dark lords, dementors, dragons, trolls and other dangerous things, you can't get too upset because a hippogriff rips your arm open. Otherwise, you would go to pieces completely if you splinched yourself while apparating. Now that I have had my say, I'll go back to lurking. "mcjuels" From dragonjcndm2 at aol.com Sun Dec 4 20:09:04 2005 From: dragonjcndm2 at aol.com (dragonjcndm2 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 15:09:04 EST Subject: Harry Potter's appeal -- mystery? Message-ID: <1d8.4a58f684.30c4a6e0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144085 "gebroni2": > Are you most interested in the series for its mystery, or for > its other very strong elements? Personally, I think it's a few elements. Mystery, human connection, and history. Well that's what attract me anyway. Jade From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Sun Dec 4 20:45:59 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 21:45:59 +0100 Subject: Snape's punishment a "moral" issue? Was "Two Scenes..." References: Message-ID: <016b01c5f913$bc0e0f20$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144086 colebiancardi wrote: > I would like to add that people who seem not to deserve redeemption or > forgiveness are the ones who should get it. Forgiveness & compassion > given to those people who *deserve* is the easy way out. It takes a > much bigger person to give that compassion, forgiveness, love, respect > (whatever one wishes to call it) to those that don't "seem" to deserve > it and this is what I believe Harry will do in book 7. Very good posting, I fully agree. Just keep in mind what Rowling stated about Christian belief as a major key to what will happen in book 7. If we connect this with the repeated statements of Dumbledore, that love is the power Harry has to overcome Voldemort, then Forgiveness is my solution for this equation. It says "As we forgive those who trespass against us", there's nothing about apologies from those, or revenge and retribution. Ok, no theological discussion here. But I think that Harry could gain power, if he will forgive people who had done wrong, wrong to him and others. Miles From sudeeel at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 20:42:06 2005 From: sudeeel at yahoo.com (sudeeel) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:42:06 -0000 Subject: Kneazles (Re: too many posts to list in the subject line) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144087 >Catlady: >If you want an animal that can detect unworthiness and help >you find your way home, why not buy a pureblood Kneazle? sudeeel: Hybrid kneazles that look like cats have the advantage of looking like cats while having the magical powers of kneazles. And they're not noticeable to Muggles (and magical folk who can't tell a hybrid kneazle from a cat.) sudeeel From sonjamccartCPA at verizon.net Sun Dec 4 20:56:20 2005 From: sonjamccartCPA at verizon.net (sonjaartemisia) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:56:20 -0000 Subject: Another Foe-Glass Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144088 alora67 wrote: > All this talk of the foe glass has me wondering. Does the foe glass > have to "belong" to someone so that it shows only their enemies? Or > can it show the enemies of whoever is looking into it at that time? Sonja: My understanding of how the foe glass works is that it reflects the enemies of the witch or wizard who has possession of the foe glass at the time. Even though the foe glass did not belong to Fake!Moody, he had possession of it. However, Rowling did not mention if the foe glass changed after Crouch transformed back to himself and the real Moody was discovered. My guess is that was the point when Crouch would no longer "have possession" of items legally belonging to Moody. Perhaps someone else may wish to speculate how long a period of time is necessary for the foe glass to "switch" owners. SonjaArtemisia From sydpad at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 22:12:55 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 22:12:55 -0000 Subject: Snape's punishment a "moral" issue? Was "Two Scenes..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144089 > colebiancardi: > > I would like to add that people who seem not to deserve redeemption or > forgiveness are the ones who should get it. Forgiveness & compassion > given to those people who *deserve* is the easy way out. Plus, if you 'deserve' forgiveness, how is that even forgiveness? It would be a mistake or a misunderstanding that got cleared up. > Forgiving is not *losing*. How is holding on to your resentments > winning? I think I phrased this once on another board as, "why do people want Harry to win a hating competition with SNAPE?" Harry waiting around for Snape to change or apologize or be humbled, would have Harry turn into Snape-- resentful and victimized and getting off on the humiliation of his enemies! Snape was still waiting for an apology for Sirius, for the 'third party authority figure' to put Sirius down, to get 'his own' back. And what was the good of that? I confess that before OoP I was eagerly antipating the fun showdowns that were sure to come 'round between Sirius and Snape. And you know what? The one showdown wasn't fun at all, it was petty and sad and counter-productive; and then Sirius died and it all became utterly beside the point. I think that's JKR's great wisdom, that you CAN'T get your own back from another person; you have to find your peace inside yourself, independent of what's happening in the soul of the person you have a conflict with. There's a parallel, I think, between Harry's hatred of Snape, and Snape's hatred of Sirius. Both have ample reason for their resentment, and both let their own issues cloud their judgement of the other person's character. Snape tells Harry that he tried to warn James that Sirius was a traitor, and James was too arrogant to think he might be mistaken; Harry tries to warn everybody that Snape is a traitor, and thinks D-dore was too soft to see what Snape really was. I suspect Snape's eagerness to believe the worst of Sirius blinded him to other possiblities, such as Peter. Snape is uncaring of Sirius' personal hurts and difficulties and is keen to kick him when he's down. I sincerely hope that Harry will be able to break that particular parallel and give Snape a little compassion in Book VII, because DDM!Snape is in a bad, bad place right now. Of course it's not easy to see people we who treat us badly with clarity and fairness, and to forgive them, and to let them be who they are without affecting us. That's why Harry's a HERO, a hero whose uniqueness has been tied to his love and courage and compassion, not his ablility to do really bad-ass things with a wand. And could we please stop labelling Snape's treatment of the students with the quasi-legal "child abuse" as thought that's an obvious thing that any non-evil person would agree with? I think Snape is MEAN, but I don't think he's a child abuser and sort of resent the implication that I'm an evil chid-abuse-supporting monster for having a more stringent definition of the term. If that's child abuse, then I'M an abused child. And so's anybody else that got out much before the age of 12. -- Sydney, who think the Durselys ARE child-abusers and would have appreciated D-dore mentioning something about it, like, 10 years ago, but thought 'too little, too late' when he got on his high- horse in HBP From smoloughney at hotmail.com Sun Dec 4 22:17:59 2005 From: smoloughney at hotmail.com (moloughneys) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 22:17:59 -0000 Subject: The Marauder's Map In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144090 Kelleyaynn wrote: > What about the fact that Moody borrows the map in GoF? I've > gone back to the book and as far as I can find (or not), the > map is never given back to Harry. Yet it shows up again in > OotP without explanation. In an interview with JK Rowling (sorry, can't rem which or where) I think she says that Harry just went into Moody's office and got it back. "moloughneys" From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 22:50:31 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 22:50:31 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144091 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lagattalucianese" wrote: > O.K., La Gatta understands your feelings. But part of the reason > kids like Sirius get away with the things they do (and Sirius has > made a career of getting away with things ever since he came to > Hogwarts) is that far too many adults have this EEK! reaction, and > go and stick their heads under the covers. (No, not *those* covers, > you gubbins!) But again, I want to ask you directly: are you accusing Dumbledore of knowing and not doing anything? You argue below that Molly knows and that's why she acts the way that she does. I'm talking about cold hard canon plausibility here, because if you want to connect this to the books and not simply have it floating in the realm of fairly distasteful fanfiction, there are a lot of hurdles to jump. > JKR makes the point, when James is playing with the Snitch, that he > has lightning-fast reflexes, and I think she says somewhere that > both James and Sirius are bigger than Snape. She certainly implies > in the aftermath to the Pensieve, when she describes Snape as "full- > grown" that fifteen-year-old Snape had some growing still to do. But again, we find out in book 6 that Snape is indeed the creator of the implement that he's become the victim of; we also find out that everyone has used it. I'm leery of constructing this into Marauders=always the bullies/Snape=always the victim. We do have Sirius' statement that Snape gave as good as he got, which Lupin doesn't challenge. And again, if you want to dismiss *everything* that Sirius says as biased, you're going to have to be evenhanded and cut out Snape's take on events as well. That finally leaves us with Dumbledore, who seems not to have thought that Sirius deserved expulsion, for whatever reason. Doesn't fit with the nasty deeply sick deviant picture you're trying to extrapolate here. > I don't. I'm suggesting that Molly knows about his behavior toward > Snape (and possibly other "non-U" kids as well), and is taking no > chances when Harry is around him. You can't miss her biddy-hen > protectiveness in the first Grimauld Place interlude, and I don't > think it's because she thinks something is going to come down the > chimney and blaspheme the aspidistra if she takes her eyes off > Harry for a moment (and she's just as protective of Ron and > Hermione, as I recall). Or it can be her generally Molly-ish territorial instincts regarding Harry, which lead to her probably not intentionally so but rather spiteful comments about Sirius as guardian. Dumbledore, again, reinforces that Sirius is a genuine and profound loss to Harry, and they should have had a long time together. Oh, I know--just sparing the boy's tender feelings. -Nora suggests taking some deep thoughts about the spirit of canon as opposed to all the possibilities 'possibly' open by the fine details From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Dec 4 22:45:43 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 17:45:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who does Snape really hate?/Abuse/punishment References: Message-ID: <013c01c5f924$80ae1b80$e566400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 144092 Wan Norjihan: > In the first five books, it looks like Snape likes Draco very > much, or is it really? Because in the HBP their relationship > seems to deviate, Draco no longer try to get Snape's attention > because he doubt Snape's true identity and loyalty. And Snape > no longer treats Draco the way he used to, is it because Lucius > is now in Azkaban, so he need not to pretend anymore. Magpie: I've never seen this pretending on Snape's side, and I definitely don't see it in HBP, when he's trying to protect Draco. Harry is angry at Dumbledore in OotP, but that doesn't mean their relationship is a lie. Draco in HBP is rebelling against his father figure and trying to be the man--he seems unable to bring himself to challenge Lucius, but Snape is the next best thing. Yet Snape is still trying to protect him, even as Draco is angry about it because he sees (somewhat correctly) that people are trying to keep him a child. When Harry overhears their conversation he's shocked at the way Draco is speaking to Snape, not vice versa--Snape doesn't sound like he particularly dislikes Draco in that scene to me. He sounds like an adult impatient with the kid he's having to deal with, but his overall concern seems to be concern for him and what he's doing rather than a personal dislike. I mean, we don't know much of the personal Draco/Snape relationship, but it seems close to me--the kind of close that makes it dramatic given what's happening. mcjuels: Am I the only muggle on this list to think that it is no big deal when students get injured? Magpie: As someone arguing (ad nauseum!) in the Hagrid/hippogriff thing, I've never said it was a big deal when students get injured most of the time, this case included. I said I thought part of the idea with Hagrid's first day was that he made mistakes which contributed to the class ending with the students wandering back to the castle shaken while he went white in the face and brought a screaming Malfoy to the infirmary. Rowling has said the kids "see through" teachers who abuse their power like Snape, and she's right. I think with Hagrid she's showing the opposite extreme by having a teacher who shows cracks in a different way. Malfoy's injury is not the point at all--it's far from the most serious we've seen. Malfoy himself gets far worse in HBP and we don't hear a peep out of him about it, iirc. Sometimes injuries are more significant, however. Montague's, Ron's and Katie's, for instance. (And Draco's in the Sectumsempra scene too--but not in the sense that any of the people who directly caused these injuries are going to be brought up on charges or expelled within the story.) lagattalucianese: > As for Snape, as you so aptly pointed out, the analogy really is to rape. > Sirius' penchant isn't for boys per se, or for sex per se (though he > obviously isn't adverse to a little whoopsie-do on the side if one is > offered), it's for power and control. He just can't > stand it that this weedy little half-blood kid stands up to him, and like > your average fifteen-year-old male, he uses sex as a bludgeon to get back > at him and humiliate him. Magpie: But what in canon links Sirius to sex at all? The only connection between Sirius and sex at all is Harry's noticing that he's handsome and that girls look at him while he's unaware of them, that I remember. Isn't it James who decides to flip Snape upsidedown? I thought that scene was mostly supposed to be reminiscent of the QWC where the DEs flipped the Muggles into the air. There is a sexual aspect to the idea, of course, because Snape is being exposed and humiliated. But I don't think the idea is that Snape is an innocent being defiled, especially since he's the one who seems to have invented the spell. Presumably he was humiliating people too--and he probably taught it to the DEs as well. It's just that the added wrinkle that Sirius was actually a sexual predator to the point of raping a boy in his class (surprised Sirius made it through school with all his bits intact if that was the case, given Sectumsempra) and might prey on children is a big claim that requires some concrete evidence. I, too, don't remember Molly escorting the kids everywhere in Grimmauld Place, and as to the idea of worrying that something might jump out at them if she didn't well...in that house, something certainly might have! I suspect her main job there was to cook. Sydney: I think that's JKR's great wisdom, that you CAN'T get your own back from another person; you have to find your peace inside yourself, independent of what's happening in the soul of the person you have a conflict with. Magpie: Yes. If Snape murdered Dumbledore, he's not getting away with that. If Harry expects retribution for Snape humiliating him in class, I don't think he's going to get that. If he feels he needs it, it seems like he kind of is Snape. And that really does seem to be Snape's penance. The man could have been happy for years--his nemeses are either dead or in jail, and instead he ressurects James in the form of Harry so he can still be furious and feel wronged. Sydney: Sydney, who think the Durselys ARE child-abusers and would have appreciated D-dore mentioning something about it, like, 10 years ago, but thought 'too little, too late' when he got on his high-horse in HBP. Magpie: I admit I'm not really seing the retribution they supposedly got either. The guy who's arranged years of actual abuse and done nothing about it shows up one night, does some muggle-baiting to scare the Dursleys, makes a speech about how it was really quite terrible they weren't better guardians and makes a cryptic remark about how they weren't great parents to their own kid either, leaving them confused. When I imagine the end of that scene from their pov I just think Vernon locked the door and they all looked at each other and said, "That was weird. Were we right about Wizards or what? Let's all have tea." -m From jelly92784 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 4 23:43:13 2005 From: jelly92784 at yahoo.com (jelly92784) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 23:43:13 -0000 Subject: A Horcrux in each book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144093 Laura: And, to follow up on my own post, it could explain why James had to die and Lily didn't when Voldemort tried to kill Harry. Both James and Voldemort were Head Boys. Perhaps there is only one Griffindor Head Boy badge and it gets passed down from year to year if a Griffindor is Head Boy. It would therefore have special meaning to Voldemort, and by using James' death to make it into a Horcrux, it would have something from Griffindor in it. Since the Horcrux was already made before Voldemort attacked Harry, Lily would not have had to die. It could have been just lying around in the rubble when wizards came to clean up after the disaster and have been reclaimed then. A bit convoluted, but still might work. Janelle: I got all ready to write and say that this wouldn't work because James had obviously left hogwarts by the time that he died and there would have been several new headboys since then who needed the badge. Then I reread your post and realized that you had said maybe there is only one *gryffindor* headboy badge. This is an interesting idea. We would have to assume that there had not been a gryffindor head boy since James, something that we have no real way of knowing unless we ask Jo herself. We would also have to assume that the previous headboy would hold onto the badge until another gryffindor was chosen, instead of leaving it in the care of the head of house or headmaster. This is a lot of guess work for your theory, however it does fit well with the idea of a horcrux in the beginning of each book. i actually really like this theory, and i'll have to take a look at the beginning of book one and three to see what other possibilities there are. good work to everyone who's helped out with this theory- i can't wait to find out if its true! From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Dec 5 00:02:12 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 00:02:12 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone In-Reply-To: <00fb01c5f8f6$db7c0af0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144094 > Miles: >I do not like "Lehrst?cke", not communist ones and not moral > ones. Even if we all had the same moral standards (which seems to be > unlikely), I would rate literature of that kind as boring. I'm a grownup, I > do not like being taught lessons ;). Oh, there are didactics-free children's books and most boring, but *improving* tales for adults. And, as the Duchess from "Alice's adventures in Wonderland" was wont to say, `Everything's got a moral, if only you can find it.' But I strongly doubt that Rowling had poetic or "karmic" retributions in mind when she set about finding one for her books. To quote Carroll again, 'Tis so,' said the Duchess: `and the moral of that is--"Oh, 'tis love, 'tis love, that makes the world go round!"' a_svirn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 5 01:00:05 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 01:00:05 -0000 Subject: Snape's punishment a "moral" issue? Was "Two Scenes..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144095 Colebiancardi: > And that is how I view the relationship of Harry to Snape in book 7. > Currently, in Harry's eyes, Snape doesn't deserve anything but to be > killed. If Snape is DDM!Snape and Harry recognizes this, Harry will > *forgive* Snape of his horrible ways as a teacher - not because Snape > deserves it, but because Snape *needs* it. And Harry will be the > bigger person for it. Harry doesn't need Snape to apologize for > anything, because Harry & Snape both know what Snape is. Harry can > change; alas, I don't think Snape can. But perhaps with giving Snape > what he *needs*, not what he *deserves*, perhaps Snape can then move > on with his life - if he survives book 7, of course. Alla: Strangely enough, it seems, I am not that far from you on "forgiveness" issue in some aspects. If well written, I do NOT mind Harry forgiving Snape. True, forgiveness is not something you deserve, it is a gift from the person you wronged, BUT to demand EVERYTHING from Harry and NOTHING from Snape to me and this is my opinion only would amount to letting Snape off the hook. Makes any sense? You are saying that forgiveness is something that Snape needs, OK, fair enough, but I don't see even that in the text. If I will see that Snape needs, wants forgiveness from Harry, I may even be happy with that. Anything to show me that Harry's gift to Snape will not go in vain, you know. People keep saying that Snape is his own punishment, that he is not happy person. etc. Well, maybe not, but for all I know he ENJOYS abusing Harry and Neville and is quite happy doing that. Please be assured that my views on RL forgiveness are quite close to yours, really, but when I read the story about the character, which IS my absolutely favorite character and who suffered a great deal IMO only from Snape, I do not want Snape to go unpunished, I just don't. It is how I feel as a reader, as simple as that. Again, IF Snape is DD!M ( which I don't believe at all, but I had been wrong in my predictions many times, you know :-)), I would even be happy with seeing some remorse from him and then seeing Harry forgiving him, but I would be disappointed if Harry gets nothing in return. > Pippin: > > Slughorn raised a pudgy hand and pressed his shaking fingers to > his mouth; he looked for a moment like an enormously overgrown > baby. > "I am not proud..." he whispered through his fingers. "I am ashamed > of what -- of what that memory shows....I think I may have done > great damage that day..." > "You'd cancel out anything you did by giving me the memory," > said Harry. "It would be a very brave and noble thing to do." > --HBP ch 22 > > Slughorn contributed to the deaths of six people, all of whom > might be alive if he hadn't told Voldemort about Horcruxes, plus > everyone who's been killed by the renascent Voldemort. Unlike > Snape, Sluggy kept silent about it for, what, fifty years or so? > How many people could have been saved if he'd gone to Dumbledore, > like Snape did? At least Snape tried to make up for what he'd done, > even if he didn't entirely succeed -- even if he didn't manage to > save the Potters, the information he brought back as a spy surely > saved other lives, if you believe DDM!Snape, of course. Alla: This is a WONDERFUL example, Pippin as to how Snape's redemption could be done. Don't you see? Slughorn says one KEY word (IMO anyway) - I am ASHAMED of what this memory shows. JKR does NOT have to write long pages of Snape apologizing to Harry. ONE sentence - "I am sorry, I am ashamed of what I did" and that would really be enough, anything else we could imagine easily. Right now, for all the talk of Snape's remorse, I don't see any in the text, you know? Yeah, Dumbledore says it was Snape's remorse, but I want to hear it from him. Sydney: > And could we please stop labeling Snape's treatment of the students > with the quasi-legal "child abuse" as thought that's an obvious > thing that any non-evil person would agree with? Alla: I am very sorry, but no I cannot stop labeling Snape's actions as such. I am not asking anybody to agree with me, but I am convinced that that is what Snape does - abuse Harry and Neville. I am always extra clear to state that this is only my opinion, but that IS my opinion and so far canon did nothing to convince me to the opposite. Steve makes the distinction "ABUSE" v "abuse", I think. I can agree that Snape's is in the small letters, but I cannot call it any other word. I am sorry again. Besides, even though I don't need JKR's interviews to form this opinion, she calls him a teacher who abuses his power. I think that my opinion has at least some support. Again, just my opinion, Alla From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Mon Dec 5 01:14:02 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 01:14:02 -0000 Subject: Snape's punishment a "moral" issue? Was "Two Scenes..." In-Reply-To: <016b01c5f913$bc0e0f20$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144096 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > > colebiancardi wrote: > > I would like to add that people who seem not to deserve redeemption or > > forgiveness are the ones who should get it. Forgiveness & compassion > > given to those people who *deserve* is the easy way out. It takes a > > much bigger person to give that compassion, forgiveness, love, respect > > (whatever one wishes to call it) to those that don't "seem" to deserve > > it and this is what I believe Harry will do in book 7. > > Very good posting, I fully agree. > Just keep in mind what Rowling stated about Christian belief as a major key > to what will happen in book 7. If we connect this with the repeated > statements of Dumbledore, that love is the power Harry has to overcome > Voldemort, then Forgiveness is my solution for this equation. > It says "As we forgive those who trespass against us", there's nothing about > apologies from those, or revenge and retribution. > Ok, no theological discussion here. But I think that Harry could gain power, > if he will forgive people who had done wrong, wrong to him and others. > > Miles > That's why I like the idea of Neville being the one to save Snape's life. It would demonstrate either that Neville is returning good for evil (if you are in the Snape-should-be-fired camp) or that Neville has lived up to his potential to the point that he can return good for good (if you are in the Snape-brings-out-the-best-in-his-students camp). --La Gatta From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Mon Dec 5 01:53:06 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 01:53:06 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144097 > > But again, I want to ask you directly: are you accusing Dumbledore of > knowing and not doing anything? You argue below that Molly knows and > that's why she acts the way that she does. > > I'm talking about cold hard canon plausibility here, because if you > want to connect this to the books and not simply have it floating in > the realm of fairly distasteful fanfiction, there are a lot of > hurdles to jump. > This is one of those embarrassing gray areas. I can't prove it, but I think Dumbledore *didn't* know about the Marauders/Snape conflict initially, or perhaps he did know and felt that as long as the showdowns didn't go beyond a certain point it was better to let the kids sort things out for themselves that to be overprotective. Somewhere about the time of the Prank and Sirius almost getting Snape killed, I think Dumbledore or somebody must have intervened (or maybe the kids themselves did sort it out, James versus Sirius e.g.) because after the Shrieking-Shack incident, I don't think we hear any more about it. I certainly hope that there was some sort of resolution. You can make a case for the Prank being an innocent stunt (sort of), but allowing one student to get another student into a situation that will very likely get him killed is *way* out of line, as I *hope* even Sirius' staunch defenders will agree. > > But again, we find out in book 6 that Snape is indeed the creator of > the implement that he's become the victim of; we also find out that > everyone has used it. I'm leery of constructing this into > Marauders=always the bullies/Snape=always the victim. We do have > Sirius' statement that Snape gave as good as he got, which Lupin > doesn't challenge. And again, if you want to dismiss *everything* > that Sirius says as biased, you're going to have to be evenhanded and > cut out Snape's take on events as well. That finally leaves us with > Dumbledore, who seems not to have thought that Sirius deserved > expulsion, for whatever reason. Doesn't fit with the nasty deeply > sick deviant picture you're trying to extrapolate here. > I think the reason Sirius is so nasty to Snape is precisely *because* Snape fights back. Even in the Prank scene, with three against one, Snape goes down fighting. See remarks by other listies, and my own most recent post, about what happens to kids who stand up for themselves against bullying control freaks. Much as we'd like to believe that they win their abusers' respect, the most usual outcome is that they just make their situation worse. As for Dumbledore, I think he should have intervened, and I hope that at some point he did, because I'd hate to think Hogwarts is no better than that high school I taught at, where the only recourse the victim's parents had against a gang of socially favored bullies was to remove her to a private girls' school. Let me add in passing that I personally don't think Snape was ever a Death Eater in sober reality. I think he's been DDM from the get-go, and went where Dumbledore sent him. But if he was a Death Eater in his misspent youth, I understand exactly where he was coming from, just as, on the basis of what I've observed of the behavior of our gilded youth, I can understand where the kids who shot up Columbine were coming from. > > Or it can be her generally Molly-ish territorial instincts regarding > Harry, which lead to her probably not intentionally so but rather > spiteful comments about Sirius as guardian. Dumbledore, again, > reinforces that Sirius is a genuine and profound loss to Harry, and > they should have had a long time together. Oh, I know--just sparing > the boy's tender feelings. > > -Nora suggests taking some deep thoughts about the spirit of canon as > opposed to all the possibilities 'possibly' open by the fine details > Well, the problem as I see it is that the fine details are there, and you can argue about them till you're blue in the face, but they're still *there*, whereas the "spirit of canon" is pretty much dependent on how each individual chooses to interpret it. And that is *absolutely* all I am going to say on the subject. --La Gatta, who went to university teaching to get away from little creeps like Sirius Black, and is now going to go and look for some aspirin... From muellem at bc.edu Mon Dec 5 01:53:20 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 01:53:20 -0000 Subject: Snape's punishment a "moral" issue? Was "Two Scenes..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144098 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Colebiancardi: > > > And that is how I view the relationship of Harry to Snape in book > 7. > > Currently, in Harry's eyes, Snape doesn't deserve anything but to > be > > killed. If Snape is DDM!Snape and Harry recognizes this, Harry > will > > *forgive* Snape of his horrible ways as a teacher - not because > Snape > > deserves it, but because Snape *needs* it. And Harry will be the > > bigger person for it. Harry doesn't need Snape to apologize for > > anything, because Harry & Snape both know what Snape is. Harry can > > change; alas, I don't think Snape can. But perhaps with giving > Snape > > what he *needs*, not what he *deserves*, perhaps Snape can then > move > > on with his life - if he survives book 7, of course. > > > Alla: > > Strangely enough, it seems, I am not that far from you > on "forgiveness" issue in some aspects. If well written, I do NOT > mind Harry forgiving Snape. True, forgiveness is not something you > deserve, it is a gift from the person you wronged, BUT to demand > EVERYTHING from Harry and NOTHING from Snape to me and this is my > opinion only would amount to letting Snape off the hook. Makes any > sense? colebiancardi: but forgiveness does not need an apology or even a reconcilation of some sorts between the persons. I am not demanding anything from Harry nor Snape. I got into this conversation because people were actually wanting Snape to be humiliated like Harry was - to be called on his actions. The forgiveness angle does not make Harry a lesser person, in fact, it makes him a hero. It allows Harry to control the situation, not Snape. I brought this up as although I am a lasped Catholic, I do know the teachings of forgiveness and what inner peace it brings to the person doing the forgiving. Since JKR is a Christian and states some tenent of her faith will play a part in the final book, I think this is the route to go. Humiliation is not part of the Christian faith. Forgiveness is. Harry doesn't need to tell Snape what a SOB Snape is, Snape already knows this and Harry knows this. > > You are saying that forgiveness is something that Snape needs, OK, > fair enough, but I don't see even that in the text. If I will see > that Snape needs, wants forgiveness from Harry, I may even be happy > with that. > > Anything to show me that Harry's gift to Snape will not go in vain, > you know. colebiancardi: but that is not the idea behind forgiveness. From my searching on forgiveness, I found this: Forgiveness can still occur even when the offending person continues the hurtful behavior. If we choose to allow that person to remain a part of our life (as we often do with family) or if we don't have a choice (as is often the case in work situations), forgiveness can wipe away the negative emotional effects of the past even when "the past" was only 15 minutes ago. Harry's gift to Snape is actually a gift to Harry in the long run. Snape may never show or ask for forgiveness - to him, that is a sign of weakness. The need to be forgiven does not need to come from the offender - it comes from the stronger person, which I believe we can agree on is Harry. To me, that would demostrate a better *moral* tale than having Snape beg for forgiveness or be called on his past behavior. > > Please be assured that my views on RL forgiveness are quite close to > yours, really, but when I read the story about the character, which > IS my absolutely favorite character and who suffered a great deal > IMO only from Snape, I do not want Snape to go unpunished, I just > don't. It is how I feel as a reader, as simple as that. colebiancardi: but what about Harry? It is up to him. Forgiveness is not about punishment. As I stated in an earlier post, I came from an abusive home(my father). He died before I actually had the insight and wisdom to forgive him. I never would want him punished for any deeds he did towards me - I have forgiven him. Although I wish I could have done this when he was alive, it does not require me to have that face to face reconcilation to forgive and let go of the past. My father never apologized to me for his deeds, yet that is ok with me. We are both, IMHO, in a better place due to the forgiveness that I and my siblings have given him. > > Again, IF Snape is DD!M ( which I don't believe at all, but I had > been wrong in my predictions many times, you know :-)), I would even > be happy with seeing some remorse from him and then seeing Harry > forgiving him, but I would be disappointed if Harry gets nothing in > return. colebiancardi: again, that is missing the whole point of forgiveness. Harry will get something back in return - his sense of self and control over his own fate. Harry will be able to heal his mind, spirit and body. > > Alla: > > This is a WONDERFUL example, Pippin as to how Snape's redemption > could be done. > > Don't you see? Slughorn says one KEY word (IMO anyway) - I am > ASHAMED of what this memory shows. colebiancardi: but that would be out of Snape's character. However, it would be nice for Snape to grow as a person, but I feel he will be dead before this type of conversation happens. What Slughorn stated was in his character. > Right now, for all the talk of Snape's remorse, I don't see any in > the text, you know? > > Yeah, Dumbledore says it was Snape's remorse, but I want to hear it > from him. colebiancardi: perhaps a Pensive memory of Snape talking about his remorse with DD back in the early days will be revealed. I doubt that Snape will ever tell Harry something this personal - I can see Snape telling Dumbledore, but Harry? > Alla: > > I am very sorry, but no I cannot stop labeling Snape's actions as > such. I am not asking anybody to agree with me, but I am convinced > that that is what Snape does - abuse Harry and Neville. I am always > extra clear to state that this is only my opinion, but that IS my > opinion and so far canon did nothing to convince me to the opposite. > > Steve makes the distinction "ABUSE" v "abuse", I think. I can agree > that Snape's is in the small letters, but I cannot call it any > other word. I am sorry again. colebiancardi: I posted way back up the thread about this *child abuse*. I won't repost it here, just the link. But the general idea was since when is being sarcastic child abuse? We aren't talking about fragile flowers here (except for Neville) - these are pre-teens and teens. full post here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144060 colebiancardi....third post for zee day. packing it in and lurking till tomorrow. From juli17 at aol.com Mon Dec 5 01:56:24 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 20:56:24 EST Subject: Minerva NOT DD's Confidant? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144099 Lupinlore wrote: > But Minerva ISN'T DD's confidant. Neither is Snape. JKR has flat > said that DD HAS no confidant. Leslie wrote: No, not on everything. I should have confined that explicitly to educational matters, as she is deputy headmistress, but as we were discussing Snape as teacher and McG's reaction to it, I merely let that be implied. I would think that the two of them discuss, at length, the various teachers and teacherly approaches. Julie: Focusing on JKR's words for a minute, I think she is telling us that DD has no confidante in the manner of a very close best friend, or a wife. The kind of confidante you share *everything* with--your hopes, dreams, fears, doubts, etc. And I agree that DD has no one like this in his life, on whom he can unload various emotional issues and concerns, no matter how personal. That's because he has no real equal, no person who isn't in some sort of official subservient position to him, whether as a teacher, a student, or an underling in the Order (since Dumbledore is essentially the head man here too). But. But it doesn't mean he never CONFIDES anything to another person. I feel pretty sure he shares his various concerns about Hogwarts and teaching matters with Minerva, as Leslie says above. They probably have at length discussions and debates on what should be done about those matters. DD no doubt imparts information to her that he doesn't share with other teachers, or with other people in his life. And when it comes to the war against Voldemort, protecting the school, and coming up with ways to bring about the eventual defeat of Voldemort and his Death Eaters, the books--especially HBP--imply that Snape is the prime person with whom DD confides in and shares information. This makes sense, as Snape has an inside track, with an understanding of Voldemort and the DEs that no one else is likely to possess. And it is equally clear DD trusts Snape (as he tells us repeatedly), and considers him a critically important ally and friend, certainly up to the final Tower incident (and beyond, if you believe in DDM!Snape). Since preparing for and waging war, protecting the students, and, yes, preparing young Harry Potter for his eventual and unavoidable confrontation with Voldemort, is the main focus of both Dumbledore and Snape, and is essentially the status quo throughout all of the HP books--I think Snape is the closest thing Dumbledore has to a true confidante. *Not* a confidante in the truest sense, mind you, but the closest thing amongst Dumbledore's friends and allies. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nrenka at yahoo.com Mon Dec 5 02:12:50 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 02:12:50 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid and Animals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144100 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lagattalucianese" wrote: > Somewhere about the time of the Prank and Sirius almost getting > Snape killed, I think Dumbledore or somebody must have intervened > (or maybe the kids themselves did sort it out, James versus Sirius > e.g.) because after the Shrieking-Shack incident, I don't think we > hear any more about it. I certainly hope that there was some sort > of resolution. You can make a case for the Prank being an innocent > stunt (sort of), but allowing one student to get another student > into a situation that will very likely get him killed is *way* out > of line, as I *hope* even Sirius' staunch defenders will agree. But then why don't we have Sirius getting expelled for it? Dumbledore *has* to find out about it, Dumbledore has to know a good deal about the issues at stake, or why else would he say "My memory is as good as it ever was" in response to Snape's "He tried to kill ME, Headmaster". That's the line of someone who knows what's going on, and made a choice not to expel. Certainly someone who didn't agree with Snape's own evaluation of the situation. And this *IS* a someone with Legilimency skills, who can tell when he's being lied to. Dumbledore uses it subtly on Harry (see CoS); I assume he wasn't above using it on a young Black. Is it so hard to trust in Dumbledore, particularly as you believe him wholeheartedly about Snape? In addition, all of our information about the so-called Prank is incredibly messy. I don't even like to argue about it at all because I can't make it make sense whatsoever, just in terms of mechanics. > I think the reason Sirius is so nasty to Snape is precisely > *because* Snape fights back. You have to admit that in general, we have an unclear picture of instigation. We get the Marauders as instigating in one scene, but we have reports which indicate things flowed the other ways. We have an unaccounted for 'gang of Slytherins' with some genuinely nasty characters. We have hints of Regulus Black and something. It's more than just "Sirius and James beat on a victim who fights back", I think. > As for Dumbledore, I think he should have intervened, and I hope > that at some point he did, because I'd hate to think Hogwarts is no > better than that high school I taught at, where the only recourse > the victim's parents had against a gang of socially favored bullies > was to remove her to a private girls' school. I wonder about trying to map our jock/nerd dichotomies onto Hogwarts, where everyone is packing magical ability and the ability to retaliate. I have to say that I've never gotten the "worship the Quidditch jocks" vibe out of the books, but maybe that's just me. It is canonical, I grant you, that Dumbledore doesn't like to intervene, and likes to let people work things out. But he does generally know what's going on, and thus it's a reasoned choice on his part not to. > Let me add in passing that I personally don't think Snape was ever > a Death Eater in sober reality. I think he's been DDM from the get- > go, and went where Dumbledore sent him. But if he was a Death Eater > in his misspent youth, I understand exactly where he was coming > from, just as, on the basis of what I've observed of the behavior > of our gilded youth, I can understand where the kids who shot up > Columbine were coming from. I can buy some variations of DDM!Snape, but the whole "Oh, Snape was never a DE"...that's thematically profoundly *lame*. DDM!Snape is supposed to be the model of someone who changes and holds firm to this change, right? This is a great effort for him and it makes him into someone better than he was. Where's the exemplar if he wasn't actually a DE to begin with? Where's the profound and meaningful change in character? I think there's an internet corrolary for comparing things to the mean kids in high school, but that may just be me. It's a dangerous comparison to make because the setup of society isn't the same. It's even quite an assumption that James and Sirius were given privileges that no one else was, the 'gilded youth'. > Well, the problem as I see it is that the fine details are there, > and you can argue about them till you're blue in the face, but > they're still *there*, whereas the "spirit of canon" is pretty much > dependent on how each individual chooses to interpret it. It is, but it isn't. We know that JKR's not writing a story where we get massive shades of grey in many areas, really. She's dimissive of any number of ideas about characters; she's not writing a story in which Dumbledore is manipulating everyone to some nefarious end; she's not writing a story in which Lucius Malfoy is actually a justified guy. She's writing a story where the morals get clouded, but the principles themselves remain pretty clear. It's not John LeCarre. > --La Gatta, who went to university teaching to get away from little > creeps like Sirius Black, and is now going to go and look for some > aspirin... -Nora went to university and found a bitter and unpleasant professor who liked to single out and bully students like Snape-the-teacher, but managed to avoid said person with art and skill, thanks to the ability to choose classes From schumar1999 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 5 02:13:57 2005 From: schumar1999 at yahoo.com (Marianne S.) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 02:13:57 -0000 Subject: Who does Snape really hate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144101 norjihan wrote: In the first five books, it looks like Snape likes Draco very much, or is it really? Because in the HBP their relationship seems to deviate, Draco no longer try to get Snape's attention because he doubt Snape's true identity and loyalty. And Snape no longer treats Draco the way he used to, is it because Lucius is now in Azkaban, so he need not to pretend anymore. Marianne S: I don't see that reason supported in the texts. I've lent my book out, but doesn't Draco say to Snape when Severus offers his assistance something to the effect of, "You just want to take all the credit, be the favorite, steal my glory!" ? I think that Draco actually does believe Snape is loyal to Voldemort (which is perhaps why Snape *had* to favor Draco all those years, whether or not he actually liked the kid). Snape is not treating Draco the way he used to, yes, but this is because of Draco's actions regarding the task and Snape's Unbreakable Vow, I believe, not because Lucius is in Azkaban. From agdisney at msn.com Mon Dec 5 01:44:10 2005 From: agdisney at msn.com (Andrea Grevera) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 20:44:10 -0500 Subject: Fw: Heir of Gryffindor (Re: Horcrux in each book?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144102 > Allie: > Don't know why, but when you said "one suviving descendant" my > brain said NEVILLE LONGBOTTOM. The unlikeliest of unlikely but > who knows! I'm still waiting for Neville's shining moment - he > made so much progress in OoTP and then couldn't hit a single death > eater with a curse when it counted! Andie: Wouldn't Neville's parents come before him. Granted they are "supposedly" not sane enough to be of any help but they are alive which would not make Neville the "one surviving descendant". That is not to say that the Longbottoms are not Gryffindor's descendants. Also, what about his grandmother? She is is father's mother, so again Neville isn't the last. Andie From pandm at Ameritech.Net Mon Dec 5 01:52:04 2005 From: pandm at Ameritech.Net (Margaret) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 01:52:04 -0000 Subject: Lily's sacrifice Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144103 I wonder if a sacrifice of a mother (Lily) willingly dying for her child would be such an extraordinary event that would vanquish a dark lord and cause her son to repel a killing curse? Quite possible, and maybe there is nothing more to the story. I tend to think that many/most mothers would be willing to give up their lives for their children. Many fathers would as well.......... I agree that it is noble, but I think it would be rather common if the right set of circumstances were in play. Maybe it was something more. Perhaps Lily had sympathy/ compassion for the boy who became Voldermort even at the moment he was in front of her ready to kill little Harry. We know already that she was able to have compassion for individuals that others had a hard time accepting/ caring for such as Snape. Now that would be extraordinary! He was a known killer, everyone seemed to fear him, and he was there to kill her son .. It would also explain why there is not so much emphasis on Harry's father imbuing protective magic upon Harry. I don't have the text in front of me, but I remember it said he died defending Lily and Harry. Very noble and brave, but I bet he wanted to inflict some serious pain on LV! Although reformed from his younger days, I see James as having some righteous anger at the person and situation presenting itself. If Harry's mom and dad both died defending him, why does Lily get more props and why is she the one who imbues the magical protection upon Harry? Because she is the one standing between him and LV? I have a hard time believing that it was a coincidence of location. (I can't keep up with the posts, but I enjoy what I do get to read..... Peace & Love) Margaret From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Mon Dec 5 03:28:09 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 19:28:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily's sacrifice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051205032809.18631.qmail@web53113.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144104 Margaret wrote: If Harry's mom and dad both died defending him, why does Lily get more props and why is she the one who imbues the magical protection upon Harry? Because she is the one standing between him and LV? I havea hard time believing that it was a coincidence of location. Juli now: The way I see it, it is because Lily was given a choice. Voldemort told her to step aside, he was willing to spare her life, but she wouldn't let her son die while she could live. She literally gaver her life for Harry's. Many people believe that Lily knew the ancient magic she was going to set upon Harry to protect him, and that's why she made Voldemort kill her. I don't believe in this myself. I think if Lily knew the protection she could leave Harry and she died on purpose then there'd be no such protection. IMO Juli Aol: jlnbtr Yahoo: jlnbtr --------------------------------- Yahoo! Personals Skip the bars and set-ups and start using Yahoo! Personals for free [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Mon Dec 5 03:37:03 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 22:37:03 EST Subject: Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) Message-ID: <199.4c5f1912.30c50fdf@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144105 > Julie: > These two scenes aren't karmic retribution, they are scenes of abject > humiliation. In the first scene Snape is not genuinely apologizing or > remorseful for his actions, and in neither scene is there any > indication that Snape has grown beyond his prejudices and grudges and > come to understand himself or those around him better (which is what > Dumbledore wants to see, and why he won't *force* Snape to > change/apologize/make amends). > > Lupinlore: Ah, but karmic retribution is NOT the same as personal growth. Let us look at the situation with Lockheart. He ends up with his mind wiped, as he had done to so many others, and confined to a mental institution - - as one suspects many of his victims have been. Now, does that mean he has undergone personal growth? Absolutely not. It merely indicates that the punishment has fit the crime in a particularly fitting and satisfying way. That is the meaning of karmic retribution. Now, Snape's sins involve public and crushing humiliation of his students. Therefore, appropriate retribution for Snape would be public humiliation. What goes around comes around, etc. Julie: I don't think your scenes are really karmic retribution either, because that usually comes the way of an unexpected comeuppance, not something as direct as McGonagall telling Snape how abusive he was to Harry. Thus the whole "karmic" thing, getting back from fate/ Cosmos/whatever what you've put in. Karmic retribution would be Snape going into a situation (unrelated to Hogwarts) where he is an underling and is treated with verbal abuse and humiliation and has to take it. Since this is Harry's story, that's not likely to happen. Lupinlore: Now, poetic justice CAN lead to personal growth. Perhaps we will see that with regard to the Dursleys. The karmic justice dished out by Dumbledore may, in the seventh book, lead to some movement, although JKR has seemed to discount that in terms of Vernon and Petunia. I have no objection at all to personal growth from Snape, but the needs of poetic justice MUST be met, if JKR can be said to have dealt with the incredibly important moral issue of child abuse and Snape's reprehensible behavior, not to mention Dumbledore's reprehensible policies in allowing it. But the problem is I just don't see it. I really can't see any scenario in which growth on Snape's part would be believable. He has had sixteen years to nurse his grudges. Nothing that has happened since Harry came to Hogwarts, including finding out he was wrong about Sirius being a DE and that he was wrong about Harry's childhood, has moved him as much as a centimeter. I agree that genuine growth and a genuine, heartfelt apology on his part would be best -- oh yes, I absolutely agree with that. But what on Earth could happen after all this time that would make such a change believable? Many fans claimed, on the basis of the most slender evidence, that such a change had begun at the end of OOTP. Well, HBP put the old kabosh on THAT. What could possibly happen to cause a change that would not be a MUCH bigger deus ex machina/non-sequitur than something like the scenes I've proposed (and by the way, I agree that they would each be something of a non- sequitur, but no worse than the third chapter of HBP -- face it, JKR just ain't that much for consistency and coherence)? Julie: I think we'll have to agree to disagree, because while I see Snape's behavior as reprehensible, I don't see is as flat out child abuse as you do, nor do I see any horrible damage Snape has left on Harry or Neville. I don't see it as any worse than legions of teacher did with canes and words (Catholic nuns among them) throughout the recorded history of teaching. (And, verbally, at least, it still happens today.) Snape is wrong, Snape is not a *good* teacher in the best sense, but he's not criminal, and he doesn't even approach a true sadist or child abuser when it comes to his treatment of children, neither in quality or in quantity. Oh, and I don't agree about HBP. We still don't know enough about Snape's true allegiance to know whether Snape has changed at all internally. He hides his true feelings and his true intentions, and what he doesn't hide he's as likely to lie about as tell the truth (and that is why the Spinner's End chapter contains not a shred of real evidence of Snape's true character either). Lupinlore: So, in summary, I agree totally with your main point. What I have proposed is a non-sequitur that doesn't make that much sense when put against some of the rest of the plot. I don't think these scenes are any worse in terms of inconsistancy than many we have in canon, but oh well. It would be by far for the best for Snape to experience internal growth and offer apologies out of his own expanded understanding -- if that could be accomplished in any way that wouldn't involve a much bigger non-sequitur or Deus Ex Machina than any of the scenarios I was toying with. But, if you have any scenarios you think COULD accomplish internal growth and voluntary apology from Snape WITHOUT such a large wrench to the plot, or without using hand-waving and magic bullets, I, for one, would love to hear them! Julie: Actually, I think Pippin accomplished that for me! I'd much rather see a real confrontation between Harry and Snape, with both of them gaining a truer understanding of the other, and both of them recognizing how they've sorely misjudged the other (I'm assuming DDM!Snape here). If Harry is the one to see the truth first, which he should since he's our hero, and Snape with his decades-long grudges needs a good head- butting to admit his errors, then I'll applaud, because *that* fits the characters. After all, there is a reason why Harry, despite the many tragedies he's endured, is able to enjoy happy, carefree moments, while Snape wouldn't know happy if it slapped him in the face. Harry ultimately likes himself, and Snape doesn't. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Dec 4 22:56:52 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 22:56:52 -0000 Subject: Snape's punishment a "moral" issue? Was "Two Scenes..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144106 Leslie wrote: > If Snape is on the side of good, it is the attitude of others > that will change towards him. It is Harry who will make the > first move, at least to recognize that he and Snape were always > on the same side, and that Snape has done more good in his own > way than Harry ever had. If this were to happen, I would use the books for compost. JKR will have done nothing less than to make a hero out of a child abuser, which will be reprehensible beyond belief. Luckily, I don't think it will happen this way, at least not totally. Let us imagine for a moment what would lead to this. First of all, for it to occur at the end would mean that Severus would still be alive at the end of the story, which is highly unlikely. Okay, but where could such an interchange happen? What could possibly occur to cause such an opening? I think that is where we are back to the stuck part, aren't we? What could possibly occur, other than a pure non-sequitur or Deus Ex Machina, to bring such unlikely characters together without third party intervention? I don't think very much, which leads me to believe that, if such a thing occurs, a third party or third parties will be involved. And that sets up much more interesting possibilities. As we have seen with the case of the Dursleys, third parties make for a much more complex and dynamic interaction, and make it much easier for issues to be brought into the open and tensions to be diffused. That also has the possibility of much more appropriate confrontation with, and yes, humiliation of, Snape. Because make no mistake, he MUST pay for his child abuse. Lupinlore From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Dec 5 05:57:09 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 05:57:09 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144107 Pippin: > Sytherin was surely mistaken to think that blood was a guarantee of > virtue, but IMO, the other Founders were just as wrong to think it > was guaranteed by egalitarianism, or intelligence or even courage. > So to me it's elitism based on false criteria that has caused the > separation of the Houses, and they all need to lower their pride and > admit that there are few in any House who can be trusted with power. > I don't think JKR is saying that racism is worse than other kinds of > elitism based on false criteria. I think she used it because it's > very easy for us Western liberal types to recognize that it's false. > But I think the wizarding world is largely ignorant of the change in > Muggle thinking that happened post 1945, a year which Wizards seem > to remember mostly for the fall of Grindelwald, so it's unfair to > judge them as if they should know better. Jen: I've been thinking about this and decided no, I don't think JKR is saying all discrimination is equal in Potterverse. Besides hanging several major plot points on this issue, as well as providing motivation for many of the characters, she chose to tell a story which involves deeply-ingrained, centuries-old discrimination based on blood purity, and the horrors which have resulted from that view. Not only that, but she created many characters whose lives have been destroyed by discrimination based on race, rather than any other form of elitism. It's true that all the founders were wrong to think that their criteria was a guarantee of virtue, as Pippin stated upthread, but I don't think that makes all criteria equally wrong. We discussed upthread how Hufflepuff could be thrown in with the others since their virtue is egalitarianism. Well, here's the perfect example of when "I teach the lot and treat them just the same" goes astray. To say all types of discrimination are equally offensive to humanity is egalitarianism in its worst form. The Hufflepuff creed is no longer a virtue but a vice, because it allows people to feel complacent, to avert their eyes to heinous crimes, to say that ethnic cleansing is no worse than any other vice humanity engages in. Much as I'm all for unity and the symbolism of the four houses representing the four elements, something HAS gone deeply wrong in the WW, and Slytherin house has been more closely connected with the crimes than any of the other houses. I still don't think Salazar Slytherin *intended* that in the beginning, and believe we need to know more about the Founder's split to understand where it all began. I also don't believe for a mintue that all children sorted into Slytherin are examples of humanity at its worst, they are being victimized by this oppression as much as children from other houses. How it will all sort out I don't have a clue, but I do think a major theme is the horrific fallout from race discrimination, specifically. Jen, denying her Hufflepuff instincts and taking a position. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 5 07:38:02 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 07:38:02 -0000 Subject: The Marauder's Map In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144108 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "moloughneys" wrote: > > Kelleyaynn wrote: > > What about the fact that Moody borrows the map in GoF? I've > > gone back to the book and as far as I can find (or not), the > > map is never given back to Harry. Yet it shows up again in > > OotP without explanation. moloughneys: > In an interview with JK Rowling (sorry, can't rem which or where) > I think she says that Harry just went into Moody's office and got > it back. Geoff: It's on Jo Rowling's own website. Look under FAQ "About the books" and it is the 47th entry just after the three (SPOILER) lines. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Dec 5 11:59:04 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 11:59:04 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144109 > Jen: > Much as I'm all for unity and the symbolism of the four houses > representing the four elements, something HAS gone deeply wrong in the > WW, and Slytherin house has been more closely connected with the > crimes than any of the other houses. I still don't think Salazar > Slytherin *intended* that in the beginning, and believe we need to > know more about the Founder's split to understand where it all began. Potioncat: But we have JKR saying that all four houses are important; that not every Slytherin is bad; that there are DE children in other Houses. To use an example from my RL, (and a point that gets made here from time to time) while most KKK members came from the South, not every Southerner supported the KKK. So if the four Houses of Hogwarts had been determined by which section of the US the child came from, the Dixie House might produce more....oh, you get my point. Jen:> I also don't believe for a mintue that all children sorted into > Slytherin are examples of humanity at its worst, they are being > victimized by this oppression as much as children from other houses. Potioncat: I think we are taking JKR's plan a little too far, or rather working it out too deeply. Jen: > How it will all sort out I don't have a clue, but I do think a major > theme is the horrific fallout from race discrimination, specifically. Potioncat: Yes, I think racism is an issue in the book, and an important one. And a "me too" to whomever pointed out that DD berated Fudge about it. And, as I only like two Slytherins in the book (two known Slytherins) I don't know how I ended up supporting the House so often! From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Dec 5 09:30:46 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:30:46 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) In-Reply-To: <199.4c5f1912.30c50fdf@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144110 > Julie: > Actually, I think Pippin accomplished that for me! I'd much rather see > a real confrontation between Harry and Snape, with both of them gaining > a truer understanding of the other, and both of them recognizing how > they've sorely misjudged the other (I'm assuming DDM!Snape here). If > Harry is the one to see the truth first, which he should since he's our > hero, and Snape with his decades-long grudges needs a good head- > butting to admit his errors, then I'll applaud, because *that* fits the > characters. After all, there is a reason why Harry, despite the many > tragedies he's endured, is able to enjoy happy, carefree moments, > while Snape wouldn't know happy if it slapped him in the face. > Harry ultimately likes himself, and Snape doesn't. > A good head-butting is what it would take! Which is one reason I agree with Alla that third-party intervention is necessary, here. But there is a much deeper reason. Snape is clearly in the wrong, and clearly, IMO, a child abuser, over and out. This is not a matter of a personal disagreement between two parties, both of whom have somewhat valid positions. This is a case of one party being so much more in the wrong than the other as to make a mockery of any kind of balance or mutual communication. Such is the situation that pertained with the Dursleys, and such is the situation here. As with the Dursleys, third party intervention is needed, not really so much to enforce any kind of settlement, but to underscore the radical difference in the moral positions of the parties involved. I think if JKR goes as Pippin wants and makes this a meeting between two parties only, she will risk obscuring that radical difference in moral standing, and come very close, as she has once before in OOTP, to putting forth a defense and excuse for child abuse. Lupinlore From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Mon Dec 5 14:30:41 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:30:41 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051205143041.33687.qmail@web86202.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144111 --- lupinlore wrote: > I think > if JKR goes as Pippin wants and makes this a meeting > between two > parties only, she will risk obscuring that radical > difference in > moral standing, and come very close, as she has once > before in OOTP, > to putting forth a defense and excuse for child > abuse. Yes, yes, they must meet under the supervision of a trained social worker, otherwise it will be a bad fiction. :-) Just yesterday I've came across a story that seems very relevant to this discussion. Vladimir Nabokov, whom I consider to be the greatest writer of the 20th century (or possibly the greatest writer ever) received an attractive proposal from a respectable newspaper: write a 2000 words column on a topic "Does a writer have social responsibility", for a fee of 200 dollars. Allow me to reproduce his entire answer: "No. P.S. You owe me 10 cent". I don't expect you to agree with this point of view. Here is another one, that you might like better. That's from Miss Prism: "The good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That is what fiction means." We'll have to wait a couple of years to find out to which school of thought JRK belongs. Irene ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Dec 5 15:41:26 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:41:26 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144112 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > Jen: I've been thinking about this and decided no, I don't think JKR > is saying all discrimination is equal in Potterverse. Besides hanging > several major plot points on this issue, as well as providing > motivation for many of the characters, she chose to tell a story which > involves deeply-ingrained, centuries-old discrimination based on blood > purity, and the horrors which have resulted from that view. Not only > that, but she created many characters whose lives have been destroyed > by discrimination based on race, rather than any other form of > elitism. > Pippin: Wow, I didn't get that at all! Our main character is Harry, and he suffers from discrimination based on talent, not race--Petunia hates him because he's magical, not because he has tainted blood. Harry himself makes the point that he'd be perfectly welcome to join the Death Eaters if they weren't trying to do him in. Voldemort says himself, at the age of sixteen, that killing Muggles and Mudbloods doesn't matter to him anymore, what matters is finding out why Harry had the power to vanquish the greatest wizard in the world. It's all about power, no matter where it comes from. There *is* a long-standing belief in the wizarding world that purity of blood is a good thing, but the interesting thing is that it's not only not confined to Slytherin House, but in the mind of the average wizard on the street, it's not even associated with it. Ron says in CoS that he had no idea all this pureblood stuff started with Slytherin. That would argue that he's met plenty of pureblood fanatics who weren't Slytherins. And while Hermione leaps at once to the conclusion that Draco must be the Heir of Slytherin, most of the school is perfectly willing to believe that it's Harry. No reason in their minds that a Gryffindor can't be a racist fanatical murderer, then. The Sorting Hat never says that it was wise or good to want Muggleborns banished from the school, or indeed to wish to teach only purebloods. And Slytherin House must represent those of Slytherin's followers and pupils who were happier with his old philosophy than his new one, who *didn't* follow Slytherin when he left the school, right? Slughorn says he used to tell Lily that she should have been in his House, so it appears that Slytherin itself is less discriminatory than a lot of wizarding institutions with supposedly Slytherin attitudes. Tom tells Slughorn he'd be held back by his background at the Ministry--well, it obviously wasn't holding him back in Slytherin House. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that institutional racism in the WW predates Slytherin, and that for his time he was initially a progressive for founding a school to which Muggleborns could be admitted, even if he preferred not to have them in his House -- unless perhaps they were cheeky enough to ask to be let in. I keep wondering about Myrtle. Pippin From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Dec 5 16:04:50 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 16:04:50 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144113 > Potioncat: > But we have JKR saying that all four houses are important; that > not every Slytherin is bad; that there are DE children in other > Houses. To use an example from my RL, (and a point that gets made > here from time to time) while most KKK members came from the > South, not every Southerner supported the KKK. So if the four > Houses of Hogwarts had been determined by which section of the US > the child came from, the Dixie House might produce more....oh, you > get my point. Jen: JKR said it would be 'too brutal for words' if all the children in Slytherin were like Draco/Crabbe/Goyle etc. and I believe she's not pursuing that line. We also know that not all people sorted into Slytherin are pure-blood, and DE's come from all the houses. So the pure-blood prejudice which does exist in the WW is not solely a Slytherin house issue. There's a possibility we will get backstory about Grindelwald from Gryffindor, who split the WW back in his time for some reason other than blood prejudice, and we will have an 'aha' moment. Suddenly the story will be about how any characteristic tied with power can cause prejudice and dissension. We'll realize Slytherin tainted his house with the COS, and Voldemort is the current incarnation of that, but the other houses have been painted with the same brush across the centuries. Maybe the real story is about how generations of magical people were doomed to repeat history because no one listened to Binns or his equally boring predecessors! I really don't think the end message will be about Slytherin house or even blood prejudice, but how splitting off parts of ourselves or society provides fertile soul where evil can grow. Voldemort splitting off his compassion and love, then his heritage and name, and finally literally splitting off his soul would be the most extreme example. Then we see more incomplete forms of splitting like house-elf slavery or werewolf segregation in the community, or Harry splitting off his Slytherin characteristics in the individual. The houses will merely become another example of the theme. Potioncat: > I think we are taking JKR's plan a little too far, or rather > working it out too deeply. Jen: Erm, no, analyzing too deeply doesn't happen around here, does it? ;) > Potioncat: > Yes, I think racism is an issue in the book, and an important one. > And a "me too" to whomever pointed out that DD berated Fudge about > it. And, as I only like two Slytherins in the book (two known > Slytherins) I don't know how I ended up supporting the House so > often! Jen: It was Nora, for the record, as "we all like appreciation for our own hard work." I do, anyway. Not speaking for you, but I support Slytherin house because they are kids. No matter his flaws, Dumbledore refused to split off people and societal institutions with undesirable characteristics until such point they proved incapable of change. The story outlines the tragic results of a person who could *not* change for many reasons, but there have surely been other children, Slytherins included, who entered Hogwarts under Dumbledore's watch and decided to reject the pure-blood superiority philosophy. They just don't make as intersting of a story . Jen "Do you think we're going to have to go into the lake?" "Into it? Only if we are very unfortunate." From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Dec 5 16:23:07 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 16:23:07 -0000 Subject: Snape's punishment a "moral" issue? Was "Two Scenes..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144114 > Alla: > > This is a WONDERFUL example, Pippin as to how Snape's redemption > could be done. > > Don't you see? Slughorn says one KEY word (IMO anyway) - I am > ASHAMED of what this memory shows. > > JKR does NOT have to write long pages of Snape apologizing to Harry. > ONE sentence - "I am sorry, I am ashamed of what I did" and that > would really be enough, anything else we could imagine easily. > > Right now, for all the talk of Snape's remorse, I don't see any in > the text, you know? > > Yeah, Dumbledore says it was Snape's remorse, but I want to hear it > from him. Pippin: The thing for me is that Harry tells Slughorn that his shame will be cancelled out if he gives Harry the memory, or that's the way I read it. You can certainly argue that Harry had no right at all to say such a thing, but nevertheless he did. And I think that if Dumbledore held out such a pardon to Snape, it is Harry's duty, as Dumbledore's man to honor it. > Alla: > > > Besides, even though I don't need JKR's interviews to form this > opinion, she calls him a teacher who abuses his power. I think that > my opinion has at least some support. Pippin: I feel there's a big difference between 'abusing power' and 'child abuse.' Abusing power is just unethical -- it could be anything from Lupin toasting a Gryffindor victory right on up to the worst of Voldemort's atrocities. I am not for a moment saying that they are moral equivalents, and neither, I am sure, would JKR. JKR's context was that children could recognize the abuse of power when it was tied to cruelty. She illustrates this very well in the text, when Ron and Hermione differ violently about the situation of the House Elves. Ron can't see that there's anything wrong with House Elf slavery, because most elves aren't unhappy with the status quo. But Ron and Hermione unite at once in recognizing that Crouch abused his power by throwing Sirius into Azkaban without a trial, because they can see that it was cruel. JKR does it again in the scene with the Dursleys and DD. Dudley doesn't see that his parents have abused their power over him, because to him, they've never been cruel. However, 'child abuse' is a crime -- in fact in my state Lupinlore's second scenario would be illegal and Minerva, as headmistress, would be in big trouble if she sacked a suspected child abuser and didn't report him. To me, there's a trade-off when you make something a social responsibility. When you enlist the help of your fellow beings to enforce a standard of right and wrong, you are supposed to surrender the privelege, literally the 'private law' , of being sole arbiter. That Snape doesn't do that, that he takes House Points for doing things that offend only him, is one of chief ways he abuses his power. Pippin From nrenka at yahoo.com Mon Dec 5 17:14:12 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 17:14:12 -0000 Subject: Snape's punishment a "moral" issue? Was "Two Scenes..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144115 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > The thing for me is that Harry tells Slughorn that his shame will be > cancelled out if he gives Harry the memory, or that's the way I > read it. You can certainly argue that Harry had no right at all to > say such a thing, but nevertheless he did. And I think that if > Dumbledore held out such a pardon to Snape, it is Harry's duty, as > Dumbledore's man to honor it. There's a time differential here, it seems to me. Why is Slughorn's memory so essential? So that Dumbledore **and Harry** can pursue their program of figuring Voldemort out. Harry is, at this point, an active and informed participant in the program, so he does have rights regarding this situation. Snape is a little different, because Harry has not been informed as to reasons for why Dumbledore trusts Snape, and is thus not an active and equal partner in the enterprise. But Snape has offended against Harry (and Neville) too, thanks to his part in orphaning (or practically so) both of them. It gets even more complicated when you factor in the time issue: Snape did something wrong in the past, but he's also now done a questionable-at-best action in the present. And as Harry is Dumbledore's heir of sorts, it's now up to him to adjudicate in Dumbledore's death. The outcome depends on the circumstances of this death, of course. Something else comes to mind, although it may be a case of having watched too much Law and Order. I'm thinking of the cases where the DA makes a deal with someone odious (often out of a rock-and-hard- place necessity), but the judge ends up rejecting it, refusing to enforce the deal, on moral grounds. If Dumbledore were mistaken to issue the pardon...just one interesting possibility. > To me, there's a trade-off when you make something a social > responsibility. When you enlist the help of your fellow beings to > enforce a standard of right and wrong, you are supposed to > surrender the privelege, literally the 'private law', of being sole > arbiter. That Snape doesn't do that, that he takes House Points for > doing things that offend only him, is one of chief ways he abuses > his power. I wouldn't disagree with that, and it does seem thematic for Snape: I read his attempted circumvention of Dumbledore's authority at the end of PoA in much the same light. It's the "Black did something against ME that he never got properly punished for so I'm going to take care of it now" issue. I'd connect his treatment of Harry to much the same thing, the conviction of one's own right to be judge, especially when one is convinced that one sees what no one else has the eyes to. It's played out so far; I wonder what final point it leads us to? -Nora piles on the clothing to venture outdoors again From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Dec 5 18:08:44 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:08:44 -0000 Subject: Snape's punishment a "moral" issue? Was "Two Scenes..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144116 > > Pippin: > > The thing for me is that Harry tells Slughorn that his shame will be > > cancelled out if he gives Harry the memory, or that's the way I > > read it. You can certainly argue that Harry had no right at all to > > say such a thing, but nevertheless he did. And I think that if > > Dumbledore held out such a pardon to Snape, it is Harry's duty, as > > Dumbledore's man to honor it. Nora: > There's a time differential here, it seems to me. Why is Slughorn's > memory so essential? So that Dumbledore **and Harry** can pursue > their program of figuring Voldemort out. Harry is, at this point, an > active and informed participant in the program, so he does have > rights regarding this situation. > > Snape is a little different, because Harry has not been informed as > to reasons for why Dumbledore trusts Snape, and is thus not an active > and equal partner in the enterprise. Pippin: But what about the families of Hepzibah Smith, Hokey the House Elf, Cedric Diggory and all the others who have not been informed as to the reasons for Harry's enterprise? Who don't even know that it is thanks to Horace Slughorn's information that Voldemort murdered the people they loved? Would they all be as willing to pardon Slughorn as Harry is? What right does Harry have to speak for them? I'm really not very comfortable arguing that Harry does have that right, but nevertheless he assumed it, and he would be a hypocrite, IMO, and false to Dumbledore, to seek redress against Snape when Snape has already been pardoned, -- assuming that Snape was indeed pardoned, and fulfilled the conditions under which Dumbledore pardoned him. Dumbledore did not know the full extent of the harm that would come from Snape's actions when he pardoned Snape, but neither did Harry know anything about what Slughorn had done when he pardoned Slughorn. Pippin From nrenka at yahoo.com Mon Dec 5 18:34:34 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:34:34 -0000 Subject: Snape's punishment a "moral" issue? Was "Two Scenes..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144117 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > But what about the families of Hepzibah Smith, Hokey the House Elf, > Cedric Diggory and all the others who have not been informed as > to the reasons for Harry's enterprise? Who don't even know that it > is thanks to Horace Slughorn's information that Voldemort murdered > the people they loved? Would they all be as willing to pardon > Slughorn as Harry is? What right does Harry have to speak for them? Harry is the hero of the story and is the one who is going to rid the world of this particular menace once and for all? That works for me; Harry has taken this responsibility on and has a unique ability (so we're continually told) to pursue it. Because he's taken on the obligation and the responsibility, he has according abilities that the non-involved do not. It's hard not to think of this from a metaperspective (i.e., we know the books are called 'Harry Potter and the...'), but I'm not sure I want to exclude that in this case. I think the nature of Slughorn's responsibility is also somewhat different than that of Snape's, even given the "provided information" scenario. Has to do with the relationship to Voldemort being quite different, and the proximate results being far, far closer. > I'm really not very comfortable arguing that Harry does have that > right, but nevertheless he assumed it, and he would be a hypocrite, > IMO, and false to Dumbledore, to seek redress against Snape when > Snape has already been pardoned,-- assuming that Snape was indeed > pardoned, and fulfilled the conditions under which Dumbledore > pardoned him. Pre-HBP, I wouldn't have questioned that assumption. Now? Open season. Particularly given the nature of Snape's culpable actions and the knowledge that Voldemort was not utterly gone for good but could recur. His obligation seems stative rather than something you can address in the simple past as a one-time completed action. To be a little clearer: I think of it as an obligation to act in a certain way and to keep on acting accordingly, not a one-time "You do this and then it's all done" sort of thing. That *does* seem to be the nature of Snape and Dumbledore's relationship. No matter what the actual topic of the argument, Snape says "I don't want to do it *anymore*" (continuance of a state) and Dumbledore says "You agreed" (holding Snape to the continuance of these actions, denying completion). I think there's some kind of continuing obligation until the situation which Snape was a specific contributor to is finally resolved. -Nora thinks there of Katharine Kerr's Nevyn, who has to live until he finally fixes what he himself set awry...or maybe Kundry, too... From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Mon Dec 5 18:37:16 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:37:16 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) In-Reply-To: <20051205143041.33687.qmail@web86202.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144118 > > Yes, yes, they must meet under the supervision of a > trained social worker, otherwise it will be a bad > fiction. :-) > > Irene > Oh, by all means. It ain't resolution if it ain't got third-party arbitration. ;D O.K., I don't see why they have to do it in one knock-down-and-drag- out session, just sit right down and eat it right here with no air and no coffee, just somebody from Child Protection Services to make sure nobody says anything actionable. :P Seriously, how about something like this for at least getting the dialog between Snape and Harry rolling: Harry set the tray of dressings down on the bedside table. "Mr. Potter?" Harry looked down at Snape in surprise. He hadn't expected him to be awake. Not for a long time. "Yes, Professor?" Snape slid a hand out of the blankets. "Thank you. For saving my life back there." Harry took the thin, icy fingers. Only, he discovered, the fingers were warm. "Erm, you're welcome, sir. Only it wasn't me. It was Neville." "Neville Longbottom?" "Yeah. The Death Eaters must have thought you were dead, cause they went off and left you, and Neville just walked back in there and got you and carried you out in his arms. Hermione just about had kittens." At the mention of Hermione, Snape smiled softly. It improved his looks no end. "Guess I'm finding out who my friends are." "Guess you are, sir." Harry squeezed Snape's fingers gently. "Harry?" "Please tell Neville thank you." "Yes, sir." Harry grinned. "Can I kiss Hermione for you too?" Harry looked to see how Snape would react to that. But in that brief interval, Snape had drifted back into sleep. Harry tucked his hand back inside the blankets and tiptoed out of the infirmary. To me, that's the sort of stiff-necked, stuffy apology that Snape would make. With just a suggestion of thawing that Harry can take and run with. --La Gatta From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Dec 5 18:45:32 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:45:32 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144119 pippin wrote: > Slughorn says he used to tell Lily that she should have been in his House, > so it appears that Slytherin itself is less discriminatory than a lot of wizarding > institutions with supposedly Slytherin attitudes. Tom tells Slughorn he'd > be held back by his background at the Ministry--well, it obviously wasn't > holding him back in Slytherin House. Great post, Pippin! I just love this one point. I've believed for ever that there can be Muggleborns in Slytherin House, since it has never been stated otherwise. And here we have the Head of that House telling a Muggleborn that she ought to have been in his House. If it had never happened, or was impossilbe, why would he say this? From muellem at bc.edu Mon Dec 5 18:57:15 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:57:15 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144120 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lagattalucianese" wrote: > At the mention of Hermione, Snape smiled softly. It improved his > looks no end. > "Guess I'm finding out who my friends are." > "Guess you are, sir." Harry squeezed Snape's fingers gently. > "Harry?" > "Please tell Neville thank you." > "Yes, sir." Harry grinned. "Can I kiss Hermione for you too?" > Harry looked to see how Snape would react to that. But in that > brief interval, Snape had drifted back into sleep. Harry tucked > his hand back inside the blankets and tiptoed out of the infirmary. > > To me, that's the sort of stiff-necked, stuffy apology that Snape > would make. With just a suggestion of thawing that Harry can take and > run with. > > --La Gatta hmmmm....I know we are just fooling here, but that is VERY out of character for Snape. And the Hermione reference? What is THAT all about? Blech....Don't get all *sexual* on me with Snape & Hermione - she is Ron's soul-mate :-) Not to mention that makes Snape a sexual predator for having a thing for someone who is 20 years younger! colebiancardi (blech....I do hope I read that wrong ) From kchuplis at alltel.net Mon Dec 5 17:40:29 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 17:40:29 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter's appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144121 Gebroni wrote: > > Hello everyone, I'm a freshman in college writing a resreach > paper on Harry Potter and its huge appeal. My thesis is that > a huge reason for the series's sucess is the 7 book, extended > mystery format. I think all of the many interesting theories > and speculations circling around in this group and many other > places online with the hard-core fan base rubs off on the > casual readers, many whom, like me, get sucked in to the much > deeper aspects of the series and become hardcore fans. What do > you all think of this? Are you most interested in the series > for its mystery, or for its other very strong elements? Thanks > a lot! > > Well, it's the quinessential "Hero's Journey" of which Joseph Campbell talked about, isn't it? Appealing to human nature for as long as stories have been told. And for folks like me, born too young for the last time the hero's journey was done so well (LOTR) it has the added spice of unfolding before our eyes both on page and screen which screws anticipation up to huge levels. I think JKR's characters are also SO vivid (even while being slightly exaggerated at times- but then I know people who are....just as exaggerated in real life too) and handled so well that everyone has someone to identify with; even multiple someones. Like JRR Tolkein, she's got the back story of everyone and everything (or at least the majority) which gives her characters and storyline a cohension not often seen in books that have been dashed off. A reader may not realize it, but that is part of the reason so many people are sucked in, regardless of age; she made her characters real first, before completing them in print. It's rather like watching a master painter with tons of sketchbooks and studies that eventually puts together a great work of art. There are really enormous moral stories going on here (it's almost like modern day mystery plays or morality plays except that they do succeed one another, still, they can stand alone quite well to a point; ); I felt it was noticeable since I first started reading. And yet, she makes it fun. It's not proseletyzing and yet there is something valueable here. I know I also enjoy the stages of the entire story. The growing up of Harry and his friends is done with just the right shading and humor. I know I was literally relieved to find Harry an angry young man through much of OOtP. Given his life, his circumstances and his age it would have been asking too much from ME (at any rate) to have him be as calm and accepting as in past books when he was still developing. It would not have been "real" for me if he had behaved otherwise. It gave me the first real hope too that the character quality and choices is going to be coherent through the end. I may very well not be happy at what happens to my HP friends in the end, but I have a very basically trust that it will be fitting, logical and satisfying on many levels (you can't please everyone all the time :) ) And, honestly, who among us do not wish we were Harry Potter or at least made of the same stuff as Harry Potter and his friends? kchuplis From agdisney at msn.com Mon Dec 5 14:46:45 2005 From: agdisney at msn.com (Andrea Grevera) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 09:46:45 -0500 Subject: A Horcrux in each book Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144122 Laura: Percy's Head Boy badge. There is some indication that there might be some unusual magic associated with it (the sneakoscope). Andie: I thought the sneakoscope kept going off in POA because of Scabbers. It alerted you when danger was near and Scabbers did turn out to be pretty dangerous. Andie From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Dec 5 19:31:13 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 19:31:13 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144123 > Pippin: > Wow, I didn't get that at all! Our main character is Harry, and he suffers > from discrimination based on talent, not race--Petunia hates him because > he's magical, a_svirn: In the Universe of Rowling's creation this particular talent means belonging to a different race. Muggles and wizards are two breeds apart. > Pippin: >not because he has tainted blood. a_svirn: Which is why, I take it, Aunt Marge says, "It all comes down to blood, as I was saying the other day. Bad blood will out" > Pippin: Harry himself makes the > point that he'd be perfectly welcome to join the Death Eaters if they weren't > trying to do him in. a_svirn: I thought he made quite the opposite point. > Pippin: Voldemort says himself, at the age of sixteen, that > killing Muggles and Mudbloods doesn't matter to him anymore, what matters > is finding out why Harry had the power to vanquish the greatest > wizard in the world. a_svirn: And that particular admission makes him unbiased and open-minded? From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Mon Dec 5 19:57:22 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 19:57:22 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144124 > > > > To me, that's the sort of stiff-necked, stuffy apology that Snape > > would make. With just a suggestion of thawing that Harry can take > and > > run with. > > > > --La Gatta > > hmmmm....I know we are just fooling here, but that is VERY out of > character for Snape. And the Hermione reference? What is THAT all > about? Blech....Don't get all *sexual* on me with Snape & Hermione - > she is Ron's soul-mate :-) Not to mention that makes Snape a sexual > predator for having a thing for someone who is 20 years younger! > > colebiancardi > (blech....I do hope I read that wrong ) > Um, for "apology", substitute "rapprochement". He doesn't actually apologize, does he, but he does leave the door open for future communication. As for Hermione... Sexual predator? Erm? Hermione turned 17 on September 19, 1996, and by the standards of the WW she is thereafter of age and her own woman, and can take up with anybody she damn well pleases. I've had some ripping good times with men twenty years my senior, and I certainly didn't think of them as sexual predators. (They may have thought of *me* as a sexual predator, but that's another story... ;D) Personally, I think Hermione is wasted on Ron. I mean, the guy can tie his shoes and zip his pants, but beyond that... Unless you picture our Miss Granger degenerating into the sort of nice little wifey who never uses a word of more than two syllables for fear of bruising Hubby's delicate male ego? That said, I don't think she's going to end up with Snape, because I think poor old Severus is going to end up dead and I hope Hermione isn't. But than Mrs. Ron, I'd rather see her as a single career witch like McGonagall, teaching at Hogwarts and perhaps taking long walks in the orangery with the ghost of Professor Snape. >;D Purrs! --La Gatta From muellem at bc.edu Mon Dec 5 20:54:48 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:54:48 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144125 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lagattalucianese" wrote: > > > > > > > To me, that's the sort of stiff-necked, stuffy apology that Snape > > > would make. With just a suggestion of thawing that Harry can take > > and > > > run with. > > > > > > --La Gatta > > > > hmmmm....I know we are just fooling here, but that is VERY out of > > character for Snape. And the Hermione reference? What is THAT all > > about? Blech....Don't get all *sexual* on me with Snape & Hermione - > > > she is Ron's soul-mate :-) Not to mention that makes Snape a sexual > > predator for having a thing for someone who is 20 years younger! > > > > colebiancardi > > (blech....I do hope I read that wrong ) > > > Um, for "apology", substitute "rapprochement". He doesn't actually > apologize, does he, but he does leave the door open for future > communication. > > As for Hermione... > > Sexual predator? Erm? Hermione turned 17 on September 19, 1996, and by > the standards of the WW she is thereafter of age and her own woman, > and can take up with anybody she damn well pleases. I've had some > ripping good times with men twenty years my senior, and I certainly > didn't think of them as sexual predators. (They may have thought of > *me* as a sexual predator, but that's another story... ;D) Uhmmmm...Did Snape just wake up & see Hermione when she turned 17 years old? If not, then he was eyeing her when she was younger. Quite frankly, 20 years is a huge difference - not saying it won't work, but if I taught someone since they were 11 years old & then *all of sudden*, when they turned of age, I viewed them as a sexual being, I couldn't do it...Perhaps in 10 years later, when I hadn't seen them for a while, but not right away. That would mean I was a sexual predator, sorry. The light doesn't turn on right away like that, especially if you have seen them for years prior as a little kid. the Blech factor is about that. 17 vs 37 is a huge age difference - not just physical, but emotionally as well. If Hermione decided at 30 that Snape was her man when he was 50 years old, at least she has had the option to go out and experience the world. Sure, when I was 17, I daydreamed about *older men* in their 30's - but my god, I would never think for one minute that I would hook up with them. So, back to my point - yes, it is making Snape a sexual predator - unless you are stating that Sevvie never had a lewd thought about Hermione until she turned 17. And why would he even view her in this manner? And even at that.....the abuse of a power situation(professor and student relationship) is bad enough as well. Blechhh....again. Ron is perfect for her, IMHO. colebiancardi (who is older & much more wiser when it comes to May-December relationships) From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Mon Dec 5 21:20:22 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 21:20:22 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144126 > MINERVA: Taught? You have imparted information efficiently, I > admit. You have also been childish, cruel, and stupidly > irresponsible in your behavior. If Minerva only then came with that, she would loose all my respect. To keep your mouth shut for all these years is cowardly. Minerva is not that kind of person, I'm sure. If Snape survives, I doubt he'd want to come back, but if he did his teaching methods would not be a hindrance. Being DD's murderer would be. Gerry From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Dec 5 21:10:42 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 21:10:42 -0000 Subject: I don't want to do it *ANYMORE* (was Re: Snape's punishment a "moral" issue? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144127 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > > > No matter what the actual topic of the argument, Snape says "I don't > want to do it *anymore*" (continuance of a state) and Dumbledore > says "You agreed" (holding Snape to the continuance of these actions, > denying completion). I think there's some kind of continuing > obligation until the situation which Snape was a specific contributor > to is finally resolved. > Now, you bring up an interesting point of language, Nora. How do we interpret "I don't want to do it anymore?" Lots of people, mainly DDM!Snape theorists, are saying that this implies discontinuance of volition -- i.e. that Snape doesn't *want* anymore. At one time he "wanted" to do something (i.e. agreed to do something) and now his desire to do that thing (or willingness to do that thing, more exactly) is waning. To be exact, he is, they would argue, saying "I agreed to kill you but what if I don't want to do it anymore?" Okay, that would be a legitimate meaning of the sentence. But why would Snape begin by saying "You take too much for granted?" Okay, maybe Dumbledore is taking Snape's willingness for granted, but put all that together and it seems an odd way to express himself. It would seem more natural for him to start out be saying "This is absurd!" or "How dare you ask such a thing!" or "That is too much to ask!" But "You take too much for granted"? Like you, Nora, I tend to think another interpretation makes more sense. If I heard someone say "I don't want to do it anymore," I would think that "anymore" goes with "do" not with "want." That is that the person is doing something, engaged as you say in an ongoing process, that they want to bring to an end. With this interpretation, "You take too much for granted" fits more naturally. Snape is doing something and Dumbledore takes for granted that he will keep doing it, while Snape wishes to make clear that he doesn't want to do it anymore. To use a little meta-analysis, since we know what the story is about it is a pretty obvious guess that whatever Snape is doing has a pretty direct connection to DD's trust in him, and the reason DD is willing to protect him. Given, however, DD's response "you said you would do it and you will do it," the activity seems like some sort of condition or duty laid on Snape, rather than something he is doing spontaneously. Or at least it is an activity that Snape has come to see as a duty or a condition laid on him. What duty or process is Snape performing that might be extraordinary? There are three that come to mind: spying on the DEs, teaching DADA, and (perhaps) keeping an eye on Harry. Could he want out of DADA to escape the curse? First of all, it has never been definitively established that there IS in fact a curse. Secondly, it just doesn't seem in character for Snape to want out of it. Could he want out of spying on the DEs? Very possibly. Maybe he thinks that things have gotten too dangerous, and that he needs out from under. An OFH!Snape or Grey!Snape scenario fits well, here. Snape has not admitted the full contents of the UV to Dumbledore, nor has he admitted his knowledge of Draco's purpose. Perhaps he wants to take Draco and go into hiding? Of course that's all been futzed up by the UV. Maybe he thinks he knows a way out of it (i.e. if he can keep Draco from making an attempt then Draco won't "fail" and the conditions of the UV won't be triggered). His rage and hatred on the tower might well be, in that case, rage and hatred because DD brought him to this pass, where he has to kill DD or die, when if DD had only let Snape out from under and let him take Draco and disappear, things would not have come to this. In this scenario, Spinner's End was just that, the end of the spinner, the spider caught when he wove one web too many, perhaps even for the best of motives. Could he want out of watching over Harry? Well, that presumes, of course, that such a command has been laid on him. But let us assume it has. Perhaps, at this point, DD is not yet clear that he is the target (and Snape may not be clear about that, either). Perhaps he and DD think that Harry might be the target, and DD has charged Snape to be especially vigilant. How might Snape react, given the events of OOTP? Probably not with great grace. The task of watching over Harry would be especially onerous to Snape, but it would be one that DD would be very, even grimly, insistent that Snape pursue no matter what the Potion Master's feelings. How might the bitterness and resentment be eating at Snape? How might the anxiety, if once again he has concealed part of the UV and now suspects he may have to kill the one he is charged with protecting? How might all that manifest? How might it manifest if, in fact, he has held this duty all the time Harry was at Hogwarts, i.e. he has been charged with watching over Harry and has been absolutely forbidden by Dumbledore to tell Harry what he is doing or bring it up with him in any way? How might his resentment have been building? Interesting questions, anyway. Lupinlore From lady.indigo at gmail.com Mon Dec 5 21:47:21 2005 From: lady.indigo at gmail.com (lady.indigo at gmail.com) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 16:47:21 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's punishment a "moral" issue? and Snape and Slughorn's forgiveness/culpability Message-ID: <63378ee70512051347k2a962ab3u7d6eb67f7a75b56f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144128 *pops in* This may be a bit muddled, as I'm responding to several points and subpoints at once. This is what comes of me only following this group sporadically. Pippin wrote: "But what about the families of Hepzibah Smith, Hokey the House Elf, Cedric Diggory and all the others who have not been informed as to the reasons for Harry's enterprise? Who don't even know that it is thanks to Horace Slughorn's information that Voldemort murdered the people they loved? Would they all be as willing to pardon Slughorn as Harry is? What right does Harry have to speak for them?" I wrote: I think when it comes to Slughorn you're missing the fact that he's too drunk to remember any of the scene in the morning. He has no idea that Harry's "pardoned" him, which I really think was something Harry just said to get the memory anyway, so his guilt and shame are still things he has to live with daily. To me that makes forgiveness towards Slughorn almost irrelevant in terms of the actual characters, so it doesn't matter who has a right to dole it out. (Arguably, of course.) Harry isn't God or even a priest; he can't promise forgiveness from higher powers and a peaceful afterlife. His behavior and attitude to Slughorn in the present hasn't changed much, at least not yet; like someone said upthread, he didn't even know what Slughorn's transgression WAS yet. Dumbledore will stop hounding him for the memory, but that's all. And Slughorn's still pained and feeling responsible for the deaths of many, including one of his favorite students, and possibly for not realizing in time that Tom was stealing the Slytherin house out from under him. It's not a relevant gesture, really, because it doesn't help Harry and it doesn't help Slughorn, doesn't lead either of them to any better place in terms of both their own comfort or their growth as a person. Either way, all Harry has a right to is his own personal feelings towards Slughorn for good or ill. He's not part of a court and thus not capable of dealing out any other kind of justice, unless he acts outside the law. And that's all he has a right to with regard to Snape, too, unless he's given special privileges at the end of Book 7. Alla wrote: "You are saying that forgiveness is something that Snape needs, OK, fair enough, but I don't see even that in the text. If I will see that Snape needs, wants forgiveness from Harry, I may even be happy with that. Anything to show me that Harry's gift to Snape will not go in vain, you know." I wrote: As far as Snape goes, because I do remember that's what people are actually talking about in this thread ^_^, there's a huge difference between him and Slughorn in way of intent. Slughorn's venial sins, shortsightedness, and eagerness to kiss up led Tom to find a new reason to commit murders he might very well have committed anyway to serve other interests - murders Slughorn never would have assisted in or approved of, involving information he'd never have given had he knew. Snape, on the other hand, absolutely knew what he was doing when he did it and directly acted to aid someone's greater evil. It's not the same thing at all in terms of their moral responsibility. But when it comes to Snape, morally, you have to sort of divide your perceptions into pre- and post-Harry, and into forgiveness and redemption. Harry forgiving Snape for his parents, which (assuming DDM!Snape) has already been repented for, is a very different animal from Harry forgiving Snape for being cruel to him, which Snape has never said he's sorry or made amends for. They're entirely seperate incidents with fairly seperate contexts. But both are very much for *Harry's* sake, in terms of Harry's growth and Harry being the bigger person. If forgiveness from Harry helps evolve Snape into a better person, great. Then it won't have been 'in vain' and Snape will slowly move away from bastarddom, maybe even be happier. But if it doesn't, then Snape will be no better or worse served and neither will Harry; if Snape doesn't care then it won't make any difference to him. That's not the point of personally forgiving someone. Forgiveness from Harry is not forgiveness from God. Pippin said: "The thing for me is that Harry tells Slughorn that his shame will be cancelled out if he gives Harry the memory, or that's the way I read it. You can certainly argue that Harry had no right at all to say such a thing, but nevertheless he did. And I think that if Dumbledore held out such a pardon to Snape, it is Harry's duty, as Dumbledore's man to honor it." Would Harry be able to NOT honor it? The deal is that Snape is free from Azkaban and able to serve as a spy against Voldemort; this will be his redemption. The wizarding world has accepted this. Harry can't reneg on that unless Snape really did turn traitor to Dumbledore, or if Harry posesses evidence of Snape's innocence that will keep him from prison and must decide whether or not to disclose it. Snape's fate over the specific incidents Dumbledore forgave him for has already been decided. All Harry can speak about otherwise is Snape's verbal bullying towards his students, and his unwillingness to hear the truth about Sirius. When Dumbledore extended the pardon, these very seperate things hadn't been done yet. Either way, again, it's Harry's decision whether he'll personally decide to forgive Snape for either set of sins. That's different from justice being served for Snape's crimes, or finding another avenue for Snape's further redemption. It's even different from Snape's redemption in the eyes of the WW vs. redemption in the eyes of a higher power or even the eyes of the readers. And we as those readers should treat it differently. - Lady Indigo [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Dec 5 20:30:55 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:30:55 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144129 Lagatta wrote: > > > Seriously, how about something like this for at least getting the > dialog between Snape and Harry rolling: > > To me, that's the sort of stiff-necked, stuffy apology that Snape > would make. With just a suggestion of thawing that Harry can take and > run with. > Lupinlore: Hmmm. For once, I'm going to have to agree with colebiancardi. That scene seemed VERY out of character for everyone involved. It's the type of thing you find in fanfic a lot -- the better fanfic, mind you, but nevertheless not very in keeping with the characters as portrayed in canon. The idea of a small opening between Harry and Snape, one that could be gradually widened, used to enjoy a great deal of vogue. In the wake of OOTP, many people were saying this is what we would see in HBP. That is, based on supposed changes in Snape's demeanor and behavior post-Occlumency, they held that Snape's position about Harry had changed. Others held that Harry would, as part of some "maturation" process that I never could figure out, decide suddenly to be the "big man" in the relationship. In any case, the idea was that a crack had opened and that it would be widened as the two of them had to work together under the demands of the Order. Well, the first of those things certainly didn't happen -- as Snape going out of his way to intercept and taunt Harry in early HBP clearly shows. The second, which would have been morally revolting to the point of terminal nausea, thankfully did not occur, either. In any case, the relationship pretty much stayed frozen, and it's hard to see how any kind of "gradualism" could make headway now in any way that doesn't require a deus ex machina the size of Texas. So, I think the era of gradualism is dead, along with a lot of other possibilities that perished while JKR was spinning her wheels for some 1300 pages. Any breakthrough now will have to be almost literally that, a violent break in the barriers put up by Snape's repellant abuse of Harry and Neville. And also considering that Snape almost certainly doesn't have long to live, their ain't much time for multiple sessions. :-) Lupinlore From literature_Caro at web.de Mon Dec 5 20:53:52 2005 From: literature_Caro at web.de (literature_Caro) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 21:53:52 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Another Foe-Glass Question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1322197802.20051205215352@web.de> No: HPFGUIDX 144130 > All this talk of the foe glass has me wondering. Does the foe glass > have to "belong" to someone so that it shows only their enemies? Or > can it show the enemies of whoever is looking into it at that time? > Alora :) I think it must belong to someone. This would also fit into the smashed sneakoskope (I hope I spell it right). The fake Moody had to adjust to Moody as far as possible, this meant that he had to either make those anti-obscurants obey him or disable them saying they would go mad. This would be a great proof that Snape indeed would be on DD side an had only killed him because he was ordered to... Caro From lealess at yahoo.com Mon Dec 5 22:54:31 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 22:54:31 -0000 Subject: I don't want to do it *ANYMORE* (was Re: Snape's punishment a "moral" issue? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144131 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > > > > > Snape is doing something and Dumbledore takes for granted that he > will keep doing it, while Snape wishes to make clear that he > doesn't want to do it anymore. > > > Given, however, DD's response "you said you would do > it and you will do it," the activity seems like some sort of > condition or duty laid on Snape, rather than something he is doing > spontaneously. Or at least it is an activity that Snape has come > to see as a duty or a condition laid on him. > > What duty or process is Snape performing that might be > extraordinary? > There are three that come to mind: spying on the DEs, teaching > DADA, and (perhaps) keeping an eye on Harry. > > I thought he merely wanted to stop having to obey Dumbledore's commands to the letter, "doing" whatever Dumbledore asked of him, especially if it came down to killing him. What Dumbledore was taking for granted was that Snape had the will or the strength to do Dumbledore's bidding, no matter what. I see a parallel with Harry in the cave, here, a promise made to follow Dumbledore's orders even if it seemed likely to injure Dumbledore, or worse. > Could he want out of DADA to escape the curse? First of all, it > has never been definitively established that there IS in fact a > curse. Secondly, it just doesn't seem in character for Snape to > want out of it. > I agree -- this is probably not it. > Could he want out of spying on the DEs? Very possibly. Maybe he > thinks that things have gotten too dangerous, and that he needs out > from under. An OFH!Snape or Grey!Snape scenario fits well, here. > Or maybe the Death Eaters are asking him to do things he cannot live with anymore, yet he has to comply in order to keep their confidence. Maybe he is doing things he cannot stomach, and this is what he wants out of. > Could he want out of watching over Harry? Well, that presumes, of > course, that such a command has been laid on him. But let us > assume it has. Perhaps, at this point, DD is not yet clear that he > is the target (and Snape may not be clear about that, either). > Perhaps he and DD think that Harry might be the target, and DD has > charged Snape to be especially vigilant. How might Snape react, > given the events of OOTP? Probably not with great grace. The task > of watching over Harry > would be especially onerous to Snape, but it would be one that DD > would be very, even grimly, insistent that Snape pursue no matter > what the Potion Master's feelings. I doubt this. Snape has always seemed to take his duties towards students seriously, at least, and Harry with all his "in your face" disrespect is still a student to whom he reacts with relative calm in the sixth book, up to the end. And what does it really cost Snape to protect Harry? The only physical exertion was in the Shrieking Shack and running around in the Forbidden Forest. He's generally just had to keep an eye on Harry and check in with the Order. I think he just got caught in the UV, and realized he may have been losing his touch as a spy, so if anything, continuing to spying gets my vote. Maybe what Dumbledore took for granted was his ability to continue to lie. There are other possibilities for what he could be "doing" that he might find reprehensible: doing whatever he was doing to keep Dumbledore alive or spying on Draco (short-term doing), withholding important information from Harry on Dumbledore's orders or continuing to work at Hogwarts (long-term doing)... and in the realm of the absurd, having to watch Harry in detentions night after night, or polyjuicing himself to look like Tonks so he could spy on Harry... who knows? Sorry if this is sketchy -- too much happening around me. lealess From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Mon Dec 5 23:17:05 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:17:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm Message-ID: <20051205231705.74690.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144132 CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 5, An Excess of Phlegm We ended last chapter with Harry?s visit to Slughorn ? oops Professor Slughorn, and his arrival at The Burrow. Chapter 5 begins as Harry arrives at The Burrow escorted by Albus Dumbledore, where he is greeted by Molly Weasley and an ill-looking Nymphadora Tonks. After a couple of short phrases and their ?hellos? both Dumbledore and Tonks leave. Once inside the kitchen, Molly cooks a starved Harry some delicious home-made dinner while they discuss Horace Slughorn and Mr. Weasley?s new job at the Ministry of Magic, who by the way is still at work, but not for long, in a few minutes? time he arrives. As a ?loyal? MoM employee, Arthur Weasley sticks to their safety rules, which in this case is just a couple of embarrassing questions to confirm their identity. After a little conversation Harry excuses himself and goes to bed. He?ll be sleeping at the Twins? old room who are living above their successful shop on Diagon Alley. Harry is woken up the next morning by Ron and Hermione, and before long they are talking about how their summer?s been going so far, the upcoming school year, the Order of the Phoenix, and The Prophesy, and Harry?s private lessons with Dumbledore. Harry tells his best friends what the Headmaster told him the year before: how he is ?The Chosen One? and that he must kill Voldemort or be killed. Ginny joins the Trio just moments before a very beautiful enters the room. Fleur Delacour, or as Ginny calls her, Phlegm, is engaged to Bill Weasley, and Bill thought it would be a good idea that Fleur would spend some time with his family, but the women at the Burrow disagree. Both Ginny and Hermione would prefer Tonks as Bill?s wife: she?s smart and beautiful, although not lately, she?s even lost her ability to metamorph. Moments after they have arrived to the ground floor, the owls carrying their OWLs results arrive. Hermione is convinced she?s got nothing but T?s; but of course she didn?t, she has 11 OWLS, all with outstanding except DADA. Both Harry and Ron have gotten 7 OWLs each, and they are pretty happy about it. Harry feels a bit of disappointment deep inside. He didn?t get the O he needed in potions, therefore he won?t be able to continue his training to become an Auror someday, the only career he?s ever considered. Discussion Questions 1) We don?t see many people who call Dumbledore by his first name. Minerva calls him Albus (PS/SS Ch 1), maybe Mad-Eye Moody calls him Albus, perhaps also Fudge, but Molly? That?s a first. How close do you think the Members of the Order actually are? Molly calling him Albus makes me think that all of them see each other as family, not only as colleagues. What do you think? 2) Mollywobbles. Anyone knows what it means? Not being English myself I haven?t a clue about it. 3) Arthur?s greatest ambition is to discover how planes stay on the air. Don?t wizards and witches learn any physics at all? Don?t they ?Arthur & Co- know that there are muggle books that can easily explain the basic concepts of aerodynamics? 4) What?s with Fleur?s comment of Gabrielle? (The one when she mentions Gabrielle has been talking non stop about Harry). Is it a sign of what we may see in book 7, a possible relationship between her and Harry? Maybe Gabrielle as a young Ginny? 5) Which classes did Hermione actually took? And how is it possible for anyone to get 12 OWLS (like Bill Weasley and Barty Crouch Jr.)? Did they get Time-Turners? Or did they study the classes on their own without any professors' assistance? Is this what Hermione did? 6) We all know Tonks is seriously depressed. Is her depression because she has lost a dear cousin, or because Remus won?t marry her? Or perhaps a bit of both. What do you think? 7) Why wasn?t there a memorial, funeral, or wake for Sirius? I know there wasn?t a body to bury, but still, those who loved him needed to say good-bye: they needed closure. 8) Do you think that Molly?s clock with all its hands pointing towards mortal peril is a sign of what may happen in book 7? Will we be seeing more than one Weasley death? Who do you think it will be? When reading this chapter I got flash-backs to Molly?s bogart in Grimmauld Place. Will all her worst fears come true? 9) Why do you think Percy still won?t come back home? He knows that Dumbledore & Co where telling the truth all along, is it because ?people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right?? Is it just a pride thing? 10) Didn?t Bill ask for his parents? permission before he took Fleur to live with them? Or are the Weasleys so polite that they keep their feeling about Fleur bottled up to protect Bill? Thanks to Penapart Elf for her help. I hope you all enjoy the discussion Juli NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database --------------------------------- Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 5 23:24:58 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:24:58 -0000 Subject: Harry and Snape: The Relationship (was:Two scenes...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144133 >>Lupinlore: > > In any case, the relationship [between Harry and Snape] pretty > much stayed frozen, and it's hard to see how any kind > of "gradualism" could make headway now in any way that doesn't > require a deus ex machina the size of Texas. Betsy Hp: Oh, I think their relationship actually *worsened* a whole heck of a lot from the opening of OotP to the closing of HBP. The hatred Harry felt at the close of OotP for Snape remained at the beginning of HBP. We got a nice long look at just how much Harry despised Snape on the walk up to Hogwarts. But even then, Harry only *imagined* hurting Snape. By the end of HBP Harry is actually casting Crucio's at him. I think Harry was being quite honest when he in essence said he'd kill Snape the next time they met. (Tons of bravado that, since Snape had only just handed him his ass, like a day or two ago, but I think Harry really meant it.) And it's subtler, but I think Harry lost a bunch of respect for Snape too. He was dismissive and rude to Snape in the DADA class in a way I don't recall ever seeing before. I think any sympathy Harry may have felt for Snape after seeing him get trounced by his father and friends warped into contempt after Sirius's death. But then there's the wonderful little twist of Harry becoming all best friends with young!Snape in the form of the half-blood Prince. Harry still hasn't processed his feelings on that matter (though I'm sure they're going to manifest in some negative form, at least at first) but for a time there he really related to Snape, in a way he'd never done before. (There was a brief moment after the "worst memory" but adult!Snape sabatoged that possibility as only Snape can. ) It's near impossible to figure out exactly what Snape feels for Harry, so it's also hard to see if there's been any change on his end, but from Harry's stand point, their relationship *definitely* changed. As far as a deus ex machina being the only way for their relationship to reverse (since I can't see Harry having an even *greater* hatred for Snape unless Harry's supposed to morph into the next Dark Lord), I feel like JKR's done a pretty good job at hinting at a big bang to come. There's the "horrible boy" Petunia spoke of in OotP that could turn out to be a hint that Lily and Snape were friends (JKR likes her girls to have male best friends). There's LOLLIPOPS, which takes it even further. And there's the big "why, Dumbledore? why?" question still to be answered. So yeah, the bang should be an almighty one, but I don't think it'll fall into a deus ex machina catagory. JKR's done too much foreshadowing. > >>Lupinlore: > > Any breakthrough now will have to be almost literally that, a > violent break in the barriers put up by Snape's repellant abuse of > Harry and Neville. > Betsy Hp: I don't think Neville will even come up. For one, I don't think Harry is all that concerned about Neville's treatment by Snape. When he's lying in bed, going through his list of reasons why Snape is the worst person to ever exist, I'm betting "being mean to Neville" is down there with "doesn't do his bit to support the shampoo industry". For another, I think Neville is pretty much over Snape. I think PoA was the peak of Neville's Snape fear, and I think since OotP Neville and Snape's relationship has been pretty neutral. Neville is gunning for Bellatrix now. A nasty teacher of a subject Neville hated is barely a blip on the radar screen, old news, and not worth pursuing as far as Neville is concerned. If some kind soul pulled Neville aside for a sit down with Snape so that Snape could grovel on the ground for forgivness, I think Neville would be annoyed at the wasted time better spent hunting down Bellatrix. Betsy Hp From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Dec 5 23:37:05 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:37:05 -0000 Subject: I don't want to do it *ANYMORE* (was Re: Snape's punishment a "moral" issue? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144134 > lupinlore wrote: > > Could he want out of spying on the DEs? Very possibly. Maybe he > > thinks that things have gotten too dangerous, and that he needs out > > from under. An OFH!Snape or Grey!Snape scenario fits well, here. > lealess wrote: > I think he just got caught in the UV, and realized he may have been > losing his touch as a spy, so if anything, continuing to spying gets > my vote. Maybe what Dumbledore took for granted was his ability to > continue to lie. zgirnius: Spying gets my vote as well. But I think maybe something more specific was going on. Both Dumbledore and Snape pretty much had to know from the start of the HBP school year that Snape would no longer be at Hogwarts the following year. (I know it has been suggested that Dumbledore may have planned to move Snape back to Potions in the following year, but I never bought this idea. The action of the DADA curse as we have seen it through 5 books has not only removed them from the DADA position within the year, but has also tended to render them unemployable as teachers in any position. And Book 6 continued this pattern). So there has to have been some idea of what Snape would be doing in this next year on the spying front. And it seems to me that the plan would be for Snape to move into 'full-time' spying (since at Hogwarts he is obviously not in a position to do much spying on the Death Eaters and Voldemort). What Dumbledore may be taking for granted is Snape;s ability to continue fooling Voldemort. The difficulty may now seem greater for several reasons: 1) Snape may be helped in his deception of Voldemort that they must have very limited contact due to Snape's position at Hogwarts; 2) Snape may be realizing that Voldemort is still quite suspicious despite whatever story he was told by Snape after the end of GoF (what IS Pettigrew up to in Snape's house?) 3) If there is some 'plan' involving the killing of Dumbledore by Snape, this may be something which will be especially difficult for Snape to hide (since the key to Occlumency, in his words, is to 'shut down those feelings and memories that contradict the lie'). If this is what they have been discussiong, though, I thinkl that Snape is now good and stuck. Among the Death Eaters is the only place he can show his face... Just some random thoughts on the overheard conversation... From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 00:24:17 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:24:17 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: <20051205231705.74690.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144135 > >>Julie: > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: > Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 5, > An Excess of Phlegm > > Discussion Questions > > 1) We don't see many people who call Dumbledore by his first name. > > Molly calling him Albus makes me think that all of them see each > other as family, not only as colleagues. What do you think? Betsy Hp: I'm leery of having the Order members be that close (though Tonks coming to Molly with her tales of woe, does suggest they might be) because I get the sense that they don't all get together as a group that often. I think it could just be that Dumbledore was never Molly's professor. Or that he's told her to call him Albus. After all, Molly doesn't work for him, and she's not having to set an example for a bunch of students. > 2) Mollywobbles. Anyone knows what it means? Not being English > myself I haven't a clue about it. Betsy Hp: I think it's just a term of endearment Arthur will sometimes use, a nonsense phrase akin to baby-talk that most couples not in highschool try and keep to themselves. Thats why it's so embarrassing (and funny!) that Harry is there to hear it. > 3) Arthur's greatest ambition is to discover how planes stay on > the air. Don't wizards and witches learn any physics at all? Don't > they ?Arthur & Co- know that there are muggle books that can > easily explain the basic concepts of aerodynamics? Betsy Hp: I think this does two things: on the surface it's a cute and endearing wrap-up of Arthur's interest in all things Muggle; but it also shows just how ignorant Arthur is of a world he claims to love. It hints to that underlying prejudice I've seen both Arthur and Molly show regarding muggles. After all, one of Arthur's brothers is a squib (an accountant, IIRC). Why doesn't Arthur go for a visit to see how the other half live? That'd be a perfect time to ask some questions. Arthur's ignorace may be enforced by Molly, who in this chapter suggests that Arthur may not have wanted the promotion, and has always been hostile to his interest in things Muggle. So I wonder if they don't visit his brother because Molly doesn't wish it? > 4) What's with Fleur's comment of Gabrielle? (The one when she > mentions Gabrielle has been talking non stop about Harry). Is it a > sign of what we may see in book 7, a possible relationship between > her and Harry? Maybe Gabrielle as a young Ginny? Betsy Hp: It's because Harry's a hottie. Seriously, I think this can be a bit of foreshadowing of the hords of girls (most of them younger) flocking around Harry as soon as he gets on the train for Hogwarts. All young girls love a hero. Harry's like a Teenbeat superstar. If he'd let them I'd bet the Prophet would be all over a "Win a date with Harry Potter!" event. I doubt Gabrielle will do more than appear for the wedding and sigh over Harry for a paragraph or two. (Maybe annoy or amuse Ginny a bit.) > > 6) We all know Tonks is seriously depressed. Is her depression > because she has lost a dear cousin, or because Remus won't marry > her? Or perhaps a bit of both. What do you think? Betsy Hp: How well did Tonk's know Sirius, I wonder? It's hard for me to judge this one because I think the Remus/Tonks romance was handled a bit carelessly, so I'm not sure if there's more to the story or if Tonks really was depressed about Remus breaking up with her. > 7) Why wasn't there a memorial, funeral, or wake for Sirius? I > know there wasn't a body to bury, but still, those who loved him > needed to say good-bye: they needed closure. Betsy Hp: The WW is a harsh place? I don't know. It's the billion dollar question, really. Part of me wonders if JKR just didn't have room for it. But on the other hand, the WW really *has* been shown to be fairly harsh. In a sense they're a community under seige, in a constant state of pending war. So maybe they do tend towards a rather heartless practicality of only having a burial when there's something to bury. (It'd help explain the lack of fine arts taught at Hogwarts. Painting a picture or singing a song won't be helpful when the battle begins.) > 8) Do you think that Molly's clock with all its hands pointing > towards mortal peril is a sign of what may happen in book 7? Will > we be seeing more than one Weasley death? Who do you think it will > be? When reading this chapter I got flash-backs to Molly's bogart > in Grimmauld Place. Will all her worst fears come true? Betsy Hp: I like to think that Molly's clock is the way it is because one of the Weasley twins is a Death Eater spy and any of the Weasleys could buy it if they stumble upon his deadly secret. But that's just me . There are an *awful* lot of Weasleys, though. I've heard theories that Charlie may not last because he's the least known Weasley. > 9) Why do you think Percy still won't come back home? He knows > that Dumbledore & Co where telling the truth all along, is it > because "people find it far easier to forgive others for being > wrong than being right"? Is it just a pride thing? Betsy Hp: Quite possible. Arthur may well be too proud to admit that he was wrong about Percy being used by the MoM to spy on his family and to apologize to his son. Or, Percy may still worry about being used in that fashion, and having taken his father's words to heart decided to make a clean break of it until the war is over. Or, Percy is still a useful spy for Dumbledore and therefore must still be seen as on the outs with his family and the Order. (I did deliberately mis-interpert your question, Juli, because I am a stinker. ) > 10) Didn't Bill ask for his parents' permission before he took > Fleur to live with them? Or are the Weasleys so polite that they > keep their feeling about Fleur bottled up to protect Bill? Betsy Hp: I'm sure Bill did ask if it'd be alright. Though I'm sure he was so excited and happy he may have overlooked his mother's striken face. Or he may have seen it and decided she'd be that way about any girl he brought home and hoped Fleur would win her over in the end. Though I'm equally sure Molly *did* lie and say that Fleur was more than welcome. What else could she say, really? Great questions, Juli! Betsy Hp (first!) From leslie41 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 00:48:53 2005 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:48:53 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone Redux--My version In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144136 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lagattalucianese" wrote: > Seriously, how about something like this for at least getting the > dialog between Snape and Harry rolling: I liked your idea about the bedside thing, but I did think it wasn't entirely in character. So I borrowed it. Remember imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! Harry sat down at Snape's bedside. He wanted to deliver the news himself. And if Snape took awhile to awaken, Harry had all the time in the world. Even after his near-death experience, it did not take long for Snape to sense that someone was there. Harry was watching his pallid face for clues when he saw Snape's eyes open slowly, just a crack. Then wider. "Potter," Snape intoned, his voice sounding a bit raspy. The sneer came through however, or at least as much of one as Snape was capable of providing in his condition. "Disappointed?" asked Harry lightly. Snape closed his eyes and said nothing for a moment. "Go away," he said at last. But there wasn't much force behind it. Just exhaustion. Harry ignored this. "I asked you if you were disappointed." Snape seemed to be gathering a bit of emotional strength. Harry could tell he was working himself up to an answer. "It is not incumbent upon me to answer your ridiculous questions, Potter, especially in my state." Snape's eyes were closed, but his voice was smooth now, and controlled. "Don't you have some sort of celebratory banquet to attend? You would not want to miss your own deification, Mr. Potter. That would be rude." Snape then turned and put his back to Harry, who stared at the lines of Snape's shoulder blades, visible through the dressing gown. The man was thinner than ever, it seemed. "Professor Snape, for all you know, I could have saved your life." Harry thought he saw Snape draw in breath at that, and hold it. "What do you want, Potter?" "Answer my question," Harry said, a bit more forcefully. "Are you disappointed?" At this Snape turned and snapped up with surprising speed. "In what, you hopeless imbicile?" he spat, cold fury in his eyes. "Be more specific! I seem to have quite a lot of options to choose from!" Harry met Snape's angry eyes with his own level green gaze, weighing his words carefully. "In the fact that I'm still alive," he said. Snape's eyes narrowed, but Harry could feel the tension bleeding out of his old professor's body. Snape relaxed back against the pillow and closed his eyes again. "If you have indeed saved my life, then I am not as disappointed in your survival as I am in my own. Now go away." But Harry Potter wasn't going anywhere. "Go away," Snape said again. This time it was more like a plea. "Of course, Professor Snape," Harry said, and stood slowly. But at the door to the infirmary, Harry turned for a moment, and stopped and looked back. "Yessss..." Snape hissed impatiently. Could he see with his eyes closed? Harry had always thought as much. "What do you want now?" Snape said. "I didn't save your life, Professor Snape," Harry said plainly. At this Snape opened his eyes again, and looked at Harry with an unspoken demand in his eyes. But Harry was enjoying this. "No, I didn't save your life. You owe your life debt to someone else." Another long silence. Snape, hurt and frail and exhausted though he was, was still strong enough to forbear actually asking who. But Harry could feel Snape's curiosity, and his fury, building. He let it, just for a bit, until he realized that it would not do to torment Snape any longer. He did, after all, bear just as much credit for killing Voldemort as Harry himself. So he offered Snape a broad, friendly smile. A smile free of any malice. He found, after everything, to his own great surprise, that at least in part he meant it. "No, Professor Snape, I didn't save your life. That honor goes to someone else," he said. He paused again. "Neville Longbottom." With that, Harry turned on his heels and left, but as long as he lived he never forgot the sound of Snape's cry of frustration, and the litany of shouted explitives that followed in its wake. Leslie From asian_lovr2 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 01:24:07 2005 From: asian_lovr2 at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 01:24:07 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: <20051205231705.74690.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144137 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli wrote: > > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: > Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 5, > An Excess of Phlegm > > > ...edited... > > Discussion Questions > > 1) We don't see many people who call Dumbledore by his first > name. ..., but Molly? That's a first. How close do you think the > Members of the Order actually are? Molly calling him Albus makes > me think that all of them see each other as family, not only as > colleagues. What do you think? > bboyminn: I think Molly calling Dumbledore 'Albus' simply implies a social connection and a familiarity. Also, it is somewhat controlled by the formality of the situation. Undersome circumstances and most likely around her children, Molly would say 'Professor Dumbledore' to remind her kids that as Headmaster, he is to be shown respect. In less formal situation, Molly would call him by his first name. Molly and Albus need not be the best of friends to have dropped the formality of addressing each other. They are simply on friendly terms. Further, they are bonded by a common cause; defeating Voldemort and keeping Harry alive. Even without deep social friendship, this common bond would be reflected in sense of familiarity and first names. > 2)Mollywobbles. Anyone knows what it means? Not being > English myself I haven't a clue about it. > bboyminn: I think to some extent 'Mollywobbles' is a made up name/word. When I searched the Internet for it my results were swamped by Harry Potter references, but I did find yachts and boat with that name as well as usernames unrealted to HP. The closest UK word is 'collywobbles' meaning something that makes you feel uneasy. In PoA pg 40 PB - Stan is talking with Harry about Azaban, and Ernie adds '...Then Azkaban guards give me the collywobbles." In simple terms, he is saying that the thought of the Dementors gives him the 'creeps'. So, I think Arthur has somewhat made up a nonsensical word based on Molly Weasley and Molly's slight tendency to be overweight; Mollywobbles. > 3) Arthur's greatest ambition is to discover how planes stay > on the air. Don't wizards and witches learn any physics at all? > Don't they ?Arthur & Co- know that there are muggle books that > can easily explain the basic concepts of aerodynamics? > bboyminn: Having how airplanes stay in the air explained to you, doesn't necessarily mean you understand it. I suspect very few people could really explain it to the satisfaction of the common person. As to physics being taught in the wizard world, I don't think so. Applies magic seems far more important that true science or the arts. As far as muggle books and bookstores, going to them hinges on having the courage to do so. Arthur may have a fastination with the muggle world, but it seems to me that he also has a fear of it. Much like you might have a fear of wandering around unescorted in Africa or parts of Asia (perhaps even Eastern Europe). Despite the fact that the muggle world is all around him, and in his case, is not so culturally different, it probably seems a strange, mysterious, and somewhat foreboding place to him. > 4)What's with Fleur's comment of Gabrielle? (The one when > she mentions Gabrielle has been talking non stop about Harry). > Is it a sign of what we may see in book 7, a possible > relationship between her and Harry? Maybe Gabrielle as a young > Ginny? > bboyminn: I don't remember gabrielle's exact age when we meet her, but I think she is very young, probably hasn't even started school yet, so I don't think we should be reading any 'relationship' implications into her fastination with Harry. In one sense, she not only met but was rescues by 'The Boy Who Lived'; a world famous wizard. So, yes, she may be a bit star-struck, and may have a mild childish infatuation for the boy who 'saved her'. But other than a joyfull fastination with a brave and famous boy, I don't think much is implied here. > 5) Which classes did Hermione actually took? And how is it > possible for anyone to get 12 OWLS (like Bill Weasley and > Barty Crouch Jr.)? Did they get Time-Turners? Or did they study > the classes on their own without any professors' assistance? Is > this what Hermione did? > bboyminn: I hope people in the UK will back me up on this, but Qualification Tests and the School are separate entities. Qualifications are certified by the government which is run independant of the schools. So, what you took in school is unrelated to which Qualifications Tests you take. Of course, we shouldn't lose perspective. It's pretty hard to pass a Physics Test if you've never studied Physics. But independant of whether you have studied Physics, you could probably take the Physics Qualification Test. Maybe you pass; may be you don't. But I don't think the government cares. If you want to try the test, you can try. So, shifting to the wizard world. People get 12 OWLs by studying on their own and by having a natural interest or gift in the area. Certainly Hermione could pass all the classes she took. The two remaining classes are Divinations and Muggle Studies. She doesn't care about Divination, and she IS a muggle, so would have no trouble passing the Muggle Studies test. Also, note regarding Percy (and others), Percy doesn't have to get 'Outstanding' in every OWL. Most likely he did, in all the classes he took. But in classes where he studied on his own, he probably didn't expect to get anything more that an 'Acceptable' in those test. Still an 'Acceptable' is still an OWL. > 6) We all know Tonks is seriously depressed. Is her depression > because she has lost a dear cousin, or because Remus won't > marry her? Or perhaps a bit of both. What do you think? > bboyminn: I think in her association with the Order and her time at Grimmauld Place, Tonk came to admire and like both Sirius and Remus. But you must admit that Remus's is a tragic story, certain to tug at anyone's heartstrings. So, with Sirius lost and Remus on a dark dangerous and very unpleasant mission, I think she felt a great deal of emotion for both of them. However, there is nothing she can do about Sirius but accept it and move on. But Remus is another story, for him to be in such a dark and dangerous stituation when Tonks would have much rather had him by her side, she must have been in a terrible state. To love, and to know that do to attitudes and dark circumstances that the love could never be realized, must have been estremely hard on her. So, while sympathy for the lost Sirius was certainly there, I think the pain of a neither lost nor there living Remus was much greater, especially after Remus rejected her, not based on emotions, but on the practical considerations of his being a werewolf. That had to sting. > 7)Why wasn't there a memorial, funeral, or wake for Sirius? > I know there wasn't a body to bury, but still, those who loved > him needed to say good-bye: they needed closure. > bboyminn: I can only speculated. If nothing else, they could have all gotten together and drank a toast in Sirius's honor. It would seem the least they could do. I suspect timing had something to do with it. True there was no body, so nothing to honor or bury, but it is also true that they would have wanted to give Harry maximum protection. So, they rushed him back the Dursleys were he had the protection he needed. Then as time passed, in some sense, it was too late. They had all moved on. Sirius was lost and that was that. On a slightly different note, for those who have read my 'Through the Veil and Back' theory, it's possible that no service was held because JKR intends to bring Sirius back in the most spectacular and dramatic way. True the dead are dead, never to return, but the circumstances around Sirius's death were very unsual. Normally, a spirit/soul goes through the Veil and leave the body behind. Perhaps, the cirumstances of both body and soul behind the Veil is enough to allow Sirius to come back, if he can only find a method, and that method is in my 'Through the Veil and Back' theory. > 8) Do you think that Molly's clock with all its hands pointing > towards mortal peril is a sign of what may happen in book 7? Will > we be seeing more than one Weasley death? Who do you think it > will be? When reading this chapter I got flash-backs to Molly's > bogart in Grimmauld Place. Will all her worst fears come true? > bboyminn: Well, dark and dangerous times are upon us, and anything can happen. I suspect our wildest guesses won't come close the the final chapter in this long story. I don't necessarily think the Clock or the Boggart incident with Molly is direct foreshadowing of specific events. It's more a reminder of how dark and dangerous things have become. Though, again, dark and dangerous times... certainly some Weasleys may not make it through. But I think what we are seen is general mood and not specific foreshadowing. > 9) Why do you think Percy still won't come back home? ... > Is it just a pride thing? > bboyminn: In the past, I've had plent to say on this subject. To some extent, I think Percy is justified in his anger and estrangement. I further believe that Mr. Weasley handled the stituation VERY poorly. If he had been more diplomatic, everyone could have walked away, if not happy, then at least satisfied. It's difficult for Percy to return with Fred and George (and now Ginny) so dead set against him. Molly would certianly welcome him back, as we see in HBP, and I think he and Arthur could come to an understanding that would at least bring a truce between them. Even Harry, I think, would be willing to forgive and forget. However, with Fred, George, and Ginny actively fighting against Percy's return, it is going to be a difficult task. I think if they got a reasonable mediator between them to keep things from getting out of hand, they could probably settle their differences and move on. I have speculated, though not with great enthusiasm, that perhaps Harry would be that mediator. I suspect Harry will need the cooperation of the Ministry, and Percy would be a good person to approach to get the ball rolling. I don't think what is holding them apart at this point is so much Pride as it is just plain stubbornness and pigheadedness. > > 10) Didn't Bill ask for his parents' permission before he took > Fleur to live with them? Or are the Weasleys so polite that they > keep their feeling about Fleur bottled up to protect Bill? > bboyminn: To the specific questions - YES and YES. No one really likes their in-laws. Just because one son and another daughter fit together doesn't mean the rest of the families do. I'm sure Bill made the suggestion of Fleur staying for a few days, and Molly politely, but reluctantly, accepted. Though she may have her own alternate preferences for Bill's love life, I think she is somewhat resigned to the fact that it is out of her control. So now she is just along for the ride. Just a few thoughts. Steve/Bboyminn From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 01:43:13 2005 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 01:43:13 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: <20051205231705.74690.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144138 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli wrote: > > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: > Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 5, > An Excess of Phlegm Discussion Questions > 2) Mollywobbles. Anyone knows what it means? Not being English myself I haven't a clue about it. I've always thought it was a take off from the term "mollycoddle", since she has so many children. I figured Arthur just took it and made it an affectionate thing between the two of them. > 3) Arthur's greatest ambition is to discover how planes stay on the air. Don't wizards and witches learn any physics at all? Don't they ?Arthur & Co- know that there are muggle books that can easily explain the basic concepts of aerodynamics? I've always wondered why the wizard world didn't study more about muggles. I would think that the kids at Hogwarts should study at least a year in a class that is all about muggles and muggle inventions. > 4) What's with Fleur's comment of Gabrielle? (The one when she mentions Gabrielle has been talking non stop about Harry). Is it a sign of what we may see in book 7, a possible relationship between her and Harry? Maybe Gabrielle as a young Ginny? Noooo, at least I hope not. I just think Gabrielle is taken with the fact that it was the "boy who lived" that rescued her from the lake. But then, that's probably how Ginny felt about Harry at first, a bit of infatuation with admiration. 7) Why wasn't there a memorial, funeral, or wake for Sirius? I know there wasn't a body to bury, but still, those who loved him needed to say good-bye: they needed closure. I know I needed closure, but maybe they don't do wakes in the wizard world? 8) Do you think that Molly's clock with all its hands pointing towards mortal peril is a sign of what may happen in book 7? Will we be seeing more than one Weasley death? Who do you think it will be? When reading this chapter I got flash-backs to Molly's bogart in Grimmauld Place. Will all her worst fears come true? I think those hands will be at "mortal peril" until Voldemort is vanquished. I think Percy, if he doesn't come to his senses and get on the right side, is doomed. Also, I have this irrational fear that Ginny will die and Harry will take it badly. Maybe it will be what fuels him on to finish off Voldemort? I don't know. I can't see Ron being killed off. 9) Why do you think Percy still won't come back home? He knows that Dumbledore & Co where telling the truth all along, is it because "people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right"? Is it just a pride thing? I think it's a pride thing!! Alora :) From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Tue Dec 6 00:44:44 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 01:44:44 +0100 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm References: <20051205231705.74690.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00c101c5f9fe$415d7360$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144139 Juli wrote: > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Miles: Thank you for your great summary and the interesting questions concerning the 5th chapter. Juli wrote these questions: > 1) We don't see many people who call Dumbledore by his first > name. Minerva calls him Albus (PS/SS Ch 1), maybe Mad-Eye Moody calls > him Albus, perhaps also Fudge, but Molly? That's a first. How close > do you think the Members of the Order actually are? Molly calling him > Albus makes me think that all of them see each other as family, not > only as colleagues. What do you think? Miles: Much more interesting is, that Dumbledore seems to address all people by their first names, but not all dare (?) to do it with him. I have the impression, that this is less a problem of Dumbledore objecting to this, but that he is in a very special position, superior to everyone he meets - part of his loneliness. I would consider, that he has to *ask* people to address him the same way he does. And he may have asked the members of the Order to do so. And yes, maybe this is comforting him like having a family. Molly is in several ways the emotional center of the Order, whereas Dumbledore is the spiritual and intellectual leader - he should be aware of Molly's role. > 3) Arthur's greatest ambition is to discover how planes stay on > the air. Don't wizards and witches learn any physics at all? Don't > they -Arthur & Co- know that there are muggle books that can easily > explain the basic concepts of aerodynamics? Miles: Just a running gag, not more. Sure, Arthur is described as an intelligent man, who spent years of his professional career in contact with the muggle world - and he knows nearly nothing about it. At this point, I simply grin, not digging deeper. > 4) What's with Fleur's comment of Gabrielle? (The one when she > mentions Gabrielle has been talking non stop about Harry). Is it a > sign of what we may see in book 7, a possible relationship between > her and Harry? Maybe Gabrielle as a young Ginny? Miles: Gabrielle was described as 8 years old back in the GoF IIRC, so she is ten or eleven then und no match for Harry. > 7) Why wasn't there a memorial, funeral, or wake for Sirius? I > know there wasn't a body to bury, but still, those who loved him > needed to say good-bye: they needed closure. Miles: Maybe there was, but Harry, isolated at the Dursley's, had no chance to get there. But this is just speculation. > 8) Do you think that Molly's clock with all its hands pointing > towards mortal peril is a sign of what may happen in book 7? Will we > be seeing more than one Weasley death? Who do you think it will be? > When reading this chapter I got flash-backs to Molly's bogart in > Grimmauld Place. Will all her worst fears come true? Miles: The clock was mentioned before, I don't see, that it indicates things to come in book 7. But apart from this, I'm sure we well see major losses for Harry, and the Weasley's are his real family. We will see at least one of them die, if you ask me for a guess. > 9) Why do you think Percy still won't come back home? He knows > that Dumbledore & Co where telling the truth all along, is it because > "people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than > being right"? Is it just a pride thing? Miles: It is pride, and it is career thinking. In some ways, Percy is the logical result of Molly's education. She wants all her kids going to the Ministry, being successful. She pushes her husband into a career he obviously does not like too much - if he had a choice, he would still deal with muggle artefacts. Percy is the perfect son of Molly's. He keeps his head down, bows to the Minister and is up to a great career. Unfortunately, Molly is now in some critical distance to the Ministry - and so is Percy. Speaking of karmic justice... > 10) Didn't Bill ask for his parents' > permission before he took Fleur to live with them? Or are the > Weasleys so polite that they keep their feeling about Fleur bottled > up to protect Bill? Miles: Quite sure he did. And there was no way for Molly to say "no" to this. It would have been rude to him and Fleur, and Molly already lost one son. Miles From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 02:12:16 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 02:12:16 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: <20051205231705.74690.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144140 Juli wrote: of the summary >> Discussion Questions > > 1) We don't see many people who call Dumbledore by his first name. Minerva calls him Albus (PS/SS Ch 1), maybe Mad-Eye Moody calls him Albus, perhaps also Fudge, but Molly? That's a first. How close do you think the Members of the Order actually are? Molly calling him Albus makes me think that all of them see each other as family, not only as colleagues. What do you think? Alla: I am not quite sure yet, but I think that I do tend to agree with you, Juli. I think Order members are quite close, NOT like family, but like very close friends united by common cause. If for no other reason, than for the fact that they all could die tomorrow, IMO. I am not saying that Molly and Albus are the closest friends or confidantes, but I speculate that Albus gave everybody in the Order permission to call him by his name and maybe those who were his students just declined to use the offer. > 4) What's with Fleur's comment of Gabrielle? (The one when she mentions Gabrielle has been talking non stop about Harry). Is it a sign of what we may see in book 7, a possible relationship between her and Harry? Maybe Gabrielle as a young Ginny? Alla: Gah. I hope not. :-) Sorry, Juli. > 7) Why wasn't there a memorial, funeral, or wake for Sirius? I know there wasn't a body to bury, but still, those who loved him needed to say good-bye: they needed closure. Alla: As others said - it is a very good question and I don't have a clue. > > 8) Do you think that Molly's clock with all its hands pointing towards mortal peril is a sign of what may happen in book 7? Will we be seeing more than one Weasley death? Who do you think it will be? When reading this chapter I got flash-backs to Molly's bogart in Grimmauld Place. Will all her worst fears come true? Alla: See, I don't know. I am pretty confident that we won't lose many Weasleys ( and no, I don't think that twins are DE, shudders at the thought :)), but even though it is reasonable to assume that at least one Weasley will fall, and there are so many of them, I don't know about it either. I read a very nice speculation on Fiction Alley once ( don't remember, I may have mentioned it here or not) that the people whom JKR wishes Happy Birthday are the people who survive the series, because Sirius and Dumbledore are not there, since supposedly they are wished Happy Birthday in the present time and ALL Weasleys are there. ( On the other hand Snape is there too. :)) Again, one can argue that at least one Weasley and maybe more just have to fall, because there are so many of them and it could be lame if none of them will die at the end, but I think it is possible. I can see JKR showing many Dark pureblood families dissappear ( Blacks, Malfoys), but Weasleys to survive and thrive as reward of them being on the right side. Just speculating here of course and if Weasley were to die, puttting my bets on Charlie too. > 9) Why do you think Percy still won't come back home? He knows that Dumbledore & Co where telling the truth all along, is it because "people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right"? Is it just a pride thing? Alla: Since I put the blame for Percy's arrogant (IMO) behaviour almost completely on Percy's shoulders and not Arthur's or anybody else,. my answer is YES it is a pride thing. That is my most charitable reading of Percy, by the way. Great questions, Juli. Thank you. Alla From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Dec 6 02:18:14 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 02:18:14 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone Redux--My version In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144141 La Gatta: > > Seriously, how about something like this for at least getting the > > dialog between Snape and Harry rolling: > > Leslie41: > I liked your idea about the bedside thing, but I did think it wasn't > entirely in character. So I borrowed it. > > Remember imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! Ceridwen: That was funny! Can I play? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Harry Potter and Neville Longbottom stood shoulder to shoulder on the crest of the rise. One lone figure made its way through the smoking ruins of what had become their battlefield. The two young wizards braced themselves. They had faced their worst enemies, this should be easy. The figure drew closer. The pallid features of Severus Snape became distinct. "What do you want?" he snarled up at them. "We just want you to know that we really didn't like your classes. We didn't appreciate getting yelled at in front of everybody, and embarrassed. We didn't like having detentions when the Slytherins got away with worse. And, the time you tried to poison Neville's toad..." "I had no intentions of poisoning the toad. And if you'll recall, Mr. Longbottom was successful in his next attempt to brew that particular potion." "He's right, Harry," Neville said. "All right. Forget about the toad. Still, you were unfair and unkind, and we didn't deserve it. You're nothing but a greasy git and you deserve everything you've gotten." "Is that it?" "Isn't that enough?" "Potter, I spent nearly a year in hiding. During that time, I hid amongst Muggles. I found an interesting thing called the Internet. Have you heard of it?" Harry looked at Snape suspiciously. "Yeah." "On that Internet, I found some fascinating reading. Fan fiction. And it has shown me things about myself that I can honestly say that I am ashamed of." Harry and Neville exchanged glances. "All right. What are you ashamed of?" Snape fixed Harry with a harsh stare. "Potter, I am your father." "Noooooooo!" From sherriola at earthlink.net Tue Dec 6 02:51:24 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:51:24 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004001c5fa0f$f311a340$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 144142 Betsy Hp: I think this does two things: on the surface it's a cute and endearing wrap-up of Arthur's interest in all things Muggle; but it also shows just how ignorant Arthur is of a world he claims to love. It hints to that underlying prejudice I've seen both Arthur and Molly show regarding muggles. After all, one of Arthur's brothers is a squib (an accountant, IIRC). Why doesn't Arthur go for a visit to see how the other half live? That'd be a perfect time to ask some questions. Sherry now: i think it was a distant cousin. not a brother. I think it's something like Arthur's second cousin or something like that. And i know it's probably been 20 years since i've seen my second cousins. It would be pretty horrible if it was on of Arthur's brothers. i can't even remember which book mentions that, but I'm quite sure it was a distant cousin. Sherry From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 03:10:08 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 03:10:08 -0000 Subject: Does Arthur has a brother whom he never visits? WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP5, In-Reply-To: <004001c5fa0f$f311a340$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144143 > Betsy Hp: >After all, one of Arthur's brothers > is a squib (an accountant, IIRC). Why doesn't Arthur go for a visit > to see how the other half live? That'd be a perfect time to ask some > questions. > > Sherry now: > > i think it was a distant cousin. not a brother. It would be > pretty horrible if it was on of Arthur's brothers. i can't even remember > which book mentions that, but I'm quite sure it was a distant cousin. Alla: I could be wrong, very very wrong, but I am not even sure if it is a distant cousin, Sherry. I think on her website JKR said that she was planning such character to show up in the books, but then decided to put some other character in instead. Was it Luna? Not sure. In any event, I heard the distant cousin somewhere, but I don't remember either which book mentions it. IF it is mentioned in the books at all. I think Arthur would go visit even a distant cousin, personally. JMO, Alla From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 03:10:48 2005 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 03:10:48 -0000 Subject: The Weasleys' Muggle Cousin (Was Re: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm) In-Reply-To: <004001c5fa0f$f311a340$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144144 > Betsy Hp: >After all, one of Arthur's brothers is a squib (an accountant, >IIRC). Why doesn't Arthur go for a visit to see how the other half > live? That'd be a perfect time to ask some > questions. > > Sherry now: > > i think it was a distant cousin. not a brother. I think it's something > like Arthur's second cousin or something like that. And i know it's > probably been 20 years since i've seen my second cousins. It would be > pretty horrible if it was on of Arthur's brothers. i can't even remember > which book mentions that, but I'm quite sure it was a distant cousin. hpfan_mom: Page 99, Scholastic version, PS/SS: "Are all your family wizards?" asked Harry, who found Ron just as interesting as Ron found him. "Er - yes, I think so," said Ron. "I think Mom's got a second cousin who's an accountant, but we never talk about him." Interesting . . . it's Molly's cousin who is the Muggle. And Arthur is totally infatuated with all things Muggle, to the point of trying to make a career of it. Meanwhile, Molly (presumably) denies him access to this cousin -- I'm assuming that since the Prewetts were pure-bloods it's the cousin who's been cut off for being out of place, not the other way around. What an interesting dynamic, Arthur crazy to know about Muggle ways and Molly's cousin unavailable to him. Ah, marriage. :) In any other book, Ron's line would likely have had no more significance than its face value. And perhaps even JKR is entitled to her throwaway lines. After all, what's more uberMuggle than being an accountant? (Maybe an actuary.) Or maybe it's meant to alert us to the fact that even pureblood families throw off Squibs (e.g., the worry about how Neville would turn out). hpfan_mom From sherriola at earthlink.net Tue Dec 6 03:18:15 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:18:15 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Does Arthur has a brother whom he never visits? WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP5, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004301c5fa13$b3c80540$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 144145 Alla: I could be wrong, very very wrong, but I am not even sure if it is a distant cousin, Sherry. I think on her website JKR said that she was planning such character to show up in the books, but then decided to put some other character in instead. Was it Luna? Not sure. In any event, I heard the distant cousin somewhere, but I don't remember either which book mentions it. IF it is mentioned in the books at all. Sherry: I remember Ron telling Harry something about a cousin who is an accountant. One of the early books. Maybe even SS/PS. I think that's how some speculation that The Evans family could be distantly related to the Weasleys got started. i remember reading such a theory in my early days in this group. But it's never been mentioned again. gone the way of all second cousins I expect. Sherry From sherriola at earthlink.net Tue Dec 6 03:22:35 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:22:35 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Weasleys' Muggle Cousin (Was Re: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004401c5fa14$4e88df50$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 144146 hpfan_mom: Interesting . . . it's Molly's cousin who is the Muggle. And Arthur is totally infatuated with all things Muggle, to the point of trying to make a career of it. Meanwhile, Molly (presumably) denies him access to this cousin -- I'm assuming that since the Prewetts were pure-bloods it's the cousin who's been cut off for being out of place, not the other way around. Sherry now: I really don't think it has any significance in terms of anything much. i mean, as I said, i haven't been in touch with my second cousins in many years. why should I want to? We have absolutely nothing in common, except that our grandparents were siblings. But we didn't grow up together, we don't share memories or anything at all. I'm sure they are no more interested in knowing me than i am in knowing them. i've always thought it was pretty much the same for molly's second cousin the accountant. And I haven't ever really thought much about it at all. Sherry From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 03:36:05 2005 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 03:36:05 -0000 Subject: The Weasleys' Muggle Cousin (Was Re: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm) In-Reply-To: <004401c5fa14$4e88df50$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144147 > Sherry now: > > I really don't think it has any significance in terms of anything > much. i mean, as I said, i haven't been in touch with my second > cousins in many years. why should I want to? We have absolutely > nothing in common, except > that our grandparents were siblings. But we didn't grow up > together, we don't share memories or anything at all. I'm sure > they are no more > interested in knowing me than i am in knowing them. i've always > thought it was pretty much the same for Molly's second cousin the > accountant. And I haven't ever really thought much about it at > all. > hpfan_mom again: Well, we've all got different relationships with our cousins, and I have no idea about JKR's and whether she thinks second cousins are people you see once a decade or several times a year (like our family). But I think that rather than having some deep meaning for the plot, the idea that Molly has a second cousin who's a Muggle fits into the backstory that JKR has developed on the Weasleys' marriage but doesn't necessarily intend to share with us. I just read today someone's response on this list to the question of Harry Potter's appeal, and part of the answer was that JKR took such time to develop her characters before writing. She knows the biographical facts that inform many of their actions. And so I believe that the existence of Molly's Muggle cousin has something to do with her attitude toward Arthur's obsession. We'll probably never know, since it's not important to the Horcrux hunt, but it makes the Weasleys' marriage more than a one-dimensional parenting partnership. hpfan_mom From h2so3f at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 03:46:17 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 03:46:17 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: <004001c5fa0f$f311a340$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144148 Juli wrote: 1) We don't see many people who call Dumbledore by his first name. Minerva calls him Albus (PS/SS Ch 1), maybe Mad-Eye Moody calls him Albus, perhaps also Fudge, but Molly? That's a first. How close do you think the Members of the Order actually are? Molly calling him Albus makes me think that all of them see each other as family, not only as colleagues. What do you think? CH3ed: I think Juli is right. The OotP members have faced dangers and fought together under the wise and respectful leadership of DD. I think they are much closer as a group than the DE's are under LV. I was a bit surprised that DD declared himself as "Dumbledore" instead of Albus or Albus Dumbledore to distinguish himself from Aberforth when he and Harry were challenged by Molly, tho. DD is on first name basis with Molly and Tonk (who does not object to being called Nymphadora this time). 2) Mollywobbles. Anyone knows what it means? Not being English myself I haven't a clue about it. CH3ed: Don't know... But I have a feeling my girl friend wouldn't allow me to call her that even if her name is Molly. ;O) By the way, Molly didn't ask for a secret question or password from DD. And DD, unlike Arthur, let that slide. 4) What's with Fleur's comment of Gabrielle? (The one when she mentions Gabrielle has been talking non stop about Harry). Is it a sign of what we may see in book 7, a possible relationship between her and Harry? Maybe Gabrielle as a young Ginny? CH3ed: Guess Gabrielle had developed a crush on Harry since his rescuing her in GoF. I don't think Harry is or will be interested, tho.... Unless something happens to Ginny in Book 7 (hope not). 6) We all know Tonks is seriously depressed. Is her depression because she has lost a dear cousin, or because Remus won't marry her? Or perhaps a bit of both. What do you think? CH3ed: Hermione's diagnosis is propable, except that Tonk looked perfectly fine when she and other OotP member came to see Harry off at King's Cross at the end of OotP and Sirius was already dead then. So whatever was bothering Tonk must have happened after the end of Book 5. So I'd vote for her being depressed because Remus rejected her advances. On a side note, it seems to me that powerful wizards disapparate/apparate with less or no noise, while not so powerful ones do it with a loud crack. If that is correct then Tonk is some powerful witch since, like DD, Tonk disapparates without any noise at all. 7) Why wasn't there a memorial, funeral, or wake for Sirius? I know there wasn't a body to bury, but still, those who loved him needed to say good-bye: they needed closure. CH3ed: My first instinct is to say they couldn't have an open memorial because they (OotP members) would constitute a target-rich environment for ambush and those that are working as spies would risk their cover. But then they probably could have had a private memorial somewhere (tho not at 12 GP because of the uncertainty over ownership issue). 8) Do you think that Molly's clock with all its hands pointing towards mortal peril is a sign of what may happen in book 7? Will we be seeing more than one Weasley death? Who do you think it will be? When reading this chapter I got flash-backs to Molly's bogart in Grimmauld Place. Will all her worst fears come true? CH3ed: Gosh I hope all the Weasleys survive book 7. I think there is a good chance some of them will get seriously hurt, tho. And I hope LV doesn't take "U No Poo" personally. ;O) I wonder where Molly got that clock. It seems to be a rare thing as she doesn't know of anyone else who has one. Come to think of it I wonder why hasn't DD made a map like the Marauders' of The Burrows (so there wouldn't be a need for the questions and passcodes to check out visitors). He has seen the Marauders' map from GoF, I presume he knows the magic to make one ( I mean, if the Marauders could then DD should be able to, ay?). 9) Why do you think Percy still won't come back home? He knows that Dumbledore & Co where telling the truth all along, is it because "people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right"? Is it just a pride thing? CH3ed: Yep, probably... I guess it is a Gryffindor trait to be proud. A noble and stupid trait all at the same time. 10) Didn't Bill ask for his parents' permission before he took Fleur to live with them? Or are the Weasleys so polite that they keep their feeling about Fleur bottled up to protect Bill? CH3ed: I think Bill might have asked.. but more like ,"Mom & dad, I'm bringing Fleur to stay with us a while. Is that OK?" rather than ,"Mom& dad, may I please bring Fleur to stay with us?" I think Bill is the favorite son and he knows it. Arthur and Molly probably hate to say no to him. CH3ed thanks Juli for the good work on Chapter 5!! :O) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 03:57:58 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 03:57:58 -0000 Subject: The Weasleys' Muggle Cousin (Was Re: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144149 > hpfan_mom: > > Page 99, Scholastic version, PS/SS: > > "Are all your family wizards?" asked Harry, who found Ron just as > interesting as Ron found him. > > "Er - yes, I think so," said Ron. "I think Mom's got a second > cousin who's an accountant, but we never talk about him." Alla: Thank you so much for this quote - I completely forgot about it. hpfan_mom: > Interesting . . . it's Molly's cousin who is the Muggle. And Arthur > is totally infatuated with all things Muggle, to the point of trying > to make a career of it. Meanwhile, Molly (presumably) denies him > access to this cousin -- I'm assuming that since the Prewetts were > pure-bloods it's the cousin who's been cut off for being out of > place, not the other way around. Alla: I am not sure if it means something significant or not ( I tend to agree with Sherry that it probably does not), but how do we know that Molly denies Arthur access to this cousin of hers? Isn't it possible that they parted their ways for the reason other that their cousin being a Squib? I guess, not likely, but what if they just did not like each other as people and did not want to stay in touch? I grant you that ties between two worlds are not huge, but Arabella for example seems to have no problem to do work for Dumbledore and be in active contact ( sort of) with other Order Members). Am I making sense? After all, they are family and if they wanted to stay in touch, I for some reason think they could. After all, many parents of muggleborn children do have some contacts with WW if for no other reason but to stay in touch with their kids, no? hpfan_mom: > Or maybe it's meant to alert us to the fact that even pureblood > families throw off Squibs (e.g., the worry about how Neville would > turn out). Alla: You could be right of course, but I just don't see Weasleys throwing out anybody, even Squibs. Just my speculative opinion here, Alla From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Tue Dec 6 04:11:00 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 04:11:00 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144150 > > Blechhh....again. Ron is perfect for her, IMHO. > Well, I guess for the sort of people who think that sort of thing, that's the sort of thing they think. To me, Ron is the ultimate Blechhh Factor. We'll just have to agree to disagree. > > Uhmmmm...Did Snape just wake up & see Hermione when she turned 17 > years old? If not, then he was eyeing her when she was younger. > Quite frankly, 20 years is a huge difference - not saying it won't > work, but if I taught someone since they were 11 years old & then > *all of sudden*, when they turned of age, I viewed them as a sexual > being, I couldn't do it...Perhaps in 10 years later, when I hadn't > seen them for a while, but not right away. That would mean I was a > sexual predator, sorry. The light doesn't turn on right away like > that, especially if you have seen them for years prior as a little > kid. > ... > > colebiancardi > (who is older & much more wiser when it comes to May-December > relationships) > What has the world turned into while I was off writing computer manuals and not paying attention? If we called out the Romance Police every time an older male fictional construct and a younger female fictional construct decided they liked one another and wanted to hold hands and gaze into each other's eyes, Jane Austen, for one, wouldn't fare very well. How much older than Emma is Mr. Knightly? And he's been "eyeing her" for a fair number of years before she gets it through her dizzy little head that she's in love with him and just maybe has done something very, very silly. Does that make him a sexual predator? Because he's willing to keep his peace and let her come around to the idea on her own? What about Marianne Dashwood and Colonel Brandon? Would you rather she married Willoughby (as whom IMHO Ron has roughly about as much gumption)? For that matter, how much older than Elizabeth is Mr. Darcy? We're talking about two people who've been annoying and otherwise interacting with each other for six or seven years, and have gotten to know one another pretty well. Are we going to inform them that because there's a twenty-year age difference in their ages, they have to wait another ten or twenty years to find out if they're really, really, really right for one another? Good gad, woman, there's a *war* on. They may not be alive in twenty years. They may not be alive in *one* year. My take is that if they're both free and over seventeen, and they've decided they want one another (always assuming, of course, that they do want one another), it's nobody's business but theirs. And the fact that you think it's Blechhh has absolutely nothing to do with anything. If they aren't right for one another, they'll find out soon enough, but again, it's their issue to sort out. And J.K. Rowling's, of course. Nobody else's. --La Gatta From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 04:06:01 2005 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 04:06:01 -0000 Subject: The Weasleys' Muggle Cousin (Was Re: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144151 > hpfan_mom: > > Or maybe it's meant to alert us to the fact that even pureblood > > families throw off Squibs (e.g., the worry about how Neville would > > turn out). > > > Alla: > > You could be right of course, but I just don't see Weasleys throwing > out anybody, even Squibs. > hpfan_mom again: Oh, sorry, I can see how my quote above could be misinterpreted. I didn't mean "throw off" as in "toss out of the family." I meant it in the sense of "produce." As in, "that live wire is throwing off sparks." In other words, any wizarding family might *produce* a Squib. And I agree, the Weasleys wouldn't toss anyone out. hpfan_mom From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Dec 6 04:13:10 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 23:13:10 -0500 Subject: Where did Slytherin go after he left Hogwarts? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144152 "Pippin: The Sorting Hat never says that it was wise or good to want Muggleborns banished from the school, or indeed to wish to teach only purebloods. And Slytherin House must represent those of Slytherin's followers and pupils who were happier with his old philosophy than his new one, who *didn't* follow Slytherin when he left the school, right?" Bruce: I sometimes wonder if old Salazar perhaps went off to found Durmstrang. Durmstrang, I believe, takes only purebloods, and during the Triwizard Tournament the Durmstrangers seemed to get along better with the Slytherins better than the other three houses. Bruce. From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Dec 6 04:22:51 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 23:22:51 -0500 Subject: SHIP Ron/Hermione Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144153 La Gatta: "Personally, I think Hermione is wasted on Ron. I mean, the guy can tie his shoes and zip his pants, but beyond that... Unless you picture our Miss Granger degenerating into the sort of nice little wifey who never uses a word of more than two syllables for fear of bruising Hubby's delicate male ego? " Bruce: Or Ron might turn into the sort of husband who seldom says anything more than "Yes, dear." and who conditions all plans and commitments with, "I'll ask the wife." As for Snape/Hermione, although I can't see it myself, the 'sexual predator' remark from I forget which puritanical member is going too far. Hermione is past the age of consent in several countries, and is pretty close to it in the WW. Bruce. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com Mon Dec 5 18:36:09 2005 From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:36:09 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat as Horcrux? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144154 > Carol responds: > Sorry for being unclear; I meant that the card reads "defeated," not > "killed," and I'm pretty sure that if DD had been the one to kill > Grindelwald, the card would have stated the fact directly. I think > that the date 1945, the same year that Tom Riddle left Hogwarts, is > important. (JKR herself has made the connection between a war in the > Wizarding World and the Muggles' World War II. How that ties in with > Tom, I don't know.) MercuryBlue: 1) I didn't say I think Dumbledore did kill Grindelwald, just that the possibility is there. 2) In that same interview, a few lines later, JKR says that she thinks Muggle and wizarding wars feed each other. So what Muggle wars could the wizarding wars of 1960ish-1981 and 1995 on correspond to? I can't think of any, myself. Which leads me to the conclusion that the mention of 1945, if it has anything to do with WWII at all, is there to point out the Hitler-Voldemort parallels. Carol: > Grindelwald is mentioned not once but twice in > SS/PS (chapters 6 and 13) MercuryBlue: Harry seeing the card and Harry seeing a copy of the card. That reads more like one mention than two to me. Carol: > and JKR did her hemming and hawing bit when > asked in an interview whether he was important, which almost certainly > means that he is. MercuryBlue: Or that she did an oops and is hoping that we won't notice, or that she's throwing out a red herring that she's hoping we'll chase off into the sunset, thereby missing completely the bombshells she's planted elsewhere that'll go off in Book 7. Carol: > ...her comments, which to me imply pretty clearly that we'll get > the back-story on GW in Book 7... MercuryBlue: Maybe. Maybe not. Since we haven't heard a single word about him since that trading card (and wizards live longer than Muggles, and Muggles remember WWII and Hitler quite clearly, and talk about them quite often), I'm betting on not. Carol: > No other wizard > whose name has come up in the books fits the bill as the one both LV > and DD knew of who had made at least one Horcrux. MercuryBlue: Point. But, is it necessarily true that they both knew of the same person? > Carol earlier: > > > Its [the Sorting Hat's] opinions come from "the founders > themselves." And sincerity (from a different interview > http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm ) would be > an odd virtue in a hat infested or possessed by a fragment of Tom > Riddle's soul. > > > MercuryBlue responded: > > Yes, it would. Just as odd as the virtues of courage and loyalty in > a kid with a fragment of Voldemort (of his soul?) glued to his > forehead. Accept the one, and you have to accept the possibility of > the other, however slim that possibility may or may not be. > > Carol again: > But I *don't* accept the one. I'm not sure why you think that I > believe Harry has part of Voldie's soul in him. I've actively argued > *against* the Harry the Horcrux theories. MercuryBlue: I must've missed those arguments. Still, I didn't say Harry necessarily IS a Horcrux, or that his scar is (though that is my opinion of the matter), just that the scar is a fragment of Voldemort, of his power and possibly his personality, and certainly influences Harry's personality (CAPSLOCK!Harry). The logical conclusion that the scar is a Horcrux is irrelevant to the point under discussion. Carol: > As for Harry's courage and loyalty are > apparently inborn, inherited from his parents as he inherits his > Quidditch skill from James. Those virtues have nothing to do with > Voldemort and were IMO present in Harry (as undeveloped potential) > before Godric's Hollow. The one has nothing to do with the other. MercuryBlue: Bingo. > > MercuryBlue: > > (What tiara?) > > Carol: > The tiara that Harry used to mark the place where he hid the HBP's > Potions book in the Room of Requirement. (I've speculated that Harry > might go back to the RoR looking for the book, find the Mirror of > Erised there, look in it and see himself finding a Horcrux--that same > tiara. Just a thought, a "shortcut" to finding the Horcruxes without > taking a whole book to search for them.) Since the tiara is in > Hogwarts, it could be the missing Ravenclaw Horcrux. For all we know, > Tom could have placed it there for safekeeping (having hidden it under > his cloak) when he went for the DADA interview. At any rate, it's a > valuable object mentioned for no apparent reason in HBP, so it's > probably either a clue or a red herring. (I hope it's a clue!) MercuryBlue: Clever idea about the Mirror. I disagree about the value of the tiara. It's certainly possible that it's very valuable, maybe that it was Rowena's and has become a Horcrux, but it IS in Landfill!Room- of-Requirement. The mental image I got was of this dollar-store jewelry set I got for my then-five-year-old sister for her birthday a while back. Cheap plastic, lasted all of a week, but she loved it. The tiara in the Room probably isn't cheap plastic, I don't think most wizards know what that is, but it certainly looks to me like it's worth about the same. > MercuryBlue: > > Why would 1971 be the turning point? We have no clue what he looked > > like between 1957 and 1995, only that at some point in there he got > > uglier, having made another Horcrux (or two?). > > Carol again: > I should have said 1970--eleven years before Godric's Hollow-- which is > when LV returned to England and started recruiting followers. (1971 is > the year that MWPP and Severus snape started Hogwarts.) MercuryBlue: He was certainly in England in 1957, followers in tow. And within a few years he was worrying the British Ministry enough for Fudge to say in Jul 1996 that they'd been looking for him for thirty years. That's a bit before 1970. Carol: > If you're not familiar with the Timeline at the Lexicon, you may want > to check it out. While it's probably not 100 percent accurate, it's > quite close to the mark given JKR's known problems with "maths." MercuryBlue: I like the timeline and backstory theory at www.redhen- publications.com/Potterverse.html better. From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 04:46:57 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:46:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm (various responses) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051206044657.36969.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144155 1) We don't see many people who call Dumbledore by his first name. Minerva calls him Albus (PS/SS Ch 1), maybe Mad-Eye Moody calls him Albus, perhaps also Fudge, but Molly? That's a first. How close do you think the Members of the Order actually are? Molly calling him Albus makes me think that all of them see each other as family, not only as colleagues. What do you think? Miles: Much more interesting is, that Dumbledore seems to address all people by their first names, but not all dare (?) to do it with him. I have the impression, that this is less a problem of Dumbledore objecting to this, but that he is in a very special position, superior to everyone he meets - part of his loneliness. I would consider, that he has to *ask* people to address him the same way he does. And he may have asked the members of the Order to do so. And yes, maybe this is comforting him like having a family. Juli: So basically he intimidates people (not in a bad way), he's the most powerful wizard, the brightest, the most everything. I think I wouldn't dare either to call him Albus, even if he had never been my teacher! Miles: Molly is in several ways the emotional center of the Order, whereas Dumbledore is the spiritual and intellectual leader. Juli: So Molly's the Heart, Dumbledore is the Soul and Brains? I like this idea. 2) Mollywobbles. Anyone knows what it means? Not being English myself I haven't a clue about it. bboyminn: I think to some extent 'Mollywobbles' is a made up name/word. Juli: So it's just a silly nickname? I thought there was something else there... > 4) What's with Fleur's comment of Gabrielle? (The one when she mentions Gabrielle has been talking non stop about Harry). Is it a sign of what we may see in book 7, a possible relationship between her and Harry? Maybe Gabrielle as a young Ginny? Alla: Gah. I hope not. :-) Sorry, Juli. Juli: Me neither, Gabrielle should be about 12 - 13 in book , way too young for a 17 year old Harry, me thinks. Ginny's only a couple of months younger than Harry and still it took him 5 years to see her as a "girl", not only as his best friends' little siter. Betsy Hp: If he'd let them I'd bet the Prophet would be all over a "Win a date with Harry Potter!" event. Juli: It sounds like something Rita Skeeter would do ;) 6) We all know Tonks is seriously depressed. Is her depression because she has lost a dear cousin, or because Remus won't marry her? Or perhaps a bit of both. What do you think CH3ed: Hermione's diagnosis is propable, except that Tonk looked perfectly fine when she and other OotP member came to see Harry off at King's Cross at the end of OotP and Sirius was already dead then. Juli: Perhaps she was in shock back then? 7)Why wasn't there a memorial, funeral, or wake for Sirius? I know there wasn't a body to bury, but still, those who loved him needed to say good-bye: they needed closure. bboyminn: I suspect timing had something to do with it. True there was no body,so nothing to honor or bury, but it is also true that they would havewanted to give Harry maximum protection. So, they rushed him back the Dursleys were he had the protection he needed. Then as time passed, in some sense, it was too late. They had all moved on. Sirius was lost and that was that. Juli: I'd never thought of it that way. You're probably right, Steve. Their priority was (is) to keep Harry alive, Sirius' funeral just wasn't as important. bboyminn: On a slightly different note, for those who have read my 'Through the Veil and Back' theory, it's possible that no service was held because JKR intends to bring Sirius back in the most spectacular and dramatic way. True the dead are dead, never to return, but the circumstances around Sirius's death were very unsual. Normally, a spirit/soul goes through the Veil and leave the body behind. Perhaps, the cirumstances of both body and soul behind the Veil is enough to allow Sirius to come back, if he can only find a method, and that method is in my 'Through the Veil and Back' theory. Juli: I hope you're right. I can't handle the idea that Sirius is truly gone. 8) Do you think that Molly's clock with all its hands pointing towards mortal peril is a sign of what may happen in book 7? Will we be seeing more than one Weasley death? Who do you think it will be? When reading this chapter I got flash-backs to Molly's bogart in Grimmauld Place. Will all her worst fears come true? Alla: See, I don't know. I am pretty confident that we won't lose many Weasleys, but even though it is reasonable to assume that at least one Weasley will fall, and there are so many of them, I don't know about it either. Juli: when you put it like that, then at least one Weasley is bound to die, the odds are working against them. Alla: I read a very nice speculation on Fiction Alley once that the people whom JKR wishes Happy Birthday are the people who survive the series, because Sirius and Dumbledore are not there, since supposedly they are wished Happy Birthday in the present time and ALL Weasleys are there. ( On the other hand Snape is there too. :)) Juli: I've also read that theory, and it could also be that only the good guys that survive are ther. Betsy Hp: I like to think that Molly's clock is the way it is because one of the Weasley twins is a Death Eater spy and any of the Weasleys could buy it if they stumble upon his deadly secret. Juli: so, which twin is the evil one, Fred or George? and does the other twin know about it? This is the time I've heard this theory, there're other theories about both of them being evil, but not a single one about One evil twin. Juli Aol: jlnbtr Yahoo: jlnbtr --------------------------------- Yahoo! Personals Skip the bars and set-ups and start using Yahoo! Personals for free [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 04:48:18 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 04:48:18 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144156 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lagattalucianese" wrote: > Well, I guess for the sort of people who think that sort of thing, > that's the sort of thing they think. To me, Ron is the ultimate > Blechhh Factor. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Canonically, at least Hermione doesn't find there to be a Blechhh factor regarding Ron. It's a nice arbiter when we all can't seem to agree on our personal tastes--defer to the fictional characters' own decisions. :) > We're talking about two people who've been annoying and otherwise > interacting with each other for six or seven years, and have gotten > to know one another pretty well. I don't get the impression that Hermione knows Snape 'pretty well' at all; does she know what he likes to do in his spare time? What he reads? What he actually thinks about his job? As none of us readers actually know any of this material and seem to be profoundly divided on issues like Snape's basic personality qualities, I'd be surprised if she knew so much more than we did. Likewise on the reverse: despite the fanfic chestnut of "He'd been secretly watching Miss Granger for years...", I don't get the impression that Snape knows more about Hermione than he sees in class, or more importantly that he's interested in knowing more. And he's profoundly dismissive of her in the classroom. > If they aren't right for one another, they'll find out soon enough, > but again, it's their issue to sort out. And J.K. Rowling's, of > course. Nobody else's. If you're going for canon plausibility (which may never have been the point of this thread), I suspect that JKR would poke Hermione (who she's admitted is like her younger self) and say "Who on earth would want Snape in love with them?" YMMV. -Nora wonders how many Hogwarts couples end up getting married and whether it's higher or lower than her college... From sydpad at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 04:49:36 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 04:49:36 -0000 Subject: The Weasleys' Muggle Cousin (Was Re: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144157 > hpfan_mom: > > Page 99, Scholastic version, PS/SS: > > "Are all your family wizards?" asked Harry, who found Ron just as > interesting as Ron found him. > > "Er - yes, I think so," said Ron. "I think Mom's got a second > cousin who's an accountant, but we never talk about him." Thanks for finding the quote! This is where I get honestly confused about what reaction JKR is trying to elicit. Muggles play this weird double-role, where on the one hand they're comic relief, and on the other it's really bad to be prejudiced against them. "We never talk about him" is funny because it's a reversal (accountants are weirdos), but on the other hand.. well, there's a lot of not- very-nice associations with 'not talking about someone' because of a trait they were born with. Usually with JKR I would assume the ambiguity but, I don't know, it honestly feels JUST like comic relief to me here. I found this most baffling with the Crup, that shows up in Fantastic Beasts-- a Jack Russel-like creature that loves Wizards and hates Muggles. Does that mean it's evil, because it's prejudiced, or that it's neat, because it loves imaginative people and hates dull ones? Because I get a strong sense that prejudice is bad against Muggle-borns, because they're actually just as good as Wizards; but it's okay against muggles because they're, well, not. As JKR owns a Jack Russel, and gave (probably) a Crup to Ron as a Patronus, I'm assuming it's the latter. Otherwise it seems like just the sort of pet a Voldemort supporter would like to have around! It's a peculiar position to wind up in for a book that's at least partly about inclusion and the evils of prejudice. -- Sydney, muggle and proud From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Tue Dec 6 05:27:36 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 05:27:36 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: <20051205231705.74690.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144158 > > Once inside the kitchen, Molly cooks a starved Harry some > delicious home-made dinner... > Doesn't Molly ever do anything but cook and knit those ghastly sweaters? Much as I adore cooking, I am beginning to see why the poor lady is becoming the least little bit irritable. > > Discussion Questions > > 1) We don't see many people who call Dumbledore by his first > name. Minerva calls him Albus (PS/SS Ch 1), maybe Mad-Eye Moody > calls him Albus, perhaps also Fudge, but Molly? That's a first. > How close do you think the Members of the Order actually are? Molly > calling him Albus makes me think that all of them see each other as > family, not only as colleagues. What do you think? > What does Snape call him? In PoA.9, he addresses him as "Headmaster"; do they become less formal with one another as the books progress? > > 2) Mollywobbles. Anyone knows what it means? Not being > English myself I haven't a clue about it. > I think it's a play on "collywobbles", a colloquial term for "stomach ache". I don't think it's particularly English; It's used fairly commonly in the U.S. > > 3) Arthur's greatest ambition is to discover how planes stay > on the air. Don't wizards and witches learn any physics at all? > Don't they ?Arthur & Co- know that there are muggle books that can > easily explain the basic concepts of aerodynamics? > I'm extremely confused about where the Wizarding World draws the line on Muggle technology. The watershed seems to be somewhere in the vicinity of the internal combustion engine. That is, they seem able to handle things that wind up (wristwatches, e.g.) and nonmechanical items like golf balls, and they seem to drive cars when it suits them, without any very clear idea of how they work, but electricity is of the Great Unknown, and even gaslights seem to be outside their ken. The thing that puzzles me the most is their problem with clothing. You'd think all they'd have to do is go outside and have a look around; as the immortal Yogi said, "You can observe a lot by watching." But it doesn't seem to have occurred to them. I wonder if this is one of those coy little funnies children's authors go in for, that JKR inserted into the first book and subsequently allowed to get away from her. > ... > > 6) We all know Tonks is seriously depressed. Is her > depression because she has lost a dear cousin, or because Remus > won't marry her? Or perhaps a bit of both. What do you think? > Do we know that she was particularly close to Sirius? (I read OotP, but it was a long time ago, and I don't recall any telling interactions between them. I think it's mainly Lupin. He seems to be having an effect on her patronus, which I should think means she's pretty wound up with him. Oh heck, maybe she's got a crush on Snape too... >:D > ... > > 9) Why do you think Percy still won't come back home? He > knows that Dumbledore & Co where telling the truth all along, > is it because "people find it far easier to forgive others for > being wrong than being right"? Is it just a pride thing? > I think we're underestimating Percy. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he turns out to be working for the OotP, and is a plant at the MoM, keeping an eye on things and shunting information along to his father. He makes such a big deal of being a stuffed shirt, it could be an act. Well, couldn't it? > ... > > Thanks to Penapart Elf for her help. I hope you all enjoy the > discussion > > Juli > Thanks to you for putting it together! Great fun. --La Gatta From djklaugh at comcast.net Tue Dec 6 05:33:07 2005 From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 05:33:07 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: <20051205231705.74690.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144159 (Snip) Discussion Questions 1) We don't see many people who call Dumbledore by his first name. Minerva calls him Albus (PS/SS Ch 1), maybe Mad-Eye Moody calls him Albus, perhaps also Fudge, but Molly? That's a first. How close do you think the Members of the Order actually are? Molly calling him Albus makes me think that all of them see each other as family, not only as colleagues. What do you think? I think that after spending a year at 12 Grimwald Place, being the housekeeper, chef, scheduler, confidante, and source of major emotional and physical support for the OOP, Molly has become friends with just about every member of OOP. I suspect she thinks of them all as family... incuding Dumbledore. I also thinks she probably only calls him Albus when they are not engaged in OOP business. Like any group of people who spend a lot of time together working on a common goal, I think the OOP members have become quite close to each other. While not everyone likes or is close to everyone else, they (for the most part) like and respect each other. 2) Mollywobbles. Anyone knows what it means? Not being English myself I haven't a clue about it. I think this is a variation of the word "collywobbles" which means an upset stomach caused by nervousness or slight fear; or bellyache. I think it is Arthur's pet name for her because she does worry so about her children... and anyone else who comes under her protective apron. And Molly does tend to "bellyache" about things - complain, gripe, stew.... 3) Arthur's greatest ambition is to discover how planes stay on the air. Don't wizards and witches learn any physics at all? Don't they ?Arthur & Co- know that there are muggle books that can easily explain the basic concepts of aerodynamics? Trouble is I don't think Arthur has the basic understanding of physics that would be needed to understand the language of aerodynamics - any more than most Muggles could understand the language of transfiguration. No, I don't think wizards learn physics. Besides I think his desire to discover "how" planes stay in the air is not so much a scientific questions as a metaphysical question. 4) What's with Fleur's comment of Gabrielle? (The one when she mentions Gabrielle has been talking non stop about Harry). Is it a sign of what we may see in book 7, a possible relationship between her and Harry? Maybe Gabrielle as a young Ginny? I think Fleur was, in a round about way, telling Harry that she and Gabrielle are still very grateful to Harry for bringing Gabrielle back from the merfolk in GOF. And I suspect Gabrielle has a crush on Harry. But I don't think we will see any shipping news between her and Harry. 5) Which classes did Hermione actually took? And how is it possible for anyone to get 12 OWLS (like Bill Weasley and Barty Crouch Jr.)? Did they get Time-Turners? Or did they study the classes on their own without any professors' assistance? Is this what Hermione did? >Shrug< this has been a puzzle to me for quite awhile 6) We all know Tonks is seriously depressed. Is her depression because she has lost a dear cousin, or because Remus won't marry her? Or perhaps a bit of both. What do you think? I think it is a bit of both. Sirius was apparently the only other one of the Black family (except Tonks mother?) who did not follow the family belief systems about Muggles, purebloods, etc. While they may not have been real close on an emotional level, I suspect Tonks feels a great loss at his death. And yes I think she is depressed because Lupin won't reciprocate her feelings for him.... or won't act on such feelings anyway. And she can't talk to him much as he is off doing spy duty with the werewolves.... and I'll bet she worries about him while he is doing so. Add to these problems the fact that Tonks is doing some kind of guard duty at Hogwarts ... which most of the time is probably pretty boring and lonely. 7) Why wasn't there a memorial, funeral, or wake for Sirius? I know there wasn't a body to bury, but still, those who loved him needed to say good-bye: they needed closure. Again >Shrug< I don't know why there was no memorial service for Sirius.... perhaps that is not a traditon in the WW. 8) Do you think that Molly's clock with all its hands pointing towards mortal peril is a sign of what may happen in book 7? Will we be seeing more than one Weasley death? Who do you think it will be? When reading this chapter I got flash-backs to Molly's bogart in Grimmauld Place. Will all her worst fears come true? We may well see the death of a Weasley in book 7 but I don't think *all* of Molly's fears will come to pass. My guess is that Percy will be the one killed as he tries to do something heroic ... save Harry, save Ginny or Ron, or something like that. Or it could be one or both of the twins who die... but I for one sincerely hope that is not the case. 9) Why do you think Percy still won't come back home? He knows that Dumbledore & Co where telling the truth all along, is it because "people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right"? Is it just a pride thing? I thinks Percy still feels strongly that his parents have wrong attitudes about MOM. Even though he knows LV has truly returned that was not the only disagreement he had with his parents. Additionally he may not know how to go about righting things. After all when he went home with Scrimgeour at Christmas, he got food thrown at him 10) Didn't Bill ask for his parents' permission before he took Fleur to live with them? Or are the Weasleys so polite that they keep their feeling about Fleur bottled up to protect Bill? Oh I think it went something like this: Bill: Hey Mom, Dad you know how I've been seeing a lot of Fleur De La Croix? Well she really needs a place to stay and it is so expensive to rent a place what with her only working part time and all. Could she come here and stay with you while she's working Gringotts? You know she doesn't have much family left, and she is so far from home. Plus there is the language problem. And, ummm, well, >blush< ya see, we're um well, we really like each other alot and... Arthur: Ummm, Er, well, I guess it's ok, son, but you'd better ask your mother Molly: (who does not yet know Fleur very well) -Oh Bill, that poor girl! Of course she can come and stay. We'd love to get to know your little friend better. Thanks to Penapart Elf for her help. I hope you all enjoy the discussion Good questions Juli! Thanks Deb - aka djklaugh > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Tue Dec 6 05:49:43 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 05:49:43 -0000 Subject: Harry and Snape: The Relationship (was:Two scenes...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144160 > ... > > ...There's the "horrible boy" Petunia spoke of > in OotP that could turn out to be a hint that Lily and Snape were > friends (JKR likes her girls to have male best friends). There's > LOLLIPOPS, which takes it even further. And there's the big "why, > Dumbledore? why?" question still to be answered. So yeah, the bang > should be an almighty one, but I don't think it'll fall into a deus > ex machina catagory. JKR's done too much foreshadowing. > ... > > Betsy Hp > I thought the "horrible boy" was James (Harry responds, "If you mean my mum and dad..."). Like Petunia was drawing odious comparisons between Lily's James and her own Vernon and indulging in some sour grapes. --La Gatta From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Tue Dec 6 06:27:33 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 06:27:33 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone Redux--My version In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144161 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lagattalucianese" > wrote: > > > Seriously, how about something like this for at least getting the > > dialog between Snape and Harry rolling: > > > > I liked your idea about the bedside thing, but I did think it wasn't > entirely in character. So I borrowed it. > > Remember imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! > ... > > Leslie > Yours is good too. I'd like to think that once the action is acted and Snape is firmly in the DDM camp and Harry and Neville have both grown up and fought alongside him, Snape may begin to see some good in them. Maybe not, but I'd like to hope so. A couple of other thoughts: (1) You realize this is nothing but idle speculation. Only JKR knows for sure what's going on, and she isn't saying. (2) I sometimes feel embarrassed at the things we put these poor people through. Especially Snape. I wonder if there's an afterlife where he gets to turn the tables on us? --La Gatta From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Tue Dec 6 06:49:15 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 06:49:15 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144162 > > Alla: > > See, I don't know. I am pretty confident that we won't lose many > Weasleys ( and no, I don't think that twins are DE, shudders at the > thought :)),... > They slip Voldemort this wand, see, and when he points it at Harry and yells, "Avada Kedavra", it turns into a rubber snake and explodes in a shower of sparks and an odor of dungbomb... --La Gatta, who has had a rather fraught day From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Tue Dec 6 06:52:22 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 06:52:22 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone Redux--My version In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144163 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > La Gatta: > > > Seriously, how about something like this for at least getting the > > > dialog between Snape and Harry rolling: > > > > > > Leslie41: > > I liked your idea about the bedside thing, but I did think it > wasn't > > entirely in character. So I borrowed it. > > > > Remember imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! > > Ceridwen: > That was funny! Can I play? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ... > > Harry and Neville exchanged glances. "All right. What are you > ashamed of?" > > Snape fixed Harry with a harsh stare. "Potter, I am your father." > > "Noooooooo!" > YESSSS!!! ;D --La Gatta From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Dec 6 04:06:43 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 23:06:43 -0500 Subject: Please explain. . . Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144164 Lupinlore: "If this were to happen, I would use the books for compost. JKR will have done nothing less than to make a hero out of a child abuser, which will be reprehensible beyond belief." . . . How Snape is a child abuser? He is a strict, harsh, and sometimes unfair teacher, but I can't see how any of his behavior amounts to child abuse, certainly not by the standards of his own society--which is, really, the only proper way to judge someone's behavior; to try to impose the mores of one society on another is wrong, we know that now, looking back on Europe and America's history of cultural imperialism--or even of our own. I work in the criminal justice system; I've seen cases of REAL child abuse; Snape's actions towards any of his pupils, even Neville, come nowhere close. He's a meanie, all right, but not an abuser. Calling anyone who is harsh or unfair to a child an 'abuser' cheapens the term, as it draws attention away from REAL abuse. (The Dursleys come closer, but compared to some of the cases I've seen and heard of, their efforts were halfhearted at best.) "Bruce" From leora at nycap.rr.com Tue Dec 6 04:43:50 2005 From: leora at nycap.rr.com (leora) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 23:43:50 -0500 Subject: The Weasleys' Muggle Cousin (Was Re: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm) References: Message-ID: <003601c5fa1f$d590e460$0200a8c0@anakin> No: HPFGUIDX 144165 You know what I was thinking about when I heard that quote from the first book? In the fifth book, Sirius said that he was Molly's second cousin by marriage and Arthur's second cousin once removed. No one talks about the "second cousin accountant"...but what if that was made up because no one wanted to talk about Sirius Black? Also, we have been told that James was a pureblood. Technically if James was a pureblood, isn't he related to the Blacks and the Weasleys? That would be hot- if Harry and Ron ended up being related...but that wouldn't be that great for Ginny and Harry.... "musicgal3001" From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Dec 6 05:48:16 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 00:48:16 -0500 Subject: Accountant Cousin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144166 BetsyHP: "It hints to that underlying prejudice I've seen both Arthur and Molly show regarding muggles. After all, one of Arthur's brothers is a squib (an accountant, IIRC). Why doesn't Arthur go for a visit to see how the other half live? That'd be a perfect time to ask some questions. Arthur's ignorace may be enforced by Molly, who in this chapter suggests that Arthur may not have wanted the promotion, and has always been hostile to his interest in things Muggle. So I wonder if they don't visit his brother because Molly doesn't wish it?" It was a cousin, not a brother, and on Molly's side; and either he or his wife did something very impolite at Arthur & Molly's wedding. This is per JKR's website; supposedly the cousin then produced a daughter who turned out to be a witch and got sorted into Slytherin. This is a plot element that ended up on the cutting-room floor, but we may meet the cousin at Bill's wedding. Bruce [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From leora at nycap.rr.com Tue Dec 6 05:05:03 2005 From: leora at nycap.rr.com (leora) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 00:05:03 -0500 Subject: Sorting Hat as Horcrux? References: Message-ID: <006401c5fa22$a27780e0$0200a8c0@anakin> No: HPFGUIDX 144167 Carol: "The tiara that Harry used to mark the place where he hid the HBP's Potions book in the Room of Requirement." The tiara? Maybe the one that belongs to the great aunt of Mrs. Weasley. Maybe they will look for it for the wedding and find out that it's gone. Then, Harry will find it in the Room of Requirement or something and remember that all the Weasleys are pureblood and maybe have something to do with Horcruxes. Just a thought. "musicgal3001" From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 6 07:51:45 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 07:51:45 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: <20051205231705.74690.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144169 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli wrote: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli wrote: Juli: > 2) Mollywobbles. Anyone knows what it means? Not being English myself I haven't a clue about it. Geoff: Steve (I think) pointed to "collywobbles" and I visualise JKR suddenly thinking of this play on words because of the closeness to Molly's name. The dictionary quotes two meanings: an informal description of stomach trouble and a humorous reference to extreme anxiety - and, looking at Molly's reaction to events, I think JKR had the latter in mind, which is the usage you would find nowadays in the UK. You will often hear a native English speaker (usually older) say that they have to do something which demands a special effort - speaking at a wedding reception, meeting the Lord Mayor etc. - and they will say "I've got the collywobbles about it." From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Tue Dec 6 02:52:09 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 03:52:09 +0100 Subject: Twothousand scenes - was: Fanfic Tsunami References: Message-ID: <00e401c5fa10$0dd375f0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144170 Ceridwen wrote: > That was funny! Can I play? Miles: And it was all my fault! It used to be a list with discussions about literature, character development, ethics and universal appeal of Harry Potter. People were discussing intelligently, civilised and following strict, but reasonable rules for their argumentations. And then, in a moment of fatal frivolousness, I put in a few lines of intentionally bad fanfic caricature. But the people did not laugh at me, did not throw mud at me, did not cancel my membership - they started to write fanfic themselves, flooding the list, displacing all that used to be the character of the list... Miles, looking back at the ruins of a once glorious mailing list, sobbing PS: I still did not see any proposal I could stand in the real book 7. The "abuse" in classes is much too unimportant compared to Lord Voldemort and his past and future deeds, that it simply would hurt the entire series to try to put any karmic, poetic, or whatever justice upon Snape. From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Dec 5 09:20:40 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:20:40 -0000 Subject: Snape's punishment a "moral" issue? Was "Two Scenes..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144171 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Alla: > True, forgiveness is not something you deserve, it is a gift > from the person you wronged, BUT to demand EVERYTHING from > Harry and NOTHING from Snape to me and this is my opinion only > would amount to letting Snape off the hook. Makes any sense? Oh, I totally agree with that. The "suffering saint" version of Harry would accomplish nothing other than to induce projectile vomiting. Having said that, it is true that unexpected moves on the part of one person can induce change in another person, much as one chemical can catalyze change in another. > You are saying that forgiveness is something that Snape needs, > OK, fair enough, but I don't see even that in the text. If I > will see that Snape needs, wants forgiveness from Harry, I may > even be happy with that. Yes, I understand what you are saying, Alla. However, it's going to be very difficult to get there. We have seen no movement in Snape over the last few books, NONE. That is why, as in the case of the Dursleys, I think it will require some kind of third party intervention in order to move things along. Even then, it would be hard, realistically, to see any scenario where Snape will change short of a blatant Deus Ex Machina. Besides, the great satisfaction from the Dursley scene comes from the third party intervention, and I think something similar will be required to bring the arc of Snape's abuse to a satisfactory conclusion. > Alla: > I am very sorry, but no I cannot stop labeling Snape's actions > as such. I am not asking anybody to agree with me, but I am > convinced that that is what Snape does - abuse Harry and > Neville. I am always extra clear to state that this is only my > opinion, but that IS my opinion and so far canon did nothing to > convince me to the opposite. Oh, I absolutely agree. Snape is a child abuser, over and out. That he is far from the worst child abuser in the world does not change the fact. This thread has run through all six books so far, and if JKR can't tie it off in a satisfactory manner that does not leave Snape unpunished for his reprehensible actions, then she will have failed very badly indeed. Lupinlore From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Dec 6 08:42:51 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:42:51 -0000 Subject: Please explain. . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144172 "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > How Snape is a child abuser? Well, he heaps pain and abuse on a child who has shown extraordinary courage, power, and moral fiber. And he did it not for what the child did but what his father had done. And he had threatened to kill the beloved pet of another student. And he had so unfairly insulted another student that she was engulfed in tears and ended up in the hospital wing. And although child abuse does not really describe it, the fact that he also murdered the kindest, most powerful, most benevolent, and brightest wizard in a thousand years does not add significantly to Snape's character reference. Eggplant From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Tue Dec 6 09:41:28 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 09:41:28 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Please explain. . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051206094128.28925.qmail@web86202.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144173 --- eggplant107 wrote: > "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > > How Snape is a child abuser? > > Well, he heaps pain and abuse on a child who has > shown extraordinary > courage, power, and moral fiber. That's a bit of a circular argument, you haven't shown an example of the abuse. And what's Harry's moral qualities have got to do with it? Yes, Harry is a good person. Is a hypothetical abuser stops to be an abuser if the victim is less than perfect? > And he had > threatened to kill the > beloved pet of another student. No he did not. We've went through that episode many times before. Trevor was in no more danger than when Flitwick used him for demonstrating levitation. > And he had so > unfairly insulted > another student that she was engulfed in tears and > ended up in the > hospital wing. Wow, that's a turn of phrase Rita Skeeter would be proud of. :-) So Hermione ended in the hospital wing to treat Snape-induced nervous breakdown then? Yes, Snape unfairly and cruelly insulted her. If that's abuse, then someone, arest McGonagall. She unfairly and cruelly insulted Neville when Black got his hands on the Gryffindor password. > And although child abuse does not really describe > it, the fact that he > also murdered the kindest, most powerful, most > benevolent, and > brightest wizard in a thousand years does not add > significantly to > Snape's character reference. Objection, your honour. Circular argument, and irrelevant. Irene ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Dec 6 11:11:51 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 11:11:51 -0000 Subject: Twothousand scenes - was: Fanfic Tsunami In-Reply-To: <00e401c5fa10$0dd375f0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144174 > PS: I still did not see any proposal I could stand in the real book 7. The > "abuse" in classes is much too unimportant compared to Lord Voldemort and > his past and future deeds, that it simply would hurt the entire series to > try to put any karmic, poetic, or whatever justice upon Snape. Ceridwen: Yes. My point. I think, when it's all over, and they look back on the battlefield, such as it may be, and review everything that has happened over the course of seven years, Snape's snarking, Hagrid's rough first year teaching, Trelawney's boozing, everything, will be small. I don't think any of the kids will care, if they live through book 7. Because they will have faced True Evil. And after that, who would want to sweat the small stuff? I think that if JKR shows any sort of Karmic retribution for things like bad teaching or new teacher mistakes, it'll be taken care of in one or two lines, without being explicit that this is what it is. There's a lot to accomplish in book 7. We've been promised several things which have yet to be answered, the four remaining horcruxes must be found and destroyed, LV and his followers must be somehow eliminated from affecting the WW, so I just can't see there being time or space enough for the rest, which so far hasn't turned a single hair on any (fictional) bodys' heads. It was fun to offer a scenario instead of just spelling it out, though. Ceridwen. From mysmacek at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 11:25:23 2005 From: mysmacek at yahoo.com (mysmacek) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 11:25:23 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Snape's teaching method In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144175 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > Yes! But that's central to Hagrid's personality. Here he is in a > situation where he's acting completely inappropriately, not taking > responsibility as an adult when he should have, dragging the kid into > something illegal he's doing, expecting them to lie for him, and > never seeming to consider this wrong. Iirc, all he continually cares > about is the dragon he wants--and he's looking longingly at the > dragon eggs in GoF as well. As Betsy mentioned, his response to Ron > being bitten by Norbert is to yell at Ron for scaring the dragon. > Ron spends the next day not getting medical care for his bite because > he's worried Pomfrey will recognize the bite and Hagrid will get in > trouble--this while his hand is swelling to twice its normal size. > They know this is the guy teaching the CoMC class. No, he was not. He was then only a gamekeeper, protected by DD and forbidden to do any magic. He was more a friend for the trio than a figure of authority. We do not see anyone from trio complaining (even just Harry to himself), do we? Generally, I think that the problem is that you apply modern standards for Hagrid's classes. Draco *could* have been seriously injured, but he probably was not - remember, it's the world where uncle Algy holds Neville out of the window by his leg - and we haven't heard of him landing in Azkaban :-) By your standards, mme Hooch would be even more guilty, as she clearly lets students fly high above grounds with little safeties. What if some Sprout's mandragoras were just a bit more mature? Grubbly Plank's bowtruckles would happily gouge your eyes out. Triwizard tournament is clearly lethal. Etc, etc. About the only safe subject we know is divination and history of magic. And DADA with Umbridge. I think it's not wonder they are the less favourite ones :) I understand Hagrid's frustration with his classes - I would rather cared of screwts than making a list of unicorns properties (or memorized names of boring poems of some long dead poet I do not care of). Of course, GP's approach is safer OWL-wise, but then she has probably tens of years as a teacher under her belt. Mysmacek From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 11:27:08 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 11:27:08 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144176 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>Julie: > > 3) Arthur's greatest ambition is to discover how planes stay on > > the air. Don't wizards and witches learn any physics at all? Don't > > they ?Arthur & Co- know that there are muggle books that can > > easily explain the basic concepts of aerodynamics? > > Betsy Hp: > I think this does two things: on the surface it's a cute and > endearing wrap-up of Arthur's interest in all things Muggle; but it > also shows just how ignorant Arthur is of a world he claims to love. > > It hints to that underlying prejudice I've seen both Arthur and > Molly show regarding muggles. After all, one of Arthur's brothers > is a squib (an accountant, IIRC). Amiable Dorsai: Other people have pointed out that it's Molly's second cousin who's the squib. An accountant is no more likely to know what keeps an airplane in the air than anyone else. I suspect it's less a question of prejudice, per se, than a sign of a very difficult intellectual gap. Arthur lives in a world where a one-quart jug can hold as much as you need it to, where the law of gravity is more like a suggestion, and where a horse-sized critter can get itself off the ground with a pair of totally inadequate wings. The better he is at understanding that world--and he's apparently quite good--the more difficult it will be for him to understand a science based on absolutes. If he pops over to Blackwell's and picks up a random book on aeronautics, he's likely to come across a something like this (I cut out the hard part. :-) ): "...The value of circulation applied to the cylinder in flow field z1 should be specified so that a stagnation point is produced at the point of intersection of the rear of the cylinder and the x-axis..." Could he find some simpler text? Sure. But he probably hasn't a clue where to start. He needs someone like Hermione, with a foot in both worlds, to act as a native guide, or he'll never find his way through that jungle. Amiable Dorsai From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Tue Dec 6 12:36:31 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:36:31 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: <20051205231705.74690.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144177 > > 3) Arthur's greatest ambition is to discover how planes stay > on the air. Don't wizards and witches learn any physics at all? > Don't they ?Arthur & Co- know that there are muggle books that can > easily explain the basic concepts of aerodynamics? > The WW reminds me of some of James Thurber's ditzier female relatives in this respect--the great aunt (?) who was obsessed with the idea that electricity was leaking out of empty light sockets all over the house, and Thurber's own mother, who was convinced that it was very hard on the engine to drive a car without gasoline in it. But you sort of *expect* this sort of thing from eccentric middle-aged ladies circa 1910. --La Gatta From altered.earth at ntlworld.com Tue Dec 6 12:33:47 2005 From: altered.earth at ntlworld.com (digger) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:33:47 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: <20051205231705.74690.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051205231705.74690.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4395852B.7070504@ntlworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144178 > Discussion Questions > > 2) Mollywobbles. Anyone knows what it means? Not being English myself I havent a clue about it. > LOL. I think its an intimate term Mr Wesley only uses in the privacy of their bedroom. He is probably referring affectionately to the 'wobbly' bits of Mrs Wesley's anatomy! Hence her embarrassment at having the name pronounced publicly. digger -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 05/12/2005 From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 13:03:12 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 13:03:12 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: <20051205231705.74690.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144179 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli wrote: > 6) We all know Tonks is seriously depressed. Is her depression because she has lost a dear cousin, or because Remus won't marry her? Or perhaps a bit of both. What do you think? The suppresion of Tonks's Animagus powers is especially interesting--will a similar problem afflict Ginny? Hermione? Harry? Amiable Dorsai From mudblood68 at yahoo.de Tue Dec 6 08:48:56 2005 From: mudblood68 at yahoo.de (Claudia) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:48:56 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone Redux--My version In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144180 lagattalucianese wrote: Seriously, how about something like this for at least getting the dialog between Snape and Harry rolling: Leslie wrote: I liked your idea about the bedside thing, but I did think it wasn't entirely in character. So I borrowed it. Remember imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! Claudia: Now, wouldn't _that_ be karmic justice! Especially if you add the idea that somewhen in course of events Snape saved Harry's life, that way getting rid of the "Potter life debt", only to end up with a "Longbottom life debt" instead. Claudia (who can't help thinking about a scene where it's actually Neville's toad that jumps between Snape and a deadly curse thus blocking most of its damaging powers ;-D) From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 13:45:36 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 13:45:36 -0000 Subject: Please explain. . . In-Reply-To: <20051206094128.28925.qmail@web86202.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144181 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Irene Mikhlin wrote: > No he did not. We've went through that episode many times before. > Trevor was in no more danger than when Flitwick used him for > demonstrating levitation. On the other hand, does Neville *think* that Trevor is in danger? If so, then the point of the exercise is, in part, to scare Neville with the life of his pet. For Neville's state of mind, whether Trevor is actually in danger is irrelevant, because he doesn't *know* that nothing will happen. [A scaled-down version of Dostoyevsky's story of the man on the gallows; the Tsar isn't actually going to have him executed, but wants him to feel what it's like to think he's going to be.] That fits nicely in with JKR describing Snape as 'sadistic'. But hey-- what does an author know about the actual motivations of her characters? -Nora now feels the need to kick back with some Russian lit From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Tue Dec 6 13:55:35 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 13:55:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Please explain. . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051206135535.26145.qmail@web86209.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144182 --- nrenka wrote: > On the other hand, does Neville *think* that Trevor > is in danger? If > so, then the point of the exercise is, in part, to > scare Neville with > the life of his pet. For Neville's state of mind, > whether Trevor is > actually in danger is irrelevant, because he doesn't > *know* that > nothing will happen. This is so much fun. How can we blame Snape for what Neville thinks? When McGonagall asked Quirrel to "borrow Wood", Harry thought she's going to cane him. Was she sadistic as well? The famous "poisons" lesson, where Harry was called for wands measurement and thought that Snape didn't have time to poison him - my 9 year old daughter laughed herself silly: "Doesn't Harry understand Snape only said it to make him work harder on his antidote?" It's hardly Dostoyevsky-level psychology at works here. Irene ___________________________________________________________ WIN ONE OF THREE YAHOO! VESPAS - Enter now! - http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/features/competitions/vespa.html From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 14:03:45 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 14:03:45 -0000 Subject: Harry and Snape: The Relationship (was:Two scenes...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144183 Betsy Hp: ...There's the "horrible boy" Petunia spoke of in OotP that could turn out to be a hint that Lily and Snape were friends (JKR likes her girls to have male best friends). There's LOLLIPOPS, which takes it even further. And there's the big "why, Dumbledore? why?" question still to be answered. So yeah, the bang should be an almighty one, but I don't think it'll fall into a deus ex machina catagory. JKR's done too much foreshadowing. lagattalucianese: I thought the "horrible boy" was James (Harry responds, "If you mean my mum and dad..."). Like Petunia was drawing odious comparisons between Lily's James and her own Vernon and indulging in some sour grapes. I also thought it was James that Petunia was referring to, at the time, as well. Harry certainly thinks so. But Petunia never confirms that she is speaking of James. Now JKR loves her little curveballs; Snape's being a friend of Lily's--hell, having a thing for Lily--would explain an awful lot of apparent inconsistencies. Starting with Dumbledore's otherwise ridiculous belief that Snape regretted being the instrument of the Potter's deaths. Amiable Dorsai From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 14:13:52 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 14:13:52 -0000 Subject: Please explain. . . In-Reply-To: <20051206135535.26145.qmail@web86209.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144184 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Irene Mikhlin wrote: > This is so much fun. How can we blame Snape for what Neville thinks? We can blame Snape for creating a situation in which he knows a kid is absolutely terrified, particularly where there's a pattern of the teacher doing this. Snape does seem to frequently be gunning for Neville, yes. If you think he was only charitably trying to warn Lupin about Neville's potential danger, you probably have a kinder view of human relations than I do. But you know, let's extend this out. How can we blame anyone for their actions towards another person, equal or inferior, when they don't result in actual physical harm? And even that's pretty easily fixable, as Harry's stints in the Hospital Wing and Draco's malingering show us. Being hung upside down is humiliating, but it doesn't seem to have actually *hurt* Snape--why should we worry so much about his poor feelings, which he's still so wrapped up in years later? There was no lasting physical damage in any of the incidents (he didn't get eaten, did he?), therefore we shouldn't care. **I don't believe this argument, so please no one flame me about its content. ** I'm just trying to show what the slippery slope *can* lead to if we make this "no harm no foul" and don't attach some importance to intention and targeting. That's where the 'sadistic' modifier (from the horse's mouth) is useful, in part, because it does give us a clue about the intentions of the pattern of actions. Things get messy when we have incomplete information and access to intentions, I'd say. -Nora has not a pair of horns to wear for advocacy From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 14:14:37 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 14:14:37 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144185 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > This is not in keeping with canon, or the relationship between Snape > and Minerva as it exists in the books. If she loathed him that > mightily we would have found out about it by now. I'm at a loss to think of any scene that illustrates that Minerva approved of Snape's teaching methods. Put up with them? Yes. Bit her tongue for Dumbledore's sake? Certainly. Acted in a professional manner toward a colleague? You bet. Approved? Can you cite a scene? Amiable Dorsai From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Dec 6 14:45:11 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 14:45:11 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144186 > a_svirn: > In the Universe of Rowling's creation this particular talent means > belonging to a different race. Muggles and wizards are two breeds > apart. Pippin: Holy Cow! And I thought the whole point was that they're not...except in the wishful fantasies of people like the Malfoys. Ron said it best,"If we hadn't married Muggles, we'd have died out." I get the distinct impression too many magical genes is bad news. Wizards aren't a viable subspecies, and apparently separating the cultures hasn't stopped Muggles from producing magical offspring. > > Pippin: > >not because he has tainted blood. > > a_svirn: > Which is why, I take it, Aunt Marge says, "It all comes down to > blood, as I was saying the other day. Bad blood will out" Pippin: Which is a big joke, since Marge has no idea that James was a wizard. She'd just like to think that lazy goodfornothings with criminal tendencies don't run in her family *cough*Dudley* cough. > > Pippin: > Voldemort says himself, at the age of sixteen, that killing Muggles and Mudbloods doesn't matter to him anymore, what matters is finding out why Harry had the power to vanquish the greatest wizard in the world. > > a_svirn: > And that particular admission makes him unbiased and open-minded? > Pippin: It proves that he doesn't give a brass galleon for any race, least of all the human one. He doesn't believe in pureblood superiority, he believes in Voldemort superiority. Of course his pureblood followers think they're going to run the WW when he takes over. Funnily enough, so do the werewolves and the Giants. To quote the LOTR movies, 'They were all of them deceived.' Racism is certainly a fault line in wizarding society. It's a wonderful excuse for the character's distrust of one another. Even innocent little Harry's dearest dream is to be surrounded by people who look just like him. But is it really the central conflict in the books? Suppose Slytherin hadn't been a racist, do you think Harry, Snape and Voldie would be best pals? Pippin From muellem at bc.edu Tue Dec 6 14:49:01 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 14:49:01 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144187 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lagattalucianese" wrote: > > > > colebiancardi > > (who is older & much more wiser when it comes to May-December > > relationships) > > > What has the world turned into while I was off writing computer > manuals and not paying attention? If we called out the Romance Police > every time an older male fictional construct and a younger female > fictional construct decided they liked one another and wanted to hold > hands and gaze into each other's eyes, Jane Austen, for one, wouldn't > fare very well. How much older than Emma is Mr. Knightly? And he's > been "eyeing her" for a fair number of years before she gets it > through her dizzy little head that she's in love with him and just > maybe has done something very, very silly. Does that make him a > sexual predator? Because he's willing to keep his peace and let her > come around to the idea on her own? What about Marianne Dashwood and > Colonel Brandon? Would you rather she married Willoughby (as whom > IMHO Ron has roughly about as much gumption)? For that matter, how > much older than Elizabeth is Mr. Darcy? Colebiancardi: LOL. So, I am assuming as you write computer manuals, you have paid attention to the fact that we are now in the 21st century, not the early 19th century, where women's choices about what they could do with their lives was much more limited than today. Mr Knightly is not that much older than Emma and Marianne married Brandon not out of passionate love, IMHO. You can't look to the movies, they will hollywoodized them. I think you made some typos in your statement, because none of the women are older than the men ? unless that was your attempt at being sarcastic. Back in the days when these novels were written, men did marry younger women, because of the children factor. Times change ? thank God. Women are no longer property of men either. My favorite book of that era is Wuthering Heights ? but you don't seem me using that novel as a basis for trying to make something canonical in the HP series. I don't think the WW is far off from today's roles for men & women ? Some women, like Molly, choose to stay home & raise children. Others choose not to. As Hermione has one foot in the WW and one foot in the muggle world, I am sure she knows what choices are available for women. Matter of fact, based on her comments on what she wanted to do after Hogwarts, it wasn't about teaching, but more of an advocate of some civil rights issue - RE: SPEW. > > We're talking about two people who've been annoying and otherwise > interacting with each other for six or seven years, and have gotten > to know one another pretty well. >And the fact that you think it's Blechhh has > absolutely nothing to do with anything. If they aren't right for one > another, they'll find out soon enough, but again, it's their issue to > sort out. And J.K. Rowling's, of course. Nobody else's colebiancardi: but it ain't canon. If you are going by that route, I would say that Snape & Neville are the ones to hook up, because I think they have had more interaction that Snape & Hermione. Yep, me thinking it is blecchhh has nothing to do with anything, just like your bit of fanfic that you proposed has nothing to do with anything, it isn't canon and isn't going to happen. JRK has made Ron & Hermione a couple and that had more canon to prove they were destined to be for one another with all of their interaction. Nora said it best in her post: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lagattalucianese" > wrote: > > > Well, I guess for the sort of people who think that sort of thing, > > that's the sort of thing they think. To me, Ron is the ultimate > > Blechhh Factor. We'll just have to agree to disagree. > > Canonically, at least Hermione doesn't find there to be a Blechhh > factor regarding Ron. It's a nice arbiter when we all can't seem to > agree on our personal tastes--defer to the fictional characters' own > decisions. :) > I don't get the impression that Hermione knows Snape 'pretty well' at > all; does she know what he likes to do in his spare time? What he > reads? What he actually thinks about his job? As none of us readers > actually know any of this material and seem to be profoundly divided > on issues like Snape's basic personality qualities, I'd be surprised > if she knew so much more than we did. Likewise on the reverse: > despite the fanfic chestnut of "He'd been secretly watching Miss > Granger for years...", I don't get the impression that Snape knows > more about Hermione than he sees in class, or more importantly that > he's interested in knowing more. And he's profoundly dismissive of > her in the classroom. > > > If you're going for canon plausibility (which may never have been the > point of this thread), I suspect that JKR would poke Hermione (who > she's admitted is like her younger self) and say "Who on earth would > want Snape in love with them?" YMMV. And finally, because Bruce's comment was uncalled for: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > Bruce: > As for Snape/Hermione, although I can't see it myself, the 'sexual predator' > remark from I forget which puritanical member is going too far. Hermione is > past the age of consent in several countries, and is pretty close to it in the > WW. Colebiancardi: My much younger boyfriend laughed at the puritanical comment. I was the one who mentioned it, not just for the age factor, but the student-teacher relationship would have been abused. My point was that unless Snape woke up on Hermione's 17th birthday and decided "she" was the one that puts him in a position of a sexual predator. I don't know where people live, but a) Hermione lives in the UK, not in other countries, and b) here in the states, teachers have been fired and/or thrown into jail for inappropriate conduct with students. And court orders have stayed on the books for the teacher to stay away from the former student, even when the student is an adult. Case in point, Mary Kay Letourneau. The ex- student had to petition to the court to let him see Mary Kay. And he was 21 years old at the time when she was released from jail. I work for a college and there are strict rules on sexual conduct between students and professors ? from our guidebook: Any member of the University community found responsible for violating the sexual assault and sexual misconduct policy is subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. The standard used to determine accountability is whether it is "more likely than not" that the accused has violated the policy. And these are for adults ? of age. Colebiancardi(my final word on this topic, as it got WAY off HP discussion) From sherriola at earthlink.net Tue Dec 6 15:04:55 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 07:04:55 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Weasleys' Muggle Cousin (Was Re: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm) In-Reply-To: <003601c5fa1f$d590e460$0200a8c0@anakin> Message-ID: <002c01c5fa76$6c27cdc0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 144188 You know what I was thinking about when I heard that quote from the first book? In the fifth book, Sirius said that he was Molly's second cousin by marriage and Arthur's second cousin once removed. No one talks about the "second cousin accountant"...but what if that was made up because no one wanted to talk about Sirius Black? Also, we have been told that James was a pureblood. Technically if James was a pureblood, isn't he related to the Blacks and the Weasleys? That would be hot- if Harry and Ron ended up being related...but that wouldn't be that great for Ginny and Harry.... "musicgal3001" Sherry now: I don't know the laws in the UK, and come to think of it, I'm not sure of them exactly here either. However, relatives who are only distantly related can marry. in fact, maybe, as close as second and third cousins in some areas. i've never considered it much, since i wouldn't be interested in any of my cousins that way, but even if Harry and Ginny were distantly related, they could still marry, I'm sure. nice theory though. sherry From muellem at bc.edu Tue Dec 6 15:10:44 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:10:44 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144191 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli wrote: > > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: > Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 5, > An Excess of Phlegm > > 1) We don't see many people who call Dumbledore by his first name. Minerva calls him Albus (PS/SS Ch 1), maybe Mad-Eye Moody calls him Albus, perhaps also Fudge, but Molly? That's a first. How close do you think the Members of the Order actually are? Molly calling him Albus makes me think that all of them see each other as family, not only as colleagues. What do you think? colebiancardi: I think that the original members of the Order probably have a closer relationship with DD than the newer ones. I don't know if this is a British thing or not, but it seems in books & movies, that Brits call each other by the last name a lot. Whereas in the US, we like to call people by their first name, unless, of course, it is a student-teacher relationship. Even there, I have had teachers in HS that asked students to call them by their first name, and in college, it all depends on the professor. In the work environment, I have never been asked to call anyone Mr or Mrs or Ms so-and-so, but by their first name. Is this a British custom - where calling people by their last name is very common and if you call someone by their first name, it means a more solid relationship? > > 2) Mollywobbles. Anyone knows what it means? Not being English myself I haven't a clue about it. colebiancardi: a play on words - Molly - cause it is her name and wobbles - I thought of weebies wobble, but they don't fall down! Remember that toy? Since JKR is my age, I assume she does too. Molly is a bit rolly-polly, so perhaps that is where it comes from.. > > 3) Arthur's greatest ambition is to discover how planes stay on the air. Don't wizards and witches learn any physics at all? Don't they ?Arthur & Co- know that there are muggle books that can easily explain the basic concepts of aerodynamics? colebiancardi: There has to be some wizards who interact more freely with muggles - case in point, Shacklebolt, who now works for the PM. I can't imagine that there aren't books out there(Muggle Physics for Dummies and so on) that explain these things to wizards. Heck, they would sell in the muggle world as well, as most of us probably really don't understand aerodynamics unless we work in the field. > > 4) What's with Fleur's comment of Gabrielle? (The one when she mentions Gabrielle has been talking non stop about Harry). Is it a sign of what we may see in book 7, a possible relationship between her and Harry? Maybe Gabrielle as a young Ginny? colebiancardi: oh...catfight in book 7? LOL. Maybe. Who knows? Remember, Molly stated her marriage to Arthur (and others in that time frame) was unusual(that they married right out of Hogwarts), even though they *knew* they were made for one another. I always have a bit of a problem with high-school sweethearts, as the divorce rate in the US is about 50% - and most of them are from the younger marriages. Not saying they don't work, but I would tell the kids to go out! Explore the world! Broaden your horizons before settling down...but that is just me ;) > 6) We all know Tonks is seriously depressed. Is her depression because she has lost a dear cousin, or because Remus won't marry her? Or perhaps a bit of both. What do you think? colebiancardi: I think it all about Remus. I don't think they even have a sexual relationship at all - it is something Tonks wants, and perhaps even Remus, but Remus is pushing her away - he feels he is dangerous, too old for her, too poor, etc. She doesn't care, she is in love with him. Which makes me believe she has worked very closely with him in book 5 & 6 - if she didn't, then it is infatuation, not love. but I think it is love and I am glad Remus has someone to love who also loves him back. > > 7) Why wasn't there a memorial, funeral, or wake for Sirius? I know there wasn't a body to bury, but still, those who loved him needed to say good-bye: they needed closure. colebiancardi: I don't know why they didn't do this. The Weasleys could have done something, I would have thought, when Harry stayed with them over the summer. Why didn't they acknowledge his sorrow? > > 8) Do you think that Molly's clock with all its hands pointing towards mortal peril is a sign of what may happen in book 7? Will we be seeing more than one Weasley death? Who do you think it will be? When reading this chapter I got flash-backs to Molly's bogart in Grimmauld Place. Will all her worst fears come true? colebiancardi: I don't know. I hope no Weasley's die - I like all of them, even Percy. If one was to die, I might say Percy - who in a moment of clarity, realizes that he was wrong and saves Ron from a certain death from a DE. > > 9) Why do you think Percy still won't come back home? He knows that Dumbledore & Co where telling the truth all along, is it because "people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right"? Is it just a pride thing? colebiancardi: pride on both sides. Percy still doesn't understand yet - he is young and has always been rewarded for following the rules and being a good lad. He needs to find himself - see answer above on the clock, Weasleys & death. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Dec 6 15:15:03 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:15:03 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: <20051205231705.74690.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144192 > Discussion Questions > > 1) We don't see many people who call Dumbledore by his first name. Minerva calls him Albus (PS/SS Ch 1), maybe Mad-Eye Moody calls him Albus, perhaps also Fudge, but Molly? That's a first. How close do you think the Members of the Order actually are? Molly calling him Albus makes me think that all of them see each other as family, not only as colleagues. What do you think? Pippin: I think they had a long talk about Harry at the end of GoF, and Molly thinks she knows him as well as anyone can. > > 2) Mollywobbles. Anyone knows what it means? Not being English myself I haven't a clue about it. I think it's Arthur's way of telling her, when they're alone, that she still gives him the shivers (I agree it's a pun on 'collywobbles'.) Molly blushes because Harry's there, just at that awkward age all parents of older teens are familiar with, when a child is old enough to understand a sexual joke but not to be included in it. > 3) Arthur's greatest ambition is to discover how planes stay on the air. Don't wizards and witches learn any physics at all? Don't they ?Arthur & Co- know that there are muggle books that can easily explain the basic concepts of aerodynamics? Pippin: I suspect he's as lost as Harry was trying to understand Golpalotts Third Law. But it also might indicate prejudice of a sort, thinking that because it's Muggle stuff he *can't* understand it. Like JKR said, nobody's all good or all bad. None of her characters are entirely free of prejudice anymore than they're entirely free of lust, or greed or any of the other deadlies. > 4) What's with Fleur's comment of Gabrielle? (The one when she mentions Gabrielle has been talking non stop about Harry). Is it a sign of what we may see in book 7, a possible relationship between her and Harry? Maybe Gabrielle as a young Ginny? Pippin: I think we're just being reminded of Gabrielle's existence since she's going to be at the wedding. I'd expect some comic relief, or else she's going to be another victim of Voldemort's rise. > 6) We all know Tonks is seriously depressed. Is her depression because she has lost a dear cousin, or because Remus won't marry her? Or perhaps a bit of both. What do you think? Pippin: I think Remus was courting her, broke off out of guilt after he killed Siriuis (sorry, but that's how it is with me) and she thinks it's because he's blaming *her*. > > 7) Why wasn't there a memorial, funeral, or wake for Sirius? I know there wasn't a body to bury, but still, those who loved him needed to say good-bye: they needed closure. Pippin: It kind of echoes what JKR said about Harry's christening, that it was war and everyone was in hiding, so they couldn't have much of a ceremony. I think after the group at King's Cross had their little talking to with the Dursleys they went and had a drink somewhere and toasted his memory, (with his murderer, gah!) but it would have been too dangerous for Harry to go. > > 8) Do you think that Molly's clock with all its hands pointing towards mortal peril is a sign of what may happen in book 7? Will we be seeing more than one Weasley death? Who do you think it will be? When reading this chapter I got flash-backs to Molly's bogart in Grimmauld Place. Will all her worst fears come true? Pippin: I've been afraid ever since Ron saw himself standing alone in the Mirror of Erised that *all* his brothers would die. > > 9) Why do you think Percy still won't come back home? He knows that Dumbledore & Co where telling the truth all along, is it because "people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right"? Is it just a pride thing? Pippin: Being a fond advocate of DDM!Percy, I think he's still keeping up his cover. > > > 10)Didn't Bill ask for his parents' permission before he took Fleur to live with them? Or are the Weasleys so polite that they keep their feeling about Fleur bottled up to protect Bill? Pippin: Presumably he asked for his parents' blessing when they got engaged, and they gave it, it's just that Molly thinks Fleur looks down on her, and she's thinking in return that anyone that pretty has got to be flashy and cheap, and she's afraid Bill will be disappointed in the end. I think Fleur is not very used to people actually listening to what she says, so she's never learned to be tactful. Pippin who still owes the list another installment on the ESE!Lupin theory From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 6 15:16:13 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:16:13 -0000 Subject: The Weasleys' Muggle Cousin (Was Re: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm) In-Reply-To: <002c01c5fa76$6c27cdc0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144193 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: Sherry: > > I don't know the laws in the UK, and come to think of it, I'm not sure of > them exactly here either. However, relatives who are only distantly related > can marry. in fact, maybe, as close as second and third cousins in some > areas. i've never considered it much, since i wouldn't be interested in any > of my cousins that way, but even if Harry and Ginny were distantly related, > they could still marry, I'm sure. nice theory though. Geoff: First cousins are permitted to marry in the UK. From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Tue Dec 6 15:36:36 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:36:36 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: <20051205231705.74690.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144194 > 1) We don't see many people who call Dumbledore by his first name. Minerva calls him Albus (PS/SS Ch 1), maybe Mad-Eye Moody calls him Albus, perhaps also Fudge, but Molly? That's a first. How close do you think the Members of the Order actually are? Molly calling him Albus makes me think that all of them see each other as family, not only as colleagues. What do you think? Marianne: Someone else responded (sorry - forget who) that Molly may feel comfortable enough with DD to call him Albus in these more private moments. I think that's part of it. I also think it has to do with how people relate to DD. I can't recall if Moody ever calls DD "Albus" and they are long-time allies. But, Moody probably talked to and referred to his fellow Aurors by surname only, so that's what he will do with everyone, DD included. People in the Order who were students under Headmaster or Professor Dumbledore would probably still have that ingrained habit of referring to him by his last name. I don't get a "family" feeling at all. If they all thought of each other as family, surely there would be no need to ask question 7 below. > 3) Arthur's greatest ambition is to discover how planes stay on the air. Don't wizards and witches learn any physics at all? Don't they ?Arthur & Co- know that there are muggle books that can easily explain the basic concepts of aerodynamics? Marianne: I'm sure they don't learn the hard sciences. I think this is just another example of what is almost a running joke in the series of Arthur professing his fascination with all things Muggle, while at the same time being very clueless about the Muggle world. Perhaps Muggle Studies should be a required course at Hogwarts. If a great part of wizard life and Ministry business is devoted to keeping wizard society secret from Muggles, surely it would make sense for everyone to grow up having a better understanding of how the Muggle world operates. I find this is one of those things about the books that I try not to think about too much. > 4) What's with Fleur's comment of Gabrielle? (The one when she mentions Gabrielle has been talking non stop about Harry). Is it a sign of what we may see in book 7, a possible relationship between her and Harry? Maybe Gabrielle as a young Ginny? Marianne: NO, PLEASE, I'M BEGGING YOU, JKR! Let's not make the other big group of Harry shippers angry by introducing Gabrielle. Seriously, I'd be surprised if Gabrielle plays a part in Book 7. I think Gabrielle might have a bit of hero worship for Harry, since he rescued her during the Triwizard Tournament. > > 6) We all know Tonks is seriously depressed. Is her depression because she has lost a dear cousin, or because Remus won't marry her? Or perhaps a bit of both. What do you think? Marianne: Should we not simply trust Hermione's words about Tonks in this chapter? Hermione puts it down to survivors' guilt and says that Lupin has tried to talk Tonks around. You'd think that Hermione, who in the past has been used to give pithy assessments of other characters' emotional and psychological state, would catch on right away that Tonks was pining for Remus. Hermione doesn't say she's actually heard what was said in these conversations, so perhaps she is assuming what was discussed and doesn't realize that Tonks was expressing her undying love for Remus and he was trying to politely brush her off. This is probably all part of the red herring trail JKR wanted to lead us down so that when she hooked Lupin and Tonks up at the end of the book, it would come as a joyous surprise. I personally found it clumsy, but that's just me. > 7) Why wasn't there a memorial, funeral, or wake for Sirius? I know there wasn't a body to bury, but still, those who loved him needed to say good-bye: they needed closure. Marianne: As others have said, there could have been something that we simply don't know about. However, Harry also didn't know about it, if there was one, and he's the one who had the most right to attend something like that. Pure speculation here, but I think that Harry will go to Godric's Hollow to his parents' graves in Book 7, as he mentioned he would at the of HBP. At that point, it will occur to him to place some sort of marker for Sirius near James and Lily. I think Harry's attitude towards Sirius is interesting in HBP. He clearly dreads the idea of talking about what happened when his friends' conversation gets anywhere near Sirius or the events of his death, as is evidenced in this chapter where Harry starts shoveling eggs in his mouth hoping not to have to say anything. He doesn't really know how to share his feelings of loss, even with those people, like Tonks, who he thinks also might feel the same thing. And he resents or gets angry with people who he feels don't have any right to make a claim on Sirius. He didn't like Vernon's reaction to the news of Sirius' death, he felt that Slughorn spoke of Sirius like an object, and not a person in the previous chapter. He's ready to escalate his quarrel with the Malfoys at Madame Malkins' when Narcissa brings up Sirius' name. And, of course, he's ready to take Dung's head off when he realizes Dung has been lifting items from 12 Grimmauld Place, even when the objects are not things that Sirius cared about. With these people, Harry is almost possessive of Sirius' memory, as if to say that, since they do nothing to show honor or affection for Sirius, they have no right to even mention his name. > 8) Do you think that Molly's clock with all its hands pointing towards mortal peril is a sign of what may happen in book 7? Will we be seeing more than one Weasley death? Who do you think it will be? When reading this chapter I got flash-backs to Molly's bogart in Grimmauld Place. Will all her worst fears come true? Marianne, ghoulishly: Well, I hope some of her fears come true, as JKR has said that she has to be ruthless to tell this story. And, since there are so many Weasleys, surely the law of averages would indicate that at least one of them has to buy the farm. She could do in Charlie without too much trouble, as he has been the most minor Weasley. It could be handled pretty quickly in the story, whereas if any of the other Weasleys were to die, there would have to be more page coverage. Of course, a greater impact would be had if JKR kills off one of the others, just because we know them more. Why not kill off Molly and get rid of Harry's only mother-figure? Or one of the twins or Ron, thus reaching right into the heart of Harry's closest support network? I imagine some people might think that this is overkill, and that JKR won't keep hammering us over the head with character deaths. But, isn't war like that? People don't stop dying at a convenient time. One family member might be killed or maimed, but that doesn't automatically mean that everyone else in the family is spared. War can be an interminable grind where people hear news of death and destruction day after day, until they're almost numb. We're not numb yet. > 9) Why do you think Percy still won't come back home? He knows that Dumbledore & Co where telling the truth all along, is it because "people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right"? Is it just a pride thing? Marianne: I think it's partly pride, but also that Percy, at this point, is still managing to keep on his feet at the Ministry, so he might very well be able to salvage his self-esteem and not feel he has to make up with his family. Actuall, I think Percy will not be particularly important to the remainder of the story, unless he stumbles across a Horcrux. But, he seems too far out of the important flow of the narrative to become any more than a minor player. > > 10) Didn't Bill ask for his parents' permission before he took Fleur to live with them? Or are the Weasleys so polite that they keep their feeling about Fleur bottled up to protect Bill? Marianne: I think a bit of both. Maybe Bill didn't ask permission so much as suggest that Fleur and his family spend some time together. And of course his parents would agree to that. Then, since neither side put forth what their understanding of what "some time" meant, Bill felt fine with essentially moving Fleur in, and his parents have not yet come up with a way to tell him that she's really overstayed her welcome. From sherriola at earthlink.net Tue Dec 6 15:57:10 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 07:57:10 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003201c5fa7d$b82cd8d0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 144195 Marianne: I think Harry's attitude towards Sirius is interesting in HBP. He clearly dreads the idea of talking about what happened when his friends' conversation gets anywhere near Sirius or the events of his death, as is evidenced in this chapter where Harry starts shoveling eggs in his mouth hoping not to have to say anything. He doesn't really know how to share his feelings of loss, even with those people, like Tonks, who he thinks also might feel the same thing. And he resents or gets angry with people who he feels don't have any right to make a claim on Sirius. He didn't like Vernon's reaction to the news of Sirius' death, he felt that Slughorn spoke of Sirius like an object, and not a person in the previous chapter. He's ready to escalate his quarrel with the Malfoys at Madame Malkins' when Narcissa brings up Sirius' name. And, of course, he's ready to take Dung's head off when he realizes Dung has been lifting items from 12 Grimmauld Place, even when the objects are not things that Sirius cared about. With these people, Harry is almost possessive of Sirius' memory, as if to say that, since they do nothing to show honor or affection for Sirius, they have no right to even mention his name. Sherry now: Unlike many others who felt Harry's grief was dealt with too neatly, i actually find all this very realistic. When my dad died at only age 57, i was swamped in grief, and I did not talk about it. I never let anyone, not even my siblings, see my pain. I am the oldest, so part of my reaction was left over oldest child syndrome, being the strong one for the others, though we were all adults. But it wasn't only that. i resented anyone who might say something negative about my father, who didn't lead an exemplary life by any means. i have rarely spoken of him since, and I miss him like crazy, especially when good or bad things happen and i want to share those things with him. But it isn't in my nature to talk to people about my hurt, and my grief and missing of Dad is far too deep and painful to be something I would discuss with anyone. I pull it into myself and deal with it alone. So, i found Harry's reactions quite normal, especially shoveling the eggs in his mouth, not wanting to discuss it, even with Tonks, ready to hex anyone who says one bad thing about Sirius. I found it far more realistic than an obviously emotional and grief-stricken Harry would have been. and it is his style. Sherry From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Dec 6 16:10:05 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:10:05 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Snape's teaching method In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144196 mysmacek No, he was not. Magpie: As someone on staff of the school, he is representing the school. An adult is an authority simply by being an adult. It's the same authority Hagrid has when he takes Harry to Diagon Alley or brings him to the Durlseys, or supervises the kids' detentions. Ron is 11 and Hagrid is, like, 58. I get that the WW is different from our own. This does not seem to be one of the differences. His being forbidden to do magic has no bearing on the situation. Even if he's just supposed to be the kids' friend the joke that Hagrid is one of those jerk pet owners who sees a kid get bitten and then claims the dragon is the one who was wronged! The WW is full of adults who act irresponsibly. I don't think that's supposed to be because that's the culture of the WW. I think the idea is that sometimes adults let children down, so children have to take care of themselves. Mysmacek: We do not see anyone from trio complaining (even > just Harry to himself), do we? Magpie; Yes, actually we have Ron complaining. He complains that the thing bit him and Hagrid just yelled at him for scaring it--he seems to the situation the way I do. And then Ron covers up for Hagrid, something plenty of modern children would do, and something Hagrid should not be asking him to do. The kids do not hold it against him because they seem, even at 11, to recognize that Hagrid is childish. Which is fine, but is also exactly what I'm saying. mysmacek: > > Generally, I think that the problem is that you apply modern standards > for Hagrid's classes. Magpie: As I've shown about a dozen times now, no, I do not. I have never said that it was a big deal that Draco got hurt or that his injury was wildly serious by WW's standards or that students never wind up in the infimary in any other class. I simply said--and continue to say--that part of the scene here is to establish Hagrid's weak spots as a teacher. Weak spots that are hammered on in later books. Just as Binn's are and Snape's are. Weak spots that the kids, even the Trio, see. mysmacek: Draco *could* have been seriously injured, but > he probably was not - remember, it's the world where uncle Algy holds > Neville out of the window by his leg - and we haven't heard of him > landing in Azkaban :-) Magpie: Sure--but the difference here is that Uncle Algy is at least acknowledged to have had a part in the scene, which is the only thing I'm asking of Hagrid. mysmacek: > > By your standards, mme Hooch would be even more guilty, as she clearly > lets students fly high above grounds with little safeties. What if > some Sprout's mandragoras were just a bit more mature? Grubbly Plank's > bowtruckles would happily gouge your eyes out. Triwizard tournament is > clearly lethal. Etc, etc. Magpie: And why do none of these things get the reaction *within canon* that Hagrid's classes do? Because Hagrid has his own personality as teacher, just as all the other teachers do. Again, I have never made it an issue that no kid should ever be hurt in class. I have simply said that part of the author's conception of Hagrid is that he has certain problems when it comes to authority and perspective on dangerous beasts. I see absolutely nothing to disprove this, especially with defenses of how Hagrid is more of a friend than an authority figure. Yes, he is. I agree. Sometimes that's a flaw. --m From sherriola at earthlink.net Tue Dec 6 16:08:43 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 08:08:43 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: <20051205231705.74690.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003501c5fa7f$55170610$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 144197 Excellent summary and questions Julie! Thanks for such a great chapter. Discussion Questions 3) Arthur's greatest ambition is to discover how planes stay on the air. Don't wizards and witches learn any physics at all? Don't they -Arthur & Co- know that there are muggle books that can easily explain the basic concepts of aerodynamics? Sherry: Ok, i don't have any idea how a plane flies either! i didn't take physics and have never read up on the subject or tried to understand it. I don't even understand how a telephone works, except that somehow i pick up this thing on my desk, push a few buttons and my voice is heard by someone clear across the world, if I want. So, no, except for a comical running gag throughout the series, I don't find anything wrong with Arthur's lack of understanding of the muggle technology that fascinates him so much. i doubt he'd even understand the science behind it, if he tried to study it, because he's never been taught our kind of science. 4) What's with Fleur's comment of Gabrielle? (The one when she mentions Gabrielle has been talking non stop about Harry). Is it a sign of what we may see in book 7, a possible relationship between her and Harry? Maybe Gabrielle as a young Ginny? Sherry: Gabrielle was 8 in the second task, which would make her 11 now. i hardly think Harry is going to have a relationship with an 11-year-old at this point in his life. I think Ginny is safe, especially since JKR thinks she's the perfect match for him. 6) We all know Tonks is seriously depressed. Is her depression because she has lost a dear cousin, or because Remus won't marry her? Or perhaps a bit of both. What do you think? Sherry: I think it could be a combination of grief for Sirius and rejection by Lupin. The two things coming so close together could really have sent her into an emotional tail spin. 8) Do you think that Molly's clock with all its hands pointing towards mortal peril is a sign of what may happen in book 7? Will we be seeing more than one Weasley death? Who do you think it will be? When reading this chapter I got flash-backs to Molly's bogart in Grimmauld Place. Will all her worst fears come true? Sherry: I hope not. i don't want to lose any Weasley, not even Percy. Besides, I can't imagine how it will hit Harry. Shudder. 10) Didn't Bill ask for his parents' permission before he took Fleur to live with them? Or are the Weasleys so polite that they keep their feeling about Fleur bottled up to protect Bill? sherry: I'm sure bill asked. Neither the females at the Burrow nor Fleur come out looking very good in this chapter. I'm just glad fleur shows her true strength of character and the probably true reasons bill loves her in the hospital wing at the end. They all have enough to worry about right now without a family feud, even one simmering under the surface. Again, great questions, Julie! Sherry From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Dec 6 16:31:24 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:31:24 -0000 Subject: The Weasleys' Muggle Cousin, and May/December, combining thoughts In-Reply-To: <002c01c5fa76$6c27cdc0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144198 > Sherry: > > I don't know the laws in the UK, and come to think of it, I'm not sure of > them exactly here either. However, relatives who are only distantly related > can marry. in fact, maybe, as close as second and third cousins in some > areas. i've never considered it much, since i wouldn't be interested in any > of my cousins that way, but even if Harry and Ginny were distantly related, > they could still marry, I'm sure. nice theory though. Ceridwen: Believe it or not, there is a site devoted to cousin couples. http://www.cousincouples.com/ Apparently, cousin marriage, even first cousin marriage, is not banned in Europe, though I don't know if that would include specific countries like Britain or France, or if it's just a blanket statement. I think the WW may have different views on cousin marriage, and perhaps on age gap marriages as well. If someone wishes to marry a Pureblood, they'd have a very limited field from which to choose, and over the years it seems to have ended up that most Pureblood families are related, at the very least through marriage if not blood. Molly and Arthur are somehow related (someone else explained it, thankfully, I have enough trouble keeping my own family straight!), and one at least is related to the Blacks, and therefore to the Malfoys, as no less than 'shirttail' relations. It's a relatively small group which has been more isolated than not over recent centuries, it may be necessary to have more relaxed attitudes about things like this. With age gap marriages, in a population where people seem to live well past the century mark, the gap between 'May' and 'December' shrinks with each passing decade. So a Wizarding match between a forty year old witch or wizard, and a twenty year old wizard or witch, would end up being a match between a two hundred year old and a one hundred and eighty year old, not too much of a gap at those ages at all. And, as it seems that the WW is more static than the Muggle world, which has gone through quite an explosion of cultural and technological changes in the past few decades, the twenty year seperated couple still has more common grounds to bring them closer and provide similar experiences, including having had the same headmaster and instructors, overall, at school. I don't know of any instance in canon which would remotely support either argument, that the WW would disapprove, or conversely not care a bit, about a relationship between a teacher and a student. It doesn't seem to care that there may be favortism by a teacher for his or her own house. But that can only marginally be considered in the same ballpark, since a teacher with feelings for a particular student may show favortism toward that student. The 'eww' factor isn't attested, *as far as I recall*. Ceridwen. (If this ends up being double-posted, I'm sorry!) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Dec 6 16:49:57 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:49:57 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: <20051205231705.74690.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144199 Juli - Discussion Questions > > 1) We don't see many people who call Dumbledore by his first name. Minerva calls him Albus (PS/SS Ch 1), maybe Mad-Eye Moody calls him Albus, perhaps also Fudge, but Molly? That's a first. How close do you think the Members of the Order actually are? Molly calling him Albus makes me think that all of them see each other as family, not only as colleagues. What do you think? Ceridwen: I think it just shows that Dumbledore and Molly are on a par, at least at her house. They're both adults, and they both have responsibilities. She may also be showing more familiarity because it seems to be a social call. Even if not, she's the hostess. > 2) Mollywobbles. Anyone knows what it means? Not being English myself I haven't a clue about it. Ceridwen: Well, *pumpkin*, I think *darlin'* Arthur is just using a made-up nickname for his *sweetiekins* which is more personalized than most. I can see why Molly is embarrassed by it. It's probably a very private term of endearment. It's certainly one they wouldn't broadcast, since it's used as a code to prove Arthur is who he claims to be. > 3) Arthur's greatest ambition is to discover how planes stay on the air. Don't wizards and witches learn any physics at all? Don't they ?Arthur & Co- know that there are muggle books that can easily explain the basic concepts of aerodynamics? Ceridwen: The best explanation I've seen about this is water running over the bowl of a spoon. But, he'd have to have the knowledge of knowing where to look. I think physics might be harder for witches and wizards, just because a lot of their magic and things they're most familiar with, seem to fly in the face of physical science as Muggles know it. > 4) What's with Fleur's comment of Gabrielle? (The one when she mentions Gabrielle has been talking non stop about Harry). Is it a sign of what we may see in book 7, a possible relationship between her and Harry? Maybe Gabrielle as a young Ginny? Ceridwen: I think she's just telling him, as a friend, something flattering. And as has been mentioned, it also foreshadows all the drooling females on the train and later in the book. > 5) Which classes did Hermione actually took? And how is it possible for anyone to get 12 OWLS (like Bill Weasley and Barty Crouch Jr.)? Did they get Time-Turners? Or did they study the classes on their own without any professors' assistance? Is this what Hermione did? Ceridwen: I've seen all kinds of speculation on this one. Couldn't answer it myself, though. > 6) We all know Tonks is seriously depressed. Is her depression because she has lost a dear cousin, or because Remus won't marry her? Or perhaps a bit of both. What do you think? Ceridwen: My husband went to Saudi Arabia in the first Gulf War. I was worried sick about him. Remus is in a similar situation to my husband's, and Tonks is in a similar situation to my own at the time. I ate, breathed and slept CNN. When someone is in a dangerous situation as Remus is, you just never know when the chaplain (or Dumbledore) will show up with bad news. If she's worried about marriage, it would be more because he might never live long enough for them to get to that point, at least in her reasonable fears. > 7) Why wasn't there a memorial, funeral, or wake for Sirius? I know there wasn't a body to bury, but still, those who loved him needed to say good-bye: they needed closure. Ceridwen: Doesn't look like there was any memorial (which wouldn't need a body). It could be that they're waiting for him to be publicly exhonerated. But I don't see why they should wait just for that. > 8) Do you think that Molly's clock with all its hands pointing towards mortal peril is a sign of what may happen in book 7? Will we be seeing more than one Weasley death? Who do you think it will be? When reading this chapter I got flash-backs to Molly's bogart in Grimmauld Place. Will all her worst fears come true? Ceridwen: Like the situation with Remus and Tonks, it's possible that one or more Weasleys will die. Bill almost does at the end of HBP, in fact. I'd think that Molly would rather have the clock showing less of a hysterical reaction, though. If someone is actually in a life- threatening situation, she'd never know it. Sometimes, OTT screeching can breed complacency, IMO. > 9) Why do you think Percy still won't come back home? He knows that Dumbledore & Co where telling the truth all along, is it because "people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right"? Is it just a pride thing? Ceridwen: Could be pride, but it could also be the thought that they wouldn't take him back. And as far as at least some of his sibs are concerned, he's right. I don't know if he's just being a Ministry jerk, or if he's a plant for the Order, or if he's just ambitious and doesn't understand why his family's against him. But, he does seem to have a reason, at least with the sibs, for being wary of coming back. > 10) Didn't Bill ask for his parents' permission before he took Fleur to live with them? Or are the Weasleys so polite that they keep their feeling about Fleur bottled up to protect Bill? Ceridwen: The book doesn't say. It's customary for the parents to meet the intended, and sometimes this means the intended staying over. It could just be tradition. It's too bad they don't get along right away! > Thanks to Penapart Elf for her help. I hope you all enjoy the discussion Ceridwen: And thanks, Juli, for a good discussion. Ceridwen. From muellem at bc.edu Tue Dec 6 16:53:16 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:53:16 -0000 Subject: The Weasleys' Muggle Cousin, and May/December, combining thoughts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144200 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > With age gap marriages, in a population where people seem to live > well past the century mark, the gap between 'May' and 'December' > shrinks with each passing decade. So a Wizarding match between a > forty year old witch or wizard, and a twenty year old wizard or > witch, would end up being a match between a two hundred year old and > a one hundred and eighty year old, not too much of a gap at those > ages at all. And, as it seems that the WW is more static than the > Muggle world, which has gone through quite an explosion of cultural > and technological changes in the past few decades, the twenty year > seperated couple still has more common grounds to bring them closer > and provide similar experiences, including having had the same > headmaster and instructors, overall, at school. > > I don't know of any instance in canon which would remotely support > either argument, that the WW would disapprove, or conversely not care > a bit, about a relationship between a teacher and a student. It > doesn't seem to care that there may be favortism by a teacher for his > or her own house. But that can only marginally be considered in the > same ballpark, since a teacher with feelings for a particular student > may show favortism toward that student. The 'eww' factor isn't > attested, *as far as I recall*. > colebiancardi: well, there is a difference between favorativism and actually having sex with a student. Just a thought. As far as the age issue goes, we do have canon that Remus Lupin, who is only 13 years older than Tonks, feels, amongst other reasons, that he is too old for her. So, as I agree that as one gets older, the age differences, hopefully, will lessen as the younger person gets more life experiences under his/her belt. Just having the same professors when you were both kids isn't really a common ground - I would hope there would be more to it than that :-) However, that being said, I do not find any canon, just as you did not find any to dispute teacher/student relationships, that wizards marry with huge age gaps - they seem either to be unmarried or they marry or will marry within the same age range. So, I think the WW is like the Muggle world in this respect, some in the WW marry in their age range, some don't marry in their age range(although we haven't seen any of those yet) and some don't marry at all. colebiancardi(who swears she will not revisit this topic again!!) From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Dec 6 17:04:57 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 17:04:57 -0000 Subject: Four Humours (wasRe: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: <20051205231705.74690.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144201 > > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: > Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 5, > An Excess of Phlegm Juli wrote a very good discussion. I intended to tack this question to the end of my reply, but forgot. One theroy of health used to be that the body contained four Humours. (Phlegm, Blood, Bile and ????) All four are supposed to be in balance. Certain conditions were thought to be due to an excess of one of the Humours. Does anyone know anything about this? What are the four humours? And what would an excess of phlegm cause? I wonder if the name of this chapter has more to do with Tonks than with Fleur. And why do I have the impression that Snape is suffering from an excess of Bile? Potioncat From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Dec 6 17:11:12 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 17:11:12 -0000 Subject: The Weasleys' Muggle Cousin, and May/December, combining thoughts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144202 >Colebiancardi wrote: > However, that being said, I do not find any canon, just as you did > not find any to dispute teacher/student relationships, that wizards > marry with huge age gaps - they seem either to be unmarried or they > marry or will marry within the same age range. So, I think the WW is > like the Muggle world in this respect, some in the WW marry in their > age range, some don't marry in their age range(although we haven't > seen any of those yet) and some don't marry at all. Potiocnat: We're told Nott is an elderly father. I'm betting his wife wasn't nearly as old. Nott is Riddle's age, and I think Theodore's mother would have been younger. I know, there's no canon. So I'm just offering it as a possible. On the Snape--Granger romance...that is too ewwww. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Dec 6 17:32:54 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 17:32:54 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: <20051205231705.74690.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144203 Potioncat: Don't ask me how, but this was delivered to the wrong address! Thanks to Shorty-Elf who owled it back to me. Pay no attention to the > and >> marks on the left side of the page. If I knew how to get rid of them I would, but I'm still proud of the mere ability to cut and paste (Lord knows, I was never any good at it in Kindergarten!) > Very nice summary and questions, Juli. I've read > down thread and will > keep other replies in mind as I join in. I wish I > had time to re-read > the chapter, but alas, I don't. > > > > Discussion Questions > > > > 1) We don't see many people who call > Dumbledore by his first > name. Minerva calls him Albus (PS/SS Ch 1), maybe > Mad-Eye Moody calls > him Albus, perhaps also Fudge, but Molly? That's a > first. How close > do you think the Members of the Order actually are? > Molly calling him > Albus makes me think that all of them see each other > as family, not > only as colleagues. What do you think? > > Potioncat: > I didn't even notice! oops. She's always "referred" > to him as > Dumbledore before. But I think in GoF she referred > to McGongall as > Minerva. Now, this is a stretch, but consider this, > what is the > chance that the Weasleys or Prewetts are related to > DD in some way? > You'd think we'd all know if it were the case, but > we didn't know > Sirius was related to Bellatrix LeStrange. Ron's > physical description > is so similar to DD's that many readers thought he > was actually DD. > Both DD and the Weasleys seem to have unusual > clocks. Molly doesn't > know anyone else who has a clock that lists moral > peril, and Ron was > given an unusual watch. It's a thought. > > I'm sure DD was on staff at Hogwarts while Molly and > Arthur were > students and they would have known him as a teacher > or headmaster. > But if nothing else, the mothering role Molly plays > in the Order > would lead to her calling him by first name. I'd bet > Arthur calls him > Albus, too. > > > > 2) Mollywobbles. Anyone knows what it means? > Not being > English myself I haven't a clue about it. > > Potioncat: I thought of both Collywobble and > Mollycoddle. It reflects > that special feeling she gives him, and possibly is > tied to some > little joke that would have meaning to them alone > ....old married > couples do things like that. (Trust me on this one.) > > > > 4) What's with Fleur's comment of Gabrielle? > (The one when > she mentions Gabrielle has been talking non stop > about Harry). Is it > a sign of what we may see in book 7, a possible > relationship between > her and Harry? Maybe Gabrielle as a young Ginny? > > Potioncat: I think it has to do with the fact that > Harry saved > Gabrielle and her family remains grateful. Never > mind that she may > not have been in danger, I don't think Fleur was any > more sure of > that than Harry was. > > > > 5) Which classes did Hermione actually took? > And how is it > possible for anyone to get 12 OWLS (like Bill > Weasley and Barty > Crouch Jr.)? Did they get Time-Turners? Or did they > study the classes > on their own without any professors' assistance? Is > this what > Hermione did? > > Potioncat: > Oh, who cares what those insufferable Know-it-Alls > did! > > Erm, I didn't say that out loud, did I? > > > > 6) We all know Tonks is seriously depressed. > Is her > depression because she has lost a dear cousin, or > because Remus won't > marry her? Or perhaps a bit of both. What do you > think? > > Potioncat: > All through the book I thought it was that she was > sad over Sirius > and pining for Bill. Now that the book is over, I > think it's all > about Remus. But to be honest, any Auror who is that > fragile is in > the wrong job! I have to think this is JKR nodding > to Austen and > romance. > > > > 7) Why wasn't there a memorial, funeral, or > wake for Sirius? > I know there wasn't a body to bury, but still, those > who loved him > needed to say good-bye: they needed closure. > > Potioncat: > I think this question should be added to the open > letter to JKR at > the Lexicon. As many reasons as we can make up to > fit the plot, it's > really JKR's call. Was I the only one who forgot > that Sirius had just > died? I kept thinking it had been much longer. But > consider this, in > the two weeks that Harry has been out of school, two > more major WW > characters have been killed; DD is searching for and > being injured by > horcruxes; Snape apparantly has been hobnobbing with > LV and providing > first aid for DD; Lupin is hanging out with > werewolves and hiding > from Tonks; Shaklebolt is working for the Muggle PM; > the Weasleys > have been (I think) treating Ron's and Ginny's > recent injuries. So > anyone who might have organized it was pretty busy. > To tell you the > truth...I'm not sure that many of the Order actually > liked Sirius. Of > course, they should have done it for Harry. > > > > > > > 9) Why do you think Percy still won't come > back home? He > knows that Dumbledore & Co where telling the truth > all along, is it > because "people find it far easier to forgive others > for being wrong > than being right"? Is it just a pride thing? > > Potioncat: > I think he's working undercover. And I will think so > long after I've > been proven wrong! > > > > > > 10) Didn't Bill ask for > his parents' > permission before he took Fleur to live with them? > Or are the > Weasleys so polite that they keep their feeling > about Fleur bottled > up to protect Bill? > > Potioncat: > It isn't that easy. When your son brings "The One" > home, you have to > smile and pretend you like her. > > From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Tue Dec 6 17:47:38 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 17:47:38 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144204 > > The suppresion of Tonks's Animagus powers is especially > interesting--will a similar problem afflict Ginny? Hermione? > > Harry? > > Amiable Dorsai > Are Ginny and Hermione and Harry animagi? For that matter, is Tonks? We know she's a metamorphmagus, but that isn't the same thing, is it? What seems to be affected, if we go by the scene where she brings Harry to Hogwarts, is her patronus. The impression I get is that while not every wizard/witch is an animagus (in fact, isn't it rather rare?), practically any can produce a patronus if they are sufficiently skillful. I think the confusion arises from the fact that if a witch or wizard is an animagus, their animagus form and their patronus are the same animal (a stag, e.g., in the case of James Potter). --La Gatta From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Dec 6 17:49:53 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 17:49:53 -0000 Subject: Please explain. In-Reply-To: <20051206094128.28925.qmail@web86202.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144205 Irene Mikhlin wrote: > you haven't shown an example of the abuse. I realize it has become quite fashionable in certain circles to make excuses for all of Snape's villainous behavior, up to and including murder; but do I really need to give examples of him being grossly unfair to Harry? > And what's Harry's moral qualities have > got to do with it? Harry does not deserve to be treated like dirt, that's what its got to do with it. > can we blame Snape for what Neville thinks? Yes I believe we can. Snape must have known his words would terrorize an eleven year old boy, in fact he would have no reason other than that to say them. > So Hermione ended in the hospital wing to treat Snape-induced nervous breakdown then? When a child has suffered a serious accident a good person would try to say things to calm her down, Snape said things to increase her panic and despair. >>Me: >> And although child abuse does not really describe >> it, the fact that he also murdered the kindest, >> most powerful, most benevolent,and brightest >> wizard in a thousand years does not add >> significantly to Snape's character reference. >Objection, your honour. Circular argument, and >irrelevant. Irrelevant? Besides that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play? Eggplant From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Tue Dec 6 17:48:50 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 17:48:50 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: <003201c5fa7d$b82cd8d0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144206 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > > Marianne: > > I think Harry's attitude towards Sirius is interesting in HBP. He > clearly dreads the idea of talking about what happened when his > friends' conversation gets anywhere near Sirius or the events of his > death, as is evidenced in this chapter where Harry starts shoveling > eggs in his mouth hoping not to have to say anything. He doesn't > really know how to share his feelings of loss, even with those > people, like Tonks, who he thinks also might feel the same thing. > > And he resents or gets angry with people who he feels don't have any > right to make a claim on Sirius. With these people, Harry is almost possessive > of Sirius' memory, as if to say that, since they do nothing to show > honor or affection for Sirius, they have no right to even mention > his name. > > > > Sherry now: > > Unlike many others who felt Harry's grief was dealt with too neatly, i > actually find all this very realistic. When my dad died at only age 57, i > was swamped in grief, and I did not talk about it. I never let anyone, not > even my siblings, see my pain. I am the oldest, so part of my reaction was > left over oldest child syndrome, being the strong one for the others, though > we were all adults. But it wasn't only that. i resented anyone who might > say something negative about my father, who didn't lead an exemplary life by > any means. i have rarely spoken of him since, and I miss him like crazy, > especially when good or bad things happen and i want to share those things > with him. But it isn't in my nature to talk to people about my hurt, and my > grief and missing of Dad is far too deep and painful to be something I would > discuss with anyone. I pull it into myself and deal with it alone. > > So, i found Harry's reactions quite normal, especially shoveling the eggs in > his mouth, not wanting to discuss it, even with Tonks, ready to hex anyone > who says one bad thing about Sirius. I found it far more realistic than an > obviously emotional and grief-stricken Harry would have been. and it is his > style. Marianne: I had a similar situation in my own life, so, yes I, too can understand Harry's particular way of handling this. And, as you say, unlike others, I also didn't see Harry's reactions as OOC. But, in another sense, I hate seeing him deal with this himself. Again, my reaction is strongly colored by personal experience. I did the same thing, when what I really wanted was for someone to acknowledge that maybe I wasn't dealing with it all that well, even though I wasn't outwardly emotional. Having people say something, anything, gave me the option of opening up about my grief, even if I chose not to take it. I guess what bothers me about Harry's situation is that no one, other than DD, makes any mention of Sirius' death as a loss for Harry. While Ron, Hermione and Co., might think they're doing what Harry wants by not talking about it, even a clumsy "Gee, we're sorry" would give Harry an acknowledgement that they understand he's in pain and that they realize that Sirius' death is a very personal loss for him. Instead, Harry soldiers on alone, with his grief popping up in his own head in response to whatever is going on around him. Marianne From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Tue Dec 6 17:57:47 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 17:57:47 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144208 > > Racism is certainly a fault line in wizarding society. It's a wonderful > excuse for the character's distrust of one another. Even innocent little > Harry's dearest dream is to be surrounded by people who look just like him. > ... > > Pippin > Erm? I thought Harry's dearest dream was to be surrounded by people who loved him, i.e., his parents. --La Gatta From n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 18:05:28 2005 From: n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com (n_longbottom01) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 18:05:28 -0000 Subject: throw HIMSELF off the topmost tower Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144209 Something Dobby said at the end of the "Elf Tails" chapter (p. 422 U.S.) of Half-Blood Prince sparked an idea for what might have really gone on at the top of the Lightning Struck Tower. Here's the quote: "And if Dobby does it wrong, Dobby will throw himself off the topmost tower, Harry Potter!" When House Elves fail their Master, or betray their Master's confidences, they are obligated (as a part of their nature, in combination with the magic that binds them?) to punish themselves physically (bash their head into a desk repeatedly, etc.). Dobby is a free elf, and is under no obligation to punish himself for failing Harry Potter, but he chooses to express his loyalty to Harry by saying, in effect, that he will treat Harry's request as if it were a request from a Master to his House Elf. And to show the extent of his loyalty, Dobby doesn't just say he will slam his hands in a drawer if he fails, he says he is going to throw himself off the tallest tower in the castle?the same tower that we later see Snape blast Dumbledore off of. Dobby's statement that he would "throw himself off" the tower made me wonder, was Dumbledore thrown off of the tower because of his failure? Or did Dumbledore, in effect, throw himself off of the tower in an act of loyalty (and self-sacrifice)? Here's my best case scenario for "Good" Snape. Dumbledore, realizing that there was no other way out of the situation he was in, uses something along the lines of the Imperius Curse to momentarily take control of Snape, and against Snape's will, uses Snape to cast the AK that blasts Dumbledore off the side of the tower. This might make Dumbledore seem a wee bit ruthless, but it saves Snape, Draco, and possibly other lives (Snape's life because of his Unbreakable Vow, Draco's life because Voldemort won't kill him for not completing his assignment, and other lives because Snape is then able to hurry the Death Eaters out of the Castle). Dumbledore didn't have his wand any more by the time Snape appeared at the top of the tower, but it is brought to our attention at least once in the story (when Harry is frozen and bleeding on the Hogwarts Express) that Dumbledore is capable of doing wandless magic. I could go either way on this point maybe the fact that Dumbledore doesn't have his wand nixes this theory, or maybe he is able to Imperius Snape without using a wand. I'm not sure that there is anything to this (and I apologize if this theory has been stated a million times before). I don't know what to make of Snape I'm on the fence. But, if Snape is going to turn out to be an all-around good guy, then it is more satisfying to heap more of the blame for what happened onto Dumbledore I'm ok with Dumbledore using Snape to off himself, because it saved Snape's life, even if it did make him look like a murder. I can't entirely warm up to the idea of Snape just agreeing to kill Dumbledore, if need be, no mater what was hoped to be accomplished by such an agreement. n_longbottom01 From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Tue Dec 6 18:15:48 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 18:15:48 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144210 > > Any member of the University community found responsible for > violating the sexual assault and sexual misconduct policy is subject > to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. The standard > used to determine accountability is whether it is "more likely than > not" that the accused has violated the policy. > > And these are for adults ? of age. > > > Colebiancardi(my final word on this topic, as it got WAY off HP > discussion) > What I find unsettling about your stand is that you are prepared to condemn people for what they think and feel (and you determine that how?), not for what they do. Even the handbook you cite makes it clear that what is actionable is "sexual assault and sexual misconduct" (i.e., somebody actually *did* something), not physical attraction, which as far as I know is not a criminal offense in the more enlightened regions of the U.S. and U.K. Though that "more likely than not" bit makes me think that the university in question must be somewhere in the southeastern United States. I'm with Ann Landers on this one: As long as the parties involved are of age and comfortable with the situation, MYO goddamned B. --La Gatta, who has had a lot more trouble with busybody neighbors than she has with older men From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Tue Dec 6 18:23:37 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 19:23:37 +0100 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm References: Message-ID: <010201c5fa92$2df02810$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144211 > Marianne: > I guess what bothers me about Harry's situation is that no one, > other than DD, makes any mention of Sirius' death as a loss for > Harry. While Ron, Hermione and Co., might think they're doing what > Harry wants by not talking about it, even a clumsy "Gee, we're > sorry" would give Harry an acknowledgement that they understand he's > in pain and that they realize that Sirius' death is a very personal > loss for him. Instead, Harry soldiers on alone, with his grief > popping up in his own head in response to whatever is going on > around him. Miles: But this is the way he is. It is one of his flaws, that he is more or less unable to express his emotions properly. You may say that it is a question of age and gender, and surely that's part of the problem. But it is more. Harry grew up learning, that he does best without showing any emotion at all. He is not much better in handling his emotions at the end of HBP than he is at the beginning of PS/SS. And his friends - they see him suffering, but they know him good enough. And they kind of fear the emotional outbursts they know from him - anger, frustration, rage. We do not see much of his emotional "output" with Ginny as well (ok, weak spot of Rowling's writing, maybe). But we do learn, that he didn't express or discuss his decision to break up with Ginny at the end of HBP - and we see that Ginny knew his thoughts without him expressing them. If love is his power, it may be necessary for him to improve in expressing his feelings. I'm not so sure about Rowling, if she will be able to develop the character of Harry in that way. Miles From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Tue Dec 6 18:37:41 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 18:37:41 -0000 Subject: The Weasleys' Muggle Cousin (Was Re: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm) In-Reply-To: <002c01c5fa76$6c27cdc0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144212 > > Sherry now: > > I don't know the laws in the UK, and come to think of it, I'm not sure of > them exactly here either. However, relatives who are only distantly related > can marry. in fact, maybe, as close as second and third cousins in some > areas. i've never considered it much, since i wouldn't be interested in any > of my cousins that way, but even if Harry and Ginny were distantly related, > they could still marry, I'm sure. nice theory though. > > sherry > Although creationists can make the case that we're all related if you go back far enough (;D), I don't think kissin' cousins is generally a good idea. I grew up in Utah (don't run--the experience made a Born- Again Pagan of me), and am in a position to observe what happens when you simmer down your gene pool a little too much; the practice of polygamy early on has made it increasingly difficult for home-grown Mormons to find other home-grown Mormons to marry that they aren't somehow related to. While the problem may be in part church policy on abortion, and while my observations are anecdotal in nature, it does seem to me that Utah produces a disproportionate number of babies with genetic birth defects. (Statistics, anyone?) Our next-door neighbors produced a real run; I think something like three out of their five kids had defective babies, and one of those had a set of twins with some very extreme birth defect (microcephaly, IIRC). When I proposed to get serious about a second cousin, my father put his foot down hard, not because the young man was a Mormon (he wasn't), but because my father was a doctor and had a better idea than most what could go wrong. Given the rate at which they've been marrying their near relatives for the past few hundred years, I'm amazed that all the Malfoys and Blacks have come up with is a mild family tradition of sociopathy. --La Gatta From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Tue Dec 6 18:42:07 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 18:42:07 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144213 > > > 7) Why wasn't there a memorial, funeral, or wake for Sirius? > I know there wasn't a body to bury, but still, those who loved him > needed to say good-bye: they needed closure. > > colebiancardi: I don't know why they didn't do this. The Weasleys > could have done something, I would have thought, when Harry stayed > with them over the summer. Why didn't they acknowledge his sorrow? > Perhaps, to paraphrase Oscar, Sirius didn't have any enemies, and none of his friends liked him. --La Gatta From rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu Tue Dec 6 18:43:22 2005 From: rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu (susanbones2003) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 18:43:22 -0000 Subject: Please explain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144214 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > Irene Mikhlin wrote: > > > you haven't shown an example of the abuse. I realize it has become quite fashionable in certain circles to make > excuses for all of Snape's villainous behavior, up to and including > murder; but do I really need to give examples of him being grossly > unfair to Harry? > > > And what's Harry's moral qualities have > > got to do with it? > > Harry does not deserve to be treated like dirt, that's what its got to > do with it. Jen D interjects: You really don't get the point? No one, even someone without "good moral qualities" deserves to be treated badly. > > > can we blame Snape for what Neville thinks? > > Yes I believe we can. Snape must have known his words would terrorize > an eleven year old boy, in fact he would have no reason other than > that to say them. > > > So Hermione ended in the hospital wing > to treat Snape-induced nervous breakdown then? > > When a child has suffered a serious accident a good person would try > to say things to calm her down, Snape said things to increase her > panic and despair. Again Jen writes: Snape didn't help things, no, but then he's not a "bright little ray of sunshine" either. You give him more power than he ever deserves. > >>Me: > >> And although child abuse does not really describe > >> it, the fact that he also murdered the kindest, > >> most powerful, most benevolent,and brightest > >> wizard in a thousand years does not add > >> significantly to Snape's character reference. > > >Objection, your honour. Circular argument, and > >irrelevant. > > Irrelevant? Besides that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play? > > Eggplant Oh the drama! Murder is not worse if the person was greatly beloved. Murder is no respector of persons. That's the cirucularity of your argument. This is not a comic book where the villains and good guys are all easily reconizable, where the motives are crystal clear and where up-right moral outrage makes everything better. Things aren't clear, they are difficult and resolution may not see every wrong redressed but that's a lot like reality, isn't it? Jen D > From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Tue Dec 6 18:47:18 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 18:47:18 -0000 Subject: The Weasleys' Muggle Cousin (Was Re: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144215 > > Geoff: > First cousins are permitted to marry in the UK. > In Hellenistic Greece, half-brothers and -sisters could marry (anything to keep the cash in the family). That still doesn't make it a good idea. :P --La Gatta From muellem at bc.edu Tue Dec 6 19:52:28 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:52:28 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144217 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lagattalucianese" wrote: > > > > > Any member of the University community found responsible for > > violating the sexual assault and sexual misconduct policy is subject > > to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. The standard > > used to determine accountability is whether it is "more likely than > > not" that the accused has violated the policy. > > > > And these are for adults ? of age. > > > > > > Colebiancardi(my final word on this topic, as it got WAY off HP > > discussion) > > > What I find unsettling about your stand is that you are prepared to > condemn people for what they think and feel (and you determine that > how?), not for what they do. Even the handbook you cite makes it clear > that what is actionable is "sexual assault and sexual misconduct" > (i.e., somebody actually *did* something), not physical attraction, > which as far as I know is not a criminal offense in the more > enlightened regions of the U.S. and U.K. Though that "more likely than > not" bit makes me think that the university in question must be > somewhere in the southeastern United States. > > I'm with Ann Landers on this one: As long as the parties involved are > of age and comfortable with the situation, MYO goddamned B. > > --La Gatta, who has had a lot more trouble with busybody neighbors > than she has with older men > fourth post, sorry list-elves. a) your biases are showing thru - the university is in the liberal northeast. b) you obviously don't work in a university or school - otherwise, you would know it is the teaching place's business to know of sexual misconduct. And it also goes with staff & staff as well. A boss cannot have a relationship with his peons. Power position and all c) sexual misconduct is using a power position of a professor with a student. They don't care if it is "true" love or not d) you seem to be very defensive that a) I loathe the idea of a Snape/Hermione ship and b) have expressed that opinion due to it being out of character. You don't have to like my opinion, but then again, I don't have to like your fanfic which has no basis in canon. e) You're correct, it is not anyone's damn business who loves whom - but you seem determined to state that there is nothing wrong about a fully grown adult having an attraction(is that what you are now calling it? LOL - how quickly we change our tunes) to a much younger person who has barely passed adolescence. And where do I condemn the actions? I asked a question on where in this fantasy of yours does Snape realize his *attraction* to Hermione? On her 17th birthday? Believe, you weren't calling it *attraction* back when this began - you were suggesting it was a sexual relationship - BIG time. f) I find it more troubling that you don't see the problems with teens involved with much older persons and they are not in an equal position(student-teacher). g) what goes on with adults, I don't care one bit. But the cavalier attitude your scenerio is "no big deal" is amazing to me. Do you know how many people are hurt in relationships where the older person is taking advantage of their power & position over the much younger person? Which position are you even arguing here - first it is sexual, then it is attraction(when you complained about the University rules), and now again, it is a sexual relationship. colebiancardi (there are bodice rippers if you want to read that type of stuff - in real life, people can get thrown into jail for sexual misconduct) From h2so3f at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 19:58:36 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:58:36 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144218 lagatta wrote: "What seems to be affected, if we go by the scene where she brings Harry to Hogwarts, is her patronus. The impression I get is that while not every wizard/witch is an animagus (in fact, isn't it rather rare?), practically any can produce a patronus if they are sufficiently skillful. I think the confusion arises from the fact that if a witch or wizard is an animagus, their animagus form and their patronus are the same animal (a stag, e.g., in the case of James Potter)." CH3ed: Tonks' patronus was definitely affected (as Harry and Snape witnessed it). And it seems her skills as metamorphmagus deteriorated as well since Hermione observed that Tonks couldn't change her appearance like she used to. I suspect it is harder to become an animagus than to produce a patronus, but I think you can learn to do both (even Peter could become a rat with the help of James and Sirius). I tend to agree with la Gatta that a person's animagus form and patronus are probably the same (can you imagine Peter sending a rat patronus after a dementor? ;O) ), but I don't think that is canon. The stag patronus belongs to Harry (we have never seen James' patronus. It was Harry who cast that stag patronus that drove all the dementors away at the end of PoA). And we were told by Lupin that James was a stag when he transformed. CH3ed From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Tue Dec 6 20:03:07 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 20:03:07 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Please explain. Message-ID: <20051206200307.89139.qmail@web86202.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144219 eggplant107 wrote: > Irene Mikhlin wrote: > >>you haven't shown an example of the abuse. > > > I realize it has become quite fashionable in certain circles to make > excuses for all of Snape's villainous behavior, up to and including > murder; but do I really need to give examples of him being grossly > unfair to Harry? 1. Murder of Dumbledore has nothing to do with examples of child abuse. I can say it out loud, if you want: Severus Snape has killed Albus Dumbledore. See, I have no problem accepting it. 2. You don't need to give examples of him being unfair, I agree he was unfair to Harry many times. Unfair does not equal abusive. > Yes I believe we can. Snape must have known his words would terrorize > an eleven year old boy, in fact he would have no reason other than > that to say them. Trevor's incident didn't happen during year 1, did it? > When a child has suffered a serious accident a good person would try > to say things to calm her down, Snape said things to increase her > panic and despair. I've never said he is a good person. But I don't think Hermione was in a state of panic and despair, or she would have run to hospital wing without waiting for Snape's permission. The whole "Show to him" business was about them hoping that finally they will make Snape punish Draco. Hermione was angry and offended, but she did some cool thinking in the hospital wing, so I don't think it's fair to her to say she was in panic. >>>Me: >>>And although child abuse does not really describe >>>it, the fact that he also murdered the kindest, >>>most powerful, most benevolent,and brightest >>>wizard in a thousand years does not add >>>significantly to Snape's character reference. Look, you were trying to establish that Snape as a teacher abused children. His teaching career that we as the readers have witnessed, has finished with the last DADA lesson in year 6. The fact that you insist on bringing the murder into the evaluation of his teaching methods does not point to the strength of your arguments. nrenka wrote: > > But you know, let's extend this out. How can we blame anyone for > their actions towards another person, equal or inferior, when they > don't result in actual physical harm? And even that's pretty easily > fixable, as Harry's stints in the Hospital Wing and Draco's > malingering show us. Being hung upside down is humiliating, but it > doesn't seem to have actually *hurt* Snape--why should we worry so > much about his poor feelings, which he's still so wrapped up in years > later? There was no lasting physical damage in any of the incidents > (he didn't get eaten, did he?), therefore we shouldn't care. I was not going for "no harm no foul" argument about Trevor. I do think intentions are important (still waiting to learn about Sirius intentions :-)). But I don't think Snape's intentions were to kill Trevor. Or to horrify Neville for his sadistic pleasure. I've just noticed that many "motivational" verbs seem to suggest pain: to spur, goad, push, prod, poke, thrust. I wonder why. :-) Irene ___________________________________________________________ WIN ONE OF THREE YAHOO! VESPAS - Enter now! - http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/features/competitions/vespa.html From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 20:19:36 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 20:19:36 -0000 Subject: Trevor incident again WAS: Re: Please explain. In-Reply-To: <20051206200307.89139.qmail@web86202.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144220 > eggplant107 wrote: > > Yes I believe we can. Snape must have known his > words would terrorize > > an eleven year old boy, in fact he would have no > reason other than > > that to say them. Irene: > Trevor's incident didn't happen during year 1, did it? Alla: Are you saying that third year student cannot be scared that his pet will be poisoned? Irene: > I was not going for "no harm no foul" argument about > Trevor. I do think intentions are important (still > waiting to learn about Sirius intentions :-)). But I > don't think Snape's intentions were to kill Trevor. Or > to horrify Neville for his sadistic pleasure. > I've just noticed that many "motivational" verbs seem > to suggest pain: > to spur, goad, push, prod, poke, thrust. I wonder why. > :-) Alla: So, if you were not going for "no harm no foul" argument about Trevor, could you clarify what type of argument you were going for? You said upthread that how could we blame Snape for what Neville was thinking, right? Since to me the answer is very clear - because Snape made Neville to believe it, I am not sure how can we NOT to blame Snape for what Neville was thinking? I mean, it is not like Neville believed that Trevor will die for no reason. The belief is very rational, no? Snape threatened to feed the potion to Trevor or am I missing something here and we are discussing different lesson where Snape issued no threats at all and Neville suffered hallucinations? I am not being sarcastic here, I am genuinely confused. Aren't you saying that since Trevor was not harmed that is why we should not blame Snape? Am I misreading your argument? And while Snape probably did not intend to really kill Trevor (I hope, although I am not totally sure since I would not put past him to enjoy seeing pet die), I do think that horrify Neville for his sadistic pleasure WAS one of his intentions. IMO only of course JMO Alla, confused again. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Dec 6 20:20:48 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 20:20:48 -0000 Subject: throw HIMSELF off the topmost tower In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144221 wrote: > > Something Dobby said at the end of the "Elf Tails" chapter (p. 422 > U.S.) of Half-Blood Prince sparked an idea for what might have really > gone on at the top of the Lightning Struck Tower. Here's the quote: > > "And if Dobby does it wrong, Dobby will throw himself off the topmost > tower, Harry Potter!" Potioncat: I can't double check now, but as I recall, that scene happens somewhere in the middle of Harry having a Turban bandage and having a dream about Malfoy, Slughorn and Snape. It was very similar to the dream about a talking turban, Malfoy, Snape and a green light. I think something is going on here. But as to what, I cannot say. From Nanagose at aol.com Tue Dec 6 20:33:57 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 20:33:57 -0000 Subject: Please explain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144222 > Irene Mikhlin: > > you haven't shown an example of the abuse. > Eggplant: > I realize it has become quite fashionable in certain circles to make > excuses for all of Snape's villainous behavior, up to and including > murder; but do I really need to give examples of him being grossly > unfair to Harry? Christina: Of course not, but "grossly unfair" is not *abuse*. Nobody is saying that Snape is a nice guy, but there is an entire world of difference between being mean and being abusive. > > So Hermione ended in the hospital wing > to treat Snape-induced nervous breakdown then? > Eggplant: > When a child has suffered a serious accident a good person would try > to say things to calm her down, Snape said things to increase her > panic and despair. Christina: Again, you are stating that Snape isn't a good person. That doesn't say anything about whether he is abusive or not. > >> And although child abuse does not really describe > >> it, the fact that he also murdered the kindest, > >> most powerful, most benevolent,and brightest > >> wizard in a thousand years does not add > >> significantly to Snape's character reference. > >Objection, your honour. Circular argument, and > >irrelevant. > Eggplant: > Irrelevant? Besides that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play? Christina: Of course it's irrelevant. Certainly one can be a murderer while being the nicest, chumiest guy in the world; just as one can be innocent of murder while being a mean person. The fact that Snape killed Dumbledore has nothing to do with whether or not his behavior toward Harry and Neville is to be considered abusive. The closest thing Snape does in the books to "abusing" Harry is in OotP when he, literally, throws Harry out of his office. And to be quite honest (and I'm not sure what this says about me here, but oh well), I'm not too sure I wouldn't have done the exact same thing. Even that couldn't really be considered abuse because it's not a repeated action; I'd call it something more like battery or assault. The central point is this: Snape is harsh, mean, sarcastic, and snarky. That does not mean that he is abusive. If even if you DO consider his behavior abuse, do you really put that on a higher plane of importance than, say, betraying your friends to the Dark Lord? Or blowing up a bridge of Muggles? Or torturing two people to insanity? THESE are the crimes that need to be punished in Book 7. If Snape did kill Dumbledore (whether or not malice was involved matters to different people in different degrees), then THAT is the crime he will be punished for in the seventh book, not his teaching style. It's like wanting to punish Ron for his attitudes against House Elves and his inital reaction to Lupin being a werewolf- Ron's wrong, but it is absolutely small potatoes when it comes to the Muggle-killing LV and his Death Eaters. Christina From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Dec 6 20:35:02 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 20:35:02 -0000 Subject: SHIP:Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144223 Colebiancardi: > e) You're correct, it is not anyone's damn business who loves whom - > but you seem determined to state that there is nothing wrong about a > fully grown adult having an attraction(is that what you are now > calling it? LOL - how quickly we change our tunes) to a much younger > person who has barely passed adolescence. And where do I condemn the > actions? I asked a question on where in this fantasy of yours does > Snape realize his *attraction* to Hermione? On her 17th birthday? Pippin: If the WW is scandalized by such things, wouldn't we have found out about it when legally adult eighteen year old Viktor was snogging underage fifteen year old Hermione? Well, they were scandalized, but only because they felt Hermione shouldn't be setting her cap at Harry too. (Maybe I should point out here that JKR has confirmed that Hermione is nearly a whole year older than Harry. At the end of Book Seven, she'll be almost nineteen.) The founders thought young witches could take care of themselves, apparently, since they didn't magick the boys' staircase. Hermione's already invited herself into Harry and Ron's dorm room more than once. I doubt very much we'd see Snape/Hermione in canon, but you don't think it's going to be smooth sailing for R/H from now on, do you? Not with so many pages to go? And whatever the relationship between Hermione and Snape is in Book Seven, it won't be student/professor. Hermione's talking about leaving next year, and Snape already has. Really, Snape's human (IMO) and except that it would be OOC for him to let Harry know about it, I don't see anything wrong with him noticing that Hermione's gotten to be quite fanciable lately and might be worth looking up when she's left school. If she looked anything like her filmic counterpart he'd have to be dead from the neck down not to notice. I'm sure as he's an occlumens, he'd be able to keep his thoughts to himself. Pippin who thinks Ron's intelligence, like his quidditch skills, has been masked by his lack of confidence and his fear of showing off. In any case, IMO, it would be better to grow old with Ron -- he doesn't have to know where the twinkle in her eye is coming from From lady.indigo at gmail.com Tue Dec 6 20:59:14 2005 From: lady.indigo at gmail.com (lady.indigo at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:59:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63378ee70512061259i1edb68e6k71e4a41cf999e72c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144224 Oh please. colebiancardi wrote: "b) you obviously don't work in a university or school - otherwise,you would know it is the teaching place's business to know of sexual misconduct. And it also goes with staff & staff as well. A boss cannot have a relationship with his peons. Power position and all" I wrote: Was it ever stated that this hypothetical relationship would be taking place while Hermione was still a student? I must have missed it. colebiancardi wrote: "c) sexual misconduct is using a power position of a professor with a student. They don't care if it is "true" love or not" I wrote: This is assuming the power abuse will be implemented. It's highly POSSIBLE. It's one of many reasons we frown on employer-employee, student-teacher, adult-child, and incestuous relationships. (Although adult-child and incest have about a thousand other very good factors against it, of course.) But there are no guarantees that the two parties can't handle this. There is no outright law that declares this would lead to power struggles, abuse, and emotional scarring. And arguably, if the two parties love and respect each other and act it, it in fact might NOT happen. Again, this assuming Hermione would even be IN school when it happens; she could well have graduated. colebiancardi wrote: "d) you seem to be very defensive that a) I loathe the idea of a Snape/Hermione ship and b) have expressed that opinion due to it being out of character. You don't have to like my opinion, but then again, I don't have to like your fanfic which has no basis in canon." I wrote: The only person who seems to be bringing up the plausibility or canon basis of the relationship is you. I'm sorry if I missed something from La Gatta suggesting she was doing anything other than speculating. That in my mind is what fanfic is for: attaching your own interpretations/speculations to the text, and writing them to what you consider to be believable. You don't have to have an interest in it. She never demanded you did. But you're attacking the pairing morally, and this by proxy seems to attack fans of it morally. *I* have objections to that without having the urge to come within 40 feet of Snape/Hermione. colebiancardi wrote: "e) You're correct, it is not anyone's damn business who loves whom -but you seem determined to state that there is nothing wrong about a fully grown adult having an attraction(is that what you are now calling it?) to a much younger person who has barely passed adolescence. And where do I condemn the actions? I asked a question on where in this fantasy of yours does Snape realize his attraction to Hermione? On her 17th birthday?" I wrote: Her 16th? Appearances don't change much from one age to another by then. Several of my own friends were having sex - granted, with people their own age, but nonetheless. Snape can quite plausibly have an ATTRACTION then and act on it several years later, when Hermione is OUT of school. ATTRACTIONS, might I add, can't be helped. Snape could have far worse sexual demons than finding a sixteen year old girl attractive, make a decided effort to shove them down, and never act on them. What would you condemn then? His very existence? There is no universal emotional experience when it comes to people, and certainly not among teenagers. I wouldn't for a second proclaim that there's a definite outcome to any sexual or romantic situation. There's no magic switch that flicks when you turn 17 that says you know who you are and can handle most situations. That kind of thing may happen long after, it may also happen BEFORE then. There's also no magic edict that proclaims a student-teacher relationship is bound to end in tragedy. Or that Snape having an attraction to a Hermione who is close to being of age, but not quite there, will reduce Snape to a pedophilic monter. All we know, all these laws (rightly!) exist by, is the most PROBABLE outcome to a situation. And we only use those guidelines based on current society and culture. The Greeks often engaged in pederasty, which Plato said seperated them from the barbarians. You just now talked about older romances in which the age gap was much wider. Both societies functioned. With many limitations and flaws, but they did function. To say that the sole reason these relationships happened and worked was because we were too unenlightened to know better is incredibly simplistic thinking. Do I think our current conventions about age and sexuality are better? For the most part, definitely. And we of course have to take into account the societal conventions and teachings of today as opposed to hundreds of years ago. I do think we have every right in the world to, in real life, question the wisdom of people who fall outside those conventions in certain ways. But if within the realms of fiction we wanted to talk about exceptions to the rule, characters that are deliberately being written AS exceptions to the rule, I would take those characters into my mind as individuals. That's the gift of fiction, in that case: we would get to know those characters AS individuals and the details of the situation, and decide for ourselves. I can't see myself ever believing that of Snape and Hermione. But it'd be an attack on my conscience to say that someone *couldn't* write it, or was somehow sick for writing it, far more than that writing it would put the world in some kind of vague societal danger. - Lady Indigo [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lealess at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 21:01:23 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 21:01:23 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: <010201c5fa92$2df02810$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144225 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > > > Marianne: > > I guess what bothers me about Harry's situation is that no one, > > other than DD, makes any mention of Sirius' death as a loss for > > Harry. While Ron, Hermione and Co., might think they're doing what > > Harry wants by not talking about it, even a clumsy "Gee, we're > > sorry" would give Harry acknowledgement that they understand he's > > in pain and that they realize that Sirius' death is a very > > personal loss for him. Instead, Harry soldiers on alone, with his > > grief popping up in his own head in response to whatever is going > > on around him. > > Miles: > But this is the way he is. It is one of his flaws, that he is more > or less unable to express his emotions properly. You may say > that it is a question of age and gender, and surely that's part > of the problem. But it is more. Harry grew up learning, that he > does best without showing any emotion at all. He is not much better > in handling his emotions at the end of HBP than he is at the > beginning of PS/SS. > And his friends - they see him suffering, but they know him good > enough. And they kind of fear the emotional outbursts they know > from him - anger, frustration, rage. > > > If love is his power, it may be necessary for him to improve in > expressing his feelings. I'm not so sure about Rowling, if she will > be able to develop the character of Harry in that way. > > Miles > In this way, he is a mirror to Snape more than any other character, someone who cannot express emotions appropriately and seems to prefer to suppress them, except the outbursts of explosive anger. Thinking about the statement of Rowling's that Snape was loved by somebody and thinking he might have felt favorable towards that person as a result, I wonder if this may have led to his being manipulated by Voldemort as Harry was manipulated into the Ministry battle, through emotion. Perhaps part of Snape's anger during Occlumency was that he had seen it all happen before and wanted to prevent it from happening again. If the person who cared about him was lost as a result of his actions, much as Sirius was lost, I doubt Snape could have easily expressed his sorrow or guilt over the loss -- and yet it might have been visible for another Legilimens, Dumbledore, to see. Just wondering if there is a parallel there. lealess From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 21:34:29 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 21:34:29 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144226 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lagattalucianese" wrote: > > > > > The suppresion of Tonks's Animagus powers is especially > > interesting--will a similar problem afflict Ginny? Hermione? > > > > Harry? > > > > Amiable Dorsai > > > Are Ginny and Hermione and Harry animagi? For that matter, is Tonks? > We know she's a metamorphmagus, but that isn't the same thing, is it? Amiable Dorsai: Ye gods--Metamorphmagus, not Animagus. I swear sometimes I'm going senile. No, my point was point was that unrequited love (or, perhaps, depression, no matter the cause) seems to have a bad effect on ones magic. I'm wondering if Harry's and Ginny's breakup will have such an effect on either of them. Supposing for the moment that it's not just unrequited love, but any form of depression (see: Dementors) that can play hob with a witch or wizard's magical abitities, could this be an explanation for Harry's on again, off again, career as a magical prodigy? Everyone (including Hermione!) is impressed by Harry's ability to cast a Patronus at an early age, but he has trouble learning a simple Summoning Charm. Likewise, he's good enough at most aspects of DADA to coach students older than himself, but he has trouble learning to cast spells wordlessly. Harry's parents were both exceptionally talented magic users, and, on his good days, Harry seems to have inherited that. On his bad days... So Harry's set himself (and Ginny) up for a bit of sorrow. Will that turn out to have a bad effect on his and/or her magic? Can you see this as a subplot for book 7? Amiable Dorsai From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 21:38:22 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 21:38:22 -0000 Subject: Please explain. . . In-Reply-To: <20051206094128.28925.qmail@web86202.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144227 > >>Bruce: > > > How Snape is a child abuser? > >>eggplant: > > Well, he heaps pain and abuse on a child who has > > shown extraordinary courage, power, and moral fiber. > >>Irene > That's a bit of a circular argument, you haven't shown > an example of the abuse. Betsy Hp: Unfortunately, the circular argument is all the "Snape is a child abuser" supporters seem to have. Very little, if any, canon is ever brought forth in these arguments. And what canon *is* brought forth is taken far outside the WW standards of behavior. > >>Irene > And what's Harry's moral qualities have got to do with > it? Yes, Harry is a good person. Is a hypothetical > abuser stops to be an abuser if the victim is less > than perfect? Betsy Hp: This appears to be true as well. After all, telling Neville his toad will be fed the potion Neville was assigned is abuse. Dropping Draco onto a stone floor from such a distance he actually bounces is good times. Betsy Hp From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Tue Dec 6 21:58:20 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 21:58:20 -0000 Subject: SHIP:Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144228 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > If the WW is scandalized by such things, wouldn't we have found out > about it when legally adult eighteen year old Viktor was snogging underage > fifteen year old Hermione? Why would they be scandalized about that? He's eighteen, she is fifteen. They are both teenagers, what's the big deal? So what that's he is legally an adult? Where in the world would that be a problem? That must be a strange country, where suddenly your relation with your girlfriend/boyfriend is a problem when one of you turns eighteen. Gerry From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 22:05:29 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:05:29 -0000 Subject: Please explain. . ./Canon for the Snape being abusive argument In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144230 > > Betsy Hp: > > Unfortunately, the circular argument is all the "Snape is a child > > abuser" supporters seem to have. Very little, if any, canon is > ever > > brought forth in these arguments. And what canon *is* brought > forth > > is taken far outside the WW standards of behavior. > > Alla: > I am sorry, Betsy, but your claim here is simply not true. Canon to support "Snape is an abuser" argument was brought up many, many, many times. It is your absolute right of course to NOT see abuse in these incidents, but some people do and of course I happen to think that it is a very reasonable interpretation. Here are some posts for you. I selected those with quotes. If you would like more quotes, just let me know and I will be happy to provide them. Erm, sorry to start with my post. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112968 Post by Vmonte: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122173 Post by John Kern: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/131481. Alla. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 22:16:57 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:16:57 -0000 Subject: SHIP:Two scenes for most everyone (was Re: Retribution for Snape the Teacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144231 > >>Pippin: > > I doubt very much we'd see Snape/Hermione in canon, but you don't > think it's going to be smooth sailing for R/H from now on, do you? > Betsy Hp: I think a big reason we'll never see Snape/Hermione is pretty much on par with why Harry/Hermione never happened. Hermione gets intimidated too easily. When Harry was having his fits in OotP, Hermione was completely cowed. Snape, who throws even bigger fits when he gets upset, would scare the crap out of Hermione. No, I think Hermione is quite content with a boy she can thoroughly mother. And Ron is the kind of boy who really wants to be mothered. He was happy to have Hermione clean up his essay for him in HBP and she was happy to do it. On a similar note, when Hermione gets all kerfluffled Harry is either bemused or annoyed, whereas Ron tends to take it in stride. He handled her beautifully in PS/SS when Hermione had her "how can I make a fire without any wood?" moment. And he handled her OWL panic just as well in HBP, IMO. (Interestingly enough, I think Ron is better at handling Harry when Harry gets all kerfluffled too. He was the one to tell Harry to stop taking his anger out on him and Hermione in OotP. And I think Harry missed Ron's steadiness when they were fighting in GoF. Huh. So Ron's the calm one; except when he's not. ) There are problems of course. (It wouldn't be JKR if there weren't *some* problems.) For one, I'd really like it if Hermione demonstrated a bit of respect for Ron every once in a while. (Ron seemed to have a problem with this as well, hence his turning to Lavender.) And while Ron doesn't get as scary as Harry when he's angry, he can be horribly cruel, and he knows just how to hit Hermione where it will most hurt. (The mocking of her eagerness in class is a good example of that, I think.) But these are solvable problems, so I'm betting on a happy ending there. > >>Pippin: > Really, Snape's human (IMO) and except that it would be OOC > for him to let Harry know about it, I don't see anything wrong with > him noticing that Hermione's gotten to be quite fanciable > lately and might be worth looking up when she's left school. > Betsy Hp: Heh. Hermione became quite the "it" girl in HBP (maybe starting in GoF?) what with her hemming and hahing over which lucky young man would get to squire her to Slughorn's Christmas party. That McLaggen boy was a big enough ass that I'm pretty sure Hermione had to be one of the more eligible young witches at Hogwarts for him to think her worthy of his time. Betsy Hp From h2so3f at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 22:18:45 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:18:45 -0000 Subject: Where did Slytherin go after he left Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144232 Bruce wrote: "I sometimes wonder if old Salazar perhaps went off to found Durmstrang. Durmstrang, I believe, takes only pure bloods, and during the Triwizard Tournament the Durmstrangers seemed to get along better with the Slytherins better than the other three houses." CH3ed: I like this hypothesis. Perhaps LV also went to visit Durmstrang after he left Hogwarts? And if he did I wonder if there is a horcrux hidden there (and then Harry would have to visit Durmstrang in Book 7.... with Victor?). One thing, tho, is I think LV wouldn't be so set at the DADA post at Hogwarts if he could have taken over at another major school like Durmstrang where the pupils and staff would probably be more receptive to his ideas than at Hogwarts. CH3ed :O) From heidi at heidi8.com Tue Dec 6 22:21:40 2005 From: heidi at heidi8.com (Heidi) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 17:21:40 -0500 Subject: Introducing HPInkPot.com, a Place Where HP Essays Can Live Forever Message-ID: <5913e6f80512061421x4c639a39t98c2d7f9ba3e24a8@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144233 FictionAlley.org is thrilled to announce the launch of our newest "house" - http://www.HPInkPot.com - it's a home for essays on all Potterific topics! Through our Submission Form - http://forums.fictionalley.org/fics/story_management.php - essayists, academics, scholars and students can submit works ranging from book reports and term papers to in-depth explorations of linguistic, economic and socio-political examinations of the world created by J.K. Rowling. Then, thanks to our brand new search page at http://forums.fictionalley.org/fics/search.php people can focus their searches on specific characters, time frames, themes or topics. We know many of you post essays and scholarly pieces here on HPfGU - for you, HPInkPot will be a way to put those works in a place where they'll be easily searchable, forever, and not subject to the whims of Yahoomort's search engine or the traffic on the list. Since the site has only been live for a few days, we only have half a dozen essays yet, but we're adding more each day. Let us add yours! Even if your pet subject was "Jossed" by HBP (in other words, your theorizing was annihalated or impacted by a canon development) we'd love to have your archival works on HPInkPot - just select "pre-HBP" in the "when was this work written?" section. All essays are moderated, although we are only looking for reasonably good grammar and spelling, and for essays and papers that are at least 750 words long - anything shorter is better suited for our FictionAlley park discussion forums. Our Help Desk is happy to talk people through the form - just email us at help at fictionalley.org. About FictionAlley.org: We started in 2001 with a few dozen authors, three pieces of fanart and an ezboard forum, and we have grown to become the largest Harry Potter-specific fanfiction/fanart/discussion site. We have five fanfic houses, a gallery with over 11,000 works of fan-art, a Harry Potter Wiki at http://www.hpwiki.com and now, in HPInkPot.com, a lovely new house for essays. Hope to see many of you post over there! Best, Heidi for FictionAlley.org http://www.hpinkpot.com http://www.hpwiki.com http://www.fictionalley.org From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Dec 6 22:50:01 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 17:50:01 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Weasleys' Muggle Cousin (Was Re: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm) In-Reply-To: <003601c5fa1f$d590e460$0200a8c0@anakin> References: <003601c5fa1f$d590e460$0200a8c0@anakin> Message-ID: <43961599.2000500@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144234 leora wrote: > Weasleys? That would be hot- if Harry and Ron ended up being > related...but that wouldn't be that great for Ginny and Harry.... Bart: For all intents and purposes, we're ALL related. And, in Europe, where people tend to be somewhat sedentary, the relations are even closer. But, frankly, once you get to the level of second or third cousins, there really isn't much of a problem. Bart From kelley_thompson at sbcglobal.net Tue Dec 6 22:58:25 2005 From: kelley_thompson at sbcglobal.net (Kelley) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:58:25 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Reminder, "Two scenes" thread Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144235 Hi, everyone-- The discussion is great, but yes, it has strayed a bit from HP. Please make sure to tie it back into canon (this is for all posts, of course), or consider taking the fully off-topic comments to OTC; it would be a terrific discussion for that list! Our great thanks to those who *have* been making the effort to keep it related to canon, along with keeping to our other posting rules; it's very appreciated! *Note to any newer list members who aren't aware of this group's posting rules, they can be found here: http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/Posting_Rules_14June2005.html Additionally, if you've not seen the Humongous BigFile (HBF; sent to all new members upon joining), give it a read: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text Aside from including the posting rules (Section 2), there's other important information in Section 1, so be sure to read that as well. Thanks, everyone! --Kelley, for the List Elves From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 23:06:06 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 23:06:06 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144236 > Pippin: > Holy Cow! And I thought the whole point was that they're not...except > in the wishful fantasies of people like the Malfoys. Ron said it best,"If > we hadn't married Muggles, we'd have died out." I get the distinct > impression too many magical genes is bad news. Wizards aren't a > viable subspecies, and apparently separating the cultures hasn't > stopped Muggles from producing magical offspring. a_svirn: If the differences had been only cultural then muggle children could have done magic. Muggle/wizard inequality is by no means a fantasy, alas. Muggleborne/ pureblood differences is a fantasy, that's for sure. As for marrying muggles I don't see how that precludes them from being a breed apart. > > Pippin: > Which is a big joke, since Marge has no idea that James was a > wizard. She'd just like to think that lazy goodfornothings with > criminal tendencies don't run in her family *cough*Dudley* > cough. > a_svirn: Yes, she knows nothing about wizards but she is very big on pedigrees and purity of blood, isn't she? What with her breeding dogs and all that. > > Pippin: > It proves that he doesn't give a brass galleon for any race, least of > all the human one. a_svirn: Yeah, I'd agree with that. It doesn't make him less bigoted, however. > Pippin: > Racism is certainly a fault line in wizarding society. It's a wonderful > excuse for the character's distrust of one another. Even innocent little > Harry's dearest dream is to be surrounded by people who look just like him. a_svvirn: ??! > Pippin > But is it really the central conflict in the books? Suppose Slytherin hadn't > been a racist, do you think Harry, Snape and Voldie would be best pals? > a_svirn: I didn't say a single word about it's being central conflict in the books. I only pointed out that bigotry is considered a virtue in Slytherin House. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 23:19:57 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 23:19:57 -0000 Subject: Please explain. . ./Canon for the Snape being abusive argument In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144237 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Unfortunately, the circular argument is all the "Snape is a > > child abuser" supporters seem to have. Very little, if any, > > canon is ever brought forth in these arguments. And what canon > > *is* brought forth is taken far outside the WW standards of > > behavior. > >>Alla: > I am sorry, Betsy, but your claim here is simply not true. Canon > to support "Snape is an abuser" argument was brought up many, > many, many times. > > Here are some posts for you. I selected those with quotes. If you > would like more quotes, just let me know and I will be happy to > provide them. > Betsy Hp: These posts are great (though I think the link for Vmonte's is off - it should be: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122172 ) because they do actually provide canon to be discussed. However, and this is where I think people get a bit frustrated, they don't actually show Snape commiting "child abuse". He's mean, petty, cruel, and even abuses his power as a teacher. But nothing rises to the level of "child abuse", especially within the WW standard of behavior. [I'm putting child abuse in quotations because I fear the term itself is being abused. Sarcasm, while sometimes cruel, is generally not a good example of out and out child abuse.] And when you have posters speaking of Snape's history of child abuse as one would speak of his being Head of Slytherin or the Potions professor (IOW, a fact so totally supported by canon as to be beyond contention) it becomes not a little bit frustrating. Especially when someone genuinely asks, how do you get that Snape is a "child abuser" and the answer is, because he abuses children, especially good ones that I like. Snape is a bit of a lightening rod character (I understate ). And the discussions often get a bit heated. So while I'm sure there's a feeling that canon is used time and time again, IMO, it can never be used too often. Betsy Hp From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 23:29:26 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 23:29:26 -0000 Subject: Four Humours (wasRe: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144238 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > > > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: > > Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 5, > > An Excess of Phlegm > > Juli wrote a very good discussion. I intended to tack this question > to the end of my reply, but forgot. > > One theroy of health used to be that the body contained four Humours. > (Phlegm, Blood, Bile and ????) All four are supposed to be in > balance. Certain conditions were thought to be due to an excess of > one of the Humours. Does anyone know anything about this? What are > the four humours? And what would an excess of phlegm cause? > > I wonder if the name of this chapter has more to do with Tonks than > with Fleur. > > And why do I have the impression that Snape is suffering from an > excess of Bile? > > Potioncat > Nice one, Potioncat. Medieval tradition distinguished between yellow bile (choler) and black bile, the former responsible for choleric temperament, and the latter for melancholic. I'd say Snape is suffering from the excess of choler. It would have been fitting if Sirius had suffered from the excess of black bile, but I don't figure him as melancholic. a_svirn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 23:40:03 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 23:40:03 -0000 Subject: Trevor incident again WAS: Re: Please explain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144239 > Alla: > > And while Snape probably did not intend to really kill Trevor (I > hope, although I am not totally sure since I would not put past him > to enjoy seeing pet die), I do think that horrify Neville for his > sadistic pleasure WAS one of his intentions. IMO only of course What I really don't get, about this episode is what on earth did Trevor do in the Potion's classroom? Surely after two years of Potions Neville must have known that the only frogs Snape tolerates in his dungeons are of pickled variety. a_svirn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 23:50:46 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 23:50:46 -0000 Subject: Snape Harry and forgiveness/ judaism related/Canon for the Snape being abusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144240 Alla: I finally found the quote, which I was looking for about forgiveness. I am bringing it up to show what kind of forgiveness I would like to see Harry give to Snape, if ANY. I much prefer Snape to suffer a lot of course, but I do think that forgiveness will come to him at the end. One more thing, even though this is a quote from Judaism religious text, I am not a religious scholar, far from it,I am not even practising, I only know basics, so this quote is taken from the Internet and most likely out of context, so no offense is meant to any religious scholars. The reason I am bringing it up has nothing to do with religion at all, I just find the spirit of forgiveness ( man to man, not G-d to man)in Judaism as I understand it, to be very similar to what I as a reader would love to see in the books forgiveness wise. Here it is: The Rambam in Hilchot Teshuvah (Laws of Repentance) 2:9-10, writes: "Repentance and Yom Kippur only atone for sins between Man and G-d such as eating forbidden foods or engaging in forbidden sexual relations. *Sins between one man and his fellow, such as striking, cursing, or robbing are never forgiven until one pays up his debt and appeases his fellow.*(emphasis mine) Even if he returns the money he owes he still must ask for forgiveness. Even if he only spoke badly about him he must appease and beseech until he is forgiven. If his fellow refuses to forgive him then he must bring a group of three of his friends (presumably the injured party's friends) and go to him and ask him [for forgiveness]. If he still does not forgive him he must go to him a second and third time (with three other people). If he still refuses to forgive him he may cease and the other is the sinner. If [the injured party] is his teacher (rebbe) he must go to him even a thousand times till he is forgiven. It is forbidden to be cruel and difficult to appease, rather, a person must be quick to forgive and difficult to anger and when the sinner asks for forgiveness he should forgive him willingly and wholeheartedly...." The Shulchan Aruch, Orech Chaim 606:1 in the Laws of Yom Kippur, says essentially the same thing adding that one may withhold forgiveness if it is for the good of the person asking. It may be appropriate to withhold forgiveness to teach the supplicant not to take it lightly. Withholding forgiveness may also be permitted when someone spread false rumors about you but then it says that in such a case one should still forgive. " Alla: So, sins between man to man are NEVER forgiven untill one ASKS for forgiveness. Of course another person is obligated to grant the forgiveness if asked for, but what I LOVE is that the one who needs forgiveness has to WORK for it and THIS is what I would love to see happened between Snape and Harry. I don't need JKR spend pages on it, one or two sentences would be enough for me to imagine the rest, but I want to see a hint, ANYTHING that Snape feels remorse and wants Harry's forgiveness if that is what to come for them. Of course, JMO and my opinion only. > Betsy Hp: > These posts are great (though I think the link for Vmonte's is off - > it should be: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122172 ) > because they do actually provide canon to be discussed. However, > and this is where I think people get a bit frustrated, they don't > actually show Snape commiting "child abuse" Alla: NO, Betsy, I disagree. YOU don't think that they show Snape committing child abuse and again this is your absolute right, IMO, but I do think that those quotes show really well Snape being a child abuser, so this is your opinion,not a fact. Just as my interpretation of those quotes is an opinion,not a fact of course. So, my point is that no matter how much canon I provide, you most likely won't ever see Snape as child abuser ( I hope I am not misinterpreting you here) and that is your view of the character, which I understand. I see him as child abuser and this is my view of the character, which is as EQUALLY supported by the canon as your view. Not a mean , snarky teacher, not a teacher who provides tough love, but as at very least emotional abuser and someone who is prone to physical abuse, IMO. Just because you disagree with the canon, does not mean that it does not support my POV just as it supports yours. Same canon can support many opposing arguments, IMO. If I would make a claim about Snape being a child abuser without providing ANY canon support, that IMO would be different story. JMO, Alla From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Tue Dec 6 23:58:01 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 23:58:01 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trevor incident again WAS: Re: Please explain. Message-ID: <20051206235801.49073.qmail@web86207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144241 It's midnight here. :-) dumbledore11214 wrote: >>eggplant107 wrote: >> >>Snape must have known his >>words would terrorize >>>an eleven year old boy, > Irene: > >>Trevor's incident didn't happen during year 1, did it? > > > Alla: > > Are you saying that third year student cannot be scared that his pet > will be poisoned? No, I'm just correcting the misconception above, that Neville was 11 at the time. > > Irene: > > >>I was not going for "no harm no foul" argument about >>Trevor. I do think intentions are important (still >>waiting to learn about Sirius intentions :-)). But I >>don't think Snape's intentions were to kill Trevor. Or >>to horrify Neville for his sadistic pleasure. >>I've just noticed that many "motivational" verbs seem >>to suggest pain: >>to spur, goad, push, prod, poke, thrust. I wonder why. >>:-) > > Alla: > > So, if you were not going for "no harm no foul" argument about > Trevor, could you clarify what type of argument you were going for? I think this incident should not be described in the terms "Snape was going to poison Trevor, but Hermione saved the day". Snape told Neville that they will feed his potion at the end of the lesson. It means that it's all in Neville's hands. It means that he should feel in control. It's not like Snape prepared a poison and intends to give it to Trevor depending on Neville's behaviour. The students use their own pets as Transfiguration props. What if the transfiguration goes wrong? Shouldn't they feel constantly scared that McGonagall won't fix the situation? > > You said upthread that how could we blame Snape for what Neville was > thinking, right? Since to me the answer is very clear - because Snape > made Neville to believe it, I am not sure how can we NOT to blame > Snape for what Neville was thinking? In OoTP Slytherins ridicule Gryffindor quidditch team. It does not work on Harry, but it works on Ron (I'm talking about run-up to the first game). Why? Because internally Harry knows he is a competent quidditch player, and Ron thinks the opposite of himself. Their different reaction is due to their internal reasons, not something that happens or does not happen externally. In HBP Harry disagrees with Snape's opinion on Dementors. But he calmly writes an essay with the answers he thinks are correct. If it was Potions essay a year earlier, Harry would huff, and puff, and rant about the evil git and probably copy Hermione's work. Why he is so calm about submitting Dementors essay? Because internally he knows he is competent in DADA, and he knows his essay is good. What I'm getting to - in my opinion a person is responsible for his own thoughts. The only way Neville could have made his potions experience more pleasant was to become competent. JKR has chosen not to show it. But I'll be happy for Neville when he kills Bellatrix. That's competence enough, and Potions will be water under the bridge then. > > I mean, it is not like Neville believed that Trevor will die for no > reason. The belief is very rational, no? No, just as Harry feeling "imprisoned" during the first occlumency lesson was not rational. At this point in time Snape hasn't harmed any of the students or their pets, so the belief is irrational. > > Aren't you saying that since Trevor was not harmed that is why we > should not blame Snape? No, I'm saying that Snape wasn't going to harm Trevor in the first place. No canonical proof for that, unfortunately. But in any case, Trevor's fate was fully in Neville's hands. That aspect of the situation seems often lost in our discussions. Irene ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Exclusive Xmas Game, help Santa with his celebrity party - http://santas-christmas-party.yahoo.net/ From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 00:04:09 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 00:04:09 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin - Snobbery or Bigotry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144242 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > ...edited... > > > Pippin > > But is it really the central conflict in the books? Suppose > > Slytherin hadn't been a racist, do you think Harry, Snape > > and Voldie would be best pals? > > > > a_svirn: > I didn't say a single word about it's being central conflict in > the books. I only pointed out that bigotry is considered a virtue > in Slytherin House. > bboyminn: That bring up the question whether Slytherins are uniformly engaged in Bigotry, or whether, as a whole, they are merely engaged in Snobbery. The Aristocracy still exists in Europe. They don't believe in marrying outside their 'own kind'. They believe they are superior to Commoners. We could extent that to say they are Bigots. But Europe generally doesn't regard them that way. In a sense, I think we have to make a distinction between passive snobbery and active snobbery. To see yourself as better than the rest and only associate with your preceived equals, in a sense, is passive snobbery. But to take that sense of superiority and use it to suppress and oppress those you view as lessers becomes active snobbery, and yes, that falls then into the catagory of bigotry. Part of my central point is that while MOST of Sltherins might engage in a passively snobbish attitude, only a few of the cross the line into actively working against their preceived lessers. We can't really make a blanket statement about MOST Slytherins because, as I have pointed out more than once before, we haven't seen MOST Slytherins. Really, that active sample we have consists of Draco and his associated. Far more Slytherins choose not to get in Harry's face. Far more Slytherins choose to keep their heads down and mind their own business. At least, in any significant way, we never see them getting into Harry's business. I readily admit that SOME Slytherins are bigots, and further that they are probably powerful and influential Slytherins. But I can't accept any blanket statements that ALL or MOST Slytherins are anything, when we indeed have not seen /most Slytherins/. In the end, it may prove out that all or most Slytherins are one thing or another, but I don't think we have seen the evidence yet. I do believe, that we have been lead by the author to believe that all or most Slytherins are this or that, but I think that is an intentional illustion on the part of the author. She has created an appearance or preception, but her own evidence doesn't support the assumed conclusion. Not sure what that's worth, but there it is. Steve/bboyminn From juli17 at aol.com Wed Dec 7 00:45:39 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 19:45:39 EST Subject: Two scenes for most everyone Message-ID: <23c.3099fba.30c78ab3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144243 Leslie wrote: > This is not in keeping with canon, or the relationship between Snape > and Minerva as it exists in the books. If she loathed him that > mightily we would have found out about it by now. Amiable Dorsai wrote: I'm at a loss to think of any scene that illustrates that Minerva approved of Snape's teaching methods. Put up with them? Yes. Bit her tongue for Dumbledore's sake? Certainly. Acted in a professional manner toward a colleague? You bet. Approved? Can you cite a scene? Julie: I don't know that she always approved of Snape's teaching methods. In fact, she undercut him several times on the matter of punishment, specifically when he tried to take away Gryffindor points. Still, it is pretty clear in canon that McGonagall didn't strongly disapprove of Snape. And I'm not going to cite a scene here. I'm just going to ask that we view the books in the most reasonable manner, rather than demanding a specific piece of canon where McGonagall says "I approve of/like/respect Professor Snape." We don't get that kind of incontravertible canon on most issues (or, when we do, then we have no need to debate it, do we? ;-) McGonagall has never bothered to hide her negative impressions of people. She dislikes the way the Dursleys treat Harry, she has little respect for Trewlaney as a teacher, she had less respect for Lockhart, and she outright defied Umbridge. She made her feelings clear about every one of them, even *while* she managed to act in a reasonably professional manner. If McGonagall loathed Snape, we'd know it. But she never expresses any serious disapproval of him. The most she does is deliberately undercut him, as mentioned above, though with little or no actual anger or resentment. It seemed to be her way of keeping the scales balanced when she felt Snape was misreading a situation, or going beyond what was reasonable punishment, particularly pertaining to her Gryffindors. I don't think McGonagall and Snape had cozy little chats outside of school functions. They aren't close friends. But she accepted him, and showed no resentment of Dumbledore's trust in him. She took him for what he was, a strict disciplinarian (not so different from herself) who got results, but who also needed to be reined in occasionally when he let his biases influence his judgment. (And I'm not saying McGonagall knew everything Snape pulled either, though if she discovered certain things--like Snape threatening to let Neville's toad die--I'm not sure she'd condemn his methods, as she shares many of his same frustrations.) McGonagall being shocked about Snape's murder of Dumbledore ("I don't believe it!"), and even saying, "I always wondered.." about Dumbledore's reasons for trusting Snape, fits in with her mutually cordial working relationship with him. Though she may have wondered just what made Dumbledore trust Snape, she never gave any indication that she doubted Dumbledore's judgment, or that she couldn't or didn't accept a reformed Snape or respect him as a colleague. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Wed Dec 7 00:53:11 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 01:53:11 +0100 Subject: Snape Harry and forgiveness/ judaism related/Canon for the Snape being abusive References: Message-ID: <024f01c5fac8$99d39270$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144244 Alla wrote: > I finally found the quote, which I was looking for about forgiveness. > I am bringing it up to show what kind of forgiveness I would like to > see Harry give to Snape, if ANY. > One more thing, even though this is a quote from Judaism religious > text, I am not a religious scholar, far from it,I am not even > practising, I only know basics, so this quote is taken from the > Internet and most likely out of context, so no offense is meant to > any religious scholars. Miles: First, I do not like this type of Forgiveness, because the rules are strict and "mechanic", whereas I prefer to forgive or not forgive depending on the circumstances of every single case. I won't try to find religious 'evidence' for my PoV ;). We all have different beliefs (religious or not), so we could easily find as much opinions as members on the list. But this is only part of our discussion, and maybe the part we should simply agree to disagree. The more interesting part of the discussion is IMO, whether we really want literature to be a copy of our moral beliefs. If you ask me - no, it should not. I'm in no way deranged, if literature does not fit my personal moral agenda. I do like the Tom Ripley novels by Patricia Highsmith - despite their moral really is not mine. I do not expect justice in fiction, as I had to learn that justice is rarely part of the real world, either. Obviously, we disagree in this point as well ;). > Alla: > NO, Betsy, I disagree. YOU don't think that they show Snape > committing child abuse and again this is your absolute right, IMO, > but I do think that those quotes show really well Snape being a > child abuser, so this is your opinion,not a fact. Just as my > interpretation of those quotes is an opinion,not a fact of course. Miles: The point of disagreement is the definition of the term child abuse. It's difficult to discuss definitions without revealing them. Without this, any discussion will be totally pointless. So, maybe we should start with definitions? I'll try to translate a German definition I found: child abuse df. Damage of Health (e.g. by means of physical or mental torments) or overexertion of a child or adolescent. In modern child protection: the violent physical or psychical damage, which leads to injuries, repression of development or to death, and which affects the well-being and rights of the child. If we use this or a similar definition, then it is difficult to find canonical evidence for child abuse on Harry or Neville, because we do not see any prove for (lasting) damage. If we try to find a wider definition for child abuse, I would not like it, because we should not use the same term for Snape being unfair to Neville, and Tom Riddle petrifying or murdering students with the basilisk. Miles From JLen1777 at aol.com Wed Dec 7 00:20:52 2005 From: JLen1777 at aol.com (JLen1777 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 19:20:52 EST Subject: Four Humours (wasRe: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm Message-ID: <262.1ae0259.30c784e4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144245 a_svirn: Nice one, Potioncat. Medieval tradition distinguished between yellow bile (choler) and black bile, the former responsible for choleric temperament, and the latter for melancholic. I'd say Snape is suffering from the excess of choler. It would have been fitting if Sirius had suffered from the excess of black bile, but I don't figure him as melancholic. Jaimee: No, I think you may be on to something with that. If anyone in the books fits a melancholic personality type, I think Sirius would be the one. He is quite depressed while stuck in Grimmauld place, and his sullenness also leads to violent outbursts with Snape (which might be hard to contain even if he weren't depressed... ;) ) -- Wikipedia explains an excess of black bile as causing a melancholic temperament, which it says was probably the same thing as someone today who is clinically depressed, other characteristics may have been restless or lazy. (I don't think Sirius was lazy, but I think he definitely FELT lazy by never being able to leave his house), so I think you actually made a really good point, but you may see Sirius differently than I do. As for an excess of phlegm, I am not sure I see Tonks or Fleur in that light. Wikipedia describes someone with an excess of phlegm as "calm, unemotional, self-content and kind" I really need to look through the chapter again. I think some of Fleur's behavior is probably taken out of context, but she does not really come off as calm or unemotional to me, and Tonks is depressed over Lupin, so she isnt really seen in this light either. Hmm, I think Arthur and Ron both have this personality type, but I doubt that the chapter is actually pointing to either of them, I just don't know. In an argument for this to point to Fleur though, it does say that of Aristitle's four sources of Happiness, that the Phlegmatics have moral virtue, and we do see this in Fleur after Bill has been attacked and she has never even considered not staying with Bill because of his disfiguration (I am sorry I do not have the books with me at the moment...will look up any quotes later if necessary.) As for Snape having an excess of yellow bile, I think it is quite fitting., Again, wikipedia desrcibes these people as "easily angered, and bad tempered." Though Sanguine deals with blood, I think the personality traits ("courageous, hopeful, amorous"), could describe Dumbledore or Harry. I had never thought of this before, and I don't know if anyone knows through interviews etc, if JKR has used the four humours for personality traits, but I think it may have been in her head in creating some characters OR possibly in arranging the four houses at Hogwarts... Since they also correlate with the four elements etc...this is a decent possiblity. Here is the Wikipedia Page that I looked at: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_four_humours_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_four_humours) Jaimee From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 01:55:50 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 01:55:50 -0000 Subject: Trevor incident again WAS: Re: Please explain. In-Reply-To: <20051206235801.49073.qmail@web86207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144246 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Irene Mikhlin wrote: > What I'm getting to - in my opinion a person is responsible for his > own thoughts. The only way Neville could have made his potions > experience more pleasant was to become competent. That's a rather emotionally resilient adult you're describing there. And therein lies the rub. This still, IMO, falls into a variety of no harm no foul--it's just shifted the criteria for 'harm'. In this setup, Neville is only harmed because he allows himself to feel harm, to feel picked upon. If he could only just *deal* with it himself, he'd be fine. Does that make him weak and soft for not being able to? What does that do to the agency of a bully, either contemporary (Draco) or adult (Snape)? It seems to fall into the "if you just ignore them then they can't hurt you," which is something JKR herself is explicitly against on her website. It makes being hurt emotionally by being bullied into moral weakness. Adults we expect to be able to deal with this, but part of what makes children what they are is that they're considerably more vulnerable to this sort of thing. That goes especially for someone like Neville, practically orphaned and raised with a heavy burden of expectations. Do I expect Snape to have known about this? At least some. Mrs. Longbottom seems to be not an unknown quality, and he must have known about the fates of Frank and Alice. With Neville and Potions we have a vicious feedback loop. He's nervous because he's incompetent (he both thinks he is and he blows things up on a regular basis); the way Snape acts around him and to him in class only makes him more nervous, so he doesn't get more competent. It's like having a heavy load already on your shoulders; it makes it so much harder to do anything. JKR shows Neville doing far, far better when Snape is absent--I think that's a deliberate design to show what Neville is capable of, when he's not being put into a stressful situation. > No, just as Harry feeling "imprisoned" during the first occlumency > lesson was not rational. At this point in time Snape hasn't harmed > any of the students or their pets, so the belief is irrational. Emotions are not always terribly rational (although it's questionable to carry out the classic old reason vs. emotion divide), but there is a long philosophical tradition of considering them just as valid as 'rational' thoughts. But it's continually emphasized throughout the series how powerful emotions both are and can be, and how trusting in them (Harry trusts in his heart and it frees him of possession) is important. Emotions need to be engaged with, not just thrown aside and dismissed as unimportant. Many, many of the characters are illustrations of this, Snape and Sirius Black chief amongst them. Different reactions to and approaches to emotion, but both deeply entwined in them. -Nora agrees that it's important for all the kids to get control of their own emotions and let some harms bounce off of them, but thinks too far gone towards Stoicism is not where JKR would take us From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Dec 7 03:05:20 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 03:05:20 -0000 Subject: Four Humours, Four Elements, Alchemy In-Reply-To: <262.1ae0259.30c784e4@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144247 Jaimee: >...and I don't know if anyone knows through interviews etc, > if JKR has used the four humours for personality traits, but I think it may > have been in her head in creating some characters OR possibly in arranging the > four houses at Hogwarts... Since they also correlate with the four elements > etc...this is a decent possiblity. > > Here is the Wikipedia Page that I looked at: > _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_four_humours_ > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_four_humours) Ceridwen: Sorry, list elves, the iron is warming up! *Blood - Spring season, element of air, organ- liver, qualities are warm and moist. Blood is courageous, hopeful and amorous. Its sense of emotion is hedonistic (sensual pleasures). Myers-Briggs - SP *Phlegm - Winter season, element of water, organ - brain and lungs, qualities are cold and moist. Phlegm is calm and unemotional. Its sense of emotion is propraitari (acquiring assets). Myers-Briggs - NT *Choler/yellow bile - Summer season, element of fire, organ - gall bladder, qualities are warm and dry. Choler is easily angered, bad tempered. Its sense of emotion is ethikos (moral virtue). Myers- Briggs - NF aka Bilious *Melancholy/black bile - Autumn season, element of earth, organ - spleen, qualities are cold and dry. Melancholy is despondent, sleepless, irritable. Its sense of emotion is dialogike (logical investigation). Myers-Briggs - SJ aka Atrabilious http://www.answers.com/topic/four-humours There are other correspondences. From what the several sites, which are all pretty much like the link above, say, is that an excess of any of the humours produces illness - phlegm would produce a cold illness, since it's qualities are cold and moist. The way to treat this illness would be to serve foods and medicines which are choleric - warm and dry. The Four Humours, as well as the Four Elements, are also part of alchemy. I tried, I really did, to get some sort of grip on the alchemy website I browsed. I would have made a lousey alchemist. But, according to at least one website (belonging to John? Granger), the HP series of books is following along an alchemic sort of plan. So, there may be some connection between the humours and the elements in an alchemical way. I'm not exactly sure how the title matches the chapter, or Fleur, who is called 'phlegm' by Ginny. But, I'll try: Fleur is the only female in the household who seems to be calm and relatively unemotional, at least compared to the others. While Molly is upset, Ginny is loathsome, and Hermione doesn't seem to want Fleur around, Fleur herself floats through the chapter chatting and smiling and bringing Harry his breakfast. She also seems to have fewer problems with various emotions - Harry is still grieving for Sirius, Ron's overwhelmed with Fleur the Veela. The emotion or 'happiness' associated with phlegm is propraitari, of an acquiring nature. Fleur is engaged to Bill, whether his family and friends like it or not. I don't see Fleur as 'cold and moist'. Maybe it means the 'cold shoulder' she's getting? Maybe her detractors are 'all wet'? For 'winter', the atmosphere toward Fleur at the Burrow is decidedly 'chilly'. But, I think I'm stretching here. I wish I could understand the alchemy site a little better, to see how phlegm works out there. What it would mean specifically to alchemy, how it reacts with other humours and the elements. Very little to go on there. Looking at the NT personality type, I don't see how it matches either, but I'm not an expert. http://www.geocities.com/enematic5000/ntexplaination.html Totally off-topic for the thread, but something I found while browsing the alchemy site, was something called the Allegory of Merlin. Since Merlin is the favorite wizard to swear by for a few of the characters, I thought I'd take a look. It had something to do with a king at the beginning of a battle. The king dies (gruesomely, IIRC), then this takes place: ***To which the physicians consented, and they did take the dead king, as the others hath left him and grinding him they washed him well till nothing remained of the others medicines, then they did dry him. Then they did take of salt armoniac one part, and two parts of Alexandrine Nitre. This they did mix with the powder of the dead King. Then they did make a paste of it with linseed oil, and put it into a chamber, made like a perforated crucible, and under the hole they put another clean crucible. There they left him for one hour, then they covered it with fire blowing till all was melted into the other crucible, descending through the hole. Then the King, also brought from dead to life, cried out "Where are the enemies. Let them know that I will kill them, if they do not obey me immediately".*** http://www.alchemywebsite.com/merlin.html I'm a believer in Dead!Dumbledore. JKR has said that when a character dies, he's dead. But the whole alchemy thing, put with the alchemic text portion above, could point the other way, IMO. A perforated crucible, a fire, then the dead king brought to life. *IF* alchemy plays anything more than the part of a framework, could we see a Resurrected!Dumbledore in some fashion? (repeating: I think he's well and properly dead) Ceridwen, striking while the iron is hot. From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 03:39:37 2005 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 03:39:37 -0000 Subject: How did Hagrid get to the Hut-on-the-Rock? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144248 hpfan_mom: In PS/SS, Hagrid goes to the broken-down shack to deliver Harry's Hogwarts admission letter and to take him to Diagon Alley (The Keeper of the Keys, pp. 46-60, all page numbers are Scholastic). Just before Hagrid arrives, Harry hears noises: a creak outside, something (the sea?) slapping hard on the rock, a funny crunching noise, and then . . . BOOM. Later, when it's time to leave the shack, Harry is puzzled: "How did you get here?" Harry asked, looking around for another boat. "Flew," said Hagrid. "Flew?" "Yeah - but we'll go back in this [Uncle Vernon's boat]. Not s'pposed ter use magic now that I've got yeh." (pp. 63-64) I'm taking Hagrid at his word that he actually flew and did not apparate, a skill that it's doubtful he's mastered, having been expelled in his third year. So, how did he fly? We know wizards cannot fly on their own -- they must fly ON something. A broomstick first comes to mind, but we've never seen Hagrid on one. It seems out of character for him. Perhaps a thestral, since he has been cultivating a herd at Hogwarts (OOTP, p. 447). He tells the COMC class that Dumbledore would use a thestral if he's "takin' a long journey an' don' want ter Apparate." (p. 446) Here's my guess -- he used Sirius's flying motorcycle. We last saw the motorcycle when Hagrid took off into the night after delivering Baby Harry to Privet Drive (SS, p. 16). When asked what happened to the motorcycle, JKR told us: "You'll find out, but the real sleuths among you might be able to guess." (World Book Day interview) The roar that McGonagall and Dumbledore had heard as the motorcycle approached was drowned out 10 years later by the raging storm and the rolls of thunder. But Harry did hear the tires slap on the rock, the crunch of gravel as Hagrid rolled to a stop. And then the motorcycle, like the Ford Anglia at the end of COS, took off by itself, not needing human direction to return to wherever it stayed. hpfan_mom, suddenly worried that the whereabouts of the motorcycle were mentioned in HBP and she completely missed it From sydpad at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 04:09:30 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 04:09:30 -0000 Subject: How did Hagrid get to the Hut-on-the-Rock? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144249 > hpfan_mom: > > "Flew," said Hagrid. > > "Flew?" > > "Yeah - but we'll go back in this [Uncle Vernon's boat]. Not s'pposed > ter use magic now that I've got yeh." (pp. 63-64) I wonder if that wasn't a pun on "Floo", for Floo powder? But I'm not sure if there would have been a suitable fireplace on the island! > hpfan_mom, suddenly worried that the whereabouts of the motorcycle > were mentioned in HBP and she completely missed it --Sydney, who takes a guess that Arthur Weasly might have gotten a hold of it to use as a model for his flying Anglia? Now I'm picturing badass leather-jacket Harry roaring around on Sirius' bike looking for Horcruxes! From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 04:12:09 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 20:12:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Four Humours (wasRe: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051207041209.44896.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144250 potioncat wrote: One theroy of health used to be that the body contained four Humours. (Phlegm, Blood, Bile and ????) All four are supposed to be in balance. Certain conditions were thought to be due to an excess of one of the Humours. Does anyone know anything about this? What are the four humours? And what would an excess of phlegm cause? I wonder if the name of this chapter has more to do with Tonks than with Fleur. And why do I have the impression that Snape is suffering from an excess of Bile? Juli: I couldn't remember the 4 humors myself so I had to google it. Here's what I found: In the Hippocratic corpus (believed not to be the work of a single man of that name) disease was thought to be caused by isonomia, the preponderance of one of the four bodily humors: Yellow Bile Black Bile Phlegm Blood Four humors matched the four seasons Autumn: black bile Spring: blood Winter: phlegm Summer: yellow bile. Each of the humors was associated with one of the four equal and universal elements posited by Empedocles: Aristotle, who used the image of wine to expose the nature of black bile. Black bile, just like the juice of grapes, contains pneuma, which provokes hypochondriac diseases like melancholia. Black bile like wine is prone to ferment and produce an alternation of depression and anger.... -From The History of Melancholy Earth: black bile Air: blood Fire: yellow bile Water: phlegm. Too much earth made one MELANCHOLIC; too much air, SANGUINE; too much fire, CHOLERIC; and too much water, PHLEGMATIC. Too much Earth: Melancholic Too much Air: Sanguine Too much Fire: Choleric Too much Water: Phlegmatic. Finally, each element/humor/season was associated with certain qualities. Thus yellow bile was thought of as hot and dry. Its opposite, phlegm (the mucus of colds), was cold and moist. Black Bile was cold and dry, while its opposite, blood was hot and moist. Black Bile: Cold and Dry Blood: Hot and Moist Phlegm: Cold and Moist Yellow Bile: Hot and Dry. The only relation I see between Fleur and Phlegm is the winter. Fleur is described in the books as beautiful and cold, very much like winter. She isn't particularly lovable (aside from her veela-ness), she isn't very nice (IMO)... She's pretty cold to me. Sirius probably had too much Black Bile. He was melancholic, depressed, he thought constantly about the 'good old days'... He is fall, his better days are over, he is slowly dying and going black... Severus, oth, is completely full of Yellow Bile, he's choleric, dry, and hot (maybe I'm the only one who thinks he's hot). But he isn't at all like summer. He's probably the less summer-y person ever! Juli Juli Aol: jlnbtr Yahoo: jlnbtr --------------------------------- Yahoo! Personals Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet. Lots of someones, actually. Yahoo! Personals [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Dec 7 04:22:55 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 23:22:55 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Weasleys' Muggle Cousin (Was Re: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4396639F.4050308@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144251 lagattalucianese wrote: > Although creationists can make the case that we're all related if you > go back far enough (;D), Bart: So can DNA experts, and they've got physical evidence. Also, mathematicians can demonstrate that, if people on Earth freely mixed, virtually everybody would have a common ancestor about 10 generations back; since the populations are more limited, most people are even more closely related. Bart From Nanagose at aol.com Wed Dec 7 04:35:22 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 04:35:22 -0000 Subject: Canon for the Snape being abusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144252 > > Betsy Hp: > > These posts are great...because they do actually provide canon to > > be discussed. However, and this is where I think people get a bit > > frustrated, they don't actually show Snape commiting "child abuse" > Alla: > > NO, Betsy, I disagree. YOU don't think that they show Snape > committing child abuse and again this is your absolute right, IMO, > but I do think that those quotes show really well Snape being a > child abuser, so this is your opinion,not a fact. Just as my > interpretation of those quotes is an opinion,not a fact of course. Christina: First of all, I'd just like to point out that, while you did provide canon examples to defend your argument (and some of them are obviously points that can defend your position), some of the examples given are ridiculous. I don't know how anybody can deem Snape abusive for saying to Hermione: "Miss Granger... five more points from Gryffindor for being an insufferable know-it-all." That is unfair, biased behavior from Snape. That is in no way abusive. Secondly, as Betsy has stated, the problem with the child abuse issue is when people state unequivocally that Snape is a child abuser when talking about him, which offers no preamble of the issue being anything about opinion. Nobody is saying that you aren't entitled to your opinions, but like you say, they are *opinions* and they should not be stated as fact. > Alla: > So, my point is that no matter how much canon I provide, you most > likely won't ever see Snape as child abuser ( I hope I am not > misinterpreting you here) Christina: Well, you've got me down. That's absolutely my position. The problem is not in the canon, it is in everyone's personal definition of child abuse and what we think meets that definition. Emotional child abuse is now just beginning to get the recognition it deserves, so it is unfortunately poorly defined and understood. This is the last time I'm going to defend my personal view of child abuse, because I don't think personal definition is really the way we should be looking at this. I would like to offer up this quote, which details the punishment that McGonagall gave Neville when Sirius Black stole the passwords he had written out: "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." (PoA, Scholastic, page 271) Do you consider this abuse? After all, McGonagall punishes Neville with things that entail further humiliation. He is forced into a situation where he is AFRAID (much like those days in Snape's classroom). IIRC, it is also McGonagall who sends Neville, Malfoy, Harry & co, into the Forbidden Forest for a detention. Even Malfoy is emotionally distressed by this, and Neville gives a moan when he figures out where they are going. Hagrid supports this punishment completely. Are McGonagall and Hagrid child abusers as well (and by extension, Dumbledore)? If we are going to apply one definition to Snape, surely we should judge everyone against that same standard, no? And yet there are no big posts condemning McGonagall of child abuse. Now that that's done, I think one has to ask oneself how important each of our individual definitions of abuse are. I would think that most important definition of child abuse (and the one that should rightly be used when judging Snape), is the standard that is set by the wizarding world, *in canon.* First of all, Dumbledore never takes any action against Snape. Snape's behavior in class is pretty consistant through his years of teaching, which shows that Dumbledore has never forced him to "tone it down" or anything like that. Other members of the WW have even expressed the idea that Dumbledore is quite free-thinking and progressive when it comes to punishment and education-related policies (Umbridge and Filch express this opinion; I think Lucius Malfoy may have as well), but as far as we know, even he has shown no displeasure at the way Snape treats his students. No trouble has come to Snape for his teaching from outside sources, meaning that the other teachers surrounding him (Lupin, McGonagall, Flitwick, etc.) either did not consider his behavior abuse, or did consider it abuse and couldn't get anything done about it (which says a lot about what the WW considers abuse in the first place). We know that at some recent time, physically punishing students was allowed. Filch laments that the kids wouldn't be so keen on misbehaving if they had known that they could be strung up in his office or be "whipped raw." I guess you could argue that this doesn't necessarily mean that Filch was ever able to do those things, but I think it certainly implies it. He says that Umbridge is passing a decree that will allow him to do those things. Even if he is exaggerating, we know that Umbridge does give approval for whipping students, because Filch goes to get it from her office. In a world where *whipping* students is deemed an acceptable punishment, does it really seem like anybody is going to care that Snape punishes Neville by telling him that his potion will be fed to his toad? > Alla: > I see him as child abuser and this is my view of > the character, which is as EQUALLY supported by the canon as your > view. Not a mean , snarky teacher, not a teacher who provides tough > love, but as at very least emotional abuser and someone who is prone > to physical abuse, IMO. Christina: The fact is, canon supports Snape acting in a way that YOU consider child abuse, and your opinion on that issue is perfectly valid; however, when you look at the wizarding world, canon *clearly* states that Snape is NOT a child abuser. He is not considered one by the world he lives in, which is the canon world. Before you argue that a society's view of a subject is not necessarily a correct one, I'd like to point out that nobody in the WW calls Snape abusive, even the people that we accept as the most forward of thinkers. Harry says that he is unfair, a greasy git, annoying, biased, and mean, but never once does Harry say, "Somebody should put a stop to Snape's teaching because he is totally abusive." Likewise with Hermione, who I would say has a much more progressive view of things like racism and violence than even Harry does. Same with Dumbledore, who is the most progressive figure that we have probably met (and who is considered exceptionally free-thinking by most people). Nobody expresses the idea that Snape is a child abuser but us. Christina (wishing that Yahoo! Groups had a spell-checker) From aenea at verizon.net Wed Dec 7 03:10:52 2005 From: aenea at verizon.net (Jenny) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:10:52 -0500 Subject: Harry Potter genetics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c5fadb$d50c44a0$6401a8c0@waterdeep> No: HPFGUIDX 144253 > --La Gatta: > Although creationists can make the case that we're all > related if you go back far enough remarks on marrying cousins and other stuff> Setting aside the religious argument entirely, there is hard scientific evidence that everyone in the world is related to one another if you go back far enough. A fascinating book called "The Seven Daughters of Eve" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393323145 details the writer's scientific study of mitochondria dna. To quote: "Unlike the DNA in the chromosomes of the nucleus, which is inherited from both parents, everyone gets their mitochondria dna from only one parent - their mother." The rate of mutation for mitochondria dna sets the "common mitochondrial ancestor for ALL modern humans" at around 150,000 years ago. I can guess that genetics have been discussed in relation to Harry Potter, but since I emerged out of "no mail" mode quite recently I'd be interested if anyone wants to discuss again. Perhaps Homo sapiens ability to do magic let them far out- compete their Homo erectus bretheren in their dragon/unicorn/acromantula/dementor/etc infested world. Or perhaps Homo sapiens' magical ability caused some creatures to develop magical abilities themselves to defend against overhunting and extinction. But where and how would the "magic" gene originate? In anything? I suppose it's a little like the evolution of sight question - how can you see without a fully formed eye? How can you use magic without a fully formed magical ability (regardless of how weak it might be *cough*Neville*cough*.) Perhaps any cell which could sense or create magic would be useful to the original creature it evolved in. The better the creature could sense or create magic, the more competitive edge it would have. I can just see an early Homo sapien hunting, and just as the creature they're chasing is about to escape he wishes it would trip - and it does. Or perhaps someone is gathering fruit but the best is far out of reach and perhaps he wishes it would just fall - and it does. Or perhaps an early Homo sapien suddenly senses an acromantula is stalking her, and she knows to run and hide... Perhaps the magic genes are slightly toxic or cancerous, and the unstable genes lead to the evolution of the many human-variant creatures, like gnomes, leprechauns, banshees, giants, hags, etc. I'd love to know what others think of evolution in the context of the magical Harry Potter world. Jenny From mariabronte at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 05:27:47 2005 From: mariabronte at yahoo.com (Mari) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 05:27:47 -0000 Subject: possible theory as to who might die in book 7 and a couple of other thoughts. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144254 A friend of mine and I were discussing this the other night. All through the series, Harry has had to deal with a series of deaths that become increasingly difficult for him. In GoF, the death of Cedric is difficult because Cedric could so easily have been Harry; Harry feels on some level personally responsible. OotP ups the ante-- losing Sirius is more difficult for Harry on a personal level, as Sirius is one of his main sources of adult support. In HBP, Harry loses his other main adult supporter, Dumbledore. He feels that the foundations of his universe are crumbling. Assuming that the progression is that each death Harry experiences is going to be more difficult for him, who is the logical choice for book seven? Whose death could possibly be harder for Harry than Dumbledore's? I would like to suggest that the loss of Ron is the only loss that would hit Harry harder than Dumbledore's loss. The Weasleys are effectively his family, and Ron (apart from Hermione) his closest friend and most loyal supporter. This argument could also be applied to Ginny, but Ron has demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice his own interests to those of his friends from the first book. On another note, there is a second logical progression I notice in the series as a whole; the issue of forgiveness. In PoA, Harry has to make a decision about Peter Pettigrew. Is he going to make the easy choice, (allow Sirius and Lupin to kill the person he most hates at the time, the person who betrayed his parents to Voldemort) or the more difficult choice, spare Peter's life rather than perpetuate the pattern of murder Peter started. Harry realises that vengeance, while the most natural human reaction, is a lazy form of grief. All right. Cut to HBP. Who does Harry now hate *more* than Peter? Who will he find it ten times more difficult to forgive, or at least give up the opportunity to pursue vengeance? Snape. JKR has said that Harry's hatred of Snape is now as personal as Harry's hatred of Voldemort. Here we also see a parallel being set up. Harry and Voldemort clearly represent people who, in their childhood, had similar gifts. Tom Riddle made evil choices and became Voldemort. So far Harry has made mistakes, but has done his best to think of what the right choice rather than the easy choice would be. Who is the one character who is *very* similar in some ways to Harry and Voldemort, and who at this point could conceivably go either way? Again, Snape. This is why I am convinced that however JKR chooses to end the series, Snape's actions, and Snape's choices, will be a hugely important thematic vehicle for her. His ultimate fate will tell us what JKR actually wants to say about the possibility and working out of redemption, when it is possible, when it is not, and how it can be achieved or the opportunity for it lost forever. Hope this ramble makes some kind of sense! ;-) Mari. From robersondd at comcast.net Wed Dec 7 06:29:33 2005 From: robersondd at comcast.net (Debbie Roberson) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 06:29:33 -0000 Subject: DD's Penseive Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144255 I haven't posted since July and am WAY behind on my post-reading, so my apologies if this particular "what if" has been covered already...... Do you suppose that DD could have left some memories in his pensieve that might shed some light on things for Harry (and Minerva since she would be the one to find them)....or was it left obviously empty (I can't remember if it was mentioned in the final scene of the office & my book is currently inaccessible) ??? Debbie R. in JAXFL From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 7 07:51:05 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:51:05 -0000 Subject: How did Hagrid get to the Hut-on-the-Rock? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144256 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: hpfan_mom: > > "Flew," said Hagrid. > > > > "Flew?" > > > > "Yeah - but we'll go back in this [Uncle Vernon's boat]. Not s'pposed > > ter use magic now that I've got yeh." (pp. 63-64) Sydney: > I wonder if that wasn't a pun on "Floo", for Floo powder? But I'm not > sure if there would have been a suitable fireplace on the island! > > > hpfan_mom, suddenly worried that the whereabouts of the motorcycle > > were mentioned in HBP and she completely missed it Geoff: I have to admit that the possibility that what Hagrid actually said was "Floo" had never occurred to me previously. However, if he had meant that, I wonder why he didn't go on to explain. But.... ...two pieces of information argue against this. 'BOOM. The whole shack shivered and Harry sat bolt upright, staring at the door. Someone was outside, knocking to come in.' (PS "The Letters from No One" p.38 UK edition) Hagrid enters from stage left. There is a fireplace in the hut - Vernon has already tried to start a fire: 'He (Uncle Vernon) tried to start a fire but the empty crisp packets just smoked and shrivelled up.' (ibid. p.37) whereas Hagrid does it more successfully : 'His eyes fell on the empty grate with the shrivelled crisp packets in it and he snorted. He bent down over the fireplace; they couldn't see what he was doing but when he drew back a second later, there was a roaring fire there.' (PS "The Keeper of the Keys" p.40 UK edition) The second point: '"Er - yes - sorry about that," said Mr.Weasley, lowering his hand and looking over his shoulder at the blasted fireplace. "It's all my fault, it just didn't occur to me that we wouldn't be able to get out at the other end. I had your fireplace connected to the Floo Network, you see - just for an afternoon, you know, so we could get Harry. Muggle fireplaces aren't supposed to be connected, strictly speaking...."' (GOF "Back to the Burrow" p.44 UK edition) So, Hagrid comes in from outside - no fireplace. This fireplace in a disused old shack is hardly likely to be connected and I can't see Hagrid having the necessary 'clout' to get it done even if he had thought about it. From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Dec 7 10:05:46 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:05:46 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin - Snobbery or Bigotry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144257 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > bboyminn: > > That bring up the question whether Slytherins are uniformly engaged in > Bigotry, or whether, as a whole, they are merely engaged in Snobbery. That does not matter, both are wrong. > > The Aristocracy still exists in Europe. They don't believe in marrying > outside their 'own kind'. They believe they are superior to Commoners. > We could extent that to say they are Bigots. But Europe generally > doesn't regard them that way. I usually enjoy your writings but I wish you would stick to things you know about. > Part of my central point is that while MOST of Sltherins might engage > in a passively snobbish attitude, only a few of the cross the line > into actively working against their preceived lessers. But we don't know about most Slytherins, so we don't know if they are snobs. So why make this kind of statement? > and his associated. Far more Slytherins choose not to get in Harry's > face. Far more Slytherins choose to keep their heads down and mind > their own business. At least, in any significant way, we never see > them getting into Harry's business. Nor do most Ravenclaws or most Hufflepuffs. I don't think they or the Slytherins keep their heads down, but that they are just normal children going on with their lives. They have nothing to do with Harry because he is in a different house and they are not really that interested in him. And why should they? He is the boy-who-lived but you can't keep gawking at someone for years and years and years. > Gerry From phil at pcsgames.net Wed Dec 7 11:41:50 2005 From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 06:41:50 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] How did Hagrid get to the Hut-on-the-Rock? References: Message-ID: <09ce01c5fb23$40aeecc0$6600a8c0@phil> No: HPFGUIDX 144258 hpfan_mom said: > In PS/SS, Hagrid goes to the broken-down shack to deliver Harry's > Hogwarts admission letter and to take him to Diagon Alley (The Keeper > of the Keys, pp. 46-60, all page numbers are Scholastic). snipped > > I'm taking Hagrid at his word that he actually flew and did not > apparate, a skill that it's doubtful he's mastered, having been > expelled in his third year. So, how did he fly? We know wizards > cannot fly on their own -- they must fly ON something. A broomstick > first comes to mind, but we've never seen Hagrid on one. It seems out > of character for him. Perhaps a thestral, since he has been > cultivating a herd at Hogwarts (OOTP, p. 447). He tells the COMC > class that Dumbledore would use a thestral if he's "takin' a long > journey an' don' want ter Apparate." (p. 446) > > Here's my guess -- he used Sirius's flying motorcycle. We last saw > the motorcycle when Hagrid took off into the night after delivering > Baby Harry to Privet Drive (SS, p. 16). When asked what happened to > the motorcycle, JKR told us: "You'll find out, but the real sleuths > among you might be able to guess." (World Book Day interview) > > The roar that McGonagall and Dumbledore had heard as the motorcycle > approached was drowned out 10 years later by the raging storm and the > rolls of thunder. But Harry did hear the tires slap on the rock, the > crunch of gravel as Hagrid rolled to a stop. And then the motorcycle, > like the Ford Anglia at the end of COS, took off by itself, not > needing human direction to return to wherever it stayed. > > hpfan_mom, suddenly worried that the whereabouts of the motorcycle > were mentioned in HBP and she completely missed it Now Phil: There were two more clues to the flying motorcycle in OOTP. When Harry was first entering the MOM, "Here," said Kingsley brusquely to Mr. Weasley, shoving a sheaf of parchment into his hand, "I need as much information as possible on flying Muggle vehicles sighted in the last twelve months. We've received information that Black might still be using his old motorcycle." At the same time Hagrid and Madame Maxime was on a secret mission traveling to find the giants. But where they are's very difficult ter get ter, fer humans anyway, so we needed Dumbledore's instructions. Took us abou' a month ter get there--" "So you couldn't use magic to get there?" asked Ron, looking thunderstruck. "You had to act like Muggles _all _the _way?" "Well, not exactly all the way," said Hagrid cagily. "We jus' had ter be careful, 'cause Olympe an' me, we stick out a bit--" "--so we're not hard ter follow. We was pretendin' we was goin' on holiday together, so we got inter France an' we made like we was headin' fer where Olympe's school is, 'cause we knew we was bein' tailed by someone from the Ministry. We had to go slow, 'cause I'm not really s'posed ter use magic an' we knew the Ministry'd be lookin' fer a reason ter run us in. But we managed ter give the berk tailin' us the slip round abou' Dee-John--" >From the above I surmise that they were both riding the motorcycle on the ground until Dee-John. Phil who guesses Harry will get the motorcycle as a birthday present from Hagrid. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Dec 7 12:28:18 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 12:28:18 -0000 Subject: Four Humours (wasRe: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: <20051207041209.44896.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144259 > potioncat wrote: > One theroy of health used to be that the body contained four > Humours. (Phlegm, Blood, Bile and ????) All four are supposed to be > in balance. Certain conditions were thought to be due to an excess > of one of the Humours. Does anyone know anything about this? What > are the four humours? And what would an excess of phlegm cause? > > I wonder if the name of this chapter has more to do with Tonks than > with Fleur. > Juli: > The only relation I see between Fleur and Phlegm is the winter. Fleur is described in the books as beautiful and cold, very much like winter. She isn't particularly lovable (aside from her veela-ness), she isn't very nice (IMO)... She's pretty cold to me. > > Sirius probably had too much Black Bile. He was melancholic, depressed, he thought constantly about the 'good old days'... He is fall, his better days are over, he is slowly dying and going black... > > Severus, oth, is completely full of Yellow Bile, he's choleric, dry, and hot (maybe I'm the only one who thinks he's hot). But he isn't at all like summer. He's probably the less summer-y person ever! Valky: I agree with you Juli on Sirius and Snape here, it makes sense. In the case of the phlegmatic humour I think potioncat is right and it does have to do with Tonks, although she is not the phlegmatic one her sadness is caused by Lupin's extremely phlegmatic reaction to the war. It is Lupin who has turned cold and unemotional in his grief, he pushes away her love and he is reacting in a strangely unemotional way to his awful mission and Sirius' death, he also makes the extraordinarily ufeeling statement about neither liking nor hating Snape, I think that the real excess of phlegm in HBP must be in Lupins demeanour. Just a thought Valky From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Wed Dec 7 06:08:07 2005 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 06:08:07 -0000 Subject: Harry's View of Snape Matters Re: Canon for the Snape being abusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144260 > Christina: > > The fact is, canon supports Snape acting in a way that YOU consider > child abuse, and your opinion on that issue is perfectly valid; > however, when you look at the wizarding world, canon *clearly* states > that Snape is NOT a child abuser. He is not considered one by the > world he lives in, which is the canon world. Before you argue that a > society's view of a subject is not necessarily a correct one, I'd like > to point out that nobody in the WW calls Snape abusive, even the > people that we accept as the most forward of thinkers. Harry says > that he is unfair, a greasy git, annoying, biased, and mean, but never > once does Harry say, "Somebody should put a stop to Snape's teaching > because he is totally abusive." Likewise with Hermione, who I would > say has a much more progressive view of things like racism and > violence than even Harry does. Same with Dumbledore, who is the most > progressive figure that we have probably met (and who is considered > exceptionally free-thinking by most people). Nobody expresses the > idea that Snape is a child abuser but us. I've been following this debate for a while and would like to add my opinion on something. I personally wouldn't describe Snape as "abusive" per se but that, to me, misses a fundamental argument about Snape. I part of me agrees with the people that say Snape won't be punished for his behavior in the classroom and if he was then it would be extremely petty. But another part of me thinks that Snape should be punished for his actions in the classroom because they are indicative of a larger problem (I'm going to expand on this side since the other opinion has been argued by other people). Harry dislike of Snape did not spring out of nowhere and Snape's behavior in the classroom and as a teacher at Hogwarts certainly did nothing to improve Harry's view of him. Of course Harry had his own part in building up that relationship but so did Snape whether or not his actions were meant to provoke Harry is really beside the point because as of HBP Harry hates Snape. People point to the "big" things that Snape has done for the side of the "Light," and it's true that Snape has done many things to help Harry, but the face that Harry sees far more often is Snape as the nasty, annoying, biased grit. Relationships between people are built as much on the little things as the big things and Snape certainly has made it difficult for Harry to "like" him or even "trust" him. As an example look at after Harry gets off the Hogwarts express in HBP Snape mocks Harry and makes him walk into the Great Hall. I'll admit that Harry is the one that is far more out of control in that scene with his hate and such but Snape make a point of kicking Harry while he's down. One can't help but wonder if Snape is a total social idiot (which we know he's not) or if the man simply can't control himself around a Potter. Snape honestly seems to want Harry to hate him and then freaks out when Harry does hate him does Snape have a passive-aggressive complex or something? It's like the expression about the straw that breaks the camels back Snape behavior in the classroom is a larger sign of his inability to control his emotions, his old grudges with student's parents, his slightly nasty side, etc. And I do think Snape may have to pay or pay more (since his killing of Dumbledore isn't really related to this issue a suitable form of punishment is his exile and current hatred by most wizards) because that does seem to be one of his major flaws. Sirius certainly paid for his flaws (although I think people exaggerate the role Sirius's flaws played in his death), Lockhart seemed to be thrown on his sword, Lupin's flaws seem to have caused him certain problem (with more yet to come), and that doesn't even touch on Harry's (and James's) many flaws. Quick_Silver From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 13:22:14 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 13:22:14 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone In-Reply-To: <23c.3099fba.30c78ab3@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144261 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote: Julie: Still, it is pretty clear in canon that McGonagall didn't strongly disapprove of Snape. And I'm not going to cite a scene here. I'm just going to ask that we view the books in the most reasonable manner, rather than demanding a specific piece of canon where McGonagall says "I approve of/like/respect Professor Snape." We don't get that kind of incontravertible canon on most issues (or, when we do, then we have no need to debate it, do we? ;-) Amiable Dorsai: So, if I read you correctly, you are citing an absence of evidence as evidence of absence? Fair enough, but I think you are reading a bit much into negative evidence. Julie: McGonagall being shocked about Snape's murder of Dumbledore ("I don't believe it!"), and even saying, "I always wondered.." about Dumbledore's reasons for trusting Snape, fits in with her mutually cordial working relationship with him. Though she may have wondered just what made Dumbledore trust Snape, she never gave any indication that she doubted Dumbledore's judgment, or that she couldn't or didn't accept a reformed Snape or respect him as a colleague. Amiable Dorsai: Here I'm forced to disagree. I read this as McGonagall finally voicing doubts that she had long suppressed out of respect for Dumbledore. She, and the others in the room, certainly took Harry's word for Snape's guilt very quickly. No one suggested that Harry might have been mistaken, or mentioned any of the plethora of ways that a wizard might be framed. No, they take Harry's unsupported word for it. This, to me, indicates that Snape had built no reservior of trust with his colleagues. That their suspicions were allayed only by Dumbledore's word, not by respect for Snape himself. I believe that McGonagall tolerated Snape because Dumbledore asked her to, not because she respected him as a fellow professional. That we didn't see overt disdain from her (as we did for Umbridge, Trelawney, and Lockhart) because Snape, unlike the other three, was slick enough not to provoke it from her directly. Amiable Dorsai From va32h at comcast.net Wed Dec 7 14:10:29 2005 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 14:10:29 -0000 Subject: How did Hagrid get to the Hut-on-the-Rock? In-Reply-To: <09ce01c5fb23$40aeecc0$6600a8c0@phil> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144262 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Phil Vlasak" wrote: > There were two more clues to the flying motorcycle in OOTP. > When Harry was first entering the MOM, > "Here," said Kingsley brusquely to Mr. Weasley, shoving a sheaf of parchment > into his hand, "I need as much information as possible on flying Muggle > vehicles sighted in the last twelve months. We've received information that > Black might still be using his old motorcycle." va32h: I thought that Kingsley - being in the Order - was purposely misdirecting the ministry, by choosing something that was completely off the mark. Pursuing leads on the stolen motorcycle might lead Aurors away from Sirius, but to Hagrid, which would be almost as bad for the Order. I just started re-reading PS, and it did occur to me that Hagrid used Thestrals. That would be the most inconspicuous way to arrive, and the Thestral could fly off on its own without arousing suspicion, whereas a riderless flying motorcycle is bound to attract attention. va32h, who will now turn to the question of how the Dursleys managed to get off the rock, once Hagrid stole their boat! From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Dec 7 14:21:55 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 14:21:55 -0000 Subject: Four Humours (wasRe: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: <20051207041209.44896.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144263 Juli wrote: > Black Bile: Cold and Dry > Blood: Hot and Moist > Phlegm: Cold and Moist > Yellow Bile: Hot and Dry. > The only relation I see between Fleur and Phlegm is the winter. Fleur is described in the books as beautiful and cold, very much like winter. She isn't particularly lovable (aside from her veela-ness), she isn't very nice (IMO)... She's pretty cold to me. Potioncat: Taking this back to the humorous; of course, it's funny that Ginny calls Fleur, Phlegm, but am I missing something? Do British kids use the word phlegm? Is there a word play that I'm missing? In the US the polite word would be mucus and the impolite would be snot. So maybe if you didn't like your sister's boyfriend Scott, you'd call him Snotty Scotty. Or Snivelus, come to think of it. OK, only a select few would use Snivelus. I'm beginning to think this whole thing is just that JKR likes snot humor and has nothing to do with Ancient Medicine. Well, two can play at this game! You may have to read this poem out loud to get it. If you want to kiss your honey, But your nose is kind of runny, If you think it's sort of funny, Well, it's not. Potioncat, who wasn't always an old lady. From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Wed Dec 7 14:35:04 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 14:35:04 -0000 Subject: Please explain. In-Reply-To: <20051206200307.89139.qmail@web86202.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144264 > > 2. You don't need to give examples of him being > unfair, I agree he was unfair to Harry many times. > Unfair does not equal abusive. > ... > > Irene > Thank you, Irene. It's always nice to encounter a voice of reason. La Gatta's last word on the Snape-is-a-child-abuser rant: As a survivor of genuine verbal and emotional child abuse by a real professional (and it would have been physical too if she hadn't been afraid of my father), I can tell you that Snape isn't even in the junior amateur league on child abuse. I had teachers like Snape, and believe me, I know the difference. I wasn't throwing-up scared of my teachers. Just a thought: I wonder how much of his sarcasm and general snarkiness is living up to his students' expectations of him. I mean, can you picture the class's reaction if he'd suddenly come over all warm and sympathetic? ;D I think they'd either faint or wonder what he was *really* up to. --La Gatta From bob.oliver at cox.net Wed Dec 7 13:45:39 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 13:45:39 -0000 Subject: Harry's View of Snape Matters Re: Canon for the Snape being abusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144265 Quick_silver71 wrote: But another part of me thinks that > Snape should be punished for his actions in the classroom because > they are indicative of a larger problem (I'm going to expand on this > side since the other opinion has been argued by other people). > > Snape behavior in the classroom is a larger sign of his inability to > control his emotions, his old grudges with student's parents, his > slightly nasty side, etc. And I do think Snape may have to pay or > pay more (since his killing of Dumbledore isn't really related to > this issue a suitable form of punishment is his exile and current > hatred by most wizards) because that does seem to be one of his > major flaws. Sirius certainly paid for his flaws (although I think > people exaggerate the role Sirius's flaws played in his death), > Lockhart seemed to be thrown on his sword, Lupin's flaws seem to > have caused him certain problem (with more yet to come), and that > doesn't even touch on Harry's (and James's) many flaws. Lupinlore: Yes, I think this is an extremely important point. I think most of us who argue that it is essential for Snape to be punished for his classroom abuse are, in effect and often explicitly, pointing out that this is an important part of his entire character presentation. Fate is often woven by character in RL, and that is certainly the case in fiction and, as you point out, most certainly the case in the Potterverse. It is true that Snape has done a lot that seems to insure a great deal of retribution. However, such retribution cannot be confined to narrow categories. That is, we can't say "Well, he'll certainly be punished for Dumbledore's death but his behavior toward Harry and Neville doesn't fit an appropriate category/definition for punishment." Nonsense! When most of us are talking about Snape being punished, we are going much beyond the Dumbledore situation and speaking in terms of the dreaded karmic/poetic retribution. That means that Snape is not so much punished for a certain act or even set of acts, but that Snape is punished for... well, being Snape. Harsh, perhaps, but that's karma for you. What goes around comes around. Lockheart was punished for being Lockheart, Lupin's troubles arise from being Lupin, and Dumbledore's - I suspect we will find, judging by JKR's comments - from being Dumbledore. I think Umbridge will be punished for being Umbridge. Now, a person's actions are part and parcel of who they are, in that action arises from character and character is shaped by action. Therefore Lockheart's specific actions in obliviating his victims figure largely and obviously in determination of his punishment, and Dumbledore's specific decisions largely shape his troubles. I think Umbridge's specific actions will be clear and important in her eventual fate. And as it is impossible to separate Snape's treatment of Harry and Neville from the final place he will occupy on the karmic wheel, then it will, I think, be ultimately very obvious that Snape's abuse of Harry and Neville is related to his final situation. Lupinlore From hpnosys at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 11:15:38 2005 From: hpnosys at yahoo.com (hpnosys) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 11:15:38 -0000 Subject: A View into Snapes Past Relationships Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144266 I have a theory based on a interview with JKR in which she was asked if Snape was ever in love. She stated that we would be hearing more from Snape's past including past loves. I have a feeling Snape either had some sort of relationship with Lily Potter or had a crush on her. If you recall in OotP when Harry looks into Snape's pensieve and sees his father and Sirius's torture of Snape young Lily is appaled by their behavior. Although it is said Snape refered to Lily as a mudblood I think that it may have had to do with his unwillingness to show his true feelings for her. I think this is why Snape is so torn up about the fact that it was on his tip that Voldemort is led to Godrics Hollow on that fateful night. Which leads to his return from the Dark Side. I also think that Snape's animosity towards Snape which has been displayed from day one has less to do with the fact that James andSnape did not simply get along when the were in school but the fact that Harry reminds him so much of the man who married the woman he loved. hpnosys From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Dec 7 15:12:09 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 15:12:09 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144267 > Amiable Dorsai: > Here I'm forced to disagree. I read this as McGonagall finally > voicing doubts that she had long suppressed out of respect for > Dumbledore. She, and the others in the room, certainly took Harry's > word for Snape's guilt very quickly. No one suggested that Harry > might have been mistaken, or mentioned any of the plethora of ways > that a wizard might be framed. No, they take Harry's unsupported word > for it. Magpie: But isn't this because he was a Death Eater? I don't think McGonagall would have said any such thing if Snape were just the teacher she seems to have had a friendly rivalry going with for years. She means, I think, that everyone wondered why Dumbledore was so confident in saying Snape switched sides way back when or why she would hire a kid that at school was probably openly bigoted, not to mention a creepy little weirdo (McGonagall was totally charmed by MWPP remember), not that she's been watching Snape's behavior and thinking he shouldn't be around students. I think Lupin and McGonagall, generally considered good teachers, have made their opinions of Snape pretty clear. Both of them take certain opportunities to correct him or teach him a lesson--Lupin with Neville and the Boggart, McGonagall by making Snape agree that the other houses deserve points for the battle at the MoM. But Lupin, at least, also says flat-out that he doesn't like him or dislike him (which I don't see as strangely unemotional at all), and tells Harry to call him Professor Snape. I think McGonagall expects the same respect for him. And I also agree with whoever pointed out that McGonagall's treatment of Neville is pretty OTT as well--the narrator even calls him "poor Neville" as he's waiting out there humiliated every night, locked out of his own house, with all the other kids included in the punishment by not being allowed to tell him the password. This all for something that was stolen from him. Not to mention, why on earth would you blame the 13-year-old for the breakdown of security at the school? If all that's standing between the murderer and his victim is the memory of a forgetful 13-year- old, there have surely already been several bigger failures of security before then! That seems like the most humiliating thing that ever happens to Neville in canon, unless I'm forgetting something. It goes on and on, constantly making the point that he can't be trusted with simple things because he's inept. I would definitely say after 6 books that McGonagall seemed to respect Snape just fine as a professional--unlike the way she thought about Lockhart and Umbridge. quick_silver71: People point to the "big" things that Snape has done for the side of the "Light," and it's true that Snape has done many things to help Harry, but the face that Harry sees far more often is Snape as the nasty, annoying, biased grit. Relationships between people are built as much on the little things as the big things and Snape certainly has made it difficult for Harry to "like" him or even "trust" him. Magpie: Yes! To me this is a big point of Snape's behavior. Snape has absolutely contributed to many breakdowns throughout the books, sometimes ones that drove him up the wall. You asked if he was passive-aggressive about it, and I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't something like that. I think he does take every snarky remark of Harry's as a sign of his inherent disrespect when obviously Harry is responding to Snape's own behavior. Harry walked into his classroom ready to respect him and Snape threw that away. He would see Harry as disrespectful regardless of how Harry behaved, but Harry's not the type to be respectful to him anyway. So Snape lives in an alternative reality. If he's DDM he's making things worse for himself all the time. If he's ESE, well one could say he's a lot smarter, perhaps, because he's intentionally sabotaged things between Harry and himself when he's sometimes supposed to be guarding Harry. But otoh, if he's ESE it would probably have done him a lot more good if Harry liked him and so did whatever he wanted until Snape stabbed him in the back. Though I tend to think that very few of Snape's emotional reactions, if any, are part of a plan. -m From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Wed Dec 7 15:14:04 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 15:14:04 -0000 Subject: Four Humours (wasRe: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: <262.1ae0259.30c784e4@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144268 > > As for Snape having an excess of yellow bile, I think it is quite fitting., > Again, wikipedia desrcibes these people as "easily angered, and bad > tempered." > ... > > Jaimee > It certainly goes along with his sallow complexion, "sallow" being defined as "of a pale, sickly, *yellowish* color". At one point, which I now of course can't find, he's described as pointing a long, *yellow* finger at his class. (Emphasis mine in both cases.) Once again, I wonder if JKR is hinting that Snape is not in the best of health. That yellowish color is generally due to jaundice (and Snape certainly has a "jaundiced" outlook on life!), which is due to liver disease. Is JKR hinting that our boy drinks on the QT? I should think such a thing would be hard to conceal in a society as intimate as Hogwarts, where it is certainly no secret that Trelawney hits the cooking sherry a little more often than she should. However, other things can make for liver trouble, notably stress-related stomach problems like GERD (speaking from first-hand experience here). When we see young Severus in the Pensieve, he is already not in very good health, and it seems to be linked to chronic unhappiness. I wonder if he owes the Marauders, among other factors, for a lifetime of depression and stress-related illness. --La Gatta From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Dec 7 15:15:47 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 15:15:47 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144269 > Amiable Dorsai: > Here I'm forced to disagree. I read this as McGonagall finally > voicing doubts that she had long suppressed out of respect for > Dumbledore. She, and the others in the room, certainly took Harry's > word for Snape's guilt very quickly. No one suggested that Harry > might have been mistaken, or mentioned any of the plethora of ways > that a wizard might be framed. No, they take Harry's unsupported word > for it. > > This, to me, indicates that Snape had built no reservior of trust with > his colleagues. That their suspicions were allayed only by > Dumbledore's word, not by respect for Snape himself. > > I believe that McGonagall tolerated Snape because Dumbledore asked her > to, not because she respected him as a fellow professional. That we > didn't see overt disdain from her (as we did for Umbridge, Trelawney, > and Lockhart) because Snape, unlike the other three, was slick enough > not to provoke it from her directly. Pippin: I think you are not taking into account the immense upset that everyone is feeling and the awe everyone now has for Harry himself. As Snape told us in the beginning, in their panic and shock at losing their master, the Death Eaters would have looked to Harry as a standard to rally around. The Ministry wants to use Harry too, knowing that everyone will believe the Chosen One if he even implies that the Ministry is doing a good job. Now it is the Order and the teachers who have lost their leader, feel under attack, and rally around Harry. They believe him about Snape, but they'd believe him about anything, IMO. In fact, we see the same dynamic at work in CoS, where the teachers rally around Snape and turn on Lockhart. People tend to be inaccurate about their past feelings too-- there's a natural tendency for people to pretend to themselves that they saw something coming even when they didn't. Like Harry, who suddenly thinks that he's been seeing the Prince's book as increasingly nasty all along, when there's nothing in canon to show this, and a lot of canon where Harry has been fiercely defending the Prince. Pippin From bob.oliver at cox.net Wed Dec 7 13:27:15 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 13:27:15 -0000 Subject: Snape Harry and forgiveness/ judaism related/Canon for the Snape being abusive In-Reply-To: <024f01c5fac8$99d39270$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144270 Miles wrote: > I do not expect justice in fiction, as I had to learn that justice is rarely > part of the real world, either. > Obviously, we disagree in this point as well ;). Lupinlore: I don't know about everybody else, but I'm finding this whole thread immensely enjoyable! :-) But to the point, of Miles' statement. I, for one, most certainly do not expect fiction to mirror the real world, especially in moral matters. What on earth would be the point of that? True, a certain amount of realism makes a work more compelling. For instance, I think JKR lapses badly with regard to emotional realism with regard to romance or grieving for lost loved ones. However, when it comes to overall moral patterns I have no patience with the "realism" argument. I am quite aware of how the world works, having survived in it for several decades, thank you very much. If I ever need remind myself of the problems of morality in the real world, I have only to turn on CNN, read the paper, log onto the internet, or visit any number of venues from coffee houses to churches to old age homes. If someone wants to talk about morality in the real world, let them write nonfiction. If they are just dying to put real world morality in a work of fiction, my advice is to keep it to yourself and save a tree or two. Miles: > If we try to find a wider definition for child abuse, I would not like it, > because we should not use the same term for Snape being unfair to Neville, > and Tom Riddle petrifying or murdering students with the basilisk. > Lupinlore: Why not? There are many terms that cover both instances. "Wrong," for instance. "Evil," is another. "Cruel," would be yet another. Just because a term is broad and applies across a lot of instances, does not make it invalid. It is true that Snape's cruelty is not the same as Voldemort's cruelty, but that does not make him less cruel. It is true that Snape's evil is not the same as Voldemort's evil, that does not mean Snape's actions are not evil. It's true that Snape's abuse is not the same as abuse perpetrated by others. That does not mean it isn't abuse, which it most definitely is. Lupinlore From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Wed Dec 7 15:29:31 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 15:29:31 -0000 Subject: Two scenes for most everyone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144271 > > I believe that McGonagall tolerated Snape because Dumbledore asked her > to, not because she respected him as a fellow professional. That we > didn't see overt disdain from her (as we did for Umbridge, Trelawney, > and Lockhart) because Snape, unlike the other three, was slick enough > not to provoke it from her directly. > > Amiable Dorsai > And/or because she is familiar enough with where Snape is coming from to feel some sympathy for him (which she doesn't feel for Umbridge, Trelawney, and Lockhart). She must have been at Hogwarts throughout Snape's career there, both as a student and as a professor, and even if she wasn't close to him personally, you can, as Yogi Berra said, observe a lot just by watching. --La Gatta From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 7 15:37:43 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 15:37:43 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Harry after the Hut-on-the-Rock... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144272 Geoff: After replying to the post on Hagrid at the Hut-on-the-Rock, my thoughts went back to various questions which have crossed my mind about this scene. Although I have been a group member for two and a half years, I do not recall seeing these queries addressed. If they have been in the dim prehistoric past, my apologies. Perhaps when JKR first wrote "Philosopher's Stone", she did not anticipate the intense and microscopic scrutiny to which they would be subjected by fans of the books and so did not think these matters through... However, to satisfy my curiosity, have any of the group got their own ideas? 1. When Hagrid and Harry leave the island, they take the boat. So, how do the Dursleys get back to the mainland? Harry was only with Hagrid for one day and I presume that, when he got back after his train journey, they had returned to Privet Drive. 2. On the subject of the train journey, how did Hagrid know that Harry was going home on the train from Paddington? He is not very au fait with Muggle matters. 3. In addition, where did Harry get the money for his ticket? I think he will only have got a pittance for pocket money (if any) and that wouldn't buy a rail ticket. 4. We are told that, for the next month, Vernon and Petunia tried to avoid speaking to him, behaving as if he wasn`t there. Presumably he said nothing more to them until the 31st August when he broached the subject of reaching Kings Cross with his uncle. So where did "Harry's huge, heavy trunk" (PS "The Journey from Platform Nine and Three- Quarters" p.68 UK edition) come from? He wouldn't need a trunk because he never been anywhere and had had nothing to pack in the past. And if 4 Privet Drive is one of these twee little houses on little culs-de-sac which spring up like toadstools(?) around major towns in the UK, I can't imagine there being room to store a trunk in a loft or whether Vernon could be bothered to lug it down for HP. Any bids to deal with my inquisitiveness? From kjones at telus.net Wed Dec 7 15:33:24 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:33:24 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Please explain. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <439700C4.7010705@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 144273 > La Gatta's last word on the Snape-is-a-child-abuser rant: > > As a survivor of genuine verbal and emotional child abuse by a real > professional (and it would have been physical too if she hadn't been > afraid of my father), I can tell you that Snape isn't even in the > junior amateur league on child abuse. I had teachers like Snape, and > believe me, I know the difference. I wasn't throwing-up scared of my > teachers. > > Just a thought: I wonder how much of his sarcasm and general > snarkiness is living up to his students' expectations of him. I mean, > can you picture the class's reaction if he'd suddenly come over all > warm and sympathetic? ;D I think they'd either faint or wonder what > he was *really* up to. > > --La Gatta KJ writes: Considering the fact that Dumbledore made it fairly plain that he knew Voldemort would return at some point, I wonder how much of Snape's behaviour is for no other purpose than to show his history of heckling Harry to Voldemort. Dumbledore and Snape knew that Snape would be asked to return to V on his return. It would not do for Snape to have a lot of happy memories of relating to the students, being friends with the teachers, and pampering Harry. This would also explain his favouritism to the Slytherins. I'm certain that V. would have very carefully gone through Snape's mind to determine his loyalty, and obviously Snape passed. I'm not saying that Snape is actually a warm cuddly fellow at the best of times, but he is probably not as nasty as he has been portrayed to this point. KJ From kelleyaynn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 15:28:03 2005 From: kelleyaynn at yahoo.com (kelleyaynn) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 15:28:03 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter genetics In-Reply-To: <000001c5fadb$d50c44a0$6401a8c0@waterdeep> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144274 Jenny wrote: > > But where and how would the "magic" gene originate? In > anything? I suppose it's a little like the evolution of sight > question - how can you see without a fully formed eye? How > can you use magic without a fully formed magical ability > (regardless of how weak it might be *cough*Neville*cough*.) > Kelleyaynn: I don't think magic can be based on genetics. I think it's just - magic. From the evidence in the books, it doesn't follow a genetic pattern. For a witch or wizard to be born from two muggle parents would mean the gene has to be recessive. However, if the muggle allele of the gene were dominant, than you wouldn't get squibs from two magical parents - one would have to be a squib too. These two observations can't be reconciled by genetics easily. It is possible that either a muggle-born witch or wizard or a squib is the result of a mutation in the "magic gene", but while relatively rare, they are still too common for it to be the result of a random mutation in the magic gene, so I doubt that is the case. So either magic is controlled by more than one gene and has complicated genetics, or it is not genetic at all. Since magic is so mysterious, I'd go with the idea that it is not genetic, but, magic. Who knows why some muggle borns are magical, and while some magical parents will have a squib. Also, genes code for proteins, and magic is not a protein, so that is another argument against magic being genetic. So I don't think magic "evolved". It just is. Kelleyaynn From muellem at bc.edu Wed Dec 7 16:27:17 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:27:17 -0000 Subject: A View into Snapes Past Relationships In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144276 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hpnosys" wrote: > > I have a theory based on a interview with JKR in which she was asked if > Snape was ever in love. She stated that we would be hearing more from > Snape's past including past loves. > hpnosys > Hi hpnosys, do you have a link to that? The only things I read pertaining to this subject was that JKR was asked if Snape has ever loved anyone and she remarked who would ever what to be loved by Snape and another more recent interview in that JKR stated that Snape was loved by someone - which I think was his mother - which made him more culpable for his acts than Voldermort. if this is a new interview, it would be great to have a link to it. thanks so much colebiancardi (as for your question, there is the LOLLIPOPS ship, which can be found in the INISH area in the dB - LOLLIPOPS Love of Lily Left Ire Polluting Our Poor Severus starts as post 32909 Snape, Lily, SHIP) link to inish: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=28&query=lollipops From va32h at comcast.net Wed Dec 7 16:56:11 2005 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:56:11 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Harry after the Hut-on-the-Rock... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144277 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Geoff wrote: > Perhaps when JKR first wrote "Philosopher's Stone", she did not > anticipate the intense and microscopic scrutiny to which they would > be subjected by fans of the books and so did not think these matters > through... va32h: First off yes - I think this is exactly right...readers caught up in the story will miss little things, much like excited moviegoers will miss the occasional continuity gaffe. But after repeated readings/viewings, these stand out. But I do have some reasonable guesses. Geoff: > 1. When Hagrid and Harry leave the island, they take the boat. So, > how do the Dursleys get back to the mainland? Harry was only with > Hagrid for one day and I presume that, when he got back after his > train journey, they had returned to Privet Drive. va32h: This is the biggest puzzle. Vernon rented the hut from somebody, perhaps that person was contacted (how?) and sent to rescue them. Geoff: > 2. On the subject of the train journey, how did Hagrid know that > Harry was going home on the train from Paddington? He is not very au > fait with Muggle matters. va32h: Someone at Hogwart's is aware enough of Harry's movements to know that he lives in a cupboard, then is moved to the smallest bedroom, then to a hotel in Cokeworth, then to a hut on a rock. It shouldn't be too hard then, to determine what train would take Harry back to Little Whinging. Based on the location of Diagon Alley, Hagrid could have been told "take Harry to X station and put him on X train". Geoff: > 3. In addition, where did Harry get the money for his ticket? I think > he will only have got a pittance for pocket money (if any) and that > wouldn't buy a rail ticket. va32h: Hagrid bought their tickets to London, and bought Harry a hamburger - so he was obviously given some Muggle money for the trip (we know he was - he tells Harry he doesn't understand how to use it, and has Harry buy the tickets). Surely Hagrid would have bought him a ticket back home as well. Geoff: > 4. We are told that, for the next month, Vernon and Petunia tried to > avoid speaking to him, behaving as if he wasn`t there. Presumably he > said nothing more to them until the 31st August when he broached the > subject of reaching Kings Cross with his uncle. So where did "Harry's > huge, heavy trunk" (PS "The Journey from Platform Nine and Three- > Quarters" p.68 UK edition) come from? He wouldn't need a trunk > because he never been anywhere and had had nothing to pack in the > past. va32h: This is harder. He bought it in Diagon Alley when he bought his school supplies? Harry found it under Dudley's broken toys in the second bedroom? Perhaps the Dursleys did give it to him, if only to hide all of Harry's wizard gear. Vernon would sooner haul a trunk down from the attic than appear at Kings Cross station with a cauldron in one hand and an armful of robes. va32h From pegdigrazia at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 15:42:11 2005 From: pegdigrazia at yahoo.com (Peg DiGrazia) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 07:42:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] A View into Snapes Past Relationships In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051207154211.23701.qmail@web42210.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144278 <> Peg: I was thinking about this the other night. I agree with everything you've said about Snape and Lily, but I believe JKR also said that Snape had been loved by someone in the past, and I wonder about Narcissa as well as Lily. He definitely has a soft spot for her, and it would explain his attention to Draco (sort of the flip-side of your theory of Harry reminding him of the man who married the woman he loved.) Peg. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Dec 7 17:04:59 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:04:59 -0000 Subject: Please explain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144279 "susanbones2003" wrote: > No one, even someone without "good > moral qualities" deserves to be > treated badly. I disagree, I think some people very much deserve to be treated badly, but Harry is not one of it. > Murder is not worse if the > person was greatly beloved. That is of course the conventional politically correct opinion to hold, but I don't believe it for one second. And if push ever came to shove I don't believe ANYONE would feel that way. If someone you loved was murdered I believe you would feel worse than if somebody you hated was murdered. It's even true of fiction, I felt bad when Dumbledore was murdered, if Snape had been murdered I would have felt much less badly. >That's the cirucularity of your argument. There has been a lot of talk about circular arguments, but you might want to Goggle the term to get an idea what it means. > This is not a comic book where the villains > and good guys are all easily recognizable My general rule of thumb in both fiction and real life is that murders tend to be villains. Eggplant From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Dec 7 17:33:42 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:33:42 -0000 Subject: Please explain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144281 susanbones2003: > No one, even someone without "good > moral qualities" deserves to be > treated badly. eggplant: I disagree, I think some people very much deserve to be treated badly,but Harry is not one of it. Magpie: But Snape thinks Harry is one of them. And so is Neville. So he treats them badly. I personally don't see why you or Snape or I would get the special right to just treat people badly because I think they deserve it. I might do so occasionally, but I wouldn't be doing anything moral, I'd just be indulging my own pleasure. > "susanbones2003: > > Murder is not worse if the > > person was greatly beloved. > > That is of course the conventional politically correct opinion to > hold, but I don't believe it for one second. And if push ever came to > shove I don't believe ANYONE would feel that way. If someone you loved > was murdered I believe you would feel worse than if somebody you hated > was murdered. It's even true of fiction, I felt bad when Dumbledore > was murdered, if Snape had been murdered I would have felt much less > badly. Magpie: Of course you would feel worse, but that's got nothing to do with the law or ethics. The point of these things is to get beyond this kind of short-sighted and self-centered view of the world. Unloved people are of course the same as loved people under the law, ideally- -and someone you don't love might be greatly loved by someone else. If Filch was murdered I'd expect the same respect paid to that loss of life as a life as Dumbledore's murder, despite a different sense of personal loss. I don't think this is at all "politically correct," which suggests a sort of over-sensitive overthought fussiness that goes against common sense--it's the basis of a working system of ethics and law. The kind of thing many kids work out on their own at an early age. Eggplant: > > This is not a comic book where the villains > > and good guys are all easily recognizable > > My general rule of thumb in both fiction and real life is that murders > tend to be villains. Magpie: But what if they murder an unloved person? Your whole argument seems to be based on the idea that you have decided who is good and who is bad and everything should naturally follow from that. Compassion is not something that someone earns. -m From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Wed Dec 7 15:53:47 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 16:53:47 +0100 Subject: How did Hagrid get to the Hut-on-the-Rock? References: Message-ID: <00a601c5fb46$69b02080$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144282 va32h wrote: > I just started re-reading PS, and it did occur to me that Hagrid > used Thestrals. That would be the most inconspicuous way to arrive, > and the Thestral could fly off on its own without arousing > suspicion, whereas a riderless flying motorcycle is bound to attract > attention. Miles: Another idea would be Fawkes. Fawkes is said to be extremely strong, and he can sort of apparate (we saw it in the Ministry in the duel between Dumbledore and Voldemort). But the "creak" we read of in canon, is a clue for the motorcycle. There was stormy weather and night when Hagrid reached the Hut, so noone would've spot the motorcycle. But to bring Harry to London next morning using the motorcycle, wouldn't have been too clever. I can imagine that it can be sent to fly back (back where?) without a driver, as hpfan_mom suggested upthread. Miles From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Dec 7 17:57:06 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:57:06 -0000 Subject: A View into Snapes Past Relationships In-Reply-To: <20051207154211.23701.qmail@web42210.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144283 > Peg: > I was thinking about this the other night. I agree with everything you've said about Snape and Lily, but I believe JKR also said that Snape had been loved by someone in the past, and I wonder about Narcissa as well as Lily. He definitely has a soft spot for her, and it would explain his attention to Draco (sort of the flip-side of your theory of Harry reminding him of the man who married the woman he loved.) > Peg. Potioncat: You've already been directed to LOLLIPOPS, the Lily/Severus love story. There's also ACID POPS about Severus/Naricissa. You might be able to search for that one with Yahoo. Neri came up with it after HBP when he had an extra 5 hours on his hands (looks to see if Neri is listening ) And of course, there's the ever famous Florence whose kissed just about everybody behind the greenhouses. She's rumored to be the mother of Snape's son, probably killed by DEs....not much canon for this one, but still floating around T-BAY. (I mean the theory is floating, not Florence's body....) From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Dec 7 18:02:33 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:02:33 -0000 Subject: Please explain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144284 "sistermagpie" wrote: > But Snape thinks Harry is one of them. Yes, Snape thinks Harry deserves to be treated badly and Snape has made a mistake. People need to take responsibility for their mistakes. And I'm sure Snape does not see himself as a villain, but he's wrong about that too. > Of course you would feel worse, but > that's got nothing to do with > the law or ethics. This is fiction so I don't care about "the law of ethics". We're talking about how emotions are actually generated, not how they should come about in some ideal world. We're talking about a work of fiction and how we feel about one character who treats another character badly; if that second character is a SOB we will feel one way, and if he is a wonderful human being that we have grown to love even though he is fictional we will feel a very different way. And like it or not that's a fact. > Compassion is not something that someone earns. And compassion is not something you can intellectually decide you have or not do not have, it is something you ether feel or you don't, and I feel none for Snape. Eggplant From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 18:14:21 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:14:21 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin - Snobbery or Bigotry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144285 > bboyminn: > > That bring up the question whether Slytherins are uniformly engaged in > Bigotry, or whether, as a whole, they are merely engaged in Snobbery. > > Part of my central point is that while MOST of Sltherins might engage > in a passively snobbish attitude, only a few of the cross the line > into actively working against their preceived lessers. > > We can't really make a blanket statement about MOST Slytherins > because, as I have pointed out more than once before, we haven't seen > MOST Slytherins. Really, that active sample we have consists of Draco > and his associated. Far more Slytherins choose not to get in Harry's > face. Far more Slytherins choose to keep their heads down and mind > their own business. At least, in any significant way, we never see > them getting into Harry's business. a_svirn: But that's not the point, Steve. Certainly, not all Slytherins are pureblood bigots, just like not all Gryffindors are brave or all Ravenclaws are blessed with the extraordinary brainpower. The point is that those qualities are regarded as ideal in the respective houses, not always attainable, but certainly desirable. And ideal Gryff should be brave and chivalrous. An ideal Slyth ? canning, ambitious and pureblood. You may call it snobbery, I still say it's bigotry, but really, when you are on the receiving end of it the difference is too nice to appreciate. From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Dec 7 06:32:56 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 01:32:56 -0500 Subject: H/S Shipping; Age gap; Fleur/fluer; child abuse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144286 Alla: "Are you saying that third year student cannot be scared that his pet will be poisoned?" Bruce: A third year student should know how to brew a potion correctly so that it would NOT poison the toad even if the potion were fed to it. (I say 'it' because we really don't know Trevor's gender, do we, despite the name? I, for one, do not know how to sex a toad. Nor do I care to. [Apologies to any herpetologists out there.]) Pippin: "Really, Snape's human (IMO) and except that it would be OOC for him to let Harry know about it, I don't see anything wrong with him noticing that Hermione's gotten to be quite fanciable lately and might be worth looking up when she's left school." Bruce: And who is to say that in an older man/younger woman scenario the man is necessarily the instigator? While I am not a Snape/Hermione shipper, I can imagine a scene like this: SETTING: The kitchen of 12 Grimmauld Place TIME: Late in Book 7, or shortly thereafter. Late one evening. Snape is getting himself a late-night snack. Enter Hermione. H: Mr. Snape. S: Miss Granger. H: I have something to say to you. I'm not a little girl any more. Nor am I your student. S: Undoubtedly true on both counts. H: Then what are you waiting for, and engraved invitation? I'm nineteen. I'm old enough to know what--and who--I want, and I'm smart enough to know that you don't find me repulsive. So, what's your problem. (During this speech she has been edging closer and closer to Snape; he has been shuffling backwards. Soon he will be trapped next to the stove.) . . . . . Gerry: "Why would they be scandalized about that? He's eighteen, she is fifteen. They are both teenagers, what's the big deal? So what that's he is legally an adult? Where in the world would that be a problem? That must be a strange country, where suddenly your relation with your girlfriend/boyfriend is a problem when one of you turns eighteen." Bruce: Actually, it has happened that young men of 17 or 18 have found themselves charged with stautory rape over perfectly consentual encounters with 15 or 16 year old girlfriends, particularly if the girl's parents disapproved of him on other grounds (as I said in another post, I work in the criminal justice system). That is why many US states have passed 'Romeo and Juliet' laws which state that there must be an age gap of X years for stautory rape to be invoked. (Of course, forceable is another matter.) Potioncat: "What are the four humours? And what would an excess of phlegm cause?" Bruce: My French is rudementary, but doesn't 'fluer' (Fleur's name with the vowels reversed) mean 'phlegm' or 'snot'? Miles: "child abuse df. Damage of Health (e.g. by means of physical or mental torments) or overexertion of a child or adolescent. In modern child protection: the violent physical or psychical damage, which leads to injuries, repression of development or to death, and which affects the well-being and rights of the child. If we use this or a similar definition, then it is difficult to find canonical evidence for child abuse on Harry or Neville, because we do not see any prove for (lasting) damage." Bruce: I haven't my books here, but we use similar language in defining child abuse, and Snape doesn't even come close. The Dursleys are another matter, but compared to some cases I've seen they were rather half-hearted about it; I've frequently seen much, much worse. I won't go into details as I don't want to give anyone nightmares. Bruce From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 18:19:56 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:19:56 -0000 Subject: Four Humours (wasRe: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm In-Reply-To: <262.1ae0259.30c784e4@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144287 > Jaimee: > No, I think you may be on to something with that. If anyone in the books > fits a melancholic personality type, I think Sirius would be the one. He is > quite depressed while stuck in Grimmauld place, and his sullenness also leads > to violent outbursts with Snape (which might be hard to contain even if he > weren't depressed... ;) a_svirn: Weeell, I'd say that Sirius's fits of dejection were due to the excess of Firewhiskey, first and foremost. Although, it's possible that an excess of whiskey causes an excess of bile. In fact, I am very sure it does. From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Dec 7 18:07:50 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (bawilson at citynet.net) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 13:07:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Harry's ticket Message-ID: <6329918.1133978870187.JavaMail.SYSTEM@webmail> No: HPFGUIDX 144288 Geoff: "3. In addition, where did Harry get the money for his ticket? I think he will only have got a pittance for pocket money (if any) and that wouldn't buy a rail ticket." Bruce: Gringotts changes Muggle money into Wizardling money; presumably, it can go the other way. Harry changed some of what was left from buying supplies into Pounds Sterling. Also, it doesn't say 'back to the Dursleys'' but 'back to the Dursleys.' The apostophe is significant. It means not 'back to the Dursleys' house' but 'back to where the Dursleys were.' THEY WERE STILL ON THE ROCK. Harry had to rescue them. Thoroughly humiliating for them, of course. Bruce From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Dec 7 18:27:35 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:27:35 -0000 Subject: Four Humours and Snivellus again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144289 > Potioncat: > Taking this back to the humorous; of course, it's funny that Ginny > calls Fleur, Phlegm, but am I missing something? Do British kids use > the word phlegm? Is there a word play that I'm missing? Valky: If there is it possibly is that Ginny uses the word Phlegm to imply that Fleur is haughty (Think back to Dolores Umbridges catchphrase and you'll get that. ) or that she is a clinger who has overstayed her welcome. I wouldn't say that I know it's common for the word phlegm to be used as this specific insult in british english, but I am pretty sure that I can say I know a word like phlegm would be understood in the language as meaning that the person lacks personality. Ginny could be saying that Fleur has all the personality of a slug, that would be my best guess. > potioncat: > In the US the polite word would be mucus and the impolite would be > snot. So maybe if you didn't like your sister's boyfriend Scott, > you'd call him Snotty Scotty. Or Snivelus, come to think of it. OK, > only a select few would use Snivelus. Valky: I'd just like to make a correction on the general british english use of snivel. here is the entries from the two leading british english dictionaries - Cambridge - snivel 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! Oxford - snivel ? verb (snivelled, snivelling; US sniveled, sniveling) 1 cry and sniffle. 2 complain in a whining or tearful way. ? noun a spell of snivelling. ? DERIVATIVES sniveller noun. Especially in the time of the Marauders which would have been some 20 or so years ago, the word sniveller had a meaning far removed from it's roots in old english as a word for mucus. It was generally used to describe a poor, weak and manipulative personality, and I am fairly sure that JKR would have the Marauders intending this meaning in their insulting name for Snape as she would be quite familiar with this colloquial use of the word which was fashionable at the time - Note the old fashioned informal use stated in the Cambridge dictionary. Valky From ornawn at 013.net Wed Dec 7 18:34:35 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:34:35 -0000 Subject: Snape Harry and forgiveness/ judaism related/Canon for the Snape being abus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144290 >Lupinlore >It is true that Snape's evil is not the same as Voldemort's >evil that does not mean Snape's actions are not evil. It's true >that Snape's abuse is not the same as abuse perpetrated by others. >That does not mean it isn't abuse, which it most definitely is. Orna: I would like to relate to this question from the angle of what is considered abuse in the WW. The one teacher, which IMO is described as being abusive, is Umbridge. The reason I say it like this, is that apart from being cruel, sadistic, and many other "nice" attributes, Harry's and the students reaction to her is indicative of abuse. When Harry is having detention, he finds himself unable to tell his friends for a long time, what has happened. He seems sort of ashamed ? although it is clearly Umbridge's fault. He tells himself, that it is a fight of wills between them, but he acts very uncharacteristic for himself. When he is asked, he tells he has been doing lines, not hinting that anything shocking has occurred. When his friends discover, what really has happened, they are shocked, outraged, and it is clear that Umbridge is considered from this point to be beyond any human respect ? she has clearly violated the WW's standard for abusive behavior. (And that's in a world where washing bed-pants, sorting flubberworms, going into the forbidden forest, is tolerated as a detention). It is typical that when Harry sees Dean (as far as I remember) after detention, he is the one in whom Dean can confide ? again, a typical victim of abuse behavior, making it easier to trust a "former" victim, but maintaining some sort of secrecy about it. We were never told about any such reactions toward Snape's behavior, as far as I remember. When HRH disarm Snape in PoA, Hermione is saying they will be in trouble, because they attacked a teacher. The same Hermione, who leads Umbridge to the forbidden forest to be attacked by the centaurs, with not so much as a second thought on it. (Well,apart from being afraid of the centaurs herself...). It seems that Snape is considered nasty, but not beyond respect - until he AKes DD. The only thing, a little bit reminding of some shocked reaction towards him before this is , for some reason, when in HBP Snape told Tonks he noticed her patronus, and considered it weak. It seems a very brutal remark, leaving Tonks shocked. IMO there could be worse things, that Snape did, but in the book ? it is this one, which leaves Tonks shocked. The other discipline intervention, we are told is shocking (at least Mc Gonagall) ? is Moody's transforming Draco into a ferret in GoF. But then it was such an enjoyable scene Another behavior, hinted is "going too far", is ...giving students Verisatrum ? Snape threatens Harry with it, but it seems he complies with not doing it ? because it is considered unacceptable. You can argue that threatening with it is enough to make Snape abusive, but threats are not enough in the WW to be considered abuse. (It's interesting, especially, when some years after the same Snape is appointed as a teacher for occlumency, thus receiving permission to enter Harry's mind, as far as he can). Anyway, I thought it would help us to refine somehow, why these particular things are considered abusive in WW. It seems that canon tells us they are different from the other behaviors, which are just nasty. Orna From ornawn at 013.net Wed Dec 7 18:50:13 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:50:13 -0000 Subject: Four Humours and Snivellus again Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144291 >Valky: >I'd just like to make a correction on the general british english >use of snivel. here is the entries from the two leading british >english dictionaries - >Cambridge - >snivel >to cry slightly in a way that is weak and does not make other people >feel sympathy for you: >Especially in the time of the Marauders which would have been some >20 or so years ago, the word sniveller had a meaning far removed >from it's roots in old english as a word for mucus. Orna: That's very interesting. I have been reading Snivellus until now just as another greasy adjective relating to Snape's abnormally big nose But now that you say it, I remember Harry breaking into Snape's memory visualizing him in great misery, and I wonder whether Snape as a teenager has been crying sometimes in front of his peers, against his will, when he was hurt thus "wearing his heart on the sleeve" only to be ridiculed for it. It would explain some of his attitude against emotionality, and also could be a strong incentive for him to practice occlumency. Orna, trying to reconstruct Snape's childhood From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Dec 7 19:07:50 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 19:07:50 -0000 Subject: Four Humours and Snivellus again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144292 Valky wrote: > Especially in the time of the Marauders which would have been some 20 > or so years ago, the word sniveller had a meaning far removed from > it's roots in old english as a word for mucus. It was generally used > to describe a poor, weak and manipulative personality, and I am fairly > sure that JKR would have the Marauders intending this meaning in their > insulting name for Snape as she would be quite familiar with this > colloquial use of the word which was fashionable at the time - Note > the old fashioned informal use stated in the Cambridge dictionary. > Potioncat: Valky, I have one thing to say, "Deja achoo!" (For the newer members, Valky and I have discussed the various meanings of sniveller before.) and this from Post 144286: > Bruce: > My French is rudementary, but doesn't 'fluer' (Fleur's name with the vowels reversed) mean 'phlegm' or 'snot'? Potioncat: Sounds like the two were made for each other. Who will break the news to Bill? You know, I just have to write a one liner every now and then or I'll just explode! From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Dec 7 19:25:05 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 19:25:05 -0000 Subject: Florence Lives! (Re: A View into Snapes Past Relationships) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144293 > Potioncat: > And of course, there's the ever famous Florence whose kissed just > about everybody behind the greenhouses. She's rumored to be the > mother of Snape's son, probably killed by DEs....not much canon > for this one, but still floating around T-BAY. (I mean the theory > is floating, not Florence's body....) Jen: I can't remember all the theories now, but I hope Florence returns. Kissing an unidentified male behind the greenhouse?!? My favorite theory is that Florence and Sirius were together, then Bertha saw Florence and Snape kissing behind the greenhouse and reported it far and wide. One thing led to another and before you know it the Prank occurred. Or Sirius taunted Snape about being too cowardly to find out where Lupin went every month, and Florence urged him not to take that kind of talk from Sirius and go follow Lupin. And now we have the possibility of Regulus returning, the one male who wasn't speculatively attached to Florence since he didn't exist yet. In a different vein, Florence could have been one of the pack of girls Lily was seen with in OOTP who will reappear with some historical information. Or she might turn out to be Luna's mom and the work she did as an 'extraordinary witch who liked to experiment' will have some bearing on the story. Jen, thinking the possibilities might be endless.... From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 19:49:55 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 19:49:55 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter's appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144294 bboyminn wrote: > However, mere mystery doesn't explain how these books can cross so > many cultural boundaries. The demographic spread of the appeal of the books seems far out of proportion with any other book ever published. Why? > > I think it is because there are some universal aspects of JKR's story that touch us beyond basic entertainment, much like myths and legends that have endured for many centuries, and in some cases, millennia. > > So, while JKR draws her story from many ancient myths and legends, I think she also tape into the essense of those myths and legends. Many books have Centaurs, elves, and dragons, but they don't have the appeal of Harry Potter. In a sense, JKR is telling The Universal Story. She is telling the story of all people for all time. This isn't just the story of Harry's hero's journey, but the story of every hero's journey. > > Next, JKR has a very terse compact writing style. Where else do you find books with short to-the-point three and four word sentences. More over, part of JKR's talent is to use this terse writing style to stimualte our imaginations. Instead of detail word-picture descriptions of the world you are in, she gives us just enough to stimulate our imaginations to fill in the blanks. In a sense, she doesn't create the world for me, my mind and my imagination, stimuatled by her, have created this world. In this world, I am not just a passive viewer, I am an active participant. > > Another aspect of the compact writing style is that the books move > fast. Tremendous amounts of story are told in so very few pages. > Because it moves so fast, there isn't time to get bored. > > One last point, unlike much modern entertainment, the underlying nature of the characters isn't clearly draw. Harry is not the perfect virtuous hero, we really can't tell at this stage which side Snape is on, Sirius was both good and bad. In otherwords, the fact that no one in these books is perfect, that even the most evil has elements of sympathy, and the most virtuous has his degree of darkness, adds a deep reality to the books that is appealing and captivating to readers. > > In these books all the characters are drawn in agonizing, frustrating, disconcerting shades of grey; just like real-life. Further, Harry doesn't always get it right; we can certainly identify with that. People have died as an indirect result of Harry's choices. You can be certain that even the happiest ending for this series will still be very bittersweet. > Carol responds: I agree that the imperfections of the hero and his friends and the ambiguity of Snape, in particular, are central to the book's near-universal appeal, but I think that "mythos" has little to do with it. JKR borrows widely from a number of traditions, bringing together the cauldron-stirring witches of "Macbeth" and wizards of the Merlin tradition; centaurs, unicorns, and werewolves; magic wands and flying carpets--but these elements, which she has managed to cobble together into a fairly coherent Wizarding World (if we aren't too picky about consistency in what can and can't be conjured out of thin air) are less important, IMO, than the idea of a boy encountering an alien world in which he's destined to be a hero combined, perhaps uniquely, with a bildungsroman (a coming-of-age story) with a boarding school backdrop. These combined elements enable JKR to produce some compelling characters other than the hero and his best friends, particularly Snape, Dumbledore, Snape, Lupin, Snape, Crouch!Moody, and did I say Snape? Steve mentions JKR's "compact" writing style. I would call her style "concise" (at least most of the time)--getting to the point without a lot of extra words (a la Melville) and relying primarily on narrative strategies (action and dialogue, with touches of description sprinkled throughout the story rather than lumped together in whole paragraphs) and very little exposition (explanation). The early sequels (CoS and PoA) are weakest in this respect, slowed down in the early chapters when JKR is trying to provide background information for readers who've missed the earlier books ("Harry Potter was a very unusual boy," "Quidditch was played with four balls," etc. Ho hum. . . .). The later books attempt to present the back-story using more sophisticated strategies (notes and letters, Daily Prophet articles, dreams, dialogue, and even scenes in which Harry isn't present). Fortunately, most of the story in all six books consists of vividly depicted scenes in a chronological sequence, with occasional flashbacks presented *as if they occurred in the present* via Riddle's diary or the Pensieve or Lily's screams as Harry confronts the Dementors--no past perfect tense ("he had done such and such") or summarized action to slow down the flashback and remove its immediacy. In other words, JKR knows how to keep the reader's attention even in flashbacks through an effective, action-oriented style consisting chiefly of concrete nouns and strong verbs (and some well-chosen adjectives), along with natural, realistic dialogue (with many characters given distinctive and recognizable "voices"). She knows where to end a chapter to keep the reader hooked, and she combines suspense with humor, occasional violence with humanity. (Cedric's death, for example, is balanced by Dumbledore's tribute to "a boy who was good and kind and brave," quoted from memory) The few long speeches (usually from Dumbledore) are interrupted by natural actions and reactions from the listener (usually if not always Harry). There are tidbits of wisdom that we can interpret as lessons for Harry (and the reader), but no sermons or lectures (unless we count Umbridge's all too realistic speech, which Hermione interprets for the unwary, and which is not representative of JKR's own philosophy). For me, at least, the point of view is also intriguing. The narrator, who usually sees from Harry's perspective, can't always be trusted. And JKR, like Melville (of all people), occasionally needs to shift to a different narrative strategy, e.g., a minor character's POV in the first chapters of GoF and HBP or the objective third-person narrator of "Spinner's End." A child might not notice these strategies, though he would certainly notice Harry's absence from those chapters. But for analytically minded adult readers like me, they add an element of sophistication to the later books that is absent from the first three, part of JKR's strategy of having the books "grow" along with the protagonist and her imagined child readers. That said, the supreme achievement of the books, IMO, and the reason I keep returning to them, is the enigmatic and ever-fascinating character of Severus Snape. I only hope that Snape's actions in "The Lightning-Struck Tower" are in some way deceptive, like the characterization of Sirius Black as a homicidal maniac throughout PoA, even though Harry witnesses Dumbledore's death on the tower. (That such a seemingly straightforward event can be interpreted in so many different ways by different readers, all using canonical evidence, is a testimony to JKR's gifts as a writer.) Otherwise, a "gift of a character" capable of arousing a wide range of emotions in readers and subject to a wide variety of interpretations will have been simply wasted, and while the books will still appeal to some readers, they will lose their fascination for those of us who see them as more than children's books or an extended mystery story which will lose more than half its appeal when the mystery is solved. The series as a whole has the potential of becoming a classic, read and reread by generations of children and parents and grandparents and teachers, but everything depends on Book 7 maintaining the strengths of the previous books--humor and surprise and vividly depicted action and memorable characterization--along with the satisfactory resolution so conspicuously absent from Books 5 and 6. Carol, speaking in part as an editor and in part as a Snapefan and trusting that gebroni2, who asked the original question, will know which points fit which category From bob.oliver at cox.net Wed Dec 7 18:57:21 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:57:21 -0000 Subject: Snape Harry and forgiveness/ judaism related/Canon for the Snape being abus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144295 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ornadv" wrote: > > > Anyway, I thought it would help us to refine somehow, why these > particular things are considered abusive in WW. It seems that canon > tells us they are different from the other behaviors, which are just > nasty. > Interesting point, Orna. However, I'm not sure it's relevant, at least not from the perspective from which some of us are coming. I, for instance, could not possibly care less about what is or is not abuse by the standards of the WW. I have never bought the "it's not abuse by the standards of his culture" defense of Snape. Sorry, doesn't cut it. Some cultures are simply corrupt and reprehensible in their standards and practices. For instance, in Nazi culture (and I do think the Nazis very definitely had a particular culture which they inculcated through much of Europe), persecuting Jews was laudable. Some have even claimed that as a defense, saying "of course Germans informed on Jews, it was expected by the culture of Nazi Germany." Is that a defense? No. The DEs are considered perfectly legitimate by many segments of the culture of the WW. Is that a defense? No. "But Snape doesn't know any better!" is something we hear. That's a cultural version of "ignorance of the law." Is it an excuse? No. My own ancestor (some of them) kept slaves. Did their culture say it was wrong? No. Did they "know" any better? No. Is that an excuse? No. Does that mean that keeping slaves was not evil? No. Does that mean that they did not deserve to be punished for it (which they were)? No. "Dumbledore knew about it!" we hear. That's a version of "I was following orders." Is it an excuse? No. "Other people do worse (or the same) things!" That's the cry of nearly everyone caught in a wrong deed. It comes down to "If they weren't punished, I shouldn't be!" Is that a defense? No. Is it a reason not to punish? No. Lupinlore From kchuplis at alltel.net Wed Dec 7 19:40:37 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 19:40:37 -0000 Subject: Harry's ticket In-Reply-To: <6329918.1133978870187.JavaMail.SYSTEM@webmail> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144296 > Bruce wrote: > Also, it doesn't say 'back to the Dursleys'' but 'back to the Dursleys.' The apostophe is significant. It means not 'back to the Dursleys' house' but 'back to where the Dursleys were.' THEY WERE STILL ON THE ROCK. Harry had to rescue them. Thoroughly humiliating for them, of course. kchuplis: Of course, maybe they have a cell phone.( I know, no mention of it, but that doesn't mean they don't). Honestly, I don't think they would have stayed on the rock two seconds longer than they had to once the letter was delivered. kchuplis From rbookworm46 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 20:22:43 2005 From: rbookworm46 at yahoo.com (rbookworm46) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:22:43 -0000 Subject: Fleur/fluer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144297 Bruce: My French is rudementary, but doesn't 'fluer' (Fleur's name with the vowels reversed) mean 'phlegm' or 'snot'? Bookworm: According to AltaVista (world.altavista.com) "fluer" means "to creep". French speakers? Can anyone help? It doesn't sound like it fits Fleur, unless, of course, she feels "creepy" to the women of the house. ;-) Ravenclaw Bookworm From AllieS426 at aol.com Wed Dec 7 20:28:58 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:28:58 -0000 Subject: There are no new theories! Riddle vs Voldemort Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144298 The longer I read this list, the more convinced I am that there are NO NEW theories about Harry Potter! (e.g., "I think Snape was in love with Lily!" "Has anyone considered that Harry is a Horcrux?" "Has anyone noticed the locket that they find at Grimmauld place?") I'm not making fun, it's just funny the way it happens and every once in a while someone really does say something new. So, I know SOMEONE must have said this before, but... during my re-read of Chamber of Secrets, at the point where Harry meets the fuzzy Tom Riddle, I wondered what would happen if Voldemort were to meet fuzzy Tom Riddle. Suppose one of his other Horcruxes results in the formation of a new body or a re-bodied Riddle. If they met, would they get along like old pals? Would they despise each other, since they would be in competition for the same thing (my opinion, yes). Maybe they could duel and destroy each other???? (Either must die at the hand of the other!) Allison From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Dec 7 21:06:48 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 21:06:48 -0000 Subject: Florence Lives! (Re: A View into Snapes Past Relationships) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144299 Jen wrote: > In a different vein, Florence could have been one of the pack of > girls Lily was seen with in OOTP who will reappear with some > historical information. Or she might turn out to be Luna's mom and > the work she did as an 'extraordinary witch who liked to experiment' > will have some bearing on the story. > Potioncat: I snipped that Florence might be the mother of Snape!Son and the list of men Florence is rumored to have kissed while experimenting behind the greenhouse. That would of course give one pause at her potential name: Florence Lovegood. Ahem...well, keep in mind, no matter who Florence did kiss nor whether she is Luna's mom....Snape does not have a daughter. Twin sons, now that's a thought. Potioncat, being bad. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 21:14:04 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 21:14:04 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Harry after the Hut-on-the-Rock... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144300 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > Geoff: > > After replying to the post on Hagrid at the Hut-on-the-Rock, > my thoughts went back to various questions which have crossed > my mind about this scene. ... edited...., to satisfy my > curiosity, have any of the group got their own ideas? > > 1. When Hagrid and Harry leave the island, they take the boat. > So, how do the Dursleys get back to the mainland? Harry was > only with Hagrid for one day and I presume that, when he got > back after his train journey, they had returned to Privet Drive. > bboyminn: We can take one of two approaches; the first is to assume it is a mistake, the other is to assume it is correct and look for a logical off-page explanation. Since Hagrid moved the boat across the water with magic, could we not assume that the magic continued and the boat returned to the Hut on the Rock and waited for the Dursleys. Once they took possession of the boat, the magic ended. Alternately, the owner of the boat saw it, and took it out to the island to check on the Dursleys. Afteral, the storm the night before had been pretty severe, he may have been concerned about them. So, answers are there off-page if you are willing to look for them. > 2. On the subject of the train journey, how did Hagrid know that > Harry was going home on the train from Paddington? He is not very au > fait with Muggle matters. > bboyminn: Of course, the answer is Dumbledore. I'm sure Dumbledore gave Hagrid precise instructions on how to transport Harry to and from Diagon Alley. > 3. In addition, where did Harry get the money for his ticket? > I think he will only have got a pittance for pocket money (if > any) and that wouldn't buy a rail ticket. > bboyminn: Again that answer is Dumbledore. Dumbledore made sure Hagrid had everything he needed to get Harry, make sure Harry got all his school supplies, and even had a bit of pocket change to take to school with him. Certainly, in preparing Hagrid, he would have made sure Hagrid had a supplie of muggle money. > 4. ... So where did "Harry's huge, heavy trunk" (PS "The Journey > from Platform Nine and Three- Quarters" p.68 UK edition) come > from? He wouldn't need a trunk because he never been anywhere > and had had nothing to pack in the past. > > ...edited... > > Any bids to deal with my inquisitiveness? > bboyminn: Note that all the student have a trunk, and likely all have similar trunks, so I suspect it was amoung his school supplies even though the books don't really say that. Consider how difficult it was for Harry to lug all his many packages as well as a trunk from the train when he arrived in Little Whinging. Now that bring up another critical question. How did Harry get from the train station at or near Little Whinging to the Dursley's house? Did he call them and ask for a ride? Given all that had happened, would Vernon be in a benevolent enough spirit to do that? Did Harry lug his packages and trunk across several blocks, if not miles, of Little Whinging until he arrived at the Dursley's home? Did he call a cab/taxi and expect Vernon to pay? Did he haul all this packages and truck aboard the local bus? Did he even have money for the local bus? That's a much tuffer question to resolve with a made-up off-page explanation. On another subject, can Hagrid Apparate? We know he said he 'flew' to the Hut on the Rock, and while there has been much speculation about how he 'flew', I think a greater question is how he returned to Hogwarts. After Hagrid puts Harry on the train back to Little Whinging, Harry is watching Hagrid, blinks his eyes, and Hagrid is gone. /How/ did Hagrid /go/? Either Hagrid can Apparate (unofficially, of course) or he had a Portkey, and it doesn't seem as if the Minstry gives out a lot of Portkeys. They seem to be very tightly restricted. So that leaves Apparation. While Hagrid is no great shakes at magic, I think most people underestimate him. He has spent his whole life at the school with the finest teachers and wizards in the world. I'm sure they taught him a thing or two in the course of 50 years. Enquiring minds want to know. STeve/bboyminn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 21:28:29 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 21:28:29 -0000 Subject: Snape's Bed or the Rift Between Snape and Harry (was:Re: Two scenes...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144301 > >>quick_silver71: > > People point to the "big" things that Snape has done for the > > side of the "Light," and it's true that Snape has done many > > things to help Harry, but the face that Harry sees far more > > often is Snape as the nasty, annoying, biased grit. > > Relationships between people are built as much on the little > > things as the big things and Snape certainly has made it > > difficult for Harry to "like" him or even "trust" him. > >>Magpie: > Yes! To me this is a big point of Snape's behavior. Snape has > absolutely contributed to many breakdowns throughout the books, > sometimes ones that drove him up the wall. You asked if he was > passive-aggressive about it, and I wouldn't be surprised if it > wasn't something like that. I think he does take every snarky > remark of Harry's as a sign of his inherent disrespect when > obviously Harry is responding to Snape's own behavior. Harry > walked into his classroom ready to respect him and Snape threw > that away. > Betsy Hp: This perfectly encapsulates the story of Snape, IMO. And, for those looking for such things, I think this is his karmic comeuppance, or poetic justice. Going with a DDM!Snape, helping Harry should be (and I think actually is) Snape's ultimate goal. And yet, because of his past behavior, helping Harry will be incredibly difficult for Snape now. In the past, Dumbledore provided a sort of bridge between the two. Snape could do his "big" good deeds (saving Harry's life, etc.) without ever needing Harry to trust him. Thoughout the years, however, the link Dumbledore provided became less and less helpful, culminating, I think, in Sirius's death. And now, of course, Dumbledore is gone. So now Snape is out there doing his bit to make certain Voldemort is destroyed, but because he's managed to become the thing Harry hates most in the world (beyond even Voldemort, I think), all of his efforts may well come to naught. Snape will have to work incredibly hard to get Harry to trust him. (I do think some trust will be necessary, and I do think the burden of rapprochement rests mainly on Snape.) Snape *has* been the main saboteur in his and Harry's relationship, starting with his demand for total submission in Harry's very first Potions class. I think Snape's behavior stems from something deeply personal (though I hope it's not merely James), because he doesn't have that sort of bitterly antagonistic relationship with any other student. Nor does he seem to envoke that sort of hatred from any other student. (That definitely includes Neville, IMO. Neville was terrified of Snape and Snape was frustrated with Neville, but it was all within the realm of student/teacher, I think.) I also think that his inability to heal whatever caused the rift between Snape and Harry is probably one of Dumbledore's greater regrets. In fact, I wonder if he didn't feel he'd done something to exasperate the problem, either with the Occlumency lessons or even earlier. (Dumbledore was the first to bring up the bad blood between Snape and James. I wonder if he regreted that?) That Harry and Snape are so very much alike is something *I* can see, and I'm betting Dumbledore, with his greater knowledge of Snape's past, could see it as well. Anyway, I have a feeling that dealing with the bed he's made is Snape's ultimate task. Earning Harry's trust may be the only way for him to achieve true redemption, and probably the only way for Harry to defeat Voldemort. I think if Snape's end is completely tragic (death without healing) the books will end tragically too (Harry fails). Betsy Hp From ornawn at 013.net Wed Dec 7 21:40:09 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 21:40:09 -0000 Subject: Snape Harry and forgiveness/ judaism related/Canon for the Snape being abus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144302 >Lupinlore: > I'm not sure it's relevant, at >least not from the perspective from which some of us are coming. I, >for instance, could not possibly care less about what is or is not >abuse by the standards of the WW. I have never bought the "it's not >abuse by the standards of his culture" defense of Snape. Sorry, >doesn't cut it. Some cultures are simply corrupt and reprehensible >in their standards and practices. >Is it an excuse? No. "Other people do worse (or >the same) things!" That's the cry of nearly everyone caught in a >wrong deed. It comes down to "If they weren't punished, I shouldn't >be!" Is that a defense? No. Is it a reason not to punish? No. Orna: I agree with you in respect to this. Maybe I should clarify myself: I thought it was worthwhile to think about what is considered abuse in the WW, precisely because it would help us to understand what this culture is. ( I may decide then, that it's a very corrupted society, or that JKR will have to punish Snape severely if I am to accept the WW as a human world) And anyway, we do accept deviations from our cultural norms - I mean it's obvious nobody in his right mind would send his child to a school, where his child might have to fight dragons, where three- headed dogs are kept in a corridor, behind a very easy-opening door, etc. Not exactly a very responsible headmaster. And it's difficult sometimes to decode the way things are ? because of the differences ? one of them being the healing qualities, another the way pupils can defend themselves against teacher (remember Ron and Harry forcing Lockheart in CoS, disarming Snape in PoA (unpunished), the twins actions in OotP, Snape being put on fire in PS, and just "innocent" places where misdirected spells caused teachers only to fall. It is more salient when we come to direct human relations ? that's where we expect the same standards, otherwise ? what's the point of the book. And after all, wizards seem to fall in love, get hurt, angry etc. by just the same rules, which apply to muggles, like us. So your point is valid, IMO, but still I think that we do expect different standards in some places. Different cultures do have rightly some difference in what is considered right or wrong, because the impact of the deed may be different. Just like you have different standards towards children of various ages ? so don't you think your behavioral standards would be different towards a child who can fly, heal instantly, and do magic? There are things which are just wrong, no cultural perspective being a possible excuse for them. But I think that's the thing we are trying to figure out, and I just thought that deciphering the moral codes and "abuse standards" of the WW might help to understand it - in relation to the WW, and also in relation to our own muggle world. Orna (according to HPFGU's standard last for today) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 22:06:01 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:06:01 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin - Snobbery or Bigotry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144303 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > > > bboyminn: > > > > That bring up the question whether Slytherins are uniformly > > engaged in Bigotry, or whether, as a whole, they are merely > > engaged in Snobbery. > Gerry/festuco: > > That does not matter, both are wrong. bboyminn: Yes, but one is socially wrong and the other is morally wrong. > > bboyminn: > > > > The Aristocracy still exists in Europe. They don't believe > > in marrying outside their 'own kind'. They believe they are > > superior to Commoners.We could extent that to say they are > > Bigots. But Europe generally doesn't regard them that way. > > Gerry: > > I usually enjoy your writings but I wish you would stick to > things you know about. > bboyminn: Not to sound snarky, even though I am, but this statement would carry a lot more weight if you had bothered to explain it. So what you are implying is that the UK regards the Queen, and her son and grandsons as bigots? That Sweden regards it's King as a bigot? To claim to know means nothing unless you are willing to explain what you know. I explained my view to the best of my knowledge. > > bboyminn: > > > > Part of my central point is that while MOST of Sltherins > > might engage in a passively snobbish attitude, only a few > > of the cross the line into actively working against their > > preceived lessers. > Gerry: > > But we don't know about most Slytherins, so we don't know if > they are snobs. So why make this kind of statement? > bboyminn: Exactly the point I was making. Notice the word 'might' in my statement. We don't know about a majority of Slytherin, but the fact that we don't see a majority actively engaged in bigotted behavior is an indicator. Not proof, but an indicator. Further, a majority of Slytherin CAN have an aristocratically snobbish attitude, but that doesn't automatically make them bigots any more than it makes the general aristocracy of Europe bigots. True some of them may indeed be bigots, but it's not automatic just because they a snobbish. > > bboyminn > > > > ... Far more Slytherins choose not to get in Harry's face. > > Far more Slytherins choose to keep their heads down and mind > > their own business. At least, in any significant way, we never > > see them getting into Harry's business. > Gerry concludes: > > ... I don't think ... the Slytherins keep their heads down, but > that they are just normal children going on with their lives. > They have nothing to do with Harry because he is in a different > house and they are not really that interested in him. And why > should they? He is the boy-who-lived but you can't keep gawking > at someone for years and years and years. > > Gerry > bboyminn: Actually, that is sort of the point I'm trying to make. By 'keeping their heads down', I simply mean that they mind their own business. The actively snobbish amoung the Slytherins actively seek out others to persecute, they actively seek out Harry. Meanwhile, /most/ Slytherins mind their own business and get on with their lives. Snobbish as they may be, it is this LACK OF actively seeking out /victims/ that sets them apart. It is logical that after school (after graduation), Slytherins are integrated into all aspects of wizard society. The run shops, they start businesses, they work for the Ministry, they function like all wizards function, so I really can't seem them being a clan of total bigots and racists. Once again, I say that most Slytherins are merely ambitious and cunning in that ambition, and certainly have a pureblood pride that tends to the snobbish, but that is not a crime or even a fault. It is when pride in self turn into hatred of others that we cross the line from snob to bigot. On the issue of purity of blood, I don't think that is absolute; non-pureblood are admited into Slytherin. As I said before, it is family history in the wizard world that was the determining factor for Salazar. Admittedly, that is speculation, but it is speculation that seems to fit an objective look at the facts. Certainly since 'family history' in the wizard world is critical, purebloods would be the epitome of that belief. But I really don't think Salazar was the pureblood racist he is made out to be. I just seems illogical. But with absolute certainty, the more pure your blood was, the more theoretically trustworth you were in Salazar's eyes. But that absolute trustworthiness was limited to the likelihood, or not, of revealing the wizard world to muggles. When it came to business ventures, I suspect Salazar was as wary of Slytherins as everyone one was. They are afteral cunning businessmen who will stop at nearly nothing to twist a business situation to their advantage. But that is something nearly all businessmen will do, and in most cases, it is neither a sin nor a crime. Just a few additional thoughts. STeve/bboyminn From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Dec 7 22:12:59 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:12:59 -0000 Subject: Please explain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144304 eggplant > Yes, Snape thinks Harry deserves to be treated badly and Snape has > made a mistake. People need to take responsibility for their mistakes. > And I'm sure Snape does not see himself as a villain, but he's wrong > about that too. eggplant: > This is fiction so I don't care about "the law of ethics". Magpie: Sorry--I said "the law OR ethics." I don't think there is any law of ethics, just what we hammer out ourselves. It seems like you do care about ethics and that's why Snape is supposed to be punished or Harry should be treated well. Talking about right and wrong, and how punishment should be meted out, suggests some kind of law or formula to me--a character did this so deserves that. eggplant: We're > talking about how emotions are actually generated, not how they should > come about in some ideal world. Magpie: Yes, but we're also disagreeing about what people deserve or need to have happen. I agree that actions inspire emotions, but that doesn't say what a person should do about them or get because of them. People have different emotional reactions to things, and two people equally upset by someone's action might have a different idea about what must be done about it or how the person should be treated in response. eggplant: We're talking about a work of fiction > and how we feel about one character who treats another character > badly; if that second character is a SOB we will feel one way, and if > he is a wonderful human being that we have grown to love even though > he is fictional we will feel a very different way. And like it or not > that's a fact. Magpie: Yes, I already agreed that it was a fact--though a character can inspire totally different emotions in different readers, and that's also a fact. Plenty of people in fandom say they were happy Dumbledore died. People can feel however they want, especially about fictional characters, but how you feel does not always dictate what the right thing to do is, or what should happen in the story because of it. I would never tell anyone that they *must* like Snape or Dumbledore because, as you said, how can you even make somebody feel something they don't? But to argue that it will be wrong if X doesn't happen because of what Y did you're talking about something beyond how we feel about stuff, imo. eggplant: > > > Compassion is not something that someone earns. > > And compassion is not something you can intellectually decide you > have or not do not have, it is something you ether feel or you don't, > and I feel none for Snape. Magpie: No, you can't--and that's absolutely fine, but to argue that Snape "deserves" certain treatment objectively it has to go beyond that. Snape seems to have no compassion for Harry, but you feel that he should, or at least behave as if he does, because it's wrong for him to torment Harry. The author may feel the same way about that and also other characters and think her heroes should/do as well, making it important when characters choose not to murder or to prevent murder, like Harry with Peter for instance. We can all have ideas of what we'd like to have happen, but it seems like that's a slightly different thing. Once we talk about what *should* happen based on what came before we're getting into something that can be discussed and argued. -m From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 7 22:18:05 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:18:05 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Harry after the Hut-on-the-Rock... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144305 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" > wrote: Geoff: > > 4. ... So where did "Harry's huge, heavy trunk" (PS "The Journey > > from Platform Nine and Three- Quarters" p.68 UK edition) come > > from? He wouldn't need a trunk because he never been anywhere > > and had had nothing to pack in the past. > > > > ...edited... > > > > Any bids to deal with my inquisitiveness? > > > > bboyminn: > > Note that all the student have a trunk, and likely all have similar > trunks, so I suspect it was amoung his school supplies even though the > books don't really say that. Consider how difficult it was for Harry > to lug all his many packages as well as a trunk from the train when he > arrived in Little Whinging. > > Now that bring up another critical question. How did Harry get from > the train station at or near Little Whinging to the Dursley's house? > Did he call them and ask for a ride? Given all that had happened, > would Vernon be in a benevolent enough spirit to do that? Did Harry > lug his packages and trunk across several blocks, if not miles, of > Little Whinging until he arrived at the Dursley's home? Did he call a > cab/taxi and expect Vernon to pay? Did he haul all this packages and > truck aboard the local bus? Did he even have money for the local bus? Geoff: I think I would be inclined to disagree with you... There is no reference to Harry buying a trunk in Diagon Alley although there is a fairly detailed description of the shopping which they actually carried out. Again, if Harry had acquired a trunk, surely it would have been simpler to put all his purchases inside the trunk for convenience? Canon observes: "Harry didn't speak at all as they walked down the road; he didn't even notice how much people were gawping at them on the Underground laden as they were with all their funny-shaped packages, with the sleeping snowy owl on Harry's lap." (PS "Diagon Alley" p.66 UK edition) I challenge you to try to negotiate the London Transport Underground network with a full size trunk and an armful of packages and an owl. It's bad enough with just a couple of carrier bags! With regard to Little Whinging, I would be inclined to assume that the station is fairly close to Privet Drive. Also, from message 144296: Bruce: > > Also, it doesn't say 'back to the Dursleys'' but 'back to the > > Dursleys.' The apostophe is significant. It means not 'back to > > the Dursleys' house' but 'back to where the Dursleys were.' THEY > > WERE STILL ON THE ROCK. Harry had to rescue them. Thoroughly > > humiliating for them, of course. kchuplis: > Of course, maybe they have a cell phone.( I know, no mention of it, > but that doesn't mean they don't). Honestly, I don't think they > would have stayed on the rock two seconds longer than they had to > once the letter was delivered. Geoff: It is quite common usage in UK English to omit the apostrophe in a statement like "I am going to the Smiths on Saturday". I often do it myself. If Harry was going to rescue them, how was he going to do that? To begin with, I wonder if he knew precisely where the rock was? I doubt whether he had been keeping close tabs on where Vernon had gone in his peregrinations on the previous day or two; and Hagrid had brought him back in the boat and then led the way to the station... Again, canon tells us that "Uncle Vernon was pointing at what looked like a large rock way out to sea." (PS "The Letters from No One" p.37 UK edition) If Harry was going back to rescue them, no way would he be leaving from Paddington. The main line from Paddington heads due west out of London and the FIRST place you'd get anywhere near the sea would be the Bristol Channel, either beyond Cardiff or down the North Somerset coast - at least 130 miles or more from London.... Then he would have had to get the boat back over. All rather a lot for a (perhaps) nervous 11 year old who didn't get many opportunities to be away from home. On the subject of mobile phones, IIRC they first came into use in the UK round about 1987 and by 1991, they were still fairly few and far between. Even if Vernon had one, if he packed everything up in about five minutes on the Sunday and they were in the car after another five minutes would he have remembered to take his mobile? As a regular user myself, I still leave the house from time to time without it even when I am not 'flapping' about something. Interesting that the answers to my questions are creating second generation questions. :-) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 22:22:22 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:22:22 -0000 Subject: What cultural standards we are using to determine whether Snape is abusive ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144306 > Orna: > I agree with you in respect to this. Maybe I should clarify myself: > I thought it was worthwhile to think about what is considered abuse > in the WW, precisely because it would help us to understand what > this culture is. ( I may decide then, that it's a very corrupted > society, or that JKR will have to punish Snape severely if I am to > accept the WW as a human world) > > And anyway, we do accept deviations from our cultural norms - I > mean it's obvious nobody in his right mind would send his child to a > school, where his child might have to fight dragons, where three- > headed dogs are kept in a corridor, behind a very easy-opening door, > etc. Not exactly a very responsible headmaster. It is more salient when we come to direct human relations ? that's > where we expect the same standards, otherwise ? what's the point of > the book. And after all, wizards seem to fall in love, get hurt, > angry etc. by just the same rules, which apply to muggles, like us. > So your point is valid, IMO, but still I think that we do expect > different standards in some places. > Different cultures do have rightly some difference in what is > considered right or wrong, because the impact of the deed may be > different. Just like you have different standards towards children > of various ages ? so don't you think your behavioral standards would > be different towards a child who can fly, heal instantly, and do > magic? > > There are things, which are just wrong, no cultural perspective being > a possible excuse for them. But I think that's the thing we are > trying to figure out, and I just thought that deciphering the moral > codes and "abuse standards" of the WW might help to understand it - > in relation to the WW, and also in relation to our own muggle world. Alla: Actually, Orna I do agree with your POV in many aspects and disagree in some or maybe not. Forgive me for babbling, please. Personally, I DO consider Snape's defense as not abusive by the standards of WW society one of the strongest ones, sort of. What I do not consider a strong argument is the defense of the society, which does nothing about Snape. JMO of course :-) If one does NOT view WW as reflection of our society than OF COURSE it is a perfectly valid argument that since society does not think that Snape is doing something abnormal, then it is OK in THAT society, IMO. I said many times I believe that JKR writes about our world plus adding magic to it and also exaggerating some good and some ugly things in this world.(Making some characters to be caricatures, stereotypes, etc.) That is why I also agree with you that standards of safety during the lessons could not be comparable. You could wonders with magic - heal wounds fast, etc and we do know that wisarding kids are physically more resilient. What we do NOT know IMO is that whether wisarding kids are emotionally more resilient than "muggle" kids and IMO they are not. That is why I am very much in doubt that JKR intends US the readers to take Snape's behavior as something innocent, even if WW could care less. JMO obviously. I think Cristina said upthread that Dumbledore approves Snape's behavior, so it is fine, since Dumbledore is supposed to be the most progressive thinker in WW. ( Christina, sorry if I misinterpreted you :)) I DO think that Dumbledore is supposed to be the most progressive thinker in WW, what I am not sure I agree with is that Dumbledore approves Snape's teaching methods. I think he does ( and I know it had been brought up) what he did with Hagrid ( and that is what JKR said in interview) Dumbledore let Hagrid think over things on his own, hoping that he would snap out of his misery and only after he did not, DD went to him. I speculate that Dumbledore was hoping that Snape would figure out on his own how wrong he is, but alas that never happened. Do I think that Dumbledore was wrong to not interfere? Yes, I think so, but I am not sure I agree his non-interference equals agreeing with Snape. IMO of course. I speculate that at the end of the books we will see some change at least started in cultural norms of WW. It is not like everything would be radically changed, of course, but I do hope that we will at least see some change. I am a big fan of Pip's post about WW rebirth like Phoenix (it is in the recommended posts), but again, I would love to see even something less radical. Right, so about change in Hogwarts. Regardless of whatever awaits Snape in the future, I think many list members will agree that chance of him returning to Hogwarts as teacher is very slim (IMO of course) - McGonagall did say that it is unheard in the history of Hogwarts that Headmaster was killed by one of the teachers,right? So, even under the best-case scenario ( Snape is completely DD!M) I sincerely doubt that Snape will be given free reign to teach ever again. Again, JMHO. Personally if it is true, I think it is a beginning of VERY positive change in Hogwarts culture, even if only by default. And again, allow me to disclaim - I do NOT think that story will be good without Snape, of course not, but him not in Hogwarts at the end of the books - yes, I do like this case scenario. Only my opinion, Alla From pegdigrazia at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 21:20:15 2005 From: pegdigrazia at yahoo.com (Peg DiGrazia) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 13:20:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: possible theory as to who might die in book 7 and a couple of other thoughts. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051207212015.51862.qmail@web42204.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144307 Mari wrote: <> Peg: I've been worried about Ron since OotP. I hope JKR won't go that far, partly because I don't want to see HERMIONE lose Ron (although it would be very Joss Whedon-esque: bring the lovers together at long last, then immediately kill one of them...) But I strongly suspect that at least one Weasley has to die in the last book. I rather hope it's Percy and only Percy, but I don't think that will be the case. I can easily imagine Ron finally having his moment of glory, sacrificing himself as none of his brothers has done and gaining the recognition that he's always wanted... I almost think it would be harder on the readers to have the "second lead" die than to have Harry himself die as the logical conclusion of the hero's journey. Not that I want Harry to die, either. I want him and Ginny to have many happy years together. Peg. From h2so3f at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 00:05:58 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 00:05:58 -0000 Subject: How did Hagrid get to the Hut-on-the-Rock? In-Reply-To: <00a601c5fb46$69b02080$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144308 CH3ed: I like Phil's idea that Hagrid was/is still using Sirius' motorcycle. Tho I wonder where he'd keep it. HRH have been to Hagrid's cabin many times and they've never mentioned seeing the motorcycle. Also I wonder if Hagrid knows how to vanish it after getting to the hut. I also like va32h's idea that Hagrid flew to the hut on a thestral, tho I don't think it would be less sensational for the muggles looking up since thestral (tho invisible to those who have not seen death...and muggles?) do not make the rider invisible (Harry could see Ron and others riding on one, the carriages they pull are visible, Ron and Hermione could see Harry riding on an invisible thestral) so if anything the muggles would see a flying half giant (but not the thing he is riding on). I like Miles' idea of Fawkes transporting Hagrid best. I think it leaves nothing to explain. Fawkes could apparate (or whatever it is that he does) back to Hogwarts without leaving a trace (nothing more than a feather, if anything). Dumbledore knew exactly where Harry was (from the way he addressed the envelope to Harry at Hut on the Rock) and could tell Fawkes where to transport Hagrid to. Harry wasn't looking out the window when Hagrid arrived so he couldn't have seen any flash of flame. Very neat! CH3ed wishes he has a pet phoenix. :O) From nonnymouse_X at hotmail.com Wed Dec 7 20:55:37 2005 From: nonnymouse_X at hotmail.com (ereshkigal_doom) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:55:37 -0000 Subject: Albino Malfoys? (was The Weasleys' Muggle Cousin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144309 La Gatta wrote: > Given the rate at which they've been marrying their near > relatives for the past few hundred years, I'm amazed that > all the Malfoys and Blacks have come up with is a mild > family tradition of sociopathy. Do you think the Malfoys are albinos? They are always described as very pale and white-blond, and Draco is a white ferret when transformed. "ereshkigal_doom" From MadameSSnape at aol.com Thu Dec 8 01:44:21 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 20:44:21 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Albino Malfoys? (was The Weasleys' Muggle Cousin) Message-ID: <23f.3221909.30c8e9f5@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144310 In a message dated 12/7/2005 8:02:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nonnymouse_X at hotmail.com writes: Do you think the Malfoys are albinos? They are always described as very pale and white-blond, and Draco is a white ferret when transformed. ----------------- Sherrie here: It's been a while since I studied genetics, but IIRC human albinos generally have a distinct sensitivity to sunlight, as well as a host of visual problems including a lack of stereo vision. Both of these would make it impossible for Draco to be even marginally effective as a Seeker, IMHO. Sherrie "Some kid a hundred years from now is going to get interested in the Civil War and want to see these places. He's going to go down there and be standing in a parking lot. I'm fighting for that kid." - Brian Pohanka, 1990 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 02:54:24 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 18:54:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Albino Malfoys? (was The Weasleys' Muggle Cousin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051208025425.28861.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144311 ereshkigal_doom wrote: Do you think the Malfoys are albinos? They are always described as very pale and white-blond, and Draco is a white ferret when transformed. Juli: I don't recall any mention of any Malfoy being completely white. Draco's pale and blond. I'm pretty sure he's got colored eyes. An Albino has zero pigment in his body, they are complete free of melanine, the substance that gives skin color, eyes color... They are just blond, me thinks. Juli Aol: jlnbtr Yahoo: jlnbtr --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Dec 8 02:07:03 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 02:07:03 -0000 Subject: possible theory as to who might die in book 7 and a couple of other thoughts. In-Reply-To: <20051207212015.51862.qmail@web42204.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144312 >Peg: > I've been worried about Ron since OotP. But I strongly suspect that at least one Weasley has to die in the last book. I rather hope it's Percy and only Percy, but I don't think that will be the case. I can easily imagine Ron finally having his moment of glory, sacrificing himself as none of his brothers has done and gaining the recognition that he's always wanted... I almost think it would be harder on the readers to have the "second lead" die than to have Harry himself die as the logical conclusion of the hero's journey. Not that I want Harry to die, either. I want him and Ginny to have many happy years together. > > kchuplis: Might be the only way Percy can redeem himself at this point.......I'm not sure why someone even closer to Harry *must* die (I think he has plenty of reason to carry on without it.) Once upon a time, it was very unusual to have a main character offed, but since television shows have begun offing regulars left and right it is almost cliche to kill off those folks I would think. Just a thought. But if someone has to go, I say let's off Percy. My other thought is it would be a nice irony if it were Neville, seeing as how only an interpretation by LV kept this from being "Neville Longbottom and the XXX" etc. etc. etc. kchuplis From kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Dec 8 02:00:01 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 02:00:01 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Harry after the Hut-on-the-Rock... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144313 Geoff wrote: > Even if Vernon had one [mobile phone], if he packed > everything up in about five minutes on the Sunday and > they were in the car after another five minutes would > he have remembered to take his mobile? OK, then I vote that the boat returned on its own after Hagrid and Harry got out, just like the car going back into the forest after delivering Ron and Harry from the spiders. kchuplis From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 03:17:23 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 03:17:23 -0000 Subject: The Imperius Virus Again Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144314 Almost two years ago I suggested here that Voldy could easily win the war by using my invention, a doomsday weapon I called the Imperius Virus (see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/92918 and ensuing thread for details). The principal behind the Imperius Virus is very simple: all Voldy has to do is imperio one wizard and give him these three directions: 1. Be a good servant of the Dark Lord. 2. Go and imperio other wizards. 3. Give them these three directions. As I showed in the original post, the number of imperiused wizards imperio-ing other wizards will increase exponentially to include the whole WW population in a matter of weeks, after which it will be a piece of cake to take care of the muggles too. Several members pointed out some bugs in this simple algorithm, but IMO nothing that could not be solved by some very standard programming. The main problem with the virus design was that I didn't have any canon for an imperiused wizard imperio-ing another wizard. I only had canon for imperiused Krum in GoF crucio-ing Cedric. Some members countered that this wouldn't be practical for Imperio, either because most British wizards had never learned to use the Unforgivables (unlike Krum, who learned them in Durmstrang), or because (as they argued) Imperius isn't really like programming an autonomous agent, but more like having to guide him nonstop by remote. However, I'm happy to report that in HBP these problems were solved too. We now have canon that an imperiused wizard can indeed imperio another wizard. I'm a bit embarrassed to admit that I've actually missed it in my first and second reads, because it requires putting together details from different chapters. In Ch. 27 it was established that Madam Rosmerta was imperiused by the DEs: *************************************************** 'Very gratifying,' said Dumbledore mildly. 'We all like appreciation for our own hard work, of course ... but you must have had an accomplice, all the same ... someone in Hogsmeade, someone who was able to slip Katie the - the ? aaaah ' Dumbledore closed his eyes again and nodded, as though he was about to fall asleep. '... of course ... Rosmerta. How long has she been under the Imperius Curse?' 'Got there at last, have you?' Malfoy taunted. *************************************************** Earlier in Ch. 12 it was pretty much established that Katie was imperiused (by the imperiused Madam Rosmerta, as it turned out) in the ladies room of The Three Broomsticks to take the cursed necklace past the Hogwarts security: *************************************************** "I've seen that before," said Harry, staring at the thing. "It was on display in Borgin and Burkes ages ago. The label said it was cursed. Katie must have touched it." He looked up at Leanne, who had started to shake uncontrollably. "How did Katie get hold of this?" "Well, that's why we were arguing. She came back from the bathroom in the Three Broomsticks holding it, said it was a surprise for somebody at Hogwarts and she had to deliver it. She looked all funny when she said it. ... Oh no, oh no, I bet she'd been Imperiused and I didn't realize!" **************************************************** We also have the testimony of Katie herself in Ch. 24: **************************************************** "You definitely went into the bathroom, then?" said Hermione. "Well, I know I pushed open the door," said Katie, "so I suppose whoever Imperiused me was standing just behind it. After that, my memory's a blank until about two weeks ago in St. Mungo' **************************************************** It is thus proved that an imperiused wizard *can* imperio another wizard, and I believe that the plot to take over the world with the Imperius Virus can commence without further difficulties. As I wrote in the original thread, I don't think Voldemort is likely to use it in Book 7, because he just doesn't seem to be very good at programming, but it's still fully canonical and could be a very good plot for a fanfic. Also, Just in case somebody in magenta robes points a wand at you in the street, you'd better dodge it, because I didn't figure out how to block the virus yet. Neri From mdelgadov at hotmail.com Thu Dec 8 03:18:16 2005 From: mdelgadov at hotmail.com (Miguel Delgado) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 03:18:16 -0000 Subject: The Third Horcrux Discovered Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144315 Stop the presses, stop the presses. The third horcrux has been discovered. Good news for those conspiracy theorists. RAB is effectively Regulus Black and the Horcrux has been discovered at Grimauld Place in the cupboard where Kracher spends nights. For more indications please read OoP chapter 6 p. 116. A heavy locket was found and nobody could open it at the time. Although it was destined to be disposed, the elf of the house managed to recover it and kept it among mementos of long lost glory. This was a collaboration of the grandson of a Oaxaquenia witch. She should be proud. The apprentice. From sydpad at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 03:30:47 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 03:30:47 -0000 Subject: There are no new theories! Riddle vs Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144316 Allison wrote: > > Suppose one of his other Horcruxes results in the > formation of a new body or a re-bodied Riddle. If they met, would they > get along like old pals? Would they despise each other, since they > would be in competition for the same thing (my opinion, yes). Maybe > they could duel and destroy each other???? (Either must die at the > hand of the other!) This is the grooviest idea I've heard in ages. Long ago I read someone theorizing (this was way before HBP and I think before OoP), that a piece of V-mort's soul had lodged in Harry, and this piece was growing along with him and being exposed to all his experiences. So supposing THIS piece was made manifest in some way... so Harry/Riddle-bit would fight V-mort??! I don't know if it makes any sense, but it's awfully cool idea. -- Sydney, who is nowhere near clever enough to come up with stuff that makes sense of the Prophecy From h2so3f at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 03:32:06 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 03:32:06 -0000 Subject: There are no new theories! Riddle vs Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144317 Allison wrote: "I know SOMEONE must have said this before, but... during my re-read of Chamber of Secrets, at the point where Harry meets the fuzzy Tom Riddle, I wondered what would happen if Voldemort were to meet fuzzy Tom Riddle. Suppose one of his other Horcruxes results in the formation of a new body or a re-bodied Riddle. If they met, would they get along like old pals? Would they despise each other, since they would be in competition for the same thing (my opinion, yes). Maybe they could duel and destroy each other???? (Either must die at the hand of the other!)" CH3ed: Interesting scenario!! Well, I don't think we know what a soul piece is like yet. The one we see in CoS was unique in that it was also a memory (the diary was both a horcrux and a pensieve). So we don't know that a pure soul piece would be anything like the Riddle memory/soul piece. I believe that in one of JKR's interviews she said that had the Riddle memory/soul piece in CoS managed to suck all the life out of Ginny into itself it would have greatly strenghtened LV. So if anything should they (LV and his Riddle memory/soul piece) meet they wouldn't fight each other. LV would not destroy his own soul piece, and his soul piece wouldn't try to destroy the core soul piece (LV). Their futures depend on each other. I think if anything LV would update the Riddle memory/soul piece on what happened since the memory was made into a horcrux and then hide the diary somewhere safe to serve the function of a good and hidden horcrux... or he might remove the Riddle memory/soul piece from the fragile diary into something harder to destroy. "Either must die at the hand of the other" refers to Harry and LV and shouldn't apply here. CH3ed likes hypothesizing alternative scenarios in the HP books! From phil at pcsgames.net Thu Dec 8 03:46:04 2005 From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 22:46:04 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How did Hagrid get to the Hut-on-the-Rock? References: Message-ID: <0eae01c5fba9$f1b73e10$6600a8c0@phil> No: HPFGUIDX 144318 CH3ed: > I like Phil's idea that Hagrid was/is still using Sirius' > motorcycle. Tho I wonder where he'd keep it. HRH have been to > Hagrid's cabin many times and they've never mentioned seeing the > motorcycle. Also I wonder if Hagrid knows how to vanish it after > getting to the hut. > > I also like va32h's idea that Hagrid flew to the hut on a thestral, > tho I don't think it would be less sensational for the muggles > looking up since thestral (tho invisible to those who have not seen > death...and muggles?) do not make the rider invisible (Harry could > see Ron and others riding on one, the carriages they pull are > visible, Ron and Hermione could see Harry riding on an invisible > thestral) so if anything the muggles would see a flying half giant > (but not the thing he is riding on). > > I like Miles' idea of Fawkes transporting Hagrid best. I think it > leaves nothing to explain. Fawkes could apparate (or whatever it is > that he does) back to Hogwarts without leaving a trace (nothing more > than a feather, if anything). Dumbledore knew exactly where Harry > was (from the way he addressed the envelope to Harry at Hut on the > Rock) and could tell Fawkes where to transport Hagrid to. Harry > wasn't looking out the window when Hagrid arrived so he couldn't > have seen any flash of flame. Very neat! > > CH3ed wishes he has a pet phoenix. :O) > Now Phil again: I too think Hagrid used the Phoenix but Jo wanted to save the description of that form of travel for the second book. But I also like the idea that Hagrid still has the motorcycle hidden somewhere so he can show up on Harry's seventeenth birthday to fly him away from Privet Drive. Phil who likes motorcycle bookends. From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Thu Dec 8 04:11:13 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:11:13 +0100 Subject: What cultural standards we are using to determine whether Snape is abusive ? References: Message-ID: <01d101c5fbad$6e88a4d0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144319 > Lupinlore: > I don't know about everybody else, but I'm finding this whole thread > immensely enjoyable! :-) Miles: Just two days before I did not think so, because we just circled in the discussion, repeating our arguments. Now we seem to dig a bit deeper. > Lupinlore: > I, for one, most certainly do not expect fiction to mirror the real > world, especially in moral matters. again Lupinlore, in a different mail: > Interesting point, Orna. However, I'm not sure it's relevant, at > least not from the perspective from which some of us are coming. I, > for instance, could not possibly care less about what is or is not > abuse by the standards of the WW. and again, from an earlier Mail: > Oh, I absolutely agree. Snape is a child abuser, over and out. Miles: Sorry for patchworking with your quotes ;). So, let us put it together. Relating to Snape's behaviour in class, you a) do not care whether this is thought to be abusive in the fictional world it takes place, b) do not think, that moral in fiction should mirror real life, and c) disapprove common definitions of child abuse, that emphasise lasting damage as a key criterion a) has been discussed by Orna, who IMO showed very convincing evidence that Snape is not seen as abusive in the wizarding world *and* by his students inside the fiction. b) would just end the discussion, because we all know, that there is no guarantee that bad deeds are punished. c) would be a chance for a clinical discussion beyond "I feel this, you feel that" What remains, is your very personal impression what is abusive, and your very personal benchmark for good literature concerning moral, that is: it has to reflect your moral considerations and assessments. Eeerm... difficult to discuss then. Or better: there is no chance of discussion with the target of some kind of agreement, because I would not try to change your moral creed, and you would not try (or succeed) to change mine. And there is no point in just describing our personal moral beliefs - not on this list. So - end of discussion? I will try to affect a) instead, and maybe c) later (not in this mail). > Alla wrote: > Personally, I DO consider Snape's defense as not abusive by the > standards of WW society one of the strongest ones, sort of. What I do > not consider a strong argument is the defense of the society, which > does nothing about Snape. Miles: But these are very different things. I totally agree, that the Wizards' Society is corrupt, foul. We see this almost anytime Ministry is involved, we see it with Fudge, Scrimgeour, Umbrigde, Bagman, Crouch, even Percy. We see it according to the legal system, the censorship and many other things. I do not see Hogwarts as foul or corrupt. And I do not see the moral standards of Hogwarts as foul or corrupt - we all know the man who is responsible for these standards. Alla: > What we do NOT know IMO is that whether wisarding kids are > emotionally more resilient than "muggle" kids and IMO they are not. > That is why I am very much in doubt that JKR intends US the readers > to take Snape's behavior as something innocent, even if WW could care > less. Miles: Whether something is abusive or not, to some extent has to do with the society a child lives in. Someone mentioned ancient Greek society some days before. Sexual interactions between male teachers and male students were common for centuries. That was not considered as abusive - it was not a question of power misuse, it was not to be kept secret, everyone could speak about it. We can consider that if it caused damage to the boys at all, this can't be compared to the awful aftermath of sexual abuse in our world. So, should we judge Plato's sexual interactions with his students with today's measures? I don't think so - as we should not judge paederasts of today with Plato's measures. Should we judge Snape's acting in classes as child abuse, despite the fact the people in his world would not do? I don't think so. But that does not mean to see Snape as a character we should like, according to Rowling's intention. No, definitely Snape is a nasty person, he seems to be almost unable to be kind or friendly (only exception - Draco), he is unfair, I would dislike him if I knew him. But he never crosses an important, invisible line. He never hurts or touches any student (or pet) in class, he may threat to do so (do we believe him?), but he seems to know what would be abuse in *his* world, and he acts according to these rules. Alla wrote: > I DO think that Dumbledore is supposed to be the most progressive > thinker in WW, what I am not sure I agree with is that Dumbledore > approves Snape's teaching methods. > I think he does ( and I know it had been brought up) what he did with > Hagrid ( and that is what JKR said in interview) Dumbledore let > Hagrid think over things on his own, hoping that he would snap out of > his misery and only after he did not, DD went to him. Miles: Snape has been member of Dumbledore's staff for some 14 years. You really think that he would not interfer for 14 years, if he would totally disapprove Snape's teaching methods? Maybe he interfered before and Snape changed his methods - we don't know. We see Snape acting for six years (stop - we only see them through Harry's eyes - we should doubt his view), and he does not change. Maybe he changed his methods before? And now, I think we really should assume, Dumbledore is satisfied by and large. Miles From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 04:42:56 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 04:42:56 -0000 Subject: What cultural standards we are using to determine whether Snape is abusive ? In-Reply-To: <01d101c5fbad$6e88a4d0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144320 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > Miles: > Snape has been member of Dumbledore's staff for some 14 years. You > really think that he would not interfer for 14 years, if he would > totally disapprove Snape's teaching methods? Maybe he interfered > before and Snape changed his methods - we don't know. We see Snape > acting for six years (stop - we only see them through Harry's eyes - > we should doubt his view), and he does not change. Maybe he changed > his methods before? And now, I think we really should assume, > Dumbledore is satisfied by and large. Canonically, Dumbledore has issues with detachment: he tells Harry (and us) that he's forgotten what it's like to be young, with damaging results. JKR tells us much the same thing, and reinforces the statement that he wants to let people fix things on their own and not force them, with both positive and negative results. But it's also canonical that Dumbledore hoped and would have liked for Snape to change in his attitudes: hence the comments about how he hoped Snape could overcome his feelings about James yadda yadda et al. Maybe Dumbledore was being unrealistically optimistic, for as you note, he's known the man for quite some time. I don't see anything to mark that desire as not genuine, though. Would he interfere? Well, he does undercut Snape near the beginning of CoS and tends to moderate him from there on out, although it's been argued that's a show for Harry's benefit (which I don't buy). Harry has the suspicion that it's Dumbledore's intervention which gets him through Potions at the end of third year, IIRC. May be wrong, but may not--too quick an application of "Oh, that's just Harry's flawed perception" leaves us tossing out whatever we can't make fit our own mental models, and that's a good way to get surprised in the bad way. Another interview comment points to Dumbledore considering Snape's methods something beneficial for the kids to learn to deal with (but the way it's phrased, the methods themselves are not exactly approved of--that's *why* the kids have to learn to deal). That raises all kinds of questions of intent, and also raises the question whether we- the-readers want to agree with Dumbledore in all things. As you said earlier: > I do not see Hogwarts as foul or corrupt. And I do not see the moral > standards of Hogwarts as foul or corrupt - we all know the man who > is responsible for these standards. I agree that Dumbledore is generally an ethical man setting good standards, but he's also shown as making some considerable howlers in judgement and estimation of effects. As a reader, I feel that the moral of "think for yourself and don't just follow authority blindly" has been hammered in enough for me to say "Is it *really* good and true because Dumbledore says it?" -Nora finds that moral to be why the idea of a pathos-filled death of Dumbledore hits pleasantly hard From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 05:00:27 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 05:00:27 -0000 Subject: What cultural standards we are using to determine whether Snape is abusive ? In-Reply-To: <01d101c5fbad$6e88a4d0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144321 > > Alla wrote: > > Personally, I DO consider Snape's defense as not abusive by the > > standards of WW society one of the strongest ones, sort of. What I do > > not consider a strong argument is the defense of the society, which > > does nothing about Snape. > > Miles: > But these are very different things. > I totally agree, that the Wizards' Society is corrupt, foul. I do not see Hogwarts as foul or corrupt. And I do not see the moral > standards of Hogwarts as foul or corrupt - we all know the man who is > responsible for these standards. Alla: Hogwarts corrupt? Probably not, on the other hand Board of Governors seemed to be awfully fast in dismissing Dumbledore from his position in CoS. Granted, they claimed they were blackmailed by Lucius, but still... On the other hand, I would not say that Hogwarts has great teaching standards, quite to the contrary, really, IMO. And Yes, I do think the man who is responsible for those standards made an awful lot of mistakes. Although I do think that he had the best of intentions. Let's forget for a second about Snape teaching shenanigans, let's just count how many truly incompetent teachers we already saw on Hogwarts staff. Trelawney, Lockhart, Umbridge come to mind right away. So, either Dumbledore is not always capable to implement high teaching standards or his standards of teaching are not very high, IMO. > > Alla: > > What we do NOT know IMO is that whether wisarding kids are > > emotionally more resilient than "muggle" kids and IMO they are not. > > That is why I am very much in doubt that JKR intends US the readers > > to take Snape's behavior as something innocent, even if WW could care > > less. > > Miles: > Whether something is abusive or not, to some extent has to do with the > society a child lives in. > Should we judge Snape's acting in classes as child abuse, despite the fact > the people in his world would not do? I don't think so. Alla: Actually, we don't really know what people of his world think of Snape being abusive or not, IMO. What I mean is that we don't hear parents complaining, but maybe they do complain to Dumbledore and he just tells them that everything is going to be Ok or something like that. We saw at the end of HBP that the only reason why Order Members tolerated Snape was because of Dumbledore's trust in him. If he could convince Minerva, somehow I think Dumbledore could calm any person complaining about Snape mistreating his or her child. Just speculating here obviously. In any event though, as I said upthread, I do NOT believe that JKR intended to give "Potterverse" morals THAT different from ours. I believe it will be demonstrated somehow at the end of the tale. I could be wrong of course. That is why I feel very comfortable judging Snape by my " muggle" standards. I believe that this is what JKR does despite placing him in the world with magic, you know. :-) I think that her position in the interviews supports it too. I will NOT be as comfortable judging character by " my" standards in ANY book. Sometimes when I read, I do get the feel that morals of the world which writer created are much different from ours. I do NOT get this feel from Potterverse, AT ALL, despite the fact that those kids heal physical wounds REALLY fast. Neville still remembers his uncle throwing him out of the window several years after that. granted, the action is abnormal by " muggle" standards in the first place, but if you analogize it to muggle child who got hurt by family member, I would expect muggle child to remember it for a long time too. Ron is afraid of spiders and he also remembers what Fred and George did to him when he was very young. Nope, I absolutely think that emotionally those kids are just as vulnerable as RL kids are. IMO of course. Miles: > But that does not mean to see Snape as a character we should like, according > to Rowling's intention. No, definitely Snape is a nasty person, he seems to > be almost unable to be kind or friendly (only exception - Draco), he is > unfair, I would dislike him if I knew him. > But he never crosses an important, invisible line. He never hurts or touches > any student (or pet) in class, he may threat to do so (do we believe him?), > but he seems to know what would be abuse in *his* world, and he acts > according to these rules. Alla: Sorry, Miles. I believe Snape crosses this important invisible line multiple times. He may have rarely hurt the children physically, but emotionally I think he hurt them multiple times. Whether we believe him or not ( actually while I did not really believed him in PoA, in retrospect I would not put past him the desire to kill Trevor. You know, just because the pet annoyed him too much :-) ), is not important to me. IMHO of course. What important to me is that Neville believed him, what important to me is that Neville is afraid of Snape more than anything else. Oh, by the way many people speculated that if Neville would have faced Bogart now, he would have a different fear, because he outgrew being afraid of Snape. But isn't it interesting that JKR does NOT show it, ever. I believe that if she wanted to show that Neville is now afraid of something or somebody else , she would have easily done it. After all, she easily found the place for Molly to face her Boggart, I absolutely believe that if she wanted to Neville would have faced his again, BUT she does not, so as far as I am concerned, unless shown to the contrary, Snape is still Neville's biggest fear. To me that show that this child had been hurt by this teacher A LOT. > > Alla wrote: > > I DO think that Dumbledore is supposed to be the most progressive > > thinker in WW, what I am not sure I agree with is that Dumbledore > > approves Snape's teaching methods. > Miles: > Snape has been member of Dumbledore's staff for some 14 years. You really > think that he would not interfere for 14 years, if he would totally > disapprove Snape's teaching methods? Maybe he changed his methods before? And now, I > think we really should assume, Dumbledore is satisfied by and large. Alla: Well, it is your prerogative to assume anything you wish of course :- ), but no I would not assume that Dumbledore is satisfied by and large. Do you think that Dumbledore was satisfied with little Tom coming to Hogwarts and creating his band of future DE? He did not interfere, he pretty much allowed Tom to do whatever he wanted. Do you think Dumbledore was satisfied by how Dursleys treated Harry? IMO in HBP he was quite vivid in saying that no he was not and how many years it took him to interfere? Fifteen years, right? It is one year longer than Snape was teaching in Hogwarts, so maybe next year Dumbledore would have sit Snape for a little talk, if he would have been still alive of course. Dumbledore clearly states that it was a mistake to let Snape teach Harry Occlumency, he has no problem calling those lessons a fiasco. Are you saying that it is that improbable that Dumbledore was not very satisfied with many other things Snape did, but hoped that Snape will come to his senses? I think it is very IC for Dumbledore. Very stupid, IMO, but also very IC. JMO of course, Alla From drednort at alphalink.com.au Thu Dec 8 06:08:30 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 17:08:30 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What cultural standards we are using to determine whether Snape is abusive ? In-Reply-To: References: <01d101c5fbad$6e88a4d0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: <4398688E.10284.473C196@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 144322 I haven't posted for a while - I've been too busy with university (just finished the third year of my Education degree - one year to go - and now I hope to have time to get active with the lists again. And I'm glad to see one of my favourite topics is still being discussed). Just because there are probably new people on the list who haven't seen my posts before, I should give a little background on where I am coming from in this particular conversation. I have an incredibly strong interest in education (the reason I am now getting my degree is so I can do professionally work I have been doing voluntarily for over a decade). I have articles published in the area of education - with specific interest in issues like bullying and abuse of students - I've written a chapter of a book describing my school experiences - a book that will be published in the US next year, I run seminars on education, and there's a message on my phone at the moment from the Education Age asking to do an interview with me about my educational experiences. I had quite a range of different experiences at school, attending over half a dozen different schools ranging from a very working class state school right up to what is often referred to in Australia as an 'elite private school' and a wide range of teaching styles ranging from the ridiculously permissive to the extremely strict and stringent. I'm not sure I'd call myself an expert on education - but I am far better informed than most people are about it. Not that that makes me right - but this isn't just something I dabble in. It's something I spend a lot of time on, right or wrong. Anyway - to actually reply. On 8 Dec 2005 at 5:00, dumbledore11214 wrote: > Alla: > > Hogwarts corrupt? Probably not, on the other hand Board of Governors > seemed to be awfully fast in dismissing Dumbledore from his position > in CoS. Granted, they claimed they were blackmailed by Lucius, but > still... > > On the other hand, I would not say that Hogwarts has great teaching > standards, quite to the contrary, really, IMO. > > And Yes, I do think the man who is responsible for those standards > made an awful lot of mistakes. Although I do think that he had the > best of intentions. > > Let's forget for a second about Snape teaching shenanigans, let's just > count how many truly incompetent teachers we already saw on Hogwarts > staff. Trelawney, Lockhart, Umbridge come to mind right away. > > So, either Dumbledore is not always capable to implement high > teaching standards or his standards of teaching are not very high, > IMO. I'd agree that the general standard of teaching at Hogwarts often doesn't seem to be that high, and I would certainly agree that both Umbridge and Lockhart are pretty lousy teachers. I'd give Trelawney a little more credit personally - I think her subject is a joke, but I'm not 100% sure she doesn't teach aspects of it well. I personally happen to also have doubts about the teaching abilities of Hagrid and Binns. I wonder how much effect the war - the original war that occurred in the 1970s - had on this. In a war situation, obviously a lot of people can die and that can have real implications for the future of a society. It reduces the amount of people available to perform certain functions within that society and that can lower the quality of people in certain positions. While I would say that teaching is a very important task, in general, many societies don't value it all that much - and so when there is a shortage of qualified people for all of society's important jobs, it's very likely you will get fewer high quality people willing to teach. They may feel that their talents are better used elsewhere. You can still expect to get some dedicated teachers - competent people who regard teaching as an important job and so don't feel compelled to move into another area - but you may also have a tendency to have more people just making up the numbers. > Alla: > > Actually, we don't really know what people of his world think of Snape > being abusive or not, IMO. What I mean is that we don't hear parents > complaining, but maybe they do complain to Dumbledore and he just > tells them that everything is going to be Ok or something like that. I think it's also important to realise that the majority of parents of Hogwarts students are either muggle born - and probably have no idea of the mechanisms they would need to use to complain (even if they knew what teaching at Hogwarts was like - Hermione's relationship with her parents strongly suggests that she doesn't keep them particularly well informed in my opinion), or they are very likely former students of Hogwarts themselves and therefore had seven formative years to become accustomed to the way the school is, and are therefore less likely to see what might be wrong with it. Indeed, given that we have some indications that severe physical punishment may have existed in the quite recent past (ie, in the time the parents were at the school) they might regard the modern Hogwarts as a wonderfully progressive place. There's also the issue that it does appear to be the only Wizarding school in Britain - when there's no alternative to show people that other methods of education are possible, it's much less likely that they will realise there might be a problem, and without an alternative, it may be that they feel complaining is difficult. (Incidentally, I saw this with my own parents - for various reasons I won't go into here, my parents were told by psychologists that the school I wound up attending at age 13 was by far the best place for me to be educated - so even though my parents did have some concerns about some aspects of the school, they were very reluctant to rock the boat by complaining - because without an alternative, what would happen if the school somehow took a dislike to me without complaining. I mean, honestly, if you are a parent of a child at Hogwarts who thinks the school is an unreasonable place - how likely are you to cause trouble knowing that there's no real alternative - yes, we know from what Draco says about Durmstrang that it isn't impossible for students to attend schools outside their country - but it does seem unusual). I should say before I continue that I, personally, don't think there are major problems with Hogwarts - what I've raised above is simply offered in the interests of open discussion - I'm playing devil's advocate to an extent. I don't think there's that much to complain about - but I certainly think Alla is right that just because we don't hear of complaints doesn't really mean that much - and I'd go further and say even if there aren't complaints, it may not mean that much. A lot of factors could mitigate against complaints. > Alla: > > In any event though, as I said upthread, I do NOT believe that JKR > intended to give "Potterverse" morals THAT different from ours. I > believe it will be demonstrated somehow at the end of the tale. I > could be wrong of course. I agree - I don't think that JKR is intending to make the Potterverse much different from ours in a moral sense. *But* I do think there are a lot of people who are seeing the morality of our world much more narrowly than it really is. Look... I would say that I am a very moral person (though possibly, not a very modest one!). I am extremely interested in the area of education and in doing my best to ensure that children have an education that meets their needs, and provides them with what they need to grow up happy and healthy. It's a moral imperative for me - it really is. It's something I have dedicated thousands of hours to over the last dozen years, it's something that I have put my life pretty much on hold for for the last three years, and will for at least another year. I have some vestiges of modesty left, so I won't outline everything I do in this regard. But I do believe I am a moral person, and what is more I am someone whose views on morality are very tied up in their views on education. Nonetheless, I have no massive problem with Hogwarts as a school presented to us in Harry Potter. Indeed, in a lot of ways, it's somewhat close to my ideal school. The school I attended that is closest to Hogwarts in style and substance is the school I regard with the greatest affection, and as the best school, out of the reasonably significant number I attended. With specific regards to Snape - well, I had teachers who made Severus Snape seem like Maria Montessori (-8 And a couple of those men are men that I regard among the best teachers I ever had. Now, I can accept that other people will disagree with my position on this. I can accept the possibility that my views are wrong. But I do believe they are moral and ethical and I do believe they are more certainly consistent with the range of morality across our modern western societies. Morality is not a narrow band - it's broadband - and it includes quite a lot in its scope. And I think there is a *lot* of overlap between the very broadband of Muggle society and the (I suspect) somewhat narrower band of Wizarding society. > Alla: > > That is why I feel very comfortable judging Snape by my " muggle" > standards. I believe that this is what JKR does despite placing him in > the world with magic, you know. :-) I think that her position in the > interviews supports it too. I don't see any reason to disagree with you on this - but I would point out that if you are right, it is important to realise that your "muggle" standards may not match JKRs. Our standards on this can be informed by so many different things. Our political beliefs. Our educational experiences - lots of things. And our society and the society in which we live. I'm not talking about anyone specifically - but I think when discussing Hogwarts and considering how Hogwarts fits into the culture of British Wizarding society, it would probably be rather useful not to judge Hogwarts in the context of western society in general, and education in general, but within a much narrower context. I've written an essay on that, of course, but basically I think Hogwarts needs to be judged in the historical context of the schools most similar to it in the real world. Not within a wider context. Or rather, while I think it is valid to judge it in a wider context, I think there is specific validity in looking at things in a somewhat narrower way. > Alla: > > Sorry, Miles. I believe Snape crosses this important invisible line > multiple times. He may have rarely hurt the children physically, but > emotionally I think he hurt them multiple times. Whether we believe > him or not ( actually while I did not really believed him in PoA, in > retrospect I would not put past him the desire to kill Trevor. You > know, just because the pet annoyed him too much :-) ), is not > important to me. IMHO of course. > What important to me is that Neville believed him, what important to > me is that Neville is afraid of Snape more than anything else. The rouble is... I firmly believe that I was abused at school by my teachers at the age of 12. Seriously abused. I came out of that year of schooling suffering clinical depression, and ready to commit suicide rather than return to that school. The school in question was a modern school with a very modern educational philosophy based on ensuring that all children were respected, and that all children should be allowed to develop their skills in a caring environment. The teachers were, I believe, deeply caring people for the most part - I know my homeroom teacher (the teacher, incidentally, who did the most to harm me) broke down and wept in front of my mother when she realised how much pain I was in. So... what was wrong there? I *believed* that school was harming me (and I still do - frankly, I tend to be violently ill if I have to go past the place - and I have to periodically (most recently when I went to see GoF last week). Do my beliefs make that school a bad school? Do my beliefs mean that what my teachers did was inappropriate? Well, I think they do - in that I think it was a *bad* school for *me*. In that I think what my teachers did was *inappropriate* for *me*. But, in general terms? Well, no. There were a thousand other students at that school, and most of them seemed quite happy there. On the other hand - I believe (and I absolutely do believe this) that the best school I ever attended was one that Severus Snape would have fitted very neatly into. A school with extremely strict discipline, a school where teachers were allowed to (and did) hit me. A lot of people would say that crossed a fairly definite line. Judging Hogwarts (and judging Snape) on the basis of his interactions with *one* student - to me, that is rather ridiculous. Because I'll tell you this - I would say that every teacher on this planet has the occasional student for whom their normal methods just don't work. I would hope that at least sometimes such a teacher would normally realise this and that there's a need to try something different in such cases - but condemning a teacher because they can't do that, goes too far in my view - and condemning the style of teaching altogether really goes too far. I think it is reasonable to hope that a teacher knows enough to alter their methods for a specific child in specific cases where they are not working, but that's quite a bit different from expecting them to alter their methods for *all* children, based on that specific child. 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 Nanagose at aol.com Thu Dec 8 06:59:37 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 06:59:37 -0000 Subject: The Imperius Virus Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144323 > Neri: > Almost two years ago I suggested here that Voldy could easily win > the war by using my invention, a doomsday weapon I called the > Imperius Virus (see > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/92918 > and ensuing thread for details). The principal behind the Imperius > Virus is very simple: all Voldy has to do is imperio one wizard and > give him these three directions: > > 1. Be a good servant of the Dark Lord. > 2. Go and imperio other wizards. > 3. Give them these three directions. Christina: The only problem with this is the way we see the Imperius Curse demonstrated in GoF. IIRC, Harry hears *specific* instructions in his head in the form of Moody's actual voice (ie, "Jump on the table- Jump! Now!") telling him what to do. I'm not sure "Be a good servant of the Dark Lord" would work because who determines what that is? Each Imperiused wizard would need to be given real instructions (ie, "Go blow up a bridge," "Kill so-and-so Auror," etc). There needs to be an objective for the Imperiused person to follow. Someone would have to be at the end of the chain, pulling the strings- the original wizard that cast the first Imperio Curse. This is a pickle, because the original wizard would have to pass down instructions through a long line of people, saying something like, "Wizard A, go tell Wizard B to tell Wizard C to tell Wizard D to do such-and-such a task." Also, LV doesn't even need to Imperius large amounts of people to win the war- just the people he is fighting, the Aurors and the Order. No mass army rose up against him in the first war. The Order is presented to us as a Resistance movement than an actual party fighting in battle. Lupin comments in OotP that the Death Eaters outnumbered the Order "twenty to one" and were picking them off individually. While the actual numbers concerning the Death Eaters and Order members are unknown, we can assume that there weren't *that* many people opposing LV; certainly not every witch or wizard. People might have disagreed with LV, but there will always be people that disagree with those in power. Voldemort was easily keeping those people in check using fear (anyone who did speak out mysteriously "disappeared"). Even in the second war, people refused to believe that any threat had returned whatsoever. The instructions for a limited use of the Imperius Curse on the Aurors/Order members would be much simpler- 1. Go find a fellow Order member/Auror. 2. Imperius them and give them these three instructions 3. Go lie in a ditch/hide in your basement/jump off a building I doubt that even a plan like this one would work because we know that it is possible to fight the Imperius Curse. Even though we've seen some evidence of advanced magical skill on Harry's part (the Patronus), he is still just a kid and is able to throw off the Imperius Curse. I wouldn't be surprised if Aurors were taught techniques to prevent themselves from being Imperiused; otherwise, all LV would have had to have done was Imperius one Auror and order them to walk into Auror headquarters and start firing off curses. Christina From marda.buz at juno.com Thu Dec 8 03:17:10 2005 From: marda.buz at juno.com (marda.buz at juno.com) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 03:17:10 GMT Subject: Horcrux #3? The Marauder's Map Message-ID: <20051207.191808.17846.66895@webmail04.nyc.untd.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144324 The Marauder?s Map is in contention, in my mind, for the book 3 horcrux position. Let?s start in the CoS. Mr. Weasley says ?never to trust anything that thinks for itself if you can?t see where it keeps its brains. Why didn?t you show the diary to me, or your mother? A suspicious object like that, it was clearly full of Dark Magic??. LV would want to place a horcrux inside something that can preserve and protect it. The map does seem to lead a charmed existence. Fred and George set off the dung bomb in Filch?s office??and we couldn?t help noticing a drawer in one of his filing cabinets marked Confiscated and Highly Dangerous.? Fred whips the drawer open and, out of all the contents, happens to grab the map. Once again in the hands of students who will treat it with great respect. Furthermore, (I?m a mathematician by day) what?s the likelihood they would ever stumble upon the exact words to work the map. (mathematical probability ==== approximately zero) The map next transfers to Harry. It avoids falling into Snape?s possession twice. Each time it goes to another teacher and somehow works its way back into Harry?s hands. The map appears to have some enchantments placed upon it that keep it safe from being lost/destroyed. LV may have targeted James Potter early on (for example, to get the Gryffindor sword, which may have been a family artifact). Perhaps one of LV?s spies (say Snape, perhaps through a Death Eater acquaintance) identified Peter as desperate for the other there Marauder?s approval. LV (or one of his agents) may have approached Peter with an offer of ?help.? Peter knew of several ways to get out of Hogwarts and could easily have gone to meet with someone at Hogsmeade as needed. We know that Peter almost could not learn to be an animagus. Who helped him finally master this? LV? If so, that would put Peter in LV?s debt. Interestingly, Peter is a rat. This tells us about his personality. Is he a rat because he was sneaking around behind his friends? backs? Tonks? animagus changed to reflect her relationship with Lupin. Peter?s never did change. After they had become animagi, the four friends created the Marauder?s Map. Each of the Marauders contributed to the creation of the map. By all accounts Peter was a mediocre wizard at best. The map is a clever piece of magic. It is reasonable to expect that Peter needed help with this, too. So, LV keeps the map to help Peter with his contribution, and while in his possession he places a horcrux in the map. A horcrux and an agent who is a confidant of the Potters: a true coup. We know that Peter had been working for LV for some time. In POA, ?DON?T LIE? bellowed Black. ?YOU?D BEEN PASSING INFORMATION TO HIM FOR A YEAR BEFORE LILY AND JAMES DIED! YOU WERE HIS SPY!? (JKR?s capitalization) Peter did not deny this accusation. Moody shows Harry a picture of the former Order of the Phoenix in which Peter is seated between Lily and James. Far fetched perhaps, but suppose that Peter also has a thing for Lily. He would never want her to know his involvement with LV. Hence, more leverage for LV. So LV could have implied that he only wanted Harry and James and that no harm need come to Lily. I do hope my first post passes the inspector elves and that this is a new idea rather than a previously discussed possibility. Happy Pottering, Marda From mandorino222 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 03:45:41 2005 From: mandorino222 at yahoo.com (mandorino222) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 03:45:41 -0000 Subject: possible theory as to who might die in book 7 and a couple of other thoughts. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144325 > Peg: > I've been worried about Ron since OotP. But I strongly > suspect that at least one Weasley has to die in the last book. > I can easily imagine Ron finally having his moment of glory, > sacrificing himself as none of his brothers has done and > gaining the recognition that he's always wanted... Ron is obviously going to die, right? I'm behind on the postings, but I'm sure someone has pointed out the seven horcruxes - seven obstacles on the way to the sorceror's stone parallel from book one. Ron sacrifices himself there, and he'll do it again in the final book. That's the reason why Viktor Krum is introduced as a Hermione love interest; we can't have her dying an old maid... Also, can someone give me the general threads about how we think Harry kills Voldemort, because I have ideas but I don't want to be repetitve. "mandorino222" From mjd at spillwaycable.com Thu Dec 8 06:43:46 2005 From: mjd at spillwaycable.com (mjanetd) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 06:43:46 -0000 Subject: There are no new theories! / Pettigrew / DDM!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144326 Allison aka "allies426" wrote: > The longer I read this list, the more convinced I am that there > are NO NEW theories about Harry Potter! (e.g., "I think Snape > was in love with Lily!" "Has anyone considered that Harry is a > Horcrux?" "Has anyone noticed the locket that they find at > Grimmauld place?") I'm not making fun, it's just funny the way > it happens and every once in a while someone really does say > something new. I'm new but I've been reading some of the older post and haven't seen anyone mention my little theory so forgive me if it's been discussed to death. :) I think Peter betrayed James and Lily because he wanted Lily for himself. I don't remember in which book so I can't an exact quote but I remember that when LV was trying to kill Harry he told Lily to move out of the way at least twice. He had already killed James so why didn't he quickly kill Lily too? I see from recent messages and old ones that Snape gets a lot of discussion time. I've always liked Snape but couldn't tell you why. Maybe it's because I really like the actor that plays him. I saw PS/SS and COS before buying my first HP book and that's colored my view of all the characters. I'm still hopeful that Snape is working for Dumbledore. I expected to find out at the end of the HBP that Dumbledore was still alive and that Snape and Dumbledore had worked out a plan to convince LV that his 2nd biggest threat was gone. Sadly that didn't happen but I still think that Snape didn't know about LV's plan when the evil twits came to his house. He said he knew but he never gave any information about the plan only vague comments that could be taken in whatever way the listener wanted. I really like the idea of someone so... unlikeable is on the side of Good. Maybe I'm reading the wrong kind of books but it's usually very easy to spot the good from the bad guys. "mjanetd" From maria.elmvang at gmail.com Thu Dec 8 08:27:59 2005 From: maria.elmvang at gmail.com (Maria Elmvang) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:27:59 +0100 Subject: A View into Snape's Past Relationships Message-ID: <17785fc30512080027k47ccdd56mf4db35e2c9f7b442@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144327 hpnosys wrote: > I have a theory based on a interview with JKR in which she was > asked if Snape was ever in love. She stated that we would be > hearing more from Snape's past including past loves. Maria here: I haven't read said interview, but just had a wild thought - what if Snape *didn't* have a crush on Lilly, but in fact had one on Petunia? That would make for some really interesting complications. I know it's very unlikely, but thought it interesting enough to mention. Maria -- I believe in God like I believe in the sun not because I see it, but by it I see everything else --- C.S. Lewis [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lliannanshe at comcast.net Thu Dec 8 10:07:54 2005 From: lliannanshe at comcast.net (Lliannanshe) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:07:54 -0000 Subject: A Horcrux in each book and how it became one (Was: A Horcrux in each book) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144328 >From http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143995 Rose Recalls: In HBP, Dumbledore tells Harry that Voldemort reserved his horcrux making for special victims. I have come up with some names that might or might not apply. The connections should be obvious except for #4 1) Moaning Myrtle - diary 2) Marvolo Gaunt - ring 3) Tom Riddle Sn - Locket 4) Regulus Black - Nagini (he discovered the plot and was a "snake in the grass" - waiting to take Voldemort down without his seeing it) LLiannan: Regarding #4 . . . HBP US ED PG 306 "(Dumbledore) I am sure that he was intending to make his final Horcrux with your death.(Harry) " (Still Dumbledore)After an interval of some years, however, he used Nagaini to kill an old muggle man, and it might then have occurred to him to turn her into his last Horcrux." Nagini Horcrux was created after he killed Frank Bryce. GOF US ED PG 15 "There was a flash of green light, a rushing sound, and Frank Bryce crumbled." LLiannan From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Dec 8 10:51:31 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:51:31 -0000 Subject: Teachers in the WW In-Reply-To: <4398688E.10284.473C196@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144329 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > I'd agree that the general standard of teaching at Hogwarts often > doesn't seem to be that high, and I would certainly agree that both > Umbridge and Lockhart are pretty lousy teachers. I'd give Trelawney a > little more credit personally - I think her subject is a joke, but > I'm not 100% sure she doesn't teach aspects of it well. I personally > happen to also have doubts about the teaching abilities of Hagrid and > Binns. I don't completely agree. What we see is that almost all teachers except most of the DADA teachers are very competent in the subject they teach. Hagrid does know very much about taking care of magical creatures. Snape is a potions genius. McGonnagal is an animagus etc. Exceptions: Trelawny, who needed protection and teaches a subject that is a bit of a joke itself. DD would have discontinued it if she had not made that prophesy. Most DADA teachers are not competent, but I assume Dumbledore's stock of good DADA teachers had to run out some time with the rate he is going through them since LV cursed the job. Wise people don't want that position. The only thing I don't understand though, why would Snape want the position if he knew it was cursed? Did he not believe it was? Did he think being a DE would protect him? Gerry From drednort at alphalink.com.au Thu Dec 8 11:10:43 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:10:43 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Teachers in the WW In-Reply-To: References: <4398688E.10284.473C196@localhost> Message-ID: <4398AF63.24887.5887066@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 144330 On 8 Dec 2005 at 10:51, festuco wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" > wrote: > > > I'd agree that the general standard of teaching at Hogwarts often > > doesn't seem to be that high, and I would certainly agree that both > > Umbridge and Lockhart are pretty lousy teachers. I'd give Trelawney > > a little more credit personally - I think her subject is a joke, but > > I'm not 100% sure she doesn't teach aspects of it well. I personally > > happen to also have doubts about the teaching abilities of Hagrid > > and Binns. > > I don't completely agree. What we see is that almost all teachers > except most of the DADA teachers are very competent in the subject > they teach. Hagrid does know very much about taking care of magical > creatures. Snape is a potions genius. McGonnagal is an animagus etc. There's a great deal of difference between knowing your subject and being able to teach it. I have absolutely no doubt of Hagrid's competence in caring for magical creatures, or his knowledge of the subject - but that doesn't make him a good teacher. "'That was a really good lesson,' said Hermione as they entered the Great Hall. 'I didn't know half the things Professor Grubbly-Plank told us about uni-' [...] 'We've got to go and see him,' said Harry. 'This evening, after Divination. Tell him we want him back... you do want him back?' he shot at Hermione. 'I - well, I'm not going to pretend it didn't make a nice change, having a proper Care of Magical Creatures lesson for once - but I do want Hagrid back, of course I do!' Hermione added hastily, quailing under Harry's furious stare." (GoF, pp383-384) "Harry did not want to tell the others that he and Luna were having the same hallucination, if that was what it was, so he said nothing more about the horses as he sat down inside the carriage and slammed the door behind him. Nevertheless, he could not help watching the silhouettes of the horses moving beyond the window. 'Did everyone see that Grubbly-Plank woman?' asked Ginny. 'What's she doing back here? Hagrid can't have left, can he?' Til be quite glad if he has,' said Luna, 'he isn't a very good teacher, is he?' 'Yes, he is!' said Harry, Ron and Ginny angrily. Harry glared at Hermione. She cleared her throat and quickly said, 'Erm... yes ... he's very good.' 'Well, we in Ravenclaw think he's a bit of a joke,' said Luna, unfazed." (OotP, p.181) Hagrid must know his subject. But that alone does not make him a good teacher. Some of what are presumably his most competent students - the Ravenclaws and Hermione - have made their judgement clear. Historically, in the British Public Schools on which Hogwarts seems to be based, it wasn't uncommon for a teacher to simply be an expert on their subject - and some of them could teach it, and some of them couldn't. Just as seems to apply at Hogwarts. 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 willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Dec 8 11:58:55 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:58:55 -0000 Subject: Jinxed Jobs (wasRe: Teachers in the WW In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144331 > Gerry wrote: > Exceptions: Trelawny, who needed protection and teaches a subject that > is a bit of a joke itself. DD would have discontinued it if she had > not made that prophesy. Potioncat: I don't think DD is the best Headmaster Hogwarts has ever had. He may be the greatest wizard to hold the position, but he's no educator! His priorities have a greater scope.There's a section of subjects we only hear about, but never see. I would guess there's nothing particularly bad about how those are going. Hermione seemed to approve of the ones she was taking without the boys. Sprout, Flitwick and McGonagall all do well. Snape's ability is debatable, at least we seem to debate it a lot. I don't think the subject of Divination is a joke to the WW, although JKR makes a joke of it. Or rather she makes a joke of the way Trelawney teaches it. Although DD was thinking of discontinuing the subject at Hogwarts, he's gone to great length to protect Trelawney's prophesy. The DoM has a huge room of recorded predictions. Whether DD disaproved of divination or felt it should be taught at some other time (ie, after Hogwarts)he hired Trelawney to protect her. Don't ask me why he has Hagrid teaching! He was already established and working for DD. As for Binns... I suspect he has some important information that Harry could use. Someone who has so much knowledge of WW history may know something about important artifacts. Besides, I think he was alive when Tom Riddle was a student, based on the names he calls the current students. > Gerry: > Most DADA teachers are not competent, but I assume Dumbledore's stock > of good DADA teachers had to run out some time with the rate he is > going through them since LV cursed the job. Wise people don't want > that position. Potioncat: I assume, that once DD understood the DADA position was jinxed and once he had a feel for what the jinx would do, he began to hire a certain type of person. In fact, he may have hired Lockhart with the intent to have him exposed. I'm sure he knew Gilderoy well enough to know the man hadn't done all those wonderful things in his books. One year at Hogwarts put an end to all that obliviating. Knowing the MoM would find some way to put a mole...erm frog... into Hogwarts, DD left the DADA position free. Althoguh it doesn't seem to have caused her any lasting damage, it had Umbridge in a place where DD could keep his eye on her, and she was out in a year too. > Gerry > The only thing I don't understand though, why would Snape want the > position if he knew it was cursed? Did he not believe it was? Did he > think being a DE would protect him? Potioncat: Did anyone really understand the position was jinxed? Everyone had to know that for decades no one lasted more than a year. What Snape knew and whether he wanted the DADA position are still mysteries. He implied to Umbridge that he had applied regularly...but it isn't certain if he was applying because he wanted to teach it or because it was part of his cover. And whichever is the correct reason, he may or may not have known about the jinx. It's very likely that he knew about the jinx, but that it was part of DD's plan to have him in place at this point in time...part of his Order mission, if you will that he took on with full understanding of the danger. I am puzzled that LV didn't remove the jinx once his man was in place. Unless of course, he felt the jinx would expose Snape's possible disloyalty to the Dark Side. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 8 13:03:17 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 13:03:17 -0000 Subject: Nagini and The Marauder's Map as Horcruxes In-Reply-To: <20051207.191808.17846.66895@webmail04.nyc.untd.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144332 In message 144324 "marda.buz at j..." wrote: > The Marauder's Map is in contention, in my mind, for the book 3 > horcrux position. > Let's start in the CoS. Mr. Weasley says "never to trust anything > that thinks for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brains. > Why didn't you show the diary to me, or your mother? A suspicious > object like that, it was clearly full of Dark Magic?". > LV would want to place a horcrux inside something that can preserve > and protect it. The map does seem to > lead a charmed existence. Fred and George set off the dung bomb > in Filch's office "and we couldn't help noticing a drawer in one > of his filing cabinets marked Confiscated and Highly Dangerous." > Fred whips the drawer open and, out of all the contents, happens > to grab the map. Once again in the hands of students who will > treat it with great respect. Furthermore, (I'm a mathematician > by day) what's the likelihood they would ever stumble upon the > exact words to work the map. (mathematical probability == > approximately zero) The map next transfers to Harry. It avoids > falling into Snape's possession twice. Each time it goes to > another teacher and somehow works its way back into Harry's > hands. The map appears to have some enchantments placed upon it > that keep it safe from being lost/destroyed. Geoff: I'm not sure that this follows. The Marauders' Map is not in the same category as Riddle's diary which, at its first appearance was an unknown quantity whereas Fred and George got the Map from Filch's office and he would have known its origin. We know it was created by James, Sirius, Remus and Peter but the question might be asked, would they have allowed one of their number to walk off with the map while it was being created, especially if Peter was cartographically challenged? Further, there has been discussion on the group as to how long after a killing, you can continue to create a Horcrux. So, if (and in my view, it's a very big 'if') Voldemort got hold of the map, whom did he kill and when? I'm also doubtful whether he would actually use something like the map because I assume that he would wish to keep his Horcruxes intact and a map made of inflammable parchment could very easily be destroyed - whether by accident or design. Further on the subject of Horcruxes, LLiannan wrote in message 144328: Regarding #4 . . . HBP US ED PG 306 "(Dumbledore) I am sure that he was intending to make his final Horcrux with your death.(Harry) " (Still Dumbledore)After an interval of some years, however, he used Nagaini to kill an old muggle man, and it might then have occurred to him to turn her into his last Horcrux." Nagini Horcrux was created after he killed Frank Bryce. GOF US ED PG 15 "There was a flash of green light, a rushing sound, and Frank Bryce crumbled." Geoff: There is no evidence that Voldemort created a Horcrux on this occasion. That he apparently used an Avada Kedavra curse on Frank Bryce does not mean that he then created one. This is supposition. It should also be realised that this killing was gratuitous - Voldemort had not been expecting to kill someone. He was more concerned in keeping his whereabouts under wraps and probably wasn't thinking about his Horcrux expansion programme at this point... From gratyvolt at yahoo.fr Thu Dec 8 09:38:17 2005 From: gratyvolt at yahoo.fr (Gratyvolt) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 10:38:17 +0100 (CET) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fleur/fluer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051208093817.26089.qmail@web26703.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144333 Bruce: > > My French is rudementary, but doesn't 'fluer' (Fleur's name with > > the vowels reversed) mean 'phlegm' or 'snot'? Bookworm: > According to AltaVista (world.altavista.com) "fluer" means "to > creep". French speakers? Can anyone help? Fluer means nothing except maybe flow out. It's never used. Gratyvolt From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Thu Dec 8 15:14:57 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 16:14:57 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Jinxed Jobs (wasRe: Teachers in the WW References: Message-ID: <00c501c5fc0a$26facb90$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144334 potioncat wrote: > I don't think DD is the best Headmaster Hogwarts has ever had. He may > be the greatest wizard to hold the position, but he's no educator! > His priorities have a greater scope. Miles: To an outsider Dumbledore acts corruptly. And he gets flak for it - but in the wizarding world being corrupt is common practice, so noone is bothered too much. He has reasons to act like he does. Reasons to keep Trelawny, reasons to get Hagrid nearer to staff and Harry (!), reasons not to let the possibly most skilled member of his staff teaching DADA. But, again, to an outsider Dumbledore is just another networker, using Hogwarts for his own best. Miles (small stones only, please) From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 8 15:18:01 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 15:18:01 -0000 Subject: What cultural standards we are using to determine whether Snape is abusive ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144335 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > What we do NOT know IMO is that whether wisarding kids are > emotionally more resilient than "muggle" kids and IMO they are not. > That is why I am very much in doubt that JKR intends US the readers > to take Snape's behavior as something innocent, even if WW could care > less. JMO obviously. Pippin: We do know that wizard kids assume emotional independence and responsibility for themselves much sooner than ours do. We'd never let our pre-teens muck around with anything as lethal as a wand with no supervision, we'd never leave a group of boys and girls overnight behind closed doors under the supervison of a few seventeen year olds, or leave a thirteen year old on his own for two weeks in a place like Diagon Alley, much less send an eleven year old into the heart of London with a shopping list and a great big bag of gold. In fact, I suspect if *we* had wands, we'd be told to keep them under lock and key, and separate from the spellbooks. Wizard kids can expect to deal with each other, and the adult world, largely on their own terms. That's their culture, a bit Wild West, but apparently it works for them. The senior generations, the ones whose formative years were not scarred by the first Voldemort war, seem to have their heads on straight. I don't expect this to change, and as long as it doesn't, the kids are going to have to deal with Snape and his kind on their own. The law is not concerned with gits. Regardless of where you draw the lines, there will be bullies who are careful and clever enough to stay inside them. Standing up to the bullies is all very well, but they're unlikely to be picking on you if you can really do it. OTOH, there's nothing a bully likes better than demonstrating that resistance is futile. It's a noble thing to fight a losing battle if you are trying to stop a murderer, but if pride is all that's at stake, there are easier ways to defend it. JKR's advice to bullied children, on her website, is to tell someone and keep on telling. Now, her characters don't follow this advice very often, and there wouldn't be much of a book if they did, but what advice do you think Harry would get if he could complain to JKR about Snape? Well, we know that, IMO. The answer to sarcasm and insults, in JKR's book, is *laughter*. Really, do you think Harry would be so upset with Snape raking him over if he could just imagine Snape dangling upside down in his underwear? Aren't we shown this in a million different ways? Don't people keep telling Harry that he doesn't need to take Snape's taunts seriously? Isn't that the whole point of the boggart lesson as well? And if Snape really is dangerous and a murderer, it spoils the joke *and* the point of the lesson. I doubt JKR is going that far. When I said in an earlier post that Harry needs to realize that he owns his feelings, I was not talking about stoicism, I was talking about the realization that Harry's feelings take place entirely inside Harry. There is nothing Snape can do (aside from magic) to reach inside Harry and *make* him feel humiliated, any more than Harry can reach inside Snape and *make* him feel sadistic (although I'm sure that Snape feels that's exactly what Harry does. ) Harry may not be able to control how he feels, but it is entirely up to him what he does about the feelings. He can sulk and scowl and seethe until he finally blows up, or he can grin and say, "Enchantingly nasty!" A thirteen year old is not, IMO, too young to understand this, in fact many of them figure it out for themselves. Dumbledore says that Snape is wounded, and that's why he hasn't overcome his feelings about Harry's father. DD blames himself for forgetting this. Now maybe Harry can't overcome his feelings about Snape because he is more wounded than Dumbledore thinks he is, but Harry has learned to laugh off insults from Draco and Vernon, who used to terrify him, whereas we've never seen Snape manage to laugh off an insult from anybody. In fact, we've never seen him laugh at all. Pippin wondering if Snape will laugh in book seven From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Dec 8 15:39:31 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:39:31 -0500 Subject: Enchanted Items Message-ID: <439853B3.4020303@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144336 Here's a mystery in the HP books that I don't think has been covered. There are a number of items with magic powers which are mentioned. It is implied that they are rare; at the very least, difficult to replace. Yet, they are not treated as if they were rare and valuable. Also, there don't seem to be any classes in artificing, except, perhaps, Potions. Fred and George seem to have picked up the skills on their own, yet the skills seem to be in demand. It is very strange. Let me give a few examples: 1) Harry's Invisibility Cloak: Aurors have trouble getting one (from OOP), a lot of people know that Harry has one, they're pretty easy to hide. Harry kept his pretty much a secret from all but Dumbledore (who, we ASSUME, passed it on to him; certainly he showed no concern that Harry had it). Yet, nobody tries to steal it from him, not even Draco Malfoy when he has the opportunity. 2) The Weasley clock. From Dumbledore's comments in OOP, it's not something that every family has. Why not? Especially considering that the Weasleys are poor; I assume that the clock customizes itself for the family (unless they didn't obtain it until after Ginny was born). 3) Squibs. Considering how little most magical families supposedly know about Muggles, squibs would have a great deal of difficulty getting by in the Muggle world. One would think that someone could make decent money, especially if the Ministry kicks in, making magical prothetics/aids/etc. Why is this not happening? Any theories? Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 16:09:23 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:09:23 -0000 Subject: Jinxed Jobs /Teachers in the WW/ What standards are we using... LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144337 > Potioncat: > I don't think DD is the best Headmaster Hogwarts has ever had. He may > be the greatest wizard to hold the position, but he's no educator! > His priorities have a greater scope. Alla: I partially agree. I DO think that Dumbledore wants to educate his students, I really do, but as you said - his priorities have a greater scope or in other words he wears WAY too many hats. It may be necessary to the story that he is both the Headmaster of Hogwarts and leader of the antiVoldemort fight, but his priorities do get confused because of that, IMO. Potioncat: Snape's ability is debatable, at least we > seem to debate it a lot. Alla: HAHA! Isn't it the truth. :-) Potioncat: > I don't think the subject of Divination is a joke to the WW, although > JKR makes a joke of it. Or rather she makes a joke of the way > Trelawney teaches it. Although DD was thinking of discontinuing the > subject at Hogwarts, he's gone to great length to protect Trelawney's > prophesy. The DoM has a huge room of recorded predictions. Whether DD > disapproved of divination or felt it should be taught at some other > time (ie, after Hogwarts)he hired Trelawney to protect her. Alla: Trelawney's example is a PERFECT example IMO of how Dumbledore's several hats get confused. No, I don't think that Divination is a joke to WW, far from it. And Dumbledore himself calls Cassandra Trelawney extremely gifted Seer, so he acknowledges the truth of the subject, right? Dumbledore hired Trelawney NOT because of her teaching skills ( HAHA again) but as you said to protect her. Erm... I wonder whether Dumbledore give the matter a little thought and considered that there are could be REALLY gifted Seer students in Hogwarts who may do incredibly well under good teacher. I understand his need to protect Trelawney, I really do, but I also think that he made a very faulty decision as Headmaster even if as leader of the resistance, he made the right decision. Same thing with Snape (that is of course if one does not consider him a good teacher, if one does, please disregard what I am going to write). IMO the main reason Dumbledore hired Snape is to protect him, to give him refuge at Hogwarts. This is great of course, but what about teaching Potions? Now, again, one may argue that Snape taught many students really well, but so far I see the students whom he torments really well, even if they will turn out to be the minority. I speculate that the reason Dumbledore hired Snape had nothing to do with education either and EVERYTHING to do with fight against Voldemort. Potioncat: > Don't ask me why he has Hagrid teaching! He was already established > and working for DD. Alla: IMO - it is protection again. Hagrid was expelled, he really had not many places to go to and Dumbledore gave him a refuge again. As to Hagrid teaching , well I think he has the potential. :-) > Miles: > To an outsider Dumbledore acts corruptly. And he gets flak for it - but in > the wizarding world being corrupt is common practice, so none is bothered > too much. > He has reasons to act like he does. Reasons to keep Trelawny, reasons to get > Hagrid nearer to staff and Harry (!), reasons not to let the possibly most > skilled member of his staff teaching DADA. But, again, to an outsider > Dumbledore is just another networker, using Hogwarts for his own best. Alla: I am not sure which outsider are you talking about here, Miles, but not to me, no. :-)He does not act corruptly, he just acts sometimes stupidly IMO, sometimes because he is juggling way too many responsibilities and sometimes because he likes giving people second chances who IMO do not appreciate those second chances. Yes, he has reasons to do what you said, but what I am asking myself is : a) Whether those reasons have anything to do with education or with fight against Voldemort? b) Whether those reasons are good enough for me to think that Dumbledore is a competent Headmaster. > Miles (small stones only, please) Alla, goes to look for the stone to throw at Miles. MAHAHAHA > Pippin: > We do know that wizard kids assume emotional independence and > responsibility for them much sooner than ours does. We'd > never let our pre-teens muck around with anything as lethal as a wand > with no supervision, we'd never leave a group of boys and girls > overnight behind closed doors under the supervision of a few seventeen year > olds, or leave a thirteen year old on his own for two weeks in a place > like Diagon Alley, much less send an eleven year old into the heart of London > with a shopping list and a great big bag of gold. In fact, I suspect > if *we* had wands, we'd be told to keep them under lock and key, > and separate from the spellbooks. Alla: Nope, sorry Pippin, but putting aside the possession of the wands of course, I don't see wizardlings assuming emotional independence any earlier than your usual muggle child. Or, at least when I was growing up. Do you know how incredibly surprised I was when I came to USA to learn that kids are not allowed to stay home by themselves without adult looking after them till they are twelve or thirteen years old? Erm... I was staying home by myself when my mom needed to go shopping since I was five or six years old and erm... that was very NORMAL situation, you know for many kids. When I was a preteen ( eleven? twelve? is still a preteen, right?) I was hopping on a bus, then on a subway, then on the bus again by myself to go visit my grandmother which lived in suburb of the city. So, maybe by the standards of american kids wisarding kids seem to be more independent, that is true, but I really see nothing unusual, honestly. But them going places by themselves are really NOT what I was talking about. I was talking about their responses to childhood traumas and I believe that nothing in canon shows that they are more resilient to that. Pippin: I don't expect this to change, and > as long as it doesn't, the kids are going to have to deal with Snape > and his kind on his own. Alla: I don't see how it is connected. I believe as I said upthread that the absence of Snape in Hogwarts (I hope) at the end of the books will signal the change in kids NOT dealing with Snape on their own. Pippin: There is nothing Snape can do > (aside from magic) to reach inside Harry and *make* him > feel humiliated, any more than Harry can reach inside Snape > and *make* him feel sadistic (although I'm sure that Snape > feels that's exactly what Harry does. ) Alla: Sorry, I completely disagree with that. Snape cannot to make Harry feel humiliated and the solution is very easy IMO. I am sure you know where I am going with it - Snape can LEAVE Harry ALONE, you know NOT to insult him. I think your argument misses the first step - Snape started the chain of events and Harry just reacts to it. Sure for his own good, he may need to learn to laugh off some of the insults, but I really don't get how the fact that Harry does not seem capable to do it yet makes Snape less culpable, you know. To me, he is the instigator, the aggressor in their interactions and what Harry needs to do has absolutely nothing to do with making Snape responsible for his misdeeds, IMO. Besides, since I am convinced that Snape killing Dumbledore is just the part of who Snape is and it just shows his character flaws on the larger scale, I think it is practically impossible for Harry to laugh at Snape now. You know, sometimes I speculate to myself that the only reason JKR decided to make Snape kill Dumbledore is to drive home the idea that Snape is really really bad. Of course, I have nothing here to support my speculation, and it is entirely possible that JKR planned for Snape to commit this killing from the beginning, but sometimes I am not sure that JKR planned the series as tightly as she claims. Therefore sometimes I think what if initially JKR planned to have Snape as really horrible person, etc. But then she realized that many fans are not buying it, that they see him as a suffering soul looking for redemption ( hey, I thought that he had a lot of guilt bottled up in himself, poor dear prior to HBP for all my immense dislike of his teaching tactics), so she decided to show us who Snape REALLY is. That is just my overactive imagination. :-) Pippin: > Harry may not be able to control how he feels, but it is > entirely up to him what he does about the feelings. He can > sulk and scowl and seethe until he finally blows up, or he can > grin and say, "Enchantingly nasty!" > > A thirteen year old is not, IMO, too young to understand this, > in fact many of them figure it out for themselves. Alla: Sure, some thirteen year olds can figure it out or not, but whether they do it or not, does it really matter to show that Snape is culpable? I think it is demanding way too much from thirteen year old, but that is IMO obviously. Pippin: > Dumbledore says that Snape is wounded, and that's why he > hasn't overcome his feelings about Harry's father. DD blames himself > for forgetting this. Now maybe Harry can't overcome his feelings > about Snape because he is more wounded than > Dumbledore thinks he is, but Harry has learned to laugh off insults > from Draco and Vernon, who used to terrify him, whereas we've > never seen Snape manage to laugh off an insult from anybody. > In fact, we've never seen him laugh at all. Alla: Erm... yes, I do think that in many aspects Dumbledore underestimated Harry's wounds. And Harry may have learned to laugh off Draco and Vernon's insults, but even in HBP he says that experience taught him to stay out of Vernon's reach, so I am not exactly sure that laughter is the most helpful weapon Harry uses against Vernon, although I agree that laughter is a GREAT weapon sometimes. JMO. Alla From kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Dec 8 15:37:58 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 15:37:58 -0000 Subject: The AK (forgive if asked before) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144338 I am wondering, if you have a set of DE's that have no compunction about using the AK, why is there not more of it flying around in the final scene in HBP (or even in OotP)? I mean, obviously you can't have everyone dying in droves, but has there been a canon reason given that prevents the curse from being used extensively? Or by certain parties? It has to be something other than "it's illegal" since we know the other side doesn't care about that and certainly one would have to have a certain level of wizardry (but not too high if Draco was expected to use it). Just something I have been trying to determine, from a writer's POV, of how to get around this problem. I may have missed something in my reading. TIA. kchuplis From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Dec 8 16:37:09 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:37:09 -0000 Subject: Jinxed Jobs /Teachers in the WW/ What standards are we using... LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144339 > Alla: > > Trelawney's example is a PERFECT example IMO of how Dumbledore's > several hats get confused. No, I don't think that Divination is a > joke to WW, far from it. And Dumbledore himself calls Cassandra > Trelawney extremely gifted Seer, so he acknowledges the truth of the > subject, right? Hickengruendler: While Divination might not be a joke, the teaching of it is (maybe excluding Firenze's teaching,)IMO. Ignoring her annoying Death Predictions for a moment, I don't think Trelawney is that bad as a teacher. First of all, she teaches pretty close to the textbook. While that isn't of course something to judge the quality of a teacher, it does prove, that she teaches the way it seems to be common in the wizarding world. Meaning that it might be possible to find better seers than Trelawney, but I'm not sure their way of teaching would be any different. Trelawney also encourages the students to work in groups and she gives them practical work with the tealeaves, crystal ball and dream interpretation. IMO, that proves that her teaching skills aren't that bad. But how do you teach Divination? Judging by Trelawney's powers (and I am aware that she might be an exception), it cannot really be taught at all, since the gift seems to come pretty unregularly. Bottom Line: I think that Divination is nearly impossible to teach, and that Trelawney, should she drop her melodramatic act, is at least an average teacher. > Alla: > > IMO - it is protection again. Hagrid was expelled, he really had not > many places to go to and Dumbledore gave him a refuge again. As to > Hagrid teaching , well I think he has the potential. :-) Hickengruendler: Yes, but Hagrid was already living and working in Hogwarts. He was therefore protected even without being given the job as CoMC teacher. I agree with you that Hagrid has some potential as a teacher and probably Dumbledore saw this potential as well, but I still find it irresponsible that Hagrid was thrown into the cold water. If not irresponsible towards Hagrid, than surely toward the students. Hickengruendler From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Dec 8 16:54:36 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:54:36 -0000 Subject: possible theory as to who might die in book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144340 Just after GOF was published JKR said this in a interview about Ron: "[Kids are] sharp and they've seen so many films where the hero's best friend gets it. So they think I'm going to make it personal by killing Ron. But maybe that's a double bluff " I think Harry is much more likely to die than Ron, and I rather hope he does. I think it would make a better story if the hero dies rather than everyone living happily ever after and all the bad guys being redeemed. I was reading recently that both Jim Dale and Daniel Radcliffe also think Harry will die in book 7, but I don't know if they have inside information. Probably not. Eggplant From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Dec 8 17:31:09 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 17:31:09 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144341 > Pippin: >It's all about power, no matter where it comes from. Jen: In the interest of understanding the story better, I did some searching in interviews about power and racism. I found several things, two which particularly support your view, Pippin: ************************************************************* "So we talk about power, which seems to be at the basis of the tales: magic power, the power of parents over kids, the struggle between the power of good and the power of evil -- ''yes,'' {Rowling} says excitedly, ''abuse of power, why people would seek power." Vancouver Sun, 2000. "I think kids need a bit of escapism, but I don't think Harry Potter is divorced from reality." I suggest that this essentially is a book about power and this delights her. "Yes. Absolutely. Kids are so powerless, however happy they are." The Herald, 1997 Here are some thoughts on racism in the series: "JKR: Well obviously in the wizard world passes for racism, and that's deeply entrenched in the whole plot, there's this issue going on about the bad side really advocating a kind of genocide, to exterminate what they see as these half-blood people. So that was obviously very conscious, but the other messages do grow organically." Fry: "It is another one of the most horrible and brilliant inventions of the books is this snobbery this idea of purebloods and mudbloods and this idea of mingling, mixed breeding which is a reflection of some of the things like racism and intolerance that we have in our world. Is that deliberate or did it come to you in a flash again or did it just suddenly...." JK Rowling: "That was deliberate it was always there from the beginning as you saw with Draco ? even from first book with Draco Harry discovers him first being rude about Muggles." 2003 Royal Albert Hall ************************************************************ Jen: So I think you make a good point about power Pippin, although I still see racism as more than a vehicle for the series. I couldn't find the quote where JKR talks about magic as the vehicle, but she said something to that effect. Now, at the risk of writing too long of a post, I did want to add points to a couple Pippin's examples. Pippin: > Our main character is Harry, and he suffers from discrimination > based on talent, not race--Petunia hates him because he's magical, > not because he has tainted blood. Jen: I'm not certain Petunia makes the distinction between who Harry is and what he's capable of doing. She calls Lily a 'freak' and Harry 'just as abnormal' as his parents. Those descriptions struck me as Petunia hating him for who he was born, with his ability to do magic an expression of his abnormality. Pippin: > Voldemort says himself, at the age of sixteen, that killing > Muggles and Mudbloods doesn't matter to him anymore, what matters > is finding out why Harry had the power to vanquish the greatest > wizard in the world. Jen: Voldemort did indeed change his agenda over time, but once again it's difficult for me to separate out where he started from who he became. His first work at Hogwarts was to open the COS, erase his Muggle heritage by changing his name/murdering his kin, and identifying solely with being Heir of Slytherin. He then started amassing followers who presumably held similar interests in pure- blood superiority and dark magic. Dumbledore did not say all his cronies, 'the forerunners of the DE's' were from Slytherin although given who Voldemort was, I think they were. He believed Slytherin house was superior since he was the heir, plus his need to dominate and control would suggest having followers he could keep a close watch on. So did Voldemort taint his own house and Harry is seeing the results or was LV indeed perpetuating Slytherin's 'noble work'? I've wondered if Slughorn is not a better example of Slytherin house before the time of Voldemort. Pippin: > Ron says in CoS that he had no idea all this pureblood stuff > started with Slytherin. That would argue that he's met plenty of > pureblood fanatics who weren't Slytherins. Jen: Here's the entire quote: "I always knew Slytherin was a twisted old looney...but I never knew he started all this pure-blood stuff. I wouldn't be in his house if you paid me." (chap. 9, p. 152 Scholastic) Is this an example of reverse discrimination going on toward Slytherin house or has Ron heard other things about Slytherin that make it possible for him to easily believe he started the pure-blood discrimination? Pippin: > And while Hermione leaps at once to the conclusion that Draco must > be the Heir of Slytherin, most of the school is perfectly willing > to believe that it's Harry. No reason in their minds that a > Gryffindor can't be a racist fanatical murderer, then. Jen: There was a bit more to this, though. Harry was found at the scene of Mrs. Norris' petrification and has his unusual past. First a few people start the rumour he was Heir of Slytherin, then when he speaks Parseltoungue, a gift Slytherin was noted to have, most people start to believe it. It IS interesting people think the Heir of Slytherin would be in Gryffindor. Pippin: > The Sorting Hat never says that it was wise or good to want > Muggleborns banished from the school, or indeed to wish to teach > only purebloods. And Slytherin House must represent those of > Slytherin's followers and pupils who were happier with his old > philosophy than his new one, who *didn't* follow Slytherin when he > left the school, right? Jen: I hope this will prove true, as the split happened after the Sorting Hat was made. I find it a little difficult to believe only Slytherin and Voldemort succumbed to the lure of power twinned with blood discrimination over all the centuries. Pippin: > I wouldn't be surprised to learn that institutional racism in the > WW predates Slytherin, and that for his time he was initially a > progressive for founding a school to which Muggleborns could be > admitted, even if he preferred not to have them in his House. Jen: Nor would I. Except wouldn't that still make Ravenclaw, Gryffindor and Hufflepuff a bit *more* progressive to actually let them in their houses ? Pippin: >-- unless perhaps they were cheeky enough to ask to be let in. I > keep wondering about Myrtle. Jen: I'm waiting to hear Myrtle was in Slytherin as well, for a different reason--I think it would be nifty if Harry discovers cheeky Myrtle, his own mom and *himself* would have 'all done well in Slytherin' and that's not a bad thing. Harry has definitely been prejudiced against Slytherin house and I think the combination of his own mom, and making peace with the HBP might help him see that. Jen, probably writing on a thread everyone is done with. :) From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 8 18:08:33 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 18:08:33 -0000 Subject: Jinxed Jobs /Teachers in the WW/ What standards are we using... LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144342 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Alla: > > Trelawney's example is a PERFECT example IMO of how Dumbledore's > several hats get confused. No, I don't think that Divination is a > joke to WW, far from it. And Dumbledore himself calls Cassandra > Trelawney extremely gifted Seer, so he acknowledges the truth of the > subject, right? Pippin: That the talent is real doesn't mean it can be taught -- not to most people anyway. If there are really gifted seer students at Hogwarts, they may be able to learn something from Firenze, but as McGonagall says, it's a very rare talent. Those who have it aren't necessarily lining up to teach at Hogwarts. Meanwhile, the second half of the prophet's job is getting people to believe the predictions. You have to admit that Trelawney's rather good at that, and she teaches it pretty well. Ron and Harry got pretty good at getting *her* to believe that their bogus predictions were genuine products of the soothsayer's art. > Alla: > > Nope, sorry Pippin, but putting aside the possession of the wands of > course, I don't see wizardlings assuming emotional independence any > earlier than your usual muggle child. Or, at least when I was growing > up. > > But them going places by themselves are really NOT what I was talking > about. > > I was talking about their responses to childhood traumas and I > believe that nothing in canon shows that they are more resilient to > that. > Pippin: They are routinely placed in situations, such as possessing wands that can maim and kill people, which we try would keep them out of not least because the emotional fallout if anything went wrong would be devastating. Look at all the things Fred and George managed to do to Ron. They killed his pet, and they nearly got him to take an Unbreakable Vow. A lot of readers would be upset if Hermione had gone off to Bulgaria with Krum, or married him as soon as she turned seventeen, but there was nothing in canon that any adult was prepared to stop her. So, either the WW doesn't care very much about emotional fallout, or it doesn't happen as easily as we'd expect. I was postulating the latter because, as I said, the wizards of Arthur and Molly's generation and older seem to be doing okay. JKR plays this down, because it would make the characters cartoonish to dwell on it. But it's there, IMO.) > Pippin: > There is nothing Snape can do > > (aside from magic) to reach inside Harry and *make* him > > feel humiliated, any more than Harry can reach inside Snape > > and *make* him feel sadistic (although I'm sure that Snape > > feels that's exactly what Harry does. ) > > Alla: > > Sorry, I completely disagree with that. Snape cannot to make Harry > feel humiliated and the solution is very easy IMO. I am sure you know > where I am going with it - Snape can LEAVE Harry ALONE, you know NOT > to insult him. Pippin: ::shrug:: Right. And if Snape had wings, he'd be a hippogriff. Snape *can't* leave Harry alone, that's what Dumbledore was saying. Snape's broken, Harry isn't. Or not so much. Thanks to Voldemort, the wizarding world is full of broken people. Stick 'em all in St. Mungo's and there'll be nobody left to fight LV. Alla: > Besides, since I am convinced that Snape killing Dumbledore is just > the part of who Snape is and it just shows his character flaws on the > larger scale, I think it is practically impossible for Harry to laugh > at Snape now. > Pippin: Yes, exactly. That's what Harry thinks. But I believe he's wrong. The interest for me is in seeing how Harry will overcome his prejudice against Snape and recognize the truth. I think he will. ( I am not so sure about some of the readers, though ). You mentioned the Jewish laws of forgiveness. But under Jewish law no one is ever punished for who they are, but only for what they do. L'shon hara, evil speech, is very difficult to atone for. Some say it's wrong to ever forgive it, because evil words can never be called back, and so full restitution cannot be made. But both Snape and Harry would be in trouble with that one. At thirteen, a Jewish Harry would be just as culpable as Snape. > Alla: > > Sure, some thirteen year olds can figure it out or not, but whether > they do it or not, does it really matter to show that Snape is > culpable? > > I think it is demanding way too much from thirteen year old, but that > is IMO obviously. Pippin: They don't have to go to Hogwarts or live in the WW if they'd rather be mollycoddled. It's a choice. We don't give choices like that to our young people, but wizards do. Like Hagrid said, when Draco protested being sent into a wood full of werewolves, that's the way it is at Hogwarts. Draco was really scared, wasn't he? Did he deserve to be frightened so badly just for being out of bounds? After all, McGonagall thought that Draco was the *victim* of the joke, and look what she did to him! Neville didn't have to work so hard to fix his potion. He could have tipped the cauldron over, or told Trevor to get lost, or picked up his toad and walked out. The worst he would have gotten is detention. loss of House Points and a zero for the day. If Snape did do anything worse than that, then he would be in violation of Hogwarts rules, and we've not seen that Dumbledore tolerated that from Snape, have we? Pippin From gbethman at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 16:55:30 2005 From: gbethman at yahoo.com (Gopal B) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:55:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: possible theory as to who might die in book 7 and alchemy parallels In-Reply-To: <1134030483.886.75533.m19@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20051208165530.88321.qmail@web33509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144343 Mari wrote: <> Peg: > But I strongly suspect that at least one > Weasley has to die in the last book. I rather hope > it's Percy and only Percy, but I don't think that > will be the case. I almost think it would be > harder on the readers to have the "second lead" die > than to have Harry himself die as the logical > conclusion of the hero's journey. Not that I want > Harry to die, either. I was thinking on interesting parallels in HP/ alchemy. There have been many vouching for parallels of alchemy in HP. Alchemy's primary colours are Red, White and Black. Now Book 5 saw Sirius BLACK (BLACK) die, Book 6 saw ALBUS (Albus means WHITE) Dumbledore hence an extrapolation towards RED.... which leaves..... RUBEUS (Rubeus means RED) Hagrid. I think though Harry trusts Dumbledore's powers, he loves Hagrid and we all know this book is all about the power of love. Just my 2 cents, Gopal. From kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Dec 8 17:20:05 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 17:20:05 -0000 Subject: "Hero" death, better story? (was Re: possible theory as to who might die in book 7) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144344 Eggplant wrote: > I think Harry is much more likely to die than Ron, > and I rather hope he does. I think it would make a better > story if the hero dies rather than everyone living happily > ever after and all the bad guys being redeemed. If there is a REAL reason for Harry to die, OK, but I will be sorely, SORELY disappointed in investing a lot of time and energy into a series that ends with our heroe's death for anything less than that it wouldn't make sense with any other outcome. I mean, to say "it makes a better story" only works if there is an ironclad reason. At this point, I don't see why. The prophecy seems to indicate only one can live, and I certainly don't think LV is going to turn over a new leaf so..... at any rate, *I* hope Harry lives because at this point I can't see a really good reason to kill him off. kchuplis From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 18:31:57 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 18:31:57 -0000 Subject: The Imperius Virus Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144345 > Christina: > > The only problem with this is the way we see the Imperius Curse > demonstrated in GoF. IIRC, Harry hears *specific* instructions in his > head in the form of Moody's actual voice (ie, "Jump on the table- > Jump! Now!") telling him what to do. I'm not sure "Be a good servant > of the Dark Lord" would work because who determines what that is? > Each Imperiused wizard would need to be given real instructions (ie, > "Go blow up a bridge," "Kill so-and-so Auror," etc). There needs to > be an objective for the Imperiused person to follow. Someone would > have to be at the end of the chain, pulling the strings- the original > wizard that cast the first Imperio Curse. This is a pickle, because > the original wizard would have to pass down instructions through a > long line of people, saying something like, "Wizard A, go tell Wizard > B to tell Wizard C to tell Wizard D to do such-and-such a task." > Neri: I think such problems can be solved with some standard programming. For example, Voldy could give the imperiused wizard a list with very specific instructions, such as "obey any wizard with a Dark Mark on his arm", and order him/her to follow them. The last instruction in this list would be to copy it, give the copy to the next imperiused wizard, and order him/her to follow the instructions in it. Additional items in this list could be: ... 15. Send an owl to Belatrix Lestrange with your name, address and the circumstances of you being imperiused. 16. You may receive a response owl from her with specific instructions. In such case obey these instructions before you proceed imperiousing other wizards. ... This would be a simple way for the DEs to control their army of new servants more directly. Bella would need some help with the mail, though, since after a week or so she'll be receiving thousands of owls per day. RL computer viruses also require very specific instructions. They are even dumber than imperiused wizards, actually, and yet they can be extremely efficient. > Christina: > Also, LV doesn't even need to Imperius large amounts of people to win > the war- just the people he is fighting, the Aurors and the Order. No > mass army rose up against him in the first war. The Order is > presented to us as a Resistance movement than an actual party fighting > in battle. Lupin comments in OotP that the Death Eaters outnumbered > the Order "twenty to one" and were picking them off individually. > While the actual numbers concerning the Death Eaters and Order members > are unknown, we can assume that there weren't *that* many people > opposing LV; certainly not every witch or wizard. People might have > disagreed with LV, but there will always be people that disagree with > those in power. Voldemort was easily keeping those people in check > using fear (anyone who did speak out mysteriously "disappeared"). > Even in the second war, people refused to believe that any threat had > returned whatsoever. Neri: Actually the main advantage of the virus is in mass attack. Attacking a very small and hidden organization would be much more complicated than simply attacking *anybody*. With mass attack you don't care much about the small groups. Even if the Order members can avoid all the wizards around imperiusing everybody on sight, they won't be of much danger to Voldy if the rest of the population are his loyal puppets. > Christina: > The instructions for a limited use of the > Imperius Curse on the Aurors/Order members would be much simpler- > > 1. Go find a fellow Order member/Auror. > 2. Imperius them and give them these three instructions > 3. Go lie in a ditch/hide in your basement/jump off a building > Neri: Why would Voldy want him to jump off the building? This is a waste of good resources. Better instruct him to continue infecting more Order members. > Christina: > I doubt that even a plan like this one would work because we know that > it is possible to fight the Imperius Curse. Even though we've seen > some evidence of advanced magical skill on Harry's part (the > Patronus), he is still just a kid and is able to throw off the > Imperius Curse. I wouldn't be surprised if Aurors were taught > techniques to prevent themselves from being Imperiused; otherwise, all > LV would have had to have done was Imperius one Auror and order them > to walk into Auror headquarters and start firing off curses. > Neri: Which is why it would be much preferable, strategically, to attack the whole population than elite groups like the Order or the Aurors. After they would find themselves isolated in the middle of hostile population imperiousing everybody around it will be much easier to dispatch of such groups using more conventional methods. Resisting the Imperius curse is a bit like the action of anti-virus programs in RL, but as we know such programs can lose the fight if the virus spreads fast enough. Once few defenders find themselves isolated in a population of infected and infecting hosts, they just can't cure themselves and others faster than the re-infection rate. I'd imagine even the most powerful wizard would find it difficult to fight an Imperius curse while he is simulaneously being imperiused by ten other wizards. Neri From unix4evr at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 19:09:30 2005 From: unix4evr at yahoo.com (UNIX4EVR) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:09:30 -0000 Subject: Snape and GOF Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144346 I'm so confused! I had finally concluded that Snape was 100% evil. Then I re-read GOF. About 100 pages from the end Voldemort gives a little speech to his followers. He says "There are 6 missing. 3 are dead. 1 is a coward, and I'll find him. The other turned against me and I'll kill him. The 6th has returned to me and is at Hogwarts." He goes on to say the 6th one at Hogwarts helped to get Harry to him in the graveyard. This has to be Barty Crouch, Jr. The coward has to be Karkaroff. Which leaves Snape. "The one who turned against me and I'll kill him." The only other explanation is that Snape was the one who returned to him at Hogwarts -- but we get no indication in GOF that Snape had anything to do with the tri-wizard cup or killiing BC Sr. So I'm back to being confused and wondering if Snape ISN'T a good guy after all? From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Thu Dec 8 19:11:24 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:11:24 -0000 Subject: Jinxed Jobs /Teachers in the WW/ What standards are we using... LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144347 > > Do you know how incredibly surprised I was when I came to USA to > learn that kids are not allowed to stay home by themselves without > adult looking after them till they are twelve or thirteen years old? > Erm... I was staying home by myself when my mom needed to go shopping > since I was five or six years old and erm... that was very NORMAL > situation, you know for many kids. When I was a preteen ( eleven? > twelve? is still a preteen, right?) I was hopping on a bus, then on > a subway, then on the bus again by myself to go visit my grandmother > which lived in suburb of the city. > > So, maybe by the standards of american kids wisarding kids seem to be > more independent, that is true, but I really see nothing unusual, > honestly. > ... > > Alla > Alla, I think this protectiveness (overprotectiveness, IMHO) in American parents is a relatively late development, and I'm not sure where it came from. When I was a kid, I not only stayed home alone but baby-sat my sister when I was seven or eight years old. I walked to school by myself (seven or eight blocks). And we actually went outside and played, without adult supervision or arranged play dates or anything. And I don't recall that any of us suffered anything worse than a skinned knee or elbow. The logic put forward for protecting children every waking minute is that there are predators and perverts Out There, just waiting to pounce on an unsupervised child. Well, maybe, but I don't think they were any more or less prevalent when I was little. Sure, our parents warned us about accepting candy from strangers or getting in a car with someone we didn't know, but they weren't particularly pathological about it. Maybe the underlying cause of all this concern is the fragmented state of our society. In my childhood, we were in and out of each other's homes and everyone knew everybody else's parents, and if there had been a threat to us, we had plenty of places to run to and plenty of alert, at-home parents to deal with the situation. If somebody "weird" had moved into our neighborhood, they would have been scoped out in nothing flat and discussed over back fences all up and down the block. These days, with both parents working long hours outside the home and kids on the latch-key, people often don't know their next-door neighbors to speak to. So naturally they are leery of turning their kids loose to run around in a neighborhood of unknown quantities. Sad commentary? Sure, but what's a parent to do? Maybe it's the closed nature of the Wizarding community, in which everybody knows everybody and what to expect from them that accounts for the relative independence of Wizarding children. Sure, there are times when Hogwarts goes on red alert, and students are confined for their own safety (it was partly the speed with which Dumbledore reacted when Sirius Black turned up in the vicinity that made me suspect there was something fishy about Black, over and above his escaped-convict status). But by and large, the only unknown quantities in the Wizarding world are Muggles, and any Wizarding kid ought to be able to deal with a Muggle with one hand tied behind his back. ;D --La Gatta From unix4evr at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 19:12:09 2005 From: unix4evr at yahoo.com (UNIX4EVR) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:12:09 -0000 Subject: Nagini and The Marauder's Map as Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144348 A little OT, but I've often wondered in Nagini isn't the snake that Harry freed from the zoo in SS? Any comments? From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 19:38:42 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:38:42 -0000 Subject: The AK (forgive if asked before) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144349 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kchuplis" wrote: > > I am wondering, if you have a set of DE's that have no compunction > about using the AK, why is there not more of it flying around in the > final scene in HBP (or even in OotP)? A reason that makes sense to me is that they are dangerous. We see in the events to which you refer in HBP that the only death was a Death Eater. Who was hit be a 'friendly fire' AK by a fellow Death Eater who tried to get Lupin. In light of this it seems to make sense to use less permanent spells... From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Dec 8 20:09:22 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 20:09:22 -0000 Subject: The AK (forgive if asked before) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144350 kchuplis: > > > > I am wondering, if you have a set of DE's that have no compunction > > about using the AK, why is there not more of it flying around in the > > final scene in HBP (or even in OotP)? zgirnius: > A reason that makes sense to me is that they are dangerous. We see in > the events to which you refer in HBP that the only death was a Death > Eater. Who was hit be a 'friendly fire' AK by a fellow Death Eater who > tried to get Lupin. In light of this it seems to make sense to use less > permanent spells... Ceridwen: Also, these are both cases of large groups fighting each other, and of fighting in enclosed spaces. The fight at the MoM is in the various rooms of the Dept. of Mysteries, and finally in the atrium of the MoM. In HBP, the Order and the remnants of the DA are fighting in the halls of Hogwarts. This is where the death occurs, in fact, and does result from 'friendly fire' (though, if they shot you, I doubt if you'd think of them as a 'friend'). Too many possibilities for the spells to go awry. Best to use something less lethal. An AK is probably best one-on-one: in a duel or as a curse of assassination. Much less chance of hitting one's friends, which would remove the concerns about the space it's done in. After browsing around the various spells etc., and seeing some that *seem* to do the same thing, I've noticed that the difference is in the details. ('Evanseco' for cleaning spills or gooey/liquid messes, 'Scourgify' for scouring, iirc.) It's best to use the tool which most suits the circumstances, IMO. And a mass battle isn't the place for the AK. Ceridwen. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Dec 8 20:24:11 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 20:24:11 -0000 Subject: Jinxed Jobs /Teachers in the WW/ What standards are we using... LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144351 Alla: > > Do you know how incredibly surprised I was when I came to USA to > > learn that kids are not allowed to stay home by themselves without > > adult looking after them till they are twelve or thirteen years > old? > > Erm... I *(snip)* > >was staying home by myself when my mom needed to go shopping * (snip)* > > was hopping on a bus, then on a subway, then on the bus again by > > myself to go visit my grandmother *(snip)* > > > > So, maybe by the standards of american kids wisarding kids seem > > to be more independent, that is true, but I really see nothing > > unusual, honestly. La Gatta: > Alla, I think this protectiveness (overprotectiveness, IMHO) in > American parents is a relatively late development, and I'm not sure > where it came from... *(snip)* Ceridwen: I snipped most of La Gatta's post, but I recall about the same thing. I stayed home alone at seven, I played up and down the block until dark or after, prepubescent girls ran around in swimsuit bottoms only in the summer and no one thought a thing. I was taught to run to the nearest house if someone tried to get me to enter their car, and taught how to ride the busses and count out my fare before I was ten. I walked to school, until we moved to a place where I would have to walk down main thoroughfares that had no sidewalks. My father taught me some self-defense, and gave me a whistle just in case. Kids were taught to be more self-sufficient then. Both parents working, and more news all the time, on both TV and radio, might have changed things. Parents can't teach their kids about busses, for sure, and no one's home at the nearest house any more. And, we hear more about kidnappings and child killings clear across the country all day and night, where back then, we only heard the local things at 6 p.m. And this may be one of the ways the WW is different than our world. A WW mother or father can keep tabs on their kids with magical devices; they can put up charms or spells to hide their property from prying eyes. And their kids have powers, unless the child is a Squib. In OotP, when Harry is brought before the Wizengamot for his use of magic when he was attacked by Dementors, it was noted that use of magic in an emergency/dire situation was acceptable, even for underaged kids. So, a spell or two might be taught even before they go to Hogwarts. Ceridwen, who does think a seven year old is still capable of minding itself alone at home. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 8 20:50:16 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 20:50:16 -0000 Subject: Enchanted Items In-Reply-To: <439853B3.4020303@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144352 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: Bart: > 1) Harry's Invisibility Cloak: Aurors have trouble getting one (from > OOP), a lot of people know that Harry has one, they're pretty easy to > hide. Harry kept his pretty much a secret from all but Dumbledore (who, > we ASSUME, passed it on to him; certainly he showed no concern that > Harry had it). Yet, nobody tries to steal it from him, not even Draco > Malfoy when he has the opportunity. Geoff: Dumbledore knew about it because he passed it on - there's no assumption, it's canon. 'When he had found his voice again, Harry said "And the Invisibility Cloak - do you know who sent it to me?" "Ah - your father happened to leave it in my possession and I thought you might like it." Dumbledore's eyes twinkled. "Useful things... your father used it mainly for sneaking off to the kitchens to steal food when he was here."' (PS "The Man with Two Faces" p.217 UK edition) It suggests that the Potter family were well-off and able to afford something which was hard to come by. I suspect no one tried to steal it from him because it would be so easily recognisable. It wouldn't do to be caught sneaking round Hogwarts in it when there is only one on the premises... From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 20:56:10 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 20:56:10 -0000 Subject: Jinxed Jobs /Teachers in the WW/ What standards are we using... LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144353 > > Alla: > > > > Trelawney's example is a PERFECT example IMO of how Dumbledore's > > several hats get confused. > Pippin: > That the talent is real doesn't mean it can be taught -- not to most > people anyway. If there are really gifted seer students at Hogwarts, > they may be able to learn something from Firenze, but as McGonagall > says, it's a very rare talent. Those who have it aren't necessarily lining > up to teach at Hogwarts. Alla: It is a possibility of course that Divination cannot be taught , but I am not sure if we know that for sure. After all Divination IS a subject in the curriculum. If to be a Seer was basically the same as to have magic abilities, why did it need to be taught in school in the first place? You either have the gift or not, right? Oh, at least they would have to take a test prior to be admitted to the class to see if they have the Seer gift. Besides, doesn't Dumbledore say in OOP that he was hoping that Cibil would be just as gifted as Cassandra? It tells me that he WAS looking for the competent teacher, but when he heard the Prophecy, his priorities became Trelawney's protection, not to hire competent teacher, IMO. I think this is the obvious example of Dumbledore the Headmaster taking the second place to Dumbledore leader of the Order. Again, IMO. > Pippin: > They are routinely placed in situations, such as possessing wands > that can maim and kill people, whom we try would keep them out of > not least because the emotional fallout if anything went wrong > would be devastating. Look at all the things Fred and George > managed to do to Ron. They killed his pet, and they nearly got him > to take an Unbreakable Vow. Alla: Excellent point - Fred and George indeed did many things to Ron. And he STILL has a lot of issues because of it, IMO. The reason why their pranks do not look as bad as they would do in our world, to me at least, is because of different physical safety standards, but I think Ron WAS extremely vulnerable to them. He deals with his issues, true, but if you are arguing that they do not emotionally affect Ron, I completely disagree. Pippin: > A lot of readers would be upset if Hermione had gone off to Bulgaria > with Krum, or married him as soon as she turned seventeen, but there > was nothing in canon that any adult was prepared to > stop her. > > So, either the WW doesn't care very much about emotional > fallout, or it doesn't happen as easily as we'd expect. I was postulating > the latter because, as I said, the wizards of Arthur and Molly's generation > and older seem to be doing okay. JKR plays this down, because it > would make the characters cartoonish to dwell on it. But it's there, IMO.) Alla: Oh, maybe early marriage is not necessarily considered to be the cause for emotional fallout. If we were shown that Hermione DID went to Bulgaria, married Krum and it was unsuccessful, then I probably would see your point better. But my point is that many readers will NOT be upset if Hermione married Krum at seventeen and that is what I am arguing that similarities between WW emotional reactions and ours are more similar than different ( again, without magical influence of course). JMO of course. > Pippin: > ::shrug:: Right. And if Snape had wings, he'd be a hippogriff. Snape > *can't* leave Harry alone, that's what Dumbledore was saying. Snape's > broken, Harry isn't. Or not so much. Thanks to Voldemort, the wizarding > world is full of broken people. Stick 'em all in St. Mungo's and there'll > be nobody left to fight LV. Alla: Could you point me to canon where Dumbledore says that Snape cannot leave Harry alone? I remember Dumbledore saying that some wounds run too deep and that is why it was a mistake to make Snape teach Harry Oclumency, but to make a conclusion from that that it means that Snape cannot leave Harry alone is a big stretch, IMO. > > Alla: > > Besides, since I am convinced that Snape killing Dumbledore is just > > the part of who Snape is and it just shows his character flaws on the > > larger scale, I think it is practically impossible for Harry to laugh > > at Snape now. > > > > Pippin: > Yes, exactly. That's what Harry thinks. But I believe he's wrong. > The interest for me is in seeing how Harry will overcome > his prejudice against Snape and recognize the truth. I think he will. > ( I am not so sure about some of the readers, though ). Alla: LOL! I just had a revelation. Snape did not really kill Dumbledore of course. That was polyjuiced Remus, who took one of Snape's hair during one of the Order meetings then made the potion, drank it, attacked poor Snape who was sleeping while Dumbledore and Harry were our Horcrux hunting, tied Snape up, put him in the Alastor Moody's trunk, came back to Hogwarts. That is why Snape was not sleeping when Flitwick came for him, because it was not really Snape. So, Remus runs to the Tower, does the deed, in the meanwhile he frees the Graynback and apparates away with the DE, then hides from them and comes back to Hogwarts. Yep, I recognize the truth now. :-) > Pippin: > Neville didn't have to work so hard to fix his potion. He could have > tipped the cauldron over, or told Trevor to get lost, or picked up his > toad and walked out. The worst he would have gotten is detention. > loss of House Points and a zero for the day. If Snape did do anything > worse than that, then he would be in violation of Hogwarts rules, > and we've not seen that Dumbledore tolerated that from Snape, have > we? Alla: Forgive me for asking again , but I just want to be sure - is the gist of your argument that Snape is not to be blamed for what he does to Harry and Neville AT ALL? That nothing is Snape's fault, that Neville is at fault for being so terrified of Snape and Harry is at fault for talking back to Snape and being James'son? I am not being sarcastic here, Pippin, I honestly want to know, because from the past discussions on those topics we had I got the impression that your position is very different from what you seem to be arguing now. I guess I misinterpreted you either now or back then, Alla, confused again. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 8 21:03:50 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 21:03:50 -0000 Subject: Nagini and The Marauder's Map as Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144354 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "UNIX4EVR" wrote: > > A little OT, but I've often wondered in Nagini isn't the snake that > Harry freed from the zoo in SS? > > Any comments? Geoff: There was some previous discussion on this topic in message 139693 which might help. From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com Thu Dec 8 18:52:52 2005 From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 18:52:52 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144355 bboyminn: > Note that we have seen mixed-bloods in Slytherin House, but we have > never seen a muggle-born. Of course, the books haven't flat out said > there are no muggle-born in Slytherin, but I don't think we have any > evidence that they ARE there. MercuryBlue: True, we have no evidence that they're there. But we also have no evidence that they're not. If you think about it, we know the ancestry of relatively few Slytherin characters: the Blacks, Malfoys, Notts, and Gaunts, all purebloods, and Snape and Voldemort, both with a Muggle father. We can infer from their comments, actions, and choice of company that Crabbe, Goyle, Pansy Parkinson, Zabini, and Slughorn are purebloods, but we can't be positive. And think about all the Slytherins we've barely seen and don't know diddly about. Pansy's girlfriends, for example. Reserve Seeker Harper. Several years' worth of incoming and departing classes that haven't called themselves to Harry's attention. Besides, in theory the key virtue of Slytherin is ambition. You can see just as much ambition from someone whose ancestors are all gutter trash as from someone whose ancestors are the kings of England. Ancestry doesn't have anything to do with it. There ARE Muggle-borns in Slytherin, we just don't know who they are. bboyminn: > Regardless of whether that is true is somewhat irrelavant, because we > are discussing the nature of Slytherin House, and not the nature of > the Sorting Hat. My main point was that it is rediculous to believe > that all Slytherins are evil pureblood racist, when we have NOT indeed > seen all Slytherins nor have we seen a majority of Slytherins. We have > seen a very select group though Harry's eyes. MercuryBlue: Yes, exactly. The Slytherins we've seen who've been granted speaking parts are all pureblooded, bigoted, and Death Eater sympathizers if not Death Eaters themselves. At least one of the above, anyway. The Slytherins who are none of the above, which is probably most of them, haven't shown up on Harry's radar. From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Thu Dec 8 21:36:50 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 22:36:50 +0100 Subject: possible theory as to who might die in book 7 and alchemy parallels References: <20051208165530.88321.qmail@web33509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <017601c5fc3f$80bee320$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144356 Gopal B wrote: > I was thinking on interesting parallels in HP/ > alchemy. There have been many vouching for parallels > of alchemy in HP. Alchemy's primary colours are Red, > White and Black. > > Now Book 5 saw Sirius BLACK (BLACK) die, Book 6 saw > ALBUS (Albus means WHITE) Dumbledore hence an > extrapolation towards RED.... which leaves..... RUBEUS > (Rubeus means RED) Hagrid. Miles: Yes, we had several mails according to this idea, and I like it. But it is no clue that Hagrid will be the one - all Weasley's have red hair, so there is much red to kill for Rowling... From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Dec 8 21:43:10 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 21:43:10 -0000 Subject: Neville and Snape (was What standards are we using) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144357 > Alla: > > Forgive me for asking again , but I just want to be sure - is the > gist of your argument that Snape is not to be blamed for what he does > to Harry and Neville AT ALL? That nothing is Snape's fault, that > Neville is at fault for being so terrified of Snape and Harry is at > fault for talking back to Snape and being James'son? > > I am not being sarcastic here, Pippin, I honestly want to know, > because from the past discussions on those topics we had I got the > impression that your position is very different from what you seem to > be arguing now. I guess I misinterpreted you either now or back then, Magpie: I'm not Pippin--so please correct me if I'm wrong here, Pippin!--but as I'm understanding what she is saying, it's not that Snape isn't to blame for his own actions. His bullying Neville is a bad thing, no matter how Neville reacts to it. Even if Neville laughed it off that would not make it good of Snape or even not nasty of Snape to do it. But I think what she's also saying is that from JKR's pov the importance to Neville is to learn not to give Snape the power to make him feel badly--this is where the boggart comes in. I think you've said you consider it very serious that Snape is Neville's greatest fear, that this shows that Snape has seriously damaged him. I see just what you mean, but to me Neville's boggart read as potentially very positive, particularly given that it used to be considered quite possible that Neville remembered his parents torture etc. To me that boggart proved that Neville was in this respect a normal kid with a normal kid fear--he fears the mean teacher in whose class he does badly and who yells at him to succeed when he doesn't think he can. Snape seems more monstrous to Neville because Neville is young and insecure (and, as I think I said before, I think he represents stuff he finds painful about home which goes straight to his fears about himself). But Neville *conquers* Snape with his Riddikulus spell, makes him look foolish and ridiculous--he's in Neville's power and the class is laughing with him. Scary teachers sometimes become not scary at all when you grow up, and that is what JKR may be going for with Neville. As Neville grows, the adults stay the same size--and Snape may shrink. Neville's boggart may very well have changed to something more serious by now (you have to wonder when you see Mrs. Weasley deal with hers-- how on earth does one make the death of one's children funny? I guess she'd have to think of each one of them only pretending to be dead when she did the Riddikulus spell). Neville's boggart now might be something more Bellatrix-related, or the sight of more of his loved ones driven insane, or his mother being hurt again and feeling he let her down now that he's old enough to think about protecting her. He was able to face Bellatrix with bravery even though she through a Crucio at him, so I don't know that it would be Bellatrix herself. When you think about it, it's maybe odd that Neville is more afraid of Snape in PoA when he's been visiting his parents regularly for years, though obviously that would have been far too serious for the boggart class in PoA. Perhaps that's because Neville really thought about his parents' condition too deeply before--this is just the way they've always been. Personally, I can easily imagine Barty Crouch filling him in on just how awful their condition is when he has tea with Neville in GoF (Barty who just happily demonstrated Crucio in front of him, scary him far more than he's ever been in Snape's class, and with even more sadistic intent). As for Pip's saying that Dumbledore has told Harry that Snape can't leave him alone, I think again what she means is that Dumbledore is telling Harry that Snape is weaker than he is. Of course Snape should leave him alone, but apparently he's not going to be able to be a better man like Harry presumably can. This in many ways may be the biggest tragic flaw in Snape, that he can't prioritize, can't be reasonable about his hatreds and fears. More than one kid of the current generation is possibly avoiding that fate. -m From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com Thu Dec 8 18:31:34 2005 From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 18:31:34 -0000 Subject: Forgiving Snape was FF: Re: Who does Snape really hate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144358 > Pippin: > --From HBP: > Slughorn raised a pudgy hand and pressed his shaking fingers to > his mouth; he looked for a moment like an enormously overgrown > baby. > "I am not proud..." he whispered through his fingers. "I am ashamed > of what -- of what that memory shows....I think I may have done > great damage that day..." > "You'd cancel out anything you did by giving me the memory," > said Harry. "It would be a very brave and noble thing to do." > --HBP ch 22 > > Slughorn contributed to the deaths of six people, all of whom > might be alive if he hadn't told Voldemort about Horcruxes, plus > everyone who's been killed by the renascent Voldemort. MercuryBlue: Did he? Voldemort had already committed three murders by the time that scene took place, four if we count Myrtle. Do you really think that if Slughorn hadn't told him about Horcruxes, he would ever have stopped killing people? I'll accept that Slughorn bears a degree of blame for every Voldemort-related murder after Oct 31 1981. But then Harry bears a degree of blame for every Voldemort-related murder after Jun 6 1994. Who's accused Harry of contributing significantly to their deaths? Pippin: > At least Snape tried to make up for what he'd done, > even if he didn't entirely succeed -- even if he didn't manage to > save the Potters, the information he brought back as a spy surely > saved other lives, if you believe DDM!Snape, of course. MercuryBlue: My opinion is, the lives saved by Snape's spy work for Dumbledore don't balance out the lives taken by Snape's spy work for Voldemort, on account of we know of several murders tracable to information Snape gave Voldemort and not a single innocent life saved or Death Eater apprehended thanks to information Snape gave Dumbledore. If he tried to balance the one with the other, he did a pathetic job of it. From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Dec 8 21:50:15 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:50:15 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Enchanted Items In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4398AA97.9050504@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144359 Geoff Bannister wrote: > Geoff: > Dumbledore knew about it because he passed it on - there's no > assumption, it's canon. > > 'When he had found his voice again, Harry said "And the Invisibility > Cloak - do you know who sent it to me?" > "Ah - your father happened to leave it in my possession and I thought > you might like it." Dumbledore's eyes twinkled. "Useful things... your > father used it mainly for sneaking off to the kitchens to steal food > when he was here."' Bart: Thanks. However, it doesn't answer my question about WHY these things are both so valuable and valued so little, at the same time. > It suggests that the Potter family were well-off and able to afford > something which was hard to come by. I suspect no one tried to steal it > from him because it would be so easily recognisable. It wouldn't do to > be caught sneaking round Hogwarts in it when there is only one on the > premises... Bart: However, seeing how much of a pain in the butt the invisibility cloak is, why didn't Malfoy arrange for it to be destroyed? Frankly, it appears that enchanted items exist solely for the purpose of furthering the plot. Once again, given what Fred and George have come up with, the creation of enchanted items does not appear to normally be a highly valued skill, yet enchanted items appear to be simultaneously useful and rare. Any theories? Bart From linneablack at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 21:52:45 2005 From: linneablack at yahoo.com (linneablack) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 21:52:45 -0000 Subject: What cultural standards we are using to determine whether Snape is abusive ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144360 Pippin wrote: > Dumbledore says that Snape is wounded, and that's why he > hasn't overcome his feelings about Harry's father. DD blames himself > for forgetting this. Linneablack adds: I'd say that the best standard for judgment of Snape is JKR herself. In an an interview on "The Connection" (WBUR Radio) on 12 October 1999, she was asked Q. 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. From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Dec 8 22:04:39 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 17:04:39 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Forgiving Snape was FF: Re: Who does Snape really hate? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4398ADF7.7070505@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144361 mercurybluesmng wrote: > MercuryBlue: > My opinion is, the lives saved by Snape's spy work for Dumbledore > don't balance out the lives taken by Snape's spy work for Voldemort, > on account of we know of several murders tracable to information > Snape gave Voldemort and not a single innocent life saved or Death > Eater apprehended thanks to information Snape gave Dumbledore. If he > tried to balance the one with the other, he did a pathetic job of it. Bart: Please name one life that we know was taken due to Snape's spy work for Voldemort. I don't know of any; only those that Snape CLAIMED were lost to the Black sisters. Bart From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Dec 8 22:13:51 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 14:13:51 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Forgiving Snape was FF: Re: Who does Snape really hate? In-Reply-To: <4398ADF7.7070505@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <009801c5fc44$ac33f8b0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 144362 Bart: Please name one life that we know was taken due to Snape's spy work for Voldemort. I don't know of any; only those that Snape CLAIMED were lost to the Black sisters. Bart How about James and Lily potter? There are two names for you. sherry From lealess at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 22:16:23 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:16:23 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144363 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mercurybluesmng" wrote: > > bboyminn: >> Regardless of whether that is true is somewhat irrelevant, because >> we are discussing the nature of Slytherin House, and not the >> nature of the Sorting Hat. My main point was that it is ridiculous >> to believe that all Slytherins are evil pureblood racist, when we >> indeed have NOT seen all Slytherins nor have we seen a majority of >> Slytherins. We have seen a very select group though Harry's eyes. > > MercuryBlue: > Yes, exactly. The Slytherins we've seen who've been granted > speaking parts are all pureblooded, bigoted, and Death Eater > sympathizers if not Death Eaters themselves. At least one of the > above, anyway. The Slytherins who are none of the above, which is > probably most of them, haven't shown up on Harry's radar. > This might make us feel good, but what about the student in Slytherin who, having an abundance of ambition, and perhaps wanting to align him- or herself with Harry Potter, would never have been invited to join the D.A. and might never have been trusted by others merely based on house? How others see Slytherin is important. Harry's viewpoint, however limited, probably carries a lot of weight at Hogwarts, if not elsewhere. What has counterbalanced it? Dumbledore repeatedly tells Harry to call Snape "Professor," but I can't recall him ever telling Harry to unite with Slytherin House or its members. (Now that I think of it, that's interesting -- I guess he wants Harry to reach his own conclusions by watching Draco and the Gaunts/LV, but doesn't trust him to reach his own conclusion about Snape? Maybe he just doesn't see Harry's attitude toward Slytherin.) Anyway, I hope the segregation is one thing that will change in the 7th book -- but based on which Slytherins, I don't know. This is what I guess I was getting at in my earlier posts. You take the classic exercise of separating groups of students and creating an artificial stigma, such as Jane Elliott's "blue eyes/brown eyes" exercise. The attitudes and behavior of a "superior" group change towards a stigmatized group. Slythern House, I contend, is subject to a stigma, the house of lesser, ambiguous or negative traits. The Slytherin student is forced to identify with their supposed traits and to embrace their house's segregation, or be socially isolated (Snape as a student?), as far as we know... whereas the majority, "good" students, no matter how weird (Luna Lovegood), can mix among houses and not automatically fear rejection or persecution, as far as we know. I agree that there may be well-meaning, non-biased Slytherins, who are defined by ambition more than cunning or ruthlessness or blood- purity. But the fact remains that, as far as most in the Wizarding world know, all Slytherins are encompassed within those traits, which form a negative stereotype, the kind of stereotype that also makes groups like the Death Eaters more likely, because you already have a cohesive and potentially defensive house, which is defined against all others. I guess this is where Slughorn is a good thing -- he only discriminates based on connections or merit, not blood status, wealth, or house. I know others have bemoaned the house system, and I am probably not adding anything earth-shattering to the discussion... it just bothers me. lealess From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Thu Dec 8 22:26:58 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:26:58 -0000 Subject: What cultural standards we are using to determine whether Snape is abusive ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144364 > > Harry may not be able to control how he feels, but it is > entirely up to him what he does about the feelings. He can > sulk and scowl and seethe until he finally blows up, or he can > grin and say, "Enchantingly nasty!" > > A thirteen year old is not, IMO, too young to understand this, > in fact many of them figure it out for themselves. > > Dumbledore says that Snape is wounded, and that's why he > hasn't overcome his feelings about Harry's father. DD blames himself > for forgetting this. Now maybe Harry can't overcome his feelings > about Snape because he is more wounded than > Dumbledore thinks he is, but Harry has learned to laugh off insults > from Draco and Vernon, who used to terrify him, whereas we've > never seen Snape manage to laugh off an insult from anybody. > In fact, we've never seen him laugh at all. > > > Pippin > wondering if Snape will laugh in book seven > I'm sorry, can somebody provide me with some context here? If Harry is thirteen (?), we must be somewhere in either CoS or PoA, but I've gotten rather bogged down in the thread, and I'm not sure what we're talking about anymore. --La Gatta From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Dec 8 22:01:09 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:01:09 -0000 Subject: Neville and Snape (was What standards are we using) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144365 Sistermagpie wrote: > > As for Pip's saying that Dumbledore has told Harry that Snape can't > leave him alone, I think again what she means is that Dumbledore is > telling Harry that Snape is weaker than he is. Of course Snape should > leave him alone, but apparently he's not going to be able to be a > better man like Harry presumably can. This in many ways may be the > biggest tragic flaw in Snape, that he can't prioritize, can't be > reasonable about his hatreds and fears. More than one kid of the > current generation is possibly avoiding that fate. Actually, I don't remember Dumbledore saying any such thing. Now, that is what Dumbledore might have MEANT. I can see that interpretation, although I think its stretching things mightily to wring it out of what little interaction Harry and Dumbledore have had concerning Snape. But my response is that if that's what Dumbledore means then Dumbledore should have by lemon sherbets SAID that, and quit all his unhelpful (in fact in some ways positively harmful) beating around the bush. But even if that is what Dumbledore meant, it's totally irrelevant. Snape's damaged? Join the club. As Pippin points out, lots of people in the Wizarding World are damaged. Boo hoo. Poor 'ickle thirty-eight year old Severus. It in no way excuses his abuse of Harry and Neville, nor does it in any way release him from punishment for said abuse. Any more than any damage Tom Riddle might have experienced in any way releases him from his ultimate fate. Lupinlore From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 22:39:44 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:39:44 -0000 Subject: What cultural standards we are using to determine whether Snape is abusive ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144366 > >>Miles: > > Snape has been member of Dumbledore's staff for some 14 years. > > You really think that he would not interfer for 14 years, if he > > would totally disapprove Snape's teaching methods? > > > >>Nora: > Canonically, Dumbledore has issues with detachment: he tells Harry > (and us) that he's forgotten what it's like to be young, with > damaging results. > Betsy Hp: But Dumbledore *does* have a very strong view on mistreating children. We know, per canon, that corporal punishment was common at Hogwarts. It's at least implied that Dumbledore was the one to do away with such methods. (It could have been outright stated, but I can't recall where or if such canon exists.) We've also seen that Dumbledore does not easily anger. In OotP Umbridge, by shaking Marietta, managed to anger Dumbledore. So I find it very hard to believe that Dumbledore would just look the other way if Snape was routinely commiting child abuse. Which means that the implications that Snape must be physically abusing children because he's so darn icky (since there's no canon out and out showing him physically abusing children) have little to no basis in canon. And that leaves us with emotional child abuse. Following Miles's advice, I'll start with a definition found via Google: [taken from this site: http://www.therapistfinder.net/Child- Abuse/Emotional-Abuse.html ] ******** Definition of Emotional Abuse: The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect defines emotional abuse as: "acts or omissions by the parents or other caregivers that have caused, or could cause, serious behavioral, cognitive, emotional, or mental disorders. The American Medical Association AMA describes Emotional Abuse as: "when a child is regularly threatened, yelled at, humiliated, ignored, blamed or otherwise emotionally mistreated. For example, making fun of a child, calling a child names, and always finding fault are forms of emotional abuse."2 Emotional abuse is more than just verbal abuse. It is an attack on a child's emotional and social development, and is a basic threat to healthy human development. ******* Betsy Hp: Interestingly enough, the very definition of emotional child abuse includes an effect. IMO, this means that we cannot merely say, "Snape is sarcastic and belittling so he is therefore an emotional abuser." His words must cause real and identifiable problems in his victim. Within the same site there is a list of behaviors that point towards a child being a victim of emotional abuse: [ http://www.therapistfinder.net/Child-Abuse/Emotional-Verbal- Abuse.html ] : ********* Child's Behavior: Appears overly compliant, passive, undemanding; Appears very anxious or depressed; Attempts suicide; Avoids doing things with other children; Behaves younger than his or her age; Finds it difficult to make friends; Is extremely aggressive, demanding or enraged; Lags in physical, emotional, and intellectual development; Is very demanding or very obedient; Behaves very adult-like; Wets or soils the bed.2,10 ********** Betsy Hp: Commonly, Neville and Harry are brought up as examples of Snape being a child abuser. But neither boy demonstrates any of the above symptoms. In fact, in Neville's case I think we get a perfect example of him going through a huge emotional strain that we can measure against his reactions to Snape. When Fake!Moody demonstrates the Crucio Curse Neville has a quiet breakdown. He totally detaches from everything around him, and if IIRC, he goes to bed early, avoiding contact with his friends. Snape, even at his worst, doesn't bring out this sort of reaction in Neville. Even when Neville thought his pet's life was on the line he remained engaged, soliciting help from Hermione, and following her directions correctly. Even after the rather gasp worthy public put-down he received shortly thereafter, Neville was able to successfully face down his boggart. IOW, Neville's emotional and intellectual development were not harmed. (On the contrary, by facing down his boggart I'd say we witnessed Neville experiencing a moment of healthy emotional development.) Harry doesn't trust Snape, which I think is a problem (see my last post), but Harry certainly isn't failing to develop properly because of Snape's actions. So, per the above definitions, Snape is not a child abuser. And that's going by the definitions used in our world, our culture. > >>Shaun Hately: > > I don't think that JKR is intending to make the Potterverse > much different from ours in a moral sense. *But* I do think there > are a lot of people who are seeing the morality of our world much > more narrowly than it really is. > Betsy Hp: I totally agree. And I don't think JKR means for us to see Snape as a child abuser. He abuses his *power*, yes. Snape unfairly favors the Slytherins, having one set of rules for those in his house and another set for all the rest. Snape has some personal issues with Harry that he lets interfere with his job, both as a teacher and a Order member. None of those things make him a child abuser. At least, not by the real world's definitions. Betsy Hp From ornawn at 013.net Thu Dec 8 22:53:23 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:53:23 -0000 Subject: The Imperius Virus Again Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144367 >Neri: >Which is why it would be much preferable, strategically, to attack >the whole population than elite groups like the Order or the Aurors. >After they would find themselves isolated in the middle of hostile >population imperiousing everybody around it will be much easier to >dispatch of such groups using more conventional methods. >Resisting the Imperius curse is a bit like the action of anti-virus >programs in RL, but as we know such programs can lose the fight if >the virus spreads fast enough. Orna: Are you sure the Imperius curse is such a trivial spell? We know that the other "unforgivables require some maliciousness, and intent of hurting, and enjoying it. Harry isn't able to throw an effective Crucio curse, even on wizards he hates. It's true, that Rosmerta imperiuses Kathie ? but Kathie is a schoolgirl, and even though she is imperiused - she fails to "deliver the goods". You might argue that the necklace just dropped from her hands, but you can also imagine the curse not being fully effective in making her guarding the packet until she arrived at Hogwarts. What I'm trying to say is that as I understand it, there has to be some evilness in order for a dark curse to take place effectively. Therefore innocent people wouldn't stay imperiused by "third degree" curses, and certainly not for a long time. Another point ? do you think it would satisfy Voldemort's hunger for power to have a mass imperiused army abiding him? He does use inferi, that's true. But I think he derives some satisfaction with being served willfully or at least consciously. He doesn't imperious his DE ? although he crucios them. There is some illusion of loyalty in the way the DE are for him. So I think that just being held in power by a community of imperiused wizards wouldn't be very satisfying for him. He craves recognition for his grandiose image, and he would want to have it from near-independent wizards ? not puppets. Of course he enjoys humiliating and using certain wizards under the imperius curse, but eliminating in effect the whole wizard community ? I'm not sure. And ? don't you think that hundreds of Imperius curses flying in the air might act in some unforeseen way, rebounding, getting twisted. But perhaps I'm just chilled by this scene of mass-infection by Voldemort. Orna, checking again her anti-virus, just in case. From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Dec 8 23:01:57 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 18:01:57 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Forgiving Snape was FF: Re: Who does Snape really hate? In-Reply-To: <009801c5fc44$ac33f8b0$0400a8c0@pensive> References: <009801c5fc44$ac33f8b0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: <4398BB65.8050009@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144368 Sherry Gomes wrote: > Bart: > Please name one life that we know was taken due to Snape's spy work for > Voldemort. I don't know of any; only those that Snape CLAIMED were lost > to the Black sisters. > > Bart > > > How about James and Lily potter? There are two names for you. Bart: There is a difference between passing on overheard information and actively working as a spy. It is still a question mark for whom Snape is working; although surface appearances certainly point towards his working for Voldemort, there is considerable evidence that he was working for the Order, or, more precisely, Dumbledore. Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 23:12:41 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 23:12:41 -0000 Subject: Whom did Snape kill or conspired to kill? WAS: Forgiving Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144369 > > Bart: > > Please name one life that we know was taken due to Snape's spy work for > > Voldemort. I don't know of any; only those that Snape CLAIMED were lost > > to the Black sisters. Sherry: > > How about James and Lily potter? There are two names for you. > Bart: > There is a difference between passing on overheard information and > actively working as a spy. It is still a question mark for whom Snape is > working; although surface appearances certainly point towards his > working for Voldemort, there is considerable evidence that he was > working for the Order, or, more precisely, Dumbledore. Alla: Are you arguing that when Snape told Prophecy to Voldemort he actually did it on Dumbledore's request? I would say that makes Dumbledore not only manipulative, but slipping into Evil quite fast. JMO, obviously. I don't see Dumbledore risking the lives of unknown couple and baby for some manipulative reasons, but more importantly I do not remember any considerable evidence in canon pointing that Dumbledore sent Snape to tell the Prophecy to Voldemort. I can be wrong of course, so could you please point me to those evidence, if you don't mind? Oh, and going back to lives lost because of Snape. It is of course your prerrogative to not believe what he tells Bella and Cissy, I do for the most part. But most importantly while we do know that Kreacher went to tell the information to Malfoys about Sirius ( I still think that there is nothing to prevent Snape to duplicate Kreacher's efforts, but we do have opposite evidence at least), we have NOTHING, IMO to argue that anybody else is gulty in Emmeline Vance death, but Snape. Snape said it, there is no canon to show that he did not do it, IMO, so I am inclined to take his word for it. Of course, just my opinion. Alla. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 23:27:05 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 23:27:05 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144370 > >>lealess: > This might make us feel good, but what about the student in > Slytherin who, having an abundance of ambition, and perhaps > wanting to align him- or herself with Harry Potter, would never > have been invited to join the D.A. and might never have been > trusted by others merely based on house? How others see Slytherin > is important. > Betsy Hp: I totally agree. In some ways I think the "No Slytherins" sign hanging on the DA club house door may well have helped form the Inquisitorial Squad. The Slytherins were just as hurt by Umbridge as the rest of the school (she may well be the reason Crabbe and Goyle didn't get an OWL in DADA), and Umbridge was rather hostile towards Snape, their beloved head of house. It doesn't make sense that Slytherin students would naturally want to help someone standing so obviously in their way. Unless helping was the only real option left to them. > >>lealess: > Slythern House, I contend, is subject to a stigma, the house of > lesser, ambiguous or negative traits. The Slytherin student is > forced to identify with their supposed traits and to embrace their > house's segregation, or be socially isolated (Snape as a > student?), as far as we know... whereas the majority, "good" > students, no matter how weird (Luna Lovegood), can mix among > houses and not automatically fear rejection or persecution, as far > as we know. > Betsy Hp: I don't think any other house has their first years hissed at during the sorting. But Slytherin has to put up with that sort of behavior. At least, no teacher or prefect told the twins off for doing so, IIRC. (I'm sure incidents like that only reinforce Snape's determination to "even out" the playing field as it were by showing a bit of favoritism to his own house.) It's also interesting that Professor Binns put the blame for the Founders' split on Slytherin's shoulders, while the Sorting Hat (who should know, having been a witness) spread the blame around. *All* the Founders faught. Slytherin was just the only one to actually leave the school. And the other Founders were *sad* to see him go. I don't think the house system is all bad. Frankly, I cannot think of a better logistical way of housing the students, or of setting up quidditch matches. But Slytherin's role as Hogwarts scapegoat is a very bad thing, IMO. Totally weakening for the school, and therefore for the British WW. Healing really does need to occur, and I think it will have to come from Harry. I think he will have to see the good in Slytherin, thereby allowing the WW and Slytherin itself, to see the good in Slytherin. And I also think that Draco is going to be the representative of that healing. He is the established face of Slytherin, both for the readers and for Harry. He's a leader within his house, and he encapsulates both the negative and I think positive aspects of Slytherin. The negative (the blood bigotry) is already starting to slip. (I honestly don't think it was all that firmly attached to begin with.) But I think that once the healing occurs, and Slytherin is no longer stigmatized, we'll still have the houses. They'll just finally be equal. Not perfect harmony, of course. The houses will raise and fall depending on headmasters and students, but no one house will constantly fill the bottom role. At least, that's my hope. Betsy Hp From ornawn at 013.net Thu Dec 8 23:31:58 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 23:31:58 -0000 Subject: What cultural standards we are using to determine whether Snape is abusive ? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144371 >Betsy Hp: >We've also seen that Dumbledore does not easily anger. In OotP >Umbridge, by shaking Marietta, managed to anger Dumbledore. So I >find it very hard to believe that Dumbledore would just look the >other way if Snape was routinely committing child abuse. Orna: To be cynical - it may also show that DD is concerned about Umbridge shaking Marietta out of her modified-memory state. And his reaction to Kingsley certainly shows that DD approves of changing a students memory, to save Harry's neck. Not that I like Marietta, but still- what do you think about this treatment of a student? Not to mention, that until now no teacher bothered to clean-up Marietta's SNEAKY- face. It does seem that the WW is ready to accept quite well- brutal interventions from adults towards children. And I think it has to do with children-0wizards being not only physically more resilient, but in a way also psychologically - you must feel more resilient when your options of acting, moving, inventing are so much superior to muggles. It doesn't mean that wizards don't get hurt, or traumatized. But it should reflect on what is needed to traumatize you, and on what is enabling you to recover from trauma. Ron still is afraid of spiders ? but faces Aragog ? shocked - but functions in the situation. Neville is scared by Snape ? but manages to get rid of the Boggart. And since he gets rid of him in his grandmother's clothes, I strongly suspect, that part of Neville's fear of Snape ? has to do with his fear of his grandmother. His Grandmother's attitude towards him strongly reminds me of what Snape is doing there: ? she also doesn't appreciate his strength, belittles him in comparison with his parents, Harry and who else. He doesn't think of taking charms in NEWTS, until McGonagall helps him there. Orna From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Thu Dec 8 23:37:14 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 00:37:14 +0100 Subject: Snape Harry and forgiveness/ judaism related/Canon for the Snape being abusive References: Message-ID: <01ca01c5fc50$52199a40$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144372 > Betsy Hp: > Commonly, Neville and Harry are brought up as examples of Snape > being a child abuser. But neither boy demonstrates any of the above > symptoms. [for child abuse, Miles] Agree to Betsy's mail and her conclusions, and thanks for the sources that support the definition of child abuse I put in the discussion. But back to the objections to a restrictive definition of child abuse, based on scientific standards. > Miles: > If we try to find a wider definition for child abuse, I would not like it, > because we should not use the same term for Snape being unfair to Neville, > and Tom Riddle petrifying or murdering students with the basilisk. > Lupinlore: > Why not? There are many terms that cover both instances. "Wrong," > for instance. "Evil," is another. "Cruel," would be yet another. > Just because a term is broad and applies across a lot of instances, > does not make it invalid. Miles: There is no need to use scholastic definitions for everyday words. "Wrong", "evil" or "cruel" are words everyone uses, and uses them very differently, but the consequences are neglectiable. But child abuse - that is very different. For example, if I called a teacher "evil" in public, s/he would merely raise one eyebrow. If I'd say "child abuser" instead, my next step should be calling my advocate. There are good reasons not to use the very strong term child abuse for any incident including a child treated in an unfriendly way. For me, the main reason is that child abuse is still a tabu. Most cases of real child abuse is in the dark, the victims keep silent, the abusers carry on. Most abusers are family, and victims who speak are often accused of destructing their family. We speak of millions of sexually abused girls and boys, millions of brothers and fathers and uncles (and sisters, mothers and aunts....) that abuse sexually, emotional, physical, millions of suicides, sever depressions. We should spare the term child abuse for these cases, because we have to encourage the victims and witnesses to speak, not to look away, and particularly not to play down what happened and happens to them by equalizing it with harmless incidents. We damage the effort to lift the dark, if we spoil the term "child abuse" for incidents, that do no (lasting) harm to anybody. We can be sure, that there are members of this list that *are* victims of rape, emotional torture and assault during childhood. I am not - but assuming I were, it would be horrible for me to read that 5 points from Gryffindor are "child abuse". Miles From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 8 23:40:36 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 23:40:36 -0000 Subject: possible theory as to who might die in book 7 and alchemy parallels In-Reply-To: <20051208165530.88321.qmail@web33509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144373 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Gopal B wrote: Gopal: > Now Book 5 saw Sirius BLACK (BLACK) die, Book 6 saw > ALBUS (Albus means WHITE) Dumbledore hence an > extrapolation towards RED.... which leaves..... RUBEUS > (Rubeus means RED) Hagrid. I think though Harry trusts > Dumbledore's powers, he loves Hagrid and we all know > this book is all about the power of love. Geoff: Actually, to be pedantic "rubeus" means "produced from a bramble". Now there's an interesting thought re Hagrid!!!? The adjectival colour red is "ruber" and when used of hair colour "rufus" - as with the nickname applied to William II (William Rufus). From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 8 23:48:42 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 23:48:42 -0000 Subject: Jinxed Jobs /Teachers in the WW/ What standards are we using... LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144374 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Pippin: > > ::shrug:: Right. And if Snape had wings, he'd be a hippogriff. Snape > > *can't* leave Harry alone, that's what Dumbledore was saying. > Snape's broken, Harry isn't. Or not so much. Thanks to Voldemort, the > wizarding world is full of broken people. Stick 'em all in St. Mungo's and > there'll be nobody left to fight LV. > > Alla: > > Could you point me to canon where Dumbledore says that Snape cannot > leave Harry alone? > I remember Dumbledore saying that some wounds run too deep and that > is why it was a mistake to make Snape teach Harry Oclumency, but to > make a conclusion from that that it means that Snape cannot leave > Harry alone is a big stretch, IMO. Pippin: Dumbledore says that some wounds run too deep and that is why, though he had thought that Snape could overcome his feelings about Harry's father, he was wrong. Harry then asks if it's okay that Snape hates his father, and Dumbledore dodges the question. Clearly they are talking about more than the failure of occlumency lessons here. I don't think it is okay that Snape hates people, I simply question whether it is something that Snape can fix. By no means does that mean that it is then Harry's fault that Snape hates him. But the question of who is to blame is, for me, separate from the question of who needs to do what. I mean, it would be nice if we could keep earthquakes from happening, but is the earthquake to blame if you haven't fortified your house? I think that Harry and Neville, despite their youth, are indeed stronger than Snape in many ways, that they are growing and that Snape is static, so eventually they may be able to help him in ways that he can't help himself. I don't see anything wrong with that. It might send the wrong message if they had been able to straighten Snape out as kids, because kids shouldn't feel they have the burden of healing adults, but I am willing to accept that in the next book they won't be kids anymore. I don't think it wrong for seventeen year old Harry to heal fortyish Snape, any more than it is wrong for a young doctor in our society to have an older patient. > Alla: > > LOL! I just had a revelation. Snape did not really kill Dumbledore of > course. That was polyjuiced Remus, who took one of Snape's hair > during one of the Order meetings then made the potion, drank it, > attacked poor Snape who was sleeping while Dumbledore and Harry were > our Horcrux hunting, tied Snape up, put him in the Alastor Moody's > trunk, came back to Hogwarts. That is why Snape was not sleeping when > Flitwick came for him, because it was not really Snape. > > So, Remus runs to the Tower, does the deed, in the meanwhile he frees > the Graynback and apparates away with the DE, then hides from them > and comes back to Hogwarts. > > Yep, I recognize the truth now. :-) Pippin: Actually, I think it was Remus who used the full body bind on Greyback (we never find out who did) and then smuggled him out of Hogwarts with Harry's invisibility cloak. But we'll see. I think it's very telling that Remus cannot heal Ron's leg (PoA ch 19), but Snape has healed Dumbledore and Draco. Pippin From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 8 23:49:59 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 23:49:59 -0000 Subject: Enchanted Items In-Reply-To: <4398AA97.9050504@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144375 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Bart: > However, seeing how much of a pain in the butt the invisibility > cloak is, why didn't Malfoy arrange for it to be destroyed? Geoff: He obviously didn't know about it until the incident at the Shrieking Shack in POA and the question then is, did Snape guess that Harry possessed one and also tell DM. After that though, he'd still have to get his hands on it. Bart: > Frankly, it appears that enchanted items exist solely for the > purposeo f furthering the plot. Once again, given what Fred and > George have come up with, the creation of enchanted items does not > appear to normally be a highly valued skill, yet enchanted items > appear to be simultaneously useful and rare. Geoff: I think it depends on the enchanted object. Gred and Forge's stuff seems to be aimed at a mass market whereas I suspect that the creation of an Invisibility cloak is probably more demanding in skill and time. From nonnymouse_X at hotmail.com Thu Dec 8 19:47:33 2005 From: nonnymouse_X at hotmail.com (ereshkigal_doom) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:47:33 -0000 Subject: The AK (forgive if asked before) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144376 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kchuplis" wrote: > > I am wondering, if you have a set of DE's that have no compunction > about using the AK, why is there not more of it flying around in the > final scene in HBP (or even in OotP)? I'm a keen roleplayer, and the way that games usually get round the problem of 'why don't you use your best spell over and over all the time?' is that more powerful magic is draining in some way, usually mentally or physically exhausting. Or perhaps it is the fact that AK is a hard spell to cast successfully - a certain chance of casting a simple 'Expelliarmus' much be a better bet in a fight than a low chance of summoning the extreme darkness and hate needed to cast a successful AK. Just speculation from an RPG point of view. "ereshkigal_doom" ADMIN: Please remember that any discussion of RPG on this list must be tied to canon. Discussions of other aspects of gaming should be conducted at OT-Chatter. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 00:16:21 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:16:21 -0000 Subject: Enchanted Items In-Reply-To: <439853B3.4020303@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144377 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > ... > There are a number of items with magic powers which are > mentioned. It is implied that they are rare; at the very least, > difficult to replace. Yet, they are not treated as if they > were rare and valuable. Also, there don't seem to be any > classes in artificing, except, perhaps, Potions. > > Fred and George seem to have picked up the skills on their > own, yet the skills seem to be in demand. It is very strange. > bboyminn: The mysterious skill you are seeking is called Charms. Charms occur in two forms; the casting of an event related Charm, and the casting of an object related Charm. Object related Charms retain the magical propertied imbued in them by the caster. In this case, we are talking about 'lucky charms' such as amulets and talisman. Many of Fred and Georges products are charmed objects like the invisibility hats and the shield cloaks/hats/etc.... These are objects that retain their magical ability. In your other post elsewhere in this thread, you comment that "...given what Fred and George have come up with, the creation of enchanted items does not appear to normally be a highly valued skill..." Yet it is certainly a highly valued skill, just as engineering is a highly valued muggle skill. But you don't ask why Joe Blow factory worker hasn't invented space travel. The point is that some people have a talent for inventing, others have a talent for using inventions. One could ask, after the fact, 'why didn't I invent the lightbulb, it seems pretty obvious and simple?'. Well, of course, it is alway easier to think of ideas once someone else has presented the idea to you. Others may have invented 'Shielded' items in the past, but it never occured to them to mass market them. Fred and George's saving grace is their entrepreneurial spirit. That fact that not only do they think of things, but they actually build them, and try to market them. When Fred and George started, it never occurred to them that there would be such a large market in anti-dark arts and defensive object. But they still made their Shielded and other products available and the market came to them. In a sense, the market seeks out good ideas. Let's take a very simple real world example; the pastic storage tub. Simply enough, a molded plastic container with a molded plastic top. It's so simple anyone could have thought of it. So my question now is ...er ...why didn't you? > Bart: > Let me give a few examples: > > 1) Harry's Invisibility Cloak: Aurors have trouble getting > one (from OOP), a lot of people know that Harry has one, > they're pretty easy to hide. Harry kept his pretty much a > secret from all but Dumbledore (who, we ASSUME, passed it > on to him; certainly he showed no concern that Harry had it). > Yet, nobody tries to steal it from him, not even Draco > Malfoy when he has the opportunity. > bboyminn: Invisibility Cloaks are made for the hair of an extremely rare and difficult to catch animal call the Demiguise. In manner of speaking, you could just as easily be asking why someone doesn't steal the Hope Diamond. Because once you have it, it's useless. It is so rare and unique, you could never sell it, and you could never find a jeweler who would cut it up. I think it is much the same with Invisibility Cloaks, if one disappears and you suddenly have one, it's going to be extremely suspicious. I suspose Draco could steal the I-Cloak and destroy it, but even that might leave traces of evidence. Nice as it would be to have, I think the risk of getting caught outweighs any advantage the I-Cloak might give. > Bart: > 2) The Weasley clock. From Dumbledore's comments in OOP, it's > not something that every family has. Why not? ... > bboyminn: No, not every family has a 'family clock', but not every family has a big screen TV either. Not every family has a 'food processor'. Not every family has a new car. It's just normal variation in taste. It's entirely possible that the clock was a wedding or general gift to the Weasleys. Who knows for sure how they came by it. Further, we don't know that other families don't have 'magic family clocks', we only know that Molly doesn't know anyone else who has one. That's far from the same thing. > Bart: > 3) Squibs. Considering how little most magical families > supposedly know about Muggles, squibs would have a great > deal of difficulty getting by in the Muggle world. One > would think that someone could make decent money, especially > if the Ministry kicks in, making magical prothetics/aids/etc. > Why is this not happening? > > Any theories? > > Bart bboyminn: I'm not sure what you mean here. 'Someone' making 'magical aid/prothetics' for Squibs? Something to help them function in the Wizard World? Or something to help them function in the muggle world? Or do you mean Squibs making 'aids' for muggles. I'm completely confused. It seems that Squib are extremely rare. The two we seen seem to have made their nitch in the wizard world. Filch is caretaker at Hogwarts, and given his non-magical status, I'm sure he works extremely hard. Mrs. Figg has carved a nitch in crossbreading cat and Kneasles, and logically her target market would be magical people. Limited as it is, they both seem to have found their way in the wizard world. There it is, for what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From rbookworm46 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 00:39:57 2005 From: rbookworm46 at yahoo.com (rbookworm46) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:39:57 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144378 Lealess: The attitudes and behavior of a "superior" group change towards a stigmatized group. Slythern House, I contend, is subject to a stigma, the house of lesser, ambiguous or negative traits. Bookworm: I would argue that the Slytherins don't see themselves as stigmatized or suffering `negative traits'. Given the attitudes we have seen from Draco and company, they see themselves as better than everyone else. It is only students in the other house who we have seen through Harry's point of view, who seem to think less of them. We don't have an unbiased opinion from either Slytherins who are not Draco's cronies, or the many non-Slytherins Harry doesn't socialize with, to get an accurate picture about any stigmatization. Ravenclaw Bookworm From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Fri Dec 9 00:55:25 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:55:25 -0000 Subject: Jinxed Jobs /Teachers in the WW/ What standards are we using... LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144379 > ... > > > Pippin: > > > Neville didn't have to work so hard to fix his potion. He could have > > tipped the cauldron over, or told Trevor to get lost, or picked up > his > > toad and walked out. The worst he would have gotten is detention. > > loss of House Points and a zero for the day. If Snape did do > anything > > worse than that, then he would be in violation of Hogwarts rules, > > and we've not seen that Dumbledore tolerated that from Snape, have > > we? > > Alla: > > Forgive me for asking again , but I just want to be sure - is the > gist of your argument that Snape is not to be blamed for what he does > to Harry and Neville AT ALL? That nothing is Snape's fault, that > Neville is at fault for being so terrified of Snape and Harry is at > fault for talking back to Snape and being James'son? > > I am not being sarcastic here, Pippin, I honestly want to know, > because from the past discussions on those topics we had I got the > impression that your position is very different from what you seem to > be arguing now. I guess I misinterpreted you either now or back then, > > Alla, > > confused again. > I think the argument here, if I'm following it correctly, is that yes, Snape is responsible for how he treats Neville and Harry, BUT (and that's a big BUT ;D), Harry and Neville are responsible for how they react to his treatment of them. It's a hard lesson that I've had to learn in dealing with my own mother, who in the child abuse department makes Snape look like Little Mary Sunshine (*and* she's still trying it, when she's 90 and I'm 62!). You simply have to accept that the person who is hurting you is not going to stop hurting you, either because they can't (in Snape's case; I think he was so hurt by other children when he was a child that he can't get past what is almost a fight-or-flight reflex whenever he comes into conflict with a child, even as an adult, particularly when the child in question reminds him of one of his childhood tormentors), or because for some perverse reason it gives them pleasure (in my mother's case). What you can do is take responsiblity for how you react to what they're doing, up to and including removing yourself from their physical proximity and refusing to acknowledge or respond to their verbal attacks. Admittedly, Harry and Neville don't have this option long-term if they want to pass Potions, but they do have the option of keeping their cool and refusing to let the situation escalate. I kind of think that, in spite of their intermittent kerfluffles, this is how Hermione handles Snape, which is why you don't find him picking fights with her on a regular basis. I can see her giving him one of those long, cool looks, as much as to say, "Oh, do you really *think* so, *Professor* Snape?" --La Gatta From mariabronte at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 00:58:06 2005 From: mariabronte at yahoo.com (Mari) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:58:06 -0000 Subject: Snape and GOF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144380 >"UNIX4EVR" > > I'm so confused! > > I had finally concluded that Snape was 100% evil. > > Then I re-read GOF. > > About 100 pages from the end Voldemort gives a little speech to his > followers. He says "There are 6 missing. 3 are dead. 1 is a > coward, and I'll find him. The other turned against me and I'll > kill him. The 6th has returned to me and is at Hogwarts." > > He goes on to say the 6th one at Hogwarts helped to get Harry to him > in the graveyard. This has to be Barty Crouch, Jr. > > The coward has to be Karkaroff. > > Which leaves Snape. "The one who turned against me and I'll kill > him." > > The only other explanation is that Snape was the one who returned to > him at Hogwarts -- but we get no indication in GOF that Snape had > anything to do with the tri-wizard cup or killiing BC Sr. > > So I'm back to being confused and wondering if Snape ISN'T a good > guy after all? Now me: I have gone back myself and looked at this passage because it is very interesting. I have come to the conclusion that Snape is the one, who at the time of GoF, Voldemort believed had left him for ever. Note, Voldemort does not say 'turned against me' he says, 'one who I believe has left me forever'. This is re-enforced by Snape's use of the same phrase 'at that time voldemort believed I had left him forever' (or words to that effect) in his talk with Bellatrix and Narcissa in the Spinner's End Chapter. I have read back over this Chapter and am realising in a new way exactly how clever Snape is being here. He is using, I believe, a mixture of truth and lies that is very convincing. We know, for example, that he most definitely does *not* believe that Harry is mediocre in the last degree, as he claims. The most interesting thing is that if Snape (as seems highly likely) is the one who Voldemort believed had left him forever, Voldemort *also* said 'he will be killed, of course.' Since Snape convinced Voldemort to trust him when he was sent back by Dumbledore, Voldemort has not carried out this threat yet. Does that mean, however, that it won't happen in Book 7? We still don't know for certain how Voldemort is going to react to Snape's doing the task that Draco was supposed to do. I never thought it likely that Snape is going to survive Book 7. These connections between GoF and HBP make it even less likely in my mind. Mari. From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Dec 9 01:02:22 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 01:02:22 -0000 Subject: Neville and Snape (was What standards are we using)/Stigmatizing Slytherin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144381 Lupinlore: > Actually, I don't remember Dumbledore saying any such thing. Magpie: Yes, I should have said what Pippin seems to be getting from Dumbledore's attitude, like about the Occlumency lessons when he says he was wrong to think Snape could have gotten over his old wounds. He is offering that as the reasons behind the lessons being a disaster, and to me it sounds like he's speaking to Harry as someone he hopes will understand that, if not now, then in the future. Lupinlore: > Snape's damaged? Join the club. As Pippin points out, lots of > people in the Wizarding World are damaged. Boo hoo. Poor 'ickle > thirty-eight year old Severus. It in no way excuses his abuse of > Harry and Neville, nor does it in any way release him from > punishment for said abuse. Any more than any damage Tom Riddle > might have experienced in any way releases him from his ultimate > fate. Magpie: Well, exactly--boo-hoo! If it's boo-hoo for Snape then it's boo-hoo for everyone else. At 38 Snape is no longer the little child crying in the corner, and Harry and Neville at 17 are not little boys of 11. Bookworm: I would argue that the Slytherins don't see themselves as stigmatized or suffering `negative traits'. Given the attitudes we have seen from Draco and company, they see themselves as better than everyone else. It is only students in the other house who we have seen through Harry's point of view, who seem to think less of them. Magpie: Which is interesting, because it seems like this sort of thing goes on on both sides. Slytherins are seen as being snobby and thinking they're better than everyone, yet Harry on sight thinks they even look like an unsavoury lot. Even Hermione speaks of them as a group not to be trusted. Seems like everybody pretty much thinks they're better people than they are. Harry and Blaise "hate each other on principle." I mean, isn't it natural for any group that's hated by another to decide they are, in fact, superior? Nobody wants to be stigmatized. -m From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 02:32:11 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 02:32:11 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144382 > >>Bookworm: > I would argue that the Slytherins don't see themselves as > stigmatized or suffering `negative traits'. Betsy Hp: See, if I were an eleven year old kid, just having been sorted into my new house, and I was hissed at by upper classmen I didn't even know, I think I'd pick up that my house is not well liked by the school in general. Especially if the hissing occured only when my house name was called out and it was treated as par for the course by staff and faculty. Of course, I was an extremely clever eleven year old . > >>Bookworm: > > Given the attitudes we have seen from Draco and company, they see > > themselves as better than everyone else. It is only students in > > the other house who we have seen through Harry's point of view, > > who seem to think less of them. > >>Magpie: > > I mean, isn't it natural for any group that's hated by > another to decide they are, in fact, superior? Nobody wants to be > stigmatized. Betsy Hp: Exactly. You hate me, think I'm the reason for all the ill in the world. I can either buy into your beliefs, or decide you suck. Slytherins have decided that, in general, the rest of Hogwarts sucks. That's why the problem is so malignant; it's a rather vicious circle. > >>Bookworm: > We don't have an unbiased opinion from either Slytherins who are not > Draco's cronies, or the many non-Slytherins Harry doesn't socialize > with, to get an accurate picture about any stigmatization. Betsy Hp: Magpie, in the portion of her comment I snipped, gave some good examples of Slytherins being thought badly of as a group. But I think the best example is what happened when Umbridge came to the school. She was assulting Hogwarts. I think everyone realized that. And she was hostile to Snape, so it wasn't like she was chums with Slytherin house. (I kinda suspect she was a Ravenclaw.) And yet, Slytherin house joined with her, almost en masse. And I think it's because they saw themselves as the outsiders, so why help out the school that thinks so little of them? And of course, the rest of the school thinks little of them because they joined with the enemy.... As I said, vicious cycle. And one I hope gets broken in book 7. Betsy hp From h2so3f at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 02:41:54 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 02:41:54 -0000 Subject: DD's Penseive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144383 Debbie R wrote: "I haven't posted since July and am WAY behind on my post-reading, so my apologies if this particular "what if" has been covered already...... Do you suppose that DD could have left some memories in his pensieve that might shed some light on things for Harry (and Minerva since she would be the one to find them)....or was it left obviously empty (I can't remember if it was mentioned in the final scene of the office & my book is currently inaccessible) ??? " CH3ed: Hi Debbie R! The question was discussed here about 1 to 1 1/2 weeks ago. I think the general understanding is that the penseive is not where one would store memories long term. DD showed Harry memories he kept in vials and not one already in the pensieve... except for when Harry interupted a discussion between DD (who was using the pensieve and who then put it away hurriedly when alerted of Harry's presence) and Fudge and Fake Moody in GoF. So it is unlikely that there is any memory in DD's pensieve. There may be memories in vials at the Headmaster's office, tho. CH3ed :O) From h2so3f at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 03:31:28 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 03:31:28 -0000 Subject: Snape and GOF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144384 UNIX4EVR wrote: "I had finally concluded that Snape was 100% evil. Then I re-read GOF. About 100 pages from the end Voldemort gives a little speech to his followers. He says "There are 6 missing. 3 are dead. 1 is a coward, and I'll find him. The other turned against me and I'll kill him. The 6th has returned to me and is at Hogwarts." He goes on to say the 6th one at Hogwarts helped to get Harry to him in the graveyard. This has to be Barty Crouch, Jr. The coward has to be Karkaroff. Which leaves Snape. "The one who turned against me and I'll kill him." The only other explanation is that Snape was the one who returned to him at Hogwarts -- but we get no indication in GOF that Snape had anything to do with the tri-wizard cup or killing BC Sr. So I'm back to being confused and wondering if Snape ISN'T a good guy after all?" CH3ed: I think most everyone still have doubt as to which side Snape is actually on. :O) I'm not sure what your next to last paragraph means since that would leave Crouch Jr hanging in the air. It does seem Mari's and your first conclusion from LV's speech that Snape was the one LV referred to as having 'left him forever and will be killed' is correct. I don't think that has anything to do with the Tri-Wizard Cup or the murder of Crouch Sr. LV had encountered Snape since his fall from power (LV was on the back of Quirrell's head in PS/SS, and Wormtail would have told LV how Snape was working for DD and scolded Lupin for 'betraying DD's trust' after PoA, and Crouch/Fake Moody would have told LV of his suspicions of Snape's loyalty during GoF). After GoF I was pretty confident that Snape is DDM, but after reading "Spinner's End" chapter in HBP I became a lot less confident (tho if there is a poll now I'd vote for DDM!Snape and that the murder of DD was prearranged). Snape was either telling the truth when he explained to Narcissa and Bellatrix his position with LV or he was bluffing very convincingly. It is just JKR being very slippery with her writing of Snape that he is such a big enigma. :O) CH3ed thinks the movie Snape is a lot more human and DDM-ish than the canon Snape From h2so3f at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 03:40:55 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 03:40:55 -0000 Subject: Nagini and The Marauder's Map as Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144385 UNIX4EVR wrote: > A little OT, but I've often wondered in Nagini isn't the snake that > Harry freed from the zoo in SS? > > Any comments? CH3ed: I doubt it. I recall (don't have access to my first 3 HP books at the moment) that the snake Harry freed in PS/SS was a Brasilian boa constrictor, which is not venomous. Nagini is deadly venomous (she nearly killed Arthur). Also I would think if Nagini is the boa she would have said something to Harry while he was tied up in the Graveyard scene in GoF... while LV was busy talking to the DE's. CH3ed is not very fond of snakes. ;O) From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Fri Dec 9 02:33:40 2005 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 02:33:40 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144386 Betsy Hp: But Slytherin's role as Hogwarts scapegoat is a > very bad thing, IMO. Totally weakening for the school, and > therefore for the British WW. Healing really does need to occur, > and I think it will have to come from Harry. I think he will have > to see the good in Slytherin, thereby allowing the WW and Slytherin > itself, to see the good in Slytherin. And I also think that Draco > is going to be the representative of that healing. > snip... > But I think that once the healing occurs, and Slytherin is no longer > stigmatized, we'll still have the houses. They'll just finally be > equal. Not perfect harmony, of course. The houses will raise and > fall depending on headmasters and students, but no one house will > constantly fill the bottom role. At least, that's my hope. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Slytherin win the house cup for 7 years before Harry came? And wasn't Gryffindor out the running for the Quidditch cup for a similar time period (McGonagall mentions it in PoA)? Before Harry came Slytherin was the top dog or that was the impression that I got. So really your dream of houses raising and falling depending on students has already happened...Slytherin fall and Gryffindor rose with the coming of Harry. The other houses haven't seemed to have much problem turning on Harry, a Gryffindor, from time to time and often that puts them on the same side as Slytherin. IMO the problem is that there really doesn't seem to be a 4 way race it's either Gryffindor or Slytherin. Quick_Silver71 From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Dec 9 04:42:39 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 04:42:39 -0000 Subject: Snape and GOF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144387 Mari: > I have read back over this Chapter and am realising in a new way > exactly how clever Snape is being here. He is using, I believe, a > mixture of truth and lies that is very convincing. We know, for > example, that he most definitely does *not* believe that Harry is > mediocre in the last degree, as he claims. Jen: You don't think Snape really views Harry the way he presented him? I thought that was probably one of the truths he was telling! In one sense, spreading that rumour about Harry having 'no extraordinary talent at all' does protect Harry because he will continue to be underestimated. In another sense, what a blow to Voldemort's ego, outsmarted by a mediocre, underage wizard. Perhaps that's why Snape explained that Harry is helped out by sheer luck and talented friends, to assauge the Dark Lord's failure. I think Snape meant everything he said about Harry. On another note, I found what Snape left out about Harry *very* revealing--no mention of why he is the One, no mention of why he is the Dark Lord's equal. Either Dumbledore has not discussed this with Snape or Snape knows and doesn't believe it. Perhaps Voldemort questioned Snape about the prophecy but Bella didn't, so Snape didn't bring it up with her. Mari: > The most interesting thing is that if Snape (as seems highly > likely) is the one who Voldemort believed had left him forever, > Voldemort *also* said 'he will be killed, of course.' Since Snape > convinced Voldemort to trust him when he was sent back by > Dumbledore, Voldemort has not carried out this threat yet. Jen: I really wonder if Snape convinced Voldemort so thoroughly. I think Voldemort placed Snape at Hogwarts way back when as the inside man for killing Dumbledore. After returning to his body, Voldemort simply saw the value of keeping Snape at Hogwarts while he went on the prophecy hunt, expecting to get back to killing Dumbledore when the time was right. I'm guessing he will view the AK as the proof of loyalty he was looking for. Since he trusts no one but has to keep the followers who are left, it makes sense he would gamble on the likes of 'slippery friend' Lucius, 'cowardly' Wormtail, and 'one who left him forever' Snape. What I'd still like to know is how Snape passed off that comment about helping dispose of Sirius when Nacissa was sitting right there- -didn't Dumbledore say Kreacher passed the information about Sirius to Narcissa? Maybe this was figured out right after the release and I missed it, but it seems incongruous. Jen From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 05:04:14 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 05:04:14 -0000 Subject: Did Snape give info about Sirius or not/ Cultural standards for Snape abusive o In-Reply-To: <4398688E.10284.473C196@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144388 Jen: > What I'd still like to know is how Snape passed off that comment > about helping dispose of Sirius when Nacissa was sitting right there- > -didn't Dumbledore say Kreacher passed the information about Sirius > to Narcissa? Maybe this was figured out right after the release and > I missed it, but it seems incongruous. > Alla: But see, I don't understand how is it a contradiction. Yes, kreacher passed information to Malfoys. Narcissa obviously knows it, but maybe Snape came to Malfoys first with the same information and Narcissa knows it too or maybe Snape went to both Malfoys and Voldemort and told them which person should be used to lure Harry in MoM. Shaun: Judging Hogwarts (and judging Snape) on the basis of his interactions > with *one* student - to me, that is rather ridiculous. Because I'll > tell you this - I would say that every teacher on this planet has the > occasional student for whom their normal methods just don't work. I > would hope that at least sometimes such a teacher would normally > realise this and that there's a need to try something different in > such cases - but condemning a teacher because they can't do that, > goes too far in my view - and condemning the style of teaching > altogether really goes too far. I think it is reasonable to hope that > a teacher knows enough to alter their methods for a specific child in > specific cases where they are not working, but that's quite a bit > different from expecting them to alter their methods for *all* > children, based on that specific child. Alla: Shaun, welcome back. :-) I snipped a lot in your post, because I know your background, you know mine. For those who don't , I also have some knowledge of educational theories, although mostly theoretical one - I studied to be a teacher, did some work while I was a student , but never actually worked as a teacher. I ended up going to law school when I came to America instead. I also did some work with abuse survivors, but in domestic violence aspect. I think we agreed in the past that Snape's treatment of Harry is reprehensible, right? I am sorry if I remember wrong. As far as I can remember you think that Snape's treatment of Harry is an exception, not a rule and in general he is a good teacher, right? Well, I think I argued this point too - it is absolutely POSSIBLE that to some kids Snape is a good teacher. I would argue that if they do exist, they are all in Slytherin House, but maybe some Gryffindor whom we did not see yet think that Snape is a good teacher. It is possible of course, I don't dispute that. My point is that for six books we only saw Snape interacting with Gryffindors whom he IMO treats horribly. Based on that I conclude that Snape is a bad teacher. But I think that you in the past also analyzed Snape interactions with Neville and concluded that they were OK for you, right? So, I am guessing that you don't agree that Snape mistreats Neville. So, I am assuming that we only agree that Snape mistreats Harry. I am sorry, Shaun, please correct me if any of my assumptions are incorrect. It IS hard not to make assumptions when we debated a lot in the past; on the other hand there is a danger that I misinterpret your views, so again pleas correct me if I am wrong. So, you are saying that Snape cannot be judged as a teacher just because his methods do not work for ONE student. Assuming for the sake of argument that indeed Harry is the only student whom Snape treats badly (and I do NOT agree with that. I think he treats Hermione and Neville just as badly, but for different reasons), I still think that sometimes teacher CAN be judged as bad teacher or what is more importantly as bad person based on his interactions with one student. And yes, I think his interactions with Harry pass the muster (my muster as a reader of course, nobody else's) which would judge Snape as that horrible. He brought personal interactions in the classroom. He deemed it acceptable to judge the student whom he did not know AT ALL before he even saw him based on who his parents were, not even based on what who this student was and we do have Dumbledore's word that Snape sees James in Harry, no? I think it is persecution, personally and based on the analogies I make to RW, yes, I would say Snape may have to go based on only how he treats Harry. IMO of course. Now, in general I would agree with you IF in RW teacher has a problem with one student, teacher may still be a good one for many students as I think Snape very well could be or not. I don't know, because I did not see it. Sure, we see Umbridge calling class advanced, but really how much weight do we give Umbridge words? If we were to judge Hogwarts as completely real school, I would say that the ideal solution would be for Dumbledore to hire another Potion master, which as we saw in book 6, he finally did to teach the students who do not work with Snape well, but again we would of course had no story if that would have happened earlier. > > Alla: > > > > That is why I feel very comfortable judging Snape by my " muggle" > > standards. I believe that this is what JKR does despite placing him in > > the world with magic, you know. :-) I think that her position in the > > interviews support it too. Shaun: > I don't see any reason to disagree with you on this - but I would > point out that if you are right, it is important to realise that your > "muggle" standards may not match JKRs. Alla: Absolutely, they may not, BUT my point is that so far the way I read the books, they pretty much are. I could be wrong of course and it will turn out at the end that JKR really thinks that "pureblood" philosophy of the Slytherin house is perfectly OK or House Elves were created to serve Wizards and witches and naive Hermione should realise that she really should not judge the other culture by "our standards" and that is PERFECTLY valid POV. But right now, I think that JKR absolutely not against passing judgment on other culture. Why? Because as we seem to agree she is not really writing about another culture, IMO, but about reflection of our culture in sometimes satirical , sometimes positive way plus the use of magic. And the kind of judgments she seems to impose on her characters is so far EXACTLY ( or very close to how I judge them) She can pull the rug at the end of book 7 and Snape's character may turn out to be very different from what I think about him, but right now I am not convinced that she will do so. So far it seems to me that JKR and myself are on the same page where Snape is concerned. It could all change at the end of course. P.S. Last but not the least, I am not sure why you were trying to explain that you are moral person :-) I had no doubts of that fact, EVER. It is not like anybody in their right mind would judge a real person based on which fictional characters that person likes or dislikes. Just wanted to make sure. :-) JMO, Alla > Magpie: > > Well, exactly--boo-hoo! If it's boo-hoo for Snape then it's boo- hoo > for everyone else. At 38 Snape is no longer the little child crying > in the corner, and Harry and Neville at 17 are not little boys of > 11. Alla: Huh? What does the argument that Snape being damaged does not excuse him for his actions has to do with the fact that Harry and Neville will indeed be seventeen? It is not like he started mistreating them when they are seventeen. Snape started in the position of enormous inequality, when he had all the power in his interactions by the virtue of him being the teacher and Harry and Neville had very little power or none. Harry and Neville are indeed not the little boys of eleven anymore, but I happen to think that at the end Snape will pay for what he did to them WHEN they were little boys of eleven or earlier. IMO of course. > Pippin: > I don't think it is okay that Snape hates people, I simply question whether > it is something that Snape can fix. By no means does that mean that it > is then Harry's fault that Snape hates him. But the question of who is to > blame is, for me, separate from the question of who needs to do what. > I mean, it would be nice if we could keep earthquakes from happening, > but is the earthquake to blame if you haven't fortified your > house? Alla: But Snape is not an earthquake, Pippin , he does not HAVE TO happen. He CHOOSES to do what he does to Harry and Neville IMO and as Dumbledore says his choices show what we are. If you are arguing that Snape in effect cannot help himself, aren't you also arguing that he cannot be stopped? Doesn't it also mean that he can continue do whatever he wants to? I mean, luckily he is not in Hogwarts anymore, but suppose that he would? He cannot help himself , so let him continue terrorizing students? I mean I understand that you are saying that it is not OK that Snape hates people, but do you think something should be done about it? Besides Harry saying I forgive you, is there anything SNAPE should done to atone for his misdeeds in your opinion? I mean, we do agree that Snape did many bad things, right? Is there ANY kind of responsibility that Snape should take on his shoulders? Or do you think that everything should be up to Harry and Neville? Pippin: I don't think it wrong for seventeen years old > Harry to heal fortyish Snape, any more than it is wrong for a young > doctor in our society to have an older patient. Alla: I don't have a problem with healing Snape per se, but am hoping that JKR will make him pay first or at least ASK for Harry to forgive him. I also don't want to see Harry behave as Saint and to me forgiving Snape without any indication that Snape at least regrets his actions will amount to saintly behavior. :-) Again, just me. I am sure JKR will be able to pull off any case scenario, just thinking that Snape will not go punishment free. Two or three words, Pippin is it REALLY that hard for Snape to say I am ashamed of what I did? Do you think he is really so not in control of his facilities that he cannot look Harry in the eyes and say " I am sorry". I think for all my dislike of him as "person", I have a higher opinion of his ability to change than you do :-). > Pippin: > Actually, I think it was Remus who used the full body bind on Greyback > (we never find out who did) and then smuggled him out of Hogwarts > with Harry's invisibility cloak. But we'll see. > > I think it's very telling that Remus cannot heal Ron's leg (PoA ch 19), but Snape has > healed Dumbledore and Draco. Alla: Just in case anybody did not understand and I am not referring to you, Pippin, I am sure you did know that :-) I was kidding. I do NOT, I repeat I do NOT believe that Remus had anything to do with Dumbledore's murder or Greyback going free, I don't even think canon is clear that Greyback got away and I think that we all saw who killed Dumbledore and his last and first name starts with letter "S". JMO, Alla, who recently bought another chocolate frog candy in the store and now is the owner of ..... Snape card. MAHAHAHA. I don't know why I was surprised. After all, I cannot stop posting about him, even if mainly in the bad way, so it is only fitting that I would get the card with dear Severus on it. From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri Dec 9 05:11:04 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 21:11:04 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and GOF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <011301c5fc7e$f62d4d10$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 144389 Jen What I'd still like to know is how Snape passed off that comment about helping dispose of Sirius when Nacissa was sitting right there- -didn't Dumbledore say Kreacher passed the information about Sirius to Narcissa? Maybe this was figured out right after the release and I missed it, but it seems incongruous. Jen sherry now: No, this hasn't been figured out yet. In fact, it's part of why I think Snape was not lying in that scene. After all, Narcissa knows who gave the information that helped set up Sirius. We only have Kreacher's word to Dumbledore, told by Dumbledore to Harry, that Kreacher is the one who spilled the beans. Ever since reading spinners End, I've wondered if it really was Kreacher, or if it was a combination of information from Kreacher and Snape. After all, if it was Kreacher alone, why wouldn't Narcissa speak up right then and say something like, Hey, that's not true. Kreacher told us. I do think Snape is implicated somehow, and that he helped set up both Harry and Sirius. His own words imply it with no denial from either of his guests. sherry From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 05:56:08 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 05:56:08 -0000 Subject: Snape and GOF In-Reply-To: <011301c5fc7e$f62d4d10$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144390 > Jen wrote: > > What I'd still like to know is how Snape passed off that comment > about helping dispose of Sirius when Nacissa was sitting right there- > > sherry wrote: > > No, this hasn't been figured out yet. >Ever since reading spinners End, I've wondered if it > really was Kreacher, or if it was a combination of information from Kreacher > and Snape. After all, if it was Kreacher alone, why wouldn't Narcissa speak > up right then and say something like, Hey, that's not true. Kreacher told > us. I do think Snape is implicated somehow, and that he helped set up both > Harry and Sirius. zgirnius now: Indeed, I think Snape did provide information that was useful. He told Voldemort, I am sure, that: 1) Sirius was back in the UK; and his animagus form is a black dog. (This information would have been passed on right after the end of GoF, when we can be fairly sure Snape and Voldemort met in person). 2) Sirius is Harry's godfather; Harry is thrilled by this, and if Sirius were cleared of the crimes for which he was put in Azkaban, Harry would go to live with him. (This too would have been shared in that meeting). 3) Sirius is both so bored of hiding in a location Snape is not able to reveal (Voldemort knows how that charm works too), and so fond of Harry, that he would risk showing up (in his animagus form) at Platform 9 3/4 to see him off. (This is harder to put a date on. We do not know how Snape passes info to Voldemort during the school year. Could have been at any time from early in the term to during the Christmas break.) >From this info, yes, Voldemort could decide that Harry would believe Sirius might get caught, and he would care enough to come to the rescue. So why do I feel this is irrelevant to evaluating Snape's loyalties? Because 1) and 2) are known to Pettigrew. And thus Snape would have to assume, are already known to Voldemort. Sirius' presence on ther platform was known to Lucius Malfoy, the rest of 3) follows loigically and simply from 2) and a basic knowledge of Sirius' character, which, again, Pettigrew possesses. Snape is supposed to be Voldemort's inside man with the Order. How would it look if he was providing LESS useful intelligence about its members than Pettigrew and Malfoy? But even if this is information that Voldemort can put together from different sources and a little bit of thought, the fact would remain that Snape did also provide it all, and so can make the claim he does in front of Bella and Cissy. Cissy is not about to pick over Snape's claims and lessen his contributions to the cause, she is there to ask a BIG favor of the man. And Bella he butters up by bringing up her murder of Sirius. From juli17 at aol.com Fri Dec 9 06:07:30 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 06:07:30 -0000 Subject: Snape and GOF In-Reply-To: <011301c5fc7e$f62d4d10$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144391 > > Jen > > What I'd still like to know is how Snape passed off that comment > about helping dispose of Sirius when Nacissa was sitting right there- > -didn't Dumbledore say Kreacher passed the information about Sirius > to Narcissa? Maybe this was figured out right after the release and > I missed it, but it seems incongruous. > > > sherry now: > > No, this hasn't been figured out yet. In fact, it's part of why I think > Snape was not lying in that scene. After all, Narcissa knows who gave the > information that helped set up Sirius. We only have Kreacher's word to > Dumbledore, told by Dumbledore to Harry, that Kreacher is the one who > spilled the beans. Ever since reading spinners End, I've wondered if it > really was Kreacher, or if it was a combination of information from Kreacher > and Snape. After all, if it was Kreacher alone, why wouldn't Narcissa speak > up right then and say something like, Hey, that's not true. Kreacher told > us. I do think Snape is implicated somehow, and that he helped set up both > Harry and Sirius. His own words imply it with no denial from either of his > guests. > > sherry > Julie: It's also possible that Narcissa contacted Snape to verify the information Kreacher passed on to her. At that point Snape would have little choice but to confirm it, as he is supposed to be loyal to Voldemort. And he could safely tell Bellatrix that he "helped" bring down Sirius Black. This could also work for the Emmaline Vance murder. I can't see any reason for Snape to kill her/get her killed, and we have no hint of him being the type to murder just for the hell of it, as Voldemort and Peter have done. If he murdered Dumbledore as OFH!Snape, the supposition is that it was to save himself, and if ESE!Snape, that it was revenge against the Headmaster who'd made Snape dance to his tune for so many years. It's always so very personal for Snape! So unless we get some other info on Emmaline Vance's murder (that shows Snape's safety was imperiled, or reveals some personal vendetta he had against her), it's just as likely Snape is using the term "helped" (get her killed) in a very liberal manner, deliberately obfuscating the issue. Julie From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Dec 9 05:36:37 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 00:36:37 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Did Snape give info about Sirius or not/ Cultural standards for Snape abusive o References: Message-ID: <012001c5fc82$89f5c2e0$5d9e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 144392 >> Magpie: >> >> Well, exactly--boo-hoo! If it's boo-hoo for Snape then it's boo- > hoo >> for everyone else. At 38 Snape is no longer the little child > crying >> in the corner, and Harry and Neville at 17 are not little boys of >> 11. > > Alla: > Huh? What does the argument that Snape being damaged does not excuse > him for his actions has to do with the fact that Harry and Neville > will indeed be seventeen? Magpie: I already said Snape was not EXCUSED for anything. The point being that Dumbledore was talking about Snape's "wounds" referring to his problems with James and the response was well, boo-hoo. Which I think is pretty realistic. Snape's inner child is not a big concern. We see Snape crying in a corner as a child in a memory, but I doubt we're going to see those two adults dressed down for it. Nor the girl who laughed at him while he was on his broom. Nor will James and Sirius or Lupin be scolded for Snape--I think Lupin's saying "a stupid Prank," in PoA is in the same vein. He's expected to move on and whatever his problems does not excuse his being nasty to Harry or Neville in class. So I don't consider it a given that it's important 17-year-old Harry or Neville get something for Snape being mean to them when they were 11. Would that be a fine thing for Snape to give them? Yes. He, personally, does certainly owe them an apology for his treatment of them. But I think the development of Harry and Neville is about growing beyond Snape, not being unable to heal until they get this. Snape seems to be more like that, actually. I honestly can't imagine Harry or Neville *needing* this kind of thing. Appreciating it if it were genuine certainly, but I don't think they're hurting without it. I'm not talking about excusing Snape for anything. I know what Snape does in class, and that he is abusing his position of authority as a teacher. I'm sure Snape will have an ending that fits everything he's done in the story, but the idea of Snape and Neville's inner children being of that kind of importance seems like a step backwards and kind of embarassing for them if it comes down to Snape being chastized and scolded--that seems more fitting for PS. If Snape genuinely apologizes, that will not be embarassing--that would give Snape more dignity than he's had thusfar. -m From alesiaglfyn at juno.com Fri Dec 9 02:19:48 2005 From: alesiaglfyn at juno.com (Bonnie Harvey/ Alesia Gillefalyn) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 02:19:48 GMT Subject: Nagini as a Horcrux and the torturing of the Longbottoms Message-ID: <20051208.182047.6597.91694@webmail32.lax.untd.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144393 Geoff: There is no evidence that Voldemort created a Horcrux on this occasion. That he apparently used an Avada Kedavra curse on Frank Bryce does not mean that he then created one. This is supposition. It should also be realised that this killing was gratuitous - Voldemort had not been expecting to kill someone. He was more concerned in keeping his whereabouts under wraps and probably wasn't thinking about his Horcrux expansion programme at this point... Alesia writes: I have to agree with Geoff, I seriously doubt the Marauder?s Map is a Horcrux, especially since Remus mentions in PoA that Filch confiscated it from one or all of the Marauder?s the year they left Hogwarts. As to where the killing comes from for the Horcrux in Nagini, I always just assumed it was Bertha Jorkins. Here is the way I have always read LV's relationship with Nagini: He used her as a sergeant mother of sorts and suckled from her (either literally or magically) to help sustain his infantile form we see before the completion of the spell in the graveyard in GoF, (this explains his snake-like figures he has post ?resurrection?). The reason I believe the killing used to create the Horcrux!Nagini is because he had time and help. Peter has already found and returned to him at this point. We know from HBP that the creation of a Horcrux requires both a potion and a spell, therefore it make sense it requires some time to create. Once he broke the memory charm on Bertha, LV knew he had to kill her, he had also started to formulate his plan to return. One would think he would finish creating all of his Horcruxes prior to beginning his path to return. Has anyone ever suggested the DEs who tortured the Longbottoms, after the death of the Potters, for information about LV were really after the location of LV?s body? Could it be possible they were attempting to locate the body so they could reunite his soul (the vapor we see in PS/SS) and his body. With Frank and Alice both being Aurors, it makes sense they might have known where the Ministry moved LV?s body to. To me, it has always been pretty clear the way LV regained his body in GoF wasn?t the original plan and there was another way he had planned on had he still had access to his original body. We know at least one Death Eater, Malfoy, had a Horcrux, the diary. It is possible based on LV statement about his followers knowing the lengths he had gone to cheat death, that there are other DEs with Horcruxes. They may or may not know what the possessed, as there is some doubt Malfoy really knew what the diary was. Since one of the Lestrange brothers appears to have been at Hogwarts with LV, wouldn?t have make him one of the ?closest? to LV? Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Alesia From bawilson at citynet.net Fri Dec 9 04:05:47 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 23:05:47 -0500 Subject: There is a difference between being a meanie and being a child abuser. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144394 Lupinlore: "But even if that is what Dumbledore meant, it's totally irrelevant. Snape's damaged? Join the club. As Pippin points out, lots of people in the Wizarding World are damaged. Boo hoo. Poor 'ickle thirty-eight year old Severus. It in no way excuses his abuse of Harry and Neville, nor does it in any way release him from punishment for said abuse. Any more than any damage Tom Riddle might have experienced in any way releases him from his ultimate fate." When did Snape abuse either Harry or Nevelle? I don't recall him doing so. He has been harsh, strict, sarcastic, mean, belittling and unfair--but never abusive. I've seen real abuse, and Snape doesn't even come close. I've seen cases of caregivers and teachers treating young people in their charge in ways that make Snape seem downright cuddly. Calling Snape 'abusive' is an insult to the children who have survived things that would give you--and have given me-- nightmares. Bruce [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sudeeel at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 05:55:39 2005 From: sudeeel at yahoo.com (sudeeel) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 05:55:39 -0000 Subject: possible theory as to who might die in book 7 and alchemy parallels In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144395 > Geoff: > Actually, to be pedantic "rubeus" means "produced from a bramble". Now > there's an interesting thought re Hagrid!!!? > > The adjectival colour red is "ruber" and when used of hair > colour "rufus" - as with the nickname applied to William II (William > Rufus). sudeeel: According to Google, there are more than 17,000 cites linking rubeus with red (including the dictionary.com definition of ruby, which says the origin goes back to the Latin rubeus, meaning red) and less than 100 linking rubeus to bramble. (That's eliminating cites that have the word "Hagrid" in both cases.) And Wikipedia gives both definitions. So I think rubeus can definitely be interpreted as meaning red. sudeeel From pookiebear364 at gmail.com Fri Dec 9 06:01:28 2005 From: pookiebear364 at gmail.com (Pookie) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 06:01:28 -0000 Subject: Neville and Snape (was What standards are we using)/Stigmatizing Slytherin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144396 > -m: > Which is interesting, because it seems like this sort of thing > goes on on both sides. Slytherins are seen as being snobby and > thinking they're better than everyone, yet Harry on sight thinks > they even look like an unsavoury lot. Even Hermione speaks of > them as a group not to be trusted. Seems like everybody pretty > much thinks they're better people than they are. Harry and > Blaise "hate each other on principle." I mean, isn't it natural > for any group that's hated by another to decide they are, in > fact, superior? Nobody wants to be stigmatized. I am unsure that the other houses see themselves as "better". I went to a boarding school that had something like that (different "houses") and we all thought ours was THE one to be in but from what I see only the house of Slytherin seem to actually think they are better- perhaps it is from the Pure blood thinking they think they are better? -Pookie From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 9 07:50:57 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 07:50:57 -0000 Subject: possible theory as to who might die in book 7 and alchemy parallels In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144398 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sudeeel" wrote: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sudeeel" wrote: > > > Geoff: > > > Actually, to be pedantic "rubeus" means "produced from a bramble". Now > > there's an interesting thought re Hagrid!!!? > > > > The adjectival colour red is "ruber" and when used of hair > > colour "rufus" - as with the nickname applied to William II (William > > Rufus). > > sudeeel: > > According to Google, there are more than 17,000 cites linking rubeus > with red (including the dictionary.com definition of ruby, which says > the origin goes back to the Latin rubeus, meaning red) and less than > 100 linking rubeus to bramble. (That's eliminating cites that have the > word "Hagrid" in both cases.) And Wikipedia gives both definitions. So > I think rubeus can definitely be interpreted as meaning red. Geoff: Just in passing, you mean "sites". I initially read your sentence as 17000 cities and did a double-take. Perhaps I should have added a smiley as well as my "!!!?" ! There obviously is a link because a bramble bush produces blackberries and, as I know from testing them this autumn while out walking the dogs, they stain my fingers red. I was quoting from the Oxford Latin dictionary which is considered a pretty reliable source which gives "ruber" as the main colour and "rubicundus" as "ruddy". I think "rubeus" in this context would refer to a very dark red. I wonder why Hagrid's parents chose the name Rubeus? He certainly isn't a Weasley in terms of complexion. From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Fri Dec 9 07:58:25 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 07:58:25 -0000 Subject: Did Snape lie in Spinner's End? Was:Re: Snape and GOF In-Reply-To: <011301c5fc7e$f62d4d10$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144399 > > Jen > > What I'd still like to know is how Snape passed off that comment > about helping dispose of Sirius when Nacissa was sitting right there- > -didn't Dumbledore say Kreacher passed the information about Sirius > to Narcissa? Maybe this was figured out right after the release and > I missed it, but it seems incongruous. > > > Elyse here, posting after some time... I'm really glad this was brought up. I cannot believe I missed it during my first read of HBP. During Spinner's End, when Snape said he actively contributed to Sirius' death, I cheered inwardly at what I thought I knew was an absolute lie, since it proved he was on the Light side. Of course then he talked about killing Emmeline Vance and that really threw me! But since then I wonder what exactly was he doing bragging in front of Narcissa of all people? Dumbledore told us that Kreacher went to the only person of the Black family left - Narcissa Malfoy nee Black. So Kreacher goes to Cissy, tells her about the relationship between Sirius and Harry. She then conveys this information to Lucius, who subsequently tells the Dark Lord. After some thinking, Voldemort says "I have a cunning plan!" and tells Kreacher to keep Sirius out of the way on a certain day when he will present Harry with a false vision of tortured Sirius in the DoM. But in order to do this, he must have told Lucius who told Narcissa who tells Kreacher. So Narcissa was pretty involved in the lead up to Sirius death. So did Snape know all of this? Was he in on it, or did Voldemort leave him in the dark suspecting his loyalty? If Snape knew, and passively let things happen the he could claim involvement in his death in a passive way, yes. But the way he tells it to Bellatrix it sounds as if he actively provided information to Voldemort. I dont take these claims seriously since the only thing he could have told him about Sirius was his frustration at being cooped up and his feelings for Harry. Dumbledore claims that Kreacher passed this information, but now I wonder about that. It makes perfect sense for Snape to tell this to LV, since he had to pass some information on the Order and this would have seemed trivial. Maybe Dumbledore seeing the furious Harry already accusing Snape of having a hand in Sirius' death thought that it would be best for Harry not to know that it was Snape, and blamed Kreacher. However this reqires Puppetmaster!Dumbledore and I really dont like the notion, so while I accept that it is possible, I'm discounting it for now. So that leads us to his lying in Spinners End and Narcissa knowing that Snape was lying. Are they in this together? Was it a plan to convince Bella and save Draco? Is this possibly proof for ACID POPS with Narcissa returning those feelings? (Where, oh where, are ships when you need them?) But I doubt it. Now, one can say that Narcissa nad Bellatrix *both* know Snape is lying and are tricking Snape into a UV. True, so far we have not seen Bellatrix act in a sneaky, cunnning way so far, but she is a Slytherin right, she must have some of those traits? So maybe they let that lie slide in order to further the plan of protecting Draco....but I dont think so somehow. So I think that Snape lied in Spinners end, Narcissa was completely aware that he was lying, but since she wanted a lot from him just then, she allowed it to pass, but she knew that Snape was not really as loyal as he was making himself out to be. THIS was the reason she asked for an Unbreakable Vow. She wanted proof of the man claiming to be on the Dark Side plus help for Draco, thus killing two birds with one stone. Just rambling here, since I cant make sense of this part at all and am completely confused as to this remarkably see-through statement from an allegedly excellent spy. (Puzzled) Elyse From mariabronte at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 08:04:46 2005 From: mariabronte at yahoo.com (Mari) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 08:04:46 -0000 Subject: Snape and GOF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144400 > Jen: You don't think Snape really views Harry the way he presented > him? I thought that was probably one of the truths he was telling! > In one sense, spreading that rumour about Harry having 'no > extraordinary talent at all' does protect Harry because he will > continue to be underestimated. In another sense, what a blow to > Voldemort's ego, outsmarted by a mediocre, underage wizard. Perhaps > that's why Snape explained that Harry is helped out by sheer luck > and talented friends, to assauge the Dark Lord's failure. I think > Snape meant everything he said about Harry. Mari: This is interesting, Jen. I was thinking mainly of CoS (which is connected in some ways to HBP) in which it is made quite clear that Snape is one of the people who figures out that Harry is a parselmouth. The way he acts at the duelling club suggests to me that he is not treating Harry as a 'mediocre' student but is, if anything, curious about what Harry will do with his ability (as regards the snake that erupts from Draco's wand). Of course, in the end, either position is arguable. Mari. From pookiebear364 at gmail.com Fri Dec 9 08:01:27 2005 From: pookiebear364 at gmail.com (Pookie) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 08:01:27 -0000 Subject: DD's Penseive / Portrait In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144401 Debbie R wrote: > Do you suppose that DD could have left some memories in his > pensieve that might shed some light on things for Harry (and > Minerva since she would be the one to find them)....or was it > left obviously empty ??? I also had a thought that perhaps the painting of DD might be helpful to Harry; had anyone any thoughts on that? If I missed the posting on this please accept my appol... Pookie From ornawn at 013.net Fri Dec 9 08:52:34 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 08:52:34 -0000 Subject: Did Snape lie in Spinner's End? Was:Re: Snape and GOF Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144402 >Elyse >During Spinner's End, when Snape said he actively contributed to >Sirius' death, I cheered inwardly at what I thought I knew was an >absolute lie, Orna: I don't understand. Why is it assumed, that the only way Snape could have boasted to contribute to Sirius' death is by passing the information on Harry's attachment towards Sirius to the Malfoys or to Voldemort? He doesn't say ? I actively contributed to Harry's allurement to the MoM. As I read it, he could be talking about what Harry was thinking: provoking Sirius to leave his hiding-place. He could be talking about opening Harry's mind for Voldemort. He could be talking about informing Sirius that Harry is in the MoM. Actually, it is a double-edged sword - because Voldemort wanted first of all the prophecy, and any connection of Snape towards alarming the order wouldn't be a very wise confession, IMO. So I found it quite risky to admit having anything to do with Sirius' death. It might be a way of a snivelly compliment for Bella's ears. Anyway ? as I read it could be true in a sense, and a complete hollow lie ? just for their ears. But I don't think it meant he had passed the information to the Malfoys. I can invent a scenario which fits it in a way: The only thing, which is cannon-supported, as far as I remember, is that Lucius (or Draco) told Snape he saw and recognized Sirius as a dog on the platform, hugging Harry ? as it was. It opens the opportunity for a conversation between them, Lucius saying - wasn't this dog Sirius, and how come he risks being out of hiding just to hug Harry farewell? And Snape admitting that there was a special relationship between them. (Not a big deal under the circumstances, and incidentally a piece of information Wormtail could know, after PoA). Actually it is the sort of information a double-spy would provide - not exclusive, juicy, and somehow known. The fact they waited until Kreacher supported this peace of information, seems to hint that Snape's contribution wasn't final enough for Voldemort. But, it was a conversation known to the Malfoys, and thus strengthening his reliability as a DE-spy. So, Snape might have put his piece of (not exclusive) information there, and Kreacher "sealing the package". I mean it sounds reasonable, that Kreacher wouldn't just converse with Narcissa, but more of being asked about things. So perhaps by this point, when Lucius saw Sirius, had Snape admitting to some relationship there (and he couldn't very well deny it), they made sure by asking Kreacher. In light of this, I see Snape exaggerating his part in Sirius' death, not anything more. But from Narcissa's POV it wasn't a lie. And let's say Snape is quite easy in saying it - not being too tormented with grief over Sirius' death. Orna From ornawn at 013.net Fri Dec 9 11:43:59 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 11:43:59 -0000 Subject: Enchanted Items Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144403 ?? Bart: > 3) Squibs. Considering how little most magical families > supposedly know about Muggles, squibs would have a great > deal of difficulty getting by in the Muggle world. One > would think that someone could make decent money, especially > if the Ministry kicks in, making magical prothetics/aids/etc. > Why is this not happening? > > Any theories? >> Bart >bboyminn: >It seems that Squib are extremely rare. The two we seen seem to have >made their nitch in the wizard world. Filch is caretaker at >Hogwarts,and given his non-magical status, I'm sure he works >extremely hard. >Mrs. Figg has carved a nitch in crossbreading cat and Kneasles, and >logically her target market would be magical people. Limited as it >is,they both seem to have found their way in the wizard world. There it is, for what it's worth. >Steve/bboyminn Orna: As for squibs being rare - I'm not sure about it -Neville's family was afraid he would be one- if they were so rare - I'm not sure they would think about it so much. OTOH since it is a disgrace - they might be worried, even if the probability is low. But I think of squibs as the extreme of a scale of extremely powerful magic ability on one point, and extreme non-magical ability on the other. So it would make sense to market items which help less magical wizards to get along in the world. There was a mentioning in CoS that Filch got a letter from Kwikspell promising a correspondence course in Beginners?? Magic. So it seems someone is making decent money, or at least trying to. And while we are at it, perhaps it has been discussed ?V my apology ?V does anyone have a theory on why Filch, who is a squib, and a somewhat sadistic one is placed in this caretaker??s job. Perhaps a wizard caretaker would make it really difficult for the pupils to wander around and seek adventures, and DD likes his students to develop their adventurous skills? And why he was treating Snape??s wounded leg in PS? (What??s wrong with Madam Pomfrey, or Snape??s own healing powers, revealed in HBP?) And another thing ?V while checking in CoS, I saw that Filch put Peeves in the vanishing cabinet ?V thinking that he got rid of him that way. Do you think it possible, that Peeves traveled to Borgin & Burkes and picked up something of importance for book 7? Orna From muellem at bc.edu Fri Dec 9 12:02:25 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 12:02:25 -0000 Subject: DD's Penseive / Portrait In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144404 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Pookie" wrote: > > Debbie R wrote: > > Do you suppose that DD could have left some memories in his > > pensieve that might shed some light on things for Harry (and > > Minerva since she would be the one to find them)....or was it > > left obviously empty ??? > > > I also had a thought that perhaps the painting of DD might be > helpful to Harry; had anyone any thoughts on that? If I missed > the posting on this please accept my appol... > > Pookie colebiancardi: I posted a thought way back when but it did not gather much interest at the time, as I have not seen any posts to my post. But my thoughts about the paintings is that they are active participants, even though they aren't *real*. The reason why I think this is because of their uses to DD(having them check on situations by visiting their other portraits) and this passage from HBP(p. 499 Am Hardcover Ed) when DD is talking to Harry about his theories about LV's Horcruxes: "Harry suddenly noticed that every single one of the old headmasters and headmistreeses in the portraits around the walls was awake & listening in on their conversation. A corpulent, red-nosed wizard had actually taken out an ear trumpet." They might be of use to the Order, as Harry is being very closemouthed, at the end of HBP, about his task with DD. The portraits have been listening in to Harry's & DD's conversations about LV & Horcruxes from the beginning and know just as much, if not more, than Harry does - as we have had canon that DD talks to the portraits when he is alone in the room - can't remember the book, but it is an earlier one - Harry is outside of DD's office and hears conversations, but when he enters the room, only DD is there. He later discovers that the portraits can talk. Which leds me to believe that was also the reason why DD talked to Snape in the Forbidden Forest, where they argued, instead of DD's office - I don't think DD wanted the portraits to overhear what he & Snape were planning to do. But why not? Aren't the portraits supposed to be at the beck & call of the headmaster/headmistress? Is DD worried that one of the portraits may be used for some other purpose? Or did he just wish any plans, such as what Snape needs to do if something really bad happens(re: The Tower scene), not to be revealed. colebiancardi (who thinks the portraits have an important role to play in book 7) From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Fri Dec 9 12:55:06 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 12:55:06 -0000 Subject: Did Snape lie in Spinner's End? Was:Re: Snape and GOF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144405 Elyse here, who is enjoying this thread after a posting hiatus: > >Elyse earlier: > >During Spinner's End, when Snape said he actively contributed to > >Sirius' death, I cheered inwardly at what I thought I knew was an > >absolute lie, > > Orna: > I don't understand. Why is it assumed, that the only way Snape could > have boasted to contribute to Sirius' death is by passing the > information on Harry's attachment towards Sirius to the Malfoys or > to Voldemort? Elyse: Oh, I agree there were other ways of contributing to Sirius' death, but this was what jumped instinctively to my mind when I read it for the first time,it was my initial reaction. Maybe it was part of my subconscious desire to vindicate Snape's being a bad guy, so I took it as a lie on my first reading. Now of course, I'm not so sure..... Orna: He doesn't say ? I actively contributed to Harry's > allurement to the MoM. As I read it, he could be talking about what > Harry was thinking: provoking Sirius to leave his hiding-place. Elyse: I dont know...I think that Sirius leaving Grimmauld Place was more out of concern for Harry rather than wanting to prove anything to Snape. I doubt he would have stayed there like a good boy, even if Snape hadnt taunted him. Just my interpretation, of course...if Sirius does come back, this would be the first question I would ask him. But assuming that Sirius did leave 12GP due to Snape's "feeble taunts", how can Snape brag about it? If this is what he was referring to, I'm sure Bella would have jeered "Wow, Snape what a contribution, we were out fighting and you were exchanging insults? What a heroic effort you made for the Dark Lord! I'm absolutely convinced of your honesty now!"...;-) Orna: He > could be talking about opening Harry's mind for Voldemort. Elyse: Well, I'm sceptical of this argument too, since I think Dumbledore would know if that was the case. And once again since Harry didnt really make any effort at Occlumency, I guess we will never find out. Still, I'd say Harry's mind was quite open enough, and I doubt he would have been capable of blocking "the most accomplished Legilimens the world has ever seen"... according to Snape and Bella anyway. Orna: He could > be talking about informing Sirius that Harry is in the MoM. Elyse: Nope, because even if this is what he was referring to, there was a good chance Sirius might stay in 12GP. If Dumbledore had arrived a few minutes earlier, he would have held Sirius back, so again, not much to brag about IMO, and certainly not in front of the two women who had a more active role in killing him. Orna: > Actually, it is a double-edged sword - because Voldemort wanted > first of all the prophecy, and any connection of Snape towards > alarming the order wouldn't be a very wise confession, IMO. So I > found it quite risky to admit having anything to do with Sirius' > death. It might be a way of a snivelly compliment for Bella's ears. Elyse: LOLOL Now we know where that nickname came from! And yes I agree it would have been better not to mention it at all, especially as an example of his loyalty! > Orna: > Anyway ? as I read it could be true in a sense, and a complete > hollow lie ? just for their ears. In light of this, I see Snape exaggerating his part in Sirius' > death, not anything more. But from Narcissa's POV it wasn't a lie. > And let's say Snape is quite easy in saying it - not being too > tormented with grief over Sirius' death. > Elyse: Thats the problem isnt it? How much truth is there in this remarkably vague statement? I like your scenario, which I snipped, but here again, he hasnt got much to brag about, since the information would have got there through Kreacher anyway. If you want to solidly prove your loyalty to someone like Bella, I think a more concrete statement would have been better. Some sort of indisputable action or evidence...the missing 5 hours for example.;-) Or he could have exaggerated his role in Emmeline Vance's death since "helped" is also very vague and evasive. Elyse, who likes to think that Snape brought up Sirius' death since he had no other evidence to support his claim of loyalty From h2so3f at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 13:33:39 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 13:33:39 -0000 Subject: DD's Penseive / Portrait In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144406 colebiancardi wrote: "My thoughts about the paintings is that they are active participants, even though they aren't *real*." CH3ed: I think JKR said either on her site or in an interview that portraits are 'imprints' of the person and their thinking process is somewhat limited to repeating the person's catch phrases in the past. I agree with Colebiancardi that they are useful in the surveillance area. The portraits have indeed been listening to everything that went on in the Headmaster's office. I think the scene you were thinking of is from OotP right after the snake attack vision. Harry, McGonagall, and Ron went to see DD and when they were just outside the door Harry heard the sound of an animated discussion coming from the office. Colebiancardi wrote: "Which leds me to believe that was also the reason why DD talked to Snape in the Forbidden Forest, where they argued, instead of DD's office - I don't think DD wanted the portraits to overhear what he & Snape were planning to do. But why not? Aren't the portraits supposed to be at the beck & call of the headmaster/headmistress? Is DD worried that one of the portraits may be used for some other purpose? Or did he just wish any plans, such as what Snape needs to do if something really bad happens(re: The Tower scene), not to be revealed." CH3ed: Good catch! Yeah, I think DD had that discussion with Snape in the forest to avoid being overheard by the portraits (only to be overheard by Hagrid instead). The portraits are bound by honor to serve the current headmaster of Hogwarts. So when DD dies the portraits are supposed to tell the new Headmaster anything he/she ask. Some of the portraits seem to like to chat to visitors too (I think it was Tippet that told one of the DA boys that Harry used Gryffindor's sword to kill the Basilisk in his 2nd year. And Phineas Nigellus was chatting up Fudge after he, Umbridge and his aurors fought DD in OotP) so it is likely DD didn't trust their ability to keep from slipping important secrets out. I'm leaning pretty far into the DDM!Snape camp so I think this fits well with the theory that DD anticipated his possible assasination before school year ends. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Dec 9 15:02:49 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 15:02:49 -0000 Subject: Did Snape lie in Spinner's End? Was:Re: Snape and GOF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144407 Orna: > > I don't understand. Why is it assumed, that the only way Snape > could > > have boasted to contribute to Sirius' death is by passing the > > information on Harry's attachment towards Sirius to the Malfoys or > > to Voldemort? > > Elyse: Oh, I agree there were other ways of contributing to Sirius' > death, but this was what jumped instinctively to my mind when I read > it for the first time,it was my initial reaction. > Maybe it was part of my subconscious desire to vindicate Snape's > being a bad guy, so I took it as a lie on my first reading. > Now of course, I'm not so sure..... Ceridwen: Sirius's death is peripheral to the mission, which was to get the prophecy. Snape and Bellatrix had just argued about that mission and its disastrous end. She said LV trusts her, he asks if he does still after the 'fiasco at the Ministry'. Not *her* fault! She was trusted. 'If Lucius hadn't...' Blaming Lucius now, in front of Narcissa. And Narcissa doesn't sit still for that! 'Don't you dare - don't you *dare* blame my husband!' Voice 'low and deadly'. At this point, Narcissa isn't about to give aid and comfort to her sister. Snape redirects the conversation, but keeps it in the Ministry. Bella changes the subject to Grimmauld Place. Snape replies, and tosses out the info that he supplied which led to the capture and death of Emmaline Vance, and for Sirius's death, though he gives her credit for actually killing him. Back to the Ministry. And to the recent disagreement between the sisters. Good for Snape, not good for Bella. He's dividing the sisters and sparing himself a two-pronged attack. Bella's helping, too. > Orna: > He doesn't say ? I actively contributed to Harry's > > allurement to the MoM. As I read it, he could be talking about > what > > Harry was thinking: provoking Sirius to leave his hiding-place. > Elyse: I dont know...I think that Sirius leaving Grimmauld Place was > more out of concern for Harry rather than wanting to prove anything > to Snape. I doubt he would have stayed there like a good boy, even > if Snape hadnt taunted him. Just my interpretation, of course...if > Sirius does come back, this would be the first question I would ask > him. Ceridwen: Sirius's death wasn't the important thing in the trip to the MoM. The whole idea was to get the prophecy. Snape throws this in to deflect the Secret Keeper argument and keep Narcissa's feelings against Bella bubbling. Why should LV care which Order member died? He would probably have wanted more of them gone. The only benefit to LV is that Harry is grieving. But this turns against him when he tries to possess Harry. Harry's feelings for Sirius are too painful for LV to bear. And since the MoM, he's been keeping out of Harry's head - not an advantage. The advantage of mentioning Sirius's death is to refer back to the 'fiasco' Bellatrix blamed on Lucius just a minute before, keeping the shadow of a wedge between the sisters. That it also adds to Snape's story about loyalty is beside the immediate need, IMO. Elyse: > But assuming that Sirius did leave 12GP due to Snape's "feeble > taunts", how can Snape brag about it? > If this is what he was referring to, I'm sure Bella would have > jeered "Wow, Snape what a contribution, we were out fighting and you > were exchanging insults? > What a heroic effort you made for the Dark Lord! I'm absolutely > convinced of your honesty now!"...;-) Ceridwen: But he isn't bragging. He's deflecting Bella's criticism. He mentions it in passing, then immediately gives her credit for the kill. Sirius's death serves the purpose of keeping the sisters divided by obliquely bringing up the Ministry again. There was no time, and no opportunity, for Narcissa to break in and say 'No, Kreachur told us...' This is between Bellatrix and Snape. And Narcissa is already stinging over the comment about Lucius, and her major concern for Draco. I don't even see in canon where she's following this argument. If it was me, I would have been sitting there fuming about how long this nonsense was taking. She's obviously distracted by her maternal concerns when the argument is over and Snape turns to her. The preliminaries, which I assume were unnecessarily taking up precious time in her mind, are over, now it's time for the main event. *(snip, since I don't think he was thinking much about Sirius at all)* > Orna: > > Actually, it is a double-edged sword - because Voldemort wanted > > first of all the prophecy, and any connection of Snape towards > > alarming the order wouldn't be a very wise confession, IMO. So I > > found it quite risky to admit having anything to do with Sirius' > > death. It might be a way of a snivelly compliment for Bella's > ears. > Elyse: LOLOL Now we know where that nickname came from! > And yes I agree it would have been better not to mention it at all, > especially as an example of his loyalty! Ceridwen: And he slithers out of any blame for it just before he mentions Sirius. He doubts if Bellatrix is as trusted as she has been after the Ministry 'fiasco'. Bella blames Lucius. Snape is free and clear, and Bella is on the defensive. She suggests that Snape got out of the dangerous work, but he has an answer - he must protect his position with Dumbledore. And this whole thing is to get out of answering Bellatrix's question of what useful information he's provided. Snape has given his information to LV. 'If he chooses not to share it with you...' taking them right into the MoM battle, and the disastrous way it turned out. Not Snape's fault, he did as he was told. Bellatrix, however, was there, and didn't stop the capture and imprisonment of the DEs. Even Sirius's death, which turned out to be an obstacle to LV, is less his fault than Bella's. Snape, in this scene, reminds me of my kids when they're trying to get out of the blame for something, more than someone who's trying to claim glory. To LV, Sirius's death is peripheral to the disaster that was supposed to bring him the prophecy. And that's how Snape treats it, along with everything else, showing Bella that he's more on LV's wavelength than she is. But, that's just the way I see it after only a couple of readings. Ceridwen. From kjones at telus.net Fri Dec 9 15:55:39 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 07:55:39 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] There is a difference between being a meanie and being a child abuser. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4399A8FB.6080600@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 144408 > When did Snape abuse either Harry or Nevelle? I don't recall him doing so. He > has been harsh, strict, sarcastic, mean, belittling and unfair--but never > abusive. I've seen real abuse, and Snape doesn't even come close. I've seen > cases of caregivers and teachers treating young people in their charge in ways > that make Snape seem downright cuddly. Calling Snape 'abusive' is an insult to > the children who have survived things that would give you--and have given me-- > nightmares. > > Bruce KJ writes: I am in total agreement with this. JKR said that Snape was a teacher who abused his power, not his students. JKR's ability as a writer can not be determined by how completely her characters are punished. Obviously, JKR is setting Snape up to be or appear to be a particular kind of person. He also fits in quite well with the idea that as attractive as the magical world is, there are some serious threats and dangers in what could be a perfect world. I, frankly, find the idea that Snape is a child abuser to be a waste of time, particularly since JKR has shown throughout the books that none of the students react to his behaviour the same way that they would if he really was an abuser. The students deal with him better than some of the readers do, which is the point that JKR was trying to get across. Kids are capable of dealing with a teacher like Snape, even Neville, who was more disturbed by Moody than by Snape. KJ From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Dec 9 16:24:23 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:24:23 -0000 Subject: Neville and Snape (was What standards are we using)/Stigmatizing Slytherin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144409 Pookie: I am unsure that the other houses see themselves as "better". I > went to a boarding school that had something like that (different > "houses") and we all thought ours was THE one to be in but from > what I see only the house of Slytherin seem to actually think > they are better- perhaps it is from the Pure blood thinking they > think they are better? Magpie: It just seems to me that Slytherin is openly described as the bad house, the one to be hissed at and hated. Harry tells Neville he should be proud to be in Gryffindor, and that Malfoy winding up in stinking Slytherin proves how Neville is worth twelve of him. Nobody questions there not being any Slytherins in the DA. Harry wants "anything but Slytherin at his Sorting, Ron says he wouldn't be in that house for the world or something. Hagrid says not a wizard that went bad wasn't in Slytherin. All these seem like pretty clear judgments on the character of Slytherins being inferior. Of course, there's often also a sort of casual dismissal of Hufflepuffs as being duffers, though that seems to be challenged within the stories. The other houses seem like they're probably more like the houses at your school, but yeah, I think the Gryffindors absolutely consider themselves morally superior to Slytherins and pretty open about it. At a regular school you're just sorted into a house. At Hogwarts you're judged on the basis of the qualities of your personality. It invites personal judgment. -m From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Dec 9 16:42:10 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:42:10 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Snape's slide into the DE's Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144410 Snape lovin' Lily has never worked for me, even finding out she was a natural at Potions, cheeky and could have been in Slytherin didn't convince me of Snape's unrequited love. Then JKR said post-HBP she was willing to tell fans if either Snape or Lupin had loved Lily. Well, she backed off before answering completely and only mentioned Lupin, but I think that was a hint there's nothing more coming about Snape and Lily of much significance. So I'm proposing a new theory about Snape's fall into temptation and ultimately the DE's, which includes a mysterious character who reappeared on the boards this week, Florence. Her story is old, check out the archives, but this is the first update the poor girl has had since before the release of OOTP. So in the spirit of fun and to honor all the great Florence theorists of the past, here's her new story. :) *****NOTE: I'm connecting together bits of ambiguous canon we've never had a complete explanation for, mostly scenes from the Pensieve and Occlumency lessons. Please know there is speculation in places to fill gaps! It's long because it covers a lot of ground, but hopefully an easy read.****** First of all, the name Florence may call to mind Florence, Italy; it did for me until a search brought up the name Florence Nightingale. Oho! Known primarily for radical innovations in nursing care and her passion for statistics (logic), the real Florence was highly educated for her time. She was also remembered as a young girl who took care of sick and injured pets and people, a Healer from early on. Florence and Severus were sorted into different houses at Hogwarts: Severus went to Slytherin, while Florence was sorted into Gryffindor. Florence quickly found a gang of girlfriends in her year who were all noted for being smart and magically talented; among them was her best friend, Lily Evans. Florence enjoyed popularity and good marks in classes like Potions and Arithmancy, which she hoped would lead to a career as a Healer. Severus meanwhile was floundering, he had a reputation as an oddball and greasy git, unliked by many outside his house. He earned the nickname Snivellus fairly early on, for "crying sometimes in front of his peers against his will, when he was hurt, thus 'wearing his heart on the sleeve' only to be ridiculed for it." (borrowed from Orna, post # 144291) When it came to curses and hexes though, Snape was way advanced beyond his peers and was able to give as good as he got. Severus noticed Florence for being just as sharp as he was in Potions and Arithmancy, a class Severus expected to excel at given his skills in logic from his part-Muggle home (a fact he told no one during this time of Voldemort's rise to power). But he discovered Florence was also from a mixed Muggle/Wizard home when he overheard her talking to Lily one day in Potions. He also noticed Florence, much like himself, planned to be a Healer one day. Flying lessons were his worst subject. Slytherins and Gryffindors shared the class and Snape's nemesis from practically the first day of school, James Potter, proved himself to be a flying ace early on. Even though Snape was a worthy opponent using his wand, his flying was dismal, made worse by the fact that the school brooms were old and anti-hex and anti-jinx spells were often faded and never replaced. James and his friend Sirius took great pleasure in catching Snape off-guard, using simple hexes which caused his broom to buck. Florence was in the class as well, and since she and her friends disapproved of the 'bullying toerags' in their year at Gryffindor, Florence would cheer Snape on to mount the bucking broomstick and spoil James' fun. Her support of him over fellow Gryffindors surprised and pleased Severus. It didn't take long before he invented a countercurse and the broom-bucking stopped. While Florence thrived at Hogwarts in later years, Snape dovetailed. Voldemort was starting to recruit at Hogwarts via groups of 6th and 7th year students in his old house, Slytherin, who put pressure on younger students to fight for the cause of pure-blood superiority. As tension from opposing sides grew stronger, the individual wars between students grew stronger as well. Severus felt the pull toward the older Slytherins, both for protection and because they were interested in learning new hexes and curses from him. His pride drove him to invent more and more clever spells and in exchange, one particular group of students who would all become DE's after leaving Hogwarts, helped him figure out ways to get back at those Gryffindor punks. Florence noticed the change in Severus, noticed he had a dark brooding side that was growing and that his interest in DADA was taking over his interest in other classes. Often he was seen scribbling in his potions book, and a peek one day revealed that he was working on spells, not potions. Florence, with an eye toward reforming Severus, asked him to meet her behind the greenhouses, one of the few relatively safe places the two could meet away from prying eyes. Unfortunately Bertha Jorkins, an extremely nosy older Slytherin student, noticed the two walking across the grounds and was curious. She decided to follow. She didn't see the two talking earnestly, didn't hear Florence express to Severus how her interest in him was changing. All Bertha saw was Severus kissing Florence. Unable to contain herself as a gossip and a snoop, Bertha stored away the information and next time she saw Severus in the common room, she teased him about the kiss behind the greenhouse. Severus, furious at her and scared for the information to leak out, hexed her and earned detention. Bertha went immediately to Dumbledore to snitch on Snape, but Dumbledore waved her away--he was consumed with Voldemort's rise and didn't realize the future significance of the events, didn't realize how the one small incident and Bertha's gossip would change the future of so many lives. One day many years later, he would think back to the incident and feel a great weight of sadness that he hadn't done more at the time. The sixth and seventh year gang of Slytherins were angry--what was Snape doing kissing a Half-Blood, practically a Mudblood from all accounts? Snape was told he had a choice to make and make quick-- drop the girl and everything would be OK, stay with her and his life would be hell. And Severus chose. He was sick of being weak, sick of being Snivellus. He wanted the power those older students had, and they needed him for his growing knowledge of dark magic. Snape decided to stop 'wearing his hear on his sleeve' that night, and started snubbing Florence. One day in fifth year, when Snape's skills had grown to the point where he was rarely defenseless against the Marauders (even without assistance of the gang of Slytherins, who were gone), James and Sirius took him two-on-one after an OWL exam. Severus was defending himself with a mix of his own created spells and other hexes, when suddenly Lily Evans intervened. While James' guard was down arguing with Lily, Severus hit James with one of his invented nonverbal spells, Sectumsempra. He was pleased to see a gash appear on James' cheek, before finding himself hoisted up by another of his own spells, Levicorpus. He heard the laughter of the other students and even caught a smile twitching at the sides of Lily's mouth. Furious, embarrassed and hating all of them at the moment, when James insinuated that Lily was the reason he removed the curse a few minutes later, Snape lashed out at Lily "I don't need help from filthy little Mudbloods like her!" Lily grew cold, James furious, but the worst part was the moment Severus noticed Florence over Lily's shoulder, where she had come up to watch the proceedings and give Lily moral support. Severus saw Florence's face turn white at the invective Snape yelled out, saw her slowly turn away and walk back to the lake with the other girls. Not long after, Snape noticed Florence and Sirius flirting in the Great Hall and he felt his heart close with hatred and vengeance. Determined to get the Marauders into serious trouble and perhaps get them expelled if possible, Snape took to tailing them. He noticed once a month that Lupin was escorted across the grounds alone to the Whomping Willow. On one occasion, while watching Lupin taken from the castle, Sirius Black happened upon Snape's hiding place and realized he'd seen Lupin. Sirius egged Snape on, called him a coward and a fool and dared him to follow. Snape decided to take the dare...... Jen, thinking the rest, as they say, is history. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 9 16:48:18 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:48:18 -0000 Subject: Cultural standards for Snape abusiv In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144411 > Alla: > > I don't have a problem with healing Snape per se, but am hoping that > JKR will make him pay first or at least ASK for Harry to forgive > him. I also don't want to see Harry behave as Saint and to me > forgiving Snape without any indication that Snape at least regrets > his actions will amount to saintly behavior. :-) > Pippin: I don't have a problem with Snape apologizing if he chooses to. I have a problem with Harry or anyone else *making* him do it. That's what Lily was saying too, I think. I don't think you have to be a saint to see that forcing someone to apologize is just power-tripping, IMO. Alla: > Again, just me. I am sure JKR will be able to pull off any case > scenario, just thinking that Snape will not go punishment free. Two > or three words, Pippin is it REALLY that hard for Snape to say I am > ashamed of what I did? Do you think he is really so not in control > of his facilities that he cannot look Harry in the eyes and say " I > am sorry". I think for all my dislike of him as "person", I have a > higher opinion of his ability to change than you do :-). > Pippin: I guess I am not clear what Snape is supposed to be punished for, DDM!Snape, I mean. If it is for serving Voldemort, then I think he is supposed to have paid for his crimes by changing sides and saving Harry. I know you think that any teacher would have done that, but the fact is, Harry himself tells Slughorn that he is *not* agreeing to help Dumbledore fight Voldemort by taking a Hogwarts job. Even now, when everyone knows Voldemort is back and the whole wizarding world is in danger, ordinary teachers are not expected to take a hand in the fight. If it is for using the 'wrong' teaching methods, I think they are allowable by Hogwarts standards even if Harry and Neville were frightened by them. The different standards thing shows up really clearly in your example. IIRC,where you grew up, no one thinks it is wrong for children to be left at home for long periods alone. If something happens to such a child, I guess people would not blame the parents for leaving, they would say it was just one of those things, right? But in my country, the parents would be blamed. Can you see how different that is? It doesn't have to mean that one culture is right and the other is wrong, it just means they have made different choices about how to take care of children. If it is for losing his temper occasionally, or for abusing his power, fine, as long as everyone else in canon who loses their temper and abuses power is also punished. To punish just Snape in the name of showing that these things are wrong and in an ideal world everyone would be punished for them -- well, that is the definition of scapegoating, IMO. I really am not sure how much of Snape's behavior he can help. I don't think he terrorizes all the children -- we've never seen him lose his temper with any child except Harry, have we? He's never lost it with Harry in class, either. It's only when they are not in class, and Harry has been doing something particularly James-like, that Snape can't seem to handle himself. So I don't think Snape is out of control generally, just in very particular circumstances. Neville and Harry are sort of a perfect storm. Snape is not the only person who can't understand why Neville isn't better at magic and has attempted to bully more magic out of him -- even McGonagall has done so. And doesn't Hagrid say that magic shows itself when people are angry or frightened? So it would be very easy for Snape to make excuses for himself in Neville's case. I'm not saying they're valid, just that Neville seems to bring out the bully in a lot of wizards besides Snape. Are they all going to apologize too? Pippin From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 18:04:13 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:04:13 -0000 Subject: DD's Penseive / Portrait In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144412 > > Colebiancardi wrote: > "Which leds me to believe that was also the reason why DD talked to > Snape in the Forbidden Forest, where they argued, instead of DD's > office - I don't think DD wanted the portraits to overhear what he & > Snape were planning to do. But why not? Aren't the portraits > supposed to be at the beck & call of the headmaster/headmistress? Is > DD worried that one of the portraits may be used for some other > purpose? Or did he just wish any plans, such as what Snape needs to > do if something really bad happens(re: The Tower scene), not to be > revealed." > Finwitch: That makes me wonder - now that Dumbledore *himself* is a portrait - why matter? Is he bound to tell McGonagall everything now? But all that Portrait Dumbledore has done so far, is sleeping. At any case, discussion between McGonagall & Portrait!Dumbledore would be quite interesting to read... or would it be something silly like: "... But he killed you, Albus!" "I trust Severus Snape." (I don't know about you, but if anyone tells Albus that Snape killed him - and that portrait-Albus STILL says he trusts Severus Snape, I'm going to laugh hard...) Maybe first chapter in the next book? Before we get to Harry's pov, that is. Add Aberforth to the picture -- Keeper of Dumbledore's memories as well as his brother... and Albus Dumbledore's legacy. Is Aberforth going to get everything (as only living relative so far as we know) or is there a will giving a little something to Harry/teachers/Hogwarts? (You know - like Firebolts for ALL Quidditch teams or some sort of fund for students who have hard time getting to school or something to aid the order...) Finwitch From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 17:19:21 2005 From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 09:19:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Cultural standards for Snape abusiv In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051209171921.30167.qmail@web61317.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144413 Pippin: I don't have a problem with Snape apologizing if he chooses to. I have a problem with Harry or anyone else *making* him do it. That's what Lily was saying too, I think. I don't think you have to be a saint to see that forcing someone to apologize is just power-tripping, IMO. I really am not sure how much of Snape's behavior he can help. I don't think he terrorizes all the children -- we've never seen him lose his temper with any child except Harry, have we? He's never lost it with Harry in class, either. It's only when they are not in class, and Harry has been doing something particularly James-like, that Snape can't seem to handle himself. So I don't think Snape is out of control generally, just in very particular circumstances. Neville and Harry are sort of a perfect storm. Snape is not the only person who can't understand why Neville isn't better at magic and has attempted to bully more magic out of him -- even McGonagall has done so. And doesn't Hagrid say that magic shows itself when people are angry or frightened? So it would be very easy for Snape to make excuses for himself in Neville's case. I'm not saying they're valid, just that Neville seems to bring out the bully in a lot of wizards besides Snape. Are they all going to apologize too? Pippin Joe: I might be wrong but I think we have seen Snape lose his temper with others students haven't we? I don't have the books handy I was pretty certain that we do. Even if it is just Harry there is still no excuse for it, no matter know much he looks or acts like his father. That is Jerry Springer behavior at its very best. Honestly I don't care if Snape does apologise. If it turns out that he was responsible for James and Lilly's deaths then there is nothing he can do to make amend for it. Sure he might be protecting Harry but Harry's parents could do that if Snape hadn't sold them out.Some things can't be made up for. If he wasn't responsible for their deaths then he is still a petty, mean and spiteful person. Other teachers may not treat Neville with kid gloves but none of them was his bogart either. This kid had parents who were tortured to death by Death Eaters and his biggest fear is Snape, seems kind of telling to me. Really why should Snape apologise? I can't see anyone listening and for good reasons. Joe. From bawa_hrishikesh at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 10:27:17 2005 From: bawa_hrishikesh at yahoo.com (Hrishikesh) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 10:27:17 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore may not be dead after all! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144414 We all know that Rowling is exceptionally good at putting various twists and turns into the saga. There are quite many clues in HBP that indicate so! First of all we must all acknowledge that both Dumbledore & Snape are great Legilimens & Occlumens. So when Dumbledore says "please.." to Snape during the end of the book, Albus might have told Snape to do something else! The way in which the killing curse was performed was also speculating, as normally the victim just seems to limp off dead, but Dumbledore was blasted away. Besides, in OOP, Bellatrix says that to perform the Unforgivable curses, one must actually mean them (Snape might not have meant to kill), and we all know that Snape is very good at Non-Verbal Spells, so he must used some other incantaion! And Dumbledore might have used a Non-Verbal Spell to free Harry of the Body Bind! Also during Aragog's funeral, in one song it is mentioned that, the dead wizard's wand was snapped, Dumbledore's wand was not found! During his funeral we do not get to see his body, only a package, which might be containing anything else too. Also once during his lessons Dumbledore extracts his memory from a bottle instead of his dead! The real one would easily remove it from his head, only one who is not Dumbledore may need to use the bottle! Besides Dumbledore is always associated with a Phoenix so he might as well rise from his ashes! And let's all be as optimistic as Luna who says once that although her mother kicked the bucket in a freak experiment, she expects her to return due to the veil in the Department of Mysteries! Let's Hope godd all Dumbledore makes a Come-Back, & that Snape is not a Traitor after all. "Hrishikesh" From bawa_hrishikesh at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 10:38:09 2005 From: bawa_hrishikesh at yahoo.com (Hrishikesh) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 10:38:09 -0000 Subject: Snape may not be a Traitor Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144415 There are many clues which indicate that Snape may not be a traitor to our side! We first start at Spinner's End. We know that Snape is a great Legilimens. When Narcissa was in an Emotional turmoil Snape glanced at her and then frowned! As I see it, Snape got information on what the task was that Draco had to perform by using Leglimens easily as Cissy was weak minded then, he used this information to gain their trust, might have informed Dumbledore all about the plans. We must also acknowledge that Snape is extremely good at Non-Verbval Spells, and when he killed Dumbledore, he might used some other spell. Besides, the way in which Dumbledore's killed is quite speculating, as normally after the use of Avada Kedavara, the victim just simply limps off to death, but Dumbledore was blasted off! Also when dumbledore says "Severus Please..." in the same chapter, both of them being accomplished Legilimens & Occlumens, may have conveyed some plan via their brains hitherto unknown to others. Hence I believe that Snape may be on our side after all. There are some clues that indicate some speculations in Dumbledore's death for which please view my article, "Dumbledore may not be dead after all". -Santulan From sudeeel at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 16:49:13 2005 From: sudeeel at yahoo.com (sudeeel) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:49:13 -0000 Subject: possible theory as to who might die in book 7 and alchemy parallels In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144416 ealier sudeeel wrote: > > According to Google, there are more than 17,000 cites > > linking rubeus with red Geoff: > Just in passing, you mean "sites". I initially read your > sentence as 17000 cities and did a double-take. sudeeel: Actually, I didn't say "cities." I said "cites," as in citations. Sorry for dragging my workaday research language into the list. Geoff: > There obviously is a link because a bramble bush produces > blackberries and, as I know from testing them this autumn while > out walking the dogs, they stain my fingers red. sudeeel: I didn't mean to imply rubeus couldn't mean bramble, since some words do have more than one meaning. In addition, I think the point of the folks talking about the colors of alchemy is that someone whose name means "black" died in book 5, someone whose name means "white" died in book 6 and someone whose name means "red" may well die in book 7. Of course, that could be Rufus Scrimgeour and not Rubeus Hagrid. But Scrimgeour is not among Harry's favorites, whereas Sirius, Dumbledore and Hagrid are. sudeeel From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 18:53:47 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:53:47 -0000 Subject: Cultural standards for Snape abusiveness/Karma again/Mcgonagall and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144417 > Pippin: > I don't have a problem with Snape apologizing if he chooses to. > I have a problem with Harry or anyone else *making* him do it. > That's what Lily was saying too, I think. I don't think you have > to be a saint to see that forcing someone to apologize is just > power-tripping, IMO. Alla: No, you don't have to be a saint to see that, but IMO you do have to be one to forgive someone who wronged you so badly without any indication on the other side that such person wants your forgiveness. I am not saying DESERVES forgiveness, but I am definitely saying ASKS for one. > Pippin: > I guess I am not clear what Snape is supposed to be punished for, > DDM!Snape, I mean. Alla: Oh, I guess our positions are even farther from each other than I thought yesterday. So, Snape has nothing to be punished for, right? We are approaching agree to disagree moment, but I do want to respond to some points of yours first. But first of all, you are not arguing that it is an undisputable fact that Snape is DD!M, right? Pippin: If it is for serving Voldemort, then I think he is > supposed to have paid for his crimes by changing sides and saving > Harry. I know you think that any teacher would have done that, but > the fact is, Harry himself tells Slughorn that he is *not* agreeing to > help Dumbledore fight Voldemort by taking a Hogwarts job. > Even now, when everyone knows Voldemort is back and the whole > wizarding world is in danger, ordinary teachers are not expected > to take a hand in the fight. Alla: Erm... I agree it seems that ordinary teachers are not supposed to take part in the fight, but I do not think that saving Harry during his Qudditch match means taking part in the fight. JMO obviously. Yep, I consider it to be the part of ordinary teachers duties during the time of peace too. Horace is not expected to take part in the fight, true, but I don't think that if he turned Harry away when he asked him for antidote for Ron, Dumbledore would have been very pleased. Pippin: > If it is for using the 'wrong' teaching methods, I think they are allowable by > Hogwarts standards even if Harry and Neville were frightened by them. > The different standards thing shows up really clearly in your example. > IIRC,where you grew up, no one thinks it is wrong for children to be > left at home for long periods alone. If something happens to such a > child, I guess people would not blame the parents for leaving, they > would say it was just one of those things, right? But in > my country, the parents would be blamed. Can you see how different > that is? It doesn't have to mean that one culture is right and the other > is wrong, it just means they have made different choices about how > to take care of children. Alla: I don't think that it is within Hogwarts teaching manual that what Snape does to them is allowed. And as to my example - OF COURSE parents will be blamed and no, at six years old I was not left alone for a long time, maybe an hour or two. It is just kids were taught to not do certain things while parents are not at home ( as Ceridwen said - were more self sufficient) and if the child would do it anyway, of course parent will be blamed and I would imagine that any normal parent would blame himself for that too. Not that many people could hire babysitters, that is for sure, simply because during communism era hired labor was thrown upon, but grandparents often could watch the children but then the kids could have stayed in the after school program. No, I don't see that much of the difference in the general terms, frankly. Not between the cultures , because communism based culture sure was very different from American one ( now I was told it is not that different either), but between taking care of the child. Oh, I think I rambled enough . Let's go back to Hogwarts now. YES, whether Snape is DD!M or not, I do think he should be punished for bringing personal attitude in the classroom, if for nothing else. Pippin: > If it is for losing his temper occasionally, or for abusing his power, > fine, as long as everyone else in canon who loses their temper > and abuses power is also punished. To punish just Snape in the name > of showing that these things are wrong and in an ideal world everyone > would be punished for them -- well, that is the definition of scapegoating, > IMO. Alla: But that is my point, Pippin. Everybody who abused his power in canon WAS punished (karmically or otherwise)or Jo clearly said that they will be IMO anyway. Lockhart was obliviating all those people, whose deeds he claimed as his own. Check. Fake!Moody was kissed for the abuse he dished in the classroom. Check. Umbridge was hit by centaurs AND Jo said that it is fun to torture her more, that is why she is around (parphrase), so she will get what is coming too, IMO. Those were bad guys ( in my book anyways). Let's take a look at the good guys. Again, IMO. Sirius went to Azkaban, which if you believe that he abused his power over Snape could be considered as karmic punishment for that. Check. Fred and George's Powder was used by DE to get into school, which if you believe that they abuse their power in their pranks, could be considered a karmic punishment for that. Check. Whether you agree or not that Snape is an abuser, Jo said that he abuses his power ( I am not sure how else teacher can abuse his power but by abusing hi students, but different people interpret it differently of course) , so I am not sure why Jo is going to make an exception for Snape and let him go punishment free. Pippin: > Snape is not the only person who can't understand why Neville isn't > better at magic and has attempted to bully more magic out of him -- > even McGonagall has done so. And doesn't Hagrid say that magic > shows itself when people are angry or frightened? So it would be > very easy for Snape to make excuses for himself in Neville's case. > I'm not saying they're valid, just that Neville seems to bring out > the bully in a lot of wizards besides Snape. Are they all going to > apologize too? Alla: Erm... YES, IMO. I said it already - I consider what Mcgonagall did to Neville to be her very worst moments as teacher. Would I want her to apologize? YES, you bet I do. But one reason why I think Mcgonagall is a great teacher and much better one than Snape is because she seems to LEARN from her mistakes, and CHANGE her attitude toward Neville. I don't remember her humiliating Neville in OOP or HBP at all. I do remember her saying that " there is nothing wrong with your work but a lack of confidence" ( paraphrase) JMO, Alla From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Dec 9 19:44:18 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 19:44:18 -0000 Subject: Cultural standards for Snape abusiveness/Karma again/Mcgonagall and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144418 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Pippin: > > I don't have a problem with Snape apologizing if he chooses to. > > I have a problem with Harry or anyone else *making* him do it. > > That's what Lily was saying too, I think. I don't think you have > > to be a saint to see that forcing someone to apologize is just > > power-tripping, IMO. > > Alla: > > No, you don't have to be a saint to see that, but IMO you do have to > be one to forgive someone who wronged you so badly without any > indication on the other side that such person wants your forgiveness. > I am not saying DESERVES forgiveness, but I am definitely saying ASKS > for one. Magpie: Err...woah. I don't think you have to be a saint to do that at all, and I've known people who have forgiven much much worse that way. It's sometimes just the healthy thing to do--I think forgiveness is often a self-preservation thing, not any great sacrifice. Harry forgiving Snape would not make him a saint but a person with a better chance at a happy life. It would be better for Harry if he did this--it might not be better for Snape at all. I think maybe that's where the disagreement comes in. I don't think Harry would have to be doing anything nice for Snape by forgiving him. Snape wouldn't even have to know that Harry forgave him. Perhaps Snape might not even be alive. He might have been executed for killing Dumbledore by that point, let's say. Forgiving Snape would just mean Harry untying himself from Snape. If Harry doesn't forgive Snape (whether or not Snape asks for it or is punished) he'll be tied to all this for the rest of his life. Neville may have already forgiven Snape for his treatment, though many readers haven't forgiven Snape on his behalf. Forgiveness won't depend on anything but whether or not Harry's ready to let it go. Snape could still get his karmic punishment without ever having remorse for his actions or realizing he was wrong. Dumbledore seems to be trying to give the Durlseys a major burn by telling them that they mistreated Dudley and they're just confused, including Dudley, and Harry doesn't really seem to get much out of the scene. That is, I don't get the sense that Harry has some major shift in his feelings with relation to the Dursleys because of DD's smackdown-- not even as much as he had a change of feeling after Hagrid's first visit, I think because Hagrid's visit gave Harry personal power he didn't have before. JKR might like to torture people like Umbridge (James liked to torment people like Snape) but if Harry doesn't forgive Snape Snape will be tormenting him the rest of his life, just as Snape is still tormented by the Marauders even though all things considered he had a better life than any of them! -m From AllieS426 at aol.com Fri Dec 9 19:54:25 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 19:54:25 -0000 Subject: Nagini as a Horcrux and the torturing of the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: <20051208.182047.6597.91694@webmail32.lax.untd.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144419 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bonnie Harvey/ Alesia Gillefalyn" wrote: > We know from HBP that the > creation of a Horcrux requires both a potion and a spell, > therefore it make sense it requires some time to create. Allie: Do we know this? I don't remember a potion being part of it. > Has anyone ever suggested the DEs who tortured the Longbottoms, > after the death of the Potters, for information about LV were > really after the location of LV's body? Could it be possible they were attempting to locate the body so they could reunite his soul (the vapor we see in PS/SS) and his body. With Frank and Alice > both being Aurors, it makes sense they might have known where the > Ministry moved LV's body to. To me, it has always been pretty > clear the way LV regained his body in GoF wasn't the original > plan and there was another way he had planned on had he still had > access to his original body. > Allie again: That's interesting, I had always thought that Voldemort (and his body) was vaporized when the AK rebounded on him. *WAS* his body just lying there in the ruin? I've never heard mention of a body before. But if there was no body, that brings up the question of how did anyone know he was gone? Unless someone else was there and witnessed it (conspiracy theorists, take your pick: Snape/Peter/Lupin/Hagrid/Dumbledore). From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 20:10:26 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:10:26 -0000 Subject: Cultural standards for Snape abusiveness/Speculations about forgiveness In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144420 > Magpie: > I think maybe that's where the disagreement comes in. I don't think > Harry would have to be doing anything nice for Snape by forgiving > him. Snape wouldn't even have to know that Harry forgave him. > Perhaps Snape might not even be alive. He might have been executed > for killing Dumbledore by that point, let's say. Forgiving Snape > would just mean Harry untying himself from Snape. If Harry doesn't > forgive Snape (whether or not Snape asks for it or is punished) > he'll be tied to all this for the rest of his life. Alla: Actually, I do not disagree with you here or so I think today :-). I absolutely think that moving past Snape would be a healthy thing to do for Harry. So, if you are saying that Harry wil forgive Snape for himself without ever saying it to Snape face - ABSOLUTELY, it is a good thing to do,IMO. Say, if Harry thinks - this poor miserable git had a such a tough life, he really had not know any better than to do all those awful things to me, he deserves my pity, sure why not, as long as Snape does not know about it, but is it really forgiveness or is it simply Harry moving on? I speculate that Remus moved on from being angry at person who bitten him, does it mean that he really forgave the one who gave him such an awful disease? Neville forgave Snape? Could be, but at the same time we STILL don't see his new Boggart. Having said all that, I do think that telling it to Snape's face equals absolution of Snape's sins AND for that type of forgiveness I think that Snape should ask for , because IMO it IS a very nice thing for Snape to know that the person whom he helped to become an orphan and tormented for a long time in essense tells him you are forgiven. Magpie: JKR might like to torture people like Umbridge > (James liked to torment people like Snape) but if Harry doesn't > forgive Snape Snape will be tormenting him the rest of his life, > just as Snape is still tormented by the Marauders even though all > things considered he had a better life than any of them! Alla: Are you analogising Umbridge and Snape? We know that Umbridge deserved to be punished, are you saying that Snape also deserved to be punished by James? I won't be really suprised, you know. :-) I do disagree though that if Harry never forgives Snape, it means that Snape will be tormenting him all his life. I also think that there is another very healthy thing in order for Harry to be free of Snape to see that Snape is punished - it is IMO just as healthy way to move past your nemesis, knowing that he got his dues. To sum up - I actually agree with Joe, Snape can never make up for some things he did and I would much prefer him to suffer A LOT, but since I also have a strong hunch that JKR moves towards forgiveness angle at the end, I would like to see at least some suffering , even if it followed by forgiveness. Something, anything, please JKR? JMO of course, Alla From AllieS426 at aol.com Fri Dec 9 20:09:46 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:09:46 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Snape's slide into the DE's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144421 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > Bertha went immediately to Dumbledore to > snitch on Snape, but Dumbledore waved her away--he was consumed with > Voldemort's rise and didn't realize the future significance of the > events, didn't realize how the one small incident and Bertha's > gossip would change the future of so many lives. One day many years > later, he would think back to the incident and feel a great weight > of sadness that he hadn't done more at the time. > Ok, I'll bite, what do you suggest Dumbledore would have done at that time to prevent any of the future events? I like the story, BTW. Allie From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 9 20:29:02 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:29:02 -0000 Subject: possible theory as to who might die in book 7 and alchemy parallels In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144422 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sudeeel" wrote: sudeeel: > In addition, I think the point of the folks talking about the > colors of alchemy is that someone whose name means "black" died > in book 5, someone whose name means "white" died in book 6 and > someone whose name means "red" may well die in book 7. Of course, > that could be Rufus Scrimgeour and not Rubeus Hagrid. But > Scrimgeour is not among Harry's favorites, whereas Sirius, > Dumbledore and Hagrid are. Geoff: Of course, /if/ the theories of some posters are correct and someone whose name means "white" did not die in Book 6, then our alchemical friends will be in a flat spin.... From Sherry at PebTech.net Fri Dec 9 20:55:38 2005 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:55:38 -0000 Subject: Nagini and The Marauder's Map as Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144423 > UNIX4EVR wrote: > > A little OT, but I've often wondered in Nagini isn't the snake that > > Harry freed from the zoo in SS? > > CH3ed: > I doubt it. I recall (don't have access to my first 3 HP books at the > moment) that the snake Harry freed in PS/SS was a Brasilian boa > constrictor, which is not venomous. Nagini is deadly venomous (she > nearly killed Arthur). Also I would think if Nagini is the boa she > would have said something to Harry while he was tied up in the > Graveyard scene in GoF... while LV was busy talking to the DE's. > Amontillada: I was sure Nagini is venomous, but I couldn't remember the reference! Thanks! I just reread Harry's encounter with the boa constrictor in PS/SS. Their discussion was all very cordial and polite, with no suggestion of any Dark overtones. (The pronoun "it" is used for the boa, so there's no indication whether it's male or female). Amontillada From Sherry at PebTech.net Fri Dec 9 21:37:11 2005 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 21:37:11 -0000 Subject: Did Snape give info about Sirius or not/ Cultural standards for Snape abusiv In-Reply-To: <012001c5fc82$89f5c2e0$5d9e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144424 > Magpie: > So I don't consider it a > given that it's important 17-year-old Harry or Neville get something for > Snape being mean to them when they were 11. > > Would that be a fine thing for Snape to give them? Yes. He, personally, > does certainly owe them an apology for his treatment of them. But I think > the development of Harry and Neville is about growing beyond Snape, not > being unable to heal until they get this. Snape seems to be more like that, > actually. I honestly can't imagine Harry or Neville *needing* this kind of > thing. Appreciating it if it were genuine certainly, but I don't think > they're hurting without it. > Amontillada: I think you're striking the target perfectly! Yes, Snape does owe Harry and Neville apologies. Yes, it would be a fine thing for him to give them (and, in my opinion, would require him to consider his own actions more clearly than he's done so far). But Harry and Neville have grown beyond depending on his apologies. His verbal arrows injured them, but they have recovered from those injuries--not perfectly, but they're not disabled by Snape's treatment. Magpie: > but the idea of [Harry] and Neville's inner children being of that kind of > importance seems like a step backwards Amontillada: Whereas Severus Snape's inner youth has never completely outgrown his hostility with and resentment toward James, Sirius, and friends. Ironically, these two former pupils of his have already matured more than he has in the last 20-odd years. Amontillada Whereas, on the From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Dec 9 21:41:11 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 21:41:11 -0000 Subject: Cultural standards for Snape abusiveness/Speculations about forgiveness In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144425 Alla: > > Actually, I do not disagree with you here or so I think today :-). I > absolutely think that moving past Snape would be a healthy thing to > do for Harry. > > So, if you are saying that Harry wil forgive Snape for himself > without ever saying it to Snape face - ABSOLUTELY, it is a good thing > to do,IMO. Ceridwen: If Snape dies in book 7, that may be the only thing Harry can do. I tend toward Harry having to dump all of his hate and anger in order to realize the 'love power' Dumbledore kept reassuring him, and us, is necessary for the defeat of Voldemort. Love can't work through hate. Hate is more agressive, and its excitement is much more seductive, while love is calm and can only grow, IMO, in a beneficial environment. Like the difference between flowers and weeds. Alla: > Say, if Harry thinks - this poor miserable git had a such > a tough life, he really had not know any better than to do all those > awful things to me, he deserves my pity, sure why not, as long as > Snape does not know about it, but is it really forgiveness or is it > simply Harry moving on? Ceridwen: Good question! My opinion is, if Harry forgives Snape but never tells him, it's just Harry moving on. It's tantamount to forgetting about it, or having it pale as time passes. The balm is for Harry alone. Nothing is accomplished, beyond the very real need for Harry to 'let go and let love', to paraphrase an old churchy slogan that was in use ages ago. Since Harry's 'The Chosen One', he has more on him to not only defeat the immediate evil, but to go one better and try to start a healing in the WW. The most obvious and stunning example would be forgiving the lesser evils of his life, publicly and to those people's faces. Without their asking leave, without their even seeing that they need it. You know I don't think Snape's outside the bounds of behavior in their world, but there are others - Umbridge, as everyone keeps mentioning, Bellatrix, Wormtail (who was the next worst to Voldemort and led more directly to James' and Lily's deaths than Snape), the Dursleys, and probably more. Forgiving in his own heart is only half the step. An important half, sure, but just one step. IMO. Alla: > I speculate that Remus moved on from being angry at person who bitten > him, does it mean that he really forgave the one who gave him such an > awful disease? Ceridwen: I don't think he forgave him. I do think he's tried to move on. But, from his reactions in HBP, I think he does still have issues that he hasn't addressed. Just the overall feeling I get, nothing quotable. *(snip)* Alla: > Having said all that, I do think that telling it to Snape's face > equals absolution of Snape's sins AND for that type of forgiveness I > think that Snape should ask for , because IMO it IS a very nice thing > for Snape to know that the person whom he helped to become an orphan > and tormented for a long time in essense tells him you are forgiven. Ceridwen: I disagree. Telling it to Snape's face is the same thing as invoking love of Sirius and making it impossible for Voldemort to possess him. It's a way of informing the person, in this case Snape if it were to happen, that Harry does see the things Snape did as offensive, but not binding to him now. It informs Snape that he has no power over Harry, except that which Harry will allow. It tells Snape that Harry has grown out of his childhood grudges and is a fully-grown man, capable of determining his own destiny, while Snape is still caught in a cycle of remorse and hatred over James. It also publicly solidifies Harry's entrance to adulthood, his leadership position in the WW, and extends a challenge to everyone to emulate, so the rift of the past will be healed. Snape didn't ask? Then Harry is not doing it grudgingly, but out of love for a fellow human. Harry would be more than shaking the dust off his feet and moving on. He would be forgiving in the only real way it exists. IMO. And, I'm sure there are people who have things against Harry, that he might not even know about. Draco might have something against him for the Sectumsempra incident, for instance. I think that part of Draco's coming into his own will be to forgive Harry for that, and not seek revenge. I think that will be the only way Harry and Draco might be able to work together, and I do think they'll have to, since Dumbledore held out promise to Draco, and Draco seemed to be considering it. Draco will be reluctant to join up with Harry if he's got that grudge. But IMO, the WW will be better if they do. Harry might feel that, since he felt so awful after the incident, and since he did get detention, he's absolved. But he can only be absolved fully if Draco forgives him. Ditto Snape, regarding Harry's forgiveness. (I can also imagine Harry apologizing, once he knows how Draco's been feeling.) Sorry for going off on a tangent! But it's got me thinking. Ceridwen, hitting the 'send' button before she thinks of anything more to add! From lady.indigo at gmail.com Fri Dec 9 22:28:04 2005 From: lady.indigo at gmail.com (lady.indigo at gmail.com) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 17:28:04 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] SHIP: Snape's slide into the DE's In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63378ee70512091428p303378a1tb7b18820ac4720d2@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144426 On 12/9/05, Jen Reese wrote: > > Snape lovin' Lily has never worked for me, even finding out she was > a natural at Potions, cheeky and could have been in Slytherin didn't > convince me of Snape's unrequited love. Then JKR said post-HBP she > was willing to tell fans if either Snape or Lupin had loved Lily. > Well, she backed off before answering completely and only mentioned > Lupin, but I think that was a hint there's nothing more coming about > Snape and Lily of much significance. I wrote: I seriously think JKR has just diverted you in exactly the way she wanted to. In all her interviews she doesn't hint at there being no significance, especially not by omission. She flat-out says if there is no significance and you're going in the wrong direction. The omission is when she doesn't want you to know something. She played the answer to that question out expertly: "I can tell you either one. Well, really, I can't tell you, can I? Here, let me sneak one of the answers in - which, if my answer is 100% truthful, is totally unimportant to the plot and had really no reason to be kept a secret - so I can divert you from the truly important plot twist that I couldn't say." When it comes to Snape and Lily, what you have to pay attention to is what ISN'T said and what ISN'T known. Why does Lily have a moment's shock and hesitation when Snape calls her a Mudblood? Why is that, of all things, his worst memory? (You've explained that a bit with the Florence story, but I'll give my response to that in a second.) Why does Petunia not mention 'that awful boy' by name, and never truly confirms Harry's assumption that she's talking about his dad? Why is special attention paid to Harry saying 'Snape hated my mother, too', and a moment devoted to the narrative's responding words: "But nobody ever asked how Harry knew this." (Because he DOESN'T know it.) Lupin's lines in the movie, Slughorn talking about the power of obsessive love, the fact Lily was going to be allowed to live, how Snape's regret of the Potter's deaths doesn't seem to make sense *right now*... All of this would add up. I like your Florence story. I like it because it does a lot of the things that Snape being in love with Lily would do: explain why he made many of the choices he did, and give him a tragic arc (while still fixed on his own poor choices and mistakes) that sounds VERY similar to the ones a lot of Snape/Lily shippers give him. But I can't bring myself to care about Florence because save for a single, one-line appearance, we have no idea who she IS. If so much of unriddling Snape rests on a woman we know nothing about, Rowling's going to have to be a storytelling master in this last book in making us care about her, Snape, and what happened to their forbidden love. A Snape/Lily romance, or at least an unrequited desire on Snape's part, seems like a copout to so many people. It would be more of a copout, to me, if we were fed a relationship that had no meaning to us as readers and then expected to care about it as a major character revelation. Sorry if this was ever suggested before - I wasn't here for a good deal of the Florence discussion prior to this, and there's a lot to read through - but maybe we're approaching this from the wrong angle? What if Florence is an important factor in Snape and Lily's relationship? For instance, maybe she's sort of their Lavender Brown. Snape and Lily had a growing interest in each other, but it's Florence who Snape, for one reason or another, chose to dally with behind the greenhouse - I can certainly see him having Ron's lack of confidence, responding to whatever affection he could get. And since Snape and Lily are hardly Ron and Hermione, and didn't have those same bonds formed to each other, the relationship didn't repair nearly as well when Bertha Jorkins started gossiping. Lily's defense of Snape to James was possibly his last chance to make amends in response...and he blew it. "Snape's Worst Memory". - Lady Indigo [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ornawn at 013.net Fri Dec 9 22:32:58 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 22:32:58 -0000 Subject: Cultural standards for Snape abusiveness/Karma again/Mcgonagall and Neville Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144427 >Pippin: >I guess I am not clear what Snape is supposed to be punished for, >DDM!Snape, I mean. If it is for serving Voldemort, then I think he >is supposed to have paid for his crimes by changing sides and saving >Harry. >Alla: > So, if you are saying that Harry wil forgive Snape for himself > without ever saying it to Snape face - ABSOLUTELY, it is a good >thing to do,IMO. >Ceridwen: >If Snape dies in book 7, that may be the only thing Harry can do. I >tend toward Harry having to dump all of his hate and anger in order >to realize the 'love power' Dumbledore kept reassuring him, and us, >is necessary for the defeat of Voldemort. Orna: I think it is quite clear what Snape is supposed to be punished for ? he is after all a very nasty person , so much that quite a few people out here consider him a child-abuser, and the other also don't seem to fancy him as a close friend. The problem with him is that he might be (and IMHO most probably is) a person very much instrumental for helping Harry conquer Voldemort, and if it is like this ? how can one relate to a person like this. It gives him IMO a tragic perspective: he is on a very lonely tragic path, endangering himself in the extreme, and being on the whole misunderstood, unacknowledged and even hated. As it is he has more saves on Harry's life than McGonagall, and in some twisted fashion (the HBP-potion-book, the Gillyweed, the DE curse in HBP helped him. Even Neville has been helped by Snape, when he told Grabbe to stop strangling him (because of the paper-work, OK, but the fact remains). It is very difficult to form some coherent feelings towards a person containing such extreme characteristics and arousing such polarized feelings. I find it literally difficult to remember vividly his saving Harry, or even healing song on Draco, while I am attuned to his killing DD, rejoicing in Sirius' possible Dementor-kiss, or even just some of his more "sensitive" remarks. And OTOH I find it difficult to remember the more sadistic remarks, or deeds, while I am attuned to his efficient and helping interventions, even if they are accompanied by some sneering remark. Perhaps that's what changed with DD's death - besides underlining the question of on whose side Snape is- it seems impossible to forget or minimize what he has done. As if his AKing DD, puts in the foreground all the other characteristics, which until now were kept underground, so to speak, also because of the magic phrase ? "I completely trust Severus Snape". But I think that's what JKR forces us to meet, a person with near abusive qualities, and certainly one who hurts continuously persons on their most vulnerable spots which might act heroically in the good side. I don't see him change his personal characteristics, or even apologize for anything of his way of being and I feel that's part of the point ? not that he shouldn't be different, or recognize how much he purposely hurt his students and fellow wizards. Of course he should apologize, reform etc. But he won't do it IMO, and still he might help Harry and the order in a crucial way, and we will have to see how to manage our feelings towards this complex situation; or in Lupin's language ? the world isn't divided between bad DE's and good persons. Actually ? just like Lupin has his "furry problem" ? which after all makes potentially dangerous once a month, Snape has some good and possibly heroic deeds to himself, which makes him? A "negative werewolf"? Perhaps, because he is such a polarized person - "we" kill him off. Just allowing him to be revealed as a DDM!Snape, and taking part in the celebrations after Voldemort's death, doesn't feel possible, mainly because his (in)human characteristics. I suggest that that's the reason why IMO many DDM!Snape-fans think he won't survive book 7. Since it doesn't feel in his character to change that far, and since morally it's difficult to have him there without some true form of reconciliation ? he will die, and thereby enablimg compassion and forgiveness towards him. All this, of course, if he doesn't turn out to be ESE!Snape, in which case the WW will be definitely a lot simpler or not. Orna From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 9 22:54:37 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 22:54:37 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144428 > Betsy Hp: > I totally agree. In some ways I think the "No Slytherins" sign > hanging on the DA club house door may well have helped form the > Inquisitorial Squad. The Slytherins were just as hurt by Umbridge > as the rest of the school (she may well be the reason Crabbe and > Goyle didn't get an OWL in DADA), and Umbridge was rather hostile > towards Snape, their beloved head of house. a_svirn: When was she hostile to Snape? I seem to remember she was pleased with the lesson she visited, even though she judged it "advanced". She only got hostile when he proved to be uncooperative with the Veritaserum. And "beloved" is coming rather too strong. I don't think even Draco ever held him in that much affection. > Betsy Hp: It doesn't make sense > that Slytherin students would naturally want to help someone > standing so obviously in their way. Unless helping was the only > real option left to them. a_svirn: I can't think of any reason why minding their business wasn't a valuable option? Of course it doesn't present the same opportunity for bullying. > > Betsy Hp: > And I also think that Draco > is going to be the representative of that healing. > > He is the established face of Slytherin, both for the readers and > for Harry. He's a leader within his house, and he encapsulates both > the negative and I think positive aspects of Slytherin. a_svirn: I don't see him as a leader. He only ever had two thugs to boss about and a girl who has had a crush on him from the day one. > Betsy Hp: The > negative (the blood bigotry) is already starting to slip. a_svirn: Not noticeably. > Betsy Hp: (I > honestly don't think it was all that firmly attached to begin with.) a_svirn: I wonder why would you believe in it so firmly? With all the evidence to the contrary? From h2so3f at yahoo.com Sat Dec 10 00:26:10 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:26:10 -0000 Subject: Nagini as a Horcrux and the torturing of the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144429 Bonnie wrote: " We know from HBP that the creation of a Horcrux requires both a potion and a spell, therefore it make sense it requires some time to create." CH3ed: We don't know that, really. We know from Slug's chat with LV that it takes a very complex spell, but nothing was said about a potion. There was a nasty green potion guarding the locket horcrux (which someone beat DD to). That serves as a protection for that horcrux. The other horcrux we saw was also a pensieve (TM Riddle diary). No potion in that thing, but ink (which was probably the memory substance instead of the clear liquid in an ordinary pensieve like the one DD has)' Allie wrote: "That's interesting, I had always thought that Voldemort (and his body) was vaporized when the AK rebounded on him. *WAS* his body just lying there in the ruin? I've never heard mention of a body before. But if there was no body, that brings up the question of how did anyone know he was gone? Unless someone else was there and witnessed it (conspiracy theorists, take your pick: Snape/Peter/Lupin/Hagrid/Dumbledore)." CH3ed: I'm under the impression that there was no LV body left after the failed AK, too. I think Bella, Crouch Jr, and the Lestrange brothers didn't know what happened to LV and were looking for him. Perhaps there was a witness at GH? or perhaps LV had planned a meeting with them after getting rid of the Potters (which he would have missed)? Guess we have to wait 2 more years to find out, ay? :O) I think some of the DE's know about the horcruxes since LV mentioned that they knew that LV had gone further along the path to immortality than anyone during the graveyard scene in GoF, but I doubt that they know much of the details (LV would not like the possibility of the bunch that know of horcrux locations getting together to dispose of them and LV). CH3ed From bartl at sprynet.com Sat Dec 10 00:28:19 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 19:28:19 -0500 Subject: Snape & Dumbledore Message-ID: <439A2123.3090000@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144430 Bart: Consider the following. HBP, page 503 (American): "Marvolo's ring. And a terrible curse there was upon it too. ad it not been - forgive me the lack of seemly modesty - for my own prodiguous skill, and for Professor Snape's timely action when I returned to Hogwarts, desperately injured, I might not have lived to tell the tale." I still maintain that Snape was keeping Dumbledore artificially alive, and his killing of Dumbledore was "pulling the plug". Bart From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 10 00:43:54 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:43:54 -0000 Subject: Cultural standards for Snape abusiveness/Karma again/Mcgonagall and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144431 > >>Pippin: > > I guess I am not clear what Snape is supposed to be punished for, > > DDM!Snape, I mean. If it is for serving Voldemort, then I think > > he is supposed to have paid for his crimes by changing sides and > > saving Harry. > >>Orna: > I think it is quite clear what Snape is supposed to be punished > for - he is after all a very nasty person , so much that quite a > few people out here consider him a child-abuser, and the other > also don't seem to fancy him as a close friend. Betsy Hp: Speaking as someone who *does* fancy Snape... um, yeah, as a, uh, ...friend. Yes. I have to jump in and say that I don't think it's at *all* clear what Snape is supposed to be punished for. Sure, there are few folks who like to hang the old "child abuser" moniker on him. But they're obviously crazy. > >>Orna: > The problem with him is that he might be (and IMHO most probably > is) a person very much instrumental for helping Harry conquer > Voldemort, and if it is like this ? how can one relate to a person > like this. > Betsy Hp: Exactly! This is exactly what I was saying in my post (that was for the most part ignored, probably because I broke character and went all rational ) here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144301 Snape is *already being punished*. His goal is to destroy Voldemort, and he's managed to alienate the one person chosen by frigging *destiny* of all things to be Voldemort's doom. Now *that's* tragady. All the other "punish Snape" ideas have been mere child's play in comparison. Betsy Hp (posting with tongue firmly in cheek -- except about Snape's fanc-a-bility - which is never to be joked about) From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Dec 10 00:01:38 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:01:38 -0000 Subject: JKR Preaching? (was Re: Cultural standards ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144432 > Ceridwen: > I disagree. Telling it to Snape's face is the same thing as invoking > love of Sirius and making it impossible for Voldemort to possess > him. It's a way of informing the person, in this case Snape if it > were to happen, that Harry does see the things Snape did as > offensive, but not binding to him now. It informs Snape that he has > no power over Harry, except that which Harry will allow. It tells > Snape that Harry has grown out of his childhood grudges and is a > fully-grown man, capable of determining his own destiny, while Snape > is still caught in a cycle of remorse and hatred over James. > Well, that may well happen, Ceridwen. However, it would certainly give the lie to much of what JKR has said she's about, i.e. that she's not trying to "teach" lessons or "preach" at people. Granted, she has said that her religious beliefs strongly determine the direction of the saga -- and rightly so, for if they didn't they wouldn't be much in the way of beliefs. But for something like this to happen would, IMO, cross over into out-and-out preaching of the type she has said she does not want to do. It would also, once again purely IMO, be so insipid as to inspire nausea following fits of incredulous laughter. Of course, it is possible to wed the scenario that you lay out, to an extent, with the position that Alla and I are espousing. This is, in effect, what Tolkien did with Saruman and Frodo. That is when Frodo forgave Saruman and spared his life, Saruman did not experience it as a release from punishment. Far from it, his line "You have grown wise, hobbit. Yes, wise and cruel," reveals that Frodo forgiving him was one of the most damning and hurtful things Frodo could possibly have done, for it meant that Saruman who had once been an angelic being was now reduced to accepting forgiveness from a furry-footed halfling, and that this would be an agony to him from then on out (which was about ninety seconds, until Wormtongue slit his throat). Of course, depending on how it was done, such a scene might be just as preachy as the one you propose. If JKR wants to avoid the label of moralist and still deal with the issue of forgiveness in this context, she will have to be very careful indeed. Lupinlore From agdisney at msn.com Fri Dec 9 23:03:06 2005 From: agdisney at msn.com (Andrea Grevera) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 18:03:06 -0500 Subject: Nagini and The Marauder's Map as Horcruxes References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144433 UNIX4EVR: A little OT, but I've often wondered in Nagini isn't the snake that Harry freed from the zoo in SS? Any comments? Andie: This has been brought up before. The snake from SS was a Boa Constrictor from Brazil. Not the same type of snake as Nagini. Originally I thought it might have been the same too. Andie From alesiaglfyn at juno.com Sat Dec 10 00:17:53 2005 From: alesiaglfyn at juno.com (Bonnie Harvey/ Alesia Gillefalyn) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:17:53 GMT Subject: Nagini as a Horcrux and the torturing of the Longbottoms Message-ID: <20051209.161842.11912.99480@webmail46.lax.untd.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144434 An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Dec 9 22:58:26 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 22:58:26 -0000 Subject: JKR and the Problem or Three (was Re: Cultural standards ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144435 Orna wrote: > > But I think that's what JKR forces us to meet, a person with near > abusive qualities, and certainly one who hurts continuously persons > on their most vulnerable spots which might act heroically in the > good side. Lupinlore: You have a much greater belief in JKR's "master plan" than I do. I think that JKR is actually much more straightforward than many fans want her to be -- as Nora has pointed out, there are several tons of poleaxed shippers out there as evidence. I suspect all the speculation and hypothesizing we do about JKR's subtle messages and subtexts is mostly building castles in the air. In the end, I think the "messages" of the story will be pretty blindingly obvious, and the crafty subtext messages will pretty much evaporate. Having said that, I do think JKR, bless her heart, sometimes lets things get away from her and ends up sending messages or setting up themes she did not at all intend -- Dumbledore's speech at the end of OOTP being one great example. I suspect JKR is a fine example of the "problem of three" -- i.e. what I hear myself say, what I actually say, and what my audience hears me say are three different things and sometimes have stunningly little in common. She knows her characters so well, and has such a clear vision of what she wants to say, that it often doesn't occur to her that WE don't know her characters as well as she does, and I think she is often blindsided by the things her readers find "clearly" spelled out or implied in her story, or by the fact that things she thinks are incredibly clear are hazy and uncertain at best to fans. To a certain extent that can be amusing, of course. But it can also be very troublesome, and I think the troublesome aspect of it has risen to bite her, and her readers, more than once. Orna: I suggest that that's > the reason why IMO many DDM!Snape-fans think he won't survive book > 7. Since it doesn't feel in his character to change that far, and > since morally it's difficult to have him there without some true > form of reconciliation ? he will die, and thereby enablimg > compassion and forgiveness towards him. > Lupinlore: That would be one easy way of dealing with it, I suppose. But that sets up the problem of how you deal with a Dead but Unrepentant! Snape, which in some ways is a much thornier question than how to deal with a Snape who is alive and still has possibilities for reconciliation. I understand that you feel this may be a challenge JKR intends for her readers, but I just don't see it coming down to that. Frankly, I just don't think JKR is that crafty or subtle. She has a definite preference for polishing things off pretty neatly where major characters are concerned -- the possible exception to that being Sirius Black, and although I'm certain he's gone for good and we won't see him again in the flesh, I'm not sure we are altogether through with "processing" over his character. I am sure, as JKR herself has said it, that we are not through with the arcs of either Dumbledore or Umbridge, so I don't think they stand out as counterevidence to the general trend. Lupinlore From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sat Dec 10 03:48:23 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 03:48:23 -0000 Subject: Cultural standards for Snape abusiv In-Reply-To: <20051209171921.30167.qmail@web61317.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144436 > > If he wasn't responsible for their deaths then he is still a petty, mean and spiteful person. Other teachers may not treat Neville with kid gloves but none of them was his bogart either. This kid had parents who were tortured to death by Death Eaters and his biggest fear is Snape, seems kind of telling to me. > ... > > Joe. > As someone else pointed out awhile back, Neville may have been choosing to face up to a fear which he could handle in making Snape his boggart. Maybe having to deal with his parents' torture and insanity at that stage in his life would have unhinged him completely. --La Gatta From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sat Dec 10 03:53:54 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 03:53:54 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore may not be dead after all! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144437 > ... > > And let's all be as optimistic as Luna who says once that > although her mother kicked the bucket in a freak experiment, > she expects her to return due to the veil in the Department > of Mysteries! Let's Hope godd all Dumbledore makes a Come-Back, > & that Snape is not a Traitor after all. > > "Hrishikesh" > I'm still rooting for that reverse horcrux. That Dumbledore insisted that Snape was the only one who could help him may mean that Snape is the only one who knows how to perform that particular spell--and we all know that when it comes to creating innovative spells, he's way out in front of anyone else at Hogwarts. Who knows what he might have picked up from Sluggy back during his student days. Of course that would mean that he is DDM!Snape, and probably was from the get-go. --La Gatta From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 10 04:44:49 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 04:44:49 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144438 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > But I think that once the healing occurs, and Slytherin is no > > longer stigmatized, we'll still have the houses. They'll just > > finally be equal. Not perfect harmony, of course. The houses > > will raise and fall depending on headmasters and students, but > > no one house will constantly fill the bottom role. At least, > > that's my hope. > >>Quick_Silver71: > Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Slytherin win the house cup for > 7 years before Harry came? And wasn't Gryffindor out the running > for the Quidditch cup for a similar time period (McGonagall > mentions it in PoA)? > Before Harry came Slytherin was the top dog or that was the > impression that I got. So really your dream of houses raising and > falling depending on students has already happened...Slytherin > fall and Gryffindor rose with the coming of Harry. > Betsy Hp: I was kind of hoping someone a bit cleverer than me would step up to bat on this one, but unfortunately you're stuck with me. I'll do my best. JKR, I think, has been rather clever in giving us the *feeling* that our hero is the underdog (within the school part of the story), while the facts show that he's actually quite a powerful presence at Hogwarts. When I first read PS/SS I automatically assumed Draco was fulfilling the role of the popular boy who bullies the geeky hero. Only that's not really true, is it? Harry is more well known. He has the cooler toys (a broom and an invisibility cloak). He's the better athlete. He's got the better friends, while Draco is left with mere body-guards without one speaking line between them. And, the all powerful headmaster is firmly in Harry's corner. So JKR turns the expectations of the schooldays genre upside down, without loosing sympathy for our hero. (I think a big boost comes from how much Harry's life sucks *outside* of school. Draco may not be the most popular boy at Hogwarts, but his mom is alive to love him.) I think JKR does the same thing with Slytherin. She can't have her hero join with the more powerful and popular house, at least not overtly. So, to counter the fact that Slytherin is evil (per Hagrid, our guide to the WW) and Gryffinder is the house of the greatest wizard alive, Dumbledore, JKR tells us that Slytherin has dominated the house competitions. Slytherin is the smartest, strongest house. They rule the school. Except, they don't do they? Everyone Harry speaks to tells him Slytherin is bad. They're untrustworthy, and they won those awards for so long because they cheated. Their quidditch players favor brute force over talent, and their head of house cheats in his giving and taking of points to unfairly favor Slytherin. Of course, once Harry arrives, the purity of his goodness, his talent, breaks the stranglehold evil Slyhtherin has on the school and finally makes sure the "right" house gets the recognition they deserve. That the stigmatized people, the scapegoats, are successful is not unheard of. It's actually a popular part of the anti-Semitic play- book. Jews are so successful in business, academics, etc., because they're cheating, grasping, people. (It should go without saying that this view is total crap, but just to be absolutely clear: This view is *total* crap.) The implication bantered about that Slytherin house achieved their seven years of victory by underhanded means fits right in with their role as the scapegoated house. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > The Slytherins were just as hurt by Umbridge as the rest of the > > school (she may well be the reason Crabbe and Goyle didn't get > > an OWL in DADA), and Umbridge was rather hostile towards Snape, > > their beloved head of house. > >>a_svirn: > When was she hostile to Snape? > Betsy Hp: "And you have applied regularly for the Defense Against the Dark Arts post since you first joined the school, I believe?" "Yes," said Snape quietly, barely moving his lips. He looked very angry. "Do you have any idea why Dumbledore has consistently refused to appoint you?" asked Umbridge. "I suggest you ask him," said Snape jerkily. "Oh I shall," said Professor Umbridge with a sweet smile. [OotP hardback scholastic ed. p.364] Sounds pretty hostile to me. I don't think the Slytherins in the class could miss that she angered Snape. > >>a_svirn: > And "beloved" is coming rather too strong. I don't think even > Draco ever held him in that much affection. Betsy Hp: I think Draco does think highly of Snape. "Sir," said Malfoy loudly. "Sir, why don't *you* apply for the headmaster's job?" [...] "I expect you'd have Father's vote, sir, if you wanted to apply for the job -- *I'll* tell Father you're the best teacher here sir --" [CoS paperback scholastic ed. p.267) I'm not sure how the rest of Slytherin feels about him (my use of "beloved" was a bit of a joke) but I'm sure they think positively about him. And I'm deeply sure they'd not appreciate him being treated badly by an outsider like Umbridge. > >>Betsy Hp: > > It doesn't make sense that Slytherin students would naturally > > want to help someone standing so obviously in their way. Unless > > helping was the only real option left to them. > >>a_svirn: > I can't think of any reason why minding their business wasn't a > valuable option? Of course it doesn't present the same opportunity > for bullying. Betsy Hp: I'm always leery of assigning the Slytherins with a surfeit of negative human emotions or desires. Smacks of a sort of racism, IMO. (Which is why I hope this isn't the direction JKR is really going in her series.) I also doubt Umbridge would allow anyone to sit meekly off to the side. You were with her or against her. The other houses were against her, and banded together so she couldn't isolate and destroy them. Slytherin stood alone. So they joined her. Actually, it was quite cunning of them. I doubt they cared much for Umbridge's goals (why on earth would they want her watered-down version of DADA infecting the rest of their classes?) but by joining with her they got her off their backs. And if a Slytherin had been allowed in the DA perhaps Harry and friends would have had warning of Umbridge's ambush. (This is, of course, the most hearts and bunnies scenario. I'm not sure a Slytherin would have *wanted* to join the DA. There's a lot of bad blood to be overcome.) Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 10 05:30:58 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 05:30:58 -0000 Subject: Draco as leader and bigot (was:Re: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144439 > >>Betsy Hp: > > [Draco] is the established face of Slytherin, both for the > > readers and for Harry. He's a leader within his house, and he > > encapsulates both the negative and I think positive aspects of > > Slytherin. > >>a_svirn: > I don't see him as a leader. He only ever had two thugs to boss > about and a girl who has had a crush on him from the day one. Betsy Hp: Draco is the Slytherin prefect of his year. He's respected and liked (I believe) by Blaise, who has been established as somewhat picky about his company. And there've been several scenes where Harry notices Draco "holding court" or entertaining a group of laughing Slytherins. I'm not saying Draco's a great leader overall. But he *is* the face of Slytherin within Harry's peer group. So if JKR *does* address the Slytherin issue, it'll be beyond jarring if some other random Slytherin is brought in to do the job. (Plus, it'll be a total waste of Draco's development in HBP.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > The negative (the blood bigotry) is already starting to slip. > >>a_svirn: > Not noticeably. Betsy Hp: Draco gets some major ideas from Hermione in HBP. A fact he completely acknowledges. So he's crediting her abilities there. And I think Dumbledore's chiding about calling Hermione a mudblood may have made an impact. I'm not saying Draco is a shiny example of openmindness. But I think his world view has been seriously shaken and his beliefs may be primed for a change. > >>Betsy Hp: > > (I honestly don't think it was all that firmly attached to > > begin with.) > >>a_svirn: > I wonder why would you believe in it so firmly? With all the > evidence to the contrary? Betsy Hp: Because calling Hermione a mudblood was not a natural instinct for Darco. In the first book he completely ignored her, choosing to pick on Neville Longbottom (the pureblood) instead. And it cannot be that Hermione was unnoticable as a target. She was incredibly overeager in PS/SS. Everyone around her noticed and was a bit annoyed or amused by it. But it wasn't until Draco's father said, "Look, there's a mudblood! Go get her!" that Draco turned on Hermione. And even then, Hermione tended to be his only target for those sort of attacks. I'm not saying Draco didn't believe what he was saying. (After all, it came from his *father*.) And I'm not saying he didn't enjoy attacking Hermione in that manner. I'm just saying that I don't think his bigotry is unassailable. Especially after receiving such a big shock to his belief system in HBP. Betsy Hp From juli17 at aol.com Sat Dec 10 05:58:25 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:58:25 EST Subject: Cultural standards for Snape abusiveness, etc, etc Message-ID: <27e.1d64990.30cbc881@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144440 Alla wrote: Let's take a look at the good guys. Again, IMO. Sirius went to Azkaban, which if you believe that he abused his power over Snape could be considered as karmic punishment for that. Check. Fred and George's Powder was used by DE to get into school, which if you believe that they abuse their power in their pranks, could be considered a karmic punishment for that. Check. Whether you agree or not that Snape is an abuser, Jo said that he abuses his power ( I am not sure how else teacher can abuse his power but by abusing hi students, but different people interpret it differently of course) , so I am not sure why Jo is going to make an exception for Snape and let him go punishment free. Julie: But she already *hasn't* made an exception for him. After his actions on the Tower, and even IF he is DDM, his life is screwed to hell. He's lost his teaching position, any respect he had from his colleagues and the entire WW, he's hated and villified by one side and has to dance very carefully to avoid being obliterated by the other side (and I'm convinced Voldemort still doesn't trust him completely, as he doesn't trust *anyone* completely). He's given up everything he earned over the past 16 years. So, Karmic punishment, check. I also agree with whoever said Snape is his own worst punishment. One of the things I've observed (and fully believe) after many years in customer service, is that some people are simply miserable at heart. They will treat others with complete nastiness, pleased to elicit fear, humiliation and tears. And though I hate being on the end of that sort of treatment, I always remind myself that while I have to put up with the miserable person for a few minutes, that person is stuck with himself 24/7. He's making himself far more unhappy, day in and day out, than he can possibly make me during those brief, if very unpleasant, minutes. And so Snape makes himself more miserable, and on a prolonged basis, than he can possibly make Harry or Neville during their thrice-weekly interludes in his class. Alla wrote: I don't remember her humiliating Neville in OOP or HBP at all. I do remember her saying that " there is nothing wrong with your work but a lack of confidence" ( paraphrase) Julie: Erm, but by OoTP Neville had become fairly competent at his classes and spells. At least we don't hear of any major screw ups of his again. So it's as likely McGonagall simply had no reason to humiliate Neville again. Probably *more* likely, as we have no canon that McGonagall regretted her actions against Neville. If she "learned" from her mistake, wouldn't she have first admitted that it was a mistake? Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 10 07:21:41 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 07:21:41 -0000 Subject: Snape & Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <439A2123.3090000@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144441 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Bart: > ...edited quoted text... > > I still maintain that Snape was keeping Dumbledore artificially > alive, and his killing of Dumbledore was "pulling the plug". > > Bart > bboyminn: I've had similar ideas, but I wouldn't phrase is as keeping Dumbldore 'artificially' alive. That sounds a little too Frankenstien to me. I suspect that the problem with Dumbledore's hand was spreading up his arm and would indeed eventually be the death of him. Snape was able to stop it's rapid and immediate spread, and save Dumbledore's life in the moment. But he couldn't prevent the slow continual spread of the 'infection' up Dumbledore's arm and through his body. So, I agree that Dumbledore was aready dying, and would soon be dead independant of what happened on the tower. Knowing this, it did not take much for Snape to comprehend the stituation on top of the tower and understand what the shortest, safest, and most productive way out was. So, he killed Dumbledore, but he killed an already dying man. I don't believe that Snape and Dumbledore had any kind of grand 'conspiracy' planned out. I don't believe that Snape and Dumbledore consciously planned in advance for Dumbledores' death. But I do think they had a general understanding that there were higher priorities than Dumbledore's life. That Snape shouldn't act the hero and try to save Dumbledore at all cost, because as it turned out, the cost of trying to save Dumbledore on the top of the tower would have been unbelievably high, and it would have certainly failed. Snape choice the path of the greatest good to The Cause, even though that action would make him an unforgiven villain for all time in the wizard world. In an effort to bring down Voldemort, Snape has, as I have said so many times before, seal his own doom for all time. So, really we just disagree on how we phrase it, you say Snape was keeping Dumbledore artificially alive, and I say that Snape was acting initially to stave off imminent death. After that, in the longer term, he was acting to delay Dumbledore's death; to slow the action of the 'death' that was creeping up his arm. I think Dumbledore knowing he was dying helps explain what was surely reckless behavior in the Cave. So, while some people have made good arguments for Dumbledore to have faked his death (and others made very bad arguments to the same end), I'm afraid he is really and truly gone. Something I do not desire, but something that I accept. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From ornawn at 013.net Sat Dec 10 09:51:12 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:51:12 -0000 Subject: Snape & Dumbledore Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144442 >"Hrishikesh" >The way in which the killing curse was performed was also >speculating, as normally the victim just seems to limp off >dead, but Dumbledore was blasted away. we all know that >Snape is very good at Non-Verbal Spells, >so he must used some other incantation! And Dumbledore might >have used a Non-Verbal Spell to free Harry of the Body Bind! >During his funeral we do not get to see his body, only a >package, which might be containing anything else too. >Besides Dumbledore is always associated with a Phoenix so he >might as well rise from his ashes! > Bart: > ...edited quoted text... > > I still maintain that Snape was keeping Dumbledore artificially > alive, and his killing of Dumbledore was "pulling the plug". > > Bart >bboyminn: >I've had similar ideas, but I wouldn't phrase is as keeping >Dumbledore 'artificially' alive. That sounds a little too >Frankenstein to me. >I suspect that the problem with Dumbledore's hand was spreading up >his arm and would indeed eventually be the death of him. >So, I agree that Dumbledore was already dying, and would soon be >dead independent of what happened on the tower. Knowing this, it >did not take much for Snape to comprehend the situation on top of >the tower and understand what the shortest, safest, and most >productive way out was. So, he killed Dumbledore, but he killed an >already dying man. >Snape choice the path of the greatest good to The Cause, even though >that action would make him an unforgiven villain for all time in the >wizard world. In an effort to bring down Voldemort, Snape has, as I >have said so many times before, seal his own doom for all time. >I think Dumbledore knowing he was dying helps explain what was >surely reckless behavior in the Cave. >So, while some people have made good arguments for Dumbledore to >have faked his death (and others made very bad arguments to the >same end), I'm afraid he is really and truly gone. >Something I do not desire, but something that I accept. Orna: I would like to start from the end: I also believe DD to be really and truly dead ? not necessarily really and truly gone, since his portrait has some ways of being there, and since those we are love are never really and truly gone :). I believe him dead ? otherwise I don't think his portrait would be in his study, Hagrid certainly recognizes him as dead, he is a lousy occlument, and wouldn't be able to fake grief and tears in the funeral. But I still don't like this "killing a dying man" as an argument. I had some thoughts about it: I agree that from the beginning of HBP DD acts as if his death is naturally drawing nearer ? he practically tells Harry in the cave, that his life is worthier than DD's, and he certainly acts in a reckless way, drinking a potion, which would at the best kill him ? not immediately ? but kill him. But I don't accept this hero- suicidal DD. I find suicidal DD and Killing-dying Snape a horrible idea, and terribly unacceptable in both perspectives. I think DD thought that there was a chance to stay alive, if he could only see Snape soon enough ? that's what he is urging Harry to do. Still, for the time being ? he is a dying man. Now to the scene in the tower: I had two scenarios: 1) DD was dying. He "discussed" the situation legilimancy-occlumency like with Snape on the spot. Since he thought Snape's and Harry's life were the important lives to the cause ? he submitted himself to death, like some ancient tribes do when the time has come. He couldn't be rescued in the situation without killing Snape because of the UV. He was nearly dying, that's a place, where as Ron said ? you must do sacrifices, that's the game. And he was dying ? he just had to stop fighting death, in order to go away. Snape did his curse, for the DE's reason, and thereby made himself look as the unforgivable villain in the WW. (there might be some argument, that since we don't hear the rushing sound, it wasn't a "true" AK, but some nonverbal spell' like throwing him off tower- being cast before it, but it doesn't matter in this scenario. And I have some doubts if the DE wouldn't recognize a fake AK ? having cast numbers of it themselves for some time) Snape would hate it, and loosing the only person in the world who really trusted him in such a way, would surely make him loose his temper when Harry accuses him of killing DD in a cowardly way. I think that would explain DD's way of being raised in the air stopped in midair ? he was already dead. How on earth is Snape going to be able to convince Harry and us that it happened like this- that's another story. 2) I don't believe in this scenario, but I want to play with it: DD said that Voldemort wouldn't like to kill the person who got to the horcrux right away ? he would like to question him. Now, how would Voldemort do it? He would have to out some curse in the potion, or somewhere in the cave, which would transport the person to him. It would be an advantage for Voldemort, if the person would be brought to him wandless ? saving a battle with a potentially powerful wizard, even if he is weakened by the potion. Perhaps it was going like this: the person has to be out of the cave - I think there was some spell preventing apparition or other means of magical movement in the cave. Then, when for some reason or other ? he is wandless - the potion transports the person to Voldemort for "questioning" the minute any other spell hits him. It was very probable the wizard would be encountering spells quite soon ? since he would have to seek someone for help. And most probably put his wand away, for the healing attempt. That's when he would find himself rushing towards Voldemort, who would do the actual killing, sending the corpse back to where it came from. After all, it took some time, until Harry went back to DD's corpse. It's very far-fetched, and I certainly wouldn't like to give Voldemort the satisfaction of killing DD, but I thought it was worth mentioning. Anyway, that doesn't help Snape a lot, since he would be casting the AK, so ? this way or the other, I feel it is essential for Snape to have cast some nonverbal spell. It would be in line with the HBP putting such a weight on those spells. >Steve >I don't believe that Snape and Dumbledore had any kind of grand >'conspiracy' planned out. I don't believe that Snape and Dumbledore >consciously planned in advance for Dumbledore's' death. But I do >think they had a general understanding that there were higher >priorities than Dumbledore's life. That Snape shouldn't act the >hero and try to save Dumbledore at all cost, because as it turned >out, the cost of trying to save Dumbledore on the top of the tower >would have been unbelievably high, and it would have certainly >failed. Orna: I agree, and much as I don't like it, it seems to have been like that ? in the most Snape-supporting theories. The fact stays, that even in the most benignant theory for Snape, Snape didn't attempt anything to save DD ? but under the circumstances of DD's stand against Voldemort, and his willingness to sacrifice himself ? that would be forgivable. Something to do with poetical balance ? it might be said that Harry and Snape killed DD jointed ? under his own orders or general understanding. That's were I come back to Steve's theory ? perhaps you are right in a way. But I feel very bad about it. Hmm. But basically war is a situation where people are faced with impossible situations, making them feeling bad about whichever way they choose. Doesn't mean "anything goes", but the situation at the tower does basically fit into my definition of a basically unsolvable situation for a DDM!Snape. Orna From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Sat Dec 10 11:02:27 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:02:27 +0100 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority References: Message-ID: <006a01c5fd79$35fde8f0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144443 horridporrid03 wrote: > So, to counter the fact that Slytherin is evil (per > Hagrid, our guide to the WW) and Gryffinder is the house of the > greatest wizard alive, Dumbledore, Miles: We do not know that Dumbledore was in Gryffindor, do we? I only know one line in canon to support this assumption: "... and I hope I'm in Gryffindor, it sounds by far the best, I hear Dumbledore himself was one" (Hermione at her first appearance on the Hogwarts Express, ch 6 of PS/SS) Hermione states, that she *heard* it. We know her, don't we? She doesn't *know* it, if so, she would say it, so it's a rumour. Maybe there is more canon for this, but if not, it may be important. Harry never asks Dumbledore in what House he had been as a student, he takes "Gryffindor" for granted. But he may be wrong. Dumbledore shows no modesty concerning his intelligence. Maybe he was in Ravenclaw? Or better - maybe he was in Slytherin? This would be quite a surprise for Harry, and not the worst. Miles From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Dec 10 12:51:25 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:51:25 -0000 Subject: JKR Preaching? (was Re: Cultural standards ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144444 Lupinlore: > If JKR wants to avoid the label of > moralist and still deal with the issue of forgiveness in this > context, > she will have to be very careful indeed. Ceridwen: Nice parallel with Frodo and Saruman. They didn't play that very well in the movie at all. But, yes, the same idea. Though, being more DDM!Snape, I would see it as both crushing and beginning healing. Unlike LV, who can't stand being anywhere near love. To keep with the rest of the series, I would say that this sort of forgiveness, if used, would invoke ancient magic in the same way that Lily's sacrifice did. Lupin might be used, as a DADA expert, to discuss it with Harry and expound for us. That is, if it's used. If it is, I would think JKR is going for at least a form of High myth/magic with this. I'm not sure how to explain it. But there are certain heroic stories that seem to rise above the ground. Maybe not above other hero stories, but there's something different in them. I don't think she's got that feeling, at least for me. And I'm probably botching this whole explanation. But, back to Frodo for a minute, he also forgave Gollum, and put Gollum's interests at his heart. We know what happened there as well. It seems to be a part of the hero's inner journey to forgive and move on. Since Harry's our hero, I can't see this not happening, at least for Draco Malfoy. I do think that forgiving and then putting past wrongs behind is growing and maturing. Not that I always do it, there are a couple of people who... never mind. Anyway, progressing beyond the hurt and elevating past it is a part of the hero's journey, so I do think we'll see it with Harry. Ceridwen. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 10 13:03:59 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:03:59 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144445 >Betsy Hp: >Sounds pretty hostile to me. I don't think the Slytherins in >the >class could miss that she angered Snape. a_svirn: You can hardly call it hostility, not by her usual standards. She was hostile with Hagrid and Trelawney, with Snape she was just showing her whip hand. Nevertheless, she took care to present him with a carrot afterwards. Her overall verdict was positive after all. Betsy Hp: I think Draco does think highly of Snape. I'm not sure how the rest of Slytherin feels about him (my use of "beloved" was a bit of a joke) but I'm sure they think positively about him. And I'm deeply sure they'd not appreciate him being treated badly by an outsider like Umbridge. a_svirn: Maybe. Or maybe he was just sucking up to him. You never can tell. And if Slytherins were offended by the way Umbridge treated their head of the house they had a very strange way of showing it. >Betsy Hp: >I'm always leery of assigning the Slytherins with a surfeit of >negative human emotions or desires. Smacks of a sort of racism, IMO. a_svirn: I hope, it wasn't an accusation. >Betsy Hp: >I also doubt Umbridge would allow anyone to sit meekly >off to the side. You were with her or against her. The other >houses were against her, and banded together so she couldn't >isolate >and destroy them. Slytherin stood alone. So they joined her. a_svirn: On the contrary, that's what Umbridge wanted from her students in the first place ? to sit meekly at their desks and take notes from their handbooks. And what do you mean "isolate and destroy houses"? It wasn't her intention. Her intention was to get rid of Dumbledore and Harry Potter, because she saw them as a threat. She also wanted to get Hogwarts under the total control of the Ministry. To that end she introduced a police regime in the school, and Slytherins (not all of them, certainly) were only too eager to help her in this endeavour. The picture you drew ? all houses ganged up on Slytherin ? is certainly dramatic but not correct. DA was mostly Gryffindor, and in any event they could care less about Slytherin, they ganged up on Umbridge. Moreover, they did it in secret, so Slyths had no reason to feel "isolated" up until the Marietta's debacle. And that happened towards the end. >Betsy Hp: >Actually, it was quite cunning of them. a_svirn: Was it though? Personally, I think they were too hasty to ally themselves to Umbridge. To wait and see whether she had it in her to hold her own against Dumbledore and Co would be a much more Slytherin thing to do, I believe. Betsy Hp: Draco is the Slytherin prefect of his year. a_svirn: So was Ron. You can hardly call him a leader, though. >Betsy Hp: >He's respected and >liked (I believe) by Blaise, who has been established as somewhat >picky about his company. a_svirn: I got the opposite impression. Looks like Blaise doesn't think much of Draco's abilities. >Betsy Hp: >Draco gets some major ideas from Hermione in HBP. A fact he >completely acknowledges. So he's crediting her abilities there. a_svirn: Well that certainly encouraging that he's lived up to his devious Slytherin reputation enough to learn from the enemy instead of repeating the same mistakes all over again, but I don't see how it makes him less bigoted. >Betsy Hp: >And I think Dumbledore's chiding about calling Hermione a mudblood >may have made an impact. a_svirn Again, not noticeably. >Betsy Hp: >Because calling Hermione a mudblood was not a natural instinct for >Darco. In the first book he completely ignored her, choosing to >pick on Neville Longbottom (the pureblood) instead. a_svirn: Well, it's usual for bullies to pick on the weakest. The twins did the same. >Betsy Hp: >But it wasn't until Draco's father said, "Look, there's a mudblood! >Go get her!" that Draco turned on Hermione. And even then, Hermione >tended to be his only target for those sort of attacks. a_svirn: But his bigotry is not only about using m-word on Hermione. The first time we saw him in PS he presented us with the essence of the pureblood prejudices: that only those with an acceptable parentage should be allowed to attend Hogwarts (in other words allowed to be wizards), and that muggle-borns are all riff-raff, and not good enough. Nor Hermione is only representative of the riff-raff he picks on. Hagrid also offends his refines sensibilities, for instance. >Betsy Hp: >I'm just saying that I don't >think his bigotry is unassailable. Especially after receiving such >a big shock to his belief system in HBP. a_svirn: It would be interesting to see what he'll make of his HBP adventures. His adoration of the Dark Lord has certainly abated, but for this to affect all his beliefs? It didn't work that way with his father. And who knows to what conclusion Draco will arrive in the end? Probably, he'll decide that it was the greatest mistake to throw his lot with a half-blood upstart. From charondeathngfh at ntlworld.com Sat Dec 10 09:46:15 2005 From: charondeathngfh at ntlworld.com (charon_death_ngfh) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:46:15 -0000 Subject: Horcrux problem Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144446 I have just re-read HBP for about the fourth time when the following occured to me - What if there are more than seven horcuxes? Dumbledore said that he thought Voldemort intended to make Harry's death count towards the seventh and final horcrux. What if, somewhat inadvertantly, Voldemort made Harry the seventh part without even realising it? I know this theory has been bandied about, quite often (forgive the pun) to death but Voldemort pretty much murdered himself with the AK curse. Dumbledore had already said that when a horcrux is created it leaves a mark. I suppose Harry's scar could simply be just that a scar left as a visible reminder of what happened to his parents but what if it is more than that? Voldemort may not even realise what has happened, after all the two wands with the same core reacting against one another seemed to surprise Voldemort as much as Harry. It could be that the AK curse reacted with Lily's protection of Harry and accidentally created an 8th horcrux assuming that Nagini is as Dumbledore supposed, the 7th horcrux. If Nagini is not a horcrux it would make Harry the 7th which presents a bit of a problem. Assuming I am correct, which I am probably no where near, it will mean that Harry will have to destroy himself to completely destroy Voldemort. Consider that Voldemort chose objects with care, he wanted an object from each of Hogwarts' founders. He had Slytherin's locket and Hufflepuff's cup, we assume he found something of Ravenclaw's and he was left with trying to find something of Gryffyndor's which is what would have bought him to Godric's Hollow. I am assuming since James was rich and was pureblood he was living in Godric's Hollow because he was the last in the line of Godric Gryffyndor. Originally LV was going to use something from the house as his final horcrux but this backfired somehow and Harry became the horcrux. It is the only explanation as to how Harry shares talents of LV's, that could only happen if Harry had somehow absorbed some of LV's soul. It makes you think though doesn't it? charon_death_ngfh From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Dec 10 13:16:53 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:16:53 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority In-Reply-To: <006a01c5fd79$35fde8f0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144447 > Miles: > We do not know that Dumbledore was in Gryffindor, do we? I only know one > line in canon to support this assumption: > "... and I hope I'm in Gryffindor, it sounds by far the best, I hear > Dumbledore himself was one" (Hermione at her first appearance on the > Hogwarts Express, ch 6 of PS/SS) Potioncat: Here's a link to the Lexicon, which says DD was in Gryffindor. http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/dumbledore.html Responding to the past 4 or 5 posts in this thread: We have two sets of canon. First we have everything characters say and do in the books. That is, what characters say about Slytherin and what Slytherin characters do. Do we have any information about Slytherin from a non-Gryffindor? Secondly, we have JKR's comments about the Houses. She has said courage is the most important trait. She's said Gryffindor is the best house. Now, whether she's echoing the characters or whether she means is up for interpretation. She's also aid all four Houses are an important and a vital part of Hogwarts. She says you have to take everything about a person. (Now my memory is getting foggy.) She's also said (July 2005) that not all Slytherins are bad and only a small percentage are of DE families. That there are DE-related kids in the other Houses too. We also have a character in Gryffindor only one year ahead of Harry that none of us, including Harry, have ever met before. So there must be tons of Slytherins we've never met. It stands to reason we've only met the ones Harry has come in contact with. They are the ones who know Draco, and probably have the most in common with Draco. Back to stigmas. Slytherins are like lawyers...............OK, what appeared in your head? Intelligent, highly respected leaders of society or tricky scumbags? Let's try again. Slytherins are like blondes.................OK, now what? Did you imagine beautiful, sexy women who have the type of hair that other women go to great lengths to copy, or was it Dumb Blonde joke #99? I suspect there are higly ambitious Slytherins who are a lot like Hermione. They probably know and resent the negative things said about their House. Then there's the Draco-like ones, who probably don't care. I'm sure most if not all of the Slytherins see themsevles as being in the very best House of Hogwarts and view any negative comments as signs of envy. In fact, I'll bet just about everyone at Hogwarts thinks he or she is in the very best House. Potioncat, who isn't blonde or a lawyer. From muellem at bc.edu Sat Dec 10 13:47:47 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:47:47 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144448 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > >Betsy Hp: > >Sounds pretty hostile to me. I don't think the Slytherins in > >the > >class could miss that she angered Snape. > > a_svirn: > You can hardly call it hostility, not by her usual standards. She > was hostile with Hagrid and Trelawney, with Snape she was just > showing her whip hand. Nevertheless, she took care to present him > with a carrot afterwards. Her overall verdict was positive after > all. > colebiancardi: when it comes to adults, that was Umbridge's *usual standards* of hostility - she is passive-aggressive. All of her interviews were done with a smile and her *questioning* of the professors, on the surface, are innocent sounding. However, for those who lack confidence(Hagrid & Trelawney), it unnerved them and they got all defensive during her questioning. Everyone Umbridge questioned was given questions, that if the professor *took* the bait, as Hagrid & Trelawney did, the situation becomes worse for them. After all, we could say her overall verdict on McGongonall was also positive, but Umbridge's methods towards Umbridge were hostile, by using the passive-aggressive mode. Hostility comes in many shapes & forms, yelling at someone is not the only indicator of hostility. In that scene with Snape, she was trying to undermine his confidence & shake him up. She failed. colebiancardi > From lolita_ns at yahoo.com Sat Dec 10 14:35:45 2005 From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:35:45 -0000 Subject: Snape and GOF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144449 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > > Jen: You don't think Snape really views Harry the way he presented > him? I thought that was probably one of the truths he was telling! I think > Snape meant everything he said about Harry. > Lolita: I do agree that Snape thinks - or at least convinces himself on a regular - that Harry is mediocre in every way. However, I don't think he was telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth about Harry at Spinner's End. If you recall, he said he - and the other DE's - thought Harry to be a potential future Dark Lord whom they could follow - a standard around which they could rally once more. But I challenge ANYONE to say that they honestly believe that Snape would ever call Harry 'Master' and kiss the hem of his robes. If there is anything we can tell for sure about Snape, it is that he has sincerely hated and loathed Harry from the first time he laid his eyes on him. If nothing else, he might have been trying - from that first Potions lesson - to make Harry hate him in return. In other words, to make sure that Harry associates him with the very worst things a wizard can be. That way, if anyone came some day and tried to lure Harry into being the new LV, Harry would turn them down, knowing that he would have to associate with the likes of Snape if he said yes. I think that, if this scenario is true, Snape has actually been trying relly hard, from the very beginning, to make Harry honestly hate him. Needless to say, he has done his job well. :) > Jen: I really wonder if Snape convinced Voldemort so thoroughly. Lolita: I agree completely. Voldemort is not a trusting soul (hmm - 'soul' :). He did honestly believe that Snape had left him forever. Even though he knows, after Snape has presented him with his story upon his turning up, that Snape would be more useful to him alive than dead (I think we can conclude that this was his line of reasoning, since he didn't kill Snape, and he wouldn't spare him for sheer sentimentality), he still doesn't trust him completely. LV is seriously deranged. He trusts no one. Do you think he would ever completely trust anyone after they had gambled with his trust before? (not that he trusted them completely in the first place. DD was telling the truth - LV has no friends and no confidants, he is a lone ranger). And funnily enough, Wormtail is suddenly living with Snape. Snape can put two and two together, as we have been told on numerous occasions. He certainly knows that LV has made Wormtail his flatmate in order to have him spied on. But he can do nothing about it, apart from throwing petty insults upon Wormtail, who cares about being insulted about as much as LV loves his 'friends'. Lolita From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Dec 10 14:40:22 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:40:22 -0000 Subject: How did Bella follow Cissy? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144450 There doesn't seem to be a way to track a Disapparated person. The Ministry can't follow the Death Eaters who Disapparate at the World Cup. Tonks tells Harry there's no point in yelling at Mundungus because he'll probably be in London by now. Harry knows there's no way to catch up with Snape and the other DE's once they've Disapparated. Now, according to the Ministry's Apparation instructor, you have to have your destination clearly in mind to Apparate successfully. Bella had never been to Spinner's End before and Narcissa acts as though she didn't want Bella along. How did Bella learn where she was going? Was Narcissa's thought read against her will before she Apparated? Did Cissy "leak" the information because she already intended to ask Snape to take the vow? Any other ideas? Pippin From va32h at comcast.net Sat Dec 10 15:12:02 2005 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:12:02 -0000 Subject: Horcrux problem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144451 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "charon_death_ngfh" wrote: > > What if there are more than seven horcuxes? va32h: Well there are supposed to be six - the 7th bit of Voldemort's soul is the one that still resides in his body. I don't think there are more than six, and I don't think the horcruxes are anything other than exactly what Dumbledore said they were: the cup, the ring, the locket, the snake, the diary, something of Gryffindor's or Ravenclaws. Why do I think this? First - because that's the way JKR writes. While she does have plot twists and surprised *within* each book, she doesn't declare something in one book, then negate in the next. Dumbledore is a character that is known for delivering exposition to the reader (and for telling the truth - to the reader. So for JKR to say in book 7 "all that stuff I said about horcruxes in book 6 was wrong, here's the real story" would be a huge deviation from her previous style. Second - there simply isn't time to sufficiently develop the idea of Harry learning about more horcruxes. We have one book left, in which pretty much everything has to be wrapped up. Of course, JKR could write one paragraph in which Harry meets a character or reads a book that conveniently explains everything quickly, but that would be cheap and cheesy, and I do think more of JKR than that. va32h From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Dec 10 15:19:53 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:19:53 -0000 Subject: Snape and Saruman was JKR Preaching? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144452 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" > Of course, it is possible to wed the scenario that you lay out, to an > extent, with the position that Alla and I are espousing. This is, in > effect, what Tolkien did with Saruman and Frodo. That is when Frodo > forgave Saruman and spared his life, Saruman did not experience it as > a release from punishment. Far from it, his line "You have grown > wise, hobbit. Yes, wise and cruel," reveals that Frodo forgiving him > was one of the most damning and hurtful things Frodo could possibly > have done, for it meant that Saruman who had once been an angelic > being was now reduced to accepting forgiveness from a furry-footed > halfling, and that this would be an agony to him from then on out > (which was about ninety seconds, until Wormtongue slit his throat). Pippin: Interesting idea, comparing Saruman and Snape. Of course to make the comparison hold water, you would have to imagine that Saruman had accepted Gandalf's initial offer of clemency and turned spy against Sauron (yikes!), but was still struggling with the weaknesses that had led to his betrayal, ie a consuming interest in the Dark Arts and a jealousy of all those whom he perceived as rivals in power, not to mention the suspicions of those on the light side who doubted that he was capable of reform, and of Sauron who is never above fear. And then to discover that the hopes of the West were vested in a witless Halfling! Of course Saruman's previous dealings with Halflings like Frodo's dear cousin Lotho would not dispose him to think of Bagginses as potential heroes. Frodo's early adventures such as getting lost in the Barrow downs, allowing the Ring to reveal itself in Bree and donning the Ring in the presence of the Nazgul on Weathertop, would not help. You could say that Frodo had fought his way out of some tight corners with the help of sheer luck and more talented friends, and you would be right. Might Saruman not think that Gandalf's plan was pure folly, and be tempted to draw on his resources of cunning and cruelty in order to show Gandalf that Frodo was an unworthy Hobbit, and Gandalf's confidence in him was misplaced? And if such trials helped to assure Sauron that Saruman had not really withdrawn his allegiance, so much the better. Pippin From sararbe at yahoo.com Sat Dec 10 14:56:09 2005 From: sararbe at yahoo.com (sararbe) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:56:09 -0000 Subject: New member with question -- Who will die? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144453 First of all let me say hi to all the many members of this group. I'm glad to be apart of "grownup" discussions of the Harry world. Now for my question...I was watching a show on E! yesterday called The Soup (if any of you have heard of it) and the host said that the guy who does the audio for the HP books says that Harry is getting killed in the 7th book. This could just be a stunt for attention or maybe for book sales, like Ms. Rowling needs any help with that, but I just wanted to know what the discussion has been on Harry possibly getting killed. I'm sure it has been talked about here and wanted to know what everyone thought. Also, if you don't think that Harry will get killed, what character do you think has a good chance of being killed? There has been a thread circlulating about one or more of the Weasley klan getting axed, but they can't be the only characters with death looming over them. Thanks in advance for any response. Sararbe From bartl at sprynet.com Sat Dec 10 16:33:07 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:33:07 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] New member with question -- Who will die? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <439B0343.8040605@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144454 sararbe wrote: > Also, if you don't think that Harry will get killed, what character do > you think has a good chance of being killed? Voldemort. Bart (apologizing for the one-word reply, but, in this case, it IS appropriate). From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 10 16:58:04 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:58:04 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority / Draco's bigotry and leadership In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144455 > >>a_svirn: > > You can hardly call it hostility, not by her usual standards. > > > >>colebiancardi: > when it comes to adults, that was Umbridge's *usual > standards* of hostility - she is passive-aggressive. > Betsy Hp: Exactly. Snape was angry. Even if Umbridge *wasn't* trying to piss him off with humiliating referrals to a job the entire school knows he's been after and has been refused, she managed it. And unless the Slytherins actually hate their head of house (which, why?) they'd not like him recieving such treatment. > >>Betsy Hp: > > I think Draco does think highly of Snape. > > > a_svirn: > Maybe. Or maybe he was just sucking up to him. You never can tell. > And if Slytherins were offended by the way Umbridge treated their > head of the house they had a very strange way of showing it. Betsy Hp: Generally, with Draco, you really *can* tell. The boy is not good at lying. What he feels he says. Not very sterotypically Slytherin, but there you go. And the Slytherins may have just followed their head of house's lead. Snape appeared to be assisting Umbridge. > >>Betsy Hp: > > I'm always leery of assigning the Slytherins with a surfeit of > > negative human emotions or desires. Smacks of a sort of racism, > > IMO. > > > >>a_svirn: > I hope, it wasn't an accusation. Betsy Hp: Certainly not a personal one. If JKR *does* mean for all the bad children to have wound up in Slytherin, than yes, I do think she's advocating a sort of racism. Which is a huge reason why I doubt that's what she's doing. > >>Betsy Hp: > > I also doubt Umbridge would allow anyone to sit meekly > > off to the side. > >>a_svirn: > On the contrary, that's what Umbridge wanted from her students in > the first place ? to sit meekly at their desks and take notes from > their handbooks. Betsy Hp: Which would be joining with her. There was no middle ground here. Which is why the school descended into such chaos. > >>a_svirn: > And what do you mean "isolate and destroy houses"? It wasn't her > intention. Her intention was to get rid of Dumbledore and Harry > Potter, because she saw them as a threat. She also wanted to get > Hogwarts under the total control of the Ministry. To that end she > introduced a police regime in the school, and Slytherins (not all > of them, certainly) were only too eager to help her in this > endeavour. Betsy Hp: Total control by the Ministry would mean total destruction of the Founders' Hogwarts. Total destruction of their fingerprints, the houses. Slytherin took the cunning route of holding their enemy close. They'd be the last house destroyed that way. Though, of course, they *would* be destroyed eventually, and so one does hope that *someone* had some sort of idea of when and how to strike back. More than likely the Slytherins were in a survival mode, making sure they didn't get expelled, etc. And a lot of it was all seat-of-the-pants stuff anyway. > >>a_svirn: > The picture you drew ? all houses ganged up on Slytherin ? is > certainly dramatic but not correct. DA was mostly Gryffindor, and > in any event they could care less about Slytherin, they ganged up > on Umbridge. Moreover, they did it in secret, so Slyths had no > reason to feel "isolated" up until the Marietta's debacle. And > that happened towards the end. Betsy Hp: That's not what I was saying at all. The houses didn't gang up on Slytherin. They continued to hold Slytherin in isolation, so Slytherin had to fend for themselves. It was all very passive- aggressive. Until the Slytherins said screw it and went full out aggressive. (Must have been a bit fun for them, I'd imagine. I don't want to assign the Slytherins with all the noble human attributes either. ) And in a school of Hogwarts size there is no way the students didn't know that some sort of resistance group was operating. They might not have known the who, what and where, but with most of the houses prefects on the role call, they'd know *something*. And the Slytherins would recognize it as well. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Draco is the Slytherin prefect of his year. > >>a_svirn: > So was Ron. You can hardly call him a leader, though. Betsy Hp: So name me the Slytherin counterpart for Harry Potter. > >>Betsy Hp: > > He's respected and liked (I believe) by Blaise, who has been > > established as somewhat picky about his company. > a_svirn: > I got the opposite impression. Looks like Blaise doesn't think > much of Draco's abilities. Betsy Hp: What? Blaise hung out in Draco's compartment; put up with smunching into a seat with Crabbe and Goyle so Draco could spread out all king of his domain on the other seats; downplayed the Slug Club so Draco's feelings weren't too bruised; and hung out with Draco in the common room as per Harry's map. The only thing Blaise hasn't done (that we've seen anyway) is get rip roaring drunk and tell Draco that he's the best friend Blaise's ever had. And he really means it, man. The best! > >>Betsy Hp: > > Because calling Hermione a mudblood was not a natural instinct > > for Darco. In the first book he completely ignored her, choosing > > to pick on Neville Longbottom (the pureblood) instead. > >>a_svirn: > Well, it's usual for bullies to pick on the weakest. The twins did > the same. Betsy Hp: Exactly my point. First year Hermione was *very* weak. She had no friends at all until Halloween. She'd have been a perfect target at that point. And yet, Draco waited until his father pointed her out. > >>a_svirn: > But his bigotry is not only about using m-word on Hermione. The > first time we saw him in PS he presented us with the essence of > the pureblood prejudices: that only those with an acceptable > parentage should be allowed to attend Hogwarts (in other words > allowed to be wizards), and that muggle-borns are all riff-raff, > and not good enough. Nor Hermione is only representative of the > riff-raff he picks on. Hagrid also offends his refines > sensibilities, for instance. Betsy Hp: Yes, Draco parrots his father beautifully to the Muggle dressed boy standing beside him. A boy he doesn't even think of questioning the parentage of until their conversation is near conclusion. Which is why I don't think the bigotry is something Draco has really made his own. His father says it is so, and it is so. Draco hasn't thought it out for himself. He hasn't had reason to, really. And Hagrid, like Hermione, offends Draco's sensibilities because he offends his *father's* sensibilities. Again, he parrots his father when he puts down Hagrid. > >>a_svirn: > It would be interesting to see what he'll make of his HBP > adventures. His adoration of the Dark Lord has certainly abated, > but for this to affect all his beliefs? Betsy Hp: The greatness of the Dark Lord is the foundation on which many of Draco's beliefs are built. And the Dark Lord has demonstrated his contempt for Draco's family. So suddenly, everything Draco has believed to be true about Voldemort has been shown a lie. Which shakes everything built upon that lie. Many of his beliefs, the negative ones especially, will be, have been, shaken. What will come of it, only JKR knows. But something will come. > >>a_svirn: > It didn't work that way with his father. And who knows to what > conclusion Draco will arrive in the end? Probably, he'll decide > that it was the greatest mistake to throw his lot with a half- > blood upstart. Betsy Hp: I'm not sure what you're driving at here. What didn't work with Lucius? And who is the half-blood upstart? Snape or Voldemort? I do agree that we're still waiting for Draco to come to a conclusion. He's been forced to finally think for himself, though. So I am eager to see where it takes him. Betsy Hp From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Dec 10 17:02:28 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:02:28 -0000 Subject: Snape and Saruman was JKR Preaching? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144456 Pippin: > Interesting idea, comparing Saruman and Snape. Ceridwen: I don't think it's possible to compare everything about Saruman and Snape. I do see where their positions are about the same in the overall set-up of the stories. Saruman and Snape are both the `middle evil' - with Gollum and Draco as the `least evil' and Sauron and LV as the `greatest evil'. At least, according to the hero's perspective. But within the seperate series of books, they have very different substories. Saruman was the trusted mentor, the White Wizard. He is Gandalf's superior, not his subordinate, as Snape is Dumbledore's subordinate. Saruman begins as someone to be trusted. No one warns Gandalf about going to see Saruman. No one questions why Gandalf trusts him. So this way, I think, Snape and Saruman begin their respective series as direct opposites, even if they're holding the same position. No one, not even students who are not a part of either VoldWar, like or trust Snape. While, everyone seems to take Gandalf's assessment of Saruman at face value. I do think they're occupying the same sort of place in their respective stories. But the stories themselves are different. Pippin: > And then to discover that the hopes of the West were vested in a > witless Halfling! Of course Saruman's previous dealings with > Halflings like Frodo's dear cousin Lotho would not dispose him > to think of Bagginses as potential heroes. Ceridwen: Yes, Saruman does hold the Hobbits in contempt. And, Frodo Baggins? Not to mention his friends, Merry and, er, Pippin. (Are we getting an insider's perspective? *g*) Snape says he is contemptuous of Harry. But I can't believe he could so thoroughly trick himself as to believe that. It seems to me that Snape would think of Harry as miserable at Potions, and an insufferable brat. But not that he was mediocre at best, not at all! Harry isn't a new Dark Lord Rising, so maybe he's mediocre in comparison with that image. But here, I think Snape was snowing the Black sisters. Pippin: > Frodo's early adventures such as getting lost in the Barrow downs, > allowing the Ring to reveal itself in Bree and donning the Ring in the > presence of the Nazgul on Weathertop, would not help. You could > say that Frodo had fought his way out of some tight corners > with the help of sheer luck and more talented friends, and you would > be right. Ceridwen: Harry's made some mistakes, but he's younger than Frodo to begin with. Even though Frodo has just reached his majority, that's *33 years old* in the Shire. Harry's shown competence when it mattered. He was able to fight off Voldemort in the graveyard, which sets him apart from Frodo and his misadventures right away. Maybe the defeat of Quirrel!Mort was down to luck and his mother's protection, but slaying the basilisk and destroying the diary was pure Harry. Intuitive, sure. But something more than luck. Sirius turning out to be Good instead of a crazed killer frothing for Harry's neck was luck on Harry's part, with some of the dumb things he did, like going to the shack, or wandering around when he knew, or everybody told him, that a killer was stalking him. Not smart, if it turned out to be true. Harry was able enough with his wand to hold his own at the Ministry, even against what I recall to be greater odds. Yes, he had his friends, but there were more than enough Death Eaters to go around. And yes, Dumbledore was the one who ultimately fought Voldemort. But, Harry acquitted himself very well. So did the other DA members. But Harry, IMO, was the best of them. So, even parallels between Harry and Frodo don't match exactly. Even the missions are different. Frodo's is to get rid of a magically powerful ring. This is a concrete object, and its destruction will lead directly to Sauron's fall. Harry has no ring, he's winging it. His quest revolves around a nebulous thing called `love'. Pippin: > Might Saruman not think that Gandalf's plan was pure folly, and be > tempted to draw on his resources of cunning and cruelty in order to > show Gandalf that Frodo was an unworthy Hobbit, and Gandalf's > confidence in him was misplaced? Ceridwen: I think Saruman gave Gandalf his real reason for joining with Sauron. He saw no other outcome. Especially with a Hobbit as the hopeful hero, once he finds that out. And, his own greed, which was apparently unleashed by his own arrogance in thinking he could look into the Palantir (sp?) without harm, was another spur. I don't see Snape doubting Dumbledore with the same contempt. He may doubt, but since his position is subordinate to Dumbledore, I think he has more trust in DD's powers, wisdom and knowledge. Where Saruman thinks of himself as above Gandalf, and as holding more power, wisdom and knowledge than his protege, as well as his actual position as the head of Gandalf's order. In the early discussions about Snape after HBP, we all debated whether he was ESE! or ESG! Which didn't make much sense. DDM!, though, sounded right. I do think Snape is totally against Voldemort. But, I think he puts his trust in Dumbledore instead of in Harry or the Ministry or the Order. If DDM! turns out to be right, then Snape can't see Dumbledore in the same way as Saruman sees Gandalf. He may disagree, that's his right. But I don't see him having that sneering sort of contempt toward Dumbledore at all. Some other similarities that differ in the details: 1) Saruman tries to force Gandalf to go along with him. He doesn't try to kill him. He's aware of the danger in the mines, and he doesn't mind at all. But Gandalf was done in by the creature of darkness and flame. Dumbledore is dead, killed, apparently, by Snape. While I do think there's something more to it, I'm only on my second reading of HBP. Still, in the actual deeds as seen by the hero, Gandalf was killed fighting the Balrog. Dumbledore was killed as he slumped, weakened on the tower, by one of his trusted associates. 2) We see Saruman's betrayal over and over, as he depletes the forests to forge his Uruk Hai army, and as Pippin and Merry discover the goods from the Shire. We see Saruman communing with Sauron through the Palantir (sp?). We see his changed personna, we never saw him as what he had been before, when he was elevated to the leadership of his Order. Snape, on the other hand, is never shown with LV. Not that I recall, anyway. Maybe a scene like that would be too telling. Or, maybe I'm discounting something we have seen in canon by thinking I read it in a fanfic. We see Snape as someone Harry mistrusts from the beginning when he thought it was Snape who made his scar hurt. We have half-heard conversations which turn out to be much different than we thought. We have outright acts of rescue, possible acts of rescue, and a somewhat sympathetic backstory for Snape. 3) We are privy to Gandalf's thoughts and actions independent of Frodo's. So far, we haven't seen Dumbledore on his own without seeing his actions through Harry's viewpoint, as in the Penseive scenes. We are almost completely limited to Harry's observations, with the exceptions of three chapters I can think of. This is where the story moves from a heroic epic to a mystery, IMO, since we don't have much more than the hero does to go on. That's a very big difference in how we view, as readers, LOTR and HP. 4) Frodo comes off, to me, as a tool, a vehicle for the ring's last journey, as much as he comes off a hero. His heroism is in his inner strength and his determination to get the job done. That's the reason he was chosen to be the Ring Bearer. He was unaffected by the ring's seduction. Harry, however, is more of an active hero. He fights back. He shows an ability and a determination to learn spells he might need to defeat LV. I'm thinking specifically about his DA club right now. He didn't originate it, but he led it, he taught it, and he improved himself. Frodo just went on his journey and came back too damaged to survive in Middle Earth any more. 5) Sauron has powers that Frodo doesn't have. And, Frodo has no chance of ever gaining these powers. Harry is more evenly matched with LV. Harry has the ability to perform magic, the same as LV. The only differences are that Harry's younger and has less training than LV, and one or the other would naturally be more innately powerful. In the same way as someone else will run faster than me, but read slower. The basics are the same. So, while I do see similarities in the stories, I can also see that there are differences. I'm sure there's more. But this is four pages long already! My apologies to anyone who's made it this far, as well as my thanks. I had to get that off my chest. Ceridwen. From h2so3f at yahoo.com Sat Dec 10 17:15:22 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:15:22 -0000 Subject: New member with question -- Who will die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144457 sararbe wrote: "I was watching a show on E! yesterday called The Soup (if any of you have heard of it) and the host said that the guy who does the audio for the HP books says that Harry is getting killed in the 7th book. This could just be a stunt for attention or maybe for book sales, but I just wanted to know what the discussion has been on Harry possibly getting killed. I'm sure it has been talked about here and wanted to know what everyone thought. Also, if you don't think that Harry will get killed, what character do you think has a good chance of being killed? There has been a thread circlulating about one or more of the Weasley klan getting axed, but they can't be the only characters with death looming over them." CH3ed: H'lo Sararbe. :O) We were discussing that indeed. I'd love to have seen how JKR reacted to that news of what the HP audio book narrator said. Considering the secrecy protocols leading up to the HP books publications I don't think she appreciated that 'leak' much. Anyhow, I agree with Bart that LV dies in Book 7 rather than Harry. It is a more hopeful ending. ;O) I also think Snape, Bellatrix, Lucius Malfoy, would probably all go. And I can see these 3 being killed by either side (good or bad guys). I wouldn't want to be Scrimgeor either. LV and his gang seems to be about as deranged as the RW's Osama bin Laden, so they might go for political assassination again (like they did Mme. Bones). CH3ed loves the weekends!!! From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sat Dec 10 17:25:59 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:25:59 -0000 Subject: Cultural standards for Snape abusiveness/Karma again/Mcgonagall and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144458 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ornadv" wrote: > > >Pippin: > >I guess I am not clear what Snape is supposed to be punished for, > >DDM!Snape, I mean. If it is for serving Voldemort, then I think he > >is supposed to have paid for his crimes by changing sides and > > saving Harry. Just a quick query: when has Snape saved Harry? The time Quirrelmort cursed his broom? OK, I'll give him good intentions (probably), and of course he gets credited with an assist, but Hermione is the one who actually (and accidentally) saved Harry. The night Lupin went for a moonlight stroll? Padfoot drove Moony away from the rest of the party (saving Snape in the process) and Harry drove away the Dementors (probably saving the unconscious Snape from being Kissed). What did Snape do other than take credit? It's nagging at me that I've probably missed another incident, but nothing comes to mind. Amiable Dorsai From rbookworm46 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 10 17:53:37 2005 From: rbookworm46 at yahoo.com (rbookworm46) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:53:37 -0000 Subject: Draco as leader In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144459 Betsy Hp: I'm not saying Draco's a great leader overall. But he *is* the face of Slytherin within Harry's peer group. So if JKR *does* address the Slytherin issue, it'll be beyond jarring if some other random Slytherin is brought in to do the job. (Plus, it'll be a total waste of Draco's development in HBP.) Bookworm: I agree. Harry has conflicts with three people that he will have to resolve by the end of the series. Draco is one of them. Obviously Voldemort and Snape are the others. After Hagrid, Draco is the first person from the wizarding world that Harry interacted with (not counting all the handshakes in the Leaky Cauldron). It is interesting to me that JKR chose him for that role ? perhaps a negative to counterbalance Hagrid's optimism? Betsy Hp: Because calling Hermione a mudblood was not a natural instinct for Darco. In the first book he completely ignored her, choosing to pick on Neville Longbottom (the pureblood) instead. And it cannot be that Hermione was unnoticable as a target. She was incredibly overeager in PS/SS. Everyone around her noticed and was a bit annoyed or amused by it. But it wasn't until Draco's father said, "Look, there's a mudblood! Go get her!" that Draco turned on Hermione. And even then, Hermione tended to be his only target for those sort of attacks. Bookworm: I hadn't noticed that Draco didn't start picking on Hermione until later. However, I was struck by his first (anonymous) conversation with Harry in Madam Malkins when Harry thought Draco reminded him of Dudley. Coming from an 11 y/o, that kind of arrogant self- importance sounds like a mask for insecurity. To me it has been obvious since CoS that Draco is desperately seeking his father's approval. Especially in the earlier books, it seems like half of what he says starts with, "My father...." IMO he joined the DEs only because that is what his father would have wanted. A scene I would like to see in HP:EotS (HP and the End of the Series!) is Draco standing up to his father and making a decision for himself. I don't expect a gushy, I'm-now-Harry's-best- friend, kind of transformation. Just Draco becoming his own man. Ravenclaw Bookworm From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sat Dec 10 18:00:54 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:00:54 -0000 Subject: Can Somebody Please Tell Me Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144460 Where does the expression "greasy git" come from? Is it canon? I've come across numerous other derogatory expressions applied to Snape, but not this particular one. --La Gatta From rbookworm46 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 10 18:09:16 2005 From: rbookworm46 at yahoo.com (rbookworm46) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:09:16 -0000 Subject: DD's Penseive / Portrait In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144461 Finwitch: At any case, discussion between McGonagall & Portrait!Dumbledore would be quite interesting to read... or would it be something silly like: "... But he killed you, Albus!" "I trust Severus Snape." (I don't know about you, but if anyone tells Albus that Snape killed him - and that portrait-Albus STILL says he trusts Severus Snape, I'm going to laugh hard...) Maybe first chapter in the next book? Bookworm: LOL! But reading it again, I think I can see JKR using something like it. It depends on whether or not it was a true AK or just a cover for something Snape and Dumbledore discussed telepathically. After all, if Snape is DDM and what we saw on the tower was another of JKR's slight of hand, that is exactly what Dumbledore would tell McGonagall. If that's the case, it might not be the first chapter ? it could give too much away. :-D Ravenclaw Bookworm From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Dec 10 18:33:09 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:33:09 -0000 Subject: Cultural standards for Snape abusiveness/Karma again/Mcgonagall and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144462 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amiabledorsai" wrote: > Just a quick query: when has Snape saved Harry? The time Quirrelmort > cursed his broom? OK, I'll give him good intentions (probably), and > of course he gets credited with an assist, but Hermione is the one who > actually (and accidentally) saved Harry. Pippin: According to Quirrell, he'd have managed to have Harry off his broom before Hermione got there if Snape hadn't been muttering a countercurse. Amiable Dorsai: > The night Lupin went for a moonlight stroll? Padfoot drove Moony away > from the rest of the party (saving Snape in the process) and Harry > drove away the Dementors (probably saving the unconscious Snape from > being Kissed). What did Snape do other than take credit? Pippin: He rescued Harry, Ron, Hermione and Sirius who were unconscious and would have been defenseless if the werewolf or the dementors returned. Amiable Dorsai: > It's nagging at me that I've probably missed another incident, but > nothing comes to mind. Pippin: In OOP, Snape deduced that Harry had gone to the Ministry and sent the Order to his aid. Compare Snape's actions with Slughorn's when Ron is poisoned: "Professor!" Harry bellowed. "Do something!" But Slughorn seemed paralyzed by shock. Ron twitched and choked. His sking was turning blue. "What--but--" spluttered Slughorn. Harry leapt over a low table and sprinted toward Slughorn's open potion kit, pulling out jars and pouches, while the terrible sound of Ron's gargling breath filled the room. Then he found it-- the shriveled kidneylike stone Slughorn had taken from him in Potions. He hurtled back to Ron's side, wrenched open his jaw and thrust the bezoar into his mouth. Ron gave a great shuddder, a rattling gasp, and his body became limp and still. --- We don't hear that Dumbledore or McGonagall were disappointed or suspicious that Slughorn seemingly lost his head in an emergency and did nothing while a student was nearly murdered in front of him. Slughorn's definitely better company at a party than Snape is, and and much less deserving of the ' deeply horrible person' tag, but I know which one I'd want around if someone was trying to kill *me*. Pippin From ornawn at 013.net Sat Dec 10 18:50:20 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:50:20 -0000 Subject: Cultural standards for Snape abusiveness/Karma again/Mcgonagall and Neville Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144463 >Amiable Dorsai >Just a quick query: when has Snape saved Harry? The time Quirrelmort >cursed his broom? OK, I'll give him good intentions (probably), and >of course he gets credited with an assist, but Hermione is the one >who actually (and accidentally) saved Harry. Orna: Yes, this one. It is true Hermione made the final save, but it was done accidentally, as you said, and after some long minutes of being tossed between the clouds. Anyway, if Hermione hadn't accidentally run over Quirrel, she might have killed Harry ? setting Snape on fire. Perhaps that's why Hermione seems from PS on to be more reluctant to accept Harry's accuses. One might ask, of course, why Snape didn't do the obvious thing, Hermione tried to do ? break the eye contact between Quirrel and Harry. But ? perhaps he didn't know by then that Quirrel was Quirrelmort, perhaps Snape doesn't like such inelegant interventions, which on top of it reveal him as a Harry-saver, (still, he could have elegantly cursed Quirrel), or perhaps he is just ESE!Snape, who didn't want to save Harry, just to appear like that I just want to remind us that McGonagall and Mme Hoch were also there ? doing nothing. As far as we know - Only Snape, Hermione, and George and Fred tried to do anything about it. . The other one ? he did alarm the order to Harry being probably in the MoM in OotP ? quite a life-saving act, IMO. One might argue that it was done to save his position as DDM!. That's what I've been thinking about ? in the PoA Snape's intervention didn't help much to save Harry's life, on the contrary ? it complicated matters, and although one might argue that it was brave of him to rush into a place where Sirius and a possibly dangerous werewolf were, I don't think he did it for Harry ? he did it IMO for sweet revenge. Otherwise the first thing he would do would be to drive the kids away from a place where seemingly- dangerous creatures were. So, I didn't count PoA as a life-saving act. Orna From dragonjcndm2 at aol.com Sat Dec 10 17:36:35 2005 From: dragonjcndm2 at aol.com (dragonjcndm2 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:36:35 EST Subject: DD's Penseive / Portrait Message-ID: <266.210d5b5.30cc6c23@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144464 Pookie: << I also had a thought that perhaps the painting of DD might be helpful to Harry; had anyone any thoughts on that? If I missed the posting on this please accept my appol... >> Not sure on my thoughts about the penseive. I still find it odd that the DD portrait is not interacting like the other portraits. Jade From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Dec 10 19:27:05 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:27:05 -0000 Subject: Cultural standards for Snape abusiveness/Karma again/Mcgonagall and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144465 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Fake!Moody was kissed for the abuse he dished in the classroom. Check. > He was? Then what was his punishment for killing his father, for putting Harry's name in the Goblet and for making it into a portkey that transported Harry and Cedric to the graveyard, which made him an accomplice to the death of Cedric and the ressurection of LV? Gerry From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sat Dec 10 19:37:48 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:37:48 -0000 Subject: Cultural standards for Snape abusiveness/Karma again/Mcgonagall and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144466 > Pippin: > According to Quirrell, he'd have managed to have Harry off his broom > before Hermione got there if Snape hadn't been muttering a > countercurse. Amiable Dorsai: Yeah, he says that. Might even be true. Might even have been able to keep both twins from catching him. Alright, Snape gets a doughnut. > Pippin: > He rescued Harry, Ron, Hermione and Sirius who were unconscious > and would have been defenseless if the werewolf or the dementors > returned. Amiable Dorsai: Eh, Slughorn would have done as much. Or Filch. No doughnut. > Pippin: > In OOP, Snape deduced that Harry had gone to the Ministry and sent > the Order to his aid. Amiable Dorsai: Yeeaaaaah... OK. Assuming the various "Snape deliberately delayed the call for help" theories are false, Snape gets some more fried pastry. With a cup of coffee, because he kept his head. > Pippin: > Slughorn's definitely better company at a party than Snape is, and > and much less deserving of the ' deeply horrible person' tag, but > I know which one I'd want around if someone was trying to kill *me*. Amiable Dorsai: I don't know as I'd care to hang with either of them at a party. I'd be more likely to try and chat up Hermione. The problem with having Snape guard my back is that I'd never be sure I didn't need someone to guard my back from *him*. I hope he likes the doughnuts; Harry made them. Amiable Dorsai From dragonjcndm2 at aol.com Sat Dec 10 19:49:52 2005 From: dragonjcndm2 at aol.com (dragonjcndm2 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:49:52 EST Subject: Snape & Dumbledore Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144467 Orna writes: << I believe him dead - otherwise I don't think his portrait would be in his study, Hagrid certainly recognizes him as dead, he is a lousy occlument, and wouldn't be able to fake grief and tears in the funeral. >> I tend to agree with him physically gone, however, it still bugs me that his portrait is not interacting like the rest of them. I also have my reservations about Snape and the tower incident. There are things that just doesn't add up to think Dumbledore wouldn't be involved in some way in the last book. Just don't know what. Jade From dragonjcndm2 at aol.com Sat Dec 10 19:59:35 2005 From: dragonjcndm2 at aol.com (dragonjcndm2 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:59:35 EST Subject: JKR Preaching? (was Re: Cultural standards ...) Message-ID: <29e.1814723.30cc8da7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144468 Ceridwen writes: << It seems to be a part of the hero's inner journey to forgive and move on. Since Harry's our hero, I can't see this not happening, at least for Draco Malfoy. I do think that forgiving and then putting past wrongs behind is growing and maturing. Anyway, progressing beyond the hurt and elevating past it is a part of the hero's journey, so I do think we'll see it with Harry. >> To quote Harry's thoughts in HBP: "His animosity was all for Snape, but he had not forgotten the fear in Malfoy's voice on that tower top, nor the fact that he had lowered his wand before the other Death Eaters arrived. Harry did not believe that Malfoy would have killed Dumbledore. He despised Malfoy still for infatuation with the Dark Arts, but now the tiniest drop of pity mingled with his dislike." Harry will definitely be dealing with forgiveness in the last book. As it is, it's clear to see he has his reservations. Jade From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Dec 10 20:13:13 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 20:13:13 -0000 Subject: Draco as leader and bigot (was:Re: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144469 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > Because calling Hermione a mudblood was not a natural instinct for > Darco. In the first book he completely ignored her, choosing to > pick on Neville Longbottom (the pureblood) instead. When he meets Harry at Madam Malkins he immediately wants to find out if Harry's parents were the right kind and thinks that they should not let the other sort go to Hogwarts. It is far easier to pick on Neville then on Hermione. Before the troll incident it is clear that she is cleverer than he is, and after that she has friends too which makes her even less attractive as a target. He picks on Hermione in CoS because she comments that he bought his position as the Slytherin seeker, which ofcourse is true but nothing he wants to be reminded of. He snaps out and that the insult which comes to him naturally is mudblood makes it clear to me that he is quite the little racist. I don't see much change in him either. Gerry From ornawn at 013.net Sat Dec 10 20:14:49 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 20:14:49 -0000 Subject: JKR and the Problem or Three (was Re: Cultural standards ...) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144470 >Betsy Hp: >Snape is *already being punished*. His goal is to destroy >Voldemort, and he's managed to alienate the one person chosen by >frigging *destiny* of all things to be Voldemort's doom. Now >*that's* tragady. All the other "punish Snape" ideas have been mere >child's play in comparison. Orna: I agree with you. That, and loosing in this tragic (for him, if he is DDM!) way the one and only person in the WW, who really trusted him, seems a very severe punishment, which IMO is directly (and Karmatic, if you like it) connected to his personal characteristics as a "not to friendly person". He doesn't get appreciation from the members of the order, certainly not anything like love. Even DD never seems to love him as a person, he sees him as a person not outgrowing his childish grievances, and sometimes even mocks him. I think part of Snape's hatred towards Harry has to do, that he earns DD's love effortless, while Snape never comes near to such a feeling from DD, in spite of his magical knowledge, in spite of his help for the order. Perhaps Snape, unlike Voldemort, has left in himself some undamaged craving for love and appreciation, but absolutely no inner knowledge of how this comes to happen. Even Draco treats him without respect, without any trust towards him. Yes, it does seem quite a karmatic punishment, even as things stand now. The only person who seems to have (had, one might add) some genuine positive feeling towards him ? something between appreciation and compassion ? is Lupin. And from now on, he hasn't got a chance of being something else than one of the greatest villains of all times, in the eyes of the order and the WW. Quite a punishment ? and if he is DDM!Snape it means he hasn't got the compensation for it ? like belonging to the bad guys, rejoicing on DD's death. >Betsy Hp in 144301: >Anyway, I have a feeling that dealing with the bed he's made is >Snape's ultimate task. Earning Harry's trust may be the only way >for him to achieve true redemption, and probably the only way for >Harry to defeat Voldemort. Orna: I don't think that Snape alive will earn anything like that. I think, he will help Harry defeat Voldemort, but in his secretive way, thus never earning the respect he should get. I think that maybe after his death, Harry may be able to understand something there. I'm not sure, but I really can't see Snape and Harry being able to have any conversation without bursting into waves of hate, mistrust and more misunderstanding. >Lupinlore: >That would be one easy way of dealing with it, I suppose. But that >sets up the problem of how you deal with a Dead but Unrepentant! >Snape, which in some ways is a much thornier question than how to >deal with a Snape who is alive and still has possibilities for >reconciliation. I understand that you feel this may be a challenge >JKR intends for her readers, but I just don't see it coming down to >that. Frankly, I just don't think JKR is that crafty or subtle. >She has a definite preference for polishing things off pretty neatly >where major characters are concerned Orna: You may be right. If she wants to pull it pretty neatly and without subtlety and complications ? than ESE!Snape is one way of doing it. Another way is having Snape win Harry's trust while alive and acting out there ? looks difficult for me, but perhaps not to JKR. But if not ? Harry will have to live with a dead, but unrepentant Snape (unrepentant on the personal issues, not on whose side he is in the war), and with himself having mistrusted Snape not because of correctly reading Snape's "dark loyalties" but because of Harry's personal hatred. Not an easy thing, but basically a task having to do with turning adult, IMO. Of course, I assume Snape will get killed by the Dark side, and not by Harry. >Betsy Hp: >Speaking as someone who *does* fancy Snape... um, yeah, as a, >uh, ...friend. Yes. Orna, quite close to invite Snape one of those days if only he was a bit more approachable. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sat Dec 10 20:51:52 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 20:51:52 -0000 Subject: Can Somebody Please Tell Me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144471 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lagattalucianese" wrote: > > Where does the expression "greasy git" come from? Is it canon? > > I've come across numerous other derogatory expressions applied to > Snape, but not this particular one. His hair is greasy, that much is canon. "Git" is a somewhat overly polite way to refer to him, but it never hurts to be polite, and the alliteration is nice. Amiable Dorsai From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sat Dec 10 21:15:30 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:15:30 -0000 Subject: How did Bella follow Cissy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144472 Pippin wrote: > There doesn't seem to be a way to track a Disapparated person. (snip) > Now, according to the Ministry's Apparation instructor, you have to have your > destination clearly in mind to Apparate successfully. Bella > had never been to Spinner's End before and Narcissa acts as though she > didn't want Bella along. > > How did Bella learn where she was going? > > Was Narcissa's thought read against her will before she Apparated? > Did Cissy "leak" the information because she already intended to ask > Snape to take the vow? Ginger takes a stab at it: I think we can agree that since Bella taught Draco Occlumancy that she must have at least rudimentary Legilamancy skills. Cissy was upset at the time when she apparated into Snape's neighbourhood, and their conversation indicated to me that they had been arguing about this very topic before Cissy left. My guess would be that Bella was using Legilamancy on her, and that the thoughts passing between them formed a sort of trail or homing device that Bella was able to follow. The only time that I can recall that people have apparated to an unknown destination (not including side-along) was when the DEs went to the Graveyard, at which time I think the Dark Mark acted in the same manner as what I am proposing here. I would assume that there has to be some sort of way that one can tell someone "follow me" when apparating. Otherwise how could people know how to get to someone's house if they didn't have a map handy and weren't familiar with the local geography? If, for example, Hermione were to invite Ron to visit her parents, they would have to apparate or take Muggle transportation. Given my choice, I'd apparate. Cheaper and faster. Since Ron has never seen her home, nor is he likely familiar with her neighbourhood, she'd have to have some way of getting him there. I would guess that the "follow me" idea is a mental path that the person leading can put out for the other to follow, and in the case of Bella and Cissy it was not a conscious decision on Cissy's part, but rather an intrusive one on Bella's, which she accomplished by Legilamancy. And that's my jaw-wagging for the day. All ideas which are not canon are my opinion. Agreement is acceptable, but is not required. All persons reading are equally entitled to their own opinions, which may vary. Discontinue use if rash occurs. Ginger, with nothing intelligent to put after her name From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sat Dec 10 21:28:13 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:28:13 -0000 Subject: Slyths and the I-Squad Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144473 I've been following the thread on why Draco and the Slyths joined Umbridge and I'm not sure where to jump in, so I'm just throwing this out for anyone interested. I think they joined up for ambitious reasons. Lucius knows Umbridge (she tells Snape that Lucius speaks highly of him), and Umbridge is the Senior Undersecretary to Fudge, who also holds Lucius in esteem (see his defence when Harry accused Lucius of being a DE at the end of GoF). It would make sense to me that Lucius told Draco that schmoozing up to Umbridge would be in Draco's best interest. She went into the school with the intention to get rid of DD, and as soon as she accomplishes this, she forms the I-Squad. Draco and his group are right there to do her bidding. She is, at that time, the Head of Hogwarts, and is also highly placed and influential in the Ministry. Being on her side in school not only puts one in the position of getting a good recommendation for a career, but also being placed well in the Ministry. If one is going to network, she is the one to work. Until the whole Centaur thing, of course. I'm not discounting that they may have had some thoughts along the lines of "DD's gone, now WE can rule the school" or "DD favoured them for long enough, now it's OUR turn", but I think they were just playing their cards for the present and the future. Not to mention they got nifty little bagdes that made a great fashion accessory. Ginger, who has been known to brown-nose with the best of them, and can be a good little toady if no one pisses her off. From olivier.fouquet+harry at m4x.org Sat Dec 10 21:46:47 2005 From: olivier.fouquet+harry at m4x.org (olivierfouquet2000) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:46:47 -0000 Subject: Can Somebody Please Tell Me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144474 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lagattalucianese" wrote: > > Where does the expression "greasy git" come from? Is it canon? > --La Gatta > After a cursory look at the canon, I think I can say the expression is not canon. However, Snape's hair are described as greasy in every book and he's called a git by Fred and Ron in OoP4. Olivier From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Dec 10 21:54:09 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:54:09 -0000 Subject: Slyths and the I-Squad In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144475 Ginger wrote: snip > > Being on her side in school not only puts one in the position of > getting a good recommendation for a career, but also being placed > well in the Ministry. If one is going to network, she is the one to > work. Potioncat: I would like to point out that only 7 members are identified. While there may have been more members it wasn't the whole house of Slytherin. Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle, Parkinson and Bullstrode. Which is basically Draco's gang of Slytherins. Notice we don't see Nott or Zabini. Montague, a 6th year female Slytherin and one other male whose name escapes me, but I think he was on the Quidditch team. Draco has spoken very sharply against both DD and McGonagall. So part of his motivation may have been revenge. But I think, as Ginger stated, he was brown-nosing. He tries again in HBP, with less success. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 10 22:21:42 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:21:42 -0000 Subject: JKR Preaching? (was Re: Cultural standards ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144476 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > Lupinlore: > > If JKR wants to avoid the label of > > moralist and still deal with the issue of forgiveness in this > > context, > > she will have to be very careful indeed. > > Ceridwen: > Nice parallel with Frodo and Saruman. They didn't play that very > well in the movie at all. But, yes, the same idea. Though, being > more DDM!Snape, I would see it as both crushing and beginning > healing. Unlike LV, who can't stand being anywhere near love. > > To keep with the rest of the series, I would say that this sort of > forgiveness, if used, would invoke ancient magic in the same way that > Lily's sacrifice did. Lupin might be used, as a DADA expert, to > discuss it with Harry and expound for us. That is, if it's used. > > If it is, I would think JKR is going for at least a form of High > myth/magic with this. I'm not sure how to explain it. But there are > certain heroic stories that seem to rise above the ground. Maybe not > above other hero stories, but there's something different in them. I > don't think she's got that feeling, at least for me. And I'm > probably botching this whole explanation. > > But, back to Frodo for a minute, he also forgave Gollum, and put > Gollum's interests at his heart. We know what happened there as > well. It seems to be a part of the hero's inner journey to forgive > and move on. Since Harry's our hero, I can't see this not happening, > at least for Draco Malfoy. I do think that forgiving and then > putting past wrongs behind is growing and maturing. Not that I > always do it, there are a couple of people who... never mind. > Anyway, progressing beyond the hurt and elevating past it is a part > of the hero's journey, so I do think we'll see it with Harry. Geoff: Don't forget that both these authors - and also C.S.Lewis - write from a Christian aspect although this may be veiled in the context of the story. In LOTR, forgivness - and also pity - play a very large part. Gandalf refers to Bilbo's pity in not killing Gollum as possibly playing a major part in the unfolding of the story and in the film version of LOTR, Frodo says at one point "I need to know that he can come back" or words to that effect and it is his refraining from harming Gollum which finally saves him from a descent into the dark at Mount Doom and leads to the donwfall of Sauron. Again, in "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", Edmund becomes a traitor under the influence of the White Witch and is rescued from being sacrificed by Aslan's followers. When the White Witch demands his life as a traitor, Aslan demonstrates forgiveness and pity by allowing himself to be killed in Edmund's stead. But all the evil powers - the White Witch, Voldemort and Sauron have one thing in common. They cannot see beyond their own demands; they have no concept of love, forgiveness or pity. Sauron cannot conceive of the fact that a Ringbearer would want nothing other than to destroy it because of the evil effect it has on Middle-earth and to break the power of Barad-dur. The White Witch wants to hold Narnia in her grip and believes that the Deep Magic from the Dawn of Time will enable her to do so. She does not know and cannot understand the Deeper Magic from before the Dawn of Time which allows Aslan as an innocent sacrificial victim to rescue Edmund from her clutches. (We do need to remember that CSL intended the book to be an allegory of Christain belief for young people). Voldemort desires to conquer the Wizarding World and cannot understand how Lily's love thwarted him and how his interpretation of the prophecy has allowed Harry to escape him so often. I cannot predict how this will work out in the end to bring about the downfall of Voldemort and the fulfilment of Harry's "quest" or even the rehabilitation of Draco (both of which I hugely want to happen) but forgiveness and pity will have to be faced by Harry. We have seen a glimmer of the latter in the Lightning-Struck Tower when he sees the moral crossfire in which Draco has been caught; the former may have to come into play with Snape.... Looking at it (personally) as a Christian, we are in receipt of forgiveness from God through Christ - if we so desire it. It is there as a gift. It is when we accept that gift ourselves that we can learn to forgive others and put their interests at our heart because we continue to seek forgiveness ourselves; faith does not necessarily stop us from doing actions for which we need forgiveness again. "Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us." Forgiveness and pity (in its best sense) must play a part if we - and our fictional heroes - are to go on to complete their tasks and live a satisfying and fulfilled life. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 10 22:29:54 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:29:54 -0000 Subject: Can Somebody Please Tell Me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144477 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amiabledorsai" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lagattalucianese" > wrote: > > > > Where does the expression "greasy git" come from? Is it canon? > > > > I've come across numerous other derogatory expressions applied to > > Snape, but not this particular one. Amiable Dorsai: > His hair is greasy, that much is canon. "Git" is a somewhat overly > polite way to refer to him, but it never hurts to be polite, and the > alliteration is nice. Geoff: As a UK English speaker, I would consider "git" as anything but polite. I would consider it extremely unpleasant and if I was on the receiving end of the name, I think I would want very little to do with the person who said it. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sat Dec 10 22:38:05 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:38:05 -0000 Subject: Can Somebody Please Tell Me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144478 lagattalucianese: Where does the expression "greasy git" come from? Is it canon? I've come across numerous other derogatory expressions applied to Snape, but not this particular one. > Amiable Dorsai: His hair is greasy, that much is canon. "Git" is a somewhat overly polite way to refer to him, but it never hurts to be polite, and the alliteration is nice. > Geoff: As a UK English speaker, I would consider "git" as anything but polite. I would consider it extremely unpleasant and if I was on the receiving end of the name, I think I would want very little to do with the person who said it. > Amiable Dorsai: I feel certain that "git" would be quite impolite if applied to *you*. From literature_Caro at web.de Fri Dec 9 22:55:27 2005 From: literature_Caro at web.de (literature_Caro) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 23:55:27 +0100 Subject: Boggarts - a little side-aspect In-Reply-To: References: <012001c5fc82$89f5c2e0$5d9e400c@Spot> Message-ID: <747798439.20051209235527@web.de> No: HPFGUIDX 144479 Relistening POA I started wondering whether a boggart is something like a hybirdization of legillimency and a dementor: he is trying to make you most scared AND he is doing this by reading in your mind what that thing it needs to turn into would be. Could it therefore be that 1. occlumency would be a equal good protection from it than the ridiculus-spell and 2. the latter is some sort of preparing step to acquire occlumency? If so, would there be a shaped boggart if it faced Snape? What about your thoughts? Caro From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sat Dec 10 23:21:28 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:21:28 -0000 Subject: Boggarts - a little side-aspect In-Reply-To: <747798439.20051209235527@web.de> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144480 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, literature_Caro wrote: > > Relistening POA I started wondering whether a boggart is something > like a hybirdization of legillimency and a dementor: he is trying to > make you most scared AND he is doing this by reading in your mind what > that thing it needs to turn into would be. > Could it therefore be that 1. occlumency would be a equal good > protection from it than the ridiculus-spell and 2. the latter is some > sort of preparing step to acquire occlumency? > If so, would there be a shaped boggart if it faced Snape? Funny you should bring this up. I was thinking about whether Occlumency would help protect you from Dementors, and it occured to me that that might explain why the Lestranges and the other Death Eaters who were sprung from Azkaban were in such good shape. Bella's quite mad, yes, but she can function, and she seems better off than Sirius was after spending at least a year more than he did in Azkaban, Now if Occlumency can protect you from Dementors, it seems likely that it would offer some help with boggarts. Amiable Dorsai From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 00:04:40 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 00:04:40 -0000 Subject: Snape's karma and a bit of Neville WAS: Re: Cultural standards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144481 Alla previously: > > Fake!Moody was kissed for the abuse he dished in the classroom. Check. Gerry: > He was? Then what was his punishment for killing his father, for > putting Harry's name in the Goblet and for making it into a portkey > that transported Harry and Cedric to the graveyard, which made him an > accomplice to the death of Cedric and the ressurection of LV? Alla: Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry. I was so concentrated on the "abuse of power" aspect of karmic punishment that I did not make myself clear about this example. OF COURSE Fake!Moody was punished for all of that too, but if you are going to argue that he was not punished for how he treated Neville , I think I will disagree. IMO and IMO only Fake!Moody was punished for who he was, as a package deal , you know. I think Snape will be punished the same way ( hopefully NOT dementor kiss, I would not wish that even on character like Snape) - as a package deal for who he is. La Gatta: > As someone else pointed out awhile back, Neville may have been > choosing to face up to a fear which he could handle in making Snape > his boggart. Alla: Do we have a canon to show that person can choose one's fear? For example even if Neville was afraid of his gran, it seemed to me that Boggart had no problem choosing what his primary fear is. IMO of course. JMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 00:30:38 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 00:30:38 -0000 Subject: Can Somebody Please Tell Me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144482 > >>lagattalucianese: > > > > Where does the expression "greasy git" come from? Is it > > > > canon? > > > > > >>Amiable Dorsai: > > > His hair is greasy, that much is canon. "Git" is a somewhat > > > overly polite way to refer to him, but it never hurts to be > > > polite, and the alliteration is nice. > >>Geoff: > > As a UK English speaker, I would consider "git" as anything but > > polite. I would consider it extremely unpleasant and if I was on > > the receiving end of the name, I think I would want very little > > to do with the person who said it. > >>Amiable Dorsai: > I feel certain that "git" would be quite impolite if applied to > *you*. Betsy Hp: Can I just add how *tired* I am of the word? It's like it's the only British insult out there, which I *know* can't be true. And I'm not sure it really even applies to Snape. He's many things, but stupid or foolish (the definition I found) is not one of them. It's weird what fandom will glomp onto. Betsy Hp From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 00:30:58 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 00:30:58 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority / Draco's bigotry and leadership In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144483 >Betsy Hp: >And the Slytherins may have just followed their head of house's >lead. Snape appeared to be assisting Umbridge. a_svirn: Where exactly did he appear to assist Umbridge? He was annoyed with her and didn't even bother to hide it. >Betsy Hp: >Which would be joining with her. There was no middle ground here. >Which is why the school descended into such chaos. a_svirn: Really? So when McGonagall told Harry to keep a law profile she suggested that he should join forces with the Ministry? And I don't see how having one lousy subject would have plunged the whole school into chaos. It would certainly have affected their OWL results; on the other hand it would probably have roused the Governors from the lethargy and moved them to get rid of such a demonstratingly incapable teacher. >Betsy Hp: >Total control by the Ministry would mean total destruction of the >Founders' Hogwarts. Total destruction of their fingerprints, the >houses. a_svirn: How so? >Betsy Hp: >And in a school of Hogwarts size there is no way the students didn't >know that some sort of resistance group was operating. They might >not have known the who, what and where, but with most of the houses >prefects on the role call, they'd know *something*. And the >Slytherins would recognize it as well. a_svirn: And where is the canon to support that? >Betsy Hp: >So name me the Slytherin counterpart for Harry Potter. a_svirn: Lord Voldemort. Harry has no worthy opponents among the contemporaries. >Betsy Hp: >What? Blaise hung out in Draco's compartment; put up with smunching >into a seat with Crabbe and Goyle so Draco could spread out all king >of his domain on the other seats; downplayed the Slug Club so >Draco's feelings weren't too bruised; and hung out with Draco in the >common room as per Harry's map. The only thing Blaise hasn't done >(that we've seen anyway) is get rip roaring drunk and tell Draco >that he's the best friend Blaise's ever had. And he really means >it, man. The best! a_svirn: Blaise hung up in Slytherin compartment, not Draco's. He did not downplay the Slug Club thing, on the contrary, he rather gleefully pointed out to Draco, that Slughorn had no time for DE, which certainly did bruise Draco's feelings. He also made his rather unflattering opinion on Draco's abilities abundantly clear when he said that the Dark Lord cannot be interested in Draco's services. As for hanging out with Draco in the common room, it's like saying that Harry was hanging out with Romilda Vane in the common room. Common room is called common for a reason. For the rest I agree, the only way for Blaise to announce his friendship to Draco is to get royally drunk. >Betsy Hp: >Yes, Draco parrots his father beautifully to the Muggle dressed boy >standing beside him. A boy he doesn't even think of questioning the >parentage of until their conversation is near conclusion. a_svirn I agree, that was stupid. But ? as Harry pointed out ? since when has Malfoy been the world's best thinker? Besides, he still meant his every word for all that. >Betsy Hp: >Which is >why I don't think the bigotry is something Draco has really made his >own. His father says it is so, and it is so. Draco hasn't thought >it out for himself. He hasn't had reason to, really. a_svirn: But this is always the case with bigotry. It is a matter of nurture rather than nature. Unless of course, your name is Tom Riddle. >Betsy Hp: >The greatness of the Dark Lord is the foundation on which many of >Draco's beliefs are built. And the Dark Lord has demonstrated his >contempt for Draco's family. So suddenly, everything Draco has >believed to be true about Voldemort has been shown a lie. Which >shakes everything built upon that lie. Many of his beliefs, the >negative ones especially, will be, have been, shaken. What will come >of it, only JKR knows. But something will come. a_svirn: His contempt for muggleborns is not rooted in his family's allegiance to Voldemort, though. If anything, it's the other way round. >Betsy Hp: >I'm not sure what you're driving at here. What didn't work with >Lucius? a_svirn: Well, his father didn't particularly want for Voldemort to return. He felt much more comfortable on his own. Yet, his disappointment in Voldemort did not affect his views on muggles and muggleborns. >Betsy Hp: >And who is the half-blood upstart? Snape or Voldemort? a_svirn: Voldemort. From schumar1999 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 00:34:26 2005 From: schumar1999 at yahoo.com (Marianne S.) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 00:34:26 -0000 Subject: Boggarts - a little side-aspect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144484 > Amiable Dorsai wrote: > Funny you should bring this up. I was thinking about whether > Occlumency would help protect you from Dementors, and it occured to me > that that might explain why the Lestranges and the other Death Eaters > who were sprung from Azkaban were in such good shape. Bella's quite > mad, yes, but she can function, and she seems better off than Sirius > was after spending at least a year more than he did in Azkaban, > > Now if Occlumency can protect you from Dementors, it seems likely that > it would offer some help with boggarts. > Marianne S: I was thinking the same thing, especially after reading in HBP how Harry was writing his Dementor essay for Snape, knowing that he and Snape disagree on the best way to repel Dementors. It would not surprise me if the Snape way has to do more with Occlumency than thinking of a Happy Memory. Pointing out the shape of the Lestranges and the other Death Eaters that escaped with them, and comparing them to Sirius, is more evidence that this could be fact. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 00:51:55 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 00:51:55 -0000 Subject: How many times Snape saved Harry/Speculations about forgiveness WAS: Cultura In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144485 > Ceridwen: > Good question! My opinion is, if Harry forgives Snape but never > tells him, it's just Harry moving on. It's tantamount to forgetting > about it, or having it pale as time passes. The balm is for Harry > alone. Nothing is accomplished, beyond the very real need for Harry > to 'let go and let love', to paraphrase an old churchy slogan that > was in use ages ago. Alla: Well, yeah, I agree with you - it IS moving on, IMO and it could benefit Harry, absolutely. I was arguing that such thing does not necessarily equal forgiveness and that forgiveness holds very real benefits for Snape, that is why I guess I was in essence disagreeing with Magpie that REAL forgiveness will benefit Harry and Harry alone. IMO of course. > Ceridwen: > I disagree. Telling it to Snape's face is the same thing as invoking > love of Sirius and making it impossible for Voldemort to possess > him. It's a way of informing the person, in this case Snape if it > were to happen, that Harry does see the things Snape did as > offensive, but not binding to him now. It informs Snape that he has > no power over Harry, except that which Harry will allow. It tells > Snape that Harry has grown out of his childhood grudges and is a > fully-grown man, capable of determining his own destiny, while Snape > is still caught in a cycle of remorse and hatred over James. Alla: You write beautifully, Ceridwen and you know I came to the point where I am trying to figure out what I am really disagreeing with in the "forgiveness angle" as a plot development to end Harry/Snape relationship. While Lupinlore and I seem to agree on what we indeed want to see happen at the end, I guess in essence it comes to me having more faith in JKR writing abilities than he does. :-) Sorry, Lupinlore. I believe that JKR could write Harry forgiving Snape quite satisfying and the fact that I want to see Snape suffer and painfully does not really matter in the long run. I guess what I REALLY disagree with is the argument that Harry HAS TO forgive Snape and I am not even responding to your argument, but to this thread in general. I think that Harry owes Snape absolutely nothing, whether he is DD!M man or not. If Harry CHOOSES to forgive Snape, that is great, if he chooses to hate him forever because of everything Snape done to him, I don't think that it makes Harry any less of human being than if he would forgive Snape. I think it is Harry's absolute right to feel whatever he wants towards Snape, all things considered. I don't think Harry would be any less adult if he chooses to say witness Snape execution, if he is going to be executed for killing Dumbledore and being happy about it ( NO, I don't really think Harry would ever do that, just speculating here) than if he will absolve Snape of his sins. Oh, and before anyone will respond that Snape also had a right to feel anything he wanted about Harry, I COMPLETELY agree with it. He did. What he had no right IMO is to ACT on his hatred towards Harry and for that I think Jo will punish him. Frankly, I think today that moving on would be perfect solution for Harry - as in forgiving Snape in his heart, since he indeed knew no better and it is not Harry's place to judge him or something like that, but without giving Snape a satisfaction of ever hearing it. But again, I believe that they will have a confrontation with third party or not. IMO of course. Ceridwen: > And, I'm sure there are people who have things against Harry, that he > might not even know about. Draco might have something against him > for the Sectumsempra incident, for instance. Alla: Well, yes of course there are people who have something against Harry, but I think that in your particular example Draco has a lot LESS right to feel indignant about what Harry did, because even though Harry committed absolutely stupid, idiotic act, Draco was the ATTACKER here, so while he may have issues with Harry about it among other things, IF Draco ever comes to evaluating this accident honestly, which I am personally doubting, I hope he will accept his share of responsibility for it. > > Pippin: > > According to Quirrell, he'd have managed to have Harry off his broom > > before Hermione got there if Snape hadn't been muttering a > > countercurse. > > Amiable Dorsai: > Yeah, he says that. Might even be true. Might even have been able to > keep both twins from catching him. Alright, Snape gets a doughnut. Alla: You know, Amiable Dorsai, your post made me spill my tea on the keyboard , I was laughing so much. But why why would you give Snape whole doughnut here? For doing what any teacher should have done, IMO? It is not like he met Harry while vacationing somewhere and saved Harry there. Harry was on the school grounds, he was playing in the school tournament. I don't see Dumbledore demanding extra doughnut for saving Harry during Qudditch tournament in PoA. :-) Half a doughnut from me for recognizing the Dark curse earlier than anybody else did. Oops, he must have acquired this expertise in very questionable ways. Pippin: > > He rescued Harry, Ron, Hermione and Sirius who were unconscious > > and would have been defenseless if the werewolf or the dementors > > returned. > > Amiable Dorsai: > Eh, Slughorn would have done as much. Or Filch. No doughnut. Alla: More like rotten tomato from me here. Going for revenge first, IMO does not imply noble motives. > Amiable Dorsai: > The problem with having Snape guard my back is that I'd never be sure > I didn't need someone to guard my back from *him*. > > I hope he likes the doughnuts; Harry made them. Alla : MAHAHAHA. Exactly. Thanks for saying it. JMO of course, Alla From h2so3f at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 00:53:30 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 00:53:30 -0000 Subject: Is DD Portrait Really Different From Others? WAS: Snape & Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144486 Jade wrote: "I tend to agree with him (DD) physically gone, however, it still bugs me that his portrait is not interacting like the rest of them. I also have my reservations about Snape and the tower incident. There are things that just doesn't add up to think Dumbledore wouldn't be involved in some way in the last book. Just don't know what." CH3ed: I think DD is dead dead and that the portrait is a good indication of that. As to DD portrait 'not interacting like the other portraits' when Harry saw it briefly while he was in the Headmaster's Office with McGonnagal and other teachers, I don't see that that constitutes a definite proof that it is not like other portraits. DD had just died. Perhaps all portraits snooze a lot when they first appear. We don't know, ay? We've never seen a freshly appeared one until this of DD. Besides they all seem to snooze (real or fake) a lot thru out the series. CH3ed doesn't think he would want his loved ones to reappear as interactive portraits after they died.... Gosh! wouldn't that be weird when you're in mourning? From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 01:07:53 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:07:53 -0000 Subject: Can Somebody Please Tell Me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144487 > > --La Gattae: > > > > Where does the expression "greasy git" come from? Is it canon? > Olivier: > > After a cursory look at the canon, I think I can say the expression is not canon. However, > Snape's hair are described as greasy in every book and he's called a git by Fred and Ron in > OoP4. > Neri: The closest I could find in canon is Mr. Prongs in the Marauders Map, who "agrees with Mr. Moony and would like to add that Professor Snape is an ugly git" (PoA, Ch. 14). The term "greasy git" was used for some time in HPfGU, and there were requests in the past by offended members not to call him that. To be fair, it appears that most members using this term are actually Snape fans, who perhaps wish to say something like "it would be really boring if such a classic villain stereotype would indeed turn out to be the villain". If you want to follow the use of the expression in HPfGU this can easily be done by typing "greasy git" (inside quotes) in the search box and pressing "search more" many times. Neri, unofficial LOONIEST From unix4evr at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 01:33:27 2005 From: unix4evr at yahoo.com (UNIX4EVR) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:33:27 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter Weekend Marathon Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144488 ABC Family on cable TV is holding a "Harry Potter Movie Marathon" this weekend. FYI. From lolita_ns at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 01:50:12 2005 From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:50:12 -0000 Subject: Can Somebody Please Tell Me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144489 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > Can I just add how *tired* I am of the word? It's like it's the > only British insult out there, which I *know* can't be true. And > I'm not sure it really even applies to Snape. He's many things, but > stupid or foolish (the definition I found) is not one of them. It's > weird what fandom will glomp onto. > > Lolita: I agree with Geoff. 'Git' is hardly a word one would consider polite. According to Cambridge International Dictionary of English on CD ROM, git is 'a person, especially a man, considered to be unpleasant'. I would say that this is a nicet insult for Snape, although I, myself, believe that our wonderful English language has far more interesting nicknames Snape could be treated to. And as for the 'greasy git' thing, I don't think it's canon either. The closest to that soubriquet that I have found in canon was 'slimy, oily, greasy-haired kid' (GoF, UK children's hardback, p. 460), curtesy of Sirius Black. And something to do with the word 'git', at the beginning of OotP, but I am too lazy and tired to go looking for it now. But there are no words 'greasy' and 'git' combined - at least I haven't been able to find them, which doesn't mean that the phrase is 100% not canon. Lolita :)) From erised86 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 01:56:14 2005 From: erised86 at yahoo.com (Lyn) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:56:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: DD's Penseive / Portrait In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051211015614.33607.qmail@web36407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144490 colebiancardi: Which leds me to believe that was also the reason why DD talked to Snape in the Forbidden Forest, where they argued, instead of DD's office - I don't think DD wanted the portraits to overhear what he & Snape were planning to do. But why not? Aren't the portraits supposed to be at the beck & call of the headmaster/headmistress? Is DD worried that one of the portraits may be used for some other purpose? Or did he just wish any plans, such as what Snape needs to do if something really bad happens(re: The Tower scene), not to be revealed. lyn: The portraits have already been a big supporting role to the Order thus far, and I agree that they will have just as much impact in Book 7 because they're very useful, and can't get intercepted if they have a portrait elsewhere. I think maybe DD talked to Snape in the Forbidden Forest because either he didn't want to be questioned by the numerous paintings, or perhaps he had an idea one was untrustworthy... just because they are a past headmaster/mistress, doesn't necessarily mean anything, I would think they could still take sides, even though it is their duty to serve the present headmaster/mistress of the school. lyn From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 02:11:06 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 02:11:06 -0000 Subject: The Imperius Virus Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144491 > > Orna: > Are you sure the Imperius curse is such a trivial spell? We know > that the other "unforgivables require some maliciousness, and intent > of hurting, and enjoying it. Harry isn't able to throw an effective > Crucio curse, even on wizards he hates. > It's true, that Rosmerta imperiuses Kathie ? but Kathie is a > schoolgirl, and even though she is imperiused - she fails > to "deliver the goods". You might argue that the necklace just > dropped from her hands, but you can also imagine the curse not being > fully effective in making her guarding the packet until she arrived > at Hogwarts. > What I'm trying to say is that as I understand it, there has to be > some evilness in order for a dark curse to take place effectively. > Therefore innocent people wouldn't stay imperiused by "third degree" > curses, and certainly not for a long time. > Neri: Of course, this is quite a logical (and thematic) explanation why the Imperius Virus might not work. It surely sounds better than "because Voldy just didn't think about it". I'll be happy to accept it since I don't claim the Imperius Virus will indeed happen in Book 7. I just claim that the possibility isn't excluded by canon. Some of the fun in exploring imaginary universes is that they have many possibilities the Author has never thought about. After all, even in RL there's no analytical way to know in advance if a virus will work or not. It depends on the complex interaction between too many unknowns. The only way to find out is to try it. Perhaps curiosity is one of the main motives behind computer viruses. Now, lets see what happens if I add this code line here and here Oops, why is world Internet down suddenly? Neri From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Dec 11 01:49:38 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 20:49:38 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco as leader and bigot (was:Re: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority) References: Message-ID: <008b01c5fdf5$2781ccc0$6760400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 144492 festuco: > When he meets Harry at Madam Malkins he immediately wants to find out > if Harry's parents were the right kind and thinks that they should not > let the other sort go to Hogwarts. Magpie: Actually, he first wants to know what house he'll be in and if he plays Quidditch. Asking who his parents are comes pretty late--after Harry has "coldly" said he thinks Hagrid is brilliant. I'm not trying to say that Draco isn't intentionally acting just like Lucius there in saying non-wizards shouldn't be admitted, but that the scene is not so simple as Draco walking in, being a bigot and Harry being righteously angry. I think the scene is more subtle with more going on. festuco: > > It is far easier to pick on Neville then on Hermione. Before the troll > incident it is clear that she is cleverer than he is, and after that > she has friends too which makes her even less attractive as a target. Magpie: Draco has basically no interaction with Hermione at all in the first book. There's no reason to think he considered her or not as a target. It's a non-issue. He picks on Harry Potter, so I doubt little Hermione Granger is someone he's going to avoid because she's so clever. He starts going after her after she draws first blood. That's all we really know. festuco: > > He picks on Hermione in CoS because she comments that he bought his > position as the Slytherin seeker, which ofcourse is true Magpie: I don't think it's true at all. The evidence in canon points against it, imo. festuco: but nothing > he wants to be reminded of. He snaps out and that the insult which > comes to him naturally is mudblood makes it clear to me that he is > quite the little racist. I don't see much change in him either. Magpie: Again, I think you're making it flatter than it is--there's more interesting stuff going on there, imo. In B&B Lucius is chastizing him about his grades, and Draco sulkily tries to claim things aren't fair at school. He brings up Hermione as a teacher's favorite. Lucius responds by saying he'd think Draco would be ashamed at having a Muggleborn beat him in every exam. Lucius uses her being a Muggleborn to shame Draco further. The Quidditch Pitch scene is, imo, a continuation of that. Hermione does humiliate him on the Pitch by suggesting he doesn't deserve his place on the team, which I think he certainly does, and if he bought his way on the team he'd be far more smug about it. Draco strikes back with all the frustration he has about his position by attacking her racially. I think those scenes in CoS are the only time Rowling has actually dramatized the kinds of emotions that lead to racism. No, Draco has not changed in HBP, but I think Betsy's point (and I agree) is that just as he's the one character whose racism has been personalized he's the one character who's been primed to change on this subject. He hasn't yet, but I, too, consider Dumbledore's words about not using the word Mudblood something that might have been intentionally planted to have some effect. And no, Draco's using Hermione's ideas doesn't mean he's thrown off his racism, but there is, imo, a set up with Draco since book 2 to see a disconnect between what Hermione is supposed to be (Muggleborn and so inferior to Draco, especially magically) and what she is (smart with good ideas). Lucius set this up back in Book 2 when he unintentionally highlighted the fallacy of his own teachings. Up until now Draco has responded to that by trying to insist the world is the way it's supposed to be or make it fit--it's possible he won't be able to do that in future. -m From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 03:38:11 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 03:38:11 -0000 Subject: Can Somebody Please Tell Me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144493 lagattalucianese: Where does the expression "greasy git" come from? Is it canon? Amiable Dorsai: His hair is greasy, that much is canon. "Git" is a somewhat overly polite way to refer to him, but it never hurts to be polite, and the alliteration is nice. Geoff: As a UK English speaker, I would consider "git" as anything but polite. I would consider it extremely unpleasant and if I was on the receiving end of the name, I think I would want very little to do with the person who said it. > Amiable Dorsai: I feel certain that "git" would be quite impolite if applied to *you*. Betsy Hp: Can I just add how *tired* I am of the word? It's like it's the only British insult out there, which I *know* can't be true. And I'm not sure it really even applies to Snape. He's many things, but stupid or foolish (the definition I found) is not one of them. It's weird what fandom will glomp onto. Amiable Dorsai: Well, there's "berk", of course, A bit sexist, perhaps, though I've heard it used as a term of almost affectionate contempt, "Greasy berk"?... I dunno, just seems wrong, somehow. "Tosser" at least implies a certain human quality, but it's just a bad image for me. "Greasy tosser" gives him credit for a certain practicality, I suppose. He does seem a quite practical sort, when he's not raving. "Nosey-parker": accurate, in the same sense that it would be accurate to say that New Orleans had a bit of a plumbing problem. "Buggering manky arse" is somewhere in the right vicinity. Add "greasy", and we're once again giving him credit for practicality. Something of a mouthful, though. I dunno, "greasy git" is pithy, alliterative, and, when applied to Snape, understated. Hard to beat, don't you think? Amiable Dorsai From muellem at bc.edu Sun Dec 11 04:20:43 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 04:20:43 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority / Draco's bigotry and leadership In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144494 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > > >Betsy Hp: > >Which would be joining with her. There was no middle ground here. > >Which is why the school descended into such chaos. > > a_svirn: > Really? So when McGonagall told Harry to keep a law profile she > suggested that he should join forces with the Ministry? > > And I don't see how having one lousy subject would have plunged the > whole school into chaos. It would certainly have affected their OWL > results; on the other hand it would probably have roused the > Governors from the lethargy and moved them to get rid of such a > demonstratingly incapable teacher. > colebiancardi: it is more than just *one lousy subject* that plunged the whole school into chaos. It was the way that Umbridge took over the school with the Ministry decrees. She went over DD's head and enacted what she/Ministry wanted. She was using her power to upset the applecart, so to speak. and not in a good way. colebiancardi(who thinks that DADA is not just one lousy subject, it was a very important one for the students to learn, with the return of Voldemort) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Dec 11 04:31:29 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 04:31:29 -0000 Subject: How did Bella follow Cissy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144495 Pippin: > Bella had never been to Spinner's End before and Narcissa acts as > though she didn't want Bella along. How did Bella learn where she > was going? > Was Narcissa's thought read against her will before she Apparated? > Did Cissy "leak" the information because she already intended to > ask Snape to take the vow? Jen: This has always seemed fishy to me. If Narcissa really wanted to be alone, she wouldn't tell Bella she planned to see Snape. They seem to know each other fairly well, Narcissa would know that Bella is a persistent person and might talk her out of visiting Snape in particular, since she mistrusts him. And there are no hints that Bella forced Cissy to tell her the plan or legilimensed it from her. And most surprising to me when reading it, Cissy seems to have the upper hand! Don't know if that was a recent development or a sibling thing. Oh, not to mention, Bella is the *perfect* person to bring because she does mistrust Snape and needles him about slithering out of action, unknowingly setting up the trap Cissy springs on him (at least that's my least conspiracy-oriented reading ). So I agree with option number three, it was an intentional leak so Narcissa would have a third there for the vow. And Bella is the best option because she seems to be the only other person who knows the Dark Lord's plan so Narcissa won't get in trouble for revealing the plan to another DE. Ginger: > My guess would be that Bella was using Legilamancy on her, and > that the thoughts passing between them formed a sort of trail or > homing device that Bella was able to follow. > I would guess that the "follow me" idea is a mental path that the > person leading can put out for the other to follow, and in the > case of Bella and Cissy it was not a conscious decision on Cissy's > part, but rather an intrusive one on Bella's, which she > accomplished by Legilamancy. Jen: I was thinking of it as a magical trail left that someone could follow for a little bit after apparating, sort of like the white exhaust trail left by a plane. But then Pippin pointed out the MOM wasn't able to follow the DE's at the World Cup, so that seems unlikely. But legilimency would work, or Narcissa planned for Bella to follow so she 'slipped' the location during their argument before she apparated. Bella seems so Un-sneaky in many ways--talk about someone who wears her heart on her sleeve! I'm surprsied she's a good Occlumens. Ginger: > All ideas which are not canon are my opinion. Agreement is > acceptable, but is not required. All persons reading are equally > entitled to their own opinions, which may vary. Discontinue use > if rash occurs. Jen: LOL, funny girl. From erised86 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 02:56:09 2005 From: erised86 at yahoo.com (Lyn) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:56:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cultural standards for Snape abusiv In-Reply-To: <20051209171921.30167.qmail@web61317.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051211025609.22740.qmail@web36408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144496 Pippin: >> I really am not sure how much of Snape's behavior he can help. I don't think he terrorizes all the children -- we've never seen him lose his temper with any child except Harry, have we? I don't think Snape is out of control generally, just in very particular circumstances. Neville and Harry are sort of a perfect storm. Snape is not the only person who can't understand why Neville isn't better at magic and has attempted to bully more magic out of him -- even McGonagall has done so. I'm not saying they're valid, just that Neville seems to bring out the bully in a lot of wizards besides Snape. Are they all going to apologize too? << I don't think Snape's intent is to terrorize his students, but I agree that Snape abuses his authority as a professor. Snape is horrible to Neville, but if he's trying to "bully more magic ouf of him" he's doing an awful job because we find of all things Neville is most frightened of - it's him (in Book 3). I think that's going too far, and why bully him (Neville) so much? Ron isn't that great either and he doesn't get *as much* flack as Neville does. McGonagall does try to "bully" some more magic out of Neville, but she doesn't overdo it. When you say Neville brings out the bully in anyone, what other wizards/witches have bullied Neville half as much as Snape? - excluding Malfoy because he'll have a go at anyone. -lyn From pookiebear364 at gmail.com Sun Dec 11 03:30:00 2005 From: pookiebear364 at gmail.com (Pookie) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 03:30:00 -0000 Subject: DD's Penseive / Portrait In-Reply-To: <266.210d5b5.30cc6c23@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144497 Jade: > Not sure on my thoughts about the penseive. I still find it odd > that the DD portrait is not interacting like the other portraits. > Pookie: Perhaps there is a lag time before the painting starts to interact? Afterall, He WAS just killed... Just a thought- I think that the painting of DD will have a major role to play in the last book, again just my thought... Pookie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 04:52:00 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 04:52:00 -0000 Subject: Why do we call Snape "greasy git' and what other names can we call him. WAS: Ca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144498 > Betsy Hp: > Can I just add how *tired* I am of the word? It's like it's the > only British insult out there, which I *know* can't be true. And > I'm not sure it really even applies to Snape. He's many things, but > stupid or foolish (the definition I found) is not one of them. It's > weird what fandom will glomp onto. > > Amiable Dorsai: >> I dunno, "greasy git" is pithy, alliterative, and, when applied to > Snape, understated. Hard to beat, don't you think? > Alla: You know, Amiable Dorsai you made me laugh again, but I just wanted to express my surprise that people don't like Snape being called "greasy git". As others stated upthread , it is certainly the "nicest" insult I could throw on dear Severus. I only call him git when I am in my charitable mood, otherwise I like calling him "abuser", "bully" or "killer". Besides, I think stupid or foolish will apply to Snape very nicely if he is DD!M and took the UV because he was well.... stupid. :-) Yep, works for me :-) I used to love " Professor Prick" - courtesy of SSSusan. Still love it, actually. JMO, Alla, who for some reason used to think that "greasy git" is canon but is not sure AT ALL now. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 05:16:07 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 05:16:07 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority / Draco's bigotry and leadership In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144499 > >>a_svirn: > Where exactly did he appear to assist Umbridge? He was annoyed > with her and didn't even bother to hide it. Betsy Hp: Snape provided Umbridge with veritaserum. Of course, it was fake, but she didn't know that. > >>a_svirn: > Really? So when McGonagall told Harry to keep a law profile she > suggested that he should join forces with the Ministry? > Betsy Hp: No, McGonagall was suggesting Harry think like... well, a Slytherin, and cunningly take on Umbridge with the underground DA Club. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Total control by the Ministry would mean total destruction of the > > Founders' Hogwarts. Total destruction of their fingerprints, the > > houses. > >>a_svirn: > How so? Betsy Hp: Umbridge was doing away with education and replacing it with propaganda. That's directly opposite Hogwarts' purpose, and therefore a direct opposite of what the Founders' created. > >>Betsy Hp: > > And in a school of Hogwarts size there is no way the students > > didn't know that some sort of resistance group was operating. > > > >>a_svirn: > And where is the canon to support that? Betsy Hp: Common sense supports that. And pretty much the entire series for that matter. Secrets are very hard to keep at Hogwarts. We learn that in the first book. > >>Betsy Hp: > > So name me the Slytherin counterpart for Harry Potter. > >>a_svirn: > Lord Voldemort. Harry has no worthy opponents among the > contemporaries. Betsy Hp: Cheat! Plus, not true. Harry's great but he ain't all that. He may *become* Voldemort's counterpart, but he's not there yet. If it *were* true, Draco and Snape wouldn't bother Harry a bit. > >>a_svirn: > Blaise hung up in Slytherin compartment, not Draco's. Betsy Hp: There's no such thing as a house compartment. And there are ten Slytherins in Draco's class. They weren't all squeezed in there. So why was Blaise? And why put up with sitting next to Crabbe and Goyle? Especially if he held Draco in contempt. > >>a_svirn: > He did not downplay the Slug Club thing, on the contrary, he > rather gleefully pointed out to Draco, that Slughorn had no time > for DE, which certainly did bruise Draco's feelings. Betsy Hp: Rereading the scene I'm not sure where you get "gleeful". Actually, I'd say Blaise was fairly indifferent throughout the scene. I do interpert him telling Draco that Slughorn isn't interested in Death Eaters (or the children thereof) as a way of telling Draco that it wasn't him, it was his family's politics. Mainly because it gets Draco off the subject. I could be reading too much into it. But I really don't see any evidence of Blaise attempting to and enjoying hurting Draco's feelings. > >>a_svirn: > He also made his rather unflattering opinion on Draco's abilities > abundantly clear when he said that the Dark Lord cannot be > interested in Draco's services. Betsy Hp: He tells Draco that he's sixteen and not fully qualified. Those are facts. And those facts don't insult Draco at all. He totally agrees with them. Because he *is* sixteen, and he *hasn't* taken his NEWTS yet. There was nothing unflattering about it. He *was* suggesting that Draco was pulling his leg. But if he's Draco's friend I'm sure he's used to hearing Draco exaggerate things. > >>a_svirn: > As for hanging out with Draco in the common room, it's like saying > that Harry was hanging out with Romilda Vane in the common room. > Common room is called common for a reason. Betsy Hp: Harry hung out with Romilda in the Gryffindor common room? I don't recall them *ever* sitting together. And that's what Harry saw on his map: Draco together with Pansy and Blaise. Something one would *not* see of Harry and Romilda, but one would see with Harry and Ron, or Harry and Hermione, or even Harry and Neville. > >>a_svirn: > For the rest I agree, the only way for Blaise to announce his > friendship to Draco is to get royally drunk. Betsy Hp: You're rather sure of this. Why? I mean, what's the big deal about Blaise being friendly with Draco? I don't get what's so offensive about the idea. > >>a_svirn > > Besides, he still meant his every word for all that. Betsy Hp: Of course he did! He was quoting his *father*. But he must not have really understood what he was saying. Because his words weren't all that consistent with his actions. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Which is why I don't think the bigotry is something Draco has > > really made his own. > > > >>a_svirn: > But this is always the case with bigotry. Betsy Hp: Well, yes. I'm not sure what your point is here. Unless you're saying that Draco has (had) no chance. Which is a rather harsh judgment to make of an eleven year old. Or even a sixteen year old. At least, IMO. > >>a_svirn: > His contempt for muggleborns is not rooted in his family's > allegiance to Voldemort, though. If anything, it's the other way > round. Betsy Hp: Where are you getting that? Why would you think Draco doesn't have the two firmly tied together? Voldemort is all about driving out the non-purebloods and returning the WW to its former glory. Or, at least, that's what Draco's been told. That's why he was so giddy in CoS. The bigots of the WW, the really overt bigots anyway, are the Death Eaters. > >>a_svirn: > Well, his father didn't particularly want for Voldemort to return. > He felt much more comfortable on his own. Betsy Hp: Draco didn't know that. And unless Lucius wanted to sign his son's (and his own) death warrent, he would never have shared his doubts with Draco. > >>a_svirn: > Yet, his disappointment in Voldemort did not affect his views on > muggles and muggleborns. Betsy Hp: Lucius is not Draco. Lucius was raised in a time *before* the rise of Voldemort. He was recruited into the Death Eaters. So his bigotry came first. Draco was raised after Voldemort and so all of the views he's been spoonfed have been tied up neatly with "and the Dark Lord will make it all good again". You show one belief to be a lie, I'm not sure why it's unreasonable to think Draco may start questioning the other beliefs. Draco has been hit with the rather large realization that his father was *mistaken* about something. That's huge. It's the kind of stuff life changes are made of. Betsy Hp (who could have just pointed to Magpie's post and said, "Yeah, what she said." ) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 05:30:55 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 05:30:55 -0000 Subject: Why do we call Snape "greasy git' and what other names can we call him. WAS: Ca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144500 > >>Alla: > You know, Amiable Dorsai you made me laugh again, but I just > wanted to express my surprise that people don't like Snape being > called "greasy git". > Betsy Hp: I'm not tired of it being used to insult Snape. I'm just tired of the word "git", period. For some reason all the non-British folks in the fandom seem to have picked up on it, and whenever they want to insult *anyone* they throw that word out. Fics, essays, discussions, whatever. It's been overused. My personal least favorite Snape insult is Snivillus. But that's because I picture the scene where Snape was handed that nickname as being him angry and surrounded while James and Sirius and Peter laugh at him (Lupin would be there, but hanging back, because he knows it's wrong, and he also knows that he's a freak too, and he could well be next if anyone finds out his secret -- but Snape would just see him as one of the gang) and Snape starts to cry in his rage and Sirius thinks it's Christmas come early and he starts picking on Snape even more, and Snivillus is born. So whenever a grownup uses it I kind of picture them seeing this little eleven year old boy, hurt and sobbing, and pretty much calling him a cry baby. Emotion over intellect, but there you go. Betsy Hp From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 05:36:19 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 05:36:19 -0000 Subject: Cultural standards for Snape abusiv In-Reply-To: <20051211025609.22740.qmail@web36408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144501 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lyn wrote: > When you say Neville brings out the bully in anyone, what other wizards/witches have bullied Neville half as much as Snape? - excluding Malfoy because he'll have a go at anyone. > > -lyn zgirnius: Possibly Grandma. Neville is certain he does not want his Snape boggart to turn into her either... And certainly the uncle that tossed him out a window to see if he would do magic, when the family were all afraid he was a Squib. From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 11 05:42:05 2005 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (Ravenclaw Bookworm) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 05:42:05 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore in Gryffindor (WAS: Scapegoating Slytherin) In-Reply-To: <006a01c5fd79$35fde8f0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144502 Miles: We do not know that Dumbledore was in Gryffindor, do we? Hermione states, that she *heard* it. We know her, don't we? She doesn't *know* it, if so, she would say it, so it's a rumour. Bookworm: During an interview (on the CoS DVD, maybe?), one of the things JKR said was that Dumbledore and Hermione speak with the voice of authority. Whenever she wants to give information, they are the two characters who can deliver it convincingly. So if Hermione said Dumbledore was in Gryffindor, it is likely fact, not rumor. Ravenclaw Bookworm From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Dec 11 06:21:32 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 06:21:32 -0000 Subject: Why do we call Snape "greasy git' and what other names can we call him. WAS: Ca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144503 horridporrid: > My personal least favorite Snape insult is Snivillus. But that's > because I picture the scene where Snape was handed that nickname > as being him angry and surrounded while James and Sirius and Peter > laugh at him (Lupin would be there, but hanging back, because he > knows it's wrong, and he also knows that he's a freak too, and he > could well be next if anyone finds out his secret -- but Snape > would just see him as one of the gang) and Snape starts to cry in > his rage and Sirius thinks it's Christmas come early and he starts > picking on Snape even more, and Snivillus is born. > > So whenever a grownup uses it I kind of picture them seeing this > little eleven year old boy, hurt and sobbing, and pretty much > calling him a cry baby. Emotion over intellect, but there you go. > Jen: This is *exactly* the reason I can't hate Snape and it might be emotion over intellect, true. Or JKR's style. She needs the characters to be certain things for Harry, to inspire certain feelings in him and certain things for the plot. In OOTP, Sirius needed to be someone Harry identified with, as a person trapped in a hell he couldn't get released from, but also a person whose character traits of recklessness, bravey and love of Harry (and James) led him to go to the MOM and lose his life. She wrote him completely believably to me. And Riddle. I know he didn't inspire compassion for everyone, but imagining baby Riddle abandoned by his parents, and most likely getting less attention than other babies because he never cried was moving to me. Even 11 year-old Riddle, with huge red flags about his behavior and not much sympathetic going on with him still made me squirm. JKR could have made an easier villain to hate by depicting him as a boy with every advantage who threw away his choices. But I think that was exactly the point! Dumbledore showed Harry that Voldemort wasn't always a monster, he was once a pitiable baby, and a human boy, and those events make him weak, not strong as he presents himself to be. And baby Riddle *did* inspire Harry's compassion. Which comes full-circle to Snape. What does JKR need for him to do in Book 7? My personal opinion is she needs to inspire Harry's compassion and also to help him understand what mistakes Snape made that pulled him toward dark magic and LV's camp. The way to do that will be to continue the story started in OOTP, with the bits from the Occlumency lesson and Snape being the target of bullying, and add to that story in such a way that Harry will realize who Snape IS. Not who Harry thinks he is, but the full story of how Severus Snape became the person standing in front of Harry whom he hates *even more* than the evil monster who killed his parents, set-up Sirius and possibly (IMO) manipulated the killing of Dumbledore. Jen From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Sun Dec 11 09:08:44 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 10:08:44 +0100 Subject: Dumbledore in Gryffindor? WAS Scapegoating Slytherin References: Message-ID: <012701c5fe32$7dc4da40$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144504 potioncat wrote: > Here's a link to the Lexicon, which says DD was in Gryffindor. > http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/dumbledore.html Miles: This is no canonical evidence. I just searched the archive at Quick Quotes Quill and didn't find any information about this question either. Actually, noone asked Rowling about this detail. Which I find quite interesting. And I do not remember any information about this in the entire HP series so far, apart from the quote in PS/SS I mentioned (and will repeat in this mail). > Bookworm wrote: > During an interview (on the CoS DVD, maybe?), one of the things JKR > said was that Dumbledore and Hermione speak with the voice of > authority. Whenever she wants to give information, they are the two > characters who can deliver it convincingly. So if Hermione said > Dumbledore was in Gryffindor, it is likely fact, not rumor. Miles: I do not say Hermione tells anybody a lie. Quoting me: > I only know one line in canon to support this assumption: > "... and I hope I'm in Gryffindor, it sounds by far the best, I hear > Dumbledore himself was one" (Hermione at her first appearance on the > Hogwarts Express, ch 6 of PS/SS) Hermione doesn't say Dumbledore was in Gryffindor. She says she *heard* he was. She always tells us the source of her information. The book she get it from, most times. But here - she heard it, she doesn't know. Just to prevent - I do not think that this detail will become most important. But it could be a tessara for Harry to understand things in the final book he does not understand by now. [Is there the metaphorical meaning of tessara in English as it is in German?] So, we all know about Rowling's style of spreading information, and hiding them at the same time. For example in PS/SS, at all the incidents described concerning Harry in danger or his scar hurting, we see Snape in the foreground and Quirrell somewhere. Back to Dumbledore's House. We know, that people think he was in Gryffindor. Hermione told us, so this is true ;). We do not know whether it is common knowledge about well-known wizards which House they were in during their schooltime. I do not think so - wizards easily live more than 100 years, why should they be defined by their House at the beginning of their lifes rather than what they did after schooltime? But Dumbledore is quite old, even for wizard's standards, so there won't be any teachers or fellow students left, who could *know* Dumbledore's House. There is this one statement of Hermione. It is not trustworthy if we follow her own standards. Noone questions it. Ask Harry or Ron - Dumbledore *must* have been in Gryffindor, because Gryffindor is the best House, and Dumbledore the best wizard of all times - strike. Ask Draco or Lucius - Dumbledore is a friend of "mudbloods", so he must be the opposite of a Slytherin - again, strike. Ask the readers - there is not one single question to Rowling in many interviews (and there are many silly details she had to answer a question to). Ask the great organisers of the HP Lexicon - sure, Dumbledore has been in Gryffindor. Hey, Rowling has done her job! She never told us he was. She never let Hermione tell a lie. But we all think, we the readers and they the characters in the series, that Dumbledore was in Gryffindor. Great opportunity for some Aha-moment for Harry in the final book. Not the most important one, sure. But I like the idea, that Dumbledore was... in Ravenclaw? Probably. In Slytherin - why not? He is a great networker, like Slughorn is. And yes, he can be cunning if necessary. Miles, who is aware that this ideas could be easily wiped out soon by canonical evidence or an interview he had overseen, but who is ravenclaw-ish enough to still like his theory afterwards From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Sun Dec 11 10:49:42 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:49:42 +0100 Subject: How many times Snape saved Harry/Speculations about forgiveness WAS: Cultura References: Message-ID: <014401c5fe40$98690a70$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144505 dumbledore11214 wrote: > I guess what I REALLY disagree with is the argument that Harry HAS > TO forgive Snape and I am not even responding to your argument, but > to this thread in general. > > I think that Harry owes Snape absolutely nothing, whether he is DD!M > man or not. If Harry CHOOSES to forgive Snape, that is great, if he > chooses to hate him forever because of everything Snape done to him, > I don't think that it makes Harry any less of human being than if he > would forgive Snape. I think it is Harry's absolute right to feel > whatever he wants towards Snape, all things considered. Miles: I have the impression that the discussion is mixed up - people speaking of different layers and not always being aware of it or making it clear. So, we can discuss the moral or ethical impacts of the Harry Potter series, and whether the message Rowling gives is ok or not. I won't in this mail. But speaking of the character Harry Potter and his role in the Potterverse - yes, I think Harry *has* to forgive Snape to some extent. If he would choose to "hate Snape forever", this would surely be understandable inside the character, and quite human as well. But how could Harry fullfil his role hating Snape? How could he have the power of love while he still hates? I do not see a convincing solution, that Harry can carry on with his hatred on Snape (and this is his main emotion at the end of HBP!) and overcome Voldemort with love at the same time. He will have to choose, whether to hate or fullfil his mission. Miles From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sun Dec 11 11:54:35 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:54:35 -0000 Subject: Draco as leader and bigot (was:Re: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority) In-Reply-To: <008b01c5fdf5$2781ccc0$6760400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144506 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: > Actually, he first wants to know what house he'll be in and if he plays > Quidditch. Asking who his parents are comes pretty late--after Harry has > "coldly" said he thinks Hagrid is brilliant. I'm not trying to say that > Draco isn't intentionally acting just like Lucius there in saying > non-wizards shouldn't be admitted, but that the scene is not so simple as > Draco walking in, being a bigot and Harry being righteously angry. I think > the scene is more subtle with more going on. It is the first conversation the two of them have. In this first conversation Draco wants to find out if Harry is the right kind of wizard. I don't really care when in this first conversation the subject is breached by him, but I do care that it is something he really wants to know about Harry. Draco is being a racist here. > > Draco has basically no interaction with Hermione at all in the first book. > There's no reason to think he considered her or not as a target. It's a > non-issue. He picks on Harry Potter, so I doubt little Hermione Granger is > someone he's going to avoid because she's so clever. He starts going after > her after she draws first blood. That's all we really know. Gerry: And of all the things he could have called her, he has to be a racist. > Magpie: > > I don't think it's true at all. The evidence in canon points against it, > imo. Which evidence? Draco's daddy bought amazing brooms for the Slythering team and suddenly dear little Draco is a seeker, just as Harry and on a better broom.... Where is the canon that he has not bought the position? > Magpie: > > Again, I think you're making it flatter than it is--there's more interesting > stuff going on there, imo. In B&B Lucius is chastizing him about his > grades, and Draco sulkily tries to claim things aren't fair at school. He > brings up Hermione as a teacher's favorite. Lucius responds by saying he'd > think Draco would be ashamed at having a Muggleborn beat him in every exam. > Lucius uses her being a Muggleborn to shame Draco further. Gerry: The only interesting thing here is that Daddy does not buy Draco's whining about Hermione being a teachers favourite, but actually acknowledges that she did better than him. Draco makes his own humiliation here, because he is the one who reminded his daddy that Hermione did better than him (CoS bloomsbury paperback edition p. 85-86). > > The Quidditch Pitch scene is, imo, a continuation of that. Hermione does > humiliate him on the Pitch by suggesting he doesn't deserve his place on the > team, which I think he certainly does, and if he bought his way on the team > he'd be far more smug about it. Draco strikes back with all the frustration > he has about his position by attacking her racially. Let's look at the scene: The Slytherin team has a note from Snape that gives them permission to use the pitch to train their new seeker. When Fred asks if he is Lucius Malfoy's son, Flint immediately uses that question to get the Griffindor team's attention to the gift Lucius has given the team. When Hermione and Ron enter the scene we get Draco's own words: 'I'm the new Slytherin seeker Weasley,' said Malfoy smugley. 'Everyone's just been admiring the brooms my father bought our team.' And he then goes on to insult the Griffindor brooms. To that Hermione reacts with the comment that he bouhgt his position. To me it seems that he is indeed very smug about his dad's gift. The whole scene is about the brooms. Nowhere do we see anyone remarking Draco's talent as a seeker, including Draco himself. Hermione's remark was spot on. > > I think those scenes in CoS are the only time Rowling has actually > dramatized the kinds of emotions that lead to racism. No, Draco has not > changed in HBP, but I think Betsy's point (and I agree) is that just as he's > the one character whose racism has been personalized he's the one character > who's been primed to change on this subject. He hasn't yet, but I, too, > consider Dumbledore's words about not using the word Mudblood something that > might have been intentionally planted to have some effect. Hm, that could be possible. It will be interesting to see what happens to Draco now. But Draco will have a lot of changing to do to be an accetible human being. He already has committed some horrible crimes. Being a racist actually pales against that. Gerry From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Dec 11 14:13:49 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 14:13:49 -0000 Subject: Why do we call Snape "greasy git' and what other names can we call him. WAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144507 > horridporrid: > > My personal least favorite Snape insult is Snivillus. > > So whenever a grownup uses it I kind of picture them seeing this > > little eleven year old boy, hurt and sobbing, and pretty much > > calling him a cry baby. Emotion over intellect, but there you go. > > Valky: Can I just imterject to point out that Sniveller does not mean 'cry baby', at least not in the sense that I see you interpreting it Betsy. So I strongly suspect your mental image of Snivellus' Christening is entirely wrong. Someone would be commonly called a sniveller if their 'crying woe' was intentionally insincere and manipulative, like Draco playing up his injury in POA. Therefore I would say in an accurate mental image of this scene James and Sirius would be the ones suffering punishment and Snape would definitely have no reason to be miserable because the term Sniveller would usually be coined if the git got away with it! A professional Sniveller might even one day make a living out of being "two-faced", and that does fit Snape like a glove. As for git, which is asked about on the rest of this thread, I am fairly sure the source of this word is Ron. I know he calls Percy a git in OOtP, and I think he speaks Harry's mind about Snape by calling him a git at a tense moment in another book, or maybe it's TMTMNBN. If it appears in a book then in a sense Git!Snape is pretty much canon, and IMHO it should be, Snape is all of a git by the colloquial definition of the word though I am not sure that can be entirely conveyed here. > Jen: > Which comes full-circle to Snape. What does JKR need for him to do > in Book 7? My personal opinion is she needs to inspire Harry's > compassion and also to help him understand what mistakes Snape made > that pulled him toward dark magic and LV's camp. The way to do that > will be to continue the story started in OOTP, with the bits from > the Occlumency lesson and Snape being the target of bullying, and > add to that story in such a way that Harry will realize who Snape > IS. Not who Harry thinks he is, but the full story of how Severus > Snape became the person standing in front of Harry whom he hates > *even more* than the evil monster who killed his parents, set-up > Sirius and possibly (IMO) manipulated the killing of Dumbledore. Valky: I tend to see Snivellus as more likely to make it *harder* for Harry to forgive Snape than easier. When the origin of the name Snivellus is revealed it will not vindicate Snape as the completely innocent victim, I am sure. Harry will recognise "Snivellus" as well, because he will look exactly like the man who advocated for Harry's expulsion in second year, and wore many disctinct faces nice pleasant and polite ones for those who would benefit him and a sneer for anything else held to be beneath him. In all I don't think Jo is setting Snape up to become entirely pathetic in Harry's eyes and especially not by revealing the source of the name Snivellus. I feel confident to guarantee that it won't be so easy to pity Snivellus and Harry will hate and does already hate him as much as his father and Sirius did. Mark my words. Valky From sudeeel at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 08:28:07 2005 From: sudeeel at yahoo.com (sudeeel) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 08:28:07 -0000 Subject: New member with question -- Who will die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144508 sararbe wrote: >I was watching a show on E! yesterday called The > Soup and the host said that the guy > who does the audio for the HP books says that Harry is getting killed > in the 7th book. sudeeel: According to The Leaky Cauldron, Jim Dale's quote was "She's lived with Harry Potter so long she really wants to kill him off," which is quite different from saying Harry will die. In addition, TLC notes as a follow-up, "A spokesperson for Rowling has assured us that these comments were taken out of context in a gossip column." Don't trust The Daily Prophet, erm, Muggle tabloids, for your news. sudeeel From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Dec 11 15:05:46 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 10:05:46 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco as leader and bigot (was:Re: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority) References: Message-ID: <003f01c5fe64$5e219110$1d9e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 144509 festuco: > It is the first conversation the two of them have. In this first > conversation Draco wants to find out if Harry is the right kind of > wizard. I don't really care when in this first conversation the > subject is breached by him, but I do care that it is something he > really wants to know about Harry. Draco is being a racist here. Magpie: I realize you don't care, and I already agreed that Draco is being bigoted there. > Gerry: > And of all the things he could have called her, he has to be a racist. Magpie: Well, yeah. That's why I just explained why I think that's important, because I like the way it's linked to the earlier scene. festuco: > Which evidence? Draco's daddy bought amazing brooms for the Slythering > team and suddenly dear little Draco is a seeker, just as Harry and on > a better broom.... Where is the canon that he has not bought the > position? Magpie: The canon of all of Draco's Quidditch games where he's a good player who gives Harry a run for his money. Things could just as easily have been reversed: Draco becomes a seeker and his dear Daddy buys the team brooms as a reward. Ron is a player that gets a nudge to put him onthe Quidditch team when he's not the best for the job and we see the results in his performance. I have a hard time believing the Slytherin team has stuck with a player who doesn't deserve his spot for so many years when so much rests on his position. Harry himself doesn't seem to think of that as a factor when he plays against him. festuco: > The only interesting thing here is that Daddy does not buy Draco's > whining about Hermione being a teachers favourite, but actually > acknowledges that she did better than him. Draco makes his own > humiliation here, because he is the one who reminded his daddy that > Hermione did better than him (CoS bloomsbury paperback edition p. 85-86). Magpie: I'm sorry if you don't find the scene as interesting as I do. But I do see those things in it, especially stuff like Lucius not buying Draco's whining about Hermione being the teacher's favorite--that's actually another reason I have a hard time believing Lucius suddenly decided to buy brooms to make sure Draco got a "fair" chance at the team. He seems to expect Draco to succeed because he's good. Draco does remind his father that Hermione does better than he did--he calls her "that Hermione Granger" and Lucius calls her "a Muggleborn girl." festuco: To me it seems that he is indeed very smug about his dad's gift. The > whole scene is about the brooms. Nowhere do we see anyone remarking > Draco's talent as a seeker, including Draco himself. Hermione's remark > was spot on. Magpie: So if he's smug about it why is he stung when Hermione says what she says? Shouldn't he be proud of how well he pulled something off? He's the one, as you said, who was bragging about the brooms his father bought for the team. Why bring that up to brag if you're not wanting to be reminded of it? I think Draco was smug because he'd gotten onto the team and his father had bought the brooms for the team, making him a popular Seeker as well. Then Hermione put those things together in the obvious way, suggested he had no talent, and he was furious. Now, perhaps Rowling did want it to be that he bought his way onto the team, but then she should have written him as a player with no talent. Hermione often says things she doesn't even believe to shut Draco up, especially when he's insulting Ron. And Hermione specifically avoids saying exactly this sort of thing to Ron when he's on the team for something other than talent. It just seems like with Draco we're supposed to have it both ways, and I don't see any reason to have to make that work. In B&B his father seems to expect Draco to succeed on his own and won't buy him anything more than a racing broom as he agreed. If he did buy his way onto the team then it seems to me like a waste of money because he could have made it on his own. I think a situation where Malfoy is the no-talent who gets onto the team only because his father bribed the team would just have to result in different results. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Dec 11 15:49:14 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:49:14 -0000 Subject: Snape Wars vs Ship Wars was re: Cultural standards for Snape abusiveness/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144511 > > Pippin: > > DDM!Snape, I mean. > > Alla: > > Oh, I guess our positions are even farther from each other than I > thought yesterday. So, Snape has nothing to be punished for, right? > We are approaching agree to disagree moment, but I do want to respond > to some points of yours first. But first of all, you are not arguing > that it is an undisputable fact that Snape is DD!M, right? Pippin: Undisputable? LOL! But if you have to argue that JKR has lost control of the story arc in order to refute it, then the case for DDM is pretty strong, IMO. We are not talking about fiddly little details like the length of Charlie Weasley's winning streak. This stuff is major -- never mind what JKR said before, folks, it's okay to judge people by type, the person you suspect most is guilty, guilty, guilty, and only a fool laughs at fear. Of course there are people who think she did lose control with the shipping. Come to think of it, the arguments against R/H and H/G have an eerie similarity to the arguments against DDM Snape. There are many people who could never be reconciled to Ron's behavior in GoF. They thought he was abusive to Harry and Hermione, revealed himself as incurably prejudiced, and they did not think his occasional stabs at nobility revealed anything about his true character. He might redeem himself at the end, but he was sure to go bad first. Many people also argued that Harry could not have misperceived Ginny's character so thoroughly, and that in any case there wasn't time for her to develop into anything very different from what she appeared to be already. It might be interesting to see whether people who think the ships were clumsily handled are also the people who are sure that Snape betrayed Dumbledore. Pippin From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Dec 11 16:15:53 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 08:15:53 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape Wars vs Ship Wars was re: Cultural standards for Snape abusiveness/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003c01c5fe6e$298e0c80$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 144512 Pippin: This stuff is major -- never mind what JKR said before, folks, it's okay to judge people by type, the person you suspect most is guilty, guilty, guilty, and only a fool laughs at fear. Sherry now: I actually see it another way. i think JKR did a brilliant job of setting us up. Many fans, certainly not all, but most i've talked to or read in fandom, either were always Snape fans, or like me, didn't like Snape but believed he was ultimately on the side of good. Mostly because Dumbledore believed in him. I proclaimed many times that i thought Snape would be one of those characters who is mean and hateful, but that Harry would have to learn that not everyone fighting for good is a good person. HBP, and the murder of Dumbledore, is what changed my mind. I firmly believe Snape murdered Dumbledore, whether as a result of the DADA jinx, or out for himself, or to save his own neck because he was in a fairly no win situation, or because that was his order from Voldemort all along. I don't think it's a thing of, well, this guy was always bad, I always knew it. i was absolutely shocked and devastated. I had to turn off the CD and pace around and curse for a while. I never liked Snape as a person, though I liked how JKR had written his character, if you get my meaning. But I confidently expected Dumbledore's faith in him to be true. not any more. Dumbledore, in my opinion, underestimated the depths of Snape's hurt and hatred and paid the price in the end. Pippin Of course there are people who think she did lose control with the shipping. Come to think of it, the arguments against R/H and H/G have an eerie similarity to the arguments against DDM Snape. Many people also argued that Harry could not have misperceived Ginny's character so thoroughly, and that in any case there wasn't time for her to develop into anything very different from what she appeared to be already. It might be interesting to see whether people who think the ships were clumsily handled are also the people who are sure that Snape betrayed Dumbledore. Pippin Sherry now: i've definitely believed in H/G and R/HR through the entire series, and i've argued for Ginny and Harry here before HBP was ever released. i thought Ginny was meant for Harry from the very first time we meet Ginny at King's Cross station. I didn't think as much either way about Ron and Hermione, but it seemed pretty obvious to me from early on, that was where JKR was taking that one. It's a pretty classic way of writing a romance for a couple, the two who constantly fight end up falling in love and all that. I never had a sense at all of anything more than friendship between Harry and Hermione. Hermione's anger at Ron over the Yule ball was the clincher for me. When she made her comment about how Ron should ask her first next time. So, I'm one who expected and likes the ships, but I still believe Snape murdered Dumbledore, and not as a mercy killing or a plan or to save Draco and Harry or anything like that. Perhaps to save Draco, but not for the greater good, more for whatever his true loyalties will be in the end. Sherry From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Dec 11 17:06:12 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 17:06:12 -0000 Subject: Why do we call Snape "greasy git' and what other names can we call him. WAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144513 > Valky: > I tend to see Snivellus as more likely to make it *harder* for > Harry to forgive Snape than easier. When the origin of the name > Snivellus is revealed it will not vindicate Snape as the > completely innocent victim, I am sure. Harry will > recognise "Snivellus" as well, because he will look exactly like > the man who advocated for Harry's expulsion in second year, and > wore many disctinct faces nice pleasant and polite ones for those > who would benefit him and a sneer for anything else held to be > beneath him. Jen: Valky's back! (Big wave). First, I'll take your word on what Snivellus means as I've never heard the word prior to HP. And I don't doubt James et. al. saw Snape in the negative way you describe. Betsy's comments were the springboard for my thoughts, but not the entire basis. I'm not even certain we'll hear more about the origin of 'Snivellus'. I was thinking of JKR's tendency to give us more information about a character when we least expect it, information that typically counters something we, and more importantly Harry, view as fact up to that point. The scenes Harry saw of Snape's life during the Occlumency lessons, and especially the Pensieve scene, did inspire Harry to identify with Snape for a moment. I'm suggesting there will be more along those lines. At this point Harry seems to hate Snape pretty vehemently; I'm not certain what *more* hatred would do for the story. Perhaps that's my personal preference as I'd like to see the reversal now when Harry's feelings for Snape are at their nadir. Valky: > In all I don't think Jo is setting Snape up to become entirely > pathetic in Harry's eyes and especially not by revealing the > source of the name Snivellus. I feel confident to guarantee that > it won't be so easy to pity Snivellus and Harry will hate and does > already hate him as much as his father and Sirius did. Mark my > words. Jen: No, no, not 'entirely pathetic', Snape won't be a character whose undisputed nobility is waiting to be revealed if only Harry looks behind the right curtain . Just enough information for Harry to identify with is all I'm saying. JKR said the hinge for the last half of the story is Dumbledore's speech about choosing between what is right and what is easy. I believe Harry will get to see information about Snape's choices, when he chose the easy path and when he chose the right path, and there will be compelling information that might change Harry's mind about certain aspects of Snape. I think it likely Harry will even see Snape faced with some of the same choices Harry has been faced with, and enough information will be revealed to show why Snape chose the wrong path while Harry chose the right one. One example that springs to mind is Harry's intense anger towards Dumbledore at the end of OOTP. Given a couple of weeks to think things over and take in the enormity of everything Dumbledore has revealed to him, Harry was able to regroup and grow into 'Dumbledore's man through and through'. Mark my words , the Prank and Dumbledore's handling of the Marauder's afterward were a pivotal point that turned Snape away from Dumbledore and toward LV. Jen From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 17:24:59 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 17:24:59 -0000 Subject: Draco as leader and bigot (was:Re: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority) In-Reply-To: <003f01c5fe64$5e219110$1d9e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144514 > festuco: Which evidence? Draco's daddy bought amazing brooms for the Slythering team and suddenly dear little Draco is a seeker, just as Harry and on a better broom.... Where is the canon that he has not bought the position? > > Magpie: The canon of all of Draco's Quidditch games where he's a good player who gives Harry a run for his money. Huh? The first time Draco goes up against Harry, Harry beats him soundly, though Draco's on a better broom, Harry spends much of the game dodging a mad bludger, and, at the end, Harry's arm is broken. It's possible that Draco was the best Seeker Slytherin could find, but there's little evidence of it in this match. The second time, Harry just outclasses Draco. Draco cheats by grabbing Harry's broom, and the Slytherin beaters try to nobble Harry, but in the end, Harry ties him the race to the Snitch, though Draco has a significant headstart, then handily wins the grabbing match. Rather humiliating for Draco, I'd think. Third game, Harry again overcomes Draco's initial advantage, snatching the snitch from him with ease. Fourth game... well, they never got a fourth game did they? Draco was off plotting murder. Now just because Harry embarrasses Draco every time they play, that doesn't mean Draco is necessarily bad. After all, he's playing *Harry Potter*. The best professional seeker in the world is impressed with Harry's flying, as is Quidditch-mad McGonagall, the very first time Harry is on a broom. But Draco never gives Harry "a run for his money". Amiable Dorsai Things could just as easily have been reversed: Draco becomes a seeker and his dear Daddy buys the team brooms as a reward. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Dec 11 17:55:56 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 12:55:56 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco as leader and bigot (was:Re: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority) References: Message-ID: <00a301c5fe7c$28248910$1d9e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 144515 >> Magpie: > The canon of all of Draco's Quidditch games where he's a good player > who gives Harry a run for his money. > Amiable Dorsai: amiabledorsai: > But Draco never gives Harry "a run for his money". Magpie: Here I started responding to everything only to realize that this is more about Harry's talent, so I'll gladly withdraw the term "run for his money," which I was using lightly. Nobody beats Harry. Harry is a wonderous flier from the moment he gets on a broom etc. etc. I'm the first to admit that Harry is never in danger of actually losing any competition as long as he's conscious in canon. It's definitely something I've remarked upon myself.:-) My point was just that Draco seems accepted in canon as a perfectly legitimate Quidditch player with no rumblings of people wondering why he's on his team, which we occasionally hear for other people. -m From kjones at telus.net Sun Dec 11 18:09:49 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 10:09:49 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ultimate Slytherin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <439C6B6D.5010805@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 144516 We have had a look at a few different Slytherins in the books and I think it gives us a basis for some comparisons. Tom Riddle was a manipulative child. He manipulated his teachers, his head master, threatened the other children at the orphanage to get his way, plotted and planned years in advance the stealing of items necessary to him, and surrounded himself with a support structure. He recruited people of physical strength (Goyle and Co.), political power (Lucius), obsession (Bella), and intelligence (Snape?) in order to gain his ends. He thought far enough ahead to insert spys in rival groups, and used interference with Muggles as his leverage against the MoM. Voldemort is certainly cunning, sly, and has done whatever he deemed necessary to achieve his goals. He does not do well, when the planning falls apart and he is forced to respond to the moment. Slughorn is seen only as an adult, but he is certainly manipulative. He also has built up a support group of people he has "collected" that can do things for him. He has also demonstrated the ability to plan far into the future in cultivating those who will be powerful or politically profitable. He has no problem calling in those favours, pride does not seem to be an issue. He is not prepared to risk himself standing up for anything. He chose to hide rather than take either side. It was made quite clear that he only accepted the post at Hogwarts because there was greater safety there. He was quite prepared to lie to Dumbledore when he provided the fake memories. He is also not a quick thinker and was of little use in an emergency when Ron was poisoned. Draco, the youngest Slytherin also seems to show many of the same characteristics. He is also a planner and manipulater. We see him attempting to manipulate Snape. He also has a support group who perform tasks for him and provide protection. He is afraid of direct confrontation, but rather sets up circumstances in his favour such as challenging Harry to a duel and then reporting him to McGonnagal, and faking the pain of his injured arm to try to get Hagrid fired. In OotP, he immediately inserts himself into Umbridge's good graces in order that he be given a position of power. He is also not very good at responding to emergency circumstances, such as being attacked by a headless Harry at the Shrieking Shack, being punched by Hermione, or being hexed several times on the Hogwarts Express. He did an excellent job of using the cabinet and getting the Death Eaters into the castle, but he had not planned past that part. He was unable to respond to the situation in the tower with Dumbledore. Snape, the most important Slytherin at the moment, does not follow most of the characteristics of the other Slytherins. He has no support group and does not cultivate any contacts. As a student he "hung out with a gang of Slytherins", probably for protection, but does not appear to have formed any close associations. The Order members had no close contact with him. The other Death Eaters are very wary of him. Narcissa stated that Lucius was his friend, but we don't see Snape as being very supportive of Lucius after the Ministry fiasco. We don't see any examples of long range planning in the Snape story. He seems to get pulled into things, like the Death Eaters, and, according to Dumbledore,panic over what was going to happen to the Potters. We do see lots of examples of emergency response. When Harry was being hexed by Quirrel, Snape dived right in to attempt to control the situation rather than taking the time to try to determine who was doing it. He also exposed the fact that he was competant in wandless magic. He raced to the Shrieking Shack to take on Sirius and Remus without a thought to what might happen. Regardless of his intentions, whether to capture Sirius or to protect the Trio, it does not seem a very Slytherin thing to do. He acted quickly to save Dumbledore and again took complete command of the situation in the tower. We don't see any real ambition on the part of Snape. Whereas Slughorn plans ahead for some sort of ability to influence events, and Draco plans ahead to follow in his father's footsteps, Snape is content with a subordinate position to Dumbledore. He is always obedient to Dumbldore's wishes and generally quite respectful to him. We don't even see him as assistant head master. So, at the end of all this, why is Snape portrayed so differently from the others? Did the Sorting Hat also give him a choice of house, and did he make the wrong choice as he did so often? Is this another indication that Snape is DDM? Is he more Gryff than Slyth? KJ From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 18:45:54 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:45:54 -0000 Subject: Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority / Draco's bigotry and leadership In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144517 > Betsy Hp: > Snape provided Umbridge with veritaserum. Of course, it was fake, > but she didn't know that. a_svirn: And it was at the very end when she was a headmistress. Well after the I-squad was formed. And Snape did not *assist*, he carried out an order. And very uncooperative he was. > Betsy Hp: > No, McGonagall was suggesting Harry think like... well, a Slytherin, > and cunningly take on Umbridge with the underground DA Club. a_svirn: This is the most unorthodox interpretation of her words. > Betsy Hp: > Umbridge was doing away with education and replacing it with > propaganda. That's directly opposite Hogwarts' purpose, and > therefore a direct opposite of what the Founders' created. a_svirn: We were discussing whether or not she was trying to do away the houses. Canon suggests that she was not. > Betsy Hp: > Common sense supports that. And pretty much the entire series for > that matter. Secrets are very hard to keep at Hogwarts. We learn > that in the first book. a_svirn: Depends on secrets. And on who keeps them. > Betsy Hp: > Cheat! Plus, not true. Harry's great but he ain't all that. He > may *become* Voldemort's counterpart, but he's not there yet. If it > *were* true, Draco and Snape wouldn't bother Harry a bit. a_svirn: I don't see why. > Betsy Hp: > There's no such thing as a house compartment. And there are ten > Slytherins in Draco's class. They weren't all squeezed in there. > So why was Blaise? And why put up with sitting next to Crabbe and > Goyle? Especially if he held Draco in contempt. a_svirn: I did not say that he held Draco in contempt. Nor did I imply that there is such thing as a house compartment. Slytherins do hang out together, so why should's Zabini sit in the same compartment as Draco? > Betsy Hp: > Rereading the scene I'm not sure where you get "gleeful". Actually, > I'd say Blaise was fairly indifferent throughout the scene. I do > interpert him telling Draco that Slughorn isn't interested in Death > Eaters (or the children thereof) as a way of telling Draco that it > wasn't him, it was his family's politics. Mainly because it gets > Draco off the subject. I could be reading too much into it. But I > really don't see any evidence of Blaise attempting to and enjoying > hurting Draco's feelings. a_svirn: Alright, I retract "gleeful", because even if he was gleeful he didn't show it. However the whole scene was about two boys picking on each other with Zabini winning every encounter. First Draco with his usual air of someone who owned the place asked Zabini to report about Slughorn. Zabini obliged and with the true Slythrin subtlety managed to convey that despite Draco's claims to the contrary he, Zabini, is much better connected. That did not fail to rattle Draco; first he tried for disdain, then with a truly pathetic childishness for a 16 year old he tried to chalk it on the misunderstanding. When Zabini further depress his pretensions, saying that Slughorn was not interested in DE, Draco tried to invoke Voldemort's authority to add to his consequence. Whereupon Zabini "scathingly" pointed out that the Dark Lord can't possibly be interested in the likes of Draco. Not what you might call a friendly exchange. Certainly there is nothing in Zabini's manner to suspect that he sees Draco as a leader of any kind. > Betsy Hp: > Harry hung out with Romilda in the Gryffindor common room? I don't > recall them *ever* sitting together. And that's what Harry saw on > his map: Draco together with Pansy and Blaise. Something one would > *not* see of Harry and Romilda, but one would see with Harry and > Ron, or Harry and Hermione, or even Harry and Neville. a_svirn: Wasn't it in the common room where she offered him sweets and gillywater? If a casual observer saw them on the map (and even in the flesh) they might come to some very interesting conclusions. Especially, since Harry took the sweets. > Betsy Hp: > You're rather sure of this. Why? I mean, what's the big deal about > Blaise being friendly with Draco? I don't get what's so offensive > about the idea. a_svirn: It's not offensive in the least. It's just that I got the feeling that Blaise dislikes Draco. > Betsy Hp: > Well, yes. I'm not sure what your point is here. Unless you're > saying that Draco has (had) no chance. Which is a rather harsh > judgment to make of an eleven year old. Or even a sixteen year > old. At least, IMO. a_svirn: The point I am making is that Draco's being raised a bigot does not makes him any less of a bigot. All bigots get their bigotry somewhere. It's not an inherent trait. > Betsy Hp: > Where are you getting that? Why would you think Draco doesn't have > the two firmly tied together? Voldemort is all about driving out > the non-purebloods and returning the WW to its former glory. Or, at > least, that's what Draco's been told. That's why he was so giddy in > CoS. The bigots of the WW, the really overt bigots anyway, are the > Death Eaters. a_svirn: And where do you see the contradiction? Yes, Voldemort is about getting the WW to its former glory. So what? So it turned out that he's more concerned with his own mad schemes than with the WW glory. Merlin, he even didn't appreciate the Malfoy family! Imagine that! But then, if you but think about his own origins Should have found a pureblood for a leader, after all. > Betsy Hp: > Draco didn't know that. And unless Lucius wanted to sign his son's > (and his own) death warrent, he would never have shared his doubts > with Draco. > a_svirn: And how is that to the point? I said that disappointment in Voldemort does not necessarily lead to a disappointment in the pureblood ideology. And further added that it didn't work out that way with Lucius. > Betsy Hp: > Lucius is not Draco. Lucius was raised in a time *before* the rise > of Voldemort. He was recruited into the Death Eaters. So his > bigotry came first. Draco was raised after Voldemort and so all of > the views he's been spoonfed have been tied up neatly with "and the > Dark Lord will make it all good again". You show one belief to be a > lie, I'm not sure why it's unreasonable to think Draco may start > questioning the other beliefs. a_svirn: It is not unreasonable. It is a possibility. One of many other possibilities. From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 18:54:11 2005 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:54:11 -0000 Subject: The Death Chamber Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144518 I re-read the part about the Death Chamber today, and I am so intrigued by it. I'm wondering if this will be used again in the last book, and if it is, how can Harry use it to defeat Voldemort? Is the arch and veil a way to communicate with the dead, or could it be a horcrux? What does that thing do?! It bothers me. JKR rarely introduces something into her books for no reason. Does anyone have any theories/ideas on how that arch and veil could be used in the last book? They've got to be in there..... Alora From rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu Sun Dec 11 19:16:39 2005 From: rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu (susanbones2003) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:16:39 -0000 Subject: Why do we call Snape "greasy git' and what other names can we call him. WAS: Ca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144519 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: >After liberal snipping: >> Which comes full-circle to Snape. What does JKR need for him to do > in Book 7? My personal opinion is she needs to inspire Harry's > compassion and also to help him understand what mistakes Snape made > that pulled him toward dark magic and LV's camp. The way to do that > will be to continue the story started in OOTP, with the bits from > the Occlumency lesson and Snape being the target of bullying, and > add to that story in such a way that Harry will realize who Snape > IS. Not who Harry thinks he is, but the full story of how Severus > Snape became the person standing in front of Harry whom he hates > *even more* than the evil monster who killed his parents, set-up > Sirius and possibly (IMO) manipulated the killing of Dumbledore. > > Jen >From One Jen to another: This is exactly, exactly what makes Snape a tragic figure. The choices he made! He did go into the dark arts full force. He did ally with the Dark Lord! He made big mistakes and they are mistakes he'll pay for the rest of his life. The redemption of Snape will be a bigger story than any of the others threads if this works out the way it seems to be going. Imagine, a misunderstood, abused child grows up into a dark and brooding man, looking for a place to fit. Makes the wrong choices but somehow gets back on a better path. Still messed up and bearing tremendous scars but he's put his trust in someone capable of seeing the good in him. This is a very powerful mythic level story. We are all broken, cracked, damaged goods and all hoping to redeem ourselves at some level. JenD > From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sun Dec 11 19:43:54 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:43:54 -0000 Subject: Why do we call Snape "greasy git' and what other names can we call him. WAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144520 > > ...First, I'll take your word on what > Snivellus means as I've never heard the word prior to HP. And I > don't doubt James et. al. saw Snape in the negative way you > describe. > Per the Concise Oxford Dictionary, which is the most authoritative thing I've got, "to snivel" means "1. intr. To run at the nose; to emit mucus from the nose; also to draw up mucus audibly. 2. To make s snuffling sound expressive of real or assumed emotion; to be in, or affect a tearful state. 3. trans. a. To affect in some way by snivelling; to address in a a snivelling manner (rare). b. To utter with a snivelling or sniffling sound, to shed (tears) snufflingly." All the name really indicates is that young Snape was tearful, or even that he had a runny nose, reasons or reasons unknown but possibly the result of illness. Nowhere is it assumed that his emotional was faked, or even that the cause of his sniffles was emotion. And IMHO, it would be just like Sirius and James to pick up on the effect and put the worst possible spin on the cause (babyishness or faked emotion). These are two very vicious kids (and I'm not sure "vicious" is even a strong enough word for Peter; to me he seems downright perverted), and I think Harry's initial reaction to the Prank was right on the money (don't take my word for it, here's Canon comin' atcha--OotP, Am.Ed.): "What was making Harry feel so horrified and unhappy was not being shouted at or having jars thrown at him--it was that he knew how it felt to be humiliated in the middle of a circle of onlookers, knew exactly how Snape had felt as his father had taunted him, and that judging from what he had just seen, his father had been every bit as arrogant as Snape had always told him." (p. 650) "Harry tried to make a case for Snape having deserved what he had suffered at James's hands--but hadn't Lily asked, 'What's he done to you?' And hadn't James replied, 'It's more the fact that he *exists*, if you know what I mean?' Hadn't James started it all simply because Sirius said he was bored? Harry remembered Lupin saying back in Grimmauld Place that Dumbledore had made him prefect in the hope that he would be able to exercise some control over James and Sirius.... But in the Pensieve, he had sat there and let it all happen.... "Harry reminded himself that Lily had intervened; his mother had been decent,yet the memory of the look on her face asshe had shouted at James disturbed him quite as much as anything else. She had clearly loathed James and Harry simply could not understand how they could have ended up married. Once or twice he even wondered whether James had forced her into it...." (p.653) "...he even wondered whether James had forced her into it...." Now *there's* an interesting rag for us to chew. (Unless it's been chewed to death already before my time, which wouldn't surprise me a bit.) I still say that anybody who misses the sexual implications of the Prank has been spending their life under a rock. Finally, interesting insight into how Voldemort's mind works: I wonder how Snape likes having little Peter Pervert dodging his footsteps around Spinner's end, listening at doors and peeking through keyholes. Since Snape is still alive, we have to assume that LV still thinks of him as one of his supporters at that point. > > The scenes Harry saw of Snape's life during the Occlumency lessons, > and especially the Pensieve scene, did inspire Harry to identify > with Snape for a moment. I'm suggesting there will be more along > those lines. > > At this point Harry seems to hate Snape pretty vehemently; I'm not > certain what *more* hatred would do for the story. Perhaps that's > my personal preference as I'd like to see the reversal now when > Harry's feelings for Snape are at their nadir. > ... > > Jen > Thanks, Jen. How about the stronger the action, the stronger the equal and opposite reaction? What will it do to Harry's feelings about Snape if (Note: Please observe that I'm saying IF) he discovers that Snape was DDM all along and died (or whatever happens to him) fighting for the Order and risking everything to help him to destroy Voldemort? --La Gatta (one corner of whose mine would love to see Snape giving Occlumency lessons to little Miss Granger. Bets on which one would end up refusing to come out from under the desk? >;D) From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Dec 11 19:58:09 2005 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 11 Dec 2005 19:58:09 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 12/11/2005, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1134331089.11.59498.m27@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144521 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday December 11, 2005 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Notes: 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. To get into Chat, just go to the group online: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups and click on "Chat" in the lefthand menu. If you have problems with this, go to http://www.yahoo.com and in the bottom box on the left side of the page click on "Chat". Once you're logged into any room, type /join *g.HPforGrownups ; this should take you right in. If you have an Set up birthday reminders! http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13 Copyright 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/ Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 20:06:34 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:06:34 -0000 Subject: How did Bella follow Cissy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144522 > Ginger: > I would guess that the "follow me" idea is a mental path that the > person leading can put out for the other to follow, and in the case > of Bella and Cissy it was not a conscious decision on Cissy's part, > but rather an intrusive one on Bella's, which she accomplished by > Legilamancy. It could be that Cissy was troubled and tipsy, And loosened her tongue with the devious Trixie. And over Chablis and some chicken paella Did Cissy confess to the devious Bella. With Lucy in prison and Draco in sulks One has to rely on one's wits and one's looks! And Trixie and Cissy have had, I suppose, Since childhood a goody amount of those. a_svirn From muellem at bc.edu Sun Dec 11 20:19:03 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:19:03 -0000 Subject: Why do we call Snape "greasy git' and what other names can we call him. WAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144523 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "susanbones2003" wrote: > From One Jen to another: > > This is exactly, exactly what makes Snape a tragic figure. The > choices he made! He did go into the dark arts full force. He did > ally with the Dark Lord! He made big mistakes and they are mistakes > he'll pay for the rest of his life. The redemption of Snape will be > a bigger story than any of the others threads if this works out the > way it seems to be going. Imagine, a misunderstood, abused child > grows up into a dark and brooding man, looking for a place to fit. > Makes the wrong choices but somehow gets back on a better path. > Still messed up and bearing tremendous scars but he's put his trust > in someone capable of seeing the good in him. This is a very > powerful mythic level story. We are all broken, cracked, damaged > goods and all hoping to redeem ourselves at some level. > JenD > > alas, I doubt we will see that story with Snape in book 7. The HP series is about Harry, not Snape. Hopefully, we will get a chapter or a least a part of a chapter devoted to the redemption of Snape, but I don't think we will ever get the full backstory. I do hope we will get the reason why DD trusted Snape completely, but that is all I am hoping we get. Anything else is highly unlikely. All of the speculations that he was abused as a child -which I am leaning towards he was not abused, but neglected, if his mother died when he was young - the speculatation that he was poor(grey underwear & greasy hair does not equal poor all the time), why he joined LV - I doubt any of those things will be put down in canon by JRK. It isn't important to the story of Harry Potter. colebiancardi (but I could be wrong. JRK may be writing HP and the redemption of Snape as book 7 - LOL) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Dec 11 20:39:31 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:39:31 -0000 Subject: How did Bella follow Cissy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144524 > It could be that Cissy was troubled and tipsy, > And loosened her tongue with the devious Trixie. > And over Chablis and some chicken paella > Did Cissy confess to the devious Bella. > With Lucy in prison and Draco in sulks > One has to rely on one's wits and one's looks! > And Trixie and Cissy have had, I suppose, > Since childhood a goody amount of those. > a_svirn Hehehe, your little ditties always crack me up. You've inspired me to try one of my own. A haiku, I think? There once was a woman named Jo who poured herself a big glass of vino said "Cissy's a drunk.... and Bella's a skunk... and that's all fans need to know." She moved to fandom's most debated man who gets dissected whenever he can "It's about love don't you know so Snape has to grow.... but he'll always be an arse when he can." Jen, glad she has a day job, but thinking a_svirn might have a bright future. :) From mudblood68 at yahoo.de Sun Dec 11 19:00:12 2005 From: mudblood68 at yahoo.de (Claudia) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:00:12 -0000 Subject: Boggarts - a little side-aspect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144525 > Marianne S: > I was thinking the same thing, especially after reading in HBP how Harry was > writing his Dementor essay for Snape, knowing that he and Snape disagree > on the best way to repel Dementors. It would not surprise me if the Snape > way has to do more with Occlumency than thinking of a Happy Memory. Pointing > out the shape of the Lestranges and the other Death Eaters that escaped with > them, and comparing them to Sirius, is more evidence that this could be fact. > Claudia: I like this idea a lot. I would like to add a quote from JK Rowling's World Book Day Chat (March 4, 2004): "Ernie: I wonder if you can let us know what form will Professor Snape's Boggart and Patronus take? I am very curious. JK Rowling replies -> Well, I'm not going to tell you Ernie, but that's because it would give so much away." I was automatically assuming that it would give too much away about Snape's personality. But what if her answer had given away too much about the nature of a boggart? I don't see how this could become particularly important for book 7 though, but mayby it could. Claudia From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Dec 11 22:10:36 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:10:36 -0000 Subject: How did Bella follow Cissy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144526 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > Hehehe, your little ditties always crack me up. You've inspired me > to try one of my own. A haiku, I think? Pippin: "Those are limericks," said Pippin, disorientedly. There once was a DE named Cissy, Who said to her sister, "Now missy, I'm off to Snape's lair, Do not follow me there, Or I'll throw a fit that is hissy." -- Disapparating One flees the evil sister Pop! A fox will die ---- Continuing the canon discussion: If Narcissa is a good enough actress to fool Bella, is she also good enough to fool Snape, or was he in on the act? Pippin with a reminder that limericks, swifties and haikus belong on OT-Chatter unless accompanied by canon discussion From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Dec 11 22:16:22 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:16:22 -0000 Subject: No canon!! Re: Dumbledore in Gryffindor? WAS Scapegoating Slytherin In-Reply-To: <012701c5fe32$7dc4da40$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144527 > Miles: > Miles, who is aware that this ideas could be easily wiped out soon by > canonical evidence or an interview he had overseen, but who is ravenclaw-ish > enough to still like his theory afterwards Potioncat: Hmmm, I know Dumbledore is a Gryffindor. I just don't know how I know. Although it would be a real riot if he were Slytherin! We went through this once before, putting Snape in Gryffindor and McGonagall in Slytherin...well, some of us did. I went back to the Lexicon's citation, the only reference is CoS chapter 17. I went there, it does not say that DD was Head of anything nor does it mention Gryffindor! All it says is that he was the Transfiguration teacher when Riddle was a student. Can anyone else out there provide canon? Was anything said in HBP? Potioncat From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Dec 11 22:24:27 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 14:24:27 -0800 Subject: whose redemption will aid the hero? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001b01c5fea1$a6ba63b0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 144528 >From One Jen to another: This is exactly, exactly what makes Snape a tragic figure. The choices he made! He did go into the dark arts full force. He did ally with the Dark Lord! He made big mistakes and they are mistakes he'll pay for the rest of his life. The redemption of Snape will be a bigger story than any of the others threads if this works out the way it seems to be going. Imagine, a misunderstood, abused child grows up into a dark and brooding man, looking for a place to fit. Makes the wrong choices but somehow gets back on a better path. Still messed up and bearing tremendous scars but he's put his trust in someone capable of seeing the good in him. This is a very powerful mythic level story. We are all broken, cracked, damaged goods and all hoping to redeem ourselves at some level. JenD > Sherry responds: Now that would definitely take the story out of the realm of Harry Potter's story. It would become Sevvy and the ... redemption? Harry is the hero; the books are named for him, and the author actually likes him. Too much back story for Snape, too much heroism and redemption for him, and it would take the focus off Harry. If Snape is to be redeemed, it's got to be in a way that benefits the hero some way, not in a way that turns Snape into the hero. Like it or not, it's still Harry's story. Harry is the only one who can vanquish the dark lord. i've become pretty firmly convinced, that if Harry receives help on his way, it will be his friends, or even his enemies from his own age group, who will be the greatest sources of help, not the adults, not even Snape. It's why both Sirius and Dumbledore had to die. If there's a redemption story that will aid Harry, I expect it will be Draco, not Snape. i think JKR began to lay the ground work for that on the tower in HBP. Both Sane and Malfoy would be way too much redemption for one book! Sherry From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 22:30:28 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 14:30:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] No canon!! Re: Dumbledore in Gryffindor? WAS Scapegoating Slytherin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051211223028.30000.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144529 Potioncat: Hmmm, I know Dumbledore is a Gryffindor. I just don't know how I know. Although it would be a real riot if he were Slytherin! We went through this once before, putting Snape in Gryffindor and McGonagall in Slytherin...well, some of us did. Juli: PS/SS when Ron and Harry first meet Hermione, she asks them which house would they rather be, she says she's been asking and Gryffindor seems to be the best, Dumbledore was/is a Gryffindor... Don't have the book here, but... Juli Aol: jlnbtr Yahoo: jlnbtr --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Dec 11 22:56:16 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:56:16 -0000 Subject: FILK: Slimy Git Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144530 Slimy Git A filk by Pippin To the tune of Silent Night Slimy git Greasy git Constantly In a snit Prowling corridors Hither and yon Saving Harry so He can go on Hating Potter in peace Hating Potter in peace Slimy git Greasy git He's a jerk I admit Gory scenes for The kid with the scar Was it murder or Plot twist bizarre? Serverus, you're still a berk Severus, you're still a berk From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 23:00:57 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:00:57 -0000 Subject: Why do we call Snape "greasy git' and what other names can we call him. WAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144531 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lagattalucianese" wrote: > and I think Harry's initial reaction to the Prank was right on the > money (don't take my word for it, here's Canon comin' atcha--OotP, > Am.Ed.): I'm posting not really with anything to say, but just a correction of commonly used listie terminology: You're referring to "the Pensieve scene", "the incident after their OWLS," whatever else we call it. Never "the Prank". "The Prank", the "so-called Prank", whatever--that's whatever happened with Sirius, Snape, and werewolf!Lupin, that we find out a little about in PoA (and not nearly enough, unfortunately). It's far too confusing if they get confused. -Nora does her best pedant impression, which doesn't take much of a reach From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Dec 11 23:07:39 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:07:39 -0000 Subject: No canon!! Re: Dumbledore in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144532 Miles: > This is no canonical evidence. I just searched the archive at Quick > Quotes Quill and didn't find any information about this question > either. Actually, noone asked Rowling about this detail. Which I > find quite interesting. And I do not remember any information about > this in the entire HP series so far, apart from the quote in PS/SS I > mentioned (and will repeat in this mail). > Potioncat: > Hmmm, I know Dumbledore is a Gryffindor. I just don't know how I > know. Although it would be a real riot if he were Slytherin! We went > through this once before, putting Snape in Gryffindor and McGonagall > in Slytherin...well, some of us did. > > I went back to the Lexicon's citation, the only reference is CoS > chapter 17. I went there, it does not say that DD was Head of > anything nor does it mention Gryffindor! All it says is that he was > the Transfiguration teacher when Riddle was a student. Jen: We do have symbolism around Dumbledore, speculative I'll admit and possibly wiped away in Book 7. But there's the griffin on the headmaster's door in PS. The fact that Dumbledore retained Godric's sword and didn't return it to the rightful owner, i.e. Gryffindor's heirs (because he and Aberforth are it ). We also learned Godric's Hollow did not belong to the Potters so it seems likely Dumbledore arranged the setting for them since he was their primary protection and offered to be Secret Keeper. I think this is one of those things JKR has not mentioned because it will be part of the 'more to come' piece about Dumbledore in Book 7. Well, and as Miles pointed out, we just all assumed it! But I think it's a safe assumption. Jen, betting the griffin door knocker and the sword are not part of McGonagall's office decor. *Now off to iron her hands for posting her purely un-canonical limerick on this list* From lolita_ns at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 23:16:38 2005 From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:16:38 -0000 Subject: Why do we call Snape "greasy git' and what other names can we call him. WAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144533 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lagattalucianese" wrote: > These are two very vicious kids (and > I'm not sure "vicious" is even a strong enough word for Peter; to me > he seems downright perverted), and I think Harry's initial reaction > to the Prank was right on the money (don't take my word for it, > here's Canon comin' atcha--OotP, Am.Ed.): > > > "Harry tried to make a case for Snape having deserved what he had > suffered at James's hands--but hadn't Lily asked, 'What's he done to > you?' And hadn't James replied, 'It's more the fact that he *exists*, > if you know what I mean?' Hadn't James started it all simply because > Sirius said he was bored? > Lolita: I'm not saying that anything gives the right to anyone to publicly humiliate a fellow student because he 'exists'. However, we seem to forget that the Pensieve episode is not just a case of two vicious kids attacking an innocent victim. The spell used on Snape was the one *he invented*, and, while I agree that the attack as we saw it was unprovoked, we simply cannot deny the fact that it was a classic piece of forcefeeding someone a taste of his own medicine. Are there any people out there who honestly believe that James came up with the Levicorpus spell independently of Snape, that the two of them were some weird sort of Kant & La Place? Of course not. I bet that Snape had used that spell on James on numerous occasions, and that James felt it was about time to return the favour. And let us also not forget that Rowling herself said that we should not feel too sorry for Snape. I'd say that the Pensieve episode, however despicable, was, in James & Snape's universe, a sort of an 'eye for an eye' thing. In OotP, it did serve its purpose - to make Harry sympathise with Snape - but now, after HBP, we know a little more of the story, and we simply cannot resume thinking of Snape as of a poor, innocent, picked-on victim who never attacked first. The hexes in his book are way too nasty for that. I neither believe nor say that he was evil, but he was most definitely vicious, even at 15. Lolita From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 11 23:20:34 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:20:34 -0000 Subject: No canon!! Re: Dumbledore in Gryffindor? WAS Scapegoating Slytherin In-Reply-To: <20051211223028.30000.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144534 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli wrote: > > > Potioncat: > Hmmm, I know Dumbledore is a Gryffindor. I just don't know how I know. Although it would be a real riot if he were Slytherin! We went through this once before, putting Snape in Gryffindor and McGonagall in Slytherin...well, some of us did. > > Juli: PS/SS when Ron and Harry first meet Hermione, she asks them which house would they rather be, she says she's been asking and Gryffindor seems to be the best, Dumbledore was/is a Gryffindor... Don't have the book here, but... Geoff: "Goodness, didn't you know, I'd have found out everything I could if it was me," said Hermione. "Do either of you know what house you'll be 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..." (PS "The Journey from Platform Nine and Three-Quarters" pp.79-80 UK edition) From lolita_ns at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 23:24:53 2005 From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:24:53 -0000 Subject: No canon!! Re: Dumbledore in Gryffindor? WAS Scapegoating Slytherin In-Reply-To: <20051211223028.30000.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144535 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli wrote: > > > Potioncat: > Hmmm, I know Dumbledore is a Gryffindor. I just don't know how I know. Although it would be a real riot if he were Slytherin! We went through this once before, putting Snape in Gryffindor and McGonagall in Slytherin...well, some of us did. > > Juli: PS/SS when Ron and Harry first meet Hermione, she asks them which house would they rather be, she says she's been asking and Gryffindor seems to be the best, Dumbledore was/is a Gryffindor... Don't have the book here, but... > > Lolita now: The quote you're referring to goes as follows: 'Do either of you know what house you'll be 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..' (PS, UK children's paperback, p. 117) I think we can safely say that DD indeed was in Gryffindor. Apart from it never having been brought up again in the books - as far as I know - I can't see any reason why Rowling would unnecessarily complicate the story with him being a member of another house. Lolita. From BrwNeil at aol.com Sun Dec 11 23:27:56 2005 From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:27:56 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] No canon!! Re: Dumbledore in Gryffindor? Message-ID: <255.2f1fa68.30ce0ffc@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144536 : > This is no canonical evidence. I just searched the archive at Quick > Quotes Quill and didn't find any information about this question > either.> Potioncat: > Hmmm, I know Dumbledore is a Gryffindor. I just don't know how I > know. You know because there is canon evidence. I believe it is in PoA, but at the moment I don't have the time to locate it. Dumbledore in a conversation, I believe, mentions that Gryffindor was his house. Neil [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Sun Dec 11 23:31:01 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:31:01 EST Subject: Why do we call Snape "greasy git' etc Message-ID: <2b9.217cc62.30ce10b5@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144537 Valky: I tend to see Snivellus as more likely to make it *harder* for Harry to forgive Snape than easier. When the origin of the name Snivellus is revealed it will not vindicate Snape as the completely innocent victim, I am sure. Harry will recognise "Snivellus" as well, because he will look exactly like the man who advocated for Harry's expulsion in second year, and wore many disctinct faces nice pleasant and polite ones for those who would benefit him and a sneer for anything else held to be beneath him. In all I don't think Jo is setting Snape up to become entirely pathetic in Harry's eyes and especially not by revealing the source of the name Snivellus. I feel confident to guarantee that it won't be so easy to pity Snivellus and Harry will hate and does already hate him as much as his father and Sirius did. Mark my words. Julie: I'd like to suggest one more possible meaning for the label "Snivellus." My Roget's Thesaurus gives several synomyms for "snivel," including "weep" (the common one), "be hypocritical" (hmm...), "be sanctimonious" (Bingo!). In fact, "sniveller" is matched with the third synonym in my thesaurus. Like many English words, the definition of "snivel" is pretty fluid, depending on the who, what, where and why of the user. And the choice of an appropriately egregious nickname for Snape is also limited by his name, Severus. It has to be a word that fairly closely approximates the sound of his name, even if the meaning isn't as exact as another word might be. Now, we know that Snape had a reputation for sticking his nose in the Marauders' business, hoping to catch them up to some mischief. In a school situation, at least in my experience, no student is more disliked than the tattletale/snitch. And that seems to be exactly the role Snape took on in relation to the Marauders. Severus Snape, the Sanctimonious Snitch. Ergo, Snivellus. I don't know if all students saw him this way, or only the Marauders, nor how often Snape might have snitched on them (and watched happily as they were punished). But it doesn't matter, because his habit of skulking around the Marauders hoping to get them in trouble is more than enough motivation for Sirius or James to dream up the Snivellus moniker. It's close enough to make the point. As for how this will go down with Harry, well, he already knows this, doesn't he? Sirius told him how Snape followed the Marauders around, trying to get them in trouble. I don't think Harry saw Snape as innocent even as a teenager. What hurt was that Harry saw his adored father was no *better* than Snape as a teenager. So I suspect the whole Snivellus thing will have no impact whatsoever (even if we actually do learn more about the origin of the nickname, which I'm not sure is likely). Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Sun Dec 11 23:50:19 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 00:50:19 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] No canon!! Re: Dumbledore in Gryffindor? WAS Scapegoating Slytherin References: Message-ID: <024b01c5fead$a54c8560$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144538 lolita_ns wrote: > 'Do either of you know what house you'll be 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..' (PS, UK children's paperback, p. 117) > > I think we can safely say that DD indeed was in Gryffindor. Apart from > it never having been brought up again in the books - as far as I know > - I can't see any reason why Rowling would unnecessarily complicate > the > story with him being a member of another house. Miles: If this would be the only evidence, there is no reason to safely say this. > Jen: > We do have symbolism around Dumbledore, speculative I'll admit > and possibly wiped away in Book 7. But there's the griffin on the > headmaster's door in PS. The fact that Dumbledore retained Godric's > sword and didn't return it to the rightful owner, i.e. Gryffindor's > heirs (because he and Aberforth are it ). We also learned Godric's > Hollow did not belong to the Potters so it seems likely Dumbledore > arranged the setting for them since he was their primary protection > and offered to be Secret Keeper. Miles: Good points. But still, Rowling could come out with a big bang. Or rather a small one to teach Harry a lesson, that Gryffindor is not THE House, only one House. I wrote a mail to the makers of the Harry Potter Lexicon, maybe they have evidence we did not find by now. I will post the answer here. Miles From juli17 at aol.com Sun Dec 11 23:59:21 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:59:21 EST Subject: whose redemption will aid the hero? Message-ID: <27.7fcf455e.30ce1759@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144539 Sherry wrote: Harry is the hero; the books are named for him, and the author actually likes him. Too much back story for Snape, too much heroism and redemption for him, and it would take the focus off Harry. If Snape is to be redeemed, it's got to be in a way that benefits the hero some way, not in a way that turns Snape into the hero. Like it or not, it's still Harry's story. Harry is the only one who can vanquish the dark lord. i've become pretty firmly convinced, that if Harry receives help on his way, it will be his friends, or even his enemies from his own age group, who will be the greatest sources of help, not the adults, not even Snape. It's why both Sirius and Dumbledore had to die. If there's a redemption story that will aid Harry, I expect it will be Draco, not Snape. i think JKR began to lay the ground work for that on the tower in HBP. Both Sane and Malfoy would be way too much redemption for one book! Julie: I don't think it's too much. Now if Voldemort, Wormtail and Bella line up to be redeemed too, then I'll agree! ;-) But unlike those three, both Snape and Draco have been portrayed with a degree of ambiguity about their inherent characters. No need to state how with Snape, but with Draco the fact that he's simply digested his father's views without once questioning them is what makes final judgment on his character still pending. Along with the fact that he couldn't kill Dumbledore. And that he's still a boy. That leaves room for change, for said boy to consider for the first time *his* feelings and *his* real beliefs, rather than those drummed into him by his father. That doesn't mean Draco *will* change appreciably, but it certainly leaves open the possibility. Along with the possibility that he could assist Harry and his friends in some way, as you mention above. Snape, BTW, has already changed in a way that is going to aid Harry. Or he hasn't. Either he's remained DDM, he was faking it all along, or he flipped back to Voldemort's side on the Tower. So it's done for the most part when it comes to Snape and whether he is to be redeemed. If he's DDM, which I suspect, then he's been redeeming himself all along, at least for his actions as a DE, by spying on Voldemort and doing the bidding of Dumbledore, and perhaps keeping Harry alive. So it won't be a matter of Snape being redeemed *in* Book 7, but of his redemptive pattern throughout the books being *revealed* in Book 7 (er, why does that phrase "redemptive pattern" sound so very familiar? ;-) I for one hope to see both Draco and Snape redeemed, at least on some level. That doesn't mean they shed all responsibility for their past actions, or that either of them will become cuddly with Harry, but that they've at least attempted to atone for their mistakes. And I don't see any way two redemptions negate Harry being the hero of the series :-) Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Mon Dec 12 00:09:42 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:09:42 EST Subject: Why do we call Snape "greasy git' ,etc Message-ID: <8c.33a88292.30ce19c6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144540 colebiancardi: alas, I doubt we will see that story with Snape in book 7. The HP series is about Harry, not Snape. Hopefully, we will get a chapter or a least a part of a chapter devoted to the redemption of Snape, but I don't think we will ever get the full backstory. I do hope we will get the reason why DD trusted Snape completely, but that is all I am hoping we get. Anything else is highly unlikely. All of the speculations that he was abused as a child -which I am leaning towards he was not abused, but neglected, if his mother died when he was young - the speculatation that he was poor(grey underwear & greasy hair does not equal poor all the time), why he joined LV - I doubt any of those things will be put down in canon by JRK. It isn't important to the story of Harry Potter. Julie: I agree that this story is about Harry Potter. So Snape's importance to the story is directly related to his relationship with Harry. That means whatever we find out about Snape is Book 7 will have to affect that relationship, for good or worse (though how it could get any worse is beyond me!). I too suspect that means we have to know why DD did trust Snape so completely (critical knowledge if Snape's DDM), and it may also mean we learn more about his back story, if it is pertinent to Harry's feeling about him, or to altering Harry's feelings about him. I'm in the camp who thinks the contraversial interview quote of JKR's "I'm amazed you brought that up, and you'll see why in book seven" actually refers to whether Snape has ever loved anyone rather than to Snape's redemptive pattern (if either/both is true of Snape, it would seem more supportive of DDM!Snape than ESE or OFH!Snape. Hmm). If it was Lily who Snape "loved" on some level or another, and if she influenced any of Snape's decisions throughout the years (to join the DEs and/or to leave Voldemort's service, for instance), then I think we'll definitely learn more about Snape's back story. Still, I suspect Snape will remain a background figure throughout much of Book 7, whether he's aiding Voldemort or passing on secret information to the Order. At least until Harry and Snape have their next fateful meeting, a meeting I'm very certain will take place! Whether Snape survives that meeting, especially if Voldemort is present, is certainly questionable. (Though I'd bet real money that Snape will not die by Harry's hand. And that it will be Voldemort who takes Snape out, if Snape is taken out--boo hoo.) Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 00:21:15 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 00:21:15 -0000 Subject: No canon!! Re: Dumbledore in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144541 > Jen: We also learned Godric's > Hollow did not belong to the Potters so it seems likely Dumbledore > arranged the setting for them since he was their primary protection > and offered to be Secret Keeper. I missed something. How do we know Godric's Hollow didn't belong to the Potters? Amiable Dorsai From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 00:49:03 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 00:49:03 -0000 Subject: Snape's role (was:JKR and the Problem or Three (was Re: Cultural standards ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144542 > >>Orna: > > Even DD never seems to love him as a person, he sees him as a > person not outgrowing his childish grievances, and sometimes even > mocks him. I think part of Snape's hatred towards Harry has to do, > that he earns DD's love effortless, while Snape never comes near > to such a feeling from DD, in spite of his magical knowledge, in > spite of his help for the order. Betsy Hp: Hmm, I disagree with this. For one, I *do* think Dumbledore loves Snape. And I think Snape realizes it. Snape may not think he's *worthy* of that love, but I think he must realize it's there. I just cannot see Dumbledore trusting someone to the extent he trusts Snape (more than any other character in some ways) without also loving him. I think the only person Snape expressed a certain amount of jealousy towards was Lupin. And I think that was tied up with his feelings regarding the Marauders and their golden boy status that enabled them to survive an attempted murder without being expelled (from Snape's POV, anyway). I also think Snape got over his jealousy - at least regarding Lupin. After all, Lupin proved himself less trustworthy than Snape in PoA. > >>Orna: > > Even Draco treats him without respect, without any trust towards > him. Betsy Hp: Draco was going through a particularly hard time. He'd just found out that the good guys (the Death Eaters and Voldemort, from Draco's POV) were actually not that good. So his lack of respect towards Snape in the Christmas Party scene came from all of that, rather than an actual dislike of Snape. I believe that usually Draco quite liked Snape and admired him. > >>Betsy Hp in 144301: > > Anyway, I have a feeling that dealing with the bed he's made is > > Snape's ultimate task. Earning Harry's trust may be the only way > > for him to achieve true redemption, and probably the only way for > > Harry to defeat Voldemort. > >>Orna: > I don't think that Snape alive will earn anything like that. I > think, he will help Harry defeat Voldemort, but in his secretive > way, thus never earning the respect he should get. I think that > maybe after his death, Harry may be able to understand something > there. I'm not sure, but I really can't see Snape and Harry being > able to have any conversation without bursting into waves of hate, > mistrust and more misunderstanding. Betsy Hp: Coming at this from the view that the story is about Harry, I think Harry *must* get over his feelings of hate towards Snape, must see Snape clearly, in order to prevail. Otherwise Harry will be following in Snape's footsteps. I don't think Snape will survive the series, but I'm not sure how tragic JKR wants to write his end. If Snape dies believing that he has failed his task and Harry will refuse his aid, than Snape ends tragically. But if Snape dies but knowing that he's helped Harry defeat Voldemort than at last his redemption has been achieved and he can die at peace. A sad but not totally tragic ending. > >>Jen: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144503 > > Which comes full-circle to Snape. What does JKR need for him to do > in Book 7? My personal opinion is she needs to inspire Harry's > compassion and also to help him understand what mistakes Snape made > that pulled him toward dark magic and LV's camp. The way to do that > will be to continue the story started in OOTP, with the bits from > the Occlumency lesson and Snape being the target of bullying, and > add to that story in such a way that Harry will realize who Snape > IS. Not who Harry thinks he is, but the full story of how Severus > Snape became the person standing in front of Harry whom he hates > *even more* than the evil monster who killed his parents, set-up > Sirius and possibly (IMO) manipulated the killing of Dumbledore. Betsy Hp: I totally agree. Unless JKR is actually writing about the creation of another Dark Lord (which I seriously doubt) Harry *must* come to a point where he *sees* Snape. Something Snape, himself, has done a lot to prevent Harry from doing. Perhaps because Snape thought Dumbledore could soothe any hurt feelings away. But now Dumbledore is gone, and Snape is all Harry has. Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 01:14:28 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 01:14:28 -0000 Subject: Draco's bigotry and leadership In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144543 > >>a_svirn: > > Slytherins do hang out together, so why should's Zabini sit in the > same compartment as Draco? > > However the whole scene was about two boys picking on each other > with Zabini winning every encounter. > > Not what you might call a friendly exchange. Certainly there is > nothing in Zabini's manner to suspect that he sees Draco as a > leader of any kind. Betsy Hp: So basically you're saying Blaise decided the best place to enjoy the long journey to Hogwarts was with a boy he disliked, smashed into a seat with two other large boys, so that the boy he disliked could lounge comfortably on the other seat with his girlfriend. I don't get your logic here. I also don't see Draco and Blaise's exchange as anything other than two friends talking. But since I don't get your logic, I doubt you get mine. Though if Blaise *does* dislike Draco than he *must* see Draco as a rather powerful leader. Someone worth sucking up to anyway. It's the only way to explain the seating arrangement. > >>a_svirn: > > All bigots get their bigotry somewhere. It's not an inherent > trait. Betsy Hp: Can a bigot ever change? Or is it once a bigot, always a bigot? Draco received his bigotry from his father, tied in with his support of the Death Eaters and Voldemort. Draco has since learned that his father was wrong about Voldemort. It's not a huge leap to think that Draco may well decide his father was wrong about other things. Draco has reached a fork in the road. He did start to lower his wand, so he must have been listening to what Dumbledore had told him. Will he continue to lower his wand? Only JKR knows for sure. But it would be a massive waste of writing, IMO, to set Draco up for such a huge life change and than have him decide not to take it. Betsy Hp From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Dec 11 22:37:51 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:37:51 -0000 Subject: Snape Wars vs Ship Wars was re: Cultural standards for Snape abusiveness/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144544 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Of course there are people who think she did lose control with the > shipping. Come to think of it, the arguments against R/H and H/G > have an eerie similarity to the arguments against DDM Snape. > It might be interesting to see whether people who think the > ships were clumsily handled are also the people who are sure that > Snape betrayed Dumbledore. That's an interesting question. It depends to a large extent on what you mean by the ships being clumsily handled. Do you mean that R/H and H/G were not convincing pairings? If so, I think most people who are against many formulations of DDM!Snape are perfectly comfortable with H/G and R/H. In fact, both Nora and I have, on several occasions, stated the opinion that it is the argument FOR a certain kind of DDM!Snape that is most eerily similar to the arguments against the present ships. The arguments for some types of DDM!Snape rely very heavily on the idea of subtext and Harry's limited POV -- exactly the arguments put forth against H/G and R/H. Many of us who argue for a Grey!Snape or an OFH!Snape, or that Snape has a very nasty karmic punishment in store, argue that JKR is, in fact, much more straightforward than many fans believe -- just as her decision to go with the present ships indicates. Lupinlore From shakespeareslady2002 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 23:09:06 2005 From: shakespeareslady2002 at yahoo.com (Nikki) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:09:06 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144545 So what is to happen to our dear Harry? What will happen to Hogwarts? After re-reading HBP I dont think Harry will survive. I've also began to ponder what role will Longbottom play, after all his parents were driven mad by LV. It's been made clear that Harry and LV cant not live at the same time! And after reading JKR's recent interview where she states that sometimes she thinks that the ending is too obvious and that many people guess it perfectly. I cant help but to believe that Harry will be defeated by LV and the DE will take over the Wizarding world. What do you think? Nikki From kchuplis at alltel.net Mon Dec 12 00:32:15 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 00:32:15 -0000 Subject: New member with question -- Who will die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144546 > sudeeel: > > According to The Leaky Cauldron, Jim Dale's quote was "She's lived > with Harry Potter so long she really wants to kill him off," which is > quite different from saying Harry will die. In addition, TLC notes as > a follow-up, "A spokesperson for Rowling has assured us that these > comments were taken out of context in a gossip column." > > Don't trust The Daily Prophet, erm, Muggle tabloids, for your news. Not to mention that if she does not even tell her husband who she is killing off, I'd find it very hard to believe some voice actor in the U.S. is going to be in the know on a book that is even completed yet. kchuplis From pookiebear364 at gmail.com Sun Dec 11 03:43:21 2005 From: pookiebear364 at gmail.com (Pookie) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 03:43:21 -0000 Subject: Snape saving Harry (was Re: Cultural standards for Snape abusiveness) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144547 Amiable Dorsai wrote: > Just a quick query: when has Snape saved Harry? The time > Quirrelmort cursed his broom? OK, I'll give him good > intentions (probably), and of course he gets credited with > an assist, but Hermione is the one who actually (and > accidentally) saved Harry. Do you REALLY think that he was saving Harry with good intentions? I thought that in HBP he said something about that incident but I haven't the book handy to check.... Pookie From ldorman at researchbydesign.com Mon Dec 12 00:51:00 2005 From: ldorman at researchbydesign.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 00:51:00 -0000 Subject: GH did not belong to Potters? WAS:No canon!! Re: Dumbledore in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144548 Amiable Dorsail: > I missed something. How do we know Godric's Hollow didn't belong to > the Potters? > > Lana (kibakianakaya)writes: Its not in canon, but if James and Lily owned Godric's Hollow, then Harry would be the current owner. So unless the elder Potters left it specifically to someone else, we can deduce that they were never the rightful owners. This is my first post - hope the formatting is OK! From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Dec 12 01:33:19 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 01:33:19 -0000 Subject: Why do we call Snape "greasy git' and what other names can we call him. WAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144549 La Gatta: > Per the Concise Oxford Dictionary, which is the most authoritative > thing I've got, "to snivel" means "1. intr. To run at the nose; to > emit mucus from the nose; also to draw up mucus audibly. 2. To make s > snuffling sound expressive of real or assumed emotion; to be in, or > affect a tearful state. 3. trans. a. To affect in some way by > snivelling; to address in a a snivelling manner (rare). b. To utter > with a snivelling or sniffling sound, to shed (tears) snufflingly." Ceridwen: Right about now, I'm not going to get involved in the Pensieve incident again. Too much of a run-around and headache. I defer to Nora's post, that the incident we see in the Pensieve is not 'The Prank'. 'The Prank' involved Snape finding out Lupin's secret, and James saving Snape's life, leading to the life-debt mentioned in PS/SS. On 'Snivellus' - Checking dictionary.com, using 'snivel', the phrase "Stop snivelling--you got yourself into this mess!" is used as an example. It sounds like it could be exactly what the nickname came from. 'Sniveller' is defined as: sniveller - n : a person given to excessive complaints and crying and whining [syn: whiner, complainer, moaner, crybaby, bellyacher, grumbler, squawker] If Snape tattled on the Marauders, for reason or for no reason, they could have come up with this one. And, it seems that people are ignoring the name 'Severus', which lends itself to that sort of change, whether it's true or not. When a name is so adaptable to a good insult, some people don't really care if it applies or not. Ceridwen. From harryp at stararcher.com Sun Dec 11 06:10:35 2005 From: harryp at stararcher.com (ecaplan_52556) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 06:10:35 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore in Gryffindor (WAS: Scapegoating Slytherin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144550 Ravenclaw Bookworm: > During an interview (on the CoS DVD, maybe?), one of the things > JKR said was that Dumbledore and Hermione speak with the voice > of authority. Whenever she wants to give information, they are > the two characters who can deliver it convincingly. So if > Hermione said Dumbledore was in Gryffindor, it is likely fact, > not rumor. Or when JKR wants to deliver a red herring with the *feel* of authority? "ecaplan_52556" From kelleyaynn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 15:35:45 2005 From: kelleyaynn at yahoo.com (kelleyaynn) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:35:45 -0000 Subject: Why do we call Snape "greasy git' and what other names can we call him. WAS: Ca In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144551 Betsy Hp wrote: > I'm not tired of it being used to insult Snape. I'm just tired > of the word "git", period. For some reason all the non-British > folks in the fandom seem to have picked up on it, and whenever > they want to insult *anyone* they throw that word out. Fics, > essays, discussions, whatever. It's been overused. Well, as non-Brit, I have to say that the word "git" is used quite often in the the books, along with "prat". So being unfamiliar with Britspeak, I would conclude that is a very common insult to use. If I were to write a fanfic and wanted to try to keep everyone in character, I'd be tempted to use the term. Yes, "dictionaries" online can provide poor, ignorant Americans like me other insults that are used in British slang. However, without having seen or heard them used, I would try to avoid those words since I couldn't be sure I knew exactly how they should be used. I've noticed a lot of British fanfic writers also use the word, by the way. Kelleyaynn Who is tired of the fact that when some people display their misunderstanding or ignorance (in the unknowing sense of the word) about another culture, country, etc., some people get all bent out of shape about it. And that goes for Americans too. How else are we to learn about one another? From carol_sutcliffe at yahoo.co.uk Sun Dec 11 19:00:22 2005 From: carol_sutcliffe at yahoo.co.uk (hettiebe) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:00:22 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore in Gryffindor? WAS Scapegoating Slytherin In-Reply-To: <012701c5fe32$7dc4da40$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144552 Miles: > But it could be a tessara for Harry to understand things in the > final book he does not understand by now. [Is there the > metaphorical meaning of tessara in English as it is in German?] In English I guess that tessara would equate to "piece of the jigsaw puzzle". "hettiebe" From erised86 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 06:44:54 2005 From: erised86 at yahoo.com (Lyn) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:44:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: SHIP: Snape's slide into the DE's In-Reply-To: <63378ee70512091428p303378a1tb7b18820ac4720d2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051211064454.97898.qmail@web36407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144553 Like I said, as I am open to both theories, I have admitted in an earlier post this evening I have always had a feeling about the Snape/Lily possibilty. I agree with you on a lot of points in your post - a lot of it makes sense and connects. JKR could definitely be trying to throw us off by 'offering' information on Snape and Lupin, it's her style, and she's good at it. I'm not sure if this whole issue is really a big part of the plot in the end, but nevertheless, it's very interesting. Below I responded to some of your points: Why does Lily have a moment's shock and hesitation when Snape calls her a Mudblood? Well, it's usually a shock to anyone in the wizarding world if they're called a Mudblood, right? But what do you mean by hesitation? Why is that, of all things, his worst memory? JKR has so much significance to everything she writes, especially the titles, so it is really a good point as to why is this his worst memory? Especially when it appears that he had a rough childhood, and hard time fitting in with school. You may be onto something. Why does Petunia not mention 'that awful boy' by name, and never truly confirms Harry's assumption that she's talking about his dad? It's still hard to believe that Petunia ever cared for her sister, but we have seen that she really seems to know a lot more than we will probably bargain for. Perhaps she listened a lot to Lily (maybe when Lily was talking to their parents) but Petunia tried not to act interested. JKR might want us to assume that Petunia was talking about James(?). Why is special attention paid to Harry saying 'Snape hated my mother, too', and a moment devoted to the narrative's responding words: "But nobody ever asked how Harry knew this." (Because he DOESN'T know it.) You're right, Harry doesn't know it, but perhaps they wouldn't bother to ask him because of the possibility of anyone from that time knowing about it - and thought it best not to argue Harrys statement because Harry would be better off not knowing. If so much of unriddling Snape rests on a woman we know nothing about, Rowling's going to have to be a storytelling master in this last book in making us care about her, Snape, and what happened to their forbidden love. Agreed. Very much agreed. Snape and Lily had a growing interest in each other, but it's Florence who Snape, for one reason or another, chose to dally with behind the greenhouse - I can certainly see him having Ron's lack of confidence, responding to whatever affection he could get. This makes sense because it's obvious Snape had a huge lack of confidence and it looks like he didn't have a lot of affection as a child, and of course as a teenager would resort to a sort of 'nice and different' affection, it would probably be typical action of many younger guys in that position. Lily's defense of Snape to James was possibly his last chance to make amends in response...and he blew it. That makes just about perfect sense now. -lyn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 02:31:02 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 02:31:02 -0000 Subject: Snape Wars vs Ship Wars was re: Cultural standards for Snape abusiveness/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144554 > > Alla: But first of all, you are not arguing > > that it is an undisputable fact that Snape is DD!M, right? > > Pippin: > Undisputable? LOL! But if you have to argue that JKR has lost control > of the story arc in order to refute it, then the case for DDM is pretty > strong, IMO. Alla: LOL!Pippin, I have a favor to ask. I KNOW you are brilliant writer, I KNOW you know the first step of your argument and all the next steps which bring you to the conclusion, but I don't, so if you don't mind ( of course you don't have to do it, I am just asking in order to be able to understand your arguments better :-)), could you please provide more details for your reasoning when you are arguing with me, I am getting confused way too often. Again, this is MY problem, not yours, but as a friendly favor, more details will be very much appreciated. I had to read these initial sentences three times to try and understand what did you mean by that and when I EVER made this argument. So, the best I could come up with was when I said that I was speculating that the only reason JKR made Snape kill Dumbledore was that he was not bad enough for many fans as horrible person and she had to take it steps higher and make him a murderer - to up the stakes so to speak. Is that what you meant? If that was it, I think it has NOTHING to do with the argument for OFH! ot ESE!Snape. I was just speculating one of the possibilities and I stated pretty clearly that I had nothing to support such speculation, IMO. I don't think it is out of realm of possibilities, but even we completely threw it away, I DO think that Villain!Snape fits very nicely in the plot. It just forces you ( not you the reader) to reread all the incidents with the different meaning in mind and you know - to me ALL of them fit. Actually, as of today the only canon which ( to me only) makes me hesitate about OFH! or ESE!Snape is Snape gripping his chair when Ginny was taken. Why? Because that may hint of different character exposition that I am thinking of post-HBP Snape. That may postulate that Snape has some kind of caring feelings for his non-Slytherin students. Although I am sure if I think long and hard I will be able to come up with some kind of explanation which fits OFH!or ESE!Snape. EVERY other Snape related accident, I can easily read as selfish Snape or just plain villain Snape. Pippin: > Of course there are people who think she did lose control with the > shipping. Come to think of it, the arguments against R/H and H/G > have an eerie similarity to the arguments against DDM Snape. Alla: Erm... Sorry, but to me the exact opposite is true, I will just refer you to Lupinlore's post who said it very nicely. IMo and I think I argued it too - the SHIPs show that JKR really, really does not mind leaving anvil sized clues and IMO there are pretty big clues that show who Snape really IS. :-) Of course, we differ on what these clues support. Pippin: > It might be interesting to see whether people who think the > ships were clumsily handled are also the people who are sure that > Snape betrayed Dumbledore. Alla: Definitely not true for me. I ALWAYS thought that canon cannot be any clearer that Ron and Hermione will be together. I was not sure whether canon was as clear on Harry and Ginny, I thought that JKR may pull the rug and get him the secondary character as love interest, but I always was primarily interested in slash ships. In any event I did like Harry and Ginny. :-) JMO of course, Alla. From h2so3f at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 03:12:23 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 03:12:23 -0000 Subject: GH did not belong to Potters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144556 Lana (kibakianakaya)wrote: "Its not in canon, but if James and Lily owned Godric's Hollow, then Harry would be the current owner. So unless the elder Potters left it specifically to someone else, we can deduce that they were never the rightful owners." CH3ed: Well. First of all Godric's Hollow is a village (from JKR's site). I don't know if the house the Potters were hiding out in was James' or not. We know James' parents died of natural causes before James did so he should have inherited his parents' house (the one Sirius went to camp out in the backyard after running away from 12 GP). The house was destroyed the same night LV attacked (probably from the rebounded AK but there is no canon to shed light on that yet) so there really wouldn't be a house left for Harry to inherit. If anything he would inherit the land, I think. I suppose an adult (Sirius?) would have been appointed to look after it for Harry until he comes of age. DD didn't mention it when he told Harry about Sirius' will so we really don't know. CH3ed :O) From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Mon Dec 12 04:05:57 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee chase) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 04:05:57 -0000 Subject: Horcrux query Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144557 Luckdragon: I'm still wavering on the "Harry is a Horcrux" theory, particularly after reading a quote from Jo's Dec. 10th interview. I did not want to give in to the theory as it would cement the idea that Harry will have to Martyr himself to bring down LV. The quote: "He is not, in a biological sense, related to him at all." This statement proves they are related in a way other than parentage. This in my opinion proves Harry contains a piece of LV inside him, not only some of his powers as Dumbledore stated. If Harry is the final Horcrux, is there a possibility a horcrux can be removed and destroyed, with out destroying the vessel. Is there anything in canon about this? Anyone think Harry may still survive this? From Ajohnson5 at comcast.net Mon Dec 12 04:17:40 2005 From: Ajohnson5 at comcast.net (April Johnson) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:17:40 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] GH did not belong to Potters? References: Message-ID: <02c401c5fed2$fe39b830$1502a8c0@april> No: HPFGUIDX 144558 > Lana (kibakianakaya)wrote: > "Its not in canon, but if James and Lily owned Godric's Hollow, then > Harry would be the current owner. > April wrote: I assume that it wasn't James and Lily's house. They went into hiding when they heard Voldemort was targeting them. Why would they go into hiding in their own home? April From dragonjcndm2 at aol.com Mon Dec 12 04:20:04 2005 From: dragonjcndm2 at aol.com (dragonjcndm2 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:20:04 EST Subject: Book 7 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144559 Nikki: << So what is to happen to our dear Harry? What will happen to Hogwarts? I cant help but to believe that Harry will be defeated by LV and the DE will take over the Wizarding world. What do you think?>> Jade: If this book turns out like a twilight zone episode, I'm going to be greatly disappointed. I did not trudge through 6 books only to read the 7th and boom, Voldemort wins. Now if it's a twister in the sense of Harry wins but not without paying a price, yes, I can see that. Voldemort winning? I think not... Jade From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 04:31:49 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 04:31:49 -0000 Subject: How many times Snape saved Harry/Speculations about forgiveness WAS: Cultura In-Reply-To: <014401c5fe40$98690a70$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144560 > Miles: > I have the impression that the discussion is mixed up - people speaking of > different layers and not always being aware of it or making it clear. > So, we can discuss the moral or ethical impacts of the Harry Potter series, > and whether the message Rowling gives is ok or not. I won't in this mail. Alla: I know what you mean - I think Bart said that it is a problem to switch from discussing characters as " real people" to "JKR's creations", but it is not that problematic, IMO. We just have to make sure to be careful what aspect we discuss. >Miles: > But speaking of the character Harry Potter and his role in the Potterverse - > yes, I think Harry *has* to forgive Snape to some extent. If he would choose > to "hate Snape forever", this would surely be understandable inside the > character, and quite human as well. But how could Harry fullfil his role > hating Snape? How could he have the power of love while he still hates? I do > not see a convincing solution, that Harry can carry on with his hatred on > Snape (and this is his main emotion at the end of HBP!) and overcome > Voldemort with love at the same time. He will have to choose, whether to > hate or fullfil his mission. > > Alla: I don't understand. Why? Where in canon it says that Harry's ability to love MUST manifest itself as love towards Snape only? Where in canon it says that in order to use his ability to love Harry must get rid of all the hatred? It sees logical, yes, but the only way Harry have to proceed in order to win? Sorry I have to disagree. Harry is quite unusual according to Dumbledore because of his ability tlove, but if he gets rid of hatred completely, he may become not complete human either, IMO. Don't you think that it is likely that Harry's ability to love will show towards Voldemort or Draco, whom Harry already began to feel sorry for? I don't remember in canon that Harry has to love EVERYBODY in order to succeed. Especially, if he will manage to move on past Snape - meaning not hate him, but not love him either, just erase him from Harry's life (HAHA). Personally, I tend to think that Harry's ability to love will show itself metaphorically - as in not that Harry will stand up and say Voldemort I love you or Snape I love you, but there will be some personification of this power - maybe spell, which Harry will be able to perform with that power. Regardless, I grant you, it is LIKELY that Harry will forgive Snape in plot development terms, but I don't agree that this is a necessity. There are other maybe more appreciative recipients for that power's of Harry, IMO. JMO, Alla From AllieS426 at aol.com Mon Dec 12 04:37:46 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 04:37:46 -0000 Subject: No canon!! Re: Dumbledore in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: <255.2f1fa68.30ce0ffc@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144561 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, BrwNeil at a... wrote: > > > > : > > This is no canonical evidence. I just searched the archive at Quick > > Quotes Quill and didn't find any information about this question > > either.> Potioncat: > > Hmmm, I know Dumbledore is a Gryffindor. I just don't know how I > > know. > > You know because there is canon evidence. I believe it is in PoA, but at > the moment I don't have the time to locate it. Dumbledore in a conversation, I > believe, mentions that Gryffindor was his house. > > Neil > Allie now: I think JKR confirmed Dumbledore's house as Gryffindor in one interview or another. (I guess that's not canon if I don't have the source...) From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Mon Dec 12 06:48:08 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 06:48:08 -0000 Subject: Rosier, Rookwood, Snape's gang of Slytherins Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144562 While rereading HBP, I was struck by the a couple of sentances uttered by Dumbledore that confused me thoroughly as to Rosier's age. I got canon here(for once) - DD says "Then if I were to go to the Hog's Head tonight, I would not find a group of them - Nott, Rosier, Mulciber Dolohov -awaiting your return? Devoted friends indeed, to travel this far with you on a snowy night, merely to wish you luck as you attempted to secure a teaching post" HBP - Lord Voldemort's request - pg 416 UK edition So from this one would infer that Rosier is at least as old as Voldemort, only maybe a couple of years difference, anyway, since they are referred to as "friends". But I always though Rosier was a "friend" of Snape's not Voldemort's because of this piece of canon here: Sirius held up his fingers and began ticking off names. "Rosier and Wilkes - they were killed by Aurors the year before Voldemort fell. The Lestranges - theyre a married couple - theyre in Azkaban. Avery - from what I've heard he wormed his way out of trouble by saying hed been acting under the Imperius curse" GoF Padfoot Returns pg 461 Aus edition In the scene in HBP, Voldemort is around 35 years old by my calculations and Snape is eighteen years into the future. So Rosier is at least 18 years older than Snape. How could he have been a part of the Slytherin gang then? Also when Voldemort is trying to get Slughorn to tell him about Horcruxes, Slughorn tells Lestrange and Avery that he wants their essays which shows that at least one of the Lestrange brothers and Avery were at school with LV. So how could they have been part of the Slytherin gang Snape consorted with? They had already completed their education by that time. The only member mentioned in that passage that Snape could have been at school with is Wilkes. So is Sirius lying here? Is he talking about the people Snape hung around with while in school or after school was over? The more I look at those two passages I think Snape did not have any friends in school. He was not in contact with future DEs anyway. He could not have hung around with Lucius since he is 6 years older than Snape. That leaves Bella and Cissy.Highly unlikely IMO. Anyway I'm confused. Help! And as a side note is Rookwood's name Augustus or Algernon? He is referred to as Augustus in GoF, but in the Daily Prophet, it is Algernon Rookwood. Siblings, or the same man? Or a FLINT? Elyse From h2so3f at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 06:54:55 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 06:54:55 -0000 Subject: GH did not belong to Potters? In-Reply-To: <02c401c5fed2$fe39b830$1502a8c0@april> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144563 April wrote: "I assume that it wasn't James and Lily's house. They went into hiding when they heard Voldemort was targeting them. Why would they go into hiding in their own home?" CH3ed: Well the house they were hiding in was protected by the fidelius charm, so LV wouldn't be able to get to them without the SK (Peter) blabbing anyway. I think it isn't a stretch to say that 12GP was a rather obvious place for the OotP to hide in too. Especially with Kreacher sneaking out to visit Narcissa during Book 5. But had non OotP members and those DD didn't tell about 12GP being OotP HQ came to check on the place they wouldn't be able to see it at all. I would think that had Bella or Narcissa or Lucius been by where 12GP was located and notice that the house had disappeared, became invisible, they would have known where OotP HQ was but still wouldn't be able to get to it. Though, as one of our sharp member whose name I can't recall right now had mentioned before, there is the question of why no attempt by the DE's to ambush siege-style the vinicity that we know of yet. CH3ed :O) From h2so3f at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 07:07:23 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:07:23 -0000 Subject: Stand Aside, Hagrid/Silly Girl!! In-Reply-To: <02c401c5fed2$fe39b830$1502a8c0@april> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144564 I was watching CoS movie on a cable TV channel this evening and the scene of Young Tom Riddle's confrontation with Hagrid and Aragog got me scrambling to find my book and re-read 'The Very Secret Diary' chapter. The movie scene is faithful to the book. What got me interested is that Hagrid was shielding Aragog while Riddle, after saying he would slaughter the spider, told Hagrid to "stand aside." Hey, had Hagrid died to protect Aragog and then Riddle try to kill the spider, we wouldn't be reading about "The Boy Who Lived" today, ay? ;O) CH3ed feels for Harry, but would rather be rooting for The Boy Who Lived rather than for 'The Acromantula Who Lived.' :O) From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 07:08:50 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:08:50 -0000 Subject: Rosier, Rookwood, Snape's gang of Slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144565 "ellecain" wrote: > In the scene in HBP, Voldemort is around 35 years old by my > calculations and Snape is eighteen years into the future. > So Rosier is at least 18 years older than Snape. > How could he have been a part of the Slytherin gang then? zgirnius: As a guess, the Rosier of the Marauders' Era was the son of the Rosier of the Riddle Era. That is also most likely the case with the Lestranges (that they are two generations of Death Eaters). In the Pensieve scene with the Lestrange brothers and Bellatrix Lestrange, no mnetion is made that she seems much younger than they are. She is a rough contemporary of Snape and the Marauders, though several years ahead in school. So I would guess this is also true of Avery. ellecain: > The more I look at those two passages I think Snape did not have any > friends in school. He was not in contact with future DEs anyway. > He could not have hung around with Lucius since he is 6 years older > than Snape. That leaves Bella and Cissy.Highly unlikely IMO. > Anyway I'm confused. Help! zgirnius: Well, if you buy my argument above, there are more names. But the only ones we know anything about agewise are Lucius and Bellatrix, who are too old to have been close friends of Snape. And I guess the Lestrange who married Bella (I forget which it was) was probably of about the same age... (I personally do not believe Narcissa is a Death Eater. Just a sympathizer and wife of one.) So Snape may not in fact have had friends around, particularly in later years. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Mon Dec 12 08:00:04 2005 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 12 Dec 2005 08:00:04 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion Reminder, 12/19/2005, 12:00 am Message-ID: <1134374404.16.73646.m32@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144566 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Chapter Discussion Reminder Monday December 19, 2005 12:00 am - 12:00 am (This event does not repeat.) Notes: Just a reminder: scheduled for next week is the chapter discussion for Chapter 6, "Draco's Detour", summary to be written by Meri. Make sure to reread the chapter! To view the discussion schedule and to see which chapters still need a discussion leader, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database and click on the "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" table. If you'd like to take one of the available chapters, please let the elves know: HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com Set up birthday reminders! http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13 Copyright 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/ Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From orin7276 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 03:57:20 2005 From: orin7276 at yahoo.com (O Leonard) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:57:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: No canon!! Re: Dumbledore in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: <1134339891.2484.16275.m27@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20051212035721.58338.qmail@web31308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144567 Miles: > There is this one statement of Hermione. It is not trustworthy > if we follow her own standards. Noone questions it. Ask Harry > or Ron - Dumbledore *must* have been in Gryffindor, because > Gryffindor is the best House, and Dumbledore the best wizard > of all times - strike. Ask Draco or Lucius - Dumbledore is a > friend of "mudbloods", so he must be the opposite of a > Slytherin - again, strike. Well, as to the houses Rowling said all the House heads were at one time in the house they lead. Also it seems based on one of the books the head masters were portrayed in the house colors in their pics. He was also mentioned in Gryffindor colors every time they talk about what he is wearing. "orin7276" From inyia at yahoo.es Mon Dec 12 07:24:58 2005 From: inyia at yahoo.es (inyia) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:24:58 -0000 Subject: No canon!! Re: Dumbledore in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: <255.2f1fa68.30ce0ffc@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144568 > Potioncat: > > Hmmm, I know Dumbledore is a Gryffindor. I just don't know > > how I know. Neil: > You know because there is canon evidence. I believe it is > in PoA, but at the moment I don't have the time to locate > it. Dumbledore in a conversation, I believe, mentions that > Gryffindor was his house. Hi! You know because Hermione itself says it at PS/SS when saying "Ravenclaw wouldn't be bad but Dumbledore went to Gryffindor"; or something like that... But right now you have GoF the Movie where Dumbledore tells Harry that when he was a student, he burnt the curtains. Helena From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 08:11:22 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:11:22 -0000 Subject: GH did not belong to Potters? WAS:No canon!! Re: Dumbledore in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144569 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kibakianakaya" wrote: > > Amiable Dorsail: > > > I missed something. How do we know Godric's Hollow didn't > > belong to the Potters? > > > > > > > Lana (kibakianakaya)writes: > Its not in canon, but if James and Lily owned Godric's Hollow, > then Harry would be the current owner. So unless the elder > Potters left it specifically to someone else, we can deduce > that they were never the rightful owners. > > This is my first post - hope the formatting is OK! > bboyminn: First as others have pointed out, this discussion refers to the /house/ in Godric's Hollow that the Potters were living in. And no, there really is nothing to indicate that this was the Potter's ancestral home, or for that matter, that it was even James and Lily's house. For all we know so far, it was just a place they were staying. Now, the reason we don't know is either completely insignificant, or it is extremely significant. I suspect the next book will let us know. We will either find out significant details when Harry visits, or the whole matter will be swept under the rug. But that does bring up a problem. Where is the Potter's ancestral home? It must have been somewhere. They were moderately well off, and it seems reasonable that people with that financial status would logically own a home. So where is it? Again, either JKR is delaying telling us because it is extremely significant, or because it is completely insignificant. JRK has said that the senior Potter's (Harry's grandparents; James parents) were not important to the plot. Since they weren't, she simply had them die off of natural causes to get them out of the picture. This does lend some weight to the property also not being significant. One possible explanation is that James simply converted the entire Potter Estate into cash, thinking cash on hand was better than unused property. Perhaps... just perhaps, the Potters land and real estate will pass into Petunia's hands if and when Harry comes of-age. Perhaps, it is their reward for taking care of Harry, and certainly reason enough not to mention it to him. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From erised86 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 06:17:30 2005 From: erised86 at yahoo.com (Lyn) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:17:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Nagini as a Horcrux and the torturing of the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051211061730.2909.qmail@web36404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144570 Allie wrote: > That's interesting, I had always thought that Voldemort (and > his body) was vaporized when the AK rebounded on him. *WAS* > his body just lying there in the ruin? I've never heard > mention of a body before. But if there was no body, that > brings up the question of how did anyone know he was gone? > Unless someone else was there and witnessed it. I don't know if this makes sense, because it has been a while since I read the 6th book and I'm in the middle of the 5th right now... But (and please correct me if I'm wrong) didn't Voldy split his soul into seven peices and one of them was his body? And when he attempted to kill Harry it killed off the one of the peices being his physical body, because it rebounded to that? I don't even know if I worded that right... it is 1:30am, lol. Alesia: > I always figured there had to be something at Godric's Hollow, > otherwise why would the Ministry or anyone else believe LV was > dead (or gone) and that he didn't just escape? I have another thought on this, contradicting my earlier one... they might have known Voldy was gone because apparently the Potters house was in ruin and finding James and Lily dead, but not Harry -knowing how cold blooded Voldy is- I think they would have realized that Voldy didn't let Harry live out of the goodness of his heart (figuratively speaking). They must have come to the conclusion that Voldy hit his downfall, and I'm sure there were other clues leading to that, that we don't know yet. -Lyn From erised86 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 07:25:18 2005 From: erised86 at yahoo.com (Lyn) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:25:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: New member with question -- Who will die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051211072518.35604.qmail@web36411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144571 sararbe wrote: > First of all let me say hi to all the many members of this > group. I'm glad to be apart of "grownup" discussions of the > Harry world. > > Now for my question...I was watching a show on and the > host said that the guy who does the audio for the HP books > says that Harry is getting killed in the 7th book. Hi Sararbe, I'm new too, I'm Lyn. I heard about Jim Dale saying that Harry would be killed off in the end, and I really, highly doubt he knows any more than we do... he just reads the books like us and I remember reading somewhere that what he said couldn't be confirmed (or something, lol, sorry). I'm just going to sit tight and wait for the book. Sararbe: > Also, if you don't think that Harry will get killed, what > character do you think has a good chance of being killed? There > has been a thread circlulating about one or more of the Weasley > klan getting axed, but they can't be the only characters with > death looming over them. Either Harry or Voldemort (or even possibly both) have to die in the end as the prophecy stated something like One can't live while the other survives... I'm sure though that at least one other main character, or at least a character we're close to, will die in this battle before the end of the last book. It's interesting to mention and I'm sure this has been mentioned before, that the last paragraph of Book 7 has already been written and the last word is "scar". Does anyone know that when a Horcrux is marked, if the mark can disappear? -Lyn From erised86 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 06:48:57 2005 From: erised86 at yahoo.com (Lyn) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:48:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Boggarts - a little side-aspect In-Reply-To: <747798439.20051209235527@web.de> Message-ID: <20051211064857.30269.qmail@web36404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144572 Caro wrote: > I started wondering whether a boggart is something like a > hybridization of legillimency and a dementor: he is trying > to make you most scared AND he is doing this by reading in > your mind what that thing it needs to turn into would be. > Could it therefore be that 1. occlumency would be a equal > good protection from it than the ridiculus-spell and 2. the > latter is some sort of preparing step to acquire occlumency? > If so, would there be a shaped boggart if it faced Snape? My small thought on this is I wonder if this is why Snape left the room when Lupin and the class came in to practice with that boggart - because there was the risk that the boggart would round on him (Snape) and not take a form, therefore leaving everyone very confused and slightly suspicious. -lyn From chewbacca98407 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 06:58:47 2005 From: chewbacca98407 at yahoo.com (chewbacca98407) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 06:58:47 -0000 Subject: Why do we call Snape "greasy git' and what other names can we call him / Re: Can Somebody Please Tell Me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144573 La Gatta wrote: > > Where does the expression "greasy git" come from? Is it > > canon? Olivier: > After a cursory look at the canon, I think I can say the > expression is not canon. However, Snape's hair are described > as greasy in every book and he's called a git by Fred and Ron > in OoP4. Amiable Dorsai: > I dunno, "greasy git" is pithy, alliterative, and, when applied > to Snape, understated. Hard to beat, don't you think? chewie: I have been following Brandon Ford- of the MN Underground Lake - editorials lead in calling him TFPWWNBN....The Former Professor Who Will Not Be Named. It is an equal opportunity insult, and just a little bit PC. Enough to make me laugh anyway. Chewbacca volunteers to "tear his arms off." From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Mon Dec 12 10:06:36 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:06:36 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Snape's slide into the DE's In-Reply-To: <20051211064454.97898.qmail@web36407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144574 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lyn wrote: > If so much of unriddling Snape rests on a woman we know nothing about, Rowling's going to have to be a storytelling master in this last book in making us care about her, Snape, and what happened to their forbidden love. Gerry Ok, my prediction for book 7: Snape loved Lily, but for her it was friendship. To him it was an obsessive love. He changed sides because he realized he put her into danger. The reason he hates Harry is not only that he resembles James, but that Harry is the Boy Who Lived. After succesfully having pleaded for Lily's life, what does his one and only love do? She sacrifices herself for Harry and dies anyway. So every time Snape sees Harry, he sees the eyes of his love looking out of the face of his enemy, and he remembers that it is this little twerp she loved so much she died for him. Gerry From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Mon Dec 12 10:13:58 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:13:58 -0000 Subject: Where Was Dumbledore? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144575 O.K. here's a little zinger out of left field that I'll bet the list hasn't discussed before. >;D Do we know the whereabouts of Dumbledore between the time he attained his majority (c. 1857) and the summer of 1938, when he pops up in London, with auburn hair and a plum-colored velvet suit, to annex Tom Riddle for Hogwarts? (HBP.13: Canon-y bit here to keep the list elves happy. ;D) I ask because while I was researching something completely unrelated, I stubbed my toe on this interesting character: http://www.los-poetas.com/i/bioinclan.htm It appears that Sr. Valle Inclan, ostensibly born in 1869 (well maybe a *real* Valle Inclan *was* born in 1869...) led a somewhat nebulous life up until 1895, when he settled in Madrid and startled the residents thereof "por su extravagante vestimenta". Interestingly, at some point thereafter, he sustained an injury to his right forearm that necessitated its amputation. After what sounds like an eccentric and highly entertaining career, Valle Inclan ostensibly died, aged, white-haired, and missing part of his right arm, at Santiago de Compostela in 1936. And two years, a tick, and a quiver later, Dumbledore is back in London with two good arms, auburn hair, and a young wizard to start on his way to Hogwarts. A young wizard who in this case, conveniently, has no family and grew up in an orphanage. But what do you do when you run across a promising young wizard in the wilds of Latin America some time in the late nineteenth century, and it's inconvenient to have him simply go "missing"? Well, you pack him off to Hogwarts, don't you, and then step into his shoes, use the intervening forty or so years to research Muggle society and have a lot of fun generally, and when the time comes you do a "phoenix".... And turn up two years later much youthened and ready for another fifty-something years in the service of the Wizarding community, until the time comes to do another "phoenix" and crop up somewhere else in a couple of years.... Well, it could have happened. Couldn't it? And lest you doubt that Sr. Valle Inclan had affiliations with Magic, I leave you with this little nugget of his: ROSA DE ALEJANDRIA Docta en los secretos de la abracadabra, dispers? en el aire, tus letras, mi mano, y al caer, form?se aquella palabra, cifra de tu enigma y luz de tu arcano. ?Por qu? ley se juntan en nueva escritura los signos dispersos? ?Qu? azar hizo el juego? ?Qu? ciencia de magos alz? la figura y ley? el enigma? Sierpe, Rosa, Fuego. ?Sierpe! ?Rosa! ?Fuego! Tal es tu armon?a: gracia de tres formas es tu gracia inquieta, tu esencia de monstruo en la alegor?a se descubre. Antonio el anacoreta huy? de tu sombra por Alejandr?a. ?Antonio era Santo! ?Si fuese poeta?... I'm hoping someone out there can translate it for me. I did have a go at it, but I'm no poet, and it's been many years since I studied Spanish. --La Gatta From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Dec 12 11:56:26 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:56:26 -0000 Subject: Where Was Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144576 La Gatta: > It appears that Sr. Valle Inclan, ostensibly born in 1869 (well > maybe a *real* Valle Inclan *was* born in 1869...) led a somewhat > nebulous life up until 1895, when he settled in Madrid and startled > the residents thereof "por su extravagante vestimenta". Valky: So far sounds right, as long as he wore plenty of ridiculous shades of purple. :D > Interestingly, at > some point thereafter, he sustained an injury to his right forearm > that necessitated its amputation. > > After what sounds like an eccentric and highly entertaining career, > Valle Inclan ostensibly died, aged, white-haired, and missing part > of his right arm, at Santiago de Compostela in 1936. Valky: Conveniently similar, I agree... > > And two years, a tick, and a quiver later, Dumbledore is back in > London with two good arms, auburn hair, and a young wizard to start > on his way to Hogwarts. A young wizard who in this case, > conveniently, has no family and grew up in an orphanage. > > But what do you do when you run across a promising young wizard in > the wilds of Latin America some time in the late nineteenth century, > and it's inconvenient to have him simply go "missing"? Well, you > pack him off to Hogwarts, don't you, and then step into his shoes, > use the intervening forty or so years to research Muggle society and > have a lot of fun generally, and when the time comes you do a > "phoenix".... > And turn up two years later much youthened and ready for another > fifty-something years in the service of the Wizarding community, > until the time comes to do another "phoenix" and crop up somewhere > else in a couple of years.... Valky: Am I assuming right that this is a Not-Dead!Dumbledore theory? Albeit a little tongue in cheek, it's pretty good. Coming from someone who bought the Saint Severus historical figure parallel too though, so maybe it doesn't count for much OTOH we are getting beginning quite a conspicuous collection of noteworthy historical dopplegangers to the HP cast, so maybe we rush to skepticism too fast sometimes? > > Well, it could have happened. Couldn't it? Valky: Just for a lark, I am going to say yes. > > And lest you doubt that Sr. Valle Inclan had affiliations with > Magic, I leave you with this little nugget of his: > > ROSA DE ALEJANDRIA > I'm hoping someone out there can translate it for me. I did have a > go at it, but I'm no poet, and it's been many years since I studied > Spanish. > > --La Gatta > Valky: Don't mind if I do, being a bit of a poet myself. :) I have rearranged and added to the lines of the translation and adjusted individual nuances in some of the words to form logical sentences which IMO are the equivalent of the intended meaning. You are quite welcome to disagree ;D Student of the secrets of magic(abracadabra) my hand dispersed messages in the air when [they're] falling, a beautiful word [forms?] [that word is the]foundations of your puzzle/enigma and light of your secret/mysterious one Which is the law joined in new writings? What is the chance that the dispersed/spread out signs will match? What Science of magicians raised the figure and read the enigma? Snake. Rose. Fire. Snake! Rose! Fire! So this is your accord: three types of grace are fervently yours In the heart of the monster [is] your allegory It is found. Antonio the Hermit fled, from your shelter by Alexandria Antonio was holy, [Even] if she were a poet. It does seem like something Dumbledore would write after all. :) Valky From mjf152 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Dec 12 09:25:47 2005 From: mjf152 at yahoo.co.uk (Maureen) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:25:47 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Rosier, Rookwood, Snape's gang of Slytherins In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <439D421B.8030304@yahoo.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 144577 ellecain wrote: > And as a side note is Rookwood's name Augustus or Algernon? > He is referred to as Augustus in GoF, but in the Daily Prophet, it > is Algernon Rookwood. Siblings, or the same man? Or a FLINT? I don't have the books with me, but I think his real name is Augustus. The Prophet calling him "Algernon" was simply another example of the high calibre journalism the Rita Skeeter and her colleagues are capable of. This is the same paper that caller Arthur Weasly "Arnold" and just think of the errors in the stories about Harry in GoF. Maureen From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Dec 12 12:00:35 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:00:35 -0000 Subject: Snape's role (was:JKR and the Problem or Three (was Re: Cultural standards ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144578 > > >>Orna: > > > > Even Draco treats him without respect, without any trust towards > > him. > > Betsy Hp: > Draco was going through a particularly hard time. He'd just found > out that the good guys (the Death Eaters and Voldemort, from Draco's > POV) were actually not that good. So his lack of respect towards > Snape in the Christmas Party scene came from all of that, rather > than an actual dislike of Snape. I believe that usually Draco quite > liked Snape and admired him. Potioncat: I actually liked the Christmas party scene. Draco was acting like a teen who thinks he's grown-up, resents anything the authority figure says and has to prove himself by rebelling. Snape actually showed a great deal of patience. Of course, the motivation in this case was multiples over normal teen-parent interactions. Potioncat, who has had a few resentful teen-parent interactions...but not about following Dark Lord's orders. From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Mon Dec 12 12:03:14 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:03:14 -0000 Subject: No canon!! Re: Dumbledore in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144579 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > > > This is no canonical evidence. I just searched the archive at > Quick > > > Quotes Quill and didn't find any information about this > question > > > either.> Potioncat: > > > Hmmm, I know Dumbledore is a Gryffindor. I just don't know how > I > > > know. > > > > You know because there is canon evidence. I believe it is in > PoA, but at > > the moment I don't have the time to locate it. Dumbledore in a > conversation, I > > believe, mentions that Gryffindor was his house. In Sorcerer's Stone, when Hermione first meets Ron & Harry on the HE (Chapter 6), she says: "Do either of you know what house you'll be in? I've been asking around, and I hope I'm in Gryffindor, it sounds by far the best; I hear Dumbledore himself was in it, but I suppose Ravenclaw wouldn't be too bad...." - CMC From Nanagose at aol.com Mon Dec 12 12:10:31 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:10:31 -0000 Subject: Snape's karma and a bit of Neville WAS: Re: Cultural standards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144580 > La Gatta: > > As someone else pointed out awhile back, Neville may have been > > choosing to face up to a fear which he could handle in making > > Snape his boggart. > Alla: > > Do we have a canon to show that person can choose one's fear? For > example even if Neville was afraid of his gran, it seemed to me that > Boggart had no problem choosing what his primary fear is. IMO of > course. Christina: I think it only makes sense to assume that one's fear can change. After all, what if Neville had encountered a boggart before he came to Hogwarts? Obviously it couldn't have taken the shape of Professor Snape, because Neville hadn't met him yet. Molly's boggart includes the vision of Harry laying dead, but she wouldn't have seen that same boggart before she had ever met Harry. She wouldn't have seen her children dead if she encountered a boggart as a teenager because she didn't have children at that point. Lupin wouldn't have seen a full moon as his boggart before he was bitten. If Harry had seen a boggart before he had met the Dementors, his boggart would have been something entirely different. The list goes on and on. We aren't born with our greatest fears intact; they have to develop. Just the fact that a boggart is referred to as something that reflects our "greatest fear" should tell us that a person's boggart can change, because it is rare for somebody to have the same greatest fear for their entire lives. Christina From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Mon Dec 12 12:27:37 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:27:37 -0000 Subject: FILK: One of Your Lives Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144581 One of Your Lives (HBP, Chap. 28) To the tune of Run For Your Life, by the Beatles, from their hit album R.A.B. Soul http://home.att.net/~coriolan/RABsoul.htm MIDI here: http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/2729/index2.html Lyrics can be found here: http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palladium/7821/rs1965.html#14 THE SCENE: The base of the Great Tower. HARRY recovers the locket from Dumbledore's body "Automatically, without really thinking about what he was doing, Harry pulled out the fragment of sheet music, opened it, and sang by the light of the many wands that had now been lit behind him " "Well I got past all your dead, Riddle Lord And I learned how to float your boat You oughta be filled with dread, Riddle Lord As you read my written gloat "I've gotten one of your lives from the cave, Riddle Lord A Horcrux you can't save, Riddle Lord 14% toward your grave And your end - Riddle Lord "Well I know that you're a wicked guy And you will kill with an ill intent Though I might lose my poor life, Dying's worth it to make you lament "I've gotten one of your lives from the cave, Riddle Lord A Horcrux you can't save, Riddle Lord 14% toward your grave And your end - Riddle Lord "All your DE vermin Won't suffice to save your soul Voldy, you'll be squirmin' When you learn what I have stole "I've gotten one of your lives from the cave, Riddle Lord A Horcrux you can't save, Riddle Lord 14% toward your grave And your end - Riddle Lord "Well I got past all your dead, Riddle Lord And your Horcrux I will destroy You oughta be filled with dread, Riddle Lord Just as I am filled with joy "I've gotten one of your lives from the cave, Riddle Lord A Horcrux you can't save, Riddle Lord 14% toward your grave And your end - Riddle Lord R. A. B. R. A. B. R. A. B. R. A. B. " - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm (updated yesterday with 30 new filks, including 11 new Xmas carols) A VERY HARRY CHRISTMAS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/Christmas.htm From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Dec 12 12:42:22 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:42:22 -0000 Subject: No canon!! Re: Dumbledore in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144582 Caius Marcus: > In Sorcerer's Stone, when Hermione first meets Ron & Harry on the HE > (Chapter 6), she says: "Do either of you know what house you'll be > in? I've been asking around, and I hope I'm in Gryffindor, it sounds > by far the best; I hear Dumbledore himself was in it, but I suppose > Ravenclaw wouldn't be too bad...." Potioncat: Yeah, that's the quote that probably had all us thinking it (probably correctly) way back when. But, IIRC, Miles's point was that this is not a firm Hermione statement. She doesn't say "I read it in 'Hogwarts, A History.'" She said, "I heard." So I think Miles has a good point. I wouldn't use the movie line about setting the curtains on fire either, although it was a funny line. Look at how much the movies have changed Snape! The Lexicon states that DD was Head of Gryffindor and that would confirm that he was in Gryffindor. But I can't find the canon for that. The only canon I could find in CoS was that he was the Transfiguration teacher. Given the Gryffindor-like images around DD, and the Hermione statement, he is most likely from Gryffindor. But I'm eagerly waiting the Lexicon response to Miles's letter. Potioncat, who thinks DD is from Gryffindor, but admits to a lack of canon. From kelleyaynn at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 13:10:10 2005 From: kelleyaynn at yahoo.com (kelleyaynn) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:10:10 -0000 Subject: Four ponderings Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144583 I've been pondering three questions, and I'd love to hear what other thoughts might be out there regarding them. 1. In HBP Dumbledore, when he and Harry are in the cave trying to get to the horcrux, mentions that "Magic always leaves traces" (pg. 563 US). This seems like one of those lines that could easily be a throw-away, but JKR really means to be important. How might the fact that magic always leave traces be important in book 7? At this point Harry doesn't seem to know how to detect traces of magic. Is that something we expect him to learn? 2. Another seeming throw-away plot is S.P.E.W. While I don't think that S.P.E.W. itself is going to be important, I think the large number of house elves at Hogwarts could be. I'm certain we have not seen the last of Dobby and Winky, but I'm not sure what they might do in the last book. Or what a potential "army" of house elves might be capable of. Any thoughts? 3. And speaking of Hogwarts, I have this feeling that the last battle will occur at Hogwartz. The Hogwarts castle has so much meaning to Voldemort and is so central to the series so far, I can't see it being closed and not having a significant part in book 7. There isn't really any canon I can think of that makes me believe the final battle will be there, but it just seems like it must have a huge role to play in the defeat of Voldemort (and yes, I am sure Voldemort will be defeated. I also don't think Harry will die, as I think that would ruin the series for too many people.) 4. What role or importance will Ginny play in book 7? She is underage and certainly can't go with the trio on their hunt for the horcruxes. But due to her steady development througout the series, and increasing "face time", I can't see her suddenly becoming a minor, insignificant character. She has been shown to be a potentially powerful witch in her own right, and the parallels with her and Lily can't be coincidental. Her specialness (7th child, only girl for many generations in the Weasley family) portends some special role in all of this. Thought they are young, I think the love of their relationship (Ginny and Harry's) will have some meaning in all of this, but I can't quite decide what that will be. Kelleyaynn From sylviablundell at aol.com Mon Dec 12 12:28:01 2005 From: sylviablundell at aol.com (helmclever) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:28:01 -0000 Subject: Why do we call Snape "greasy git' and what other names can we call him. WAS: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144584 I find this expression profoundly unpleasant and would be furious if it was applied to me. I believe it derives from the word "misbegot" which would imply illegitimate birth. I just cringe everytime someone uses it on this forum. I'm English btw. Sylvia From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Mon Dec 12 13:23:41 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:23:41 -0000 Subject: How many times Snape saved Harry/Speculations about forgiveness WAS: Cultura In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144585 > Alla: (snip) > > Personally, I tend to think that Harry's ability to love will show > itself metaphorically - as in not that Harry will stand up and say > Voldemort I love you or Snape I love you, but there will be some > personification of this power - maybe spell, which Harry will be > able to perform with that power. > Brothergib: Bearing in mind that the protection Harry receives from his mother is due to her 'love' and was manifested by her self-sacrifice, does it not seem likely that Harry's 'ability to love' will also be manifested by self-sacrifice. There may be some 'Aslan-like' resurrection, but at some point in book 7 we will believe that Harry is dead. > Regardless, I grant you, it is LIKELY that Harry will forgive Snape > in plot development terms, but I don't agree that this is a > necessity. > Brothergib: I am convinced that Snape will die in book 7 (how can he live in a world where he killed DD). IMO Snape will die without Harry knowing that Snape was good. He may figure out what Snape was doing, but I agree with Alla, that this will not require Harry's forgivness. I know 1 or 2 truly horrible people, and one act of decency would not necessarily elicit my forgiveness. From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Mon Dec 12 13:27:52 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:27:52 -0000 Subject: Why is Percy in Gryffindor? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144586 Shouldn't he be in Slytherin? Thirst for power? Abuse of power? Ability to befriend those in power? Lack of family loyalty? Attempts to divide family? Brothergib (who is rereading the books due to 6 year old son's sudden obsession!) From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Mon Dec 12 13:38:05 2005 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:38:05 -0000 Subject: Why do we call Snape "greasy git' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144587 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" Message 144507: > As for git, which is asked about on the rest of this thread, I am > fairly sure the source of this word is Ron. I know he calls Percy a > git in OOtP, and I think he speaks Harry's mind about Snape by calling > him a git at a tense moment in another book, or maybe it's TMTMNBN. > If it appears in a book then in a sense Git!Snape is pretty much > canon, and IMHO it should be, Snape is all of a git by the colloquial > definition of the word though I am not sure that can be entirely > conveyed here. "K": Ron snorted. "Doesn't stop him being a git. The way he looks at us when he sees us..." oop-ch 4-pg 69-us "Git," said Fred idly. oop-ch 4-pg 69-us Sylvia (Message 144584): >I find this expression profoundly unpleasant and would be furious >if it was applied to me. I believe it derives from the >word "misbegot" which would imply illegitimate birth. I just cringe >everytime someone uses it on this forum. I'm English btw. "K": I agree. I also find it unpleasant and am rather tired of hearing it. It's one of those words that just has an ugly ring to it. From sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 13:51:34 2005 From: sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com (hekatesheadband) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:51:34 -0000 Subject: Rosier, Rookwood, Snape's gang of Slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144588 > "ellecain" wrote: > > > In the scene in HBP, Voldemort is around 35 years old by my > > calculations and Snape is eighteen years into the future. > > So Rosier is at least 18 years older than Snape... The more I look at those two passages I think Snape did not have > any > > friends in school. He was not in contact with future DEs anyway. > > He could not have hung around with Lucius since he is 6 years older > > than Snape. That leaves Bella and Cissy.Highly unlikely IMO. > > Anyway I'm confused. Help! With respect to the issue of Rosier et al, easy: they had children. They're presumably the families with a reputation for Dark Arts and pureblood supremacist ideology, just like the Blacks, the Malfoys, and the Gaunts. The Voldemort supporters "Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle" could be Draco, Vincent, and Gregory, or it could be Lucius, Crabbe Sr, and Goyle Sr, just as a power-mad Crouch could be Barty Jr or Barty Sr. For that matter, Tom Riddle could be Muggle or Dark Lord. Azkaban had its effect on Sirius, of course, but he wouldn't confuse Death Eaters 40 years his senior (cf. Leaky Cauldron's timeline) for school fellows. Bellatrix would seem too old for the "Gang of Slytherins," but then again, Charlie Weasley is two years older than Percy by JKR's own conception but 8-10 years older by the indications of PS/SS. We're also not sure of Bella's age relative to the Lestrange brothers, one of whom she married. Narcissa could easily be the same age as Snape et al, as could Crabbe and Goyle Srs - they might not have merited Sirius' note because they weren't caught the first time, and seem to dim-witted to attract much anyone's attention. Granted, all this is from someone who didn't make the Grim/Sirius Black connection until it became explicit. ;) -hekatesheadband Because the Sorting Hat is really Bono. From sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 14:05:30 2005 From: sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com (hekatesheadband) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:05:30 -0000 Subject: Why is Percy in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144589 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > > Shouldn't he be in Slytherin? Thirst for power? Abuse of power? Ability > to befriend those in power? Lack of family loyalty? Attempts to divide > family? > > Brothergib (who is rereading the books due to 6 year old son's sudden > obsession!) > Ah, the ever-complex and fascinating House issue - one of my favourite bits of Potterverse! As I see it, there are probably no "perfect" sortings ? every incoming student has at least some traits typical of each house. Percy, as you note, has a LOT of Slytherin traits, and would have done quite well in that House. But that, I think, is where the ambiguities of the Hat come into play. The usual range of individual strengths and weaknesses of character, and vagaries of personality, exists in every group. The Hat bases its determination upon a students inherent qualities (latent or expressed ? these are eleven-year-olds), their tendencies and preferences (which are malleable and never become absolute), their choices to date (not to come), and their values, goals, and self-perception. So a lot can change. I would also say that every House has not only the entire range of human strengths and faults, but also some "typical" or most common examples and tendencies. For example, Slytherins, on the good side, may most likely be willing to do what's necessary to accomplish something important, even if the necessity is unpleasant. On the bad side, that "something important" may be important only to one individual and detrimental to others, or they may be willing to accept too much in the way of unpleasantness. With Gryffindor, as presented in the books, the good side is obvious. Gryffindors tend to be conscious of doing what is right, of considering foremost the ethical implications of their choices and actions. That's when they do consider them, of course ? people in general, and adolescents in particular, can be impetuous, and the "daring" streak can amplify this. (And they're as likely to harbour basic human nastiness as anyone, most likely.) Nonetheless, they are the most likely to do what is right rather than what is easy. They will, if they must, risk the disapproval of peers (e.g., Neville), family (Sirius), and society (Harry, Hermione) if necessary in order to maintain ethical behaviour. They are independent, though not to the point of being anti-social. But there's a bad side to Gryffindor as well, as for all the other Houses. Gryffindors may be genuinely brave, or they may abstractly value bravery ? fawn over brave heroes, convince themselves that they are brave or upright, or want to be perceived as brave. McLaggen is a classic example of the last flaw, Peter Pettigrew of the first, and Percy Weasley of the second. We don't know Gilderoy Lockhart's House, but he could also be one of the vainglorious Gryffindors, as could Sir Cadogan. If "good" Gryffindors are genuinely humble about their actions and ethics, "bad" ones want to be admired for their courage and virtue, and are prone to histrionics, persecution complexes, and flashy gestures of defiance in response to trivialities. The may tend to moralise or be holier-than-thou. In another scenario, the desire to do what is right may lead to paralysing angst over unpleasant necessities ? the most notable example being Dumbledore's characteristic inaction in the face of real trouble, at least until the problem has got out of control. So, in a nutshell: in an ideal world, all Gryffindors will be brave and noble. In the real world, some are, but some are just bent on convincing themselves that they are. Just my bit, hekatesheadband Because the Sorting Hat is really Bono. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Dec 12 14:08:03 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:08:03 -0000 Subject: No canon!! Re: Dumbledore in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144590 Potioncat: > The Lexicon states that DD was Head of Gryffindor and that would > confirm that he was in Gryffindor. But I can't find the canon for that. > The only canon I could find in CoS was that he was the Transfiguration > teacher. > > Given the Gryffindor-like images around DD, and the Hermione statement, > he is most likely from Gryffindor. But I'm eagerly waiting the Lexicon > response to Miles's letter. > > Potioncat, who thinks DD is from Gryffindor, but admits to a lack of > canon. Ceridwen: I guess I'm a victim of 'it seems like', too. I thought that, since Minerva McGonagall took both the Transfigurations position, which was Dumbledore's, and became Head of Gryffindor, that Dumbledore vacated both posts the year he became headmaster and Minerva therefore inherited both. No canon, of course, just my take. But I think it could be supported by Snape being both Potions Master and Head of Slytherin, which we see in canon were both Slughorn's positions. We don't know when Slughorn retired, or at least I don't remember the cite. But we do know he was there at least through the Marauders', Lily's and Snape's sixth year. It isn't hard to stretch it out, that Snape took both positions upon Slughorn's retirement, which is when Dumbledore would have hired him on. But, as everyone says, no canon. That's just what it looks like. Ceridwen. From sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 14:07:03 2005 From: sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com (hekatesheadband) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:07:03 -0000 Subject: Why is Percy in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144591 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > > Shouldn't he be in Slytherin? Thirst for power? Abuse of power? Ability > to befriend those in power? Lack of family loyalty? Attempts to divide > family? > > Brothergib (who is rereading the books due to 6 year old son's sudden > obsession!) > Oh, another quick note: Percy is completely lacking in cunning... you would think his ambition and power-hunger might compensate for it, but apparently not. (I suppose Crabbe and Goyle had to go somewhere...) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Dec 12 14:56:36 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:56:36 -0000 Subject: GH did not belong to Potters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144592 CH3ed: > Well. First of all Godric's Hollow is a village (from JKR's site). > I don't know if the house the Potters were hiding out in was > James' or not. We know James' parents died of natural causes > before James did so he should have inherited his parents' house > (the one Sirius went to camp out in the backyard after running > away from 12 GP). The house was destroyed the same night LV > attacked (probably from the rebounded AK but there is no canon to > shed light on that yet) so there really wouldn't be a house left > for Harry to inherit. Jen: I did some searching and found one interview where JKR referred to Godric's Hollow as the place where Harry's parents 'lived'. Course, that could mean 'living at the time of the murders'too: Lizo: The significance of the place where Harry and his parents lived - the first name... JKR: Godric Gryffindor. Very good, you're a bit good you are aren't you. I'm impressed. Lizo: You're not going to tell me but .... JKR: My editor didn't, I said to her - Haven't you noticed the connection between where Harry's parents lived and one of the Hogwarts houses? And she said no, no - I'm not being rude about Emma, she's a brilliant editor, the best ever. But no she didn't pick that up either, you're a bit good you are. (cbbc 2000) ****************************** Jen: April pointed out in the thread 'why would the Potter's go into hiding in their own home'? So I read that section in POA and the statements are ambiguous: "{Dumbledore} alerted James and Lily at once. He advised them to go into hiding." And then this statement from Flitwick: "As long as the Secret Keeper refused to speak, You- Know-Who could search the village where James and Lily were *staying* for years and years and never find them...." (chap. 10, 204-205, Scholastic) As Stevebboyminn said, it only matters if important to the future plot. I liked the idea of the house belonging to Dumbledore because of the possible heir connection, but if nothing else, it would be a convenient way for Harry to learn more about his parents *and* Dumbledore's family (as promised) when he visits Godric's Hollow in book 7. Jen From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Dec 12 15:01:59 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:01:59 -0000 Subject: No canon!! Re: Dumbledore in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144593 > Ceridwen: > No canon, of course, just my take. But I think it could be supported > by Snape being both Potions Master and Head of Slytherin, which we > see in canon were both Slughorn's positions. We don't know when > Slughorn retired, or at least I don't remember the cite. But we do > know he was there at least through the Marauders', Lily's and Snape's > sixth year. It isn't hard to stretch it out, that Snape took both > positions upon Slughorn's retirement, which is when Dumbledore would > have hired him on. Magpie: I wonder if there's also an alchemical connection as well. We know Gryffindor=fire, Slytherin=water, Ravenclaw=air and Hufflepuff=earth. I think their traditional subjects maybe reflect that as well. Charms=air--this one isn't obvious but it still seems right that this is the "airy" subject of all the basics. Neville's Gran even seems to view this negatively, that it's too light. Or else I'm just thinking of Flitwick flying across the room when Neville is learning to Accio. Herbology=earth--This one is a lot more direct. Potions=water--Liquid--If there's one thing we know about Slytherin is that it's so much the water house it's got liquid coming out of its ears, be it Potions, water, blood or tears. Transfiguration-fire--I believe fire is supposed to be the transforming element in alchemy. It seems to fit to me anyway. In general, I think we're meant to take Hermione seriously there. It hink it was something JKR wanted to get in without making it a known fact that Hermione read, because that might make Dumbledore less mysterious. I could be wrong, of course. Hermione isn't always right, and this line of hers is sort of halfway between her guesses (which can be wrong) and spouting of exposition (which is usually right). -m From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Dec 12 15:11:15 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:11:15 -0000 Subject: Why is Percy in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144594 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > > Shouldn't he be in Slytherin? Thirst for power? Abuse of power? Ability > to befriend those in power? Lack of family loyalty? Attempts to divide > family? Magpie: Slytherins aren't loyal to family? Could have fooled me!:-D I think Percy makes a perfectly believable Gryffindor. He rushes in to dangerous situations at times, and seems to *think* he's acting in the right. He also seems to like to study boring subjects and work hard, which could put him in Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff. I think Percy's leaving his family is about something other than simple lust for power and ambition, as is his love of Crouch. In fact, reading GoF it's sort of interesting to parallel Percy and Barty, especially given that Percy also had a troubled relationship with his own father and wound up "on the other side" from him, just not a DE. Also, I think it's important to remember that one's house doesn't mean that you always act on the things the house is known for. I'd bet that often if someone is the opposite of something that's their house as well, because they're still ruled by a devotion to that idea. I think Lockhart was a Gryffindor, myself, though we don't know that. But we do know that Neville, who at first seems timid, is in Gryffindor--as is another boy in fifth year who looks very scared that Harry watches at the Sorting. Peter seems like the important Coward of the series, betraying his friends out of fear and still wanting protection from them etc. Crabbe and Goyle appear to be the opposite of cunning but are in Slytherin. Luna appears to reject a lot of intelligent things (Hermione does seem to be right when she says Luna only believes things because there's no proof), yet still seems to belong in Ravenclaw. Zach Smith seems to have trouble trusting people and is naturally suspicious, but that makes him perfectly Hufflepuff to me.:-) -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Dec 12 15:38:09 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:38:09 -0000 Subject: Snape Wars vs Ship Wars was re: Cultural standards for Snape abusiveness/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144595 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > > Alla: > > But first of all, you are not arguing > > > that it is an undisputable fact that Snape is DD!M, right? > > > > Pippin: > > Undisputable? LOL! But if you have to argue that JKR has lost > control of the story arc in order to refute it, then the case for DDM is > pretty strong, IMO. > > Alla: > So, the best I could come up with was when I said that I was > speculating that the only reason JKR made Snape kill Dumbledore was > that he was not bad enough for many fans as horrible person and she > had to take it steps higher and make him a murderer - to up the > stakes so to speak. Is that what you meant? If that was it, I think > it has NOTHING to do with the argument for OFH! ot ESE!Snape. I was > just speculating one of the possibilities and I stated pretty > clearly that I had nothing to support such speculation, IMO. I don't > think it is out of realm of possibilities, but even we completely > threw it away, I DO think that Villain!Snape fits very nicely in the > plot. It just forces you ( not you the reader) to reread all the > incidents with the different meaning in mind and you know - to me > ALL of them fit. > Pippin: Well, I am afraid I am not following your logic here and I feel I must be missing some steps, which I am sure are very clear in your mind. IMO, if Snape is a murderer, the boggart lesson in PoA loses both its humor and its point. Murderers are not funny, even if they are wearing silly clothes, and if a murderer is threatening you, imagining that he has silly clothes on is not going to help. On the other hand, if you are afraid of someone because they always make you look stupid, then imagining that they look stupid too is golden. Maybe I misunderstood you, but I thought you were saying that JKR hadn't planned to make Snape a murderer when she wrote that scene, but then she felt the fans weren't revolted enough by Snape so she decided to make him a killer. But that still doesn't explain why she would write a scene which flat out doesn't work unless Neville's fear of Snape is overblown. The class roars with laughter when Neville admits that his biggest fear is Snape, and even Neville grins a little. The whole point of the lesson, for me, is that Snape is just another kind of boggart. The boggart uses your worst fears against you, but that is nothing to worry about if you realize that they are *your* fears, so you are really just scaring yourself. I can't see it as funny if Snape is supposed to be a murderer, and I really can't see JKR stepping on her own joke like that if she knows what she is doing. I thought you were arguing that she didn't. My mistake if I am wrong, but if you have an explanation of the scene that doesn't depend on JKR not knowing what sort of effect it produces or changing her mind about what sort of character Snape is (which is what I mean by losing control of the material) and fits with villain!Snape, I would love to hear it. OTOH, if you can't make major bits of business like the boggart lesson work in the context of villain!Snape, then villain!Snape is weak, IMO. Does that help? Pippin From erised86 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 07:03:21 2005 From: erised86 at yahoo.com (Lyn) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:03:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: DD's 'reckless behavior' in cave (Re: Snape & Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051211070321.89119.qmail@web36410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144596 > Bart: > I think Dumbledore knowing he was dying helps explain what > was surely reckless behavior in the Cave. Again, forgive me if I'm wrong (because it has been a while since I read HBP), but wasn't DDs 'reckless behavior' in the cave caused by what he was drinking? -lyn From erised86 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 11 07:13:54 2005 From: erised86 at yahoo.com (Lyn) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:13:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Horcrux problem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051211071354.44896.qmail@web36404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144597 charon_death_ngfh wrote: > Dumbledore had already said that when a horcrux is created > it leaves a mark. I suppose Harry's scar could simply be > just that a scar left as a visible reminder of what happened > to his parents but what if it is more than that? > > > Originally LV was going to use something from the house > as his final horcrux but this backfired somehow and Harry > became the horcrux. It is the only explanation as to how Harry > shares talents of LV's, that could only happen if Harry had > somehow absorbed some of LV's soul. I understand how you could think it is the only explanation to Harry sharing powers of Voldy's, but we can't assume anything with JKR. Don't you think it's possible that Voldy did in fact perform the AK curse onto Harry, rebounded onto LV, and as it was rebounding somehow powers were transfered to Harry instead of killing him as the curse intended? It is a good argument when you mention DD saying a horcrux has a mark on it, but it is possible that it is a coincidence and JKR gave us readers that bit of info because she wanted us to falsely believe Harry is a Horcrux. I dunno... -Lyn From becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk Mon Dec 12 12:15:46 2005 From: becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk (Rebecca Williams) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:15:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: GH did not belong to Potters? In-Reply-To: <02c401c5fed2$fe39b830$1502a8c0@april> Message-ID: <20051212121546.97286.qmail@web25311.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144598 > Lana (kibakianakaya)wrote: > It's not in canon, but if James and Lily owned Godric's Hollow, > then Harry would be the current owner. April wrote: > I assume that it wasn't James and Lily's house. They went into > hiding when they heard Voldemort was targeting them. Why would > they go into hiding in their own home? becks3uk: I read in an interview with JKR that Godric's Hollow is in fact a village not a house and they were put there when they went into hiding so I would assume that they did not own that house. From becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk Mon Dec 12 12:21:59 2005 From: becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk (Rebecca Williams) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:21:59 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Horcrux query In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051212122159.24827.qmail@web25304.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144599 Bee chase / Luckdragon wrote: > I'm still wavering on the "Harry is a Horcrux" theory, > particularly after reading a quote from Jo's Dec. 10th > interview. I did not want to give in to the theory as it > would cement the idea that Harry will have to Martyr > himself to bring down LV. > > The quote: > "He is not, in a biological sense, related to him at all." > > If Harry is the final Horcrux, is there a possibility a > horcrux can be removed and destroyed, with out destroying > the vessel. Is there anything in canon about this? Anyone > think Harry may still survive this? Becky says: Marvolo's ring was still intact after the horcrux was destroyed because Dumbledore wore it (although it did have a big crack in it - can Harry survive with a big crack down him?) Does anyoen have a link to that interview as I would really like to read it. From buckaroo_57 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 16:38:43 2005 From: buckaroo_57 at yahoo.com (Ken) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:38:43 -0000 Subject: Half-Blood Prince- Dumbledore Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144600 Hi Everyone, I was wondering if anyone else caught the fact that Dumbledore was looking haggard and worn during most of the book, and was wondering if he had managed to put part of himself into an object (probably Fawkes the Pheonix) so he could come back to help Harry battle Voldemort in the last book. It may also be possible that Snape isn't as bad as he acted there at the last, especially if he was in on this fact... I have enjoyed the books tremendiously, and look forward to the last one. Best, Ken From rh64643 at appstate.edu Mon Dec 12 17:04:27 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:04:27 -0000 Subject: Horcrux query In-Reply-To: <20051212122159.24827.qmail@web25304.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144601 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Rebecca Williams wrote: > Marvolo's ring was still intact after the horcrux was destroyed > because Dumbledore wore it (although it did have a big crack in it > - can Harry survive with a big crack down him?) Does anyoen have a > link to that interview as I would really like to read it. O.K, does anyone else think it is in anyway interesting that Harry already has a "big crack" so to speak? When I first read about the ring and the crack down the middle of it, I thought of Harry's scar. I think it is at least a possibility that Harry was somehow accidentally made into a horcrux on the night that his parents died, but that because of his mother's love sacrifice, the horcrux was destroyed. We don't know enough about the art of horcrux making to say if this is in any way possible. It would answer some quesions and leave Harry one step closer to his ultimate goal. Just a thought, and I wanted to hear what people thought about it. truthbeauty1 From rh64643 at appstate.edu Mon Dec 12 17:18:57 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:18:57 -0000 Subject: Four ponderings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144602 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kelleyaynn" wrote: > 2. Another seeming throw-away plot is S.P.E.W. While I don't think > that S.P.E.W. itself is going to be important, I think the large > number of house elves at Hogwarts could be. I'm certain we have not > seen the last of Dobby and Winky, but I'm not sure what they might > do in the last book. Or what a potential "army" of house elves might > be capable of. Any thoughts? I truly feel that Kreacher will become very important in the 7th book. I believe that R.A.B. is Regulus, and that Kreacher helped him on his trip to the cave. We know that Kreacher was loyal to Regulus as the "good" son. Also, this would fill the requirement of the boat only taking one fully grown witch or wizard. Kreacher, as a house elf, would not be a perceived threat to Voldemort. I also beleive that the reason House elves are not allowed to use wands is that they are naturally far more magically powerful than wizard kind. We have seen how powerful Dobby can be without a wand, now imagine what he would be like if he had an education and a wand. I think that the wizarding world will have to be in some way held responisible for their mistreatment of other magical creatures. I kind of hope that the army of good can be assisted by the good creatures as much as Voldemort is being aided by giants, dementors, and the like. truthbeauty1 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 17:39:00 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:39:00 -0000 Subject: Snape Wars vs Ship Wars was re: Cultural standards for Snape abusiveness/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144603 > Pippin: > IMO, if Snape is a murderer, the boggart lesson in PoA > loses both its humor and its point. Murderers are not funny, even if > they are wearing silly clothes, and if a murderer is threatening you, > imagining that he has silly clothes on is not going to help. On the > other hand, if you are afraid of someone because they always > make you look stupid, then imagining that they look stupid too is > golden. Alla: I really don't see why if Snape is turning to be Evil one or mostly out for himself Boggart lesson loses his point. I guess I disagree. IF in book 6 we would have see Snape murdering Neville THEN I would be forced to agree - that indeed would not be funny to me. IMO anyway. Otherwise - for Neville Snape is his biggest fears who turned out to be ( for the sake of argument) very real murderer of Dumbledore. Does it make sense? Pippin: > Maybe I misunderstood you, but I thought you were saying that > JKR hadn't planned to make Snape a murderer when she wrote that > scene, but then she felt the fans weren't revolted enough by Snape so > she decided to make him a killer. Alla: As I said upthread, I DID say it, but only as unsupported speculation. One of the possibilities, you know. It is also one of the possibilities IMO that JKR planned to make Snape the way I imagine him now all along, she just covered it in ambiguities. :-) Pippin: > OTOH, if you can't make major bits of business like the boggart lesson > work in the context of villain!Snape, then villain!Snape is weak, IMO. > > Does that help? Alla: Yes, it actually does help, but as I said Boggart scene works nicely for me even if Snape is a murderer. Just the simple reasoning that real Evil can also be laughed at. IMO anyway. > > Alla: > > > > Do we have a canon to show that person can choose one's fear? < > Christina: > > I think it only makes sense to assume that one's fear can change. > After all, what if Neville had encountered a boggart before he came to > Hogwarts? Obviously it couldn't have taken the shape of Professor > Snape, because Neville hadn't met him yet. Molly's boggart includes > the vision of Harry laying dead, but she wouldn't have seen that same > boggart before she had ever met Harry. The list goes on and on. Alla: You ARE very convincing , Christina. :-) Yes, I think you convinced me that person's greatest fear can change during the course of their lives. But my main point still stands - people think that Neville's greatest fear had changed, but we did not see it, so IMO it is very likely that Snape still IS Neville's greatest fear.I just think that if JKR wanted us to know that Neville is now afraid of something else, she would have shown it. IMO of course, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 18:00:50 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:00:50 -0000 Subject: HBP in russian translation. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144604 Just wanted to share - HBP officially translated in Russian hit New York book stores last week. :-) I think I mentioned it earlier that I HATED PoA translation and GoF translation, but really like OOP. Granted they have to continue with the stupidity of translating some names in the same way they started, but otherwise it was well done IMO. So, I know that it is not likely that translators get any special information from JKR, in fact it is 99% possibility that they do not know anything more than us, but in OOP they guessed pretty well, that power behind the locked room is Love. I mean not that it was that hard to guess. :-) In any event - some interesting things that caught my eye. "Spinner's End" is translated as "Spider's end", even though it is possible to translate it exactly. "Severus, please" is translated " Severus, I am asking you", even though again, it is possible to translate it in Russian word by word and it will not sound awkward ( or have I forgotten already the rule of proper Russian and it will sound awkward if translated directly and I am making too much out of it. Sigh...) If something else will catch my eye, will share ( I looked at the end for "Severus, please", I have not finished reading yet :-) Stucks a tongue at SSSusan - YES, I love spoilers, yes I do ) Alla, who thought that she is taking a break from posting about Snape with this post. Yeah, right. :-) From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com Mon Dec 12 17:45:00 2005 From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:45:00 -0000 Subject: Fw: Heir of Gryffindor (Re: Horcrux in each book?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144605 > > Allie: > > Don't know why, but when you said "one suviving descendant" my > > brain said NEVILLE LONGBOTTOM. The unlikeliest of unlikely but > > who knows! I'm still waiting for Neville's shining moment - he > > made so much progress in OoTP and then couldn't hit a single death > > eater with a curse when it counted! > > Andie: > Wouldn't Neville's parents come before him. Granted they are "supposedly" > not sane enough to be of any help but they are alive which would not > make Neville the "one surviving descendant". That is not to say that the > Longbottoms are not Gryffindor's descendants. Also, what about his > grandmother? She is is father's mother, so again Neville isn't the last. MercuryBlue: Neville's parents would be better off dead, so I don't think they count anymore. And about Neville's grandmother...I'll accept that Neville may be a descendant of Godric Gryffindor, but it doesn't necessarily follow that Frank is so as well. It could as easily be Alice who's Godric's many-greats-granddaughter. And if it is Alice, not Frank, then Neville's gran (and her various siblings, whatever their names are) isn't in this equation at all. From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Mon Dec 12 19:00:36 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:00:36 -0000 Subject: Snape Wars vs Ship Wars was re: Cultural standards for Snape abusiveness/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144606 > > Alla: > > You ARE very convincing , Christina. :-) Yes, I think you convinced > me that person's greatest fear can change during the course of their > lives. > ... > > Alla > What I was suggesting, which seems to have gotten rather lost in the shuffle, is that Snape may not be Neville's *actual* greatest fear (that would have to be confronting the torture of his parents and the DEs who did it), but that his greatest *unrepressed* fear (ah, there's the word), i.e., the fear that is on the surface where he can confront it at that stage of his life, is Snape. Getting past Snape by learning to laugh at him is part of Neville's growing up. From learning to deal with lesser fears like Snape, he will acquire the strength to confront his much greater, hidden fears later on. Another thought: How old was Neville when his parents were tortured? Was he on the scene, the way Harry was when his parents were killed? How much can we assume Neville actually remember about what happened? Or is his knowledge of what happened just these two ruined people his grandmother takes him to visit? I guess what I'm asking is, is his fear based on first-hand experience, or is it hearsay, only from the ears up? And still another: I think whoever suggested that Neville's fear of Snape was tied in with his fear of his grandmother was onto something. I think it's significant that Neville puts the two together in his ridikkulus spell, and if Lupin suggested it (he did, didn't he?), he's an intuitive genius. --La Gatta From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 19:23:37 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:23:37 -0000 Subject: Why is Percy in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144607 > Brothergib: > Shouldn't he be in Slytherin? Thirst for power? Abuse of power? > Ability to befriend those in power? Lack of family loyalty? Attempts > to divide family? Amiable Dorsai: Aside from the obvious difficulties involved in trying to sum up people as exclusively brave, smart, ambitious, or none of the above, the fact is that Percy *is* brave--he waded into a fight with Death Eaters at the World Cup with no hesitation. Ambition is only one side of his personality. He's not the only Gryffindor, or even the only Weasley, whose personality is multi-faceted: the twins, for example, are also quite ambitious--and were determined to open their shop even if it caused a rift with their mother. The difference between them, I think, has more to do with other aspects of their personalities: the twins are people people, Percy is not. The twins could let their mother's disapproval roll off their backs--Percy, I think, saw his parents' doubts as a direct attack on him and his worthiness as a human being. I'm sure that at the time, Percy saw himself as the injured party. Could he have done well in Slytherin? Maybe, but I doubt it. The other relevant part of Percy's personality is his need for structure--his love of rules, as some have put it. I think he'd simply have been taken advantage of in a house were the rules are just another obstacle--or another tool--on the road to the top. Ravenclaw might have worked for him, but not necessarily any better than Gryffindor. Amiable Dorsai From muellem at bc.edu Mon Dec 12 19:45:20 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:45:20 -0000 Subject: Snape Wars vs Ship Wars was re: Cultural standards for Snape abusiveness/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144608 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lagattalucianese" wrote: > > > Another thought: How old was Neville when his parents were tortured? > Was he on the scene, the way Harry was when his parents were killed? > How much can we assume Neville actually remember about what happened? > Or is his knowledge of what happened just these two ruined people his > grandmother takes him to visit? I guess what I'm asking is, is his > fear based on first-hand experience, or is it hearsay, only from the > ears up? > according to the lexicon, it happened in 1981, after Harry's parents died on Oct. 31st, 1981. "Bellatrix Black Lestrange, Rodolphus Lestrange, Rabastan Lestrange, and Bartemius Crouch Jr. are arrested for using the Cruciatus Curse on Frank and Alice Longbottom in an attempt to discover the whereabouts of Voldemort; all of the accused are sent to Azkaban Frank Longbottom and his wife Alice are committed to St. Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries, driven insane from the Cruciatus Curse " http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/main/timeline_1970-1990.html so, Neville would have been the same age as Harry when his parents were driven insane - about 18 - 20 months. Neville could have memories from this time, not all children remember the same way. Some people can remember things from at this tender age (not me!!). Which could explain why Neville is such a sensitive soul. Also, Neville's parents were thought of very highly in the wizarding world(canon in some book - I think it is OotP) and probably heard stories about them all the time from his gran & family. His gran tells Neville that what happened to his parents is nothing to be ashamed of - but I don't believe Neville is ashamed of them because of their condition, but rather he is a very private boy. I don't think Neville or anyone else witnessed the torturing from Bella&Co - but I do believe that Neville has fond memories of his parents before they were driven insane. if anything, Neville's parents and their plight strikes such a sympathic cord with me - I wish(although I doubt it will happen) that Rowling will *cure* the Longbottoms at the end of book 7. colebiancardi From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com Mon Dec 12 18:55:01 2005 From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:55:01 -0000 Subject: The Weasleys' Muggle Cousin (Was Re: CHAPDISC: HBP5, An Excess of Phlegm) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144609 > > Geoff: > > First cousins are permitted to marry in the UK. La Gatta: > In Hellenistic Greece, half-brothers and -sisters could marry > (anything to keep the cash in the family). MercuryBlue: And don't forget ancient Egypt, where the royal family married each other as a matter of course. Brothers married their sisters, who were also their cousins, and many different degrees of cousin at that. Serious inbreeding here. Lucky them that Egypt got smashed to bits by Rome, otherwise they'd've ended up like our dear friends the Gaunts. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 19:24:01 2005 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:24:01 -0000 Subject: Is Snape Neville's biggest fear? WAS: Re: Snape Wars vs Ship Wars In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144610 La Gatta: > And still another: I think whoever suggested that Neville's fear of > Snape was tied in with his fear of his grandmother was onto something. > I think it's significant that Neville puts the two together in his > ridikkulus spell, and if Lupin suggested it (he did, didn't he?), he's > an intuitive genius. Montavilla: It may be that--at that moment--Snape was Neville's most *immediate* fear. After all, Snape had recently frightened him by trying the potion on Trevor. If, instead that day Neville hadn't had potions class, but had received a Howler from his grandmother, she might have emerged from the wardrobe (and would he have put her into Snape's robes?) Or, if he had faced the boggart on the morning after Professor McGonagall scolded him for losing the passwords, it might have been her that emerged. I wonder what Neville's boggart would be in HBP, since he didn't take Transfiguration or Potions. Montavilla From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 19:09:12 2005 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:09:12 -0000 Subject: Why is Percy in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144611 > "esmith222002" wrote: > > Shouldn't he be in Slytherin? Thirst for power? Abuse of > > power? Ability to befriend those in power? Lack of family > > loyalty? Attempts to divide family? > Magpie: > Slytherins aren't loyal to family? Could have fooled me!:-D > > I think Percy makes a perfectly believable Gryffindor. He > rushes in to dangerous situations at times, and seems to > *think* he's acting in the right. He also seems to like to > study boring subjects and work hard, which could put him in > Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff. > > Also, I think it's important to remember that one's house > doesn't mean that you always act on the things the house is > known for. I'd bet that often if someone is the opposite of > something that's their house as well, because they're still > ruled by a devotion to that idea. But we do know that > Neville, who at first seems timid, is in Gryffindor--as is > another boy in fifth year who looks very scared that Harry > watches at the Sorting. Crabbe and Goyle appear to be > the opposite of cunning but are in Slytherin. Luna appears > to reject a lot of intelligent things (Hermione does seem to > be right when she says Luna only believes things because > there's no proof), yet still seems to belong in Ravenclaw. > Zach Smith seems to have trouble trusting people and is > naturally suspicious, but that makes him perfectly Hufflepuff > to me.:-) Montavilla (Magical me!): JKR has said that she based the Houses on the four elements: Fire (Gryffindor), Water (Slytherin), Air (Ravenclaw), and Earth (Hufflepuff). If you look at the elements instead of relying solely on the buzzwords of "brave" and "cunning," it might help explain a bit more what the Hat looks for in each student it sorts. For this, it's good to look at a basic astrology book (as it also uses the four elements), or the Tarot (which bases its four suits on the four elements). Fire: Inspiration. Energy. Rashness. Action (not always well directed). Think of all the forms of fire that exist. They illuminate, they warm us, but they can be destructive as well. The Hat would look for charisma (flames draw attention), physical courage, powerful instincts, and probably independence. Percy had a certain charisma (even if the twins didn't appreciate it), he seems to have been a good prefect and Head Boy. There's nothing shown to be lacking in his courage, and he's shown more independence *from* his family than any of the other children. It's not directed in a positive direction, but it's still there. Water: Emotions. Sexuality. Adaptability. Mutability. Water is cunning in that it can find its way around obstacles and through the tiniest openings. It exists on our planet in solid, liquid, and gaseous forms, which makes it a very adaptable and flexible element. For Slytherins, the Hat looks for people who can adapt themselves to various situations, moving always toward their own objective, and overcoming, going around, or otherwise bypassing whatever obstacles stand in their way. It looks for strong emotional feelings that may or may not be apparent on the surface. (Malfoy is emotional; Crabbe and Goyle do not appear to be, but possibly we just don't see it.) Earth: Steadiness. Materialism. Fertility. Humility. Earth is the basis for everything we make or grow. It nurtures. It is humble. Think of phrases like "salt of the earth." Think of the solid permanence of rocks and mountains. The Hat looks for consistency in Hufflepuff students, plus generosity, warmth, humility, loyalty. These are all qualities that Cedric had. Zacharias Smith doesn't seem to display much generosity or humility, but he is consistent. :) And, even if he challenged Harry, he wasn't the D.A. who betrayed him. Also, he isn't going to base his decisions on abstract values, instinct, or emotion. He wants to see, touch, and know what he's doing. He wants Harry to tell him exactly what happened in the Graveyard-- not because he wants the thrill, but because until it's *real* to him, he can't commit to it. Air: Intelligence. Transparency. Vision. The Hat looks not just for book smarts in Ravenclaws, but an inclination to think things through, rather than to go on instinct. (Which may be the reason Hermione is in Gryffindor--she thinks more than Ron or Harry, but ultimately, Hermione makes gut decisions). Luna is so completely in her head that you wonder if her feet even touch the ground. It doesn't matter that her ideas are insane. She's the perfect Ravenclaw. Also, Luna is transparent. She doesn't bother to hide what she's thinking or feeling. Cho is much the same way. Maybe it would be smarter if she hadn't cried all the time she dated Harry, but she *couldn't* hide how she felt, nor could she play down her feelings for Marietta. Nor could Michael Corner, for the sake of his relationship with Ginny, hide his disappointment at losing the Quidditch game. Now, I'm basically riffing on the elements here--so I could be way off base. I'm sure you could find more information if you consult any basic astrology text. The signs are grouped this way: Aries, Leo, Sagittarius are fire signs; Cancer, Scorpio, and Pisces are water signs; Taurus, Virgo, and Capricorn are earth signs; and Gemini, Libra, and Aquarius are air signs. (Incidently, Luna is not only a Ravenclaw, but a classic Aquarius. I would have thought Snape a classic Scorpio, but JKR made him a Capricorn. Go figure. And yep, Harry is the quintessential Leo.) What I like about working from the elements is that it moves away from the good/evil paradigm we now. Slytherins do have good qualities. Or at least, they have qualities that can be used toward good ends, as well as evil ones. From rbookworm46 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 20:52:08 2005 From: rbookworm46 at yahoo.com (rbookworm46) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 20:52:08 -0000 Subject: HBP in russian translation. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144612 Alla wrote: > HBP officially translated in Russian hit New > York book stores last week. :-) > "Severus, please" is translated " Severus, I am asking you", Bookworm: How intriging! IMO, this supports those who think that they were continuing a previous discussion - like the one Hagrid overheard. How is this line translated in other languages? But the Big Question is: was Dumbledore asking Snape to *do* something, or *not do* something?? > Alla, > who thought that she is taking a break from posting about Snape with > this post. Yeah, right. :-) Bookworm: A post from Alla that doesn't discuss Snape? Is is even possible? Unless, maybe, it's about Dumbledore. ;-D Ravenclaw Bookworm "To do, or not to do, that is the question." Oops, sorry, different British writer. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Dec 12 21:00:39 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:00:39 -0000 Subject: Timelines (was No canon!! Re: Dumbledore in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144613 > Ceridwen: > I guess I'm a victim of 'it seems like', too. I thought that, since > Minerva McGonagall took both the Transfigurations position, which was > Dumbledore's, and became Head of Gryffindor, that Dumbledore vacated > both posts the year he became headmaster and Minerva therefore > inherited both. Potioncat: cough*Lexicon*cough says that Minerva joined the staff in 1956. (I'm not sure we "know" she taught Transfigurations but I think it's a good guess. I think DD became Headmaster in 55 or 56 but I'm right up there with JKR on maths. So it is very likely that DD became Headmaster and hired McGonagall to replace him as Transfiguration teacher. We do know she was in Gryffindor because she will become the Head of Gryffindor. Canon (JKR) says that Heads were in the House they are Head of. If we knew she replaced him as Head of House, then we would know he was Gryffindor too. I don't think you have to be a senior member of the staff to be a Head of House (anyone?) so she could have become Head that same year, or someone else might have been Head for a few years. Certainly, when Harry was a baby, it doesn't seem that she's Deputy Headmistress yet. (No canon for that either.) While Snape was hired for the Potions Master position, I'm not sure we "know" he became Head of Slytherin right away. Of course he may have. It makes as much sense to me that a more senior teacher became Head of Slytherin when Slughorn left, and that young Snape took the Potions Master job. We do know that he keeps the Head of Slytherin when he oves to DADA. So the Head of House isn't tied to subject taught. (I'm sure you weren't saying that, but I thought I'd toss it in.) In terms of a very busy story line, it makes sense that both McGonagall and Snape became Heads of House as soon as they were hired. I assume from the way Slughorn speaks of DD in the memory, that DD was Deputy Headmaster. But I don't think we know that. Riddle called him the Transfiguration teacher, not the Deputy. I used to maintain that DD may not have been at Hogwarts for the entire period between Riddle's time and becomming Headmaster, because we have canon for a Headmistress leaving St. Mungo's to take on the job. HBP sunk that idea. It also sunk the idea that DD became Headmaster shortly before the Marauders' time. I suppose I'm twisting this thread too much, but I don't think it's a given that McGonagall will be Headmistress. Again based on a Healer coming in for the position in the past, or even Umbridge being "placed" there in OoP. It will be interesting to see who the staff will be "next" year. Potioncat, who thinks she just argued for every side of this question. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 21:00:08 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:00:08 -0000 Subject: Draco's bigotry and leadership In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144614 > Betsy Hp: > So basically you're saying Blaise decided the best place to enjoy > the long journey to Hogwarts was with a boy he disliked, smashed > into a seat with two other large boys, so that the boy he disliked > could lounge comfortably on the other seat with his girlfriend. I > don't get your logic here. a_svirn: It may not have necessarily been the way you suggest. Zabiny could have found a nice quiet compartment for himself, when Draco and his sidekicks got in. And while he was being entertained by Slughorn, Draco's girlfriend joined Draco and Co. So he found himself squeezed into the seat with two large boys. Which annoyed him. > Betsy Hp: > Though if Blaise *does* dislike Draco than he *must* see Draco as a > rather powerful leader. a_svirn: ??!! > Betsy Hp: > Can a bigot ever change? Or is it once a bigot, always a bigot? a_svirn: It's an interesting philosophical question. Can anyone who for decades has honestly believed that Earth is flat change his or her mind on the subject? I believe one can, but one rarely does. > Betsy Hp: > Draco received his bigotry from his father, tied in with his support > of the Death Eaters and Voldemort. a_svirn: Ah, but his father probably got his bigotry from his father. And no doubt this is the case with other death eaters. And quite possibly Draco's father received his bigotry tied up with his support of Voldemort's cause. After all, he's at least one generation younger than Riddle. > Betsy Hp: He did start to lower his > wand, so he must have been listening to what Dumbledore had told > him. Will he continue to lower his wand? Only JKR knows for sure. > But it would be a massive waste of writing, IMO, to set Draco up for > such a huge life change and than have him decide not to take it. a_svirn: I am pretty sure he won't be sorry to see the last of Voldemort. But would he change his mind about muggleborns? Would he even stop to call them mudbloods in their faces? Or in private? I doubt it very much. I do think that he would be more cautious in future, tough. From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Mon Dec 12 21:00:47 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:00:47 -0000 Subject: Why is Percy in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144615 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > > Shouldn't he be in Slytherin? Thirst for power? Abuse of power? Ability > to befriend those in power? Lack of family loyalty? Attempts to divide > family? > > Brothergib (who is rereading the books due to 6 year old son's sudden > obsession!) > I still think we should give Percy the benefit of the doubt. I won't be the least bit surprised if he turns out to be a plant working with OotP. Maybe he is the Weasley slated to be killed? --La Gatta From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 21:14:17 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:14:17 -0000 Subject: HBP in russian translation. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144616 > Bookworm: > How intriging! IMO, this supports those who think that they were > continuing a previous discussion - like the one Hagrid overheard. How > is this line translated in other languages? > > But the Big Question is: was Dumbledore asking Snape to *do* > something, or *not do* something?? Personally, I always assumed that it meant something along the lines "Please, not Harry, take me instead". Snape must have guessed that Harry is under the cloak somewhere nearby. (Now, that's the thought: what if Harry will live with Aberforth in the Hogshead?) a_svirn From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Mon Dec 12 21:20:18 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:20:18 -0000 Subject: Why is Percy in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144617 > > Montavilla (Magical me!): > > ...I would have thought Snape a classic Scorpio, but > JKR made him a Capricorn. > I did. And I *still* figure he was sorted into the wrong house. Though probably for the right reasons. (I would have guessed him for a Ravenclaw, though, not a Hufflepuff. Maybe it has something to do with cusps and moon signs and such.) --La Gatta From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 21:25:49 2005 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:25:49 -0000 Subject: Four ponderings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144618 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "truthbeauty1" > I truly feel that Kreacher will become very important in the 7th > book. I believe that R.A.B. is Regulus, and that Kreacher helped him > on his trip to the cave. We know that Kreacher was loyal to Regulus as > the "good" son. Also, this would fill the requirement of the boat only > taking one fully grown witch or wizard. Kreacher, as a house elf, > would not be a perceived threat to Voldemort. I also beleive that the > reason House elves are not allowed to use wands is that they are > naturally far more magically powerful than wizard kind. We have seen > how powerful Dobby can be without a wand, now imagine what he would be > like if he had an education and a wand. I think that the wizarding > world will have to be in some way held responisible for their > mistreatment of other magical creatures. I kind of hope that the army > of good can be assisted by the good creatures as much as Voldemort is > being aided by giants, dementors, and the like. I like to think that the statue in the Atrium at the MoM is a sign of things to come: the wizard, the witch, the centaur and the elf all working together. Wouldn't that be great? I don't think we have seen the last of the house elves, either, and I just bet they are on the good side when the time comes. Alora From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Dec 12 21:36:11 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:36:11 -0000 Subject: Why is Percy in Gryffindor?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144619 Percy has done some atrocious things and far from being redeemed I think he will sink even lower in the last book and probably end up getting killed by a member of his family; that's what happens in civil wars, brothers kill brothers. But for all his faults he does not seem to be a coward and bravery is the way to get into Gryffindor. Eggplant From nrenka at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 22:05:56 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:05:56 -0000 Subject: Snape Wars vs Ship Wars was re: Cultural standards for Snape abusiveness/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144620 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > IMO, if Snape is a murderer, the boggart lesson in PoA loses both > its humor and its point. Murderers are not funny, even if they are > wearing silly clothes, and if a murderer is threatening you, > imagining that he has silly clothes on is not going to help. On the > other hand, if you are afraid of someone because they always make > you look stupid, then imagining that they look stupid too is > golden. That seems strangely reductionist, Pippin. You seem to be arguing that learning bad things about Snape after the scene would ruin the point and humor of it. Well, we've already gotten one--we didn't know, during the events of PoA, that Snape was a card-carrying branded member of Voldemort's terrorist organization. We just thought he was a cranky teacher, not someone who'd had it in him to sign up for the black hats. Re-reading with that surprise in mind hasn't ruined things, has it? (But that's because he's all better now, right?) > I can't see it as funny if Snape is supposed to be a murderer, and > I really can't see JKR stepping on her own joke like that if she > knows what she is doing. Is it all better because he may not have personally been a murderer during his DE days, but just a member of a group? I think this is why JKR gets a little flustered in interviews, asking people if they've forgotten Snape's DE past. He may turn out to have avoided a lot of the hands-on nastier work, but it does darken his character significantly. Not to mention the apparent murder of Dumbledore, which I suspect will stand as a killing even if there are some mitigating circumstances (plan, request, etc.). One could argue that it leads to a darker read back on material we took more comically, like how a re-read of the ferret scene in GoF is very different when you know it's Crouch!Moody and you know his personal agenda. > OTOH, if you can't make major bits of business like the boggart > lesson work in the context of villain!Snape, then villain!Snape is > weak, IMO. I don't understand the need to make Snape all of a piece, here. You seem to be arguing that DDM!Snape makes sense out of the boggart, but OFH/ESE!Snape doesn't. I'm wondering if we have to connect everything together in a way that points absolutely to one agenda or the other, with perfect ideological consistency. Seems a little strict for the story as it's gone. YMMV. -Nora watches all the snow fade into slush From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Dec 12 22:07:34 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:07:34 -0000 Subject: Can you guess the title of book 7? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144621 We'll probably know the title of book 7 a year before we actually can read it, perhaps more, so it might be fun to guess what that title could be, I have two. My first guess is "Harry Potter And The Next Great Adventure". In my second guess JKR will abandon the "and the" convention entirely to distinguish the last book from the other six and simply call it "Harry Potter The Chosen One". I also predict that the last chapter of the last book will be entitled "The Man Who Died". Eggplant From nrenka at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 22:09:05 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:09:05 -0000 Subject: Why is Percy in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144622 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lagattalucianese" wrote: > I still think we should give Percy the benefit of the doubt. I won't > be the least bit surprised if he turns out to be a plant working with > OotP. >From the World Book Day chat, 2004: (http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm) Echo: Was Percy acting entirely of his own accord in Order of the Phoenix? JK Rowling replies -> I'm afraid so. Seems to rule out the idea that there's some deep background plot going on in there, but she might slip one by us. Maybe he's wised up inbetween books? -Nora puts it low on the scale of probability for thematic reasons, personally From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Mon Dec 12 22:15:53 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee chase) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:15:53 -0000 Subject: significant Trevor Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144623 Luckdragon: Throughout the HP series I find that Neville's seemingly insignificant toad is mentioned an awful lot. Trevor the toad desparately seeks freedom from Neville on many occasions, and is threatened with poisoning by Snape. We know he is a gift from Neville's uncle and that toads are considered one of four acceptable pets which can accompany a Hogwarts student. Of course other animals are mentioned throughout the series just as often, but all end up playing an important role in the magical world. Crookshanks & Mrs. Norris are able to detect unsavoury characters/behaviours, Ron's rat turns into Peter Pettigrew, Buckbeak helps save Sirius from the dementors, the thestrals can only been seen after one has witnessed death, and the owls of course are messengers. So why is a simple pet toad like Trevor brought to our attention so often and why is he always trying to escape from his owner. Possible theories up for rebuttal: Trevor is RAB(an animagus in hiding) Trevor is a horcrux Trevor is a magically helpful creature we have yet to learn about Trevor is a spy What's your take on the toad? From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Mon Dec 12 22:22:23 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 23:22:23 +0100 Subject: Timelines (was No canon!! Dumbledore in Gryffindor?) References: Message-ID: <027c01c5ff6a$870ed680$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144624 potioncat wrote: > I suppose I'm twisting this thread too much, but I don't think it's a > given that McGonagall will be Headmistress. Again based on a Healer > coming in for the position in the past, or even Umbridge > being "placed" there in OoP. It will be interesting to see who the > staff will be "next" year. Miles: My idea is Slughorn, who is fully qualified and surely has good connections in the Ministry, whereas McGonagall .... she was very much Dumbledore's Madam (could we really think of her as 'only' a woman?). But to come back to my initial idea, that Dumbledore had not been in Gryffindor as a student, and to tie some loose ends of this thread together: We have several ideas about details concerning the staff. I hope I do not forget one: - probably Dumbledore was in Gryffindor - there are hints in canon, but no proof - probably there are connections between Houses and subjects. Ok, maybe less then "probably", but the idea is... sexy, and we have some hints. - probably there are connections between subjects, their teachers and Heads of House. Again, the idea is more sexy than probable, but I like it ;). - probably McG will become Headmistress. But... see above. We could find several other details about most of us would agree, that there is a probable answer but no proof. Alas, I do like meta considerations. And, as we all do, I know Rowling's way of thinking, at least a bit. Of the details listed above, the most probable is IMO "Dumbledore was a Gryffindor". There are several hints, but still noone could give a prove from canon. The Rowling I know would really love to damage a conviction of the majority of readers - and characters, if it suits the plot. And Dumbledore a Slytherin... a light bulb moment for Harry. Miles, still waiting for an answer from the Lexicon From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 22:32:06 2005 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:32:06 -0000 Subject: significant Trevor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144625 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bee chase" wrote: > death, and the owls of course are messengers. So why is a simple pet > toad like Trevor brought to our attention so often and why is he > always trying to escape from his owner. > Possible theories up for rebuttal: > Trevor is RAB(an animagus in hiding) > Trevor is a horcrux > Trevor is a magically helpful creature we have yet to learn about > Trevor is a spy > What's your take on the toad? > It's funny you brought this up, I was just thinking about this the other day. I'm going with the magically helpful creature or that it is RAB. As you say, he's always brought to our attention and for what? he's just a toad. OR, that's what we are supposed to think. OR, we are just reading way too much into it, because we don't want JKR to pull another fast one on us ;D Alora From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Mon Dec 12 22:58:25 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 23:58:25 +0100 Subject: How many times Snape saved Harry/Speculations about forgiveness WAS: Cultura References: Message-ID: <028801c5ff6f$8f7a0b00$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144626 > Miles: > But speaking of the character Harry Potter and his role in the Potterverse - > yes, I think Harry *has* to forgive Snape to some extent. If he would choose > to "hate Snape forever", this would surely be understandable inside the > character, and quite human as well. But how could Harry fullfil his role > hating Snape? How could he have the power of love while he still hates? I do > not see a convincing solution, that Harry can carry on with his hatred on > Snape (and this is his main emotion at the end of HBP!) and overcome > Voldemort with love at the same time. He will have to choose, whether to > hate or fullfil his mission. > Alla: > I don't understand. Why? Where in canon it says that Harry's ability > to love MUST manifest itself as love towards Snape only? Where in > canon it says that in order to use his ability to love Harry must > get rid of all the hatred? It sees logical, yes, but the only way > Harry have to proceed in order to win? Sorry I have to disagree. Miles: Obviously I did not make my point clear enough. No, I really would be surprised to see Harry loving Snape. Much too much. But he already felt pity for him. And if he could manage to feel pity again (I presume DDM!Snape, otherwise the situation is different), there would not be room for hatred anymore. Just a footnote: to feel pity with someone is compassion, and love. Alla: > Harry is quite unusual according to Dumbledore because of his > ability tlove, but if he gets rid of hatred completely, he may > become not complete human either, IMO. Miles: Sure, negative emotions are part of any human being. Not necessarily hatred, but you have to dislike if you want to like. But at the end of HBP, Harry is full of hatred, and the target of it is Snape, not Voldemort. This won't help him with his mission, so he will have to overcome his feelings towards Snape - in some way. Alla: > Don't you think that it is likely that Harry's ability to love will > show towards Voldemort or Draco, whom Harry already began to feel > sorry for? Miles: Draco yes. Voldemort never. Tom - maybe. Compassion for Tom may be a way to vanquish Lord Voldemort... Alla: > Personally, I tend to think that Harry's ability to love will show > itself metaphorically - as in not that Harry will stand up and say > Voldemort I love you or Snape I love you, but there will be some > personification of this power - maybe spell, which Harry will be > able to perform with that power. Miles: Gotcha, you tried to Riddikulus my argument ;). But it is not a boggart, and it is not part of a Saint's legend. I do not expect Saint!Harry, and I would be appalled by Jesus!Harry (blasphemic, if you ask me). No, I try to stay in Harry's character. We know he is full of love. Just look at the first scene with Ron on the Hogwarts express. The first thing he wants to do when he has money is to share. He feels Ron's discomfort and comforts him by telling how miserable his own life is. We are cautious to use the word "love", but this is a new development of our languages. Love is connected to sexual and family related emotions in our everyday language - but it can mean love between friends and strangers as well. So this is the love I want to speak about, and Harry had shown the ability to give love - or call it kindness, compassion, or just politeness coming from his heart. Or just pity. Miles From ladypensieve at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 22:57:25 2005 From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Kathy) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:57:25 -0000 Subject: significant Trevor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144627 If Trevor is an animagus - here's something to think about. Either in the books (not going to start looking through them all right now) or in an interview, JKR said that sometimes wizards who stay in their animagus form for too long, become stuck in it. But, I can play devil's advocate and say that Pettigrew didn't use THAT as an explanation as to why he hadn't helped the Dark Lord sooner. KathyO --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "alora67" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bee chase" > wrote: > > death, and the owls of course are messengers. So why is a simple pet > > toad like Trevor brought to our attention so often and why is he > > always trying to escape from his owner. > > Possible theories up for rebuttal: > > Trevor is RAB(an animagus in hiding) > > Trevor is a horcrux > > Trevor is a magically helpful creature we have yet to learn about > > Trevor is a spy > > What's your take on the toad? > > > > > It's funny you brought this up, I was just thinking about this the > other day. I'm going with the magically helpful creature or that it > is RAB. As you say, he's always brought to our attention and for > what? he's just a toad. OR, that's what we are supposed to think. > OR, we are just reading way too much into it, because we don't want > JKR to pull another fast one on us ;D > > Alora > From sweetnightingale at sbcglobal.net Mon Dec 12 23:15:38 2005 From: sweetnightingale at sbcglobal.net (Sharon Hawkinson) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:15:38 -0600 Subject: significant Trevor/Animagus, Crookshanks References: Message-ID: <019601c5ff71$f70626d0$210110ac@621B10B> No: HPFGUIDX 144628 KathyO: >> If Trevor is an animagus - here's something to think about. Either in the books (not going to start looking through them all right now) or in an interview, JKR said that sometimes wizards who stay in their animagus form for too long, become stuck in it. << I also think that there's more to Crookshanks than meets the eye. I mean, how can a regular cat have a vendetta against ONE rat? I think, in book 7, we could possibly learn who Crookshanks really is. Perhaps he's someone in Animagus form? Just my thoughts. Sharon From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Tue Dec 13 00:03:50 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 01:03:50 +0100 Subject: Animagi, WAS significant Trevor/ Crookshanks References: <019601c5ff71$f70626d0$210110ac@621B10B> Message-ID: <02e001c5ff78$b3566830$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144629 I think we will see another animagus in book 7. Maybe some of you would say "not another one, we've seen enough animagi". I am not so sure. Ok, we learnt that there are only seven registered animagi (McG among them), but four illegal animagi (Rita, Sirius, James and Peter). Four illegal animagi seems to be enough - or not? Maybe to have an unregistered animagus form is quite common among more talented wizards and witches. And why not so? Even without criminal intention, it's a good idea for getting rid of nasty people, listening to confidential conversations or just for fun. I would not be surprised to learn of much more illegal animagi. I never thought of Trevor. But yes, maybe he is not what he seems to be. But he didn't do anything suspicious up to now, so maybe he is just a running gag, a means to characterize Neville. But Crookshanks? Maybe it is really just the Kneazle half of him that enabled him to recognise both Peter as "bad" and Sirius as "good". But I'm not so sure. Crookshanks chasing Scabbers - likely for a cat, most likely for a Kneazle. Crookshanks being friend of Sirius' dog form: surprising for a cat, possible for a Kneazle. But Crookshanks shielding Sirius in the Shrieking Shack, protecting him with his own life? A bit too much for a Kneazle, maybe. We considered Dumbledore's speech to Draco: "we can hide you more completely than you can possibly imagine", and we thought of Regulus hiding as Mrs Filch. Regulus is Sirius brother. Read PoA again and keep the theory in your mind: Regulus, younger brother of Sirius, hides as Crookshanks. It could explain many things. Miles, who prefers cats to dogs, even big black ones From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 00:10:01 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:10:01 -0000 Subject: DD's 'reckless behavior' in cave (Re: Snape & Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: <20051211070321.89119.qmail@web36410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144630 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lyn wrote: > > > Bart: > > I think Dumbledore knowing he was dying helps explain what > > was surely reckless behavior in the Cave. > > Again, forgive me if I'm wrong ..., but wasn't DDs 'reckless > behavior' in the cave caused by what he was drinking? > > -lyn > bboyminn: Actually, I was the one who said that not Bart; that's not a problem though. I think DRINKING the potion was THE reckless behavior, or at least part of it. I suspect if Dumbledore felt he had more time, if his slowly ebbing life hadn't made things so urgent, he could have taken his time and found a way to break the Curse that was protecting the Locket. Remember that this type of curse breaking is exactly what Bill Weasley does all the time. The Egyptians placed curses on their tombs to protect them; dangerous and deadly curses. Bill must figue out how to neutralize those curses so that Gringott's can get at the treasure. So, if he had the time, Dumbledore, with his great knowledge and wisdom, could have certainly found a better way to deal with the many curses and protections guarding the Horcrux Locket. Therefore, I conclude that time was not a commodity that Dumbledore had much of. Dumbledore was more than willing to recklessly risk his life, if it meant the death of one seventh of Voldemort's soul, and educating Harry on how to find and get rid of the other Horcruxes. Just my opinion of course. Steve/bboyminn From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 00:13:00 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:13:00 -0000 Subject: Can you guess the title of book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144631 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > We'll probably know the title of book 7 a year before we actually can > read it, perhaps more, so it might be fun to guess what that title > could be, "Neville Longbottom and the Misunderstood Prophecy" Amiable Dorsai From redeyedwings at yahoo.com Mon Dec 12 23:39:40 2005 From: redeyedwings at yahoo.com (redeyedwings) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 23:39:40 -0000 Subject: Lily, Voldemort, AK and the atomic bomb analogy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144632 > Saraquel: > > It starts with the idea that the Avada Kadavra curse is > > created by splitting the soul, rather like the splitting > > of the atom, where a huge amount of energy is released, > > along with radiation. The rushing sound which is heard > > when the spell is cast is the blast wave rolling out from > > the splitting of the soul. > Ceridwen: > Interesting. I like that. I had imagined that the splitting > occurred once the victim was properly dead, though. But, the > rushing sound being equated with something magically powerful, > as when the atom splits, is something to think about. The AKs > we've 'heard' almost all have that sound. This is interesting. I don't have my books to hand, but I'd like to throw a wrench in here, possibly anyway: A soul splits when its owner kills a human being (irregardless of horcrux-making intent), right? I'm pretty sure this is true. But what about when the AK is used to kill something else ... I don't know, maybe, a spider? IIRC, and remember I have no books in front of me, does Harry not hear the rushing sound when Fake!Moody kills the spider in front of the class? If so, by that logic, Fake!Moody's soul was sundered by the killing of a little arachnoid. Something seems wrong. Of course, it could be me, and it could be that the rushing sound we only hear when a human is killed .... but we need someone to quote the relevant canon, and as I'm stuck at work, it ain't gonna be me.... Just wondering, ReW From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Tue Dec 13 00:37:31 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:37:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: significant Trevor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051213003731.19199.qmail@web53315.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144633 alora67 wrote: It's funny you brought this up, I was just thinking about this the other day. I'm going with the magically helpful creature or that it is RAB. As you say, he's always brought to our attention and for what? he's just a toad. OR, that's what we are supposed to think. OR, we are just reading way too much into it, because we don't want JKR to pull another fast one on us ;D Luckdragon: ...or what would be interesting is if the "Frog turning into a Prince" theory came into play and the toad was a relative of Snapes from his mothers side. Crazy thought eh! Yes, I do read too much between the lines at times, but it makes it fun. --------------------------------- Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tmar78 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 01:44:50 2005 From: tmar78 at yahoo.com (tyler maroney) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:44:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Horcrux question In-Reply-To: <1134377068.1070.15282.m19@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20051213014450.43446.qmail@web51612.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144634 Okay, here's an interesting question. Horcruxes are supposed to be an object outside of the body into which one puts a fragment of one's soul, right? Well, suppose you did the opposite and made the Horcrux a part of you? For example, let's say you encased your fragment of soul in a tooth filling and then used that filling to fill a cavity in one of your teeth. What would happen if you were hit by an AK? Would the fragment of soul within the filling be wiped away along w/ the rest of your soul since both were technically hit by the curse? Would your body be disintegrated, but the filling left intact thus maintaining your immortality? Would the curse simply have no effect on the receiver? Or is there another possible outcome? Any thoughts? Tyler "No day but today" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From h2so3f at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 02:19:22 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 02:19:22 -0000 Subject: Horcrux query In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144635 charon_death_ngfh wrote: " Dumbledore had already said that when a horcrux is created it leaves a mark. I suppose Harry's scar could simply be just that a scar left as a visible reminder of what happened to his parents but what if it is more than that? Originally LV was going to use something from the house as his final horcrux but this backfired somehow and Harry became the horcrux. It is the only explanation as to how Harry shares talents of LV's, that could only happen if Harry had somehow absorbed some of LV's soul." CH3ed: Well, you are assuming that soul and power are the same or inseparable entity. I don't think there is a canon that definitely supports that. Lynn wrote: "Don't you think it's possible that Voldy did in fact perform the AK curse onto Harry, rebounded onto LV, and as it was rebounding somehow powers were transferred to Harry instead of killing him as the curse intended? " CH3ed: Precisely what DD and LV say in the book (DD told Harry some of LV's power transfered to Harry when LV tried to kill him in Book 1, LV told the DE's the AK rebounded on himself causing pain beyond pain and he was ripped from his body). A good canon to me. :O) truthbeauty1 wrote: "O.K, does anyone else think it is in anyway interesting that Harry already has a "big crack" so to speak? When I first read about the ring and the crack down the middle of it, I thought of Harry's scar. I think it is at least a possibility that Harry was somehow accidentally made into a horcrux on the night that his parents died, but that because of his mother's love sacrifice, the horcrux was destroyed. We don't know enough about the art of horcrux making to say if this is in any way possible. It would answer some questions and leave Harry one step closer to his ultimate goal. Just a thought, and I wanted to hear what people thought about it." CH3ed: Well, DD doesn't see it that way or he wouldn't have told Harry that there are 4 Horcruxes left to destroy. I think the scenario is unlikely because of the direction of the AK in the scene. The AK leaves LV's wand, hit Harry and bounced back to hit LV, destroying his body and ripped out his original soul. So if anything I'd expect LV's soul to be moving away from Harry instead of toward him and entering him (making Harry a Horcrux... or not. The original soul cannot be destroyed as long as the other Horcruxed soul pieces exist, isn't it? So if anything Harry would have been possessed). I can see the power it needed for LV's cast the AK entering Harry when the curse hit him, but not LV's soul. Also does the canon say that when a Horcrux is created it leaves a visible mark on the Horcruxed object? I recall DD telling Harry that magic always leave marks when he was surveying the cave to find the entrance (the marks of the magic used in this case are not visible to the normal eyes..or Harry would have seen them), but I don't recall anything about mark of the Horcrux. CH3ed just got all of his HP books back. Yeh!!!! :O) From ricemouse at dream-country.net Tue Dec 13 01:04:10 2005 From: ricemouse at dream-country.net (Sevarem) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 20:04:10 -0500 Subject: Why is Percy in Gryffindor? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144636 Brothergib: > Shouldn't he be in Slytherin? Thirst for power? Abuse of power? Ability > to befriend those in power? Lack of family loyalty? Attempts to divide > family? > > Sevarem: *delurks* I'm jumping into the fray because I get so tired of Percy hate. For one, I don't see how Percy abuses his power (what little of it he truly has) and I never saw an attempt to divide the family. Just because he's wants a career within the Ministry, he is not simply power hungry. He certainly has a thirst for recognition, which is a Gryffindor trait more than anything. Courage, bravery and determination are Gryffindor traits and Percy has shown these far more than he has shown Slytherin tendencies. Courage shows itself in many forms. Percy had the courage to hold his head high and walk away from his family. Does this mean he was *right*? We don't know yet. However, it *does* mean that he was doing what *he* thought was right, despite what everyone else thought. If this isn't a Gryffindor trait, I don't know what is. The ability to befriend those in power does not automatically make you a Slytherin, but it does make you someone who takes a career seriously, a trait which is not beholden to any particular House. And honestly, I can't say I blame him for walking away. How would you feel if you took your career aspirations and interests very seriously, and the rest of your family saw you as nothing more than an over stuffed joke? Sevarem Who can't say she loves Percy, but certainly doesn't think he's the awful person he's made out to be. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 02:36:48 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 02:36:48 -0000 Subject: Draco's bigotry and leadership In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144637 > >>Betsy Hp: > > So basically you're saying Blaise decided the best place to > > enjoy the long journey to Hogwarts was with a boy he disliked, > > smashed into a seat with two other large boys, so that the boy > > he disliked could lounge comfortably on the other seat with his > > girlfriend. I don't get your logic here. > >>a_svirn: > It may not have necessarily been the way you suggest. Zabiny could > have found a nice quiet compartment for himself, when Draco and > his sidekicks got in. And while he was being entertained by > Slughorn, Draco's girlfriend joined Draco and Co. So he found > himself squeezed into the seat with two large boys. Which annoyed > him. Betsy Hp: Well, I disagree (especially since Blaise chose his own seat), but again, your scenario means Draco is a powerful figure within Slytherin. Per your scenario, Blaise is forced to stay in a compartment with a boy he dislikes, in an uncomfortable seat in order to keep Draco happy or not offend Draco or something. (I'd love to hear what you think is motivating Blaise's choices here.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > Though if Blaise *does* dislike Draco than he *must* see Draco > > as a rather powerful leader. > a_svirn: > ??!! Betsy Hp: Yeah, maybe you should go back upthread and reread the next sentence of my comment (the part snipped). It explains the above and shouldn't leave you quite as gob-smacked, hopefully. I can't help feeling you're trying to have it both ways. Per you, Draco is one of the more pathetic members of Slythern, and Blaise dislikes him. But at the same time Blaise *can't help* but hang with Draco on the long journey to Hogwarts, making sure Draco is comfortably situated, rather than sitting with his friends. Either Draco is Blaise's friend, or Blaise fears offending him. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Can a bigot ever change? Or is it once a bigot, always a bigot? > >>a_svirn: > It's an interesting philosophical question. Can anyone who for > decades has honestly believed that Earth is flat change his or her > mind on the subject? I believe one can, but one rarely does. Betsy Hp: Of course, Draco has held these beliefs for barely a decade, being only sixteen himself. The deciding factor will be how JKR would answer that particular question. Betsy Hp From ShylahM at gmail.com Tue Dec 13 03:29:25 2005 From: ShylahM at gmail.com (Shylah) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:29:25 +1300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why is Percy in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <403e946f0512121929y36526f56xd0feb0f210a3b5a6@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144638 On 12/13/05, nrenka wrote: > >Nora Wrote > > From the World Book Day chat, 2004: > (http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm) > > Echo: Was Percy acting entirely of his own accord in Order of the > Phoenix? > > JK Rowling replies -> I'm afraid so. > > Seems to rule out the idea that there's some deep background plot going > on in there, but she might slip one by us. Maybe he's wised up > inbetween books? > > -Nora puts it low on the scale of probability for thematic reasons, > personally Tanya now. In my reading, that doesn't really rule him out as a plant. I take it more as meaning that no one has got him with imperio. Tanya. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 03:38:40 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 03:38:40 -0000 Subject: significant Trevor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144639 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bee chase" wrote: > > Luckdragon: > > Possible theories up for rebuttal: > Trevor is RAB(an animagus in hiding) > Trevor is a horcrux > Trevor is a magically helpful creature we have yet to learn about > Trevor is a spy > What's your take on the toad? Trevor is the dog that didn't bark in the night. Neville loses Trevor only once in the whole book (that we see), and he retrieves him immediately. Neville is much better at keeping track of things than he used to be. Memory Charm wearing off...? Amiable Dorsai From AllieS426 at aol.com Tue Dec 13 03:57:36 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 03:57:36 -0000 Subject: significant Trevor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144640 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "alora67" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bee chase" > wrote: > > death, and the owls of course are messengers. So why is a simple pet > > toad like Trevor brought to our attention so often and why is he > > always trying to escape from his owner. > > Possible theories up for rebuttal: > > Trevor is RAB(an animagus in hiding) > > Trevor is a horcrux > > Trevor is a magically helpful creature we have yet to learn about > > Trevor is a spy > > What's your take on the toad? > > > > > It's funny you brought this up, I was just thinking about this the > other day. I'm going with the magically helpful creature or that it > is RAB. As you say, he's always brought to our attention and for > what? he's just a toad. OR, that's what we are supposed to think. > OR, we are just reading way too much into it, because we don't want > JKR to pull another fast one on us ;D > > Alora > I would LOVE it if she pulled another fast one on us! We haven't had one since "Scabbers is really Peter Pettigrew." It's about time!! Allie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 03:59:02 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 03:59:02 -0000 Subject: HBP in russian translation./ Translations in general/ "Severus, please" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144641 > Alla wrote: > > HBP officially translated in Russian hit New > > York book stores last week. :-) > > > "Severus, please" is translated " Severus, I am asking you", > > Bookworm: > How intriging! IMO, this supports those who think that they were > continuing a previous discussion - like the one Hagrid overheard. How > is this line translated in other languages? > > But the Big Question is: was Dumbledore asking Snape to *do* > something, or *not do* something?? Alla: Well, yes, this translation may support them continuing the previous conversation OR it may simply be less awkward translation of the "Severus, please". I am not sure. In any event, of course I am keeping an eye for how the interesting bits and pieces are translated ( especially those which we debate so often), but the real question for me is whether the translator gets at least tiny bits of additional information which we are not privy to. If they do, then I would pay even more attention, if they don't and I know that most likely they don't , well then it is just interesting of how far some translators are willing to go, you know how much liberties do they take with the text. You know, when I studied English in college back in Ukraine, our teacher tried to make the course more intersting and gave us some basics of professional translation ( not that we were ready to do profesional translation of course -she was just trying to make the course more interesting), so she was teaching us that often translating the names when you translate a book is NOT a very good thing to do, because you may end up with some very awkward names and very wierd meanings, so if you could leave the name as it pronounces in the native language and it is not confusing, it is the best way to go. I don't remember if I ranted about it when OOP came out, but oh well, it will only be second time around. :-) I suppose the reason why they decided to translate some names in Harry Potter initially, because JKR has so many talking names, but boy, oh boy, some of them hurt my ears and eyes SO much. They just sound awkward. Like they translated the names of two houses - Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, but they could not come up with anything for Gryffindor and Slytherin and left them as they sound initially , only wrote them with Russian alphabet. So, Ravenclaw is translated directly as the "claw of Raven", but the problem is that it sounds beatifully in English, but SO awkward in Russian. Grrrr. And I don't even know the translation of the word they came up with for the Hufflepuff. Oh, another thing - they translated Neville's last name into Russian directly, sort of and every time when I read it, I start giggling, I cannot help myself. It sounds in russian as "dolgopooops". I don't know if JKR intended us to giggle every time we hear Neville's last name. Gah. :-) > > > Alla, > > who thought that she is taking a break from posting about Snape with > > this post. Yeah, right. :-) > > Bookworm: > A post from Alla that doesn't discuss Snape? Is is even possible? > Unless, maybe, it's about Dumbledore. ;-D Alla: Snort, yes, indeedy. Or Harry and Snape or Harry and Dumbledore. I promise to work on taking breaks sometimes though. :-) a_svirn: > Personally, I always assumed that it meant something along the > lines "Please, not Harry, take me instead". Snape must have guessed > that Harry is under the cloak somewhere nearby. (Now, that's the > thought: what if Harry will live with Aberforth in the Hogshead?) Alla: I think this is a brilliant interpretation, actually, if one does not support DD!M Snape of course :-) I used to think simply " please do not betray me" or something like that, but yours is so much more elegant IMO because it plays on Lily's begging. Bravo. Alla. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Dec 13 03:59:22 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 03:59:22 -0000 Subject: Evil Overlord for the day (Re: Horcrux query) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144643 > truthbeauty1 wrote: > "O.K, does anyone else think it is in anyway interesting that Harry > already has a "big crack" so to speak? When I first read about the > ring and the crack down the middle of it, I thought of Harry's > scar. I think it is at least a possibility that Harry was somehow > accidentally made into a horcrux on the night that his parents > died, but that because of his mother's love sacrifice, the horcrux > was destroyed. We don't know enough about the art of horcrux > making to say if this is in any way possible. It would answer some > questions and leave Harry one step closer to his ultimate goal. > Just a thought, and I wanted to hear what people thought about it." Jen: The ring was cracked, but if the locket at GP is the real horcrux, there was no crack mentioned in OOTP. And the diary, while not a typical horcrux, had no crack. Maybe the ring cracked when the 'terrible curse' was put upon it, just as Harry received the scar from being touched by an evil curse? Or else when Dumbledore tried to remove the curse as the ring was cracked when Harry noticed it at Slughorn's house. > CH3ed: > Well, DD doesn't see it that way or he wouldn't have told Harry > that there are 4 Horcruxes left to destroy. I think the scenario > is unlikely because of the direction of the AK in the scene. The > AK leaves LV's wand, hit Harry and bounced back to hit LV, > destroying his body and ripped out his original soul. So if > anything I'd expect LV's soul to be moving away from Harry instead > of toward him and entering him (making Harry a Horcrux... or not. > The original soul cannot be destroyed as long as the other > Horcruxed soul pieces exist, isn't it? So if anything Harry would > have been possessed). Jen: I'm not a Harry horcrux fan, seems like it would be a very deliberate process with certain steps and incantations said in a certain order. The Fidelius also involves the sealing away of something intangible and is said to be 'immensely complex' but we really have no information to go on. The clue about a horcrux being placed inside a living thing makes me think not about Harry, but how that could be used against him in book 7. Now that Dumbledore is dead, Harry will be the target of Voldemort again (really, removing Dumbledore was the most logical plan LV has had in 6 books ). Today I put on my evil overlord hat and thought, what would be the best way to get to Harry? Here are two heinous options...bwahahaha!: 1) Kidnap someone close to Harry and threaten to make that person into a horcrux. Hate to say it but Ron the sacrificial knight might be a good bet. 2) Voldemort discovers Harry's hatred for Snape, LV decides it's time to punish Snape and makes *him* into a horcrux. He's hoping to tempt Harry to take a step toward evil ways and try to kill Snape, but of course he overlooks the fact that Harry's love protects him from Voldemort's temptation. Those were the only two I could think of. Anyone else want to be evil overlord for the day? Jen, who doesn't really want to see either of these options take place, but keeps thinking of JKR's dire predictions about Harry facing many difficult choices. From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 05:41:35 2005 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 05:41:35 -0000 Subject: Why is Percy in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144644 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > > Shouldn't he be in Slytherin? Thirst for power? Abuse of power? Ability > to befriend those in power? Lack of family loyalty? Attempts to divide > family? Doddiemoemoe replies: I think Percy may be a foil of Malfoy's....with Percy we see what would have happened if Malfoy had decent parents.. Also...how could anyone raised in the weasley household be anything other than Gryphindor...what with Molly and Fred and George alone...not to even mention the older sibs... and last, One would have to be brave at heart to even consider angering one or two members of the family...not to mention the entire lot! Whether Percy is a spy/doublespy/outright enemy, makes no difference with regards to your question....any way you look at it..he has a great deal of courage and bravery. I once questioned whether or not PP/Wormtail may have imperioed Percy during Percy's ownership...(now, looking back...he may have even imperioed Ron.)..PP did sleep in their beds...and he did have ready access to their wands...and may have had Voldies wand with him the entire time... I KNOW why Percy is in Gryphindor..(at the very least he told the sorting hat exactly where he wanted to be--just like Harry) With reading HBP...I'm not entirely sure why Percy decided to publicly aly himself with the MOM...(other than it may make more sense if PP/Wormtail imperioed him...) If Percy didn't believe Harry at the end of GOF...he may well have not believed PP was an animagus...(theories abound there).. Doddiemoemoe (who may well consider that there is a stronger link between percy and scabbers than we may think) From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Tue Dec 13 07:06:20 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 07:06:20 -0000 Subject: Rosier, Rookwood, Snape's gang of Slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144645 Elyse wrote earlier: > > In the scene in HBP, Voldemort is around 35 years old by my > calculations and Snape is eighteen years into the future. > So Rosier is at least 18 years older than Snape... The more I > look at those two passages I think Snape did not have > any > friends in school. He was not in contact with future DEs anyway. > He could not have hung around with Lucius since he is 6 years older > than Snape. That leaves Bella and Cissy.Highly unlikely IMO. > Anyway I'm confused. Help! > zgirnius replied: > As a guess, the Rosier of the Marauders' Era was the son of the > Rosier of the Riddle Era. That is also most likely the case with the > Lestranges (that they are two generations of Death Eaters)> zgirnius: In the > Pensieve scene with the Lestrange brothers and Bellatrix Lestrange, > no mnetion is made that she seems much younger than they are. She is > a rough contemporary of Snape and the Marauders, though several years > ahead in school. So I would guess this is also true of Avery. Elyse: Well, in Slughorn's memory, Avery is told to hand in an essay with Lestrange so at least one of the Lestrange brothers and Avery was at school with Tom Riddle for sure. That leaves the other Lestrange brother and Avery's future child to be in Snape's gang of Slytherins. > -hekatesheadband > With respect to the issue of Rosier et al, easy: they had children. > They're presumably the families with a reputation for Dark Arts and > pureblood supremacist ideology, just like the Blacks, the Malfoys, and > the Gaunts. Elyse again: Hmm...that would be the logical solution wouldnt it? But its still very confusing. As I say, at the time of Voldemort's interview with Dumbledore, Snape was eighteen years into the future. At this point LV was around 35, so Rosier, Avery, etc, must have been roughly the same age (at least Avery since hes in Sluggy's office in the Horcruxes memory). If Rosier, Avery etc were 35 at this time, their kids that Snape would play with in future had to be born sometime around 59/60 since they must have been roughly Snape's age in order to allow him to be one of the gang. I can buy Avery having a child 18 years into the future, but Rosier too, and Lestrange as well? Did they all get together that year and decide now would be an auspicious time for all three of them to have children? I dunno... it just seems highly unlikely. Of course, the Lestrange Snape hung out with could be the younger brother. But that would make an 18 or so year age difference between the two of them, and the older Lestrange would be as old as LV, much too old to go running around the Ministry in OOtP, and the age difference would have been noticeable to Harry in the Pensieve scene. So again, seeing as Bella is much older than Snape and I'm guessing the Lestrange she married was at the most one or two years younger than her, I still dont see how Snape could have played with them while he was at Hogwarts. > hekatesheadband wrote: > Bellatrix would seem too old for the "Gang of Slytherins," but then > again, Charlie Weasley is two years older than Percy by JKR's own > conception but 8-10 years older by the indications of PS/SS. We're > also not sure of Bella's age relative to the Lestrange brothers, one > of whom she married. > zgirnius: And I guess the > Lestrange who married Bella (I forget which it was) was probably of > about the same age... Elyse: This does seem to be important to the timeline. I hope we can ask JKR one of these days. It could be JKR confusing timelines like with Charlie but maybe it was a way of telling us that Snape had no friends in school and did not hang out with future DE gangs? hekatesheadband: > Granted, all this is from someone who didn't make the Grim/Sirius > Black connection until it became explicit. ;) > Elyse: Heh. Me neither. Good to know I'm not alone! From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 13 07:31:08 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 07:31:08 -0000 Subject: Can you guess the title of book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144646 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amiabledorsai" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" > wrote: > > > > We'll probably know the title of book 7 a year before we actually can > > read it, perhaps more, so it might be fun to guess what that title > > could be, Amiable Dorsai: > "Neville Longbottom and the Misunderstood Prophecy" Geoff: No way! That would give far too many clues away! It reminds me of the time when LOTR was being published and JRRT was unhappy that the title of the third volume was "Return of the King"because it proved that Aragorn was going to be on the winning side... From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 13 07:41:38 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 07:41:38 -0000 Subject: Lily, Voldemort, AK and the atomic bomb analogy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144647 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "redeyedwings" wrote: ReW: > This is interesting. I don't have my books to hand, but I'd like > to throw a wrench in here, possibly anyway: > > A soul splits when its owner kills a human being (irregardless of > horcrux-making intent), right? I'm pretty sure this is true. But > what about when the AK is used to kill something else ... I don't > know, maybe, a spider? > > IIRC, and remember I have no books in front of me, does Harry not hear the rushing sound when Fake!Moody kills the spider in front > of the class? > > If so, by that logic, Fake!Moody's soul was sundered by the > killing of a little arachnoid. Something seems wrong. Of course, > it could be me, and it could be that the rushing sound we only > hear when a human is killed .... but we need someone to quote the > relevant canon, and as I'm stuck at work, it ain't gonna be me.... Geoff: 'Moody raised his wand and Harry felt a sudden thrill of foreboding. "Avada Kedavra!" Moody roared. There was a flash of blinding green light and a rushing sound as though a vast, invisible something was soaring through the air - instantaneously the spider rolled over onto its back, unmarked, but unmistakeably dead.' (GOF "The Unforgiveable Curses" pp.190-191 UK edition) but.... '(Tom Riddle speaking) "How do you split your soul?" "Well," said Slughorn uncomfortably, "you must understand that the soul is supposed to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, it is against nature." "But how do you do it?" "By an act of evil - the supreme act of evil. By committing murder..."' (HBP "Horcruxes" p.465 UK edition) I hope I am not offending any arachnophiles, but I do not think that killing a spider is considered to be a "supreme act of evil"..... From h2so3f at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 08:16:16 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:16:16 -0000 Subject: Can you guess the title of book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144648 CH3ed: Perhaps: Harry Potter and the Fulfilled Prophecy ? or Harry Potter and the Second War ? From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Tue Dec 13 09:43:55 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:43:55 -0000 Subject: Why is Percy in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144649 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hekatesheadband" wrote: > With Gryffindor, as presented in the books, the good side is obvious. > Gryffindors tend to be conscious of doing what is right, of > considering foremost the ethical implications of their choices and > actions. That's when they do consider them, of course ? people in > general, and adolescents in particular, can be impetuous, and the > "daring" streak can amplify this. (And they're as likely to harbour > basic human nastiness as anyone, most likely.) Nonetheless, they are > the most likely to do what is right rather than what is easy. They > will, if they must, risk the disapproval of peers (e.g., Neville), > family (Sirius), and society (Harry, Hermione) if necessary in order > to maintain ethical behaviour. They are independent, though not to the > point of being anti-social. > Actually, this is a very good description of Percy. Percy believes in Rules. Percy obeys them, lives by them. Yes, he is ambitious, but I'm sure he truly believes that in the quarrel with Arthur he did what was right. And that it was not easy and took quite a bit of courage. Ofcourse we as readers knew from the start that the MoM had its facts wrong and did not want to know the reality. But Percy did not. He had to make choices on the basis of what he believed to be right, and he choose the rules. That it was good for his career and that he desperately wanted to believe Fudge choose him for his own merit surely helped his judgement, and I'm sure he was a bit dishonest with himself there, but in the atmosphere he worked in, where people were constantly attacking DD for being a scaremonger etc. it is easy to see he got influenced by that and wanted to do the right thing. Gerry, who does not think Percy is a spy for DD or a DE From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Dec 13 10:04:56 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:04:56 -0000 Subject: Can you guess the title of book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144650 > Amiable Dorsai: > > > "Neville Longbottom and the Misunderstood Prophecy" > > Geoff: > > No way! That would give far too many clues away! It reminds me of the > time when LOTR was being published and JRRT was unhappy that the title > of the third volume was "Return of the King"because it proved that > Aragorn was going to be on the winning side... Ceridwen: Harry Potter and the Final Battle? From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Dec 13 10:24:36 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:24:36 -0000 Subject: Lily, Voldemort, AK and the atomic bomb analogy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144651 Geoff: > 'Moody raised his wand and Harry felt a sudden thrill of foreboding. > "Avada Kedavra!" Moody roared. > There was a flash of blinding green light and a rushing sound as > though a vast, invisible something was soaring through the air - > instantaneously the spider rolled over onto its back, unmarked, but > unmistakeably dead.' > (GOF "The Unforgiveable Curses" pp.190-191 UK edition) > > but.... > > '(Tom Riddle speaking) > "How do you split your soul?" > "Well," said Slughorn uncomfortably, "you must understand that the > soul is supposed to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act > of violation, it is against nature." > "But how do you do it?" > "By an act of evil - the supreme act of evil. By committing > murder..."' > (HBP "Horcruxes" p.465 UK edition) > > I hope I am not offending any arachnophiles, but I do not think that > killing a spider is considered to be a "supreme act of evil"..... Ceridwen: Sure it is!.. If you're another spider. ;) I wasn't going for it being the sound of the *soul splitting*, but I do think it's the sound of a great amount of power being put behind the spell. And I do think Saraquel made a good point about the magnitude of the AK. The reason I don't think it is the sound of the soul splitting is because the victim isn't dead yet. If only murder can split the soul, per Slughorn, and Dumbledore doesn't dispute this, then intending to murder isn't the same thing. The originaly idea by Saraquel was: > It starts with the idea that the Avada Kadavra curse is created by > splitting the soul, rather like the splitting of the atom, where a > huge amount of energy is released, along with radiation. The > rushing sound which is heard when the spell is cast is the blast > wave rolling out from the splitting of the soul. At the MoM in OotP, Bellatrix tells Harry he has to mean it in order to cast Cruciatus. His attempts were ineffective. The AK is the only one of the three meant for killing. IMO, that would require a great amount of power being concentrated in a small area (tip of the wand) in a split second of time. The rushing sound, if the Fake! Moody AK is typical, follows the green light, and is the sound of the gathered power following the spell. This would act like the A-Bomb in a way, the drawing in and then the spreading out or release of the power. And, I think that would make sense. Harry gains some of LV's particular powers, at least one we know of so far, Parseltongue. That would be a byproduct of the power hitting him just after the curse is deflected. I'm assuming that the curse is what made the scar, and the scar would then be the point of entry for the power(s) which followed the green light. So, IMO, the A-Bomb scenario is valid. Not the part about the soul being split before the victim has become the victim, but in relation to the amount of power needed to cast the spell, its concentration, and the idea that it would leave a vacuum (I think that would be the right word?) in its wake as it is released. Ceridwen. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 10:55:41 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:55:41 -0000 Subject: Can you guess the title of book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144652 > Amiable Dorsai: > > > "Neville Longbottom and the Misunderstood Prophecy" > > Geoff: > > No way! That would give far too many clues away! It reminds me of the > time when LOTR was being published and JRRT was unhappy that the title > of the third volume was "Return of the King"because it proved that > Aragorn was going to be on the winning side... I see I'm going to have to lay in a supply of colons, hyphens and right parens. Amiable Dorsai From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 12:12:38 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:12:38 -0000 Subject: Horcrux query In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144653 > truthbeauty1 wrote: > I think it is at least a possibility that Harry was somehow > accidentally made into a horcrux on the night that his parents died, > but that because of his mother's love sacrifice, the horcrux was > destroyed. > > > CH3ed: > Well, DD doesn't see it that way or he wouldn't have told Harry that > there are 4 Horcruxes left to destroy. I think the scenario is > unlikely because of the direction of the AK in the scene. The AK > leaves LV's wand, hit Harry and bounced back to hit LV, destroying > his body and ripped out his original soul. So if anything I'd expect > LV's soul to be moving away from Harry instead of toward him and > entering him (making Harry a Horcrux... or not. The original soul > cannot be destroyed as long as the other Horcruxed soul pieces > exist, isn't it? So if anything Harry would have been possessed). I > can see the power it needed for LV's cast the AK entering Harry when > the curse hit him, but not LV's soul. Annemehr: Not to be arguing for one theory or another, but don't forget that LV's soul was a bit ragged at that point. There were two very fresh soul-tears from the murders of Lily and James, to start with. Also, I imagine LV had done more killings than he used soul-bits for Horcruxes up to that point. When LV's body was ripped away that night, who knows what happened to all those shreds of soul? Do bits from old murders sort of "adhere" to the main part with a sort of scar? What about the freshly torn pieces from killing Harry's parents? For all we know, soul-pieces may have gone flying in all directions when the AK hit, or they may stick with the core piece unless purposefully removed. We have no idea. Annemehr waving to Jen, meanwhile From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Dec 13 12:29:55 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:29:55 -0000 Subject: Rosier, Rookwood, Snape's gang of Slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144654 > > Elyse again: Hmm...that would be the logical solution wouldnt it? > But its still very confusing. As I say, at the time of Voldemort's > interview with Dumbledore, Snape was eighteen years into the future. > At this point LV was around 35, so Rosier, Avery, etc, must have > been roughly the same age (at least Avery since hes in Sluggy's > office in the Horcruxes memory). > Potioncat: Well, if you look at Harry's gang in OoP, you have the twins in 7th year, the Trio in 5th and Ginny and Luna in 4th. If you consider Harry's gang to be the Quidditch team, you have an even wider age range. We were told that Riddle wasn't the oldest of the boys in Slughorn's office, although I've forgotten what year he was in at the time. Riddle graduated around 1945. The Marauders' generation will be born in 59/60 so Snape's gang could have been born between oh, 55--65, or even wider, depending on how long the "gang" existed. 1955 is about the time Voldemort applied for the DADA job with DD. I think there was plenty of time for Riddle's generation to marry and have kids. In fact, that's usually what happens. A bunch of friends graduates, marry within a few years of each other, have kids about the same time, some a little sooner, some a little later. So while the DEs were sitting in the pub waiting for LV, their wives were home changing nappies and complaining that their husbands spend too much time with What's-His-Name. Also, we have four DEs who did have kids the same year: Nott, Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle. Interestingly enough, Nott is Riddle's age. I think this was JKR's way of showing us the generations of DEs. Keeping in mind the older ones are still involved. Also, remember, McGonagall, Hagrid and Riddle overlapped their time at Hogwarts. From phil at pcsgames.net Tue Dec 13 13:05:04 2005 From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:05:04 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Can you guess the title of book 7? References: Message-ID: <000801c5ffe5$db378650$6600a8c0@phil> No: HPFGUIDX 144655 Ceridwen: > Harry Potter and the Final Battle? > Now Phil: By analyzing the book titles there might be a clue to the title of book seven. Book 1, an object; Book 2, a place; Book 3, a person; Book 4, an object; Book 5, a place; Book 6, a person. So book 7 should be the name of an object. But since each thing that was the title of the book was not brought up in any of the previous books it probably will be a new object. It will not be a stone or goblet. Since the last puzzle in book 1 was a mirror it could be a different one, as in, Harry Potter and the Mirror of Truth. Or if you think about the suits of the Tarot that includes swords, cups, pentacles and wands, it could be, Harry Potter and the Wand of Ravenclaw Phil who thinks the wand of a founder would be a most treasured object. From mudblood68 at yahoo.de Tue Dec 13 10:17:38 2005 From: mudblood68 at yahoo.de (Claudia) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:17:38 -0000 Subject: Can you guess the title of book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144656 Up to now JKR has always used something that we didn't know before, at least not with this name: we didn't know about the Philosopher's Stone (obviously not as it was the first book), we had never heard about the Chamber of Secrets, we didn't know about Harry's godfather being a Prisoner of Askaban, we didn't know a Goblet of Fire existed and we didn't know that those who fought Voldemort were organised in the Order of the Phoenix. Well, we did know Snape, but we didn't know he was a half-blood and of course we didn't know his self-invented name "Half Blood Prince". Since I don't think JKR will come with something completely new in book7, I think we have to look for something or somebody we already know and which will be extremely important for the 7th book and think of a new name. Claudia From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Tue Dec 13 14:13:55 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:13:55 -0000 Subject: Animagi, WAS significant Trevor/ Crookshanks In-Reply-To: <02e001c5ff78$b3566830$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144657 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > > I think we will see another animagus in book 7. Maybe some of you would say > "not another one, we've seen enough animagi". > I never thought of Trevor. But yes, maybe he is not what he seems to be. But > he didn't do anything suspicious up to now, so maybe he is just a running > gag, a means to characterize Neville. > But Crookshanks? Maybe it is really just the Kneazle half of him that > enabled him to recognise both Peter as "bad" and Sirius as "good". But I'm > not so sure. Crookshanks chasing Scabbers - likely for a cat, most likely > for a Kneazle. Crookshanks being friend of Sirius' dog form: surprising for > a cat, possible for a Kneazle. But Crookshanks shielding Sirius in the > Shrieking Shack, protecting him with his own life? A bit too much for a > Kneazle, maybe. > We considered Dumbledore's speech to Draco: "we can hide you more completely > than you can possibly imagine", and we thought of Regulus hiding as Mrs > Filch. > Regulus is Sirius brother. Read PoA again and keep the theory in your mind: > Regulus, younger brother of Sirius, hides as Crookshanks. It could explain > many things. Marianne: I've often wondered why we've been given little views of Crookshanks and Sirius interacting in such a way that shows Crookshanks' affection for Sirius. In OoP, when Harry first arrives and is sitting in the kitchen talking with Sirius, Crookshanks jumps on Sirius's lap and curls up. Later in Chap 17, when Sirius talks via fire to Harry in the Gryff Common Room, Crookshanks purrs loudly and tries to get close to Sirius, despite the heat from the fire. Crookshanks is around plenty of other people a lot of the time, but it's only with Sirius, IIRC, that JKR has illustrated the animal's fondness for a wizard/witch. Whether this translates into Crookshanks being Regulus...I don't know. Does he just happen to be in the pet store and purchased by Hermione at just the right point in time to be at Hogwarts when fuguitive Sirius is running around? It seems like too big of a coincidence to me. And what would Regulus/Crookshank be doing there? Let's say Regulus has been someone that DD has been able to hide all these years. Does DD not know of Regulus' animagus form? If not, why not? Wouldn't he want to know where this hidden person is? If he does know, is he using Regulus to try to find Sirius and protect Harry? If so, Regulus apparently has followed the Lupin path and does nothing to aid in the capture of his fugitive brother. Or, is Regulus simply passing on information to DD, who does nothing to interfere with how things will play out, or who uses this information to subtly direct how things will play out? Which then takes us too close to Puppetmaster!DD for my comfort. OTOH, I reread the section in HBP where DD talks about Harry's inheriting 12 GP. People, including me, have used that to dismiss the possibility of Regulus being alive. But, maybe we're reading too much into this inheritance thing. Dumbledore says merely that "Black family tradition" decreed the inheritance went to the next male heir. There is nothing to indicate that this is some sort of magical contract that "knows" whether a real heir is still alive. Sirius could have simply believed that Regulus was dead, and thus drew up his will naming Harry as heir. The potential complications on the will arose from whether the house itself might have some sort of protection on it that would only allow a pureblood Black to own it. And, evidently, as was shown when Harry's orders to Kreacher were obeyed, the house didn't have these protections. I guess I like the idea of Regulus being alive. But, the final thing that gives me pause is what JKR said in one of her post-OoP things (World Book Day chat??) when someone asked if we'd hear more from Regulus. Her response was something like "Er..he's been pretty quiet because he's dead." Marianne From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Tue Dec 13 14:31:49 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:31:49 +0100 Subject: Four ponderings References: Message-ID: <00d001c5fff1$f4f2ef10$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144658 kelleyaynn wrote: > 2. Another seeming throw-away plot is S.P.E.W. While I don't think > that S.P.E.W. itself is going to be important, I think the large > number of house elves at Hogwarts could be. I'm certain we have not > seen the last of Dobby and Winky, but I'm not sure what they might > do in the last book. Or what a potential "army" of house elves might > be capable of. Any thoughts? Miles: My impression is, elves will be an important factor in WW II. Let's listen to Dobby: "Dobby remembers how it was when He Who Must Not Be Named was at the height of powers, sir! We house-elves were treated like vermin, sir! ... life has improved for my kind since you triumphed over He Who Must Not Be Named. Harry Potter survived, and the Dark Lord's power was broken, and it was a new dawn, sir, and Harry Potter shone like a beacon of hope for those of us who thought the dark days would never end, sir." (CoS, ch 10) Ok, Dobby is special. But I don't think he told us a tall tale. The elves know about the ongoings in the wizards' world, and they know when they are treated badly. And we've seen elves are very powerful - in CoS Lucius Malfoy dares not to fight Dobby with his wand. kelleyaynn wrote: > 4. What role or importance will Ginny play in book 7? She is > underage and certainly can't go with the trio on their hunt for the > horcruxes. But due to her steady development througout the series, > and increasing "face time", I can't see her suddenly becoming a > minor, insignificant character. Miles: I think we can be quite sure to see her as one of the main characters in book 7. You're right, she was built up from 1 to 6, and this would be wasted if she would step in the background again. Does anybody believe that she really accepted Harry's decision to break up? I don't, it would be out of character. Miles From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Tue Dec 13 15:00:05 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:00:05 -0000 Subject: DD's 'reckless behavior' in cave (Re: Snape & Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: <20051211070321.89119.qmail@web36410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144659 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lyn wrote: > Again, forgive me if I'm wrong (because it has been a while since I read HBP), but wasn't DDs 'reckless behavior' in the cave caused by what he was drinking? > I wondered when I read that chapter if DD's behaviour that night was due to the FF potion. But I wondered if JKR wants DD' death be somehow connected with addiction or substance abuse. I don't think so. Yet I found his behaviour that night strange, to say the least. Gerry From becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk Tue Dec 13 13:55:50 2005 From: becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk (Rebecca Williams) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:55:50 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: HBP in russian translation./ Translations in general/ "Severus, please" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051213135550.19762.qmail@web25310.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144660 Alla: I think this is a brilliant interpretation, actually, if one does not support DD!M Snape of course :-) I used to think simply " please do not betray me" or something like that, but yours is so much more elegant IMO because it plays on Lily's begging. Bravo. Becky: With all due respect I don't think this makes sense at all. Why on earth MUST Snape know Harry is there? He had no reason to assume it. Snape wasn't threatening Harry, he had his wand pointed at Dumbledore and didn't even try to kill Harry afterwards - he stopped the others from hurting him, so why would Dumbledore assume Snape was going to hurt Harry? Why would he be pleading for Harry's life at that point? From becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk Tue Dec 13 14:10:37 2005 From: becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk (Rebecca Williams) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:10:37 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Animagi, WAS significant Trevor/ Crookshanks In-Reply-To: <02e001c5ff78$b3566830$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: <20051213141037.20346.qmail@web25312.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144661 Miles wrote: I never thought of Trevor. But yes, maybe he is not what he seems to be. But he didn't do anything suspicious up to now, so maybe he is just a running gag, a means to characterize Neville. Becky says: I think he is just a running gag to characterize Neville, I don't think it would be very imaginative to have another Pettigrew type storyline - been there, done that, uncovered the animagi! Miles: Regulus is Sirius brother. Read PoA again and keep the theory in your mind: Regulus, younger brother of Sirius, hides as Crookshanks. It could explain many things. Becky: Nice theory but on more than one occasion, JKR has categorically said that Crookshanks is not an animagi. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Dec 13 16:20:49 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:20:49 -0000 Subject: HBP in russian translation./ Translations in general/ "Severus, please" In-Reply-To: <20051213135550.19762.qmail@web25310.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144662 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Rebecca Williams wrote: > > Alla: > > I think this is a brilliant interpretation, actually, if one does > not support DD!M Snape of course :-) > > I used to think simply " please do not betray me" or something like > that, but yours is so much more elegant IMO because it plays on > Lily's begging. > > Bravo. > > > Becky: > > With all due respect I don't think this makes sense at all. Why on earth MUST Snape know Harry is there? He had no reason to assume it. Snape wasn't threatening Harry, he had his wand pointed at Dumbledore and didn't even try to kill Harry afterwards - he stopped the others from hurting him, so why would Dumbledore assume Snape was going to hurt Harry? Why would he be pleading for Harry's life at that point? Pippin: Snape would know someone else is there because he, like Draco, would be able to see two brooms. He also knows about the invisibility cloak. I don't think Dumbledore was pleading for Snape to kill him instead of Harry, but he may have pleaded with Snape to let his life be sacrificed for the sake of the others. There's an analogy with the chess game in PS/SS. ---- The white queen turned her blank face toward him. "Yes..." said Ron softly, "it's the only way...I've got to be taken." "NO!" Harry and Hermione shouted. "That's chess!" snapped Ron. "You've got to make some sacrifices! I take one step forward and she'll take me--that leaves you free to checkmate the king, Harry!" --- What's interesting here is that the white queen offers Ron a hint -- and works against her own side. She must know that by taking Ron she exposes her king to checkmate. Does that foreshadow Snape's role in HBP? Pippin From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Dec 13 17:21:10 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:21:10 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why is Percy in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <439F0306.1090401@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144663 sistermagpie wrote: > I think Percy's leaving his family is about something other than > simple lust for power and ambition, as is his love of Crouch. In > fact, reading GoF it's sort of interesting to parallel Percy and > Barty, especially given that Percy also had a troubled relationship > with his own father and wound up "on the other side" from him, just > not a DE. Bart: I think that Percy has been portrayed as having an almost fetishistic (is that a word?) regard for following the rules, ignoring the fact that rules are methods of solving problems, and not independent entities. His love of the rules is greater than his love of his family; when he sees his family operating outside of "proper channels", to him, his famly has abandoned him, rather than vice versa. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Dec 13 17:32:36 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:32:36 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] DD's 'reckless behavior' in cave (Re: Snape & Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: <20051211070321.89119.qmail@web36410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051211070321.89119.qmail@web36410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <439F05B4.1020505@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144664 Lyn wrote: >> Bart: I think Dumbledore knowing he was dying helps explain what >> was surely reckless behavior in the Cave. Lyn: > Again, forgive me if I'm wrong (because it has been a while since I > read HBP), but wasn't DDs 'reckless behavior' in the cave caused by > what he was drinking? Bart: Drinking an unknown potion counts as reckless behavior. And, of course, Dumbledore is not an expert in EVERYTHING, especially when there's at least one professional curse breaker in the OOP. Bart From pegdigrazia at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 16:06:16 2005 From: pegdigrazia at yahoo.com (Peg DiGrazia) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:06:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: HBP in russian translation./ Translations in general/ "Severus, please" In-Reply-To: <20051213135550.19762.qmail@web25310.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051213160616.71060.qmail@web42203.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144665 Alla wrote: <> Then Becky wrote: < Why would Dumbledore assume Snape was going to hurt Harry? Why would he be pleading for Harry's life at that point?>> Peg: I agree, Becky. I don't think Snape is interested in Harry at all in this scene. My immediate take on it was the obvious, that DD was begging Snape not to kill him, but after I had time to think and came around to the DDM!Snape theory, I believe it's more along the lines of "Please, Severus, we both knew this moment was going to come this year, and it has to be done for the greater good. Please, kill me now." Peg, who is glad that work has slowed down and she has time to read 60 HP-related e-mails every morning! --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Dec 13 17:40:09 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:40:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Half-Blood Prince- Dumbledore In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <439F0779.5020407@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144666 Ken wrote: > I was wondering if anyone else caught the fact that Dumbledore was > looking haggard and worn during most of the book, and was wondering if > he had managed to put part of himself into an object (probably Fawkes > the Pheonix) so he could come back to help Harry battle Voldemort in > the last book. Bart: Creating a horcrux requires a murder. I am reasonably sure that Dumbledore is NOT a murderer. On the other hand, stranger things have happened in the books. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Dec 13 17:38:45 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:38:45 -0500 Subject: Mysteries to me; maybe not to you Message-ID: <439F0725.7080307@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144667 Bart: Can anybody explain why Dumbledore was knocked backwards and out a window by Snape's AK spell? Can anybody explain why a personal award given to Tom Riddle ended up in Filch's office? Can anybody explain why Snape sent out the alarm about the raid on the Ministry? Can anybody explain why Lord Voldemort must not be named? Or why they just don't call him "Tommy"? Bart From jferer at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 17:59:52 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:59:52 -0000 Subject: Mysteries to me; maybe not to you In-Reply-To: <439F0725.7080307@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144668 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Bart: > Can anybody explain why Dumbledore was knocked backwards and out a > window by Snape's AK spell? Well. not out a window, but over a parapet. We've seen spells have physical effects many times - Voldemort's own AK on Harry destroyed the Potter house when it ricocheted, and we've seen misdirected Stunners knock pieces off of gravestones. Perhaps the physical effect depends on the vehemence with which the spell was cast. > > Can anybody explain why a personal award given to Tom Riddle ended > up in Filch's office? Do you mean the award for services to the school? That was in the Trophy Room, not his office. Can't look it up right now. > > Can anybody explain why Snape sent out the alarm about the raid on the Ministry? I'd love to know the answer to that one myself. Why must Voldemort must not be named? It increases the whole fear thing, the terror. Names have power in magic - in a lot of fantasy literature the Evil One hears it every time he's named, things like that. > Or why they just don't call him "Tommy"? The Death Eaters don't want to get sued by The Who or that Hilfiger guy. From rh64643 at appstate.edu Tue Dec 13 18:01:24 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:01:24 -0000 Subject: Mysteries to me; maybe not to you In-Reply-To: <439F0725.7080307@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144669 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Bart: > Can anybody explain why Dumbledore was knocked backwards and out a > window by Snape's AK spell? > Can anybody explain why a personal award given to Tom Riddle ended up in > Filch's office? > Can anybody explain why Snape sent out the alarm about the raid on the > Ministry? > > Can anybody explain why Lord Voldemort must not be named? Or why they > just don't call him "Tommy"? Ok, there is not a really satisfying answer to number one, to my knowledge. Some people actually use this as proof that Dumbledore was not really hit by the AK, and is infact still alive. Personally, I think there is a lot of inconsistancies in the way different cureses effect different people. I think this may have to deal with emotion. If Snape was, as I believe he was, very emotionally charged in the moment he performed the curse, perhaps it had an effect on the force of the curse. It could also be because Dumbledore was particularly hard to kill? I just don't know. As to your second question, I am not sure what you are refering to. When Ron was cleaning Tom Riddle's award, he was in the trophy room being supervised by Filch. IF this is not the instance you were thinking of, I am not sure? As to your 3ed question, it depends on what you think of snape? If you think he is still really good, then this would make perfect sense. If you think that Snape is evil, then he could have been trying to save face, so to speak, so that he could remain at Hogwarts. It would have been fishy if Harry had come back and told the message of what he did to Dumbledore. Snape would have had to pretended to not know what Harry was speaking of, and he is normally a man who doesnt miss a beat.The last question. Well most people do not in fact know that Voldemort used to be Tom Riddle, but I know you were just kidding. I think Rowling uses this as an example of how paralyzed with fear Voldemort has made the wizarding world. It is also just a silly kind of superstitious thing that these people have fallen into. I mean Fudge was so scared of Voldemort, that he wouldnt even believe he was back, at the great expense of the wizarding community. I hope that helped you out some, and I am sure others will write with different answeres and possibly better explanations. truthbeauty1 From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Dec 13 18:12:52 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:12:52 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why is Percy in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <439F0F24.1010609@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144670 montavilla47 wrote: > Montavilla (Magical me!): > > JKR has said that she based the Houses on the four elements: Fire > (Gryffindor), Water (Slytherin), Air (Ravenclaw), and Earth > (Hufflepuff). > > If you look at the elements instead of relying solely on the > buzzwords of "brave" and "cunning," it might help explain a bit more > what the Hat looks for in each student it sorts. For this, it's good > to look at a basic astrology book (as it also uses the four > elements), or the Tarot (which bases its four suits on the four > elements). Bart: The major problem with this is that JKR has stated, numerous times, that her knowledge of the occult is limited to common knowledge (or at least was when she planned the books; she may have learned something in the meantime). Therefore, scholarly analysis of occultism is a great way of going in the wrong direction. Bart From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 18:19:27 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:19:27 -0000 Subject: Mysteries to me; maybe not to you In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144671 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "truthbeauty1" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Bart: Can anybody explain why Lord Voldemort must not be named? Or why they just don't call him "Tommy"? Truthbeauty1: Well most people do not in fact know that Voldemort used to be Tom Riddle, but I know you were just kidding. I think Rowling uses this as an example of how paralyzed with fear Voldemort has made the wizarding world. It is also just a silly kind of superstitious thing that these people have fallen into. Amiable Dorsai: At a guess, the Death Eaters went around making examples of people who bandied the name "Voldemort" during the first war. I don't think you can exactly classify the continuing fear of the name as "superstition", exactly. Witches and Wizards, especially Purebloods who grow up around magic, know deep in their bones that *words have power*. Once Tommy convinced them that his nom de psychosis was bad medicine, it's not too surprising that they would continue to be afraid of what to Harry, and lately, Hermione, is a "mere word". Amiable Dorsai From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Dec 13 18:28:33 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:28:33 -0000 Subject: Evil Overlord for the day (Re: Horcrux query) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144672 Jen: > The clue about a horcrux being placed inside a living thing makes > me think not about Harry, but how that could be used against him in > book 7. Now that Dumbledore is dead, Harry will be the target of > Voldemort again (really, removing Dumbledore was the most logical > plan LV has had in 6 books ). Today I put on my evil overlord > hat and thought, what would be the best way to get to Harry? Here > are two heinous options...bwahahaha!: > > 1) Kidnap someone close to Harry and threaten to make that person > into a horcrux. Hate to say it but Ron the sacrificial knight might > be a good bet. > > 2) Voldemort discovers Harry's hatred for Snape, LV decides it's > time to punish Snape and makes *him* into a horcrux. He's hoping to > tempt Harry to take a step toward evil ways and try to kill Snape, > but of course he overlooks the fact that Harry's love protects him > from Voldemort's temptation. SSSusan: Actually... the way Harry feels about Snape just as Year 6 ends, I think he very much WOULD be SORELY tempted by an opportunity to off Snape! (Snape had better watch his ass 'til Harry gets a chance, *somehow*, to hear & believe that Snape was following DD's orders on the tower. IMHO only, of course--YMMV) :-) Anyway, I think something along the lines of the two options Jen has presented would be VERY wise of Voldy. (Then again, as noted, he hasn't done a whole lot of wise things that we've been privvy to, has he?) What I wonder is: Is it possible to keep from Voldy the knowledge that his horcruxes are being hunted & destroyed? Will Voldy not have built into one or more of them some kind of special, internal, additional magic which would provide him with a warning that somebody's messin' with his goods? I mean, he's an overconfident kind of guy, but would he be THAT stupid to not at least consider a magical alert mechanism on at least one of the horcruxes? Assuming Voldy does become aware of the search & destroy mission -- whether by such a pre-planned alert mechanism or by means of a traitor's report from within the Order or somehow getting the info out of Snape -- wouldn't it be likely that Voldy would then make MORE horcruxes? I mean, as long as he can stay one step ahead, he could just keep killing people & creating howlops, couldn't he? Making Harry's mission seemingly endless. I doubt Jo will do that to Harry/to us -- and I suppose in the final volume it would be more likely that such knowledge of Harry's horsechow hunt would simply cause Voldy to turn & go *after* Harry, rather than engage in more evasive measures like creating more hortchops. Still, I think it would make SENSE for Voldy to make more and/or to do as Jen suggested in #1 -- kidnap someone and either threaten to or actually do make a horcrux out of him/her. ::shudders at the thought of Ron, Hermie or Ginny here:: Now, SNAPE as a horcrux... wouldn't that make the folks salivating for karmic payback happy? :-) Siriusly Snapey Susan, convinced (for now) that if Voldy finds out about the horslut hunt from Snape, it won't be from an intentional act on Snape's part. From kchuplis at alltel.net Tue Dec 13 16:37:24 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:37:24 -0000 Subject: Can you guess the title of book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144673 Harry Potter and the Golden Phoenix..... kchuplis From pegdigrazia at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 16:09:49 2005 From: pegdigrazia at yahoo.com (Peg DiGrazia) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:09:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Can you guess the title of book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051213160949.39855.qmail@web42205.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144674 Claudia: <> Miles: <> Peg: Harry Potter and the Gift of the Animagi :-) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 18:38:04 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:38:04 -0000 Subject: Rosier, Rookwood, Snape's gang of Slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144675 Elyse wrote: > > While rereading HBP, I was struck by the a couple of sentances > uttered by Dumbledore that confused me thoroughly as to Rosier's age. > > And as a side note is Rookwood's name Augustus or Algernon? > He is referred to as Augustus in GoF, but in the Daily Prophet, it > is Algernon Rookwood. Siblings, or the same man? Or a FLINT? Carol responds: Hi, Elyse. I'm behind on posting, so your Rookwood question may already have been answered (I found only one response, which guessed that "Algernon" was a Daily Prophet error), but in fact "Algernon Rookwood" is an error that occurs only in the British first edition. http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/a-z/r.html The American editions have "Augustus" consistently, and presumably the error was caught and corrected in the later British editions as well. Why Augustus rather than Algernon? Probably because we already have an Algernon: Neville's Uncle Algie. Regarding Rosier, et al.: I know you've had several responses, but I'll just add my little bit. Clearly, being a DE is a family tradition for some families, including the Rosiers and the Lestranges (and, as we see, in HBP, the Malfoys). The Rosier who was part of the gang of Slytherins mentioned by Sirius Black is clearly the son of the Rosier mentioned in that scene. Elsewhere in HBP, I think a Lestrange is mentioned who would have to be the father of Rodolphus and Rabastan (Bellatrix's husband and brother-in-law). Nott Sr. (Theo Nott's father) we know to be older than most of the DEs (about Voldemort's age). Possibly Avery (the MoM employee), Mulciber (the Imperius specialist who's sent to Azkaban), and Dolohov (a vicious murderer, IIRC, also sent to Azkaban) are also of Voldemort's generation as they're not mentioned as being part of the Slytherin gang. Re the gang itself, I'm guessing that Lucius Malfoy was the original leader but is not mentioned by SB because he is six years older than Severus Snape and the Marauders and would only have been at Hogwarts for a year or two while they were there. I think he "adopted" the precocious eleven-year-old Severus into his gang (the "lap dog" reference) because the little boy knew so many hexes and was clearly a genius. Bellatrix Lestrange is also older than Severus by about three years (Sirius last saw her at the end of his fourth year, which means that she must have left Hogwarts at that point, or earlier). Her husband, Rodolphus, and his brother Rabastan must have been about the same age. Perhaps Wilkes and Rosier were somewhere between Lucius Malfoy's age and Bellatrix's. Regardless, all of them would have been older than Severus Snape, which explains why no one stood up for him when Sirius and James hexed him--they had all graduated, or at least, they weren't in his year and so would not have been among the fifth years who had just taken the DADA OWL. My apologies if all this has already been discussed. As I said, I'm behind on posting. Carol From sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 18:46:50 2005 From: sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com (hekatesheadband) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:46:50 -0000 Subject: Mysteries to me; maybe not to you In-Reply-To: <439F0725.7080307@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144676 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Bart: > Can anybody explain why Dumbledore was knocked backwards and out a > window by Snape's AK spell? All AKs knock the victim up and back: that's why they're on their backs spread-eagled. Otherwise they'd either collapse facedown (real-world physics) or topple back/sideways. If you read closely the scene where "Moody" kills the spider and the one where Bella kills the fox, you'll see that little element. The other ones we've seen are elliptical at best, but Cedric wound up in that position. This may be compounded by the fact that all of Snape's offensive wand-work (in the sense of "the opposite of defence," not "morally or personally repellant") - his "expelliarmus" in CoS, the Sectusempra he cast on James in the OotP memory, and whatever he did to Harry before Buckbeak intervened in HBP, all caused their targetss to be lifted somewhat and then to fall backward. That's not normal for the first two spells; no info on the third. Part of the Potterverse seems to be that advanced or powerful spells vary slightly in their effects according to caster, just as apparation sounds, patroni, and animagus forms vary between individuals. > > Can anybody explain why a personal award given to Tom Riddle ended up in > Filch's office? I've lent my books out, but I think it was in a hall with a bunch of trophies, which Filch had Ron clean during detention. That one was memorable not because of its placement but because Ron kept vomiting slugs on it. Good on him, too! ;) > > Can anybody explain why Snape sent out the alarm about the raid on the > Ministry? No matter what his alleigance, both sides must believe that he is really loyal to and spying for them while only hoodwinking the other into believing the same thing. (If it failed, Dumbledore would have him in Azkaban or Voldemort would have him in the ground. Or the water; take your pick.;) If he is loyal to Dumbledore, he must raise the alarm for obvious reasons. Under any circumstances, he can then tell Voldemort that he dallied to give the Death Eaters sufficient time to carry out the plan, while maintaining Dumbledore's trust and thus his useful position as a spy. If he's actually on Dumbledore's side, this is a lie. If he's really on either Voldemort's or only his own side, it's true. No matter what, it's the only way to keep all his bases covered. > > Can anybody explain why Lord Voldemort must not be named? Or why they > just don't call him "Tommy"? That one I'm inclined to chalk up to aesthetic predilection on JKR's part. -hekatesheadband Because the Sorting Hat is really Bono. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 19:24:07 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:24:07 -0000 Subject: No canon!! Re: Dumbledore in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144677 Potioncat wrote: > > The Lexicon states that DD was Head of Gryffindor and that would confirm that he was in Gryffindor. But I can't find the canon for that. > > The only canon I could find in CoS was that he was the Transfiguration teacher. Ceridwen responded: > I guess I'm a victim of 'it seems like', too. I thought that, since Minerva McGonagall took both the Transfigurations position, which was Dumbledore's, and became Head of Gryffindor, that Dumbledore vacated both posts the year he became headmaster and Minerva therefore inherited both. > > No canon, of course, just my take. But I think it could be supported by Snape being both Potions Master and Head of Slytherin, which we see in canon were both Slughorn's positions. We don't know when Slughorn retired, or at least I don't remember the cite. But we do know he was there at least through the Marauders', Lily's and Snape's sixth year. It isn't hard to stretch it out, that Snape took both positions upon Slughorn's retirement, which is when Dumbledore would have hired him on. Carol adds: I'm sure that JKR says in an interview somewhere that DD was a Gryffindor--as all her favorite characters, including Hagrid, were. Even without that statement, we can deduce the likelihood that he was from other evidence: Hermione's statement in Book 1 (how likely is she to be wrong on that count?); DD's attitude toward Gryffindor ("Only a true Gryffindor could have pulled that sword out of the hat, Harry"); the very fact that he put the sword of Gryffindor into the Sorting Hat as an aid for those who were loyal to him (anticipating, no doubt, that the person who needed it would be Harry); the red and gold plumage of his Phoenix, Fawkes; and the "griffin door" knocker on his office door--which right away told me that Gryffindor had been his house. All circumstantial evidence, I realize, but it adds up. I agree with Ceridwen that McGonagall would have become both Transfiguration teacher and Head of Gryffindor House when she took over from Dumbledore (who presumably hired her) and that the same thing happened with young Severus Snape, who applied for the always vacant DADA position but was giving Potions, which was most conveniently vacant because, presumably, Slughorn had just retired. The HOH position would also have been vacant and was given to Snape, despite the fact that he was only twenty-two years old, either because there were no other Slytherin teachers or because DD wished to place the young man in a position of responsibility to demonstrate his trust. I don't think there's a *necessary* link between the Potions position and the Head of Slytherin House position since Snape was still HOH after he was transferred to the DADA position, but I think there's a thematic link--Potions and Slytherin go together, as do Transfiguration and Gryffindor (note that the Marauders, even Pettigrew, excelled at Transfiguration, whereas Sevvie excelled at Potions--and DADA, which is not associated with a House). If the analogy holds, Herbology would be associated with Hufflepuff and Charms with Ravenclaw. Herbology does at least seem, erm, rooted in the earth, and Charms involves (among other things) making objects hover or zoom through the air. (Weak, I know, since conjuring objects out of thin air is a form of Transfiguration.) At any rate, I think there's no question that DD was a Gryffindor (though he exemplifies traits of all four Houses) and it's likely that McGonagall and Snape became Heads of their respective Houses immediately after being hired for their respective teaching posts. They were in essence filling the shoes of their predecessors--a very big responsibility, especially in the case of twenty-two-year-old Severus Snape. Carol, hoping she's associated the proper elements with the Houses but short of time to check on details! From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 19:17:53 2005 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:17:53 -0000 Subject: Horcrux!Snape doesn't cut it (was Evil Overlord for the day ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144678 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > Now, SNAPE as a horcrux... wouldn't that make the folks salivating > for karmic payback happy? :-) > No, it certainly would not. The problem with Snape as Horcrux, in terms of karmic payback, is that it just doesn't fit. In that sense, Horcrux!Snape as a form of punishment serves the purpose no better than Murderer!Snape as a form of punishment. In order for the punishment to be "karmic," or "poetic" if you prefer that particular term, it has to have direct resonance with the crime or fault. Lockheart is a sterling example of this principle. His crime lay in obliviating wizards to take the glory for their deeds. Thus, he in turn is obliviated and cannot even remember his own name or actions. One can argue the Dumbledore is another example of this. His fault lies in detachment and failure to understand other people and to communicate adequately with them. The karmic backlash (perhaps most especially if you believe in DDM! Snape) is in seeing his plans and his organizations -- both Hogwarts and the Order -- come to ruin due to his refusal to communicate and share his reasons for trusting Snape or his reasons for believing that Draco was no direct threat (and I don't believe for a minute that Dumbledore was dieing or planned to die at some point during the year). The deep blow struck to the Order likewise comes pretty directly from Dumbledore's detachment and his failure to act agressively and effectively to heal the breech between Snape and Harry. In order for payback to be "karmic," then Snape's punishment has to pretty directly arise from his abuse of Harry and Neville and be obviously tied to the faults he exhibited in perpetrating that abuse. Horcrux!Snape has no such ties, and thus would fail abysmally as a form of poetic retribution. If JKR presented it as such, I would say she has failed completely. Lupinlore From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 19:43:22 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:43:22 -0000 Subject: DD's 'reckless behavior' in cave In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144679 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lyn wrote: > > > Again, forgive me if I'm wrong (because it has been a while > > since I read HBP), but wasn't DDs 'reckless behavior' in the > > cave caused by what he was drinking? > > > > I wondered when I read that chapter if DD's behaviour that night > was due to the FF potion. But I wondered if JKR wants DD' death > be somehow connected with addiction or substance abuse. I don't > think so. Yet I found his behaviour that night strange, to say > the least. > > Gerry > bboyminn: Perhaps, I'm lost; exactly what 'reckless behavior' are we talking about here. Everyone else, seems to tie my statement of 'reckless behavior' to what Dumbledore did after he drank the potion from the pensieve-like bowl in the cave. Personally, I was refering to the actual drinking of the potion as well as Dumbledore behavior that was unrelated to the potion. He seems to be charging forward with little or no regard for his own life or safety. For example, to get into the inner cave, Dumbledore seems to cut an artery since the blood spurts out of his arm and splashed on the secret cave wall entrance. Why commit such a drastic action even if he can heal it quickly? Why not just prick the end of his finger, squeeze out a couple drops of blood and put them on the wall. What Dumdledore did seems like 'reckless behavior' to me. Then we have the drinking of the potion. I can't prove it, but I believe that if Dumbledore had taken his time, he could have found an alternate means. Think of Bill Weasley breaking curses on Egyptian tombs; I seriously doubt that he would think drinking a dangerous potion was the best way to get past it. The only logical reason I can come up with for Dumbledore doing it, is that he was running out of time. He didn't have the luxury of days, weeks, or months to show Harry the meticulous method of curse breaking that the situation required. Certainly, his behavior was irratic during and immediately after drinking the potion, but that's what the potion is suppose to do. It's suppose to create a mental state that makes you want to stop drinking the potion because that is how it protects the Horcrux. Note that after the potion is gone and after Dumbledore gets a drink of water, he recovers, to some extent, very quickly. The potions job was done and futher effect was of little value. Though I'm sure that Dumbledore's sudden extreme thrust was just an extension of the potions effects. Once the potion was gone and the Horcrux was accessable, the next protective enhantment would need to be activated, and that was the Inferi. By the potion making the person desperately thirst and by making the water unavailable from any other source, the sticken wizard would drink the lake water, and that would awaken the inferi. The action of the potion seem quite logical to me. I could be wrong, but all of Dumbledore's actions immediately leading up the cave as while in the cave seem to have an underlying sense of urgency and desperation about them. And that makes me wonder it Dumbledore's time on this earth was already running short. Just a thought. STeve/bboyminn From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 20:09:18 2005 From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:09:18 -0000 Subject: Can you guess the title of book 7? In-Reply-To: <000801c5ffe5$db378650$6600a8c0@phil> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144680 Phil wrote: > By analyzing the book titles there might be a clue to the title of book > seven. > Book 1, an object; > Book 2, a place; > Book 3, a person; > Book 4, an object; > Book 5, a place; > Book 6, a person. > > So book 7 should be the name of an object. Lyra: I hate to spoil a good pattern, but I don't think there's any way "the Order of the Phoenix" qualifies as a place. It's a group of people. (And if one were really argumentative, which I'm not, I promise, one could argue that #3 is both a person (the prisoner) and a place (Azkaban).) From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 20:30:35 2005 From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:30:35 -0000 Subject: Rosier, Rookwood, Snape's gang of Slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144682 > Elyse wrote: > > > > > > And as a side note is Rookwood's name Augustus or Algernon? > > He is referred to as Augustus in GoF, but in the Daily Prophet, it > > is Algernon Rookwood. Siblings, or the same man? Or a FLINT? > > Carol respondsed: > Hi, Elyse. I'm behind on posting, so your Rookwood question may > already have been answered (I found only one response, which guessed > that "Algernon" was a Daily Prophet error), but in fact "Algernon > Rookwood" is an error that occurs only in the British first edition. > http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/a-z/r.html > The American editions have "Augustus" consistently, and presumably the > error was caught and corrected in the later British editions as well. > Why Augustus rather than Algernon? Probably because we already have an > Algernon: Neville's Uncle Algie. > Lyra: I don't usually put much stock in Galadriel Waters (New Clues to HP Book 5), but in this case she says the name was changed by U.S. editors because it was too reminiscent of "Algernon Blackwood" who was a writer of fantasy/horror books, including one called "Dudley and Gilderoy" and another called "The Centaur." From ornawn at 013.net Tue Dec 13 21:11:15 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:11:15 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144683 Subject: Horcrux!Snape doesn't cut it (was Evil Overlord for the day ) SSSusan: What I wonder is: Is it possible to keep from Voldy the knowledge that his horcruxes are being hunted & destroyed? Will Voldy not have built into one or more of them some kind of special, internal, additional magic which would provide him with a warning that somebody's messin' with his goods? I mean, he's an overconfident kind of guy, but would he be THAT stupid to not at least consider a magical alert mechanism on at least one of the horcruxes? Orna: I have a thought about this ? concerning (again ) Snape. It seems that the whole plot of book 7 rests not so much on what Harry will do ? but on who Snape really is. Snape most probably knows DD is hunting Voldemort's horcruxes: he was the one who healed DD when Marvolo's ring-horcrux injured him, and he must have understood something about it, in order to save DD, even if DD didn't confide in him. I think DD did confide in Snape, since he trusts Severus Snape, period. But further on, when he gets out of the cave, he tells Harry, to go directly to Snape, and tell him everything. That sounds very clear to me: DD doesn't feel he has to keep the horcrux-hunt secret from Snape, so he probably has told him before, when he needed his aid. So, if Snape is ESE!Snape ? we may assume he has told Voldemort about the horcrux-hunt. And it might be interesting to see if canon supports it in a way. Because ? if Voldemort is alerted to the hunt ? it might ? 1. Make him feel the most important thing is to get rid of DD, Hmm 2. Do something about moving the horcruxes, or strengthening security. No clear canon about it - the cave-horcrux was fake; did Voldemort know it by now? It doesn't seem Voldemort is very active in moving horcruxes in HBP, but who knows? If Snape is DDM! ? the horcrux hunt is still secret. Since I'm a DDM!Snape, I feel that Harry playing hide and seek with Voldemort on his horcruxes, isn't a very interesting plot for book 7. I mean, part of the point of the horcruxes is that they symbolize Voldemort's torn and split soul. DD says, that perhaps near his death moment Voldemort will be able to realize, his horcruxes are gone, thereby IMO getting human again, feeling the loss and some connectedness with his soul. Voldemort playing around with his horcruxes, hiding them, being concerned about what happens to them, psychologically-wise looks wrong to me. He makes a horcrux, and that's the last he feels about this part belonging to him. He feels save from death, and part of this safety comes from the horcrux being non-related to him anymore ? that's IMO the essence of the ruin to his soul. Orna From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 21:13:14 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:13:14 -0000 Subject: Mysteries to me; maybe not to you In-Reply-To: <439F0725.7080307@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144684 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Bart: > Can anybody explain why Dumbledore was knocked backwards and > out a window by Snape's AK spell? > > Can anybody explain why a personal award given to Tom Riddle ended > up in Filch's office? > > Can anybody explain why Snape sent out the alarm about the raid on > the Ministry? > > Can anybody explain why Lord Voldemort must not be named? Or why > they just don't call him "Tommy"? > > Bart > bboyminn: Q1-AK Curse: Many people will say that the AK curse does no physical harm, and further that it has no physical effect beyond death. But first, you must ask yourself how many AK have you actually seen; from extremely few to none, if you ask me. Most accounts of the AK curse are not actually witnessed, we see before and after, but not during. So we can't say what an AK does or doesn't do in terms of secondary effects. We can only relate after the fact the few examples we do have. However, we have many other spells as examples. Harry stuns Ron repeatedly when they are practicing for the Tri-Wiz Tournement. Ron simply falls down. But when Dumbledore rescues Harry from fake!Moody, his Stunner blasts through a substantial castle door, splintering it in the process, and still has enough power to knock fake!Moody off his feet and into unconsciousness. We see examples of the Expelliarmus; in most cases, like the DA Club, a person's wand flies from their hand. Yet in the Dueling Club when Snape cast the spell against Lockhart, Lockhart is knocked the length of the Dueling Pitch and into the back wall. Again, a tremendous contrast in the effects of the spell. When Herione perform the body-bind on Neville in SS/PS, Neville simply falls over. In other cases, we see people knocked into air and off their feet by the spell. So, I think it depends on the intent and the dynamics of the situation. In a moment of extreme emotion or the heat of the battle, most curses can have tremendous physical force. When cast in calmer more controlled circumstances like the classroom, the basic intended spell effect is there but the additional physical effects are not. Consequently, I don't think we can read too much into the physical effects at the top of the tower. Q2-Award: If we are assuming what you mean correctly, others have already answered this question. The Special Services Sheild was in the trophy room. Q3-He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named (or Tommy): I will let JKR answer this question from the MuggleNet (Emerson) / Leaky Cauldron (Melissa) Edinburgh interview. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-2.htm ES: What prompted people to start referring to Voldemort as You-Know-Who and He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named? JKR: It happens many times in history ? well, you'll know this because you're that kind of people, but for those who don't, having a taboo on a name is quite common in certain civilizations. In Africa there are tribes where the name is never used. Your name is a sacred part of yourself and you are referred to as the son of so-and-so, the brother of so-and-so, and you're given these pseudonyms, because your name is something that can be used magically against you if it's known. It's like a part of your soul. That's a powerful taboo in many cultures and across many folklores. On a more prosaic note, in the 1950s in London there were a pair of gangsters called the Kray Twins. The story goes that people didn't speak the name Kray. You just didn't mention it. You didn't talk about them, because retribution was so brutal and bloody. I think this is an impressive demonstration of strength, that you can convince someone not to use your name. Impressive in the sense that demonstrates how deep the level of fear is that you can inspire. It's not something to be admired. ES: I meant, was there a specific event? JKR: With Voldemort? It was gradual. He was killing and doing some pretty evil things. In the chapter "Lord Voldemort's Request," when he comes back to request that teaching post in book six, you get a real sense that he's already gone quite a long way into the dark arts. By that time a lot of people would be choosing not to use his name. During that time his name was never used except by Dumbledore and people who were above the superstition. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - So, apparently this fear of a name has some historical precedents both is the real world and in fiction/folklore/myth/legend. Further, we must remember that wizards live in a world in which words have tremendous power; words can kill both by direct action and by inference. I can easily see people fearing to speak Voldemort's name because they don't want to be though a supporter by anyone, and because they don't want to be overheard by DE's for fear that they may be suspected of plotting against the Dark Lord. To have any association with that name at all just seem too dangerous to risk. A further example is the old superstition that to speak the devil's name is to call him to your side. So, there really was a time when people feared to speak the devil's name, which lead to many pseudonyms for the devil; 'Dan Scratch' comes to mind. Just a few thoughts. STeve/bboyminn From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 21:15:35 2005 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:15:35 -0000 Subject: Mysteries to me; maybe not to you In-Reply-To: <439F0725.7080307@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144685 > Bart: > > Can anybody explain why Lord Voldemort must not be named? Or why they > just don't call him "Tommy"? hpfan_mom: >From the first time I read the books years ago, the phrase "He Who Must Not Be Named" has always made me think of how, in Judaism, one does not ever pronounce the name of G-d. The way it's written out in Hebrew prayers and the word you say instead are not the same, like writing "picture" and pronouncing it "elephant." Not to say that in the series, Voldemort is G-d. Although, since he's been resurrected . . . well, I'll let someone else handle *that* symbolism. hpfan_mom From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Dec 13 21:32:34 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:32:34 -0000 Subject: Two clues about the Tower from GoF Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144686 Dumbledore grasps Harry's intentions, apparently by legilimency: "You will take Harry back to school, Hagrid," Dumbledore repeated firmly. "Take him right up to Gryffindor Tower. And Harry--I want you to stay there. Anything you might want to do -- any owls you might want to send --they can wait until morning, do you understand me?" "Er--yes," said Harry, staring at him. How had Dumbldore known that, at that very moment, he had been thinking about sending Pigwidgeon straight to Sirius, to tell him what happened? --GoF ch 28 A non-verbal spell with an interesting effect: Voldemort slipped one of those unnaturally long-fingererd hands into a deep pocket and drew out a wand. He caressed it gently too; and then he raised it, and pointed it at Wormtail, who was lifted off the ground and thrown against the headstone where Harry was tied; he fell to the foot of it and lay there, crumpled up and crying. GoF ch 33 Of course it doesn't prove anything, but here we have direct canon where Harry's concrete intention is communicated to Dumbledore without words, and of a nonverbal spell that picks someone up and throws them into the air. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 21:46:33 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:46:33 -0000 Subject: Snape and Saruman was JKR Preaching? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144687 Ceridwen wrote: > I don't think it's possible to compare everything about Saruman and > Snape. I do see where their positions are about the same in the > overall set-up of the stories. Saruman and Snape are both > the `middle evil' - with Gollum and Draco as the `least evil' and > Sauron and LV as the `greatest evil'. At least, according to the > hero's perspective. But within the seperate series of books, they > have very different substories. > > Saruman was the trusted mentor, the White Wizard. He is Gandalf's > superior, not his subordinate, as Snape is Dumbledore's subordinate. > Saruman begins as someone to be trusted. No one warns Gandalf about > going to see Saruman. No one questions why Gandalf trusts him. > > So this way, I think, Snape and Saruman begin their respective series > as direct opposites, even if they're holding the same position. No > one, not even students who are not a part of either VoldWar, like or > trust Snape. While, everyone seems to take Gandalf's assessment of > Saruman at face value. > > I do think they're occupying the same sort of place in their > respective stories. But the stories themselves are different. > > In the early discussions about Snape after HBP, we all debated > whether he was ESE! or ESG! Which didn't make much sense. DDM!, > though, sounded right. I do think Snape is totally against > Voldemort. But, I think he puts his trust in Dumbledore instead of > in Harry or the Ministry or the Order. If DDM! turns out to be > right, then Snape can't see Dumbledore in the same way as Saruman > sees Gandalf. He may disagree, that's his right. But I don't see > him having that sneering sort of contempt toward Dumbledore at all. > 2) We see Saruman's betrayal over and over, as he depletes the > forests to forge his Uruk Hai army, and as Pippin and Merry discover > the goods from the Shire. We see Saruman communing with Sauron > through the Palantir (sp?). We see his changed personna, we never > saw him as what he had been before, when he was elevated to the > leadership of his Order. Snape, on the other hand, is never shown > with LV. Not that I recall, anyway. Maybe a scene like that would > be too telling. Or, maybe I'm discounting something we have seen in > canon by thinking I read it in a fanfic. We see Snape as someone > Harry mistrusts from the beginning when he thought it was Snape who > made his scar hurt. We have half-heard conversations which turn out > to be much different than we thought. We have outright acts of > rescue, possible acts of rescue, and a somewhat sympathetic backstory for Snape. Carol notes: I agree with your basic position, which is that the stories of Snape and Saruman, and the handling of the characters, is different. I'm not sure that I agree with your position that they represent "Middle Evil," since Saruman's evil is "middling" only in comparison with Sauron's, which is epic. Setting aside the essential difference that Sauron, Saruman, and Gandalf are all originally Maia (demigods or angels) whereas Voldemort, Snape, and Dumbledore are human beings with magical powers and consequently the scale of murder and warfare and domination is much smaller (and many millennia shorter) in the HP books than LOTR, Saruman's role is simply not comparable to Snape's (or vice versa). Saruman, as Ceridwen points out, started out as great and good, the head of the White Council and Gandalf's superior. He "studied too deeply the arts of the enemy" and was seduced into the desire to become a Dark Lord himself. He makes a ring of his own (whether it aids him in controlling his minions is unclear, but clearly that's his intention). He openly serves Sauron, creating armies for him, but secretly wants to rival him, to seize the One Ring for himself and rule the world. He creates a whole army by "blending the races of Orcs and men," an abomination in Tolkien's view (please, let's not get into questions of whether Tolkien was "racist"!). The whole purpose of the Uruk-hai is to destroy the Race of Men; they are bred to hate and kill. He corrupts some of the weaker Hobbits (notably Lotho Sackville-Baggins) to ensure a supply of food for his men (and tobacco for himself) and promises to reward his Uruk-hai with "manflesh." He also takes Orcs and Wargs and other creatures into his service. He also corrupts Grima Wormtongue, using him to sap the mind and powers of the king of Rohan and to set the king's servants against each other. He stirs up old grudges (Dunlendings against the Rohirrim), encouraging the Dunlendings to take revenge by setting fire to villages. He orders his Uruk-hai to kidnap the Halflings (Merry and Pippin), intending to torture them into giving him information on the Ring if they don't have it themselves. He chops down forests to feed his mills and produce engines of war, allowing his Orcs to wantonly destroy the trees. And then, of course, he attacks Rohan with the intention of killing every man, woman, and child--supposedly in the service of Sauron but really in the hope of supplanting him. What has Snape done? He has reported a Prophecy to Voldemort, his master at the time, without knowing who it involved or how Voldemort reacted to it. He either repented or pretended to repent and spied for *Dumbledore* "at great personal risk." He has taught Potions (or DADA) and served as HoH for Slytherin for sixteen years, using occasionally questionable methods and showing favoritism for his own House, but has also taught some important lessons (bezoars, Expelliarmus, the nature and uses of Occlumency, nonverbal spells) and tried to watch over Harry, saving his life at least once (and also saving Dumbledore's in his last year). There is, of course, the whole question of HBP, but *at worst*, Snape has given information to Voldemort relating to Emmeline Vance and Sirius Black; taken an Unbreakable Vow to help and protect Draco and perform an unnamed deed; *possibly* concealed all or part of this vow from Dumbledore (though the evidence suggests that DD knew at least the first two provisions); and, when the choice was between his own life and Dumbledore's, killed Dumbledore. Call that last action murder or treachery if you will. Eliminate all possible extenuating circumstances, including DD's own desires in the matter. Ignore Snape's actions in saving Draco and getting the DEs out of Hogwarts and rescuing Harry from a Crucio. At worst we have 1) indirect involvement in the Potters' deaths (and those of Sirius Black and Emmeline Vance) 2) Feigned remorse and feigned loyalty to Dumbledore 3) Minor psychological "abuse" of a few students and favoritism of his own house 4) Lies and concealment 5) One real murder. (And, of course, if he's DDM!Snape, the picture is considerably less Black. Erm, black.) Even viewed from the worst possible perspective (as guilty of one murder, accessory to four, and traitor to his mentor), Snape has created no armies of bloodthirsty creatures; has ordered no murders or kidnappings that we know of (in contrast to both Saruman and Voldemort); has created no Rings of Power (or Horcruxes); has enslaved no evil creatures and ordered them to chop down forests and burn down villages. He has not even corrupted any minions (he's trying to *prevent* Draco from killing DD and he's teaching his students *Defense Against* the Dark Arts. Even if Snape is loyal to Voldemort, (which to me seems patently absurd), there's no evidence whatever that he wants to become a Dark Lord himself. In other words, the analogy with Saruman just doesn't hold up. We know from early on in LOTR where Saruman's loyalties lie. There's no question that he has fallen, and his power and greatness diminish along with his goodness until he becomes a wreck of his former self. Nothing could be more different than the condition of Severus Snape, who begins his school life as something of a pitiable outcast (accepted only by a gang of apparently older Slytherins and to some degree by his HOH); who joined the Death Eaters, quite possibly in hopes of recognition and reward for his talents; who (apparently) rejected the DEs and secretly joined Dumbledore, risking his life (as Saruman never did) to spy on Voldemort; who served as DD's righthand man throughout the HP books (despite Harry's antipathy toward him); who showed Fudge his Dark Mark as proof that Voldemort was back; who returned to Voldemort at DD's request as part of a prearranged plan ("If you are ready; if you are prepared"), again at great personal risk; who now informs Bellatrix that his true loyalty is to Voldemort and yet could well be lying to her and to Voldemort, using his skills as a superb Occlumens to fool them; who finally, it seems, is caught in his own web of lies to one side or the other and is forced to kill his own mentor--very unlike anything that happens to Saruman. I really see only the most superficial similarities between Snape and Saruman. The analogy falls apart on a closer examination. Even if we consider Snape as fallen, he does not fall from greatness and goodness into unspeakable evil; only from loyalty to the mentor who rescued him from Azkaban into the wrong choice of saving his own skin rather than dying with Dumbledore. (That is not, of course, how I see it; I think he made the only possible choice at the cost of his job, his freedom, his self-respect, and perhaps his soul.) Saruman is faced with no such choice. The moment he made his own ring and set himself up to become a Dark Lord, he engineered his own fall. Snape remains an ambiguous figure, at least until Book 7 reveals his fate and (I hope) sheds some light on his motivations. There is nothing ambiguous or mysterious about Saruman, and there is nothing in his history to make us pity him except his own fall from wisdom. Snape is a much more human figure for whom Harry, if he can get past his anger and hatred, can learn to feel empathy and compassion. And that, IMO, he *must* do if his soul is to remain pure and whole. Carol, wondering if JKR is ever going to update her website and missing last year's Christmas decorations and Advent calendar From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 13 22:00:16 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:00:16 -0000 Subject: Book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144688 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nikki" wrote: Nikki: > So what is to happen to our dear Harry? What will happen to Hogwarts? After re-reading HBP I dont think Harry will survive. I've also began to ponder what role will Longbottom play, after all his parents were driven mad by LV. It's been made clear that Harry and LV cant not live at the same time! And after reading JKR's recent interview where she states that sometimes she thinks that the ending is too obvious and that many people guess it perfectly. I cant help but to believe that Harry will be defeated by LV and the DE will take over the Wizarding world. What do you think? > Geoff: I hope that you are not being totally serious in your suggestion and are perhaps playing devil's advocate. I have to say that I would be very surprised if JKR was to end Book 7 in this way because it would send all the wrong messages to the many, many readers, especially young people who have been caught up in Harry's quest. Although there is some question as to whether she wrote the books for children or about children, the fact remains that many teens and young adults relate to and identify with the characters as they move into adolescence and adulthood. To see Harry killed and the Wizarding World plunged into darkness would be such an anti-climax to all that has gone on. In real world situations. Evil leaders such as Hitler, Mussolini, Idi Amin and the various Russian and Chinese dictators inter al have ultimately fallen from power and often the structure of oppression and terror which they assembled collapsed with them because they were mortal. If not now immortal, Voldermort is close to it and it appears that Harry is the only one who can stop him from sugjugating his world. So, if he were to succeed in removing Harry, the Wizarding World could only anticipate long years of misery. How could a book which builds on cooperation, trust, comradeship and love end satisfactorily with all these virtues extinguished? Would LOTR have become such as iconic book if Frodo had failed in the quest? If he had been captured by the Nazgul or if, after threatening to take the Ring for himself, he had fought off Gollum's crazed attack? If the eucatastrophe had become a catastrophe instead? Would the world continue to read a story ending in almost eternal despair? I cannot see JKR going down that road. And, as I have said on many occasions, my own hope is to see Harry come through at the end, battered and buffeted perhaps, but in one piece. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Tue Dec 13 22:18:56 2005 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:18:56 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Two clues about the Tower from GoF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40512131418m10b0ee5cj3b38e676f5ff1bbe@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144689 pippin_999 wrote: > > Dumbledore grasps Harry's intentions, apparently by legilimency: > > "You will take Harry back to school, Hagrid," Dumbledore repeated firmly. > "Take him right up to Gryffindor Tower. And Harry--I want you to stay > there. Anything you might want to do -- any owls you might want to send > --they can wait until morning, do you understand me?" > "Er--yes," said Harry, staring at him. How had Dumbldore known that, at > that very moment, he had been thinking about sending Pigwidgeon > straight to Sirius, to tell him what happened? > > --GoF ch 28 > > A non-verbal spell with an interesting effect: > > Voldemort slipped one of those unnaturally long-fingererd hands > into a deep pocket and drew out a wand. He caressed it gently too; > and then he raised it, and pointed it at Wormtail, who was lifted off > the ground and thrown against the headstone where Harry was > tied; he fell to the foot of it and lay there, crumpled up and crying. > > GoF ch 33 > > Of course it doesn't prove anything, but here we have direct canon > where Harry's concrete intention is communicated to Dumbledore > without words, and of a nonverbal spell that picks someone up > and throws them into the air. . Kemper now: That's some excellent canon, but I think it can be argued that anyone working with youth and worth their salt can anticipate near future behavior based on the events of the right now. Dumbledore has worked with youth for what seems to be a muggle life-time. However, there's no arguement for your canon nonverbal example that I can think. Beautiful. -Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From phil at pcsgames.net Tue Dec 13 22:41:52 2005 From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:41:52 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Can you guess the title of book 7? References: Message-ID: <00dc01c60036$7783fb10$6600a8c0@phil> No: HPFGUIDX 144690 Phil wrote: > > By analyzing the book titles there might be a clue to the title of > book > > seven. > > Book 1, an object; > > Book 2, a place; > > Book 3, a person; > > Book 4, an object; > > Book 5, a place; > > Book 6, a person. > > > > So book 7 should be the name of an object. > > Lyra: > I hate to spoil a good pattern, but I don't think there's any > way "the Order of the Phoenix" qualifies as a place. It's a group of > people. (And if one were really argumentative, which I'm not, I > promise, one could argue that #3 is both a person (the prisoner) and > a place (Azkaban).) Now Phil replies: I was thinking that the Order of the Phoenix as a place since they adopted twelve Grimmauld Place as its headquarters but it would have messed the pattern to call books two and five things other than people and objects. But Jo could just as easily name the last book, Harry Potter and the Dark Lord's Nose, which was surely turned into a Horcrux. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 23:08:13 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:08:13 -0000 Subject: Draco's bigotry and leadership In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144691 > Betsy Hp: > I can't help feeling you're trying to have it both ways. Per you, > Draco is one of the more pathetic members of Slythern, and Blaise > dislikes him. But at the same time Blaise *can't help* but hang > with Draco on the long journey to Hogwarts, making sure Draco is > comfortably situated, rather than sitting with his friends. Either > Draco is Blaise's friend, or Blaise fears offending him. a_svirn: Not at all. Blaise spent the entire journey in a much more interesting company than Draco and his sidekicks. He only had to endure their company for the last half an hour or so before Hogsmead, so why fuss about it? There are more subtle ways to even the score. I would even go so far as to say more Slytherin ways. Incidentally, I didn't call Draco pathetic. I said his childishness was pathetic for a sixteen year old. Which it was. Certainly Blaise seems more mature. And I don't try to have anything both ways. Rather I feel you are the one who tries to overdramatize situation with your favourite "either-or" type of argument. In reality there are acres and hectares of middle ground to be had. It is virtually impossible NOT to hang out with housemates in a boarding school, especially if they are your peers. You share your dormitory, the common room, the dining hall, even showers. You don't have to be friends with them. You don't have to like them or be in awe of them. And you would be a fool to let your dislike or irritation become obvious. Hermione tried to avoid or snub Ron and Lavender, didn't she? Ended up seriously reconsidering her strategy From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 23:25:01 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:25:01 -0000 Subject: Can you guess the title of book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144692 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > We'll probably know the title of book 7 a year before we actually can > read it, perhaps more, so it might be fun to guess what that title > could be, I have two. > ... "Harry Potter And The Next Great Adventure". > ... "Harry Potter The Chosen One". > I also predict that the last chapter of the last book will be entitled > "The Man Who Died". > > Eggplant > Bboyminn: Actually, I think we are a bit off topic here, but perhaps the list-elves will indulge us for a moment. How about- Harry Potter and the Billion Dollar Bank Account More seriously- Harry Potter and the Final Battle Harry Potter and the Veil of Death Harry Potter and the Journey Beyond Harry Potter and the Secret of Life Harry Potter and the Secret of Death Harry Potter and the Darkness Within Harry Potter and the Long Journey Home Harry Potter and the Secret Room Harry Potter and the Revelation Harry Potter and the Circle of Friends Harry Potter: The Boy Who Lived Harry Potter and the Reunion That's about all I can come up with for now. I'm a (somewhat) firm believer that Harry will make a journey beyond the Veil and return, so many of my titles reflect that. Steve/bboyminn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 23:58:14 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:58:14 -0000 Subject: HBP in russian translation./ Translations in general/ "Severus, please" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144693 > Pippin: > Snape would know someone else is there because he, like Draco, would be able to > see two brooms. He also knows about the invisibility cloak. I don't think > Dumbledore was pleading for Snape to kill him instead of Harry, but he may > have pleaded with Snape to let his life be sacrificed for the sake of the others. > > There's an analogy with the chess game in PS/SS. > ---- > The white queen turned her blank face toward him. > "Yes..." said Ron softly, "it's the only way...I've got to be taken." > "NO!" Harry and Hermione shouted. > "That's chess!" snapped Ron. "You've got to make some sacrifices! I > take one step forward and she'll take me--that leaves you free to checkmate > the king, Harry!" > --- > What's interesting here is that the white queen offers Ron a hint - - > and works against her own side. She must know that by taking Ron > she exposes her king to checkmate. Does that foreshadow Snape's role in > HBP? > > Pippin > Well, I don't think that our interpretations are mutually exclusive. Dumbledore freely admitted in OOP that Harry's well-being is paramount for him even if it means sacrificing others. He was prepared to sacrifice himself as well. a_svirn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 23:59:16 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:59:16 -0000 Subject: Draco's bigotry and leadership In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144694 > >>a_svirn: > Not at all. Blaise spent the entire journey in a much more > interesting company than Draco and his sidekicks. He only had to > endure their company for the last half an hour or so before > Hogsmead, so why fuss about it? There are more subtle ways to even > the score. I would even go so far as to say more Slytherin ways. Betsy Hp: I'm confused by your timeline here. Draco and Pansy would have started off in the Prefects Compartment, normally. So then Blaise chose the "interesting company" of Crabbe and Goyle? There's also a question of how long the Prefects' meeting is. Ron and Hermione tell Harry that Draco is blowing off his prefect duties. So does that mean he actually didn't go to meeting, or does that mean that the prefects have to sort of patrol the train for a bit? Either way, Draco doesn't spend as much time on his prefect duties as Ron and Hermione, so he gets to his compartment before they do. We do know he was there when Blaise gets his invitation to the luncheon, because he knows to ask about it when Blaise returns. So I'm not sure how that translates to barely half an hour in Draco's company. > >>a_svirn: > Incidentally, I didn't call Draco pathetic. I said his > childishness was pathetic for a sixteen year old. Which it was. Betsy Hp: Uh huh. Okay. Noted: Draco is not pathetic; his actions are. (I'm confused as to the relevance, but am almost afraid to ask ) > >>a_svirn: > Certainly Blaise seems more mature. Betsy Hp: Blaise does give good face. He's the very model of disinterested. > >>a_svirn: > And I don't try to have anything both ways. Rather I feel you are > the one who tries to overdramatize situation with your > favourite "either-or" type of argument. In reality there are acres > and hectares of middle ground to be had. It is virtually > impossible NOT to hang out with housemates in a boarding school, > especially if they are your peers. > Betsy Hp: Which is why Harry often enjoys the long journey to Hogwarts with Dean and Seamus. Wait, erm... Lavander and Parvati? You were saying... Sorry, I don't think I'm being all that "overdramatic" to suggest that Blaise must not think too badly of Draco since he chooses Draco's compartment, filled with Draco's friends, to sit in. I also think it's a bit silly to ignore the seating arrangement. Especially when JKR went through so much trouble to highlight it. I've said it before, literature is not anthropology. If an author chooses to show us something, the very fact she took the time to write it suggests a certain significance. While, yes, Draco must bump into his fellow Slytherins all the time, JKR *chose* to have the mab show him with Pansy and Blaise. Middle ground is all very good, but I'm not suggesting Draco and Blaise are blood brothers, best of best friends, ready to die for each other. I'm just saying they get along. What *is* dramatic to my mind (unnecessarily so, I think) is the idea that Blaise dislikes Draco and is in the midst of a subtle Slytherin plot to even the score. Betsy Hp (I'd have changed the subject line but the HPfGU's page is acting really weird and I'm not even sure this will post ::crosses fingers::) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 00:15:30 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:15:30 -0000 Subject: Draco's bigotry and leadership In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144695 > Betsy Hp: > Which is why Harry often enjoys the long journey to Hogwarts with > Dean and Seamus. Wait, erm... Lavander and Parvati? You were > saying... a_svirn: Did he enjoy the ride with Neville and Luna in OOP? I seem to recall he bitterly resented being seen in their company. > Betsy Hp: > I've said it before, literature is not anthropology. If an author > chooses to show us something, the very fact she took the time to > write it suggests a certain significance. While, yes, Draco must > bump into his fellow Slytherins all the time, JKR *chose* to have > the mab show him with Pansy and Blaise. a_svirn: Oh, I think it's significant alright. Here we have a long anticipated Slytherin who is not in hurry to join Voldemort. And he does seem smarter than Draco. From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Wed Dec 14 00:55:03 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:55:03 -0000 Subject: FILK: Rufus the Lion-Visaged Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144696 Rufus, The Lion-Visaged To the tune of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer MIDI at: http://www.saskschools.ca/~gregory/chr/songs/rudolph.html Rufus, the lion-visaged Had a quite determined look And that's why they made him Min'ster After Corny got the hook Voldy and all his minions Struck at those whom they disliked Rufus said, "I will stop him When I jail Stan Shunpike." At the Burrow, Christmas Eve, Rufus came to say "Harry, you're the Chosen One Won't you be my hired gun?" Now see Harry defyin'! That's `cause he is Dumble's man. "You may look like a lion, But it's clear you're no Aslan!" - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm A VERY HARRY CHRISTMAS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/Christmas.htm From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Wed Dec 14 01:15:06 2005 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:15:06 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mysteries to me; maybe not to you In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <258565766.20051213171506@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144697 truthbeauty1 wrote: t> I think Rowling uses this as an example of how paralyzed t> with fear Voldemort has made the wizarding world. And it is not wholly unprecidented -- In _Pride and Prejudice_, Mr. Darcy can hardly bring himself to mention Wickham by name -- "The man whose name it was pain for him to pronouce". And Darcy didn't fear Wickham -- His actions had merely caused Darcy so much emotional anguish. And in a similar vein, I have a couple of past loves whose names I still cannot bring myself to say out loud without much pain, even with the passage of years. -- Dave From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Dec 14 01:27:56 2005 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:27:56 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: HBP in russian translation./ Translations in general/ "Severus, please" In-Reply-To: References: <20051213135550.19762.qmail@web25310.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <700201d40512131727t5a3a213bya19c2a03e5fb258b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144698 > > > Becky: > > > > ...edit... Snape wasn't threatening Harry, he > had his wand pointed at Dumbledore and didn't even try to kill Harry > afterwards - he > stopped the others from hurting him, so why would Dumbledore assume Snape > was going > to hurt Harry? Why would he be pleading for Harry's life at that point? > > Pippin: > ...edit... I don't think > Dumbledore was pleading for Snape to kill him instead of Harry, but he may > have pleaded with Snape to let his life be sacrificed for the sake of the > others. > > There's an analogy with the chess game in PS/SS. > ---- > The white queen turned her blank face toward him. > "Yes..." said Ron softly, "it's the only way...I've got to be taken." > "NO!" Harry and Hermione shouted. > "That's chess!" snapped Ron. "You've got to make some sacrifices! I > take one step forward and she'll take me--that leaves you free to > checkmate > the king, Harry!" > --- > What's interesting here is that the white queen offers Ron a hint -- > and works against her own side. She must know that by taking Ron > she exposes her king to checkmate. Does that foreshadow Snape's role in > HBP? . Kemper now: Is it a hint? I don't think it's clear nor do I think the chessboard is clear. Maybe Ron's Knight put the white king in check and the only way for White to get out of the check was for the White Queen to take Ron's Knight. So yes, the White Queen knew that she would expose the King, but if she did nothing, the King could have been mated anyway, but by Ron instead. It sounds like White (the Dark Order?) would rather die fighting than tip its King, even if it sees that it's about to lose. But I suppose the same could be said about Black (the Order of the Phoenix). . Back to subject topic... I would be interested in any Russian speakers piping in with regards to "Severus, I am asking you..." I'm interested in what natives interpret when this phrase is spoke in the context of the book and not in our English/American re-translation of a translation. I imagine things could get muckier if not clarified by a native. . .????????, .Kemper. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Dec 14 01:28:33 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 01:28:33 -0000 Subject: Can you guess the title of book 7? In-Reply-To: <000801c5ffe5$db378650$6600a8c0@phil> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144699 Phil: > Or if you think about the suits of the Tarot that includes swords, > cups, pentacles and wands, it could be Harry Potter and the Wand of > Ravenclaw > > Phil who thinks the wand of a founder would be a most treasured > object. Jen: I like your suggestion, the Wand of Ravenclaw. Or even something more ambiguous like HP and the Noble Wand, leaving it in question (for other people, not us ). One chapter title I hope to see: Snape's Remorse. Or even better because it might promise backstory: The Prince's Remorse. JKR has promised quite a bit of history in Book 7 with Dumbledore's family, defeat of Grindelwald, Godric's Hollow and some on the Founders. So maybe: HP and the Founders Four HP and the Heir of Gryffindor What ever happened to HP and the Alchemist's Cell? Was it really trademarked by WB or was that just a rumour? I like the symmetry of beginning and ending with alchemy and this would promise more on Dumbledore. Jen, glad Yahoo is back to normal for the moment. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 01:43:43 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 01:43:43 -0000 Subject: HBP in russian translation./ Translations in general/ "Severus, please" In-Reply-To: <700201d40512131727t5a3a213bya19c2a03e5fb258b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144700 > Kemper now: > Back to subject topic... I would be interested in any Russian speakers > piping in with regards to "Severus, I am asking you..." I'm interested in > what natives interpret when this phrase is spoke in the context of the book > and not in our English/American re-translation of a translation. I imagine > things could get muckier if not clarified by a native. Alla: Hey, Kemper. Since I started all that - I am coming back for possible clarification, but I am not hundred percent sure what would you like me clarify. :-) Let me try and then please ask again, if I did not clarify what you needed. "Severus, please" is translated in Russian translation as "Severus I am asking you..." ( this is word by word translation from Russian - it is absolutely correct, trust me on this one). Even though I wondered in the earlier post that I may have forgotten the rule of proper Russian speaking, it is not that bad. I speak English at work, but I speak Russian at home. :-) So, the most logical way to continue the TRANSLATED phrase would be as Susan/RB did - I am asking you to do something OR not to do something. The problem IMO is that it may not mean anything at all, because even though " Severus, please" COULD be translated into Russian word by word, to some people it may sound awkward, so it is IMO again perfectly within interpreter discretion to translate as she did, because it is a legitimate assumption that when you say "PLEASE" to someone you actually ask this person to do something or not do something. Am I making sense? Did it answer your question? Alla From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Dec 14 02:16:19 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 02:16:19 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Plan in Book 7 (Evil Overlord for the day ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144701 SSSusan: > What I wonder is: Is it possible to keep from Voldy the knowledge > that his horcruxes are being hunted & destroyed? Will Voldy not > have built into one or more of them some kind of special, > internal, additional magic which would provide him with a warning > that somebody's messin' with his goods? I mean, he's an > overconfident kind of guy, but would he be THAT stupid to not at > least consider a magical alert mechanism on at least one of the > horcruxes? Jen: Dumbledore seemed to be suggesting such a mechanism in the cave when he said: "...He would want to keep them alive long enough to find out how they managed to penetrate so far through his defences, and most importantly of all, why they were so intent upon emptying the basin. Do not forget that Lord Voldemort believes that he alone knows about his Horcruxes." (The Cave, p. 532, Bloomsbury) Actually, none of my evil scenarios would happen unless Voldemort *did* know his horcruxes were being hunted. I forgot to add that. He certainly wouldn't want anyone to know about them otherwise. Orna: > If Snape is DDM! ? the horcrux hunt is still secret. Since I'm a > DDM!Snape, I feel that Harry playing hide and seek with Voldemort > on his horcruxes, isn't a very interesting plot for book 7. Jen: There will be plenty of ground to cover, between the horcrux hunt and the historical backstory promised by JKR. I don't think Voldemort would play a cat and mouse game either, hiding more and more horcruxes. But upon learning Harry is hunting the horcruxes, which I think Voldemort already knows because of the potion (or will find out soon), his modus operandi would be to plan a scheme to corner Harry. And as Dumbledore said in the horcrux chapter, no one besides Harry is protected from the 'lure of power like Voldemort's'. That tells me it may be open season on the people Harry loves in order to stop Harry from destroying horcruxes. I've thought about what Voldemort's power IS, what Harry is protected from. And I've decided it's Voldemort's ability to use people's weaknesses against them. That's what the DADA curse was, and we saw Voldemort use one of Dumbledore's own students in an inside game, forcing Dumbledore to pull back and act defensively. Ultimately DD chose to save Draco over himself (I'm pretty sure DD knew Draco was the one entering the tower and thus the decision to lose his wand). Riddle used Ginny's lonliness and crush on Harry to lure her in. Something lured Snape in way back when and I suspect it was 'wearing his heart on his sleeve.' There are many other examples, including Harry, but Harry has never completely been overcome like the others because of his particular protections and weapons. Orna: > I mean, part of the point of the horcruxes is that they symbolize > Voldemort's torn and split soul. DD says, that perhaps near his > death moment Voldemort will be able to realize, his horcruxes are > gone, thereby IMO getting human again, feeling the loss and some > connectedness with his soul. Voldemort playing around with his > horcruxes, hiding them, being concerned about what happens to them, > psychologically-wise looks wrong to me. Jen: I'm not sure I understand? Voldemort may not internally feel the destruction of his horcruxes, but he has gone to great lengths to hide and protect them. They are everything to him, the culmination of his life's work such as it is. His obsession. Maybe you mean he has too much belief in his own powers of protection and therefore doesn't think about the horcruxes after hiding them? SSSusan: > I doubt Jo will do that to Harry/to us -- and I suppose in the > final volume it would be more likely that such knowledge of > Harry's horsechow hunt would simply cause Voldy to turn & go > *after* Harry, rather than engage in more evasive measures like > creating more hortchops. Jen: I see we agree again --Voldemort's first goal if he does learn of the horcrux hunt will be to go straight for the jugular. I think he's tired of messing around with Harry; getting Dumbledore out of the way was the last step to defeating Harry in his mind. If he makes another horcrux, it will be to victimize or tempt Harry. Jen From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 02:16:49 2005 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 02:16:49 -0000 Subject: The Needs of Karmic Justice (was re: Cultural standards, etc) In-Reply-To: <27e.1d64990.30cbc881@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144702 > Julie: After his actions > on the Tower, and even IF he is DDM, his life is screwed to hell. He's > lost his teaching position, any respect he had from his colleagues > and the entire WW, he's hated and villified by one side and has to > dance very carefully to avoid being obliterated by the other side (and > I'm convinced Voldemort still doesn't trust him completely, as he > doesn't trust *anyone* completely). He's given up everything he > earned over the past 16 years. So, Karmic punishment, check. > No, I'm afraid that just doesn't do. That is to say that the scenario you've described simply doesn't fit the needs and requirements of karmic punishment as Alla and I and others are discussing. It is true that Snape will have a lot to pay for in terms of his actions on the tower, but that frankly isn't what interests us (or at least me) in this context. Karmic punishment means that the punishment in some way is very directly and obviously linked with the fault. Alla has spoken of Sirius, and I have, in another thread, spoken of Dumbledore and Lockheart. Let us take things a step further with some speculation. Let's suppose that Petunia, as some have hypothesized, is actually a witch who has consciously, or perhaps subconsciously, repressed her powers in order to live as a muggle. In book VII, let us further suppose, she uses her powers in a moment of high danger, leading Vernon to regard her with disgust and say "Never come near me or my son again, freak!" That would be karmic punishment, or if you prefer poetic justice. It would also be very harsh, I agree, but then poetic justice almost always IS very harsh -- that is part of its poetry. In any case, it fits the need by being very directly and obviously related to Petunia's major fault, the way she has treated Harry. I'm not saying that will happen with Petunia, just that such is a speculative example of poetic justice or karmic payback not involving Snape. The example you give (and which many people repeatedly cite) certainly does involve Snape, but it does not fit the requirements of karmic justice/poetic justice/comeuppance. As Nora has said, JKR certainly likes this type of thing very, very much -- and one reason many of us strongly suspected we weren't done with Umbridge was the lack of karmic backlash in her case. And, if JKR is to be, IMO, a good writer, not to mention avoiding the enormous mistake of making a hero out of a child abuser, then Snape has a great deal of karmic payback to work through for his abuse of Harry and Neville. Lupinlore From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 02:42:46 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 02:42:46 -0000 Subject: Boggart Snape (was:Re: Snape Wars vs Ship Wars...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144703 > >>Pippin: > > IMO, if Snape is a murderer, the boggart lesson in PoA loses > > both its humor and its point. Murderers are not funny, even if > > they are wearing silly clothes, and if a murderer is threatening > > you, imagining that he has silly clothes on is not going to > > help. On the other hand, if you are afraid of someone because > > they always make you look stupid, then imagining that they look > > stupid too is golden. > >>Nora: > > I don't understand the need to make Snape all of a piece, here. > You seem to be arguing that DDM!Snape makes sense out of the > boggart, but OFH/ESE!Snape doesn't. I'm wondering if we have to > connect everything together in a way that points absolutely to one > agenda or the other, with perfect ideological consistency. Seems > a little strict for the story as it's gone. YMMV. Betsy Hp: I've been thinking about this, and I think I understand what Pippin is driving at. It's that what Neville is taught in the boggart scene is not only wrong, if Snape is ESE or OFH, it's down right dangerous. Because while it's good to teach children to laugh at their relatively empty fears, or fears that can't really hurt them, you don't teach a child to laugh at something that *should* scare them. When Harry confronted his boggart in the maze in GoF, he imagined the dementor tripping and that got rid of the boggart. But that would not help him out with an actual dementor. So Lupin taught him how to do a Patronus. Something that doesn't deter a boggart, but does stop a dementor. So if JKR means for Snape to be an actual danger, someone who'd hurt or kill a student, teaching Neville to *laugh* at him is irresponsible. Like a parent telling their child to picture a kidnapper in a clown outfit, rather than, you know, run. And that could be tying things together a bit too tightly, yes. I suppose it depends on how much care JKR has given to Neville's story. Because if Snape does turn out to be ESE or OFH, if it turns out he really *was* a danger to Neville, rather than a schoolboy fear, Neville didn't triumph in the boggart scene, he became dangerously and wrongly overconfident. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 02:54:49 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 02:54:49 -0000 Subject: Boggart Snape (was:Re: Snape Wars vs Ship Wars...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144704 > Betsy Hp: It's that what Neville is taught in the boggart > scene is not only wrong, if Snape is ESE or OFH, it's down right > dangerous. Because while it's good to teach children to laugh at > their relatively empty fears, or fears that can't really hurt them, > you don't teach a child to laugh at something that *should* scare > them. Alla: Do you doubt that JKR intends Voldemort to be really dangerous then? "Why are you worrying about you-know-who? You should be worrying about u-no-poo The constipation sensation that gripping the nation!" - HBP, p.116 Betsy Hp: > Because if Snape does turn out to be ESE or OFH, if it turns > out he really *was* a danger to Neville, rather than a schoolboy > fear, Neville didn't triumph in the boggart scene, he became > dangerously and wrongly overconfident. Alla: I disagree. Laughter CAN help defeat real Evil, IMO - as in developing confidence to learn other thins necessary for the real win. JMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 03:02:24 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 03:02:24 -0000 Subject: Blaise and Draco (was: Re: Draco's bigotry and leadership) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144705 > >>a_svirn: > Did he enjoy the ride with Neville and Luna in OOP? I seem to > recall he bitterly resented being seen in their company. Betsy Hp: Now who's being dramatic? Harry enjoyed Luna and Neville's company. He just recognized that they weren't the hight of cool, and that being covered in stinksap wasn't the best impression to make on a girl. > >>a_svirn: > Oh, I think it's significant alright. Here we have a long > anticipated Slytherin who is not in hurry to join Voldemort. And > he does seem smarter than Draco. Betsy Hp: And he's a friend of Draco's. (Though how do you get smarter? For that matter, how do you get "not in a hurry to join Voldemort"?) Betsy Hp From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 03:33:56 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 03:33:56 -0000 Subject: Can you guess the title of book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144706 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: We'll probably know the title of book 7 a year before we actually can read it, perhaps more, so it might be fun to guess what that title could be... Amiable Dorsai "Harry Potter and the Perpetual Time Sink" Harry gives up on finding any more Horcruxes, and instead buys Tom Riddle a computer, a comfy chair, and an internet account. No one ever sees Voldemort in person again. Amiable Dorsai From dianasdolls at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 03:35:58 2005 From: dianasdolls at yahoo.com (Diana) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 03:35:58 -0000 Subject: Huge clue to Snape's true allegence hidden in OotP? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144707 I'm currently re-reading OotP and something in the "Occlumency" chapter jumped out at me. Snape is explaining to Harry why DD want's him to learn Occluemency and Snape says (words emphasizd by me): "The Dark Lord, for instance, *almost* always knows when somebody is lying to him. *Only those skilled* at Occlumency are able to *shut down those feelings and memories* that contradict the lie, and so *can utter falsehoods in his prescence* without detection." Re-reading that paragraph now after knowing the events in HBP, it occurs to me that Snape can only be speaking of his personal experience while telling Harry this. Why? Obvisouly Snape would know that the lies he's told Voldemort haven't been detected because he's still alive and is allowed to go in and out of Voldemort's presence without restriction. So, if Snape is capable of repeatedly telling undetectable lies to Voldemort does that pretty much mean he's on the side of the good? Or does it only mean that Snape is more than skilled enough to play both sides against the other while looking out for himself the entire time with the intention of choosing the winning side in the end? More to ponder in the mystery that is Snape's true allegiance.... Diana L. dianasdolls From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 03:49:32 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 03:49:32 -0000 Subject: JKR ITN interview , July 16 2005. Some excerpts and questions. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144708 I discovered couple of days ago that while I read interview by Melissa and Emerson two or three times, I never actually read this one (the one where children reporters asked questions) in its entirety. I think I skimmed it and saw a lot of repetitiveness and left it as it was. I read some excerpts from it, but yesterday I finally read it in its entirety - I have not seen a lot of new information, true, but some things I found interesting or maybe even significant. I am going to quote some excerpts, those who read this interview many times - feel free to skip this post. :-) "Sorley Richardson for Publishing News - Why did you have to kill Sirius when it was the best thing that happened to Harry for years? JKR: We are back to me being a murderer, aren't we? People asked me this a lot. I have been repeatedly told Sirius was my favorite character, why did he have to die? You can imagine how bad that made me feel and in fact after I killed Sirius I went on the Internet and so stumbled across a fansite devoted entirely to Sirius and I killed him during last 48 hours, so that wasn't good. I think you will realize why he had to go in terms of plot when you read seventh book. It wasn't arbitrary although part of the answer is the one I had given before. it is more satisfying I think for the reader if the Hero has to go on alone and to give him too much support makes his job too easy, sorry" Alla: Right, so she definitely confirms that there IS a reason why Sirius died besides Hero has to go on alone and we WILL find out about it in book 7. Please, JKR pretty please? "David Moulds for the News of the World - How does Aunt Petunia Knows about dementors and all other magical facts she knows? JK Rowling: Another very good questions. She over heard a conversation, that is all I am going to say. She overheard conversation. The answer is in the beginning of Phoenix. she said she overheard Lily being told about them basically. Is that true? JK Rowling : Yes. The reason I am hesitant is because there is more than that. As I think you suspect. Correctly, but I don't want to say anything else here because it relates to book 7" Alla: Right, what it tells me is that the identity of "that awful boy" IS significant for the plot. So, who is he? Snape after all? "Scott Ballard for the Bookseller - will the Lord Voldemort ever found out what the Prophecy fully said? JK Rowling : That is one of those very good questions that I don't think I can answer. I am sorry, that is always very frustrating, but the most penetrating questions generally I cannot answer because they could give a lot away, so I would I am not going to answer that. Sorry." Alla: Now THAT is confusing to me. Why Voldemort finding out about whole prophecy would be significant? What obvious thing am I missing? I mean, besides finding out that either he or Harry has to die? I see him finding out during the final confrontation and being very surprised or something like that, but why else it could be significant? "JKR: The house elves is really for slavery, isn't it, the house elves are slaves that is an issue that I think we probably all feel strongly about enough in this room already" Alla: I did not type the question up, because it was about the racism in general, I was only interested in this last sentence. To me it supports the idea that JKR does not intend elves to continue serving wizards at the end of book 7. JMO of course. Alla From sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 03:55:24 2005 From: sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com (hekatesheadband) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 03:55:24 -0000 Subject: Boggart Snape (was:Re: Snape Wars vs Ship Wars...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144709 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Betsy Hp: > > It's that what Neville is taught in the boggart > > scene is not only wrong, if Snape is ESE or OFH, it's down right > > dangerous. Because while it's good to teach children to laugh at > > their relatively empty fears, or fears that can't really hurt > them, > > you don't teach a child to laugh at something that *should* scare > > them. > > Alla: > > > Do you doubt that JKR intends Voldemort to be really dangerous then? I'm with Alla on this one (no surprise there;). The trouble with Boggarts isn't that they look scary. It's that they embody fears that can by absolutely paralysing, cripple you with terror so that you can't do anything about it. Laughter is sort of a necessary first step - it won't do much on its own, but without it, there's rarely any possibility of even starting on anything better. If you can't overcome a fear, you can't cope with the threat behind it. I would further add that many of the fears aren't funny in the slightest. Harry is afraid of Dementors, which are described as evil and want to cannibalize human souls, innocent and stained alike. There's nothing funny about that. Seamus is afraid of banshees. To Muggles, they're a scary story round the hearth. In Potterverse (given that hags, leprechauns, etc., are real and behave largely as they do in folklore), they are probably a real harbinger of imminent, unpleasant, difficult-to-avoid death. Something similar may be at work with Parvati and the mummy. I don't want to wade too far into the murky waters here, and I don't know how much JKR knows about world religions (my own field). At any rate she knows more about Parvati's particular religious observances, cultural background, and family history. But in many strains of Hindu belief, failing to cremate a corpse, manhandling and mutilating it to make a mummy (pyramid-obsessed schoolteacher back in the day; the things you learn), and leaving it to sit and fester above the ground, is one of the most despicable acts imaginable. The mummy Parvati sees could be light years from a childish fear for her; it could be an abomination of the worst sort (though we don't know: all we've got for certain is the likeliest religious affiliation of some of her more immediate ancestors). There's Remus' full-moon boggart as well. When the moon's full, he loses his humanity. He goes through agonising transformations that are sufficient to kill a child, as we learn in OotP. He is filled with an irresistible, overpowering desiring to kill and eat his human fellows, and there is a very real risk he will do just that. The full moon makes him chronically ill and makes him an outcast. So why laugh? Because he will always be afraid of the moon, and he can't change what it does to him. But if the very idea of the moon overwhelms him with fear, he's lost what little normalcy and power and humanity he's got. It's the only way he has even the faintest chance of winning. Not that any of this is always so: Ron's just got Childhood!Trauma-induced arachnaphobia with no real rational basis, probably at visceral enough a level that nothing will ever change it. But - and this sort situation goes for any character - if an enemy (a DE who knows that fear, etc.) can send him into a helpless panic by conjuring a spider, he's dead. So he _must_ learn to laugh, no matter what, and so must everyone else. This is probably the most important application of the boggart lessons, practically speaking at least. For what it's worth, I would guess that some people's boggarts probably do change over time. Molly's might have been very different when she was a schoolgirl; I doubt she'd have offered to tackle it if she knew she'd be looking at her children's corpses. And Hermione's got bigger worries now than McGonagall failing her at everything. Um, so the point was... boggarts seem to take the form of whatever gut-level fear is wired closest to your brain at any point in time. I don't think it can be taken as thematic in terms of whose side anybody is on, or in terms of any other predictive factors on that grand a scale. Also, I really, really wonder how Luna's boggart would appear. Feeling for Ron, hekatesheadband Because the Sorting Hat is really Bono. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Dec 14 04:13:53 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 04:13:53 -0000 Subject: Boggart Snape (was:Re: Snape Wars vs Ship Wars...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144710 Pippin: > IMO, if Snape is a murderer, the boggart lesson in PoA loses > both its humor and its point. Murderers are not funny, even if > they are wearing silly clothes, and if a murderer is threatening > you, imagining that he has silly clothes on is not going to > help. On the other hand, if you are afraid of someone because > they always make you look stupid, then imagining that they look > stupid too is golden. Jen: If I take the scene outside the story, thinking JKR wrote that lesson knowing Snape would actually turn out to be a murderer, it might make me think twice for a moment. But within the story, that moment is fixed in time. If we were to get more information about the lesson, say Lupin really believed Snape was not just nasty but dangerous, then the lesson would take on a new slant. Inside the story, future events aren't able to color a past scene, only discovering different information about the scene can do that. If Snape were to kill Neville or even another student later on, Lupin might kick himself for helping Neville laugh at what turned out to be an actual threat. But hindsight is 20/20. Unless you are talking about ESE!Lupin here, that Lupin did know more than he let on about Snape's past? ESE!Lupin would change the boggart lesson for me unequivocally, more than finding out Snape turned out to be a murderer several years in the future. Because that would change the lesson into Lupin taking advantage of the students, pretending to help them with their fears but being an imposter. Sort of like re-reading GOF knowing Moody was Crouch. Betsy Hp: > I've been thinking about this, and I think I understand what > Pippin is driving at. It's that what Neville is taught in the > boggart scene is not only wrong, if Snape is ESE or OFH, it's down > right dangerous. Jen: Only if someone in the scene has reason to believe Snape will be a dangerous murderer, IMO, or that he is actully still working for Voldemort. Otherwise we are giving the characters more information than they had at the time of the scene. Betsyhp: > So if JKR means for Snape to be an actual danger, someone who'd > hurt or kill a student, teaching Neville to *laugh* at him is > irresponsible. Like a parent telling their child to picture a > kidnapper in a clown outfit, rather than, you know, run. Jen: I guess if what Snape said in Chap. 2 about not killing Harry only because he was under Dumbledore's nose is true, then I would agree with you. But I think that was a whopper of a lie. I think Snape wanted Harry expelled, yes, but dead at his hands? No. Not even OFH!Snape would want that since Harry is the One. I don't think you buy that one either. Jen, thinking the lesson may take on a bittersweet quality for her during a re-read if Neville or Lupin dies in Book 7. From phil at pcsgames.net Wed Dec 14 04:23:38 2005 From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:23:38 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Needs of Karmic Justice (was re: Cultural standards, etc) References: Message-ID: <01de01c60066$37b375d0$6600a8c0@phil> No: HPFGUIDX 144711 Julie: > After his actions > > on the Tower, and even IF he is DDM, his life is screwed to hell. > He's > > lost his teaching position, any respect he had from his colleagues > > and the entire WW, he's hated and villified by one side and has to > > dance very carefully to avoid being obliterated by the other side > (and > > I'm convinced Voldemort still doesn't trust him completely, as he > > doesn't trust *anyone* completely). He's given up everything he > > earned over the past 16 years. So, Karmic punishment, check. > > > > > > No, I'm afraid that just doesn't do. That is to say that the > scenario you've described simply doesn't fit the needs and > requirements of karmic punishment as Alla and I and others are > discussing. It is true that Snape will have a lot to pay for in > terms of his actions on the tower, but that frankly isn't what > interests us (or at least me) in this context. > > Karmic punishment means that the punishment in some way is very > directly and obviously linked with the fault. snipped Now Phil: A good Karmic punishment for Snape is in the final confrontation, he is turned into a toad. Then they use a time-turner to take him back and sell him to Great Uncle Algie, who gives him to Neville. From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Dec 14 04:31:44 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:31:44 -0500 Subject: Tarot and HP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144712 I am not a great expert on Tarot, but if there is a structural relationship between the HP and Tarot, as some have postulated, something is wrong. Now, if someone else knows more than I about it, I would be glad to be enlightened, but here is the problem I have. The four suits in the Minor Arcana are 1. Wands (sometimes Spears) 2. Swords (sometimes Arrows) 3. Cups 4. Gems (sometimes Coins) These correspond to our playing card suits of Clubs, Spades, Hearts, and Diamonds. Alchemically they correspond to: 1. Fire 2. Air 3. Water 4. Earth The four Hogwarts houses seem to correspond Alchemically as follows: 1. Gryffindor=fire 2. Ravenclaw=air 3. Slytherin=water 4. Hufflepuff=earth BUT the talismans associated with the Founders (at least the three we know of) don't match. Gryffindor is a Sword, Lutheran's is a Ring and Hufflepuff's is a Cup. If JKR were following Tarot, Hufflepuff's should be a Ring, Ravenclaw's a Sword, Lutheran's a Cup, and Gryffindor a Spear. This makes me think that JKR is NOT following Tarot, and any speculations based on Tarot are not valid. As I said above, if my understanding of Tarot is incorrect, I'd be glad to be set straight. Bruce From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 05:03:50 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 05:03:50 -0000 Subject: Boggart Snape (was:Re: Snape Wars vs Ship Wars...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144713 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > And that could be tying things together a bit too tightly, yes. I > suppose it depends on how much care JKR has given to Neville's > story. Because if Snape does turn out to be ESE or OFH, if it > turns out he really *was* a danger to Neville, rather than a > schoolboy fear, Neville didn't triumph in the boggart scene, he > became dangerously and wrongly overconfident. I think it is tying things together too tightly, because it's demanding that things always be context-appropriate (for your own definition of appropriate) retroactively. What's written with Neville and the Boggart works at that point in time for Neville, and it's a valuable lesson for him. But we've already gotten something that would make us read this over again with a different perspective, given the Snape as DE thing. We can add yet *another* layer onto it with Snape as the informer of the Prophecy, setting in motion the chain of events which practically orphans Neville. It's already quite a bit less funny for me, at least, to realize that Neville is terrified of the teacher who did play a role--intentional or not--in his sorrows. And what if the scene can also be looked back upon as naive and with even more sinister undertones? Does that make it a bad scene, then? I don't see how this would distort Neville's story. Even if Snape is ultimately DDM, there's something very scary about anyone who can summon the magic to will another human being dead. -Nora shivers and freezes and hunts for the heat knob From h2so3f at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 06:22:05 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 06:22:05 -0000 Subject: Boggart Snape (was:Re: Snape Wars vs Ship Wars...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144714 Betsy Hp wrote: "Because while it's good to teach children to laugh at their relatively empty fears, or fears that can't really hurt them, you don't teach a child to laugh at something that *should* scare them." CH3ed: I don't think the ridikulus curse is there to teach the children to not be afraid of their phobia real or imagined, but rather to teach them how to use laughter (or looking at the brighter side) to cope with their fear. One has to be able to keep quite a cool head (not go completely hysterical like Hermione did at her DADA exam in Book 3) to be able to think up a way to make the materialization of one's worst fear look funny and to be able to focus on that instead of the boggart in order to work the ridikulus curse... especially in the field where your worst fear can pop up on you unannouced. Betsy HP wrote: "When Harry confronted his boggart in the maze in GoF, he imagined the dementor tripping and that got rid of the boggart. But that would not help him out with an actual dementor. So Lupin taught him how to do a Patronus. Something that doesn't deter a boggart, but does stop a dementor." CH3ed: Actually Harry didn't imagine the dementor-boggart tripping. He didn't know it was a boggart at all and sent a patronus at it. The dementor-boggart then really tripped trying to get away from Harry's patronus, which was the thing that made Harry realized that the thing was a boggart rather than a real dementor. He then did a perfect ridikulus to get rid of the boggart (though we aren't told what Harry thought up to make the dementor-boggart look ridikulus or seem so funny the thing just blew to pieces.... that's gotta be something seriously funny!). CH3ed :O) From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Dec 14 06:42:53 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 06:42:53 -0000 Subject: Tarot and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144715 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > I am not a great expert on Tarot, but if there is a structural relationship between the HP and Tarot, as some have postulated, something is wrong. Valky: WEll yes I agree with there being something wrong in this too. The founders and their objects don't realy seem to follow consistently any elemental pattern that I can think of. There is a pattern, which can only prove a take it or leave it thing really, but I'll explain it anyway. The male founder's (Gryffindor and Slytherin) Objects are related to their houses in forward rotation of the elements. Forward rotation is cyclicly productive arrangement of the elements. In a circle the elements go from air --> Fire --> Earth --> Water --> back to air in a productive cycle that anyone here knowledgable in popular feng shui would recognise as similar to that theory. Air (oxygen) feeds fire, Fire (creates ash) which feeds earth, Earth (is the cradle of life = respiration) feeds water, water (is unstable and made up of air elements which break down to air) feeds air. Gryffindors object is and air symbol and Slytherin's is an earth object so the relationship is the object is productive toward the house. With Hufflepuff, however, the pattern reverses, and her object relates to her house (elementally) in the reductive direction, which is simply the same circle in reverse direction. In the elemental sense that makes Mme Hufflepuff's house in polar opposition to the men's houses. While their objects elementally 'further their house' Hufflepuff's house in contrast furthers her object. As I said, it's one of those things wjhere you say you can take it or leave it, but I should mention that a Wand, a Sceptre or even a Beaters Bat for the Ravenclaw object would follow the formation outlined here perfectly. Valky From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 14 07:42:03 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 07:42:03 -0000 Subject: Can you guess the title of book 7? In-Reply-To: <00dc01c60036$7783fb10$6600a8c0@phil> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144716 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Phil Vlasak" wrote: > > Phil wrote: > > > By analyzing the book titles there might be a clue to the title of > > book > > > seven. > > > Book 1, an object; > > > Book 2, a place; > > > Book 3, a person; > > > Book 4, an object; > > > Book 5, a place; > > > Book 6, a person. > > > > > > So book 7 should be the name of an object. > I was thinking that the Order of the Phoenix as a place since they adopted > twelve Grimmauld Place as its > headquarters but it would have messed the pattern to call books two and > five things other than people and objects. Geoff: But you are defeating your own object... If evidence if presented to defeat the pattern which you suggested to start with, then the suggested pattern doesn't exist anyway. May I also point out that I announced the title of Book 7 way back in message 131565? The correct title for Book 7 is "Harry Potter and the gobsmacked HPFGU members" :-)) From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 02:55:37 2005 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 02:55:37 -0000 Subject: Character "rescues" (was Re: What cultural standards ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144717 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: And I don't think JKR means for us to see Snape as > a child abuser. > That may very well be true, but what JKR intends very often isn't what JKR gets. We are back to the Problem of Three, as I mentioned in another thread. Snape, in my opinion and that of others, clearly IS a child abuser, over and out. And making said child abuser a hero would be so abominable that the books would be useful for nothing but rather expensive compost. Just as Dumbledore, in not intervening at the Dursleys, clearly WAS an accomplice to child abuse, at least before HBP and, possibly, if you don't buy into the "rescue" JKR did with him in Chapter Three, after. JKR unfortunately often lets her story get away from her, and ends up sending messages she doesn't intend. The chief example of this, which has been better analyzed by Alla than by myself, is Dumbledore's speach at the end of OOTP, where JKR seemed to be saying that, hey, child abuse in a good cause is perfectly all right. Now, she didn't intend to say that, and thus her attempt to rescue Dumbledore in HBP. Some people find that rescue convincing, particularly if you find JKR sending the message "Let's just pretend he didn't say that." I fall into that camp. Other people think that Dumbledore's lack of action with the Dursleys places him permanently under suspicion, no matter what JKR tries to do to extricate him. So, will she try to rescue Snape? No, because there isn't any way that anyone can claim Snape didn't know what he was doing and ought not to have known he was completely in the wrong. So how will she handle it? That is the subject of all the "karmic payback" threads. Of course, there still is the problem of why Dumbledore puts up with Snape, which bids fair to make him an accomplice to child abuse yet again. How will she handle that? She has said that we have more explanation for Dumbledore's blindness and emotional mistakes yet to come, and I suspect his tolerance of Snape's child abuse will be part of that. Lupinlore From Spamela.Spam.Spam at gmail.com Wed Dec 14 05:05:41 2005 From: Spamela.Spam.Spam at gmail.com (Erin Kelly) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:05:41 -0600 Subject: Can you guess the title of book 7? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <599906820512132105q3c8b3ed0paf4e9afdb34086f8@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144718 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" > wrote: > > We'll probably know the title of book 7 a year before we actually can > read it, perhaps more, so it might be fun to guess what that title > could be... > Erin: I think I'll stick with the names closest to my heart until I get a better one: Harry Potter and the Mystic Kettle of Knackledirk Harry Potter and the Horcree or more Siriusly (sorry can't help myself) Harry Potter and the Desperate Quest I think that's what it'll be and for some reason I couldn't get the word desperate out of my head. ~~Erin (Who's just made her first post hooray!!!) From kchuplis at alltel.net Wed Dec 14 04:01:34 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 04:01:34 -0000 Subject: Huge clue to Snape's true allegence hidden in OotP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144719 Diana wrote: > Re-reading that paragraph now after knowing the events in HBP, it > occurs to me that Snape can only be speaking of his personal > experience while telling Harry this. Why? Obvisouly Snape would > know that the lies he's told Voldemort haven't been detected > because he's still alive and is allowed to go in and out of > Voldemort's presence without restriction. > > So, if Snape is capable of repeatedly telling undetectable lies to > Voldemort does that pretty much mean he's on the side of the > good? > Or does it only mean that Snape is more than skilled enough to > play both sides against the other while looking out for himself > the entire time with the intention of choosing the winning side in > the end? And in just re-reading Spinner's End, I notice that at no point does Snape say anything that actually indicates knowledge of what "the task" is. Instead, his dialogue (which goes on for pages, so my cite is "Spinner's End" pages 32-37, Scholastic, 2005) is skillfully designed to *get* information and not *give* it. He often says nothing at all or says something in such a generalized way that it seems he knows something but never anything specific, which leads to drawing more information from Cissy and Bella. He's pretty tricky ol' Snapey is. Personally, I think it is DDM!Snape all the way. kchuplis From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Wed Dec 14 09:37:54 2005 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 01:37:54 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Character "rescues" (was Re: What cultural standards ...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <439FE7F2.4070304@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144720 lupinlore wrote: > >That may very well be true, but what JKR intends very often isn't >what JKR gets. We are back to the Problem of Three, as I mentioned >in another thread. Snape, in my opinion and that of others, clearly >IS a child abuser, over and out. And making said child abuser a hero >would be so abominable that the books would be useful for nothing but >rather expensive compost. Just as Dumbledore, in not intervening at >the Dursleys, clearly WAS an accomplice to child abuse, at least >before HBP and, possibly, if you don't buy into the "rescue" JKR did >with him in Chapter Three, after. > > > (big snip) What Snape does is not considered child abuse in the UK. Only by a stretch of the imagination is it child abuse in the ultra liberal state of California and barely or not at all in most other states.... And by Wizard World standards, Snape is likely not even close to being anything more then grouchy. I mean really, he doesn't transform students into ferrets and bounce them around, he doesn't even hex students at all and the students put hexes on each other that are bordering on life threatening. Snape also doesn't have students tag along on extremely dangerous missions involving feeding the headmaster poison or require him to fight dragons, merpeople. etc. He doesn't have the kids attempt to deal with dangerous creatures in class like Hagrid does. Clearly the Wizard World does not define abuse anywhere near what muggles do.. and certainly nothing like the ultra-liberals in California would. If anything, Snape is actually pretty nice to the kids as compared to how the kids often treat each other. A little snide namecalling sure beats being bitten by dragons, potentially being killed by a loose set of earmuffs during repotting Mandrakes or any number of other hazards in the Wizard World. Jazmyn From literature_Caro at web.de Wed Dec 14 09:46:09 2005 From: literature_Caro at web.de (literature_Caro) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:46:09 +0100 Subject: Snape a relative? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <11410332351.20051214104609@web.de> No: HPFGUIDX 144721 I suddenly got a brainwave that fitted to some (up to the baseless) theory of mine: Theory: Snape is Lily Potter's cousin. (There still is something huge to come out about Lily, so JK says and it cannot be that she was good at potions!) Brainwave: In German Half-Blood is written as one word. So if you take the English word as one, too and then take the usual brief form you get: HP and the HP! Sounds like Harry Potter and himself, doesn't it? So this along with a certain Perseus-Evans-theory (if you don't know who this bloke should be just rearange this name into Severus Snape - it works and the myth on Perseus is that he is a Son of Zeus and a Greek princess! And Snape is the son of a female prince!)makes it very possible that Snape is Harry's relative and I think we will meet our "greasy git" sooner than we thought, e. g. at the Potters' grave. Yours Caro From literature_Caro at web.de Wed Dec 14 09:49:08 2005 From: literature_Caro at web.de (literature_Caro) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:49:08 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Can you guess the title of book 7? In-Reply-To: <599906820512132105q3c8b3ed0paf4e9afdb34086f8@mail.gmail.com> References: <599906820512132105q3c8b3ed0paf4e9afdb34086f8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1578416839.20051214104908@web.de> No: HPFGUIDX 144722 Isn't it always the same? You try to think about a new title and the JK invents something that was not obvious or known to us until then and this thing becomes the new title. I doubt that this time it will be different. So I just wait, bit my fingernails and see... Yours Caro From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 10:39:59 2005 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:39:59 -0000 Subject: A blood bond between Snape and Dumbledore? (was Re: Snape a relative?) In-Reply-To: <11410332351.20051214104609@web.de> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144723 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, literature_Caro wrote: And Snape is the son of a female prince!)makes it very possible that Snape is Harry's relative and I > think we will meet our "greasy git" sooner than we thought, e. g. at the > Potters' grave. > Possible. However, let me put forth another theory about Snape's relatives. Perhaps, just perhaps, he's related to Dumbledore. JKR has indicated that Dumbledore's family will be important, and also has said that the family relationships of Hogwarts professors are kept secret for security reasons. Let us suppose that Elaine Prince was Dumbledore's granddaughter, for example, making Snape DD's great-grandson. Not at all impossible chronologically, as DD is 150 or so and Snape in his late 30s. A great-grandson of a different name (and whose mother had a different name) would not stand out as an obvious relative. Wouldn't that put an interesting twist on things? It would certainly explain why DD wants to trust Snape and put great faith in him, as well as why he gives him such latitude. DD perhaps feels guilty about Snape's life, thinking he should have "been there" more. Thus he is trying to patiently guide his great-grandson (or whatever) along, perhaps giving him too much latitude -- one of the emotional mistakes JKR hinted at in her interviews. DD makes a mistake with Harry in OOTP by trying to protect him out of love and guilt. Perhaps love and guilt explain his mistakes with Severus as well, i.e. a tendancy to dismiss all problems with "Severus will learn, I know he has it in him." Thus DDs policies are not so much the clever plans of a manipulative wizard as the wishful thinking of a guilty old man who feels he has failed two young men he loves and wants desperately to believe that everything will be all right with just a little time/patience/restraint/protection/whatever. His detachment magnifies this problem, as he is without a true confidant who could metaphorically shake him by the collar and say "Albus, wise up will you!" One attraction to this idea is that there is a ready and plausible way for it to be revealed -- Aberforth. He would certainly know of any connection and it would not be hard to work out a scene where he reveals it. Perhaps one reason we have seen so little of Aberforth is that he disapproves of some of DDs ideas? After all, it was Aberforth who caught Snape eavesdropping. One can readily imagine a rather testy scene between the two of them where Aberforth tells Albus he's letting his sentimentality get in the way of common sense and Albus replies with something akin to the speach he gave Harry about his intelligence and how perhaps he understands things better than Aberforth does. Yes, yes. I know the image of Albus as a sentimental and somewhat foolish old man wouldn't sit well in some quarters. But it does very neatly explain a lot of things that other theories either leave untouched or explain in ways that raise grave moral and intellectual problems. It also melds the Snape/Harry/Dumbledore triad into something of a dysfunctional family, which fits pretty well with what we've seen of its workings. Lupinlore From mudblood68 at yahoo.de Wed Dec 14 10:43:16 2005 From: mudblood68 at yahoo.de (Claudia) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:43:16 -0000 Subject: Endless horcrux hunt? Was: Evil Overlord for the day (Re: Horcrux query) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144724 SSSusan wrote: > Assuming Voldy does become aware of the search & destroy mission -- > whether by such a pre-planned alert mechanism or by means of a > traitor's report from within the Order or somehow getting the info > out of Snape -- wouldn't it be likely that Voldy would then make MORE > horcruxes? I mean, as long as he can stay one step ahead, he could > just keep killing people & creating howlops, couldn't he? Making > Harry's mission seemingly endless. Claudia: This idea never occurred to me because I got the impression that there was too little left of the "original" Voldemort to create another horcrux. I have no canon to support this, I think my impression comes from the descriptions of Voldemort as looking very inhuman and snakelike after his return. Claudia From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Wed Dec 14 12:55:04 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:55:04 +0100 Subject: Character "rescues" (was Re: What cultural standards ...) References: Message-ID: <010701c600ad$9bbc02d0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144725 lupinlore wrote: > Snape, in my opinion and that of others, clearly > IS a child abuser, over and out. Miles: This is your very private opinion. But - several people pointed out, that there is not very much canon or scholastic evidence for the claim, that Snape is a "child abuser". Just to recall it: - obviously, the standards of child abuse in the wizarding world are far away from any standards of our world - if we would use common definitions of child abuse from our world, these definitions state that there has to be damage, psychical or physical, as a result of child abuse. We can see that kind of damage with Dudley, but neither with Harry or Neville or any other student that is abused by Snape according to your opinion - if we speak of indices of child abuse and try to find it in the reactions of Hogwarts students, we only find abuse in the detentions of Umbridge, but no evidence for any abuse in Snape's lessons or detentions Certainly, you can use your private definition of child abuse. But it is very difficult to take it as a basis for a discussion about karmical punishment. I suggested some ten days ago to find a definition we all could use in order to have a basis for discussions concerning Snape - child abuser or not. But up to now, the supporters of the "he is a abuser" fraction couldn't come up with a uncommitted definition (or with any). Yes, Snape is a unsavoury person, especially concerning certain students in his classes. But to demand punishment for nastiness - I wouldn't go so far. Miles From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Dec 14 13:01:14 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:01:14 -0000 Subject: A blood bond between Snape and Dumbledore? (was Re: Snape a relative?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144726 > literature_Caro at w wrote: > > And Snape is the son of a female prince!)makes it very possible that > Snape is Harry's relative and I > > think we will meet our "greasy git" sooner than we thought, e. g. > at the > > Potters' grave. > > > > Lupinlore >snip. > > Let us suppose that Elaine Prince was Dumbledore's granddaughter, for > example, making Snape DD's great-grandson. Not at all impossible > chronologically, as DD is 150 or so and Snape in his late 30s. A > great-grandson of a different name (and whose mother had a different > name) would not stand out as an obvious relative. Potioncat: The first post revived the Perseus Evans rumor (Severus Snape) Here's a link for the Greek myth about Perseus. It includes a Phineas and an Andromeda. http://www.pantheon.org/articles/p/perseus.html I would add that JKR has said many times that Lily does not have any living relatives. So if Snape is Perseus Evans, he must be related to Marc Evans's family rather than to Lily's. :-) Also, we have records of Snape being born as Snape, not as Perseus Evans. Snape doesn't bear much resemblence to Perseus who is young, strong and brave. But, adding the myth to Lupinlore's suggestion gives me a bit of cold chills. Perseus and his mother were cast out by her father because a prophesy said that Danae's father would be killed by his grandson. Sure enough, quite by accident the grown up Perseus kills his grandfather. And the grown up Snape kills Dumbledore. Very interesting, but it reminds me of the articles that show up every now and now which compare the Kennedy/Johnson and Lincoln/Johnson periods of history. All of them are meaningless really, some are sort of Twilight-Zone-like and some are just plain silly. Potioncat, who fears this post doesn't have much of a point. But bets JKR knows who Perseus is. From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Wed Dec 14 13:06:52 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:06:52 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Cultural standards, nasty teachers, abused children Message-ID: <20051214130652.38681.qmail@web86207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144727 Instead of repeating the same old arguments ("He is an abuser!" "Oh no, he isn't!" "Well, in my school he'd be soooo sued"), I thought some people would be interested to read about experiences of a real english child in a real english boarding school. This text describes year 1915, but that's even more relevant to Hogwarts and wizarding world than a modern muggle equivalent. http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/suchwerethejoys.htm I wonder if Snape had read it before he started his teaching career. It certainly seems that he had adopted the following quote for his pedagogical motto: "The schoolmaster who imagines he is loved and trusted by his boys is in fact mimicked and laughed at behind his back. An adult who does not seem dangerous nearly always seems ridiculous." Irene ___________________________________________________________ NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/ From becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk Wed Dec 14 12:57:40 2005 From: becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk (Rebecca Williams) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:57:40 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Endless horcrux hunt? Was: Evil Overlord for the day (Re: Horcrux query) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051214125741.39486.qmail@web25305.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144728 SSSusan wrote: > wouldn't it be likely that Voldy would then make MORE horcruxes? I > mean, as long as he can stay one step ahead, he could just keep > killing people & creating howlops, couldn't he? Making Harry's > mission seemingly endless. Becky: Voldemort said that 'seven' was a magically significant number. He has already split his soudl into seven pieces, he cannot make any more horcruxes as it would mean it had been split into more pieces. Becky From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Dec 14 13:24:40 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:24:40 -0000 Subject: Endless horcrux hunt? Was: Evil Overlord for the day (Re: Horcrux query) In-Reply-To: <20051214125741.39486.qmail@web25305.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144729 SSSusan wrote earlier: > > wouldn't it be likely that Voldy would then make MORE horcruxes? I > > mean, as long as he can stay one step ahead, he could just keep > > killing people & creating howlops, couldn't he? Making Harry's > > mission seemingly endless. Becky responded: > Voldemort said that 'seven' was a magically significant number. He > has already split his soudl into seven pieces, he cannot make any > more horcruxes as it would mean it had been split into more pieces. SSSusan: Actually, I think it was DD who said this, rather than Voldy. (Or do I have that wrong?) But you're right that *if* DD is correct that the number seven truly matters to Voldy, that could prevent him from wanting to make more horcrusts. OTOH, since a couple have been destroyed now, could Voldy do the math and decide "Okay, 7 - 2 = 5... so I can make 2 more and get back to 7"?? I jest... sort of. Claudia: > This idea never occurred to me because I got the impression that there > was too little left of the "original" Voldemort to create another > horcrux. I have no canon to support this, I think my impression comes > from the descriptions of Voldemort as looking very inhuman and > snakelike after his return. SSSusan: I think this is an interesting impression, Claudia, and I wouldn't be surprised if Jo confirms it, either in a website update (if we ever GET another one!) or in Book 7. There's no canon I can think of either to "prove" it to this point, but just the same gut reaction you had... plus the knowledge that we're going into the final volume and she will, ostensibly, want to keep things from getting TOO convoluted. Voldy making more howchits *would* be making the plot more convoluted, methinks. Siriusly Snapey Susan From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Wed Dec 14 15:25:20 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:25:20 -0000 Subject: Finite Souls? (was Endless horcrux hunt?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144730 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > SSSusan wrote earlier: > > > wouldn't it be likely that Voldy would then make MORE horcruxes? > Becky responded: > > Voldemort said that 'seven' was a magically significant number. He > > has already split his soudl into seven pieces, he cannot make any > > more horcruxes as it would mean it had been split into more pieces. > > > SSSusan: > Actually, I think it was DD who said this, rather than Voldy. (Or do I > have that wrong?) But you're right that *if* DD is correct that the > number seven truly matters to Voldy, that could prevent him from > wanting to make more horcrusts. OTOH, since a couple have been > destroyed now, could Voldy do the math and decide "Okay, 7 - 2 = 5... > so I can make 2 more and get back to 7"?? > > Claudia: > > This idea never occurred to me because I got the impression that there > > was too little left of the "original" Voldemort to create another > > horcrux. I have no canon to support this, I think my impression comes > > from the descriptions of Voldemort as looking very inhuman and > > snakelike after his return. > > SSSusan: > I think this is an interesting impression, Claudia, and I wouldn't be > surprised if Jo confirms it, either in a website update (if we ever GET > another one!) or in Book 7. There's no canon I can think of either > to "prove" it to this point, but just the same gut reaction you had... > plus the knowledge that we're going into the final volume and she will, > ostensibly, want to keep things from getting TOO convoluted. Voldy > making more howchits *would* be making the plot more convoluted, > methinks. > Marianne: I can certainly see Claudia's point, but I also appreciate Susan's consideration that Voldemort is probably capable of performing simple subtraction. I bet he can even do it in his head ;-). And this made me wonder if there are some sort of limits on souls. Or, to put it another way, is a soul in Potterverse a certain size or volume? If there is a finite amount of soul, would Voldemort still be limited on the amount of horcruxes he could create? Or could he use smaller and smaller bits of soul to create many horcruxes? Would this be self-defeating because, without a certain high level of soul, the horcrux would not be particularly potent? The number seven thing I read as an educated guess on Dumbledore's part. His knowledge of Riddle/Voldemort led him to believe that, as seven is a significant number, that logically Riddle/Vmort would select that as the number of horcruxes to make. I never thought that meant that seven was the maximum number of horcruxes that could be made. Of course, I could be forgetting some bit of canon. Getting back to souls in general, what would happen if a Dementor was interrupted while administering the Kiss? Is is possible that only part of a person's soul could be sucked out? What a disturbing thought! Marianne From ms-tamany at rcn.com Wed Dec 14 15:29:51 2005 From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:29:51 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Character "rescues" (was Re: What cultural standards ...) In-Reply-To: <439FE7F2.4070304@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: <4k6l9v$47bi9s@smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net> No: HPFGUIDX 144731 lupinlore wrote: > >That may very well be true, but what JKR intends very often isn't >what JKR gets. We are back to the Problem of Three, as I mentioned >in another thread. Snape, in my opinion and that of others, clearly >IS a child abuser, over and out. And making said child abuser a hero >would be so abominable that the books would be useful for nothing but >rather expensive compost. Just as Dumbledore, in not intervening at >the Dursleys, clearly WAS an accomplice to child abuse, at least >before HBP and, possibly, if you don't buy into the "rescue" JKR did >with him in Chapter Three, after. > > > (big snip) Then Jazmyn wrote: What Snape does is not considered child abuse in the UK. Only by a stretch of the imagination is it child abuse in the ultra liberal state of California and barely or not at all in most other states.... And by Wizard World standards, Snape is likely not even close to being anything more then grouchy. I mean really, he doesn't transform students into ferrets and bounce them around, he doesn't even hex students at all and the students put hexes on each other that are bordering on life threatening. Snape also doesn't have students tag along on extremely dangerous missions involving feeding the headmaster poison or require him to fight dragons, merpeople. etc. He doesn't have the kids attempt to deal with dangerous creatures in class like Hagrid does. Clearly the Wizard World does not define abuse anywhere near what muggles do.. and certainly nothing like the ultra-liberals in California would. If anything, Snape is actually pretty nice to the kids as compared to how the kids often treat each other. A little snide namecalling sure beats being bitten by dragons, potentially being killed by a loose set of earmuffs during repotting Mandrakes or any number of other hazards in the Wizard World. Jazmyn [Now Tammy says:] I must agree with Jazmyn here. Snape is mean and nasty, yes, abusing his POSITION AS A TEACHER, in the fact that he takes House points for capricious cause (docking points for Hermione helping Neville, and docking points for Harry NOT helping Neville, for instance), and has been known to favor his own House over the despised Gryffindors, and has even on occasion aided a Gryffindor in failing (dropping Harry's potion, oops, sorry, guess you fail that lesson), and has certainly taken great care NOT to show sympathy for Gryffindors ("I see no difference."). HOWEVER, he has NEVER, so far as we have seen, locked a child in a closet for fifteen years without ever letting him out, as some RL muggles have done, nor has he starved a child to death, as some muggles have done, nor has he withheld life-saving medical treatment, as some muggles have done (he did NOT forbid Hermione to go to the hospital wing for her teeth, remember?), nor has he pocked a child with cigarette burns, as some muggles have done, nor has he raped a child, as some muggles have done, nor has he disfigured or mangled a child, as some muggles have done, nor has he beaten a child to death, as some muggles have done, nor has he throttled a child into unconciousness or death, as some muggles have done. THESE mostrous abominations are true child abuse, not what Snape does. At ABSOLUTE WORST, he made good on a promise to feed a child's MAGICALLY RESILIANT PET a POTION (**NOT** a poison) that was MADE PROPERLY, and did it's intended purpose (shrinking Trevor into a tadpole) AND he had the ability to prevent harm to Trevor in case the POTION had been mismade. ABSOLUTE WORST. Making a kid cry? I've done that. Clap me in irons, I must be a child abuser, I made a kid cry. I've made kids eat their brussels sprouts, lock me away, I must be a child abuser. Heck, I've even spanked a kid a time or two (after he bit me first). Put me in the electric chair, I *MUST* be a child abuser. Good heavens, people, get a sense of PROPORTION! Calling Snape's mean and nasty ways 'child abuse' is like calling a candle a wildfire, while a real wildfire elsewhere is killing firefighters by the dozens! He has abused his position as a teacher, yes, but he has NOT abused his students! Tammy HYPERLINK "mailto:ms-tamany at rcn.com"ms-tamany at rcn.com -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/199 - Release Date: 12/13/2005 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ejblack at rogers.com Wed Dec 14 15:39:12 2005 From: ejblack at rogers.com (Jeanette) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:39:12 -0000 Subject: Triple binding between Harry and Voldemort? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144732 I was talking Harry Potter with my son who came up with what could be a brilliant idea. You know the scene in the graveyard where Voldemort returns? He was brought back with "bone of the father", "flesh of the servant" and "blood of the enemy". HOWEVER, the flesh of the servant came from Wormtail, and Wormtail has a life debt to Harry!! That certainly has got to have some magical consequences on the relationship between Harry and Voldemort. Now they are bound three ways; by the rebounding curse, by the shared blood, and now by a life debt. Definitely bears thinking about...... Jeanette From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Wed Dec 14 15:45:09 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:45:09 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Finite Souls? (was Endless horcrux hunt?) References: Message-ID: <015901c600c5$5d58b610$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144733 kiricat4001 wrote: > The number seven thing I read as an educated guess on Dumbledore's > part. His knowledge of Riddle/Voldemort led him to believe that, as > seven is a significant number, that logically Riddle/Vmort would > select that as the number of horcruxes to make. I never thought > that meant that seven was the maximum number of horcruxes that could > be made. Of course, I could be forgetting some bit of canon. Miles: No, we all know the significance of the number seven from the memory of Slughorn. It is not only a guess on Dumbledore's part, but Tom himself had the ide fixe of seven soul parts, six of them stored in horcruxes. Concerning the idea of making more horcruxes - no, I don't think Voldemort would do this. He would depart from his basic idea of seven parts. The lost parts of his soul do not return to him, so he can never return to the magical number of seven. Apart from this, we see what happens to him due to separating six of seven parts of his soul from his body. He looses his humanity, he fades. I don't think that there is a certain number of soul pieces which can be separated, the problem won't be a mathematical one. But we get the impression, that he already came near the maximum of horcruxes that is possible. Miles From becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk Wed Dec 14 15:37:14 2005 From: becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk (Rebecca Williams) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:37:14 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Endless horcrux hunt? Was: Evil Overlord for the day (Re: Horcrux query) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051214153714.65523.qmail@web25307.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144734 SSSusan: > Actually, I think it was DD who said this, rather than Voldy. (Or > do I have that wrong?) But you're right that *if* DD is correct > that the number seven truly matters to Voldy, that could prevent > him from wanting to make more horcrusts. OTOH, since a couple have > been destroyed now, could Voldy do the math and decide "Okay, 7 - 2 > = 5... so I can make 2 more and get back to 7"?? > > I jest... sort of. Hi Susan No it was definitely Voldemort who said about the no.7 - he said it to Slughorn, in Slughorn's memory when he asked about the horcruxes. Later Dumbledore points it out to Harry that he said this. (Sorry not got the book on me to give you a proper quote). About doing the math - I see where you are going with that but no I don't think that would work. His soul has already been divided into seven pieces. Even if some of those pieces are destroyed he doesn't get any of that soul back, it is still divided. If he creates more, then he is splitting down the soul again and it is no longer in seven pieces. I don't think it is the number of horcruxes that are significant - it is the number of times the soul is split (that is why the seventh remains in his body rather than creating seven horcruxes - this would mean the one in his body would be the eighth). Don't know if I explained that very well but at least I know what I mean Lol! becky From becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk Wed Dec 14 16:11:10 2005 From: becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk (Rebecca Williams) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:11:10 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Rosier, Rookwood, Snape's gang of Slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051214161110.1823.qmail@web25303.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144735 Carol responds: (big snip) Re the gang itself, I'm guessing that Lucius Malfoy was the original leader but is not mentioned by SB because he is six years older than Severus Snape and the Marauders and would only have been at Hogwarts for a year or two while they were there. I think he "adopted" the precocious eleven-year-old Severus into his gang (the "lap dog" reference) because the little boy knew so many hexes and was clearly a genius. Bellatrix Lestrange is also older than Severus by about three years (Sirius last saw her at the end of his fourth year, which means that she must have left Hogwarts at that point, or earlier). Becky asks: How do you know that Lucius is six years older and that Bellatrix is three years older and that Sirius last saw her at the end of his fourth year? I am sure you are right, I just can't remember reading it and am interested to know how you know. thanks Becky From agdisney at msn.com Wed Dec 14 16:15:57 2005 From: agdisney at msn.com (Andrea Grevera) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:15:57 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] significant Trevor References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144736 Luckdragon: > Throughout the HP series I find that Neville's seemingly > insignificant toad is mentioned an awful lot. Trevor the toad > desparately seeks freedom from Neville on many occasions, and is > threatened with poisoning by Snape. > So why is a simple pet toad like Trevor brought to our attention so > often and why is he always trying to escape from his owner. > Possible theories up for rebuttal: > Trevor is RAB(an animagus in hiding) > Trevor is a horcrux > Trevor is a magically helpful creature we have yet to learn about > Trevor is a spy > What's your take on the toad? Andie: In the book Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them (pg 3 & 4) a chicken egg hatched beneath a toad would produce a gigantic serpent (Basilisk) possessed of extraordinarily dangerous powers and a Basilisk can only be controlled by a Parselmouth (Harry or LV). So if Trevor can find a chicken egg that he can sit on until it hatches, Harry could find himself in possession of another Basilisk. I don't know if this is good or bad since JKR said something about Harry having another pet but if he could control the Basilisk that might be another way to get rid of Voldy horcruxes. Maybe it can take out Nagini. Something to think on. From Nanagose at aol.com Wed Dec 14 17:06:57 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:06:57 -0000 Subject: Rosier, Rookwood, Snape's gang of Slytherins In-Reply-To: <20051214161110.1823.qmail@web25303.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144737 > Carol responds: > (big snip) > > Re the gang itself, I'm guessing that Lucius Malfoy was the original > leader but is not mentioned by SB because he is six years older than > Severus Snape and the Marauders and would only have been at Hogwarts > for a year or two while they were there. I think he "adopted" the > precocious eleven-year-old Severus into his gang (the "lap dog" > reference) because the little boy knew so many hexes and was clearly > a genius. Bellatrix Lestrange is also older than Severus by about > three years (Sirius last saw her at the end of his fourth year, > which means that she must have left Hogwarts at that point, or > earlier). > Becky asks: > > How do you know that Lucius is six years older and that Bellatrix is > three years older and that Sirius last saw her at the end of his > fourth year? I am sure you are right, I just can't remember reading > it and am interested to know how you know. Christina: Lucius's age comes from the news article in chapter 15 of OotP that says he is 41. The Marauders were 35/36 during OotP, so Lucius was about six or seven years older than them. The canon for the last time Sirius saw Bellatrix comes from chapter six of OotP, where Sirius says: (OotP, Scholastic, page 114) "I haven't seen her [Bellatrix] since I was your age, unless you count a glimpse of her coming into Azkaban." A lot of people take this to meant that Bella was two or three years older than Sirius, and the last time he saw her was when she graduated from school. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, however, when you factor in the new information from HBP. We now know that Bellatrix is the oldest Black sister. Even if Andromeda was just a year younger, she'd be (at most) two years older than the Marauders, making her (at most) 38 in OotP. Assuming that Auror training takes a minimum of three years, Tonks can't be any younger than about 22 when we meet her in OotP. That would mean that Andromeda would have had to have had Tonks when she was 16. Now, is that completely unrealistic? Not really, but Sirius's comments about the tapestry suggest differently: (OotP, Scholastic, page 113) "Andromeda's sisters are still here because they made lovely, respectable pure-blood marriages, but Andromeda married a Muggle-born, Ted Tonks, so--" That suggests that Andromeda was wiped off the family tree because she married Ted, not because she got pregnant while still in school. And while we've seen a lot of marriages that presumably took place soon after leaving Hogwarts (Lily/James, Molly/Arthur, Fleur is also recently graduated), we've not heard of any students marrying while still in school. I think that Sirius's comment about the last time he saw Bellatrix was in reference to seeing her at some sort of family function. He wouldn't have seen her after that not because she graduated, but because he ran away from home and had no further contact with his family. In any case, I agree with Carol concerning Lucius's status as the head of the little gang of Slytherins. I think he would have recognized talent in Snape and taken him under his wing. It would also explain why the "gang of Slytherins" is mysteriously absent during "Snape's Worst Memory." They'd all graduated. Christina From ornawn at 013.net Wed Dec 14 17:51:31 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:51:31 -0000 Subject: Huge clue to Snape's true allegence hidden in OotP? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144738 Diana: >So, if Snape is capable of repeatedly telling undetectable lies to > Voldemort does that pretty much mean he's on the side of the > good? Orna: Not necessarily, but Seems like it. The only sure thing is, that it gives him or JKR unrestricted space for telling whatever story she likes in book 7, since every thing he said in former books, might be a complete and undetected lie ? by Voldemort, by DD, by Harry. >kchuplis >And in just re-reading Spinner's End, I notice that at no point does >Snape say anything that actually indicates knowledge of what "the >task" is. Instead, his dialogue (which goes on for pages, so my cite >is "Spinner's End" pages 32-37, Scholastic, 2005) is skillfully >designed to *get* information and not *give* it. He often says >nothing at all or says something in such a generalized way that it >seems he knows something but never anything specific, which leads to >drawing more information from Cissy and Bella. He's pretty tricky >ol' Snapey is. Personally, I think it is DDM!Snape all the way. Orna: That would be a very risky thing to do. Since you can bet, Bellatrix is going sooner or later to say something to Voldemort, about confiding in Snape this high-secret plan. Snape might of course say, he thought they were talking about Draco's mission to collect Flobberworms , but still it would be a very risky thing to do, not to mention finding himself bound by an UV to perform an unknown task, which might even involve murdering DD, Harry, or who knows. I'm not saying, it wasn't like this ? canon supports it, and perhaps the truth is somewhere in between ? he knew something, legilimenced something, guessed something, and drew information ? after all a spy is bound to be very good in things like this. But it was a very risky thing, which put him in an impossible place. Might be another reason for him to burst into flames when Harry accuses him of being a coward. Orna From rlai1977 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 18:01:34 2005 From: rlai1977 at yahoo.com (rlai1977) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 18:01:34 -0000 Subject: Draco's bigotry and leadership In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144739 > > Betsy Hp: > > I've said it before, literature is not anthropology. If an author > > chooses to show us something, the very fact she took the time to > > write it suggests a certain significance. While, yes, Draco must > > bump into his fellow Slytherins all the time, JKR *chose* to have > > the mab show him with Pansy and Blaise. > > a_svirn: > Oh, I think it's significant alright. Here we have a long > anticipated Slytherin who is not in hurry to join Voldemort. And he > does seem smarter than Draco. Jumping in here... I too think Blaise is smarter than Draco in terms of his command of words and logic, and that, I believe was the reason JKR brought Blaise into the particular scene you and Besty have been discussing about- Draco just couldn't have carried on the sort of conversation he had with Blaise with Crabbe, Goyle and Pansy, given how Rowling has characterized the latter three. The most important purpose of said conversation was to give Harry (and the readers) some clues as to what Draco Malfoy's secret mission would be, THIS, I could imagine being done via Draco boasting as per usual to his closest friends. But another purpose of the scene, I think was to signal that Draco Malfoy, a character we'd known from book 1 and whose behaviors/personalities had had remained pretty constant before now, was about to change because he just had to: - For the first time, the name Malfoy not only would not help Draco, it became a hindrance for him. Blaise was there to inform Draco that his dad's DE status had made Slughorn shy away from him- Crabbe/Goyle wouldn't have been invited to Slughorn's little gathering in the first place, and Pansy? Even if she could've been invited had JKR invented a powerful family connection for her, wouldn't have dreamt of hurting her beloved Draco's pride by telling him the actual reason he was unwanted. I highly, highly doubt the scene was to showcase "a long anticipated Slytherin who is not in hurry to join Voldemort", for Blaise merely pointed out that a *16-year-old* would unlikely be of any use/interest to the Dark Lord. And if he was all that anti-Voldie (as you seem to imply), he'd hardly have bothered to converse casually with a DE's son, nor called Ginny a *blood traitor* :-P RP From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 18:40:12 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 18:40:12 -0000 Subject: Snape as abuser again. Sorry! WAS: Character "rescues" In-Reply-To: <010701c600ad$9bbc02d0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144740 Miles: > Certainly, you can use your private definition of child abuse. But it is very difficult to take it as a basis for a discussion about karmical punishment. I suggested some ten days ago to find a definition we all could use in order to have a basis for discussions concerning Snape - child abuser or not. But up to now, the supporters of the "he is a abuser" fraction couldn't come up> with a uncommitted definition (or with any). Alla: Actually, I just needed a temporary break from the topic, I did not know that not posting on it means that you could not come with acceptable definition. :-) So, I do not think that we could come up with the definition that works for everybody, but here is the one that works for me. Again, that is OF COURSE RL definition. "Emotional abuse is a pattern of behavior that attacks a child's emotional development and sense of self-worth. Emotional abuse includes excessive, aggressive or unreasonable demands that place expectations on a child beyond his or her capacity. Constant criticizing, belittling, insulting, rejecting and teasing are some of the forms these verbal attacks can take. Emotional abuse also includes failure to provide the psychological nurturing necessary for a child's psychological growth and development -- providing no love, support or guidance (National Committee for the Prevention of Child Abuse, 1987)." That DOES describe IMO only of course what Snape does to Neville and Harry. Miles: > - if we would use common definitions of child abuse from our world, these definitions state that there has to be damage, psychical or physical, as a result of child abuse. We can see that kind of damage with Dudley, but neither with Harry or Neville or any other student that is abused by Snape according to your opinion Alla: OK, I am parroting myself of course, but I believe that Snape being Neville boggart metaphorically shows that Neville WAS that damaged, you know.IMO, JKR uses it as some kind of shortcut, because she does not have book space to show Neville having nightmares about Snape or something like that, so here we have Boggart, personification of your worst fears.It is not a fact, just my opinion obviously, but I think it IS a legitimate argument to support "Snape is an abuser" claim.Again, IMO only Alla, who apologises for rearranging Miles words and replying not in the order they were written From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com Wed Dec 14 18:20:56 2005 From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 18:20:56 -0000 Subject: There are no new theories! Riddle vs Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144741 > Allison: > So, I know SOMEONE must have said this before, but... during my re- read > of Chamber of Secrets, at the point where Harry meets the fuzzy Tom > Riddle, I wondered what would happen if Voldemort were to meet fuzzy > Tom Riddle. Suppose one of his other Horcruxes results in the > formation of a new body or a re-bodied Riddle. If they met, would they > get along like old pals? Would they despise each other, since they > would be in competition for the same thing (my opinion, yes). Maybe > they could duel and destroy each other???? (Either must die at the > hand of the other!) MercuryBlue: Well, if Diary!Tom had been re-embodied at the end of CoS and run into Vapor!Voldemort, I think Vapor!Voldemort would just have merged with Diary!Tom, and they/he would just have to contend with having two sets of memories for the same stretch of time. And everybody else would be in deep, deep trouble. If a re-embodied Diary!Tom or equivalent were to meet today's Voldemort, I have absolutely no idea what might happen. Possibly they would each see the other as a part of himself and therefore his only possible true ally; possibly they would each see the other as very like himself and therefore wish each other dead, on account of they both know that they would both betray anyone else in a heartbeat and neither wishes to be betrayed. Possibly the younger one would be incapable of recognizing the older one, on account of never having seen anyone looking like that (and certainly not himself!), and possibly the older one has actually managed to forget what his younger self looked like, in which case the younger one would probably become one of the older one's 'loyal' Death Eaters, with (naturally) plans to overthrow the older one and take his place as Supreme Ruler of the Universe. In any of those scenarios, we have the interesting conundrum that one of them serves as one of the other's Horcruxes, and possibly the reverse is also true, meaning that they both must be killed before either can die. If THAT's a possibility, then we just have to thank the heavens that Voldemort so prefers to be independent and self-sufficient, for surely he's run across someone else who doesn't mind murder and wouldn't mind immortality, and only Voldemort's lack of trust for this person has kept them both from attaining 'true' immortality (or something much closer than what he's got, anyway). From pegdigrazia at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 18:22:00 2005 From: pegdigrazia at yahoo.com (Peg DiGrazia) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:22:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Rosier, Rookwood, Snape's gang of Slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051214182200.48958.qmail@web42209.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144742 Christina wrote: <<(OotP, Scholastic, page 114) "I haven't seen her [Bellatrix] since I was your age, unless you count a glimpse of her coming into Azkaban." <> Peg now: I think that a lot of the discussion on this sort of topic tends to be based on canon comments being taken a bit too literally. When Sirius uses the phrase "since I was your age," I doubt that he's thought it through that thoroughly ("Hmmm... Let's see... Harry just finished his fourth year, and I was in my fourth year when Bella graduated, and so this happened when I was his age...") To me as an adult, when I'm speaking off-the-cuff, it's much more generalized ("I had been at Hogwarts for a couple of years when Bella graduated, and Harry's in the middle of his schooling, and so this happened when I was his age...") Unless I specifically work it out mentally, "your age" is a phrase I would use when telling the same story to my 12-year-old niece or to my 17-year-old niece. If Sirius is referring to when Bellatrix graduated from Hogwarts, I think she could still be five or six years older than he is. Peg, realizing that she is the same age now that the marauders are in HBP, and so it would make sense for Lupin to dump Tonks and marry her instead. From kchuplis at alltel.net Wed Dec 14 19:14:47 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:14:47 -0000 Subject: Huge clue to Snape's true allegence hidden in OotP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144743 > Orna: > is bound to be very good in things like this. But it was a very > risky thing, which put him in an impossible place. > Might be another reason for him to burst into flames when Harry > accuses him of being a coward. > > Indeed, but I think Snape IS a risk taker and I also think just as Harry is blinded by Snape's ability because of hatred the opposite is also true. If there is one thing I'm pretty certain of is that Snape is no coward. kchuplis From mjd at spillwaycable.com Wed Dec 14 19:39:27 2005 From: mjd at spillwaycable.com (mjanetd) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:39:27 -0000 Subject: Huge clue to Snape's true allegence hidden in OotP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144744 Orna worte: > but still it would be a very risky thing to do, > not to mention finding himself bound by an UV to perform an unknown > task, which might even involve murdering DD, Harry, or who knows. > I'm not saying, it wasn't like this ? canon supports it, and perhaps > the truth is somewhere in between ? he knew something, legilimenced > something, guessed something, and drew information ? after all a spy > is bound to be very good in things like this. But it was a very > risky thing, which put him in an impossible place. > Might be another reason for him to burst into flames when Harry > accuses him of being a coward. I just finished a second reading of the half blood prince and a couple of things stuck out. 1) Hagrid overheard Snape and Dumbledore arguing about Snape promising to do something and not wanting to but Dumbledore insisting he do it. 2) At the end when they're on the tower, Dumbledore begs Snape. He says please at least 3 times. I can't believe Dumbledore is begging for his life. I can see Dumbledore maybe begging Snape to reconsider going back to the dark side but that doesn't really ring true either. I think he was begging Snape to go through with killing him. Of course, I'm still not totally convinced Dumbledore is dead. He tells Malfoy that the Order can hide him. Malfoy replies that LV would kill him (Malfoy) and Dumbledore says that "you can't be killed if you are already dead". He said they could hide Malfoy in ways (Malfoy) could not even imagine. I didn't catch this the first time around because I was racing to see how it ended but everything here leads me to believe that we will see that Snape has been working for Dumbledore. I can't believe the book has only been out since July 05. It seems like it's been years. Any idea when the next will be published? Janet From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 20:43:22 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:43:22 -0000 Subject: Triple binding between Harry and Voldemort? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144745 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jeanette" wrote: > > I was talking Harry Potter with my son who came up with what could > be a brilliant idea. > > You know the scene in the graveyard where Voldemort returns? > .... HOWEVER, the flesh of the servant came from Wormtail, and > Wormtail has a life debt to Harry!! That certainly has got to > have some magical consequences on the relationship between > Harry and Voldemort. > > Now they are bound three ways; by the rebounding curse, by the > shared blood, and now by a life debt. > > Definitely bears thinking about...... > > Jeanette > bboyminn: I think it goes beyond that. Remember, it was suppose to be 'flesh of a servant WILLINGLY given'. I think that particular flessh was fearfully given, coercively given, reluctantly given, anything but willingly given. True Wormtail commited the act by his own /hand/, but what was his alternative...Death? ...torture? In the latest Mugglenet/LeakyCauldron Melissa/Emerson interview with JKR at Edinburgh, JKR commented briefly on the 'Gleam' in Dumbledore's eye after hearing of the events in the Graveyard... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-3.htm MA: Does the gleam of triumph still have yet to make an appearance? JKR: That's still enormously significant. And let's face it, I haven't told you that much is enormously significant, so you can let your imaginations run free there. ES: I think everybody realized it was significant when they read it but we didn't see it materialize in 5 or 6. JKR: Well, it still is. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - While this primarily refers to the use of Harry's blood, it still points to the fact or apparent belief that there is a flaw in the potion. I believe there is more than one flaw in it, and the other flaw would be Wormtail who was coerced into give /tainted/ flesh. Part of Voldemort's problem is that he is so absolutely sure of his own infallibility, of his own divine superiority, that he believes that any plan he conceives is absolutely correct, and if it fails, it's because his minions have failed him and not that the plan itself might have been flawed to begin with. While we can't be sure of the details, it seems as if he Bone/Flesh/Blood potion was indeed a flawed idea. As a side note: it still seem impossible, or nearly so, for JKR to pull together so many different and divergent plot twist in only one books. As I said before, book 7 will either be the most dissappointing or the most STUNNING book ever written; nothing in between. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From ornawn at 013.net Wed Dec 14 20:44:06 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:44:06 -0000 Subject: Huge clue to Snape's true allegence hidden in OotP? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144746 >Kchuplis: > Indeed, but I think Snape IS a risk taker and I also think just as >Harry is blinded by Snape's ability because of hatred the opposite >is also true. If there is one thing I'm pretty certain of is that >Snape is no coward. Orna: I agree with you, and thanks for these thought provoking remarks- they are helpful for me in understanding Snape. Anyone experimenting about with potions and spells, some of them deadly, must be an enormous risk-taker. We know Luna's mother didn't survive her experiments. Another Snapey-Snivelly thought - I also reread Spinner's end, and what struck me, was the number of times Narcissa's tears are mentioned ? really a lot. We see Snape looking away from her tears, we see her shedding tears on his robe, and afterwards look into his eyes, pleading for the UV, with tear- filled eyes. She is totally unrestrained on this issue, and perhaps not only because of loosing control, but because of gaining control (on Snape). Now Snape, assumingly, has some issue with tears ? he wouldn't be called Snivellus, and wouldn't be so hard fighting against wearing hearts on sleeves, (by occlumency, and his words to Harry). So I thought, perhaps making the UV was brought about by a combination of his (too) huge risk-taking, and by his vulnerability to tears. I don't know why Snape has this tears-issue ? but it's there. I think he was driven too far, because of two reasons: 1. The DADA curse, which works IMO by exaggerating the person's character destructively 2. I wouldn't put it past Voldemort, who after all, is quite something in manipulating human feelings, as we see in OotP to have planned this Draco assignment, to force Snape into the open. Since Voldemort thinks death is the worst thing, he would never imagine DD (and in a way Snape) sacrificing himself. He would guess Narcissa would go to Snape, who is an old family friend, and try to persuade him to save Draco. Perhaps that's what Snape means, when he says, he thinks the Dark Lord means him to do it in the end ? he seems to know him. And another thought ? Voldemort would enjoy the game of this torturing of ? Draco, Narcissa, Snape, DD (by having him killed- betrayed from his POV). It would just fit his way of psychological brutalizing of his followers and enemies alike. And now he has a new "playground" before him - Narcissa betraying the secret, Bella questioning the Dark-Lords wisdom, and Snape - being hunted by the order - more than himself, in a way. Orna From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 21:00:33 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:00:33 -0000 Subject: Draco's bigotry and leadership In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144747 > RP: > I highly, highly doubt the scene was to showcase "a long anticipated > Slytherin who is not in hurry to join Voldemort", for Blaise merely > pointed out that a *16-year-old* would unlikely be of any use/interest > to the Dark Lord. And if he was all that anti-Voldie (as you seem to > imply), he'd hardly have bothered to converse casually with a DE's son, > nor called Ginny a *blood traitor* :-P a_svirn: I don't think that he's anti-Voldi any more than he's pro-Voldi. He's every bit as arrogant and bigoted as Draco, but he's smarter (at least at first sight) and he seems to be more interested in becoming fully qualified and getting on with his career plans (whatever they are) than with entering anybody's service. From unix4evr at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 21:07:23 2005 From: unix4evr at yahoo.com (UNIX4EVR) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:07:23 -0000 Subject: Snape -- yet another clue Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144748 Having just finsihed a re-read of GOF I found yet another nugget. Earlier I mentioned the 6 people Voldemort said weren't among the DE in the graveyard. 3 were dead. One was a coward (Karkarov), one had deserted him (Snape?) and the other and helped get Harry there (Barty Crouch Jr.). Now for clue #2. Take it for what you will. When Dumbledore is sending Sirius and Snape off to their tasks he sends Snape off and a "look a aprehension crossed his face." Dumbledore was apprehensive about Snape? Why???? Did he question his loyalty -- or was he worried FOR Snape? From ornawn at 013.net Wed Dec 14 21:29:48 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:29:48 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Plan in Book 7 (Evil Overlord for the day ) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144749 >Jen: >I've thought about what Voldemort's power IS, what Harry is >protected from. And I've decided it's Voldemort's ability to use >people's weaknesses against them. That's what the DADA curse was, >and we saw Voldemort use one of Dumbledore's own students in an >inside game, forcing Dumbledore to pull back and act defensively. >Ultimately DD chose to save Draco over himself (I'm pretty sure DD >knew Draco was the one entering the tower and thus the decision to >lose his wand). Riddle used Ginny's loneliness and crush on Harry to >lure her in. Something lured Snape in way back when and I suspect it >was 'wearing his heart on his sleeve.' Orna: I find your definition of Voldemort's power very precise and pointed. And you are right ? when he lured Ginny, it wasn't just because he "had influence on her" it's because he used her vulnerability the way you said. It's not just being evil, inventing horrible spells ? but this very human-connected thing ? despising weakness, and being able to locate it in others and use it against them. Thanks ? that's it, I think. It's funny, I didn't have this conceptualization, but I just posted a message going along with this idea ? about Snape in Spinner's end being tripped by Voldemort in his weakness for risk-taking and tears, because of the DADA curse. And I think you are right ? Harry's power lies in his power never to use people's weakness against him ? he gets compassionate ? against his will. When he thinks about Merope not willing to live for Tom ? he "forgets" it's Voldemort, and feels pity. >Jen: I'm not sure I understand? Voldemort may not internally feel >the destruction of his horcruxes, but he has gone to great lengths >to hide and protect them. They are everything to him, the >culmination of his life's work such as it is. His obsession. Maybe >you mean he has too much belief in his own powers of protection and >therefore doesn't think about the horcruxes after hiding them? Orna: He has gone to great length to hide them and protect them ? so he can feel immortal. But part of his being safe, has to do with the horcruxes divided from himself. Imagine if they were "in his purse" - anybody who hunted him down, would be able to lay hands on them, and endanger him. It means that his best strategy is to place them in different unconnected places, and not be in contact with them. Like Slughorn did with his friends, when he was hiding ? disconnect. On a more symbolic level it fits the essence of splitting the soul ? loose connections with the parts. Worrying about them, would remind him of the part encapsulated, he might feel something about having lost it, and things like this, which Voldemort hates. He would do the horcrux, put the best hiding and curse, which would fit him, and never touch it again. He has after all 7 parts, and believes in the powerful protection this gives him. >Jen: I see we agree again --Voldemort's first goal if he does >learn of the horcrux hunt will be to go straight for the jugular. I >think he's tired of messing around with Harry; getting Dumbledore >out of the way was the last step to defeating Harry in his mind. If >he makes another horcrux, it will be to victimize or tempt Harry. Orna: I join this agreement. Just want to add, that since Voldemort pathetically (IMO) believes in the prophecy ? so much that he actually puts a protection on Harry ? so nobody besides himself kills him, he wouldn't bother with the horcruxes ? that part of magic has been done from his POV ? he just has to kill Harry ? and that's it ? he is the most powerful wizard ? undefeatable ? what more can he want? It's interesting although natural, that Voldemort's tremendous effort to conquer human weaknesses, results even now, before his downfall, in him being superstitious, obssessed, irrational (I mean instead of telling everybody to kill Harry ? he makes sure he stays alive), and driven by forces outside his ability to choose. In comparison, DD helps Harry to grow out of the compelling force of the prophecy, and making his choice ? such being a master of his fate, and not driven by events. Orna From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Dec 14 21:31:59 2005 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:31:59 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR ITN interview , July 16 2005. Some excerpts and questions. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40512141331q7443d4b5s5b10d05f68eaf721@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144750 On 12/13/05, dumbledore11214 wrote: ...edit... "Scott Ballard for the Bookseller - will the Lord Voldemort ever found out what the Prophecy fully said? JK Rowling : That is one of those very good questions that I don't think I can answer. I am sorry, that is always very frustrating, but the most penetrating questions generally I cannot answer because they could give a lot away, so I would I am not going to answer that. Sorry." Alla: Now THAT is confusing to me. Why Voldemort finding out about whole prophecy would be significant? What obvious thing am I missing? I mean, besides finding out that either he or Harry has to die? I see him finding out during the final confrontation and being very surprised or something like that, but why else it could be significant? . Kemper now: If LV knew about the prophecy, he would believe, rightly, that his horcruxes were at risk of being found and, worse, destroyed. What would LV do knowing his soul pieces were at risk? I think It is to Harry's health and benefit that he keep his knowledge of the prophecy and the horcruxes to as few people as possible. . Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Dec 14 21:40:33 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:40:33 -0000 Subject: Boggart Snape (was:Re: Snape Wars vs Ship Wars...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144751 > Alla: > > > Do you doubt that JKR intends Voldemort to be really dangerous then? > > "Why are you worrying about > > you-know-who? > > You should be worrying about > > u-no-poo > > The constipation sensation that gripping the nation!" - HBP, p.116 Pippin: The twins get to throw snowballs at Quirrell's turban too. But the U-no-poo joke is about worry and fear of the name, it's not about what to do if you're actually confronting Voldemort or the DE's. The twins have a roomfull of actual DADA items for that. Even fear of Voldemort can be exaggerated. Fear of the name, as Dumbledore tells us, increases fear of the thing itself. So if Neville's fear of Snape is exaggerated, then yes, the boggart lesson still works. But I thought your point was that Neville's fear of Snape was not exaggerated and that Snape is a cold-blooded murderer just as Neville feared. If that is the case, then the boggart lesson becomes pathetic, like the twins chucking snowballs at the turban. But the twins are presented as characters who do go too far and get carried away with their jokes, while the boggart lesson is presented as something we should all understand about fear. If it becomes pathetic, with Lupin innocently teaching Neville to laugh at his fear of Snape when in fact Snape is a cold-blooded murderer, then the lesson becomes that there is no point in learning to laugh at your fears or accepting reassurance from others. Whether Snape actually ever tries to kill Neville or Lupin is beside the point. If he is ESE! or OFH, he is a killer, and Neville should prepare himself to run or fight if he encounters Snape. Neither of those is accomplished by laughing, IMO. Lupin could surely control the panic that would have ensued if Harry's boggart had been Voldemort -- but he didn't want to teach the class to take Voldemort lightly, did he? The books are meant to be read more than once, first as a mysteries, where the reader knows less than the characters, and subsequently as thrillers, where the reader knows more. With each new volume, some mystery elements in the earlier books are revealed, and we can go back and wonder whether the awful boy was really James, for example, or whether Lupin's "odd, closed expression" is a clue to occlumency. Presumably this process ends with the final book, all the mysteries will be solved, and the books will be re-read as thrillers from then on. But to alter the message of Books One and Two that you can't reliably judge people by type, and of Book Three that our worst fears are sometimes exaggerated, well, I can't see that happening. Unless the mummy is proof that Parvati was abused by mummies and the banshee is proof that Seamus was abused by banshees, I don't see how we can say that Neville's fear of Snape is proof that he was abused by him. Harry has encountered a dementor only once when he finally gets to face his boggart--it might be considered guilty of assault, maybe, but unless you define every attack on a child as child abuse, I think we have proof that your boggart is not your abuser. Otherwise surely Harry's boggart would be Voldemort or the Dursleys. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 21:56:43 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:56:43 -0000 Subject: Boggart Snape (was:Re: Snape Wars vs Ship Wars...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144752 > Pippin: > Even fear of Voldemort can be exaggerated. Fear of the name, as > Dumbledore tells us, increases fear of the thing itself. So if Neville's > fear of Snape is exaggerated, then yes, the boggart lesson still works. > > But I thought your point was that Neville's fear of Snape was not > exaggerated and that Snape is a cold-blooded murderer just as Neville > feared. > > If that is the case, then the boggart lesson becomes pathetic, > like the twins chucking snowballs at the turban. But the twins are > presented as characters who do go too far and get carried away > with their jokes, while the boggart lesson is presented as something > we should all understand about fear. > > If it becomes pathetic, with Lupin innocently teaching Neville to laugh > at his fear of Snape when in fact Snape is a cold-blooded murderer, > then the lesson becomes that there is no point in learning to > laugh at your fears or accepting reassurance from others. Alla: I can only refer you to Nora's post. We ALREADY have much more information that we did in PoA about Snape. We know that he is not just a nasty teacher, we know that he is a former DE and it is a reasonable assumption to make that he participated in many atrocities, IMO. We know that he is in essense complicit in Longbottoms insanity and essentially complicit in making Neville grew up without parents. Are you arguing that knowing those facts ( I am sorry - those are facts for me of course, somebody may argue that they are not facts) Boggart lesson works less for you? Because for me it works quite nicely still, so if we learn some additional information that Snape killed Dumbledore you know, not for the good and noble reasons, I don't see that I will experience the drastic change in my evaluation of that lesson. Except of course it will make Neville's fear of Snape even more justified IMO. Pippin > Unless the mummy is proof that Parvati was abused by mummies and > the banshee is proof that Seamus was abused by banshees, I don't see > how we can say that Neville's fear of Snape is proof that he was abused > by him. Alla: Boggart is your fear, your abuser CAN be your fear, no? So, of course Boggart is not necessarily your abuser, since child may not be abused at all and then such child will have other fears, obviously. IMO anyway. JMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 22:14:47 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:14:47 -0000 Subject: Ginny's Role in Book 7 (was: Re: Four ponderings) In-Reply-To: <00d001c5fff1$f4f2ef10$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144753 > >>kelleyaynn: > > 4. What role or importance will Ginny play in book 7? She is > > underage and certainly can't go with the trio on their hunt for > > the horcruxes. But due to her steady development througout the > > series, and increasing "face time", I can't see her suddenly > > becoming a minor, insignificant character. > >>Miles: > I think we can be quite sure to see her as one of the main > characters in book 7. You're right, she was built up from 1 to 6, > and this would be wasted if she would step in the background again. > Does anybody believe that she really accepted Harry's decision to > break up? I don't, it would be out of character. Betsy Hp: I have a different view on this. I have a feeling Ginny won't have much of a substantial role at all in book 7. And that's because I feel that Ginny is one of JKRs sloppier character creations. Rather than a steady building of character, Ginny's "growth" has been a bit frenzied, IMO. It's like JKR wanted to create a spitfire and shoved and hammered and forced Ginny's character into that particular mold. It's especially noticable, I think, when you compare book GoF Ginny to movie GoF Ginny. Movie Ginny has a bit more in common with OotP Ginny. Book GoF Ginny is a completely different girl. Then, of course, there's HBP Ginny, who is once again, an entirely different animal. Compare Ginny throughout the series with Neville throughout the series and I think it's apparent that it's not lack of skill on JKR's part. So I imagine that it's a lack of importance on Ginny's part. JKR didn't have to think about Ginny's character, and so she didn't. And it shows. Frankly, I think Ginny is Harry's reward. As she was his oasis, his calm before the storm, in HBP. But that calm wasn't meaningful to plot, so JKR didn't show any of it. No need for a glimpse into their conversations because it doesn't have any affect on Harry's character growth, nor on the plot, and Ginny isn't an important character anyway. At least, outside of making Harry happy. So I *do* think Ginny will take the breakup quietly, because she's more than likely going to be Harry's wife in the "happily ever after" land of the epilogue. Unless, of course, Ginny is killed. But even than, it's not that Ginny's death will be important because it's Ginny, but because she's Harry's girl. Betsy Hp From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 14 22:19:07 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:19:07 -0000 Subject: Endless horcrux hunt? Was: Evil Overlord for the day (Re: Horcrux query) In-Reply-To: <20051214153714.65523.qmail@web25307.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144754 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Rebecca Williams wrote: > > SSSusan: > > Actually, I think it was DD who said this, rather than Voldy. (Or > > do I have that wrong?) But you're right that *if* DD is correct > > that the number seven truly matters to Voldy, that could prevent > > him from wanting to make more horcrusts. OTOH, since a couple have > > been destroyed now, could Voldy do the math and decide "Okay, 7 - 2 > > = 5... so I can make 2 more and get back to 7"?? > > > > I jest... sort of. becky: > No it was definitely Voldemort who said about the no.7 - he said > it to Slughorn, in Slughorn's memory when he asked about the > horcruxes. Later Dumbledore points it out to Harry that he said > this. (Sorry not got the book on me to give you a proper quote). Geoff: Just for completeness.... '"Yes, sir," said Riddle. "What I don't understand, though - just out of curiosity - I mean, would one Horcrux be much use? Can you only split your soul once? Wouldn't it be better, make you stronger, to have your soul in more pieces? I mean, for instance, isn't seven the most powerfully magical number, wouldn't seven -?" "Merlin's beard, Tom!" yelped Slughorn. "Seven! Isn't it bad enough to think of killing one person? and in any case... bad enough to divide the soul... but to rip it into pieces..."' (HBP "Horcruxes" pp.465-66 UK edition) '"But now, Harry, armed with this information, the crucial memory you have succeeded in procuring for us, we are closer to the secret of finishing Lord Voldemort than anyone has ever been before. You heard him, Harry: 'Wouldn't it be better, make you stronger, to have your soul in more pieces... isn't seven the most powerfully magical number...' /Isn't seven the most powerfully magical number./ Yes, I think the idea of a seven-part soul would greatly appeal to Lord Voldemort." "He made /seven/ Horcruxes?" said Harry, horror-struck, while several of the portraits on the walls made similar noises of shock and outrage. "But they could be anywhere in the world - hidden - buried or invisible -"' (ibid. p.470) becky: > About doing the math - I see where you are going with that but no > I don't think that would work. His soul has already been divided > into seven pieces. Even if some of those pieces are destroyed he > doesn't get any of that soul back, it is still divided. If he > creates more, then he is splitting down the soul again and it is no > longer in seven pieces. Geoff: Yes, it is because if some pieces are destroyed, he is "topping up" the total again,although I believe that he would be "diluting" what is left of his humanity. > I don't think it is the number of horcruxes that are significant - > it is the number of times the soul is split (that is why the > seventh remains in his body rather than creating seven horcruxes - > this would mean the one in his body would be the eighth). Don't > know if I explained that very well but at least I know what I mean > Lol! Geoff: Yes, but the last Horcrux - however many he makes - must always remain in his body or else he commits a form of self-Dementorisation and becomes just a shell for want of a better description. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Dec 14 22:21:23 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:21:23 -0000 Subject: Snape -- yet another clue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144755 UNIX4EVR wrote: > When Dumbledore is sending Sirius and Snape off to their tasks he > sends Snape off and a "look a aprehension crossed his face." > > Dumbledore was apprehensive about Snape? Why???? Did he question > his loyalty -- or was he worried FOR Snape? SSSusan: I have always taken this as worry ABOUT Snape, as apprehension about how dangerous the task is he's sending him off on, not as a hesitation related to mistrust of Snape. (Though I'll grant that isn't out of the question.) Look at the words which come here: "Severus, you know what I must ask you to do. If you are ready... if you are prepared..." "I am," said Snape. He looked slightly paler than usual, and his cold, black eyes glittered strangely. "Then good luck," said Dumbledore, and he watched, with a trace of apprehension on his face, as Snape swept wordlessly after Sirius. It was several minutes before Dumbledore spoke again. (US hardback, p. 713) SSSusan: This comes on the heels of forcing Severus and Sirius to shake hands, with the accompanying DD remark, "You are on the same side now." This seems to show that DD believes Snape to be trustworthy. And the use of the word *must* in "what I must ask you to do" implies, to me, that DD knows this task is risky and dangerous. The apprehension, then, coupled with the "several minutes" before DD spoke again, has always implied, to me, that he was worried ABOUT Snape, struggling with what he felt he had HAD to ask him to do. YMMV Siriusly Snapey Susan From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 22:22:28 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:22:28 -0000 Subject: Draco's bigotry and leadership In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144756 > >>a_svirn: > I don't think that he's anti-Voldi any more than he's pro-Voldi. > He's every bit as arrogant and bigoted as Draco, but he's smarter > (at least at first sight) and he seems to be more interested in > becoming fully qualified and getting on with his career plans > (whatever they are) than with entering anybody's service. Betsy Hp: I agree (yay!) that Blaise is very much detached when it comes to Voldemort. He's certainly seems less passionate than Draco and so would only join Voldemort, or stand against Voldemort, if it was within his carefully considered interest to do so. But how do you get that Blaise is smarter than Draco? Blaise is certainly less *emotional* than Draco (as shown by his "just the facts, ma'am" routine), but actually more intelligent? Betsy Hp From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Dec 14 22:24:57 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:24:57 -0000 Subject: Draco's bigotry and leadership In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144757 > I too think Blaise is smarter than Draco in terms of his command of > words and logic, and that, Magpie: I agree with your take on the scene, though I think it might be even unwise to assign logic and intelligence to someone when we really don't know them that well. What I got from his scenes in HBP was that Blaise doesn't show interest in *anything* much less his school or career plans. That's his thing, to put on airs of being haughty and disinterested--it's a note hit a lot in his short page time. Ginny claims his one talent is posing. There is one time when true curiosity shows through the mask--when Draco is hinting about working for Voldemort by saying he might be on to "bigger and better things" than school next year. Blaise scoffs (haughtily) that this couldn't possibly true--a 16-year-old helping Voldemort? But does not reply when Draco appears to be telling the truth. I don't think his "scathingly" reminding Draco of his age and unqualified status means Blaise himself is interested in his own studies or career or thinks it's better to do that (not that you've said that here, I'm just responding to the whole discussion at once). He just doesn't believe Draco is actually doing something important and adult. He is being logical in suggesting that Draco's no use to Voldemort as a kid, but of course he's actually wrong. People tell Harry he's being illogical about this and he's really not; Harry knows Voldemort better than some.;-) I also don't even think this dismissive act he puts on is supposed to indicate he'd dismiss Voldemort himself either. To me they sounded like two ordinary boys who were both ambitious and one of them had been given a big adult job. It seems a given that all the people in that compartment see Voldemort as a good thing--a stupid idea in itself. I get the feeling that Blaise does represent something bad and actually, possibly not that smart. He *appears* smart because he's got a veneer of sophistication, but we don't ever hear about him doing anything particularly interesting one way or another. Schoolwise we don't know how well he does--perhaps he just works hard enough to get by. At times he's on top with Draco in the scene, at times Draco gets the edge. But on instinct I think Draco's probably got more potential just because of his commitment. Lucius also sometimes seems smart in that he's slippery, but I don't think he really is either.:-) -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Dec 14 22:31:29 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:31:29 -0000 Subject: Boggart Snape (was:Re: Snape Wars vs Ship Wars...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144758 > Alla: > > I can only refer you to Nora's post. We ALREADY have much more > information that we did in PoA about Snape. We know that he is not > just a nasty teacher, we know that he is a former DE and it is a > reasonable assumption to make that he participated in many > atrocities, IMO. We know that he is in essense complicit in > Longbottoms insanity and essentially complicit in making Neville grew > up without parents. > > Are you arguing that knowing those facts ( I am sorry - those are > facts for me of course, somebody may argue that they are not facts) > Boggart lesson works less for you? > Pippin: It isn't proven that Snape is still willing to do murder and participate in atrocities -- do we agree on that? If he is still willing to do those things, then Neville's fear is justified, Snape is not DDM and the boggart lesson doesn't work, not for me anyway. If he is not still willing to do those things, then Neville's fear is not justified. It would be like Harry's fear that his father remained a schoolyard bully, not borne out by the facts. If Snape had given up being a DE when the Longbottoms were attacked, I don't see how he could be complicit in it. The attack wasn't even ordered by Voldemort but by the mysterious individual who "sent" the Lestranges after the Longbottoms. It ties into the question you asked in another post about why JKR refused to say whether Voldemort would learn the whole prophecy in Book Seven. The only reason for her to withhold that info, IMO, is that Voldemort *already* knows the whole prophecy. Theory: ESE!Lupin told him, having learned it from James. So Voldemort would have found out anyway, and Harry was attacked not because Voldemort was ignorant of the equals bit, but because Voldemort knew about it and was seeking to destroy Harry before he became capable of making horcruxes of his own. ESE!Lupin then ordered the attack on the Longbottoms, which was a set up, in order to eliminate the Lestranges, who knew too much, and to have proof for his master, should he ever return, that Lupin wasn't DDM. BTW, I am a little perturbed by the drift in the definition of ESE!. It used to mean "secretly in league with Voldemort" and now it's being used to mean "in league with Voldemort, secretly or not, and in total consonance with his aims." So I don't know what to call my theory now, as it was never part of it that Lupin was totally in accord with Voldemort. Pippin From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 23:05:35 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:05:35 -0000 Subject: Draco's bigotry and leadership In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144759 >Betsy Hp: >But how do you get that Blaise is smarter than Draco? Blaise is >certainly less *emotional* than Draco (as shown by his "just the >facts, ma'am" routine), but actually more intelligent? a_svirn I think he's smarter because he delivered a couple subtle set-downs to Draco, and Draco didn't even recognize them as such. >Magpie: >I get the feeling that Blaise does represent something bad and >actually, possibly not that smart. He *appears* smart because he's >got a veneer of sophistication, but we don't ever hear about him >doing anything particularly interesting one way or another. a_svirn: Well, Draco doesn't have even this veneer. >Magpie: >Schoolwise we don't know how well he does--perhaps he just works >hard enough to get by. At times he's on top with Draco in the scene, >at times Draco gets the edge. a_svirn: Where does Draco get the edge? >Magpie: But on instinct I think Draco's >probably got more potential just because of his commitment. a_svirn: You mean because he's capable of commitment? Or because of the nature of his commitment? >Magpie: >Lucius >also sometimes seems smart in that he's slippery, but I don't think >he really is either.:-) a_svirn: Actually Lucius seems smart only in the film. In the books he seems pompous and slippery bastard, but not particularly bright. From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com Thu Dec 15 00:52:18 2005 From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:52:18 -0000 Subject: Forgiving Snape was FF: Re: Who does Snape really hate? In-Reply-To: <4398ADF7.7070505@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144760 Bart: > Please name one life that we know was taken due to Snape's spy work > for Voldemort. I don't know of any; only those that Snape CLAIMED > were lost to the Black sisters. MercuryBlue: Well, Emmeline Vance is certainly dead, Sirius Black is certainly dead. Snape may have been lying to Narcissa and Bellatrix, but, on this point at least, why would he? Particularly given that Bellatrix probably knows quite well who actually killed Emmeline, and could ask that person where s/he found out where Emmeline would be the night she was killed. And we KNOW that part of the reason Sirius didn't sit tight on Ministry raid night is Snape's continuous taunts about being snug in his nice little hideyhole and not having to do any of the real work. From drednort at alphalink.com.au Thu Dec 15 02:17:06 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:17:06 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Cultural standards, nasty teachers, abused children In-Reply-To: <20051214130652.38681.qmail@web86207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43A16CD2.21435.129A91C@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 144761 On 14 Dec 2005 at 13:06, Irene Mikhlin wrote: > I wonder if Snape had read it before he started his > teaching career. It certainly seems that he had > adopted the following quote for his pedagogical motto: > "The schoolmaster who imagines he is loved and trusted > by his boys is in fact mimicked and laughed at behind > his back. An adult who does not seem dangerous nearly > always seems ridiculous." I've said it before, but I think it bears repeating. I was a victim of quite severe abuse as a child both at the hands of other students and, in my view at the hands of teachers - though many would disagree on this last point as the teachers who abused me to the point that I was suicidally depressed were extremely modern teachers who embraced all the wonderfully sounding ideas about treating children with respect, and who came across to most people as really, really nice. The type of teachers that I suspect (though don't know) that many of those who label Snape as a child abuser, would probably consider to be good teachers. On the other hand, I had some very Snape like teachers - two in particular, one of whom made Severus Snape seem like Maria Montessori. These teachers were nasty. When a student made a mistake in their classes, they were positively scathing in their comments about that student (and unfortunately for me... well, they knew I was supposedly very bright, and so when I did poorly they assumed that it was mostly out of laziness and they were particularly savage in their commentary. They were often right, by the way, in their judgement - I was rather lazy in their subject at time - they both taught the same subject - but at the time, I did sometimes feel rather picked on). Some of the things they said to me were pretty nasty - one of them in particular. At least as bad as what we see directed at Harry and Neville by Snape. And added to that, corporal punishment was available and was used (this was at an Australian independent school run on traditional British Public School lines in the late 1980s and early 1990s - fairly recently and even closer in time to Harry's experiences at Hogwarts). I regard both these men as good teachers - certainly not as child abusers. They weren't my *best* teachers (my best teachers, my favourite teachers seem to me closer to the McGonnagal model than the Snape), but they were pretty close. Their classes weren't pleasant experiences for me. I was often afraid of them. I was sometimes very afraid, and some of my experiences in their classes quite upset me. But they taught me *very* well. Very effectively. They taught nearly all their students very well, and very effectively - and that was their job. And that is Snape's job. It's not a teachers job to be nice and kind - there's certainly nothing inherently wrong with a teacher being nice and kind, and if they can be nice and kind and an effective teacher at the same time, that's great. But it's not a requirement. A teacher's job is to *teach* children. Not to coddle them. Not to make them feel good about themselves. Not to boost their self esteem. It's to teach them. [Now, before anyone reading this becomes terrified at the fact that I am studying to be a teacher, let me say that I do think it's important for children to feel good about themselves, and I do think self esteem is important - it's just that I think those things have to come from within the child - the teachers responsibility towards those things is to teach the child as effectively as possible, so the child achieves - and from that achievement develops self esteem - it's something they earn, not something a teacher gives them. And I'll tell you - that's what I got from my Snapish teachers - because when I got a high mark from them, you'd better believe I *knew* I'd earned it.] Does Snape effectively teach his classes? I think the evidence is there that he does. He has high standards and a significant number of his students meet them - even Umbridge who seems to be looking for excuses to degrade the staff, acknowledges Snape's general success. Not all his students meet his standards - but frankly, not all of McGonnagal's students meet her high standards. That's the thing about high standards - if they mean anything, not all students will reach them. Just because a teacher is sometimes nasty to his or her students does not make them a child abuser. And, frankly, I personally sometimes get quite annoyed when I see the view that Snape is a child abuser and the reasons that people hold that view. Now, there's nothing wrong with that - people are entitled to their own opinions and I don't expect to never be annoyed by things people write on such a large list - but I do find it annoying. Because I was a victim of child abuse - of educational child abuse. This isn't just my own opinion either. I've been asked to write articles about it, to speak about it, and I've even written a chapter of a book about it. The abuse I suffered was severe and it's acknowledged as such by experts on child abuse, it's not just my own opinion. And the Snape like teachers I had were among the teachers who helped to *heal* me of the effects of that abuse. Seeing a similar teacher, even in fiction, being labelled as an abuser themselves is moderately upsetting, I have to say. Part of the reason why Harry Potter appealed to me from the moment I first read the books is because I related so much to Harry in many ways. I had to grow up having many of my needs neglected by unthinking or uncaring people - not my parents, thank God - but many of my teachers. I was abused and neglected - for most of my childhood not badly, but there was one year of total hell. And then, suddenly, I found myself virtually plucked out of that situation. And sent to a different school, a school radically different from anything I had experienced before. A school that gave me what I needed. http://www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/schooldays.html No, it wasn't Hogwarts - but it was something close to it, for me, and it was utterly different from all my schooling up until that time. And it did come from the British Public School tradition, which I also feel very strongly that Hogwarts draws on. http://www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/HSWW.html Like I say, though, part of the reason Harry Potter appealed to me was because of the school environment we see at Hogwarts - which is quite different from the general run of most 'modern' schooling. The students are taught by old fashioned methods, by fairly strict methods, they are expected to work hard, they are not coddled by their teachers. Some of their teachers are nice. Some are nasty. Some are effective. Some are hopeless. The kids are just expected to get on with things. They are not shielded from unpleasantness. This is a school where detention can involve going into a forest inhabited by dangerous magical beasts. If a student is hurt, the injury is dealt with - and then the child is expected to get on with things. And, incidentally, Hogwarts does seem to have some standards in terms of what is and isn't acceptable with regards to students. Whipping seems to be banned until Umbridge attempts to restore it (which in some ways, in some views, puts Hogwarts ahead of British education - at the time the Harry Potter novels seem to be set, corporal punishment was still legal in private schools in Britain and a few hundred schools reportedly still made some use of it), and teachers are forbidden to transfigure students as a punishment (though it is interesting that McGonnagal views Moody/Crouches transfiguration of Draco as wrong, but doesn't seem to object to the bouncing!) And they are expected to learn. They go into classrooms and they are expected to deal with McGonnagal's high expectations, and Binn's boring teacher, and Trelawney's eccentricities, with Defence Against the Dark Arts teachers who reek of garlic, or are only interested in self promotion, or who perform illegal curses in front of them - and sometimes on them, on another who simply expects them to copy out page after page of work. And they are expected to deal with the fact that they have a nasty Potions teacher. It's up to them to learn - because that is what they are there for. And, believe it or not - that's the type of education that worked for me. When five previous schools had largely failed me educationally. It is what works for some kids. And a couple - and only a couple - of my good teachers were very Snape like indeed. And to see people labelling them child abusers by proxy - well, it hurts. Especially as, believe me, I do know what child abuse by an educator can be like. But - like I say, I believe people have a right to their opinions - and that's all I am expressing here is mine. What worries me a bit though is the idea that somehow JKR is failing in some duty if she doesn't first of all agree with the opinions of some people on what is and isn't child abuse, but seondly and more importantly, doesn't somehow deal with this in the text. I've been interested in education all my adult life. It's a passion of mine - and it's why I am studying to be a teacher now having spent the last three years studying for an education degree. I am already considered to be an expert on some areas of education, and am published in the field. I mention this because I do have strong views on education - and let me tell you, in terms of those views, I do have some rather significant concerns about some of the issues I see in the Harry Potter books. I'll just address one of them briefly. I find it somewhat disturbing that while students at Hogwarts do sometimes have to pay a price for their misbehaviour, JKR quite often shows us her major characters misbehaving and getting away with it. >From my perspective as somebody interested in education, this is actually quite disturbing in such a popular series of childrens books. Kids reading these books may be coming away from them with the idea that it's easy to break rules, and that school rules really aren't that important, and that it's OK to avoid and escape punishment if you can. Now I'm not obsessed with this view or anything but it is a genuine concern, and from my perspective, educationally speaking, I would prefer that it didn't happen as often as it does. Take - Fred and George's escape scene in Order of the Phoenix. I *love* that scene. It's one of the funniest scenes I have ever read in the books. And in terms of the story it makes perfect sense and in terms of Fred and George's characters it makes perfect sense - they're not idiots who are going to be martyrs to Shaun Hately's sense of educational justice. But my views do mean that even as I agree that that that scene is hilarious and appropriate to the characters involved - it still annoys me a bit as yet another example of students escaping a punishment that they have earned (and, yes, I do think they have earned it - I understand why they did what they did, and in many ways, it's an heroic act - but it's still a violation of the school rules, and true heroes accept that sometimes doing the right thing means paying a price). *But* - and here's the thing - I understand that JKR is driven by the story she wants to tell. She writes what she needs to write to tell the story she wants to tell. And I think it would be utterly absurd of me to expect her to worry about the issue I have raised in writing her story. And I have to say that I think that is the same attitude that is being expressed by those who believe Snape is a child abuser - and who expect JKR to somehow deal with this, or they will feel she's somehow failed in some way. Even if Snape is a child abuser, expecting JKR to deal with that seems to me very odd. Now she may choose to if she feels Snape is abusive - within in the context of her story, she may decide this is something she wants to address - and that's fine - it'd be a perfectly valid decision on her part. But it should only happen if the author needs it to happen for their vision to be expressed. As I say, I had Snape like teachers - and I thank God that I did, because they were among the teachers who helped healed me of much of the damage that some very 'nice', very 'kind', and very 'caring' teachers had done to me. A couple of years ago now, while I was meeting with one of my old teachers - the most Snape like of them all - I mentioned the fact that I quite routinely compared him to Snape online (our relationship today is a lot different from that we had for most of the time I was at school, so I could get away with that). He acknowledged the similarities, and he sent me a little statement he said I could share that described the way he sees things. "I am the best Classics Master in this country. I am an extremely effective teacher. What I am not is warm and cuddly. I don't know how to be. But I do know how to turn obnoxious adolescent boys into people capable of appreciating the combined culture of 25 centuries. Personally I think that's worth doing. If I can't do it without making a few boys cry. Tough. They'll thank me for it as adults. Or they'll hate me. Either way, they'll be better for it." Yesterday, the top VCE (the educational qualification awarded in my state to students who are completing their last year of school that determines their university study options) were published in the newspaper here. Two of the top four students in the subject he teaches at VCE level for the entire state were his students. 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 stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Dec 15 02:41:42 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 02:41:42 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Plan in Book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144762 Orna: > I find your definition of Voldemort's power very precise and > pointed. Jen: Thank you! I've been thinking about his 'lure of power' since HBP was released. Orna: > It's not just being evil, inventing horrible spells ? but this > very human-connected thing ? despising weakness, and being able to > locate it in others and use it against them. Thanks ? that's it, I > think. Jen: That's a good way to put it. Manipulation was the word in my head, but it's not quite strong enough. Voldemort actually has the ability to locate a weakness inside another and twist the knife. Orna: > And I think you are right ? Harry's power lies in his power never > to use people's weakness against him ? he gets compassionate ? > against his will. When he thinks about Merope not willing to live > for Tom ? he "forgets" it's Voldemort, and feels pity. Jen: Harry *is* capable of enormous compassion for others, even his enemies. Like seeing the Pensieve scene and knowing exactly how Snape felt being humiliated in a crowd of onlookers. And the moment Harry sees Draco crying in the mirror in HBP, his first instinct is not to taunt him or attack him, but instead to feel shocked and 'rooted to the spot', only pulling out his wand in defense when Malfoy draws his. If Malfoy had not seen Harry, I think it likely Harry would have closed the door and wondered about the incident, talked to R/H or perhaps gone back to Myrtle with his questions. Orna: > It's interesting although natural, that Voldemort's tremendous > effort to conquer human weaknesses, results even now, before his > downfall, in him being superstitious, obssessed, irrational (I > mean instead of telling everybody to kill Harry ? he makes sure he > stays alive), and driven by forces outside his ability to choose. > In comparison, DD helps Harry to grow out of the compelling force > of the prophecy, and making his choice ? such being a master of > his fate, and not driven by events. Jen: That moment when Snape told the DE's to leave Harry, that he belonged to the Dark Lord...it seemed clear *anyone* could kill Harry except Voldemort himself. And I think Snape knows it . I hesitate to say LV is no longer a threat to Harry, but I do think he has given Harry all the weapons needed to defeat him, and Harry's blocks to overcome are within himself. He doesn't fully understand his power or believe in it, and now there's the side-show with Snape that draws the focus from Voldemort. Although Harry's laser focus on the horcrux in his pocket is foreshadowing, I think. He's really not going to be diverted by Snape unless Snape gets in his way...and, erm....we can guess what that means! Even if Voldemort were to hear the full prophecy, I'm not certain he's capable of changing his strategy. I think he'd just up the ante of killing Harry himself. Jen From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 02:53:12 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 02:53:12 -0000 Subject: PRe: Cultural standards, nasty teachers, abused children/ JKR quote new for me In-Reply-To: <43A16CD2.21435.129A91C@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144763 Shaun: > And a couple - and only a couple - of my good teachers were very > Snape like indeed. And to see people labelling them child abusers by > proxy - well, it hurts. Especially as, believe me, I do know what > child abuse by an educator can be like. Alla: Erm... NO, Shaun, I don't label any real teachers whom I don't know as child abusers. Snape on the other hand - yes, absolutely, I do. Shaun: > But - like I say, I believe people have a right to their opinions - > and that's all I am expressing here is mine. What worries me a bit > though is the idea that somehow JKR is failing in some duty if she > doesn't first of all agree with the opinions of some people on what > is and isn't child abuse, but secondly and more importantly, doesn't > somehow deal with this in the text. Alla: Yes, and I am expressing mine. I said many times - the fact that I would be emotionally satisfied with Snape being punished does NOT equal " JKR has any kind of duty to address it in the text" BUT I also said several times that I SEE it as future plot development, I brought canon examples which showed that people who behaved badly caught up with their karma. I asked you earlier, but I just want to be sure you DO agree that Snape behaves badly towards Harry, right? Because if you don't then of course you would not buy that Snape's karma will catch up with him. I am pretty sure that such thing will happen to Snape based on how I read the books that is again does not me an " JKR has to", I just think she will. IMO of course. Shaun: > *But* - and here's the thing - I understand that JKR is driven by the > story she wants to tell. She writes what she needs to write to tell > the story she wants to tell. Alla: Yes, absolutely I agree. Shaun: And I think it would be utterly absurd > of me to expect her to worry about the issue I have raised in writing > her story. Alla: That I don't get. Why would it be absurd of you as a reader to wish that the certain issue to be addressed? It is not like you can force JKR to address it or not , it just means IMO that you are deeply involved in the story and would like those issues to be addressed, like making a wish and see whether it comes true or not. Just part of the fun to me anyways. I want to finish with another JKR's quote about Snape, which I have not read till recently, which only strengthens my opinion that she does NOT regard Snape as good teacher. IMO of course, which could be wrong. Now, again nobody is obligated to agree with me, and of course Snape's behaviour could be interpreted differently by different people, but I completely disagree that calling Snape a " child abuser" is not supported by the text or by author's intentions, as I read them. "Did you like all of your teachers? JKR: No, not all of them. My least favorite teacher was just a bully. I've met quite a few teachers now, both when I was teaching and when I've been visting schools, and the bullies really do stand out . I understand from the teacher's point of view that it's very easy to be a bully, but it's also worst, shabbiest thing you can do. We are back to Snape here" - Conversations with JKR, p.21. So, " bully, teacher, who abuses his power" are the names which we KNOW JKR calls Snape. I do not remember JKR calling Snape child abuser, although one day if I have enough free time, I may go through her interviews just to be sure, but in any event, to me bully ( and Snape bullies children) is very close to child abuser, teacher, who abuses his power IS very close to child abuser. So, what is my point? I don't think I am blowing Snape's behaviour out of proportion, not at all. Of course, that is only my opinion. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 03:05:52 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 03:05:52 -0000 Subject: Parselmouths among great and good? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144764 As I mentioned recently, I am reading HBP in russian translation and I stumbled upon the quote, which made me go back and reread it in the original. "And he was a Parselmouth," interjected Harry. "Yes, indeed; a rare ability and one supposedly connected with the Dark Arts, although as we know, there are Parselmouths among the great and good too" - HBP, p.276. Parselmouths as in "plural"? Whom is Dumbledore talking about besides Harry of course? Is he talking about Salasar as great and good or somebody else? Help, please? Alla From rlai1977 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 03:00:51 2005 From: rlai1977 at yahoo.com (rlai1977) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 03:00:51 -0000 Subject: Draco's bigotry and leadership In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144765 > Magpie: > > I agree with your take on the scene, though I think it might be even > unwise to assign logic and intelligence to someone when we really > don't know them that well. What I got from his scenes in HBP was > that Blaise doesn't show interest in *anything* much less his school > or career plans. That's his thing, to put on airs of being haughty > and disinterested--it's a note hit a lot in his short page time. > Ginny claims his one talent is posing. I just went and reread the scene, and I have to admit I did make a mistake assigning better command of words and logic to Blaise there- my bad :-) Before rereading I only remembered that he rendered Draco speechless and angry regarding the Slughorn business, and that was because he had a better assessment of the situation. But he was given a piece of information (that Slughorn was buddy-buddy with Nott's dad and didn't look happy when he heard about Nott's dad getting caught as a DE) that Draco wasn't. Just like when Blaise made a mistake assuming 16-years-olds are useless to Voldemort, because he didn't know Voldemort already *did* assign Draco a mission. So in that scene neither boy appeared smarter than the other, they were simply more informed about one matter each :-) > a_svirn: > I don't think that he's anti-Voldi any more than he's pro-Voldi. He's > every bit as arrogant and bigoted as Draco, but he's smarter (at least > at first sight) and he seems to be more interested in becoming fully > qualified and getting on with his career plans (whatever they are) > than with entering anybody's service. Well... It's not like Voldemort offered Draco his right to choose: Education, or ME :-D? So I wouldn't say Blaise's not having entered Voldemort's service yet said anything meaningful about him, in comparison to Draco. RP From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Dec 15 03:20:51 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 03:20:51 -0000 Subject: Ginny's Role in Book 7 (was: Re: Four ponderings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144766 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > It's like JKR wanted to create a spitfire and shoved > and hammered and forced Ginny's character into that particular mold. > It's especially noticable, I think, when you compare book GoF Ginny to > movie GoF Ginny. Movie Ginny has a bit more in common with OotP > Ginny. Book GoF Ginny is a completely different girl. Then, of > course, there's HBP Ginny, who is once again, an entirely different > animal. > Allie: I happen to really like Ginny, but I agree with what you're saying. I thought it was a bit of a stretch when suddenly Ginny was "the life and soul" of the Gryffindor Quidditch team in HBP. Maybe JKR should have made it clearer early on in the series that Ginny really WAS very outgoing, just not around Harry. Shown her interacting with other people or holding her own with the twins, maybe. I barely remember Ginny from GoF (which reinforces your point, I think). All I remember is her being upset that she told Neville she'd go to the Yule Ball with him after she found out Harry needed a date. Was there a lot more about her? I recently re-read CoS and realized there were quite a few references to her throughout the book, though they were meant to be clues! Mostly she's just described as being there - not really doing anything that shows her true character. I do think that Ginny and Harry are very well-matched, and maybe it's not important for that to be on screen directly. After the funeral in HBP, Harry actually compares Dumbledore to Ginny - he says something like "how do you think I'd feel if it were you." They've been dating for what, a few weeks or months at this point? But they must get on very well if she ranks up there with Dumbledore. Allie From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Thu Dec 15 03:31:33 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 03:31:33 -0000 Subject: Snape as abuser again. Sorry! WAS: Character "rescues" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144767 > > Alla: > Actually, I just needed a temporary break from the topic, I did not > know that not posting on it means that you could not come with > acceptable definition. :-) So, I do not think that we could come up > with the definition that works for everybody, but here is the one > that works for me. Again, that is OF COURSE RL definition. > "Emotional abuse is a pattern of behavior that attacks a child's > emotional development and sense of self-worth. Emotional abuse > includes excessive, aggressive or unreasonable demands that place > expectations on a child beyond his or her capacity. Constant > criticizing, belittling, insulting, rejecting and teasing are some of > the forms these verbal attacks can take. Emotional abuse also > includes failure to provide the psychological nurturing necessary for > a child's psychological growth and development -- providing no love, > support or guidance (National Committee for the Prevention of Child > Abuse, 1987)." > Yes to all that, speaking as a former child who has been there. However, I think you have to take into account the depth of the relationship between the adult and the child before you qualify something as child abuse. Getting the occasional snotty remark from a teacher is quite a bit different, IME, then getting "constant criticizing, belittling, insulting, rejecting and teasing", day in and day out, from a primary care-giver. I think you also have to take into account the emotional fortitude of the child, and the general context in which the remarks are made. If anyone abuses Neville, it is his horrible old grandmother, who sets him up to be too fragile emotionally to deal with Snape's behavior, which in itself is no big deal. Harry, on the other hand, is for some reason able to take Snape's goading for what it is, unkindness from one teacher with an unpleasant personality, basically the teacher's problem, not his, since none of his other teachers treat him that way. Neville's self esteem is too fragile to allow him to do that, and so he makes much more of Snape's ill nature than is really justified. In my own case, I had enough of a good father (and good teachers!) in my life that I learned by the time I was in my teens to see my mother as just a nasty old basket, and to filter her out as much as possible, an approach that became easier once I was grown and able to put physical distance between myself and her. To this day, she can't figure out why I don't want to be around her. --La Gatta From drednort at alphalink.com.au Thu Dec 15 03:46:01 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:46:01 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] PRe: Cultural standards, nasty teachers, abused children/ JKR quote new for me In-Reply-To: References: <43A16CD2.21435.129A91C@localhost> Message-ID: <43A181A9.21247.17B0EF0@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 144768 On 15 Dec 2005 at 2:53, dumbledore11214 wrote: > Shaun: > > > > And a couple - and only a couple - of my good teachers were very > > Snape like indeed. And to see people labelling them child abusers > by > > proxy - well, it hurts. Especially as, believe me, I do know what > > child abuse by an educator can be like. > > Alla: > > Erm... NO, Shaun, I don't label any real teachers whom I don't know > as child abusers. Snape on the other hand - yes, absolutely, I do. Shaun: I fully accept that there is obviously a difference in your view between describing Snape as a child abuser, and expanding that description to real life teachers who you don't know. That's fair enough. But even accepting completely that you see a real and valid difference, I still think the way *I* see it, is quite relevant to why *I* keep defending the man. To me, if you describe the behaviours that Snape exhibits as behaviours of a child abuser, it would seem to me that you are necessarily describing teachers who exhibit the same behaviours as child abusers. If the behaviours that make them an abuser or not. Now I fully accept that there is obviously a difference in your view between describing Snape as a child abuser, and expanding that description to real life teachers who you don't know. That's fair enough. But even accepting completely that you see a real and valid difference, I still think the way I see it, is quite relevant to why I keep defending the man. > Shaun: > > But - like I say, I believe people have a right to their opinions - > > and that's all I am expressing here is mine. What worries me a bit > > though is the idea that somehow JKR is failing in some duty if she > > doesn't first of all agree with the opinions of some people on > > what is and isn't child abuse, but secondly and more importantly, > > doesn't > > somehow deal with this in the text. > > Alla: > > Yes, and I am expressing mine. I said many times - the fact that I > would be emotionally satisfied with Snape being punished does NOT > equal " JKR has any kind of duty to address it in the text" BUT I also > said several times that I SEE it as future plot development, I brought > canon examples which showed that people who behaved badly caught up > with their karma. I asked you earlier, but I just want to be sure you > DO agree that Snape behaves badly towards Harry, right? Because if you > don't then of course you would not buy that Snape's karma will catch > up with him. Shaun: Oh, yes, I believe that Snape behaves totally inappropriately towards Harry in quite a number of incidents. I also believe he behaves inappropriately towards Hermione in at least one major incident - and when it comes to Neville, well, I'm not sure Snape behaves inappropriately (by my definitions) towards Neville, but I do think his approach is likely to be counterproductive when it comes to Neville. And, for the record, I am not saying that every defender of the Snape as child abuser hypothesis thinks JKR has a duty to address their concerns, and I do fully understand that there's a lot of difference between *hoping* she does, or feeling it would be nice if she does, and *expecting* her to. But I do think there are some people who do expect it - they don't just hope it happens, they think that it must. That's fair enough - as I say they are entitled to their opinion and it's every bit as valid as my own - but I think there is a difference. > Alla: > > I am pretty sure that such thing will happen to Snape based on how I > read the books that is again does not me an " JKR has to", I just > think she will. IMO of course. Shaun: Yes, and given views JKR has expressed about Snape herself, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you are right. > Shaun: > > And I think it would be utterly absurd > > of me to expect her to worry about the issue I have raised in > writing > > her story. > > Alla: > > That I don't get. Why would it be absurd of you as a reader to wish > that the certain issue to be addressed? It is not like you can force > JKR to address it or not , it just means IMO that you are deeply > involved in the story and would like those issues to be addressed, > like making a wish and see whether it comes true or not. Just part of > the fun to me anyways. Shaun: It's the difference between *expecting* which is what I said and *wishing* which is the word you've used. I don't think it is absurd for a reader to wish or hope for a particular plotline in a book. There's things I would definitely like to see. But some people go a lot further than that - expressing a view that to me seems more like "JKR will have done something wrong if this doesn't happen" as opposed to "JKR will annoy me if this doesn't happen" or "JKR will please me if this does happen." > Alla: > > So, " bully, teacher, who abuses his power" are the names which we > KNOW JKR calls Snape. I do not remember JKR calling Snape child > abuser, although one day if I have enough free time, I may go through > her interviews just to be sure, but in any event, to me bully ( and > Snape bullies children) is very close to child abuser, teacher, who > abuses his power IS very close to child abuser. I agree entirely that JKR regards Severus Snape as a bad teacher, and that that is the way she is trying to write him - by giving him characteristics that she regards as indicative of a bad teacher, possibly based on her own experiences, possibly based on more than that. I just don't think JKR is an unassailable authority on what a good and bad teacher is. I've mentioned some of the characteristics of the teachers who abused me - and to most people those characteristics probably sound very nice. And I know people who regard them as some of the best teachers they had. But they harmed me. Severely. Even with help it took me a decade to fully recover from what they did to me in a single year. Now, they did abuse me - there's no doubt about that in my mind. But even so, I wouldn't call them child abusers. Not when I consider the good they did for other kids. 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 kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Dec 15 03:25:31 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 03:25:31 -0000 Subject: Ginny's Role in Book 7 (was: Re: Four ponderings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144769 Allie: > I do think that Ginny and Harry are very well-matched, and maybe it's > not important for that to be on screen directly. After the funeral in > HBP, Harry actually compares Dumbledore to Ginny - he says something > like "how do you think I'd feel if it were you." They've been dating > for what, a few weeks or months at this point? But they must get on > very well if she ranks up there with Dumbledore. Well, regardless of when it happened or where she blossomed (and since we see most things through Harry's eyes, it makes sense that we notice her when Harry finally notices her, which is when she actually begins to talk around him because she isn't freaked out by him as "a boy" anymore), JKR did a good enough job that I found the "first kiss" to be one of the most well written first kisses I can recall reading. kchuplis From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Dec 15 04:34:32 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 04:34:32 -0000 Subject: Triple binding between Harry and Voldemort? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144770 > bboyminn: > While this primarily refers to the use of Harry's > blood, it still points to the fact or apparent belief that there > is a flaw in the potion. I believe there is more than one flaw in > it, and the other flaw would be Wormtail who was coerced into > give /tainted/ flesh. Jen: Steve, have you mentioned this before and I missed it? This is really smart. Ch3ed brought up the idea the potion produced a less- than-human body in #142534 but it didn't occur to me Dumbledore's gleam might be related to flaws other than Harry's blood. Then there's the mystery of the fetal body. JKR said this in the TLC/MN interview: "The one that I wondered whether I was going to be able to get past the editors was the physical condition of Voldemort before he went into the cauldron, do you remember? He was kind of fetal. I felt an almost visceral distaste for what I had conjured up, but there's a reason it was in there and you will see that." I've tried to crack that one with no luck. Maybe the fetal body wasn't as important as the use of unicorn blood to form Voldemort's 'rudimentary' body. Seems like using unicorn blood prior to the re-birthing would mean he's cursed before the process starts. Jen From kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Dec 15 03:56:34 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 03:56:34 -0000 Subject: The power of love again..... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144771 Or loss of it: Page 262 HBP (my parenthesis), "Ah," said Dumbledore, "perhaps she could (use magic). But it is my belief - I am guessing again, but I am sure I am right - that when her husband abandoned her, Merope stopped using magic. I do not think that she wanted to be a witch any longer. Of course, it is also possible that her unrequited love and the attendant despair sapped her of her powers; that can happen." We also know that this was Tonks problem in losing power, change of petronus, inability to metamorph correctly.... Will Harry's self imposed exile from Ginny cause any problems? It seems to have been something well emphasized in book 6. kchuplis From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Dec 15 05:05:45 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:05:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mysteries to me; maybe not to you In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43A0F9A9.2070301@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144772 Jim Ferer wrote: >>Bart: >>Can anybody explain why a personal award given to Tom Riddle ended >>up in Filch's office? > > Do you mean the award for services to the school? That was in the > Trophy Room, not his office. Can't look it up right now. Bart: In any case, why wasn't it given to Tommy Riddle? Or, perhaps, Mr. Riddle WANTED the trophy to stay at Hogwarts, where it would be well-protected? Bart From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Dec 15 05:33:55 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 05:33:55 -0000 Subject: Huge clue to Snape's true allegence hidden in OotP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144773 Orna: > 2. I wouldn't put it past Voldemort, who after all, is quite > something in manipulating human feelings, as we see in OotP to > have planned this Draco assignment, to force Snape into the open. > Since Voldemort thinks death is the worst thing, he would never > imagine DD (and in a way Snape) sacrificing himself. He would > guess Narcissa would go to Snape, who is an old family friend, and > try to persuade him to save Draco. Perhaps that's what Snape > means, when he says, he thinks the Dark Lord means him to do it in > the end ? he seems to know him. Jen: Voldemort lurking behind the UV seems likely in some form or fashion. For one thing it fits the plot of the other books to discover he had a more direct hand in the HBP plot. Even when he wasn't physically present in POA, the backstory was driven by his decision to divide and conquer friends around the Potters. And here again, divide and conquer. Narcissa and Bella are fighting and Bella is enraged to see Snape take on the mantle of most trusted servant. Lucius is in prison when Voldemort could easily break him out, because keeping him there puts enormous stress upon Narcissa. Draco starts to feel alone and scared, threatened by Voldemort. And *Snape*.... Maybe a crack in his Occlumency came during the interrogation when he returned after the graveyard? Or maybe when Dumbledore was near death and Snape saved him from the ring curse, did a flicker of feeling break through and was accessed by Voldemort? Nothing big or flashy, just some slight moment that gave away Snape's feelings for Dumbledore or his allegiance. Voldemort planned to place Snape at Hogwarts way back when, likely to have an inside man available to bring Dumbledore down. Then Godric's Hollow happened and the prophecy hunt--killing Dumbledore was in the works for many years and the plan was dependent on an inside person. So Snape probably wasn't lying to say he thought Voldemort planned for him to do the job in the end. Dumbledore and Snape expected a plot to kill Dumbledore, but not the UV. Initially I thought Narcissa was completely in on the entire plan and lured Bella, trapped Snape, etc. Your idea of Voldemort setting up the conditions is even better, although it flies in the face of his bravado and speech-making regarding his plans. Course we don't have the full story yet, those speeches may yet arrive. Orna: > And another thought ? Voldemort would enjoy the game of this > torturing of ? Draco, Narcissa, Snape, DD (by having him killed- > betrayed from his POV). It would just fit his way of psychological > brutalizing of his followers and enemies alike. > And now he has a new "playground" before him - Narcissa betraying > the secret, Bella questioning the Dark-Lords wisdom, and Snape - > being hunted by the order - more than himself, in a way. Jen: Heh, I like your devious mind. ;) Likely we won't hear much about it now that the Dumbledore/Snape link is broken. Maybe in retrospect? Jen From h2so3f at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 08:03:56 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 08:03:56 -0000 Subject: Mysteries to me; maybe not to you In-Reply-To: <43A0F9A9.2070301@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144774 > Bart wrote: > In any case, why wasn't it given to Tommy Riddle? Or, perhaps, Mr. > Riddle WANTED the trophy to stay at Hogwarts, where it would be > well-protected?" CH3ed: At my school when you're given a school award the plague remains at the school showcase with your name etched on it, but you get to keep a mini plague yourself. Perhaps it is the same way at Hogwarts and LV has his own mini-trophy beside the original one showing in the Trophy Room. CH3ed guessing but not knowing ;O) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 08:09:14 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 08:09:14 -0000 Subject: Triple binding between Harry and Voldemort? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144775 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > While this > Harry's blood, it still points to the fact or apparent > > belief that there is a flaw in the potion. I believe there > > is more than one flaw in it, and the other flaw would be > > Wormtail who was coerced into give /tainted/ flesh. > > Jen: > ... Ch3ed brought up the idea the potion produced a less- > than-human body in #142534 but it didn't occur to me Dumbledore's > gleam might be related to flaws other than Harry's blood. > bboyminn: I don't necessarily think it was 'other than Harry's blood'. In that moment, Dumbledore saw the flaw in using Harry's blood, but I think what else he saw was re-enforce his general opinion of Voldemort. > Jen: > > ...edited quote by JKR.... > > ... Maybe the fetal body wasn't as important as the use of > unicorn blood to form Voldemort's 'rudimentary' body. Seems > like using unicorn blood prior to the re-birthing would mean > he's cursed before the process starts. > > Jen > bboyminn: You bring up the Unicorn Blood which I think is an excellent point. Voldemort is ruthless in his quest. He doesn't care if innocent Unicorns have to die as long as he, himself, is saved. But again, this brings up the point I made before, and it is a point that I feel confident that Dumbledore shares. Voldemort has made so many decisions in his life that he was absolutely indisputably convinced were correct. He was so psychotically convinced of his own self-centered infalability, that he never bothers to full consider the consequences of his actions. As a result, Voldemort's life has been a series of hopelessly flawed and misguided actions. Each one appearing to take him closer to his goal, but in reality taking him farther away. These actions are flawed because Voldemort, in his megalomaniacal self-absorption and self-delusion, only considers the short term effect on him and him alone. He doesn't consider Peter's tainted flesh in the long run. No thought to the fact that Wormtail is coerced as long as in the moment he gets what he wants. He doesn't consider the ultimate out come of having drank Unicorn blood. He sees the short term benifit of using Harry's blood, but fails to look at the greater consequences. In a sense, this could be Voldemort's ultimate downfall, that his life has been nothing but a series of very bad and poorly thought out choices. Like so many cracks in a foundation that, in the final battle with Harry, will ultimately cause the 'building' to fall. Just a few thoughts. STeve/bboyminn From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Thu Dec 15 10:51:08 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:51:08 +0100 Subject: Forgiving Snape was FF: Re: Who does Snape really hate? References: Message-ID: <007701c60165$771f1c10$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144776 mercurybluesmng wrote: > And we KNOW that part of the reason Sirius didn't sit > tight on Ministry raid night is Snape's continuous taunts about being > snug in his nice little hideyhole and not having to do any of the real > work. Miles: Do we? I don't. I think that Harry is very much wrong in blaming Snape for this. Considering Sirius' unhappiness due to his passivity at GP 12, and his love and protective instinct for Harry, he surely would have joined the Order going to the Ministry even without a single of Snape's taunts. Harry himself is much more responsible for Sirius' death, and he projects his own guilt onto Snape. But we should not take Harry's PoV as granted. Miles From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Dec 15 11:51:27 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:51:27 -0000 Subject: Parselmouths among great and good? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144777 Alla: > "And he was a Parselmouth," interjected Harry. > "Yes, indeed; a rare ability and one supposedly connected with the > Dark Arts, although as we know, there are Parselmouths among the great > and good too" - HBP, p.276. > > Parselmouths as in "plural"? Whom is Dumbledore talking about besides > Harry of course? Is he talking about Salasar as great and good or > somebody else? > > Help, please? Ceridwen: I'm not here to help, unfortunately! But I've wondered about the disconnect here, too. So many people in fandom think that Parselmouth = Bad/Evil, and they use the Gaunts now for more proof. It seems to be an attitude in the WW as well. When Harry is exposed as a Parselmouth, everyone applies it to their existing fears about him as being the possible Heir of Slytherin. Never mind that Harry wasn't around when the Chamber was opened half a century earlier. Yet, it's as much canon that Dumbledore says there are Parselmouths among the great and good. We see no examples of these great and good people. Dumbledore doesn't give us any. Neither does anybody else. I would expect DADA to address this, since Dumbledore also says it's associated as a trait of the Dark Arts. But, there are no revelations from DADA class. Other than the fact that it's not discussed, which could only mean that it isn't on that year's curriculum. And, reading this over, is Slytherin one of the great and good? Everyone was so afraid of the 'Heir of Slytherin', as if the WW sees Salizar Slytherin as 'Evil' absolutely. Yet the other Founders, and their successors for a thousand years, see fit to leave Slytherin House as a part of the school. Another disconnect. No one discusses Dumbledore's words here. Everyone does seem to think that Parselmouth = Evil despite, or maybe they're ignoring, what Dumbledore says. Will we meet or hear about a great and good Parselmouth in book 7? Should this be another thing on the list of things to look for? Or is this another way of saying that you can't judge a group by the actions of individuals within that group? If so, it seems to me that we should still either meet or hear about these great and good people Dumbledore mentions. Ceridwen. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Dec 15 12:13:35 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:13:35 -0000 Subject: Forgiving Snape was FF: Re: Who does Snape really hate? In-Reply-To: <007701c60165$771f1c10$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144778 mercurybluesmng wrote: > > And we KNOW that part of the reason Sirius didn't sit > > tight on Ministry raid night is Snape's continuous taunts about being > > snug in his nice little hideyhole and not having to do any of the real > > work. > Miles: > Do we? I don't. I think that Harry is very much wrong in blaming Snape for > this. Considering Sirius' unhappiness due to his passivity at GP 12, and his > love and protective instinct for Harry, he surely would have joined the > Order going to the Ministry even without a single of Snape's taunts. > Harry himself is much more responsible for Sirius' death, and he projects > his own guilt onto Snape. But we should not take Harry's PoV as granted. Ceridwen: Agreeing with Miles. Placing Sirius in Snape's power like that only makes me think that Sirius is a prime example of the Darwin Awards, where people who are utterly stupid to an amazing degree, off themselves through character flaws before they can reproduce and send their misguided genes into the next generation. Sirius was a Gryffindor. He would have the highest and lowest of the Gryffindor traits. Courage taken to foolish extremes is Foolhardiness. Because of the conditions in which he finds himself, Sirius's courage is manifest in the worst possible way - the ill- advised trip to the Ministry. He is rash in his decision, and he wouldn't have been sitting around thinking 'I'll show that Snape a thing or six' when he decided to go. Part of the torture of his hidden existence is inactivity. An opportunity to stretch his legs and his magic, and his desire to be useful, is presented, and he can't refuse. Sirius's death resulted from a string of bad choices starting with going after Wormtail instead of reporting him to the MoM or Dumbledore. That's what kept him a prisoner in his own house - the need to hide from the Ministry. And being trapped like that led to his need to get out and do something, like see Harry off at the train or traipse off to the MoM. And, maybe, Sirius's OTT Gryffindor Foolhardiness comes from his conscious decision to cut any Slytherin tendencies out of his life. He's seen the downside of Slytherin in his own family, so he won't, he refuses, he *will not*, use cunning arts to remain hidden and rejects such ideas from others. As the character is written, without the blame going around, he could be yet another example of the ill which comes from denying a part of one's self, or the habit of denying Slytherin House's place in Hogwarts. If Snape's taunts, which he's handled since his school days, are really what bring him down, then it's probably best that he not reproduce, and not pass on his rash stupidity to his godson. I don't think JKR went *there*. Ceridwen. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Dec 15 12:36:43 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:36:43 -0000 Subject: Parselmouths among great and good? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144779 > > Ceridwen: > Yet, it's as much canon that Dumbledore says there are Parselmouths > among the great and good. We see no examples of these great and good > people. Dumbledore doesn't give us any. Neither does anybody else. Potioncat: I think DD means two people we saw, but didn't know we saw: himself and Harry. They understood what was being said in the memories about the Gaunts. Another possibility just crossed my mind. Snape gave Harry a specific look in the dueling scene. Now, it would make sense that Snape had heard Parseltounge before from LV without understanding it. Just like I'd know French if I heard it, but wouldn't understand it. But what if Snape speaks it as well? (Parseltongue, not French.) Potioncat, who has been bouncing and now knows what Draco felt like. From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Thu Dec 15 13:04:20 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:04:20 -0000 Subject: Forgiving Snape was FF: Re: Who does Snape really hate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144780 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mercurybluesmng" wrote: > > Bart: > > Please name one life that we know was taken due to Snape's spy work > > for Voldemort. I don't know of any; only those that Snape CLAIMED > > were lost to the Black sisters. > > > MercuryBlue: > Well, Emmeline Vance is certainly dead, Sirius Black is certainly > dead. Snape may have been lying to Narcissa and Bellatrix, but, on > this point at least, why would he? Particularly given that Bellatrix > probably knows quite well who actually killed Emmeline, and could ask > that person where s/he found out where Emmeline would be the night she > was killed. And we KNOW that part of the reason Sirius didn't sit > tight on Ministry raid night is Snape's continuous taunts about being > snug in his nice little hideyhole and not having to do any of the real > work. Marianne: I'm firmly OFH!Snape, but I don't think Snape's taunting of Sirius was a very big factor in Sirius's decision to go to the Ministry. Certainly it is something that Harry can use to add to his reasons to hate Snape. But, I think that if Sirius truly believed that Harry was in great danger, nothing short of magical force by the other Order members would have kept him at Grimmauld Place. On the other hand, if one believes that Snape deliberately delayed in informing the Order about Harry and friends leaving Hogwarts, thus giving the Order very little time to muster a decent number of them to dash off to the Ministry, then, I think Snape would certainly bear a higher level of responsibility for Sirius's death. Marianne From h2so3f at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 13:36:59 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:36:59 -0000 Subject: Parselmouths among great and good? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144781 CH3ed: I'm agreeing with Potioncat that Harry(definitely) and DD(probably) are Parselmouths. We don't hear much about the good Parselmouths because the trait is associated with the dark arts, so naturally the good guys that have it would not advertise it. Don't know about Snape, though. Haven't seen a lot of hints from him. From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Dec 15 13:39:23 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 05:39:23 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Forgiving Snape was FF: Re: Who does Snape really hate? In-Reply-To: <007701c60165$771f1c10$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: <002101c6017c$f62b4080$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 144782 mercurybluesmng wrote: > And we KNOW that part of the reason Sirius didn't sit > tight on Ministry raid night is Snape's continuous taunts about being > snug in his nice little hideyhole and not having to do any of the real > work. Miles: Do we? I don't. I think that Harry is very much wrong in blaming Snape for this. Considering Sirius' unhappiness due to his passivity at GP 12, and his love and protective instinct for Harry, he surely would have joined the Order going to the Ministry even without a single of Snape's taunts. Harry himself is much more responsible for Sirius' death, and he projects his own guilt onto Snape. But we should not take Harry's PoV as granted. Miles Sherry now: much as I hate to defend Snape, I agree with miles mostly. i believe absolutely, that Sirius would have rushed to rescue Harry, with no sneering comments from Snape ever. It is just his nature. He's action oriented, and he feels responsible for the deaths of James and lily, due to the whole secret keeper thing. i think that increases his feelings of wanting to protect Harry. it isn't just because of his won love and protection instinct, but also for the duty he believes he owns the Potters. Those two things alone would be enough to drive him out of hiding to rush to Harry's rescue. And though it broke my heart when he died, i wouldn't have him act any other way. The Order rushed to rescue a bunch of kids in trouble and protect the prophecy and the ministry. but Sirius rushed to save Harry, and I think that's an important distinction, especially for Harry eventually. What I have to disagree with is the idea that Harry is responsible for Sirius' death. i argue this point vehemently, every time it comes up here. Bella, the death eaters, Voldemort, they are responsible. I'm not interested right at this moment in Snape's part of it, though his words in HBP have me wondering what he did to help along the death of Sirius. But Harry is absolutely not responsible. That's like blaming the victim of a terrorist attack. Harry is a victim of the plans of Voldemort. He had no reason to suspect that vision of Sirius being tortured. The occlumency lessons were doomed to fail, and Dumbledore should have known that. Hermione's warnings wouldn't have held anyone back, if they believed the person they loved most was being tortured. Nothing could have kept Harry from rushing to help Sirius, as nothing could have prevented Sirius from rushing to help Harry. Voldemort had the perfect information to lure Harry out. i think Harry's transferring of his anger to Snape is natural, a normal part of grieving. In time, depending on what he learns of Snape's true actions and loyalties, he will either be able to let go of that anger or to know the depth of Snape's betrayal, if there was one. for now, it's a lot healthier for his own sake to blame Snape than to blame himself. Just my opinion sherry From h2so3f at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 13:51:29 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:51:29 -0000 Subject: Triple binding between Harry and Voldemort? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144783 > Jen wrote: >" ... CH3ed brought up the idea the potion produced a less- > than-human body in #142534 but it didn't occur to me Dumbledore's > gleam might be related to flaws other than Harry's blood." bboyminn wrote: "I don't necessarily think it was 'other than Harry's blood'. In that moment, Dumbledore saw the flaw in using Harry's blood, but I think what else he saw was re-enforce his general opinion of Voldemort." CH3ed: I actually saw it as DD seeing the flaw in that it was Wormtail (who owes Harry his life) who injured Harry to collect the blood for LV, so that "betrayal" might render the potion (and the body resulting from it) less than optimal. But I had completely overlooked the unwillingness of Wormtail himself in giving up his flesh. That's a good catch!! So there likely are 2 flaws in the making of the resurrection potion. CH3ed finds bboyminn's analysis of LV's shortsightedness so thorough he has nothing to add. :O) From querubina_75 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 02:52:23 2005 From: querubina_75 at yahoo.com (~*~Sandy~*~) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 02:52:23 -0000 Subject: 10 reasons why Snape is not evil...... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144784 Hi everyone I am new to this group and my name is Sandy I am 30 years old and I am a huge Potter fan and not afraid to say so. I am also a Star Wars freak. But anyway here, I have posted 10 reasons why I think Snape isn't evil. He may be fustrated at Harry or cranky because of other things but he isn't a supporter of....You Know Who........ 10. He hates James Potter and what's even worse? His son Harry looks just like him! But even though this grudge is foolish it isn't enough to forget the fact that James was so cruel to him. Who doesn't love paybacks........now, who's bullying who? Snape feels some sort of comfort in bullying Harry. 9.Why the hell would you send an idiot like Quirrell to do such a half ass job when not only is Snape helping to protect the stone but in reach of it! Don't you think it would've been easier for Voldemort to use Snape instead of Quirrell??? 8. A simple little diary isn't necessary to create such havoc. Couldn't Voldemort have told Snape to release the damn monstrosity of serpent? 7. Who the hell wants to pay off a life/death debt. When Harry was clinging for dear life during the Quidditch match. Why not let him fall off and die. But no....Snape had to save Harry. Snape couldv'e received a gran reward for that one...and in front of an audience and all. 6. Do friends of enemies count as enemies also? Snape had Lupin in the palm of his hand all the time but Snape opted for the noble action of brewing his wolf drink every full moon. Do you think those poor kids would've survived having a werewolf lurking around the forest every full moon? And then come back to normality as a tired teacher. 5. Snape comes across the Marauder's Map upon entering Lupin's room and runs after to see what is going on. He could have confiscated the map and the invisible cloak that was left just outside the whomping willow but he does nothing with both. Yet the advises both Harry and Ron that they are out of bounds in the company of a convicted muderer and a werewolf. If was truly evil he would've hid the map and cloak and used it to his advantage. 4. Not only isn't Karkaroff present when the death eaters reunite with the reborn again Voldemort but Snape's missing too. If he was evil he would've been present. What else does Voldemort want? He had what he planned to do....he had Harry in the palm of his hand. Wouldn't that be enough for Snape to leave Hogwarts and re-enter Voldemorts service? 3. Snape gives Barty Crouch Jr. veritaserum.........therefore exposing thy enemy and sending him off to Azkaban for the second time. What about giving him fake serum like he did with Potter when Umbridge was around? 2. Bellatrix doesn't trust Snape and if there's anyone more coniving it might as well be a woman. He had to make that unbreakable vow in order for her not to suspect anything. 1. Occlumency, why teach the enemy the art of shutting out external penetration of the mind? Why not let Voldemort know that Harry can see what Voldemort is sensing and feeling. He could've damaged Harry for good had he let Voldemort know. Remember at the end of the sixth book when Snape warns Harry while trying to block Harry's attempts..."Blocked again and again and again until you learn to keep your mouth shut and you mind closed Potter! " Snape had Harry on the ground and Dumbledore dead. He could have taken Harry and delivered Harry himself to Voldemort but instead he left him there. If you agree or not this is my list. I see Snape as disliking Harry but only because of the grudge he has with James. Snape always said he hated to be called a coward. James only picked on Severus when he had his friends around. I doubt Snape is on Voldemorts side. He has had sooo many chances to deliver him to the "Dark Lord" but never has done it. Sandy From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Dec 15 14:30:24 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:30:24 -0000 Subject: Forgiving Snape was FF: Re: Who does Snape really hate? In-Reply-To: <002101c6017c$f62b4080$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144785 - > Sherry now: > > much as I hate to defend Snape, I agree with miles mostly. i believe > absolutely, that Sirius would have rushed to rescue Harry, with no sneering > comments from Snape ever. Potioncat: Consider the time too. Snape taunted Black in December. The Battle happened in June. Big gap. In HBP Snape takes some claim to aiding in Black's death. How about this possibility for DDM!Snape. LV plans to hurt someone Harry loves to lure Harry into a trap. He asks Snape for a name of the person Harry loves most. Snape wouldn't want to give him Ron or Hermione, so he gives him the name of an Order member. A grown up: Sirius Black. Therefore, he helped capture Black. I'm wondering now if LV got the idea from the second challenge. Harry certainly risked a lot for a friend there. As for Ms. Vance. We may never know what really happened. Snape may have given LV information about her, that she and DD knew was given. Or he may have given some Order information out (again with DD's knowledge) and Ms. Vance was the Order member who happened to be there when the DEs came calling. For example, he could claim that he made it possible for Harry to save Ron. After all, he shoved the bezoar facts down Harry's throat the very first day of class... and provided it again in the text book Harry was using. Sherry: > What I have to disagree with is the idea that Harry is responsible for > Sirius' death. i argue this point vehemently, every time it comes up here. > Bella, the death eaters, Voldemort, they are responsible. Potioncat: I agree. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 15 14:49:52 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:49:52 -0000 Subject: Forgiving Snape was FF: Re: Who does Snape really hate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144786 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > As for Ms. Vance. We may never know what really happened. Snape may > have given LV information about her, that she and DD knew was given. > Or he may have given some Order information out (again with DD's > knowledge) and Ms. Vance was the Order member who happened to be > there when the DEs came calling. > Pippin: Dumbledore never confirms that Emmeline Vance is dead. It could be that her death was faked by the Order, and the Death Eaters memory charmed into thinking that they'd done it. Harry feels responsible for Sirius's death because it's easier to feel guilty than helpless. But if Sirius was more than a casualty of war, if he was killed because of what he knew or might find out (and JKR has hinted that there is a plot reason why Sirius had to die) then going to the Ministry was not the only reason he died, and he would have been killed eventually even if Harry had seen through the trap. Personally, I think Snape, on Dumbledore's orders, told Voldemort that Sirius was back in England, and that's why Sirius had to stay in hiding, not because he was suddenly too reckless to be trusted. Snape is then actually delivering a backhanded compliment to Sirius when he says that it was clever of Sirius to make an appearance on the train platform where he couldn't be attacked. By confirming Snape's information, Sirius would actually be helping Snape preserve his cover. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 15:11:32 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:11:32 -0000 Subject: Parselmouths among great and good? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144787 > > Ceridwen: > > Yet, it's as much canon that Dumbledore says there are Parselmouths > > among the great and good. We see no examples of these great and good > > people. Dumbledore doesn't give us any. Neither does anybody else. > > Potioncat: > I think DD means two people we saw, but didn't know we saw: himself and > Harry. They understood what was being said in the memories about the > Gaunts. Alla: Potioncat - do you have the links to the discussion about Dumbledore understanding Parseltongue? I remember skimming it, but would love to reread carefully. Personally I always thought that the reason Dumbledore understood originally was partially due to his Legilimency skills ( I think that Gaunts would still think in English, not Parseltonngue. Of course just speculating here) and he understood it in his memory, because he understood it originally. Besides, if Dumbledore understands Parseltongue AND speaks it, wouldn't he have heard Basilisk wondering around in Pipes in CoS, just like Harry did and wouldn't he be able to open Chamber then? I am not sure, right now I am hesitant to put down Dumbledore as great and good Parselmouth number 2. :-) Am I again missing some obvious thing about his behaviour in CoS? Potioncat: > But what if > Snape speaks it as well? (Parseltongue, not French.) Alla: LOL! Great and good Snape. Forgive me, but I am even more hesitant for now to put him down as number 3. :-) > Potioncat, who has been bouncing and now knows what Draco felt like. > Alla: LOL! Don't you want to kick Yahoomort and hard? Ceridwen: > No one discusses Dumbledore's words here. Everyone does seem to > think that Parselmouth = Evil despite, or maybe they're ignoring, > what Dumbledore says. Will we meet or hear about a great and good > Parselmouth in book 7? Should this be another thing on the list of > things to look for? Or is this another way of saying that you can't > judge a group by the actions of individuals within that group? If > so, it seems to me that we should still either meet or hear about > these great and good people Dumbledore mentions. > Alla: Exactly, Ceridwen. If they DO exist, I want to meet them, it is the same as with Good!Slytherin (I am not going into debating whether Snape is good or not, I am ONLY talking about students). Yes, JKR says they are not all bad ( which is very modest praise, if you ask me - she does not even say that the majority of them is good kids), but where is one good kid at least? Where? JMO of course, Alla From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Thu Dec 15 15:07:12 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:07:12 +0100 Subject: Forgiving Snape was FF: Re: Who does Snape really hate? References: <002101c6017c$f62b4080$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: <00ba01c60189$3b5dace0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144788 > Miles: > Harry himself is much more responsible for Sirius' death, and he > projects > his own guilt onto Snape. But we should not take Harry's PoV as > granted. > Sherry > What I have to disagree with is the idea that Harry is responsible for > Sirius' death. i argue this point vehemently, every time it comes up > here. > Bella, the death eaters, Voldemort, they are responsible. Miles: I did not make my point clear enough. No, I don't think Harry is to be blamed for Sirius' death. But when HE blames SNAPE for it, then we should consider, that his own responsibility - mainly to forget about the mirror - is much more important than Snape's. That is, if he points at Snape blaming him, four of his fingers point at himself. Miles From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Dec 15 15:54:16 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:54:16 -0000 Subject: Parselmouths among great and good? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144789 > Alla: > > Potioncat - do you have the links to the discussion about Dumbledore > understanding Parseltongue? I remember skimming it, but would love > to reread carefully. Potioncat: Found it! I think this is the first of the posts that discuss it. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143253 > Alla: > Personally I always thought that the reason Dumbledore understood > originally was partially due to his Legilimency skills ( I think > that Gaunts would still think in English, not Parseltonngue. Of > course just speculating here) and he understood it in his memory, > because he understood it originally. Potioncat: But wasn't one of the memories from the inspector? DD wouldn't have been able to use Legilimency on the people in that man's memory. Also, I had the feeling the parseltongue was the family's primary language. So woulddn't they think in it rather than English? >Alla: > Besides, if Dumbledore understands Parseltongue AND speaks it, > wouldn't he have heard Basilisk wondering around in Pipes in CoS, > just like Harry did and wouldn't he be able to open Chamber then? Potioncat: Guessing here. What if DD just never happened to be near pipes when the Basilisk was "speaking"? Or even if he did know what it was, the way Harry found the entrance was by talking to Myrtle. We've wondered before why DD didn't talk to her himself. Or maybe you do have to be the Heir of Slytherin to get in, and the Bit O'Voldy in Harry did the trick. > Alla: > > LOL! Great and good Snape. Forgive me, but I am even more hesitant > for now to put him down as number 3. :-) Potioncat: OK, maybe even the just-short-of-horrible can speak it. Actually, Snape doesn't have to understand the Parseltongue. But he sees Harry not only understanding Parseltongue, but giving orders to and being obeyed by a snake. That must have really endeared him to the boy. Of course, I'm not sure if LV had Nagini in the old days. > Ceridwen: Or is this another way of saying that you > can't > > judge a group by the actions of individuals within that group? If > > so, it seems to me that we should still either meet or hear about > > these great and good people Dumbledore mentions. Potioncat: Or, he could just mean Harry. More importantly he could have meant that being a Parselmouth doesn't mean a person is bad. I think that discussion happened years ago here. Why was it so horrible that Harry could speak Parseltongue and why did that make him "bad"? From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 15 16:02:41 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:02:41 -0000 Subject: PRe: Cultural standards, nasty teachers, abused children/ JKR quote new for me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144790 Alla, quoting JKR: > > "Did you like all of your teachers? > > JKR: No, not all of them. My least favorite teacher was just a > bully. I've met quite a few teachers now, both when I was teaching > and when I've been visting schools, and the bullies really do stand > out . I understand from the teacher's point of view that it's very > easy to be a bully, but it's also worst, shabbiest thing you can do. > We are back to Snape here" - Conversations with JKR, p.21. > > So, " bully, teacher, who abuses his power" are the names which we > KNOW JKR calls Snape. Pippin: I think JKR, like the good teacher she is, is simplifying her material to get her point across. IMO, what she criticizes here and in her books is the teacher who uses stress to motivate the kids instead of making the lessons clever and interesting, like the admittedly idealized Lupin. Lupin recognizes that stress and scariness can be motivating, but he lets it come from the subject matter itself, and he keeps it under control, unlike Hagrid who tries to do the same thing but lets his students be injured. So bullying could be called "worst" and "shabby" because it is choosing easy over right, regardless of whether it's severe enough to hurt the child. When Snape switches to DADA, he stops bullying Neville, AFAWK, and is a lot easier on Harry, too, not that Harry notices. Is that because Snape is now teaching a "cool" subject, and doesn't feel he has to stress the kids to make them learn? JKR recognizes that a teacher can be clever and interesting and also stressful, like McGonagall, but I get the impression she doesn't approve. JKR's not dealing with the child who *needs* to be stressed, as in Shaun's case. I wonder whether JKR feels that in that situation it would be better to let the child fail. IMO, she does distinguish between bullying which causes a deterioration in the child's overall well-being, and bullying which can be resisted with the child's own resources. I think that's an important distinction that's getting lost in the debate over labels. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 17:57:20 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:57:20 -0000 Subject: Lily, Voldemort, AK and the atomic bomb analogy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144791 Ceridwen wrote: Harry gains some of LV's particular powers, at least one we know of so far, Parseltongue. That would be a byproduct of the power hitting him just after the curse is deflected. I'm assuming that the curse is what made the scar, and the scar would then be the point of entry for the power(s) which followed the green light. Carol responds: Without getting into the A-bomb analogy, I want to ask a question. If, as we know, a normal AK doesn't make a mark of any kind, might the cut on baby!Harry's forehead (which later healed into a scar) be caused by the repelled AK *bursting out* of his forehead as the result of his mother's sacrifice? LV's powers (those few that Harry "inherited" from LV rather than his parents--Parseltongue, a degree of Legilimency, and perhaps possession)--could then have entered Harry through the cut when Voldie vaporized. (I don't believe in accidental Horcruxes, but there's no question that Harry did acquire at least the one power, Parseltongue, and probably other rare powers associated with LV as well.) A sidenote another thread tangentially related to this one: Jen wrote in message 144643: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144643 The ring was cracked, but if the locket at GP is the real horcrux, there was no crack mentioned in OOTP. And the diary, while not a typical horcrux, had no crack. Maybe the ring cracked when the 'terrible curse' was put upon it, just as Harry received the scar from being touched by an evil curse? Or else when Dumbledore tried to remove the curse as the ring was cracked when Harry noticed it at Slughorn's house. Carol responds: I think your last suggestion is correct: the ring Horcrux cracked when DD released the soul bit and simultaneously released the protective curse that attacked him through his wand hand. The crack is not a mark of a Horcrux, IMO, but an indication that the Horcrux is destroyed. So the seemingly unopenable locket at 12 GP is quite likely to be an intact Horcrux which, when opened, will release both the soul bit and a protective curse. Or that's how I see it. (If Bill Weasley opens the locket and Snape isn't there to save him, will we lose our first Weasley? Unfair, I know, since Bill has already escaped death once, but JKR claims that a "writer of children's books has to be ruthless," quoted from memory.) At any rate, the crack/cut connection is not necessarily evidence that Harry is a Horcrux. Quite the contrary, IMO, since intact Horcruxes appear to be *unmarked* and the crack in the ring is a sign that the Horcrux has lost its powers. (The intact diary in contrast to the diary stabbed by the Basilisk fang is another example.) Carol, who's not sure whether Jen agrees or disagrees with truthbeauty's ideas on cracks as indications of Horcruxes and is just adding her own thoughts to the mix From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Thu Dec 15 18:37:36 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:37:36 -0000 Subject: Forgiving Snape was FF: Re: Who does Snape really hate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144792 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > Personally, I think Snape, on Dumbledore's orders, told Voldemort > that Sirius was back in England, and that's why Sirius had to stay > in hiding, not because he was suddenly too reckless to be trusted. > > Snape is then actually delivering a backhanded compliment to > Sirius when he says that it was clever of Sirius to make an appearance > on the train platform where he couldn't be attacked. By confirming > Snape's information, Sirius would actually be helping Snape preserve > his cover. Marianne: I like this interpretation. It also ties into Sirius's evident displeasure with DD that Harry picked up on when he (Harry) first arrived at 12GP in OoP. Having to stay in hiding doing nothing was naturally going to grate on someone like Sirius, who is an action- oriented kind of guy. But to know that part of the reason to do so was so that Snape could pass on this information to bolster Snape's cover with Voldemort, would have been doubly annoying. From muthukumar.subramanian at gmail.com Thu Dec 15 04:36:21 2005 From: muthukumar.subramanian at gmail.com (Muthukumar Subramanian) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:06:21 +0530 Subject: Voldemort, Prophecy (Re: JKR ITN interview , July 16 2005. Some excerpts and questions.) In-Reply-To: <700201d40512141331q7443d4b5s5b10d05f68eaf721@mail.gmail.com> References: <700201d40512141331q7443d4b5s5b10d05f68eaf721@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <69f30be90512142036o2913512cv5910ca8b53e8562b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144793 Alla wrote: ...edit... "Scott Ballard for the Bookseller - will the Lord Voldemort ever found out what the Prophecy fully said? JK Rowling : That is one of those very good questions that I don't think I can answer. I am sorry, that is always very frustrating, but the most penetrating questions generally I cannot answer because they could give a lot away, " Alla: > Now THAT is confusing to me. Why Voldemort finding out about > whole prophecy would be significant? What obvious thing am I > missing? I mean, besides finding out that either he or Harry > has to die? MUTHU: I think the reasoning there is that if LV knew that if he hadn't gone around killing James, Lily & tried to kill Harry, he would never have an enemy! From ragingjess at hotmail.com Thu Dec 15 19:07:32 2005 From: ragingjess at hotmail.com (jessicabathurst) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:07:32 -0000 Subject: Snape's Self-Perception as Teacher Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144794 Hey all! I've been following the Snape teacher threads with great interest, as it's a subject near and dear to my heart. (Teaching, not Snape. Oh, who am I kidding?) At any rate, in all of this talk about Snape and good vs. bad teaching, I've been wondering: how does Snape view himself as a teacher? I've always been of the opinion that Snape hates teaching, mainly based on his introductory speech in SS/PS and his general demeanor, but I've changed my mind. Someone (I believe it was Carol, in a post about Snape's treatment of Neville) made an excellent case for the efficacy of Snape's classroom technique, and as Umbridge says, his students score high marks in Potions. So...what if Snape actually ENJOYS teaching? What if, after a disastrous start in life as Death Eater, Snape now realizes that he's right where he belongs...in primary school education? (Hey, my husband nearly ended up at the World Bank and now teaches math. It could totally happen.) If that's the case, does Snape think he's a good teacher? Does he think he's abusive? Does he think he's one of those "tough but lovable" types, like McGonagall? Does Snape have any idea he's one student's living nightmare? Would he care? I'm just picturing Snape sitting around his office, grading papers and wondering why he never gets the Hogwarts "Teacher of the Year" award. Take care, Jessica (who's been informed that she had better be at work tomorrow, transit strike or no. Stupid MTA.) From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 19:17:24 2005 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:17:24 -0000 Subject: Tarot and HP, Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144795 > Valky: > As I said, it's one of those things wjhere you say you can take > it or leave it, but I should mention that a Wand, a Sceptre or > even a Beaters Bat for the Ravenclaw object would follow the > formation outlined here perfectly. Which would point to the missing Ravenclaw object being the wand on the purple cushion in the window of Olivander's. (SS. "Diagon Alley" p. 82) "montavilla47" From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Thu Dec 15 20:00:46 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:00:46 -0000 Subject: 10 reasons why Snape is not evil...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144796 > > If you agree or not this is my list. I see Snape as disliking Harry > but only because of the grudge he has with James. Snape always said > he hated to be called a coward. James only picked on Severus when he > had his friends around. I doubt Snape is on Voldemorts side. He has > had sooo many chances to deliver him to the "Dark Lord" but never > has done it. > > > Sandy > Hi, Sandy! I wonder if JKR reads this list. ;D I'd love to see her answers to some of the issues you've raised! It does seem that Snape gets away with *not* doing too many things to keep passing it of as "not blowing my cover". (If I were Bellatrix, which thank goodness I'm not, I'd be damned suspicious too.) If he'd gotten the Philosopher's Stone for LV instead of helping to set the wards around it, he could have dispensed with his cover, and JKR could have dispensed with the whole rest of the series. Of course, that would sort have spoiled things for Harry, Dumbledore, JKR, and a whole lot of Harry Potter fans out there. --La Gatta From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Thu Dec 15 20:08:15 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:08:15 -0000 Subject: Forgiving Snape was FF: Re: Who does Snape really hate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144797 > > Potioncat: > Consider the time too. Snape taunted Black in December. The Battle > happened in June. Big gap. In HBP Snape takes some claim to aiding in > Black's death. How about this possibility for DDM!Snape. LV plans to > hurt someone Harry loves to lure Harry into a trap. He asks Snape for > a name of the person Harry loves most. Snape wouldn't want to give > him Ron or Hermione, so he gives him the name of an Order member. A > grown up: Sirius Black. Therefore, he helped capture Black. > And also gets rid of a deeply hated personal enemy. I can't imagine Snape was comfortable sharing the Order of the Phoenix with Sirius, even if you disallow my personal subtext. And Dumbledore certainly rubbed Snape's nose in the fact that he was going to have to do so. (I really do think, considering that he was sending Snape off on a potentially fatal mission, that Dumbledore might have spared Snape having to shake hands with the guy.) --La Gatta From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 19:42:42 2005 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:42:42 -0000 Subject: Cultural standards, nasty teachers, abused children/ JKR quote new for me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144798 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Alla: > > That I don't get. Why would it be absurd of you as a reader to wish > that the certain issue to be addressed? It is not like you can force > JKR to address it or not , it just means IMO that you are deeply > involved in the story and would like those issues to be addressed, > like making a wish and see whether it comes true or not. Just part > of the fun to me anyways. Well, I know that people hate this word -- and with very good reason -- but reader reaction and an author's response to it inevitably comes down to politics. Now, I don't mean politics in the ordinary sense of Congressional Resolutions and Presidential Commissions and political campaigns, but politics in the more general sense of human interactions and human concerns. After all, in the context of intellectual history politics has its roots in moral philosophy as well as economics and practical governance. Which is why the utterance that you often hear (or used to) to the effect that "You can't legislate morality" is utterly absurd. Of course you can. Come down to it, that's the only reason to have laws -- i.e. to force people to do the right thing under threat of penalty. No, I'm not saying anyone should be forced to write anything. All I'm saying is that the moral is political and the political is moral, even when applied to a work of fiction. Any book that's written will, if anybody reads it, inspire reaction and comment, as well as criticism -- often very severe criticism if it skates anywhere close to important moral issues, which is to say important political issues. That is simply the nature of the beast, and authors are well-advised to live with it. That doesn't mean they have to listen to it. However, if they don't want to be subjected to this kind of dissection and criticism then they would be better off to write their books and bury them in the back yard, because there just isn't any other way things are going to be. Does JKR have to listen to anybody, including her publishers? No, she doesn't even have to listen to herself, if she doesn't want to. Is a lot of the criticism her work is subjected to very severe? Absolutely. Is some of it unfair? Certainly, in that no absolute agreement on fair will ever be reached, anyway. Does that mean I feel sorry for her when someone criticizes her, even if the criticism is unfair? Not at all. That's part of what it is to be an author, and if she feels that the criticism is too much then her only real option is to quit writing. By writing she has placed herself, like it or not, in the public arena, and as long as she stays there then her thoughts and theories and statements, at least so long as they appear in her writing or her talk about her writing, simply do not have the same safeguards of privacy that those of non-public people enjoy. So, once again, does she HAVE to listen to anybody? Not at all. Does she HAVE to take anything at all into account in her writing? Not at all. Is she going to be criticized? Yes, you better believe it, and severely. Is it going to stop? No, it most certainly will NOT. It will never stop as long as she and her writing stay in the public eye. That's the life of a successful author, and the fate of that author's writing. Lupinlore From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Dec 15 19:38:45 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (bawilson at citynet.net) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:38:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: Lutheran Message-ID: <18522717.1134675525070.JavaMail.SYSTEM@webmail> No: HPFGUIDX 144799 In my previous post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144712 I referred to Slytherin as Lutheran. This was NOT a religious slam, but the work of an overly-entheusiastic spellchecker. (The same one that wants to change 'Draco' to 'Drano.' LOL!) Bruce From sonjamccartCPA at verizon.net Thu Dec 15 20:10:33 2005 From: sonjamccartCPA at verizon.net (sonjaartemisia) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:10:33 -0000 Subject: Snape's Self-Perception as Teacher (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144800 jessicabathurst wrote: > I've been following the Snape teacher threads with great interest, > as it's a subject near and dear to my heart. (Teaching, not > Snape. Oh, (who am I kidding?) (snip) > Someone (I believe it was Carol, in a post about Snape's treatment > of Neville) made an excellent case for the efficacy of Snape's > classroom technique, (snip) > I'm just picturing Snape sitting around his office, grading papers > and wondering why he never gets the Hogwarts "Teacher of the Year" > award. Sonja now: (I hope I snipped enough and I hope this relates to Snape enough to count) I just have to respond to this because my husband is a teacher. He teaches (college-prep) English in an overcrowded high school in an area with a largely spanish-speaking population. He enjoys teaching, but has huge frustrations due to the apathy and poor skills of most of his students, and the attitude of the school district administration (which is, a student in a seat=?deral grant money) He refuses to lower pass standards, and spends hours at home planning and revising to try to stimulate learning and interest. He is tough and flunks 1/3 to 1/2 of his students. (Many are ESL and should not be in a College Prep class) He has never gotten Teacher of the Year in 20 years of teaching, but is the best or one of the best teachers at that school, IMHO. Many students who make it to college come back to thank him, even ones who got "D's" from him! I can certainly relate to Snape's style of teaching, I can see how Snape is trying to encourage, in a tough way, the best from his students. Snape doesn't choose his students, he gets what he gets and will push those by using peer pressure or whatever means he is allowed to get them to respond and learn. SonjaArtemisia, who was a bit like Hermione in school and would have probably done well under Snape. From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Thu Dec 15 20:34:26 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:34:26 -0000 Subject: Cultural standards, nasty teachers, abused children/ JKR quote new for me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144801 > > So, once again, does she HAVE to listen to anybody? Not at all. > Does she HAVE to take anything at all into account in her writing? > Not at all. Is she going to be criticized? Yes, you better believe > it, and severely. Is it going to stop? No, it most certainly will > NOT. It will never stop as long as she and her writing stay in the > public eye. That's the life of a successful author, and the fate of > that author's writing. > > Lupinlore > I have to wonder, as I listent to the "Snape is a child-abuser" ranters ranting, if they think the books would be better if Snape were all sweet and sunny and P.C.? If he hand-held poor old Neville through potions, and let Hermione strut her stuff every time she stuck her hand up, and said to Harry on the first day of class, "Well, I had some person issues with your dad, but I'll try not to let them get in the way of our relationship, and oh, I thought you weren't paying attention, but I see you were writing down everything I said word for word, yes, I *do* love a conscientious note-taker, so I really do apologize?" Get real, folks. Snape is fascinating because he is the way he is; JKR has created an complex and compelling character, and I think we owe it to her to let her play him out as she sees fit. Especially since she will anyway. --La Gatta From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Dec 15 20:43:09 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:43:09 -0000 Subject: Lily, Voldemort, AK and the atomic bomb analogy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144802 Carol: > Without getting into the A-bomb analogy, I want to ask a question. If, > as we know, a normal AK doesn't make a mark of any kind, might the cut > on baby!Harry's forehead (which later healed into a scar) be caused by > the repelled AK *bursting out* of his forehead as the result of his > mother's sacrifice? *(snip)* (Carol again): > the ring Horcrux cracked when > DD released the soul bit and simultaneously released the protective > curse that attacked him through his wand hand. The crack is not a > mark of a Horcrux, IMO, but an indication that the Horcrux is > destroyed. Ceridwen again: Can we play? Harry has a scar. It's probably the most famous scar in literature at the moment. It has influenced the design of the lettering on the the books and in the films, it defines the series, and famously, it is the last word in the last chapter of the last book. It is seen by all the knowledgeable WW characters as the mark of the one and only failed AK. The Gaunts had a ring. It once belonged to Salazar (Salizar?) Slytherin, their ancestor. Tom Riddle got that ring and made it into a horcrux. Dumbledore got that ring and removed the soul-piece. The ring cracked, either during or after the soulbit's removal. A similar destruction had to happen to the diary - stabbed, killed, by a basilisk's fang. Cracked. Pierced. Irreparably damaged. Lily Potter stood in front of her infant son to protect his life with her own. She was killed for her effort, and as we discussed in the A- Bomb posts, her soul was torn from her body. We, or at least I, speculated that if the force of the AK was like an A-Bomb, Lily's essence would have been blown back against the first solid object it came to - Baby!Harry. Which then provided a shield, like paneling blown against a bunker, against the subsequent attack on Harry himself. We know the AK leaves no mark. Only the stunned, or frightened, expression on its victim's face. So no, the AK would not have made the scar. I did mean to imply the AK *deflecting* left the scar. Skimmed off and ripped as it went, like moving for an air-gun innoculation. Which seems possible to me. But you, and Jen, and probably others, have brought up something else. Every horcrux we've seen which has been de-souled has a mark or damage. A split stone, a punctured book. What do we know about the AK, anyway? Just playing, mind you, could the AK pack enough power to blow Lily's essence into Harry and out his forehead, making him, for just that split instant, something *akin* to a horcrux for Lily's entire soul? Before anyone points it out, I know that a true horcrux can only be made by the splitting of a soul through murder. But I just don't have a word for a soul receptacle that wasn't made that way. We, or at least I, speculated that Lily's soul and powers were plastered against Harry like a shield. Forced in, then forced out (by LV's transfered powers?), creating the scar attesting to the fact that the soul had passed through. Just playing again, could the recently damaged shards of LV's soul have ripped through Harry, exiting through the scar? Again, a piece of damage created by the release of a soul bit, and leaving Parselmouth and maybe other powers, in its wake? JKR has mentioned that Harry having Lily's eyes is a significant fact, but we haven't seen that yet that I remember. But, the scar! The scar is significant throughout the series. And now we have two items which we know had to be damaged to release a bit of soul. It probably could be a coincidence, but with one book left, I find that hard to believe. No matter what the actual reason for the scar, I do think the AK's power could well be said to have the power of an A-Bomb. No matter the AK's power or the way it works or delivers its curse, Harry has a scar which was the direct evidence of the failed AK. Something had to have happened at Godrick's Hollow that ties in with the information we already have. To be destroyed, there must be a crack or piercing of the horcrux to let the soul piece escape. Harry has a scar. Harry has 'inherited' some of LV's powers. What exactly went on with that AK at GH? Does it tie in with the horcruxes and the sign of their destruction? Or is there something else that makes his scar so significant? Ceridwen, who feels she ought to add 'Tune in next week, same Bat- time, same Bat-channel'. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 20:50:58 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:50:58 -0000 Subject: Cultural standards, nasty teachers, abused children/ JKR quote new for me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144803 La Gatta: > I have to wonder, as I listent to the "Snape is a child-abuser" > ranters ranting, if they think the books would be better if Snape were > all sweet and sunny and P.C.? If he hand-held poor old Neville through > potions, and let Hermione strut her stuff every time she stuck her > hand up, and said to Harry on the first day of class, "Well, I had > some person issues with your dad, but I'll try not to let them get in > the way of our relationship, and oh, I thought you weren't paying > attention, but I see you were writing down everything I said word for > word, yes, I *do* love a conscientious note-taker, so I really do > apologize?" Get real, folks. Snape is fascinating because he is the > way he is; JKR has created an complex and compelling character, and I > think we owe it to her to let her play him out as she sees fit. Alla: Nope, definitely not me - I don't want Snape to be sweet and funny as the CHARACTER in the story, as JKR's creation. I would love him to do some changing though, but that is a different story. BUT as some people said recently we constantly switching between discussing characters as "REAL PEOPLE" so to speak or as "people who do not know that they are in the story" and as looking at them as characters. So, if I look at Snape as "real person" - then YES, absolutely I want him to be those things you said, but as character I like him the way he is, no question about it and of course for the way he is, I hope JKR smacks him and smacks him good at the end of the story. I see him as a fascinating villain, not caricature which Voldemort is, but complex enough to show that he may even had some good in him, but villain nevertheless and since I SEE him as villain, I want him to get the proper sues at the end. Especially since I think JKR will do it anyways. :-) JMO, Alla From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Thu Dec 15 20:51:11 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:51:11 +0100 Subject: Snape's Self-Perception as Teacher References: Message-ID: <011301c601b9$48b50c00$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144804 jessicabathurst wrote: > I've always been of the opinion that Snape hates teaching, mainly > based > on his introductory speech in SS/PS and his general demeanor, but I've > changed my mind. Someone (I believe it was Carol, in a post about > Snape's treatment of Neville) made an excellent case for the efficacy > of Snape's classroom technique, and as Umbridge says, his students > score high marks in Potions. So...what if Snape actually ENJOYS > teaching? Miles: We can guess from his introduction in SS/PS, and especially from what we know about him since HBP, that Snape's main problem with teaching potions - besides his very unpleasant character - is the subject. He loves it! And most certainly most students do not share his love for potionmaking. He dislikes to teach them for that reason. We learn this at his very first appearance as a teacher. And maybe this is his reason to try to be DADA teacher. Not because he urgently wants to teach DADA, but because he doesn't want to see students mishandling his beloved potions. Miles From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Dec 15 20:54:12 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:54:12 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Tarot and HP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43A1D7F4.70900@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144805 Bruce Alan Wilson wrote: > I am not a great expert on Tarot, Bart: Don't worry. I am. > The four suits in the Minor Arcana are > > 1. Wands (sometimes Spears) > 2. Swords (sometimes Arrows) > 3. Cups > 4. Gems (sometimes Coins) Bart: If JKR knew anything about the Tarot (and, if you wish to believe her, she doesn't), she'd probably be familiar with the Rider-Waite deck, which is by far the most popular deck in England (the Marseilles deck is more popular in the non-English speaking world), which uses Wands/Fire, Swords/Air, Cups/Water, and Pentacles/Earth. Interestingly enough, another fantasy author for children, Frank Baum (of Oz fame) was quite familiar with the occult, having previously been the editor of a Theosophical newspaper; each Witch had power over one element, with the Wicked Witches having power over the masculine elements (fire and air) and the Good Witches having power over the feminine elements (earth and water). > The four Hogwarts houses seem to correspond Alchemically as follows: > > 1. Gryffindor=fire > 2. Ravenclaw=air > 3. Slytherin=water > 4. Hufflepuff=earth I don't know exactly what JKR said on this, and there might be some argument, but Ravenclaw is DEFINITELY air (and I THINK JKR said that Gryffindor was fire). A case could be made for Slytherin being earth (with their obsession for the material), and Hufflepuff being water (success through dogged determination). > BUT the talismans associated with the Founders (at least the three we know of) > don't match. Gryffindor is a Sword, Lutheran's is a Ring and Hufflepuff's is a > Cup. Bart: Some Tarot writers (notably the late Ellen Reed, who wrote THE WITCHES QABALAH and co-created THE WITCHES TAROT) associate swords with fire and wands with air. Given that, they COULD fit. But, once again, JKR professes only surface knowledge of the occult. Bart From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 21:01:07 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:01:07 -0000 Subject: Cultural standards, nasty teachers, abused children/ JKR quote new for me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144806 "lagattalucianese" wrote: > I have to wonder, as I listent to the "Snape is a child-abuser" > ranters ranting, if they think the books would be better if Snape were > all sweet and sunny and P.C.? zgirnius: It seems the answer is 'No, Snape is just fine as he is. Just so long as it is clear to the readers at the end that he is a villain and has suffered for each and every little fault.' "lagattalucianese" wrote: > Snape is fascinating because he is the > way he is; JKR has created an complex and compelling character, and I > think we owe it to her to let her play him out as she sees fit. > > Especially since she will anyway. zgirnius: I could not agree more, and am eagerly looking forward to the final installment of the series to see what she does! From lealess at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 21:01:53 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:01:53 -0000 Subject: Snape's Self-Perception as Teacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144807 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jessicabathurst" wrote: > > > I've been wondering: how does Snape view himself as a teacher? > > So...what if Snape actually ENJOYS > teaching? What if, after a disastrous start in life as Death > Eater Snape now realizes that he's right where he belongs...in > primary school education? > > If that's the case, does Snape think he's a good teacher? Does he > think he's abusive? Does he think he's one of those "tough but > lovable" types, like McGonagall? Does Snape have any idea he's one > student's living nightmare? Would he care? > > As someone who had a Snape-like teacher, who I highly respected and who was dedicated to his profession, and as someone who teaches and would be more Snape-like if it would help me reach certain students (hooray, winter break), it is possible Snape enjoys what he does, and thinks his methods are truly wizard, but has no patience for slackers and people who won't challenge themselves or even follow directions. But, given Snape's probable intellect, I doubt he finds it rewarding to sit around reading abysmal papers, to repeat the same subjects year-after-year, to ride herd on attention-challenged, cheeky, or know-it-all adolescents, or overbearing/interfering parents (Lucius Malfoy). Then there's dealing with the administration, and the meetings, and the hours, and the pay To really answer this question, we would have to see him with a more advanced group of students, ones who can collaborate instead of distract themselves enough to blow up the classroom. But we don't see him in NEWT-level Potions, and we see little of his DADA teaching -- and who knows what level he is teaching at there, considering the students' past education in the subject? I think of him as someone who is stuck with teaching because he needs to be at Hogwarts for whatever reason you believe him to be there. While he probably loves the subjects he teaches, the odious aspects, and for him this probably includes students themselves -- not so much. He probably believes he does a good job, but I doubt he cares about the profession. If he did, he could improve his methods. He probably teaches in the manner he was taught. I doubt he cares a fig about how others see his teaching: Umbridge, for example, or a certain student who feels secure enough to cricitize his method for dealing with dementors. I like the way you started with his experience as a Death Eater leading him to realize he's right where he belongs as a teacher... :) (ack -- my first smiley face). lealess From navarro63366 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 20:59:01 2005 From: navarro63366 at yahoo.com (navarro63366) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:59:01 -0000 Subject: Lily, Voldemort, AK and the atomic bomb analogy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144808 Ceridwen: Harry has 'inherited' some of LV's powers. What exactly > went on with that AK at GH? Does it tie in with the horcruxes and > the sign of their destruction? Or is there something else that makes > his scar so significant? > Ceridwen, I think you are onto something with the possibility of Lily's soul entering and exiting baby Harry through the scar, leaving him with "his mother's eyes". However, I do not think that Harry is a horcrux because Voldemort wouldn't purposely try to kill his own soul, even if it is only a small part of it. Voldemort's soul purpose seems to be to cheat death, therefore I think he would do whatever possible to maintain any horcruxes he has. Navarro From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 21:20:44 2005 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:20:44 -0000 Subject: 10 reasons why Snape is not evil...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144809 > Sandy wrote ten reasons why Snape is not evil, I will snip the reasons as they are contained in her post. These are merely my comments on all of them. 10. The matter of Snape bullying Harry because of his hatred for James does not really decisively point to Snape's loyalty. Even though Snape was almost certainly being economical with the truth in his exposition in Spinner's End he does state that he thought Harry may have been someone around whom the remaining Voldemort followers could rally as a new and powerful Dark Lord. Snape's dislike of James and consequent non-killing of Harry or whatever would not make Snape good. 9. Quirrell was, quite simply, the only person available for the task and easily controllable by LV in his vaporous state. It certainly would have been easy to use Snape if you accept two things. Firstly that Snape was willing to help and secondly that LV would be able to control Snape. IMO Snape is a far more powerful wizard than Quirrell was and again in Spinner's End Snape says that he was unaware that it was LV who was trying to access the Philosopher's Stone. This explanation by Snape himself stands up to scrutiny, even if only on a very basic level. Again it does not prove that Snape is good. 8. The objection to this point is similar to the above in that at the point when the events of CoS were underway LV had not contacted Snape and was unsure of his allegiance, believing as he did at that point that Snape was by then Dumbledore's man. Additionally there is no indication that Snape is a Parselmouth and therefore how would he be able to control the basilisk? 7. During the broom hexing incident Snape was unaware that LV was on the scene, or so we believe. Why would he not save Harry, especially as it would further ingratiate him to Dumbledore, whose favour he was, after all, still surrying at that point (during PS). 6. Snape brewing the Wolfsbane potion wrongly would have immediately blown his cover, if indeed he was undercover at that point (in PoA). Snape's grudge is shown to be against James and Sirius and is not explicitly stated to be against Lupin. Snape appears to hold no real grudge against Lupin and as an expert in the Dark Arts and probably in werewolves would know that Lupin would have little or no control over his condition. Againg at that point Snape had no reason to help LV, believing, as he did, that LV had lost his power. The curious point in PoA is that Snape had not seemingly figured out that Scabbers was Wormtail and that may bear further examination. 5. In the Shrieking Shack Snape arrives under the Invisibility Cloak and is subsequently knocked out. What opportunity did he then have to retrieve it? The answer is none because Harry pocketed it. The Marauder's Map was only with Snape for a brief time before it was handed over to Lupin so that point is really a non-starter. Also Snape is completely blinded by his hatred for Sirius and that mechanic is in play at the climax of PoA far more than any loyalty on Snape;s part to either Dumbledore or LV. 4. Snape explains his absence from the graveyard in Spinner's End and tells us he returned two hours later. Snape is never indicated as being aware of the whole Triwizard Tournament / Portkey plot so why would he know where Harry had gone. He may have deduced this, but he could not have been certain. This is really a no-brainer as Snape did return to LV and with the additional benefit of doing so on Dumbledore's orders. His loyalty cannot be deduced from this issue. 3. Barty Jnr. was kissed by a Dementor, not sent to Azkaban (perhaps the movie is confusing you). Without going too far into it though the Veritaserum may have been fake, as theorised here and by Red Hen on her site. It is also quite likely that the Dementor's kiss was administered with some prompting by Snape to cover his loyalty as also theorised on here and elsewhere. 2. The point of the Unbreakable Vow was that Snape was kind of forced into it (but he had no hesitation in taking it even if his hand did shake during the third tranche). This does not establish one way or the other Snape's true loyalty and despite what he says I for one do not believe that Snape knew Draco's task, even if he claims he did. LV seems not to completely trust Snape at this point either due to Wormtail's presence, but again we cannot with any certainty say whose side Snape is on based on Bellatrix's response to him and his taking the Vow. 1. As to Occlumency, basically Snape did not teach Harry anything and why remove the memories at all if it was not because of his not wanting LV to perform Legilimency on him through Harry. Oh, and despite Snapoe's taunt towards the end of HBP, I am of the view that Harry will not take the advice regarding closing his mind too seriously, although he will almost certainly have to learn non- verbal spells rather more thoroughly than he does now. I hope that Snape will turn out to be good because he has had a rough life from what we have been shown, but I do not think any of the matters put forward in Sally's post are persuasive of his being good. One thing that was interesting was that Snape never appears to have disclosed that Lupin was spying on the werewolves. Goddlefrood From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Dec 15 21:23:17 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:23:17 -0000 Subject: Lily, Voldemort, AK and the atomic bomb analogy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144810 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol responds: > Without getting into the A-bomb analogy, I want to ask a question. If, > as we know, a normal AK doesn't make a mark of any kind, might the cut > on baby!Harry's forehead (which later healed into a scar) be caused by > the repelled AK *bursting out* of his forehead as the result of his > mother's sacrifice? DD tells us in HBP that an AK does not leave any mark, and that the scar was the result from the curse rebouncing. At the moment I have a sleeping baby on my lap, so I cannot give you the exact reference, but I believe it is in the private lesson in which they handle LV getting the ring and killing his relatives. I don't believe a faily AK will make a succesful horcrux, so if there is a piece of LV's soul in Harry, it is an accident. Ending prediction: H. sacrifices himself, but instead of killing hin, LV kills his last soul part and then dies. Gerry From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 21:15:13 2005 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:15:13 -0000 Subject: Cultural standards, nasty teachers, abused children/ JKR quote new for me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144811 > zgirnius: > It seems the answer is 'No, Snape is just fine as he is. Just so long > as it is clear to the readers at the end that he is a villain and has > suffered for each and every little fault.' > > That would seem to sum up things very nicely, indeed. I think what many of us want is exactly that, a clear denunciation of Snape's abuse of Harry and Neville (which means the involvement of a third party much as was the case with the Dursleys abuse of Harry) and fitting punishment for his actions (which is not the same as official punishment for his actions). I think, given JKR's preference for comeuppance (or whatever you want to call it -- karma, poetic justice, or what have you) it would be a fairly safe bet that will be included (although before the third chapter of HBP and her announcement about Umbridge I was only giving it 50/50). As you say, it is VERY important that his abuse of his students be specifically punished. Just to say that "well, he was horribly punished for his actions on the Tower and therefore that would be overkill," -- nope, that won't go over any day of the week and it won't go over twice on Sunday. Lupinlore From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Dec 15 22:34:03 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:34:03 -0000 Subject: Tower Scene from Fantasy genre perspective Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144812 Since JKR works within the fantasy genre among others, there might be some aspect of Dumbledore's death which has a fantasy explanation rather than a RW one. In a world of phophecies, life debts & rebirthing potions there's a possibility ancient magic has returned to the series at a critical moment. The rebirthing potion which Voldemort referred to as old Dark Magic was the impetus for this idea. Writing about the ingredients of the potion on another thread and how all were human ingredients in some form, my mind wandered to the tower and the reverse scenario taking place there. Instead of using the life-force of others for his own benefit as Voldemort does by taking blood & demanding flesh, Dumbledore is the giver of life in many ways, symbolized by his second chances. They are also polar opposites in the way they view death--whereas Voldemort fears death and will destroy his soul in order to avoid it, Dumbledore accepts death as a natural part of life and doesn't fear the end. To me the possibility then arises that if Voldemort used old Dark Magic to be resurrected and possibly weakened himself in the process, Dumbledore might have used ancient magic in his death and thus conferred some type of strength to a living being or beings. How Dumbledore died would then be critical to activating the ancient magic: First would be a willingness to sacrifice himself should that be necessary and it's clear he was; then, what if dying by the hand of one who was once traitorous to Dumbledore & his love magic, but now has True Loyalty in his heart is the key? Some explanation along those lines would make me think Snape might have struggled with his loyalty, possibly up to the moment on the tower. But in that moment when Dumbledore pleaded, Snape made his choice. His hands were tied by the UV, but only the truth in his heart would activate the ancient magic and help Dumbledore fulfill his plan even after death. I'm not sure how all the particulars would work out, but it would definitely plant the story firmly in the fantasy realm again where it does live part of the time. JKR has talked about subverting the genre, mainly in the sense of making the WW far from utopian as some ideal fantasy worlds are, but she's not shy about incorporating fantasy elements at critical junctures to give meaning to the events (and separate them from RW debates such as euthanasia). Jen From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 22:34:05 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:34:05 -0000 Subject: Snape's Self-Perception as Teacher In-Reply-To: <011301c601b9$48b50c00$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144813 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > > jessicabathurst wrote: > > I've always been of the opinion that Snape hates teaching, > > ..., but I've changed my mind. Someone ... made an excellent > > case for the efficacy of Snape's classroom technique, and ..., > > his students score high marks in Potions. So...what if Snape > > actually ENJOYS teaching? > > Miles: > ... that Snape's main problem with teaching potions - besides > his very unpleasant character - is the subject. He loves it! > And most certainly most students do not share his love for > potionmaking. ... he doesn't want to see students mishandling > his beloved potions. > > Miles > bboyminn: Between what you've said and what Sonja said in post# 144800 in this same thread, I think we may be onto something. I can understand the frustration that many teachers have with their students. The students are so wrapped up in their teen-pop-culutre lives that they can't give a thought to the future. I imagine that every teacher at one time or another (most likely on a daily basis) has had the uncontrollable urge to take a student firmly by the collar, shake them vigorously, and scream in their face, "This is important! This is your future! THIS MATTERS!". I suggest that this is the very frustration that Snape feels. In the wizard world THIS SUBJECT MATTERS, it is important to the future of every student, and there are immediate safety issues that suggest that students should be paying attention to what they are doing and not the latest 'tragedy' of their young teen lives. So, Snape is determined to make the students take the subject seriously. I'm also reminded of Shaun's Snape-like teachers. These were teacher who, much like Snape, MADE YOU take their class seriously. The more you resisted; the more they demanded. There was only excellence, and everything else was failure. So, in Snape's class, if you don't keep up or perform at his standard, he will drag you kicking and screaming into compliance. Just another perspective. Steve/bboyminn From sydpad at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 22:41:49 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:41:49 -0000 Subject: Cultural standards, nasty teachers, abused children/ JKR quote new for me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144814 "lupinlore" : >I think, given JKR's preference for > comeuppance (or whatever you want to call it -- karma, poetic justice, > or what have you) it would be a fairly safe bet that will be included ...it is VERY > important that his abuse of his students be specifically punished. But hasn't this already happened? Snape's 'commupance' for his treatment of Neville I thought was the Boggart scene in PoA, where the whole school was sniggering at him (and there was the little reinforcement of the vulture hat D-dore gave him at Christmas). I thought that was just right-- appropriate (a humiliation for a humiliation) and to proper scale. It even involved your prefered authority figure, Lupin (I confess that I think putting Lupin in a direct confrontation with Snape would be more painful to Remus than to Severus-- Remus after all hates conflict). Snape's commupance so far for his treatment of Harry is, as someone else pointed out, his alientation from Harry at precisely the most important part of his mission. >(which means the involvement of a third party > much as was the case with the Dursleys abuse of Harry) I must have missed the part where the Dursley's were punished-- I thought they were just confused and annoyed by Dumbledore. As for JKR's love of commupance, it's undeniable-- but so, I think, is her love of torturing her characters generally. I think she sees pain as a human universal that connects people, not as an indication of righteous punishment. After all, who HASN'T suffered horribly in this series? Ginny was possessed and forced to kill roosters with her bare hands. Sirius was psychologically tortured for 12 years, then put back under house arrest where he got more and more depressed and then died. Lupin has a hideous disease that puts him through agonzing pain every month. Harry, well, what hasn't JKR put HIM through? That Snape is going to suffer is certain, as it is certain that many people will suffer in the next book. I disagree, though, that his suffering will be presented as cause for rejoicing. --Sydney, currently suffering the totally universal pain of computer crashes From ornawn at 013.net Thu Dec 15 22:43:05 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:43:05 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Plan in Book 7 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144815 >Jen: >Maybe a crack in his Occlumency came during the interrogation when >he returned after the graveyard? Or maybe when Dumbledore was near >death and Snape saved him from the ring curse, did a flicker of >feeling break through and was accessed by Voldemort? Nothing big or >flashy, just some slight moment that gave away Snape's feelings for >Dumbledore or his allegiance. Orna: I think it's possible. But even if not, my understanding of Voldemort is, that it wouldn't matter in his toying around with him. I mean, if he thought Snape was DDM! ? he would kill him of course, but even if Snape proves from his POV to be continuously loyal to him ? I think he would reward him on the short term, and coerce him into impossible situations on the long term. Voldemort can't afford to have a feeling like trust evolve in himself. If he were to accept anybody's loyalty for a long period ? this feeling would be bound to arise. He wouldn't be able to feel "weakened" by a trust which stems from gut-feelings, and not by control with legilimancy and manipulations. (Not to mention "complications like dealing with disappointments ? as we see with Lucius, Bellatrix). I imagine him continuously inventing missions for his servants, which place them in conflicted situations ? like sacrificing Draco, and Narcissa knowing about the task ? he could have left it a secret between himself and Draco. Like placing Wormtail (a marauder) in Snape's place ? surely a torture for both of them. As long as he does those power-manipulations, (rewarding punishing, and enticing his servants to more tasks) he knows that he is powerful, and not some weakling trusting or believing in friendship, perhaps even beginning to long for them. It's interesting that his connectedness with his "true family" is that the second he presses the dark mark - they have to come. Again this paradoxical thing, where instead of longing, wanting, being happy that someone arrives, we have obedience, and checking on the speed of it. Therefore I think, it's part of his necessity to put his servants in emotionally impossible places ? where they "prove" there loyalty by doing something which hurts them, and their human feelings. Narcissa has two choices ? to be loyal to Voldemort, and sacrifice her son or to endanger herself by trying to save or protect her son (BTW again the motive of "testing" in act mother's love against self- preservation). Snape, even if he is ESE!Snape (not IMO), looses all his ability to live in the WW after killing DD. He will be hunted, cursed, looses his teacher's place. He looses in Voldemort eyes, whatever social connectedness he had by this, and has now only the DE to rely on as social supporters. Since Snape, as we know, is a very lonely person, it is a most accurate hit in his weak spot. Compare it to the Malfoys- who were able to live in the WW quite comfortably ? having their own family, and quite an active social life ? ministry included. What I'm trying to say, is that there doesn't have to be any precise suspicion on Voldemort's part, in order for him to arrange a plan, which uses the person's weakness against himself ? it is part of his "relation" to his followers. But perhaps you are right in some breach in occlumency helping Voldemort to channel the plan right into the "soft spot" ? if he thought some human connectedness was between Snape and DD ? he would look for a plan, which forces Snape to betray this emotion. A little bit like room 101 in Orwell's 1984 ? somehow forcing the person to betray the person, whom he loves, cares for. That's also what Harry would have felt ? had he not run to the MoM in OotP ? if he had just assumed it to be impossible, and waited more, something inside him might have felt, he had been willing to let Sirius die. So it's again a twofold bad situation. >Jen: >I hesitate to say LV is no longer a threat to Harry, but I do think >he has given Harry all the weapons needed to defeat him, and Harry's >blocks to overcome are within himself. He doesn't fully understand >his power or believe in it, and now there's the side-show with Snape >that draws the focus from Voldemort. Although Harry's laser focus on >the horcrux in his pocket is foreshadowing, I think. He's really not >going to be diverted by Snape unless Snape gets in his way...and, >erm....we can guess what that means! Orna: I think that's the crucial thing we have to see. If Harry gets distracted by his hatred towards Snape from his main task ? Voldemort is winning. If he meets Snape, and both of them are able to find a way out of this entanglement, ? Voldemort would cease to be a threat for Harry. We think a lot about what Harry is going to do. But I don't believe Voldemort will send Snape on a two-month vacation. I rather think he will escalate Snape's situation, and have him somehow get mixed with Harry perhaps also having Draco there in a way ? don't know how, but something there. Perhaps having Snape put in a place, where guarding Draco endangers Harry, and vice versa. I'm not very clear in this post, I'm just trying to play around with ideas, hoping to understand more of Voldemort. >Jen: Heh, I like your devious mind. ;) Likely we won't hear much >about it now that the Dumbledore/Snape link is broken. Maybe in >retrospect? Orna: My dark mark is showing Orna From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 22:59:49 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:59:49 -0000 Subject: Ginny's Role in Book 7 (was: Re: Four ponderings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144816 > >>Allie: > I happen to really like Ginny, but I agree with what you're > saying. I thought it was a bit of a stretch when suddenly Ginny > was "the life and soul" of the Gryffindor Quidditch team in HBP. > Maybe JKR should have made it clearer early on in the series that > Ginny really WAS very outgoing, just not around Harry. Shown her > interacting with other people or holding her own with the twins, > maybe. > Betsy Hp: Exactly! That's where JKR really fell down, I think. I once did a reread of the series (up to OotP) just to look at how Ginny was handled, and the character consitancy is just not there. Not like it is with Neville or Draco (two other second string characters). Or at least, I think JKR started out well, but OotP Ginny was a bit of a jar. And HBP Ginny comes out of almost nowhere, IMO. [All page numbers reference scholastic editions. PS and CoS are paperback, PoA and GoF are hardback.] Ginny is introduced well in PS/SS, IMO. She's bubbling with energy and curiosity, begging to be allowed to see the famous Harry Potter [97,308] , running after the train while simultaneously laughing and crying [98]. JKR's only got two scenes to give us an impression of Ginny's personality, and I think she gets off to a good start. CoS is a bit of a trick because there's so little of the book that is actually the "real" Ginny. But there's still some pretty good hints. Ginny is in full crush mode, but she responds to Harry by becoming rather clutzy (putting her elbow in the butter dish) [44] and dramatically standing up for him to Draco Malfoy [61]. So she's not too far removed from the girl running down the train platform in PS/SS. However we see also see Ginny as rather protected by Mrs. Weasley, and get no hint of any resentment of that fact. She doesn't complain at all about going off with her mom when everyone's shopping for supplies. Why didn't she want to go with the twins? Or with Ron and his friends? The girl in PS/SS would have at least protested as she was being pulled off to the secondhand dress shops [57] if she didn't really want to go. The girl in HBP or even OotP would have *not* wanted to go and she would have had a conniption fit, crush or no crush. We get the infamous line of Ron's about Ginny not being shy usually [40], so I suppose that can be seen as a bit of an explanation. (The start, I think, of JKR telling not showing with Ginny.) But does it work? And do we really need it even? It's pretty apparent that Ginny has a crush. But she's not too shy to tell off Draco Malfoy. Why would she be too shy to protest being stuck with her mom while all the other kids go off together? After the shopping expedition, Ginny comes under Diary!Tom's influence. And while it'd be possible, I think, to make character connections with a well-drawn character, Ginny changes so drastically as she gets older it's really hard to do so with her. What's up with her connection with Percy? Shouldn't she have had a stronger tie with the twins? In PoA Ginny is again more connected with Percy than the twins. Yes she laughs at Percy a bit [71], but it seems good natured. And she's also sharing a laugh with Harry at the same time. So while she does blush when Harry looks at her, she doesn't seem quite that tongue-tied. When the dementor invades the train, she goes looking for Ron, not the twins [82]. But it's GoF, IMO, where JKR misses some huge chances to hint at OotP Ginny. Again, Ginny isn't hanging with the twins, laughing at the ton-tongue toffee prank, she's with her mother [54]. She'd had no idea about their joke shop [55] and she takes no part in Ron's mocking of Percy [56]. When Bill and Charlie have their great table fight in the garden, Ginny is laughing, not cheering with the twins as OotP Ginny would have been, nor surfing the tables as HBP Ginny would have done [60]. She doesn't join in the Quidditch talk [62-3], so she doesn't seem too excited about the game. And after the game she's the first to fall asleep [118]. If there's any hints to Ginny's character here at all, it's that she's less interested in quidditch than Hermione. > >>kchuplis: > Well, regardless of when it happened or where she blossomed (and > since we see most things through Harry's eyes, it makes sense that > we notice her when Harry finally notices her, which is when she > actually begins to talk around him because she isn't freaked out > by him as "a boy" anymore),... Betsy Hp: But that's the thing, she doesn't really "blossom". Ginny totally changes. In OotP she's suddenly the third twin. Not only is that not really hinted at in previous books, it's practically a contradiction. In OotP Ginny is suddenly in full rebellion against her mother, lying and throwing tantrums, again going against everything we've seen of her before. And suddenly she's a quidditch star? Why, if JKR had this in mind before, did she not show even a hint of interest in GoF, while the World Cup was being played? Crush or no crush, sporty!Ginny would not fall asleep after her first major game experience ever. Actually, she should have been rather punch-drunk. A crush would not have prevented her from chatting with the twins and Charlie about the two teams going into the game. (It didn't prevent her from chatting with her mom about Bill's hair, instead.) In HBP she takes up the twins usual role of tormenting their siblings and is rather nasty to Ron. And again, this comes out of nowhere. She'd gotten over her crush on Harry in OotP, but that didn't cause her to release her inner bitch. So why does it come out now? Personally, I think it's because JKR never got a handle on who Ginny was supposed to be. Or maybe, she *did* for a bit (from PS/SS to GoF Ginny seems more consistent than less) but for some reason decided that particular character wasn't quite right to fulfill the role of "Harry's perfect girl" and went for a major make-over. But the very fact that JKR had to do so suggests that the role of Harry's girlfriend really isn't all that important to the story. > >>kchuplis > ...JKR did a good enough job that I found the "first kiss" to be > one of the most well written first kisses I can recall reading. Betsy Hp: I wouldn't go that far, myself. But I *did* like that scene. I also like the scene where they talk about Harry's tattoo. But I still think Ginny's character was handled badly. She's more caricature than character by the time OotP and HBP get done with her. It's unfortunate, because JKR is usually a better writer than that. (She handles her other characters growing from eleven to sixteen very well, I think.) And there are moments when we get glimmers of the interesting girl Ginny *could* have been, if JKR hadn't been so intent on making her perfect. Betsy Hp From n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 23:02:21 2005 From: n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com (n_longbottom01) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:02:21 -0000 Subject: The Invisible Hand in the CoS - long Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144817 Recently, a few details from Harry's adventure in the Chamber of Secrets jumped out at me as possible Book 7 clues as a result of some posts I read on HP for Grownups. Here is the passage that struck me? Harry is being attacked by the now-blinded Basilisk: "The snake's tail whipped across the floor again. Harry ducked. Something soft hit his face. "The basilisk had swept the Sorting Hat into Harry's arms. Harry seized it. It was all he had left, is only chance?he rammed it onto his head and threw himself flat onto the floor as the basilisk's tail swung over him again. "Help me?help me? Harry thought, his eyes screwed tight under the hat. Please help me? "There was no answering voice. Instead, the hat contracted, as though an invisible hand was squeezing it very tightly."?CoS p. 319 As I read this passage, it occurred to me that Harry doesn't actually see the basilisk sweep the sorting hat into his arms. Fawkes has already blinded the basilisk at this point, so Harry can safely have his eyes open, but he doesn't see the hat flying towards him. He feels it (something soft hitting his face) and then realizes what it is and concludes that the basilisk had swept it into his arms. But was the basilisk really responsible for the hat being thrown to Harry? I was already pondering that one when the next little detail jumped up at me, and really got my suspicions roused "as though an invisible hand was squeezing it very tightly." I've always read this as just a figure of speech describing the sorting hat contracting on its own, in the process of making the sword appear. But I've seen the same figure of speech used elsewhere in the series describing Winky in the forest, just before the Dark Mark appears: "A rustling noise nearby made all three of them jump. Winky the house elf was fighting her way out of a clump of bushes nearby. She was moving in a most peculiar fashion, apparently with great difficulty; it was as though someone invisible were trying to hold her back."?GoF p.124 We are lead to believe that Winky may just be struggling to move because she is not obeying her master's orders. But we eventually learn that Winky, who looks as though someone invisible were trying to hold her back, does in fact have an invisible someone (Barty Jr.) trying to hold her back. Is it also possible that the invisible hand that squeezed the Sorting Hat and made the sword appear in the Chamber of Secrets, was actually a real invisible hand? Whose invisible hand was it? Here's my guess: Maybe it takes more than a jab with a basilisk fang to entirely destroy a horcrux. We have only seen Harry (apparently) destroy one horcrux?the Riddle Diary. Dumbledore destroyed the ring, but we don't know how he did it, and he was injured in the process. When Harry learns how to destroy a horcrux, he may realize that what he did in the Chamber wasn't sufficient to destroy that part of Voldemort's soul. Harry then decides to time travel back to the time of the battle, to make sure that the Diary soul piece is entirely destroyed. He hides under his invisibility cloak waiting for the diary to be stabbed so that he can do what he needs to do. But suddenly, as he did by the lake in the PoA, he finds that he can't just stand there and watch. He flips the hat into the arms of his younger self, and then squeezes it to make the sword appear. The things that Time Traveling Harry does while in the Chamber of Secrets are subtly mentioned in the passage from CoS that I quoted above. Is there any further evidence of time travel during CoS? Well... this isn't evidence of time travel, but in the same scene, Diary Riddle speaks as if he is a time traveler himself: "To business, Harry," said Riddle, still smiling broadly. "Twice?in your past, in my future?we have met. And twice I failed to kill you."?CoS p. 316 This isn't evidence that Time-Traveling Harry is there in the chamber but maybe it is evidence that JKR had time travel on her mind as she wrote the scene. If Harry returns to the chamber it will be "Twice" that Harry and Diary Riddle have "met". The first time Harry "failed to kill" Diary Riddle completely, but he doesn't fail the second time (hopefully). And one last indicator that maybe Harry time travels back to the Chamber of Secrets, brought to you by Fred and George: "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 p. 193 If I remember right, this collapsed secret passage has been mentioned more than once. Fred and George use it up through the winter of Harry's CoS year they don't specify exactly when they discover that it was collapsed they only say when they used it last. Maybe we get to see it collapse on the night that Harry and Time Traveler Harry enter the chamber of secrets. Is it likely that we will see Harry time travel to the Chamber of Secrets battle in Book 7? I'm not sure there is already a lot that needs to happen in Book 7 maybe too much to allow for this side trip to the Chamber. But I definitely think JKR left herself a good opening if she wants to take Harry back there. If you can remember way back at the beginning of this LONG post, I said that some posts here at HP for Grownups caused this stuff to jump out at me when I read through the scene. I wish I could track the post down I've searched for it and can't find it. The post examined the Battle at the Ministry of Magic, and concluded there was some evidence of time travel hidden in the details there. If someone knows where those posts are located, I'd appreciate some help finding them. Thanks, n_longbottom01 From h2so3f at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 23:25:12 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:25:12 -0000 Subject: 10 reasons why Snape is not evil...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144818 ~*~Sandy~*~ wrote: "Hi everyone I am new to this group and my name is Sandy I am 30 years old and I am a huge Potter fan and not afraid to say so." CH3ed: Hi Sandy. You've found a good group to hang with then. Welcome!! :O) Sandy wrote: "10. He (Snape) hates James Potter and what's even worse? His son Harry looks just like him! But even though this grudge is foolish it isn't enough to forget the fact that James was so cruel to him. Who doesn't love paybacks ...now, who's bullying who? Snape feels some sort of comfort in bullying Harry. CH3ed: I have to say I would expect a decent Snape to be able to restrain from taking the sins of the father out on the innocent son, though. This doesn't make Snape evil, but it does make him as bad a bully James ever was. Sandy wrote: "9.Why would you send an idiot like Quirrell to do such a lousy job when not only is Snape helping to protect the stone but in reach of it! Don't you think it would've been easier for Voldemort to use Snape instead of Quirrell???" CH3ed: LV used Quirrell in Book 1 because it was Quirrell who went to Albania and ran into LV in hiding (Quirrell tells Harry in 'The Man With Two Faces' in Book 1). Then when they got back to Hogwarts Snape was working loyally for DD so LV didn't make himself or his mission with Quirrell known to Snape because LV didn't trust him (thought he had changed camp to be on DD side for good). This was explained in Spinner's End (HBP). Sandy wrote: "8. A simple little diary isn't necessary to create such havoc. Couldn't Voldemort have told Snape to release the damn monstrosity of serpent?" CH3ed: LV did not trust Snape from Book 1 onward since Snape tried to prevent Quirrell(with LV on the back of his head) from obtaining the Philosopher's Stone. And the use of the diary to open the Chamber of Secrets in Book 2 was unauthorized by LV. Lucius Malfoy jumped the gun on that one for his own end(to get rid of DD and take over the school?). And LV is not happy about it (DD tells Harry somewhere in HBP) Sandy wrote: "7. Who wants to pay off a life/death debt. When Harry was clinging for dear life during the Quidditch match. Why not let him fall off and die. But no....Snape had to save Harry. Snape could have received a gran reward for that one...and in front of an audience and all." CH3ed: I don't think we know all there is to know about life debts yet. There may be consequences to refusing to repay such debt when the opportunity arises (I'd be surprised if Wormtail doesn't have something really bad happen to him in Book 7). Besides, Snape was a teacher. He was supposed to protect his students. What would DD do to him if Snape had let Harry fall off the cursed broom in his presence? Sandy wrote: "6. Do friends of enemies count as enemies also? Snape had Lupin in the palm of his hand all the time but Snape opted for the noble action of brewing his wolf drink every full moon. Do you think those poor kids would've survived having a werewolf lurking around the forest every full moon? And then come back to normality as a tired teacher." CH3ed: Again I don't think DD would take kindly to Snape messing up the Wolf's bane Potion. Snape is a good (very much an understatement in the light of the HBP) potion-master. I think if anything he would prefer to out duel Lupin rather than to have others think that Lupin get seriously ill or die because Snape brew a poor potion. That would reflect badly on him. Sandy wrote: "5. Snape comes across the Marauder's Map upon entering Lupin's room and runs after to see what is going on. He could have confiscated the map and the invisible cloak that was left just outside the whomping willow but he does nothing with both. Yet the advises both Harry and Ron that they are out of bounds in the company of a convicted murderer and a werewolf. If was truly evil he would've hid the map and cloak and used it to his advantage." CH3ed: He could have taken the map instead of leaving it on the desk, but then taking it wouldn't help much since the Shrieking Shack lies outside the map's scope (he saw Lupin running off the map's edge in the tunnel). Snape did take and made use of the invisibility cloak, however. He used it to sneak into the room and listened in on the discussion between Sirius, Lupin and the trio... before revealing himself after the story of The Prank was told. Sandy wrote: "4. Not only isn't Karkaroff present when the death eaters reunite with the reborn again Voldemort but Snape's missing too. If he was evil he would've been present. What else does Voldemort want? He had what he planned to do....he had Harry in the palm of his hand. Wouldn't that be enough for Snape to leave Hogwarts and re-enter Voldemorts service?" CH3ed: Snape was at Hogwarts patrolling the perimeter of the maze with the other teachers in view of the audience (and DD). If he is in league with LV he couldn't have just left without blowing his cover with DD. At the time the scar on his wrist was burning Harry had not returned from the graveyard yet. Nobody at the quidditch pitch- turned-maze(except for the fake Moody) knew that something had gone terribly wrong inside the maze. Snape didn't know LV's plan because the fake Moody didn't let him in on it(he hated the Deatheaters who walk free, remember?) and LV thought Snape had left him forever. (deduced from LV's speech at the graveyard and confirmed by Snape in 'Spinner's End' in HBP). Sandy wrote: "3. Snape gives Barty Crouch Jr. veritaserum.....therefore exposing thy enemy and sending him off to Azkaban for the second time. What about giving him fake serum like he did with Potter when Umbridge was around?" CH3ed: With DD and McGonagal watching? Sandy wrote: "2. Bellatrix doesn't trust Snape and if there's anyone more conniving it might as well be a woman. He had to make that unbreakable vow in order for her not to suspect anything." CH3ed: Yep, that I agree. Seems he might have gotten himself impelled upon his own sword with the third requirement of the vow. I'd say it was more Narcissa's fault, tho. Sandy wrote: "1. Occlumency, why teach the enemy the art of shutting out external penetration of the mind? Why not let Voldemort know that Harry can see what Voldemort is sensing and feeling. He could've damaged Harry for good had he let Voldemort know. Remember at the end of the sixth book when Snape warns Harry while trying to block Harry's attempts..."Blocked again and again and again until you learn to keep your mouth shut and you mind closed Potter! " Snape had Harry on the ground and Dumbledore dead. He could have taken Harry and delivered Harry himself to Voldemort but instead he left him there." CH3ed: DD ordered him to teach Harry it and DD is an excellent ligilimen himself. But I do think Snape was offering Harry some good lessons with those advises at the end of HBP and that he did protected Harry from the other DE's cruciatus curse. But why he did it can still go either way... he is DDM or he is ESE Snape (that really was what LV ordered) or even OFH Snape. I personally lean heavily toward Snape being on Dumbledore's Man (DDM), but also think he could just be out for himself (a true Slytherin). So we do agree he is not loyal to LV. I don't think Snape's stance is clear though. JKR has done a good job of leaving him leeway to go either way. CH3ed :O) From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Thu Dec 15 23:54:24 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:54:24 +0100 Subject: Ginny's Role in Book 7 (was: Re: Four ponderings) References: Message-ID: <014c01c601d2$e1425ae0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144819 > Betsy Hp: > Exactly! That's where JKR really fell down, I think. I once did a > reread of the series (up to OotP) just to look at how Ginny was > handled, and the character consitancy is just not there. Not like > it is with Neville or Draco (two other second string characters). > Or at least, I think JKR started out well, but OotP Ginny was a bit > of a jar. And HBP Ginny comes out of almost nowhere, IMO. > > [All page numbers reference scholastic editions. PS and CoS are > paperback, PoA and GoF are hardback.] Miles: Maybe some more talented (or diligent) listies could do the actual work (did I mention that I like to have ideas, but not to work them out?), but don't you forget about the major limitation of the entire series - the narrative perspective? I think you are right, we see several astounding jumps in her character development, especially in books 4 to 6. But - we see her through Harry's eyes. In book 4 he begins to see the difference between girls and boys. According to this, Ginny is totally out of his mind (she is just another Weasley), but Cho is not. In OoP, Ginny is more important, but Harry is still not aware of her as a girl. And in HBP - ok, she is *very* present. So, the details you found that may characterize her - are they reliable? The character development seems to be inaccurate due to a lack of interest on Harry's side. Especially in HBP most of the information about Ginny comes from Hermione - Harry seems to be surprised by nearly everything that she can tell him. More precisely: he only then gets the necessary background information to understand Ginny's behaviour. Neville is more important for Harry than Ginny is - until HBP. So, it is not too surprising that we see him better or more consistently characterised. Ok, maybe I'm wrong, it could really be JKR who is not very intently with Ginny. But it could be just Harry. Miles From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 01:11:03 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 01:11:03 -0000 Subject: Ginny's Role in Book 7 (was: Re: Four ponderings) In-Reply-To: <014c01c601d2$e1425ae0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144820 > >>Miles: > Maybe some more talented (or diligent) listies could do the actual > work (did I mention that I like to have ideas, but not to work > them out?), but don't you forget about the major limitation of the > entire series - the narrative perspective? > Betsy Hp: I did try to take the limitation of Harry's POV under consideration. And, frankly, it's not really a factor, IMO. Harry notices Ginny talking to Bill and her mom about Bill's hair (GoF), while the quidditch conversation is going on. I mean, yes, Ginny might talk quidditch after he's left the room, but if she's able to talk period, and she's supposed to be fairly quidditch mad (mad enough to sneak into the family broom shed, etc.) why would she let Bill's hair distract her from her passion? And Harry walks into the middle of the great table fight in GoF. Ginny is in the middle of an activity she started out of Harry's POV. What a perfect time to show her strutting her HBP stuff. She can blush and flub and flail *after* she notices Harry's joined them, but JKR doesn't take that opportunity. Which is why I don't think JKR spent much time thinking about her personality until it was time to set up the "Harry's perfect girl"!Ginny. > >>Miles: > So, the details you found that may characterize her - are they > reliable? The character development seems to be inaccurate due to > a lack of interest on Harry's side. Especially in HBP most of the > information about Ginny comes from Hermione - Harry seems to be > surprised by nearly everything that she can tell him. > Betsy Hp: *Harry* can be surprised, but the readers shouldn't be so badly shocked. We shouldn't be going "Quidditch? Wha...?" because we've been *around* Ginny. We should have had a chance to notice her excitment during the QWC, excitment that just wasn't there. We shouldn't be wondering when exactly Ginny became the third twin because she should have been following them around (or treated like their little mascot) throughout the books. (Instead, she seemed more attached to Percy and Ron -- something that totally changes in OotP and HBP.) Everything Hermione told Harry should have rung a bit true. Maybe filled in some blanks, but not come out of nowhere. JKR did a pretty good job of using discriptors that suggested Ginny was pretty throughout the series. (Her "bright brown eyes" in CoS, for example.) So Harry suddenly finding Ginny attractive didn't come out of nowhere for readers. It's her *character* that JKR fell down on, IMO. And she had plenty of places to do a better job. (Again, the movie GoF!Ginny has several beats that foreshadow OotP!Ginny. So I think it's JKR's problem, not the POV issue.) Betsy Hp (burning dinner -- ack!) From AllieS426 at aol.com Fri Dec 16 02:27:44 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 02:27:44 -0000 Subject: The Invisible Hand in the CoS - long In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144821 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "n_longbottom01" wrote: > When Harry learns how to > destroy a horcrux, he may realize that what he did in the Chamber > wasn't sufficient to destroy that part of Voldemort's soul. Harry > then decides to time travel back to the time of the battle, to make > sure that the Diary soul piece is entirely destroyed. He hides under > his invisibility cloak waiting for the diary to be stabbed so that he > can do what he needs to do. But suddenly, as he did by the lake in > the PoA, he finds that he can't just stand there and watch. He flips > the hat into the arms of his younger self, and then squeezes it to > make the sword appear. Allie: *That* is genius! My only objection is that Dumbledore seemed entirely convinced that the diary Horcrux had been destroyed. If something happens to make Harry realize that what he had done wasn't enough, Dumbledore should have realized that too. From agdisney at msn.com Thu Dec 15 22:51:29 2005 From: agdisney at msn.com (Andrea Grevera) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:51:29 -0500 Subject: No canon!! Re: Dumbledore in Gryffindor? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144822 Potioncat: > The Lexicon states that DD was Head of Gryffindor and that would > confirm that he was in Gryffindor. But I can't find the canon for that. Ceridwen: I guess I'm a victim of 'it seems like', too. Andie: At the Harry Potter Lexicon in an open letter to JKR the question was ask that If a teacher is head of a house can we assume that they were sorted into those houses when they were students at Hogwarts? Jo's response: yes. Is this canon? From mrcbolt at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 03:33:41 2005 From: mrcbolt at yahoo.com (Chad Bolt) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:33:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dementors and Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051216033341.82976.qmail@web60924.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144823 I was just curious about the dementors and the horcruxes. Do you think the Dementors could play a roll in removing Voldemorts soul or piece of soul from the horcruxes as Harry finds them? Chad. From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Dec 16 04:11:13 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 04:11:13 -0000 Subject: No canon!! Re: Dumbledore in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144824 > Andie: > At the Harry Potter Lexicon in an open letter to JKR the question was ask that If a teacher is head of a house can we assume that they were sorted into those houses when they were students at Hogwarts? Jo's response: yes. > Is this canon? Potioncat: It is canon that House follows one even beyond life. But I cannot find the canon that says that DD was ever a Head of any House. I cannot find canon that he was in Gryffindor. I don't think there is canon that he was Deputy Headmaster. We know he taught transfigurations; that he seemed to weld authority over some policies; that he became Headmaster. I have no doubt that he was Head of Gryffindor. I just don't see the canon. I think Hermione's statement is intended as canon for his being Gryffindor, but I accept that Miles has a point that it isn't a firm statement. It's just a bit of LOONacy on my part, inspired by Miles. > From hhbarmaid at gmail.com Fri Dec 16 05:04:56 2005 From: hhbarmaid at gmail.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 05:04:56 -0000 Subject: No canon!! Re: Dumbledore in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144825 > > > Andie: > > At the Harry Potter Lexicon in an open letter to JKR the question > was ask that If a teacher is head of a house can we assume that they > were sorted into those houses when they were students at Hogwarts? > Jo's response: yes. > > Is this canon? > > Potioncat: > It is canon that House follows one even beyond life. > But I cannot find the canon that says that DD was ever a Head of any > House. I cannot find canon that he was in Gryffindor. I don't think > there is canon that he was Deputy Headmaster. > > We know he taught transfigurations; that he seemed to weld authority > over some policies; that he became Headmaster. > > I have no doubt that he was Head of Gryffindor. I just don't see the > canon. I think Hermione's statement is intended as canon for his > being Gryffindor, but I accept that Miles has a point that it isn't a > firm statement. > > It's just a bit of LOONacy on my part, inspired by Miles. Barmaid now: Someone up thread, Geoff I think, already pointed this out but as it seems to have come up again: In PS/SS (pg 106 U.S. hardcover) Hermione says: "Do either of you know what house you'll be in? I've been asking around, and I hope I'm in Gryffindor, it sounds by far the best; I hear Dumbledore himself was in it..." This is obviously not definitive -- but it is a strong indication for DD being a Gryffindor. From juli17 at aol.com Fri Dec 16 05:24:59 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:24:59 EST Subject: Forgiving Snape was FF: Re: Who does Snape really hate? Message-ID: <290.2438f75.30d3a9ab@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144826 > Potioncat: > Consider the time too. Snape taunted Black in December. The Battle > happened in June. Big gap. In HBP Snape takes some claim to aiding in > Black's death. How about this possibility for DDM!Snape. LV plans to > hurt someone Harry loves to lure Harry into a trap. He asks Snape for > a name of the person Harry loves most. Snape wouldn't want to give > him Ron or Hermione, so he gives him the name of an Order member. A > grown up: Sirius Black. Therefore, he helped capture Black. > La Gatta: And also gets rid of a deeply hated personal enemy. I can't imagine Snape was comfortable sharing the Order of the Phoenix with Sirius, even if you disallow my personal subtext. And Dumbledore certainly rubbed Snape's nose in the fact that he was going to have to do so. (I really do think, considering that he was sending Snape off on a potentially fatal mission, that Dumbledore might have spared Snape having to shake hands with the guy.) Julie: Snape may have told LV that Sirius was important to Harry, but that only led to both Sirius and Harry's presence at the DoM, each there out of fear for the other. Sirius *didn't* have to die there. His death couldn't even be assumed likely by Snape or anyone else, when we consider all the others at the Ministry managed to survive. Sirius didn't die because he was *there* with everyone else, but because he took Bellatrix so lightly. It is easy to see why Harry would blame himself, as several people had some hand in getting Sirius to the Ministry, including Harry, Dumbledore and Snape. (Though none so much as Voldemort, of course.) And it's easy to see why he would transfer that blame to Snape, a man he greatly dislikes, when he's already suffering so much from his loss that self-recriminations aren't something he can handle at the moment. Nor is Harry ready to acknowledge that Sirius's own recklessness played a far greater role in his death than anything he, or Snape, did or didn't do. It's also easy to see Snape taking his very small part (if taunting a man he's traded insults with since childhood even contributed to Sirius's impetuous actions) and enlarging it to convince Bellatrix of his loyalty to Voldemort. And fortunately, Bellatrix is stupid. Voldemort is less so, I suspect, which will one day come back to bite Snape right in the--but that's another subject! Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From steve at hp-lexicon.org Fri Dec 16 05:59:56 2005 From: steve at hp-lexicon.org (hp_lexicon) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 05:59:56 -0000 Subject: Timelines (was No canon!! Dumbledore in Gryffindor?) In-Reply-To: <027c01c5ff6a$870ed680$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144827 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > > Miles, still waiting for an answer from the Lexicon > We haven't been ignoring you, I promise you. We've been having an internal discussion about how certain we find Hermione's statement in book one that she's "heard that Dumbledore was in Gryffindor." Technically, we can't be absolutely certain that what Hermione is saying is actually true, so by strict interpretation of canon, we don't know that Dumbledore was in Gryffindor. However, in my judgement, Rowling wrote this sentence intending to say that Dumbledore was in Gryffindor. There is no reason whatsoever for this sentence to be here otherwise. There are plenty of other clues in the books to support the idea that Dumbledore is a Gryffindor, from the griffon door knocker on his door to the fact that he breaks school rules to help the Gryffindor Quidditch team build a team after a disasterous season the year before. Even more convincing is the simple fact that Rowling has put all the "good guys" in Gryffindor, including Hagrid, James, Remus, etc. So in the end it's up to you to decide what you want to believe. As for the Lexicon, we'll edit the pages to reflect the slight uncertainty in canon. We are convinced, however, that canon places Dumbledore in Gryffindor. Steve The Lexicon From va32h at comcast.net Fri Dec 16 06:50:22 2005 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:50:22 -0000 Subject: Ginny's Role in Book 7 (was: Re: Four ponderings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144828 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Betsy Hp wrote: > *Harry* can be surprised, but the readers shouldn't be so badly > shocked. We shouldn't be going "Quidditch? Wha...?" because we've > been *around* Ginny. We should have had a chance to notice her > excitment during the QWC, excitment that just wasn't there. We > shouldn't be wondering when exactly Ginny became the third twin > because she should have been following them around (or treated like > their little mascot) throughout the books. va32h: I guess I'm not understanding why Ginny "should have" done this or that. Particularly in regard to the twins. The twins have routinely been dismissive of Ginny, to the point where they don't know any more about her than Harry (or the reader, for that matter). Why should Ginny foist herself on the pair of brothers who are the most likely to tease, prank, and pester her? It makes more sense to me that she would withdraw, develop her own talents and personality, and then come back to the table when she is truly a match for Fred and George. But then, I speak as a little sister who was also mercilessly teased by two older brothers. Betsy Hp wrote: > Everything Hermione told Harry should have rung a bit true. Maybe > filled in some blanks, but not come out of nowhere. JKR did a > pretty good job of using discriptors that suggested Ginny was pretty > throughout the series. (Her "bright brown eyes" in CoS, for > example.) So Harry suddenly finding Ginny attractive didn't come > out of nowhere for readers. It's her *character* that JKR fell down > on, IMO. And she had plenty of places to do a better job. va32h: Well I do agree that Ginny has been something of an insta-character (just add water, and watch her suddenly become a vital part of the plot!) Hermione's knowledge of Ginny did come out of nowhere for Harry and the reader, but I didn't find it contradictory, because I thought that Ginny was a bit of a blank slate in the first four books anyway. There wasn't anything to contradict! The examples that you cited in your previous post don't strike me as anything more sinister than the difference between 11 and 15. Hadn't Harry changed a bit between the ages of 11 and 15. Many readers were shocked at ANGRY!HARRY! in OoTP - such a departure from his previous self. Ginny in HBP is the age Harry was in OoTP. Perhaps in the wizarding world, one undergoes a personality reversal at the age of 15? Okay, that was facetious, but I honestly don't see the difference between Harry's adolescent personality changes and Ginny's. va32h From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 05:50:51 2005 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 05:50:51 -0000 Subject: Cultural standards, nasty teachers, abused children/ JKR quote new for me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144829 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: > > > But hasn't this already happened? Snape's 'commupance' for his > treatment of Neville I thought was the Boggart scene in PoA, where the > whole school was sniggering at him (and there was the little > reinforcement of the vulture hat D-dore gave him at Christmas). No, Sydney, it hasn't. While amusing, the punishment did put a "seal" on the crime in the way that Lockheart's punishment did. It was an amusing way station, just as Dumbledore's goading of Snape into helpless fury was an amusing way station. However, it does not constitute appropriate punishment or karmic retribution for Snape's child abuse, as it does not address the entire gestalt of the character (and indeed could not as Snape's ultimate role has not yet been played out). > I must have missed the part where the Dursley's were punished-- I > thought they were just confused and annoyed by Dumbledore. True, and in that sense the Dursleys punishment has not yet happened, either. I do think it has probably begun, however. Dumbledore does seem to be a very Old Testament figure in that chapter, does he not? And the pronouncements of Old Testament prophets were seldom uttered without consequence. I suspect when all is said and done that Dumbledore's visit will figure as part of a greater movement in the Harry Potter symphony. I do agree that JKR likes to put characters in bad situations. In fact, I will go so far as to agree with Betsy that it is often extraordinarily off-putting. The off-putting part, however, I think is largely a result of the problem of three again and JKR letting the narrative get away from her. I really don't think she sees pain as a shared human universal (in the sense of making it consciously a main theme of her writing, although I'm sure she would agree with the statement, as would almost everyone). Rather, I think she is trying to keep her readership involved. I think she really does think that things are more interesting for readers the more extreme she makes the situations in which she puts her characters. Judging by her rather weary reaction the last couple of times people have asked her about Sirius, I think she was very surprised at the reaction she got, and has come to an extent to understand that what she meant to be interesting and involving in fact struck many people as ham-fisted, manipulative, and unnecessary -- and perhaps even cruel. We need to remember that JKR is, in fact, not all that experienced of a writer. The Harry Potter series is her first major sale -- and what a sale it was! Going over the top with dramatic situations and emotion-laden themes is a common failing of inexperienced writers, and is not at all unknown among authors with vastly greater verbiage under their belt than JKR. In a very real way, HP represents a learning experience for JKR, as it is the VERY first series she's ever done and the VERY first time she's had to learn the power of the problem of three. One of the most difficult lessons an author has to learn, whatever the genre, is that less is often more and one episode of intense depression, for instance, can often be more moving and involving than a series of episodes leading to untimely death, which sometimes just comes off as overwrought and unnecessary. Similarly one challenge for a particular character, whoever it is, can be very engaging and interesting, while an unending series of challenges - particularly an unending series of challenges of the same type - can get tedious and, at times, downright annoying. It also makes it much more forced to get to the type of ending I strongly suspect JKR is heading for -- the kind that has the characters linking arms in a rousing chorus of "Ding, Dong, the Wizard's Dead! Which old Wizard? The Snake-Faced Wizard!" You are right, I have no doubt that there will be major suffering for many characters in Book VII. I will probably find myself agreeing with Betsy yet again that much of it (although not the variety related to karmic backlash) is unnecessary and offputting. However, the REALLY interesting thing in this context will not be so much what happens in Book VII, as how JKR is dealing with these kinds of themes two series down the road, regardless of the genre that series represents. I would be very surprised if that second or third series down the road is not considerably muted and exhibits a much more skillful and delicate handling of dramatic situations and charged emotional themes as compared with HP. Lupinlore From va32h at comcast.net Fri Dec 16 06:59:28 2005 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:59:28 -0000 Subject: The Invisible Hand in the CoS - long In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144830 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "n_longbottom01" wrote: > Whose invisible hand was it? Here's my guess: Maybe it takes more > than a jab with a basilisk fang to entirely destroy a horcrux. We > have only seen Harry (apparently) destroy one horcrux?the Riddle > Diary. Dumbledore destroyed the ring, but we don't know how he did > it, and he was injured in the process. When Harry learns how to > destroy a horcrux, he may realize that what he did in the Chamber > wasn't sufficient to destroy that part of Voldemort's soul. Harry > then decides to time travel back to the time of the battle, to make > sure that the Diary soul piece is entirely destroyed. He hides under > his invisibility cloak waiting for the diary to be stabbed so that he > can do what he needs to do. But suddenly, as he did by the lake in > the PoA, he finds that he can't just stand there and watch. He flips > the hat into the arms of his younger self, and then squeezes it to > make the sword appear. The things that Time Traveling Harry does > while in the Chamber of Secrets are subtly mentioned in the passage > from CoS that I quoted above. va32h: Hmm. Interesting. I don't agree that an older, Time-Traveling Harry is in the Chamber, assisting his younger self. I feel this way because I think it is crucial to the story that Harry, even at the age of 12, can battle and defeat Voldemort with nothing but his pure heart and loyalty to Dumbledore (which is what allows Fawkes and the Sorting Hat to render their aid). Having an older Harry come back and save his younger self would negate that, so I don't think it works, thematically. (In PoA, even though Harry saved himself, it's still 13 y.o. Harry saving 13 y.o. Harry). But I do think Harry will time travel again. Firstly, because JKR was suitably coy when asked if Harry would do so, and secondly, because of a long complicated theory I have about the series being a set of mirrored books, revolving around GoF, in which book 3 is the mirror of book 7. But that is for another day and another post! va32h From lszydlowski at hotmail.com Fri Dec 16 12:58:26 2005 From: lszydlowski at hotmail.com (Lynete) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:58:26 -0000 Subject: Theory: Writing GoF Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144831 Ok, fellow students. Let's see a show of hands: how many have re-read GoF to prepare for or check up on the GoF movie? (counts hands) That's what I thought. Well, I did too, and here's what struck me about it: -I believe she originally intended Mad-Eye Moody to actually BE Moody, not Barty Crouch Jr. on Polyjuice. There are an awful lot of remarks Moody makes and things he does which are difficult to explain away as Polyjuice!Moody. I know over the years many of us have made valiant efforts to justify these things, but in light of HBP!Snape, I think we can reevaluate the GoF text in a new light. We know polyjuice only makes the user LOOK like the person they are impersonating, not ACT like them. This is after all why there has been speculation about Tonk's behavior in HBP. Barty Crouch Jr. certainly didn't have the time (and I suspect he also didn't have the patience and attentivieness to detail in his personality) to impersonate Moody's behavior in enough detail to fool those who knew him well. Consider his kindness to Neville after the Unforgivable Curse DADA class ? if this was Polyjuice!Moody merely wanting Neville to get the book on magical water plants, he could have come up with a more forthright way to do so. There is no reason for a Death Eater to teach Harry how to RESIST the Imperious Curse (as Mistful humorously points out in a pointedly humorous spoof of the GoF movie). Why encourage the kids to consider being Aurors? Why bother annoying Lucius Malfoy, a fellow DE, by Transfiguring and assaulting his son? I'm convinced Rowling wrote the scenes with Moody AS Moody, later changed her mind (see the reason for this below)and rewrote vast sections of the book. She has stated she felt GoF was her 'sloppiest' book, and I think this is what she meant! -I believe JKR intended to bring Snape `out of the closet' in Book 4. I think that's why the Karkaroff/Dark Mark subplot was in there. Again, I think she changed her mind (as she stated with her original intention to put the Half-Blood Prince subplot in CoS). There are an awful lot of things this explains away ? Snape offering to make apologies for Karkaroff could mean making those excuses to Voldemort & Co., NOT to Dumbledore and the Triwizard judges. This also makes Voldemort's accounting of missing Death Eaters makes more sense. After HBP we know now Snape is high in LV's confidences, that makes HIM the loyal servant at Hogwarts. -I think the Barty Crouch Jr. character was an afterthought. Because JKR changed her mind about having Snape `come out' in this book and needed someone else to take the place of Voldemort's 'most loyal' servant. The Barty Crouch Jr. subplot led to the creation of Winky and eventually S.P.E.W., which may be amusing but does muddy the plot. Finally, she gets rid of Barty pretty quickly in the end, a convenient deus ex machina. It's interesting how you can read the book, ignore the Barty Crouch Jr. parts, and still have a good story. You end up with the Moody we all know and love intact, and with Snape as the guy with questionable loyalties we ended up with in HBP. Jo may never describe the details of the parts of the plot she shuffled around in writing the series, but I think this is a case where we can see a place she did. Sorry if anyone else has previously posted similar ideas - this forum is difficult to search! From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Fri Dec 16 13:09:14 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:09:14 -0000 Subject: JKR ITN interview , July 16 2005. Some excerpts and questions. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144832 > Alla: > > "Scott Ballard for the Bookseller - will the Lord Voldemort ever > found out what the Prophecy fully said? > > JK Rowling : That is one of those very good questions that I don't > think I can answer. I am sorry, that is always very frustrating, but > the most penetrating questions generally I cannot answer because > they could give a lot away, so I would I am not going to answer > that. Sorry." > > Alla: > > Now THAT is confusing to me. Why Voldemort finding out about whole > prophecy would be significant? What obvious thing am I missing? I > mean, besides finding out that either he or Harry has to die? > > I see him finding out during the final confrontation and being very > surprised or something like that, but why else it could be > significant? > Brothergib writes; Some time ago, I posted a theory entitled 'Incomplete Prophecy'. Basically, it compared the prophecy we had heard first hand between Harry and Trelawney, and the prophecy DD had relayed to Harry. The first was a completely constructed sentence. If the second prophecy, as we heard it, is complete then (1) it has a very different structure from the first and (2) it contains truly atrocious English. Considering JKR's previous job as a teacher, I find the second point unlikely. IMO, this suggests that DD only let Harry hear certain snippets of the whole prophecy, and that actually the full prophecy provides a huge clue as to how everything will work out. As you said Alla, if it is a complete prophecy, then Voldemort gains no extra advantage from hearing the prophecy in full!! Brothergib From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Fri Dec 16 13:15:48 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:15:48 -0000 Subject: Snape AND Love Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144833 Excerpt from 'The Connection (WBUR Radio)' transcript, 12 Oct 1999. Lydon: Er - one of our connec- ... one of our internet correspondents wondered if Snape is going to fall in love? JKR: Yeah? Who on earth would want Snape in love with them, that is a very horrible idea. Erm ... Lydon: But you'd get an important kind of redemptive pattern to Snape JKR: It is, isn't it ... I got ... There's so much I wish I could say to you, and I can't because it'd ruin ... I promise you ... whoever asked that question, can I just say to you that I'm - I'm slightly stunned that you've said that - erm - and you'll find out why I'm so stunned if you read book 7. And that's all I'm going to say. So JKR has admitted that there is an association between Snape & Love in book 7. From a narrative point of view, it would seem very unlikely that JKR would make this a negative interaction. IMO, this indicates that Snape makes some kind of positive impact on the outcome of book 7. Brothergib From bianca.slate at gmail.com Fri Dec 16 04:44:30 2005 From: bianca.slate at gmail.com (buvuturo) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 04:44:30 -0000 Subject: A Question of Which Book Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144834 In the US paperback edition of POA, Chapter 14, page 285, paragraph 2, Harry finally snaps and tells Snape to shut up about his father. He says that Dumbledore has told him the truth: that James Potter saved Snape's life, and Snape wouldn't even be there if not for his father. Paragraphs 4 and 6 are Snape's response, wherein he states that most likely Dumbledore hadn't told the full story, out of concern for Harry's delicate sensabilities. He says that there was nothing of bravery or glory in it, that James did it solely to save his own skin, since he would have been expelled if the deadly prank had been allowed to complete itself and result in Snape's death. My question is, where does Dumbledore tell Harry about the origin of "Snape's Grudge"(as the POA chapter is named)? Which book is it in? I've wanted to refer back to it, only to find it eluding me. Thanks for any assistance. Bianca From latha272 at indiatimes.com Fri Dec 16 08:08:19 2005 From: latha272 at indiatimes.com (scamjunk22) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 08:08:19 -0000 Subject: offbeat - and must have been discussed to the pulp before too.. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144835 Sorry people, if I am asking something that has already been discussed to the hilt before... but this was such a nagging doubt that I had to post.... We see in GoF that the portkey and the Apparating are used with the same purpose ... to transport to some other place. Then, how is it that PortKeys work inside the Hogwarts grounds! Isn't it possible then, that Draco need not have spent an entire year repairing the Vanishing cabinet... instead they could have just conjured a portkey and come there! We have seen a DE conjuring the portkey to go out of and come back into Hogwarts before (GoF)... and from the Ministry to Hogwarts in OotP... so why wasn't it thought of? regards, scam. From latha272 at indiatimes.com Fri Dec 16 09:30:13 2005 From: latha272 at indiatimes.com (scamjunk22) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:30:13 -0000 Subject: 7 Horcruxes - Shock & outrage!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144836 Geoff provided this quote: > '"But now, Harry, armed with this information, the crucial memory > you have succeeded in procuring for us, we are closer to the secret > of finishing Lord Voldemort than anyone has ever been before. You > heard him, Harry: 'Wouldn't it be better, make you stronger, to > have your soul in more pieces... isn't seven the most powerfully > magical number...' /Isn't seven the most powerfully magical > number./ Yes, I think the idea of a seven-part soul would greatly > appeal to Lord Voldemort." > "He made /seven/ Horcruxes?" said Harry, horror-struck, while > several of the portraits on the walls made similar noises of shock > and outrage. "But they could be anywhere in the world - hidden - > buried or invisible -"' > (ibid. p.470) Now this is part of another thread that was discussing the number of horcruxes and their after-causes, but this particular reply sent my mind spinning!! I remember that at the end of HBP, Mcgonagall *asks* HP for info on what he and DD were doing that night and any other info that DD might have shared with him (? is the second assumption right? I think I need to read those last few pages all over again... I might as well not do it as I can't read DD's death all over again!!). In OotP, the portraits tell that it is their bounden duty to serve the present Headmaster (or headmistress in this case), so couldn't it be possible that McGonagall would know for sure about the 7 horcruxes thing?? That is, if she asks them for the info, she can get it. HP is DDM, but the portraits are there to serve her now. Wouldn't DD's portrait itself not tell her all she wants to know? Why ask HP and then be angry with him for not telling???? scam. From lolita_ns at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 14:24:32 2005 From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:24:32 -0000 Subject: Dementors and Horcruxes In-Reply-To: <20051216033341.82976.qmail@web60924.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144837 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Chad Bolt wrote: > > > I was just curious about the dementors and the horcruxes. Do you think the Dementors could play a roll in removing Voldemorts soul or piece of soul from the horcruxes as Harry finds them? > > > Chad. > Lolita: I've thought about this, too, and I think that they do seem convenient to do something about the bits of soul. Besides, I think that not enough has been said *about* them. They have been important since book 3, where they played a major role as the villains of the piece (with no LV and PP only showing up at the end). In book 4 the dementor that destroyed Crouch Jnr effectively helped LV to stay hidden, and the two in book 5 caused major problems for Harry. However, not much has been said about them, except for the fact that they have constantly been described as evil and foul. But the problem, as I see it, is how to make Dementors obey you? Or at least, how to tell them that you want them to suck the pieces of soul hidden in Horcruxes (if the Horcrux is said to be the *object* in which sb has hidden part of their soul) without having them trying to do it to *you* instead? Do you make a pact with them of some kind - is that how the MoM controlled them up to a cetrain point? I have no theory about that. But I definitely think that we shall hear more of them. Cheers, Lolita From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Dec 16 14:44:02 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:44:02 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Timelines (was No canon!! Dumbledore in Gryffindor?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43A2D2B2.8030601@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144838 hp_lexicon wrote: > We haven't been ignoring you, I promise you. We've been having an > internal discussion about how certain we find Hermione's statement > in book one that she's "heard that Dumbledore was in Gryffindor." Seriously, can anybody who is involved in this discussion explain why it matters? One of the themes I see in the books is that House rivalry becomes kind of irrelevant when people like the self-styled Lord Voldemort are running around. Bart From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 16 15:06:42 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:06:42 -0000 Subject: A Question of Which Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144839 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "buvuturo" wrote: > > In the US paperback edition of POA, Chapter 14, page 285, paragraph 2, > Harry finally snaps and tells Snape to shut up about his father. He > says that Dumbledore has told him the truth: that James Potter saved > Snape's life, and Snape wouldn't even be there if not for his father. > > Paragraphs 4 and 6 are Snape's response, wherein he states that most > likely Dumbledore hadn't told the full story, out of concern for > Harry's delicate sensabilities. He says that there was nothing of > bravery or glory in it, that James did it solely to save his own skin, > since he would have been expelled if the deadly prank had been allowed > to complete itself and result in Snape's death. > My question is, where does Dumbledore tell Harry about the origin of > "Snape's Grudge"(as the POA chapter is named)? > > Which book is it in? I've wanted to refer back to it, only to find it > eluding me. > > Thanks for any assistance. > > Bianca Geoff: The following might be what you are looking for.... '"Quirrell said Snape -" "Professor Snape, Harry" "Yes, him - Quirrell said he hates me because he hated my father. Is that true?" "Well, they did rather detest each other. Not unlike yourself and Mr. Malfoy. And then, your father did something Snape could never forgive." "What?" "He saved his life." "/What/?" "Yes... said Dumbledore dreamily. "Funny, the way people's minds work, isn't it? Prefessor Snape coldn't bear being in your father's debt. I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year because he felt that would make him and your father quits. Then he could go back to hating your father in peace..." Harry tried to understand this but it made his head pound, so he stopped.' (PS "The Man with Two Faces" p.217 UK edition) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 16 15:14:34 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:14:34 -0000 Subject: offbeat - and must have been discussed to the pulp before too.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144840 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scamjunk22" wrote: scam: > Sorry people, if I am asking something that has already been discussed > to the hilt before... but this was such a nagging doubt that I had to > post.... > > We see in GoF that the portkey and the Apparating are used with the > same purpose ... to transport to some other place. Then, how is it that > PortKeys work inside the Hogwarts grounds! Isn't it possible then, > that Draco need not have spent an entire year repairing the Vanishing > cabinet... instead they could have just conjured a portkey and come > there! We have seen a DE conjuring the portkey to go out of and > come back into Hogwarts before (GoF)... and from the Ministry to > Hogwarts in OotP... so why wasn't it thought of? Geoff: because, basically, anyone of age can take the Apparating exam and then use it freely. Portkeys have to be authorised and they also have to be set up which means that you also need a suitable object to make one... 'He (Dumbledore) walked away from the pool to the place where the golden wizard's head lay on the floor. He pointed his wand at it and muttered "Portus" The head glowedblue and trembled noisily against the wooden floor for a few seconds then became still once more. "Now, see here, Dumbledore!" said Fudge, as Dumbledore picked up the head and walked back to Harry carrying it. "You haven't got authorisation for that Portkey! You can't do things like that right in front of the Minister for Magic, you - you -"' (OOTP "The Only One He Ever Feared" p.722 UK edition) From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Fri Dec 16 15:15:18 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:15:18 -0000 Subject: Snape's Self-Perception as Teacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144841 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > > > > Miles: > > ... that Snape's main problem with teaching potions - besides > > his very unpleasant character - is the subject. He loves it! > > And most certainly most students do not share his love for > > potionmaking. ... he doesn't want to see students mishandling > > his beloved potions. > bboyminn: > > Between what you've said and what Sonja said in post# 144800 in this > same thread, I think we may be onto something. > > I can understand the frustration that many teachers have with their > students. The students are so wrapped up in their teen-pop-culutre > lives that they can't give a thought to the future. I imagine that > every teacher at one time or another (most likely on a daily basis) > has had the uncontrollable urge to take a student firmly by the > collar, shake them vigorously, and scream in their face, "This is > important! This is your future! THIS MATTERS!". > I'm also reminded of Shaun's Snape-like teachers. These were teacher > who, much like Snape, MADE YOU take their class seriously. The more > you resisted; the more they demanded. There was only excellence, and > everything else was failure. So, in Snape's class, if you don't keep > up or perform at his standard, he will drag you kicking and screaming > into compliance. Marianne: I've always felt that Snape had a deep apprciation and respect, if not love, for Potions. He may very well be one of those teachers who is ultimately unsatisfied with teaching. Not because of how his students do - Snape seems to be able to get most, if not all, of his students, where they need to be. But, perhaps because none of them do this with any real passion for the subject or any deep appreciation of the beauty, as Snape sees it, of Potions. He almost makes me think of great athletes who fail as coaches. These people have all the gifts, but can't necessarily make the less-gifted improve beyond a certain level. Marianne From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 16 15:26:23 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:26:23 -0000 Subject: 7 Horcruxes - Shock & outrage!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144842 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scamjunk22" wrote: > > Geoff provided this quote: > > '"But now, Harry, armed with this information, the crucial memory > > you have succeeded in procuring for us, we are closer to the secret > > of finishing Lord Voldemort than anyone has ever been before. You > > heard him, Harry: 'Wouldn't it be better, make you stronger, to > > have your soul in more pieces... isn't seven the most powerfully > > magical number...' /Isn't seven the most powerfully magical > > number./ Yes, I think the idea of a seven-part soul would greatly > > appeal to Lord Voldemort." > > "He made /seven/ Horcruxes?" said Harry, horror-struck, while > > several of the portraits on the walls made similar noises of shock > > and outrage. "But they could be anywhere in the world - hidden - > > buried or invisible -"' > > (ibid. p.470) scam: > Now this is part of another thread that was discussing the number of > horcruxes and their after-causes, but this particular reply sent > my mind spinning!! I remember that at the end of HBP, Mcgonagall *asks* HP for info on what he and DD were doing that night and any other info that DD might have shared with him (? is the second assumption right? I think I need to read those last few pages all over again... I might as well not do it as I can't read DD's death all over again!!). > > In OotP, the portraits tell that it is their bounden duty to serve the present Headmaster (or headmistress in this case), so couldn't it be possible that McGonagall would know for sure about the 7 horcruxes thing?? That is, if she asks them for the info, she can get it. HP is DDM, but the portraits are there to serve her now. Wouldn't DD's portrait itself not tell her all she wants to know? Why ask HP and then be angry with him for not telling???? Geoff: (1) It may not have occurred to her to consult the portraits since she was asking Harry who was standing directly and she may well not be thinking straight at that moment due to her distress. (2) Althought she went straight to Dumbledore's office because "...apparently she was now Headmistress... so the room behind the gargoyle was now hers..." (HBP "The Phoenix Lament" p.683 UK edition), I wonder whether some form of official confirmation of her status would need to be made before the portraits could be approached. In a real world UK situation, if a Headteacher died or was not available for some other reason, the Deputy Head might be appointed as Acting Head pending inviting applicants to take over (or pending confirmation by the governors which might happen in a Public School scenario). From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Fri Dec 16 15:39:26 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:39:26 -0000 Subject: offbeat - and must have been discussed to the pulp before too.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144843 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scamjunk22" > wrote: > > scam: > > Sorry people, if I am asking something that has already been > discussed > > to the hilt before... but this was such a nagging doubt that I had > to > > post.... > > > > We see in GoF that the portkey and the Apparating are used with the > > same purpose ... to transport to some other place. Then, how is it > that > > PortKeys work inside the Hogwarts grounds! Isn't it possible then, > > that Draco need not have spent an entire year repairing the > Vanishing > > cabinet... instead they could have just conjured a portkey and come > > there! We have seen a DE conjuring the portkey to go out of and > > come back into Hogwarts before (GoF)... and from the Ministry to > > Hogwarts in OotP... so why wasn't it thought of? > > Geoff: > because, basically, anyone of age can take the Apparating exam and > then use it freely. > > Portkeys have to be authorised and they also have to be set up which > means that you also need a suitable object to make one... > > 'He (Dumbledore) walked away from the pool to the place where the > golden wizard's head lay on the floor. He pointed his wand at it and > muttered "Portus" The head glowedblue and trembled noisily against > the wooden floor for a few seconds then became still once more. > "Now, see here, Dumbledore!" said Fudge, as Dumbledore picked up the > head and walked back to Harry carrying it. "You haven't got > authorisation for that Portkey! You can't do things like that right > in front of the Minister for Magic, you - you -"' > > (OOTP "The Only One He Ever Feared" p.722 UK edition) Marianne: Yes, Portkeys are supposed to be authorized, but obeying the law doesn't strike me as something the DEs worry their pointy, little heads about. And we know from GoF that a suitable object could simply be an old shoe. Why a DE couldn't create a portkey from wherever he/they were and use it for Grayback and friends to get to Hogwarts at an opportune time is still unexplained. Is there some sort of magical alarm generated if someone creates and uses an unauthorized portkey? Would that attract Aurors or some other official Ministry people who would then be able to detect where the illegal portkey transported whoever used it? If so that could explain why this wasn't used. Also, we don't know how quickly Draco could communicate with people on the outside. If Draco had to try to kill DD when an opportunity suddenly presented itself, rather than relying on a specific plan with a timetable that both he and the other DEs knew of in advance, would he have been able to contact his DE allies to get them to Hogwarts right away? If not, the other DEs wouldn't know when to create an illegal portkey to get to Hogwarts. The Vanishing Cabinet served quite nicely to allow for communication and secrecy. Draco realizes DD has left with Harry, pops through to Borgin's to rally the troops and they all get back into Hogwarts with no one the wiser. Marianne From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 16 16:05:50 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:05:50 -0000 Subject: Ginny's Role in Book 7 (was: Re: Four ponderings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144844 > Betsy Hp: > I did try to take the limitation of Harry's POV under consideration. > And, frankly, it's not really a factor, IMO. Harry notices Ginny > talking to Bill and her mom about Bill's hair (GoF), while the > quidditch conversation is going on. I mean, yes, Ginny might talk > quidditch after he's left the room, but if she's able to talk > period, and she's supposed to be fairly quidditch mad (mad enough to > sneak into the family broom shed, etc.) why would she let Bill's > hair distract her from her passion? Pippin: Ginny is concealing her Quidditch passion from her whole family, not just Harry. Speaking as someone who was also the little sister in a very competitive family, I can understand why she would. Look at all the patronizing and teasing Ron has to put up with from the twins whenever he shows signs of being good at anything. Maybe the twins would have accepted her as a mascot. But not everybody wants to be a mascot. Harry doesn't, for one. He hasn't any use at all for tagalongs. Betsy Hp: > And Harry walks into the middle of the great table fight in GoF. > Ginny is in the middle of an activity she started out of Harry's > POV. What a perfect time to show her strutting her HBP stuff. She > can blush and flub and flail *after* she notices Harry's joined > them, but JKR doesn't take that opportunity. Which is why I don't > think JKR spent much time thinking about her personality until it > was time to set up the "Harry's perfect girl"!Ginny. Pippin: It's enough to have Harry in the house. Like having a Beatle, or the President. Just because he's not in sight doesn't mean you could forget he's there. Especially if you have an embarrassing memory of running into him while wearing your nightdress. > > Betsy Hp: > *Harry* can be surprised, but the readers shouldn't be so badly > shocked. We shouldn't be going "Quidditch? Wha...?" because we've > been *around* Ginny. We should have had a chance to notice her > excitment during the QWC, excitment that just wasn't there. We > shouldn't be wondering when exactly Ginny became the third twin > because she should have been following them around (or treated like > their little mascot) throughout the books. (Instead, she seemed more > attached to Percy and Ron -- something that totally changes in OotP > and HBP.) Pippin: I think you're trying to make Ginny fit the mold of a romantic heroine, and as a romantic heroine, she fails. She's not. She's an epic character, like Harry himself. What I mean is, she doesn't change dramatically over the course of the story. The drama is in our discovery of what she's always been. Her abilities are *supposed* to be a surprise, just as we're surprised to find that Harry is a natural at flying. But her basic personality doesn't change much. Ron and Hermione, as the more romantic characters, actually have to develop their courage and their guile. Harry and Ginny find it already within themselves. Young Ginny perceives Harry only as a celebrity "famous, good, great Harry Potter" and this mask in turn masks her real self from him. We should get to see the moment when she finally realizes he's only human, and we do. It's in GoF, when she finds that he's not only got feet of clay, he occasionally sticks them in his mouth two at a time. Ginny was a horcrux, of a sort. I wouldn't be surprised if she has some abillities that could come in useful for finding and destroying them. Pippin From pegdigrazia at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 15:31:09 2005 From: pegdigrazia at yahoo.com (Peg DiGrazia) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 07:31:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ginny's Role in Book 7 (was: Re: Four ponderings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051216153110.47997.qmail@web42205.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144845 va32h: <> Peg: You say that facetiously, but, although I agree that a lot of Ginny's character development seems to come out of left field, I believe hitting puberty plays a greater part in it than most people consider. I teach a middle school chorus and regularly see girls who were sweet and quiet in 7th grade come back in 8th grade rude, pushy and obnoxious. Hormones will do that to girls! In the first several books, Ginny really is still a little girl. We see glimpses of her spirit, but she hasn't yet reached the age where she'll fight with her mother to be allowed to go with her brothers in Diagon Alley. By the time she's 14, though, her adolescent personality has started to come through. I've been re-reading and focusing more on Ginny, and her personality change seems less awkward to me than it did when I first read HBP. The combination of puberty and the Harry filter (and we seem to see more of Ginny's personality at the Burrow than we do at Hogwarts, when Harry has more important things to focus on) works for me. Or maybe I'm just fanwanking. Peg From n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 16:12:27 2005 From: n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com (n_longbottom01) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:12:27 -0000 Subject: The Invisible Hand in the CoS - long In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144846 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "n_longbottom01" > wrote: > > > When Harry learns how to > > destroy a horcrux, he may realize that what he did in the Chamber > > wasn't sufficient to destroy that part of Voldemort's soul. Harry > > then decides to time travel back to the time of the battle, to make > > sure that the Diary soul piece is entirely destroyed. He hides under > > his invisibility cloak waiting for the diary to be stabbed so that he > > can do what he needs to do. But suddenly, as he did by the lake in > > the PoA, he finds that he can't just stand there and watch. He flips > > the hat into the arms of his younger self, and then squeezes it to > > make the sword appear. > > Allie: > > *That* is genius! My only objection is that Dumbledore seemed entirely > convinced that the diary Horcrux had been destroyed. If something > happens to make Harry realize that what he had done wasn't enough, > Dumbledore should have realized that too. > n_longbottom01: My idea is that by the time Dumbledore first sees the diary, it has been destroyed, entirely. Young Harry strikes the main blow, which stops Diary Riddle and saves Ginny... and then Invisible Time Traveling Harry does something to make sure the soul bit is destroyed. Because this piece of soul is still tied to the earth by the other 5 horcruxes. It doesn't just disapear because the Horcrux it was tied to is destroyed. It must be prevented from misting off to the jungle somewhere to regroup. Time-Traveling Harry destroys the soul piece, or captures it in a jar, etc. and then leaves the area before Dumbledore ever gets a chance to examine the Horcrux. He might suspect something about what really went on, though, because magic leaves its traces. n_longbottom01 From n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 17:43:50 2005 From: n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com (n_longbottom01) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:43:50 -0000 Subject: The Invisible Hand in the CoS - long In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144847 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: > va32h: Hmm. Interesting. I don't agree that an older, Time- Traveling > Harry is in the Chamber, assisting his younger self. I feel this way > because I think it is crucial to the story that Harry, even at the > age of 12, can battle and defeat Voldemort with nothing but his pure > heart and loyalty to Dumbledore (which is what allows Fawkes and the > Sorting Hat to render their aid). > > Having an older Harry come back and save his younger self would > negate that, so I don't think it works, thematically. (In PoA, even > though Harry saved himself, it's still 13 y.o. Harry saving 13 y.o. > Harry). > > But I do think Harry will time travel again. Firstly, because JKR > was suitably coy when asked if Harry would do so, and secondly, > because of a long complicated theory I have about the series being a > set of mirrored books, revolving around GoF, in which book 3 is the > mirror of book 7. But that is for another day and another post! > > va32h > n_longbottom01: I also think it is important that nothing change to take anything away from what twelve-year-old Harry did, thematically and also for the re-read value of CoS. It wouldn't be satisfying at all to realize that Harry was less of a hero than he seems at the end of CoS. But my idea is that Time-Traveling Harry's influence on the events in CoS is minimal. Young Harry is the one who causes Fawkes and the Sorting Hat to appear?due to his pure heart and loyalty. Time-Traveling Harry only tosses Young Harry the hat, and then squeezes the sword out of it. Young Harry then kills the basilisk with the sword, and destroys the diary with the fang, defeating Riddle and saving Ginny. This takes a little bit away from the heroics of Young Harry, since he didn't summon the sword on his own, but I am suggesting he did everything else on his own. I am not suggesting that Time-Travel Harry swoops in invisibly on Fawkes's tail and saves the day, negating everything that appeared to happen in CoS. Young Harry defeated Diary Riddle when he stabbed the diary horcrux with the Basilisk tooth. Time-Traveling Harry is there because there is more to do to completely finish off the Horcrux. If Time- Traveling Harry weren't there, it wouldn't have changed anything about Diary Riddle's defeat. But there is something more that needs to be done to assure that the horcrux is completely destroyed. One idea I have is that the stab from the fang causes the soul piece to rip free from the diary, but the soul piece is still bound to this world because of the five other horcruxes. Harry has to time travel to the battle in the chamber to destroy the soul bit, or capture the soul bit somehow. Maybe he captures the soul bit, takes it to the secret passage behind the mirror, and does the magic to destroy it. The soul piece releases explosive energy as it is destroyed, and the secret passage collapses. n_longbottom01 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 18:02:47 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:02:47 -0000 Subject: Timelines - Dumbledore in Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144848 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hp_lexicon" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > > > > > Miles, still waiting for an answer from the Lexicon > > > > We haven't been ignoring you, I promise you. We've been having an > internal discussion about how certain we find Hermione's statement > in book one that she's "heard that Dumbledore was in Gryffindor." > > Technically, we can't be absolutely certain that what Hermione is > saying is actually true, so by strict interpretation of canon, we > don't know that Dumbledore was in Gryffindor. > > However, in my judgement, Rowling wrote this sentence intending to > say that Dumbledore was in Gryffindor. There is no reason whatsoever > for this sentence to be here otherwise. There are plenty of other > clues in the books to support the idea that Dumbledore is a > Gryffindor, ...edited... > > So in the end it's up to you to decide what you want to believe. As > for the Lexicon, we'll edit the pages to reflect the slight > uncertainty in canon. We are convinced, however, that canon places > Dumbledore in Gryffindor. > > Steve > The Lexicon > bboyminn: Lexicon Steve, very kind of you to take the time to respond to us directly. I think you are right, the books are written in such a way that we are intended to assume that Dumbledore was/is indeed a Gryffindor. Futher, I think that was a conscious action on the part of the author and at this stage of the story is indeed a correct assumption. However, lacking the final book, we can't be sure that JKR won't throw in a stupendous plot twist and make Dumbledore the 'Good Slytherin' that many of us have been expecting. I think that is HIGHLY unlikely though. Yes -- plenty of plot twists, but not that particular one. I think Dumbledore role is done. He has played his hand, and other than an unsatifying conversation or two with his portrait, I think for the most part, Dumbledore is out of the story. Certainly plenty of plot twists, but I can't imagine any reason for finding out that Dumbledore was not Gryffindor at this stage of the game. I really can't see it serving any story purpose. Like you said, I really can't see any reason for Hermione making that statement other than to establish in the books that Dumbledore was a Gryffindor. Once this bit of information is established by Hermione other events occur which re-enforce it. For example, in the Chamber of Secret when Harry affirms his loyalty to Dumbledore and calls on him for help. Dumbledore's phoenix brings Griffindor's hat which eventually provides Gryffindor's sword to assist Harry. That's an awful lot of 'Gryffindor' to be provided by a Headmaster who is Ravenclaw or Slytherin. Barring any stunning and nearly unfathomable plot twists, I think the author had every intention of us assuming Dumbledore was Gryffindor. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 18:27:26 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:27:26 -0000 Subject: 7 Horcruxes - Shock & outrage!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144849 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scamjunk22" wrote: > ...edited... > > ...! I remember that at the end of HBP, Mcgonagall *asks* HP for > info on what he and DD were doing that night and any other info > that DD might have shared with him (...) > > In OotP, the portraits tell that it is their bounden duty to serve > the present Headmaster (or headmistress in this case), so couldn't > it be possible that McGonagall would know for sure about the 7 > Horcruxes thing?? That is, if she asks them for the info, she can > get it. HP is DDM, but the portraits are there to serve her now. > Wouldn't DD's portrait itself not tell her all she wants to know? > Why ask HP and then be angry with him for not telling???? > > scam. bboyminn: Someone has already given the most obvious answer, and that is that Harry is standing right there and it seems only logical to ask him. As to the portraits, don't forget that Dumbledore's portrait is also there now, and once he wakes up, he is not only capable of talking to McGonagall but also capable of talking to and interacting with the other portraits. Dumbledore's protrait can tell McGonagall whatever he thinks she needs to know, and can further tell the other portraits NOT to tell McGonagall any secrets he does not want her to know. Further, I think the portraits would obey Dumbledore. In the portrait /world/ Dumbledore would certainly command respect and the continued admiration and cooperation of the other headmasters. Even more so, if portrait!Dumbledore and, at his request, the other portraits refused to tell McGonagall certain information, I think she would respect Dumbledore's wishes. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From RoxyElliot at aol.com Fri Dec 16 18:35:26 2005 From: RoxyElliot at aol.com (RoxyElliot at aol.com) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:35:26 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Theory: Writing GoF Message-ID: <26f.27acefa.30d462ee@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144850 <> I disagree. I think Barty Jr. is able to pull off Moody so well because, like Moody, he's a guy on the edge. Everyone at Hogwarts, including Moody's close friend Dumbledore, recognizes that Moody has serious mental and emotional issues. Barty doesn't seem to have a dead on impression of Moody, but his own reckless behavior matches what Moody's peers have come to expect. <> He's being manipulative. Barty can't be more direct or people would figure out what he's up to. It's not like he can tell Neville to help Harry cheat. <> Moody has to seem like he's on Harry's side in order to get close to him. He has to earn Harry's trust. Also I don't think he actually taught Harry how to resist anything. Harry has a natural ability to resist curses. <> There's nothing Barty Jr. hated more than a death eater who went free. He hated Malfoy and others like him who'd managed to get out of being punished. CGG http://Caffeinatedgeekgirl.typepad.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lealess at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 18:48:16 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:48:16 -0000 Subject: Snape's Self-Perception as Teacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144851 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat4001" wrote: > > > > Miles: > > > ... that Snape's main problem with teaching potions - besides > > > his very unpleasant character - is the subject. He loves it! > > > And most certainly most students do not share his love for > > > potionmaking. ... he doesn't want to see students mishandling > > > his beloved potions. > > > bboyminn: > > > > Between what you've said and what Sonja said in post# 144800 in > > this same thread, I think we may be onto something. > > > > I can understand the frustration that many teachers have with > > their students. The students are so wrapped up in their teen-pop- > > culture lives that they can't give a thought to the future. I > > imagine that every teacher at one time or another (most likely on > > a daily basis) has had the uncontrollable urge to take a student > > firmly by the collar, shake them vigorously, and scream in their > > face, "This isimportant! This is your future! THIS MATTERS!". > > > > Marianne: > > I've always felt that Snape had a deep apprciation and respect, if > not love, for Potions. He may very well be one of those teachers > who is ultimately unsatisfied with teaching. Not because of how his > students do - Snape seems to be able to get most, if not all, of > his students, where they need to be. But, perhaps because none of > them do this with any real passion for the subject or any deep > appreciation of the beauty, as Snape sees it, of Potions. > > Marianne > I wonder if he feels the immense satisfaction of seeing students develop over time, gather insight, and achieve, as many do. It is tremendously gratifying when students learn. Some of Snape's students must show an appreciation of the subject that transcends the obligation of being in the class. Not everyone in Slughorn's NEWT potions class was in training to be an Auror. Most probably did not know that they had a new teacher before the beginning of the year, and the old one (Snape) didn't scare them off the subject. That is why it is a pity we haven't seen Snape with older students, where there might be more open communication and love of the subject. On the other hand, Slughorn seems to have less scholarly interaction with students than Snape did, and uses an outdated book without a second thought. lealess From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Dec 16 18:50:33 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:50:33 -0000 Subject: The Invisible Hand in the CoS - long In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144852 n_longbottom01 > If you can remember way back at the beginning of this LONG post, I > said that some posts here at HP for Grownups caused this stuff to > jump out at me when I read through the scene. I wish I could > track the post down I've searched for it and can't find it. The > post examined the Battle at the Ministry of Magic, and concluded > there was some evidence of time travel hidden in the details > there. If someone knows where those posts are located, I'd > appreciate some help finding them. Jen: That was a really well-constructed theory, n_longbottom. My only addition is Dumbledore could be the one discovered as the invisible time-traveler . Here's the beginning of the thread on time-travel in the MOM, with Valky's ideas about the Trio time-traveling to the night Sirius died: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142059 The idea of a TT Dumbledore is compelling if we discover he was living on borrowed time during HBP, after the ring curse and Snape's patch-up. Knowing his life was ending, there may have been one or two things (not loads) he wanted to see again and couldn't use the Pensieve because he wasn't present at the original events. You and Valky suggested the other alternative, that Harry or the Trio time-travels in Book 7. They would discover Dumbledore's watch was a TT device and Ron's birthday watch has the same function. I think Valky suggested the possibilty the Trio could run into Dumbledore during their adventure and realize he'd done a fair bit of traveling himself over the years! It sounds convoluted, but JKR would weave it together with style. She's so good at making possible plot devices come off with a bang instead of a clunk. And it would be a way for Harry to learn some things from Dumbledore one last time. Jen From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 18:51:27 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:51:27 -0000 Subject: offbeat - and must have been discussed- Hogwarts Portkeys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144853 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scamjunk22" wrote: > > .... > > We see in GoF that the portkey and the Apparating are used with > the same purpose ... to transport to some other place. Then, how > is it that PortKeys work inside the Hogwarts grounds! Isn't it > possible then, ... they could have just conjured a portkey and > come there (Hogwarts)! We have seen a DE conjuring the portkey > to go out of and come back into Hogwarts before (GoF)... and > from the Ministry to Hogwarts in OotP... so why wasn't it thought > of? > > regards, > scam. bboyminn: First on the GoF Tri-Wiz Cup Maze Portkey, fandom speculates that the Tri-Wiz Cup was already a portkey intended to bring the winner from inside the maze back to the start just outside the maze. Therefore, Moody only added a new stop to an existing portkey, and it is assumed that the 'stops' are 'last in; first out'. Meaning that Moody's stop/destination was activated first taking Harry to the graveyard, then Dumbledore's stop was activate bring Harry back to Hogwarts to the original intended destination just outside the maze. I preface with this information because I want to point out that we have never seen a Portkey access to or from Hogwarts that wasn't controlled by Dumbledore. Dumbledore controls the security protecting Hogwarts, and he futher controls the exceptions or variations in that security. Dumbledore made an exception that allowed the Tri-Wiz Cup portkey to operate at Hogwarts. It never occured to him, that that change in security would be used against him. Note this is very similar to Dumbledore making a Great Hall exception that allows student to practice Apparation within the bounds of the Great Hall. Remember that the Great Hall Apparation exception was made when security at Hogwarts was the strictist it's ever been. The general security during GoF was much more lax, and occured during a long time of assumed peace and safety. The other Portkey, the one that brought Harry back to Hogwarts after the battle at the Ministry of Magic, was again controlled by Dumbledore. He controls the Portkey and he controls the access to Hogwarts. Once again, he allowed an exception to the security which in turn allowed Harry to appear in the Headmaster's office. Later Dumbledore arrived, I believe by Floo Network, again into his own office. The arrival in both cases was to an area controlled by Dumbledore. Now we can assume this is just an inconsistency in the books, but I prefer to think that it is simply a matter of Dumbledore controlling the protection at Hogwarts, and therefore he controls the exceptions to those protections. We have never seen a Hogwarts Portkey that Dumbledore did not have some hand in, and I think that is very significant. Steve/bboyminn From remuslupin73 at hotmail.com Fri Dec 16 18:04:41 2005 From: remuslupin73 at hotmail.com (ronnie) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:04:41 -0000 Subject: Ginny's Role in Book 7 (was: Re: Four ponderings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144854 Expectopatronnie: And, speaking of Ginny, I was wondering where the hell was she on the final task of GoF. She's not mentioned *at all* - not during the actual task, and not during the meal accompanying the task, even though her mother and brother Bill came especially to see Harry! I was reading GoF, and frankly, was wondering if this could be a sort of clue, because her absence from this scene is striking IMO. This is really far fetched (and I hesitate to write it out loud) - but might we be dealing with an ESE!Ginny? Still Horcruxed Ginny? This character is so inconsistent that I can hardly believe it could be a coincidence (or sloppy writing on JKR's hand). From sydpad at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 19:38:16 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 19:38:16 -0000 Subject: Cultural standards, nasty teachers, abused children/ JKR quote new for me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144855 Sydney: > > But hasn't this already happened? Snape's 'commupance' for his > > treatment of Neville I thought was the Boggart scene in PoA, where > the > > whole school was sniggering at him (and there was the little > > reinforcement of the vulture hat D-dore gave him at Christmas). Lupinlore: > No, Sydney, it hasn't. While amusing, the punishment did put > a "seal" on the crime in the way that Lockheart's punishment did. Sydney: I'm afraid I just can't go with the total destruction of a human being as the only satisfactory punishment for being sarcastic to children. Sorry. Lupinlore: >in that sense the Dursleys punishment has not yet happened, > either. I do think it has probably begun, however. Dumbledore does > seem to be a very Old Testament figure in that chapter, does he not? > And the pronouncements of Old Testament prophets were seldom uttered > without consequence. LOL, I think an Old Testament Dumbledore would have done some smiting! That's the last thing that would have entered my head-- if I had to pick, I'd lean a bit to "go thou and sin no more". I don't know if we will or won't see much more happen to the Dursleys-- if anything, that scene gave me a feeling that JKR was wrapping them up, as their power over Harry becomes insignificant. I do expect something more between Harry and Petunia, as a connection back to Lily-- perhaps Petunia has some of Lily's old things somewhere? Lupinlore: > I do agree that JKR likes to put characters in bad situations. In > fact, I will go so far as to agree with Betsy that it is often > extraordinarily off-putting. The off-putting part, however, I think > is largely a result of the problem of three again and JKR letting the > narrative get away from her....I really don't think she sees pain as a > shared human universal... I think she really does think that > things are more interesting for readers the more extreme she makes > the situations in which she puts her characters. I couldn't possibly disagree more strongly. Remember that this is a person who spent her teenage years with a mother who was dying a degenerative disease. I've had a friend with MS and it's an extremely distressing process; I can't even imagine how I would have handled watching my own mother suffer from it. This alone would have given her a sense of being connected with a darker world than the one her friends lived in, and I think this genuine experience with the reality of suffering is precisely what gives the series its resonance. Not to mention one of her top-ten favorite songs is REM's "Everybody Hurts"! > We need to remember that JKR is, in fact, not all that experienced of > a writer. The Harry Potter series is her first major sale -- and > what a sale it was! Going over the top with dramatic situations and > emotion-laden themes is a common failing of inexperienced writers On the contrary. At least where I'm coming from, the biggest failing of both experienced an inexperienced writers, at least of screenplays, is shying away from anything not being 'nice', or anything really dreadful happening to the major characters, of every single thing not being absolutely perfect when the credits roll, because the audience 'can't handle it'. What's caused the enormous world-wide popularity of the books, IMO, despite the awkardness of the prose and occasionally seam-showing plotting, is that they have the courage to have really bad things happen, and not get fixed; of being willing to put favorite characters though hell as well as disliked ones, because life is no respecter of persons when it comes to the inevitability of pain. Fiction used to be about how people overcame suffering and learned to cope with an imperfect world; Hollywood has been trying to train audiences into prefering glossy, artificial worlds were death has no resonance, heros are always right and reach perfect actualization, and pasteboard villains get kicked in the balls to merry laughter. I'm reminded of the Saturday Night Live 'missing ending' to "It's a Wonderful Life", where the townsfolk go and beat up Mr. Potter, and give all his money to Jimmy Stewart! I'm very much afraid that this WOULD be the ending if the movie was made today, because there would always be some clown in marketing who would say that audiences wouldn't stand for the villain getting away and the hero no better off than he was at the start of the movie. I hope against hope that our exectives will get a clue that "Harry Potter" isn't popular because it has dragons, just as "Titanic" wasn't popular becasue it had a shipwreck. It's popular because tragedy has been exiled as a theme from mainstream fiction, and it's a theme that people will need until tragedy has been exiled from life. -- Sydney, diligently at work on yet another shiny-happy-hollywood product From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 20:17:59 2005 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:17:59 -0000 Subject: Whither Snape AND the Dursleys AND Umbridge? (was Re: Cultural standards...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144856 > Sydney: > > I'm afraid I just can't go with the total destruction of a human being > as the only satisfactory punishment for being sarcastic to children. > Sorry. Ah, but was total ruination a satisfactory punishment for stealing the memories of others, as happened with Lockheart? I would say it is. Because it very nicely fit his crime, and so must the punishments of Snape, Umbridge, and the Dursleys. Snape's punishment will not be obliviation, if that's what you mean, as that does not fit his crime. However, his punishment will, I think, have a similar ring of finality -- not in that it will totally ruin him, he's going to die anyway, but in that it will poetically sum up his sins and deal with them. While we are on the subject, what then will be the punishment of Umbridge, we might ask? Or for that matter, the Dursleys? I have a feeling it will involve revelations from Petunia that will be devestating for her to make -- probably along the lines of what Dumbledore was corresponding with her about, which is part of the reason I think his appearance in the third chapter of HBP is part of a larger movement in the plot. It fits nicely with the Howler in OOTP and may well segue into whatever happens in Book VII. We may even see a certain amount of salvation for Dudley, as JKR has hinted in that direction, as did Dumbledore (and of course "salvation" for Dudley might very well equal "ruination" in the Dursleys eyes). After all, we have yet to see the vaunted "protection" in action, and it seems beyond belief that JKR would just let it slip away without a few pyrotechnics. Oh, on the Old Testament Dumbledore. God is the one who does the smiting in the Old Testament, not the prophets. In a very real way, even God doesn't smite so often as he lets people smite themselves. The prophets, and I think Dumbledore in some ways is a very prophetic figure right down to the beard, generally warn people that their own actions are writing their doom, as they have transgressed the laws of God, and it is in the nature of God to let those that seek damnation find it. Notice that blush on Petunia's face? I think a message, a subtle one the contents of which we do not yet fully understand, was clearly recieved. As to JKR not seeking justice for the sins of Umbridge, Snape, and the Dursleys -- frankly, all of this reminds me of opinions we heard before HBP. "We will never hear about Harry's scar again, life isn't fair and he has to learn to deal with it. Umbridge will NOT be returning, JKR has already pronounced sentence and dealt with that situation. Dumbledore will never again make any mention of the Dursleys or their treatment of Harry." Those all turned out to be completely mistaken, and I am quite confident that the idea that Snape will get off scot free, or that the Dursleys do not have some more paying to do, or that Umbridge will simply slip along without more torture, will turn out to be completely mistaken as well. Lupinlore From briandumby at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 21:13:22 2005 From: briandumby at yahoo.com (brian dumby) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:13:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: - the cursed necklace In-Reply-To: <1134761925.2568.8572.m27@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20051216211322.7639.qmail@web35903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144857 Hi I am new to the group and have been passively just reading the mails since a few days to get the feel of the discussions. Now, I re-read HBP a few days back and I came across this: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- She appears to have brushed the necklace with the smallest possible amount of skin; there was a tiny hole in her glove. Had she put it on, had she even held it in her ungloved hand, she would have died, perhaps instantly. Luckily Professor Snape was able to do enough to prevent a rapid spread of the curse?" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The same could have happened with DD and Snape. Snape might just have prevented the rapid spread of the curse not completely stopped it from spreading. Ergo DD was gonna die anyways. What say. BD From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 21:42:05 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:42:05 -0000 Subject: Why is it significant if LV learns the whole prophecy Re: JKR ITN interview In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144858 > Brothergib writes; > Some time ago, I posted a theory entitled 'Incomplete Prophecy'. > Basically, it compared the prophecy we had heard first hand between > Harry and Trelawney, and the prophecy DD had relayed to Harry. The > first was a completely constructed sentence. If the second prophesy, > as we heard it, is complete then (1) it has a very different > structure from the first and (2) it contains truly atrocious English. > Considering JKR's previous job as a teacher, I find the second point > unlikely. > > IMO, this suggests that DD only let Harry hear certain snippets of > the whole prophecy, and that actually the full prophecy provides a > huge clue as to how everything will work out. As you said Alla, if it > is a complete prophecy, then Voldemort gains no extra advantage from > hearing the prophecy in full!! Alla: I really don't have anything to argue against your theory right now, except metathinking argument to me it suggests again Master Manipulator!Dumbledore and call me stubborn and not seeing something which is staring me in the face, but I am not ready to accept that kind of Dumbledore yet, probably not till book 7 throws some hard cold evidence at me. :) I mean of course some evidence can be interpreted as such, but I am not sure that JKR's intention is to portray master manipulator in the Headmaster. I mean, don't get me wrong, when I argue against manipulative Dumbledore I do understand that all politicians , all leaders of the fight have to be manipulative to some extent, but to me there is a difference between manipulating to win at any cost and trying to make people do what you think is right because you indeed have their best interests at heart and at least trying to remember that every life is valuable. I think Dumbledore had a good heart, IMO anyway. Ooops, I ramble I know. Back to the question at hand. Yes, I don't see any extra advantage if Voldemort hears about the Prophecy in full, but I can see JKR going for the shock value as during the final confrontation, whatever it is, Voldemort realizes that one of them HAS TO die, but how it all plays out, don't ask me. As to atrocious English, well, yeah, seems like it, but remember that JKR said that herself and Trelaney thought out the Prophecy VERY carefully. She did not say that they thought it out in perfect English, IMO she meant that she construed the sentences as being in tune with the final resolution, whatever it will be and it may be that she had to sacrifice the perfect English for a few sentences in order to fulfill that goal. I am just speculating of course. JMO, Alla From Sherry at PebTech.net Fri Dec 16 21:50:17 2005 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:50:17 -0000 Subject: Ginny's Role in Book 7 (was: Re: Four ponderings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144859 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ronnie" wrote: > > Expectopatronnie: > > And, speaking of Ginny, I was wondering where the hell was she on the > final task of GoF. She's not mentioned *at all* - not during the > actual task, and not during the meal accompanying the task, even > though her mother and brother Bill came especially to see Harry! > Amontillada: And she made herself scarce for precisely that reason--she didn't want her mother or Bill to guess how she really felt for Harry. She was probably afraid that if they did, one of them might say something. ("Oh, how sweet...") and she would be deeply embarrassed. She was probably watching the competition with some of her own classmates, who all wanted to see one of the Hogwarts champions win the tournament and wouldn't so quickly identify her particular feelings for Harry. This brings me to the threshhold of the room where Ginny will dwell in Book 7. Especially if both Ron and Hermione join Harry on his quest for the remaining Horcruxes, I expect Ginny to be one of his most important regular contacts at Hogwarts. Harry will probably need to call on records of information about magic in Great Britain, and Hogwarts is perhaps THE largest repository of such literature. I think Harry may well find it easier to call on fellow students, who are his peers, than on professors. Ginny, along with Luna and Neville, will be important contacts. Amontillada From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 22:08:32 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:08:32 -0000 Subject: Ginny's Role in Book 7 (was: Re: Four ponderings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144860 > >>va32h: > I guess I'm not understanding why Ginny "should have" done > this or that. Particularly in regard to the twins. The twins have > routinely been dismissive of Ginny, to the point where they don't > know any more about her than Harry (or the reader, for that > matter). > Betsy Hp: It's not what Ginny should have done, but what JKR should have shown the readers if she wanted Ginny to be a full fledged character, like Neville. Because I do disagree with your take on the Ginny/Twins relationship. I don't recall them ever being dismissive of her. It was just that she didn't hang with them as much as she did with Ron and Percy. Until OotP, of course. Where so much about Ginny changed. > >>va32h: > Well I do agree that Ginny has been something of an insta- > character (just add water, and watch her suddenly become a vital > part of the plot!) Hermione's knowledge of Ginny did come out of > nowhere for Harry and the reader, but I didn't find it > contradictory, because I thought that Ginny was a bit of a blank > slate in the first four books anyway. There wasn't anything to > contradict! > Betsy Hp: Ginny wasn't that blank, though. That's what I've got issue with. GoF leaves the rather distinct impression that Ginny is ho-hum about quidditch. Now maybe that was some sinister plot on her part to keep all of her interests a massive secret, but what a weird choice on JKR's part, IMO. Ginny is already a background character, there's no need to suddenly add purposeful secrets to the mix. Unless the secrets are vital to the plot. Which I don't see Ginny being suddenly quidditch mad as being. > >>va32h: > The examples that you cited in your previous post don't strike me > as anything more sinister than the difference between 11 and 15. > Hadn't Harry changed a bit between the ages of 11 and 15. Many > readers were shocked at ANGRY!HARRY! in OoTP - such a departure > from his previous self. > Betsy Hp: In GoF Harry threw a badge at Ron, hitting him in the head. So no, Angry!Harry didn't come completely out of nowhere. Just as determined!Neville didn't come out of nowhere. Quidditch-Star! Ginny, and Third-twin!Ginny, unfortunately, did. At least, IMO. > >>Peg: > > I've been re-reading and focusing more on Ginny, and her > personality change seems less awkward to me than it did when I > first read HBP. The combination of puberty and the Harry filter > (and we seem to see more of Ginny's personality at the Burrow > than we do at Hogwarts, when Harry has more important things to > focus on) works for me. Or maybe I'm just fanwanking. Betsy Hp: The most awkward transition, IMO, occurs between GoF and OotP. And it's about that time that JKR really picks up the tell not show aspect to Ginny's character. Suddenly Hermione is needed to "explain it all" and Ginny is mysteriously gifted with her bat bogey hex that we never see but apparently she's now famous for. (And when on earth did she develop this magical hex? Was it her magical manifisation? Did the Weasleys let her use her wand at home? I mean, why is it a Weasley family knowledge thing, but not a Hogwarts knowledge thing?) > >>Pippin: > > I think you're trying to make Ginny fit the mold of a romantic > heroine, and as a romantic heroine, she fails. Betsy Hp: I really wasn't trying to look at Ginny as a romantic lead, just as a second string character. Though maybe I'm fooling myself, because I do think the love story between Ginny and Harry is rather flat. A sort of, right, there you go, Harry is happy and he's kissing a girl his friends all approve of, and we'll just fade to dark and bring the lights back up when he leaves her keeping the home fires burning and gets to the important battle stuff that everyone's *really* interested in. Though I don't honestly feel JKR *failed* at anything here, because I got the impression that the love stuff is supposed to be behind the scenes. It's not a part of the action sections of the story. That's definitely part of the reason I think Ginny will not be taking too much part in book 7. I think she'll book-end the story, but the real meat of the story will not include her. > >>Pippin: > She's not. She's an epic character, like Harry himself. What I > mean is, she doesn't change dramatically over the course of the > story. The drama is in our discovery of what she's always been. > Her abilities are *supposed* to be a surprise, just as we're > surprised to find that Harry is a natural at flying. But her basic > personality doesn't change much. > Betsy Hp: What are her abilities though? Her quidditch skill? Her hexes? Because that stuff all came out of right field for me. It felt very pasted on. But her ability to calm Harry down, to get him to listen or think, which also makes a first appearence in OotP *does* work for me. Because, as you say, Ginny does have an epic role in Harry's life. So while I think Harry was pleasantly surprised by her in OotP, as a reader I was not surprised. At least, not at that aspect of her. But Ginny Weasley, third twin, quidditch star, hexing fool, did surprise me, and not in a cool dramatic kind of way. A sly wit, a sense of humor, even her looking at problems in a creative, twin- like, way would have been fine. But JKR laid it on a bit too thick, IMO. > >>Pippin: > > Young Ginny perceives Harry only as a celebrity "famous, good, > great Harry Potter" and this mask in turn masks her real > self from him. We should get to see the moment when she finally > realizes he's only human, and we do. It's in GoF, when she finds > that he's not only got feet of clay, he occasionally sticks them in > his mouth two at a time. Betsy Hp: Where exactly does this moment take place? In the text, I mean, because I totally missed it. Doesn't Hermione have to explain about this massive personality reversal in OotP? > >>Pippin: > Ginny was a horcrux, of a sort. I wouldn't be surprised if she > has some abillities that could come in useful for finding and > destroying them. Betsy Hp: Yee gods, I hope not! Ginny is already far too powerfully cool for my tastes. She's got bigger balls than Ron at this point (having stolen his from him, the little minx). It'll be far too much for me if her wand is bigger than Harry's too. Though, does she have any kind of reaction to the locket in OotP? That could be a bit of foreshadowing if she did. Betsy Hp (who's afraid she may end up liking movie!Ginny far more than book!Ginny -- kinda like the twins. huh.) From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Dec 16 22:09:18 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:09:18 -0000 Subject: Timelines (was No canon!! Dumbledore in Gryffindor?) In-Reply-To: <43A2D2B2.8030601@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144861 Bart asked: > Seriously, can anybody who is involved in this discussion explain why > it matters? One of the themes I see in the books is that House rivalry > becomes kind of irrelevant when people like the self-styled Lord > Voldemort are running around. Potioncat: Speaking only for myself, it was an exercise in sticking to canon and nitpicking. It's very easy in this group to buy into HPfGU theories and forget where they came from. That is, that you've discussed something so many time, you forget where canon fades and opinion picks up. It's just like the Peaceful Expression exercise we did a few months ago. To me it became very interesting to discover that there is so little canon about DD's house. Particularly as I would have said "Oh, it's in CoS or HBP, he was Head of Gryffindor when Tom Riddle was there." Well, it isn't in CoS or HBP. Yeah, there is Hermione's quote and Gryffindor symbolism all around him. I have no doubt he's a Gryffindor. Now, could JKR be teasing us? Yes she could. We'll all meet at the local pub and raise a few if it turns out he's in Slytherin. Oh, heck, let's meet and raise a few any way. From sydpad at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 22:16:08 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:16:08 -0000 Subject: Whither Snape AND the Dursleys AND Umbridge? (was Re: Cultural standards...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144862 "lupinlore" > > Ah, but was total ruination a satisfactory punishment for stealing > the memories of others, as happened with Lockheart? Wasn't Lockhart about to destroy the minds of Ron and Harry, and leave Ginny to die, as well as having addled the brains of numerous heroic witches and wizards? He did to himself what he had done to other people-- just like Snape was humiliated by Neville at pretty much the same level at which Neville was humiliated by Snape. Proper proportion and correlation seems to be what you demand of 'karmic' punishment, and IMO that has already been accomplished for Snape, at least as far as Neville is concerned. > As to JKR not seeking justice for the sins of Umbridge, Snape, and > the Dursleys -- frankly, all of this reminds me of opinions we heard > before HBP. "We will never hear about Harry's scar again, life isn't > fair and he has to learn to deal with it. Umbridge will NOT be > returning, JKR has already pronounced sentence and dealt with that > situation. Dumbledore will never again make any mention of the > Dursleys or their treatment of Harry." Those all turned out to be > completely mistaken, and I am quite confident that the idea that > Snape will get off scot free, or that the Dursleys do not have some > more paying to do, or that Umbridge will simply slip along without > more torture, will turn out to be completely mistaken as well. I don't have much of an opinion either way on what will happen to either the Dursleys or Umbrige, because IMO it hasn't been telegraphed to the same way that Snape's catharsis with Harry has been telgraphed. JKR may or may not write a scene, depending, I suppose, on whether such a scene would be useful towards the main plot of the Horcruxes and Voldemort. And of course we'll hear about Harry's scar again, it's the whole point of the series! As for Snape 'getting off scott free', as most people, whether pro- or anti- Snape, think it's extremely likely that he will die, I don't think that's a common feeling at all.. Our disagreement is whether the death penalty for those who are sarcastic to children is just and satisfying, which I fear would condemn me and many of my favorite teachers! --Sydney From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 22:19:40 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:19:40 -0000 Subject: Cultural standards, nasty teachers, abused children/ JKR quote new for me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144863 > >>Lupinlore: > > I do agree that JKR likes to put characters in bad situations. In > fact, I will go so far as to agree with Betsy that it is often > extraordinarily off-putting. > Betsy Hp: I just wanted to clarify that I don't like physical pain as a humor device, and I'm not a huge fan of come-uppance humor either. It's a big reason the twins don't work for me, and why I was a bit put off by the bonking meade glasses in HBP. However, I don't mind, in fact I kind of like, characters being put in and dealing with bad situations. It's where the drama comes in. Because the more difficult the challenges Harry has to face, the more sweet the victory. Just clarifying. Betsy hp From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Dec 16 22:28:27 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:28:27 -0000 Subject: Snape's Self-Perception as Teacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144864 Jessica wrote: > I've been following the Snape teacher threads with great interest, as > it's a subject near and dear to my heart. (Teaching, not Snape. Oh, > who am I kidding?) At any rate, in all of this talk about Snape and > good vs. bad teaching, I've been wondering: how does Snape view > himself as a teacher? Potioncat: Snape believes he is Merlin's gift to the WW and is upset that not only does no one appreciate him, but other less tallented wizards get the glory. Having said that, He's followed Slughorn as Potions Master. Snape knew his students' names pretty much at the first lesson. Slughorn still doesn't know Ron's name by March. Snape's students seem to be more advanced that Slughorn's were (based on Umbridge's comment) and have a higer rate of passing marks (based on Snape's comments, and open to interpretation.) Snape knows potions and it seems to me Hermione is more successful with potion making under Snape's instructions than under Slughorn's. So I think Snape thinks he is a good teacher. He knows the information, he presents it in a better way than the text. Quite a few do well in his class, so anyone who doesn't must be a dunderhead. Does he like teaching? I doubt it. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 22:49:43 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:49:43 -0000 Subject: JKR's view of Teacher Snape (was: PRe: Cultural standards...) In-Reply-To: <43A181A9.21247.17B0EF0@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144865 > >>Shaun Hately: > I agree entirely that JKR regards Severus Snape as a bad teacher, > and that that is the way she is trying to write him - by giving > him characteristics that she regards as indicative of a bad > teacher, possibly based on her own experiences, possibly based on > more than that. > Betsy Hp Hmmm. I'm not sure I agree with this. I think JKR sees bad *aspects* to Snape's teaching, specifically his favoritism and the incredibly cruel wit he allows to escape now and again, but overall, I think JKR does show Snape to be a good teacher. She compares him to McGonagall at one point, when Harry notes that Snape, like McGonagall, had no problem getting a class under control. She shows him having a rather large NEWT level Potions class, while at the same time making sure the readers know that Snape is very demanding about who he'll take into his NEWT level courses. Hermione *never* complains about Snape's teaching abilities, and she's a pretty reliable barameter when it comes to Hogwarts' teachers. To top it all off, JKR gives Snape the best opening lines for a class of any teacher in the books. Only fake!Moody comes close. I think JKR does think Snape is a good teacher. Not a perfect one, mind you. But a good one. Betsy Hp (who tried to take a break from Snape, she really did) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Dec 16 22:59:38 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:59:38 -0000 Subject: Whither Snape AND the Dursleys AND Umbridge? (was Re: Cultural standards...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144866 Lupinlore: > Ah, but was total ruination a satisfactory punishment for stealing > the memories of others, as happened with Lockheart? I would say > it is. Because it very nicely fit his crime, and so must the > punishments of Snape, Umbridge, and the Dursleys. Snape's > punishment will not be obliviation, if that's what you mean, as > that does not fit his crime. However, his punishment will, I > think, have a similar ring of finality -- not in that it will > totally ruin him, he's going to die anyway, but in that it will > poetically sum up his sins and deal with them. Jen: Darn, I've been trying to keep out of the karmic justice/punishment threads but you've finally upped the ante high enough in this post: Thinking of punishment for Umbridge and Petunia is too much fun to pass up. Or rather, payback for *Vernon* more than Petunia. Snape, well, I'm holding out hope for him, just need a little more backstory. Lupinlore: > While we are on the subject, what then will be the punishment of > Umbridge, we might ask? Or for that matter, the Dursleys? I have > a feeling it will involve revelations from Petunia that will be > devestating for her to make -- probably along the lines of what > Dumbledore was corresponding with her about, which is part of the > reason I think his appearance in the third chapter of HBP is part > of a larger movement in the plot. It fits nicely with the Howler > in OOTP and may well segue into whatever happens in Book VII. We > may even see a certain amount of salvation for Dudley, as JKR has > hinted in that direction, as did Dumbledore (and of > course "salvation" for Dudley might very well equal "ruination" in > the Dursleys eyes). After all, we have yet to see the > vaunted "protection" in action, and it seems beyond belief that > JKR would just let it slip away without a few pyrotechnics. Jen: First characters seen, first on the chopping block then: 1) Dursleys. My absolute favorite punishment for the Dursleys was posted here: They will have to hide-out at Grimmauld Place b/c Privet Dr. isn't safe. HAH! The other running ones are that Petunia is actually a witch who renounced her heritage and lives as a Muggle, or that 'that awful boy' will prove to be about a relationship Petunia had before Vernon. Either of these could come back to haunt the Dursleys, I think. (And I have canon theories about both these if someone wants to fight over specifics ). Oh, and your idea about Dudley's salvation/ruination is top-notch. Something to do with that memory brought forth by the Dementors? Classic. Hopefully JKR didn't totally ruin this possibility when she said there's no mystery to Dudley, he's exactly as he seems.(Edinburgh festival comment) That wouldn't rule out a change in the future, would it? Now *Umbridge* is easy--she's going to have a run-in with the Dementors and be saved by Harry. There, how's that? Am I getting into the spirit here? Lupinlore: > As to JKR not seeking justice for the sins of Umbridge, Snape, and > the Dursleys -- frankly, all of this reminds me of opinions we > heard before HBP. "We will never hear about Harry's scar again, > life isn't fair and he has to learn to deal with it. Umbridge > will NOT be returning, JKR has already pronounced sentence and > dealt with that situation. Dumbledore will never again make any > mention of the Dursleys or their treatment of Harry." Those all > turned out to be completely mistaken, and I am quite confident > that the idea that Snape will get off scot free, or that the > Dursleys do not have some more paying to do, or that Umbridge will > simply slip along without more torture, will turn out to be > completely mistaken as well. Jen: Well, the archives are chock-full of ideas, events and theories that never came to pass no matter how juicy and delicious they sounded at the time. It does happen. We know JKR is not finished with Petunia and Umbridge because she said so, hinting there is 'more to Petunia that meets the eye' and outright stating she isn't finished toying with Umbridge. Snape? No words of wisdom about his future from the author to go on, but the trail for him is littered with clues of backstory rather than the reverse, hints that the past has meaning for the present. Rather than seeing him tied up into a nice bundle and sent off down the river, I expect to hear some startling information that will unweave him in Harry's eyes. This is fun to think about, but in the end I think JKR toys mainly with minor characters like Lockhart, Umbridge, Bagman, etc. When more major characters are dealt blows, they fall into two categories: 1) Natural consequences stemming from choices and 2) When Bad Things Happen to Good People or 'why crappy things happen in the world for no reason'. Fudge is an example of the former, losing his job for his abysmal performance in OOTP. Percy's separation from his family and the increasing resentment on both sides is painful for several of the Weasleys. And the second category? If JKR is really going for the karmic justice of most characters in the book, she'd better have a good explantion for *Harry* first and foremost, then the Potters, Frank and Alice Longbottom, Neville, Cedric and a few others I could think of..... Jen From tab1669 at elnet.com Fri Dec 16 23:00:09 2005 From: tab1669 at elnet.com (flyingmonkeypurple) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:00:09 -0000 Subject: Ginny and how she changes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144867 In the first book: Harry he knows nothing about her. All he really knows is that she wants to meet him. He doesn't think about her again. Second book: Harry finds out that Ginny has this huge crush on him and keeps dropping things when he is around. Harry does not have time to think about Ginny. He is worried about people thinking that he is the heir of Slytherin. Ginny keeps embarrassing him. He saves her from death. Third book: She is not a big part. I see how she is closer with Hermione. She is laughing with her and her mother. Fourth book: She has gotten closer with Hermione because she knows who she is going to the ball with. She won't tell Ron or Harry who it is. Their friendship is too important, and proudly to piss off Ron. She knows something that he doesn't. Fifth book: She starts talking to Harry. It is brought to Harry's attention that Ginny dose not Fancy him anymore. She even gives Harry advices about Cho. Harry realizes that she is really smart and can play Quidditch. Ginny does a lot of teaching to Harry in this book. She tells him that he is not the only one whose mind was being used. She yells at him and tells him that she can take care of herself. Ginny proves herself to Harry and he learns that she doesn't take anything. If she doesn't like anything it's gone. Sixth book: Ginny makes Harry laugh and they spend a lot of time together. He likes her company and develops a crush. She is herself with him and he like what sees. As far as Ginny suddenly liking Quidditch why would Harry notice that she likes Quidditch so much when she embarrasses him so much? flyingmonkeypurple From vidarfe at start.no Sat Dec 17 00:18:53 2005 From: vidarfe at start.no (vidar_fe) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 00:18:53 -0000 Subject: HBP in russian translation./ Translations in general/ "Severus, please" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144868 > Alla wrote: > I don't remember if I ranted about it when OOP came out, but oh > well, it will only be second time around. :-) > > I suppose the reason why they decided to translate some names in > Harry Potter initially, because JKR has so many talking names, but > boy, oh boy, some of them hurt my ears and eyes SO much. They just > sound awkward. Like they translated the names of two houses - > Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, but they could not come up with anything > for Gryffindor and Slytherin and left them as they sound initially , > only wrote them with Russian alphabet. So, Ravenclaw is translated > directly as the "claw of Raven", but the problem is that it sounds > beatifully in English, but SO awkward in Russian. Grrrr. And I don't > even know the translation of the word they came up with for the > Hufflepuff. > > Oh, another thing - they translated Neville's last name into Russian > directly, sort of and every time when I read it, I start giggling, I > cannot help myself. It sounds in russian as "dolgopooops". I don't > know if JKR intended us to giggle every time we hear Neville's last > name. Gah. :-) vidar_fe writes: They do this in the norwegian translations as well. As far as I know every single name except Harry's have been changed! :-( The translator has even managed to turn Neville's last name into Langballe, or 'long testicle' *am very outraged*! Poor boy.... From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 00:41:25 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 00:41:25 -0000 Subject: Total Tangents (was: Whither Snape.. Dursleys ...Umbridge? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144869 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > Ah, but was total ruination a satisfactory punishment for > stealing the memories of others, as happened with Lockheart? > I would say it is. Because it very nicely fit his crime, and > so must the punishments of Snape, Umbridge, and the Dursleys. > ...edited... > > While we are on the subject, what then will be the punishment > of Umbridge, we might ask? Or for that matter, the Dursleys? > I have a feeling it will involve revelations from Petunia that > will be devestating for her to make -- ...edited... We may > even see a certain amount of salvation for Dudley, ..., as did > Dumbledore (and of course "salvation" for Dudley might very well > equal "ruination" in the Dursleys eyes). After all, we have yet > to see the vaunted "protection" in action, and it seems beyond > belief that JKR would just let it slip away without a > few pyrotechnics. > > ...big edit... > > Lupinlore bboyminn: Well, I've already had my say on Snape's punishment, so for the most part, I'll let that go. But what Lupinlore said above reminded me of a few things that I very much hope to see in the next book. First, I really want to see Ron and Hermione stay at Privet Drive with Harry and the Dursleys. Really, if that isn't the best possible set up for loads of tragi-comedy then I don't know what is. The presences of THREE witches and wizard in the Dursley's house, especially when two of them are of-age and can do magic legally, would be such pleasantly comedic torment for the Dursleys. I also feel that Petunia has some valuable information for Harry. Information that I'm confident Harry will have to drag out of her. For one thing, since day one I have wanted to see Dumbledore's letter that was left on the doorstep with Harry. In addition, JKR, in the Emerson/Melisa interview, was very vague about how Petunia knew so much about the wizard world, and wouldn't confirm that 'that awful boy' was James. So, something is definitely going on with Petunia, and I think the best way to get it out of her, is have Ron and Hermione there with Harry to gang up on her. Really, I laugh just thinking of the possiblities. Next on the subject of 'making the Dursleys pay'. The above is not their payment for their crimes. It is merely some pleasant torment to set the mood. The real payment will come when, due to as yet to be determined circumstances, the Dursleys are force to seek refuge at 12 Grimmauld Place. Now that is punishment. Being force to live in a world they despise with magic, house-elves, and talking portraits (Mrs.Black), plus assorted witches and wizards all around them. And the greatest humiliation of all would be that they were now under Harry protection; they would then be living in Harry's house, at Harry's expense, and under Harry's control. Take about Karmic retribution! The other alternative would be for the Dursleys to be forced to seek refuge at Hogwarts. Just as bad for them, but I like them staying at Harry's better. As to why, they might have to stay at Harry's house, I speculate a DE attack on the Dursley's house. In someways that seem a little to obvious and easy, but I guess it could happen. Perhaps, it will merely be the threat of an attack that will put them under Harry's protection. On that same subject, don't forget JKR's statement of someone doing magic later in life. It could be Petunia. JKR was specifically asked if Petunia was a SQUIB, and to that, she said NO...not a squib BUT.... That 'but' at the end once again very much implies that something is up with Petunia. I have always speculated that she got a letter from Hogwarts and turned it down as not the proper thing for a young lady to do. Regardless, there is definitely something going on with Petunia that will be resolved, or at least touched on, in the last book. While I'm sure I'm far off base, I none the less like the Karmic irony of the tables being turned on the Dursley, and having them under Harry care and protection. I think that reflects the type of karmic justice we are far more likely to see in the last book rather than the direct confrontation and punishment of characters. And, in a way, I think /fate/ or /destiny/ or /irony/ punishing the characters is far more rewarding for me as a reader than 'law and order' type punishment. To some extent, I don't think we necessarily want to see formal punishment, we simply want to see the character pay for their 'crimes'. Seeing them pay, and 'law and order' style punishment are very different things. I think Lockhart suffered a very fitting punishment, even though he has never been called before the courts. As Dumbledore said, 'Impaled upon your own sword, Gildroy?'. For Umbridge, who is so unbelievably drunk on power and out of control, I have already fantasized a similar Karmic punishment in this same discussion. I speculated that Harry and Umbridge would run into each other at the Ministry (or where ever) and Umbridge would once again try to assert her authority over Harry. With suitable anger, Harry would respond with a reminder that Umbridge had admited to unforgivable and irredemable crimes in front of many witnesses, and if she didn't back off and tow the line, Harry would reveal those crime to the public at large and further compel the courts to take action against her. Even if the courts were lenient with her, her reputation would be ruined. She would forever be known as the witch who tried to destroy the one person who could save the wizard world from Voldemort. She would become a pariah. She would loose all status and power in the wizard world, and for most, that would be a fitting punishment. But personally, I think for someone who loves to excesize power, it would be far greater agony for her to tow the line, and kowtow to Harry. Again the twisted karmic hand of destiny punishes in a far more satifying way than 'law and order' punishment ever could. As to Snape, I honestly don't think we will see any formal punishment specifically for his treatment of Harry. I'm not going to elaborate because this has already been discussed to death. But I will say that I speculate the same type of ironic karmic punishment for Snape is a lot more likely that a direct confrontation or 'law and order' style punishment. In an odd and twisted way Snape's future life will be his punishment. Instead of 'X' number of years in prison, every single day of his life from now until he dies will be the karmic punishment he so richly deserves. What I am looking forward to far more than Snape's punishment, is how he will help Harry in the final book. He has, by his actions, so alienated himself from Harry, that I don't see how the two of them could ever cooperate on anything again. But I still think Snape will be the shortcut Harry needs to solve his Horcrux problems, and to defeat Voldemort. That is far more productive book time than seeing someone rag on Snape for being so nasty, although, I'm sure at some point Snape and Harry will meet face to face, and Harry will take that opportunity to rag on Snape with great enthusiasm. Sadly, all this speculation about what I would like to see in the next story is probably doomed to disappointment as I'm sure JKR has her own unique direction to take the story. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From h2so3f at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 02:36:04 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 02:36:04 -0000 Subject: offbeat - and must have been discussed- Hogwarts Portkeys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144870 CH3ed: I like bboyminn's theory that Dumbledore controlled the security charms protecting Hogwarts. I would modify it to say the 'current headmaster' controls the protective charms (and probably the other charms like those that controll the decoration of the Great Hall as well). I also like the theory that the Triwizard Cup was already a portkey back out of the maze and the fake Moody just added a stop. But then that would make it a bit odd for the fake Moody to say under the influence of veritaserum that after he volunteered to take the cup inside the maze he "turned it into a portkey." It could just be something JKR overlooked, I suppose. It wouldn't be necessary to make a portkey out of the cup in order to bring the winner out of the maze since all he'd need to do is send up some red sparks for the teachers patrolling outside to come and get him. CH3ed From bartl at sprynet.com Sat Dec 17 02:41:57 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:41:57 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's Self-Perception as Teacher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43A37AF5.6050200@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144871 kiricat4001 wrote: > I've always felt that Snape had a deep apprciation and respect, if > not love, for Potions. He may very well be one of those teachers who > is ultimately unsatisfied with teaching. Not because of how his > students do - Snape seems to be able to get most, if not all, of his > students, where they need to be. But, perhaps because none of them > do this with any real passion for the subject or any deep > appreciation of the beauty, as Snape sees it, of Potions. Bart: With the possible exception of Fred and George Weasley. Anybody here ever see AMADEUS? Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 03:38:14 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:38:14 -0000 Subject: Translations of HBP - how the names are translated In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144872 > > Alla wrote: > > I suppose the reason why they decided to translate some names in > > Harry Potter initially, because JKR has so many talking names, but > > boy, oh boy, some of them hurt my ears and eyes SO much. They > just > > sound awkward. > Oh, another thing - they translated Neville's last name into > Russian > > directly, sort of and every time when I read it, I start giggling, > I > > cannot help myself. It sounds in russian as "dolgopooops". > > vidar_fe writes: > They do this in the norwegian translations as well. As far as I know > every single name except Harry's have been changed! :-( > > The translator has even managed to turn Neville's last name into > Langballe, or 'long testicle' *am very outraged*! Poor boy.... > Alla: This is SO interesting. I guess this is a direction translators of Harry Potter go to - to translate as many names as possible or something. I don't think it is the best one, but if the publishers wanted it, I wish the translators were at least consistent, you know - as in translating every name which IS talking, although as I said I would prefer them NOT translating any. I don't know about Norvegian translation, but in Russian translation for some reason SNAPE is either translated or simply misspelled, I don't even know how to call what they did with his last name . To give you an approximate idea - his last name is pronounced closely to how the word "snow" sounds in Russian, but not quite. It sounds something like " SNAG". I wish I could figure out why. As to Neville, someone wrote to me off list and explained that in English his last name IS supposed to make us giggle, so I guess russian translator accomplished his task, I suppose and I guess Norvegian did it too, but as you said - poor boy indeed. Oh, another example of inconsistency - "Black" is supposed to be talking name, right? It is left as it is in Russian for some reason. I already said how annoyed I was with translations of the Houses names, but since I have not read the book 2 in Russian translation, I did not know how they named the founders and since today I read the chapter in Russian translation where Tom comes comes to Hecuba and sees Hufflepuff cup, I learned what they made of poor Helga Hufflepuff. For some reason she became "Penelope" in Russian and it is not like the name Penelope is easier to understand to Russian speaking readers - as far as I know it is NOT a wide spread name in Russian. Gah again. Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 04:05:53 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 04:05:53 -0000 Subject: Whither Snape AND the Dursleys AND Umbridge?/JKR's view of teacher Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144873 >> Jen: > > 1) Dursleys. My absolute favorite punishment for the Dursleys was > posted here: They will have to hide-out at Grimmauld Place b/c > Privet Dr. isn't safe. HAH! Alla: LOVE all your punishments Jen! :-) Jen: > This is fun to think about, but in the end I think JKR toys mainly > with minor characters like Lockhart, Umbridge, Bagman, etc. When > more major characters are dealt blows, they fall into two > categories: 1) Natural consequences stemming from choices and 2) > When Bad Things Happen to Good People or 'why crappy things happen > in the world for no reason'. > > Fudge is an example of the former, losing his job for his abysmal > performance in OOTP. Percy's separation from his family and the > increasing resentment on both sides is painful for several of the > Weasleys. And the second category? If JKR is really going for the > karmic justice of most characters in the book, she'd better have a > good explanation for *Harry* first and foremost, then the Potters, > Frank and Alice Longbottom, Neville, Cedric and a few others I could > think of..... Alla: Hmmm, interesting point. I would not say that ALL major characters experience the karmic punishment, BUT rather the idea of karmic justice at the end, you know? Does it make sense? Of course the story have to take its twists an turns and I doubt that JKR sits down and decides that today I will punish this character or reward this character or that I will do it to ALL the characters, but when story allows it, I believe it plays very significant part and of course it is easier for JKR specifically punish minor characters, since it does not have to interfere with the main storyline too much. Gah, I am being confusing again. I guess it all comes to that many times repeated "character is fate" idea. I know you don't buy essentialism as one of the main ideas behind the series - I do. I think that JKR allows her characters to change to some extent, so I don't think that she is strict essentialist, but I also think that everybody in Potterverse has some part in themselves who they really are, you know? And according to who they are their fate could be determined. Having said all that, I also think what you said about " bad things happened to good people" is perfectly valid interpretation. I think Sirius' going to Azkaban is VERY good example. It IS "bad thing" happened to good person ( of course it is JMO that Sirius is a good person - with many many flaws, but good overall) as result of many disastrous events, BUT also if one believes that Sirius bullied, mistreated Snape in school , it is IMO karmic punishment for that - you know - Dementors ARE in charge, completely and you are in your own private hell. So, I absolutely can view this is as karmic punishment and that is why I absolutely think that if Sirius bullied Snape, he paid for his sins ten times over. It IS seemingly unrelated action, but to me it all fits neatly, you know. If you go back to Snape and Harry, I can totally see Snape getting hit with something seemingly unrelated, but something which will leave him powerless and probably at Harry's mercy. THAT would be nice karmic punishment to me. Oh, and your examples about Potters and Longbottoms - of course it is not punishment, but I was talking about characters who we SAW did something bad and THEN getting punished. We did not see Potters (especially Lily) to do anything bad, so this is totally bad thing happens to good people IMO. As to Harry and Neville, personally I have no doubt that they will get their reward at the end, I mean it could be a reward in the afterlife ( which I am SO hoping not), but the reward nevertheless. JMO of course > Betsy Hp > Hmmm. I'm not sure I agree with this. I think JKR sees bad > *aspects* to Snape's teaching, specifically his favoritism and the > incredibly cruel wit he allows to escape now and again, but overall, > I think JKR does show Snape to be a good teacher. > Alla: JKR may see some "good aspects" in Snape teaching, but I am not sure if her calling Snape a bully and saying that this is the worst shabbiest thing teacher can do, qualifies as her thinking that Snape is a good teacher overall. I mean, I guess you could argue that her interviews and the books contradict each other, but no matter how hard I look, I don't see the contradictions, since the kids whom JKR shows Snape interacting with most closely, he mistreats horribly, IMO of course. Betsy: She compares him to McGonagall at one point, when Harry notes that > Snape, like McGonagall, had no problem getting a class under > control. Alla: Yes, the narrator, who looks through Harry eyes, says that Snape had a gift to keep class quiet. To me it rebuts SO beautifully the argument that Harry comes to the first class ready to hate Snape, already prejudiced against him, etc, etc. ( not saying that you made this argument, just remembering the older threads, but not the names of the posters). Hey, Snape has to have SOME teaching skills. At least he is capable of keeping class quiet, which is of course good. Not enough to me to qualify as good teacher overall, but of course IMO qualifies as good aspect. Betsy: She shows him having a rather large NEWT level Potions > class, while at the same time making sure the readers know that > Snape is very demanding about who he'll take into his NEWT level > courses. Alla: I can ABSOLUTELY see Snape being good to his Slytherins, and maybe even to some unnamed students from other Houses. The problem is I believe that if teacher abuses few students( IMO of course), it is teacher's problem NOT students and I am having a hard time calling such teacher a good one. Betsy: Hermione *never* complains about Snape's teaching > abilities, and she's a pretty reliable barometer when it comes to > Hogwarts' teachers. Alla: Well,not always actually, IMO. She was pretty fond of Lockhart, remember? She also does not like Firenze and IMO it is shown quite clearly that he IS a good Divination teacher. Betsy: > To top it all off, JKR gives Snape the best opening lines for a > class of any teacher in the books. Alla: People keep saying that those lines prove that Snape likes teaching. I am not sure where such proof lies. It DOES prove IMO that Snape loves Potions, but loves teaching? I don't see it at all. JMO of course. Alla, who learned by now that she can only take short breaks from Snape :) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Dec 17 04:22:42 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 04:22:42 -0000 Subject: Tom Riddle's Legilimency Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144874 I haven't been following every discussion. There are just too many! But in the ones I've seen at least, this hasn't been brought up. In HBP, Spinner's End, pg. 26 U.S., Scholastic, Snape refers to Voldemort as the most accomplished Legilimens the world has ever seen. And, I've seen a lot of discussion about why a boy living in an orphanage would want or need to develop this skill over Occlumency - to see how he should act, to get the benes. In HBP, The Secret Riddle, same version as above, beginning at the bottom of page 269, we see the proof of Tom Riddle's talents. In this scene, Dumbledore has just met young Tom Riddle. TR is afraid that Dumbledore is there to have a look at him at Mrs Cole's request. Dumbledore assures him he's wrong. Any emphasis is mine unless otherwise noted. ~ "I don't believe you," said Riddle. "She wants me looked at, doesn't she? Tell the truth!" He spoke the last three words with a ringing force that was almost shocking. It was a command, and it sounded as though he had given it many times before. *His eyes had widened and he was glaring at Dumbledore*, who made no response except to continue smiling pleasantly. After a few seconds *Riddle stopped glaring*, though he looked, if anything, *warier still*. ~ We've already learned that TR is suspected of being a bully. He frightens the other children. Look at what he's doing with Dumbledore. He's trying to read his thoughts about Mrs Cole's intentions. And, he may be trying to manipulate or control Dumbledore. When he gets no response, or an unexpected response (Dumbledore doing nothing), he becomes `warier still'. He can't read Dumbledore and it shakes him. It feeds into the myth of the Godlike Doctor. This man can see into his mind and can resist his own form of `mind-reading' and control. The sort of person who would run an assylum as presented by the information of the 1920s and 1930s. TR is furious at Dumbledore. He accuses. He loses his self- control. He might have gotten a crumb - he mentions specifically not harming `little Amy Benson or Dennis Bishop'. (Ask them, they'll tell you.) Dumbledore tells him Hogwarts is a school of magic. Bottom of page 270: ~ There was silence. Riddle had frozen, his face expressionless, but his eyes were flickering back and forth between each of Dumbledore's, *as though trying to catch one of them lying*. ~ They talk a bit more. TR is ecstatic, almost transfigured, by learning of his powers. He mentions things he can do - not nice things. He wants Dumbledore to show what he can do. Page 271: ~ "Prove it," said Riddle at once, *in the same commanding tone* he had used when he had said, "Tell the truth." ~ TR is shown to have Legilimency, and possibly some sort of mental control over people by the time he is eleven years old. He can't read Dumbledore, and he can't control him. It upsets him. His expression hardens before he becomes compliant. His face goes blank a couple or three times after that, when he begins to use the word `sir' at Dumbledore's prompting, and when he puts his cache away. He also becomes calculating, relying on what he can outwardly read in Dumbledore, rather than the easier method of just plumbing the man's mind. He has to do what Dumbledore says, Dumbledore can thwart his natural abilities, and Dumbledore is, to Muggle-raised Tom, the most powerful man he's probably ever met. But, he doesn't like it. He refuses Dumbledore's company in buying his school supplies. I believe the sections I quoted here show Legilimency and mind control being attempted by young Tom Riddle, and I also believe that Dumbledore's non-compliance in either is probably the first he's come across. It seems that these are skills which are inborn, at least in some wizards, and a boy like Tom Riddle discovered it early enough that he hadn't yet been taught that `that's not possible', probably by the age of six or seven, the age when children start to question Santa Claus and other childhood beliefs. And, that he consciously honed them, despite hearing later on that these things just weren't possible in his world. Tom Riddle was obviously a remarkable boy to have overcome the disbelief in his world and nurture his natural talents. But, is it normal for a magical child to have these sorts of gifts, to be nurtured, and in TR's environment, with no one able to help or to quelch his evil tendencies? Does this show that TR is remarkable? Or is it nothing that the average WW child couldn't do, if Mum and Dad weren't watching for it and prepared to guide the child in proper use of these, or other, gifts? Quick aside, I think that Harry getting gut feelings are along the same lines, and perhaps Hermione's 'steel trap' mind and Ron's chess strategy, too. Ceridwen. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 04:22:56 2005 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 04:22:56 -0000 Subject: Whither Snape AND the Dursleys AND Umbridge? (was Re: Cultural standards...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144875 Sydney: > JKR may or may not write a scene, depending, I suppose, on whether > such a scene would be useful towards the main plot of the Horcruxes > and Voldemort. And of course we'll hear about Harry's scar again, > it's the whole point of the series! Lupinlore: Oh, I'm sorry, I was not being clear. I was referring to the scar on Harry's hand from Umbridge's detentions. The one that says I SHALL NOT TELL LIES. That is the one many people were saying we would never hear about again, which turned out to be quite wrong. Sydney: As for Snape 'getting off scott > free', as most people, whether pro- or anti- Snape, think it's > extremely likely that he will die, I don't think that's a common > feeling at all.. Our disagreement is whether the death penalty for > those who are sarcastic to children is just and satisfying, which I > fear would condemn me and many of my favorite teachers! Lupinlore: Ah, but that's just the point, isn't it? His death penalty is not for his abuse of Harry and Neville, but rather for his murder of Dumbledore and perhaps for his former activity as a DE. It does not atone for his abuse of Harry and Neville. For that, a much more specific punishment is required, a punishment which we have not yet seen and which, if JKR is not to tacitly approve of Snape's child abuse, we must see. Now this may simply be accomplished by an explicit acknowledgement of Snape's sins that might in some way thematically link them with his ultimate fate, in much the same way Dumbledore's confrontation with the Dursleys in HBP might well provide a thematic link between their treatment of Harry and their ultimate fate. Lupinlore From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Dec 17 04:20:17 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:20:17 -0500 Subject: Elements of Houses Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144876 Bart: "I don't know exactly what JKR said on this, and there might be some argument, but Ravenclaw is DEFINITELY air (and I THINK JKR said that Gryffindor was fire). A case could be made for Slytherin being earth (with their obsession for the material), and Hufflepuff being water (success through dogged determination)." Hufflepuff's totem animal is a BADGER, a burrowing animal; Slytherin's is a snake, and their common room is under a lake, and in the Hat's Song he is associated with a SWAMP. Don't those indicate that Hufflepuff is Earth and Slytherin is Water? Also, Slytherin is consistantly opposed to Griffyndor--are not Fire and Water the most strongly opposed elements? Bruce [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From AllieS426 at aol.com Sat Dec 17 05:03:01 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 05:03:01 -0000 Subject: Dementors and Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144877 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lolita_ns" wrote: > But the > problem, as I see it, is how to make Dementors obey you? Or at least, > how to tell them that you want them to suck the pieces of soul hidden > in Horcruxes (if the Horcrux is said to be the *object* in which sb > has hidden part of their soul) without having them trying to do it to > *you* instead? Do you make a pact with them of some kind - is that > how the MoM controlled them up to a cetrain point? Allie: I have wondered if they can be killed. The Patronus can drive them away, but it doesn't destroy them. Because in theory, if they can't be destroyed and they CAN breed, in a short time the entire planet would be overrun by dementors! (Unless their lifespan is ultrashort, but I have no reason to think it is.) From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sat Dec 17 05:22:30 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 05:22:30 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?FILK:_I=92ll_Use_Gnomes_for_Christmas?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144878 I'll Use Gnomes for Christmas (HPB, Chap. 16) To the tune of I'll Be Home for Christmas. MIDI at (scroll to the bottom of the page): http://www.luvscreations.com/midi.htm THE SCENE: The Burrow. FRED WEASLEY sings of his newest Christmas Tree ornament. FRED: I'll use gnomes for Christmas, High atop the tree With some glue and a tutu They glower down at me. Late one night one bit me On my ankle bone I'll use gnomes for Christmas, When stupefied like stone. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm A VERY HARRY CHRISTMAS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/Christmas.htm From h2so3f at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 05:27:28 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 05:27:28 -0000 Subject: Why is it significant if LV learns the whole prophecy Re: JKR ITN interview In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144879 CH3ed: Somebody (please forgive my atrocious lack of memory!) up thread speculated that the whole prophecy would alert LV to the vulnerability of his horcruxes. I think that makes sense. If LV takes the prophecy seriously that Harry has a realistic chance of killing him (one must die at the hand of the other) because the prophecy doesn't specify who will live, and if the only way to kill LV is to first destroy all of his horcruxes, then that does mean that the horcruxes should be checked on. And it is essential to Harry's mission that LV doesn't give much thought on his hidden horcruxes before Harry could get to and destroy all of them. DD doesn't think that LV is alerted physically when a horcrux is destroyed. Hopefully he doesn't hear about them being hunted either until it is too late for him so his last fight with Harry would be a fair one. CH3ed :O) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Dec 17 07:16:48 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 07:16:48 -0000 Subject: Whither Snape AND the Dursleys AND Umbridge?/JKR's view of teacher Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144880 Alla: > LOVE all your punishments Jen! :-) Jen: Now I understand why JKR enjoys that part of her job. Makes me think fiction would be a very good outlet for getting back at annoying people . *Makes note to self to start writing fanfiction*. Alla: > Gah, I am being confusing again. I guess it all comes to that many > times repeated "character is fate" idea. I know you don't buy > essentialism as one of the main ideas behind the series - I do. I > think that JKR allows her characters to change to some extent, so > I don't think that she is strict essentialist, but I also think > that everybody in Potterverse has some part in themselves who they > really are, you know? And according to who they are their fate > could be determined. Jen: I finally decided what bothers me about essentialism as the main foundation for JKR creating her characters: It says to me she can't, or doesn't want to, create characters who are believably fluid. And I simply don't think she feels that way from all the effort she puts into her characters. For example, if Peter finally acts bravely instead of cowardly at some point, did he do so only because that is his base nature? Or because he discovered what it means to be truly courageous only after he learned what it felt like to be cowardly? Now *that* would be a characterization I could believe in and relate to, a person who has the ability to act both cowardly and courageously and chose the latter. With Snape, and I'm asking this very seriously for anyone interested in answering, why is it a more interesting characterization to find out he has been evil or out-for-himself all along? For me the gold nugget in a character like Snape is the moment of transformation. *Not* finding out he was noble and brave and wronged, ick. But that he was weak and selfish, he succumbed to the 'lure of power' of Voldemort and numbed himself to follow that life. And then the moment came, something so shattering it broke through his apathy or hatred or whatever was keeping him tied to Voldemort, something powerful enough to break him down, send him to his knees and rebuild him into a different person. Transforming base metal into gold. The essentialist character feels flat to me if one is simply acting out his/her fate. The visual I get is rats running through a maze! I know that's not what others visualize though, it's just the best I can conjure up. Alla: > I think Sirius' going to Azkaban is VERY good example. It IS "bad > thing" happened to good person ( of course it is JMO that Sirius > is a good person - with many many flaws, but good overall) as > result of many disastrous events, BUT also if one believes that > Sirius bullied, mistreated Snape in school, it is IMO karmic > punishment for that - you know - Dementors ARE in charge, > completely and you are in your own private hell.So, I absolutely > can view this is as karmic punishment and that is why I > absolutely think that if Sirius bullied Snape, he paid for his > sins ten times over. It IS seemingly unrelated action, but to me > it all fits neatly, you know. Jen: But what would Sirius' essential nature be in determining his punishment? Who is he, the man who bullied Snape, who escaped Azkaban because of an obsession with vengeance, who was ready to kill Peter? Or the person who fled his parent's opressive house because of their unethical beliefs, who acted bravely when called on and was loyal to the Potters until he died? He's both, he's neither-- he can't be distilled down in my opinion in order to be punished. Umbridge can be distilled down, Lockhart can be, Bagman can be, but most of the major characters can't be divided cleanly from where I sit. They become unreal to me, flat characters again instead of living, breathing, feeling people who move in mysterious ways. Jen From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 17 07:43:26 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 07:43:26 -0000 Subject: offbeat - and must have been discussed- Hogwarts Portkeys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144881 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "h2so3f" wrote: > > CH3ed: > I like bboyminn's theory that Dumbledore controlled the security > charms protecting Hogwarts. I would modify it to say the 'current > headmaster' controls the protective charms (and probably the other > charms like those that controll the decoration of the Great Hall as > well). > > I also like the theory that the Triwizard Cup was already a portkey > back out of the maze and the fake Moody just added a stop. But then > that would make it a bit odd for the fake Moody to say under the > influence of veritaserum that after he volunteered to take the cup > inside the maze he "turned it into a portkey." It could just be > something JKR overlooked, I suppose. Geoff: I suspect that he was speaking in terms of making it a Portkey to take Harry to Voldemort. From his perspective, the fact it was already set up to bring the winner out of the maze was not relevant. That was not something he envisaged would happen. From bianca.slate at gmail.com Sat Dec 17 02:02:34 2005 From: bianca.slate at gmail.com (buvuturo) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 02:02:34 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's intentional misleading (Re: A Question of Which Book) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144882 > Bianca wrote: > > In the US paperback edition of POA, Chapter 14, page 285, > Geoff: > The following might be what you are looking for.... > (PS "The Man with Two Faces" p.217 UK edition) Thanks. This is the canon proof I knew I had read, in which Dumbledore knowingly mislead Harry about the true nature of Snape's grudge against James Potter and the Marauders. Instead of telling Harry that his father and friends had been involved in a dangerous prank that could have proved fatal for Snape, Dumbledore told a partial truth that suggested to Harry that Snape was an ungrateful git, not the nearly murdered party in a violent conflict between him and the Marauders. While wanting to keep Lupin's secrets, Dumbledore does so at Snape's expense. In POA, Snape's reply to Harry also keeps Lupin's name out of it, but he gave a more factual account, in that he was put at risk of death, and that James Potter would have been expelled if he had not intervened. Snape could have added that the Ministry would have executed the werewolf student, and probably held a hearing to determine on who's authority Dumbledore had admitted a 'dark creature' as a student, therein revealing even more secrets, but Snape did not. He kept his words on target, and only revealed what was absolutely necessary. Anyone have any more examples of Dumbledore's intentional misleading? Thanks again, Bianca From querubina_75 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 04:22:19 2005 From: querubina_75 at yahoo.com (~*~Sandy~*~) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 04:22:19 -0000 Subject: What the last word in the seventh book may be................... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144883 Hey it's me Sandy and I just read this weeks Entertainment Weekly (with Kong on the cover) where there is a tiny little article on J.K. Rowling towards the very end of the issue. They talk about her and the possibility of killing off Harry for the final book. The article goes on to say that she has finished more than half of the last chapter and that the very final word to end the book might or will be "scar". Interesting............Good Day! From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Dec 17 04:25:35 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:25:35 -0500 Subject: Brick Walls Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144884 Bboymin: "I can understand the frustration that many teachers have with their students. The students are so wrapped up in their teen-pop-culutre lives that they can't give a thought to the future. I imagine that every teacher at one time or another (most likely on a daily basis) has had the uncontrollable urge to take a student firmly by the collar, shake them vigorously, and scream in their face, "This is important! This is your future! THIS MATTERS!". " Yes, yes, yes. SO often I wanted to do this. Alas, one is not allowed to do so. There is a saying, "The best thing about bashing one's head against a brick wall is that it feels SO good when you stop." My students' heads were at least as hard as brick walls, and when I finally decided that NOTHING would ever induce me to return to a classroom as a teacher it was so liberating. I would imagine that Snape feels a little like that post HBP, in spite of the circumstances of his leaving Hogwarts. Bruce From literature_Caro at web.de Fri Dec 16 10:58:56 2005 From: literature_Caro at web.de (literature_Caro) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:58:56 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dementors and Horcruxes In-Reply-To: <20051216033341.82976.qmail@web60924.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051216033341.82976.qmail@web60924.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1671715481.20051216115856@web.de> No: HPFGUIDX 144885 > I was just curious about the dementors and the horcruxes. Do you > think the Dementors could play a roll in removing Voldemorts soul or > piece of soul from the horcruxes as Harry finds them? > Chad. Caro: Well to be true that's a good question! I thought so, too but then asked myself what happens after the Dementor sucked out a soul. Would he digest it? What exactly are dementors? How do they breed? Are they perhaps themselves old victims of another dementor which slowly but surely transform and try to equalize their missing soul by sucking out somebody else's soul? Do they really suck out all of your soul or is a little bit left? Where then is the difference between them an Voldemort? ... So there is a lot of questions following ... but I don't think that they will willingly help Harry. They are dark creatures and always will stay pitch black and would never help somebody "on the side of light". Yours Caro From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sat Dec 17 11:14:01 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:14:01 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Elements of Houses Message-ID: <275.28acd16.30d54cf9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144886 In a message dated 12/16/2005 11:33:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, bawilson at citynet.net writes: Hufflepuff's totem animal is a BADGER, a burrowing animal; Slytherin's is a snake, and their common room is under a lake, and in the Hat's Song he is associated with a SWAMP. Don't those indicate that Hufflepuff is Earth and Slytherin is Water? Also, Slytherin is consistantly opposed to Griffyndor--are not Fire and Water the most strongly opposed elements? ---------------- Sherrie here: JKR has assigned Slytherin to Water & Hufflepuff to Earth - the latter makes perfect sense, as Earth signs (Taurus, especially!) are known for our "dogged determination". Slytherin is Water, the element most associated with emotion. Anyone think of an unemotional Slytherin offhand? Not me... Sherrie (typing from chilly Gettysburg, Pennsylvania!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Sat Dec 17 12:29:33 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:29:33 +0100 Subject: Translations of HBP - how the names are translated References: Message-ID: <005701c60305$8bd4d9a0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144887 dumbledore11214 wrote: > This is SO interesting. I guess this is a direction translators of > Harry Potter go to - to translate as many names as possible or > something. I don't think it is the best one, but if the publishers > wanted it, I wish the translators were at least consistent, you > know - as in translating every name which IS talking, although as I > said I would prefer them NOT translating any. Miles: I don't think we should condemn the translators and/or publishers for translating the names. Now, with volume 6 having some dust on it in many bookshelves, we may forget what Harry Potter was with the very first book: a children's book about a eleven year old boy, not more, not less. Few adults were interested in it, but the book was quite succesfull (as well as CoS and PoA), but still the obvious target group were children. So, translations were for children as well, and children outside English speaking countries just cannot understand English names, cannot pronounce them and above all they do not understand them if they have a meaning. To translate names is absolutely justifiable, if it is done correctly and consistently. In German translations the names of the main characters are English, the less important names are translated when they have a meaning - e.g. the name of the COMC teacher who substitutes Hagrid. English names without meaning are not changed. The trouble with translated names comes from the films if not dubbed, from Hollywood's unified merchandising and www-fandom. A bit off-topic: the German names in Lord of the Rings are well-known in German fandom - and they are just great. Frodo Beutlin for Baggins (German Beutel is bag), Das Auenland for The Shire (German Aue is floodplain), Thorin Eichenschild for Oakenshield and so on. A friend's last name is the same as Frodo's nom de guerre when he leaves the Shire - people keep smiling at him ;). German speakers who don't know English would miss so many humour and meaning without these names translated - and so will readers of Harry Potter with all the original names. Miles From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 12:57:36 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:57:36 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection ( was:Whither Snape AND the Dursleys AND Umbridge?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144888 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > ...what then will be the punishment of... the Dursleys? I have a > feeling it will involve revelations from Petunia that will be > devestating for her to make -- probably along the lines of what > Dumbledore was corresponding with her about, which is part of the > reason I think his appearance in the third chapter of HBP is part of > a larger movement in the plot. It fits nicely with the Howler in > OOTP and may well segue into whatever happens in Book VII. We may > even see a certain amount of salvation for Dudley, as JKR has hinted > in that direction, as did Dumbledore (and of course "salvation" for > Dudley might very well equal "ruination" in the Dursleys eyes). > After all, we have yet to see the vaunted "protection" in action, Yeah, what about the protection? What is the nature of it? I used to think that there was a sort of force field around #4 Privet Drive that excluded Voldemort and his agents, but since HBP I've come to believe there's more to it than that. Consider Harry's adventures--Harry has always prevailed by a combination of pluck, determination, and... let's face it, dumb luck. He's not always lucky, of course. In fact, most of the time, if it weren't for bad luck, he'd have no luck at all (I forget whose lyrics I'm mangling)--but when it really counts the Death Curse will miss, Fawkes will show up with a hat and a sword, Hermione will knock down Quirrel, or Dumbledore will show up in the nick of time. Now we know that luck can be granted by magic, the Felix Felicis potion is proof of that. Maybe that's the nature of the protection: in extremis, Harry will always luck out. That would explain a couple of oddities: Why, in OotP, Harry was free to go outside the house (at least until the Dementors showed up), for example. It would also explain why Dumbledore asks that Harry be allowed to come back to Privet Drive one more time: "This magic will cease to operate the moment that Harry turns seventeen; in other words, at the moment he becomes a man. I ask only this: that you allow Harry to return, once more, to this house, before his seventeenth birthday, which will ensure that the protection continues until that time." --HBP-- Note that Dumbledore doesn't ask that Harry be allowed to stay *until* his birthday, just that he be allowed to come back "once more". By this view, Harry needs to return for only a short time to recharge his luck (as he says he will do at the end of HBP) rather than hide out at Fort Dursley until the wards fail. The former makes little sense if Dumbledore expected that he and Harry (or Harry alone, if you subscribe to the notion, as I do, that Dumbledore knew he was dying) would be hunting Horcruxes that summer. Harry might be safe, but any time sitting behind the wards would be time that could have been devoted to finding and eliminating Voldemort's anchors to life. As to the Dursleys: My guess is that the protection is in some way reciprocal--that it protects the Dursleys as well as Harry, and that Petunia knows this. That would explain why Petunia has never chucked Harry out, and would be the thing that Dumbledore's Howler urged her to remember when Vernon was ready to show Harry the door. Petunia is upset by something Dumbledore says when Dumbledore finishes his talk with the Dursleys: "Aunt Petunia, however, was oddly flushed." Maybe it's the thought that she has screwed up Dudley, maybe it's guilt, or maybe she's worried that once Harry hits seventeen, she's--literally--out of luck. That then, could be justice for the Dursleys: had they been decent to Harry, they would be the beloved family of a very important wizard. Ways would be found to protect them. As things stand, though, the Order has little incentive to spend precious resources protecting a pair of child abusers. Amiable Dorsai From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Sat Dec 17 13:09:59 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 14:09:59 +0100 Subject: Whither Snape AND the Dursleys AND Umbridge? References: Message-ID: <006a01c6030b$31cc1620$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144889 dumbledore11214 wrote: > LOVE all your punishments Jen! :-) Miles: I love them as well, although I do not think that punishments for all the bad characters are necessary for the last book to be morally intact. What I like most with Jen's ideas is, that they are playful, not gravely, impressionistic, not counting. To see bad characters punished - yes, it is fun, as it is to see good characters being rewarded. But it should not happen in a predictable way, like in bad films. > Lupinlore: > Ah, but that's just the point, isn't it? His death penalty is not for > his abuse of Harry and Neville, but rather for his murder of > Dumbledore and perhaps for his former activity as a DE. Miles: And here we have what I would dislike ;). First: this 'to kill him is not enough' strongly reminds me of Britney Spears, sorry Lupinlore: "I am for the death penalty. Who commits terrible acts must get a fitting punishment. That way he learns the lesson for the next time." What on earth would justify to expect punishment beyond killing someone? I simply do not understand that you want to see Snape tantalised *and* killed? But just another thought. Most people feel, that Snape will die in book 7, I am among them. But I disagree, that Rowling will have him killed as a punishment for whatever. Besides I personally think death penalty is a crime in real life, and I dislike it in fiction as well, obviously Rowling does not see death as appropriate punishment at all. We have three examples for this: - When Harry spares Peter's life in PoA, he is praised by the moral authority of all the books, by Albus Dumbledore himself. - I think it is in OotP, where Lupin (and he is a moral authority as well, at least for Harry) tells Harry about Moody's Auror past and praises him for not killing the DEs, but bringing them to Azkaban, whereas Crouch sr is presented as a bad example for an Auror, because he does not arrest, he kills. - Finally, Crouch jr is killed by Dementors on orders of Fudge, and this is presented as a crime. So, death is not a punishment that Rowling presents us as a punishment anyone deserves. The only exception seems to be Voldemort himself, if we consider the last discussions of Harry and Dumbledore about Harry's mission. But if you ask me, Harry will not literally kill Voldemort. And if he will not do this, or will be unable to do it when he has the chance (but will overcome Voldemort nevertheless), that is much more important for the moral message of the series than any other punishment for what character ever. Miles From h2so3f at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 14:10:13 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 14:10:13 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's intentional misleading (Re: A Question of Which Book) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144890 buvuturo wrote: > This is the canon proof I knew I had read, in which > Dumbledore knowingly mislead Harry about the true nature of > Snape's grudge against James Potter and the Marauders. > > Instead of telling Harry that his father and friends had been > involved in a dangerous prank that could have proved fatal for > Snape, Dumbledore told a partial truth that suggested to Harry > that Snape was an ungrateful git, not the nearly murdered party > in a violent conflict between him and the Marauders." and > In POA, Snape's reply to Harry also keeps Lupin's name out of > it, but he gave a more factual account, in that he was put at > risk of death, and that James Potter would have been expelled > if he had not intervened." CH3ed: O, but James really was not involved in the prank. What DD left out was Snape's assumption that James was in on or approved of Sirius' reckless prank. Lupin's account in PoA makes it clear that James didn't know what Sirius had done until Snape had gone following Lupin into the tunnel. James then learnt what Sirius had done and went after Snape at a great risk to himself (he had not transformed into the Stag and even if he did he would have had a hard time trying to control the werewolf Lupin by himself without Sirius' help) to pull Snape out before he get to the Shrieking Shack. Snape's version was actually the inaccurate one that added his own assumption of James' involvement in Sirius' plot. The one scene where I think DD might have intentionally hid something factual from Harry is in OotP when DD showed Harry the 1st prophecy. They didn't go into the pensieve to see the whole thing, instead DD had this watery Trelawny rise up from the pensieve to tell it (so that Harry didn't see the interruption of the prophecy by Snape). CH3ed From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 15:57:42 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:57:42 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's intentional misleading (Re: A Question of Which Book) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144891 > buvuturo wrote: > > This is the canon proof I knew I had read, in which > > Dumbledore knowingly mislead Harry about the true nature of > > Snape's grudge against James Potter and the Marauders. Alla: As far as I can remember Dumbledore NEVER mislead Harry about anything, actually. Now, Dumbledore did not TELL Harry some important things and by that I really don't mean The Prank, but Prophecy, but I don't remember him EVER letting Harry believe that something opposite to the truth is true. I can be wrong of course. Buvuturo: > > Instead of telling Harry that his father and friends had been > > involved in a dangerous prank that could have proved fatal for > > Snape, Dumbledore told a partial truth that suggested to Harry > > that Snape was an ungrateful git, not the nearly murdered party > > in a violent conflict between him and the Marauders." > and > > In POA, Snape's reply to Harry also keeps Lupin's name out of > > it, but he gave a more factual account, in that he was put at > > risk of death, and that James Potter would have been expelled > > if he had not intervened." Alla: Dumbledore told Harry that James saved Snape's life. Could you refer me to canon which says that James did not save Snape's life? Now, he did not tell him the circumstances, that is true, but again, I don't see how "not telling about something" equals "intentional misleading" about something. And it is you right of course to believe that Snape gave more factual acount of the events, but " my memory is as good as ever" makes me doubt it. JMO of course. Could you also refer me to canon which says that James Potter would have been expelled, had Snape not intervened. I am truly confused now. > > CH3ed: > O, but James really was not involved in the prank. > Snape's version was actually the inaccurate one that added his own > assumption of James' involvement in Sirius' plot. Alla: Exactly. Thank you! As I said many times, I am of the opinion that we have NOT heard the complete version of the Prank from anybody yet and JKR promised that we find out more, so I can't wait. CH3ed: > The one scene where I think DD might have intentionally hid > something factual from Harry is in OotP when DD showed Harry the 1st > prophecy. They didn't go into the pensieve to see the whole thing, > instead DD had this watery Trelawny rise up from the pensieve to > tell it (so that Harry didn't see the interruption of the prophecy > by Snape). Alla: Right, but again - is " hiding the complete truth" equals "intentional misleading"? Dumbledore did not let Harry believe that anybody else was an eavesdropper ( personally I was so proud of myself that I was set on Snape being the one right away :- )), he just did not let Harry know who it was. I am guessing because he wanted to protect Harry and Snape. You know - typical Dumbledore. But intentionally misleading people is just not Dumbledore, IMO of course. I am racking my brain, but cannot remember in the books that Dumbledore intentionally made someone believe in a lie. From h2so3f at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 16:39:49 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:39:49 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's intentional misleading (Re: A Question of Which Book) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144892 Alla wrote: "Is " hiding the complete truth" equals "intentional misleading"? Dumbledore did not let Harry believe that anybody else was an eavesdropper ( personally I was so proud of myself that I was set on Snape being the one right away :-)), he just did not let Harry know who it was. I am guessing because he wanted to protect Harry and Snape. You know - typical Dumbledore. But intentionally misleading people is just not Dumbledore, IMO of course." and "Exactly. Thank you! As I said many times, I am of the opinion that we have NOT heard the complete version of the Prank from anybody yet and JKR promised that we find out more, so I can't wait." CH3ed: You're welcome and I'm agree with Alla. From the reaction of DD on hearing that Trelawney had spilled the bean about Snape being the LV spy who interrupted the 1st prophesy, it is clear that DD anticipated how Harry's relationship with Snape could go beyond being repairable if he is told of Snape's involvement in the event that led to the deaths of Lily and James. I guess that DD would have wanted to be able to tell Harry the whole truth just then, including what convinced him that Snape really regretted his part (I'm betting on the Snape loved Lily at the moment), but there just wasn't time. It just wouldn't have been sensible to tell Harry such a thing before going on a horcrux hunt. Hopefully we'll get the whole version of the prank that explain the excessive hatred between Snape and the Marauders, and the whole Snape and the 1st prophecy affair. That'll make the 2 yrs wait for Book 7 worth it. ;O) Alla wrote: "I am racking my brain, but cannot remember in the books that Dumbledore intentionally made someone believe in a lie." CH3ed: I suppose we could say DD was a bit misleading when he told the would be executor of Buckbeak to search the sky rather than the ground when they found that the hippogriff had escaped. And when he dismissed Snape's accusation of Harry helping Sirius escape by saying that that would not make sense since it required Harry and Hermione to be in two places at the same time. ;O) I have to say I rather liked the way DD did that, though. He didn't lie... He just made sensible suggestions that he knew would be taken to the wrong conclusion. I just loved Albus Dumbledore! :O) CH3ed has unexpectedly ran out of sugar to go with his tea. Must go to the grocery!!! From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Dec 17 17:06:45 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:06:45 -0000 Subject: A blood bond between Snape and Dumbledore? (was Re: Snape a relative?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144893 Lupinlore: > Possible. However, let me put forth another theory about Snape's > relatives. Perhaps, just perhaps, he's related to Dumbledore. JKR > has indicated that Dumbledore's family will be important, and also > has said that the family relationships of Hogwarts professors are > kept secret for security reasons. Pippin: Do you have a quote for the family relationships? I thought she said it was "classified" whether any of the Hogwarts staff were married. I don't think we have to get all Star Wars-y for Dumbledore to feel guilty about Snape. Snape was injured, "wounded" is the word Dumbledore uses, on Dumbledore's watch, and Dumbledore did not see. And Dumbledore's cosmic punishment is to watch as Harry is mistreated and know that there is nothing he can do about it. Tough on Harry, but that's the trouble with cosmic punishment in JKR's world. It falls on the sons for the sins of their fathers whether the sons are guilty or not. "Kreacher is what he has been made by wizards." "We wizards have mistreated and abused our fellows for too long, and we are now reaping our reward." Dumbledore does not go so far as to say, in fact he refuses to say, that the innocent *deserve* to suffer so. But that is the world he lives in. However, Dumbledore also believes in a power "more wonderful and terrible than death, than human intelligence, than the forces of nature." The power that Harry has and Voldemort has not. Whatever Snape's fate is, it will turn on the application of that power, or Harry will fail. Pippin From ornawn at 013.net Sat Dec 17 17:09:40 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:09:40 -0000 Subject: Tower Scene from Fantasy genre perspective Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144894 >Jen: >To me the possibility then arises that if Voldemort used old Dark >Magic to be resurrected and possibly weakened himself in the >process, Dumbledore might have used ancient magic in his death and >thus conferred some type of strength to a living being or beings. >How Dumbledore died would then be critical to activating the ancient >magic: First would be a willingness to sacrifice himself should that >be necessary and it's clear he was; then, what if dying by the hand >of one who was once traitorous to Dumbledore & his love magic, but >now has True Loyalty in his heart is the key? >Some explanation along those lines would make me think Snape might >have struggled with his loyalty, possibly up to the moment on the >tower. But in that moment when Dumbledore pleaded, Snape made his >choice. His hands were tied by the UV, but only the truth in his >heart would activate the ancient magic and help Dumbledore fulfill >his plan even after death. Orna: It's interesting, this theory ? There are some mirror ?components in this scene, compared with the GoF resurrection one: There are DE around - watching Harry is unable to move Snape as DD's servant has some treachery traits ? in his past (some think in his present), like Wormtail being Voldemort's servant ? but under (former, future?) obligation to Harry Draco is a spare fellow student ? greatly endangered by the scene. In contradiction to GoF ? the "spare" student is spared and saved by DD's servant, and not killed. The servant kills DD, and doesn't resurrect him Harry is forced not to intervene, thereby sparing his blood. The servants are very interesting- since they both seem to be very torn about the part they are supposed to do "willfully". They are both traitors in a way. Both of them changed sides, at least once, and do have secret ties to the other side And both ended up in Spinner's end. Another thing- Harry's hunt after Snape and Draco and their disappearing beyond the walls, while DE are cursing him, and with Snape escaping, has some muddled echo from GoF, when Harry runs away from Voldemort, feels DE curses after him, hears Voldemort shout ? he is to be left for him and gets away with Cedric and the portkey, at the last second I don't know where it leads to, but I found the comparison interesting. I suppose, that's what made you suggest your theory? Orna From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 17:26:36 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:26:36 -0000 Subject: A blood bond between Snape and Dumbledore? (was Re: Snape a relative?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144895 > Pippin: > I don't think we have to get all Star Wars-y for Dumbledore to feel > guilty about Snape. Snape was injured, "wounded" is the word > Dumbledore uses, on Dumbledore's watch, and Dumbledore did > not see. And Dumbledore's cosmic punishment is to watch as > Harry is mistreated and know that there is nothing he can do about > it. > > Tough on Harry, but that's the trouble with cosmic punishment in > JKR's world. It falls on the sons for the sins of their fathers whether > the sons are guilty or not. "Kreacher is what he has been made by > wizards." "We wizards have mistreated and abused our fellows for > too long, and we are now reaping our reward." Alla: Hmmmm, I don't buy your interpretation that JKR promotes "let's make sons suffer for the sins of their fathers", in fact to me it is quite clear that she dissapproves of it and portrays Snape committing very bad things towards Harry, but let's assume that I buy it for the sake of argument - could you tell me how Longbottoms mistreated Snape that he treats their son so badly, oh and I also would like to know what Grangers ever did to Snape to treat their daughter as he does? My idea of karmic justice is that person gets their dues for who THEY are, not for who their parents were. IMO of course. Pippin >> Whatever Snape's fate is, it will turn on the application of that > power, or Harry will fail. Alla: We'll just have to wait and see, I guess. :-) I don't see direct correlation between Harry's success and whatever he does about Snape, but there is something I want to predict about it (I could be wrong of course) - next time when they meet, there will be some kind of power reversal and whatever Harry will do , he will have an upper hand in their interaction, so to speak. THAT is something I am looking forward to. I don't know whether he will be giving Snape absolution of his sins, or saving him from direct threat or something like that, but it will be up to Harry, totally up to Harry. I should mark it as a prediction for book 7. :-) I also think that it is possible that after that interaction whenever it will happen, they will meet at the end for the second time, again don't ask me about circumstances, and IF Snape had seen the light by that time, he may repay the favor, sort of - by dying for Harry or something like that. JMO, Alla From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Sat Dec 17 17:30:39 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:30:39 +0100 Subject: Dumbledore's intentional misleading (Re: A Question of Which Book) References: Message-ID: <009901c6032f$9a4f6ac0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144896 > Alla wrote: > "Is " hiding the complete truth" equals "intentional misleading"? > Dumbledore did not let Harry believe that anybody else was an > eavesdropper ( personally I was so proud of myself that I was set on > Snape being the one right away :-)), he just did not let Harry know > who it was. Miles: I still do not see that Snape *interrupted* the prophecy. I don't believe that the incident of being pushed into the room at the Hog's Head happened during, it was after the entire prophecy. If so, and Snape heard both parts, then Dumbledore misled Harry very much - and he misled Voldemort. But this is Puppetmaster!Dumbledore, not popular, I know ;). But apart from this - yes, hiding parts of the truth can be intentional misleading. Just try to argue it as a witness before court ;). > CH3ed: > You're welcome and I'm agree with Alla. From the reaction of DD on > hearing that Trelawney had spilled the bean about Snape being the LV > spy who interrupted the 1st prophesy, it is clear that DD > anticipated how Harry's relationship with Snape could go beyond > being repairable if he is told of Snape's involvement in the event > that led to the deaths of Lily and James. Miles: Harry is not competent in Occlumency. DDM!Snape assumed (and Dumbledore himself assumed it), it could have been a desaster, if Harry knew why Dumbledore was so sure about Snape's loyality. Just one minute with Voldemort, and Snape's camouflage is history. Miles From sstraub at mail.utexas.edu Sat Dec 17 15:54:39 2005 From: sstraub at mail.utexas.edu (orzchis) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:54:39 -0000 Subject: Translations of HBP - how the names are translated In-Reply-To: <005701c60305$8bd4d9a0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144897 Miles: > I don't think we should condemn the translators and/or publishers for > translating the names. Now, with volume 6 having some dust on it in > many bookshelves, we may forget what Harry Potter was with the very > first book: a children's book about a eleven year old boy, not more, > not less. Sandy: Right. I don't envy the translators now that we can see how interrelated everything is, names and all. One's first choice might look silly by now, or not fit. Miles: > A friend's last name is the same as Frodo's nom de guerre when he > leaves the Shire - people keep smiling at him ;). Sandy: Unterberg? Maybe they are smiling because of the digestive bitters? Or is that Underberg? Sandy Straubhaar (who has a name that makes people smile) making her first post From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Sat Dec 17 17:58:54 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:58:54 +0100 Subject: Translations of HBP - how the names are translated References: Message-ID: <00c001c60333$8bd95790$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144898 Miles: > A friend's last name is the same as Frodo's nom de guerre when he > leaves the Shire - people keep smiling at him ;). Sandy: > Unterberg? Maybe they are smiling because of the digestive bitters? > Or is that Underberg? Miles: Yes, Unterberg, the bitters is Underberg. Younger people know LotR much better than the bitters - and honestly, who will smile because of such a disgusting drink? ;) Miles, ironing his pointed ears... erm, his hands for the fourth post of the day, but who just couldn't resist to answer Sandy ;) From ornawn at 013.net Sat Dec 17 18:06:26 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:06:26 -0000 Subject: 7 Horcruxes - Shock & outrage!! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144899 >Steve >As to the portraits, don't forget that Dumbledore's portrait is also >there now, and once he wakes up, he is not only capable of talking >to McGonagall but also capable of talking to and interacting with >the other portraits. Dumbledore's portrait can tell McGonagall >whatever he thinks she needs to know, and can further tell the >other portraits NOT to tell McGonagall any secrets he does not want >her to know. Orna: I agree. We see that Phineas Nigellus is quite outspoken towards DD and sometimes quite independent in ways he acts. So I think that the portraits serve the headmaster ? like teachers served him, which demands always a way of agreeing ? and not like puppets serve. I also think they might be hindered from passing information from one headmaster's regime to another ? the headmaster is there on the wall, and it's his authority to speak with the current headmaster on what he chooses to speak. It wouldn't do to use the portraits as tell-tailing on headmasters sitting beside them on the wall. Otherwise it would be dishonoring IMO to the headmasters. Orna From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Dec 17 18:20:22 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:20:22 -0000 Subject: A blood bond between Snape and Dumbledore? (was Re: Snape a relative?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144900 > Alla: > > Hmmmm, I don't buy your interpretation that JKR promotes "let's make > sons suffer for the sins of their fathers", in fact to me it is > quite clear that she dissapproves of it and portrays Snape > committing very bad things towards Harry, but let's assume that I > buy it for the sake of argument - could you tell me how Longbottoms > mistreated Snape that he treats their son so badly, oh and I also > would like to know what Grangers ever did to Snape to treat their > daughter as he does? Pippin: I don't think she's *promoting* it any more than she's promoting a belief in magic. It's just the way her world works. If magic worked, it might be nice because you could make wonderful things happen, but it could also be very terrible because people could use it to do awful things to one another. In the same way, if the world was ruled by this tit-for-tat kind of justice, you could be sure that everyone who did wrong would suffer in some way, and if they happened to die before their account was paid, it would land on their children and their children's children. Society as a whole would pay for the abuses it tolerates. It would be gratifying in some ways, but painful in others. Didn't Hermione set Snape on fire? Rob his office? Doesn't Neville's carelessness injure his fellow students and disrupt the class? You betcha. Did they *deserve* what they got? Cosmic retribution doesn't care. They did it, so they pay. Too bad if they're nice people otherwise. JKR may enjoy it more when she gets to punish a character she doesn't like. But they're not the only ones who get punished. I agree that Snape's fate will be in Harry's hands at some point. It will be interesting to see what he does with it. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 18:57:54 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:57:54 -0000 Subject: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. WA blood bond between Snape and Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144901 > Pippin: > I don't think she's *promoting* it any more than she's promoting > a belief in magic. It's just the way her world works. Alla: I am not sure it does at all. Yes, I think that people get what they deserve or not, but all of them? And children suffering for the sins of their fathers? I personally doubt it. Pippin: > In the same way, if the world was ruled by this tit-for-tat kind > of justice, you could be sure that everyone who did wrong would > suffer in some way, and if they happened to die before their > account was paid, it would land on their children and their children's > children. Alla: How do you know that James account was not paid before he died? Snape does not think so, I suppose, but I am not sure karmic justice will take that into account. James after all did save Snape AND Snape reported the prophecy to Voldemort which in essensehelped to get Lily and James killed and are you arguing that after all that James still did not pay for whatever he did to Snape at school? If you are arguing it, I disagree and very strongly at that. Pippin: > Didn't Hermione set Snape on fire? Rob his office? Doesn't > Neville's carelessness injure his fellow students and disrupt > the class? You betcha. Did they *deserve* what > they got? Cosmic retribution doesn't care. They did it, so they > pay. Too bad if they're nice people otherwise. JKR may > enjoy it more when she gets to punish a character she doesn't > like. But they're not the only ones who get punished. Alla: What did Hermione and Neville PARENTS did to Snape? As to what you described, Hermione was saving Harry's life, so I don't agree that karmic justice will hit her for that and Neville's carelessness? I am not sure it WAS carelessness in the first place, but IMO intense fear of Snape. In any event, I agree that many nice people get punished, I just completely disagree that Snape's deeds could be considered proportional punishment, you know. Hermione actually WAS punished for robbing Snape stores. She was turned into a cat, remember? I think THAT was a very proportional punishment. IMO anyways. By the way, I don't think that JKR's word is ruled by "tit for tat" justice, BUT I think that idea of comeuppance IS there and rather strong too. But for the most part I interpret it as BAD guys getting their dues AND good guys getting slapped if THEY did something bad, if possible within the story of course. Pippin: > I agree that Snape's fate will be in Harry's hands at some point. > It will be interesting to see what he does with it. Alla: I keep coming back to my older speculation - I think that VERY fitting punishment will be for Harry to save Snape's life AND for Snape not being able to repay him. THAT would be nice,IMO of course. I doubt that JKR will go there, but I certainly would love her too. JMO, Alla From ornawn at 013.net Sat Dec 17 19:09:28 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:09:28 -0000 Subject: Dementors and Horcruxes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144902 >Allie: >I have wondered if they can be killed. The Patronus can drive them >away, but it doesn't destroy them. Because in theory, if they can't >be destroyed and they CAN breed, in a short time the entire planet >would be overrun by dementors! (Unless their lifespan is >ultrashort, but I have no reason to think it is.) Orna: We know they can feel starved, if they can't dwell on human feelings, especially happy or excited ones. Patronus which are produced with human joy, but are not-human drive them away. I think occlumenting humans might also starve them, in a way. It would seem that trying to kill them would be difficult, since trying to kill might involve some excited emotion. There is some way of controlling them, since the ministry used to have them work for them, and now Voldemort uses them ? has to order them etc. I have often wondered how it was possible for Fudge in GoF to be accompanied by the dementor for Barty's Crouch kiss, without suffering from the dementor's company, or him and DD visiting Azkaban. It seems there are ways of neutralizing dementors. Perhaps they are forced to be "undementorish" towards authority figures, who control them? About breeding ? I thought the dementors were breeding, because the WW was alarmed to Voldemort's return, and therefore anxious and sad feelings were bound to be all around. It seems the right atmosphere for dementor-breeding. And in this sense you are right, that the entire planet is being filled by them. Perhaps if the WW-community feels stronger, and more confident, it wouldn't be the "right" atmosphere for breeding, and then old age would kill them of, or at least there would be less of them. Orna From darkmatter30 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 19:30:22 2005 From: darkmatter30 at yahoo.com (Richard) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:30:22 -0000 Subject: Why is it significant if LV learns the whole prophecy Re: JKR ITN interview In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144903 h2so3f wrote: > CH3ed: > Somebody (please forgive my atrocious lack of memory!) up > thread speculated that the whole prophecy would alert LV > to the vulnerability of his horcruxes. I think that makes > sense. If LV takes the prophecy seriously that Harry has a > realistic chance of killing him (one must die at the hand > of the other) because the prophecy doesn't specify who > will live, and if the only way to kill LV is to first > destroy all of his horcruxes, then that does mean that the > horcruxes should be checked on. And it is essential to > Harry's mission that LV doesn't give much thought on his > hidden horcruxes before Harry could get to and destroy all > of them. DD doesn't think that LV is alerted physically > when a horcrux is destroyed. Hopefully he doesn't hear > about them being hunted either until it is too late for > him so his last fight with Harry would be a fair one. Richard here: I think you have much of this entirely correct, though a little re- phrasing might help, as well as a couple of points being interesting speculative points to add. There are two primary reasons for Voldemort to want to know the full prophecy, and several lesser ones, with most centering on the fact that knowledge is power, and in this case Voldemort is ignorant ... and knows it. One reason he needs the rest of the prophecy is that he needs to be absolutely certain he's killing the right enemy. Yes, he "knows" Harry is "the one," but ... what if the rest of the prophecy adds material that lets him know that Harry's survival was pure accident, and the REAL threat to him is someone whose parents fled to Nova Scotia, for example. Much though he wants and needs to kill Harry (face must be saved), if he does so and Harry ISN'T the one, we're talking serious lapse in paranoia, here. Second, Voldemort does not know what else the remainder of the prophecy may contain. For all he knows, it may tell how he may kill Harry (or whoever), as well as information about the specific means available to "the one." If he can obtain the full prophecy, it MAY tell him how best to defend himself and attack his nemesis. But, he just does not know, and so must, if he is to be truly paranoid and obsessed with personal immortality, find out what the rest is. One of the lesser, but still important, reason to know the prophecy is that it might reveal information that would indicate the strategy of those seeking to help "the one." It could reveal when the threat is to reach its crisis. It could identify where the crisis is to occur. There are so many things it COULD reveal, and which he just does not know, that it must surely be an imperative for him to learn it, given his personal motivations and ambitions. Now, why is it important to keep him from getting the rest of the prophecy? Well, it is information, and there is SOME additional information in the rest, even if not much of substantive character. I don't see how knowing the rest would substantially aid Voldemort, except that it would remove a great deal of doubt from the situation for Voldemort, and thus allow him to expend his resources elsewhere, and for other purposes. How then is this bad? Well, if he DID start using his resources for other purposes, they would probably be used for more effective purposes in dealing with his enemies. Think of an occupying army dealing with an active conventional war front and an active effective insurgency in its rear. Significant forces have to be committed to dealing with security in rear areas, and thus are not available for use on the front. The insurgency suddenly ends, and the divisions dealing with it suddenly are freed to serve on the front ... Bad for the other side, wouldn't you think? To the extent Voldemort wastes time trying to learn something that now can only be learned from the trio, he is wasting resources that might be used more effectively for other purposes. As it is, he has lost several supporters trying to get the prophecy, and wasted a good deal of time, too. Finally, I do agree that Voldemort would be more likely to further protect, and even add to, his horcruxes, were he to obtain the full prophecy. Knowing the little that remains unknown to him would allow him to refocus efforts on his personal safety, which includes the horcruxes. So, let him be less than blissful in his ignorance of the rest of the prophecy: it keeps him from thinking and acting more productively in his own defense. Richard, who likes to think strategically From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 17 19:47:14 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:47:14 -0000 Subject: What the last word in the seventh book may be................... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144904 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "~*~Sandy~*~" wrote: > > Hey it's me Sandy and I just read this weeks Entertainment Weekly > (with Kong on the cover) where there is a tiny little article on > J.K. Rowling towards the very end of the issue. They talk about > her and the possibility of killing off Harry for the final book. > The article goes on to say that she has finished more than half > of the last chapter and that the very final word to end the book > might or will be "scar". > Interesting............Good Day! Geoff: I hope I don't sound rude but there is a saying in the UK: "Yes and Queen Anne's dead!" It means that the news being brought is old and well known. JKR was reported as making this statement in an interview as far back as 31/12/99 and it has been mentioned several times in despatches (er... sorry, group messages) since then although I can forgive you for not tracking it down through the labyrinthine intestines of the !Yahoo search engine... :-)) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 17 19:54:17 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:54:17 -0000 Subject: Translations of HBP - how the names are translated In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144905 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: Alla: > As to Neville, someone wrote to me off list and explained that in > English his last name IS supposed to make us giggle, so I guess > russian translator accomplished his task, I suppose and I guess > Norvegian did it too, but as you said - poor boy indeed. Geoff: Curiously, as a native English speaker, I've never felt an urge to laugh at Neville's name. There are a number of names ending in -bottom, e.g. Longbottom, Rowbottom, Ramsbottom and Higginbottom come to mind, which are often of North country origin and, having spent the early formative years of my existence in that region, I do not make a humorous connection. I get more chuckles out of JKR's play on other names - Diagon Alley, Knockturn Alley, Grimmauld Place, Umbridge, Little Whinging for example. From greatraven at hotmail.com Sat Dec 17 23:58:05 2005 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 23:58:05 -0000 Subject: Whither Snape AND the Dursleys AND Umbridge?/JKR's view of teacher Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144906 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > Alla: > > LOVE all your punishments Jen! :-) > > Jen: Now I understand why JKR enjoys that part of her job. Makes me > think fiction would be a very good outlet for getting back at > annoying people . *Makes note to self to start writing > fanfiction*. > > Alla: > > Gah, I am being confusing again. I guess it all comes to that many > > times repeated "character is fate" idea. I know you don't buy > > essentialism as one of the main ideas behind the series - I do. I > > think that JKR allows her characters to change to some extent, so > > I don't think that she is strict essentialist, but I also think > > that everybody in Potterverse has some part in themselves who they > > really are, you know? And according to who they are their fate > > could be determined. > > Jen: I finally decided what bothers me about essentialism as the > main foundation for JKR creating her characters: It says to me she > can't, or doesn't want to, create characters who are believably > fluid. And I simply don't think she feels that way from all the > effort she puts into her characters. For example, if Peter finally > acts bravely instead of cowardly at some point, did he do so only > because that is his base nature? Or because he discovered what it > means to be truly courageous only after he learned what it felt like > to be cowardly? Now *that* would be a characterization I could > believe in and relate to, a person who has the ability to act both > cowardly and courageously and chose the latter. > > With Snape, and I'm asking this very seriously for anyone interested > in answering, why is it a more interesting characterization to find > out he has been evil or out-for-himself all along? For me the gold > nugget in a character like Snape is the moment of transformation. > *Not* finding out he was noble and brave and wronged, ick. But that > he was weak and selfish, he succumbed to the 'lure of power' of > Voldemort and numbed himself to follow that life. And then the > moment came, something so shattering it broke through his apathy or > hatred or whatever was keeping him tied to Voldemort, something > powerful enough to break him down, send him to his knees and rebuild > him into a different person. Transforming base metal into gold. > > The essentialist character feels flat to me if one is simply acting > out his/her fate. The visual I get is rats running through a maze! I > know that's not what others visualize though, it's just the best I > can conjure up. > > Alla: > > I think Sirius' going to Azkaban is VERY good example. It IS "bad > > thing" happened to good person ( of course it is JMO that Sirius > > is a good person - with many many flaws, but good overall) as > > result of many disastrous events, BUT also if one believes that > > Sirius bullied, mistreated Snape in school, it is IMO karmic > > punishment for that - you know - Dementors ARE in charge, > > completely and you are in your own private hell.So, I absolutely > > can view this is as karmic punishment and that is why I > > absolutely think that if Sirius bullied Snape, he paid for his > > sins ten times over. It IS seemingly unrelated action, but to me > > it all fits neatly, you know. > > Jen: But what would Sirius' essential nature be in determining his > punishment? Who is he, the man who bullied Snape, who escaped > Azkaban because of an obsession with vengeance, who was ready to > kill Peter? Or the person who fled his parent's opressive house > because of their unethical beliefs, who acted bravely when called on > and was loyal to the Potters until he died? He's both, he's neither-- > he can't be distilled down in my opinion in order to be punished. > Umbridge can be distilled down, Lockhart can be, Bagman can be, but > most of the major characters can't be divided cleanly from where I > sit. They become unreal to me, flat characters again instead of > living, breathing, feeling people who move in mysterious ways. > > Jen Sue here, Only just discovered this discussion, so forgive anything I've missed. A fascinating discussion it is, too. I wonder - just how much DO characters develop in this series? Neville stays a klutz - he learns all that DADA stuff in OOP and acts bravely (no one said he was gutless, just klutzy) but in HBP, his new-found development is gone and he and Luna are just sad characters at the funeral. Snape remains Harry's least-favourite teacher and continues to sneer. Ron and Hermione remain Ron and Hermione. You know what to expect from all the major characters. I would like to think that whatever their essential side, if this is what where calling it, it will come out in Book 7. I will be very disappointed if Snape, for example, turns out to be the two-dimensional sneering baddie Harry always believed instead of a complex character, neither good nor bad but human. Draco, who showed as a frightened, not-especially-evil, teenage boy in HBP, could go either way, and has become more interesting as a result. > From AllieS426 at aol.com Sun Dec 18 00:05:08 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:05:08 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's intentional misleading (Re: A Question of Which Book) In-Reply-To: <009901c6032f$9a4f6ac0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144907 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > Miles: > Harry is not competent in Occlumency. DDM!Snape assumed (and Dumbledore > himself assumed it), it could have been a desaster, if Harry knew why > Dumbledore was so sure about Snape's loyality. Just one minute with > Voldemort, and Snape's camouflage is history. > Allie: That is actually the best explanation I've heard to explain why Dumbledore won't tell Harry the real reason. (I, like Harry, do not believe it is because Snape was sorry for the death of the Potters. Lily, MAYBE, but not James.) From sydpad at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 00:39:03 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:39:03 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's intentional misleading (Re: A Question of Which Book) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144908 Miles > > Harry is not competent in Occlumency. DDM!Snape assumed (and > >Dumbledore himself assumed it), it could have been a desaster, if > >Harry knew why Dumbledore was so sure about Snape's loyality. Just > >one minute with Voldemort, and Snape's camouflage is history. > Allie: > > That is actually the best explanation I've heard to explain why > Dumbledore won't tell Harry the real reason. Sydney: That's what I'd always assumed. Allie: >(I, like Harry, do not > believe it is because Snape was sorry for the death of the Potters. > Lily, MAYBE, but not James.) Sydney: Dumbledore doesn't actually say that this is THE reason that he trusts Snape-- Harry clearly misinterpreted him. Dumbledore says he BELIEVES it was the reason Snape turned, but he is acknowledging with the word 'believe' that he is speculating-- he doesn't KNOW. He is offering Harry a mitigation. However, he uses very different language about the trust itself: he says he is CERTAIN that Snape is on his side, he "trusts him absolutely". If Harry paid a bit more attention, he would have sorted out that the remorse Snape felt, and the reason Dumbledore trusts Snape, are two seperate things, and he still doesn't know the important one. I tend to think the Snape-trust thing is an event, hopefully a fabulously dramatic one we can see in Pensive-o-vision. It's a very nice piece of misdirection on JKR's part, because she has Snape himself offer the repentance story as the reason for D-dore's trust to Bellatrix way back at the start of the book. So it's quite easy to miss the distinction Dumbledore makes, and accept Harry's misunderstanding-- a misunderstanding that he proceeds to transmit, chinese-whispers-wise, to the rest of the Order. -- Sydney From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 01:04:22 2005 From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:04:22 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's intentional misleading (Re: A Question of Which Book) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144909 > > Allie: > > >(I, like Harry, do not > > believe it is because Snape was sorry for the death of the Potters. > > Lily, MAYBE, but not James.) > > Sydney: > > Dumbledore doesn't actually say that this is THE reason that he trusts > Snape-- Harry clearly misinterpreted him. Dumbledore says he BELIEVES > it was the reason Snape turned, but he is acknowledging with the word > 'believe' that he is speculating-- he doesn't KNOW. He is offering > Harry a mitigation. However, he uses very different language about the > trust itself: he says he is CERTAIN that Snape is on his side, he > "trusts him absolutely". If Harry paid a bit more attention, he would > have sorted out that the remorse Snape felt, and the reason Dumbledore > trusts Snape, are two seperate things, and he still doesn't know the > important one. I tend to think the Snape-trust thing is an event, > hopefully a fabulously dramatic one we can see in Pensive-o- vision. > > It's a very nice piece of misdirection on JKR's part, because she has > Snape himself offer the repentance story as the reason for D-dore's > trust to Bellatrix way back at the start of the book. So it's quite > easy to miss the distinction Dumbledore makes, and accept Harry's > misunderstanding-- a misunderstanding that he proceeds to transmit, > chinese-whispers-wise, to the rest of the Order. > Lyra: Dumbledore never says Snape returned to the good side because he regretted that the Potters *were dead.* That's what Harry says after Dumbledore is dead, but in actuality, what DD said was: "You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realized how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy, Harry. I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and the reason that he returned --" (p 549, U.S.) Snape returned before the Potters were dead; some months before, we believe, based on the evidence that he was teaching at Hogwarts for 2 months before the attack on Godric's Hollow. DD isn't specific about what exactly he's referring to in that comment about "how LV had interpreted the prophecy" -- it could be Snape was uncomfortable knowing Voldy was targeting a baby, or perhaps that was when Snape finally realized the "pureblood" talk of Voldy was just that -- talk -- and Voldy was really interested in power for his own sake. We don't know. But the story Harry gave the Order is not the same one he got from Dumbledore earlier that night. From kchuplis at alltel.net Sat Dec 17 23:16:58 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 23:16:58 -0000 Subject: Patronus uses? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144910 Apparently the patronus charm has uses other than just scaring off dementors, since Tonks uses it to summon someone to let Harry in to the castle in HBP. It seemed an odd choice to me. I guess it was a device to let us know that Tonks' problems were deep seated and even affected the form of her patronus, but do you suppose that there are even other uses? kchuplis From kchuplis at alltel.net Sat Dec 17 22:49:00 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:49:00 -0000 Subject: Some thoughts after HBP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144911 After a second read of HBP I had a few thoughts, or just "wonderings": How important is the sectumsempra curse in regards to book 7? It, of course, served the purpose of alerting Snape to Harry's possession of the HBP's book, but it seems to play more of a role than that. It is certainly the most evil spell Harry has ever used. But I just wonder if it will somehow be important in the denouement at all. Harry's "noble hero" distancing of himself from Ginny seems little better than a bandaid to me. Just because one is not "with" said S.O. doesn't make them less cared for. One would know by now that the use of any Weasley as hostage (besides Percy probably) would be a good way to hold Harry over a barrel. I still continue to wonder what role this plays in Book 7. It just seems more that a "B" plotline to me. How the heck is Harry supposed to be knowledgeable enough to continue on his own? It's fine and dandy to say he must continue without DD because the hero must be alone, BUT there is no way Harry would have known what to do (even with good luck and friends) in retrieving the horcux-that-wasn't and from DD's injury after retrieving the ring, we can assume all the horcruxes are going to be pretty significantly guarded. There is something missing here. I'm sure we'll find out what, but I just can't see Harry or even the trio being successful without older knowledge of magic. Heck, all Frodo had to do was get to the big obvious mountain. Harry seems to have a much more complicated task. I still think it is DDM!Snape. Let's face it, LV might be annoyed someone else killed Harry, but it would not be the end of that person. Snape could have easily done Harry in. Also, I thought it was signicant when Snape tells Harry (HBP pg. 603) "Blocked again and again until you learn to keep your mouth shut and your mind closed, Potter!" One last attempt to get the message to Harry that he HAS to master occlumency if he has any hope of defeating LV. (It has bothered me since the occlumency lessons that Harry hasn't worked harder at that.) kchuplis From degvoidl1 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 17 20:42:00 2005 From: degvoidl1 at hotmail.com (Matthew Nance) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:42:00 -0000 Subject: I'm Sure It's Already Been Covered, But... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144912 Did anyone else get the feeling after reading HBP that Snape was reluctantly going along with the Death Eaters? For some reason, I feel he will see some sort of vindication or perhaps even redemption in book seven. Maybe it's just me... Matthew From lolita_ns at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 02:21:38 2005 From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 02:21:38 -0000 Subject: Patronus uses? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144913 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kchuplis" wrote: > > Apparently the patronus charm has uses other than just scaring off dementors, since > Tonks uses it to summon someone to let Harry in to the castle in HBP. It seemed an > odd choice to me. I guess it was a device to let us know that Tonks' problems were > deep seated and even affected the form of her patronus, but do you suppose that > there are even other uses? > > kchuplis Lolita: That was the case of Order members communicating via Patronuses. Rowling said that Dumbledore had taught them how to do that. Although I'm not sure how they manage that, without misunderstandings... Unless Patronuses can talk, too. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Dec 18 03:37:40 2005 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 03:37:40 -0000 Subject: Muggleborn/OWLs/War/Fleur/Neville/Rubeus/Draco/Veil/Patronus/Occlumency Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144914 Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144069 : << Arthur and Molly didn't object to sharing a House with Muggleborns, and that's all very well. But how are they going to feel when their son wants to marry one? >> Very proud of their tolerance in not being shocked about it. Juli summarized Chapter 5 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144132 : << 5) Which classes did Hermione actually took? And how is it possible for anyone to get 12 OWLS (like Bill Weasley and Barty Crouch Jr.)? Did they get Time-Turners? Or did they study the classes on their own without any professors' assistance? Is this what Hermione did? >> IIRC, Hermione received her 11 OWLs in: 1. Astronomy 2. Care Of Magical Creatures 3. Charms 4. DADA 5. Herbology 6. History of Magic 7. Potions 8. Transfiguration 9. Ancient Runes 10. Arithmancy 11. ????? I posted something long ago about Divination and Arithmancy were only half-day exams, so if Ancient RUnes (that Hermione took while Harry and Ron had Friday off) was also a half-day exam, she could have taken another half-day exam that same day. Some listies have suggested that she (and every other Muggle-born) could ace the Muggle Studies OWL without taking the class (altho' I think they'd fail for failing to give the erroneous answers taught in class). I suggested that the wizarding world is so different from the Muggle world that there could be an OWL exam that only prefects are allowed to take (so Harry wouldn't know about it, and Ron doesn't seem the type to take any more OWL exams than he HAS to), with questions about leadership and discipline and authority. I had another idea, that one History of Magic exam tests for 2 OWLs, one for the BC History of Magic and one for the AD History of Magic. I don't know if seeing Harry's OWL results blows that out of the water, or if it can be argued that they don't further depress people who failed both by telling them that they missed TWO qualifications. In any case, I don't understand how Hermione only got 11 OWLs when Bill and Percy got 12. She has been established as an unusually outstanding student that doesn't come along as often as every 4 years. If they both got both 2 History OWLs and the Prefect OWL, why didn't she? MercuryBlue wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144154 : << 2) In that same interview, a few lines later, JKR says that she thinks Muggle and wizarding wars feed each other. So what Muggle wars could the wizarding wars of 1960ish-1981 and 1995 on correspond to? >> IRA terrorism. Sherry wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144197 : << I'm just glad fleur shows her true strength of character and the probably true reasons bill loves her in the hospital wing at the end. >> The Weasley women perceived Fleur's insistence on marrying Bill despite his scars as proof that she loved him for himself rather than just for his looks, and I suppose that is what JKR intended. But it occurred to me that Fleur would have said and done exactly the same things if she were marrying Bill for his money rather than for his looks or himself. I know Bill doesn't have any inherited money, because the Weasleys are kind of poor, but he seems to have earned enough money as a Gringotts curse-breaker to wear dragon-hide boots and other stylish clothes. Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144411 : << Neville seems to bring out the bully in a lot of wizards besides Snape. Are they all going to apologize too? >> After Neville dies heroically destroying Voldemort, they will all cry and say they wish they hadn't been so harsh on him. (Like McGonagall said of the Pettigrew who was heroically blown up by the evil Sirius Black). Also, if Neville survives and has a successful career which leaves him with wealth or at least fame he could donate to some institution, any of his old teachers who now represents an institution that wants his donation will make some smarmy insincere embarrassed laughing apology roughly along the lines of 'I remember I was quite critical of your schoolwork, and said you wouldn't accomplish much. I bet you often have a laugh over how wrong I was! It is very funny to look back on!" Irene wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144241 : << The students use their own pets as Transfiguration props >> Only in the movie. Montavilla wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144610 : << I wonder what Neville's boggart would be in HBP, since he didn't take Transfiguration or Potions. >> In HBP, the fight with the Death Eaters in the Department of Mysteries happened quite recently. Some of the things studied in the Department of Mysteries -- for example, Space, Time, Death, Love -- are excellent candidates for being any person's greatest fear. So is a Death Eater throwing curses at you or someone you care about. To me, Neville is much more afraid of failing than of dying or being Cruciated. So his Boggart wouldn't be Bellatrix throwing curses at him, but it might be Bellatrix throwing curses at someone he'd intended to protect.... Geoff wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144398 : << I wonder why Hagrid's parents chose the name Rubeus? He certainly isn't a Weasley in terms of complexion. >> Maybe it was an old family name in the Hagrid family (maybe Dad was Rubeus Hagrid, Sr). Maybe he was named after a witch named Ruby, and they masculinized the name. Maybe he was named after someone whose birthstone was ruby (such as JKR). I checked the Lexicon and it says our Hagrid was born in December, whose birthstone is turquoise, which doesn't have a fancy Latin name. Magpie wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144509 : << festuco: << Where is the canon that [Draco] has not bought the [Seeker] position? >> The canon of all of Draco's Quidditch games where he's a good player who gives Harry a run for his money. >> This is a forbidden "I agree" post. I am convinced that Harry only was able to snatch the Snitch from Draco's grasp in PoA because Harry had a Firebolt. Alora wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144518 : << Does anyone have any theories/ideas on how that arch and veil could be used in the last book? They've got to be in there..... >> I think ghosts could glide through the arch to their 'next great adventure'. I want Myrtle to pass on because she's such an unhappy ghost, and there have been signs that Nick and Binns aren't too happy either. Others have suggested that Harry will get rid of Voldemort, or the Horcruxes, by throwing or carrying him, or them, through the Veil. Sherry wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144782 : << That's like blaming the victim of a terrorist attack. Harry is a victim of the plans of Voldemort. He had no reason to suspect that vision of Sirius being tortured. >> He had all the reasons that Hermione pointed out to him, such as two wanted men, Voldemort and Sirius, being in the Ministry of Magic building during the work day, when it should have been full of employees aka witnesses. kchuplis wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144910 : << Apparently the patronus charm has uses other than just scaring off dementors, since Tonks uses it to summon someone to let Harry in to the castle in HBP. It seemed an odd choice to me. I guess it was a device to let us know that Tonks' problems were deep seated and even affected the form of her patronus, but do you suppose that there are even other uses? >> JKR wrote in http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_poll.cfm that "Members of the Order use their Patronuses to communicate with each other. They are the only wizards who know how to use their spirit guardians in this way and they have been taught to do so by Dumbledore (he invented this method of communication). The Patronus is an immensely efficient messenger for several reasons: it is an anti-Dark Arts device, which makes it highly resilient to interference from Dark wizards; it is not hindered by physical barriers; each Patronus is unique and distinctive, so that there is never any doubt which Order member has sent it; nobody else can conjure another person's Patronus, so there is no danger of false messages being passed between Order members; nothing conspicuous needs to be carried by the Order member to create a Patronus." kchuplis wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144911 : << One last attempt to get the message to Harry that he HAS to master occlumency if he has any hope of defeating LV. (It has bothered me since the occlumency lessons that Harry hasn't worked harder at that.) >> JKR said in http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-2.htm that "I think Draco would be very gifted in Occlumency, unlike Harry. Harry???s problem with it was always that his emotions were too near the surface and that he is in some ways too damaged. But he's also very in touch with his feelings about what's happened to him. He's not repressed, he's quite honest about facing them, and he couldn't suppress them, he couldn't suppress these memories. But I thought of Draco as someone who is very capable of compartmentalizing his life and his emotions, and always has done. So he's shut down his pity, enabling him to bully effectively. He's shut down compassion ??? how else would you become a Death Eater? So he suppresses virtually all of the good side of himself. But then he's playing with the big boys, as the phrase has it, and suddenly, having talked the talk he's asked to walk it for the first time and it is absolutely terrifying. And I think that that is an accurate depiction of how some people fall into that kind of way of life and they realize what they're in for. I felt sorry for Draco. Well, I???ve always known this was coming for Draco, obviously, however nasty he was." From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Dec 18 05:00:48 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 05:00:48 -0000 Subject: Translations of HBP - how the names are translated In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144915 > Geoff: > Curiously, as a native English speaker, I've never felt an urge to > laugh at Neville's name. There are a number of names ending in - bottom, > e.g. Longbottom, Rowbottom, Ramsbottom and Higginbottom come to mind, > which are often of North country origin and, having spent the early > formative years of my existence in that region, I do not make a > humorous connection. > > I get more chuckles out of JKR's play on other names - Diagon Alley, > Knockturn Alley, Grimmauld Place, Umbridge, Little Whinging for example. Potioncat: No, Longbottom never made me laugh either. Of course, I don't live that far from Foggy Bottom and our family doctor when I was a kid was Dr. Ramsbottom. It was Golpalott (can't check spelling) that sent me into peals of laughter, but only after I was reading the book to my son. I didn't "get" it when I read silently. > From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 05:04:26 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 05:04:26 -0000 Subject: Do the characters in Potterverse have essentialistic nature? WAS; Re: Whither Sn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144916 > Jen: I finally decided what bothers me about essentialism as the > main foundation for JKR creating her characters: It says to me she > can't, or doesn't want to, create characters who are believably > fluid. And I simply don't think she feels that way from all the > effort she puts into her characters. For example, if Peter finally > acts bravely instead of cowardly at some point, did he do so only > because that is his base nature? Or because he discovered what it > means to be truly courageous only after he learned what it felt like > to be cowardly? Now *that* would be a characterization I could > believe in and relate to, a person who has the ability to act both > cowardly and courageously and chose the latter. Alla: Actually, I think I would be able to relate more to the characters who ARE fluid as you argue they are, but I just think that JKR does have in mind for many characters to have their basic nature, you know. Mind you, I don't think that when JKR sit down to write the series, she had in mind to fulfill the main philosophical features of essentialism, I think she DOES leave room for her characters to change, sort of the mixing ideas, just as she mixes genres, but I definitely think that the characters in her world DO have a basic nature. Just look at the House system again, I mean really, for all my intense dislike of Slytherin House philosophy, I completely agree with those who argue that it is beyond ridiculous that quarter of the WW gets counted as the evil ones at the age of eleven. Of course you can argue that they are not evil, just misunderstood, but I don't think that anybody could deny that they signed in the House with questionable philosophy, right? And even though I don't think that the criteria that other Houses base their selection on are nearly as bad as Slytherin is, it is still a very superficial selection, IMO. Based on somebody's basic nature,IMO. Again, we know that Harry could be suited for several Houses and few other people we know of were suited for two ( Hermione and maybe Neville,) right? But I think it is reasonable to assume that JKR intends for many students to be suited for one House and one House only. Gah, what if person is both smart and courageous AND ambitious AND not Harry? What then? Can you tell that I don't really like House system? :-) As to your example with Peter - it IS possible that JKR intends what you argued, but it is also possible that acting courageously always WAS in Peter's basic nature, IMO, after all he was friends with three famous Pranksters for a reason, IMO and I think that it is a possibility that he was their friend not just because he wanted to be protected, because he was sharing their adventures together - making a Map, becoming animagus, etc. I won't be surprised that if JKR shows Peter finally acting courageously, she will show it as him indeed making a choice, but a choice which SHOW WHO HE IS, finally, instead of choice which was forced by external circumstances ( like threat of torture or something) OR by worse part of his basic nature - cowardice. It is what Sue said downthread - characters IMO have the essential PART of their personalities, I won't be surprised if JKR allows them a partial change too, but IMO the essential part is pretty big. Now, I think kids are the ones who are allowed to change and grow the most, but think about Harry's ability to love for example. It may have developed over the years, of course, but it was always there, according to Dumbledore, right? Since Harry was born, he had this ability because of Lily's protection, correct? Doesn't it mean that ability to love is in his basic nature? Oh, and of course Tom Riddle also seems to have pretty basic evil nature. JMO of course. > Jen: But what would Sirius' essential nature be in determining his > punishment? Who is he, the man who bullied Snape, who escaped > Azkaban because of an obsession with vengeance, who was ready to > kill Peter? Or the person who fled his parent's oppressive house > because of their unethical beliefs, who acted bravely when called on > and was loyal to the Potters until he died? He's both, he's neither-- > he can't be distilled down in my opinion in order to be punished. Alla: I think he is both, IMO. I am not sure where you get neither of those. :) Don't get me wrong, I will be the first to argue that maybe Azkaban was not a karmic punishment for what Sirius did to Snape, if they both turn out to be equally guilty, but as it looks now, it is a reasonable assumption to make IMO. Karmic justice as I see it is just another lawyer of interpretation of what happens to good guys, you know and I don't mean just Sirius here. Where it plays out in full IMO is in bad guys getting their dues for their crimes. > Sue here, > > Only just discovered this discussion, so forgive anything I've missed. A fascinating > discussion it is, too. I wonder - just how much DO characters develop in this series? > Neville stays a klutz - he learns all that DADA stuff in OOP and acts bravely (no one said > he was gutless, just klutzy) but in HBP, his new-found development is gone and he and > Luna are just sad characters at the funeral. Snape remains Harry's least-favorite teacher > and continues to sneer. Ron and Hermione remain Ron and Hermione. You know what to > expect from all the major characters. I would like to think that whatever their essential > side, if this is what where calling it, it will come out in Book 7. I will be very disappointed if > Snape, for example, turns out to be the two-dimensional sneering baddie Harry always > believed instead of a complex character, neither good nor bad but human. Draco, who > showed as a frightened, not-especially-evil, teenage boy in HBP, could go either way, and > has become more interesting as a result. Alla: IMO only of course in light of what I said above, I believe that kids are allowed to change much more than adults do, but they also have essential part of their nature, which will always be there IMO. I don't think JKR just threw Neville's development away, I think she simply put him in the shadows in order to give him more space in book 7 again, I think he just simply was not important for the plot of book 6, or maybe she thinks that by not talking about Neville much in book 6, she may play the bigger "BANG" with him in book 7, whatever it will be. Right, about Ron and Hermione - of course they have the recognizable part of their personalities, but IMO they also changed - Ron really learns to deals with his issues, although it WAS disappointing that his insecurities came back again in HBP, OR maybe it just supports my argument, not sure. I have to think about it. Oh, and of course they finally realized that they want each other in the romantic way, but I am not sure if this is the change in their personalities or it was always there and they just ignored it, you know. Draco, well, he surely showed more change than I EVER expected him to show but I don't think that we had seen the change to his character, if we ever would. If he decides that joining Voldemort is not worth it, but still remains pureblooded bigot,which IMO he is, I would still argue that the essential part of his personality did not change. JMO, Alla From bawilson at citynet.net Sun Dec 18 04:44:47 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 23:44:47 -0500 Subject: Elements Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144917 Sherrie: "Slytherin is Water, the element most associated with emotion. Anyone think of an unemotional Slytherin offhand? Not me." Bruce: Slughorn doesn't seem very emotional. Blaize didn't seem too emotional. Crabbe & Goyle don't seem emotional. On the other hand, Pansy, Draco, and Snape are all very emotional. Ravenclaw's symbol is an Eagle, and the name suggests another bird; they are obviously Air. With Hufflepuff as Earth and Slytherin Water, that would leave Fire for Griffindor. The relics don't add up, though. The Cup should go with Slytherin, not Hufflepuff; similarly, Slytherin shouldn't have a Ring (a gem), but a Cup. And a Sword is for Air, which would give a sword to Ravenclaw, not Griffindor. Now, if the Cup had belonged to Helga Hufflepuff but had been given to her by Salazar Slytherin, and the Sword had belonged to Godric Griffindor but had been given to him by Rowena Ravenclaw--this is something that has come to me as I type this--it would imply something about the relationships among the Founders. Bruce. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 08:40:57 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:40:57 -0000 Subject: Muggleborn/OWLs/War/Fleur/Neville/Rubeus/Draco/Veil/Patronus/Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144918 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > ...edited... > > Juli summarized Chapter 5 in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144132 : > > << 5) Which classes did Hermione actually took? And how is it > possible for anyone to get 12 OWLS (like Bill Weasley and > Barty Crouch Jr.)? Did they get Time-Turners? Or did they > study the classes on their own without any professors' > assistance? Is this what Hermione did? >> > > Catlady: > > IIRC, Hermione received her 11 OWLs in: > > 1. Astronomy > 2. Care Of Magical Creatures > 3. Charms > 4. DADA > 5. Herbology > 6. History of Magic > 7. Potions > 8. Transfiguration > 9. Ancient Runes > 10. Arithmancy > 11. ????? > > ...edited... Some listies have suggested that she ... could ace > the Muggle Studies OWL without taking the class .... I suggested > that the wizarding world is so different from the Muggle world > that there could be an OWL exam that only Prefects are allowed > to take ..., with questions about leadership and discipline and > authority. > > I had another idea, that one History of Magic exam tests for 2 > OWLs, ...edited... If they both got both 2 History OWLs and the > Prefect OWL, why didn't she? bboyminn: I don't think there is really any doubt that the 11th OWL was 'Muggle Studies'. Remember, Hermione DID take one year of 'Muggle Studies', so she would be aware of any variations be wizard preception of muggle life and real muggle life. The reason Bill and Percy were able to get 12 OWLs and Hermione was not, I suspect, is because they had a more realistic view of what achieving an OWL means. For Hermione, anything less than OUTSTANDING would be considered failure. Bill and Percy, on the other hand, would probably be more than satisfied with an 'Aceeptable' in any classes they hadn't actually taken. So, for Hermione 12 OWLs means 12 'Outstanding' OWLs. For Bill and Percy, 12 OWLs means, a much more realistic, a few 'Outstanding', a few 'Exceeds Expectations', and a few 'Acceptable'. I think it makes a lot more sense to speculate that Hermione's 11th OWL was 'Muggle Studies' than it does to invent unheard of classes and tests, or to speculated odd 'credits per class' methods. But then...that's just my opinion. Steve/bboyminn From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Sun Dec 18 11:31:32 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:31:32 -0000 Subject: Some thoughts after HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144919 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kchuplis" wrote: > > After a second read of HBP I had a few thoughts, or just "wonderings": > > How important is the sectumsempra curse in regards to book 7? It, of course, served > the purpose of alerting Snape to Harry's possession of the HBP's book, but it seems to > play more of a role than that. It is certainly the most evil spell Harry has ever used. > But I just wonder if it will somehow be important in the denouement at all. Marianne: I'll jump in with idle speculation. I think that, as supposedly we will find out the complete story of the Prank, we will also be given additional information that young Snape could be a nasty piece of work. As he was the innovater of Sectumsempra, I would not be surprised to learn of its use during his time at Hogwarts. kchuplis: > Harry's "noble hero" distancing of himself from Ginny seems little better than a > bandaid to me. Just because one is not "with" said S.O. doesn't make them less cared > for. One would know by now that the use of any Weasley as hostage (besides Percy > probably) would be a good way to hold Harry over a barrel. I still continue to wonder > what role this plays in Book 7. It just seems more that a "B" plotline to me. Marianne: I agree with regards to Ginny, or any of the people Harry cares about. Maybe one of the things Harry will be faced with is a choice of sacrificing someone he cares about in order to go on with his quest, or rescuing that person while many nameless others might die. It would be a nice parallel to the part of DD's speech at the end of OoP where says he cared more for Harry than the lives of others who might be lost if his plan failed. Voldemort knows how to play on people's affections for each other. It's worked for him already with Harry in OoP. Like any evil overlord worth his salt, I'm sure he'll try it again. But, maybe in Book 7, Harry's response will be different and he will show himself capable of sacrificing one person for the good of many. kchuplis: > How the heck is Harry supposed to be knowledgeable enough to continue on his own? > It's fine and dandy to say he must continue without DD because the hero must be > alone, BUT there is no way Harry would have known what to do (even with good luck > and friends) in retrieving the horcux-that-wasn't and from DD's injury after retrieving > the ring, we can assume all the horcruxes are going to be pretty significantly > guarded. There is something missing here. I'm sure we'll find out what, but I just can't > see Harry or even the trio being successful without older knowledge of magic. Heck, > all Frodo had to do was get to the big obvious mountain. Harry seems to have a much > more complicated task. > > I still think it is DDM!Snape. Let's face it, LV might be annoyed someone else killed > Harry, but it would not be the end of that person. Snape could have easily done Harry > in. Also, I thought it was signicant when Snape tells Harry (HBP pg. 603) "Blocked > again and again until you learn to keep your mouth shut and your mind closed, > Potter!" One last attempt to get the message to Harry that he HAS to master > occlumency if he has any hope of defeating LV. (It has bothered me since the > occlumency lessons that Harry hasn't worked harder at that.) Marianne: I think that occlumency is a dead issue with Harry. JKR pretty much stated in her TLC/Mugglenet interview that Harry was never a good candidate for learning occlumency because he doesn't have the capacity for compartmentalizing his feelings. As far as that Snape quote goes, it might be good advice from a DDM!Snape or an OFH! Snape, (assuming an OFH!Snape who ultimately wants Voldemort has to be defeated.) Or it might be evidence, for whatever version of Snape one supports, that he really had no idea of what makes Harry tick. Keeping his mind closed, stifling his emotions, shutting down his empathy, probably has always worked for Snape. I don't think it plays to Harry's strengths. Marianne From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 13:57:04 2005 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 13:57:04 -0000 Subject: Ghosts/Veil Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144920 I have been mulling over and over this. The ghosts at Hogwarts are there for some reason, but it escapes me as as to WHY. What is their purpose, really? I'm wondering: do they report back to someone? such as the founders? Can they communicate with those behind the veil? Can they possibly go behind the veil and talk to them? They can't just be throwaways. I do remember that NHN said that he never crossed over, but what if he can communicate with those behind the veil somehow? Alora From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Dec 18 14:11:07 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:11:07 -0000 Subject: Elements In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144921 Bruce: > The relics don't add up, though. The Cup should go with Slytherin, not > Hufflepuff; similarly, Slytherin shouldn't have a Ring (a gem), but a Cup. And > a Sword is for Air, which would give a sword to Ravenclaw, not Griffindor. Now, > if the Cup had belonged to Helga Hufflepuff but had been given to her by Salazar > Slytherin, and the Sword had belonged to Godric Griffindor but had been given to > him by Rowena Ravenclaw--this is something that has come to me as I type > this--it would imply something about the relationships among the Founders. Ceridwen: I'm a little confused. JKR said the houses match up Gryffindor - Fire, Hufflepuff - Earth, Ravenclaw - Air, Slytherin - Water. So, are we just doing this for exercise? http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrinterview3.shtml If it's exercise, it looks like fun, so I'll play. I'm not sure who mentioned it earlier, but there is an interaction between elements which can be either destructive or beneficial, depending on how they play against each other. Water and earth will make you churn your wheels in the mud. Or, water will bring plants from the earth. If the items of the Founders are supposed to be elemental, then it would make sense, for instance, with a progression for Hufflepuff to have a cup, since water + earth = bounty. Air and Fire are both necessary in forging a sword. But I think JKR made her own correspondences here. A cup for Hufflepuff - something a refined witch might have and cherish in her time, also, evidence of bounty. A cornucopia, a glass overflowing with wine from the vine, and so on. Godrick Gryffindor would have a sword because his house is noted for bravery. Slytherin, as the house of old families, would be aristocratic and have a ring. But that's only because I see what she's given to each of these Founders. I can't make a real guess for Ravenclaw, unless we go back to the elements and progression. In that case, I'd suggest something for Fire for her. But, maybe it's a book, or a quill, a dictionary or the first copy of Hogwarts: A History, since Ravenclaw is the intellectual house. Or, maybe one of those instruments in DD's office. Just my thoughts, since I'm not too good with elements and their correspondences. That's why I like search engines so much! *g* Ceridwen. From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sun Dec 18 14:14:45 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:14:45 -0000 Subject: Muggleborn/OWLs/War/Fleur/Neville/Rubeus/Draco/Veil/Patronus/Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144922 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > > Pippin wrote in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144069 : > > << Arthur and Molly didn't object to sharing a House with Muggleborns, > and that's all very well. But how are they going to feel when their > son wants to marry one? >> > > Very proud of their tolerance in not being shocked about it. Actually, I hope they will get a true Muggle into the family. In HBP during the Christmas holiday Fred an George go off to the village because there is a girl there who is very impressed with either Fred or George's card tricks, almost like real magic (I don't have the book near, and I won't chase the cat off my lap, he has hardly any chance to be there when the baby is awake). This is the first time we see one of the twins interested in a girl. On further speculation, in HBP Ron talks about how Luna is growing on him. Is that a new clue for what will happen after Hermione dies? Gerry, who does not want either of the trio to die, but for all of them to live happily ever after. From hambtty at triad.rr.com Sun Dec 18 14:56:49 2005 From: hambtty at triad.rr.com (hambtty) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:56:49 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the Weasleys Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144923 Curious - has there been any discussion regarding Dumbledore being related to the Weasleys and both being Heirs of Gryffindor? I can't shake the feeling ever since we learned in COS that Dumbledore had red hair. All - everyone of the Weasleys are in Gryffindor. Maybe on Molly's side? I'd like to follow the thread if there is one. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Dec 18 15:53:49 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:53:49 -0000 Subject: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. WA blood bond between Snape and Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144924 > > Pippin: > > I don't think she's *promoting* it any more than she's promoting > > a belief in magic. It's just the way her world works. > > > Alla: > > I am not sure it does at all. Yes, I think that people get what they > deserve or not, but all of them? And children suffering for the sins > of their fathers? I personally doubt it. Pippin: Dudley gets a pig's tail because his father insulted Dumbledore. Petunia hates Harry because her parents favored Lily over her. Those are among the first things we learn about the Potterverse. They set the stage for finding out that Snape's hatred of Harry is tied to James. It isn't *fair* that any of this happens. But it happens, IMO, for exactly the same reasons that Umbridge's self-righteous demeanor gets her into trouble with the centaurs. It seems to me you have to squint pretty hard to see nothing but virtue rewarded and evil punished. It's very gratifying, of course, especially if the virtue belongs to your favorite characters and the evil is other people's. But as art, it's cheap and uninspired. There's a reason there's no muse for melodrama. What did Cedric do to deserve death? Nothing. He was a brave boy, kind and good. But then, what did House Elf babies do to deserve being born into slavery? The whole wizarding world pays a price for that, and part of it is to see their own innocent children die. Dumbledore is very clear about that, IMO. Is it fair? No, it's just the way things are. James and his friends took advantage of Snape, Snape in turn takes advantage of Harry. You want to see someone take advantage of Snape, but I don't see any fairness in that, only an endless cycle of offense and retribution. I'd like to see Harry get off the merry-go-round, not give it another spin. I understand that you'd like it to be fair. You'd like to have James be justified in his treatment of Snape, and Snape so evil that he deserves everything that happens to him. I just don't think Jo is going there. Pippin From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sun Dec 18 15:50:50 2005 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 07:50:50 -0800 Subject: Future of Snape's Spying Message-ID: <524724481.20051218075050@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144925 WARNING: The following theory assumes DDM!Snape. Viewer discretion is advised. :) Okay -- So it appears that Snape's murder of DD places him firmly in Voldemort's good graces, which, if he indeed is DDM, is what DD intended to make him more efficient as a spy than ever. Problem is, what good is a spy whom everyone on his side thinks is a duplicitous traitor and seems ready to kill on sight? I think there must be *one* person whom DD has confided in -- One person who knows Snape is really and truly DDM, and whom Snape is going to be secretly in communication with all through Book 7. Who is this person? I believe the person in question must have the following qualities: -- Someone with a past history of giving Snape the benefit of the doubt, and therefore ready to accept his confidences. -- Someone close to Harry that can pass along Snape's intel to him without his knowing who the real source is. -- Someone clever enough to pass off Snape's intel as their own "brilliant bursts of insight" and Harry isn't the wiser. -- Someone astute enough to secretly master Occlumency, just in case LV gets a hold of them. -- Someone whom Jo has already dropped a hint may not be unequivocally against Snape at this point. So who is this person? Who is Snape's only friend and confident? Who is to be Bob Woodward to Snape's Deep Throat? . . Wait for it... . . Cue the fanfare (or melodramtic chord -- take your pick)... . . . . . . . . . . . Hermione Granger! I think Hermione meets all the above criteria -- The "hint" dropped by Jo is when in the last chapter of HBP Harry calls Snape "evil" and Hermione says, "Evil is a pretty strong word", which on the face of it seems like an odd thing to say under the circumstances -- unless Hermione is "Snape's person, through and through". (I didn't say "woman" because I didn't want to imply HG/SS, which I *don't* believe in at all.) So I'm imagining that at some point Dumbledore told Hermione "everything" regarding Snape and his true allegence. (Why not tell Harry? Because he's never mastered Occulmency and perhaps DD conceded that he never will -- So Harry can't be trusted to protect Snape's secrets from LV and the DEs, but Occlumens!Hermione could.) So Dumbledore teaches Occlumency to Hermione, explains the plan of his staged murder by Snape, and then provides a means of communication with Snape -- either her DA coins or Sirius' two-way mirror. For most of Book 7 Hermione gets info from Snape that proves invaluable to Harry's quest, thoug he thinks it's all coming from Hermione's "great brain". (And for the second time he's getting help from Snape without knowing it!) I'm imagining at some point Harry finds out about Hermione's contact with Snape, and he accuses Hermione of treachery -- This would be the long-speculated-on "betrayal" of Harry by one of the others of the Trio -- except it isn't an actual betrayal. Eventually Harry learns the truth and they are reconciled, but only at a point when Harry can be enlightened without blowing Snape's cover. So that's my theory. Comments/criticism...? -- Dave From literature_Caro at web.de Sun Dec 18 11:07:47 2005 From: literature_Caro at web.de (literature_Caro) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:07:47 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Translations of HBP - how the names are translated In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1558122806.20051218120747@web.de> No: HPFGUIDX 144926 > Geoff: > Curiously, as a native English speaker, I've never felt an urge to > laugh at Neville's name. There are a number of names ending in -bottom, > e.g. Longbottom, Rowbottom, Ramsbottom and Higginbottom come to mind, > which are often of North country origin and, having spent the early > formative years of my existence in that region, I do not make a > humorous connection. > I get more chuckles out of JKR's play on other names - Diagon Alley, > Knockturn Alley, Grimmauld Place, Umbridge, Little Whinging for example. As a non-native I do not get all of these as funny. The street names I understand, but what is it with the others? Can you explain, bedause in German they just keep them the way they are... Thanks Caro From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Dec 18 16:13:20 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:13:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Do the characters in Potterverse have essentialistic nature? WAS; Re: Whither Sn References: Message-ID: <00a301c603ee$037bc2a0$b266400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 144927 > Alla: > > IMO only of course in light of what I said above, I believe that > kids are allowed to change much more than adults do, but they also > have essential part of their nature, which will always be there IMO. > > I don't think JKR just threw Neville's development away, I think she > simply put him in the shadows in order to give him more space in > book 7 again, I think he just simply was not important for the plot > of book 6, or maybe she thinks that by not talking about Neville > much in book 6, she may play the bigger "BANG" with him in book 7, > whatever it will be. > > Right, about Ron and Hermione - of course they have the recognizable > part of their personalities, but IMO they also changed - Ron really > learns to deals with his issues, although it WAS disappointing that > his insecurities came back again in HBP, OR maybe it just supports > my argument, not sure. I have to think about it. > > Oh, and of course they finally realized that they want each other in > the romantic way, but I am not sure if this is the change in their > personalities or it was always there and they just ignored it, you > know. > > Draco, well, he surely showed more change than I EVER expected him > to show but I don't think that we had seen the change to his > character, if we ever would. If he decides that joining Voldemort is > not worth it, but still remains pureblooded bigot,which IMO he is, I > would still argue that the essential part of his personality did not > change. Magpie: I tend to think the thing about the kids is that you don't see someone's essential nature until s/he is tested. Remus showed his when he didn't speak up for Snape in the Pensieve, and he did a similar thing years later when he didn't tell Dumbledore about Sirius. Peter seemed like a Gryffindor until the risk was too great and he caved (at least that's how it seems). He may eventually do something good (I assume he will) but I wouldn't be surprised if his essential nature appears to stay the same. Neville's essential nature, imo, is that no matter how timid he seems when really tested he's brave. He showed that in PS/SS and I wouldn't ever expect it to change. Hermione's nature is far more defined by when she decides to break the rules (which she does a lot) than by her urging people to follow them. Draco changes in HBP in that he's growing up, but I think he's discovering his true nature rather than changing it. We've seen him before in canon, but we just didn't see situations that really got down to that essential nature. (Which is not to say that what's on the surface means nothing, obviously, but it sometimes can mask something else, as we've seen with other characters too.) This was more about what he wasn't, and we'll see if we find out more about what he is. (His very name, "bad faith," refers to playing a role rather than being your essential self, and Dumbledore seemed to be urging him away from exactly that in the Tower.) I don't think "bigot" could be anyone's nature--it's a belief. Rowling underlines how arbitrary it is in HBP with Blaise--the Slytherins aren't bigots by real life standards because they see Blaise as an equal, but they are bigots in their world because they care about blood. I suspect there are personality traits behind the bigotry of the characters who have it, but that's not the trait itself. With Snape there are certain things about his essential nature we don't know. There are things we can guess on based on the parts of him that we see, but I feel like we don't yet know that important choice that Snape chooses in that defining situation. That I assume we will find out for sure in the next book. Then we'll understand why he turned (or appeared to turn) and why Dumbledore trusted him. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 17:13:14 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:13:14 -0000 Subject: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. WA blood bond between Snape and Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144928 Pippin: > James and his friends took advantage of Snape, Snape in > turn takes advantage of Harry. You want to see someone take > advantage of Snape, but I don't see any fairness in that, > only an endless cycle of offense and retribution. I'd like to > see Harry get off the merry-go-round, not give it another > spin. Alla: Erm... The way you described it, it does sound as endless cicle, but I don't see Snape being punished first and THEN being forgiven as taken advantage of, you know, just getting the justice and I am pretty sure Harry will not giver it another spin, I just think that before that he will let Snape have it, at least verbally. IMO of course. Pippin: > I understand that you'd like it to be fair. You'd like to have > James be justified in his treatment of Snape, and Snape so > evil that he deserves everything that happens to him. I > just don't think Jo is going there. Alla: No, Pippin, from the way you described it, I don't think you do understand my argument. Sorry! I don't LIKE James to be justified in his treatment of Snape, I said many many times in itself, Pensieve scene is incredibly ugly. I don't know how anybody could dispute that. What I DO think that it is possible that what James and Co did to Snape was retribution, not just bullying. Does it make it less ugly? Sure it does NOT, but is it SO hard to imagine that Snape used the curses he himself invented on Marauders MANY times which we have not seen yet and now got what he dished out? Is it so hard to imagine that Gang of Slytherins used all those curses on marauders with MUCH more splendind success and when they all graduated Snape is left alone to deal with Marauders? I am speculating but it IS canon based speculation IMO. I am especially puzzled as to your argument that I would LIKE Snape to be so evil that he deserves what is coming to him? I think canon right now can support the argument that he IS quite evil and deserves whatever is coming. >From Snape mouth we know have the canon that he contributed to the deaths of two Order Members. We KNOW that he contributed to Potters deaths. We KNOW that he killed Dumbledore. Now, of course, you can argue that all of that could be interpreted as in Snape being good - he did not really contribute to those deaths, he did not really killed Dumbledore or he killed Dumbledore because he asked him to, or he killed Dumbledore because he was nobly saving Harry and Draco, etc,etc,etc. But I happen to think that the argument of Snape is evil either as Voldemort servant, or committing those evil deeds to save his own neck has quite strong support in canon. Now if he is evil , do I like him being punished? Of course. I said it many times, I just think that my argument is a bit stronger than simply " he is going to be punished , because I like him to be evil" He may not turn out to be evil at the end and all canon that supports it may turn out to be the red herrings, but I definitely think that the reasons why he could be evil are a lot more than " I like him to be". Just my opinion and my opinion only, Alla. From ladypensieve at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 17:17:59 2005 From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Kathy) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:17:59 -0000 Subject: Future of Snape's Spying In-Reply-To: <524724481.20051218075050@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144929 I totally agree. My reasoning goes back to OOP, Chapter 14. Ron gets an owl from Percy - in the common room, late at night. Red flag. This never happened before, to our knowledge. Ron is so ticked at what his brother has written that he tears the parchment to pieces and tosses it into the fireplace - after Harry and Hermione have read it. Hmmm. Now another very unusual thing happens. Hermione VOLUNTEERS to correct/finish Harry and Ron's homework for them? What? Our Hermione doing their work? Again, something that has never happened before. Is it possible that the girl Dumbledore trusted with a time turner is also writing to him about the true contents of Percy's letter? Hermione is the only one that makes sense. She's always with Harry and usually knows what he's doing or where he's going. Also, JKR said that the reason for the book being so long is that it 'sets up' the rest of the story. ____________________________________________ Snippets--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Dave Hardenbrook wrote: Who is Snape's only friend and confident? Hermione Granger! So I'm imagining that at some point Dumbledore told Hermione "everything" I'm imagining at some point Harry finds out about Hermione's contact > with Snape, and he accuses Hermione of treachery -- This would be > the long-speculated-on "betrayal" of Harry by one of the others of > the Trio -- except it isn't an actual betrayal. Eventually Harry > learns the truth and they are reconciled, but only at a point when > Harry can be enlightened without blowing Snape's cover. > So that's my theory. Comments/criticism...? Dave From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Dec 18 17:28:42 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:28:42 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Future of Snape's Spying In-Reply-To: <524724481.20051218075050@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <002c01c603f8$7f108680$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 144930 I think there must be *one* person whom DD has confided in -- One person who knows Snape is really and truly DDM, and whom Snape is going to be secretly in communication with all through Book 7. So who is this person? Who is Snape's only friend and confident? Hermione Granger! Sherry now: Ok, it's well known that I believe in either ESE or OFH Snape. However, if Snape has a confident, I think the only person would be Hagrid. Snape's arrogance and dismissal of his students, and Hermione's intelligence in particular doesn't make me think he'd confide in Hermione. But Hagrid is the one person who has always defended Snape to Harry, from the very beginning. Hagrid would also be more likely to believe him, or more inclined to believe him, because Hagrid can't conceive that Dumbledore could possibly be wrong. So, I think that if Snape was DDM all along, which of course I don't believe, I think it would be Hagrid. If not Hagrid, then perhaps Lupin. Not that Lupin believes Snape is good right now, but I think he's one of the few people left who would not shoot Snape first and ask questions later. Sherry Who still believes Snape will turn out to be the murderer he appears to be. From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Dec 18 17:32:29 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:32:29 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Future of Snape's Spying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002f01c603f9$06609210$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 144931 Kathy said: I totally agree. My reasoning goes back to OOP, Chapter 14. Ron gets an owl from Percy - in the common room, late at night. Red flag. This never happened before, to our knowledge. Ron is so ticked at what his brother has written that he tears the parchment to pieces and tosses it into the fireplace - after Harry and Hermione have read it. Hmmm. Now another very unusual thing happens. Hermione VOLUNTEERS to correct/finish Harry and Ron's homework for them? What? Our Hermione doing their work? Again, something that has never happened before. sherry now: As far as I remember, I've always had the impression that Hermione has helped the boys with their homework. She won't allow them to copy her work, but she will look over what they do in their homework and help with it. in fact, her not helping in OOTP was unusual. As for her reaction to Percy's letter, that just seemed to me to be her natural anger and concern on Ron and Harry's behalf, nothing more intriguing or sinister than that. Sherry From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 17:46:08 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:46:08 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144932 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hambtty" wrote: > > Curious - has there been any discussion regarding Dumbledore > being related to the Weasleys and both being Heirs of Gryffindor? > I can't shake the feeling ever since we learned in COS that > Dumbledore had red hair. All - everyone of the Weasleys are in < Gryffindor. Maybe on Molly's side? > > I'd like to follow the thread if there is one. > >hambtty bboyminn: It is possible for either the Weasleys or the Prewetts*, Sirius said that he was related distanctly to both Arthur and Molly, and that all pureblood families were inter-related. However, I don't think the relationship, however distant, is of any significants. As far as 'Heir of Gryffindor' theories, this is what JKR had to say on the matter in the MuggleNet/Leaky_Cauldron interviews with Emerson and Melissa - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-3.htm MA: What about Harry's family ? his grandparents ? were they killed? JKR: No. This takes us into more mundane territory. As a writer, it was more interesting, plot-wise, if Harry was completely alone. So I rather ruthlessly disposed of his entire family apart from Aunt Petunia. I mean, James and Lily are massively important to the plot, of course, but the grandparents? No. And, because I do like my backstory: Petunia and Lily's parents, normal Muggle death. James's parents were elderly, were getting on a little when he was born, which explains the only child, very pampered, had-him-late-in-life-so-he's-an-extra-treasure, as often happens, I think. They were old in wizarding terms, and they died. They succumbed to a wizarding illness. That's as far as it goes. There's nothing serious or sinister about those deaths. I just needed them out of the way so I killed them. MA: That sort of shuts down Heir of Gryffindor [theories], as well. JKR: [Pause.] Yeah. Well - yeah. MA: Another one bites the dust. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - So what JKR is implying is that the lineage of Harry's family is not significant. There is some slight possibility that Dumbledore may have some ancestral connection to Gryffindor, but I doubt that the Weasleys or Prewetts do. Of course, that is just my own personal speculation. I suspect that if this was going to be reveal in the last books there would have been some hints along the way, and there are none that I can see. *For those who don't remember 'Prewett' is Molly's maiden name. Steve/bboyminn From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Dec 18 17:33:34 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:33:34 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Future of Snape's Spying References: Message-ID: <010101c603f9$35a36ac0$b266400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 144933 Kathy: > I totally agree. My reasoning goes back to OOP, Chapter 14. Ron > gets an owl from Percy - in the common room, late at night. Red > flag. This never happened before, to our knowledge. Ron is so > ticked at what his brother has written that he tears the parchment > to pieces and tosses it into the fireplace - after Harry and > Hermione have read it. Hmmm. Now another very unusual thing > happens. Hermione VOLUNTEERS to correct/finish Harry and Ron's > homework for them? What? Our Hermione doing their work? Again, > something that has never happened before. Magpie: I think Hermione often deals with the boys by helping or witholding help with their homework or sharing her notes--especially in OotP--and here she's volunteering to do so (I think possibly after having refused becuse she was displeased) because Ron's throwing the letter in the fire has inspired her affection. I don't have the book with me, but there's some note of a look she gives to Ron as he tears up the letter that makes it pretty clear that to Hermione this is Ron at his best. Her volunteering to help with homework is her wanting to give something to Ron to show her affection for him for being such a good friend and being the kind of guy who would never consider dropping a friend to advance himself. -m From kchuplis at alltel.net Sun Dec 18 04:23:50 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 04:23:50 -0000 Subject: Muggleborn/OWLs/War/Fleur/Neville/Rubeus/Draco/Veil/Patronus/Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144934 Catlady wrote: > JKR said in > http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli- 2.htm > that "I think Draco would be very gifted in Occlumency, unlike Harry. > Harry???s problem with it was always that his emotions were too near the > surface and that he is in some ways too damaged. But he's also very in > touch with his feelings about what's happened to him. He's not > repressed, he's quite honest about facing them, and he couldn't > suppress them, he couldn't suppress these memories. But I thought of > Draco as someone who is very capable of compartmentalizing his life > and his emotions, and always has done. So he's shut down his pity, > enabling him to bully effectively. He's shut down compassion ??? how > else would you become a Death Eater? So he suppresses virtually all of > the good side of himself. But then he's playing with the big boys, as > the phrase has it, and suddenly, having talked the talk he's asked to > walk it for the first time and it is absolutely terrifying. And I > think that that is an accurate depiction of how some people fall into > that kind of way of life and they realize what they're in for. I felt > sorry for Draco. Well, I???ve always known this was coming for Draco, > obviously, however nasty he was." > That is interesting, and I can certainly believe it.(I, too, feel for Draco. I think it intersting that the actor playing "Lucias" said in some interview that I saw - sorry - don't remember which movie's DVD that is on- something to the effect that he portrays Lucias as being pretty hard on Draco because that is how he thinks Draco got to be the bully he is). I always found it interesting that as big as Draco talked and as annoying as he is, he was never hugely good on follow through and definitely scared easily. That doesn't bode well for a career as a Death Eater (well, other that the Peter Pettigrew variety.) I think DD was right and Draco was not expected to live through the end of HBP. Back on Harry though, I still think Harry has to improve in occlumency, even if to gain seconds of advantage. He's never going to be great at it, but he *can* do it, as we saw the one time with Snape (well, I don't know if pushing back and using legilimens is actually doing oclulmency) but he wouldn't have to be a master. He just needs a little more skill to buy a bit of time (IMO). kchuplis From mjf152 at yahoo.co.uk Sun Dec 18 16:24:15 2005 From: mjf152 at yahoo.co.uk (Maureen) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:24:15 +0000 Subject: Translations of HBP - how the names are translated In-Reply-To: <1558122806.20051218120747@web.de> References: <1558122806.20051218120747@web.de> Message-ID: <43A58D2F.6050605@yahoo.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 144935 > >Geoff > > I get more chuckles out of JKR's play on other names - Diagon Alley, > > Knockturn Alley, Grimmauld Place, Umbridge, Little Whinging for example. > Caro: > As a non-native I do not get all of these as funny. The street names I > understand, but what is it with the others? Can you explain, because > in German they just keep them the way they are... > Grimmauld Place - Grim Old Place, a perfect description of the Black house Umbridge - to take umbrage with someone means to take offense. Something that she causes frequently. Little Whinging - whinge means to whine and moan and complain - sounds a bit like a few residents there. I love these little details in the books! Maureen From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 02:44:33 2005 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 02:44:33 -0000 Subject: Patronus uses? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144936 kchuplis wrote: > > Apparently the patronus charm has uses other than just > > scaring off dementors, since Tonks uses it to summon > > someone to let Harry in to the castle in HBP. It seemed > > an odd choice to me. I guess it was a device to let us > > know that Tonks' problems were deep seated and even > > affected the form of her patronus, but do you suppose > > that there are even other uses? Lolita wrote: > That was the case of Order members communicating via > Patronuses. Rowling said that Dumbledore had taught them > how to do that. Montavilla: I was just thinking about this scene and something hit me. In an interview, JKR mentioned that one of the advantages of using a Patronus to communicate between Order members is that the Patronus is unique and impossible for another wizard to imitate. Snape remarks on Tonks's Patronus changing shape. In the current climate, shouldn't a different Patronus set off alarm bells? Wouldn't it be a little like answering "blackberry" instead of "raspberry" jam? I wonder if that snarky comment wasn't Snape testing to make sure that Tonks was herself and not someone else. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Dec 18 18:37:32 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:37:32 -0000 Subject: Future of Snape's Spying In-Reply-To: <002c01c603f8$7f108680$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144937 Sherry: > Ok, it's well known that I believe in either ESE or OFH Snape. However, if > Snape has a confident, I think the only person would be Hagrid. Snape's > arrogance and dismissal of his students, and Hermione's intelligence in > particular doesn't make me think he'd confide in Hermione. But Hagrid is > the one person who has always defended Snape to Harry, from the very > beginning. Hagrid would also be more likely to believe him, or more > inclined to believe him, because Hagrid can't conceive that Dumbledore could > possibly be wrong. *(snip)* > If not Hagrid, then perhaps Lupin. Not that Lupin believes Snape is good > right now, but I think he's one of the few people left who would not shoot > Snape first and ask questions later. Ceridwen: I'd agree on Hagrid and Lupin as more possible than Hermione, and will add in Aberforth as another possibility. Dumbledore, I think, would rather trust adult members of the Order than the younger up-and-coming members. Hermione might be smart and capable of latching onto the idea of Occlumency, and she could even have taken lessons during OotP which Harry didn't know about, or during any other time. They're not tied at the hip. But she has a greater chance of being targeted or captured due to her closeness to Harry. If her Occlumency failed, or if she was not sufficiently trained and Voldemort got through, that would be terrible for Snape if she was his confidant, and for the Horcrux hunt as well. Better to confide in someone else who has more distance from Harry, and someone who can't spill the beans about Snape *and* the Horcruxes. She knows the prophecy now as well. In spying, compartmentalization is a good thing. Hagrid's devotion to Dumbledore would make him a good choice. And he has the advantage of being a halfbreed Giant. He is looked down on by the DEs, and his talents may be underestimated. He also didn't finish school and seems rather 'dumb', or naive, so who would guess? Also, being part giant, he is able to withstand spells, as we saw in OotP. While I do believe he's a simple man leading a simple life, and he definitely wears his heart on his sleeve, I don't think he's incapable of learning Occlumency (his problem in that area seems to be loose lips, but maybe those slips weren't as big a deal as we've been led to believe?). And, he's had fifty years to learn it in, something Hermione at seventeen hasn't had. Lupin is a contemporary of Snape's, and a peer. Both are former professors, and both have been burned by the DADA curse. Lupin also has a more easygoing temperment, and I agree with Sherry that he would be one of a very few, if not the only one, who would listen first and shoot later, if he shot at all. There are some hints in the books that Lupin either empathically understands people, or he is capable of Legilimency. If he can learn Legilimency, he can learn Occlumency. The two seem to go together like salt and pepper shakers. It's all in being able to control one's mind. The only time we see Lupin flagrantly not controlling his mind, at least his memory, is when he is surprised to see Peter Pettigrew on the Marauder's Map and rushes off without taking his wolfsbane potion. He's also older than Hermione and will have had more years to learn and practice Occlumency, and Dumbledore has already used him as a spy in the werewolf community. Both Lupin and Hagrid are friends of Harry's and already have his trust. Aberforth Dumbledore is not close to Harry. He's often mentioned by his job instead of his name or relationship to Dumbledore. But if the supposed breach between the brothers is more fiction than fact, he would possibly be the closest person Dumbledore has to a confidant. Even if the breach was real, Dumbledore shows signs in HBP of believing his end is near. He may have gone to his brother to heal that breach as he was tying up other loose ends. We know that Albus Dumbledore is a Legilimens, and I believe he was also an Occlumens, based on his interview with eleven year old Tom Riddle. It would be reasonable to assume that his brother may have also learned those skills. He probably at least had the opportunity. Aberforth was seen talking to Mundungus after Mundungus robbed Grimmauld Place. He may just be a fence, but it's possible they were discussing Order business. He runs the shadier of the two pubs in Hogsmeade, so shady characters stop by. It wouldn't be out of place for someone of that reputation to have dealings with questionable people. So, he may know more about his brother's affairs than anybody else, and he has access to information of a shadier variety. He is familiar with Order members and can pass along information through Mundungus or any others, he won't have to see Harry at all. Also, as the surviving Dumbledore, Harry may have more friendly feelings toward him in the wake of Albus Dumbledore's death. There may be others who could take this duty. If Dumbledore let them in on this part of things, there is no chance they'll shoot the messenger (Snape) because they'll know what's going on. But I think that Hagrid, Remus and Aberforth would be the three most likely, if that's where book 7 takes us. Ceridwen. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 19:02:20 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 19:02:20 -0000 Subject: Future of Snape's Spying In-Reply-To: <524724481.20051218075050@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144938 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Dave Hardenbrook wrote: > > WARNING: The following theory assumes DDM!Snape. ... > > Okay -- So it appears that Snape's murder of DD places him firmly > in Voldemort's good graces, which, if he indeed is DDM, is what > DD intended to make him more efficient as a spy than ever. > > Problem is, what good is a spy whom everyone on his side thinks > is a duplicitous traitor and seems ready to kill on sight? > > I think there must be *one* person whom DD has confided in -- > One person who knows Snape is really and truly DDM, and whom > Snape is going to be secretly in communication with all through > Book 7. > > Who is this person? > > ...edited - list of qualities... > . > . > Hermione Granger! > > > ...edited... > > -- > Dave > bboyminn: I swear I was gearing up for you to say 'Remus Lupin', but I think you are on to something. Throughout the books, when ever Harry or Ron make a negative comment about Snape, Hermione reminds them that Snape tried to save Harry's life. In a sense, she defends Snape. Certainly, she doesn't approve of Snape's daily actions and considers him a foul teacher and miserable person in general, but you are right, miserable as he is, Hermione has always defended him. Hermione seem cool headed and rational; not prone to emotional outbursts or provocation by anger. She might be levelheaded enough to hear Snape out. I think re-enforcement of Snape as being emphatically trusted by Dumbledore will come from other sources. For example, I suspect Dumbledore's portrait will still afirm its trust in Snape. On the other hand, I don't think it will be an easy process. I don't think Hermione will automatically accept Snape's assertion of innocents, or perhaps, guilt with an explanation or mitigating circumstances. It will be a tough road to travel, but at least Hermione will listen with a rational mind. Still it will be a difficult road for all of them. Harry saw what Harry saw, he saw Snape kill Dumbledore, and explaining, pleading, or begging are going to have a hard time overcoming that fact. So, yes, I can see Hermione acting in the way you suggest, but I have trouble imagining what would eventually bring her to that point of trust. Other possible candidates are Aberforth (Dumbledore's brother) and Remus. We don't know much about Aberforth, and he and Dumbledore don't seem to have been too close, though we are given very little information on their relationship. There could be aspects that we are unaware of. Remus, I think, is somewhat like Hermione, prone to clear rational thinking and not prone to being ruled or controlled by his emotions. Yet again, the evidence is working against him. Harry saw what Harry saw, and there is not much Snape can say to easily offset that. So, how about Mundungus? He's already a little on the dodgy side. Snape could probably get to him easily. Any information he brought to Harry would be suspect, but it would at least still be considered. Considering that Mundungus already associates with some questionable characters, it wouldn't be that odd that he wouldn't reveal his sources. I like your suggestion, but I think in the end, it is not so much what but how. Not will Herione or one of the other characters believe Snape, but how will Snape convince them. What will occur to put one or more characters in a position that would allow them to even consider anything Snape might say? I am convinced that, in the end, Snape will be the shortcut that Harry needs to accomplish all the tasks at hand. What really intrigues me is how that will come about. How will Snape make the transition from the most hated and despised wizard in the wizard world, to being sufficiently trusted to the point where his information will be helpful. HOW?!? Still, to your original point, using Hermione does make some sense, but I see her as having to overcome her tremendous loyalty to Harry, before she could even consider anything Snape might have to say. Gee! Only two more years before we know. WHOO HOO! Steve/bboyminn From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Dec 18 19:18:04 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 19:18:04 -0000 Subject: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. WA blood bond between Snape and Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144939 Alla: > What I DO think that it is possible that what James and Co did to > Snape was retribution, not just bullying. Does it make it less > ugly? Sure it does NOT, but is it SO hard to imagine that Snape > used the curses he himself invented on Marauders MANY times which we > have not seen yet and now got what he dished out? Pippin: Er, yes, it is, because nobody ever says, "Snape started it" or "Snape's gang of Slytherins started it." We know that Sirius has a yet-to-be-revealed reason for loathing Snape...but JKR says it was mutual. And why's everybody so delicate about saying what it was? Could it be it doesn't make either one of them look very good? Alla: We KNOW that he killed Dumbledore. Pippin: We know nothing of the sort. Harry is not competent to determine the cause of death, Chosen One or not. He's not even a fully qualified wizard. Just because everybody believes Harry doesn't make him right. Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 19:23:39 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 19:23:39 -0000 Subject: Future of Snape's Spying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144940 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > Sherry: > > ... But Hagrid is the one person who has always defended Snape > > to Harry, from the very beginning. Hagrid would also be more > > likely to believe him, or more inclined to believe him, because > > Hagrid can't conceive that Dumbledore could possibly be wrong. > > *(snip)* > > ... > > Ceridwen: > ...edited... > > Hagrid's devotion to Dumbledore would make him a good choice. > And he has the advantage of being a halfbreed Giant. He is > looked down on by the DEs, and his talents may be underestimated. > He also didn't finish school and seems rather 'dumb', or naive, > so who would guess? > > Also, being part giant, he is able to withstand spells, as we saw > in OotP. While I do believe he's a simple man leading a simple > life, and he definitely wears his heart on his sleeve, I don't > think he's incapable of learning Occlumency (his problem in that > area seems to be loose lips, but maybe those slips weren't as big > a deal as we've been led to believe?). And, he's had fifty years > to learn it in, something Hermione at seventeen hasn't had. > > ...edited... > > Ceridwen. > bboyminn: I was going to comment on Hagrid in my previous post, but I forgot, so this provides me with the opportunity to add those comments. You are right, Hargid has absolute trust in Dumbledore, but I don't see that working in his favor when it comes to Snape. Hagrid has a near god-like worship and admiration of Dumbledore. Dumbledore saved him, and gave him hope and purpose when the rest of the wizard world has shunned and abandon him. He owes everything to Dumbledore, and I simply can not see him forgiving Dumbledore's murderer so easily. As I've said in the past even under the best of circumstances, even with the most favorable and forgivable explanation by Snape for his action, the wizard world will never forgive him. At some point they may understand, they may tolerate, but they will never forgive. And Hagrid, will be at the front of that unforgiving charge. Even if Snape fully redeems himself, how can Hargid ever forgive him for ending Dumbledore's life? Even if the final explanation is that Dumbledore was already dying, how could Hagrid forgive the stealing of the few precious days or hours that Dumbledore could have been amoung them? How could he forgive, not being allowed to say a proper goodbye, and expressing to a dying Dumbledore how much his help to Hagrid had meant to him? No, I really see Hagrid as the absolute last person to ever forgive or trust Snape again. Regardless of Dumbledore's absolute trust in Snape, Snape ended Dumbledore's life, and no explanation of circumstances can ever offset that. So, personally, I can't see Hagrid being Snape's way to leak information into the Order. Just a thought. STeve/bboyminn From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Dec 18 19:56:57 2005 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 18 Dec 2005 19:56:57 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 12/18/2005, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1134935817.24.83114.m29@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144941 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday December 18, 2005 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Notes: 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. To get into Chat, just go to the group online: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups and click on "Chat" in the lefthand menu. If you have problems with this, go to http://www.yahoo.com and in the bottom box on the left side of the page click on "Chat". Once you're logged into any room, type /join *g.HPforGrownups ; this should take you right in. If you have an Set up birthday reminders! http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13 Copyright 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/ Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 20:15:23 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:15:23 -0000 Subject: Elements In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144942 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > Bruce: > > The relics don't add up, though. The Cup should go with > > Slytherin, not Hufflepuff; similarly, Slytherin shouldn't > > have a Ring (a gem), but a Cup. And a Sword is for Air, > > which would give a sword to Ravenclaw, not Griffindor. ... > > Ceridwen: > I'm a little confused. JKR said the houses match up - > Gryffindor - Fire, > Hufflepuff - Earth, > Ravenclaw - Air, > Slytherin - Water. > So, are we just doing this for exercise? > http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrinterview3.shtml > > If it's exercise, it looks like fun, so I'll play. ... > > But I think JKR made her own correspondences here. A cup for > Hufflepuff -..., evidence of bounty. ... Godrick Gryffindor... > a sword ...his house is noted for bravery. Slytherin, as the > house of old families, would be aristocratic and have a ring. > ... I can't make a real guess for Ravenclaw, ... ... maybe ... > a book, or a quill, a dictionary or ... Hogwarts: A History, > since Ravenclaw is the intellectual house. Or, maybe one of > those instruments in DD's office. > > ... > > Ceridwen. > bboyminn: Excellent thoughts Ceridew, I will expand on your original question of who, what, how, when, where, or why have we concluded that these oejects have to in any way correspond to the House Elements? A thousand years ago, I suspect every wizard had a sword, so the fact that Gryffindor had a very fine bejeweled cerimonial sword doesn't seem at all odd. Nor does it seem odd to speculate that every wizard had a favorite cup; most likely many favorite cups. Extending this futher, it is obvious that the four greatest wizards and witches of the age were very rich. It must have cost a large fortune to build and equip Hogwarts even if you take into consideration magic. Though, I suspect that in the beginning, it was a bit Spartan. Many of the suits of armor, tapestries, portraits, and other artifacts were accumulated over its long history. So, the central point regarding wealth is that it is not inconceivable that they all had a nice selection of fancy rings in their wardrobes. In fact, in that age it was quit common for all well-to-do wizards and witches to have an insignia ring which they used with sealing wax to secure letters and assure the receiver that the source was genuine. My point is that I see no connection between the House Elements and these artifacts. I suspect every House founder had many of the said artifacts, and it is simply these specific ones that remain accounted for after all these years. Logic would say that many many of the Founder's artifacts do remain, but they are, in a sense, unaccounted for; laying hidden for generations is dusty attics and musty cellars. Their significants unknown or at least unrealized. Notice how readily and easily Sirius uncerimoniously tossed out 700 years of Black Family history. Those are all very precious artifacts that are now seemingly lost forever. Just as many of the Founder's artifacts have been lost forever. It really broke my heart when he did that. He was so wrapped up in his emotions of the moment, that he forgot that those artifacts, for good or for bad, represented 700 years of his families history. History should never be forgotten or disgarded, we have too much to learn, both good and bad, from it. As to the Ravenclaw relic, I really like the idea that the remaining and significant Ravenclaw relic is the ancient wand sitting on the purple cushion in Ollivander's window. Sort of hiding in plain site. It's conceivable that Ollivander fled when it was confirmed that Voldemort was back because at some point in the past, Voldemort had tried to steal Ollivander's wand-in-the-window which I'm assuming is a Ravenclaw relic. Ollivander, fearing a renewed interest in the wand, fled for his own safety. As a side note: I can't tell you how crushed and disheartened I will be if anything has happened to Ollivander or Fortescue. I have big plans for them in the future, and would hate for anything to have happened to them. Don't know what it's worth, but there it is. Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 20:16:40 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:16:40 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144943 > Alla: > We KNOW that he killed Dumbledore. > > Pippin: > We know nothing of the sort. Harry is not competent to determine > the cause of death, Chosen One or not. He's not even a fully > qualified wizard. Just because everybody believes Harry doesn't > make him right. Alla: Harry is not competent enough to recognise the words "Avada Kedavra"? Harry is not competent enough to see green jet of light? Harry is not competent enough to hear that Snape said those words and that green jet of light left his wand? Harry is not competent enough to know that Avada Kedavra kills people? Harry is not competent enough to see that Dumbledore was dead after Snape's curse hit him? If that is what you argue, then of course I have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. I think that wizard less competent than Harry would have made the same conclusion he did and would be correct. Not necessarily about the underlying reasons, but about the factual event, IMO JMO of course, Alla From kelleyaynn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 20:06:46 2005 From: kelleyaynn at yahoo.com (kelleyaynn) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:06:46 -0000 Subject: Ginny's Role in Book 7 (was: Re: Four ponderings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144944 > Betsy Hp wrote: > > Everything Hermione told Harry should have rung a bit true. Maybe > > filled in some blanks, but not come out of nowhere. JKR did a > > pretty good job of using discriptors that suggested Ginny was > pretty > > throughout the series. (Her "bright brown eyes" in CoS, for > > example.) So Harry suddenly finding Ginny attractive didn't come > > out of nowhere for readers. It's her *character* that JKR fell > down > > on, IMO. And she had plenty of places to do a better job. > > va32h: > > Well I do agree that Ginny has been something of an insta- character > (just add water, and watch her suddenly become a vital part of the > plot!) Hermione's knowledge of Ginny did come out of nowhere for > Harry and the reader, but I didn't find it contradictory, because I > thought that Ginny was a bit of a blank slate in the first four > books anyway. There wasn't anything to contradict! > > The examples that you cited in your previous post don't strike me as > anything more sinister than the difference between 11 and 15. Hadn't > Harry changed a bit between the ages of 11 and 15. Many readers were > shocked at ANGRY!HARRY! in OoTP - such a departure from his previous > self. Ginny in HBP is the age Harry was in OoTP. Perhaps in the > wizarding world, one undergoes a personality reversal at the age of > 15? Kelleyaynn: I too did not find the somewhat sudden emphasis on Ginny to be disturbing. As someone else said (and I can't find the post, sorry) this series is written from Harry's POV. If he isn't noticing Ginny, we won't either. I think, actually, that it is kind of interesting how many times he DOES notice her, since she is just Ron's younger sister, and why should Harry care? The sudden emphasis on her in HBP makes perfect sense when looked at from Harry's POV. How many times, when you were younger, did you not notice someone who's been around for a while, or years, then all of a sudden one day you realized you had a crush on him or her? Perhaps her character development was done a bit sloppily, but I'm not bothered by it. Since she got so much "face time" in HBP, I don't believe she will suddenly fade into the background in the last book. There is some evidence from a Mugglenet interview with JKR that she is more important than just a mere love interest. MA: Does she have a larger importance; the Tom Riddle stufff, being the seventh girl ? JKR: The backstory with Ginny was, she was the first girl to arrive in the Weasley family in generations, but there's that old tradition of the seventh daughter of a seventh daughter and a seventh son of a seventh son, so that's why she's the seventh, because she is a gifted witch. I think you get hints of that, because she does some pretty impressive stuff here and there, and you'll see that again. Here's the link to the interview: http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet- anelli-3.htm I think that the emphasis on the developing relationships between Harry and Ginny and Ron and Hermione are going to be important in some way in book 7. JKR has spent a lot of time developing them, so there has to be some reason for it other than just to give them the usual teenage crushes. Since love is such a powerful weapon to use against Voldemort, I believe that the bonds between Ron and Hermione, and Harry and Ginny will be meaningful at some point. And yes, they are young, but there are several instances of love relationships developing early in life for wizards and witches (Lily and James, Arthur and Molly for example). From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 20:36:52 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:36:52 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? or Not. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144945 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Alla: > > We KNOW that he killed Dumbledore. > > > > Pippin: > > We know nothing of the sort. Harry is not competent to determine > > the cause of death, Chosen One or not. He's not even a fully > > qualified wizard. Just because everybody believes Harry doesn't > > make him right. > > > Alla: > > > Harry is not competent enough to recognise the words "Avada > Kedavra"? ...edited... Harry is not competent enough to see > that Dumbledore was dead after Snape's curse hit him? > > If that is what you argue, then of course I have to agree to > disagree and leave it at that. > > I think that wizard less competent than Harry would have made > the same conclusion he did and would be correct. > > Not necessarily about the underlying reasons, but about the > factual event, IMO > > JMO of course, > Alla > bboyminn: I have to agree with Alla, I can speculate and fantasize lots of ideas and ways in which Dumbledore could still be alive. The one question I can't answer is 'Why?'. Why would the story go in this direction? What purpose could it serve? Yes, it would be emotionally pleasing if he were alive, but I really don't think he is. He was old and his purpose was served. Like all fictional mentors, he passed too soon, passed before he could fully educate his protege in the ways of war, magic, and life. Yet, some things can't be conveyed as information, they only become ingrained knowledge through self-discovery and revelation. Self-discovery and revelation are the journey Harry is on now. Sad as it is to see him go, I think Dumbledore has served his fictional purpose as sage and mentor, and it seems pointless to the logical direction of the plot for Dumbledore to have faked his death. It also seems a very cruel thing to do. Further, if Dumbledore were to fake his death, I'm sure he could come up with something better that the very illogical and unlikely scenario at the top of the tower. Yes, it's fun to speculate on the many possibilities, but ultimately, I think we need to accept that he is gone. Of course, I will be delighted if he is not, but I honestly think he is completely and totally gone from this earth except for his portrait in the headmaster's office. Any futher wisdom, however sparse it may be, will come from the last and final remnant of the late great Dumbledore. One last point, regardless of what we as readers feel, to Harry and the wizard world, the great Dumbledore is dead; completely, totally, irrevocably dead. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From Wink45zes at aol.com Sun Dec 18 19:23:29 2005 From: Wink45zes at aol.com (Wink45zes at aol.com) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:23:29 EST Subject: Some thoughts after HBP Message-ID: <1d6.4b604b52.30d71131@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144946 Marianne: I'll jump in with idle speculation. I think that, as supposedly we will find out the complete story of the Prank, we will also be given additional information that young Snape could be a nasty piece of work. As he was the innovater of Sectumsempra, I would not be surprised to learn of its use during his time at Hogwarts. Sero I suspect that we have already seen Snape use Sectumsempre while a student. In 'Snape's Worst Memory' the spells James used are all disarming type spells, embarrassing and humiliating, yes, but not doing physical damage to Snape. But the first (and only?) hex Snape manages to get off cuts a gash in James's face, splattering him with blood: "But too late; Snape had directed his wand straight at James,; there was a flash of light and a gash appeared on the side of James's face, spattering his robes with blood." James then hangs Snape by his ankle, but I find it very interesting that the gash raises no major outrage. This seems to hint that Snape used Septumsempre in small controlled ways on a regular basis, at least often enough that it does not shock anyone. Sero [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Dec 18 21:32:50 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:32:50 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144947 > > Alla: > > We KNOW that he killed Dumbledore. > > > > Pippin: > > We know nothing of the sort. Harry is not competent to determine > > the cause of death, Chosen One or not. He's not even a fully > > qualified wizard. Just because everybody believes Harry doesn't > > make him right. > > > Alla: > > > Harry is not competent enough to recognise the words "Avada > Kedavra"? Harry is not competent enough to see green jet of light? > Harry is not competent enough to hear that Snape said those words > and that green jet of light left his wand? Harry is not competent > enough to know that Avada Kedavra kills people? Harry is not > competent enough to see that Dumbledore was dead after Snape's curse > hit him? Pippin: Harry is not competent to determine the cause of death by an examination of the body, nor is he competent to determine whether an avada kedavra curse has been effective. Harry, furthermore, wouldn't know the post hoc fallacy if it danced in front of him wearing a tea cozy. He has come to faulty conclusions even when no one was making a deliberate attempt to trick him, that Slughorn would be the new DADA professor, for example. Many wizards might reach the same conclusions as Harry, but then, as we all know, a lot of wizards haven't an ounce of logic. Pippin From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 22:06:08 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:06:08 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144948 Pippin: > Harry, furthermore, wouldn't know the post hoc fallacy if it > danced in front of him wearing a tea cozy. Do you suppose he knows Occam's Razor? Amiable Dorsai From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Dec 18 22:08:39 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:08:39 -0000 Subject: Future of Snape's Spying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144949 bboyminn: > You are right, Hargid has absolute trust in Dumbledore, but I don't > see that working in his favor when it comes to Snape. Hagrid has a > near god-like worship and admiration of Dumbledore. Dumbledore saved > him, and gave him hope and purpose when the rest of the wizard world > has shunned and abandon him. He owes everything to Dumbledore, and I > simply can not see him forgiving Dumbledore's murderer so easily. *(snip)* Ceridwen: The original post by Dave said: ***I think there must be *one* person whom DD has confided in -- One person who knows Snape is really and truly DDM, and whom Snape is going to be secretly in communication with all through Book 7.*** So, in the scenario of Snape communicating with Harry and the Order, his contact has already been primed by Dumbledore. It is set up in advance. The original post suggested Hermione as the contact based on her defense of Snape throughout the books. But Dumbledore will also have taught her Occlumency in order to hide Snape's secret, in case she is captured. Her attitude toward Snape, which isn't nearly as condemning as Harry's and Ron's, would make it easier for Dumbledore to draft her into this cause. I disagree on Hermione being the one. She already has two secrets to hide if she's captured - the horcrux hunt, and the contents of the prophecy. I also don't think Dumbledore would use an underaged witch for this purpose, or even one who has recently attained her majority. I gave my reasons upthread, but also, I don't think Snape would care for it. Hagrid is one of three I suggested. The other two were Lupin and Aberforth. You brought up Mundungus, also a good choice, for the reasons you wrote down. If there is such a contact person and Dumbledore set it up before his death, he would have let them in on the possibility that Snape may act in an odd manner, even look like an outright traitor. He would also have let them know about whatever plans or fears there were connected to what we ended up seeing on the Tower. So, if there is such a position in book 7, and if Hagrid turns out to be the one, he would have some privileged information concerning those events and not go leading any murderous charges. Though, to keep his cover, he may have to say a lot of aggressive things about Snape. Hardly the same thing. The biggest problem with Hagrid here is that he's honest. He may not be able to be duplicitous. But, he may surprise us. Ceridwen. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 23:11:24 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:11:24 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144950 > Pippin: > Harry is not competent to determine the cause of death by an > examination of the body, nor is he competent to determine whether > an avada kedavra curse has been effective. > > Harry, furthermore, wouldn't know the post hoc fallacy if it > danced in front of him wearing a tea cozy. He has come to > faulty conclusions even when no one was making > a deliberate attempt to trick him, that Slughorn would be the new > DADA professor, for example. > > Many wizards might reach the same conclusions as Harry, but > then, as we all know, a lot of wizards haven't an ounce of logic. Alla: I think he is absolutely competent to decided that Avada was effective , as in he sees "Avada" thrown at Dumbledore, the next step - Dumbledore is dead. Here is my hypothetical for the RW. The person observes the murder, the person sees the killer take out a murder weapon and shoot another person. Another person is dead. The person who observes the murder reaches the conclusion that the person who made the shot is therefore the killer. IMO, this is the analogy that is pretty close to what happened on the Tower, no? Keep in mind that I am leaving killer's intentions completely alone for the sake of this argument. And you are saying that the most LOGICAL conclusion for the person who observed the murder would be to look for a posible trick? Why would this person do it, if all evidence of the crime ( or whatever everybody interprets it as) is right there? > Pippin: > > Harry, furthermore, wouldn't know the post hoc fallacy if it > > danced in front of him wearing a tea cozy. Amiable Dorsai: > Do you suppose he knows Occam's Razor? Alla: Exactly. Thank you. You said with one sentence what I was trying to say with several paragraphs. JMO, Alla, who goes to iron her hands right now From loco_noco03 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 22:12:29 2005 From: loco_noco03 at yahoo.com (loco_noco03) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:12:29 -0000 Subject: R.A.B. & Missing Horcrux/DEs saying Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144951 Forgive me if I repeat something, I'm a newbie. But I wanted to respond to/clear up this confusion. Cathy D writes: there are lots of people who call Voldemort *The Dark Lord*. I wish I had taken the time to list them all. One of which, though, is Ginny Weasley in her Valentine to Harry. Loco writes: If you are refering to the Valentine she gave Harry in CoS, then wouldn't it make sense for her to call him the Dark Lord because she was possessed/being controlled by him at the time. Also, the only other "good" person I recall refering to LV as The Dark Lord is SS in the HBP. Now this could be for one of a few reasons. Either SS is in fact a DE (which I do not believe) or this is part of his cover which he had to maintain seeing as Draco is in the class. I could easily see Jo writing that in as well to give the reader superficial reason to believe he is actually a DE and stray away from second guessing this theory. If you have any references of anyone else other than DEs refering to LV as the dark lord please tell me so I can confirm/reject this theory. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 23:15:16 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:15:16 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's intentional misleading (Re: A Question of Which Book) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144952 bianca wrote: > Anyone have any more examples of Dumbledore's intentional > misleading? zgirnius: Aside from the whole Snape/prophecy issues, I wonder about Dumbledore and Harry's conversation in the Cave in HBP. Harry is clearly very reluctant to go through with the plan to feed the Potion to Dumbledore because he believes it is a poison. Dumbledore assures him it would not kill him immediately, and then goes on to talk about what Voldemort would or would not want to happen to the one who discovered the Cave. He never says it is NOT a poision, but Harry appears to be reassured on that point. But I rather suspect that it was a poison, and Dumbledore knew it. From kchuplis at alltel.net Sun Dec 18 21:24:05 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:24:05 -0000 Subject: Some thoughts after HBP In-Reply-To: <1d6.4b604b52.30d71131@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144953 Sero wrote: > > "But too late; Snape had directed his wand straight at James,; there was a > flash of light and a gash appeared on the side of James's face, spattering his > robes with blood." > > James then hangs Snape by his ankle, but I find it very interesting that the > gash raises no major outrage. This seems to hint that Snape used Septumsempre > in small controlled ways on a regular basis, at least often enough that it > does not shock anyone. I had noticed that too. To be honest, I was surprised there was not more shock when Harry used it (and to much more dangerous effect). Yes, a lot of detentions, but no one seemed overly concerned such a dangerous spell had seen the light of day or referred to it again. Not even really bad dressing downs by any other teacher than Snape and Snape seemed mainly angered about how Harry might have learned it and his evasion on that subject. kchuplis From bawilson at citynet.net Sun Dec 18 22:51:27 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:51:27 -0500 Subject: Symbols & Name Meanings Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144954 "Alora: I have been mulling over and over this. The ghosts at Hogwarts are there for some reason, but it escapes me as to WHY. What is their purpose, really? I'm wondering: do they report back to someone? such as the founders? Can they communicate with those behind the veil? Can they possibly go behind the veil and talk to them? They can't just be throwaways. I do remember that NHN said that he never crossed over, but what if he can communicate with those behind the veil somehow?" Didn't Nearly Headless Nick tell Harry that he had no idea what was beyond the veil? Bruce "Ceridwen: I'm a little confused. JKR said the houses match up Gryffindor - Fire, Hufflepuff - Earth, Ravenclaw - Air, Slytherin - Water. So, are we just doing this for exercise? http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrinterview3.shtml" Because if Hufflepuff is the Earth Mistress, why does she have a Cup, which is a symbol of Water? If Slytherin is the Water Master, why is his relic a Ring (that is, a gem), which is an Earth symbol? If Griffindor is the Fire Master, why does he have a Sword, which is an Air symbol? If we take JKR's assignment of the Elements to the Houses, then WHY are the three Founders' Relics we have seen not associated with the corresponding elements? Is JKR trying to tell us something? Salazar and Hufflepuff seem to have exchanged symbols--does that mean that they were involved? Is Voldemort also the Heir of Hufflepuff? If the Ravenclaw relic turns out to be a Staff or Wand or Rod, then the other two founders will have also exchanged symbols. We know that Harry is NOT the Heir of Griffindor, per JKR, but what if then he is the Heir of Ravenclaw, but placed in Griffindor--thus bringing together the powers of the other two houses (and wasn't Cedric, the other Hogwarts' Champion, from Ravenclaw? He needs to be avenged. Hmm. "Harry Potter & the Revenge of Ravenclaw"?) Bruce "Caro: understand, but what is it with the others? Can you explain, bedause in German they just keep them the way they are... Thanks" 'Whinging' means 'complaining, carping, grousing'. "Umbridge" is from the Latin root 'umbra' meaning 'shadow'; her first name, Delores, means 'sorrow'. 'Mundungus Fletcher' is not funny in and of itself--aside from that big Latin name in front of a rather common surname, but his nickname 'Dung' means 'schiest'. Are their any other names you want to know about? Bruce [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From trekkie at stofanet.dk Sun Dec 18 23:53:11 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 00:53:11 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: HBP in russian translation./ Translations in general/ "Severus, please" References: Message-ID: <009701c6042e$3474bbb0$080aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 144955 > > vidar_fe writes: > They do this in the norwegian translations as well. As far as I know > every single name except Harry's have been changed! :-( > > The translator has even managed to turn Neville's last name into > Langballe, or 'long testicle' *am very outraged*! Poor boy.... Are you sure that it can't have that other meaning as well? Langballe in danish means long bottom, more or less, (balle is a word for buttcheek) - it's a common danish name btw. And since danish and norwegian (bokml at least) are so close, I think it's that meaning of the word the translator aimed for. Longbottom isn't translated in the danish version btw. ~Trekkie From rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu Mon Dec 19 00:07:15 2005 From: rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu (susanbones2003) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 00:07:15 -0000 Subject: R.A.B. & Missing Horcrux/DEs saying Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144956 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "loco_noco03" wrote: > > Forgive me if I repeat something, I'm a newbie. But I wanted to > respond to/clear up this confusion. > > Cathy D writes: > there are lots > of people who call Voldemort *The Dark Lord*. I wish I had taken the > time to > list them all. One of which, though, is Ginny Weasley in her > Valentine to > Harry. > > Loco writes: > If you are refering to the Valentine she gave Harry in CoS, then > wouldn't it make sense for her to call him the Dark Lord because she > was possessed/being controlled by him at the time. Also, the only > other "good" person I recall refering to LV as The Dark Lord is SS in > the HBP. Now this could be for one of a few reasons. Either SS is > in fact a DE (which I do not believe) or this is part of his cover > which he had to maintain seeing as Draco is in the class. I could > easily see Jo writing that in as well to give the reader superficial > reason to believe he is actually a DE and stray away from second > guessing this theory. > > If you have any references of anyone else other than DEs refering to > LV as the dark lord please tell me so I can confirm/reject this > theory. > This is a somewhat meta-related fact, but it was in GOF, at the end, when Barty Crouch Jr. began to reveal himself to Harry and used the term "Dark Lord" that I realized how terribly wrong something was going. It was done in such a way as to be almost a throwaway thing, in passing. She is very good at flooding a scene with actions and facts and dialogue so that a telling clue can be lost in the mix. I realize that the whole thing was resolved in just a few pages, but she built up to the resolution in a very skillfully dramatic fashion so that just as Harry is having that "OH NO!" moment of horror, we were as well. Jen D From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 00:35:06 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 00:35:06 -0000 Subject: Ginny's Role in Book 7 (was: Re: Four ponderings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144957 > >>Kelleyaynn: > I too did not find the somewhat sudden emphasis on Ginny to be > disturbing. > Betsy Hp: Oh, neither did I. That wasn't my complaint at all. Ginny *had* to have more page time, since she's Harry's true love. What bothered me was the sudden personality change. And let me emphasize the word change. I feel that Ginny had one personality up to and through GoF, and then became an entirely different girl in OotP. Pre-OotP Ginny was more like Ron and Percy and Arthur. When pushed, she had a temper, but she wasn't aggressive and she wasn't cruel. After OotP, and especially in HBP she became more like her mother and the twins. I'm not a big fan of the twins or Molly, so I don't like the changes. Her casual cruelty towards Ron is one of the new bits about Ginny that I dislike. > >>Kelleyaynn: > Perhaps her character development was done a bit sloppily, but I'm > not bothered by it. > Betsy Hp: It didn't bother me hugely in OotP. But HBP continued the trend, unfortunately. There were times during HBP where I quite liked Ginny and was pleased for her and Harry. But there were other times that I thought, Harry had best get his inner-Slytherin in hand because he's gonna need it to deal with this girl. (Though Ginny does think Harry hung the moon, so he's got a bit of an advantage going in.) > >>Kelleyaynn: > I think that the emphasis on the developing relationships between > Harry and Ginny and Ron and Hermione are going to be important in > some way in book 7. JKR has spent a lot of time developing them, > so there has to be some reason for it other than just to give them > the usual teenage crushes. Since love is such a powerful weapon to > use against Voldemort, I believe that the bonds between Ron and > Hermione, and Harry and Ginny will be meaningful at some point. > Betsy Hp: But JKR didn't really go into Harry's and Ginny's relationship. It didn't develop -- it just happened. And once it happened it was perfect. Too perfect to waste page time on. And perfect enough to give Harry strength to deal with the trauma of Dumbledore's death. Which is why I don't think Ginny will *do* much in book 7. She'll be a strength to Harry, a source of comfort, but I'm not sure she's going to be a battle companion like Ron and Hermione are. I think the most JKR wanted to achieve was for her readers to believe that being with Ginny was that wonderful for Harry. Which is why the personality of Ginny wasn't in and of itself all that important, just how Harry saw her. Which is why JKR didn't think Ginny's personality through as well as she's thought through her other characters. At least, that's how it looks to me. Betsy Hp From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 00:55:05 2005 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 00:55:05 -0000 Subject: ghost/veil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144958 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > Didn't Nearly Headless Nick tell Harry that he had no idea what was beyond the > veil? > > Bruce But we don't even know if a ghost has tried, so who knows if he can or not? Because he is dead, he may have access to things that the living cannot. Also, could NHN go through the veil? Sirius was alive when he went through, Nick isn't. Maybe he could go through and still come back because he didn't officially "cross over." Just something to think about... Alora From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 01:33:57 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 01:33:57 -0000 Subject: Future of Snape's Spying In-Reply-To: <524724481.20051218075050@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144959 > Okay -- So it appears that Snape's murder of DD places him firmly in > Voldemort's good graces, which, if he indeed is DDM, is what DD > intended to make him more efficient as a spy than ever. > > Problem is, what good is a spy whom everyone on his side thinks is a > duplicitous traitor and seems ready to kill on sight? zgirnius: Neat idea. I think I agree with other posters that say Dumbledore would not have chosen Hermione for such a role in advane, but she is someone who is capable of figuring it out/becoming convinved of it. I wonder, though, if the business about Tonks' Patronus changing in Book 6 is not setting something up for Book 7. I thyink Harry would believe a message brought to him by a Phoenix patronus... From sstraub at mail.utexas.edu Sun Dec 18 21:07:56 2005 From: sstraub at mail.utexas.edu (orzchis) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:07:56 -0000 Subject: Translations of HBP - how the names are translated In-Reply-To: <43A58D2F.6050605@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144960 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Maureen wrote: > Little Whinging - whinge means to whine and moan and complain - > sounds a bit like a few residents there. It also sounds like quite a few real English towns -- like Barking or Reading, or one of the various Chippings like Chipping Norton or Chipping Campden or Chipping Sodbury (where JKR was born). (Chipping just means "market town"*, & thus isn't really like those others. I think the other -ings, even though they sound the same, come from a different origin, being originally tribe or kindred names [like Scyldings in Beowulf, or Eorlingas in Rohan for that matter].) (*Like the various "Kaupangers" in Norway, which is a related word, as is the German verb "kaufen." A Chapman sells Cheap things, which might include Chap-books -- three more related English words.) "Little" commonly gets stuck to town names to distinguish them from an adjoining bigger town of the same name. A Google search I just did turned up Little Stainton and Little Fontmel. Anyway Little Whinging is extra-clever on several levels. P. G. Wodehouse (as in Jeeves & Wooster) used lots of bizarre English town names in his stories, but ... I _think_ ... they are all real, like Weston-super-Mare and Walsingford Parva and Totleigh-in-the-Wold. Or maybe they aren't? Sandy Straubhaar From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 02:13:52 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 02:13:52 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144961 > > Pippin: > > Harry is not competent to determine the cause of death by an > > examination of the body, nor is he competent to determine whether > > an avada kedavra curse has been effective. > Alla: > And you are saying that the most LOGICAL conclusion for the person > who observed the murder would be to look for a posible trick? Why > would this person do it, if all evidence of the crime ( or whatever > everybody interprets it as) is right there? zgirnius: Yes, but Pippin's original point (unless I am getting confused...) was that we do not KNOW Snape killed Dumbledore, which is not the same as saying that Harry is being reasonable when he draws this conclusion. There are certainly POSSIBLE scenarios in which Snape did not do the deed, so this would seem to be right. Not that several have not been already proposed in the many related threads we have had since HBP came out...but: Snape shows up on the Tower, sees a weakened Dumbledore, and interprets his initial plea as a suggestion he come closer and Legilimens. He does, but gets nothing much coherent, just some vague images of Dumbledore apparently in great distress, being fed some green potion by Harry. He is repulsed by what he sees. Then Dumbledore repeats his plea, and 'the lights go out'. Snape recognizes the moment of brain death. Seeing the opportunity to establish his bona fides with Voldemort and hide Dumbledore and Harry's mysterious activities, Snape casts the Avada Kedavra. Dumbledore's dead body is blasted into the air and falls to the ground. I'm not saying this happened, but I see no reason to suppose it couldn't have. (Credit for this cute theory must go to Red Hen...my personal favorite Snape did not kill Dumbledore theory, since having Harry do it instead is certainly interesting. Though I personally do think Snape did it.) From juli17 at aol.com Mon Dec 19 02:23:27 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 02:23:27 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Snape (was Re: Future of Snape's Spying) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144962 > > bboyminn: > > You are right, Hargid has absolute trust in Dumbledore, but I don't > > see that working in his favor when it comes to Snape. Hagrid has a > > near god-like worship and admiration of Dumbledore. Dumbledore saved > > him, and gave him hope and purpose when the rest of the wizard world > > has shunned and abandon him. He owes everything to Dumbledore, and I > > simply can not see him forgiving Dumbledore's murderer so easily. > *(snip)* Julie: I don't really agree that while the whole WW may understand why Snape killed Dumbledore, they won't ever forgive him. If forgiveness is part of JKR's theme in the books (and if it's partly based in her Christian faith, as some suggest, this fits in perfectly) then why wouldn't the WW forgive him, if it was all for the greater good? Or at least some of the WW inhabitants. And Hagrid would be one of those, I think, since he's generally a forgiving person. Of course, that does all depend on Snape being DDM, and Snape's apparent cold-blooded murder proving in the end to have some very extenuating circumstances. > > Ceridwen: > The original post by Dave said: > ***I think there must be *one* person whom DD has confided in -- One > person who knows Snape is really and truly DDM, and whom Snape is > going > to be secretly in communication with all through Book 7.*** > > So, in the scenario of Snape communicating with Harry and the Order, > his contact has already been primed by Dumbledore. It is set up in > advance. The original post suggested Hermione as the contact based > on her defense of Snape throughout the books. But Dumbledore will > also have taught her Occlumency in order to hide Snape's secret, in > case she is captured. Her attitude toward Snape, which isn't nearly > as condemning as Harry's and Ron's, would make it easier for > Dumbledore to draft her into this cause. > > I disagree on Hermione being the one. She already has two secrets to > hide if she's captured - the horcrux hunt, and the contents of the > prophecy. I also don't think Dumbledore would use an underaged witch > for this purpose, or even one who has recently attained her > majority. I gave my reasons upthread, but also, I don't think Snape > would care for it. > > Hagrid is one of three I suggested. The other two were Lupin and > Aberforth. You brought up Mundungus, also a good choice, for the > reasons you wrote down. If there is such a contact person and > Dumbledore set it up before his death, he would have let them in on > the possibility that Snape may act in an odd manner, even look like > an outright traitor. He would also have let them know about whatever > plans or fears there were connected to what we ended up seeing on the > Tower. > > So, if there is such a position in book 7, and if Hagrid turns out to > be the one, he would have some privileged information concerning > those events and not go leading any murderous charges. Though, to > keep his cover, he may have to say a lot of aggressive things about > Snape. Hardly the same thing. The biggest problem with Hagrid here > is that he's honest. He may not be able to be duplicitous. But, he > may surprise us. > > Ceridwen. > Julie: I think Hagrid could have a single piece of privileged information, but something he's known for a long time, rather than information Dumbledore gave him recently. For instance, what if Hagrid is the only one besides Dumbledore who knows the *real* reason why Snape left Voldemort and returned to Dumbledore's side? This could explain why Hagrid has so consistently and fervently defended Snape, throughout all the books. I don't think Snape and Hagrid would have a naturally amicable relationship based on their *extremely* disparate personalities. Hagrid is also no Slytherin fan, and all things being equal, would seem more likely to agree with Harry about Snape's nastiness than to downplay it as he does. And Snape is more than happy to point out deficiencies in others. Hagrid's lack of analytical intelligence, questionable judgment and soft nature would certainly leave him ripe for Snape's barbs. So why does neither of them ever act toward the other as their personalities would suggest? I think it's because Hagrid knows something about Snape, something that allows him to sympathize with Snape and accept his obvious character deficiencies. And Snape, aware that Hagrid is keeping a secret for him, returns that favor by ignoring Hagrid's highly irritating qualities (to Snape) in way he ignores no one else's. This doesn't mean Hagrid has to be Dumbledore's contact person, since Hagrid really doesn't have the intelligence (sorry) or duplicity necessary to be too involved in any pre-arranged plotting by Dumbledore regarding Snape and the Tower scene. But he could still be counted on to accept more quickly than most that what appeared to be cold-blooded murder on the Tower was something altogether different. Julie (Who suspects JKR's "Order member we haven't really met yet" may be Dumbledore's chosen contact person and the only other one who knows what really happened on the Tower. And that could be Ableforth, or even Mudungus.) From juli17 at aol.com Mon Dec 19 02:38:10 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 02:38:10 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144963 > > > Pippin: > > Harry is not competent to determine the cause of death by an > > examination of the body, nor is he competent to determine whether > > an avada kedavra curse has been effective. > > > > Harry, furthermore, wouldn't know the post hoc fallacy if it > > danced in front of him wearing a tea cozy. He has come to > > faulty conclusions even when no one was making > > a deliberate attempt to trick him, that Slughorn would be the new > > DADA professor, for example. > > > > Many wizards might reach the same conclusions as Harry, but > > then, as we all know, a lot of wizards haven't an ounce of logic. > > > Alla: > > I think he is absolutely competent to decided that Avada was > effective , as in he sees "Avada" thrown at Dumbledore, the next > step - Dumbledore is dead. > > Here is my hypothetical for the RW. > The person observes the murder, the person sees the killer take out > a murder weapon and shoot another person. Another person is dead. > The person who observes the murder reaches the conclusion that the > person who made the shot is therefore the killer. > > IMO, this is the analogy that is pretty close to what happened on > the Tower, no? Keep in mind that I am leaving killer's intentions > completely alone for the sake of this argument. Julie: I don't think it's a very good analogy. If you see someone shoot a gun, there is very specific physical evidence that the gun hit the mark--i.e., a hole where the bullet entered, and blood from the wound. Additionally, the bullet can be removed from the victim and matched to the gun. In the WW it's a bit different. We hear Snape say "Avada Kedavra" and see Dumbledore thrown off the Tower. But we (and Harry) may not know enough about the dynamics of spell-casting to be as certain about what we (and Harry) saw as we would be with a gun. At the moment we do NOT know for certain if a two spells can be cast at once, or if a wizard can verbally speak one spell while casting another, nonverbal spell with his wand. We also don't know if there are specific physical reactions associated with the Avada Kedavra--the swishing sound, the open eyes, the dead drop rather than flying backward--that *always* occur (and didn't in Dumbledore's death), or whether each Avada Kedavra is different. Because of our lack of definitive knowledge about spells and their effects, there is some doubt inherent in that scene. And I think that is what Pippin is pointing out. Harry is still a student. He doesn't know all there is to know about what he is seeing, so what *appears* to be the truth may not be. Alla: > And you are saying that the most LOGICAL conclusion for the person > who observed the murder would be to look for a posible trick? Why > would this person do it, if all evidence of the crime ( or whatever > everybody interprets it as) is right there? Julie: In real life the most logical conclusion is usually (but still not always) the correct one. In JKR's books, the most logical conclusion is quite OFTEN the wrong one. Therein lies the difference, and a very important one when we're theorizing about what may have happened on the Tower, rather than simply accepting Harry's most logical conclusion of what he saw. Julie From h2so3f at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 03:30:19 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 03:30:19 -0000 Subject: Ginny's Role in Book 7 (was: Re: Four ponderings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144964 Betsy Hp wrote: "What bothered me was the sudden personality change. And let me emphasize the word change. I feel that Ginny had one personality up to and through GoF, and then became an entirely different girl in OotP. Pre-OotP Ginny was more like Ron and Percy and Arthur. When pushed, she had a temper, but she wasn't aggressive and she wasn't cruel. After OotP, and especially in HBP she became more like her mother and the twins." CH3ed: I don't think we saw enough of Ginny in the previous book to be able to say that she had a personality change from OotP on. Even back in CoS we knew from Ron that Ginny became very quite and shy in Harry's presence, but when Harry wasn't around "she never shut up." We also saw from the Platform 9and 3/4 scene in PS/SS that she seemed to be closer to the twins than to Ron. The twins even said they would send her Hogwarts' toilet seat. But we didn't see much of Ginny until she cooled off Harry after GoF and Harry started to notice her more. As others have observed, the story is told from Harry's POV so this makes perfect sense. It isn't so much that Ginny had changed as Harry finally noticing her. Betsy Hp: "It didn't bother me hugely in OotP. But HBP continued the trend, unfortunately. There were times during HBP where I quite liked Ginny and was pleased for her and Harry. But there were other times that I thought, Harry had best get his inner-Slytherin in hand because he's gonna need it to deal with this girl. (Though Ginny does think Harry hung the moon, so he's got a bit of an advantage going in.)" CH3ed: I think we should cut Ginny's foul mood in HBP a bit of a slack tho. She was irritated by Fleur's constant presence at The Burrow. And it seems Molly used Ginny as Fleur cushion quite a bit since everybody else was engaged (Arthur and Bill work, and Ron had his 2 best friends over, that only left Ginny to keep Molly company with Fleur). And at school Ron was interfering with Ginny's love life. CH3ed is very happy the Potter books aren't turning into a romance series. :O) From juli17 at aol.com Mon Dec 19 03:59:56 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:59:56 EST Subject: Peter's basic nature Message-ID: <9.51bd196a.30d78a3c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144965 Alla wrote: As to your example with Peter - it IS possible that JKR intends what you argued, but it is also possible that acting courageously always WAS in Peter's basic nature, IMO, after all he was friends with three famous Pranksters for a reason, IMO and I think that it is a possibility that he was their friend not just because he wanted to be protected, because he was sharing their adventures together - making a Map, becoming animagus, etc. I won't be surprised that if JKR shows Peter finally acting courageously, she will show it as him indeed making a choice, but a choice which SHOW WHO HE IS, finally, instead of choice which was forced by external circumstances ( like threat of torture or something) OR by worse part of his basic nature - cowardice. Julie: SHOW WHO HE IS?? You mean Peter's not really the creep who got so much glee out of James and Sirius tormenting Snape, while he watched safely on the sidelines? And Peter's not really the betrayer who got Lily and James killed by Voldemort (much more directly so than, say, Snape)? And Peter's not really the mass murder who took out 13 muggles to aid his escape? And Peter's not really the coward who hid behind a rat all those years? And Peter's not really the cold child killer who Avada Kedavra'd poor Cedric (that spell you have to *mean* to perform, which Peter performed with little or no emotion)? No, deep down he's really courageous at heart, and he did all those things, along with crawling after Voldemort and doing his bidding, just because of "external" circumstances, not because being a cowardly, backstabbing, cold-hearted killer was his true nature? Poor, poor Peter Pettigrew. So mistreated. So misunderstood. Now, I won't be surprised to see Peter *act* in a courageous manner, in a way that pays back his life debt to Harry, as well as delivers a blow to Voldemort. That may be a small show of courage on his part, though it will still be because of external circumstances, i.e. because he owes Harry that debt, and also because it finally has become more painful to be under Voldemort's thumb than to make a last-ditch, and no doubt fatal, move to bring down the Dark Lord. I mean, this is a Lord who has turned the very loyal Peter into a limping hulk of twisted flesh. Would it be surprising for Peter to finally turn on that kind of master? Unfortunately, no matter what courageous act Peter performs in the end, it won't erase of lifetime of cowardly acts. Even if it does buy him a small measure of redemption, he'll still be a character who was by basic nature largely a cowardly killer. And yet, still a Gryffindor ;-) Julie (who finds it surprising that some posters look to Peter as the one who will be redeemed rather than to Snape, when Snape has in no way approached the level of pond scum that Peter has obtained--even with the apparent murder of Dumbledore) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 05:02:12 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 05:02:12 -0000 Subject: Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat In-Reply-To: <9.51bd196a.30d78a3c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144966 > Julie > (who finds it surprising that some posters look to Peter as > the one who will be redeemed rather than to Snape, when > Snape has in no way approached the level of pond scum > that Peter has obtained--even with the apparent murder of > Dumbledore) Alla: I rearranged your words, Julie by bringing you signature paragraph upstairs to make clear why I am bringing Snape in this thread in the first place. I ususally prefer to try and defend the character without pointing out that the other character committed worse deeds, but this way is fun too. For the record, I think that it is a possibility that Snape's level of pond scum and Peter's are quite close to each other, but I realized recently that defending Peter is fun. Not that I really believe it anyway, just speculating. > Julie: > SHOW WHO HE IS?? You mean Peter's not really the creep who got > so much glee out of James and Sirius tormenting Snape, while he > watched safely on the sidelines? Alla: I think it is possible that Peter is less creep for watching the bullying than someone who goes around inventing spells who could really hurt people and one ofthose could let them bleed to death. IMO anyway. Juli: And Peter's not really the betrayer > who got Lily and James killed by Voldemort (much more directly so > than, say, Snape)? Alla: It is possible that without Snape giving that little piece of information to Voldemort, Voldemort would never gone after Peter in the first place. IMO anyway, so it is a big question in my mind who is more at fault for Potters deaths. Sure, Peter told Voldemort the place of their hiding, but without Snape opening his mouth, Voldemort may not have become interested in them at all. IMO of course. > Julie: And Peter's not really the coward > who hid behind a rat all those years? Alla: But is that who he really is? Is it in his nature or is it because fear consumed him? I attended a very interesting lecture yesterday ( unrelated to HP), but talking among other things how fear can completely consume you. Juli: child killer who Avada Kedavra'd poor Cedric (that spell you have to > *mean* to perform, which Peter performed with little or no emotion)? Alla: Indeed. You have to mean Avada to perform it succesfully. You agree that it applies to all characters, including Snape, right? :-) Juli: > No, deep down he's really courageous at heart, and he did all those > things, along with crawling after Voldemort and doing his bidding, just > because of "external" circumstances, not because being a cowardly, > backstabbing, cold-hearted killer was his true nature? Alla: Could you please refer me to the canon for the "cold hearted", if you don't mind. Cowardly - sure, is it possible that it was under the threat of torture or torture itself. Yes, IMO anyway. JMO of course. Alla, who is so not a fan of Peter, but who does think that his stakes on the redemption rose very significantly after HBP. From Nanagose at aol.com Mon Dec 19 05:24:08 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 05:24:08 -0000 Subject: Peter's basic nature In-Reply-To: <9.51bd196a.30d78a3c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144967 > Alla wrote: > ...but it is also possible that acting courageously always > WAS in Peter's basic nature...I won't be surprised that if > JKR shows Peter finally acting courageously, she will show it as > him indeed making a choice, but a choice which SHOW WHO HE IS, > finally, instead of choice which was forced by external > circumstances ( like threat of torture or something) OR by worse > part of his basic nature - cowardice. > Julie: > > No, deep down he's really courageous at heart, and he did all those > things, along with crawling after Voldemort and doing his bidding, > just because of "external" circumstances, not because being a > cowardly, backstabbing, cold-hearted killer was his true nature? > ...Now, I won't be surprised to see Peter *act* in a courageous > manner, in a way that pays back his life debt to Harry, as well > as delivers a blow to Voldemort. That may be a small show of > courage on his part, though it will still be because of external > circumstances, i.e. because he owes Harry that debt...Even if > it does buy him a small measure of redemption, he'll still be > a character who was by basic nature largely a cowardly killer. > And yet, still a Gryffindor ;-) Christina: Like you Julie, I also gawk at those who look to Peter for redemption...ick! This is a guy that not only does bad things, but enjoys them. He might not have been the one to bully Snape, but he certainly seemed to get quite a bit of entertainment and joy out of it. It's that sadistic glee, more than James's or Sirius's actual actions, that disturb me the most in the pensieve scene...but I digress. I agree that it's impossible for Peter to be redeemed, because any good acts he could do in Book 7 would be because of the life debt to Harry, not any goodness on his part. Peter's tendency to act based on external circumstances IS his basic nature...it's a character trait in and of itself, and it's the definition that we've given to OFH when talking about Snape. Peter's such a puzzle to me, and I'm sure we've given him the run-around on this list before, but I wanted to take a bit of an issue with our calling him a coward. We tend to equate cowardice as being bad and courage as being good, but there's nothing inherantly good about being a courageous person. The definition of courage is, "The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, confidence, and resolution." Just because somebody is doing evil deeds, does not mean that they cannot do them courageously. We call Peter's actions cowardice because he evades punishment for his crimes, he hides from those who want to exact revenge on him, and finds safety in being close to people more powerful than himself. But is this really cowardice? He seems awfully weak and afraid when he talks to Remus and Sirius (and to LV for that matter), but he does some pretty heavy stuff. He takes the initiative to "overpower" Bertha Jorkins and willingly seeks out LV, bringing him back to life. The dirty rat even cuts off his own hand! I think that Peter's habit of twitching and shrieking when in danger makes it easy to call him a coward because he seems very fearful. I'm not so sure we should buy into this. Many of the canon characters have underestimated Peter, whether concerning his magical talent or his ability to keep secrets. I think that he does not act so much out of an irrational or uncommonly strong fear, but out of self-preservation. His fear is warranted because he really IS in a lot of danger. He has reason to fear Remus and Sirius, who are obviously willing to kill him in vengeance. He has reason to fear LV, who really is a dangerous guy. NOW, of course just because Peter not might be uncommonly cowardly doesn't mean he's automatically brave, which brings us to the question Julie mentioned about Peter's sorting into Gryffindor. He doesn't seem to have a particular fondness for learning or information, so Ravenclaw doesn't make sense. He isn't "just," and he's obviously not "loyal," so Hufflepuff isn't a great fit either. His knack for self-preservation actually correlates quite well with the Slytherins we know. So why Gryffindor? Well, there are other qualities that the Sorting Hat lists for Gryffindor- daring, nerve, and boldness. I'd argue that Peter's got quite a bit of those; I'd imagine it'd take quite a bit of nerve to resurrect the most evil wizard in existance in a process that includes severing a part of your own body. Christina (who wishes that Yahoo let you spell check) From va32h at comcast.net Mon Dec 19 05:40:02 2005 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 05:40:02 -0000 Subject: JKRs use of Logic : WAS Who killed Dumbledore/Karmic justice Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144968 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Julie wrote: > In real life the most logical conclusion is usually (but still not > always) the correct one. In JKR's books, the most logical conclusion > is quite OFTEN the wrong one. va32h here: What are some examples of logical conclusions being wrong? Not to be argumentative, but I do think that JKR goes with the obvious more often than not, even when the obvious answer is disguised as something else. My examples: Overtly Obvious - Harry's "power the Dark Lord knows not" being love. I read soooo many theories that were based on the idea that the power couldn't be love - because that was too logical, too obvious. But there it is, love, "just love". Obvious after a lot of thought: Crouch!Moody. Now bear with me...but the logical answer to "who cast the Dark Mark at the Quidditch Cup" would be "a Death Eater". And that was the case. It was disguised under a layer of "Death Eater who was presumed dead but actually in hiding for 13 years", but at it's heart, it was the obvious answer. Who entered Harry in the Triwizard Tournament - the logical answer would be "someone who wishes Harry harm" and under all the machinations of the tasks and the cup being a Portkey, it was indeed, someone who wished Harry harm. Sometimes there are situations in which logic fails us - Sirius Black for instance. Everyone thinks Sirius is out to kill Harry, and they think it's the logical conclusion (although I personally found the explanation that Sirius would think that killing Harry would bring back Voldemort to be pretty convoluted). But in that case, everyone is missing key information. They are making a logical conclusion based on faulty evidence. Once we do have all the information - everything that happened is perfectly logical. Sirius saying "He's at Hogwarts", trying to get into Gryffindor Tower when the students are gone, attacking Ron's bed not Harry's, Crookshanks' behavior, Scabbers' ill health, the presence of the "Grim", and on and on. Which brings us back to Dumbledore on the tower - is Harry making a logical conclusion based on incomplete or inaccurate information? va32h, who thinks Dumbledore is definitely dead, no matter what Harry saw on the tower (or didn't see, or thought he saw). From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Dec 19 05:44:04 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 05:44:04 -0000 Subject: Peter's basic nature In-Reply-To: <9.51bd196a.30d78a3c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144969 Julie wrote: > Julie > (who finds it surprising that some posters look to Peter as > the one who will be redeemed rather than to Snape, when > Snape has in no way approached the level of pond scum > that Peter has obtained--even with the apparent murder of > Dumbledore) > Valky: Couldn't agree more Julie, to follow the lead of some noteable listees, if Peter comes out the redeemed figure in book seven over Snape - most especially if it comes without absolute qualification for Snape to be dismissed from the queue instead of Peter such as doubtless proof that Snape could have saved *both* children on the tower, restored Dumbledore to perfect health and spared every other life in Hogwarts, *at most* possibly costing him his own life, IOW with unequivocal proof that nobody else needs to have died while DD was spared (go ahead, make my day and prove it!) or an undeniably vile act in its place such as taking a cheap "AK" shot at Harry while his back is turned somewhere in book seven with Harry recieving payment for his life debt from Peter when Peter saves him from that and instantly dies but thereon *must* additionally work further for his redemption because, frankly, it will take that much for Peter to undo all the determinedly repugnant behaviour he has indulged his disgusting self in, behaviour which forgiveness/grace wouldn't touch with a fifty foot barge pole - well, I will tear up the book and throw it away. Far be it from me to be a vehement Snape defender, don't much like him either, and expect fully to have the complete C.V. by book seven's end of his engagements in many and varied nefarious, inexcusable atrocities, as well, so that there is no question that he should be, and if there is a scrap of decency in him he will be, eternally and profoundly thankful for the slightest grace afforded him by the "concieted", "arrogant", child that he undoubtedly made an orphan. But as much as that is a cold dinner by anyone's standards it 100% moreover equates to a redemption that Peter has no chance of ever recieving. Peter's only redeeming quality is IMO, the thing that Julie has already covered in the post upthread. He won't put up with having his limbs hacked off and being Snape's kitty boy without piling up a store of enough resentment to turn sides as soon as he feels safe to get a bit of payback. He will turn on Voldie, probably feeling a little real nostalgia over the James/Harry likeness in the process, but after he does the deed and promptly dies he will be a revolting traitor still, and always will remain so. Perhaps to some that is still a meaningful redemption, but not for me, I mostly see it as good riddance to bad rubbish. Just My Humble Opinion. ;) Valky From va32h at comcast.net Mon Dec 19 05:55:43 2005 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 05:55:43 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor qualities, WAS Re: Peter's basic nature In-Reply-To: <9.51bd196a.30d78a3c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144970 > Alla wrote: > > As to your example with Peter - it IS possible that JKR intends what > you argued, but it is also possible that acting courageously always > WAS in Peter's basic nature, va32h: It's frustrating to have Wormtail be a Gryffindor and yet be such a spineless little scumbag. But, I have always thought that courage/bravery was not the defining Gryffindor characteristic. There's a certain show-offy nature to Gryffindors, a desire to be publically admired. And dare I say it? A certain amount of hubris! Fred and George enjoy being known as the class cut-ups, and are proud of their reckless, rule-breaking reputation. Hermione believes in following rules, but she is quite willing to break them whenever it is in her best interests to do so. Ron basks in the admiration of his House after the Quidditch final in OoTP, and even before that, he embellished his adventure in the Lake from GoF. Even Harry, who is at first put-off by all the attention he garners at Hogwarts, comes to imagine himself hoisting the Triwizard Cup before a cheering crowd. He has a blatant disregard for any rules that interfere with his personal desires. And what did the Sorting Hat say about Harry - "a thirst to prove yourself". So Wormtail can continue to be a cowardly Gryffindor. Possessing no extraordinary talents or good looks himself, he still manages to capture public attention by aligning himself with those who do. He rationalizes his sins as being the only options he had. He is proud of his status as Voldemort's right hand man (literally! although that is an old joke by now). Wormtail even managed to turn his faked death into an opportunity to elevate himself - by "dying" as a hero and receiving a posthumous Order of Merlin. va32h, who thinks Wormtail's remainging role is to repay his debt to Harry, not be saved by Harry's mercy yet again. From juli17 at aol.com Mon Dec 19 07:09:04 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 02:09:04 EST Subject: Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat Message-ID: <28b.2a5fa9c.30d7b690@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144971 > Julie > (who finds it surprising that some posters look to Peter as > the one who will be redeemed rather than to Snape, when > Snape has in no way approached the level of pond scum > that Peter has obtained--even with the apparent murder of > Dumbledore) Alla: I rearranged your words, Julie by bringing you signature paragraph upstairs to make clear why I am bringing Snape in this thread in the first place. I ususally prefer to try and defend the character without pointing out that the other character committed worse deeds, but this way is fun too. For the record, I think that it is a possibility that Snape's level of pond scum and Peter's are quite close to each other, but I realized recently that defending Peter is fun. Not that I really believe it anyway, just speculating. Julie: You're right, the *possibility* is there that Snape is quite close to Peter in the pond scum department. But the possibility that Snape *ins't* on the same level as Peter is also there. And therein lies the difference. We don't yet know all there is to know about Snape. He may have done some much worse things than we're privy to, he may have killed Dumbledore for his own ends, but again, he may not have done either. And that is the mystery of Snape. We can't quite judge him until Book 7 shows us who he really is (and I have no doubt JKR will show us). Peter we *can* judge now. There's no doubt about his murders, numbering 14 at this point (I believe), and one of those being a child. There's also no doubt about his current loyalty to Voldemort. So, Peter=BAD, Snape=Maybe BAD, Maybe GOOD, or both. Peter's losing. Julie earlier: Getting such glee out of James and Sirius tormenting Snape, while he > watched safely on the sidelines? Alla: I think it is possible that Peter is less creep for watching the bullying than someone who goes around inventing spells who could really hurt people and one ofthose could let them bleed to death. IMO anyway. Julie: I don't agree. Robert Oppenheimer invented the A-bomb, but I don't think that makes him to blame for the US dropping it on Japan, or for any uses of it thereafter (hoping fervently for no future uses). Snape may have invented it for whatever reason, but he's not forcing anyone else to use it. Juli earlier: And Peter's not really the betrayer > who got Lily and James killed by Voldemort (much more directly so > than, say, Snape)? Alla: It is possible that without Snape giving that little piece of information to Voldemort, Voldemort would never gone after Peter in the first place. IMO anyway, so it is a big question in my mind who is more at fault for Potters deaths. Sure, Peter told Voldemort the place of their hiding, but without Snape opening his mouth, Voldemort may not have become interested in them at all. IMO of course. Julie: We are *very* far apart on this, then. You are right that Snape opened his mouth, thus putting this all in action. But that does NOT make Snape responsible for Peter's actions. Snape gave away the prophecy, but if we are to believe Dumbledore, he regretted it. (And I do believe Dumbledore). Additionally, Snape did put lives in danger, but he didn't initially know the identities. This isn't a nice thing to do, of course, but it's always easier to commit evil when it's anonymous and removed from you. But Peter betrayed one of his closest friends. And while Snape attempted to keep the Potters safe (by aiding DD), Peter revealed their hiding place directly to Voldemort. Peter's still losing, IMO. > Julie earlier: And Peter's not really the coward > who hid behind a rat all those years? Alla: But is that who he really is? Is it in his nature or is it because fear consumed him? I attended a very interesting lecture yesterday ( unrelated to HP), but talking among other things how fear can completely consume you. Julie: I believe fear can consume you, but if fear can make you betray your friends, kill a dozen people to escape, hide in rat form for thirteen years, and then continue to commit crimes up to and including murdering a child, then what does this indicate about your nature? Courage?? I don't think so. Juli earlier: child killer who Avada Kedavra'd poor Cedric (that spell you have to > *mean* to perform, which Peter performed with little or no emotion)? Alla: Indeed. You have to mean Avada to perform it succesfully. You agree that it applies to all characters, including Snape, right? :-) Julie: Yes, it does. But again, there is some doubt about Snape's motivations in performing the Avada (for self gain, or because DD requested it as the best way to preserve the most lives including the most important one there, Harry's), and perhaps even some uncertainty about whether it was a true Avada. Additionally, even if Snape did kill DD to save himself, at least he seemed pained by it. Peter showed no compunction in killing Cedric, and certainly couldn't point to a net gain for the good side by his action. Juli earlier: > No, deep down he's really courageous at heart, and he did all those > things, along with crawling after Voldemort and doing his bidding, just > because of "external" circumstances, not because being a cowardly, > backstabbing, cold-hearted killer was his true nature? Alla: Could you please refer me to the canon for the "cold hearted", if you don't mind. Cowardly - sure, is it possible that it was under the threat of torture or torture itself. Yes, IMO anyway. Julie: There's no canon stating Peter is "cold-hearted", but what would you call someone who cuts down an innocent teenager without a single hint of hesitation or remorse? Everyone's all worried about how Snape might have permanently affected Harry and Neville's emotional health (despite no evidence that he did), but how come no one cares that Peter KILLED that dear, sweet boy Cedric?? (Cries) Why, oh why, is the late Cedric Diggory so unlamented? (Okay, I know some people do see Peter as the greater evil :-) Oh, and I do think Peter could have gone somewhere besides right back to Voldemort after the Shrieking Shack. Voldemort was still somewhat confined at that time, as it wasn't until GoF that Voldemort gained a body again. Peter could have remained a rat anywhere. He chose to go to Voldemort though, and take part in the graveyard incident (where Harry was supposed to die also, if Voldemort had his way). Alla: Alla, who is so not a fan of Peter, but who does think that his stakes on the redemption rose very significantly after HBP. Julie: I agree the water did muddy a little in HBP when it comes to Snape and redemption, but I can't see Peter's stakes for redemption rising AT ALL post-HBP. Snape's character has become more questionable, though far from resolved. Peter's character, however, remains unchanged. He's never showed an ounce of remorse or regret for his actions. He remains an evil, if pathetic, little turd. Julie (Oops, four posts today. Can I say I saved up from yesterday?) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sydpad at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 07:09:15 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 07:09:15 -0000 Subject: Peter's basic nature In-Reply-To: <9.51bd196a.30d78a3c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144972 > Alla wrote: > I won't be surprised that if > JKR shows Peter finally acting courageously, she will show it as him > indeed making a choice, but a choice which SHOW WHO HE IS, finally, > instead of choice which was forced by external circumstances ( like > threat of torture or something) OR by worse part of his basic > nature - cowardice. > In her round up of Peter's crimes, Juli missed out his biggest, IMO-- he single-handedly brought V-mort back from his vapour-state, going all the way to Albania at, presumably, no small effort expressly for that purpose. And to this end, cajoled along Bertha Jorkins as a snack, who was subsequently tortured to death. Nobody coerced Peter into this-- it was his plan, beginning to end, as a means to secure his future power and saftey. For fiendishness, chilling unconcern for human life, blithe deception (of Bertha), overall damage caused, and total denial of his own agency and responsibilty (by his revolting appearance of distaste at his own handiwork), it's hard to think of a more purely vile single act in the series. The only thing you can say for Peter is that he doesn't seem to be enjoying himself, but frankly I find this even MORE offputting-- Crouch Jr. at the very least, has a bit of brio. -- Sydney, who wouldn't be surprised at Peter's having a hand in the downfall of Voldemort, but thinks it likelier to be a gollum-type accident than a redemption. From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Mon Dec 19 09:02:51 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 10:02:51 +0100 Subject: Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat References: Message-ID: <003701c6047a$fe43df60$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 144973 > Juli: > And Peter's not really the cold > child killer who Avada Kedavra'd poor Cedric (that spell you have > to *mean* to perform, which Peter performed with little or no > emotion)? dumbledore11214 wrote: > Indeed. You have to mean Avada to perform it succesfully. You agree > that it applies to all characters, including Snape, right? :-) Miles: I don't know if Julie means it. But I keep insisting that there is no canon proof for this. We heard Bellatrix who said this. Besides Bellatrix is far from being a trustful witness, she told it when Harry tried to cast "Crucio". And Crucio is very much different from Avada Kedavra, the idea of it is to induce pain, nothing more. And to really "want" to torture someone cannot be any good, in no situation, whereas to really want to kill someone may be "good" under certain circumstances. Even if Bellatrix is right, if killing Dumbledore is part of the plan, DDM!Snape could "want" to kill Dumbledore, and this would proof nothing. Miles From bawilson at citynet.net Mon Dec 19 04:18:30 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:18:30 -0500 Subject: I think that there are some interesting points here. Message-ID: <002801c60453$514a7a70$41002b45@b9g2u1> No: HPFGUIDX 144974 While I don't think that "Professor" G. is infallible, I think he has made some points here which CERTAIN PEOPLE should consider. http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/home.php?page=docs/interviews Bruce Wilson [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kchuplis at alltel.net Mon Dec 19 04:48:54 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 04:48:54 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144975 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > > Not that several have not been already proposed in the many related > threads we have had since HBP came out...but: > > Snape shows up on the Tower, sees a weakened Dumbledore, and > interprets his initial plea as a suggestion he come closer and > Legilimens. He does, but gets nothing much coherent, just some vague > images of Dumbledore apparently in great distress, being fed some > green potion by Harry. He is repulsed by what he sees. Then > Dumbledore repeats his plea, and 'the lights go out'. Snape > recognizes the moment of brain death. Seeing the opportunity to > establish his bona fides with Voldemort and hide Dumbledore and > Harry's mysterious activities, Snape casts the Avada Kedavra. > Dumbledore's dead body is blasted into the air and falls to the > ground. > > I'm not saying this happened, but I see no reason to suppose it > couldn't have. > *blink* Well, er... I suppose Harry could wake up in Book 7 and find he is a muggle and this was all a bad dream. I suppose anything could be possible. But, egad, I know JKR is pretty free with red herrings, but I might have to have my own book burning if this huge, gigantic, pivotal moment turns out to be this convoluted. kchuplis From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 07:36:19 2005 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 07:36:19 -0000 Subject: Future of Snape's Spying In-Reply-To: <524724481.20051218075050@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144976 My gut feeling is that Snape's role is going to change from spy to saboteur. He's not in a position to pass along information any more. Instead, he's going to be using his energy to loosen the tight strings on Voldemort's followers. The taking of the UV with Narcissa was part of this effort. He may be forging a connection with Pettigrew to help support that life debt that Wormtail has. He's also working his own position to be in the right place when the final confrontation takes place. But that's just a gut feeling. Your idea is quite cool. Montavilla From latha272 at indiatimes.com Mon Dec 19 07:51:30 2005 From: latha272 at indiatimes.com (scamjunk22) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 07:51:30 -0000 Subject: offbeat - and must have been discussed to the pulp before too.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144977 Okay, agreed that Dumbledore controls the security..... doesn't that also point out to the fact that even with the same strict security in place, animagus or not, Sirius still had access to the castle. Agreed that he was an animagus, but wouldn't the security system still inform DD that a stray dog is in the grounds ... a "new" creature on the grounds??? Then again, Sirius has access to the fires! It would be so much more easier for the DEs to Imperius the person who patrols the fires and make that person set up connection with the Hogwarts fires ..? No? Like HP, RW and GW were able to floo to Hogwarts due to special setup, the DEs could have got it done through Imperius curse!!! Draco had just to use the same type of coins to communicate with the other DEs .. no? Or better still -- use the floo network to transport his head to Borgin's and call the other DEs...?? What I am trying to say is that, Rowling has introduced us to all other possible ways of entry into Hogwarts ... and it could have been just done in a much simpler way. Why should Draco be made to go to so much trouble to accomplish his task? When it was sooooooo easy for an underage wizard like Draco to put an Imperius curse on Rosmerta, why couldn't it be done by the other DEs? There are so many easier options, and she goes and makes Draco choose the most difficult one. About Draco not knowing when to communicate to the other DEs and going through the vanishing cabinet to get the others -- does it mean that the other DEs were just sitting there at Borgin's waiting for him to come and fetch them? Doesn't THAT remain unconvincing?? :) I mean - DD controls the coming into and going out of Hogwarts. Then how could a DE setup a portkey to some place OUT of Hogwarts? And how come DD didn't even get a warning that his security system was breached? There are just tooooo many loop holes there! And I still feel JKR SHOULD let us know answer to these too ... besides all the other questions she has promised to answer in book 7! .. :( :) Thanks for all the wonderful answers ... :) I love responses...... Be safe all... scam. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 19 11:35:45 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:35:45 -0000 Subject: Translations of HBP - how the names are translated In-Reply-To: <1558122806.20051218120747@web.de> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144978 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, literature_Caro wrote: > > > Geoff: > > Curiously, as a native English speaker, I've never felt an urge to > > laugh at Neville's name. There are a number of names ending in - bottom, > > e.g. Longbottom, Rowbottom, Ramsbottom and Higginbottom come to mind, > > which are often of North country origin and, having spent the early > > formative years of my existence in that region, I do not make a > > humorous connection. > > > I get more chuckles out of JKR's play on other names - Diagon Alley, > > Knockturn Alley, Grimmauld Place, Umbridge, Little Whinging for example. Caro: > As a non-native I do not get all of these as funny. The street names I > understand, but what is it with the others? Can you explain, bedause > in German they just keep them the way they are... > Thanks Geoff: You apparently "get" Diagon Alley = diagonally, Knockturn Alley = nocturnally. Little Whinging from "whinge" = to complain constantly and also relates to "whine". It may come from Australian slang because the Aussies have a habit of calling the British "whinging Poms", Pom being a degoratory local word for we British. Grimmauld Place. JKR lives nowadays in Edinburgh, the Scottish capital. "Auld" is a Scots dialect word for "old" and a name for Edinburgh used in a familiar context by the Scots is "Auld Reekie" = "old smelly", probably coined in days before the drains were built! Umbridge. There is a word in English "umbrage". To "take umbrage" means to take offence, to be very annoyed over something said or done. Hence JKR uses the word as an approximate homophone. I didn't list Dumbledore, although I could have because this is an Old English dialect word for bumble bee. Some people have suggested that his Animagus form is precisely that. Interestingly, I didn't know about this word until I came to HP and, in the village in which I now live, there is a house called "Dumbeldory" which I presume may have belonged to a bee-keeper. There is, of course, JKR's rather naughty play on words when Ron, in a Divination lesson involving the planets, asks one of the others "Can I see Uranus?" This is a homophone to the English words "your anus". For the benefit of our friends for whom English is not their first language, the anus is described discreetly by my dictionary as "the opening at the end of the digestive system through which solid waste leaves the body." I think Ron deserves a slap on the wrist for that one.. :-) Sandy Straubhaar wrote: P. G. Wodehouse (as in Jeeves & Wooster) used lots of bizarre English town names in his stories, but ... I _think_ ... they are all real, like Weston-super-Mare and Walsingford Parva and Totleigh-in-the-Wold. Or maybe they aren't? Weston-Super-Mare is a large coastal resort on the west coast of North Somerset facing down the Bristol Channel. It is rather a pretentious name, derived from the Latin for Weston-on-Sea!!! The other two places do not exist except in the imagination of PGW. Parva is also a bit pretentious being the Latin for "little" so you will sometimes get a pair of villages called "Something Magna" and "Something Parva". Wold is an old name for high, open land. It does occur in the town name Stow-on-the-Wold but I can't think of any others. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Dec 19 12:13:32 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:13:32 -0000 Subject: Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144979 > > Alla: > > It is possible that without Snape giving that little piece of > information to Voldemort, Voldemort would never gone after Peter in > the first place. IMO anyway, so it is a big question in my mind who > is more at fault for Potters deaths. Sure, Peter told Voldemort the > place of their hiding, but without Snape opening his mouth, > Voldemort may not have become interested in them at all. IMO of > course. Potioncat: I disagree, Alla. ;-) Big surprise. Snape, who was in LV's service, gave LV a portion of a prophecy at at time when he couldn't have known whom it concerned. Peter, also in LV's service, told LV where to find Lily, James and the baby. Sometime before LV took action, Snape repented of his actions and informed DD, then risked his life in support of DD's side. Sometime after Peter's actions led to the death of Lily and James, he killed more people, and set up an innocent man to go to prison. Snape continued to work with DD, anticipating LV's return. Peter spent the rest of the next decade hiding. Even if LV had held something over Peter, once LV was gone, Peter could have gone to DD. Now, if Peter is also one of DD's spies, it'll be another story. From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Mon Dec 19 12:55:40 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:55:40 -0000 Subject: Future of Snape's Spying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144980 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > Hagrid is one of three I suggested. The other two were Lupin and > Aberforth. You brought up Mundungus, also a good choice, for the > reasons you wrote down. If there is such a contact person and > Dumbledore set it up before his death, he would have let them in on > the possibility that Snape may act in an odd manner, even look like > an outright traitor. He would also have let them know about whatever > plans or fears there were connected to what we ended up seeing on the > Tower. For me Hagrid would be unimaginable. He is just not smart enough, en if Snape really still is a spy for the order, his contact person needs to be someone for whom it is believable he or she will have this incredably useful information and it would need to be someone whose wordl will carry weight with the Order so they will take this person and the information he present seriously. Hagrid is a no go for both. He has no believable opportunity to get to DE's secrets and he does not carry enough weigth as a person. Mundungus certainly could be a person who overhears shady conversations and such. But he has demonstrated in the past that he will desert his post if a good business oportunity comes along. Not only is that a less desirable trait in a person who has such an important secret to keep, these business oportunities could bring him to the attention of the MoM and he could be invited for a stay in Azkaban and there goes your contact. Lupin: could very well be. He is in the right camp, so bumping into Snape is easy to arrange for both of them. Lupin has huge respect in the Order. Hermione? Why would DD give such an important secret to an underage girl, who is mainly involved because she is a friend of Harry? Sure, she is a pretty smart witch, but there are more of these in the order. Another option: Tonks, with her morphing abilities. Easy to disguise herself, so easy to meet Snape without any DE who might spot him being the wiser. And my favourite: Molly. Why? Because nobody suspects it, it would be lovely if she would have a more active part and if Snape really is on the good side he needs a bit of mothering. Gerry From kelleyaynn at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 13:04:46 2005 From: kelleyaynn at yahoo.com (kelleyaynn) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:04:46 -0000 Subject: Symbols & Name Meanings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144981 Bruce Alan Wilson wrote: > (and wasn't Cedric, the other Hogwarts' Champion, from Ravenclaw? He > needs to be avenged. Hmm. "Harry Potter & the Revenge of > Ravenclaw"?) Kelleyaynn: Actually, no. Cedric was a Hufflepuff (see GoF, pg 721 US edition paperback). From meriaugust at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 13:44:37 2005 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:44:37 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion - Chapter 6: Draco's Detour Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144982 Chapter Discussion - Draco's Detour Summary - Harry spends a relatively peaceful holiday at the Burrow, playing Quidditch and enjoying Mrs. Weasley's cooking, but his tranquility and happiness is oftentimes interrupted with dinner guests (especially Remus Lupin) bearing bad news about the war - deaths, disappearances and increased Death Eater activity. At Harry's 16th birthday celebration Lupin reports that Igor Karkaroff was found dead "up north" (making reference to Sirius' brother Regulus, who was apparently killed quickly after he defected), that Florean Fortescue, the ice-cream man, was "dragged off" and that Mr. Olivander, the wand maker, has mysteriously disappeared. The arrival of the Hogwarts booklists means a trip to Diagon Alley, which Harry and Ron in particular are looking forward to: they want to see Fred and George's new store. They take a Ministry Car arranged by Mr. Weasley and we find out that Harry has been given top protection by the Ministry, though he doesn't have much confidence in this; on Dumbledore's orders he carries his invisibility cloak, and that's good enough for him. They meet up with Hagrid at the tragically empty Leaky Cauldron, who has been assigned as bodyguard for them during their visit. Diagon Alley is much changed from Harry's first visit there. Instead of throngs of bustling shoppers and a vibrant magical scene there are empty streets and storefronts, people travel in packs and every surface available is plastered with Ministry warning signs and wanted posters for the escaped Death Eaters. Stalls have sprung up selling cheap anti-dark creature amulets. The group, consisting of Mr. and Mrs. Weasley, Hagrid, Harry, Hermione, Ron and Ginny, decides to split up, with Ginny and her parents headed to Flourish and Blotts for books and the others to Madam Malkin's for new robes, where they find Draco and Narcissa Malfoy in the middle of making a purchase. After a heated exchange in which Harry manages to insult the entirety of the Malfoy family, in which Draco returns to his old standby of calling Hermione a "mudblood", and in which Narcissa makes a nasty comment about Harry being reunited with "dear Sirius", the Malfoys storm out after Madam Malkin attepmts to shorten the left sleeve of Draco's new robes without buying anything, deciding that Twilfitt and Tatting's would do better for their business. After making their purchases at Madam Malkin's, the trio and Hagrid meet up with the others and, after stops at the Apothecary (where Ron and Harry, assuming they will not be taking Potions, buy nothing) and Eyelop's Owl Emporium, head over to Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes, a store that, in contrast to the rest of Diagon Alley, is brightly decorated with advertisements (U-NO-POO) and packed with shoppers. Inside the store Hermione comments on the superiority of the magic involved in the products (including realistic hangman games, miniature Puffskeins, love potions, daydreams in bottles, trick wands, and a small supply of Muggle magic tricks as well as the Skiving Snackboxes that made such a stir at the end of last year) and they greet Fred and George, basking in the success of their industry. As the others shop the twins take Harry on a tour of their more advanced, personal defense products: Shield hats and gloves, Instant Darkness Powder, Decoy Detonators, and the like, some of which have been picked up for Ministry use. Harry is allowed to take anything he wants from the store (in gratitude for the "startup loan") while Ron has to pay for his selections. The trio manages to catch sight of Draco wandering alone through Diagon Alley through the shop window, and Harry decides to follow him. Fitting the three of them under the cloak (not as easy as it once was), the trio sneaks out of the store and tracks Draco down Knockturn Alley to Borgin and Burkes, the same dark arts store Harry visited before during his botched Floo Powder trip. Using Extendable Ears they eavesdrop on Draco and Mr. Borgin; they are talking about some item in the shop that Draco needs saved, and some information he needs to make some other thing work. He threatens Borgin with a visit from Fenrir Greyback if he doesn't cooperate, and then sweeps out of the store after showing the man something on his left arm. Hermione makes an attempt to wheedle some information out of Mr. Borgin, but gets thrown out of the store. As they walk back to the joke shop Ron and Hermione argue about her tactics. Once back at the store they slip back inside and tell the Weasleys that they've been there all along. Discussion Questions - 1. This chapter begins with the death or disappearance of familiar characters. Regulus Black is mentioned being killed "a few days" after he abandoned Voldemort, though Karkaroff managed to survive a full year. How did he do this? How high of a priority does this make Karkaroff seem compared to Regulus? From what we suspect about the identity of "R.A.B." could this imply that he was killed because of his Horcrux theft? Does this confirm for us that Karkaroff was indeed the DE "too cowardly to return" mentioned in GOF? 2. Why attack Florean Fortescue? Or was the shambles his place was left in just a cover for a hasty escape? And for that matter, why take Mr. Olivander? Does Voldemort want a new wand with which to duel Harry with? We know that a wizard using an unsuitable wand does not practice magic as well as he could; could Voldemort having a wand without Fawkes' tail feathers in it be an advantage for Harry in the final duel? What good does having Olivander do the dark side? 3. The presence of the wanted posters and warning signs posted by the Ministry has reminded some readers of WWII propaganda signs and leaflets. In what ways are these things useful to the magical community? Is it really possible to teach people to defend themselves against threats with blurbs on purple poster board? Or is this just another example of the Ministry wanting to be seen doing *something* even if that something isn't that effective? Don't most witches and wizards graduate from school with at least five years of Defense Against the Dark Arts? How is their schooling practically applied in these situations? Will the DADA curriculum be permanently changed now that there is actual defense that needs to be done? 4. Harry insults and stands up to Narcissa Malfoy much like he did to Lucius Malfoy last year at the Ministry. How does this scene show Harry controlling his anger and emotions? Hermione doesn't seem to mind being called a "mudblood". Is that because she's used to it, or because she has no regard for Malfoy's opinion of her? Ron doesn't say much here. Is he too angry to speak, or is he willingly giving up the leadership role to Harry? 5. We finally get a peek at Weasley's Wizard Wheezes. How does this store compare to Zonko's, the only other establishment of its kind that we know about? Why are Fred and George's products so popular in an otherwise nearly empty shopping area? They comment that they were able to come up with their personal protection line after Harry's D.A. lessons. Does this mean that Harry does indeed have an aptitude for teaching? The twins' comments that Ron has told them a lot about Ginny's relationships indicates that he is close with them, despite the fact that they live over the shop. Would you have expected the three of them to be close due to all the torment they have given him over the last sixteen years? 6. The scene at Borgin and Burkes is full of foreshadowing, especially seeing as the very Vanishing Cabinet Draco is obliquely referring to is the item that blocks Harry's view into the store. In fact, both that and the opal necklace come in to play later in the story. What other items of value might the store be hiding? How loyal is Mr. Borgin to LV's cause? Why does he assume his oily, deferential manner when speaking to Draco, when he is older than the boy? Is it a mark of respect for the Malfoy family name, or is he really frightened? 7. Harry has cried "Wolf!" on Malfoy too many times. Now that he is right that Draco is planning something, no one believes him. How could he have presented the evidence he discovered in this chapter in order to be more persuasive? Or could he have? Who was in the know enough to help Harry undermine Malfoy's plans? 8. In this chapter we are presented with a very different Narcissa Malfoy than appeared in "Spinner's End". Why has she changed so drastically? Is this just her calm, public face? Or is she that confident in the Unbreakable Vow now protecting her son? 9. This chapter also presents some minor shipping moments: the beginnings of Harry's attraction to Ginny (him laughing at her jokes at breakfast), Ron and Hermione's continual bickering, and our first sights of Fleur and Bill together. How do Bill and Fleur match up in your estimation? Too sugary? What about the subtle hints about Harry and Ginny? Were these too subtle or just right? 10. And just for fun, which products would you be picking up at Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes? Why do Fred and George still have to test on themselves? Surely they can hire subjects now? Or are their items too dangerous? NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database From ornawn at 013.net Mon Dec 19 14:00:25 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:00:25 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144983 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > > Not that several have not been already proposed in the many related > threads we have had since HBP came out...but: > > Snape shows up on the Tower, sees a weakened Dumbledore, and > interprets his initial plea as a suggestion he come closer and > Legilimens. He does, but gets nothing much coherent, just some vague > images of Dumbledore apparently in great distress, being fed some > green potion by Harry. He is repulsed by what he sees. Then > Dumbledore repeats his plea, and 'the lights go out'. Snape > recognizes the moment of brain death. Seeing the opportunity to > establish his bona fides with Voldemort and hide Dumbledore and > Harry's mysterious activities, Snape casts the Avada Kedavra. > Dumbledore's dead body is blasted into the air and falls to the > ground. > > I'm not saying this happened, but I see no reason to suppose it > couldn't have. > Orna: At first I laughed at this scene, nut then I thought you might have hit on something ? so I wrote an afterthought. I can well imagine a meeting between Snape and Harry, in which Harry outraged (again) accuses Snape of murdering DD, and telling him he is going to do to him (whatever). Snape, maliciously telling him ? let's take another look at the scene ? both looking at the pensieve, and seeing something in the scene which shows it to be the way you described it, and Snape smilingly asking him, who DD's killer is now. Would fit Snape's character to enjoy this scene ? Karmic justice etc., and Harry being confronted with his hatred towards Snape blinding his abilities. But for some reason, I find it hard to believe. It would feel like some dirty trick, unless it was done very convincingly. OTOH, it would solve the point of Snape murdering DD. Somehow I feel that Snape, as a DDM! killing for some reason or in special circumstances DD, is internal to his tragic doom. He might be forgiven, but he will never be wholly accepted or liked, which would after all be impossible ? given his way of relating to people. An afterthought supporting your wild theory ? DD's pleading to Snape reminds of his pleading in the cave, when he suffered the impact of the potion. Perhaps he was conveying to Snape in this plead the nature of the poison which was working on him, or more ? perhaps he was caught again in the effect of the poison ? in fact dropping into a sort of delirium again. If so, Snape might be able to remind Harry, when he saw DD pleading this way, thereby convincing him that DD was beyond help at this stage, and understanding, that either he AKed a dead man, or that DD was dying, and going to die in a most painful way, hadn't Snape AKed him. Orna, going to reread the tower scene again. From n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 14:44:23 2005 From: n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com (n_longbottom01) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:44:23 -0000 Subject: The Invisible Hand in the CoS - long In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144984 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > Jen: That was a really well-constructed theory, n_longbottom. My > only addition is Dumbledore could be the one discovered as the > invisible time-traveler . > > n_longbottom01: I hadn't thought about it being Time Traveling Dumbledore. I considered Dumbledore, since he claims to be able to be invisible without a cloak, and claims to be watching Harry closer than he can imagine... but I wasn't thinking in terms of him time traveling to watch what was going on. It makes more sense that Time-Traveling Dumbledore would just stand there and watch, instead of helping. One reason I rejected Dumbledore as the invisible person in the Chamber of Secrets is that I don't see how we will be able to learn about it in Book 7 if it was him, since (most) everything follows Harry's point of view. If it was Harry's invisible hand lending help in the chamber, we can see the scene again from his point of view. If it was Dumbledore we would probably just have to be told by his portrait... "I threw you the sorting hat when you were in the chamber of Secrets fighting the Riddle Diary." That's less exciting. I guess Invisible Dumbledore could be discovered if Harry examines the battle in the Chamber of Secrets in the pensive. I do like the idea that Dumbledore was doing some time traveling before he died... it opens up some interesting possibilities. I like the way JKR handled the time-travel in PoA... I would sort of like to see it turn up again, especially if the time travel has effects that we have already read about in the earlier books (like the collapsed secret passage behing the mirror). n_longbottom01 From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Dec 19 14:56:33 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:56:33 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144985 > > Alla: > > I think he is absolutely competent to decided that Avada was > effective , as in he sees "Avada" thrown at Dumbledore, the next > step - Dumbledore is dead. > > Here is my hypothetical for the RW. > The person observes the murder, the person sees the killer take out > a murder weapon and shoot another person. Another person is dead. > The person who observes the murder reaches the conclusion that the > person who made the shot is therefore the killer. > > IMO, this is the analogy that is pretty close to what happened on > the Tower, no? Keep in mind that I am leaving killer's intentions > completely alone for the sake of this argument. Pippin: The wielder of Occam's razor is obliged to consider *all* the relevant facts. The witness was not convinced that he had observed a death until he reached the body, which was out of his sight for some considerable time. In fact he was intent on reaching the victim in time to help. It is not clear that he thought the gunshot had been effective until he actually saw that the victim was dead. It is not in dispute that the witness also saw the victim ingest a large quantity of an unknown substance. The victim then experienced hallucinations, thirst, unconsciousness, weakness, pallor, muscular twitches, drowsiness, ascending motor paralysis, and bleeding from the mouth. The victim recognized that he was in distress and urgently sought for aid. These are indications of *severe* poisoning. Are you saying you can logically *rule out* poison as the cause of death? That you KNOW he died of the shot? Why? How? I am not being sarcastic, I really want to know. Am I missing something? Pippin From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Dec 19 15:35:17 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:35:17 -0000 Subject: Symbols & Name Meanings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144986 Ceridwen: > I'm a little confused. JKR said the houses match up Gryffindor - > Fire, Hufflepuff - Earth, Ravenclaw - Air, Slytherin - Water. So, > are we just doing this for exercise? > http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrinterview3.shtml" Bruce: > Because if Hufflepuff is the Earth Mistress, why does she have a Cup, which is a > symbol of Water? > If Slytherin is the Water Master, why is his relic a Ring (that is, a gem), > which is an Earth symbol? > If Griffindor is the Fire Master, why does he have a Sword, which is an Air > symbol? > > If we take JKR's assignment of the Elements to the Houses, then WHY are the > three Founders' Relics we have seen not associated with the corresponding > elements? Is JKR trying to tell us something? Ceridwen: http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrinterview3.shtml - scroll down. JKR told us that she assigns Fire to Gryffindor, Water to Slytherin, Earth to Hufflepuff, and Air to Ravenclaw. The jobs she assigns two of the Heads of House seem to fit with their house elements - Herbology for Sprout/Hufflepuff, and Potions (using the cauldron) to Snape/Slytherin. It's obvious she didn't mean for the relics to mirror the elements, but IMO, more to describe the personality or some other tidbit about the Founder to which the relic once belonged. Bruce: > Salazar and Hufflepuff seem to have exchanged symbols--does that mean that they > were involved? Is Voldemort also the Heir of Hufflepuff? If the Ravenclaw > relic turns out to be a Staff or Wand or Rod, then the other two founders will > have also exchanged symbols. We know that Harry is NOT the Heir of Griffindor, > per JKR, but what if then he is the Heir of Ravenclaw, but placed in > Griffindor--thus bringing together the powers of the other two houses (and > wasn't Cedric, the other Hogwarts' Champion, from Ravenclaw? He needs to be > avenged. Hmm. "Harry Potter & the Revenge of Ravenclaw"?) Ceridwen: I have no idea if any of the Founders were involved with each other. I suppose there may be some fanfic to suggest it. But nothing that I can see in canon. Gryffindor having a sword would make sense since the trait of his House is bravery. Sword = Battle = implies courage in battle. It's a decorative sword, IIRC. The ring for Slytherin, as I think it was Geoff who mentioned, aristocratic people a thousand years ago had signet rings. Slytherin is the ambitious house, and ambitious people aspire to a position where, a thousand years ago, they would have merited a signet ring as a symbol of their 'arrival'. I suggested the cup for bounty, like a cornucopia, which is more of an earth symbol than water. But, Hufflepuff takes 'the rest', so offering a cup of welcome wouldn't be amiss. I don't know what Ravenclaw's relic might be. I suggested a book or quill, others have suggested the wand in Olivander's window, or the tiara in the RoR. I don't know how the wand or the tiara would equate to the 'intellectual' house, but someone must have some idea. JKR has said she doesn't know much about things like correspondences. And, I know from personal experience that knowing about the elements doesn't mean you automatically know what symbolizes them. She may have latched onto what is general knowledge, that the elements exist and are symbolic of a healthy whole, but not gotten too deep into the symbolism of them. Not everyone is an expert, so we shouldn't automatically assume that Rowling is, or that she even knew enough when she started writing HP on a typewriter, not a computer which has access to info on the 'net, to look for anything more than the elements themselves. And, Cedric Diggory was in Hufflepuff. Bruce: > 'Whinging' means 'complaining, carping, grousing'. "Umbridge" is from the Latin > root 'umbra' meaning 'shadow'; her first name, Delores, means 'sorrow'. > 'Mundungus Fletcher' is not funny in and of itself--aside from that big Latin > name in front of a rather common surname, but his nickname 'Dung' means > 'schiest'. Are their any other names you want to know about? Ceridwen: Umbridge is a homonym for Umbrage: 1) Offense; resentment: took umbrage at their rudeness. 2) a:Something that affords shade. 2) b:Shadow or shade. See Synonyms at shade. 3) A vague or indistinct indication; a hint. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=umbrage Umbra: 1) A dark area, especially the blackest part of a shadow from which all light is cut off. See Synonyms at shade. 2) Astronomy. a:The completely dark portion of the shadow cast by the earth, moon, or other body during an eclipse. b:The darkest region of a sunspot. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=umbra Dolores Umbridge is an offensive character. I'd say we were supposed to 'take umbrage' at her. Ceridwen. From iris_ft at yahoo.fr Mon Dec 19 15:55:05 2005 From: iris_ft at yahoo.fr (iris_ft) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:55:05 -0000 Subject: Two questions about Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144987 Hi all, Forgive me if the following topics have been debated previously; I've been a long time without lurking around. Here are two questions concerning Snape. 1)In PS/SS, during his first class (chapter 8), he talks about "the delicate power of liquids that creep through human veins, bewitching the mind, ensnaring the senses " Question: If we take "sense" as "the ability to make good judgements or to behave sensibly", can we consider that in these lines, Snape is telling us he can manipulate people's judgements with his potions? Is it the reason why Dumbledore trusts him so much? Did Snape invent a potion with the power to make Dumbledore trust him whatever happens? 2)A question concerning Snape's first name, now. Of course, "Severus" is the Latin word for "stern", and if we consider Snape's behaviour, particularly as a teacher, we can say this first name sounds like a portrait. But couldn't we find another meaning, especially if we parallel "Severus" with the English verb "to sever" (= to cut completely)? There could be a parallel with the "Sectumsempra" spell, or with the "separating function" Snape fulfils several times in the series. A few examples: because he repeated the prophecy to Voldemort, he initiated the process that would separate Harry from his parents; Harry blames him also for Sirius's death; he is he who kills Dumbledore. Harry can consider him as responsible for the loss of the people he loves. Well, there's probably nothing new in what I wrote. But I'd like to read your opinion, or if it bothers you, to be given a few links to previous on topic posts. Thanks, Amicalement, Iris From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Mon Dec 19 16:07:49 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:07:49 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion - Chapter 6: Draco's Detour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144988 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: > > Chapter Discussion - Draco's Detour > Discussion Questions - > > 1. This chapter begins with the death or disappearance of familiar > characters. Regulus Black is mentioned being killed "a few days" > after he abandoned Voldemort, though Karkaroff managed to survive a > full year. How did he do this? How high of a priority does this make > Karkaroff seem compared to Regulus? From what we suspect about the > identity of "R.A.B." could this imply that he was killed because of > his Horcrux theft? Does this confirm for us that Karkaroff was > indeed the DE "too cowardly to return" mentioned in GOF? Marianne: Maybe Vmort had other things to attend to than squashing Karkaroff. I think it makes a certain sort of evil sense to use his murder as part of the opening salvos of the next war. Why bother bumping him off right away, ie., after GoF, when there were other things to attend to, like springing the faithful DEs out of Azkaban, trying to figure out how to get the Prophecy, etc. Karkaroff was low priority. Now, however, that Voldemort and his minions are starting to make their moves, having the head of Durmstrang murdered creats a nice, additional note of terror to add to the columns in the Daily Prophet. Speaking of Regulus, perhaps he was not supposed to be killed so quickly. If the DEs knew or suspected that he had stolen a Horcrux, wouldn't they want to know what he'd done with it? Perhaps they tried to torture the answer out of him, but got a little too enthusiastic and ended up killing him. > 2. Why attack Florean Fortescue? Or was the shambles his place was > left in just a cover for a hasty escape? And for that matter, why > take Mr. Olivander? Does Voldemort want a new wand with which to > duel Harry with? We know that a wizard using an unsuitable wand does > not practice magic as well as he could; could Voldemort having a > wand without Fawkes' tail feathers in it be an advantage for Harry > in the final duel? What good does having Olivander do the dark side? Marianne: Maybe Olivander is in hiding and not an imprisoned wand-maker for the DEs. Perhaps Olivander realized through his own contacts that things were turning darker and took himself off. Or maybe he's someone the Order has hidden. Of course, Remus mentions it would be bad news if Olivander had been taken by the DEs. As an Order member, you'd think he'd know if Olivander was being hidden by the Order. My answer for that would be that, either Remus is not one of the people who does know, or he knows, but is under orders not to say anything, so his comments are meant to mislead the kids. > 3. The presence of the wanted posters and warning signs posted by > the Ministry has reminded some readers of WWII propaganda signs and > leaflets. In what ways are these things useful to the magical > community? Is it really possible to teach people to defend > themselves against threats with blurbs on purple poster board? Or is > this just another example of the Ministry wanting to be seen doing > *something* even if that something isn't that effective? Don't most > witches and wizards graduate from school with at least five years of > Defense Against the Dark Arts? How is their schooling practically > applied in these situations? Will the DADA curriculum be permanently > changed now that there is actual defense that needs to be done? Marianne: Well, one of the things my government told citizens to do is to make sure we have duct tape to protect us from chemical/biological attacks. Blurbs posted on windows don't seem to be harmful, unless of course, what they're telling people to do really won't be of any help should a band of DEs break down the front door. I do see this as a way the Ministry thinks it can show itself as doing something, now that they've been forced to admit that Voldemort is back, and they ignored for a year the warnings that he had again taken form. Another issue can also be that, even though people graduate from Hogwarts with 5 years of DADA, if they don't have to put this information to practical use for years and years, are they capable of defending themselves right now, or would people need to practice? > 4. Harry insults and stands up to Narcissa Malfoy much like he did > to Lucius Malfoy last year at the Ministry. How does this scene show > Harry controlling his anger and emotions? Hermione doesn't seem to > mind being called a "mudblood". Is that because she's used to it, or > because she has no regard for Malfoy's opinion of her? Ron doesn't > say much here. Is he too angry to speak, or is he willingly giving > up the leadership role to Harry? Marianne: My feeling about Hermione was that she was more concerned with the situation getting out of hand, since both Harry and Ron had drawn their wands. I suspect she doesn't really care what Draco says about her. She knows he's never going to be nice to her, he's not her frienc, she doesn't want to be friends with him, so she really doesn't give a hoot what sort of drivel he spouts. Harry does keep his anger in check, even though Narcissa mentions Sirius. I'm sure she did it to try to rattle him, and she failed. Perhaps the setting also helped Harry stay in control. Madame Malkin was clealy worried about people dueling in her shop. Contrast this to Harry's reaction with Dung later in the book when he realizes that Dung has stolen some of Sirius's possessions from 12 Grimmauld Place. Harry is much closer to beating the crap, magically or otherwise, out of Dung. And Dung's sin is stealing, not playing a part in Sirius's death. > 5. We finally get a peek at Weasley's Wizard Wheezes. How does this > store compare to Zonko's, the only other establishment of its kind > that we know about? Why are Fred and George's products so popular in > an otherwise nearly empty shopping area? They comment that they were > able to come up with their personal protection line after Harry's > D.A. lessons. Does this mean that Harry does indeed have an aptitude > for teaching? The twins' comments that Ron has told them a lot about > Ginny's relationships indicates that he is close with them, despite > the fact that they live over the shop. Would you have expected the > three of them to be close due to all the torment they have given him > over the last sixteen years? Marianne: I've always felt that Fred and George's "torment" of Ron fell into the catagory of what older brothers do to younger siblings. I never felt they disliked Ron, or wanted to show him up or put him down. Unlike their interactions with Percy. I think that Fred and George are very good wizards in the sense that they seem to be able to take what they know and apply it or improvise with it to create new things. They seem to be outside-the- box thinkers. Remember the little bit of swamp that Flitwick preserved in OoP because he said it showed very good charm work. Maybe their line of products indicates Harry was a good teacher, or maybe his style fit their thought processes. > 6. The scene at Borgin and Burkes is full of foreshadowing, > especially seeing as the very Vanishing Cabinet Draco is obliquely > referring to is the item that blocks Harry's view into the store. In > fact, both that and the opal necklace come in to play later in the > story. What other items of value might the store be hiding? How > loyal is Mr. Borgin to LV's cause? Why does he assume his oily, > deferential manner when speaking to Draco, when he is older than the > boy? Is it a mark of respect for the Malfoy family name, or is he > really frightened? Marianne: What ever happened to that Hand of Glory? We now have 4 places where some old relics might be lurking, whether they are horcruxes or clues to the mysteries of where to find them: the remains of the stuff at 12 Grimmauld Place, Borgin and Burkes, the storage room at Hogwarts where Trelawny hid her sherry, and whatever hidden room exists at the Malfoys. I used to think that there might be something hidden in Sirius's vault, as the UK edition made it clear that his vault was near the Hogwarts vault. But, you'd think that DD would have known if something was being transfered from that vault to Harry's, along with whatever money was there. Borgin, is, I think, used to being deferential to the point of obsequiousness to his customers, especially if they come from powerful families. However, he is described as looking worried once Draco leaves. > 7. Harry has cried "Wolf!" on Malfoy too many times. Now that he is > right that Draco is planning something, no one believes him. How > could he have presented the evidence he discovered in this chapter > in order to be more persuasive? Or could he have? Who was in the > know enough to help Harry undermine Malfoy's plans? Marianne: I don't know that Harry could have done more. He doesn't know what items Draco is discussing with Borgin. Simply saying that a Malfoy is at Borgin's doesn't cause anyone to get their knickers in a twist. But, perhaps that's part of the problem. Everyone suspects that the Malfoys are not to be trusted, that they may have secreted dark objects in their house, that they rely on connections and money to buy influence, so why should anyone be surprised if the Malfoy son acts just like a Malfoy? Later on it is certainly implied that DD and Snape know what Draco is up to, but they do not let Harry in on this knowledge. As to why Harry's friends seem uninterested in his suspicions, I guess I'd put it down to their not finding any of Harry's arguments persuasive, since he is unable to provide any concrete proof of what Draco is up to. It's easy to downplay someone's worries, especially when you know he has history with the person in question, and also when you have other things to worry about, like O.W.L.s and that Lavender growth attached to your face. > 8. In this chapter we are presented with a very different Narcissa > Malfoy than appeared in "Spinner's End". Why has she changed so > drastically? Is this just her calm, public face? Or is she that > confident in the Unbreakable Vow now protecting her son? Marianne: Or was her weepy, begging performance at Spinner's End really a performance? OTOH, she probably considers herself much higher, better and more powerful than a mudblood, a poor Weasley and that boy that Snape describes as mediocre. She's got centuries of attitude bred into her - she's not going to let that slip in front of a bunch of teenagers. > 9. This chapter also presents some minor shipping moments: the > beginnings of Harry's attraction to Ginny (him laughing at her jokes > at breakfast), Ron and Hermione's continual bickering, and our first > sights of Fleur and Bill together. How do Bill and Fleur match up in > your estimation? Too sugary? What about the subtle hints about Harry > and Ginny? Were these too subtle or just right? Marianne: Fleur has always been a bit over the top for me. I suppose if we are to assume from this brief moment that she's always cooing these compliments and hanging all over him, then, I'd find them tedious. However, Bill is presented as getting things done, and being an active member of the Order, so I think of him as someone who's not going to dally around playing games with Fleur if there is something that needs to be done. I've never cared one way or the other about the kids' ships. I always felt that R/Hr was obvious from the start, from the continual bickering to the way Ron's nose got out of joint when Viktor Krum started paying attention to Hermione. That was enough for me and I haven't given it a whole lot of thought. Which left Ginny for Harry, although personally I would have preferred he went for someone like Luna, just because it seemed less obvious. > 10. And just for fun, which products would you be picking up at > Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes? Why do Fred and George still have to test > on themselves? Surely they can hire subjects now? Or are their items > too dangerous? Marianne: Maybe they did hire subjects, but the subjects quit because testing products did too much damage or caused too much discomfort for the wages the Weasleys were paying. I can't say I'm interested in any of their products. Now, if they had some sort of magic vaccuum cleaner or automated toilet brush, I'd be very interested. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Dec 19 16:17:47 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:17:47 -0000 Subject: Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat In-Reply-To: <28b.2a5fa9c.30d7b690@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144989 Juli earlier: > > > And Peter's not really the betrayer who got Lily and James > > > killed by Voldemort (much more directly so than, say, Snape)? Alla: > > It is possible that without Snape giving that little piece of > > information to Voldemort, Voldemort would never gone after Peter > > in the first place. SSSusan: Butting in to this discussion here to ask a question. Do we KNOW that Voldemort went after Peter Pettigrew? As opposed to, say, Peter's going *to* Voldemort? Have I missed (or forgotten) something? Can someone provide canon for Voldy's being the one to have gone to Peter to recruit him? Julie: > You are right that Snape opened his mouth, thus putting this all in > action. But that does NOT make Snape responsible for Peter's > actions. Snape gave away the prophecy, but if we are to believe > Dumbledore, he regretted it. (And I do believe Dumbledore). > Additionally, Snape did put lives in danger, but he didn't > initially know the identities. This isn't a nice thing to do, > of course, but it's always easier to commit evil when it's anonymous > and removed from you. But Peter betrayed one of his closest friends. > And while Snape attempted to keep the Potters safe (by aiding DD), > Peter revealed their hiding place directly to Voldemort. SSSusan: See my above question. Assuming there is no evidence to counter Peter having voluntarily gone to Voldy... or even if Voldy DID come to Peter to present the "opportunity" of working for him... I still agree with Julie here. Snape's certainly NOT a blameless individual in many, many ways and for many, many reasons, but I don't see how he's more to blame than Peter in the Lily & James murders. I know this has been a discussion of whether Peter is cowardly or brave or OFH, but the issue has also been raised about whether he's to blame or not to blame for various things. In this case, while Pettigrew spilling the beans to Voldy might be *understandable* (esp. if Voldy came *to* him), I still don't reduce how much I blame him or how much I disrespect him, simply because Voldy's a scary guy. Peter GAVE the information and we've seen no indication that he regretted having done so. (I do NOT buy his line in the Shrieking Shack as true remorse for one minute -- he was trapped and desperate he knew it. If he had really had regretted it, would he have concocted the "kill a dozen Muggles and frame Sirius" plan?) Julie: > ...there is some doubt about Snape's motivations in performing the > Avada (for self gain, or because DD requested it as the best way to > preserve the most lives including the most important one there, > Harry's), and perhaps even some uncertainty about whether it was a > true Avada. Additionally, even if Snape did kill DD to save > himself, at least he seemed pained by it. Peter showed no > compunction in killing Cedric, and certainly couldn't point to a > net gain for the good side by his action. SSSusan: Yup, me too, I agree, and all that jazz. Which is NOT absolving Snape of responsibility if, in the end, we find that he did murder DD in cold blood. It is, rather, just holding Peter responsible for his own actions and saying, "Killing Cedric was a horrible thing, and we didn't see any hesitation about it." YES, if he'd refused, he might have suffered Voldy's wrath... but then again, Voldy desperately NEEDED Wormtail at that point -- he didn't yet have his body back, and he needed Wormtail's help in a MAJOR way to get back -- so how much would Voldy have hurt him? And couldn't Wormtail have even still run away at this point?? Left Voldy just lying there in his icky-underside-of-a-rock form? Wouldn't he have died without someone's assistance? YES, Wormtail was probably scared someone *would* help Voldy and that Voldy would hunt him down & kill him eventually, but if he'd thought about that logically, what would the odds of that have been? He was the ONLY loyal party, helping Voldy to come back! It's all about choices, no? And I find Peter's choices to be despicable. Humanly understandable at times, but other times just despicable and *not* choices he "had" to make, where he had no other real alternative. Siriusly Snapey Susan, anxiously awaiting someone's reminding me of the canon re: Pettigrew going to Voldy or Voldy coming to him.... From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Dec 19 16:30:45 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:30:45 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion - Chapter 6: Draco's Detour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144990 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: > 7. Harry has cried "Wolf!" on Malfoy too many times. Now that he is > right that Draco is planning something, no one believes him. How > could he have presented the evidence he discovered in this chapter > in order to be more persuasive? Or could he have? Who was in the > know enough to help Harry undermine Malfoy's plans? Pippin: I think he *was* believed, and it threw the Order off the scent. Harry told Mr. Weasley that he thought Draco was trying to fix some Dark or dangerous object at the Malfoy home, and although Mr. Weasley was dismissive with Harry, the Malfoy residence was duly searched once again. Searches were instituted at Hogwarts also, attempting to find a dark object. But there is nothing Dark about the vanishing cabinet, and it had been at Hogwarts all along, so the searches didn't discover it. If Dumbledore went into the Room of Requirement and said "I need everything that's Dark or dangerous" the cabinet wouldn't show up. It wouldn't even show up if he said, "I need to smuggle people into the castle" because it was *broken.* Pippin From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Mon Dec 19 16:35:55 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:35:55 -0000 Subject: Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144991 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > It is possible that without Snape giving that little piece of > information to Voldemort, Voldemort would never gone after Peter in > the first place. IMO anyway, so it is a big question in my mind who > is more at fault for Potters deaths. Sure, Peter told Voldemort the > place of their hiding, but without Snape opening his mouth, > Voldemort may not have become interested in them at all. IMO of > course. Gerry: If Voldemort did go after him. We have only Peter's word. In the first book Harry is told that lots of wizards claimed the acted under Imperio. Peter could have taken that option when everything went wrong. Instead he fought Black, killed thirteen people, slipped away through the sewer and let and his innocent best friend go to Azkaban for twelve years. Sure fear can consume a person but one would expect that in that amount of time he could have made up a good enough story to explain his own betrayal and let his friend go free. Ofcourse there would have been a risk that people would not believe him and he had to go to Azkaban himself. But is it really this all-consuming fear that let him forget all decency and frienship? Not being able to think and feal anything but this fear for twelve years at a time. Or was there not much decency there to start with? If Peter was so driven by fear I expect that fear would be a feature of Scabbers. Yet in the first two books, he is a fat rat who is mainly dozing. Do we see him consumed by fear? Yes, in the third book when Black escapes. And boy, does he have a reason. Redemption fot Peter? not without great feelings of remorse for all the suffering and deaths he has caused. And ofcourse when he was discovered he voluntarily went back to LV, so I take his babbling about being forced in the Shrieking Shack with lots and lots of salt. And now for a quick comparison with Snape: Lets say they have an equal share of the blame for the Potter's death (I don't agree, I think Peter is far more responsible than Snape, but this makes for easier counting) Total number of deaths caused by Snape: By himself: Dumbledore By giving information: Vance, Bones, the Potters, Black (for three of them, we only have is word, if he is DDM, things could be different) Total number of people he caused to rot in Azkaban: zero. Total number of deaths through involvement of Snape: six Now for Peter: By himself: thirteen muggles, Cedric By giving information: Berta Jorkins By going to LV: Crouch Sr. Total number of people he caused to rot in Azkaban: one Total number of deaths through involvement of Peter: 16, not caunting all people who died after the ressurection of LV for which he is directly responsible. Gerry From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Dec 19 17:02:22 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:02:22 -0000 Subject: Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144992 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > I know this has been a discussion of whether Peter is cowardly or > brave or OFH, but the issue has also been raised about whether he's > to blame or not to blame for various things. In this case, while > Pettigrew spilling the beans to Voldy might be *understandable* (esp. > if Voldy came *to* him), I still don't reduce how much I blame him or > how much I disrespect him, simply because Voldy's a scary guy. Peter > GAVE the information and we've seen no indication that he regretted > having done so. (I do NOT buy his line in the Shrieking Shack as > true remorse for one minute -- he was trapped and desperate he knew > it. If he had really had regretted it, would he have concocted > the "kill a dozen Muggles and frame Sirius" plan?) > Pippin: We don't know that Peter was the spy, or that he killed Cedric, or that he was responsible for the Muggle deaths. It is not beyond the wiles of Voldemort or JKR to make him look more guilty than he is. JKR has confirmed that Wormtail killed Cedric. But just as more than one person may be concealed by the invisibility cloak, a false name can hide more than one person. And "Wormtail" is a false name. In order to kill Cedric, Peter would have had to put the bundle aside, (it wouldn't do to AK Voldie) aim his wand, and say the words, all while Cedric, who was young, alert and a tri-wizard champion with his wand ready, just stood there. As Harry pointed out in canon, Cedric was more than capable of performing an Expelliarmus himself and it can save you, even from Voldemort, if you get it out in time. Doesn't it make sense to assume there was someone else at the graveyard, someone who was making sure that Wormtail did as he was told, a person who used Voldemort's wand to kill Cedric as soon as the order was given? Could this person have killed the Muggles? Could he have been the one who spied on the Order for a year before the Potter's deaths? Could he have discovered that Peter was the secret keeper and betrayed him? Could Peter have been memory charmed and forced to believe that he was the spy and *did* reveal himself to Voldemort of his own free will? Indeed. So Peter's redemption is maybe not as far to seek as you think. However, ESE!Lupin is not likely to reform any time soon ;-) Pippin From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 15:45:27 2005 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:45:27 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144993 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > Are you saying you can logically *rule out* poison as the cause of death? > That you KNOW he died of the shot? > Well, do we KNOW that John F. Kennedy died of a gunshot wound? Some people say he was sick that day in Dallas. Maybe he had been poisoned by orders of Lyndon Johnson and was collapsing even as Oswald's shot hit him? Perhaps the physicians and policemen were then co-opted into the conspiracy with bribes or threats? I don't mean to be snarky, but the various theories about what "actually" happened on the tower have an eerie conspiracy theory/Oliver Stone feel to them. The fact is that one can always come up with "possible" alternatives. But that is why proof of guilt is NOT certain knowledge, but evidence that convinces beyond a reasonable doubt. And yes, based on that standard, I would say we know with great confidence that Snape killed Dumbledore. Lupinlore, who will join kchuplis at the book burning with marshmallows if JKR resorts to some of the cheesy, contrived, and frankly silly scenarios that one might come up with From RoxyElliot at aol.com Mon Dec 19 17:13:54 2005 From: RoxyElliot at aol.com (RoxyElliot at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:13:54 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ghosts/Veil Message-ID: <143.52f769a5.30d84452@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 144994 In a message dated 12/18/2005 8:58:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com writes: I have been mulling over and over this. The ghosts at Hogwarts are there for some reason, but it escapes me as as to WHY. I've thought for a long time that the Ghost of the Grey Lady could be Rowena Ravenclaw herself. Since no one knew that Myrtle was the girl killed when the chamber was first opened, it wouldn't surprise me if no one knew they had a founder among the ghosts as well. If not I bet that at least once ghost is old enough to have known the Founders. CGG http://Caffeinatedgeekgirl.typepad.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ornawn at 013.net Mon Dec 19 17:44:24 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:44:24 -0000 Subject: Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144995 >Siriusly Snapey Susan >YES, Wormtail >was probably scared someone *would* help Voldy and that Voldy would >hunt him down & kill him eventually, but if he'd thought about that >logically, what would the odds of that have been? He was the ONLY >loyal party, helping Voldy to come back! Orna: He was not the only loyal party at this point ? there was Crouch Jr. with a nasty dislike towards DE who went free, and a very light hand on his AK-Wand. (Not that it makes his murdering Cedric less cold- blooded IMO, but just for the record) >Siriusly Snapey Susan, anxiously awaiting someone's reminding me of >the canon re: Pettigrew going to Voldy or Voldy coming to him.... Orna: Here it is, IMO, in PoA: "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?" "What was there to be gained by fighting the most evil wizard who has ever existed?" said Black, "You don't understand!" whined Pettigrew. "He would have killed me, Sirius!" Wormtail talks as if there was some invitation on Voldemort's or DE's part. But it's clear that Wormtail didn't hesitate too much, or ask advice of his friends about what to do about it. OTOH Wormtail being that ratty thing he is, it might be that when he says "refusing him" he is speaking metaphorically ? just saying he couldn't refuse the lure of power and fear, since the dark side got stronger, and what was the point refusing it, so he decided to join him. Unfortunately Sirius is too enraged to inquire about what invitation Wormtail got. I think, if Voldemort or one of his DE had forced him personally to join, he would have said so more specifically. IMO he saw the dark side was getting stronger, his friends weren't a safe place, and in some mixture of being afraid he might be killed for being on the order's side plus feeling attracted to the strongest bully on the field ? he joined Voldemort. I don't see him having any real loyalty, or making positive choices ? the most striking characteristic of him ? is that he is choosing negatively ? where the butter seems to be laid, and from which danger he wants to escape ? in fact basically cowardly choices. I also liked Sydney's suggestion that his aid to Voldemort's downfall won't be by some courageous conscious help, but more by some blunder ? magic at his deepest . Orna, obviously not a great admirer of Pettigrew From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 17:51:49 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:51:49 -0000 Subject: Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144996 > SSSusan: > Butting in to this discussion here to ask a question. Do we KNOW > that Voldemort went after Peter Pettigrew? As opposed to, say, > Peter's going *to* Voldemort? Alla: I will check my PoA tonight. I don't have it with me at work. I was reasonably sure that In the Shack Peter claimed that Voldemort came to him. Will check and get back to you. :-) > > Julie: > > You are right that Snape opened his mouth, thus putting this all in > > action. But that does NOT make Snape responsible for Peter's > > actions. Alla: I was not arguing that Snape is responsible for Peter's actions, actually. I was arguing who is more to blame for Potter's deaths and accordingly I was arguing that Snape's OWN actions are huge enough to make him more or even equally responsible. Julie: Snape gave away the prophecy, but if we are to believe > > Dumbledore, he regretted it. (And I do believe Dumbledore). > > Additionally, Snape did put lives in danger, but he didn't > > initially know the identities. This isn't a nice thing to do, > > of course, but it's always easier to commit evil when it's anonymous > > and removed from you. Alla: Yes, it is easier to commit evil when it is anonymous, I just don't understand how the fact that Snape condemned two anonymous people to death makes him less responsible for their deaths,when they became the people with names. > SSSusan: Peter > GAVE the information and we've seen no indication that he regretted > having done so. (I do NOT buy his line in the Shrieking Shack as > true remorse for one minute -- he was trapped and desperate he knew > it. If he had really had regretted it, would he have concocted > the "kill a dozen Muggles and frame Sirius" plan?) Alla: Oh, Peter is a bastard, all right and prior to HBP he was one of my least liked characters and even hated characters, but the thing is that after HBP Snape ( not as a character, but as "person behind the character") is right there with Peter, so the way I see those characters, they both committed multitude of sins and I believe that it is an equal possibility that JKR may come up with mitigating circumstances of any one of them. > SSSusan: > It's all about choices, no? And I find Peter's choices to be > despicable. Humanly understandable at times, but other times just > despicable and *not* choices he "had" to make, where he had no other > real alternative. Alla: Peter committed one of the worst sins I know of - betrayal of the closest friends, but I don't see that the possibility that he was initially completely broken by Voldemort - torture, threat of torture or threat to his family as completely outlandish. His mother IS mentioned in canon, what if Voldemort threatened to kill her, unless Peter tells him the Potters hiding place > > Siriusly Snapey Susan, anxiously awaiting someone's reminding me of > the canon re: Pettigrew going to Voldy or Voldy coming to him.... Alla: Will do, will do, I promise. :-) > Gerry: > If Voldemort did go after him. We have only Peter's word. Alla: Yes, of course, and it does not mean that it is true, but we have it as canon, right? Gerry: But is it really this all-consuming fear that > let him forget all decency and friendship? Not being able to think and > feel anything but this fear for twelve years at a time. Or was there > not much decency there to start with? Alla: This is actually what initially interested me. What IS Peter's basic nature? Was there much decency to start with or not? Gerry: > If Peter was so driven by fear I expect that fear would be a feature > of Scabbers. Yet in the first two books, he is a fat rat who is mainly > dozing. Alla: Actually, this is a great point to argue against me, but on the other hand, doesn't Sirius say something about emotional reactions being simpler when they are in animagi form? Maybe Peter was not feeling scared when he was in the rat form? Gerry: > And now for a quick comparison with Snape: > Total number of deaths caused by Snape: Total number of deaths through involvement of Snape: six > > Now for Peter: Total number of deaths through involvement of Peter: 16, not counting > all people who died after the resurrection of LV for which he is > directly responsible. Alla: Oh, but we don't know about what Snape did in his DE days, right? I guess we don't know what Peter did either, but in any event I don't think that count is necessarily complete. IMO of course. > Potioncat: > I disagree, Alla. ;-) Big surprise. Alla: :-) Potioncat: > Snape, who was in LV's service, gave LV a portion of a prophecy at > time when he couldn't have known whom it concerned. Peter, also in > LV's service, told LV where to find Lily, James and the baby. Alla: Yes, see my opinion above on this part. Potioncat: > Sometime before LV took action, Snape repented of his actions and > informed DD, then risked his life in support of DD's side. Sometime > after Peter's actions led to the death of Lily and James, he killed > more people, and set up an innocent man to go to prison. Alla: But there is another interpretation of the timeline, right? Snape was sent to Hogwart by Voldemort to spy on Dumbledore. Potioncat: Snape > continued to work with DD, anticipating LV's return. Peter spent the > rest of the next decade hiding. Even if LV had held something over > Peter, once LV was gone, Peter could have gone to DD. Alla: Yes, or Snape was biting his time, hiding from Azkaban under Dumbledore's protection, just as Peter did under Weasleys protection, albeit unknown one. But I agree with you, Peter could have gone to Dumbledore, he always gives people second chances that one. Ooops, he did not really give Sirius a second chance, so maybe Peter was afraid that he will fall in the same category? :-) Potioncat: > Now, if Peter is also one of DD's spies, it'll be another story. > Alla: Yes, OR if Snape actually never was the genuine spy for the Light, that also will be another story. IMO of course. > Pippin: > We don't know that Peter was the spy, or that he killed Cedric, or that > he was responsible for the Muggle deaths. It is not beyond the wiles > of Voldemort or JKR to make him look more guilty than he is. JKR > has confirmed that Wormtail killed Cedric. But just as more than > one person may be concealed by the invisibility cloak, a false name > can hide more than one person. And "Wormtail" is a false name. Alla: I actually wanted to ask you this question for quite some time, and this is just as good as any. Yeah, I know I am supposed to be defending Peter in this thread, but are you saying that "two wormtails" part of the ESE!Lupin theory is alive after watching the "medium that must not be named"? Yes , JKR is not involved with every step of making the movie, but I think that if she wanted to leave ANY mystery as to second Wormtail being present on the field, she would ask the filmmakers to make Peter killing Cedric to be less clear. IMO anyway. Alla, who wants to repeat that she cannot stand Peter, but thinks that surprises about his motivations are of equal possibility as surprise about Snape's From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Dec 19 18:22:04 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:22:04 -0000 Subject: Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144997 > Orna: > Here it is, IMO, in PoA: > "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?" "What was there to be gained by > fighting the most evil wizard who has ever existed?" said Black, > "You don't understand!" whined Pettigrew. "He would have > killed me, Sirius!" Magpie: To me there's the important thing about Peter right there: "What was there to be gained by refusing him?" Peter does not see something inherently worthwhile in doing the right thing. Perhaps it's fear driving him, though I'd also say it sounds a lot like despair. Reading this now it puts me in mind of Dumbledore on the Tower when Malfoy asks him what it matters what language he (Malfoy) uses when Dumbledore is about to die, and Dumbledore tells him it does matter, because it always matters, even if it won't make any difference to the wider situation. This is why I don't understand reading Malfoy's own lowering of his wand as cowardice. He's put in a similar situation to Peter in HBP (not the same, but similar). He's got every reason to kill Dumbledore. If he doesn't kill him Voldemort will kill him and kill his family-just as Peter is saying here. Dumbledore has always been the enemy to his family, so he's got even less reason to want him spared. Yet he still can't bring himself to commit this evil act (having gotten a taste of the reality of that act by almost killing Katie and Ron and only being saved by luck). Yet killing this innocent person still matters in ways it *does not matter* to Peter, who always chooses to commit the murder. And Malfoy isn't even making the same choice as Peter in considering Dumbledore's offer, since Dumbledore offers to protect his family too. He's not selling them out on the grounds that it doesn't matter anyway because they're screwed either way. (It also matters that Dumbledore know he didn't intend Greyback to come to Hogwarts--these are all baby steps towards morality for someone who's actively fought the idea his whole life.) Obviously I'm not saying that this is the same thing as Malfoy standing against Voldemort and joining DD's fight etc. But in that scene not committing an evil act matters. Sirius, in response to that line of Peter's, tells Peter that he should have died rather than submit to Voldemort and while Malfoy isn't bravely offering his life in defiance of Voldemort he knows not killing Dumbledore=death. Perhaps the difference is that Malfoy has hope where Peter did not, but that can make a difference. Peter isn't loyal to either Voldemort or James. He'll happily live as a rat with the Weasleys and sell them out when the time comes. That seems like the big difference between Peter and just about everyone else in canon. It's probably what makes him the most successful DE in canon, whose committed the worst crimes with the least remorse. Now with Snape--well, it all comes back to Snape. We just don't know what drives him at the heart of it. He's not Peter, I don't think. He cares. I think his motivations matter a lot in terms of the prophecy-- more than the actual sequence of events. That is, yes Snape is very much responsible for what happened to the Potters because he gave Voldemort the prophecy, but if he accepted that responsibility and later made different choices because of it, he's gone far beyond Peter. It definitely matters if Snape went to Dumbledore, confessed he'd done this and tried to work towards the Potter's protection. Obviously Snape saw a point to protecting the Potters where Peter did not. We just have to find out what it is. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Dec 19 18:24:07 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:24:07 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144998 Pippin: > > Are you saying you can logically *rule out* poison as the cause > of death? That you KNOW he died of the shot? > > Lupinlore: > Well, do we KNOW that John F. Kennedy died of a gunshot wound? Some > people say he was sick that day in Dallas. Maybe he had been > poisoned by orders of Lyndon Johnson and was collapsing even as > Oswald's shot hit him? Perhaps the physicians and policemen were > then co-opted into the conspiracy with bribes or threats? I don't > mean to be snarky, but the various theories about what "actually" > happened on the tower have an eerie conspiracy theory/Oliver Stone > feel to them. Pippin: And JKF's body was examined only by a teenage boy with a grudge against Oswald and a gamekeeper who'd never graduated high school? And the teenager saw JFK drink a substance that made him seriously ill ( a poison, then, whether it was a fatal dose or not) , in fact actually fed it to him, but forgot to mention it? We don't know if Harry's told anyone the full story, even Ron and Hermione, definitely not McGonagall or Scrimgeour. It's not some dodgy conspiracy theory that Dumbledore took poison or that the experts don't have all the facts. It's canon. Lupinlore: > The fact is that one can always come up with "possible" > alternatives. But that is why proof of guilt is NOT certain > knowledge, but evidence that convinces beyond a reasonable doubt. > And yes, based on that standard, I would say we know with great > confidence that Snape killed Dumbledore. Pippin: Considering the evidence, I'd say poisoning was a reasonable alternative, not just a possible one. Maybe not as likely as AK. But likelihood is not the standard of proof. If we go meta and discuss the cheesiness factor, we also have to discuss that Harry Potter is the lead character in a mystery series. He is unlikely to reach a correct conclusion before the final chapters, and we have been told that the ending of HPB is less final than the endings that have gone before. So what if it would be cheesy ? As cheesy as Harry going back in time to save himself with a device we never even heard of, dead characters turning up alive and well (twice!), memory charms that make innocent people confess to murder? How cheesy can you get? Pass the fondue! :) You've already pronounced yourself dissatisfied with several aspects of JKR's writing. No harm in that. But as she's proved herself capable of doing so, there's no reason to suppose she won't disappoint you again. Sorry. Pippin From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Dec 19 18:35:39 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:35:39 -0000 Subject: Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 144999 SSSusan earlier: > > Peter GAVE the information and we've seen no indication that he > > regretted having done so. (I do NOT buy his line in the Shrieking > > Shack as true remorse for one minute -- he was trapped and > > desperate he knew it. If he had really had regretted it, would he > > have concocted the "kill a dozen Muggles and frame Sirius" plan?) Pippin: > We don't know that Peter was the spy, or that he killed Cedric, or > that he was responsible for the Muggle deaths. It is not beyond the > wiles of Voldemort or JKR to make him look more guilty than he is. SSSusan: Um... well, you can say we don't know that if you like, but I don't see any reason to doubt it. When confronted in the Shrieking Shack, Peter ? who's clearly PETER there, no? having transformed from Scabbers in front of them all? ? does not deny that he was the traitor. He merely makes excuses for why he was. Pippin: > In order to kill Cedric, Peter would have had to put the bundle > aside, (it wouldn't do to AK Voldie) aim his wand, and say the > words, all while Cedric, who was young, alert and a tri-wizard > champion with his wand ready, just stood there. SSSusan: I don't see this at all. Why can't a wizard perform a spell with one hand while holding a bundle in the other arm? HOW would he have "slipped" and AKed Voldy while aiming his wand across at someone else? Or even if he needed to set the bundle aside, I don't think it'd be a problem. How long does it take to set something down, turn & speak, "Avada Kedavra"? Cedric may have been young and alert, but he was also likely VERY confused about where he was and what was going on. Why the hell would he be prepared for someone to AK him? And "Kill the spare" might have meant something to *Harry,* who knew he was Voldy's target, but why would it have meant anything to Cedric, in terms of thinking to himself, "Oh, that must mean me. I'd better watch out"? No, of course it's not impossible that there was someone else there, but I have never seen any, any evidence that was convincing to me of a "Wormtail2." Pippin: > Doesn't it make sense to assume there was someone else at the > graveyard, someone who was making sure that Wormtail did as he was > told, a person who used Voldemort's wand to kill Cedric as soon as > the order was given? SSSusan: Nope, sorry, not to me. :-) Pippin: > Could this person have killed the Muggles? Could he have > been the one who spied on the Order for a year before the > Potter's deaths? Could he have discovered that Peter was the > secret keeper and betrayed him? Could Peter have been > memory charmed and forced to believe that he was the > spy and *did* reveal himself to Voldemort of his own free > will? Indeed. SSSusan: As you know, I'm one of the ones who believes that *something* happened on the tower ? that Snape is, indeed, DDM! and that what happened there was either Snape "doing the deed" without its being the deed (e.g., the nonverbal spell vs. verbal incantation possibility) or -- more likely in my view -- Snape actually doing the deed but NOT with the motivation of cold-blooded murder one would expect (rather, following orders, for instance). IOW, I think motivation could be hidden, but I would not argue that it wasn't actually Snape ? that there was someone hiding in the shadows. I'm also reluctant to go with that possibility of a "hidden in the shadows" character with the Muggle-killing scene and the killing-Cedric scene, and for Voldy's spy. IOW, with Snape, one can argue the possibility of DDM! without having to insert a hidden person on the scene; to believe in two Wormtails, you do have to believe a hidden person. I don't care for it myself. Siriusly Snapey Susan earlier: > >YES, Wormtail was probably scared someone *would* help Voldy and > > that Voldy would hunt him down & kill him eventually, but if he'd > > thought about that logically, what would the odds of that have > > been? He was the ONLY loyal party, helping Voldy to come back! Orna: > He was not the only loyal party at this point ? there was Crouch Jr. > with a nasty dislike towards DE who went free, and a very light hand > on his AK-Wand. (Not that it makes his murdering Cedric less cold- > blooded IMO, but just for the record) SSSusan: Now *that's* an excellent point, and I stand properly corrected. So BCJ was out there, Peter knew that, and he might have been frightened into cooperating because of that knowledge. So that might make his GoF graveyard decisions more understandable, but I still wonder about the initial decision to reveal Lily & James' whereabouts, the decision to go to Albania in search of Voldy, and all of that. > >Siriusly Snapey Susan, anxiously awaiting someone's reminding me of > >the canon re: Pettigrew going to Voldy or Voldy coming to him.... Orna: > Here it is, IMO, in PoA: > "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?" "What was there to be gained by > fighting the most evil wizard who has ever existed?" said Black, > "You don't understand!" whined Pettigrew. "He would have > killed me, Sirius!" SSSusan: Thanks much for the quick response with canon. `Tis what I needed since I'm not at home with my books. :-) Orna, continuing to discuss said canon: > Wormtail talks as if there was some invitation on Voldemort's or > DE's part. But it's clear that Wormtail didn't hesitate too much, or > ask advice of his friends about what to do about it. OTOH Wormtail > being that ratty thing he is, it might be that when he > says "refusing him" he is speaking metaphorically ? just saying he > couldn't refuse the lure of power and fear, since the dark side got > stronger, and what was the point refusing it, so he decided to join > him. Unfortunately Sirius is too enraged to inquire about what > invitation Wormtail got. I think, if Voldemort or one of his DE had > forced him personally to join, he would have said so more > specifically. SSSusan: I tend to agree with you that, from what *Peter* says here, Voldy approached him. You're right also, though, that Peter didn't argue about Imperius or torture or anything else forceful, beyond his fear of Voldy. Again, I'm NOT saying it's incomprehensible how someone could have caved in the face of such fear; I'm just saying that it was a choice, it was his decision, and we didn't see REMORSE over it. What we did see was an elaborate scheme, after GH, to frame his *friend* and in this situation innocent party, Sirius, and which included a willingness to consider a dozen muggles as expendable. THAT'S reprehensible, imo, and goes beyond a person's making an ill- advised confession under threat or out of fear. Orna: > IMO he saw the dark side was getting stronger, his friends weren't > a safe place, and in some mixture of being afraid he might be killed > for being on the order's side plus feeling attracted to the > strongest bully on the field ? he joined Voldemort. I don't see him > having any real loyalty, or making positive choices ? the most > striking characteristic of him ? is that he is choosing negatively ? > where the butter seems to be laid, and from which danger he wants to > escape ? in fact basically cowardly choices. SSSusan: Absolutely. That's my position as well. "Choosing negatively" is an excellent way of phrasing it. Orna: > I also liked Sydney's suggestion that his aid to Voldemort's > downfall won't be by some courageous conscious help, but more by > some blunder ? magic at his deepest . SSSusan: Which, imo, removes this as a scenario for REDEMPTION of Peter. One does not blunder into redemption; one must make a conscious choice for it. Now, I think Peter had his closest moment when he suggested to Voldy that another's blood would do ? that it perhaps didn't need to be Harry's, but when Voldy insisted, the moment passed, and that was that. For it to be true redemption in my book, it would need to be another moment like that, when Peter *elects* to do something to assist in Voldy's downfall. Siriusly Snapey Susan, who rather obviously really can't stand Peter Pettigrew/Wormtail From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Dec 19 19:34:01 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:34:01 -0000 Subject: Do the characters in Potterverse have essentialistic nature? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145000 Alla: > Mind you, I don't think that when JKR sit down to write the > series, she had in mind to fulfill the main philosophical features > of essentialism, I think she DOES leave room for her characters to > change, sort of the mixing ideas, just as she mixes genres, but I > definitely think that the characters in her world DO have a basic > nature. > It is what Sue said downthread - characters IMO have the essential > PART of their personalities, I won't be surprised if JKR allows >them a partial change too, but IMO the essential part is pretty big. > Now, I think kids are the ones who are allowed to change and grow > the most, but think about Harry's ability to love for example. It > may have developed over the years, of course, but it was always > there, according to Dumbledore, right? Since Harry was born, he > had this ability because of Lily's protection, correct? Doesn't > it mean that ability to love is in his basic nature? > > Oh, and of course Tom Riddle also seems to have pretty basic evil > nature. JMO of course. Jen: I snipped down to what seems to be the heart of the debate. I agree the characters have predictable patterns of personality and beliefs throughout the series, with the occasional curveball thrown in. That is completely different to me from saying a person was born a certain way and environment has no influence on development. JKR may not show many characters making drastic changes because it serves her story, but she is not saying the characters *can't* change. I'm wondering now if we have different definitions of essentialism? Aunt Marge is one of the essentialists in the series from my POV, she believes a dog or person can be born bad and nothing can change that fact: "If there's something rotten on the inside, there's nothing anyone can do about it"; "bad blood will out"; "your sister was a bad egg, they show up in the best of families." (chap. 2, p. 25 & 28, Scholastic) JKR is very careful to say 'no one is born evil, of course' as well as that Voldemort was *never* loved, to give us information on why he became who he did. She's careful to show us both his nature and his nuture and to say both are important. She mentioned in TIME: "That's where evil seems to flourish, in places where people didn't get good fathering." (July 2005) In her books it's very clear that genetic distinctions of blood are not an indicator for who a person will become. I see quite a bit of opposition for an essentialist view as the underlying theme in her world. Jen From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Dec 19 19:56:23 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:56:23 -0000 Subject: Dig at DD and second chances (was: Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145001 Alla: > Yes, or Snape was biting his time, hiding from Azkaban under > Dumbledore's protection, just as Peter did under Weasleys > protection, albeit unknown one. > > But I agree with you, Peter could have gone to Dumbledore, he > always gives people second chances that one. Ooops, he did not > really give Sirius a second chance, so maybe Peter was afraid that > he will fall in the same category? :-) SSSusan: Ooooh, I can't let this one go without response! Sirius didn't ASK for a second chance of DD! Yes, I do wonder why DD (especially as a legillimens) never saw fit to request a visit with Sirius in Azkaban, but he did not realize there was a reason to believe in Sirius' innocence, and so that's the end of my "criticism" of DD over Sirius. So IMO it's not that DD didn't *give* Sirius a second chance so much as he didn't realize Sirius wanted or needed one. And do remember that, once the truth was out, DD quickly brought Sirius back into the fold, as a fully trusted member of The Order. ;-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 20:21:14 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:21:14 -0000 Subject: Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145002 > Alla: > > Yes, it is easier to commit evil when it is anonymous, I just don't > understand how the fact that Snape condemned two anonymous people to > death makes him less responsible for their deaths,when they became > the people with names. > zgirnius: Well, the argument goes on from there, of course. Once he realized who the two people were he saw the error of his ways and tried to save them, or so says Dumbledore. Noone, not even Peter, says Peter ever saw the error of his ways and tried to undo the dmaage that he had done. You, of course, may not believe this, as is your right. But it is this that makes him different to me (and I suspect some of the other anti-Peter posters...) > Alla: > > Peter committed one of the worst sins I know of - betrayal of the > closest friends, but I don't see that the possibility that he was > initially completely broken by Voldemort - torture, threat of > torture or threat to his family as completely outlandish. His mother > IS mentioned in canon, what if Voldemort threatened to kill her, > unless Peter tells him the Potters hiding place zgirnius: IF Peter had given the Potters up as you describe it would in fact be a rather different and more sympathetic picture, I would have no problem with him. I just don;t believe this is how it happened, and here is why: We know from McGonagall in PoA (this is from memory, sorry Alla, SSSusan, don't have my copy handy either) that Dumbledore suspected someone close to the Potters was reporting on their movements (plural) to Voldemort over a period of time. This is why Dumbledore wanted to be their Secret Keeper himself. Now, Pippin's ESE!Lupin theory could be the explanation. I prefer to avoid the proliferation of villainous Marauders and suggest that this informant was Peter. This means we was betraying his friends over a period of time. What he should have done (were he a decent human being) was to go to Dumbledore or the Potters soon after his initial contact with Voldemort and lay his problems on the table. Steps could have (and would have) been taken to protect Peter and/or any vulnerable family members/loved ones. But it gets even worse. Since this was going on over a period of time, Peter was almost certainly already suborned by Voldemort when he was asked to become their Secret Keeper. All he had to do (assuming he was acting out of fear, and really did still care about his friends) was refuse, for any reason he wanted to give, including simple fear. Voldemort need never have known the offer was made. From mskeshaffer at earthlink.net Mon Dec 19 20:10:53 2005 From: mskeshaffer at earthlink.net (Martha Shaffer) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:10:53 -0500 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? References: Message-ID: <00ed01c604d8$51448590$b7015804@youryk5cbmeeo8> No: HPFGUIDX 145003 Orna: "- DD's pleading to Snape reminds of his pleading in the cave, when he suffered the impact of the potion." Martha: forgive me if this was previously discussed, but I found that the entire scene about DD and Harry going to find the horcrux to be a foreshadowing of Snape/DD confrontation on the tower. 1. "I take you with me on one condition: that you obey any command I might give you at once, and without question" HBP p550, US edition. I feel he also gave Snape a similar directive. 2. DD instructs Harry to perform an action that injures DD, for the "greater good" of defeating LV. "it will be your job (Harry) to make sure I keep drinking, even if you have to tip the potion into my protesting mouth" p.569. I think that a similar conversation took place between DD and Snape, probably being the argument overheard by Hagrid. 3. I think that the confrontation at the top of the tower was following the same theme as "injure me for the greater good". I have noticed foreshadowing from other books- sorry, don't have the references now. Does anyone else feel that the cave sequence is a thematic forshadowing (I wasn't an english major, so I don't know if this is the correct term) of DD and Snape's relationship? By the way, I am new to the group- been here about 1 week. My name is Martha, and I'm 40. Currently living in Augusta, GA, but from California. From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com Mon Dec 19 20:30:12 2005 From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (mercurybluesmng) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:30:12 -0000 Subject: How good Ron is at Quidditch? WAS:Draco as leader and bigot In-Reply-To: <003f01c5fe64$5e219110$1d9e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145004 > Magpie: > Ron is a player that gets a nudge to put him on the Quidditch team when he's > not the best for the job and we see the results in his performance. MercuryBlue: Who did as well as or better than Ron in tryouts? Vicky Frobisher, who admitted practice wouldn't be her priority. Geoffrey Hooper, who's 'a real whiner' and would make life miserable for the rest of the team, causing their teamwork and overall performance to deteriorate. Cormac McLaggen, who single-handedly lost them the match with Hufflepuff by several hundred points, and put his own team captain in the hospital wing besides. Ron might not be a consistent player, but he is excellent when he's on form and he averages out to pretty decent. Certainly he's better than his competition for the spot. From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Dec 19 20:53:33 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:53:33 -0000 Subject: How good Ron is at Quidditch? WAS:Draco as leader and bigot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145005 > > Magpie: > > Ron is a player that gets a nudge to put him on the Quidditch team > when he's > > not the best for the job and we see the results in his performance. > > MercuryBlue: > Who did as well as or better than Ron in tryouts? Vicky Frobisher, who > admitted practice wouldn't be her priority. Geoffrey Hooper, who's 'a > real whiner' and would make life miserable for the rest of the team, > causing their teamwork and overall performance to deteriorate. Cormac > McLaggen, who single-handedly lost them the match with Hufflepuff by > several hundred points, and put his own team captain in the hospital > wing besides. Ron might not be a consistent player, but he is > excellent when he's on form and he averages out to pretty decent. > Certainly he's better than his competition for the spot. Magpie: 'Look, I know he's your best mate, but he's not fabulous, [Angelina] said bluntly. 'I think with a bit of training he'll be all right, though. He comes from a family of good Quidditch players. I'm banking on him turning out to have a bit more talent than he showed today. Vicky Frobisher and Geoffrey Hooper both flew better this evening..." (OotP, p. 249) Angelina then goes on to explain her reasons for not picking these other people (one's a whiner, one doesn't seem to have Quidditch as a priority) but the point is that Angelina says right there that these two other people both flew better than Ron and that she's taking a chance on him having more talent than he showed at his try- outs because Quidditch is in his blood(!!). Had Ron just been an ordinary person who showed up and didn't fly well, he'd not have gotten in, but she gives him a chance despite that, partially due to not picking strictly for talent and partially due to knowing his brothers and how they play. In his second year, strictly in terms of flying, he also gets a nudge when Hermione cheats for him. I'd still rather have Ron than McClaggen on my team (and so would Harry) but the point is that Ron's strength as a player is always inconsistent--third choice in terms of skill under pressure isn't too good. That inconsistency is an ongoing storyline with Ron. He gets onto the team on shaky grounds and he's insecure later. My original point was just that, that this sort of thing doesn't go away once Ron is on the team. The rest of the story plays out on the field. -m From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 21:08:02 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:08:02 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion - Chapter 6: Draco's Detour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145006 > Chapter Discussion - Draco's Detour > > Summary - > > The group, consisting of Mr. and Mrs. Weasley, Hagrid, Harry, > Hermione, Ron and Ginny, decides to split up, with Ginny and her > parents headed to Flourish and Blotts for books and the others to > Madam Malkin's for new robes, where they find Draco and Narcissa > Malfoy in the middle of making a purchase. After a heated exchange > in which Harry manages to insult the entirety of the Malfoy family, > in which Draco returns to his old standby of calling Hermione > a "mudblood", and in which Narcissa makes a nasty comment about > Harry being reunited with "dear Sirius", the Malfoys storm out after > Madam Malkin attepmts to shorten the left sleeve of Draco's new > robes without buying anything, deciding that Twilfitt and Tatting's > would do better for their business. a_svirn: It's seems a bit biased for a synopsis. Rather than *returning* to anything Draco was the one who *started* the exchange of pleasantries by calling Hermione mudblood and implying rather strongly that she stank. Moreover, Harry did not return the favour until Narcissa openly threatened him. > > Discussion Questions - > > 4. Harry insults and stands up to Narcissa Malfoy much like he did > to Lucius Malfoy last year at the Ministry. a_svirn: So that was what he did at the Ministry. I've wondered. > 7. Harry has cried "Wolf!" on Malfoy too many times. a_svirn: When did he cry *wolf* on Draco? Until HBP Snape's been the one featuring in his conspiracy theories, not Draco. > 8. In this chapter we are presented with a very different Narcissa > Malfoy than appeared in "Spinner's End". Why has she changed so > drastically? a_svirn: To borrow Snape's expression, "I see no difference". There is no reason why she should turn lachrymose on the shopping expedition. From ornawn at 013.net Mon Dec 19 21:13:03 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:13:03 -0000 Subject: Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145007 >Magpie: >This is why I don't understand reading Malfoy's own lowering of his >wand as cowardice. He's put in a similar situation to Peter in HBP >(not the same, but similar). He's got every reason to kill >Dumbledore. If he doesn't kill him Voldemort will kill him and kill >his family-just as Peter is saying here. Dumbledore has always been >the enemy to his family, so he's got even less reason to want him >spared. Yet he still can't bring himself to commit this evil act >(It also matters that Dumbledore know he didn't >intend Greyback to come to Hogwarts--these are all baby steps >towards morality for someone who's actively fought the idea his >whole life.) >Yet killing this innocent person still matters in ways it *does not >matter* to Peter, who always chooses to commit the murder. And >Malfoy isn't even making the same choice as Peter in considering >Dumbledore's offer, since Dumbledore offers to protect his family >too. >Perhaps the difference is that Malfoy has hope where Peter did not, >but that can make a difference. Orna: I liked the "baby-steps" towards morality. And seeing Draco, as a teenager doing those steps is important, because he is on the verge of an act of supreme evilness. I think it is important, that Draco gets hope and mercy from DD, while Wormtail is confronted with hate, a threat to be killed every second, and nearly no hope. But ? we see him seek hope in trying to persuade Harry, Ron, Hermione with every thing he can think about ? talking about what wonderful pet he had been to Ron, reminding Harry of James ? and none of his words did even suggest he did a horrible thing, he felt anything like baby-remorse. His subsequent steps ? looking for Voldemort reaffirms this - he has really no traces of morality in himself ? no hesitation to kill, to wriggle himself out of tight situations with lies, betrayal, killing innocent people ? anything goes. Voldemort tells him this directly ? that he has come for nothing ? only for himself. I just wanted to add something about Draco ? he had some moral- instinct in himself, which showed itself in being horrified by having Grayback at school, but also at his hesitation to kill DD right away. That's when DD told him he wasn't a killer ? because before he did this (important) step of lowering his wand ? he wasn't capable of killing ? he talked, and actually listened to DD, didn't like some of the things he heard about himself, but seemed to take them to heart. Wormtail, OTOH, doesn't hesitate for a second to kill - we see it with Cedric, but there is also Sirius telling us that little Peter was too quick for him - which means IMO, he didn't have any cramps killing with one curse 13 muggles. Orna From bawilson at citynet.net Mon Dec 19 18:48:42 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (bawilson at citynet.net) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:48:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Symbols & Name Meanings Message-ID: <28607788.1135018122993.JavaMail.SYSTEM@webmail> No: HPFGUIDX 145008 Bruce Alan Wilson wrote: > (and wasn't Cedric, the other Hogwarts' Champion, from > Ravenclaw? Kelleyaynn: > Actually, no. Cedric was a Hufflepuff (see GoF, pg 721 US > edition paperback)." That will teach me to speculate without consulting the text. Bruce From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 21:34:50 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:34:50 -0000 Subject: Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145009 > Magpie: > > To me there's the important thing about Peter right there: "What was > there to be gained by refusing him?" Peter does not see something > inherently worthwhile in doing the right thing. Perhaps it's fear > driving him, though I'd also say it sounds a lot like despair. > Reading this now it puts me in mind of Dumbledore on the Tower when > Malfoy asks him what it matters what language he (Malfoy) uses when > Dumbledore is about to die, and Dumbledore tells him it does matter, > because it always matters, even if it won't make any difference to the > wider situation. > > This is why I don't understand reading Malfoy's own lowering of his > wand as cowardice. He's put in a similar situation to Peter in HBP > (not the same, but similar). He's got every reason to kill > Dumbledore. a_svirn: On the contrary, he has a very good reason NOT to kill Dumbledore. A reason Dumbledore had just spelled out for him. By the end of HBP Draco had realised that he and his mother were nothing but pawns for Voldemort. He could not punish Lucius directly so he punished him vicariously (sorry, Alla, couldn't resist). That night on the Tower Dumbledore offered Draco and Narcissa freedom. And Draco was tempted. He started to lower his wand, but then the prospect of Voldemort's favour started to outweigh the Dumbledore's offer. "I've got that far" he said. So, I'd say, like with Peter it was about "what is their to gain" vs. "what is there to loose" with Draco. From coverton at netscape.com Mon Dec 19 16:48:32 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 10:48:32 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c604bc$11f9e3b0$1fc089ac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145010 Alla: > > Here is my hypothetical for the RW. > > The person observes the murder, the person sees the killer take > > out a murder weapon and shoot another person. Another person is > > dead. The person who observes the murder reaches the conclusion > > that the person who made the shot is therefore the killer. Pippin: > It is not in dispute that the witness also saw the victim ingest a > large quantity of an unknown substance. The victim then > experienced hallucinations, thirst, unconsciousness, weakness, > pallor, muscular twitches, drowsiness, ascending motor paralysis, > and bleeding from the mouth. The victim recognized that he was in > distress and urgently sought for aid. > > These are indications of *severe* poisoning. > > Are you saying you can logically *rule out* poison as the cause > of death? That you KNOW he died of the shot? You guys bring up a interesting point about Dumbledore's death. I think we can both agree that Snape killed him. But that potion certainly helped matters. As Dumbledore says, "That was no health drink." So the fact that the potion had something to do with his death is possible. Your fellow member Corey From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Mon Dec 19 21:42:55 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:42:55 -0000 Subject: Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145011 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Yes, it is easier to commit evil when it is anonymous, I just don't > understand how the fact that Snape condemned two anonymous people to > death makes him less responsible for their deaths,when they became > the people with names. > Gerry: That is not what makes him less responsible. The fact that he went to Dumbledore and confessed makes him less responsible. Because of that, the Order KNEW the Potters were on LV's death list, and were taking appropriate actions. Snape certainly was responsible for the fact that the Potters had to spend the rest of their lives in hiding, which is not an easy thing. But they were hidden extremely well. The Potters were under concealment of the Fidelius charm, the charm that makes it impossible for a person not told by the secret keeper to find them, even if they were looking through their living room window. The Potters would have been absolutely safe if they had not been betrayed by their secret keeper: dear, dear Peter. That makes him far more responsible than Snape can ever be. Snape gave Voldemort the wish, but Peter gave him the opportunity. > Peter committed one of the worst sins I know of - betrayal of the > closest friends, but I don't see that the possibility that he was > initially completely broken by Voldemort - torture, threat of > torture or threat to his family as completely outlandish. His mother > IS mentioned in canon, what if Voldemort threatened to kill her, > unless Peter tells him the Potters hiding place Gerry: If this were true, it would have been very unlikely that he would have run to him after the incident in the Shrieking Shack i.m.h.o. Or even more despiccable. > Alla: > > Yes, of course, and it does not mean that it is true, but we have it > as canon, right? Gerry: Nope, we have Peter implying that as canon. He never says literally that he was taken. > Alla: > > Actually, this is a great point to argue against me, but on the other > hand, doesn't Sirius say something about emotional reactions being > simpler when they are in animagi form? Maybe Peter was not feeling > scared when he was in the rat form? Gerry: But why would he not be? And if he were not, if he were free of this overwhelming fear which made him act so despiccably, why not plot to make it right? Set Sirius free? Maybe because his dead was not an act of cowardice, but of calculated opportunism? > Oh, but we don't know about what Snape did in his DE days, right? I > guess we don't know what Peter did either, but in any event I don't > think that count is necessarily complete. IMO of course. Gerry: Absolutely true. But Peter went on after LV was defeated. And helped him get back. Which is so atrocius a crime that it boggles the mind. And it would certainly be interesting to find a noble motivation for that. Gerry > From coverton at netscape.com Mon Dec 19 17:32:24 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:32:24 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000f01c604c2$32d53d40$1fc089ac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145012 Pippin: >>>In order to kill Cedric, Peter would have had to put the bundle aside, (it wouldn't do to AK Voldie) aim his wand, and say the words, all while Cedric, who was young, alert and a tri-wizard champion with his wand ready, just stood there. As Harry pointed out in canon, Cedric was more than capable of performing an Expelliarmus himself and it can save you, even from Voldemort, if you get it out in time. Doesn't it make sense to assume there was someone else at the graveyard, someone who was making sure that Wormtail did as he was told, a person who used Voldemort's wand to kill Cedric as soon as the order was given?<<< Here's an idea. What if Snape was in the graveyard unnoticed? I know he was at Hogwarts, but what if he left with out Dumbledore knowing? Just a thought Your fellow member Corey From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Mon Dec 19 21:52:47 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:52:47 -0000 Subject: Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145013 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: a_svirn: > On the contrary, he has a very good reason NOT to kill Dumbledore. A > reason Dumbledore had just spelled out for him. By the end of HBP > Draco had realised that he and his mother were nothing but pawns for > Voldemort. He could not punish Lucius directly so he punished him > vicariously (sorry, Alla, couldn't resist). That night on the Tower > Dumbledore offered Draco and Narcissa freedom. And Draco was > tempted. He started to lower his wand, but then the prospect of > Voldemort's favour started to outweigh the Dumbledore's > offer. "I've got that far" he said. So, I'd say, like with Peter it > was about "what is their to gain" vs. "what is there to loose" with > Draco. > I also think the fact that Dubledore was clearly ill made a difference. Draco knew who were outside of the tower. How much did he believe in what Dumbledore told him? Might he have given up if he was not interrupted? And what did that mean for the UV? Another bit of musing: fakeMoody tells in GoF that you need to be powerful to perform the killing curse. That the combined power of the whole class would not give him as much as a nosebleed. What if Snape knew neither he nor Draco were powerful enough to perform the killincurse on Dumbledore, because Dumbledore was more powerful than either of them? Would performing an AK and failing be enough to fulfill the UV? Or would it be exit for Snape? Gerry From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Dec 19 22:18:41 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:18:41 -0000 Subject: Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145014 > a_svirn: > On the contrary, he has a very good reason NOT to kill Dumbledore. A > reason Dumbledore had just spelled out for him. By the end of HBP > Draco had realised that he and his mother were nothing but pawns for > Voldemort. He could not punish Lucius directly so he punished him > vicariously (sorry, Alla, couldn't resist). That night on the Tower > Dumbledore offered Draco and Narcissa freedom. And Draco was > tempted. He started to lower his wand, but then the prospect of > Voldemort's favour started to outweigh the Dumbledore's > offer. "I've got that far" he said. So, I'd say, like with Peter it > was about "what is their to gain" vs. "what is there to loose" with > Draco. Magpie: Dumbledore makes his offer after it's clear Draco is not going to kill him. Draco does not begin to lower his wand and then get tempted by glory but the other way around. He says (slowly) "I've got this far, you're in my mercy, I'm the one with the wand," to which Dumbledore says it's *his* mercy that matters, and then he lowers his wand. Draco's stated intention in most of the scene is to kill Dumbledore-- he pretty much thinks he has to to keep his family from being executed, and he's got no reason to think that Dumbledore is going to offer him anything like protection. But he doesn't do it. He keeps talking, confessing, not doing the deed. He never makes any actual move to kill Dumbledore at all, and Dumbledore correctly says that he's not going to do it. I don't think Draco's line about getting farther than anyone thought and having Dumbledore in his power are just about being tempted by power--I think they're more important than that. Draco is telling himself that he has power in the scene, he has done better than expected at Voldemort's task and has Dumbledore at his mercy--but then he starts to lower his wand anyway--iow, he could maybe have that glory; if he lowers his wand he's choosing DD instead. The position of "power" Draco reminds himself that he has there makes his consideration of mercy worth more. He's proved something in getting himself to this point, but must choose what step he wants to take now. I think he's being offered and is tempted by mercy (implying responsibility for what he's done and acknowledging this isn't something Dumbledore owes him) there and not just acting out of self- protection. That last scene--Dumbledore's last scene--seem to be all about exactly that to me. The scene is, imo, not a political one but one connected to the more important themes of the series. -m From h2so3f at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 22:21:07 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:21:07 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion - Chapter 6: Draco's Detour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145015 meriaugust wrote: "1. Regulus Black is mentioned being killed "a few days" after he abandoned Voldemort, though Karkaroff managed to survive a full year. How did he do this? How high of a priority does this make Karkaroff seem compared to Regulus? From what we suspect about the identity of "R.A.B." could this imply that he was killed because of his Horcrux theft? Does this confirm for us that Karkaroff was indeed the DE "too cowardly to return" mentioned in GOF? " CH3ed: I suspect that coat he always wear that make him hard to see in the dark helped Karkaroff in evading the DE a lot. Good observation about the longer amount of time it took to kill Karkaroff pointing to his assassination being of low priority than that of Regulus'. I think this does support him being the one LV referred to as being too cowardly to return. meriaugust wrote: "2. Why attack Florean Fortescue? Or was the shambles his place was left in just a cover for a hasty escape? And for that matter, why take Mr. Olivander? Does Voldemort want a new wand with which to duel Harry with? We know that a wizard using an unsuitable wand does not practice magic as well as he could; could Voldemort having a wand without Fawkes' tail feathers in it be an advantage for Harry in the final duel? What good does having Olivander do the dark side?" CH3ed: I think Fortescue was abducted for information. There is a past Hogwarts Headmaster named Fortescue (his portrait in the office talks a lot). So there might be something about that family LV wants to know. Bill seems to have presumed Florean dead tho ("he WAS a good man, Florean"). I hope he isn't. As for Ollivander, I'm hoping that he had gone into hiding by himself or with Dumbledore's help and not abducted by the DE. The only glitch is that the OotP members aren't aware of DD helping Ollivander hide. I think LV, like DD, knew was could cause the priori incantatem effect like one that occurred in the graveyard scene in GoF. I don't think Ollivander said anything about the wand LV bought having a brother when LV bought it. LV was just another kid then. So I think it is reasonable to suspect that LV would come after Ollivander after his duel with Harry in GoF to find out if the wands share a core and if there is any way of avoiding the same effect happening again. Hopefully Ollivander is in DD's witness protection program and not really abducted by the DE. meriaugust wrote: 3. The presence of the wanted posters and warning signs posted by the Ministry has reminded some readers of WWII propaganda signs and leaflets. In what ways are these things useful to the magical community? Is it really possible to teach people to defend themselves against threats with blurbs on purple poster board? Or is this just another example of the Ministry wanting to be seen doing *something* even if that something isn't that effective? Don't most witches and wizards graduate from school with at least five years of Defense Against the Dark Arts? How is their schooling practically applied in these situations? Will the DADA curriculum be permanently changed now that there is actual defense that needs to be done? CH3ed: I think the ministry would want to be seen as doing something. After all the ministry is political. It is the WW's perception of competence that keep the ministers working. I'm afraid it seems harder for the aurors to catch the DE in the wizarding world, tho. What with the ability to apparate, do memory modification charm, imperius curse, etc. Most of the witches and wizards have had 5 years of DADA, but that doesn't even mean that they are competent in the basic defensive spells since it seems one can graduate school without getting an owl in DADA. Fred and George only got 3 OWLs a piece (tho I'd bet that they both got an OWL in DADA and charm). I hope McGonnagal becomes the next Headmistress and get to make Hogwarts curriculum and fill the posts (including DADA teacher) without interference from the MoM. As Umbridge didn't get the sack after what she did in Book 5, I don't have a lot of trust for the MoM at all. meriaugust wrote: "4. Harry insults and stands up to Narcissa Malfoy much like he did to Lucius Malfoy last year at the Ministry. How does this scene show Harry controlling his anger and emotions? Hermione doesn't seem to mind being called a "mudblood". Is that because she's used to it, or because she has no regard for Malfoy's opinion of her? Ron doesn't say much here. Is he too angry to speak, or is he willingly giving up the leadership role to Harry?" CH3ed: I'm glad to see Harry seeming to be able to control his anger more than he did in Book 5. Still needs a lot of work on it, though. I think Hermione has a cooler head (besides, she is a muggleborn and didn't grow up in the WW so I don't think being called a mudblood insults her as much as it insults Ron) and didn't want the scene to escalate. Ron probably didn't need to say much since Harry was already saying what Ron wanted to say. meriaugust wrote: "5. How does this store compare to Zonko's, the only other establishment of its kind that we know about? Why are Fred and George's products so popular in an otherwise nearly empty shopping area? They comment that they were able to come up with their personal protection line after Harry's D.A. lessons. Does this mean that Harry does indeed have an aptitude for teaching? The twins' comments that Ron has told them a lot about Ginny's relationships indicates that he is close with them, despite the fact that they live over the shop. Would you have expected the three of them to be close due to all the torment they have given him over the last sixteen years?" CH3ed: I love the description of Weasley's Wizard Wheezes. I get the impression of a more flashy shop than Zonko's. Gred and Forge are start ups so they're more inventive and ambitious (U No Poo!). I think their store is popular because it is so defiantly groovy in contrast to the surrounding mood. It is like a little haven where things are still alright. I do think Harry was a good DADA teacher. He understands how the curses work and have used them himself. He also allowed the DAs to go at their own pace and encourage them to boost their confidence(like when he did when Neville disarmed him when he was looking the other way in OotP) rather than snipe at their soddy works like Snape does in his class. I suspect Ron got closer to the twins after he joined the quidditch team than before. meriaugust wrote: "6. What other items of value might the store be hiding? How loyal is Mr. Borgin to LV's cause? Why does he assume his oily, deferential manner when speaking to Draco, when he is older than the boy? Is it a mark of respect for the Malfoy family name, or is he really frightened?" CH3ed: There might be something significant at that shop still but I can't think of one now. Draco's got the hand of glory (he used it during the raid on Hogwarts to get away from Ron). I think Mr. Borgin is just scared. I think Harry guessed right that Draco showed Borgin the dark mark on his wrist. Before that I think Borgin was just playing along thinking that once the boy leaves the store he'd alert Narcissa of what Draco wanted done. Then he saw the mark and hear the threat of a visit from Fenrir. meriaugust wrote: "8. In this chapter we are presented with a very different Narcissa Malfoy than appeared in "Spinner's End". Why has she changed so drastically? Is this just her calm, public face? Or is she that confident in the Unbreakable Vow now protecting her son? " CH3ed: While Snape was a colleague and probably a more powerful wizard (and probably perceived by most DE as closer to LV), Harry and his pals were still just underage kids of questionable blood status (Hermione is muggleborn, Harry is considered half-blood, and Ron is a blood- traitor) who were insulting her son and her husband. I think this scene shows how Narcissa is in general and the Spinner's End one was an anomaly. I don't think she was thinking much about the UV at this moment, tho, since they aren't yet at school and Snape isn't anywhere nearby. meriaugust wrote: "9. This chapter also presents some minor shipping moments: the beginnings of Harry's attraction to Ginny (him laughing at her jokes at breakfast), Ron and Hermione's continual bickering, and our first sights of Fleur and Bill together. How do Bill and Fleur match up in your estimation? Too sugary? What about the subtle hints about Harry and Ginny? Were these too subtle or just right? " CH3ed: I think the hints of Harry warming toward Ginny was well done. It wasn't too blatant that it raises your eyebrows, but it does stick in your mind and add up through out the book. I think Fleur is doting on Bill a bit much but on the whole they match up quite well. Bill doesn't seem to have that inferiority complex about money like Ron does. He is hip and holding down a great job at Gringott. Fleur isn't a push over either, being a Triwizard Champion in her own right... and can do that veela thing that most men find irresistible. meriaugust wrote: "10. And just for fun, which products would you be picking up at Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes? Why do Fred and George still have to test on themselves? Surely they can hire subjects now? Or are their items too dangerous? " CH3ed: I would go for the decoy detonators... in case I get caught setting up a prank and need a diversion. ;O) I think Fred and George are fairly confident in their inventions, but making themselves the testers would give them more incentive to be really careful (or end up like Luna's mother). CH3ed thanks Meriaugust for the really nice work on chapter 6. That's a lot of material to cover. :O) From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Dec 19 22:30:19 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:30:19 -0500 Subject: Wizard Logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43A7347B.8030008@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145016 pippin_999 wrote: > Many wizards might reach the same conclusions as Harry, but > then, as we all know, a lot of wizards haven't an ounce of logic. Bart: Especially in the Ministry. I mean, Umbridge ADMITTED that she had sent the dementors after Harry; she's guilty of a bunch of crimes, topped with attempted murder, and she's still at the Ministry. I HOPE that it's more than incredible incompetence on the part of the Ministry (maybe it's an important clue), but I doubt it. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Dec 19 22:35:29 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:35:29 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43A735B1.2030504@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145017 Pippin: >>Harry, furthermore, wouldn't know the post hoc fallacy if it >>danced in front of him wearing a tea cozy. amiabledorsai: > Do you suppose he knows Occam's Razor? Bart: A) No, but if you hum a few bars, he'll fake it. B) Oh, yeah, it's in Dumbledore's washroom. C) The name sounds familiar, but he can't quite remember the face. Bart From h2so3f at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 22:47:24 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:47:24 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: <00ed01c604d8$51448590$b7015804@youryk5cbmeeo8> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145018 CH3ed: Hi Martha. Welcome to the group! I think the similarities between the DD & Harry cave scene and what happened on the tower have been brought up before, but there wasn't a lot of response then. I thought it was quite an irony that had the cave potion killed DD then Harry would be where Snape is now in term of being DD's murderer. But the murder would have been involuntary in that Harry was under DD's order to force the potion on him (tho he gets some slacks for believing DD that the potion wouldn't kill him... not right away, anyway). The same could possibly be applied to Snape (tho we don't know that it really does). The argument between DD and Snape in the forest could well be of the same nature that DD had with Harry before they went off looking for the cave (when DD made Harry swear to obey him even if it means to leave DD to save himself). The thing is there just isn't a lot to go on yet since we haven't been given a lot of info. JKR has done such a good job of writing Snape to be ambiguous that he could go either way convincingly. CH3ed :O) From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Dec 19 22:50:51 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:50:51 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43A7394B.3020808@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145019 > Alla: > I think he is absolutely competent to decided that Avada was > effective , as in he sees "Avada" thrown at Dumbledore, the next > step - Dumbledore is dead. Bart: You forget one small item: Dumbledore is thrown off the parapet, and falls to the ground, below. This, to me, gives three major possibilities (eliminating, for example, the possibility of Dumbledore still being alive), in reverse order of likeliness: 1) Snape killed Dumbledore with the AK spell. 2) Snape used a mental spell immediately before to throw Dumbledore out of the range of the AK spell, but it threw him off the parapet. 3) Snape was keeping Dumbledore alive; he mentally removed the spell, and THEN cast the AK spell. Bart From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Mon Dec 19 23:52:49 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:52:49 +0100 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? References: Message-ID: <024301c604f7$52224a50$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 145020 h2so3f wrote: > I think the similarities between > the DD & Harry cave scene and what happened on the tower have been > brought up before, but there wasn't a lot of response then. Miles: I think the parallels are quite important. We see some parallels that imply DDM!Snape (then Harry and Snape would be in similar situations in both scenes), but for me the most striking parallel is the wording for describing Harry feeding Dumbledore the poison and Snape killing Dumbledore on top of the tower. The parallels of the cave and tower scenes would be totally useless for the novel, if Snape would turn out as LVs man. Furthermore, I don't know why Rowling should construct a situation for Snape where his only choices are a) killing Dumbledore or b) killing himself without saving Dumbledore, endangering Draco, Harry and countless students and Aurors in the castle, when Snape would have chosen a) deliberately without any of these circumstances (the Vow, the DEs on the tower etc). Would be bad writing, if you ask me. Back to the Miles, who doesn't think that Rowling is a bad writer, especially when he forgets about all the romantic stuff she tries to write From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Dec 20 00:07:51 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:07:51 -0000 Subject: Ginny's Role in Book 7 (was: Re: Four ponderings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145021 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "h2so3f" wrote: > As > others have observed, the story is told from Harry's POV so this > makes perfect sense. It isn't so much that Ginny had changed as > Harry finally noticing her. Hickengruendler: Yes, that was said quite often, but I'm not sure that it is true. There are bits from the books, that are not told from Harry's point of view. And I don't even mean the obvious bits like the beginning of HBP. Take for example the last sentence of the chapter "The Unforgivable Curses" from GoF. Here the narrator mentions something (Neville lying awake, thinking about Moody's lesson) while emphasizing, that it is something Harry does not realize. What the author is doing here, is showing the readers a connection between Harry and Neville (both lying awake and thinking about what happened to their parents), that Harry is at that time not aware of. It even is done that well, that many readers didn't realize or forgot, that we are leaving Harry's point of view for a very short time. Therefore something like this could have done with Ginny's character as well, but it wasn't. IMO, and that's of course only a guess, JKR waited until OotP with her big reveal about Ginny's character, because it fitted one theme of the book, which was seeing many characters from a different side. I just think, that it was done better with most other characters, than it was with Ginny. I can't really point to the exact reason, why I think so, but I know that Ginny's development did not rang true for me and still doesn't. One reason might be, that some explanations for her behaviour are simply impossible (secret Quidditch training), another one that JKR overdid it to make Ginny seem like the best thing ever for Harry (though that's rather a problem of HBP, IMO) or that most of Ginny's development was indeed only told in retrospective. Hickengruendler From kchuplis at alltel.net Tue Dec 20 02:04:13 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:04:13 -0000 Subject: Ginny's Role in Book 7 (was: Re: Four ponderings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145022 I am still sticking up for the "Ginny from Harry's POV makes us see the "new" her". CoS is the first time he spends any time with her. She doesn't talk. In point of fact, this is considered really wierd behaviour for her. CoS pg. 40 Ron says, "You don't know how wierd it is for her to be this shy. She never shuts up normally." and then at the bookstore when she speaks up for Harry (pg. 61) "Leave him alone! He didn't want all that!" Now, that's fairly sparky for a young girl who is so girlishly in the throws of her first big crush. To speak up 1) for Harry (object of her crush) and 2) to speak up to another older boy of obvious stature....well, she's got some hutzpah. Yet everyone seems terribly shocked when she shows hutzpah later. I'm not seeing any huge changes. You just see MORE of her because Harry sees MORE of her. Is it so stunning that after spending a large portion of the summer after PoA with her in her much more natural state, that he slowly gets to a new regard? Maybe it's just me, but I just don't see the shock of the whole thing. kchuplis From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 02:22:06 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:22:06 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion - Chapter 6: Draco's Detour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145023 Meri: > 1. This chapter begins with the death or disappearance of familiar > characters. Regulus Black is mentioned being killed "a few days" > after he abandoned Voldemort, though Karkaroff managed to survive a > full year. How did he do this? How high of a priority does this make > Karkaroff seem compared to Regulus? From what we suspect about the > identity of "R.A.B." could this imply that he was killed because of > his Horcrux theft? Does this confirm for us that Karkaroff was > indeed the DE "too cowardly to return" mentioned in GOF? Alla: I don't know - I still think that Regulus is the best candidate for resurrection. That JKR's " he is dead THESE DAYS" buggs me. Why simply not say he is dead so he is quiet? Ohm maybe I am making too much out of it, but in any event, I cannot speculate about his death, since I am not sure about it. :-) Accordingly I cannot compare his assasination and Karkaroff's. "Too cowardly to return" IMO either Karkaroff, or Snape. Meri: > 2. Why attack Florean Fortescue? Or was the shambles his place was > left in just a cover for a hasty escape? And for that matter, why > take Mr. Olivander? Does Voldemort want a new wand with which to > duel Harry with? We know that a wizard using an unsuitable wand does > not practice magic as well as he could; could Voldemort having a > wand without Fawkes' tail feathers in it be an advantage for Harry > in the final duel? What good does having Olivander do the dark side? Alla: You know, I never paid much attention to speculation that Mr. Olivander could be on the Dark Side himself, but on the other hand maybe he was praising Voldemort as "great" in PS/SS for a reason? > 5. They comment that they were > able to come up with their personal protection line after Harry's > D.A. lessons. Does this mean that Harry does indeed have an aptitude > for teaching? The twins' comments that Ron has told them a lot about > Ginny's relationships indicates that he is close with them, despite > the fact that they live over the shop. Would you have expected the > three of them to be close due to all the torment they have given him > over the last sixteen years? Alla: After reading about DA lessons, especially after Harry helping Neville and others of course, I never ahd any doubt that he is a gifted teacher - not perfect of course, but for the fifteen year old - wonderful, and of course IMHO much better one than someone else . :-) About Ron and Twins - YES, I believe that they are close. I have no doubt that twins love Ron and vice versa. I believe that Twins love their family and get the same feelings in return. before anybody would argue Percy, IMHO everybody in Weasley's family has a problem with Percy's attitudes, but I think that they love him too (deep down :-)) Thank you, Meri. Alla From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 02:53:35 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:53:35 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145024 One stormy evening in Theory Bay, Neri was to be found in the Royal George, looking for the bathroom. Why can't George hang proper signs in here? And where is George himself when you need him to answer a simple question? Come to think of it, George *has* been absent from his own bar for suspiciously long periods lately. The bar wasn't very crowded, but it was sure noisy. For some obscure reason all the customers were shouting at each other: "ESE!" "DDM!" "OFH!" It seemed you couldn't conduct simple theorizing these days without lots of exclamation marks. Nobody were very interested when Neri offered them a bag of ACID POPS, and they got positively scarce whenever he started talking about Harrycrux. Now where was that @#$& bathroom? Neri pushed one shabby door at random and found himself in a dark corridor with many more doors. Another random door opened to a narrow staircase going down and down and down... the stairs where dangerously slippery under Neri's feet. Positive now that he was lost, he opened the door at the bottom of the staircase into what looked like... a big underground dock below the Royal George??? The canal coming from the far side of the dark cave must have been a secret opening into the Bay. In the dock near Neri there was a half-finished ship, its bow scribbled with the words "LID!Snape". Two people were working on board in the meager light of a lantern, hammering planks into place while they argued between them: "I still say he was slowly disillusioned with the Death Eaters, and gradually came to the realization that Voldemort and his followers were evil." The speaker's voice was very familiar. "Couldn't we fit this in somehow?" "Oh, George, really! not *that* old one again. Only Snape fans would buy it these days. I thought even you forgot all about it." This voice too was familiar. But it couldn't be. Surely not... "Faith?" said Neri in utter disbelief. "Is that you? Working on a new *theory*?? A *Snape* Theory???" Both personifications jumped and looked guiltily at Neri. "She made me do it!" George pointed at Faith with his hammer. "It was all her idea!" Faith had a trapped look on her face and no answers. "And isn't it a bit cumbersome working in the dark like that," added Neri, crossing over to the ship, "while wearing a Life Debt... I mean, a life belt..." Neri stopped and looked more carefully. The life belt Faith was wearing, as usual when she was aboard any marine vessel, was indeed inscribed with the words "Life Debt". "This isn't a theory!" Faith finally found her voice. "Definitely not a theory. Most Definitely not a *Snape* theory! You wouldn't think that I would stoop to such... such...". "Then what is it?" asked Neri, looking at the half-built ship. "It's... it's an intellectual exercise. A pure intellectual exercise that was never meant..." "A speculation, you mean." "No! Definitely not a speculation! I don't do speculations!" "But just the other day you said..." started George, and hastily shut up when Faith gave him a murderous stare. She looked back at Neri. "This is not a speculation!" she said forcefully. "It is just an innocent intellectual construct, absolutely theore... no! I meant absolutely hypothe... no, no! I meant... erm..." she was at a complete loss of words for a minute. Finally she gave Neri a piteous look and whispered: "You won't tell anybody, will you?" "Wouldn't dream of it," said Neri, looking as if his birthday has come early. His 18th birthday. "Now, this ship is obviously in need of a proper inspection." He jumped aboard. "By someone experienced and objective. Surely not by one of the designers. No, no, *they* have this tendency to deny the existence of any holes even when they have to cross in murky water up to their waist just to reach their engine bay." He found a big box of ship crackers and seated himself comfortably on it. "Now, lets start the inspection with the name. What does LID!Snape mean? I somehow hoped for a cool acronym from Bay veterans like you two." George and Faith looked at each other. "The name was *your* idea," accused Faith. "It's just a pre-production name," said George defensively. "Until we think of something better. It means Life-InDebted!Snape". "Oh, the debt that Snape owes James' memory for saving his life?" said Neri. "This is an old one. It's hardly a theory." "This is exactly what I've been trying to say!" said Faith. "It's not even a theory! It's so obvious that it's practically canon. And yet it has all the advantages of either ESE!Snape, DDM!Snape and OFH!Snape, while having none of their weaknesses. It's perfect!" "Explain yourself," said Neri to the agitated Faith, who started pacing around the deck, grasping her life belt. "We don't know even how Life Debts work, after all," He added. "They may follow at least two alternative models of Potterverse magic. They may be like Lily's sacrifice protection ? that is, a completely mysterious and unexpected magic that doesn't do anything most of the time, but works spectacularly when the Author needs it to. Or they may be like the Unbreakable Vow, having very specific terms that anybody who breaks them drops dead on the spot. Only in the Life Debt case we don't have a clue what these terms are." "This is all speculation. I told you I don't do speculation." said Faith. "I just believe what canon places in front of me. Dumbledore told us in SS/PS that James saved Snape's life, that Snape hates it, and that he tried saving Harry because it would make him and James even. The question how exactly Life Debts work is mostly irrelevant to our theo... I mean, to Snape's actions. Besides, the reason we know so little about Life Debts is precisely because JKR avoided giving us any details, and the reason she avoided giving us any details is, as she admitted, that Life Debts are extremely important to the plot! This isn't theory. It's canon!" "But canon doesn't say explicitly that Snape owed James a Life Debt," interjected Neri. "Of course it doesn't. Because the term `Life Debt' itself isn't canon, it's only our name for it. But canon does say that when one wizard saves the life of another, a special bond is created between them, and that this is magic at its deepest, most impenetrable. It isn't *me* who should theorize that Snape owed a Life Debt to James. This is the obvious part. It's all those ESE, DDM and OFH lot who have to explain how Snape's Life Debt factors into *their* theories! And if they claim it doesn't, or that Snape doesn't owe a Life Debt to James at all, then it's *them* that have to prove it!" "I could have told you not to get her going on this," said George wisely to Neri. "I see some problems with this, but lets leave them for now," said Neri. "You said that your theo... that LID!Snape has all the advantages of ESE, DDM and OFH, and none of their weaknesses. This is a rather bold claim. Explain this." "Well, just think of the biggest Snape revelation in HBP," said Faith. "Dumbledore told us in plain words that when Snape heard the prophecy he told it to Voldemort. It is only when Snape realized who is the *specific* family Voldemort had in his sights that he went to Dumbledore and told him the Potters are in danger." "Actually, Alla had pointed out that this last detail is not explicit canon," commented Neri. "Oh, I'm sure she too believes that Dumbledore wouldn't have accepted Snape otherwise," said Faith dismissively. "And another thing," added Neri. "If Snape was sent to Dumbledore as a double agent by Voldy himself, then Voldy likely supplied him with some true but worthless information to feed Dumbledore, in order to maintain Snape's cover." "But surely Voldemort didn't want Dumbledore to be told that Voldemort knows about the prophecy, that he knows only the first half of it, and what is the specific family he chose to attack! If Voldemort ever find out Snape told this to Dumbledore it *would* be the end of Snape's career as a DE. This is surly why Dumbledore was so secretive about this specific detail, while telling hundreds of wizards that Snape changed sides and spied on Voldemort for some time before GH. And the Wormtail's betrayal plot and the mysteriously rebounding AK explain why Voldemort has never suspected that Snape told Dumbledore about the imminent attack on the Potters." "And you concluded all that without doing any speculation?" said Neri. "Most impressive. But lets leave that for now," he added quickly when seeing Faith was about to explode. "Why do you say that LID!Snape best explains it?". "Well, obviously Snape only told Dumbledore because of something specific about the *Potters*," said Faith. "So it could only be because of Lily, which means LOLLIPOPS, or because of James, which means Life Debt. I don't see other options to explain Snape behavior here, unless you claim Dumbledore was lying about it." "There are other possibilities. Some members suggested that young Severus had a platonic friendship with Lily, perhaps because of their common interest in Potions." "Oh, you mean FOLLIPOPS," said George. "What?" said Neri, distracted. "FOLLIPOPS. Friendship Of Lily Left Ire Polluted Our Poor Severus. FOLLIPOPS." "Our policy is not to say anything against the folly pops, I mean FOLLIPOPS," said Faith, smirking. "But obviously, if this friendship was so strong that Snape changed sides because of it, then for all *practical* purposes this theory is like LOLLIPOPS. Since both Lily and James are long dead anyway it amounts to the same thing as far as Snape's present and future actions are concerned. We just treat this theory under the heading of LOLLIPOPS." "OK, then," said Neri. "So you say yourself that LOLLIPOPS explains Snape's changing sides as well as LID!Snape." "LOLLIPOPS!" said Faith scathingly. "Now *there's* a typical theory for you. Not a single can(n)on on board, but a huge crew of believers, none of which think that they have to bother showing even a shade of proof. But I'm sure that THEY!" she suddenly shouted upward, towards the ceiling of the underground dock, "WILL DEMAND THAT *I*, WHO IS STANDING ON PURE CANON, WILL PROVE MY _T_H_E_O_R_Y_!!!" Neri and George both cowered with their hands on their ears. "Told you not to get her going on this," whispered George. "OK, OK, just calm down," said Neri. "I... er... gather you have a thing about LOLLIPOPS." "Me? I don't have anything about LOLLIPOPS," said Faith, taking deep calming breaths. "Why should I? It's only a theory. It will either sink or stay afloat in the end." "So lets go back to ESE, DDM and OFH," said Neri. "Why do you say that LID!Snape works better than them?" "Just think. Is there any mystery, any big Snape question that either ESE, DDM or OFH manage to explain, but LID doesn't?" Neri pondered. And pondered. "Don't exert yourself, there isn't such a thing," Faith told him. "But OTOH, each of these theories has things it does not explain, which LID does. ESE and OFH don't explain why Snape told Dumbledore about the coming attack on the Potters ? LID does. ESE and OFH don't explain why Snape tried to save Harry's life several times, the last time in HBP after he had already killed Dumbledore ? LID does. DDM don't explain why Snape hates Harry so much ? LID does. DDM is yet to find a satisfactory explanation of what had happened on the tower ? LID doesn't have any problem with it." "Hmm, when you put it like that..." said Neri. "But there *are* Snape mysteries that LID doesn't explain." "Only those mysteries that ESE, DDM and OFH don't explain either. For example, why did he undertake the Unbreakable Vow." Neri smiled broadly, took out a bag of sweets from his shirt pocket and offered them to Faith with a generous gesture. "ACID POPS?" "No thanks", said Faith coldly, as though she didn't think this was the time for ACID POPS. "They explain why Snape undertook the Unbreakable Vow," wheedled Neri. "And they don't interfere with LID!Snape at all." "Had anybody in canon ever said that Snape ever had a thing for Narcissa?" "No, but the timeline works, and if you read between the lines of `Spinners End' a bit..." "I don't read between the lines," said Faith. "I just read the lines themselves". Neri sighed, put one ACID POP in his mouth and offered the bag to the other personification. "George, ACID POPS?" "Do they say that Snape had gradually came to the understanding that Voldemort is evil?" Neri sighed again and stowed the bag back in his shirt pocket. "I really have to invest more in promotion," he mumbled to himself. "How come no one wants them? I thought I had all the best ingredients: romance, betrayal, sacrifice, tragedy, celebrities..." "Do I gather we're done with the inspection?" Asked Faith frostily. "What? No! Not that easily. Le'mee see... canon ? check, plot considerations ? check... um... meta-thinking! What about that?" "Ah, yes," said Faith. "Another aspect in which LID has all the advantages of ESE, DDM and OFH, but none of their weaknesses. For example, the OFH crew argue that their theory requires the least explanation. Both the DDM and ESE people counter that OFH would be boring, and that it doesn't supply Snape with a strong motivation for his actions in the past, nor for an interesting plot development in Book 7. But a Life Debt to Harry would give OFH!Snape all the motivation and interesting conflict he lacks, without any increase in the amount of explanation needed." "There will be need to explain how the Life Debt magic works," argued Neri. "However it does." "We're going to need that anyway, because it's supposed to play in the Wormtail plot. And as I mentioned before, LID explains better than OFH why Snape went to Dumbledore when he realized Voldemort was after the Potters, and why he tried to save Harry's life several times, so LID actually requires even less explanation than OFH." "Er... well..." said Neri. "More meta-thinking," said Faith. "The DDM crew point out that the tower scene, at the very end of the book before last, just *begs* for a nice reversal in the last book. The ESE and OFH crews counter that revealing Snape is DDM in the last book would practically make him the real hero of the series and Harry a puppet of Dumbledore's plan. But LID!Snape can supply us with a powerful reversal ? Snape saving Harry's life at the critical moment in Book 7 ? without making Snape the hero. He'll do it because he magically owes James' memory, not because he's the secret guardian of Dumbledore's plan. All the advantages, none of he weaknesses." "Hmmm..." said Neri. "She can be so annoyingly right, can't she?" observed George in an understanding tone. "Even more meta-thinking," continued Faith relentlessly. "The DDM crew argue that ESE and OFH would make Dumbledore look really dumb in the end - trusting blindly in Snape's faked remorse - and would practically reduce his character to a plot device. The OFH and ESE people counter that DDM would make *Harry* look really dumb and would reduce him to a plot device. But a Life Debt to Harry would give Dumbledore a true reason to trust Snape without making Harry incorrect about Snape killing Dumbledore. LID!Snape would thus enable both Dumbledore and Harry to come out mostly right (but also slightly in the wrong) in the end." "Hey, that part can actually be made even more convincing," said Neri. "Del and I posted about it. You see, if the Life Debt magic kills you when you take a part in killing the one you owe to, then Snape should have died after GH, but if Dumbledore saved him by magically transferring his Debt from James to Harry, then Snape would owe a Life Debt to Dumbledore too! That would certainly make Dumbledore trust him. And after Snape saved Dumbledore's life back from the ring curse, he could kill Dumbledore, but he still owes Harry..." Neri trailed off when he saw the look on Faith's face, and sighed again. "I know, I know, you don't do speculation. It just that Dumbledore trusting Snape when knowing that it's only his own life on the line, while Harry's life are protected as ever, strikes me as a very Dumbledore choice to make." Neri considered for some time. "But I still see a meta problem with your theo... with LID!Snape. Wouldn't it be a superfluous thematic duplication, since we already have the Life Debt plot of Wormtail? Why do we need another one with Snape? And some would perhaps argue that Kreacher too belongs to this category ? villains that betrayed Harry but are now magically compelled to help him." "Exactly," said Faith. "We already have both Wormtail and Kreacher, so why not Snape too? And JKR has already demonstrated in the past that she's not afraid of thematic duplication. On the contrary - she lets it work for her. In PoA she gave us not one, not two, but three unregistered animagi, and then she threw in a werewolf for good measure. In HBP she gave us not one, not two, but six Horcruxes. Why would she have a problem with two DEs owing a Life Debt to Harry in Book 7?" "Hmmm... now that you mention it," said Neri thoughtfully, "Snape and Wormtail forced to share the same house in HBP, with no apparent plot reason for that... could it be foreshadowing? You know, the two of them, as much as they hate each other, compelled to cooperate in Book 7 in order to save Harry and repay both their Debts..." He trailed off when seeing the look on Faith's face. "Er... speculation again?" Faith nodded. Neri sighed. "Well, *I* do it, you know." "So are we through with the inspection?" "Not yet! We now come to the most difficult part." Faith waited. "You know, that part about water tightness," said Neri ominously. Faith waited. Neri pondered. And pondered. "Now just a minute," he finally said. "This isn't fair! There can't be holes in your theory because it has no structure to have holes in it. You just took three paragraphs from Dumbledore's end-of-the-year talk in SS/PS, combined them with two paragraphs from his end-of-the-year talk in PoA, and that it! Where are the assumptions? Where is the reasoning? This isn't even a theory!" "Exactly," said Faith. "I've been explaining that all along. LID!Snape isn't even a theory. And yet it answers more Snape mysteries than either LOLLIPOPS, ESE, DDM, OFH or any Snape theory." "She's always so annoyingly right, isn't she?" sighed George. "Ah, well. But I still have one more question," said Neri. "A question for George, actually." "For me?" said George. "Yes, for you. Where is the nearest bathroom?" References and notes -------------------- Faith is described in http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/hypotheticalley.html#faith George is described in http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/hypotheticalley.html#george LOLLIPOPS is described in http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/hypotheticalley.html#lollipops Speculation about the nature of the Life Debt magic and why Snape owed a Life Debt to Dumbledore too can be found in Del's post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139110 and are further developed in my response: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140493 ACID POPS (they are really really good, we have them in two flavors, just try them! PLEASE!!): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138593 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138790 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139141 From dossett at lds.net Tue Dec 20 03:48:30 2005 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 03:48:30 -0000 Subject: Another Curse-Breaker Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145025 There have been several mentions lately of Harry's need for curse- breaking in Book 7, and usually the one who has mentioned this need suggests Bill Weasley as an obvious choice to fill this roll. Several others have also suggested that Harry may need to learn/may already have the power to do this. I've been rereading HBP and in chapter 12, p. 252 (Scholastic edition) HRH have just witnessed Katie Bell's cursing and Hagrid has taken her back to Hogwarts. This jumped out at me: Harry looked up. Sure enough, Professor McGonagall was hurrying down the stone steps through swirling sleet to meet them. "Hagrid says you four saw what happened to Katie Bell -- upstairs to my office at once, please! What's that you're holding, Potter?" "It's the thing she touched," said Harry. "Good Lord," said Professor McGonagall, looking alarmed asshe took the necklace from Harry. "no, no, Filch, they're with me!" she added hastily, as Filch came shuffling eagerly across the entrance hall holding his Secrecy Sensor aloft. "Take this necklace to *Professor Snape* (emphasis mine) at once, but be sure not to touch it, keep it wrapped in the scarf!" Then, at the beginning of Chapter 13, p. 259, we have this exchange in Dumbledore's office: "You have had a busy time while I have been away," Dumbledore said. "I believe you witnessed Katie's accident." "Yes, sir. How is she?" "Still very unwell, although she was relatively lucky. She appears to have brushed the necklace with the smallest possible amount of skin: There was a tiny hole in her glove. Had she put it on, had she even held it in her ungloved hand, she would have died, perhaps instantly. Luckily Professor Snape was able to do enough to prevent a rapic spread of the curse --" "Why him?" asked Harry quickly. "Why not Madam Pomfrey?" "Impertinent," said a soft voice from one of the portraits on the wall, and Phineas Nigellus Black, Sirius's great-great-grandfather, raised his head from his arms where he had appeared to be sleeping. "I would not have permitted a student to question the way Hogwarts operated in my day." "Yes, thank you, Phineas," said DUmbledore quellingly. "Professor Snape knows much more about the Dark Arts than Madam Pomfrey, Harry." (end quotes) Snape has many talents - although teaching is certainly the most debated :o) - but I haven't seen anyone mentioning this talent in curse-breaking. We have seen it discussed how Snape helped Dumbledore, off-page, but the references are there in canon. But this shows that his knowledge in curse-breaking was known not only to Dumbledore, but also by McGonagall: possibly even by all the teaching staff at Hogwarts. I don't know that I'm all that sure where I'm going with this, but I'm drawn to where this could lead in Book 7. Any further thoughts on this would be appreciated. Thanks, Pat From kchuplis at alltel.net Tue Dec 20 03:36:30 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 03:36:30 -0000 Subject: The Twins Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145026 Something I've been meaning to put forth is that I think Fred and George are going to be highly useful in Book 7. There seem to have been many hints dropped in several of the books about how despite their playful goofy natures, these guys can do some seriously good and inventive magic. I really expect them to come up with something important for Book 7. Does anyone else feel this way? kchuplis From sherriola at earthlink.net Tue Dec 20 04:09:08 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:09:08 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <007601c6051b$210ec5f0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 145027 Something I've been meaning to put forth is that I think Fred and George are going to be highly useful in Book 7. There seem to have been many hints dropped in several of the books about how despite their playful goofy natures, these guys can do some seriously good and inventive magic. I really expect them to come up with something important for Book 7. Does anyone else feel this way? kchuplis Sherry actually, i've been thinking about that recently, too. i've been trying to reread HBP. i tend to only go so far and then come to a screeching halt, since i know what is coming. Same reaction I have to OOTP. But anyway, i've been marveling at the talent the twins must have. how on earth did they do so badly on their OWLS? All their products show great skill in things like charms, transfiguration and even potions. of course, there have been a lot of brilliant people and great inventors who were not educated in terms of someone like Hermione would consider being educated. They do think outside the box, and I think they must really be quite brilliant. Sherry From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 04:40:32 2005 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 04:40:32 -0000 Subject: The Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145028 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kchuplis" wrote: > > Something I've been meaning to put forth is that I think Fred and George are going to > be highly useful in Book 7. There seem to have been many hints dropped in several of > the books about how despite their playful goofy natures, these guys can do some > seriously good and inventive magic. I really expect them to come up with something > important for Book 7. Does anyone else feel this way? > > kchuplis I think the twins will be very important. Look at the things they have invented! I'm not surprised that they didn't do that well with OWLs, because they are so focussed on other things. It's possible they might come up with something to help Harry out of a tight situation. It's also possible that one or both will die. I have a bad feeling about them..... Alora From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 04:42:15 2005 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 04:42:15 -0000 Subject: The Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145029 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kchuplis" wrote: > > Something I've been meaning to put forth is that I think Fred and George are going to > be highly useful in Book 7. There seem to have been many hints dropped in several of > the books about how despite their playful goofy natures, these guys can do some > seriously good and inventive magic. I really expect them to come up with something > important for Book 7. Does anyone else feel this way? > > kchuplis > Oh, Geez! Trust my daughter to help me post. I think she hit the mouse and posted in Spanish while she was on my lap. What I wanted to say was that I think the twins will be very important in book 7. Maybe, they come up with something to help Harry out of a tight spot? I do think, though, that we might lose one or both. That would be terrible... Alora From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Dec 20 07:16:09 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 07:16:09 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145030 Jen had been lurking in the Royal George for several days, much of the time tucked inside the comforting anonymity of her Invisibility Cloak. She found it fun for....er...listening in on the friendly chatter in the pub. Yes, that was it. So far the only interesting development was the daily appearance of that dream-crusher, Faith, who seemed to be keeping an annoyingly close eye on one of the dark corridors in the back. "There she is again!" Jen thought, rounding the corner to see Faith slipping through the same, unmarked door as she had for the last several days. "Hah! Little Miss Perfect is up to something. I've finally nabbed Faith and she's certainly not polishing her cannons in there!" Jen kept her gleeful voice to a whisper, carefully gliding over to the door. Pushing cautiously, and then very firmly for it seemed stuck, Jen finally bent down to investigate and found an object wedged in the crack under the door. It looked familiar. Jen pulled and pulled until the object suddenly broke free. "Lumos," she whispered, letting the light play on what looked to be....."OHO!" It was an ACID POP, and that could mean only one thing--Neri was skulking around with FAITH, of all things. "Oh, this is too much," Jen sniggered with conspiratorial glee. "Neri and FAITH, that's rich. The inventor of the ACID POP and the viral Imperio theory, turned traitor and *fraternizing with the enemy*." While musing over the fitness of this pairing, Jen found herself unwrapping the ACID POP, it was after all her favorite candy. She'd given up on LOLLIPOPS long ago, or rather, never liked them to begin with. Kid Stuff, too sweeet. Everyone knew Snape of the swooping robes and sneering face would NOT find his equal in Lily "Goody-Two Shoes" Potter. No, no, Narcissa Malfoy with her multitude of tears, her lovely classic features, refined manners and a slight sneer on her own face was obviously the unrequited match for Sevvie. When he had time for women of course, which seemed highly unlikely and mostly a fan invention. There was a reason all his probable matches were unrequited. Jen opened the door and was surprised to see a staircase she'd never noticed in her years of sneaking...er...wandering through the halls and admiring the classic architecture. Descending the staircase, she heard voices. Neri and FAITH were not alone! Who could that be? She heard mention of Snape's debt to James, some boat called LIDS ("hmmm, do I know that one?") and Neri's voice raised in exasperation: "Now just a minute," he said. "This isn't fair! There can't be holes in your theory because it has no structure to have holes in it. You just took three paragraphs from Dumbledore's end-of- the-year talk in SS/PS, combined them with two paragraphs from his end-of-the-year talk in PoA, and that it! Where are the assumptions? Where is the reasoning? This isn't even a theory!" Another voice spoke and Jen peered down to the bottom of the slippery stairs, trying to get a glimpse of the unknown person; she lost her footing, tumbled headlong down the rest of the stairs, and landed face-up, staring into a familiar face. "George?!" Jen gasped with astonishment. George muttered something and offered a half-smile in return, trying to work his way behind FAITH and Neri. "Well" said Neri as if nothing unusual had happened."I suppose since you dropped by, we'll fill you in, Jen." He smirked at the Invisibility cloak thrown off in the fall, an ACID POP crunched to smithereens in Jen's mouth and the look of bewilderment on her face. "Relax, it's not what you think. FAITH isn't *speuclating*, I'm sure you hoped to catch her in the act. Didn't your mom ever tell you not to run with pops in your mouth, by the way? Jen, flustered but still in charge of her faculties, got up and retrieved her cloak. "Oh, don't worry, I heard enough to know what's going on here. FAITH went and dusted off *this* old thing." Jen said disparagingly of the half-built ship, obviously constructed of old and peeling boards. "Yes, Snape's debt to James. Might as well hope to hear more about ancient magic, FAITH, as to find out this is at the bottom of Snape's mysterious turn to Dumbledore's side." FAITH sniffed mightily at the floozy who dared to prance half-baked theories, ripe with speculation and worn-to-death characters like Florence across the Royal George any old time she pleased. "Well, I wouldn't expect the likes of you to understand the beauty of a well- constructed canon, the glimmer of words taken directly from JKR's prose, the perfectly replicated dialogue of--" "Enough." Neri barked, sounding more and more like Tom Riddle these days. "You think this theory, erm, this--" "This snippet directly taken from canon, you mean? Everyone knows Snape repaid his debt to James by safeguarding Harry in PS. You heard Dumbledore, Snape worked to repay his debt so he could go back to hating James' memory in peace. It's all in there, p. three- hundred and ninety.... p. 300, Scholastic. Dumbledore even had a *dreamy* expression on his face when he explained everything to Harry. Relieved Snape had finally paid off the debt he tried so hard to repay before James died, but James of course sneered at him and....." FAITH glared at Jen, expecting no less than rampant speculation from the likes of her. Crossing her arms, she practically spit out: "Canon?" Jen was surprsied, she'd never seen Saint FAITH in such a fury before. But looks alone were not enough to quell Jen from spouting off. "Well of course we know after POA that Snape attempted to save James and Lily after he sold them down....after his Big Mistake of telling Voldemort the prophecy: 'Like father, like son Potter!I have just saved your neck; you should be thanking me on bended knee! You would have been well-served if he'd killed you; you'd have died like your father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black--" (chap. 19, p. 361, Scholastic) Neri and FAITH exchanged knowing glances before smiling at Jen like a child who has uttered something quite funny and doesn't quite realize it. "Yes?" Faith said sweetly, "go on my dear, you were saying some un-canonish thing about Snape going to the trouble of trying to save James *after* he'd switched sides and that discounts the reason he switched---how exactly? Suddenly, with horror, Jen looked up and saw Neri's bemused expression. "Oh....no...could that be IT? Did Snape go to Dumbledore's side because of the friggin' life debt? And he tried to save James and Lily, I'm sure of it, figured a way to worm the information out of the Secret Keeper, then blah blah, and blah...then James sneered and laughed in his face. There had to have been a sneer...I'm certain of it..." Jen miraculously regained her composure. "No, but of course. When Snape repaid his debt to James by saving Harry that was the end. Dumbledore had nothing keeping him there anymore once the debt was resolved. If that was it, Snape would no longer have to be loyal to him, he could leave or pretend to be loyal or pretty much whatever he wanted....OH!" Suddenly the tower scene flashed into Jen's mind, and she found herself treading on slippery ground again. She gripped her chair and found herself falling back on an old stand-by. "Innocent until proven guilty!" Jen shouted, lack of canon overcome by emotion. "He made a choice, I'm telling you, on the tower! A choice to by *loyal*, not that the likes of you would know about that....yes, the life-debt ended, yes he could have chosen OFH, but he *didn't*. I'm sure of it...!" FAITH gave up the interloper as a bad job, irreprarbly tied to dark speculation, and went back to work. Neri considered Jen's rather paltry attempt at canon analysis resulting in absolutely no canon, and sighed. He did so want to be talked out of this one. Jen From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Tue Dec 20 08:56:17 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:56:17 -0000 Subject: Why is it significant if LV learns the whole prophecy Re: JKR ITN interview In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145031 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > I really don't have anything to argue against your theory right now, > except metathinking argument to me it suggests again Master > Manipulator!Dumbledore and call me stubborn and not seeing something > which is staring me in the face, but I am not ready to accept that > kind of Dumbledore yet, probably not till book 7 throws some hard > cold evidence at me. :) > I'm not sure that this is evidence for Master Manipulator!Dumbledore. Bearing in mind that DD is acutely aware that Voldemort appears to be able to get inside Harry's head, I think that it may be imperative that Harry doesn't know the whole prophecy. Harry has not mastered occlumency, and therefore cannot be expected to protect important secrets!! If the full prophecy details HOW Harry might defeat Voldemort, then DD is simply trying to protect Harry. Brothergib From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Tue Dec 20 09:03:33 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:03:33 -0000 Subject: Another Curse-Breaker In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145032 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rtbthw_mom" wrote: >> > Snape has many talents - although teaching is certainly the most > debated :o) - but I haven't seen anyone mentioning this talent in > curse-breaking. We have seen it discussed how Snape helped > Dumbledore, off-page, but the references are there in canon. But > this shows that his knowledge in curse-breaking was known not only > to Dumbledore, but also by McGonagall: possibly even by all the > teaching staff at Hogwarts. I don't know that I'm all that sure > where I'm going with this, but I'm drawn to where this could lead in > Book 7. Any further thoughts on this would be appreciated. > > Thanks, > Pat > Well, i've said it before, but I think Snape's role is to find and destroy as many Horcruxes as possible. He should have gained Voldemort's confidence after the scene at the 'Tower' and may therefore get this information from Voldemort directly. Brothergib From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Dec 20 10:56:02 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:56:02 -0000 Subject: Another Curse-Breaker In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145033 Pat: > Snape has many talents - although teaching is certainly the most > debated :o) - but I haven't seen anyone mentioning this talent in > curse-breaking. We have seen it discussed how Snape helped > Dumbledore, off-page, but the references are there in canon. But > this shows that his knowledge in curse-breaking was known not only > to Dumbledore, but also by McGonagall: possibly even by all the > teaching staff at Hogwarts. I don't know that I'm all that sure > where I'm going with this, but I'm drawn to where this could lead in > Book 7. Any further thoughts on this would be appreciated. Ceridwen: I think the necklace was taken to him because he's this year's DADA teacher. In CoS, Lockhart is told that his time has come (to shine) when Ginny is taken into the Chamber. He's the DADA teacher, it's his job. Unlike Lockhart, who wasn't as excited about shining as one would have thought given his bragging and his excellent hair and teeth, Snape knows his subject. Defending against the Dark Arts would include knowing how to break a curse on a Dark object. I'd think that would be advanced knowledge, but a teacher *ought* to know it. Incidentally, if I'm correct, that means that Lupin would, at least in theory, be able to break a curse as well. Ceridwen. From becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk Tue Dec 20 10:05:40 2005 From: becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk (Rebecca Williams) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:05:40 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chapter Discussion - Chapter 6: Draco's Detour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051220100540.88834.qmail@web25306.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145034 Meri: > 2. Why attack Florean Fortescue? Or was the shambles his place was > left in just a cover for a hasty escape? And for that matter, why > take Mr. Olivander? Becky: Perhaps he was angry with him for selling Harry a wand with a feather from Fawkes. It was because of this that their wands linked and that Harry was able to escape from the graveyard in OoTP. From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Tue Dec 20 11:59:44 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 12:59:44 +0100 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) References: Message-ID: <009901c6055c$dea31e40$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 145035 Great story, thank you for the fun reading it ;). The only problem for me and for many others may be, that it is full of "insiders" I simply do not understand - not to speak of all the acronyms. Ok, after some weeks I worked out most of them ... So, forgive me to just add some arguments, not another story in response. nkafkafi wrote: > "This is all speculation. I told you I don't do speculation." said > Faith. "I just believe what canon places in front of me. Dumbledore > told us in SS/PS that James saved Snape's life, that Snape hates it, > and that he tried saving Harry because it would make him and James > even. This isn't theory. It's canon!" Miles: As Jen pointed out, Snape paid the Life Debt back, in PS/SS, and in PoA. So... nkafkafi wrote: > "Dumbledore told us in plain words that when Snape heard the prophecy > he told it to Voldemort. It is only when Snape realized who is the > *specific* family Voldemort had in his sights that he went to > Dumbledore and told him the Potters are in danger." > "Actually, Alla had pointed out that this last detail is not explicit > canon," commented Neri. > "Oh, I'm sure she too believes that Dumbledore wouldn't have accepted > Snape otherwise," said Faith dismissively. Miles: Stop! Maybe Alla would believe, but that is not a proof, isn't it? Alla's objection is correct, so her argument is independent from her or what she thinks. You are frowsy at this central point of your... your... THEORY, but I don't think you should be. We simply don't know whether Snape came back because it was the Potter's LV tried to find. This is pure SPECULATION. It as well would fit into the information from canon, that Snape came back when he realised that LV would try to kill a baby because of the prophecy. This King Herodes behaviour is deeply rooted in the common sense of our culture as extremly abhorrent. nkafkafi wrote: > "But surely Voldemort didn't want Dumbledore to be told that Voldemort > knows about the prophecy, that he knows only the first half of it, and > what is the specific family he chose to attack! If Voldemort ever find > out Snape told this to Dumbledore it *would* be the end of Snape's > career as a DE. Miles: Erm, obviously LV knew that the Potter's were warned. First, they lived under the protection of the Fidelius Charm, which is very unusual, and second James cried "He is coming" (quoted from memory) when he came into their house. So LV *knew* that the Potter's weren't surprised that LV was after them. nkafkafi wrote: > And the > Wormtail's betrayal plot and the mysteriously rebounding AK explain > why Voldemort has never suspected that Snape told Dumbledore about the > imminent attack on the Potters." Miles: I do not understand why this is an argument. nkafkafi wrote: > "Hmm, when you put it like that..." said Neri. "But there *are* Snape > mysteries that LID doesn't explain." > "Only those mysteries that ESE, DDM and OFH don't explain either. For > example, why did he undertake the Unbreakable Vow." Miles: Erm, DDM!Snape explains it. Snape tried to find out the mission of Draco to be able to report it to Dumbledore. The Vow was not planned, but he just couldn't refuse it without giving up his cover. And both OFH and ESE don't have problems with the Vow, either. nkafkafi wrote: > But a Life Debt to Harry would give > Dumbledore a true reason to trust Snape without making Harry incorrect > about Snape killing Dumbledore. LID!Snape would thus enable both > Dumbledore and Harry to come out mostly right (but also slightly in > the wrong) in the end." Miles: Dumbledore told Harry about the Life debt. Some other people knew of it as well, e.g. Remus. But Dumbledore always refused to reveal his reason for trusting Snape to anyone (as far as we know). So, why tell everyone the reason and refuse to tell it the same time? I think LID!Snape stands on feet of clay here *looking for a hammer*. The Life Debt question is important for the story, I have no doubt. We can explain a lot with it, and it is closely connected with the Marauder's-Snape-background underlying the whole story of Harry Potter. And there will be several new parts of this story and this time in the final book. But LID!Snape as a master key for the character of Snape - no, not really. Miles From coverton at netscape.com Tue Dec 20 06:17:51 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:17:51 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: <43A7394B.3020808@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <000b01c6052d$21c05d80$4e36a3ac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145036 Bart: > You forget one small item: Dumbledore is thrown off the parapet, > and falls to the ground, below. This, to me, gives three major > possibilities (eliminating, for example, the possibility of > Dumbledore still being alive), in reverse order of likeliness: > > 1) Snape killed Dumbledore with the AK spell. > 2) Snape used a mental spell immediately before to throw > Dumbledore out of the range of the AK spell, but it threw him off > the parapet. > 3) Snape was keeping Dumbledore alive; he mentally removed the > spell, and THEN cast the AK spell. That's an interesting point but could you explain it a little more? What I think happened is that the AK curse was delivered with such force that it propelled Dumbledore off the tower. Your fellow member, Corey From coverton at netscape.com Tue Dec 20 06:21:18 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:21:18 -0600 Subject: Umbridge a DE? (was: Wizard Logic) In-Reply-To: <43A7347B.8030008@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <000c01c6052d$9a2ee6b0$4e36a3ac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145037 pippin_999 wrote: > > Many wizards might reach the same conclusions as Harry, but then, > > as we all know, a lot of wizards haven't an ounce of logic. Bart: > Especially in the Ministry. I mean, Umbridge ADMITTED that she > had sent the dementors after Harry; she's guilty of a bunch of > crimes, topped with attempted murder, and she's still at the > Ministry. I HOPE that it's more than incredible incompetence on the > part of the Ministry (maybe it's an important clue), but I doubt it. Hi, its Corey. Does anyone think Umbridge just might be a death eater? I know she doesn't have the Mark but maybe Voldemort didn't put it on her to throw people off. Just a thought. Your fellow member, Corey From maria.elmvang at gmail.com Tue Dec 20 08:50:12 2005 From: maria.elmvang at gmail.com (Maria Elmvang) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:50:12 +0100 Subject: HBP in russian translation./ Translations in general/ "Severus, please" Message-ID: <17785fc30512200050t449033a6k2e824ef373feefb1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145038 vidar_fe writes: > They do this in the norwegian translations as well. As far as I know > every single name except Harry's have been changed! :-( > > The translator has even managed to turn Neville's last name into > Langballe, or 'long testicle' *am very outraged*! Poor boy.... Actually 'Langballe' can also mean 'long butt-cheek.' I guess that isn't that far from Longbottom at all. Maria -- > I believe in God like I believe in the sun > not because I see it, but by it > I see everything else > --- C.S. Lewis [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 14:34:42 2005 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:34:42 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145039 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Pippin: > > Considering the evidence, I'd say poisoning was a reasonable > alternative, not just a possible one. Maybe not as likely as > AK. But likelihood is not the standard of proof. ROFL! Poisoning a "reasonable" explanation? I don't see how. Given that reasonable standards are defined by "man-on-the-street," anyway. I don't think you would be able to find many men (or women) on the street who would find poisoning a "reasonable" explanation for Dumbledore's death. Actually, likelihood does figure strongly into standards of proof, as likelihood is largely what standards of "reasonableness" are based on. If you see someone hit with an AK and die, what is the reasonable explanation of his death? The AK. If you see someone hit with an AK and die, and are then told that said person had recently ingested a liquid of unknown composition with evident deleterious effects of unknown severity and duration, what is the reasonable explanation of his death? The AK. Theorizing that the person may have been actually already dead from the potion, etc., is imagining a scenario that is possible but highly unlikely and therefore not a reasonable explanation (i.e. not enough to establish a reasonable doubt as to the cause of death, given the evidence). > You've already pronounced yourself dissatisfied with several aspects > of JKR's writing. No harm in that. But as she's proved herself capable > of doing so, there's no reason to suppose she won't disappoint you > again. Sorry. > Yes, I do have to admit that should most commonly discussed DDM! Snape scenarios come to pass I would probably expire of CRUPS (Contrived, Ridiculous, Unbelievable Plot Syndrome). The proximate cause of death is asphyxiation due to uncontrollable derisive laughter. If it turns out that DD and Snape had a "plan" for such a "contingency" and that was what they were arguing about, I would say I'll probably die laughing within thirty minutes. If we find DD was already swiftly and incurably expiring from the potion in the cave, thus making Harry his "murderer," I expect to choke on my own guffaws within fifteen minutes. If it turns out that DD "begged" Snape to kill him through some improvised (but unheard and unseen) communication on the spur of the moment on the tower, I'll be dead within five minutes, as the level of laughter and derision that would bring on would doubtless induce convulsions and a cerebral hemorrhage. But then, everybody has to die sometime, and dieing is easy compared to the making of comedy -- even unintentional comedy. Lupinlore From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Dec 20 15:40:56 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:40:56 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145040 > "More meta-thinking," said Faith. "The DDM crew point out that the > tower scene, at the very end of the book before last, just *begs* for > a nice reversal in the last book. The ESE and OFH crews counter that > revealing Snape is DDM in the last book would practically make him the > real hero of the series and Harry a puppet of Dumbledore's plan. But > LID!Snape can supply us with a powerful reversal ? Snape saving > Harry's life at the critical moment in Book 7 ? without making Snape > the hero. He'll do it because he magically owes James' memory, not > because he's the secret guardian of Dumbledore's plan. All the > advantages, none of the weaknesses." "That," said Pippin, popping out of nowhere and slipping a time turner back into her cloak, "is far too weak dramatically to be compelling. Robo! Snape, who only acts the way he does because of magical compulsion? Puh-leeze." "Well," said George,"do you agree that Snape changed sides because he gradually realized Voldemort was evil?" "Nah," said Pippin. "He changed sides because he suddenly realized that he, Snape, was evil. He realized it when he found he was involved in a plot against the person to whom he owned a life debt. There's a parallel you see, between Snape telling Voldemort about the prophecy, and Dumbledore not telling Harry about it. "Dumbledore says that he didn't tell Harry because Harry's happiness was more important than the lives of nameless faceless people. I always wondered what he meant, because surely Harry needed to know the prophecy to protect himself from Voldie. But in HPB, Dumbledore says that Harry doesn't need the prophecy to defeat Voldemort. "The prediction that Harry would have the power that Voldemort knows not has already been fulfilled. The way Dumbledore sees it, Voldemort *can't* win. He's driven to confront Harry, and he can't beat him. So the nameless faceless lives that Dumbledore was talking about aren't the people who are going to be killed if Voldemort wins. They're the people who are going to die because Harry has not yet taken up the mantle of the Chosen One. "It's only when one of those nameless people turns out to be Sirius that Dumbledore finds it in his heart to tell Harry the truth. "Now, Snape told the prophecy to Voldemort not considering that nameless faceless people would die. We can't be too hard on him for that, because Dumbledore made the same mistake, though with more excuse as he did it because he loved Harry, not for any lesser reward. "But the magical bond has to be important somehow," said Neri. "Ee-yes, but this idea that being involved in the death of a person you owe a life debt to would kill you? I mean Pettigrew's got to know that, and he doesn't act like Harry's death is going to be the end of him, does he? Very proud and happy with his new silver hand, he is. Not anxious at all." "Well done," said Faith. "See what happens when you get beyond canon?" "But Neri could be almost right," said Pippin. "What if it doesn't kill you. What if it just...splits your soul? It's just the sort of magic Voldemort ignores because he doesn't understand the value of an intact soul." "So when James died, Snape's soul was split?" Neri gasped. "Got it in one," said Pippin. ""Now he's desperately trying to save Harry because Dumbledore's told him it will help heal the tear in his soul. But it doesn't stop him from being an absolute !@#$ to Harry otherwise. In fact it makes it easier." "Still doesn't explain why he took the vow," muttered Neri. Pippin shrugs. "DDM!Snape has a good reason to take the vow, because DDM!Snape would sacrifice his life for others. If Snape would rather die than kill Dumbledore anyway, he had nothing to lose. How could he explain to Bella and Narcissa, much less Voldemort, why he would risk his life to watch over Draco and protect him as he attempts to carry out his task, but not to see it done if Draco fails? He might as well spit in Voldemort's eye and declare himself Dumbledore's man through and through. "(And I do hope to see that someday. I really do. But it will likely be the end of him.)" Neri pouted. "I suppose I can't interest you in an ACID POP?" Pippin shrugged. "They're okay. A little too sour for my taste, but you can't have everything, after all." Pippin referring everyone upthread to Neri's excellent notes From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Dec 20 15:40:55 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:40:55 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145041 > "More meta-thinking," said Faith. "The DDM crew point out that the > tower scene, at the very end of the book before last, just *begs* for > a nice reversal in the last book. The ESE and OFH crews counter that > revealing Snape is DDM in the last book would practically make him the > real hero of the series and Harry a puppet of Dumbledore's plan. But > LID!Snape can supply us with a powerful reversal ? Snape saving > Harry's life at the critical moment in Book 7 ? without making Snape > the hero. He'll do it because he magically owes James' memory, not > because he's the secret guardian of Dumbledore's plan. All the > advantages, none of the weaknesses." "That," said Pippin, popping out of nowhere and slipping a time turner back into her cloak, "is far too weak dramatically to be compelling. Robo! Snape, who only acts the way he does because of magical compulsion? Puh-leeze." "Well," said George,"do you agree that Snape changed sides because he gradually realized Voldemort was evil?" "Nah," said Pippin. "He changed sides because he suddenly realized that he, Snape, was evil. He realized it when he found he was involved in a plot against the person to whom he owned a life debt. There's a parallel you see, between Snape telling Voldemort about the prophecy, and Dumbledore not telling Harry about it. "Dumbledore says that he didn't tell Harry because Harry's happiness was more important than the lives of nameless faceless people. I always wondered what he meant, because surely Harry needed to know the prophecy to protect himself from Voldie. But in HPB, Dumbledore says that Harry doesn't need the prophecy to defeat Voldemort. "The prediction that Harry would have the power that Voldemort knows not has already been fulfilled. The way Dumbledore sees it, Voldemort *can't* win. He's driven to confront Harry, and he can't beat him. So the nameless faceless lives that Dumbledore was talking about aren't the people who are going to be killed if Voldemort wins. They're the people who are going to die because Harry has not yet taken up the mantle of the Chosen One. "It's only when one of those nameless people turns out to be Sirius that Dumbledore finds it in his heart to tell Harry the truth. "Now, Snape told the prophecy to Voldemort not considering that nameless faceless people would die. We can't be too hard on him for that, because Dumbledore made the same mistake, though with more excuse as he did it because he loved Harry, not for any lesser reward. "But the magical bond has to be important somehow," said Neri. "Ee-yes, but this idea that being involved in the death of a person you owe a life debt to would kill you? I mean Pettigrew's got to know that, and he doesn't act like Harry's death is going to be the end of him, does he? Very proud and happy with his new silver hand, he is. Not anxious at all." "Well done," said Faith. "See what happens when you get beyond canon?" "But Neri could be almost right," said Pippin. "What if it doesn't kill you. What if it just...splits your soul? It's just the sort of magic Voldemort ignores because he doesn't understand the value of an intact soul." "So when James died, Snape's soul was split?" Neri gasped. "Got it in one," said Pippin. ""Now he's desperately trying to save Harry because Dumbledore's told him it will help heal the tear in his soul. But it doesn't stop him from being an absolute !@#$ to Harry otherwise. In fact it makes it easier." "Still doesn't explain why he took the vow," muttered Neri. Pippin shrugs. "DDM!Snape has a good reason to take the vow, because DDM!Snape would sacrifice his life for others. If Snape would rather die than kill Dumbledore anyway, he had nothing to lose. How could he explain to Bella and Narcissa, much less Voldemort, why he would risk his life to watch over Draco and protect him as he attempts to carry out his task, but not to see it done if Draco fails? He might as well spit in Voldemort's eye and declare himself Dumbledore's man through and through. "(And I do hope to see that someday. I really do. But it will likely be the end of him.)" Neri pouted. "I suppose I can't interest you in an ACID POP?" Pippin shrugged. "They're okay. A little too sour for my taste, but you can't have everything, after all." Pippin referring everyone upthread to Neri's excellent notes From coverton at netscape.com Tue Dec 20 14:43:34 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:43:34 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Another Curse-Breaker In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000e01c60573$c7a009d0$425a97ac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145042 Brothergib wrote: > Well, i've said it before, but I think Snape's role is to find and > destroy as many Horcruxes as possible. He should have gained > Voldemort's confidence after the scene at the 'Tower' and may > therefore get this information from Voldemort directly. If you think Snape's job is to destroy as many Horcruxes as he can, then why did he kill Dumbledore? Why didn't he help Dumbledore find where they were? Your fellow member, Corey From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Dec 20 16:08:49 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:08:49 -0000 Subject: Another Curse-Breaker In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145043 > Ceridwen: > I think the necklace was taken to him because he's this year's DADA > teacher. In CoS, Lockhart is told that his time has come (to shine) > when Ginny is taken into the Chamber. He's the DADA teacher, it's > his job. Potioncat: But, Snape doesn't break the curse he begins emergency healing treatment for the injuries caused by the cursed necklace. In my mind, breaking the curse would mean he un-cursed the necklace. But he may have had to see the necklace in order to know the treatment. It is Snape, not Pomfrey, who begins treatment for the two Dark Magic related injuries and Snape whom DD seems to want for the third case. I actually think it's interesting that Pomfrey wouldn't have the knowledge to treat the Dark Magic inflicted curses. But that may be the difference between a Mediwitch and a Healer. Healer's have to study DADA as well. > Ceridwen: > Unlike Lockhart, who wasn't as excited about shining as one would > have thought given his bragging and his excellent hair and teeth, > Snape knows his subject. Defending against the Dark Arts would > include knowing how to break a curse on a Dark object. I'd think > that would be advanced knowledge, but a teacher *ought* to know it. > > Incidentally, if I'm correct, that means that Lupin would, at least > in theory, be able to break a curse as well. Potioncat: I would think it would be desirable that a DADA teacher know how to break Dark Curses and defend against them. Pomfrey did comment that Lupin at knew the treatment for a dementor attack. Since the DADA job was jinxed and hard to fill, it's pretty obvious that not all DADA teachers were fully qualified. As far as breaking the horcruxes, that would be exceptionally advanced magic. DD doesn't seem to have included Snape in the attempt to destroy horcruxes. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Dec 20 16:21:23 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:21:23 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145044 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" > wrote: > > > > > Pippin: > > > > Considering the evidence, I'd say poisoning was a reasonable > > alternative, not just a possible one. Maybe not as likely as > > AK. But likelihood is not the standard of proof. > > > ROFL! Poisoning a "reasonable" explanation? I don't see how. > Given that reasonable standards are defined by "man-on-the-street," > anyway. I don't think you would be able to find many men (or women) > on the street who would find poisoning a "reasonable" explanation > for Dumbledore's death. Pippin: ROTFLMAO! You're further under the spell of Rowling's words than I imagined if you think that the man (or woman) on the street would believe that pointing a stick at someone and saying anything whatever is a more likely explanation for a death than poison! Pippin From agdisney at msn.com Tue Dec 20 16:20:33 2005 From: agdisney at msn.com (Andrea Grevera) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:20:33 -0500 Subject: Umbridge a DE? (was: Wizard Logic) References: <000c01c6052d$9a2ee6b0$4e36a3ac@Overton> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145045 Corey: > Does anyone think Umbridge just might be a death eater? I > know she doesn't have the Mark but maybe Voldemort didn't > put it on her to throw people off. Just a thought. Andie: Do we know for sure that Umbridge doesn't have the Dark Mark? I don't remember her sleeves being pushed up to show her arms. She seems like a likely character to be a DE. Maybe the mark is somewhere on her that is normally covered with clothes. Just a thought. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 17:01:53 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:01:53 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145046 "lupinlore" wrote: > Actually, likelihood does figure strongly into standards of proof, > as likelihood is largely what standards of "reasonableness" are > based on. If you see someone hit with an AK and die, what is the > reasonable explanation of his death? The AK. If you see someone > hit with an AK and die, and are then told that said person had > recently ingested a liquid of unknown composition with evident > deleterious effects of unknown severity and duration, what is the > reasonable explanation of his death? The AK. Theorizing that the > person may have been actually already dead from the potion, etc., is > imagining a scenario that is possible but highly unlikely and > therefore not a reasonable explanation (i.e. not enough to establish > a reasonable doubt as to the cause of death, given the evidence). zgirnius: IF we were discussing a real-life murder, I would agree that Snape should become the leading suspect based on the eye-witness testimony. Tracking him down, putting him in custody, and having some long conversations with him would be the first priority of the police. However, the usual process we in real life expect is an actual investigation of all the circumstances surrounding a major crime like a murder. A thorough autopsy would also be done on the body. A reason for Dumbledore's weakened state would be sought. If it were found to be the result of a substance, lethal or otherwise, that Dumbledore had recently ingested, additional investigation would certainly be focused on how Dumbledore came to drink it. Lines of investigation that would need to be followed would include: 1) probable cause of death based on the examination of the body to eliminate the (laughably unlikely, in your view) possibility that the substance, not the curse, was the cause of death. This would be carried out by an experienced forensic pathologist with a lab full of fancy equipment, not an underaged teenager with no expertise on the front lawn. And 2) investigating the possibility of a conspiracy. After all, WE know Harry is a fundamentally good person who loves and respects Dumbledore. But looking objectively at the facts, Harry disappeared with Dumbledore to an unknown location for an unknown purpose that very night, which he refuses to discuss with the authorities (Scrimgeour, to be precise). That day Dumbledore appeared in perfect health. But upon their return together (observed by a witness) Dumbledore appeared ill/weakened/poisoned. It is this circumstance that made the AK possible. There is a decent circumstantial case that Harry was an accomplice in the murder, which would only be strengthened if an examination of DD revealed he had ingested a dangerous substance that same evening. All that has happened in the 'Dumbledore Murder Investigation' as far as we know is Step 1. Noone is interested in figuring out what was wrong with Dumbledore BEFORE the AK, and noone has checked his body carefully. Oh, and apparently the body may now have been cremated. I agree that Dumbledore expiring of the potion just after Snape enters the Tower is unlikely. Not in the sense that I think it is unlikely he was slowly dying of a poison, I think JKR left PLENTY of indications for that possibility. But in the sense that dying of a slow-acting poison at any single moment in time if of course not likely. However, the universe that she has created has magic which plays havoc with probabilities. (The Felix Felicis, introduced in this same book being a prime example.) I personally find it likely that the DADA curse is another such device. We have already seen this in PoA, which despite its highly contrived plot and timing is the most widely admired novel in the series. WHY, oh WHY, did all the fateful events in the Shack have to happen on the night of a full moon? I mean, there are 30 days in a lunar cycle. Is that LIKELY??! No, of course not (1 in 30 chance...), but it is certainly the timing which put Lupin, the then DADA instructor, in the worst imaginable position. The plot external explanation-it had to happen that way for the story to happen. The plot-internal explanation-it was the DADA curse, 'getting' Lupin. Likewise: why did Draco succeed in his cabinet repairs THE VERY NIGHT Dumbledore decided to go on a Horcrux hunt? Is that LIKELY? No! If he had not, there would not be a story, at least not the rather dramatic one we have. But, story-internally, it was the DADA curse. I personally would have no problem with extending this to unfortunate timing of Dumbledore's death. > lupinlore: > Yes, I do have to admit that should most commonly discussed DDM! > Snape scenarios come to pass I would probably expire of CRUPS > (Contrived, Ridiculous, Unbelievable Plot Syndrome). The proximate > cause of death is asphyxiation due to uncontrollable derisive > laughter. zgirnius: Hopefully I am not contributing to such a sudden and painful death on your part... From coverton at netscape.com Tue Dec 20 16:56:42 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:56:42 -0600 Subject: Umbridge a DE? (was: Wizard Logic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c60586$5e1cf370$119697ac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145047 Hi to all list members. Corey here. Andy brings up a great point about Umbridge being a death eater. Maybe the mark is hidden under her clothes. I found it kind of interesting that she didn't show up in the HBP book till Dumbledore's funeral. Your fellow member, Corey From coverton at netscape.com Tue Dec 20 17:33:36 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:33:36 -0600 Subject: Your favorite house elf? Message-ID: <000001c6058b$88c3bc80$119697ac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145048 Hi List members, Corey again. I just want to know who might some people on the list think is their favorite house elf? For me it was Winky. I felt kind of sorry for her and if it wasn't for Winky, Hermione would not have started spew. Your fellow member Corey, signing off for now. From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Tue Dec 20 17:49:32 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:49:32 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051220174932.50641.qmail@web86206.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145049 --- lupinlore wrote: > ROFL! Poisoning a "reasonable" explanation? I > don't see how. > Given that reasonable standards are defined by > "man-on-the-street," > anyway. I don't think you would be able to find > many men (or women) > on the street who would find poisoning a > "reasonable" explanation > for Dumbledore's death. > I think that Alice was summarising opinions of "men-on-the-street", when she said (in the first chapter of Wonderland) : "... if you drink much from a bottle marked "poison," it is almost certain to disagree with you, sooner or later." How gullible one needs to be to believe that the most evil wizard wanting to protect his most valuable posession would put anything less than a deadly poison in that basin? Oh well, Harry will believe anything if it allows him to stay in denial. :-) Irene ___________________________________________________________ NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/ From dossett at lds.net Tue Dec 20 17:51:22 2005 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:51:22 -0000 Subject: The Twins In-Reply-To: <007601c6051b$210ec5f0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145050 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > > Something I've been meaning to put forth is that I think Fred and George are > going to > be highly useful in Book 7. There seem to have been many hints dropped in > several of > the books about how despite their playful goofy natures, these guys can do > some > seriously good and inventive magic. I really expect them to come up with > something > important for Book 7. Does anyone else feel this way? > > kchuplis > > > Sherry > actually, i've been thinking about that recently, too. i've been trying to > reread HBP. i tend to only go so far and then come to a screeching halt, > since i know what is coming. Same reaction I have to OOTP. But anyway, > i've been marveling at the talent the twins must have. how on earth did > they do so badly on their OWLS? All their products show great skill in > things like charms, transfiguration and even potions. of course, there have > been a lot of brilliant people and great inventors who were not educated in > terms of someone like Hermione would consider being educated. They do think > outside the box, and I think they must really be quite brilliant. > > Sherry It's also something I've thought about: what were the three OWLs they got? Has to be three of these: Charms, Potions, DADA, or Transfiguration! ~Pat From artino2 at buckeye-express.com Tue Dec 20 17:46:51 2005 From: artino2 at buckeye-express.com (Donna) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 12:46:51 -0500 Subject: Your favorite house elf? References: <000001c6058b$88c3bc80$119697ac@Overton> Message-ID: <00b601c6058d$5c1b52e0$6400a8c0@Donna> No: HPFGUIDX 145051 Corey wrote: > I just want to know who might some people on the list think > is their favorite house elf? For me it was Winky. I felt > kind of sorry for her and if it wasn't for Winky, Hermione > would not have started spew. Winky is my favorite too (we even named our new kitty Winky after her) and I was so upset that she was NOT in the GOF movie. I hope they put Kreacher in the next one as I'd love to see what he looks like, lol. "Donna" From coverton at netscape.com Tue Dec 20 18:31:41 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 12:31:41 -0600 Subject: Your favorite house elf? In-Reply-To: <00b601c6058d$5c1b52e0$6400a8c0@Donna> Message-ID: <000001c60593$a63bdbf0$98639cac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145052 Hi list members, Corey again. Heard that Winky wasn't in the GoF movie from people who saw it. I definitely didn't like Kreacher. He was not a very nice elf. Would hate to have him over for Christmas. Your fellow member, Corey From starjackson1 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 18:40:13 2005 From: starjackson1 at yahoo.com (starjackson1) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:40:13 -0000 Subject: Ginny's Role in Book 7 (was: Re: Four ponderings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145053 > h2so3f wrote: > > It isn't so much that Ginny had changed as Harry finally > > noticing her. > > Hickengruendler: > I can't really point to the exact reason, why I think > so, but I know that Ginny's development did not ring true > for me and still doesn't. One reason might be, that some > explanations for her behaviour are simply impossible (secret > Quidditch training), another one that JKR overdid it to make > Ginny seem like the best thing ever for Harry (though that's > rather a problem of HBP, IMO) or that most of Ginny's > development was indeed only told in retrospective. "starjackson1": Actually, Ginny's personality "change" (if it can be called that) was explained in HBP - Ginny told Harry something to the effect that Hermione had told her just to relax, and be herself and everything would fall into place with Harry. So that is just what Ginny did! More of her personality came through when she wasn't tippy toeing around Harry. And Harry started to notice her when she quit playing the love-struck younger sister of his best friend. When I go home tonight I'll find the chapter and page where that conversation is! From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Dec 20 19:53:39 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:53:39 -0000 Subject: Another Curse-Breaker In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145054 Potioncat: > But, Snape doesn't break the curse he begins emergency healing > treatment for the injuries caused by the cursed necklace. In my mind, > breaking the curse would mean he un-cursed the necklace. But he may > have had to see the necklace in order to know the treatment. Ceridwen: Grr! Snagged by a technicality! But, I'm the one who notices the store hours sign, and not the huge 'OPEN' sign above them. Potioncat: > It is Snape, not Pomfrey, who begins treatment for the two Dark Magic > related injuries and Snape whom DD seems to want for the third case. > I actually think it's interesting that Pomfrey wouldn't have the > knowledge to treat the Dark Magic inflicted curses. But that may be > the difference between a Mediwitch and a Healer. Healer's have to > study DADA as well. Ceridwen: And, Snape started healing Draco after the Sectumsempra incident, which he labeled as Dark. Maybe DADA involves some forms of healing, then, of a very specialized nature? Could Madam Pomphrey not have been able to begin this healing, either? Or was it purely emergency measures, as was obviously needed? Potioncat: > I would think it would be desirable that a DADA teacher know how to > break Dark Curses and defend against them. Pomfrey did comment that > Lupin at knew the treatment for a dementor attack. Since the DADA job > was jinxed and hard to fill, it's pretty obvious that not all DADA > teachers were fully qualified. As far as breaking the horcruxes, that > would be exceptionally advanced magic. DD doesn't seem to have > included Snape in the attempt to destroy horcruxes. Ceridwen: At first, I read this to mean that if a DADA teacher was competent, he or she would have been able to break the curse on the position. Reading it again, I see that you're saying that they've pretty much reached the dregs, or people to whom it doesn't matter if the position seems to spit teachers like watermellon seeds. Like Lupin, who needed the job, or Snape, who either desperately wanted it or was ordered by LV to take it (or both). Or Umbridge, who saw it as a foot inside the school. And so on. You do wonder why Dumbledore excludes Snape from the horcrux hunt. I can see why he would involve Harry, since that's Harry's mission, and Harry was more successful at destroying the one he did destroy, which may or may not mean that he has a talent in that direction. Maybe not all Dark Curses are equal. If they were, wouldn't someone have been able to break the curse on the DADA position before now? It would be a simple matter for the school to bring in a professonal curse breaker, wouldn't it? Unless there was something special about LV's curse. Maybe the same sort of exceptionally advanced magic as the horcruxes? He would have been at least somewhat familiar with such magic by the time he placed the curse. I'm just trying to get around the idea of Bill Weasley being a curse breaker, so there are such people, and the curses on things like the opal necklace, the horcruxes, and the DADA position that can't seem to be un-cursed. The ancient Egyptians were no sluggards when it came to curses, according to all the hype in and out of HP. Why isn't there someone who can lift these curses? Makes me wonder. But, back to your point, Snape (or Lupin, or Bill) would be logical choices to help with the horcruxes due to their more advanced knowledge. I think Dumbledore didn't include them because of the secrecy which needs to be maintained so LV doesn't know what's going on. The fewer, the better in this case! I do think Snape knew about the ring being a horcrux, because as you said, he would need to know the magic involved in the injury (and may probably have recognized it anyway, as a DADA expert), in order to begin the healing or at least stop the spread of the curse. Heck. The more I think about it, the curiouser and curiouser it gets. Ceridwen. "Don't call me Alice". ;) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 20 20:21:56 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:21:56 -0000 Subject: The Twins In-Reply-To: <007601c6051b$210ec5f0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145055 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > > Something I've been meaning to put forth is that I think Fred and George are > going to > be highly useful in Book 7. There seem to have been many hints dropped in > several of > the books about how despite their playful goofy natures, these guys can do > some > seriously good and inventive magic. I really expect them to come up with > something > important for Book 7. Does anyone else feel this way? > > kchuplis > > > Sherry > actually, i've been thinking about that recently, too. i've been trying to > reread HBP. i tend to only go so far and then come to a screeching halt, > since i know what is coming. Same reaction I have to OOTP. But anyway, > i've been marveling at the talent the twins must have. how on earth did > they do so badly on their OWLS? All their products show great skill in > things like charms, transfiguration and even potions. of course, there have > been a lot of brilliant people and great inventors who were not educated in > terms of someone like Hermione would consider being educated. They do think > outside the box, and I think they must really be quite brilliant. Geoff: I have to say that there are times when I become very suspicious of the twins. I fear that their approach to things is often very amoral; they do not seem to worry about consequences, either to themselves or other people. When they indulge in ridicule, whether it is deserved or not, it is often not intended to be funny (except to them perhaps) but to be demeaning or hurtful. I know that it is tradition for brothers to be nasty to each other but they really set out to embarrass both Ron and Percy as often and as deeply as they can and, also, they are plain rude to their mother when we first see them at the station in PS. I am also concerned about this disinterest about consequences with their "experiments". What would have happened to Dudley if Arthur Weasley had not been on hand at the beginning of GOF? And the trials of their various joke sweets in OOTP? They were prepared to bribe the younger, impressionable students into trying out their inventions and the possibility of side effects didn't seem to worry them. Maybe at this point in time, we can shrug off their antics as teenage high spirits but I do can see them letting things get way out of hand at a more serious level if they do not learn to self-regulate what they are doing in these areas. I shall retire quietly behind the scenery while the GFFC (Gred and Forge Fan Club) members match by holding things they wish to throw at me..... From va32h at comcast.net Tue Dec 20 20:32:54 2005 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:32:54 -0000 Subject: Umbridge a DE? (was: Wizard Logic) In-Reply-To: <000001c60586$5e1cf370$119697ac@Overton> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145056 No, I don't think Umbridge is a Death Eater. Her purpose is to show us, as Sirius told Harry, that the world isn't divided into good guys and Death Eaters. That's an important theme in the series. Umbridge is sadistic, vile, and cruel, but no Death Eater. va32h, who thinks that this theme would be played out better if JKR showed us a friendly and cheerful Death Eater for comparison. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Dec 20 21:14:50 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:14:50 -0000 Subject: Comparing the tower and graveyard (Re: Tower Scene from fantasy...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145057 Jen previous: > Instead of using the life-force of others for his own benefit as > Voldemort does by taking blood & demanding flesh, Dumbledore is the > giver of life in many ways, symbolized by his second chances. > To me the possibility then arises that if Voldemort used old Dark > Magic to be resurrected and possibly weakened himself in the > process, Dumbledore might have used ancient magic in his death and > thus conferred some type of strength to a living being or beings. > Orna: > It's interesting, this theory ? There are some mirror?components > in this scene, compared with the GoF resurrection one: > > There are DE around - watching > Harry is unable to move > Snape as DD's servant has some treachery traits ? in his past > (some think in his present), like Wormtail being Voldemort's > servant ? but under (former, future?) obligation to Harry. > Draco is a spare fellow student ? greatly endangered by the scene. > > In contradiction to GoF ? the "spare" student is spared and saved > by DD's servant, and not killed. > The servant kills DD, and doesn't resurrect him > Harry is forced not to intervene, thereby sparing his blood. Jen: I didn't analyze the two scenes together, but you're right there's more than just the juxtaposition of Voldemort and Dumbledore. The 'resurrection' taking place in a graveyard and the 'murder' taking place on the tallest tower could have symbolic significance as well. It seems at least possible both scenes will turn out to be other than how they appeared to Harry. Dumbledore's gleam indicated that the graveyard meant more than just what Harry's eyes observed. Another contrast: Dumbledore lost his wand when he froze Harry to save him. Voldemort lost use of his wand during Priori Incantatem as he attempted to kill Harry. Orna: > The servants are very interesting- since they both seem to be very > torn about the part they are supposed to do "willfully". They are > both traitors in a way. Both of them changed sides, at least once, > and do have secret ties to the other side And both ended up in > Spinner's end. Jen: Snape and Wormtail were thrown together by the author for *some* reason. They could both be following the same path-- relunctantly serving sides they have no particular affinity for other than saving their own skins. If that's the case, then Wormtail's resurrection of Harry's enemy and Snape's murder of his greatest protector are meant to be seen in a similar fashion. I like the idea the two are in opposition though, which would fit if the tower scene and graveyard are opposite processes. Wormtail appears to resurrect Harry's enemy but his own unwilling flesh and Harry's blood undermine the event in some way. Snape appears to murder Harry's protector, but instead confers some benefit to him. Orna: > Another thing- Harry's hunt after Snape and Draco and their > disappearing beyond the walls, while DE are cursing him, and with > Snape escaping, has some muddled echo from GoF, when Harry runs > away from Voldemort, feels DE curses after him, hears Voldemort > shout ? he is to be left for him and gets away with Cedric and the > portkey, at the last second. Jen: The chase scenes had a very different feel for me. In one Harry was the hunted one in an unknown location, with no allies other than the ghostly memories. In the other, Harry is Home, surrounded by his friends and is the one trying to attack. In the graveyard chase Harry knew no one was going to help him and in fact, they were all attacking him. In the other, Snape was deflecting his curses and warning other DE's away. The two scenes seem to be in contrast. Orna: > I don't know where it leads to, but I found the comparison > interesting. I suppose, that's what made you suggest your theory? Jen: I do like the symmetry. The idea that Voldemort's rebirth and Dumbledore's death could be grounded in their opposing magical beliefs of dark magic and ancient magic is very appealing. It would be the conclusion of a long struggle between them over love magic vs. Voldemort's magic. I would love to see Dumbledore's sacrifice in death override Voldemort's violent resurrection in some way, showing that love magic is more powerful. That's what Harry is around for, though :). His love will prove to be the defense against Voldemort's magic. But I wouldn't mind if the tower had more of a story to it, as the graveyard surely does. Jen From jaxx189 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 21:27:09 2005 From: jaxx189 at yahoo.com (jaxx189) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:27:09 -0000 Subject: Can a Horcrux kill/destroy another Horcrux? and other questions . . . Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145058 Hi everyone! I rarely post but I have recently started the sixth book for the third time and while reading it, it made me ponder the question for those of you who believe Harry Potter is a horcrux, I have yet to make up my mind on the issue, can a horcrux destroy another horcrux. In book two the spirit of Voldemort obviously was trying to kill Harry Potter. If Harry is in fact a horcrux, can another element of Voldemort's own spirit or soul destroy or be used to destroy another element of itself? or is the diary horcrux merely on survival mode and its thinking is "either i destroy you or you destroy me"- a survival of the fittest mentality. also, at the begining of book six in Snape's house, while discussing Dumbledore's biggest weakness, he mentions that the wise wizard is getting old and "has since sustained a serious injury because his reactions are slower than they once were" (HBP pg. 31). Does Snape know about the horcruxes? Would Dumbledore have trusted him enough to tell him about them? If Snape is bad,evil, or a Voldy supporter, and was told about it then it is possible that he has told the dark lord and Harry's chance of survival are very grim and his death is in sight. if Snape is good, and Dumbledore was right all along in having faith in Snape, then Snape potentially knows the steps that need to be made in order to defeat He who must not be named!!! hope someone knows more insight to this than i do. sincerely john From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Dec 20 21:34:22 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:34:22 -0000 Subject: Umbridge a DE?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145059 "va32h" wrote: > Her purpose is to show us, as Sirius told > Harry, that the world isn't divided into > good guys and Death Eaters. I agree. > Umbridge is sadistic, vile, and cruel, > but no Death Eater. I agree. > this theme would be played out better if JKR > showed us a friendly and cheerful Death Eater > for comparison. I disagree. All Death Eaters are evil, but not all evil people are Death Eaters. Eggplant From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Dec 20 21:37:01 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:37:01 -0000 Subject: The Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145060 > Geoff: > > Maybe at this point in time, we can shrug off their antics as teenage > high spirits but I do can see them letting things get way out of hand > at a more serious level if they do not learn to self-regulate what > they are doing in these areas. > > I shall retire quietly behind the scenery while the GFFC (Gred and > Forge Fan Club) members match by holding things they wish to throw at > me..... > Potioncat: The twins are one reason I sometimes remind myself that JKR and I may not be in complete agreement about...oh, life in general. She presents the twins as lovable, adorable teens. And I do think they are adorable. But they are mean. Very mean. And they are reckless to the point of being dangerous. They do have their nice moments too...but their behaviour raises a number of red flags. No wonder Molly fusses at them so much. Potioncat, also dodging items from the GFFC. From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Dec 20 22:09:31 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:09:31 -0000 Subject: The Twins/Umbridge a DE? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145061 > Potioncat: > The twins are one reason I sometimes remind myself that JKR and I may > not be in complete agreement about...oh, life in general. She > presents the twins as lovable, adorable teens. And I do think they > are adorable. But they are mean. Very mean. And they are reckless to > the point of being dangerous. They do have their nice moments > too...but their behaviour raises a number of red flags. No wonder > Molly fusses at them so much. > Magpie: There is one thing with the Twins I do wonder if it might happen, though it might not. In GoF I was really struck by what seemed like a very serious desire for money--Ron uncomfortably tells Harry that when he was hanging around them they had become very focused on it because they wanted to open their joke shop. He's saying that they really might be blackmailing someone (which they are). When Ron says something about it they shut him up by implying he's another Percy, which they know Ron is sensitive about. Harry gives them the money for their shop and so solves that problem, but I do wonder if this could come up later. The twins' shop is going strong now, they're dressing in gaudy and expensive clothes and having the salesclerk call them the 'Mr. Weasleys.' Their products are being bought by the Ministry and also help the DE plot. Ron has a throwaway line about speaking to the twins about who they sell to. Now, it could be that that's all there will be to it and this won't go anywhere, but I can't help but think it would be interesting to see the Twins' desire for money be a problem. I don't mean they'd become DEs, but the I'd love to see this temptation of theirs get a scary, showing that even now that they have money they still instinctually chase it and perhaps are in danger of valuing it over better things. I am just really drawn to this as being a sort of Shadow in the Weasley family. Percy is rejected for resenting Arthur for his own choices at work, and people often like to hold up the Weasleys as the "worthy poor" who simply value things other than money. Out of the 7 there's only 2 I can think of with no big connections to money. Ginny (Harry's ideal girl) seems to mirror back Harry's own thoughts about it (as usual, though perhaps as a girl she's had to deal less with hand-me-downs) and Charlie seems happy with his dragons. But of the others we've got often complaining and humiliated Ron, the blackmailing twins who can't wait to start a business and wear ostentatious clothes and Bill who appears to make his living robbing tombs for a bank. Like I said I don't think this is necessarily going to happen, but I'd be very interested in seeing Fred and George chase money into a frightening situation. The groundwork is there if Rowling wants to use it, anyway. It seems to fit perfectly with the surface presentation of the Weasleys as poor (due strictly to Dad's nobility!) but rich on love. > "va32h" wrote: > > this theme would be played out better if JKR > > showed us a friendly and cheerful Death Eater > > for comparison. > Eggplant> > I disagree. All Death Eaters are evil, but not all evil people are > Death Eaters. Magpie: I think va32h's point is that one can be friendly and cheerful and also evil. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 22:28:41 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:28:41 -0000 Subject: Friendly and cheerful DE WAS: Re: The Twins/Umbridge a DE? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145062 > > "va32h" wrote: this theme would be played out better if JKR showed us a friendly and cheerful Death Eater for comparison. > > > Eggplant> > I disagree. All Death Eaters are evil, but not all evil people are Death Eaters. > > Magpie: I think va32h's point is that one can be friendly and cheerful and >also evil. > Alla: Well, yes, that is how I also read Va32h point - BUT I think that it is VERY interesting that so far we had NOT seen friendly and cheerful DE in the series and I mean as in "real friendly" I interpret it as JKR treating "being nice to other people" as virtue and not assigning it to Death Eaters. Simplistic - maybe, but quite telling to me. JMO of course, Alla From djklaugh at comcast.net Tue Dec 20 22:47:41 2005 From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:47:41 -0000 Subject: The Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145063 (snip) > i've been marveling at the talent the twins must have. how on earth did > they do so badly on their OWLS? All their products show great skill in > things like charms, transfiguration and even potions. of course, there have > been a lot of brilliant people and great inventors who were not educated in > terms of someone like Hermione would consider being educated. They do think > outside the box, and I think they must really be quite brilliant. > > Sherry > It's also something I've thought about: what were the three OWLs > they got? Has to be three of these: Charms, Potions, DADA, or > Transfiguration! > > ~Pat Personally I can imagine Fred and George plotting ... how to get the most out of their Hogwarts education with the least amount of effort. I would imagine they both got OWLs in DADA but I wonder if they didn't each take OWLS in something else.... one went for potions, one for transfigurations, one for charms, and one for something else - maybe Care of Magical Creatures. I also think that either both of them (if the above theory is wrong) or the one who OWLed in potions, went on to do NEWTs Potions as well. I also suspect that as with many identical twins they have some level of psychic connection - such as telepathy - so what one twin learns the other knows also. Deb (aka djklaugh) who thinks that F & G are incredibly creative and wonders if St Mungos and the healers know about the cream they gave Hermione to get rid of her magical black eye.. and wonders what that stuff would do for Bill's werewolf bites. From AllieS426 at aol.com Tue Dec 20 22:54:22 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:54:22 -0000 Subject: Umbridge a DE? (was: Wizard Logic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145064 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Andrea Grevera" wrote: > > Andie: > Do we know for sure that Umbridge doesn't have the Dark Mark? > I don't remember her sleeves being pushed up to show her arms. > She seems like a likely character to be a DE. Maybe the mark is > somewhere on her that is normally covered with clothes. > Just a thought. > Allie: "Bend over, Dolores, I need to plant this somewhere that nobody will see it. When your Long-butt-cheek starts to burn, apparate by my side immediately." - little known quotes of Lord Voldemort I don't think she's a Death Eater, I think she's a whole other breed of vile... What was with the "foul kittens" that Harry always noticed in the paintings in her office? I wondered if they were going to appear again somewhere else, but nothing came of it. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 22:55:20 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:55:20 -0000 Subject: The Twins / Ron / Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145065 > >>Geoff: > > Maybe at this point in time, we can shrug off their antics as > > teenage high spirits but I do can see them letting things get > > way out of hand at a more serious level if they do not learn to > > self-regulate what they are doing in these areas. > > I shall retire quietly behind the scenery while the GFFC (Gred > > and Forge Fan Club) members match by holding things they wish to > > throw at me..... > >>Potioncat: > The twins are one reason I sometimes remind myself that JKR and I > may not be in complete agreement about...oh, life in general. She > presents the twins as lovable, adorable teens. And I do think they > are adorable. But they are mean. Very mean. And they are reckless > to the point of being dangerous. They do have their nice moments > too...but their behaviour raises a number of red flags. No wonder > Molly fusses at them so much. > > Potioncat, also dodging items from the GFFC. Betsy Hp: Can I join in? (I think we're enough to build a pretty big fort to protect against the slings and arrows of the GFFC. Then we can have s'mores! ) I think it's strange that two of the older businesses on Diagon Alley have been closed by either Death Eater attacks or threats (at least as it appears on the surface) and yet Fred and George, with their U-No-Poo signs are still in business and, you know, alive. There's a suggestion that they may be selling their battle merchandise to both sides. (Draco certainly benefited from their "back room" products.) Could they be war profiteers? Or worse? ::ominous music swells:: > >>meriaugust: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144982 > 5. > The twins' comments that Ron has told them a lot about > Ginny's relationships indicates that he is close with them, despite > the fact that they live over the shop. Would you have expected the > three of them to be close due to all the torment they have given > him over the last sixteen years? Betsy Hp: Does this mean Fred and George are close to Ron or does it mean the twins use him as their information source? Ron is generally pretty intimidated by the twins. He hates confronting them (refuses to do it a few times in OotP, IIRC), and I think he hates refusing them. If they asked him about Ginny, he'd tell them. But their overall relationship with Ron seems awfully confrontational. When Ron is three and Fred is five or six, Fred turns Ron's teddy bear into a spider using the accidental magic of children, which indicates a pretty large surge of rather negative emotion, I'd think. Around that same age, maybe a little older, Fred bludgeons Ron's pet to death. And both Fred and George try and put Ron under a Unbreakable Vow, which would mean Ron's death if he broke whatever they were making him vow. By the time Ron is at school, he's pretty good at submitting to the twins, or at least staying out of their way, and they take most of their aggression out on Percy. But I don't sense any real closeness there. Ron is a few steps away from becoming their enemy, and I think he knows it and does what he can to keep that from occuring. Actually, I think there's a schism running through the Weasley family, with Arthur, Ron and Percy on one side, and Molly, the twins, and now, unfortunately, Ginny, on the other. (I've no idea where Bill or Charlie fall. They may do their best to remain uninvolved.) It's not a horribly destructive schism for the most part. Molly and Arthur seem to have grown comfortable with it. But I think it's what caused them to lose Percy, and I think it's what caused the twins to grow up so wild. [Some good essays on the Weasley family can be found at Redhen Publications. Though I've not read the revised versions yet (makes note to do so), they've influenced my thinking, so similar notes may have been struck. http://www.redhen-publications.com/Weasleys.html http://www.redhen-publications.com/Molly.html http://www.redhen-publications.com/PercyandMama.html ] Betsy Hp (who also thinks there's a similarity between the Weasleys and the Bennetts of "Pride and Prejudice" fame) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 23:31:31 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:31:31 -0000 Subject: Another Curse-Breaker - Random Thoughts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145066 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > ...edited... > > Ceridwen: > > > Ceridwen: > At first, I read this to mean that if a DADA teacher was > competent, he or she would have been able to break the curse > on the position. Reading it again, I see that you're saying > that they've pretty much reached the dregs, ... > > You do wonder why Dumbledore excludes Snape from the horcrux > hunt. I can see why he would involve Harry, since that's Harry's > mission, and Harry was more successful at destroying the one he > did destroy, which may or may not mean that he has a talent in > that direction. > bboyminn: We know that Snape helped Dumbledore after he returned from retrieving and destorying the Gaunt/Slytherin Ring. I have to believe that Snape has some knowledge of what Dumbledore is doing. But how much? That is the big question. Dumbledore seems to consistently only tell people as much as HE needs them to know. I think that is mostly a matter of security, and the Order, teachers, and others accept that blindly because they have absolute trust in Dumbledore. They are sure that Dumbledore has a plan and a purpose even if he doesn't tell them. However, it they did not have that level of trust in Dumbledore, I don't think they would be so willing to act on such scant information. So, I think, just do to their secondary interactions related to the Horcruxes, that Snape does have some general knowledge. I think he goes back to Voldemort's camp knowing what Voldemort's strength and his weaknesses are; relative to the Horcruxes. But I don't think he necessarily knows Dumbledore's plan; yes, his general plan, but not his specific plan. However, that doesn't really matter anymore. Dumbledore is gone, and now they (who ever 'they' may be) will have to create a plan of their own using whatever information they have available to them. So, I don't think the question is so much 'Does Snape know?', but 'How much does Snape know?'. > Ceridwen: > > Maybe not all Dark Curses are equal. If they were, wouldn't > someone have been able to break the curse on the DADA position > before now? It would be a simple matter for the school to bring > in a professonal curse breaker, wouldn't it? Unless there was > something special about LV's curse. ... bboyminn: I think one of the problems with the Curse on the DADA job is that it is so abstract. I can see the curse/jinx being put on it, but how do you remove it? What is a 'job' afteral? Can you hold it up in front of you? Can you contain it in a box? Can you lay in on a table and study it? It's easy to say break the curse on the 'job', but how do you find it, where do you direct your effort? I think this is the reason the curse/jinx has lasted so long, because it is next to impossible to find the 'object' that you are trying to uncurse. One suggestion I would make, and they may have thought of it ...or not. That is to get rid of the DADA position. So rather than a DADA professor, they would bring in a person to teach 'Applied Defensive Magical Theory' (ADMT), or Practical Defensive Magic (PDM), or eliminating all reference to 'defense', 'Applied Anti-Dark Arts Magic (AADAM - nice acronym), or whatever. Essentially, you are teaching the same subject, but not under the banner of 'Defense Against Dark Arts'. If it is truly the 'job' that is curse, then simply create a new and different job. Maybe that's a little to obvious to work, but it does bring up one of my many theories. Perhaps in the next book the position of DADA Professor will go unfilled. The individual teachers will take it in turn to teach the classes the basics necessary to complete their DADA OWL exams, and here's the cool part, they will invite Harry back to the school to manage the DA Club, to give both Harry and the Students the practical defensive experience they need in the real world. It wouldn't be a full time job, and actually not a job at all. He would simply come to the school periodically and with the assistance of the original DA Club members, train any interested student. So, he would still have time to pursue all the other things demanding his time, and he would have access to Hogwarts and their teachers as necessary resources. > Ceridwen: > >...edited > > I'm just trying to get around the idea of Bill Weasley being a > curse breaker, so there are such people, and the curses on > things like the opal necklace, the horcruxes, and the DADA > position that can't seem to be un-cursed. The ancient Egyptians > were no sluggards when it came to curses, according to all the > hype in and out of HP. Why isn't there someone who can lift > these curses? Makes me wonder. > bboyminn: There is one advantage to Bill's style of curse breaking, and that is time. Bill can go to Egypt and take many months to study a tomb and the curses on it. He would have examples of people who have been previously curse lying dead in the tomb. He would have time to look for the magical source of a specific curse, and he would probably have a team of other curse breakers working with him. That quite different from trying to break the curse on something as abstract as a 'job'. > Ceridwen: > > But, back to your point, Snape (or Lupin, or Bill) would be > logical choices to help with the horcruxes due to their more > advanced knowledge. I think Dumbledore didn't include them > because of the secrecy which needs to be maintained so LV > doesn't know what's going on. The fewer, the better in this case! > > I do think Snape knew about the ring being a horcrux, because as > you said, he would need to know the magic involved in the injury > (and may probably have recognized it anyway, as a DADA expert), > in order to begin the healing or at least stop the spread of the > curse. > > ... > > Ceridwen. "Don't call me Alice". ;) > bboyminn: I seriously hope Harry starts drawing on the resources that are available to him. I just don't see how he accomplish is task, unless he taps those resources. Further, I agree with you idea about Dumbledore and secrecy. Dumbledore is not known to give out any information that he doesn't feel a person specifically needs to do their job. Given that there are spies and people under Voldemort's control everywhere, Dumbledore would be foolish to take that risk. On the other hand, it was foolish of Dumbleodore not to give various people bits of information that could be combined into some semblance of his original grand plan. To keep that all to himself, really leaves the Order at a disadvantage right now. As far as Snape, as I said before, I think he had some general knowledge about the Horcruxes and used that general knowledge to reach logical conclusions about what Dumbledore was doing and how the Horcruxes fit into the plan. Since Dumbledore hasn't specifically given Snape the full information, Snape can deny that he knows, and within a certain context, be making a truthful statement. I think this context driven truth comes in very handy for a spy like Snape. Just a few random thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 23:33:34 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:33:34 -0000 Subject: Friendly and cheerful DE WAS: Re: The Twins/Umbridge a DE? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145067 > >>va32h: > > > this theme would be played out better if JKR showed us a > > > friendly and cheerful Death Eater for comparison. > >>Eggplant: > > > I disagree. All Death Eaters are evil, but not all evil people > > > are Death Eaters. > >>Magpie: > > I think va32h's point is that one can be friendly and cheerful > > and also evil. > >>Alla: > Well, yes, that is how I also read Va32h point - BUT I think that > it is VERY interesting that so far we had NOT seen friendly and > cheerful DE in the series and I mean as in "real friendly" > I interpret it as JKR treating "being nice to other people" as > virtue and not assigning it to Death Eaters. Simplistic - maybe, > but quite telling to me. Betsy Hp: What about Barty? Fake!Moody that is. He wasn't all that cheerful, (unless he was physically abusing the children of people he disliked) but he was friendly. In fact, I think Harry would have described him as quite a good friend up until the end of GoF. At the very least Fake!Moody was nice to Harry. Betsy Hp From jelly92784 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 00:23:57 2005 From: jelly92784 at yahoo.com (jelly92784) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:23:57 -0000 Subject: The Twins / Ron / Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145068 Betsy Hp: Actually, I think there's a schism running through the Weasley family, with Arthur, Ron and Percy on one side, and Molly, the twins, and now, unfortunately, Ginny, on the other. (I've no idea where Bill or Charlie fall. They may do their best to remain uninvolved.) It's not a horribly destructive schism for the most part. Molly and Arthur seem to have grown comfortable with it. But I think it's what caused them to lose Percy, and I think it's what caused the twins to grow up so wild. Janelle: A lot of people have been talking about the twins and their relationships to various members of the Weasley family. One that I've found disturbing is the idea of the twins always being opposed to Molly, always being mean to her, or unfair to her. Also, they are said to be always mean to Percy. I see the situation a little differently. When Percy separates himself from the family, Fred and George greatly increase their dislike for him. I think that a large part of this is the fact that his leaving hurt their mother so much. The twins are being mean towards Percy because they are feeling protective of their mother and dislike what Percy is putting her through. This to me shows that the twins are far from indifferent towards their mother. Yes, they've had their little fights with her, the same way any hyper-active, trouble-making kid would with their slightly-controlling mother. From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Wed Dec 21 01:02:37 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 01:02:37 -0000 Subject: Your favorite house elf? In-Reply-To: <000001c6058b$88c3bc80$119697ac@Overton> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145069 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Corey Overton" wrote: > > Hi List members, Corey again. I just want to know who might some > people on the list think is their favorite house elf? For me it > was Winky. I felt kind of sorry for her and if it wasn't for > Winky, Hermione would not have started spew. Kreacher is definitely my favorite elf. Even if he isn't fully original - he's clearly got a more than a little Gollum in his family tree - as far as plot dynamics, I prefer his passive-aggressive mutterings to Winky's cry-myself-a-river self-pity and Dobby's excessive eager-beaverness. Plus the fact that Harry is now his owner deliciously subverts the Amnesty-International-WeAreTheWorld-feel-good (about myself) liberalism which assumes only evil folk partake in ownership of sentient beings. I assume JKR feels the same toward Kreacher - how else could he escape penalty for his active complicity in his master Sirius' death? - CMC From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 01:07:55 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 01:07:55 -0000 Subject: Friendly and cheerful DE/The Twins and Ron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145070 > > >>Alla: > > Well, yes, that is how I also read Va32h point - BUT I think that > > it is VERY interesting that so far we had NOT seen friendly and > > cheerful DE in the series and I mean as in "real friendly" > > I interpret it as JKR treating "being nice to other people" as > > virtue and not assigning it to Death Eaters. Simplistic - maybe, > > but quite telling to me. > > Betsy Hp: > What about Barty? Fake!Moody that is. He wasn't all that cheerful, > (unless he was physically abusing the children of people he > disliked) but he was friendly. In fact, I think Harry would have > described him as quite a good friend up until the end of GoF. At > the very least Fake!Moody was nice to Harry. Alla: I am not sure if Va32h meant " real friendly" DE, but I certainly did. So, no I don't think that Barty Jr. was friendly and nice to Harry, because as we found out he was participating in preparing his kidnapping and murder. Have we seen DE genuinely happy towards people, helping anybody for once? Have we ever heard Malfoy Sr. laugh? Not maliciously smile at Arthur, but laugh normally? Have we ever seen Bella show some kind of love towards Narcissa , actually scratch that, some argued that she showed it in Spinner's end, but even though I agree that her insane self was at the most normalcy at Spinner's End, I don't think that saying that if she had sons she would give them all to Dark Lord ( paraphrase) counts as showing love and caring towards her sister. Have we ever seen Bella showing normal Friendly feelings towards anybody else? Betsy Hp: And both Fred and George try and > put Ron under a Unbreakable Vow, which would mean Ron's death if he > broke whatever they were making him vow. Alla: Are you arguing that they wanted Ron to die? Betsy Hp: Ron is a few steps away from becoming their enemy, and I > think he knows it and does what he can to keep that from occuring. Alla: How do you know that Ron is about to become twins' enemy? JMO, Alla From kchuplis at alltel.net Wed Dec 21 01:32:11 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 01:32:11 -0000 Subject: The Twins / Ron / Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145071 > Janelle: A lot of people have been talking about the twins and their > relationships to various members of the Weasley family. One that I've > found disturbing is the idea of the twins always being opposed to > Molly, always being mean to her, or unfair to her. Also, they are > said to be always mean to Percy. I see the situation a little > differently. When Percy separates himself from the family, Fred and > George greatly increase their dislike for him. I think that a large > part of this is the fact that his leaving hurt their mother so much. I know that I sure don't see them as "mean" to Molly. They actually seem fairly devoted in their way, to me. They certainly respect her tongue lashings. They aren't confrontational when she lays into them for taking the car. Their tweaking of her at the station in PS/SS is just "twin joshing". I bet there isn't a pair out there that hasn't done that. I would certainly put Percy in his own little corner of the world and not an either side of any perceived Weasley schism. Percy is beyond vile and I don't believe that anything can excuse his ambitious little self. But then, I perceive the Weasley clan, overall, as about the most normal family we've seen in the wizarding world. kchuplis From kchuplis at alltel.net Tue Dec 20 21:01:53 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:01:53 -0000 Subject: The Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145072 Geoff Bannister wrote: > > When they indulge in ridicule, whether it is deserved or not, it is > often not intended to be funny (except to them perhaps) but to be > demeaning or hurtful. I know that it is tradition for brothers to be > nasty to each other but they really set out to embarrass both Ron and > Percy as often and as deeply as they can and, also, they are plain > rude to their mother when we first see them at the station in PS. > Maybe at this point in time, we can shrug off their antics as teenage > high spirits but I do can see them letting things get way out of hand > at a more serious level if they do not learn to self-regulate what > they are doing in these areas. To me, that is the nature of the born practical joker. I don't really find it funny either but the practical joker sure does. I know someone who can keep a practical joke going for weeks. To them it's hysterical. I guess my point was that Fred and George have been pointed out in very subtle ways as really being extraordinary (Flitwick even going so far as to keep part of the swamp in OoTP). They also learned a lesson about who they sell their stuff to in HBP. I wouldn't be surprised if they came up with some important bits of magic just for Harry and his gang (ala "Q" in Bond). kchuplis From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Wed Dec 21 02:15:24 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 03:15:24 +0100 Subject: The Twins / Ron / Weasleys References: Message-ID: <012f01c605d4$68213450$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 145073 kchuplis wrote: > I would certainly put Percy in his own little corner of the world and > not an either side > of any perceived Weasley schism. Percy is beyond vile and I don't > believe that anything can excuse his ambitious little self. Miles: I think that your judgement is way too harsh. Percy is in some ways the ideal son for Molly. He was a model student, prefect, Head Boy at Hogwarts. His ambition after his NEWTS was a career at the Ministry. At this point, Molly could take him as her husband and leave Arthur somewhere - Percy has all the career thinking that Arthur lacks in Molly's eyes. So, Percy the career wizard - Molly having christmas 365 days a year. But then - the split of the Weasley's with the Ministry. Molly chooses the side of Truth, and of Dumbledore. Percy chooses.... what he had learnt from his mother, his career. How often had he listened to discussions of his parents, Arthur defending the work he loves to do, Molly lamenting that he does not earn enough money and deliberately obstructs his career? Percy is his mother's boy. He is her boy, even if that means he has to seperate from his family and his mother. Kind of tragedy. > But then, > I perceive the Weasley clan, overall, as about the most normal family > we've seen in the wizarding world. Miles: Actually, they are the only wirzarding family we know from inside. So, yes, you are right, but... >From outside, we have seen some "normal" families at the Quidditch World Cup, and we met the parents of Cedric as well, who seemed to be a quite "normal" family as well. And the Malfoy's - I do not know many upperclass families, but I'd bet that there are not few families with a comparable combination of a cold father, a son longing for his respect and love, a mother torn between the coldness of her husband and the love to her son who wants to be like her husband, all united in arrogance towards all the mediocre families... Normal? Meaning common - yes. Meaning healthy - no. But are the Weasley's the isle of felicity that Harry wants to see in them? Definitely not. Miles From AllieS426 at aol.com Wed Dec 21 02:21:27 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:21:27 -0000 Subject: The Twins / Ron / Weasleys In-Reply-To: <012f01c605d4$68213450$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145074 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > >Percy chooses.... what he had learnt from his mother, his career. How often had he listened to discussions of his parents, Arthur defending the work he loves to do, Molly lamenting that he does not earn enough money and deliberately obstructs his career? > > I don't think Molly has blamed Arthur for not earning enough money. She yelled at him in CoS for bewitching the car, but only because that could get him into trouble. The first time she actually mentions blocking his career is at the end of GoF when she says that Arthur's love of Muggles is what has held him back all this time. I don't get the impression that she whines about the money or blames him for it. From AllieS426 at aol.com Wed Dec 21 02:23:37 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:23:37 -0000 Subject: repost The Twins / Ron / Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145075 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > > > >Percy chooses.... what he had learnt from his > mother, his career. How often had he listened to discussions of his > parents, > Arthur defending the work he loves to do, Molly lamenting that he does > not > earn enough money and deliberately obstructs his career? > > > > > > I don't think Molly has blamed Arthur for not earning enough money. > She yelled at him in CoS for bewitching the car, but only because that > could get him into trouble. The first time she actually mentions > blocking his career is at the end of GoF when she says that Arthur's > love of Muggles is what has held him back all this time. I don't get > the impression that she whines about the money or blames him for it. > Oops, sorry Elves, I forgot to include my name on my last post. Allie From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Dec 21 02:36:54 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:36:54 -0000 Subject: A Horcrux Hypothesis. Re: Can a Horcrux kill/destroy another Horcrux? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145076 John, wrote: > can a horcrux destroy > another horcrux. In book two the spirit of Voldemort obviously was > trying to kill Harry Potter. If Harry is in fact a horcrux, can > another element of Voldemort's own spirit or soul destroy or be used > to destroy another element of itself? or is the diary horcrux > merely on survival mode and its thinking is "either i destroy you or > you destroy me"- a survival of the fittest mentality. Valky: In answer to this question I would like to expound as simply and clearly as possible on my pet Horcrux theory - A 'How To' Guide to Destroying the Dark Lord's Horcruxes. To examine how a Horcrux is destroyed we call upon the first canon example - The Diary in the Chamber of Secrets. The destruction of this Horcrux seems at first straightforwardly and simply destruction, in essence and therefore in total. However, on further investigation there are very specific circumstances involved in this event. Some of these specifics are told to us and hinted at by Dumbledore - 1. The Diary was an extraordinary Horcrux because it was intended as a weapon as well. 2. It is logically most likely to be the *first* Horcrux created by Voldemort and hence may be inferior (in terms of it's magical protections) to the other Horcruxes he has made. But... clearly this was not enough information. Dumbledore took this information to the Gaunt House and used it to deduce how he must destroy the Ring Horcrux, it failed to produce the ideal results. Dumbledore lost his wand hand and almost, very nearly, his life. When Harry destroyed the Diary he came away unscathed by it, how did he do that? Dumbledore clearly made some valuable assumptions of how Harry destroyed the diary, but it does seem he missed something important or else he would be unscathed too, right? The important thing Dumbledore missed Here are some possibilities: 1. Harry destroyed the Diary *with* the Basilisk's Fang. The Basilisk belonged to Voldemort. 2. Harry is Voldemort's equal, marked such by Voldemort when he was an infant. 3. Voldemort was partially inhabiting the the life force of Ginny Weasley when Harry destroyed the Horcrux. Any one of these three factors in the successful destruction of the diary Horcrux may be the reason Harry was not cursed when he destroyed it. Which one, if any, that you decide matters most, I'd love to hear of, and why as well. OTOH my guess is that Dumbledore discovered all three, but took to his grave with him the answer to which one of these is the key, leaving us and Hermione of course, with the question. The hypothetical destruction of the ring Horcrux: Taking with him the knowledge that the Diary was a weapon and that it was LV's first Horcrux, Dumbledore attempted to destroy the Ring Horcrux at the Gaunt House. On these assumptions, Dumbledore prepared himself for greater protections to be on the ring Horcrux itself and as the Diary had been a weapon intended to stray into the hands of the unsuspecting, Dumbledore assumed that the ring Horcrux would not be an unusual kind of Horcrux/Weapon like the diary. He assumed that the unusual Horcrux in LV's collection had already been found, and there would not be another one. Dumbledore's assumption of greater protections was correct, the ring was difficult to retrieve, but since Dumbledore had prepared himself well, he managed to retrieve it. His assumption about it being just a horcrux, OTOH, was incorrect. Dumbledore discovered that *all* Voldemort's Horcruxes are ultimately weapons, but seconds too late to save himself. Dumbledore kept his sense long enough to get himself to someone with extraordinary and prodigious Dark Arts knowledge. Severus Snape. Snape confirmed for Dumbledore what DD had already guessed, Voldemort's ring Horcrux was indeed a weapon, just like the diary. There was no way to undo what had happened, all that could be done was to temporarily block the spread of the curse, confine it to DD's hand. Dumbledore went home to ponder again the circumstances of the diary's destruction and came up with the list I made above. For a long time he pondered the question, which one is the key, which of these things vanquishes Voldemort? After a few days of applying his massive brain power to the problem, he decided to leave nothing to chance and began writing Harry Potter a letter. Here is what I believe Dumbledore was thinking - 1. Harry destroyed the Diary *with* the Basilisk's Fang. The Basilisk belonged to Voldemort. Dumbledore decided to detsroy the weapon of the ring with Voldemorts own weapon. 2. Harry is Voldemort's equal, marked such by Voldemort when he was an infant. Dumbeldore decided that Harry must weild this weapon. 3. Voldemort was partially inhabiting the the life force of Ginny Weasley when Harry destroyed the Horcrux. Dumbledore hoped that what he and Snape had accomplished in containing Voldemort's weapon would be enough for this part to be reenacted efficiently. The scene was set for the ring's weapon to be destroyed. But Dumbledore knew this could not be enough. Harry would have to go on from there and destroy four more Horcruxes (as per DD 's best guess). Torn between the important task of destroying Voldemorts weapon and fulfilling his promise to Harry, Dumbledore's last and most important work began. Throughout the year, Dumbledore instructed Harry, trying to impart every important thing he knew and every important speculation he had made. Too late Harry realised how much he wanted to know, with time running out so fast many of his questions never got answered and the time came for the weapon to be destroyed all too quickly. Dumbledore took Harry to Voldemort's cave and ordered him to wield Voldemort's weapon. Harry reluctantly agreed and the job was done, he could sense it. Relieved that he had suceeded in solving the puzzle for Harry, Dumbledore died. The theory simplex: When Dumbledore tried to destroy the ring Horcrux it discharged Voldemort's weapon on him - possession. Dumbledore sought Snapes help to contain the possessing soul magic and Voldemorts ravenous life sucking soul in his wand hand. Dumbledore figured out that he had been mistaken in his assumptions about Voldemorts horcruxes and vowed to leave nothing to chance. He destroyed this piece of Voldemort's soul by reenacting the factors in the COS. 1. Harry destroys the Horcrux which is also a weapon. 2. Harry uses Voldies own weapon to destroy it. 3. The Weapon has been discharged beforehand and is more vulnerable to the destruction. Any Questions. Valky From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 02:51:48 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:51:48 -0000 Subject: The Twins / Ron / Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145077 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Actually, I think there's a schism running through the Weasley > > family, with Arthur, Ron and Percy on one side, and Molly, the > > twins, and now, unfortunately, Ginny, on the other. > > > >>Janelle: > > Also, they are said to be always mean to Percy. I see the > situation a little differently. When Percy separates himself from > the family, Fred and George greatly increase their dislike for > him. I think that a large part of this is the fact that his > leaving hurt their mother so much. > Betsy Hp: The twins would probably say the gloves came off after Percy left. I'd say they decided to move from fists to knives. Because, yeah, the twins were definitely *mean* to Percy. They teased him mercilessly *before* Percy left. To such an extent Percy kept his girlfriend a secret from the entire family (as no other Weasley has done). To such an extent that not even Percy's workplace (not a summer job, the beginning of his career) was off limits. I think part of their motivation was resentment over Molly's constant praise for Percy. Because I do agree that the twins have a special bond with their mother. And so I also agree that making Molly cry was unforgivable to them. Only Fred and George are allowed to put their mother through hell. Actually, I think only Fred and George are allowed to receive *any* attention from Molly at all. Hence their dismal treatment of "perfect" Percy, over the years. > >>kchuplis: > I know that I sure don't see them as "mean" to Molly. They > actually seem fairly devoted in their way, to me. They certainly > respect her tongue lashings. > Betsy Hp: Respect? They are certainly *entertained* by Molly's high volume lectures, but respect? Wouldn't that require them actually *following* her orders? I agree that Fred and George love their mother, but I don't get the impression they think she has anything to say actually worth listening to. > >>Alla: > How do you know that Ron is about to become twins' enemy? Betsy Hp: Well, he might be becoming one *now*, what with his "talk to them about who they're selling to" comment in HBP. But I was more referring to them constantly pushing Ron down, making sure he knew that the twins were not to be messed with. And I also think that Ron really *does* have more in common with Percy than the twins, but the twins made sure that Ron never befriended Percy. Otherwise Ron would be treated similarly. And Ron, ignored by Molly, younger and smaller than the twins, not all that great a secret keeper, would get it a lot worse, I think, than Percy ever did. > >>kchuplis: > > They also learned a lesson about who they sell their stuff to in > HBP. > Betsy Hp: When did that particular lesson occur? I don't recall the twins even being confronted with the fact that some of their products ended up in Death Eater hands. > >>kchuplis: > > I would certainly put Percy in his own little corner of the world > and not an either side of any perceived Weasley schism. Percy is > beyond vile and I don't believe that anything can excuse his > ambitious little self. But then, I perceive the Weasley > clan, overall, as about the most normal family we've seen in the > wizarding world. Betsy Hp: Heh. Except for the vile little monster they managed to raise? The vile creature Molly loved ever so much? Any family will look pretty good if they can cherry pick which family members you judge them by. Percy was *not* created in a vacuum. He is what Molly and Arthur raised him to be. And, like a true Weasley, he took a strong stand for his principles when his back was against the wall. (It's interesting to me that Arthur was dead wrong in his assesment of Percy's worth to the Ministry. Percy has been seperated from his family for two years and for two administrations, and he's still there.) But Percy *is* like his father (and unlike his mother) in that he isn't overly aggressive. He will blow up if pushed hard enough, but he doesn't make noise for the sake of noise. Which is why I think Ron and Percy are more like their father, and Fred and George and Ginny are more like their mother. Betsy Hp (who clipped and cut from various posts in various orders in the making of this post) From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Dec 21 03:09:26 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:09:26 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43A8C766.4010404@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145078 lupinlore wrote: > Well, do we KNOW that John F. Kennedy died of a gunshot wound? Some > people say he was sick that day in Dallas. Maybe he had been > poisoned by orders of Lyndon Johnson and was collapsing even as > Oswald's shot hit him? Bart: There was no magic in JFK's world. Well, maybe the magic bullet... Bart From marilynpeake at cs.com Wed Dec 21 03:12:36 2005 From: marilynpeake at cs.com (Marilyn Peake) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 03:12:36 -0000 Subject: Ginny's Role in Book 7 (was: Re: Four ponderings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145079 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "starjackson1" wrote: >> Actually, Ginny's personality "change" (if it can be called that) > was explained in HBP - Ginny told Harry something to the effect > that Hermione had told her just to relax, and be herself and > everything would fall into place with Harry. Marilyn Peake writes: I think that that's exactly what happened to Ginny in the movie, and I remember that advice in the book. In the movie, Ginny seemed like a normal young teenager: coming into her own, recognizing more about her own personality, acting a little bit more grown up. All of that appeared to make her more comfortable around Harry. Best Wishes, Marilyn http://www.marilynpeake.com FREE "Online CD" ~ featuring Stargate SG-1 authors, other novelists, free poems, free short stories: http://www.webspin.org/fq/fantasticqueensland.html From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 03:16:35 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 03:16:35 -0000 Subject: The Twins / Ron / Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145080 > Betsy Hp: > I think part of their motivation was resentment over Molly's > constant praise for Percy. Because I do agree that the twins have a > special bond with their mother. And so I also agree that making > Molly cry was unforgivable to them. Only Fred and George are > allowed to put their mother through hell. Actually, I think only > Fred and George are allowed to receive *any* attention from Molly at > all. Hence their dismal treatment of "perfect" Percy, over the > years. Alla: I again would like to ask you for canon - no, not Molly's praising Percy, but ANY sign, hint even that twins were jealous of it. I am afraid I don't remember it at all, but of course my memory is far from perfect. > Betsy Hp: > Respect? They are certainly *entertained* by Molly's high volume > lectures, but respect? Wouldn't that require them actually > *following* her orders? I agree that Fred and George love their > mother, but I don't get the impression they think she has anything > to say actually worth listening to. Alla: Erm... Respect means following the orders? I think respect is appreciation of who the person is and twins say to Molly in HBP "Well, we find we appreciate you more and more, mum, now we're washing our own socks," said George, waving an airy hand. - p.339. > > >>Alla: > > How do you know that Ron is about to become twins' enemy? > > Betsy Hp: > Well, he might be becoming one *now*, what with his "talk to them > about who they're selling to" comment in HBP. Alla: Wait, wait. Are you saying that lecturing the person for their mistakes means that the other person is the enemy now? Then, I suppose Ron and Harry and Harry and Hermione and Hermione and Ron had become enemies long time ago. Hermione especially loves lecturing the boys, IMO. Dumbledore certainly lectured Harry for not putting his full attention into delivering Slughorn memory. Remus lectured Harry for sneaking into Hogsmeade in PoA. Anyways, no I disagree that this in any way hints to Ron becoming twins' enemy. Betsy Hp: > But I was more referring to them constantly pushing Ron down, making > sure he knew that the twins were not to be messed with. Alla: Oh, doing what many older brothers do, IMO. But I would love to see any other examples besides the one you gave above about Ron's becoming their enemy. I mean, it is certainly a valid speculation, IMO, but I personally see no support in the text to that line of argument. JMHO of course, Betsy Hp: And Ron, ignored by > Molly, younger and smaller than the twins, not all that great a > secret keeper, would get it a lot worse, I think, than Percy ever > did. Alla: Ron - a secret keeper??????? > Betsy Hp: > When did that particular lesson occur? I don't recall the twins > even being confronted with the fact that some of their products > ended up in Death Eater hands. Alla: Which one is the second product? > Betsy Hp: (It's > interesting to me that Arthur was dead wrong in his assessment of > Percy's worth to the Ministry. Percy has been separated from his > family for two years and for two administrations, and he's still > there.) Alla: It is interesting to me that NONE of those administrations seems to be the kind of administration which really cares about people and takes care of people and is trying to do the right thing. IMO of course. When decent Minister comes to power AND Percy is still there, then I would think that Percy being there shows that he is a worthy person. For now, IMO it gives VERY little credit to Percy that he is still there. Again, IMO. JMO, Alla From sydpad at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 03:18:42 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 03:18:42 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: <43A8C766.4010404@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145081 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > lupinlore wrote: > > Well, do we KNOW that John F. Kennedy died of a gunshot wound? Some > > people say he was sick that day in Dallas. Maybe he had been > > poisoned by orders of Lyndon Johnson and was collapsing even as > > Oswald's shot hit him? > > Bart: > There was no magic in JFK's world. Well, maybe the magic bullet... > > Bart > The JFK assassination also did not take place in the context of a twist-turny Agatha Christie mystery. If it did, I should say the ONLY certainty would be that he WASN'T killed by the lone gunman who apparently shot him! That said, IMO Snape fired the fatal shot on D-dore's orders; the timing would have to be comically on-the-nose for the Potion to have done it. But I'd be happy to entertain the theory that potion was in the PROCESS of killing him. --Sydney From marilynpeake at cs.com Wed Dec 21 03:19:33 2005 From: marilynpeake at cs.com (Marilyn Peake) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 03:19:33 -0000 Subject: The Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145082 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kchuplis" wrote: > > Something I've been meaning to put forth is that I think Fred and George are going to be highly useful in Book 7. There seem to have been many hints dropped in several of the books about how despite their playful goofy natures, these guys can do some seriously good and inventive magic. I really expect them to come up with something > important for Book 7. Does anyone else feel this way? > Marilyn Peake responds: That makes tremendous sense to me on several different levels. First of all, the twins left Hogwarts and established a successful business. Rather than becoming drop-out failures, they became successful when they did what they seemed born to do: set up a joke shop. If Harry leaves Hogwarts as he seems determined to do, he may seek out Fred and George. And, if Harry succeeds at defeating Voldemort and overcoming evil, then Harry will also have succceeded at accomplishing what he appears to have been born to do. Best Wishes, Marilyn http://www.marilynpeake.com FREE "Online CD" ~ featuring Stargate SG-1 authors, other novelists, free poems, free short stories: http://www.webspin.org/fq/fantasticqueensland.html From coverton at netscape.com Wed Dec 21 03:41:13 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:41:13 -0600 Subject: The Twins / Ron / Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c605e0$6af67df0$e50efea9@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145083 I don't think of the Twins as war profiteres. I think there just two people out to make money and have fun. They are being defiant of Lord Voldimort cause well they can. I think there very smart and I think they're realizing their dream of starting a joke shop and that's all they wanted to do. Corey From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 03:56:17 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 03:56:17 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145084 "Sydney" wrote: > That said, IMO Snape fired the fatal shot on D-dore's orders; the > timing would have to be comically on-the-nose for the Potion to have > done it. But I'd be happy to entertain the theory that potion was in > the PROCESS of killing him. zgirnius: I agree Snape probably 'fired the fatal shot'...however, I do want to mention something in connection to the timing of a death by poisoning. Snape came on to the scene and appeared to be weighing his options. He looked around, he approached Dumbledore, and 'gazed' at him. Then he made his decision. Why? It could be he just decided it was the best move, as discussed at length in earlier threads. Or he had a standing order from Dumbledore which these circumstances matched. Or perhaps Dumbledore communicated his order at the moment. OR...it could be that he realized Dumbledore had just died. Something he could conceivably see before any of the others present either due to his specialized knowledge of Dark Arts and Potions, or because of his Legilimency. And decided to exploit this opportunity to make himself seem the murderer. Which would dispell any suspicions Voldemort might have about his loyalty to Dumbledore, and deflect suspicion from the person who really caused the death. The death by poisoning just before the AK would not be a pure coincidence, as the AK would be 'inspired' by the death. From AllieS426 at aol.com Wed Dec 21 04:07:13 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:07:13 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145085 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > > OR...it could be that he realized Dumbledore had just died. Allie: Interesting, and I *think* you're the first to suggest that particular scenario. It leaves room for AnySide!Snape, possibly explains why Dumbledore was blasted off the tower (we don't know WHAT happens if the AK is directed at something that is already dead), and doesn't make Snape a murderer. Now I have to reread that scene... From kchuplis at alltel.net Wed Dec 21 04:08:38 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:08:38 -0000 Subject: The Twins / Ron / Weasleys In-Reply-To: <012f01c605d4$68213450$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145086 > > Miles: > I think that your judgement is way too harsh. kchuplis: Eek. I don't. He absolutely alienates himself from the entire family. Willingly. With knowing hurt. That's really low. Miles: > Percy is in some ways the ideal son for Molly. He was a model student, > prefect, Head Boy at Hogwarts. His ambition after his NEWTS was a career at > the Ministry. At this point, Molly could take him as her husband and leave > Arthur somewhere - Percy has all the career thinking that Arthur lacks in > Molly's eyes. kchuplis: Can someone point out cannon here? I've never had the impression Molly is ashamed of Arthur. His hobby of wizarding up muggle things makes her nuts, but I don't recall ever reading anything that suggests she doesn't think Arthur is ambitious enough. Miles: > So, Percy the career wizard - Molly having christmas 365 days a year. But > then - the split of the Weasley's with the Ministry. Molly chooses the side > of Truth, and of Dumbledore. Percy chooses.... what he had learnt from his > mother, his career. kchuplis Help me out here. The only thing I can remember her saying that is even close to endorsing Percy's behaviour is when she tells the boys that they could do with taking a page from Percy's book (CoS pg. 33). But that seems like more of a "mom" type statement and not a huge endorsement of Percy's ambition. Plus, that is way before Percy completely deserts the family. Miles: > But are the Weasley's the isle of felicity that Harry wants to see in them? > Definitely not. They are certainly the isle of felicity compared to the Dursley's but even to my eyes, they just seem like a family with fairly normal dynamics. Normal as in average. Normal as in like many families I know who have a generally decent relationship structure and affection shown in different ways and with some friction at times. kchuplis > From sydpad at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 04:17:37 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:17:37 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145087 > zgirnius: > I agree Snape probably 'fired the fatal shot'...however, I do want to > mention something in connection to the timing of a death by > poisoning. Snape came on to the scene and appeared to be weighing his > options. He looked around, he approached Dumbledore, and 'gazed' at > him. Then he made his decision. > > Why? It could be he just decided it was the best move, as discussed > at length in earlier threads. Or he had a standing order from > Dumbledore which these circumstances matched. Or perhaps Dumbledore > communicated his order at the moment. > > OR...it could be that he realized Dumbledore had just died. Sydney: For me it comes down to Dumbledore's pleading-- whatever he was asking Snape to do, I don't think he would have been PLEADING unless a) the situation was one that would be immediately resonant emotionally with Snape, and D-dore could anticipate Snape's response b) Dumbledore did not confidently expect Snape to do what D-dore was asking, in fact the pleading is described so very strongly that I would say D-dore was nearly sure that Snape WOULDN'T do what he was asking, and c) the consequences of Snape NOT complying with D-dore's pleading would be deeply bad The pleading intersects so very neatly with the Unbreakable Vow and all the other choreographed circumstances; so the interpretation of D-dore begging Snape to fullfill the Vow rather than dying himself slips in just like the missing piece of a jigsaw. Any other interpretation of that scene IMO requires a little bit of snipping and shoving a piece that doesn't quite fit. Harry actually being the one to kill D-dore with the poison would be an awesome piece of plotting but I don't think that's the one called for here. -- Sydney From aparnakam at hotmail.com Wed Dec 21 02:39:20 2005 From: aparnakam at hotmail.com (ravibaby1) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:39:20 -0000 Subject: who will be the next significant half-blood? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145088 This is my first time seeing this interest group. I hope this didn't come up earlier. >From the beginning of the HP books, there has been a clear lesson about intolerance and (for want of a better term) racism. The good characters are the most tolerant and embrace differences, while the bad ones are those who are most intolerant, race-proud, zenophobic (obviously LV, but Malfoys/DE's in general, Umbridge, Kreacher). In this context, the half-bloods are clearly significant. LV's power is probably mitigated by the fact that he hates his mud-blood father. Snape is clearly more proud of his full-blood origin. Harry has love for both his full-blood and mudblood parents, and his love may give him a stronger power (no self-hatred to motivate him or weaken him). Lily Potter, a mudblood, I think, is one of the most significant characters in the book, even though it's her death that starts it all. Now the mudblood in the center is Hermione, and she and Ron Weasley will likely have a half-blood heir. However, doubtful that this will happen in book 7. Who are the other half-bloods to note? Ravibaby1 From kchuplis at alltel.net Wed Dec 21 04:23:59 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:23:59 -0000 Subject: The Twins / Ron / Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145089 > > Betsy Hp: > The twins would probably say the gloves came off after Percy left. > I'd say they decided to move from fists to knives. Because, yeah, > the twins were definitely *mean* to Percy. They teased him > mercilessly *before* Percy left. To such an extent Percy kept his > girlfriend a secret from the entire family (as no other Weasley has > done). To such an extent that not even Percy's workplace (not a > summer job, the beginning of his career) was off limits. kchuplis: Percy can't stand any teasing apparently. What were the particularly *mean* things they did to Percy other than to tease him about wearing his Prefect's badge even during the summer. I mean, sorry but he begs for teasing with such behaviour. Betsy Hp: > I think part of their motivation was resentment over Molly's > constant praise for Percy. Because I do agree that the twins have a > special bond with their mother. And so I also agree that making > Molly cry was unforgivable to them. Only Fred and George are > allowed to put their mother through hell. Actually, I think only > Fred and George are allowed to receive *any* attention from Molly at > all. Hence their dismal treatment of "perfect" Percy, over the > years. Fred and George put their mother through *hell*? From my reading of it, they didn't do more than the wizarding version of what many boys do. Taking the car without permission, teasing syblings, not applying themselves to the best of their ability at school, being practical jokers. I just don't see where these boys have been excessively bad people. You make them sound totally evil and I just don't see it. I guess we come from different backgrounds. > > > >>kchuplis: > > I know that I sure don't see them as "mean" to Molly. They > > actually seem fairly devoted in their way, to me. They certainly > > respect her tongue lashings. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Respect? They are certainly *entertained* by Molly's high volume > lectures, but respect? Wouldn't that require them actually > *following* her orders? I agree that Fred and George love their > mother, but I don't get the impression they think she has anything > to say actually worth listening to. > Can you give me some instances of them doing something totally out of line and being cruel to Molly? They don't seem to give her lip or excuses. They back off. I'd like to see the family with children that are all perfect angels that do everything their mother wants them to, expecially in the teen years. > > >>Alla: > > How do you know that Ron is about to become twins' enemy? > > Betsy Hp: > Well, he might be becoming one *now*, what with his "talk to them > about who they're selling to" comment in HBP. > > But I was more referring to them constantly pushing Ron down, making > sure he knew that the twins were not to be messed with. And I also > think that Ron really *does* have more in common with Percy than the > twins, but the twins made sure that Ron never befriended Percy. > Otherwise Ron would be treated similarly. And Ron, ignored by > Molly, younger and smaller than the twins, not all that great a > secret keeper, would get it a lot worse, I think, than Percy ever > did. I don't see Ron as being scarred by George and Fred. He's got his own friends and definitely his own personality. The only thing he seems overly insecure about is quidditch playing and I know plenty of kids that have a hard time going into a sport where a sibling was extremely good. Many of the ones I know will purposely avoid the sport, even though they might do pretty well, just because they do not want to be compared. Ron even manages to over come that to at least try. I'm also not aware of Molly ignoring Ron. Where do you see this? > > > Percy was *not* created in a vacuum. He is what Molly and Arthur > raised him to be. And, like a true Weasley, he took a strong stand > for his principles when his back was against the wall. (It's > interesting to me that Arthur was dead wrong in his assesment of > Percy's worth to the Ministry. Percy has been seperated from his > family for two years and for two administrations, and he's still > there.) Well, since Percy's worth to the ministry is being a little toad-eating brown noser that would use his family just to allow the ministry to get to Harry, I guess I wouldn't be all thta happy with Percy either. I guess it does get you someplace in the government but it wouldn't make me very proud of my son. I guess you can call those "principles" - of a sort. kchuplis From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Dec 21 05:02:04 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:02:04 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Twins / Ron / Weasleys References: Message-ID: <01e101c605eb$b287de60$67b4400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 145090 > Alla: > > I again would like to ask you for canon - no, not Molly's praising > Percy, but ANY sign, hint even that twins were jealous of it. I am > afraid I don't remember it at all, but of course my memory is far > from perfect. Magpie: To see that I think we'd need the twins to announce they were jealous. Instead we're stuck just watching their dynamics which I think is far more complicated (as it is with most families) than just the bad guy and the good guy. In CoS Percy and the twins have a playfully antagonistic relationship, but it sours over the years and I don't think it's just a case of Percy being horrid and the twins trying to put him back in line. There's a lot of...stuff...going on there, imo. Molly sometimes praises Percy-like acheivement to the point of comically dissing the twins ("Who are me and George, next door neighbors?") but she also pays more attention to them than she does to the others because they're in trouble. I don't think it's a leap to see these things as related--siblings often grow up defining themselves against each other. I can easily see the twins and Percy as mirrors of each other: the twins know they drive Molly crazy but underneath they know they're loved for who they are. Percy knows he pleases Molly but underneath he doubts he's loved for who he is. The Twins do keep Ron in line by warning that he's like Percy and to me there seems to be some real bite to it. In GoF, when Ron begins to speak up against their doing anything like blackmail they tell him he's sounding like Percy and will be getting a Prefect badge soon. Ron quickly retreats and insists that he isn't Percy (who he himself seems to sort of fear as a role-model, comparing him to Barty Crouch Sr. throwing his son in jail for no good reason). When he gets a Prefect badge he's got all sorts of issues with it and I do think the twins' attitude in the past and then has something to do with it. > Alla: > > Oh, doing what many older brothers do, IMO. Kchuplis: Percy can't stand any teasing apparently. What were the particularly *mean* things they did to Percy other than to tease him about wearing his Prefect's badge even during the summer. I mean, sorry but he begs for teasing with such behaviour. Magpie: See but...how are those two povs helpful to understanding what's going on between them? I mean, there's a lot of stuff that's "normal" in that lots of siblings do it, but all sibling relationships are different and different people react differently to things. And that seems implied by "Percy can't stand teasing, apparently," followed by, "sorry, but he begs for teasing with such behavior." Doesn't that obviously set up a vicious cycle for Percy? Isn't that sort of the standard bullying pov? "Begs for it" really means "makes people want to do it," doesn't it? But that doesn't mean it's right to do it. When I read the Percy stuff especially starting in Book IV it's painful to me. It just seems like such a sad situation with Percy trying harder and harder and being more and more pompous and getting back more and more ridicule and dismissal. It's not that I don't understand the impulse there. When someone is begging for respect and attention (which is what Percy really wants) I understand the impulse to give him the opposite. But I still really see a vicious cycle--Percy's dramatic isolation from his family reads to me like Percy wanting something from his family. And I can't help but feel how he must have felt when he came home with an actual promotion, the one kind of thing he seems to be able to count on, and get told by his father (whom I think Percy had already begun to have problematic feelings about regarding work) that he's just a fool promoted as a pawn to spy on Arthur. I think Percy and Barty Crouch, Jr. are some bizarro twins/parallels with their father issues. None of this is "abnormal" in terms of the types of things that can happen in family or with siblings, but "normal" sibling relationships are often powderkegs. > Alla: > > It is interesting to me that NONE of those administrations seems to > be the kind of administration which really cares about people and > takes care of people and is trying to do the right thing. IMO of > course. Magpie: But here too I just feel like this is like arguing from the inside. It's part of the Weasley Family Story that Arthur is always trying to do the right thing and any time he gets passed over it's because of that. Percy is a good worker. This does, imo, get in the way of his doing the right thing, absolutely--he overidentifies with his workplace (rather than his family) and so sees whatever it does as correct. But just the same, he is a good worker and that would make him valuable to anyone--this is something that's not respected at all by anyone at home. He's just a joke, he's boring, they tell him to shut up, no one pays attention to him as he tries harder and harder to impress or talk about the things he finds interesting. He throws himself into a report on cauldron bottoms and keeping Crouch's schedule straight, etc. I don't think that this reflects all that well on Percy as a human being any more than the Twins creating great Love Potions is the proof of their being ethical people. But all the same he works hard (at stuff other people probably don't want to do) and follows the rules of his office. A promotion isn't surprising given that. Arthur got a promotion in HBP under the same Minister that keeps Percy in his job. Plenty of good bosses would have fired Arthur before Percy for his writing laws around his hobbies, his house full of contraband and his box seats to the World Cup earned by smoothing things over for Bagman. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 05:15:01 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 05:15:01 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145091 > Allie: > > Interesting, and I *think* you're the first to suggest that particular > scenario. It leaves room for AnySide!Snape, possibly explains why > Dumbledore was blasted off the tower (we don't know WHAT happens if the > AK is directed at something that is already dead), and doesn't make > Snape a murderer. Now I have to reread that scene... > zgirnius: Credit where credit is due...I may be the first person to mention it here, but it is not my theory, I'm not that clever. I found in on the website of Red Hen. I do like the theory, even if I am not sure I believe it. By the way, the verb 'blast' is definitely used to describe the effects of an AK hitting an inanimate object elsewhere in the series. From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Dec 21 05:15:56 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:15:56 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00a201c605ed$a086e1a0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 145092 Sydney: The pleading intersects so very neatly with the Unbreakable Vow and all the other choreographed circumstances; so the interpretation of D-dore begging Snape to fullfill the Vow rather than dying himself slips in just like the missing piece of a jigsaw. Any other interpretation of that scene IMO requires a little bit of snipping and shoving a piece that doesn't quite fit. Harry actually being the one to kill D-dore with the poison would be an awesome piece of plotting but I don't think that's the one called for here. -- Sydney Sherry now: I see it completely opposite. Any idea that lets Snape off the hook, especially one that would make Harry the true killer has to do way too much snipping and shoving to make it believable or acceptable for me. Again, Harry is the hero. Snape is not the hero. Snape faking the AK to keep anyone from knowing that Harry had poisoned Dumbledore to death would make Snape the hero again. But even more importantly, though I think that Harry, as the hero, has and can and must make mistakes, for Harry to be the one who actually killed Dumbledore by force feeding him the poison would be a sick miserable outcome. Knowing all we do of how Harry thinks, does anyone believe he could live with such a horrible thing? Whether or not JKR set out to write children's books, she knows now that millions of kids are reading them, and she is concerned about their reactions to certain characters and plot lines. Would she honestly want to show them a Harry Potter who was the real killer of the beloved Dumbledore? For that matter, if that how it ended up, I'd be the one sending all my books to a trash masher or something. (I could not burn any book!) She can do almost anything and make it work for me. She can even redeem Snape and make it work, I think. Even though I am firmly convinced he is a murderer. But to turn it around and make Snape the hero, saving Harry from the knowledge of what he'd done--knowledge that would inevitably have to come out or how would anyone know of poor noble Sevvy's great sacrifice for the worthless, ungrateful wretch Harry potter--that would be the thing I could not take. But then, I couldn't take that from any author. I don't always have to have a happy ending, but an ending without hope, with the total emotional destruction of a character with the innocence and tragedy of Harry, that would be just too much. Sherry From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 05:36:52 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 05:36:52 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: <00a201c605ed$a086e1a0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145093 > Sherry now: > > I see it completely opposite. Any idea that lets Snape off the hook, > especially one that would make Harry the true killer has to do way too much > snipping and shoving to make it believable or acceptable for me. Again, > Harry is the hero. Snape is not the hero. Snape faking the AK to keep > anyone from knowing that Harry had poisoned Dumbledore to death would make > Snape the hero again. But even more importantly, though I think that > Harry, as the hero, has and can and must make mistakes, for Harry to be the > one who actually killed Dumbledore by force feeding him the poison would be > a sick miserable outcome. Knowing all we do of how Harry thinks, does > anyone believe he could live with such a horrible thing? > Alla: Well, I agree with you of course, you know that, but I want to back track here for a second. There had been so much talk here about the fact that Harry gave Dumbledore a poison and that it is likely that it had been fatal. Okay, what am I missing here again? I thought we did not know for sure not only that the Potion was a fatal poison , but even that Potion was poison at all? I mean, yes, it seems likely that it was poison, since Dumbledore called it no health drink, I absolutely disagree that it was fatal - IMO the fact that Dumbledore called Snape shows that he needed an antidote, BUT isn't it possible that there was some kind of different defensive dark magic at work after they got Horcrux and the reason why Dumbledore got so sick was because of some kind of Dark spell, not just potion itself? In any event whether it was poison or not, I also seriously doubt that at the end Harry will add to his burdens the murder of Dumbledore. JMO of course, but that is another prediction which I want to make for book 7 - Harry did not kill Dumbledore, Snape did. Of course I will not be so foolish as to speculate about Snape reasons :-), but yeah, he did it. Mark my words. :) Alla, has that nice tasty crow handy. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 06:03:58 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 06:03:58 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: <009901c6055c$dea31e40$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145094 > Miles: > You are frowsy at this central point of your... your... THEORY, but I don't > think you should be. We simply don't know whether Snape came back because it > was the Potter's LV tried to find. This is pure SPECULATION. It as well > would fit into the information from canon, that Snape came back when he > realised that LV would try to kill a baby because of the prophecy. "Well, it seems Miles had just caught you with capital SPECULATION", Neri smirked at Faith. "Really?" answered Faith coolly. "Did you check the canon?" Neri waved a wand at the wall of the Royal George and words appeared: ******************************************************* HBP. Ch. 25: 'Please let me finish.' Dumbledore waited until Harry had nodded curtly, then went on. 'Professor Snape made a terrible mistake. He was still in Lord Voldemort's employ on the night he heard the first half of Professor Trelawney's prophecy. Naturally, he hastened to tell his master what he had heard, for it concerned his master most deeply. But he did not know - he had no possible way of knowing - which boy Voldemort would hunt from then onwards, or that the parents he would destroy in his murderous quest were people that Professor Snape knew, that they were your mother and father -' ******************************************************** "According to Dumbledore," said Faith, "what Snape didn't know was *which* boy Voldemort would hunt, and that the parents would be people that Snape *knew*. "Er this wasn't very explicit, you know," remarked George. "Yeah, perhaps we should reduce the charge to non-capital speculation?" suggested Neri. "I just believe what the canon says," said Faith innocently. "Well," said Neri, "do you have any canon regarding this one:" > Miles: > Erm, obviously LV knew that the Potter's were warned. First, they lived > under the protection of the Fidelius Charm, which is very unusual, and > second James cried "He is coming" (quoted from memory) when he came into > their house. So LV *knew* that the Potter's weren't surprised that LV was > after them. Faith shrugged. "The Potters had narrowly escaped Voldemort three times before that. This *is* canon. He should hardly be surprised that they were putting some effort into hiding from him. The point is that Voldemort obviously had never suspected Snape. After all, Voldemort did find the Potters, and when he was defeated it was by something completely unexpected, not by an ambush of aurors waiting for him or by some trap laid by Dumbledore. So Voldemort never had a reason to suspect that Dumbledore and the Potters were warned in advance." > Miles: > Dumbledore told Harry about the Life debt. Some other people knew of it as > well, e.g. Remus. But Dumbledore always refused to reveal his reason for > trusting Snape to anyone (as far as we know). So, why tell everyone the > reason and refuse to tell it the same time? I think LID!Snape stands on feet > of clay here *looking for a hammer*. > > The Life Debt question is important for the story, I have no doubt. We can > explain a lot with it, and it is closely connected with the > Marauder's-Snape-background underlying the whole story of Harry Potter. And > there will be several new parts of this story and this time in the final > book. But LID!Snape as a master key for the character of Snape - no, not > really. "You know," said Neri to Faith. "This is perhaps the best argument I've heard until now that the Life Debt *does* involve some very specific terms. The other option would be that Snape never had a Life Debt to James at all, and Miles too agrees this isn't likely. So it's more likely that the Life Debt involves some specific terms that Dumbledore couldn't tell anybody about, probably because they would blow Snape's cover." Faith shrugged again. "If you really must have these speculations, you can manufacture them for any theory. DDM too requires an explanation why Dumbledore refused to give his reasons to trust Snape. What's the DDM explanation? > Miles: > As Jen pointed out, Snape paid the Life Debt back, in PS/SS, and in PoA. > So.. "Funny," said Faith. "When Dumbledore had this little speech in SS/PS about Snape's debt to James, did you get the impression he was saying that Snape had paid his debt and this account is now settled?" Neri took out a wand and waved it at the wall, where words appeared: ******************************************************** SS/PS Ch. 17: "Quirrell said Snape ?" "Professor Snape, Harry." "Yes, him ? Quirrell said he hates me because he hated my father. Is that true?" "Well, they did rather detest each other. Not unlike yourself and Mr. Malfoy. And then, your father did something Snape could never forgive." "What?" "He saved his life." "What?" "Yes " said Dumbledore dreamily. "Funny, the way people's minds work, isn't it? Professor Snape couldn't bear being in your father's debt I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year because he felt that would make him and your father quits. Then he could go back to hating your father's memory in peace " ******************************************************** "Well, Dumbledore doesn't actually say that the account was settled," said Neri. "He doesn't say that it wasn't either," pointed out Jen. "Lets not start again with that old argument, whether Snape really saved Harry's life in that Quidditch game or not," said Neri. "It was never decided and we're not likely to agree now." "Well, for repaying a Life Debt, this case wasn't exactly what you'd call clear-cut, was it?", said Faith. "I mean, from literary considerations wouldn't you expect something more dramatic? And the other cases of Snape saving Harry's life are even less clear-cut than that." "But whether they were enough to settle the account depends on the exact terms of the Life Debt magic," argued Neri, "which *you* rather not discuss." "But I *do* discuss characters' opinions, if there's evidence for them in canon," said Faith. "So tell me, what do you think is Snape's opinion? Does he behave as if he thinks the account was settled after that Quidditch match? Or after the end of the year? Or after the night of the Shrieking Shack? Has he really `gone back to hate James' memory in peace'? Was there any change in the way he treats Harry?" Before anybody could answer, Pippin popped out of nowhere, slipping a time turner back into her cloak, "LID!Snape is far too weak dramatically to be compelling," she said. "Robo!Snape, who only acts the way he does because of magical compulsion? Puh-leeze." "Did you find the Snape plot in SS/PS dramatically weak?" Faith asked her. "You seem to agree that Snape was still Life InDebted to James at that time". "And you know," added Neri thoughtfully, "perhaps the real reason Snape was so angry in the Shack wasn't just that he'd lose his `sweet revenge' if Sirius and Lupin would turn out to be innocent. That too, of course, but perhaps he was so angry mostly because this would mean Harry was never in danger from them, and this would mean Snape had lost again his chance to save Harry and be quit. That could be the real meaning behind `I have just saved your neck; you should be thanking me on bended knee!' Not that theory about Snape warning James from Sirius, which doesn't have any other support in canon." Faith was grimacing at all the perhapses and coulds, and Neri hastily added: "I'm just saying that the Shrieking Shack scene could hardly be called `dramatically weak'. And what about the `Flight of the Prince' scene in HBP? Harry shouts at Snape `kill me like you killed him' and Snape suddenly screams as if he's in terrible pain. This too isn't exactly dramatically weak." "He could be screaming because of his split soul," said Pippin. ""Now he's desperately trying to save Harry because Dumbledore's told him it will help heal the tear in his soul. But it doesn't stop him from being an absolute !@#$ to Harry otherwise. In fact it makes it easier." "Um, when you finish gasping, Neri, could we please have the relevant canon?" said Faith. Neri waved his wand again at the wall and the words appeared: ********************************************************* OotP, Ch. 37: "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. ********************************************************* "Well, if Dumbledore refers here to Snape's split soul, then after the end of OotP Dumbledore had realized it could not be healed," said Neri, "and logically he shouldn't have trusted Snape anymore." Faith scowled. "I don't think Dumbledore refers here to Snape's split soul. Would you consider the possibility that he refers to Snape's feelings about James?" Neri From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 07:32:44 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 07:32:44 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? Heroes and Not. In-Reply-To: <00a201c605ed$a086e1a0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145095 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > > Sydney: > > ... so the interpretation of D-dore begging Snape to fullfill > the Vow rather than dying himself slips in just like the missing > piece of a jigsaw. ... Harry actually being the one to kill > D-dore with the poison would be an awesome piece of plotting > but I don't think that's the one called for here. > > -- Sydney > > > > Sherry now: > > .... Any idea that lets Snape off the hook, especially one > that would make Harry the true killer has to do way too much > snipping and shoving to make it believable or acceptable for > me. Again, Harry is the hero. Snape is not the hero. Snape > faking the AK to keep anyone from knowing that Harry had > poisoned Dumbledore to death would make Snape the hero again. > ...edited... > > Sherry > bboyminn: I think you are engaged in a little too much 'spin' here. Not that that's bad, you are trying to make a valid point, but I don't think Snape pretending to kill Dumbledore after Dumbledore expires from the Potion in any way makes Harry a killer. It neither makes Snape a hero, or Harry a villian. Let's us assume this senario of a second. Snape steps forward, Dumbledore pleads with him to do what must be done, then Dumbledore dies, and seizing the opportunity, Snape hits him with the AK and sends him off the tower. In all likelihood, if the DE's had not been in Hogwarts, Dumbledore would have gotten to Snape in time and under favorable circumstances to all, then Snape would have been able to stop or reverse the Dark Magic that was created by the Potions that Dumbledore drank. Further, Dumbledore EMPHATICALLY ORDERED Harry to force feed him the Potion. To continue forcing Dumbledore to drink it no matter how much he begged, pleaded, ordered, or commanded otherwise. Harry had no way of knowing what the effects of the potion would be, nor what the consequence of obeying Dumbledore's orders would be. Back to my original point, it wasn't Harry giving Dumbledore the potion that caused his death. It was the presences of Death Eaters that prevented Dumbledore from getting to needed medical care. That was a circumstances that no one could have really foreseen or allowed for. So, in a sense, and working from our assumption, it was a set of unexpected and uncontrollable circumstances that were the cause of Dumbledore's death. That neither makes Snape a hero, nor Harry a villian. If anything, it makes Snape an opportunist and Harry a tragic victim of circumstances. Although, Harry's current 'tragic victim' status is really only an extension of a series in which Harry has constantly been a tragic victim. So, this current victim status would not get in the way of his also being a hero. Nor does it prevent some aspects of Snape's actions from having heroic elements. Even if the events surrounding Snape's action come to full light, while he may be admired and aspect of his action may be to some degree considered heroic, I certainly don't see such a dark and nasty character being elevated to 'hero' status. Spies in general are important to winning war, but their actions are usually unsung, and they are rarely ever seen as heroes. To elevate Snape to hero status would be close to elevating Wormtail to hero status, if, at the last second, Wormtail steps forward and does something decent. That one decent act doesn't offset or erase many more and greater vile acts. While Snape has acted as a spy, and while he may be able to explain what happened on the tower, and while he may yet help Harry defeat Voldemort. I don't see him at the forefront of the celebration of victory. As I said, the role and assistance of a spy typically goes unsung. Harry, on the otherhand, has been a selfless hero from beginning to end, and one mistake, one miscalculation, one sad twist of circumstances does not erase his hero status. I'm sure if our basic supposition for this argument does prove to be true, Harry will certainly feel some guilt in the matter, but I don't think he has anything to truly be guilty for, and I don't think anyone in the wizard world would hold him culpable. Somewhat convoluted, but none the less, there it is. Steve/bboyminn From coverton at netscape.com Wed Dec 21 03:08:24 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:08:24 -0600 Subject: Your favorite house elf? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c605db$d4e015f0$e50efea9@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145096 CMC: > Kreacher is definitely my favorite elf. I > prefer his passive-aggressive mutterings to Winky's > cry-myself-a-river self-pity and Dobby's excessive eager- > beaverness. Plus the fact that Harry is now his owner > deliciously subverts the Amnesty-International-WeAreThe > World-feel-good (about myself) liberalism which assumes > only evil folk partake in ownership of sentient beings. Don't understand the political view but that's okay. You like Kreacher huh. Well I guess he's okay. Maybe that Harry owns him he'll get use to Harry and he'll start to like him. Corey From coverton at netscape.com Wed Dec 21 03:23:08 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:23:08 -0600 Subject: Friendly and cheerful DE/The Twins and Ron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c605dd$e3eb0760$e50efea9@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145097 Betsy Hp: > Ron is a few steps away from becoming their enemy, and I > think he knows it and does what he can to keep that from > occuring. Alla: > How do you know that Ron is about to become twins' enemy? Ron, the twins' enemy. I hope that doesn't happen. Yeah, the twins might think he's a little annoying at times but that's how brothers think. Not having one of my own I wouldn't know what that's like. Corey From coverton at netscape.com Wed Dec 21 03:01:53 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:01:53 -0600 Subject: Umbridge a DE? (was: Wizard Logic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c605da$ec0ef350$e50efea9@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145098 Allie: > What was with the "foul kittens" that Harry always noticed > in the paintings in her office? I wondered if they were > going to appear again somewhere else, but nothing came of it. It's Corey again. I think the cats were there just for decoration. I don't think anything was going to come of that 'cause there was nothing to use them for. If she's not a death eater, Umbridge I mean, then what do you think she could be? Corey From h2so3f at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 09:01:18 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:01:18 -0000 Subject: Umbridge a DE? (was: Wizard Logic) In-Reply-To: <000601c605da$ec0ef350$e50efea9@Overton> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145099 Corey wrote: I think the cats were there just for decoration. I don't think anything was going to come of that 'cause there was nothing to use them for. If she's not a death eater, Umbridge I mean, then what do you think she could be?" CH3ed: She is just a mean and ruthlessly ambitious woman, I think. Quite a few of those around in real politics. I think she is probably like Sirius' parents. They weren't DEs either and was on LV's side until they saw that he was doing it all for himself and would sacrify anyone regardless of their loyalty to him. As for the foul kitten painting. If anything it might indicates that Umbridge is into cats. Probably keeps some at home. Might have done business with Figgy the cat-kneazle cross-breeder, ay? CH3ed :O) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Dec 21 09:17:02 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:17:02 -0000 Subject: Umbridge a DE? (was: Wizard Logic) In-Reply-To: <000601c605da$ec0ef350$e50efea9@Overton> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145100 Allie: > > What was with the "foul kittens" that Harry always noticed > > in the paintings in her office? I wondered if they were > > going to appear again somewhere else, but nothing came of it. > Corey: > It's Corey again. I think the cats were there just for decoration. > I don't think anything was going to come of that 'cause there was > nothing to use them for. If she's not a death eater, Umbridge I > mean, then what do you think she could be? Ceridwen: I think JKR knows some people like some I know. Umbridge reminded me so much of certain acquaintences! The little-girl voice, the sweet kittens with their big, innocent eyes, the smile... I could just hear her saying 'hmmmmmmm?' at the end of every malicious question. I got to the point, after three months of working for a boss who 'hmmmmmm?'ed, that *anyone* 'hmmmmmmm'ing made me flex my fingers. The sweet kittens - she could have had teddy bears or geese or any other darling critter - are a clue to her personality. She may or may not see herself as the sweet kitten type. She does try to play herself as the sweet kitten type. As do many mean-spirited, petty people in the world. To me, sweet kittens/teddy bears/geese/adorable puppies/etc. are red flags. I don't think she's a DE. She admits to the things she did, but she did them on behalf of the Ministry. Harry and Dumbledore were making a fool of the Fudge administration. She wanted to discredit them. If we had not been privy to Harry's thoughts and experiences throughout the series to this point, we might have believed all of her little set-ups. But that doesn't make her a DE. She's the Ministry's woman, through and through. And she will stoop to any level to protect her Ministry. As Sirius said, the WW isn't divided into nice people and Death Eaters. Umbridge proves it. And, who knows if we've seen a 'nice' Death Eater yet? 'Nice' is more often a perception, anyway. Someone can smile at you like a friend and stab you in the back, after gaining your trust. Umbridge tried it. She failed. But she certainly set herself up with the trappings of a nice, friendly person - 'disarming' (sickening in her case) smile, passive questions (attacks), (un)reasonableness, cute kittens on the wall, and a dark side that she apparently thought was well-hidden, and may have been hidden from herself - she (thinks she) only did what was regretably (with a false sigh) necessary. Ceridwen. From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Dec 21 10:26:13 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:26:13 -0000 Subject: A Horcrux Hypothesis. Re: Can a Horcrux kill/destroy another Horcrux? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145101 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > 1. Harry destroyed the Diary *with* the Basilisk's Fang. The Basilisk > belonged to Voldemort. Eh, I think the basilisk belonged to Salazar Slytherin. Voldemort just found out how to let it out. And I really hope we find out how he did that. Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Dec 21 11:05:34 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:05:34 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: <00a201c605ed$a086e1a0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145102 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > Sherry now: > > I see it completely opposite. Any idea that lets Snape off the hook, > especially one that would make Harry the true killer has to do way too much > snipping and shoving to make it believable or acceptable for me. Again, > Harry is the hero. Snape is not the hero. Snape faking the AK to keep > anyone from knowing that Harry had poisoned Dumbledore to death would make > Snape the hero again. But even more importantly, though I think that > Harry, as the hero, has and can and must make mistakes, for Harry to be the > one who actually killed Dumbledore by force feeding him the poison would be > a sick miserable outcome. Knowing all we do of how Harry thinks, does > anyone believe he could live with such a horrible thing? > > Whether or not JKR set out to write children's books, she knows now that > millions of kids are reading them, and she is concerned about their > reactions to certain characters and plot lines. Would she honestly want to > show them a Harry Potter who was the real killer of the beloved Dumbledore? Interesting, makes for some lovely speculating. The UV was for Snape to kill DD if Draco failed. But if Dumbledore was dying anyway, what would that have meant for the conditions of the Vow? Would it mean that the Vow was annulled? Or would it mean that Draco had failed? If the second, Snape had better be fast or else he would be deadSnape. If the first, Snape had no need to kill Dumbledore. If Dumbledore was dying, that means Harry had indeed posioned him. There was no way with the DEs in the school that Snape could help him. But he could help Harry, by killing DD so Harry would not be a murderer. Well, thats is a tough think to ask. If Snape really is DDM than he would be even more angry at Harry for being part of the death of DD. And then DD asks him to sacrifice himself for Harry by killing him. It would explain the please. Doing such a huge thing for a boy he loaths, DD could no way be certain of Snape complying. One point in DD's advantage might be that a quick AK is a much more merciful death than a slow agonyzing death by the poison. Gerry, having fun and wondering if JKR looks in sometimes and has lots of fun too. From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Dec 21 11:16:17 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:16:17 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? Heroes and Not. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145103 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" > So, in a sense, and working from our assumption, it was a set of > unexpected and uncontrollable circumstances that were the cause of > Dumbledore's death. That neither makes Snape a hero, nor Harry a villian. Absolutele true, but Harry would have felt really heartbreakingly guilty and horrible if DD would have died from the poison. Gerry From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 08:49:57 2005 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 08:49:57 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? Heroes and Not. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145104 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > bboyminn: > > I think you are engaged in a little too much 'spin' here. Not that > that's bad, you are trying to make a valid point, but I don't think > Snape pretending to kill Dumbledore after Dumbledore expires from the > Potion in any way makes Harry a killer. It neither makes Snape a hero, > or Harry a villian. > Well, I'm gonna have to go with Sherry on this one, I think that is PRECISELY what this scenario does. As with most DDM! speculation, it falls afoul of the fact that this is NOT SNAPE'S STORY. Nor is it Dumbledore's story. This kind of convoluted (and unbelievable) scenario has a tendancy to pull the focus completely off of Harry and his decisions and onto the decisions and plans of Dumbledore and Snape. Harry becomes a passive victim in the whole process, not a hero whose decisions and actions are the focus of the tale. As I've said before, the DDM! theories have far too much of an Oliver Stone feel for me. Sorry, folks, but IMO there is an eerie echo of the grassy knoll in all of this, along with a dash of Roswell and more than a hint of denial. Lupinlore From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Wed Dec 21 12:41:07 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:41:07 -0000 Subject: Another Curse-Breaker In-Reply-To: <000e01c60573$c7a009d0$425a97ac@Overton> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145105 > If you think Snape's job is to destroy as many Horcruxes > as he can, then why did he kill Dumbledore? Why didn't he help > Dumbledore find where they were? > > Your fellow member, Corey > They are not sure exactly what the remaining Horcruxes are, and they certainly don't know where they are. The only person who knows is Voldemort. Therefore someone has to get Voldemort to tell them where the Horcruxes are. Therefore Snape kills (an already dying) Dumbledore, gains Voldemort's trust and can then get the necessary information! Brothergib From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Wed Dec 21 13:02:37 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:02:37 -0000 Subject: A Horcrux Hypothesis. Re: Can a Horcrux kill/destroy another Horcrux? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145106 > He destroyed this piece of Voldemort's soul by reenacting the factors in the COS. > > 1. Harry destroys the Horcrux which is also a weapon. > 2. Harry uses Voldies own weapon to destroy it. > 3. The Weapon has been discharged beforehand and is more vulnerable to > the destruction. > > > Any Questions. > > Valky > IMO, all six Horcruxes are, in essence, the same thing. Their magical properties are therefore identical. It is how Voldemort chooses to use them, that determines the ease (or not) of their destruction. The diary - In this case, Voldemort wanted to ensure that his soul piece could leave its container (ie the diary) and possess another witch/wizard. Therefore, Voldemort could not place a protective curse upon the diary because it would negate the very reason why Voldemort created that Horcrux in the first place. The ring - This was intended to be a concealed Horcrux. It was hidden, and curses were placed upon it to prevent anyone tampering with it. It is not a matter of knowing the 'key' to destroying the Horcrux per se, it is a matter of dealing with the different magic Voldemort has used to protect each individual Horcrux. What is interestin is that Harry destroyed the container ie the diary when the Horcrux was no longer residing within it (ie Tom Riddle was practically reborn). It therefore appears that the Horcrux is inexorably linked to its container. Destroy the container, and the Horcrux is destroyed also, independently of where the Horcux is at that precise moment. Brothergib From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Dec 21 13:06:58 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:06:58 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? Heroes and Not. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145107 Valky wrote on the Horcrux thread: > 1. Harry destroyed the Diary *with* the Basilisk's Fang. The > Basilisk belonged to Voldemort. Gerry: Eh, I think the basilisk belonged to Salazar Slytherin. Voldemort just found out how to let it out. Valky: hmmm, I am assuming here, but I don't think it's such a big leap. Tom (Voldemort) is Slytherin's only Heir. Wouldn't that mean that Slytherins possession's pass into his ownership? ie Salazar's = Voldemort's by the definition of inheritance, right? Gerry: And I really hope we find out how he did that. Valky: I kind of hope so still, but I did expect this explanation to come a lot more before HBP than I now do post-HBP. The series seems to have spun off in another direction, and because of that I tend to think this part will be left up to our imaginations. > Sherry now: > Any idea that lets Snape off the hook, > especially one that would make Harry the true killer has to do way > too much snipping and shoving to make it believable or acceptable > for me. Valky: Hi Sherry, I always admire your toughness on this issue, and your sense of conviction. Just this time I'd like to point out that I see this differently. I have trouble with seeing Harry as the 'true killer' of Dumbledore too. But I have very little trouble seeing him as the 'true destroyer of the ring soul piece', and I see no problems with assuming Dumbledore would sacrifice himself for this cause. To that end, the snipping and shoving really isn't all that bad. Dumbledore never once says that *he* destroyed the ring soul piece. He says only two things: 1. A withered hand is a reasonable *exchange* for one seventh of Voldemorts soul. 2. The ring *is no longer a Horcrux*. Compare that with : That [diary] *piece of soul* is no more, you saw to that Harry. and there is some clear dodging going on here. *emphasis all mine Sherry: Again, Harry is the hero. Snape is not the hero. Snape faking the AK to keep anyone from knowing that Harry had poisoned Dumbledore to death would make Snape the hero again. Valky: No it would make Snape the fall guy, a heroic role in its' own right, but not *the* Hero. *The* Hero vanquishes Voldemort, paying a heavy cost such as the awful truth of how the ring piece of soul was *really* destroyed just makes it more poignant a heroes role. Sherry: But even more importantly, though I think that Harry, as the hero, has and can and must make mistakes, for Harry to be the one who actually killed Dumbledore by force feeding him the poison would be a sick miserable outcome. Knowing all we do of how Harry thinks, does anyone believe he could live with such a horrible thing? Valky: That depends on how far your definition of sick miserable outcome extends. I think I know it doesn't extend to noble sacrifice because we have talked about this in regard to Sirius' death before. So let's imagine that this was a noble sacrifice, Dumbledore sacrificed himself to destroy the ring piece of soul, in penance for his mistake he took the whole burden of the guilt in ordering Harry to kill him and the piece of Voldemort that he carried died with him. I think Dumbledore will have felt like you do, I am sure Dumbledore would not want Harry to live with this terrible thing, so he hasn't asked him to. I find this theory explains a lot and makes sense , but at this point it does leave a bad taste in my mouth. Rotten tomatoes are welcome. Gerry wrote: Interesting, makes for some lovely speculating. The UV was for Snape to kill DD if Draco failed. But if Dumbledore was dying anyway, what would that have meant for the conditions of the Vow? Would it mean that the Vow was annulled? Or would it mean that Draco had failed? If the second, Snape had better be fast or else he would be dead Snape. If the first, Snape had no need to kill Dumbledore. If Dumbledore was dying, that means Harry had indeed posioned him. There was no way with the DEs in the school that Snape could help him. But he could help Harry, by killing DD so Harry would not be a murderer. Well, thats is a tough thing to ask. If Snape really is DDM than he would be even more angry at Harry for being part of the death of DD. And then DD asks him to sacrifice himself for Harry by killing him. It would explain the please. Doing such a huge thing for a boy he loathes, DD could no way be certain of Snape complying. Valky: I see a lot of that argument too Gerry. It is somehow logical, albeit in a difficult to stomach way. :) Especially, IMO, the plea from Dumbledore makes the most sense if Dumbledore is asking for Snape to do something terrible, I can't imagine DD pleading for anything less than that. Lupinlore wrote: As with most DDM! speculation, it falls afoul of the fact that this is NOT SNAPE'S STORY. Nor is it Dumbledore's story. This kind of convoluted (and unbelievable) scenario has a tendancy to pull the focus completely off of Harry and his decisions and onto the decisions and plans of Dumbledore and Snape. Harry becomes a passive victim in the whole process, not a hero whose decisions and actions are the focus of the tale. Valky: That's a really good point Lupinlore. Harry's decisions and actions *are* the focus of the tale. But what of his decision to follow that order in the cave, at some point Harry will have review that action. What does he see then? By following Dumbledore's order, I mean, by *choosing* to follow this order Harry weakened Dumbledore, is he not party to Dumbledore's death? When Harry discovers that the Horcrux is a fake he thinks, 'Dumbledore had weakened himself by drinking that terrible potion for *nothing*'. *emphasis, mine. Later that night Harry reinforces in his mind how pointless the goings on in the cave were. In book seven, what is Harry looking back on in the cave but his *own hand* in DD's death. Harry's choices and actions are the focus of the book but his choice and actions in the cave as they stand are just another contribution to Dumbledore's meaningless futile death. This DDM Snape theory gives meaning to Harry's actions in the cave, meaning that really should be there, but isn't. I fail to see how that takes away from Harry's hero status. Valky From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Dec 21 13:33:48 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 05:33:48 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who killed Dumbledore? Heroes and Not. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002d01c60633$2ddaf1a0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 145108 Later that night Harry reinforces in his mind how pointless the goings on in the cave were. In book seven, what is Harry looking back on in the cave but his *own hand* in DD's death. Harry's choices and actions are the focus of the book but his choice and actions in the cave as they stand are just another contribution to Dumbledore's meaningless futile death. Valky sherry now: I think and admit that my reactions to this scenario are deeply emotional. Harry has born unnecessary guilt for too many things. Knowing Harry's character, as we do since we see nearly everything from his POV, it makes my stomach turn over to think of how he could live with the absolute knowledge that it was his hand, not Snape's that killed Dumbledore. I'd take any other outcome. DDM Snape all along. Plan of Dumbledore's to save Draco and solidify Snape's position with Voldemort. Even Dumbledore faking his death. Anything, but Harry's absolute knowledge that if he hadn't forced the potion down Dumbledore, Dumbledore would be alive. I don't know if he could stand that or live with it. I believe there will be more deaths, sacrifices and probably much more heartache ahead for Harry. But having to accept this just seems to be too much to lay on him. if i were Harry, So, i admit it is a purely emotional reaction, and I can understand how some might see it as logical. But it would be a truly terrible thing to do to Harry, and I'd like him to have something positive and happy to hang onto in his heart in the end. He's only 17 after all. some things are just too big a burden to bear or price to pay. Sherry From kchuplis at alltel.net Wed Dec 21 13:32:54 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:32:54 -0000 Subject: The Twins / Ron / Weasleys In-Reply-To: <01e101c605eb$b287de60$67b4400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145109 > Magpie: > > See but...how are those two povs helpful to understanding what's going on > between them? I mean, there's a lot of stuff that's "normal" in that lots > of siblings do it, but all sibling relationships are different and different > people react differently to things. And that seems implied by "Percy can't > stand teasing, apparently," followed by, "sorry, but he begs for teasing > with such behavior." > > Doesn't that obviously set up a vicious cycle for Percy? Isn't that sort of > the standard bullying pov? "Begs for it" really means "makes people want to > do it," doesn't it? But that doesn't mean it's right to do it. > > When I read the Percy stuff especially starting in Book IV it's painful to > me. It just seems like such a sad situation with Percy trying harder and > harder and being more and more pompous and getting back more and more > ridicule and dismissal. I totally agree that it is sad and painful. And I don't say that teasing is right, but just the same, I don't see this idea that seems to be being aired in other parts of the thread that the twins are extraordinarily mean or that Ron is oppressed or that they are responsible for the choices that Percy makes that are completely alienating his family. I simply see it as oridinary family dynamics that have gotten out of hand, but where the other boys have always backed off when pushing too far, Percy never seems to look back and completely leaves the family that he sees as being on the wrong side of the government he's come to cherish. I'll have to look for specifics, but I have been left with the impression that Percy isn't doing what he does because he has total belief in the ideals of the ministry but rather because of what his chances are at advancing. Yes, Arthur *does* get a promotion and Percy does not. It's a bit telling. One of the themes often presented in the books seems to be that following rules exclusively for the purpose of following rules and not looking at anything outside of that can lead to a very dangerous and narrow minded world view. I see the Weasley boys as a microcosm of that idea with the twins very far on the left, perhaps the opposite of Percy and Percy too far on the right. Ron seems to be the happy middle ground where sometimes you've got to do what is right, but not "just for fun". kchuplis From kchuplis at alltel.net Wed Dec 21 13:39:06 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:39:06 -0000 Subject: The Twins / Ron / Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145110 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > But their overall relationship with Ron seems awfully > confrontational. When Ron is three and Fred is five or six, Fred > turns Ron's teddy bear into a spider using the accidental magic of > children, which indicates a pretty large surge of rather negative > emotion, I'd think. Around that same age, maybe a little older, > Fred bludgeons Ron's pet to death. I just ran across the spider incident today. Ron was three, so the boys must have been 5. He turned the teddy into a spider because Ron had broken his toy broomstick. Sounds like a brother's spat with magic to me. I haven't found the bludgeoning incident yet and don't remember reading it at all. I still think people are reading way too much into the twins behaviour. kchuplis From mariabronte at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 14:13:28 2005 From: mariabronte at yahoo.com (Mari) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:13:28 -0000 Subject: Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145111 Magpie: > Dumbledore makes his offer after it's clear Draco is not going to kill > him. Draco does not begin to lower his wand and then get tempted by > glory but the other way around. He says (slowly) "I've got this far, > you're in my mercy, I'm the one with the wand," to which Dumbledore > says it's *his* mercy that matters, and then he lowers his wand. > > Draco's stated intention in most of the scene is to kill Dumbledore- - > he pretty much thinks he has to to keep his family from being > executed, and he's got no reason to think that Dumbledore is going to > offer him anything like protection. But he doesn't do it. He keeps > talking, confessing, not doing the deed. He never makes any actual > move to kill Dumbledore at all, and Dumbledore correctly says that > he's not going to do it. > > I don't think Draco's line about getting farther than anyone thought > and having Dumbledore in his power are just about being tempted by > power--I think they're more important than that. Draco is telling > himself that he has power in the scene, he has done better than > expected at Voldemort's task and has Dumbledore at his mercy--but then > he starts to lower his wand anyway--iow, he could maybe have that > glory; if he lowers his wand he's choosing DD instead. The position > of "power" Draco reminds himself that he has there makes his > consideration of mercy worth more. He's proved something in getting > himself to this point, but must choose what step he wants to take > now. I think he's being offered and is tempted by mercy (implying > responsibility for what he's done and acknowledging this isn't > something Dumbledore owes him) there and not just acting out of self- > protection. That last scene--Dumbledore's last scene--seem to be all > about exactly that to me. The scene is, imo, not a political one but > one connected to the more important themes of the series. > > -m Now Mari: I agree with your interpretation of this scene, magpie. In fact, Dumbledore's saying "it is my mercy, and not yours, that matters now" was a strong sign to me, even before it actually happened, that he was prepared to die. This remark makes no sense if he was not thinking in terms of sacrificing himself, if necessary, to redeem draco. Also, Draco here is operating under a mistaken definition of mercy; to Dumbledore, and by implication JKR herself, a key element of genuine mercy is sparing/forgiving/offering grace to someone who does not *deserve* it. Draco, however, seems to equate mercy with helplessness and weakness; when he says Dumbledore is at his 'mercy' he means Dumbledore is in a vulnerable position. The real opportunity for mercy does indeed lie with Dumbledore. Dumbledore could disarm, disable or stun Draco. Here we come to the second specific element of mercy as I believe JKR is trying to define it; when it is offered, mercy, like grace, can be rejected. If there is no choice involved, the so called mercy or grace means little in the end. Puppets cannot receive mercy because puppets cannot make *choices* Doing good or being forgiven for being bad can't mean much if the opportunity for choosing one or the other isn't there in the first place. I can't help but think that this scene with Dumbledore will have a major effect on Draco; the question is whether he can accept what Dumbledore offered. People like to feel that they deserve what they are given; problem is, none of us can categorically say that we deserve mercy rather than justice; by definition mercy is not something anyone can 'deserve.' Hope these ramblings make some sense! :-) Mari. From coverton at netscape.com Wed Dec 21 09:55:23 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 03:55:23 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Umbridge a DE? (was: Wizard Logic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c60614$b04c70b0$9a8b94ac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145112 Ceridwen: I don't think she's a DE. She admits to the things she did, but she did them on behalf of the Ministry. Harry and Dumbledore were making a fool of the Fudge administration. She wanted to discredit them. If we had not been privy to Harry's thoughts and experiences throughout the series to this point, we might have believed all of her little set-ups. But that doesn't make her a DE. She's the Ministry's woman, through and through. And she will stoop to any level to protect her Ministry. As Sirius said, the WW isn't divided into nice people and Death Eaters. Umbridge proves it. Corey: I think we can all agree that death eaters aren't nice people. Umbridge being the MoM woman through and through. Kind of Harry being Dumbledore's man through and through. What I find interesting about Umbridge is she didn't come up in the HBP book. I would have thought she would have wanted to cause more trouble for Harry just to be mean but she didn't. I would have hated to have detention with her. Glad she's not a real school teacher. Your fellow member, Corey From coverton at netscape.com Wed Dec 21 11:18:59 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 05:18:59 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who killed Dumbledore? Heroes and Not. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c60620$5ba3f630$f9ffa4ac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145113 Wow, you guys sure do a good job of bringing up good arguments. I agree with everybody in this thread, but I agree with Steve the most. I think When Harry Kills Voldemort that the magical world will ultimately be happy. I think also the time will come that Snape will finally stop hating Harry. In the words of a song "Get over it," meaning Snape should get over what Harry's father did to him at school. Harry's a completely different person than James. Yes they have the same hair, same looks, etc. But they are 2 different people. Corey From coverton at netscape.com Wed Dec 21 13:40:18 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 07:40:18 -0600 Subject: Another Curse-Breaker + HP7 book title? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c60634$186f4810$3fb1a7ac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145114 Brothergib: They are not sure exactly what the remaining Horcruxes are, and they certainly don't know where they are. The only person who knows is Voldemort. Therefore someone has to get Voldemort to tell them where the Horcruxes are. Therefore Snape kills (an already dying) Dumbledore, gains Voldemort's trust and can then get the necessary information! Corey: But why kill Dumbledore? Why not just go to Voldemort and try and find out himself? He after all was a DE once. He's good at getting people to trust him after all. Here's another question. Do you think Harry and Snape will help each other in destroying the horcruxes? That'd be an odd team if ever there was one. Tell me what you think. Speaking of that, I've thought of a title for HP 7. Hows this one? Harry Potter and the Destruction of the Horcruxes. What characters do you think will return for book 7 besides the obvious ones? I think Slughorn will be back. I kind of liked him as a Potion teacher. 1. He was more lively than Snape ever could be. 2 He doesn't show favoritism as much as Snape did for his house students. Well tell me what you think. Can't wait to hear from people out there. Your fellow list member, Corey [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Dec 21 14:46:54 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:46:54 -0000 Subject: Slughorn (wasRe: Another Curse-Breaker + HP7 book title? In-Reply-To: <000001c60634$186f4810$3fb1a7ac@Overton> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145115 > Corey: > What characters do you think will return for book 7 besides the obvious ones? I think Slughorn will be back. I kind of liked him as a Potion teacher. 1. He was more lively than Snape ever could be. 2 He doesn't show favoritism as much as Snape did for his house students. Potioncat: WHAT! Oh, excuse me, I meant to say, why of course, if you think so. However, I'd like to point out: Slughorn didn't know Ron's name by March even though he was in a NEWT level class. Slughorn panicked when Ron was poisoned and Ron would have died without Harry's quick thinking. Slughorn didn't favor his own House, but he did favor those who could possibly return favors in the future. Well, yes I'd like to see him back, I'm just hoping he won't be the Deputy Headmaster or worse the Headmaster! Potioncat hopes Corey knows she was teasing in the first paragraph. From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Dec 21 15:13:33 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:13:33 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion - Chapter 6: Draco's Detour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145116 Meriaugust wrote: Draco's Detour > > Discussion Questions - > > 1. This chapter begins with the death or disappearance of familiar > characters. Regulus Black is mentioned being killed "a few days" > after he abandoned Voldemort, though Karkaroff managed to survive a > full year. How did he do this? How high of a priority does this make > Karkaroff seem compared to Regulus? From what we suspect about the > identity of "R.A.B." could this imply that he was killed because of > his Horcrux theft? Does this confirm for us that Karkaroff was > indeed the DE "too cowardly to return" mentioned in GOF? Potioncat: I was very surprised to have Karkaroff mentioned so late in the game! I'm not sure if it means JKR was dealing with loose ends, or if she wanted his fate left unknown until Snape revealed his own status as the one who left forever. Although if you think about it, wasn't the coward to be punished and the one who left to be killed? I wonder if it was significant that Karkaroff was still in England? > > 2. Why attack Florean Fortescue? Or was the shambles his place was > left in just a cover for a hasty escape? And for that matter, why > take Mr. Olivander? Does Voldemort want a new wand with which to > duel Harry with? We know that a wizard using an unsuitable wand does > not practice magic as well as he could; could Voldemort having a > wand without Fawkes' tail feathers in it be an advantage for Harry > in the final duel? What good does having Olivander do the dark side? Potioncat: Fortescue must have been attacked. Pretending he was wouldn't fool the DEs and would serve no other purpose. He may be related to the Headmaster Fortescue and he was the one who helped Harry so much with his history homework. I think he knows something that might help LV. Maybe something about artefacts? > > 3. The presence of the wanted posters and warning signs posted by > the Ministry has reminded some readers of WWII propaganda signs and > leaflets. In what ways are these things useful to the magical > community? Is it really possible to teach people to defend > themselves against threats with blurbs on purple poster board? Or is > this just another example of the Ministry wanting to be seen doing > *something* even if that something isn't that effective? Don't most > witches and wizards graduate from school with at least five years of > Defense Against the Dark Arts? How is their schooling practically > applied in these situations? Will the DADA curriculum be permanently > changed now that there is actual defense that needs to be done? Potioncat: Well, how effective has DADA classes been since about 1955? I'd say most wizarding families would fall short in those spells. I think the posters are JKR's dig at the current useless responses to terrorism. Not that all the reaction is useless, but some certainly have been! > > 8. In this chapter we are presented with a very different Narcissa > Malfoy than appeared in "Spinner's End". Why has she changed so > drastically? Is this just her calm, public face? Or is she that > confident in the Unbreakable Vow now protecting her son? Potioncat: I think this was her public face. I don't think she's so calm inside. in fact she still seems to be trying to protect Draco. > > 9. This chapter also presents some minor shipping moments: the > beginnings of Harry's attraction to Ginny (him laughing at her jokes > at breakfast), Ron and Hermione's continual bickering, and our first > sights of Fleur and Bill together. How do Bill and Fleur match up in > your estimation? Too sugary? What about the subtle hints about Harry > and Ginny? Were these too subtle or just right? Potioncat: Whether or not you like shipping, these were sort of funny. Having this clinging girlfriend at a family Christmas event reminded me of events I've been to, with young cousins' new boyfriend/girlfriend joining in. I thought it seemed pretty real. > > 10. And just for fun, which products would you be picking up at > Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes? Why do Fred and George still have to test > on themselves? Surely they can hire subjects now? Or are their items > too dangerous? Potioncat: Erm...I'd think I'd be the parent pulling the kid away saying, "We've spent too much today already!" From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Dec 21 15:28:30 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:28:30 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? Heroes and Not. In-Reply-To: <002d01c60633$2ddaf1a0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145117 sherry now: > I'd take any other outcome. DDM Snape all along. Plan of > Dumbledore's to save Draco and solidify Snape's position with > Voldemort. Even Dumbledore faking his death. Anything, but Harry's > absolute knowledge that if he hadn't forced the potion down > Dumbledore, Dumbledore would be alive. Jen: Harry does take on guilt for things that are not his fault. Usually he is acting without all the information, information others have withheld from him. Dumbledore is evasive about the action of the potion and in the middle of the cave sequence, Harry does NOT think he is feeding Dumbledore poison: 'No,' said Harry, shaking Dumbledore, 'no you're not dead, you said it wasn't poison, wake up, wake up--Rennervate!' (p. 536 Bloomsbury) JKR set that scene up very carefully. Dumbledore tells Harry the potion is not one that will instantly kill him when he drinks it. When Harry challenges that idea, Dumbledore switches from talking about the potion to Voldemort himself: 'he would not want to *immediately* kill the person who reached this island.' In my view Dumbledore chose to drink the potion, he chose to order a minor who trusts him completely to feed him an unknown potion, not telling him what it was (if he even knew). If the potion was a slow- acting poison and Dumbledore expected his own abilities would make it possible for him to drink it and still get to Severus in time for an antidote, then that was his choice as well. I don't think the juxtaposing of the scene with Harry feeding the potion and Snape casting the AK is for plot purposes, to show later both 'killed' Dumbledore together or that Snape is covering for Harry. Both of these plot ideas ignore the importance of the UV to the story, which Snape took willingly with all his faculties in place as far as we know. It serves no purpose to show the UV, to show the tower with all the players in the UV together in the moment when someone is supposed to kill Dumbledore, and then to discover ex post facto Harry's potion was the actual cause of death. Rather, I think the value of the two scenes is emotional, that both Harry and Snape are shown to feel hatred and revulsion for what they are doing. We know why Harry feels revulsion for feeding the potion, we don't know why Snape appears to feel the same. Jen From papa at marvels.org Wed Dec 21 14:51:48 2005 From: papa at marvels.org (Ralph Miller) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:51:48 -0500 Subject: The Twins / Ron / Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <42FD968C0002E03F@mta10.wss.scd.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145118 kchuplis wrote: I still think people are reading way too much into the twins behaviour. RM: I agree, I don't think the twins are anywhere near as mean as people are seeming to paint them. Yes, they can be cruel, harassing and a handful. Here in the southern US they would be called a couple of "good ol' boys". I have friends like this, some of whom have been my friends for decades. We harass each other mercilessly, pick on each other, tease each other and sometimes pull a prank on each other. this behaviour goes back to when we kids in school. But we also love each other, and if I picked up the phone and told one of them I needed them, they would be on the way to help, and vice versa. In every crucial moment of my life, they have been there for me, and I for them. I consider them my brothers. We often joke that we are brothers with different mothers. Maybe the the twins aren't the "good sons", but I bet when the chips are down, they step up. I think we see glimmerings of this when they go after Umbridge. JMO, of course. From kchuplis at alltel.net Wed Dec 21 14:40:17 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:40:17 -0000 Subject: The Twins / Ron / Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145119 kchuplis: > I just ran across the spider incident today. Ron was three, so the boys must have been > 5. He turned the teddy into a spider because Ron had broken his toy broomstick. > Sounds like a brother's spat with magic to me. I haven't found the bludgeoning > incident yet and don't remember reading it at all. I still think people are reading way > too much into the twins behaviour. > > kchuplis: Oops. Cite is CoS pg. 155. If anyone has a cite for the bludgeoning, I'd appreciate it. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Dec 21 15:36:41 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:36:41 -0000 Subject: *When* did Dumbledore die? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145120 After the Avada Kedavra on the tower, Harry is paralysed by shock Petrifies a Death Eater Runs down the staircase Struggles with Fenrir Jinxes Amycus Sprints past McGonagall Stumbles over Neville Hexes the enormous blond Death Eater Skids around some corners Hides behind a suit of armor Races down the staircase Reaches the grounds Runs all the way to the gate Fights with Snape Helps Hagrid put out the fire "until the last flame was extinguished." Give it fifteen minutes at least, maybe even a half an hour. After all that he reaches Dumbledore's body There's a trickle of blood from the mouth. We've argued a lot over what could have caused it and that's JKR's genius. Because what we've all missed is this: It was fresh enough to wipe away. Corroborating canon comes from chapter 8, where the much more copious bleeding from Harry's broken nose has dried by the time Harry reaches the Great Hall. Hermione needs a spell to siphon it off. Harry's nose bleeds again as he's fighting with the Death Eaters, and JKR *doesn't* tell us what happened to to the blood this time, but clearly something did, because Harry tells Ginny he's not hurt and she doesn't say "but you're bleeding." Dumbledore could have had magic enough to slow himself even without his wand. We know that wandless, untrained Tom Riddle was able to get Billy Stubbs's rabbit up into the rafters. The odd angle of his arms and legs, even broken bones, could have been caused by convulsions. Dumbledore died of the poison, IMO, some ten or twenty minutes after he'd fallen from the tower. He may have been conscious long enough to open the locket, he may have decided not to call for aid in order to preserve Snape's cover and keep the vow from going into effect, or because his first priority was to see that Snape and Harry got the Death Eaters out of the school. Any way you slice it, neither of them is a murderer in this scenario. Death by misadventure. There's a simple spell, by the way, which could clear Snape of the AK or convict him *and* allow Dumbledore to explain what he meant by his last word. Priori incantatem. If there's no shade of Dumbledore,then Dumbledore was not AK'd by Snape's wand. If there is, then Dumbledore's shade can either accuse Snape or explain why Snape should not be blamed for killing him. Pippin From kevin_mcgoff at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 15:38:37 2005 From: kevin_mcgoff at yahoo.com (another_potter_fan) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:38:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Wrong? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145121 Wouldn't LV have used up one of his horcruxes when the AK rebounded off Harry and hit him? Shouldn't that mean that Harry is looking for only 5 horcruxes? To recap, I have the horcruxes as 1)Tom Riddle's Diary (destroyed); 2) Marvolo's Ring (destroyed); 3) Hufflepuff's Cup (missing); 4) Merope Gaunt's Locket (missing - 12 Grimmauld Place/Mundungus?); 5) Nagini; 6) LV. Can't talk to my wife about this - she hasn't read HBP. Another_Potter_Fan From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Dec 21 16:47:16 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:47:16 -0000 Subject: Umbridge a DE? (was: Wizard Logic) In-Reply-To: <000001c60614$b04c70b0$9a8b94ac@Overton> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145122 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Corey Overton" wrote: > Corey: > I think we can all agree that death eaters aren't nice people. Umbridge being the MoM woman through and through. Kind of > Harry being Dumbledore's man through and through. What I > find interesting about Umbridge is she didn't come up in the HBP book. I would have thought she would have wanted to cause more trouble for Harry just to be mean but she didn't. Actually that is very logical. In HPB Harry is the chosen one and the Minister is bending over backwards to get Harry to ally himself with the MoM. Making trouble for Harry is not going to make Umbridge popular in the eyes of her superiors, to put it mildly. Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Dec 21 16:53:53 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:53:53 -0000 Subject: *When* did Dumbledore die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145123 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > It was fresh enough to wipe away. But JKR is sometimes rather nonchalant. > There's a simple spell, by the way, which could clear Snape > of the AK or convict him *and* allow Dumbledore to explain > what he meant by his last word. Priori incantatem. If there's no > shade of Dumbledore,then Dumbledore was not AK'd by Snape's > wand. If there is, then Dumbledore's shade can either accuse > Snape or explain why Snape should not be blamed for killing him. > But then they have to catch Snape first, and perform that spell. They did not bother with Sirius, so why would they now? Gerry From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Dec 21 17:02:38 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:02:38 -0000 Subject: The Twins / Ron / Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145124 > > > kchuplis: > > Oops. Cite is CoS pg. 155. If anyone has a cite for the bludgeoning, > I'd appreciate it. > Hickengruendler: It's in Fantastic beasts and where to find them, one of the two comic relief books. Harry and Ron have written their comments in the book, and when the book describes the Puffskin Ron wrote, that he once had one, but that Fred bludgered it to death. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Dec 21 17:37:17 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:37:17 -0000 Subject: *When* did Dumbledore die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145125 Pippin: > > It was fresh enough to wipe away. Gerry: > But JKR is sometimes rather nonchalant. Pippin: I think the other references to blood and bleeding show she wasn't being nonchalant here. Of course it could be a Flint. But then so could anything. Gerry: > But then they have to catch Snape first, and perform that spell. They > did not bother with Sirius, so why would they now? Pippin: Sirius was accused of having blown up a street and destroyed thirteen lives with a single spell. It was not an Avada Kedavra spell, which takes one life at a time. If his wand was tested, the absence of a shadow wouldn't have proved anything. I would assume that Harry will catch up with Snape before the Ministry does...in which case we might have a scene very much like the one in the Shrieking Shack with the roles reversed. Harry will be insisting on immediate vengeance and Hermione might say it wouldn't hurt to hear what Snape had to say. She might even stand in front of him. Do you think Harry would hex her? Pippin From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Dec 21 17:44:21 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:44:21 -0000 Subject: *When* did Dumbledore die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145126 Pippin: *(snipping timeline after tower AK)* > Give it fifteen minutes at least, maybe even a half an hour. > > After all that he reaches Dumbledore's body > There's a trickle of blood from the mouth. We've argued > a lot over what could have caused it and that's JKR's > genius. Because what we've all missed is this: > > It was fresh enough to wipe away. > > Corroborating canon comes from chapter 8, where the > much more copious bleeding from Harry's broken nose > has dried by the time Harry reaches the Great Hall. > Hermione needs a spell to siphon it off. Ceridwen: Interesting point. And, personally, I do believe it. The time between the AK and Harry reaching Dumbledore's body can't have been too short. But to be objective, I wonder if the night was damp, or if the blood took a while to emerge? Or if the potion had some effect on the blood's coagulation? Pippin: > Dumbledore could have had magic enough to > slow himself even without his wand. We know that > wandless, untrained Tom Riddle was able to get Billy Stubbs's > rabbit up into the rafters. > > The odd angle of his arms and legs, even broken bones, > could have been caused by convulsions. Dumbledore > died of the poison, IMO, some ten or twenty minutes > after he'd fallen from the tower. He may have been > conscious long enough to open the locket, he may > have decided not to call for aid in order to preserve > Snape's cover and keep the vow from going into effect, > or because his first priority was to see that Snape and > Harry got the Death Eaters out of the school. Any > way you slice it, neither of them is a murderer in this > scenario. Death by misadventure. Ceridwen: Or he could have gone unconscious almost immediately after reaching the ground. He was already weak on the tower, and it could even be that he was blacking out in short bursts before Snape ever arrived. I don't know about poisons or potions, but if someone is very tired, they catch mere seconds-long catnaps at various intervals, according to some things I've read. Weakness can have much the same effect, and he is already losing his strength, sliding down the wall as he makes the effort to talk to Draco. At that point, I think, Dumbledore is conscious only through supreme will. And all of his energy is going into his voice. Even if he was fully conscious the whole time, he was weak. Once he stopped fighting it, he would have blacked out/died. I don't know who he could have called for. He seemed to think Snape was the only one who could help. Snape was busy. And even if he did manage to call, who would have heard him? He was weak, and it would probably have come out more like his pleading than a strong, sure voice. And, being weak, if he used his last effort at magic to slow his fall, he might not have been strong enough to use magical means to get attention. And, he had lost his wand, so no Patronus. (btw, does the book mention where his wand got to? I don't recall) As for convulsions breaking bones, I'll have to take your word. I've heard that people with seizures can injure themselves pretty badly if they're not restrained, but I have no knowledge or experience. But, what would have killed him, then? Not the fall from the tower if he managed to slow himself. And, not the AK if he was alive enough to slow himself. It would either have to be the poison, or the earlier injury to his hand and arm. Pippin: > There's a simple spell, by the way, which could clear Snape > of the AK or convict him *and* allow Dumbledore to explain > what he meant by his last word. Priori incantatem. If there's no > shade of Dumbledore,then Dumbledore was not AK'd by Snape's > wand. If there is, then Dumbledore's shade can either accuse > Snape or explain why Snape should not be blamed for killing him. Gerry: But then they have to catch Snape first, and perform that spell. They did not bother with Sirius, so why would they now? Ceridwen: That was a different administration that imprisoned Sirius without trial. But Scrimgeour's government doesn't seem to have a much better track record, see Stan Shunpike. Held? How long can they hold him before bringing him to trial? But, if they catch the murderer, or 'murderer', of Albus Dumbledore, they'll probably want to make a show out of the arrest and trial. That would certainly show they're doing something! Competent counsel should be able to get the Priori Incantatem used in court if Snape maintains his innocence. Or, a competent prosecution might ask for it. Interesting idea, Pippin! I think I'm going to study on it a bit more. Just my first inclinations here. Ceridwen. From sydpad at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 17:49:39 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:49:39 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? Heroes and Not. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145127 Jen: > > I don't think the juxtaposing of the scene with Harry feeding the > potion and Snape casting the AK is for plot purposes, to show later > both 'killed' Dumbledore together or that Snape is covering for > Harry. Both of these plot ideas ignore the importance of the UV to > the story, which Snape took willingly with all his faculties in > place as far as we know. It serves no purpose to show the UV, to > show the tower with all the players in the UV together in the moment > when someone is supposed to kill Dumbledore, and then to discover ex > post facto Harry's potion was the actual cause of death. Rather, I > think the value of the two scenes is emotional, that both Harry and > Snape are shown to feel hatred and revulsion for what they are > doing. We know why Harry feels revulsion for feeding the potion, we > don't know why Snape appears to feel the same. Sydney: Yes, this is exactly my feeling-- if the point of the scene was that the cause of death was really the potion, it cuts out the UV which was set up right from the start of the book, relies a little too heavily even for JKR on to-the-second timing, and transfers the 'dark' role here completely from Snape to Harry. Snape and Harry are PARALLELED, as you say, but they shouldn't be switching around completely. Sherry is quite right when she writes: >But to turn it around and make Snape the hero, saving Harry from the >knowledge of what he'd done--knowledge that would inevitably have to >come out or how would anyone know of poor noble Sevvy's great >sacrifice for the worthless, ungrateful wretch Harry potter--that >would be the thing I could not take To my mind guilt and letting go of guilt is the whole point of Snape's role thematically, and intensfying the guilt part to that wild extent going into the last act was a real coup of JKR's. The point of the potion in the cave to my mind would be to have Harry be able to relate to Snape's guilt-- which is why I could be totally down with the potion being in the PROCESS of killing D-dore. But for Harry to have actually KILLED Dumbledore.. I dunno, it just takes the whole situation from being dramatic into being ironic, which is not a tone JKR uses that much, least of all for a climax, and doesn't quite match the thematic structure. -- Sydney From annee19 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 17:07:57 2005 From: annee19 at yahoo.com (Anne) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:07:57 -0000 Subject: *When* did Dumbledore die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145128 Pippin wrote: > Dumbledore died of the poison, IMO, some ten or twenty minutes > after he'd fallen from the tower. He may have been > conscious long enough to open the locket, he may > have decided not to call for aid in order to preserve > Snape's cover and keep the vow from going into effect, > or because his first priority was to see that Snape and > Harry got the Death Eaters out of the school. Any > way you slice it, neither of them is a murderer in this > scenario. Death by misadventure. Anne: Furthermore, if Dumbledore *was* conscious after he fell from the tower, and he lay on the ground for up to half an hour, did anybody go to him or see him? Sure, many of the main characters were at that time involved in the battle, but what about secondary characters--a centaur or other being from the forest, perhaps? Dumbledore may have been able to pass along some message, and even if not, someone may have witnessed what actually DID happen after Dumbledore hit the ground. If so, that witness may come forward to Harry in Book 7 with some essential information. That trickle of blood is indeed provocative. The moment when it is wiped away is so tender, so agonizing, that you almost don't notice how odd that offhanded mention of the trickle is. Is JKR hoping that we won't see clues through our tears?! :) --Anne From briandumby at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 17:10:42 2005 From: briandumby at yahoo.com (brian dumby) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:10:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Pettigrew: Dual personality In-Reply-To: <1135045457.2075.80267.m30@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20051221171042.30743.qmail@web35913.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145129 Pippin: > Could this person have killed the Muggles? Could he have > been the one who spied on the Order for a year before the > Potter's deaths? Could he have discovered that Peter was the > secret keeper and betrayed him? Could Peter have been > memory charmed and forced to believe that he was the > spy and *did* reveal himself to Voldemort of his own free > will? Indeed. Now I had another enlightment :D What if Peter has a dual personality - a person cowed into service by Voldemort and a person who deep inside loathes and hates Voldemort to the point of being his enemy. Now what we saw in GOF graveyard scene was from HPs POV. What if the blood that was put in the cauldron was not HPs but Peter's himself. Yup, no cannon proof for that or an explanation on how Voldy was able to touch HP after that.. but just a thought on Peter as good and bad. BD From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Dec 21 17:53:29 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:53:29 -0500 Subject: Subjects at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43A99699.80108@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145130 alora67 wrote: > I think the twins will be very important. Look at the things they > have invented! I'm not surprised that they didn't do that well with > OWLs, because they are so focussed on other things. It's possible > they might come up with something to help Harry out of a tight > situation. It's also possible that one or both will die. I have a > bad feeling about them..... Bart: I still maintain that, in the Potterverse, artificing is, for some reason, held at a lower level of esteem than it probably should be. Someone here mentioned that "Charms" covers artificing, but I have seen no indication in the canon that this is correct. Here are what the subjects cover, as near as I can figure (with a little advice from http://www.answers.com/topic/hogwarts-subjects ): Transfiguration: This seems to be the clearest. It is the changing the physical properties of the object of the spell, anywhere from physical appearance to it's entire physical structure. Potions: What we had been shown has been largely "cookbook" stuff; follow the instructions, make the potions. Yet, there are indications, verified in Advanced Potions, that theory is also taught. Fred and George are certainly conversant with a lot of theory, and Hermoine implies that this is taught. Certainly, Snape's notes show that the theory is available to lower levels. Charms: This appears to be the art of getting the object of the spell to do something without altering its physical structure; usually involving motion, although mind altering spells would go under this, as well. Defense against the Dark Arts: The study of creatures that attack humans, and spells used to attack humans, and the learning of spells and techniques to defend one's self from them. Care of Magical Creatures: How to deal with non-human magical creatures; it appears to be of limited importance in the magic world. Too bad proper treatment of house elves isn't in the cirriculum. Muggle Studies: It appears that people in the magical community do not interact much with Muggles, but it's important for those who do to have an idea of how to do so without giving themselves away. Astronomy: Appears to be similar to Muggle Astronomy, although, especially considering that astrology is taught in Divination, it is not made clear why this is considered to be sufficiently important that it is taught as a separate subject. Divination: Appears to be similar to Muggle divination. The problem with it is that the future is NOT predetermined; all that can be divined is probabilities. Dumbledore does not have a high opinion of it, and, feeling that it was more important to protect Trelawny, hired a relative incompetent to teach the subject. I suspect that Firenze has a stronger hold of the subject. Herbology: The care of and properties of plants. Probably highly complementary with Potions. As a number of plants are not only dangerous, but also mobile, safety concerns are also taught. History of Magic: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Arithmancy: We know virtually nothing about this, but we can assume that it's in the realm of theory of magic. Ancient Runes: Not clear if this is for understanding the language of ancient spells, or if the runes themselves are magical, making this a theoretical course as well. Bart From kevin_mcgoff at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 15:52:47 2005 From: kevin_mcgoff at yahoo.com (another_potter_fan) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:52:47 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Wrong? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145131 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "another_potter_fan" wrote: > > Wouldn't LV have used up one of his horcruxes when the AK rebounded > off Harry and hit him? Shouldn't that mean that Harry is looking for > only 5 horcruxes? To recap, I have the horcruxes as 1)Tom Riddle's > Diary (destroyed); 2) Marvolo's Ring (destroyed); 3) Hufflepuff's Cup > (missing); 4) Merope Gaunt's Locket (missing - 12 Grimmauld > Place/Mundungus?); 5) Nagini; 6) LV. > > Can't talk to my wife about this - she hasn't read HBP. > > Another_Potter_Fan > APF adds: My mistake. I meant to write that Harry was looking for only 3 horcruxes (in addition to LV). I hope I didn't cause too much confusion. Thanks. APF From kevin_mcgoff at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 15:50:13 2005 From: kevin_mcgoff at yahoo.com (another_potter_fan) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:50:13 -0000 Subject: *When* did Dumbledore die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145132 Pippin: Dumbledore > died of the poison, IMO, some ten or twenty minutes > after he'd fallen from the tower. He may have been > conscious long enough to open the locket, he may > have decided not to call for aid in order to preserve > Snape's cover and keep the vow from going into effect, > or because his first priority was to see that Snape and > Harry got the Death Eaters out of the school. Any > way you slice it, neither of them is a murderer in this > scenario. Death by misadventure. Another_Potter_Fan writes: Pippin, Only one thing: what of the Unbreakable Vow? If Snape didn't kill DD, then he should be dead as a consequence of breaking the UV. Thoughts? Another_Potter_Fan From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Dec 21 18:13:44 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:13:44 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again. In-Reply-To: <000b01c6052d$21c05d80$4e36a3ac@Overton> References: <000b01c6052d$21c05d80$4e36a3ac@Overton> Message-ID: <43A99B58.1000303@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145133 > Bart: >>You forget one small item: Dumbledore is thrown off the parapet, >>and falls to the ground, below. This, to me, gives three major >>possibilities (eliminating, for example, the possibility of >>Dumbledore still being alive), in reverse order of likeliness: >> >>1) Snape killed Dumbledore with the AK spell. >>2) Snape used a mental spell immediately before to throw >>Dumbledore out of the range of the AK spell, but it threw him off >>the parapet. >>3) Snape was keeping Dumbledore alive; he mentally removed the >>spell, and THEN cast the AK spell. Corey: > That's an interesting point but could you explain it a little > more? Bart: The AK spell is not SUPPOSED to do anything but kill. The damage done when Harry survived was due, as far as we know, to a backfire. However, what you say may be true. On the other hand, the AK has a LOT of energy; if it doesn't kill, it will probably do something else (hence, for example, #3). Bart From lealess at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 18:51:13 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:51:13 -0000 Subject: *When* did Dumbledore die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145134 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "another_potter_fan" wrote: > > Pippin: > > Dumbledore > > died of the poison, IMO, some ten or twenty minutes > > after he'd fallen from the tower. He may have been > > conscious long enough to open the locket, he may > > have decided not to call for aid in order to preserve > > Snape's cover and keep the vow from going into effect, > > or because his first priority was to see that Snape and > > Harry got the Death Eaters out of the school. Any > > way you slice it, neither of them is a murderer in this > > scenario. Death by misadventure. > > > Another_Potter_Fan writes: > > Pippin, > Only one thing: what of the Unbreakable Vow? If Snape didn't kill > DD, then he should be dead as a consequence of breaking the UV. > Thoughts? > > Another_Potter_Fan > Draco "tried" to kill Dumbledore twice before the Tower, and failed each time. I wonder if his trying has to be more than just facing the Headmaster on the Tower and lowering his wand, if it has to be actually casting a spell. If so, Draco hasn't really failed and Snape is off the UV hook. Snape sees what's going on and flings Dumbledore over the edge of the building. Dumbledore floats down, and arranges his death much as Slughorn arranged his debacle by Death Eater, complete with blood (dragon's?). Snape runs off to get closer to Voldemort, if he's lucky and not killed as a threat to the Dark Lord. Meanwhile, the rest of the Wizarding world hates him. He would understandably object to being called a coward in such circumstances. And Dumbledore may be out of the action, but he may not yet be dead. lealess From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 18:58:17 2005 From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (parisfan_ca) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:58:17 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew: Dual personality In-Reply-To: <20051221171042.30743.qmail@web35913.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145135 > Now I had another enlightment :D > What if Peter has a dual personality - a person cowed into service by Voldemort and a person who deep inside loathes and hates Voldemort to the point of being his enemy. > Now what we saw in GOF graveyard scene was from HPs POV. What if the blood that was put in the cauldron was not HPs but Peter's himself. Yup, no cannon proof for that or an explanation on how Voldy was able to touch HP after that.. but just a thought on Peter as good and bad. > > BD > now that would make Peter truly a rat wouldn't it. It is possible that Peter does loath Lord V a lot but buries it due to the mess he is in--but i tend to think that it was harry's blood that went into that cauldron not peter's. but I'd like to see peter double cross lord V in the end and nulify the earlier betrayals laurie From scb1066 at adelphia.net Wed Dec 21 18:42:10 2005 From: scb1066 at adelphia.net (littlegreenpartyhats) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:42:10 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Wrong? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145136 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "another_potter_fan" wrote: > > Wouldn't LV have used up one of his horcruxes when the AK rebounded > off Harry and hit him? Shouldn't that mean that Harry is looking for > only 5 horcruxes? I could be very, very wrong about this, but I was under the impression that a horcrux isn't used up, per se. I took the whole concept of a horcrux as meaning that, if a part of your soul exists anywhere in the world, you don't die when you are "killed" and you don't need to go get a piece of it to be "reborn". That's my wild speculation, at least. littlegreenpartyhats From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 19:48:31 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:48:31 -0000 Subject: Another Curse-Breaker + HP7 book title? In-Reply-To: <000001c60634$186f4810$3fb1a7ac@Overton> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145137 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Corey Overton" wrote: > > Brothergib: > They are not sure exactly what the remaining Horcruxes are, and > they certainly don't know where they are. The only person who > knows is Voldemort. Therefore someone has to get Voldemort to > tell them where the Horcruxes are. ... > > > Corey: > But why kill Dumbledore? Why not just go to Voldemort and try > and find out himself? > > Your fellow list member, Corey bboyminn: Hi Corey, welcome to the group. I see you received me email address. As to the questions you ask and the point they make, I agree in GENERAL, but we don't have a general case here, we have a very specific and immediate case. Snape, Draco, a pack of wild Death Eaters, and a greatly weakened Dumbledore, plus a hidden Harry, are at the top of the Tower. Their mission, though it is primarily Draco's mission, is to kill Dumbledore. Now what should Snape do? What action should he take? What action will provide the best possible outcome in that situation? That is a very difficult decision for anyone to make, and an extremely difficult decision to make under the presure of the moment. So, in general, I think you are right, as part of Dumbledore's grand plan it would have been nice for Snape to have pumped Voldemort for information. Of course, it would have to be done carefully so Voldemort didn't get wise to the fact that Dumbledore was Horcrux hunting. But Snape is faced with a specific situation. How does he maximize it? If he turns and fights the DE's, his cover is blown and he is no longer of use to the Order as a Spy in Voldemort's camp. Further, it is one against four blood thirsty battle-pumped vicious Death Eaters and Draco, and he would very likely not win, in which case Dumbledore would die anyway, and further Snape himself would die. True there is a slim chance that Snape might be able to overcome Draco and the DE's, but even with that outcome, Snape usefullness is pretty much at an end. So, to the group in general, under these very specific circumstances, what should Snape have done? They are on the top of a tower with limited space and only one exit. An exit which leads down to a heated battle in progress. Dumbledore is down, weak, and defenseless. Harry is hidden and petrified. Draco has failed at his task. Snape arrives on the scene. Now what should Snape do? How should he act to maximize the situation for the greatest good and the greatest long term outcome? Or if you don't believe Snape should have acted for long term outcome or greatest good, that doesn't change the basic question. What should Snape have done? Welcome to the group, Corey. I think you will find the discussion deep and heated. Enjoy. Steve/bboyminn From AllieS426 at aol.com Wed Dec 21 20:33:40 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:33:40 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Wrong? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145138 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "another_potter_fan" wrote: > @y...> wrote: > > > > Wouldn't LV have used up one of his horcruxes when the AK rebounded > > off Harry and hit him? Shouldn't that mean that Harry is looking for > > only 5 horcruxes? > APF adds: > My mistake. I meant to write that Harry was looking for only 3 > horcruxes (in addition to LV). I hope I didn't cause too much > confusion. Thanks. > > APF > Allie: I don't think it works like that. I think the idea with the Horcruxes is that as long as there IS Horcrux, Voldemort can't be killed. I don't think it's like a video game where he uses one up each time he's supposed to die. :) There's not much canon on how the Horcruxes actually work, though. From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Wed Dec 21 20:35:31 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:35:31 -0000 Subject: *When* did Dumbledore die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145139 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Pippin: > > > It was fresh enough to wipe away. > > Gerry: > > But JKR is sometimes rather nonchalant. > > Pippin: > I think the other references to blood and bleeding show > she wasn't being nonchalant here. Of course it could > be a Flint. But then so could anything. > > Gerry: > > But then they have to catch Snape first, and perform that spell. They > > did not bother with Sirius, so why would they now? > > Pippin: > Sirius was accused of having blown up a street and destroyed > thirteen lives with a single spell. It was not an Avada Kedavra > spell, which takes one life at a time. If his wand was tested, > the absence of a shadow wouldn't have proved anything. Marianne: According to the Lexicon, Priori Incantatum will shades of the last spells the wand cast. To me that means it shows a "shade" or representation of whatever spell was cast, not necessarily only limited to shades of bodies killed by an AK. If Sirius' wand had cast whatever spell that was powerful enough to blow up a street, then I would suspect that PI would show something to indicate that. Pippin: > I would assume that Harry will catch up with Snape before > the Ministry does...in which case we might have a scene > very much like the one in the Shrieking Shack with the > roles reversed. Harry will be insisting on immediate vengeance > and Hermione might say it wouldn't hurt to hear > what Snape had to say. She might even stand in front of > him. Do you think Harry would hex her? Marianne: I'd agree that it would be more dramatic to have Harry confront Snape while Snape is still free, as opposed to talking to him if he was a prisoner of the Ministry. I don't, however, see Harry exacting vengeance in the sense of trying to kill Snape. If, as loads of people seem to think, part of Harry's maturing process is to be able to master his negative emotions (or at least, the extreme ends of those emotions) then, I think he has to show this by *not* killing Snape. For this to be most effective, IMO, would be for Harrry to act of his own accord, and not have to be convinced or pushed or coerced by Hermione or anyone else. Marianne From ornawn at 013.net Wed Dec 21 20:44:52 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:44:52 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? Heroes and Not. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145140 >Lupinlore: >As with most DDM! speculation, it >falls afoul of the fact that this is NOT SNAPE'S STORY. Nor is it >Dumbledore's story. This kind of convoluted (and unbelievable) >scenario has a tendancy to pull the focus completely off of Harry >and his decisions and onto the decisions and plans of Dumbledore and >Snape. Harry becomes a passive victim in the whole process, not a >hero whose decisions and actions are the focus of the tale. Orna: You may be right in principle ? but facts are that Snape is getting IMO more cyber-attention than Harry, as it is. And whatever direction the story goes ? we will need to get some explanation, which makes Snape's behavior understandable. Since there are DDM! Snape-fans and ESE!Snape-fans, it means that either way, it will take some skill and story-volume to make it believable. So Snape is a second-degree hero in a way, and understanding what made him act the way he did, apparent or real major turning points included ? are crucial to the focus of the tale. Since you have to add to this that either way he is, it means that he is a very gifted wizard, being able to deceive the (nearly?) greatest wizard of all times, both specializing in legilimens, I think it is very crucial to the focus of the story, which seats itself on the point of love, evil, and what makes people build their fates between them. It doesn't make Harry less hero, since the ability to see people as they really are, and not the way they appear to be, or the way he wants them to be, and relate to them from this POV, is the focus of the tale. And Harry (with us behind him) being able to decipher Snape in a convincing and believable way, is crucial to this point. I believe, JKR will do it in a way, which enables DDM!-fans and ESE!- fans to enjoy and learn something from it. (Although it doesn't seem possible right now). >Sherry >Anything, but Harry's absolute knowledge that if he hadn't forced >the potion down Dumbledore, Dumbledore would be alive. I don't know >if he could stand that or live with it >But it would be a truly terrible thing to do to Harry, and I'd >like him to have something positive and happy to hang onto in his >heart in the end. He's only 17 after all. some things are just too >big a burden to bear or price to pay. Orna: I feel in a way the same, but in a way ? not. One of the things I feel contribute to the books power, is that they are very real in a deep sense. And horrible as it is, children are victims of terrible life circumstances and tragic life events. And spelling it out brutally - Harry has to come into terms with his endangering/getting Sirius killed ? because of some vivid dream, or hopefully being able to accept human's shortcomings, and not trying to find some scapegoat to blame. Even as the story goes now ? he has weakened DD fatally ? for nothing, or perhaps for something ? actually what does it really matter ? it is a terrible guilt-evoking burden, and Harry has to be able to accept this tragic outcomes of life ? without resorting to the most natural drive ? to find some ESE! Guy, whom he can blame. I feel, that's part of what the story is about ? to differentiate between evilness and purposeful hurting and fighting it to death, and between the human tendency to create scapegoats (including themselves) and see them as ESE! when very tragic happenings go on. Just for balance ? there is also the tendency to deny the existence of evil, to believe in far-fetched theories, so as not to stand eye to eye in front of evil (Fudge would be the character for that, or DDM!Snape-fans, if Snape turns out to be ESE! ) >Jen: Harry does take on guilt for things that are not his fault. >Usually he is acting without all the information, information others >have withheld from him. Dumbledore is evasive about the action of >the potion and in the middle of the cave sequence, Harry does NOT >think he is feeding Dumbledore poison: >-- Sydney >To my mind guilt and letting go of guilt is the whole point of >Snape's role thematically Orna: Agree. I just wanted to add, that IMO Harry seeing the pensieve scene in OotP is another thing burdening his guilt- he sees his father humiliating Snape - just because he is bored, and Snape exists. OTOH DDM!Snape might be burdened by the terrible outcomes of his DE's days ? I mean, even if he didn't AK many people ? he is a very powerful wizard, so his contribution should be felt. I think, that perhaps their mutual hate has to do with it, if you feel burdened by guilt, you are bound to feel some hatred towards the person signifying your guilt, which in turn arouses more guilt, etc ? a truly vicious cycle. Letting go of guilt isn't "paying back" your debt, or forwarding the guilt to someone else, but something entirely different, which Harry hasn't been able to do until now. That's what I suppose is going to happen in book 7. Orna, alternately blaming JKR for having to wait until book 7, and then again enjoying the time it gives us for thought very much. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 20:48:50 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:48:50 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Wrong? 7 Soul Pieces - sort of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145141 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "littlegreenpartyhats" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "another_potter_fan" > wrote: > > > > Wouldn't LV have used up one of his horcruxes when the AK > > rebounded off Harry and hit him? Shouldn't that mean that > > Harry is looking for only 5 horcruxes? > > littlegreenpartyhats: > > I could be very, very wrong about this, but I was under > the impression that a horcrux isn't used up, per se. I > took the whole concept of a horcrux as meaning that, if a > part of your soul exists anywhere in the world, you don't > die when you are "killed" and you don't need to go get a > piece of it to be "reborn". That's my wild speculation, > at least. > > littlegreenpartyhats > bboyminn: I think you are on the right track here. JKR has somewhat confused the issue by referring to 7 Horcruxes, but that's not really what we have. What we have is 7 soul pieces in the form of 6 Horcruxes and a single embodied Core Soul. So, we have the Core Soul and six auxiliary soul pieces. As long as any auxiliary soul piece is earth bound, the Core Soul remains earth bound, and that makes the Core Soul immortal. When the curse against baby Harry rebounded and tore Voldemort from his body, it was the Core Soul that lived on protected by the earth bound existance of one or more auxiliary soul pieces. It was this Core Soul that was re-embodied in the graveyard. And most important, it is this Core Soul that is the center of Voldemort's continued existance. That is, it is the Core Soul that defines Voldemort as we know him; in a vague and general sense, the Core Soul defines his personality.. The auxiliary soul pieces must be released from earth bound existance for the Core Soul to be vulnerable to death. Now we really don't have a clear picture of what happens to the Auxiliary Soul Piece, are they released to the nether world, do they rejoin the Core, are they destroyed? We don't know, and to some extent it doesn't matter since the key is that once released from the Horcrux object, the auzilairy pieces are no longer 'earth bound'. Not sure if or how that helps, but there it is. Steve/bboyminn From ornawn at 013.net Wed Dec 21 21:33:33 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:33:33 -0000 Subject: *When* did Dumbledore die? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145142 Pippin wrote: > Dumbledore died of the poison, IMO, some ten or twenty minutes > after he'd fallen from the tower. He may have been > conscious long enough to open the locket, he may > have decided not to call for aid in order to preserve > Snape's cover and keep the vow from going into effect, > or because his first priority was to see that Snape and > Harry got the Death Eaters out of the school. Any > way you slice it, neither of them is a murderer in this > scenario. Death by misadventure. Orna: Just want to add Harry's first intuition ? he badly wanted to get Snape and DD together ? feeling that that would reverse things. It would support your theory, since Snape would be the one who could heal DD ? perhaps. BUT ? that means that Snape ran away, while he knew DD's state, and him being the only one who can rescue him. So how does that help? AND ? Harry froze ? perhaps not because of shock as he thinks, but because DD was still alive when he fell over. OK. But his being able to move again ? how do you explain it? DD wandless freeing him, Snape nonverbally freeing him? I don't have an explanation for the fresh blood, but . As you said, it might be a flint, which could be explained away by ? the effect of the potion ? disabling the congenial of blood. >lealess >Snape sees what's going on and flings >Dumbledore over the edge of the building. Dumbledore floats down, >and arranges his death much as Slughorn arranged his debacle by >Death Eater, complete with blood (dragon's?). >And Dumbledore may be out of the action, but he may not yet be dead. Orna: I like your suggestion very much ? combined with Pippin's theory. Much more than all those shortcomings, I have suggested. It gives a moment of something like happy hope. But ? I do believe DD is dead. Corpse, Funeral, Phoenix song, portrait,? all point to DD being dead. I also think that in a way DD (tried) to help us accept his death ? from PS he talks about death being a natural thing, in HBP he recurrently foreshadows his death in many dialogues. It doesn't help much when the clock strikes, but I do believe him dead. Orna From sydpad at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 21:55:39 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:55:39 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not (WAS: Who killed Dumbledore?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145143 > >Lupinlore: > >As with most DDM! speculation, it > >falls afoul of the fact that this is NOT SNAPE'S STORY.... Harry becomes a passive victim in the whole process, not a > >hero whose decisions and actions are the focus of the tale. > > Orna: > You may be right in principle ? but facts are that Snape is getting > IMO more cyber-attention than Harry, as it is. I still don't understand how DDM!Snape makes him THE hero of the story. I don't know what Hermionie, or Ron, or Lupin, or Hagrid(or possibly even Regulus Black!) will do to help Harry in the end, but how is Snape helping Harry uniquely damaging to Harry's heroism? Snape is indeed a VERY strong presence in the story, as Orna says, and by the end of HBP, good or bad, Snape and Harry's relationship is established as the central conflict of the series-- the 'personal' one, as JKR put it. But Snape is not the sort of character you make a protagonist. He's like, I dunno, a truffle, or cardamon-- a little goes a very long way! Harry's the MEAT of the story, Snape is the spice. I certainly don't think Snape will Save the Day in Book 7, Harry will. > It doesn't make Harry less hero, since the ability to see people as > they really are, and not the way they appear to be, or the way he > wants them to be, and relate to them from this POV, is the focus of > the tale. > And Harry (with us behind him) being able to decipher Snape in a > convincing and believable way, is crucial to this point. Amen! The themes of the story don't lead to Harry's triumph from being the biggest but-kicking Conan on the block, in which case Lupinlore would be quite right to fear competition from Snape! ;) I think the defeat of Voldemort will center around the Room of Love, not the room full of huge guns. In which case Snape will obviously not be as helpful as Ron and Hermionie. > >-- Sydney > >To my mind guilt and letting go of guilt is the whole point of > >Snape's role thematically > > Orna: > Agree.... > I think, that perhaps their mutual hate has to do with it, if you > feel burdened by guilt, you are bound to feel some hatred towards > the person signifying your guilt, which in turn arouses more guilt, > etc ? a truly vicious cycle. This is totally what's going on, IMO, in Snape's attitude to Harry. Harry's just this big heaping plate of guilt sitting there looking at him with the eyes of the woman who's death he was responsible for. I certain regonize myself in Snape's behaviour-- at least the only thing that can make me as rageful and unreasonable is when I'm feeling guilty about something! Every aspect of Snape's role in the books-- the rule-setting step-parent, the finder-out of rule-breaking, the double-agent, the guy with the dark past that can't be spoken about, the humiliated schoolboy-- is tied into guilt, and it's primal cousin shame. Snape is all about feeling a lack of respect, for himself and from other people. His worst memory is of being humiliated; I think feelings of powerlessness and worthlessness drove him to the DE's, and overwhelming guilt over endagering Lily drove him out, and drives him to the present to try to destroy Voldemort, the source of his guilt. Shame is an extremely potent motivator-- for someone like Snape, far more potent than any kind of worldly gain. The end of HBP was really so awful for Snape-- but JKR just does that, she keeps people, especially the older generation, trapped in this holding pattern of unreconciled wrongs. The way she trapped Sirius in his parent's house and Lupin in with the werewolves next to the guy who infected him. It's this pattern that Harry's there to break. This is also why I think Snape's role in the end will be something other than simply helping Harry destroy V-mort-- because in the end, Snape's shame-repression-and-rage way of dealing with negative impulses -- the 'Dark Magic' way of destroying Voldemort-- is drastically misguided. Harry has to BOTH come to an understanding with Snape, AND find a spiritually healthy way of winning the battle. I'm so sold now on the alchemical reading of HP, that I think Hagrid will play a big part in this: Hagrid and his embrace of 'interestin' creatures', and his total comfort with the dark side of nature. -- Sydney, feeling a little guilty for writing this at work... From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Wed Dec 21 23:07:17 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee chase) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 23:07:17 -0000 Subject: *When* did Dumbledore die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145144 Pippin wrote: > > After the Avada Kedavra on the tower, > > Harry is paralysed by shock > Petrifies a Death Eater > Runs down the staircase > Struggles with Fenrir > Jinxes Amycus > Sprints past McGonagall > Stumbles over Neville > Hexes the enormous blond Death Eater > Skids around some corners > Hides behind a suit of armor > Races down the staircase > Reaches the grounds > Runs all the way to the gate > Fights with Snape > Helps Hagrid put out the fire "until the last flame was extinguished." > > Give it fifteen minutes at least, maybe even a half an hour. > > After all that he reaches Dumbledore's body > There's a trickle of blood from the mouth. We've argued > a lot over what could have caused it and that's JKR's > genius. Because what we've all missed is this: > > It was fresh enough to wipe away. > Luckdragon: I am of the unpopular opinion that DD is not dead. I know canon indicates that he is gone, but DD just encountered and overcame too much in his life to be fooled by the LV/Draco plot. One interesting item on Jo's website gives encouragement to this train of thought: We haven't heard the school song since the first book. Did the teachers rebel against it? Dumbledore called for the school song when he was feeling particularly buoyant, but times are becoming ever darker in the wizarding world. Should Dumbledore ever suggest a rousing encore, you may assume that he is on top form once more. Why would Jo answer this question as she did if DD were going to be killed off. DD was never off top form in, my opinion, until book 7. Obviously this is my perception, but I wonder what everyone elses take is on this quote. From h2so3f at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 23:09:23 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 23:09:23 -0000 Subject: A Horcrux Hypothesis. Re: Can a Horcrux kill/destroy another Horcrux? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145145 Brothergib wrote: "IMO, all six Horcruxes are, in essence, the same thing. Their magical properties are therefore identical. It is how Voldemort chooses to use them, that determines the ease (or not) of their destruction. The diary - In this case, Voldemort wanted to ensure that his soul piece could leave its container (ie the diary) and possess another witch/wizard. Therefore, Voldemort could not place a protective curse upon the diary because it would negate the very reason why Voldemort created that Horcrux in the first place." CH3ed: I think all the soul pieces in the horcruxes have identical properties. But I think the diary was different because it was also a penseive. Brothergib wrote: " What is interestin is that Harry destroyed the container ie the diary when the Horcrux was no longer residing within it (ie Tom Riddle was practically reborn). It therefore appears that the Horcrux is inexorably linked to its container. Destroy the container, and the Horcrux is destroyed also, independently of where the Horcux is at that precise moment." CH3ed: I don't think the diary horcrux was practically reborned yet when Harry stuck the basilisk' fang into it. Ginny was still alive then. Had she been dead I would agree with you. It does appear that the destroying of a horcrux (and the soul encased in it) does involve breaking the horcruxed object as far as we have seen (the diary and the ring). But I don't think we've seen enough to conclude that destroying the container always result in destroying the soul piece it houses even if the soul piece is not inside the container at the time yet. CH3ed :O) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 23:25:32 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 23:25:32 -0000 Subject: Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145146 > Magpie: > > I don't think Draco's line about getting farther than anyone thought > and having Dumbledore in his power are just about being tempted by > power--I think they're more important than that. Draco is telling > himself that he has power in the scene, he has done better than > expected at Voldemort's task and has Dumbledore at his mercy--but then > he starts to lower his wand anyway--iow, he could maybe have that > glory; if he lowers his wand he's choosing DD instead. The position > of "power" Draco reminds himself that he has there makes his > consideration of mercy worth more. He's proved something in getting > himself to this point, but must choose what step he wants to take > now. I think he's being offered and is tempted by mercy (implying > responsibility for what he's done and acknowledging this isn't > something Dumbledore owes him) there and not just acting out of self- > protection. That last scene--Dumbledore's last scene--seem to be all > about exactly that to me. The scene is, imo, not a political one but > one connected to the more important themes of the series. > > -m > Draco started to lower his wand after Dumbledore said that it was his, Dumbledore's, mercy that counted. And he didn't actually lower his wand; he dropped it by a fraction. He still deliberated when Death Eaters came. (And was about to cast an AK when Snape came). And if he had chosen Dumbledore's side, it would have been because Dumbledore offered him an escape. The other reasons be it mercy, morality etc. can apply. Indeed one hopes that they do apply. But there is no indication in the whole episode that it is necessarily the case. a_svirn From kchuplis at alltel.net Wed Dec 21 22:51:05 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:51:05 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not (WAS: Who killed Dumbledore?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145147 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: > > I still don't understand how DDM!Snape makes him THE hero of the > story. I don't know what Hermionie, or Ron, or Lupin, or Hagrid(or > possibly even Regulus Black!) will do to help Harry in the end, but > how is Snape helping Harry uniquely damaging to Harry's heroism? In the olden days, the hero gets the girl. In HP, the hero is whoever gets Voldemort....and it ain't gonna be Snape. DDM!Snape is important, but not the hero. I do not get this line of thinking either. kchuplis From briandumby at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 20:58:22 2005 From: briandumby at yahoo.com (brian dumby) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:58:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Apparation in Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: <1135184577.6756.36411.m26@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20051221205822.68842.qmail@web35904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145148 I am a little curious about this.. well no one can apparate inside Hogwarts and even to practice it DD had to lift the enchantment in the hall. How come Kreacher and Dobby do it? Different rules or magic for house-elves? Waiting for answers BD From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 00:12:42 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:12:42 -0000 Subject: The Twins / Weasleys / Percy In-Reply-To: <01e101c605eb$b287de60$67b4400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145149 > >>Alla: > > I again would like to ask you for canon - no, not Molly's > > praising Percy, but ANY sign, hint even that twins were jealous > > of it. > > > >>Magpie: > To see that I think we'd need the twins to announce they were > jealous. Instead we're stuck just watching their dynamics which I > think is far more complicated (as it is with most families) than > just the bad guy and the good guy. In CoS Percy and the twins > have a playfully antagonistic relationship, but it sours over the > years and I don't think it's just a case of Percy being horrid and > the twins trying to put him back in line. There's a lot > of...stuff...going on there, imo. > Betsy Hp: Yes, exactly. Actually, I think JKR did a bang up job of showing a normal, realistic, and dysfunctional family. There are so many different tensions bubbling beneath the surface. And there are definitely tensions between the twins and Percy. We see it first thing in PS/SS with the first interchange between the twins, Percy and Molly. "Oh, are you a *prefect* Percy?" [...] "How come Percy gets new robes, anyway?" said one of the twins. "Because he's a *prefect*," said their mother fondly. (PS paperback p.96) I'm not saying the tension wasn't of normal size, especially this early in the game. But it was there. (And there's a hint of jealousy there too.) And I'm not saying it wasn't amusing. I loved this little exchange, and it put me in a mood to quite like the twins. It's just, as Magpie points out, that the relationship between Percy and the twins turns sour. Because it *never* stops. Percy never stops over-achieving, and the twins never stop teasing and pranking and finally humiliating him, every chance they get. After a bit, it started to get old, for me. Then it started to get ugly. The twins are two. Percy is one. Percy is *always* facing greater odds. The twins are at his home, they're at his school, and they're in his house. Percy goes to Egypt, his brothers are right there trying to lock him into a tomb. Percy becomes headboy, his brothers are right there, mocking his achievment. Percy is desperate to make a good impression on his boss, the twins are there to sabotage his efforts and rub it in his face when he fails. (No *wonder* Percy was so desperate to keep his girlfriend to himself.) And while Percy *is* a stuffed shirt who could probably easily turn insufferable, after someone is hit in the face with a pie so many times, it stops being funny. I reached my limit a couple of books ago. > >>Magpie: > > I can easily see the twins and Percy as mirrors of each other: the > twins know they drive Molly crazy but underneath they know they're > loved for who they are. Percy knows he pleases Molly but > underneath he doubts he's loved for who he is. Betsy Hp: Exactly! And I must admit to a bias, because I really dislike Molly; she sets my teeth on edge and has since CoS. But I feel like she (unwittingly) adds to the tension between Percy and Fred & George. Because she was *always* yelling at the twins, and she was *always* holding up Percy as the "perfect older brother". I don't think we get a single scene (until HBP when the twins are finally successful in Molly's eyes -- and they make their, "you really were a great laundress", crack ) where the twins and Molly just exist peacefully together. It gives me the impression that Molly was always on the lookout for something they were doing wrong, and the twins were pretty much happy to oblige. Whereas Percy had to do everything right, because he was Molly's perfect little boy, and that's what he had to do to please his mum. Plus, with his less aggressive temperment, it was easier for him to do that than try and match the twins rambunctiousness. And you can see in both PS/SS and CoS that Percy really does *want* to look out for his younger siblings. I think that's how he expresses his love for them. But that sort of thing wouldn't work for the twins, and so instead he's given the role of "perfect example for you to follow" by Molly. She even *lies* to keep Percy in that role. In OotP (IIRC) she yells at Fred & George to stop apparating all over the place and says "Percy never did so". Except Percy *did*! The twins totally joshed him for it in GoF. So even if Percy did cut loose, Molly covered for him. And Arthur, who may have seen Percy for Percy, seems to have never really been there. He was either working late at the Ministry (as we see him do in book after book) or fiddling with his Muggle stuff out in the garden shed. Where apparently none of his children joined him. (I suspect a Molly rule here, because it's odd that the twins, who are hands on themselves, never poked a nose in.) > >>Magpie: > > And I can't help but feel how he must have felt when he came home > with an actual promotion, the one kind of thing he seems to be > able to count on, and get told by his father (whom I think Percy > had already begun to have problematic feelings about regarding > work) that he's just a fool promoted as a pawn to spy on Arthur. > I think Percy and Barty Crouch, Jr. are some bizarro > twins/parallels with their father issues. > Betsy Hp: I can see that. I don't have the same visceral reaction to Arthur that I do to Molly, so I probably let Arthur off the hook too much, but I think Molly sets up a strange dynamic in how she expects her children to view their father. On the one hand, he's this noble, principled man, held back by a bureaucratic Ministry. But on the other he's a rather foolish man with an odd or even unhealthy interest in Muggle things. Oh, and that horrible Ministry is *the* place to work. There's a certain lack of respect the children have for Arthur. They don't seem to listen to him. And Molly is the reason, I think, for that disrespect. (The scene in the Burrow just after the Dudley incident in GoF encapsulates this, to my mind.) And yet, Molly verbally asks the children to respect their father. It must have been very hard for Percy. And then once he started actually working for the Ministry, I wonder what stories he heard about his father? Is Arthur considered a bit of a crackpot? From comments from colleagues and his rather sudden promotion once the war started, I think Ministry members may have been frustrated with Arthur sticking to his Muggle office. Would Percy have realised that his father actually *chose* to be in his deadend job rather than being trapped in it? It doesn't surprise me that Percy went through (might still be going through, actually) an identity crisis that culminated in a screaming match with his father. He must have felt that at some point in time, he was rather badly lied to. May well be why he chose to cling to the Ministry, which is as it's ever been, it seems. > >>kchuplis: > > I just don't see where these boys have been excessively bad > people. You make them sound totally evil and I just don't see it. > I guess we come from different backgrounds. Betsy Hp: For me, it's a cumulative thing with the twins. As I said, I quite liked them in the first few books. I'm not a huge fan of practical jokes, and I thought they were a bit merciless when it came to Percy. But they also made sure he sat with them at Christmas (CoS?). So I did feel some love there. But then it *never* let up. It was pick, pick, pick, pick. All. The. Time. And poor Percy, who is just one boy, and seems so very ill equipped for dealing with the twins never, ever, got a hit back. So my underdog sympathies started to kick in. And their level of violence started to pick up. They seemed perfectly fine with attacking much younger wizards from behind and in greater numbers. There was the bit about the dead puffskien I was rather horrified to read about in Fantastic Creatures. Their pranks started drawing blood, and again, the twins seemed less than phased by it. When they note a team-mate apparently bleeding out because they gave her the wrong side of a product, they decide to play it off. Only taking her to the hospital wing when the team captain notices something is off. Then there is the very near murder of Montague (by starvation, horrifically enough) for which they've shown no remorse. The fact that they vicariously give Hermione a black eye with such a deep bruise normal healing methods don't work. The sadistic treatment of a garden gnome foolish enough to behave like, well, a garden gnome around them. And, as Magpie pointed out in a previous post, their possibly unhealthy fascination with money. > >>RM: > I agree, I don't think the twins are anywhere near as mean as > people are seeming to paint them. Yes, they can be cruel, > harassing and a handful. Here in the southern US they would be > called a couple of "good ol' boys". > Betsy Hp: I *could* be reading too much into it. The movie twins certainly haven't foreshadowed the level of violence I see the book twins as having achieved. (The asphyxiation of Dudley, and the Weasley family fall out from that, is left out, for example.) It could be that JKR and I have very different views on what is considered funny. (Though, hasn't JKR said she quite liked CS Lewis? And didn't he write an essay on practical jokers that did see a rather dark side to it all?) However, I *don't* like the direction they're going in, *especially* since so much of their bad behavior is explained away with a "boys being boys" wave of the hand. So I'd love it if one of the twins turned out to have had dealings with a Death Eater or two in order to keep their business in operation. (Bribe money, maybe? A few products here or there?) That way the other twin can have a wake up moment where he's realized things have gone too far. I certainly can't and won't argue that this is the direction JKR is going. But, boy I'd love it if she did. Because, yeah, the twins bug me. A lot. I worry about the influence they have on Harry. Betsy Hp From rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu Thu Dec 22 00:35:51 2005 From: rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu (susanbones2003) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:35:51 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not (WAS: Who killed Dumbledore?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145150 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kchuplis" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: > > > > > I still don't understand how DDM!Snape makes him THE hero of the > > story. I don't know what Hermionie, or Ron, or Lupin, or Hagrid(or > > possibly even Regulus Black!) will do to help Harry in the end, but > > how is Snape helping Harry uniquely damaging to Harry's heroism? > > In the olden days, the hero gets the girl. In HP, the hero is whoever > gets Voldemort....and it ain't gonna be Snape. DDM!Snape is important, > but not the hero. I do not get this line of thinking either. > > kchuplis In the narrowest sense of the word, there can only be one hero, no doubt. But redemption is not the same as being the hero. How can it threaten someone's very precious notion of who Harry is to see a lesser and very troubled character find a measure of redemption? It would only deepen and broaden the very basis of the story for characters (Harry, as well as others) to gain resolution. No, for the last time, Snape is not the hero, but he may very well get some attention this last book, and it may not be with an eye towards punishing him for his behaviour towards Harry. He may very well demonstrate his own kind of courage. It seems that Snape having any peace at the end of this thing brings out the anger in people. Why is that? Jen D From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 00:39:14 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:39:14 -0000 Subject: Subjects at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: <43A99699.80108@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145151 > Bart: > Defense against the Dark Arts: The study of creatures that attack > humans, and spells used to attack humans, and the learning of spells and > techniques to defend one's self from them. a_svirn: Do you have a definition for the Dark Arts themselves? > Care of Magical Creatures: How to deal with non-human magical creatures; > it appears to be of limited importance in the magic world. Too bad > proper treatment of house elves isn't in the cirriculum. a_svirn: Do you know I cannot think that including them into the same curriculum with hippogriffs and flobberworms would be a proper treatment? Rather the opposite, in fact. > Muggle Studies: It appears that people in the magical community do not > interact much with Muggles, but it's important for those who do to have > an idea of how to do so without giving themselves away. a_svirn: Why bother when you can always rearrange their memories? Besides it's not the sort of thing you can learn in class, anyway. Fieldtrips is the answer. > Divination: Appears to be similar to Muggle divination. The problem with > it is that the future is NOT predetermined; all that can be divined is > probabilities. Dumbledore does not have a high opinion of it, and, > feeling that it was more important to protect Trelawny, hired a relative > incompetent to teach the subject. I suspect that Firenze has a stronger > hold of the subject. a_svirn: Doesn't it sound a bit contradictory? So much effort is invested in protecting Trelawney and Firenze, (not to mention the Prophesy itself) and yet you are saying that Dumbledore does not think much about the subject? Why bother, then? > > History of Magic: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to > repeat it. a_svirn: D'you reckon that's what Binns is doomed to do for eternity? > Ancient Runes: Not clear if this is for understanding the language of > ancient spells, or if the runes themselves are magical, making this a > theoretical course as well. > a_svirn: The strangest thing about runes is that after three years of learning Hermione managed to confuse eiwaz and eihwaz (quite a feat, considering that only 24 runes comprise the full Futhark , not like, say, thousands and thousands of Chinese characters) and still get an O. From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Dec 22 00:39:09 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:39:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat References: Message-ID: <00c401c60690$2730e190$7160400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 145152 a_svirn: > Draco started to lower his wand after Dumbledore said that it was > his, Dumbledore's, mercy that counted. And he didn't actually lower > his wand; he dropped it by a fraction. He still deliberated when > Death Eaters came. (And was about to cast an AK when Snape came). > And if he had chosen Dumbledore's side, it would have been because > Dumbledore offered him an escape. The other reasons be it mercy, > morality etc. can apply. Indeed one hopes that they do apply. But > there is no indication in the whole episode that it is necessarily > the case. Magpie: I agree it's intentionally up in the air what will happen next--though he was not about to cast an AK when Snape comes in. I believe we're told that he's shaking so bad he can't even aim. Dumbledore is correct right from the beginning that he's not going to kill anybody. But I agree it's not in any way a scene of Draco switches sides--the book ends with him with the DEs but with a glimpse into what's going on inside that may become important. Dumbledore's words may or may not turn out to have an effect later, but I think his last words were about something more important than just a minor strategic move in tempting the Malfoy kid with escape--that's perhaps, imo, why it's important the book doesn't end with Malfoy escaping. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 01:52:27 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 01:52:27 -0000 Subject: Slughorn /Heroes or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145154 > Potioncat: > WHAT! > Oh, excuse me, I meant to say, why of course, if you think so. > > However, I'd like to point out: > Slughorn didn't know Ron's name by March even though he was in a NEWT > level class. Alla: HAHAHA. Indeed, BUT I definitely think that Harry and Neville would have preferred Snape NOT knowing their names at all, if it meant leaving them alone. As in " if you cannot tell something nice to the person, do not talk to this person at all". :-) Potioncat: Slughorn panicked when Ron was poisoned and Ron would > have died without Harry's quick thinking. Alla: When did Snape save Ron? Just curious. Potioncat: Slughorn didn't favor his > own House, but he did favor those who could possibly return favors in > the future. Alla: I would phrase it differently - he favored those with real talent AND therefore they would achieve a lot and return favors to him. You know, it is strange, I am still trying to work out why Slughorn club gives me creeps and really cannot, because I don't see anything inherently bad in the Slughorn way of doing things . Typically Slytherin, but not inherently bad, IMO. The best I can come up with is that Dumbledore's warning to Harry sounded as a warning to me too, but I still want to figure out why what Slughorn does is bad. I mean you probably remember that sometimes I have doubts about his loyalties, but assuming that they are not true and they are probably not and I HOPE they are not, I think Slughorn is fun, A LOT of fun. Potioncat: > Well, yes I'd like to see him back, I'm just hoping he won't be the > Deputy Headmaster or worse the Headmaster! Alla: Why not? :) But as I said earlier my favorite Headmaster would be Lupin of course . That IMO would show how WW truly changed at the end without necessity of going into details. One - that would show that werewolfs are treated differently and since we know that Lupin is a good teacher, it would make sense to me to expect that he would promote the same among the teachers he would hire, JenD: > In the narrowest sense of the word, there can only be one hero, no > doubt. But redemption is not the same as being the hero. Alla: No, redemption is NOT necessarily the same as being the Hero, true, but to me after HBP Snape fallen so deeply that the only way he can gain redemption is to play a pivotal role in defeating Voldemort and that IMO IS Harry's job. Posters argue ( Sydney?) that Hermione, Ron, Lupin help Harry too. Too true, they do, BUT I have never seen either Hermione or Ron or Lupin occupy CENTRAL place in the fight, IMO of course and I am not sure we will see it in the last book. HELP Harry defeat Voldemort? - Yes, take his place in defeating Voldemort - I personally doubt it very much. JenD: How can it > threaten someone's very precious notion of who Harry is to see a lesser > and very troubled character find a measure of redemption? Alla: Not the way you phrase it, of course not. If Snape commits a MINOR act of helping Harry which will lead to defeat of Voldemort at the end, I can totally buy it. If without Snape defeat of Voldemort will be impossible, if his help will be SO crucial that without him Harry fails, that IMO makes Snape the Hero and not Harry. JenD: It > seems that Snape having any peace at the end of this thing brings out > the anger in people. Why is that? Alla: Brings the anger in people? More like some people feel ( myself included) that it would not be emotionally satisfactory if Snape would get peace before making amends, I cannot speak for others of course, but to me the answer is very simple and even though I answered the similar inquiries many times, I don't mind answering it again. To me and to me only after all evil that Snape had done, after basically helping Harry to become an orphan, after mercilessly tormenting him at school, after making Harry watch his mentor being killed in front of him, Snape has to pay, AFTER he paid what he owes, he can have some peace by all means. And again, this is simply what I wish to see, I don't think that JKR will be a bad writer or anything for not following my wishes. :-) JMO, Alla. From alesiaglfyn at juno.com Thu Dec 22 01:42:04 2005 From: alesiaglfyn at juno.com (Bonnie Harvey/ Alesia Gillefalyn) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 01:42:04 GMT Subject: What really caused the damage to Dumbledore's hand? Message-ID: <20051221.174256.11912.205819@webmail46.lax.untd.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145155 An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 02:59:58 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 02:59:58 -0000 Subject: Heroes or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145156 > >>JenD: > > In the narrowest sense of the word, there can only be one hero, > > no doubt. But redemption is not the same as being the hero. > >>Alla: > No, redemption is NOT necessarily the same as being the Hero, true, > but to me after HBP Snape fallen so deeply that the only way he can > gain redemption is to play a pivotal role in defeating Voldemort > and that IMO IS Harry's job. Betsy Hp: So even if there is a DDM friendly explanation given in book 7 about the events on the tower, that wouldn't be good enough for you? I'm asking that seriously, because I think that most folks going with a DDM!Snape who *will* have a large role (though not the starring role) and a redemption story line, *do not* think Snape maliciously killed Dumbledore. I understand that you believe Snape is a bad guy, and he killed Dumbledore for an evil or selfish purpose. And I agree that, if that were the case, it would be impossible for Snape to make up for that action in the last book. (Which is why I don't see redemption in store for Peter.) But that's not what the "Snape is a good guy" people have to deal with. We tend to think that Snape *doesn't* have to make up for his behavior on the tower but for his role as a Death Eater. Lupinlore, at least, believes quite strongly that Snape is a child abuser. So he feels Snape has that to make up for. But again, most DDM!Snape folks do not think Snape is a child abuser. So the redemptive story line for Snape, as seen by the DDM!Snape folks, doesn't have such a large burden on its shoulders as the ESE! Snape story line would have. Snape doesn't have to pay for events on the tower. He probably doesn't even have to pay for his actions as a teacher. (My personal take is that he's *already* paying for his negative interactions with Harry.) So all book 7 has to cover is his actions as a Death Eater, his role in Lily's and James' death. And that's something that I think most DDM!Snape people feel Snape is *already* making up for. He started paying back when he showed up on Dumbledore's doorstep, and has continued to do so with all of his spy work. I personally think he went a long way towards his goal of redemption *with* his actions on the tower. So book 7 won't *introduce* the redemption of Snape. It will *reveal* a redemption well under way. *Harry* will have to recognize Snape for who he really is, see Snape as Dumbledore saw him. Which brings the story right back to Harry, and which leaves Harry comfortably in the central role of hero, with Snape's redemption as one of the supporting stones in Harry's foundation. [This is a bit of an aside, but I'm not sure Snape is consciously seeking redemption, despite how I phrased some of the above. IOW, I'm not sure he's on a religious sort of quest to avoid Hell's fires or something of the sort, with a set of scales weighing his good actions against his bad. I think he did what he did as a Death Eater, was horrified by it, and has since been trying to get to a place where he is happy with himself again. Which, seeing how hard he is on others, may well be an impossibility.] > >>JenD: > > How can it threaten someone's very precious notion of who Harry > > is to see a lesser and very troubled character find a measure of > > redemption? > >>Alla: > Not the way you phrase it, of course not. If Snape commits a MINOR > act of helping Harry which will lead to defeat of Voldemort at the > end, I can totally buy it. If without Snape defeat of Voldemort > will be impossible, if his help will be SO crucial that without > him Harry fails, that IMO makes Snape the Hero and not Harry. Betsy Hp: And yet, without Hermione, Harry (and Ron) would never have survived PS/SS. They'd have both died in the devil's snare plant. Without the Order, Harry would have died in OotP. Without Fawks, Harry would have been killed by the basilisk in CoS. Without Dumbledore, Harry, Sirius, and Buckbeak would have died in PoA. Harry has had crucial help, without which he would have failed, in every single book in the series. Of course, in every single book there is a moment when Harry stands alone, to succeed or fail on his own. A crucial assist from Snape in book 7 would be along the same lines, I think. Snape may well be the key to getting Harry onto the field of battle, but the battle will be Harry's alone. Plus, if Harry has to gain an understanding of Snape to *gain* that key, it makes the victory even *more* Harry's to my mind. I think Snape is very much a "there but for the grace of God" figure for Harry. If Harry becomes consumed by his hatred he could become the very thing he hates. But if he takes that extra, heroic step, of getting beyond his hatred, well, than he becomes a man in a way that Snape has never achieved. And again, that gives the lion's share of the victory to Harry. Betsy Hp From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Dec 22 03:03:33 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 03:03:33 -0000 Subject: Slughorn /Heroes or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145157 > > Alla: > > HAHAHA. Indeed, BUT I definitely think that Harry and Neville would > have preferred Snape NOT knowing their names at all, if it meant > leaving them alone. As in " if you cannot tell something nice to the > person, do not talk to this person at all". :-) Potioncat: I was actually thinking about this before this thread came up. If I were a WW kid, which of these two teachers would I prefer? Snape or Slughorn? Of course, everyone still has Snape if they are taking DADA, so it really isn't an either/or situation. I actually had a Slughorn in high school and I didn't like it at all. Of course, I don't think I'd like Snape either. (I shouldn't have said that.) > Alla: > > When did Snape save Ron? Just curious. Potioncat: I don't recall Ron ever needing Snape's help. In CoS when Harry caused potion to splash over the students, Snape kept the class calm, treated the immediate injuries and sent the injured students to the hospital wing for further treatment. OK, so he had the appropriate antidote ready and Slughorn had no reason to expect poison. But Slughorn had been teaching the NEWT students about poisons and antidotes and should have recognised poisoning. Snape wasn't expecting the injuries he would see as DADA teacher, but he was ready with a rapid response. > > > Alla: > > I would phrase it differently - he favored those with real talent > AND therefore they would achieve a lot and return favors to him. Potioncat: Well, if Slughorn had organized an Outstanding Potions Maker club, I wouldn't mind. But he chose members for one reason: they would be able to help him one day. His club members were either those with talent (Ginny and Hermione) or those who were connected to important families (Cormac, Blaise) But he wasn't rewarding talent so much as using it. It's called networking in our world and seems a very Slytherin thing to do. > > Alla: > You know, it is strange, I am still trying to work out why Slughorn > club gives me creeps and really cannot, because I don't see anything > inherently bad in the Slughorn way of doing things . Potioncat: Networking is supposed to be a normal part of life in today's world, but Slughorn has twisted it to his own needs. For example, inviting Harry to a party in front of Ron, but not including Ron.(I can't cite the exact scene.) I don't blame him for excluding Draco, but what if Theo is a good kid who happens to have a jerk for a Dad? I think it's the exclusivity of his club that bothers me. (I don't really blame him for excluding DEs'kids in this case.) Or think of the meal on the train. There was one kid who turned out not to be so connected, and that kid was snubbed for the remainder of the event. >Alla: > I mean you probably remember that sometimes I have doubts about his > loyalties, but assuming that they are not true and they are probably > not and I HOPE they are not, I think Slughorn is fun, A LOT of fun. Potioncat: I think he's a fun character to read about. You asked why I wouldn't want to see him as Deputy or Headmaster. He accepts favors. Just who might be calling in favors of their own? His way of doing business would not be good for the students. One of my concerns is that he might be selected over McGonagall as Headmaster. He is more experienced than she is. He is well connected, and there are a number of MoM staff who do not care for Minerva. From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Thu Dec 22 03:20:30 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee chase) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 03:20:30 -0000 Subject: Where was Firenze? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145158 Luckdragon: I do not recall hearing much about Firenze in HBP, but it was indicated that he was still teaching at the time. Where was he during the fight and flight scenes? Knowing what we do about Firenze is it possible he slipped out of the castle and helped DD? A few points to consider: -Centaurs know what the future holds by reading the stars. -Firenze told Harry about the use of Unicorn blood to save someone close to death until they could be given a better potion(ie:Elixer of Life) -DD had fresh blood trickling from his mouth. -Firenze chose to side with the humans against LV and was willing to do things other centaurs would not do in order to help. -If one consumes unicorn blood, but is not involved in the killing is he still cursed to live a half life? -How likely is it that DD(having been Nicholas Flamel's partner) might have some of the elixer of life in his or Snapes private potion collection and possibly some unicorn blood as well? -Nicholas Flamel took the Elixer long enough to live over 600 years. Just holding the stone saved Harry from dying in his fight with LV/Quirrel. Is it possible a vial of the elixer could restore DD to his previous state if someone had administered Unicorn blood to him to prevent death. From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Dec 22 03:30:17 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:30:17 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Heroes and Not (WAS: Who killed Dumbledore?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00f801c606a8$08123080$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 145159 and it may not be with an eye towards punishing him for his behaviour towards Harry. He may very well demonstrate his own kind of courage. It seems that Snape having any peace at the end of this thing brings out the anger in people. Why is that? Jen D Sherry i suppose that depends on what you believe happened on the Tower. i happen to believe that Snape, for his own reasons, whatever they are, murdered Dumbledore. i don't believe it was a plan between him and DD. i think he should have died rather than fulfill the UV, if he was loyal to Dumbledore. So, unless he did not kill Dumbledore, why should he have peace? Why shouldn't he have to suffer some kind of punishment, something more than being out of a job and believed to be guilty? Surely, murderers should be punished, in in the WW. After all, Sirius went to Azkaban for 12 years with no trial for murder, a murder he didn't even commit. Why should Snape get off the hook and find peace and redemption for something he did do? Of course, for those who don't believe it was cold-blooded self-serving murder, and who believe there was a good reason, as yet unknown, for what happened, then peace and redemption for Snape would be a great outcome. It would not be for me. Not unless it's something like Snape suffering terrible remorse for what he'd done and striving to make up for it in some way. But even that would involve some kind of payment for what he had done. Sherry From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 03:31:20 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 03:31:20 -0000 Subject: Another question about HBP in russian translation/Heroes or not Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145160 Alla: Hmmmm, I am reading "Horcruxes" chapter in Russian translation and wondering again whether translator makes too many assumptions here again. I mean, at first sight it again seemed to me as logical assumption to make, but then I wondered. Here is the quote in English: "Ah, poor Lucius.... what with Voldemort's fury about the fact that he threw away the Horcrux for his own gain, and the fiasco at the Ministry last year, I would not be surprised if he is not secretly glad to be safe in Azkaban at the moment" - HBP, p.508 So, I wonder, do you guys get the sense out of this excerpt that Dumbledore was informed about Voldemort's reactions to Diary destructions? Because when I read it initially, I thought that Dumbledore was simply hypothesizing about Voldie's reactions with certainty so to speak, but I probably misread it. After all, how else Dumbledore would learn about Voldemort's reactions unless being informed by somebody. In any event, basically in Russian it translated as Dumbledore saying that " I was told that Voldemort was being furious when the diary was destroyed". Hmmmm, who told him? Snape or another spy? Does it mean that whoever told him does know about Horcruxes or was Voldemort simply furious without telling the real reason for his fury except destruction of the diary? Betsy Hp: > So the redemptive story line for Snape, as seen by the DDM!Snape > folks, doesn't have such a large burden on its shoulders as the ESE! > Snape story line would have. Snape doesn't have to pay for events > on the tower. He probably doesn't even have to pay for his actions > as a teacher. (My personal take is that he's *already* paying for > his negative interactions with Harry.) So all book 7 has to cover > is his actions as a Death Eater, his role in Lily's and James' death. Alla: Yes, I understand. DD!M Snape does not really have to pay for anything except what he already paid for and that is what would make DD!M Snape significantly less interesting to me. I should have phrased myself clearer in my previous post. I DO think that redemption is possible for OFH!Snape or ESE!Snape, I just hope that it is handled very carefully Betsy Hp: > So book 7 won't *introduce* the redemption of Snape. It will > *reveal* a redemption well under way. Alla: Yes, I understand that. And here I think lies my answer to Jen Reese. ( if she will read this post of course :-)) She asked in one of her posts why ESE! or OFH!version of Snape is more interesting. To me it is because it allows Snape to change during the story, not in the distant past - Snape was DE , saw the error of his ways, came to Dumbledore, boom, his story is done. No, to me Snape who commits evil deeds or good deeds in front of us and struggles with consequences is more interesting that static Snape. > Betsy Hp: > And yet, without Hermione, Harry (and Ron) would never have survived > PS/SS. They'd have both died in the devil's snare plant. Without > the Order, Harry would have died in OotP. Without Fawks, Harry > would have been killed by the basilisk in CoS. Without Dumbledore, > Harry, Sirius, and Buckbeak would have died in PoA. > > Harry has had crucial help, without which he would have failed, in > every single book in the series. Alla: I should retract my statement as to Ron and Hermione, but only about them. I do believe that JKR intends Trio to triumph together and while Harry will defeat Voldemort, Ron and Hermione WILL help him at the end as they did in PS/SS, IMO. As to everything else - I disagree - Fawkes came to Harry BECAUSE of Harry's loyalty. Order did NOT save Harry from possession, Harry's heart did. As to PoA, I don't want to get into time travel mechanics, but all that Dumbledore did IMO was to recognize that time travel already occurred and then everything else was to Harry and Hermione . JMO, Alla From winterfell7 at hotmail.com Wed Dec 21 18:44:26 2005 From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (mesmer44) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:44:26 -0000 Subject: The Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145161 > Potioncat: > The twins are one reason I sometimes remind myself that JKR and I may > not be in complete agreement about...oh, life in general. She > presents the twins as lovable, adorable teens. And I do think they > are adorable. But they are mean. Very mean. And they are reckless to > the point of being dangerous. They do have their nice moments > too...but their behaviour raises a number of red flags. No wonder > Molly fusses at them so much. > > winterfell: I've never seen the twins as being lovable, adorable, or mean and dangerous. I see them as clever, sarcastic and mischievous practical jokers. They seem to me to be the wizarding version of blue collar, anti authority figure rebels and seem to be used by JKR as comic relief escape valves for the more serious issues going on around them. I see them as being loyal to their parents, grudgingly proud of Ron and ashamed of Percy. I don't see them taking their roles as entrepenures super seriously to the point of "putting on airs". I even doubt that they became shop owners for strictly mercenary reasons, but rather more as an independent way to invent and provide their joke products to those who will most appreciate them. I didn't get too upset with them "blackmailing" Ludo Bagman, as he was refusing to pay them what they were owed on their World Cup Quiddich bet to begin with. And, they didn't have to give Harry the Marauder's Map, but did so because they thought he needed it more than they did. From h2so3f at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 04:12:10 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 04:12:10 -0000 Subject: Apparation in Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: <20051221205822.68842.qmail@web35904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145162 BD wrote: " I am a little curious about this.. well no one can apparate inside Hogwarts and even to practice it DD had to lift the enchantment in the hall. How come Kreacher and Dobby do it? Different rules or magic for house-elves?" CH3ed: JKR wrote somewhere on her site answering that question that there are magic Wizards do that house-elves can't do, and vise versa. And apparently Fawkes as well. It seems the protective magic on Hogwarts is geared against penetration by other wizards( a bit of snobbery superiority complex?). CH3ed :O) From unlikely2 at btopenworld.com Wed Dec 21 21:43:07 2005 From: unlikely2 at btopenworld.com (unlikelyauthor) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:43:07 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? Heroes and Not. / guilt / hero's journey In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145163 > >Sydney: > >To my mind guilt and letting go of guilt is the whole point > >of Snape's role thematically > > Orna: > I think, that perhaps their mutual hate has to do with > it, if you feel burdened by guilt, you are bound to feel some > hatred towards the person signifying your guilt, which in turn > arouses more guilt, etc ? a truly vicious cycle. Letting go of > guilt isn't "paying back" your debt, or forwarding the guilt > to someone else, but something entirely different, which Harry > hasn't been able to do until now. unlikely2: A couple of things come to mind. Harry discovering himself to be, even in part, responsible for DD's death might give rise to the 'long dark night of the soul' element of the hero's journey. Book six has been described as 'half a book'. This being so, certain elements from the first book seem to me to be being repeated, the 'giant' who arrives to embarrass the Dursleys and tell Harry what he needs to know, for example. The misidentification of Snape as the bad guy could be another. This wasn't really addressed in PS. Perhaps it will be in the last. unlikely2 who wonders if letting go of hatred in order to bring about a necessary alliance with Snape would be the act of a hero? From h2so3f at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 04:43:44 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 04:43:44 -0000 Subject: Another question about HBP in russian translation/Heroes or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145164 Alla wrote: ""Ah, poor Lucius.... what with Voldemort's fury about the fact that he threw away the Horcrux for his own gain, and the fiasco at the Ministry last year, I would not be surprised if he is not secretly glad to be safe in Azkaban at the moment" - HBP, p.508 So, I wonder, do you guys get the sense out of this excerpt that Dumbledore was informed about Voldemort's reactions to Diary destruction?" CH3ed: Yep. Sounds to me DD talked like he knew for certain what caused LV to be furious with Lucius Malfoy (and I inferred that Snape or someone else had informed DD that LV had learned of the destruction of the diary and was angry with Lucius). The Russian translation seems consistent. Whether Snape thought the diary was only a pensieve or if he knew it was a horcrux is undetermined. It seems to me that DD already knew LV had horcruxes (but didn't know how many) since CoS since he told Harry that the first real evidence that confirmed his suspicion was the diary. So if DD had told Snape about the horcruxes he probably would have done it before HBP starts.... That is if he really trusted Snape as much as he said so to Harry and the OotP members. CH3ed :O) From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 21:51:35 2005 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:51:35 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? Heroes and Not. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145165 Steve wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > I don't think Snape pretending to kill Dumbledore > > after Dumbledore expires from the Potion in any way makes > > Harry a killer. It neither makes Snape a hero, or Harry a > > villain. Lupinlore: > I think that is PRECISELY what this scenario does. > As with most DDM! speculation, it falls afoul of the fact > that this is NOT SNAPE'S STORY. Nor is it Dumbledore's > story. This kind of convoluted (and unbelievable) scenario > has a tendancy to pull the focus completely off of Harry > and his decisions and onto the decisions and plans of > Dumbledore and Snape. Montavilla: You know, it wasn't Sirius's story either, but that didn't stop him from having a convoluted scenario that we spent THREE CHAPTERS unraveling while everyone held each other off in a Mexican wand standoff. I'm not exactly complaining, because I loved PoA. I'm just saying that Harry is not the only character in the series entitled to an interesting storyline. There's tons of stuff we don't know about that potion. Was it a poison? If so, how fast would it work, exactly? Would Snape be able to cure it even if the Death Eaters weren't around? Since we don't know, we can as easily say that Dumbledore could have died from it as not. I tend to think it was fatal --on the principle that you don't put a gun on the set unless someone is going to use it in the third act. However, I'm not inclined to think it was the actual instrument of murder. It works better for the Vow if the death came from Snape's wand. Heh. Now I'm being reminded of the Titanic, when it's not bad enough that Rose and Jack are on a ship that's quickly sinking into the ocean. No, her fiance has to start shooting at them... Drowning isn't enough for them? AK isn't enough for Dumbledore? We have to have him poisoned AND thrown off a tower to boot? From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 03:51:24 2005 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 03:51:24 -0000 Subject: Apparation in Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: <20051221205822.68842.qmail@web35904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145166 > BD wrote: > I am a little curious about this.. well no one can apparate > inside Hogwarts and even to practice it DD had to lift the > enchantment in the hall. > > How come Kreacher and Dobby do it? Different rules or magic > for house-elves? hpfan_mom: In the FAQ section of her website, JK Rowling is asked: You say that people cannot Apparate or Disapparate within Hogwarts and yet Dobby manages it, why is this? She answers: House-elves are different from wizards; they have their own brand of magic, and the ability to appear and disappear within the castle is necessary to them if they are to go about their work unseen, as house-elves traditionally do. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq.cfm?ref=?outthebooks From graverobber23 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 04:03:33 2005 From: graverobber23 at yahoo.com (graverobber23) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 04:03:33 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Wrong? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145167 APF / another_potter_fan wrote: > > Wouldn't LV have used up one of his horcruxes when the AK > > rebounded off Harry and hit him? Shouldn't that mean that > > Harry is looking for only 5 horcruxes? > > > > My mistake. I meant to write that Harry was looking for > > only 3 horcruxes (in addition to LV). > Allie: > I think the idea with the Horcruxes is that as long as there > IS Horcrux, Voldemort can't be killed. I don't think it's > like a video game where he uses one up each time he's supposed > to die. :) graverobber: Voldemort didn't die when he cursed Harry Potter. He became a spirit as we saw in Sorcerer's Stone. So therefore, LV's horcrux did not die. So there are actually 5 horcruxes still out there. 1) Hufflepuff's cup, 2)Something of Griffindor's, 3) Slitherin's Locket, 4) Nagini, and 5) LV himself. (HBP) Now the true question is.... What is the thing from Godric Griffindor? My thoughts are on Godric Griffindor's sword. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 05:00:08 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 05:00:08 -0000 Subject: Slughorn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145168 > > Alla: > > You know, it is strange, I am still trying to work out why > Slughorn > > club gives me creeps and really cannot, because I don't see > anything > > inherently bad in the Slughorn way of doing things . > > > Potioncat: > Networking is supposed to be a normal part of life in today's world, > but Slughorn has twisted it to his own needs. For example, inviting > Harry to a party in front of Ron, but not including Ron.(I can't cite > the exact scene.) I don't blame him for excluding Draco, but what if > Theo is a good kid who happens to have a jerk for a Dad? I think it's > the exclusivity of his club that bothers me. (I don't really blame > him for excluding DEs'kids in this case.) Or think of the meal on the > train. There was one kid who turned out not to be so connected, and > that kid was snubbed for the remainder of the event. Alla: I am still struggling to figure it out. I mean,it is not an exclusivity per se that bothers me. I do NOT mind an exclusivity because of the talent and hard work, I mean as in exclusive club of people who worked hard to get there or something like that, it is not even an exclusivity that helps Slughorn that bothers me, because even though he expects those kids to help him in the future, IMO he helps them and helps them in a very significant way first. The fact that Slughorn takes in people simply for the reason of good connections they have does bother me. THAT is simply for his own gain,IMO and while I don't see anything bad with it, those kids do not exactly deserve the honor either, because they only have famous family members or something like that. But why does his club bother me SO much? It is not like he is hurting people , you know, he just helps those he thinks most worthy. In any event, I was immensely pleased with him for excluding Draco. It was a nice slap in the face for him,IMO. and I don't blame him for exlcuding Theo either, because if his desire is to stay away from DE, I think it would be a very reasonable assumption that son of the DE can spy on him or hurt him in some way. As an aside, do you think that inventer of Wolfsbane ( belbey? Felby? ) will show up in the books? > Potioncat: > I think he's a fun character to read about. You asked why I wouldn't > want to see him as Deputy or Headmaster. He accepts favors. Just who > might be calling in favors of their own? His way of doing business > would not be good for the students. One of my concerns is that he > might be selected over McGonagall as Headmaster. He is more > experienced than she is. He is well connected, and there are a number > of MoM staff who do not care for Minerva. > Alla: Oh, if Minerva is alive, I certainly want her to become Headmistress, no questions about it, but as to accepting favors, I am not sure we know that any other teacher does not do it. I mean, Albus probably did not do it :-), Minerva is safe bet either. Snape is a safe bet that he was hugely favoring Slyths ( crossing fingers that Hogwarts will never see him again. Sorry!) Anybody else - we just don't know, IMO. Although I have to be fair and admit that since I usually argue that if something is not shown, it is likely that JKR is not intending that to happen, then you are probably right and Slughorn is the only one who does. JMO, Alla From va32h at comcast.net Thu Dec 22 05:28:09 2005 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 05:28:09 -0000 Subject: The Twins / Weasleys / Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145169 A few things I think are crucial in considering the Weasley twins are: 1) First and foremost - JKR has consistently expressed affection for the Weasley family of characters. I find this telling. In interviews, she expressed concern that readers were overly fond of Draco and Snape, but I've never read an interview in which she cautioned us not to like the Weasleys too much, or expressed surprise that the twins are as beloved by her readership as they are. Which is not to say that a certain cruel aspect of their personalities is not present, but I very strongly feel that we are supposed to like the Weasleys. 2) The twins are teenage boys. When we meet the twins, they are 13, and I'm sorry, but 13 year old boys tend to be obnoxious, juvenile, and to do stupid things. Youth is not an excuse for bad behavior, but it is a mitigating factor. Since the adults in HP are usually absent or hands-off during much of the action, it's easy to forget that the characters are indeed children. But they are, and they act like it. 3)Personal experiences can affect how the reader perceives sibling relationships in the Weasley family. I grew up with siblings who teased me (and each other quite mercilessly). Looking back, I can see that many of their actions could be classified as cruel. One of my brothers actually broke the other brother's leg during a mock karate fight. I also have a rather Molly-esque mother. Now that we are all grown up, those petty hurts (and yes, even the broken leg) are laughed about. If a reader is inclined to not like the Weasleys, every action is going to be seen in its worst light. So I won't waste my breath arguing - because I do think the "anti-Weasley" interpretations are valid (i.e. the evidence in canon is there) but I don't think they are what the author intended. However I do want to address this: Betsy Hp wrote: > And their level of violence started to pick up. They seemed > perfectly fine with attacking much younger wizards from behind and > in greater numbers. There was the bit about the dead puffskien I > was rather horrified to read about in Fantastic Creatures. Their > pranks started drawing blood, and again, the twins seemed less than > phased by it. When they note a team-mate apparently bleeding out > because they gave her the wrong side of a product, they decide to > play it off. Only taking her to the hospital wing when the team > captain notices something is off. > > Then there is the very near murder of Montague (by starvation, > horrifically enough) for which they've shown no remorse. The fact > that they vicariously give Hermione a black eye with such a deep > bruise normal healing methods don't work. The sadistic treatment of > a garden gnome foolish enough to behave like, well, a garden gnome > around them. As I said in the Hagrid/Draco/Buckbeak thread, violence and physical injuries simply do not have the same weight in the magical world, where such injuries are instantly fixable, as they do in the "real" world. So many very violent and seemingly grave injuries befall so many characters in the books, including the young heroes, that they just can't be taken seriously. Harry has nearly died every year he's attended Hogwart's. I might think JKR was the sadist, the way she relentless inflicts injuries on Harry, if I didn't believe that her fantasy world just does not see violence the way the real world does. Hermione, the "victim" of the deep bruise, is not horrified or deeply pained, or even very upset. She wants the bruise to go away because she doesn't want to look like that forever, but she didn't say a word to the twins about hurting her, or even mention feeling any pain. She just wanted the appearance of the bruise to go away. The Quidditch teammate with the bloody nose (was that Katie or Alicia?) also expressed no pain, only irritation at having her practice spoiled. No one on the team expressed horror at a teammate bleeding, merely annoyance that the practice was being ruined. If the victims of these alleged attacks can't even bother being outraged, I have a hard time doing so on their behalf. Montague is not described as being "nearly murdered" or "starved" as I recall. Disoriented, yes. Practically dead, no. Shoving Montague into the cabinet was not an exemplary act, but since none of the teachers made much of an effort to find and punish the would- be "murderers", it does not appear than anyone at Hogwarts considered the situation that serious. The gnome & puffskein incidents: The puffskein squashing was mentioned in a single offhand sentence in a book that is not even a true part of the series. I can't believe that JKR intended this as anything more than a throwaway line. Which means I don't give it much weight - I mean, I saw it as equivalent to squashing a pet cricket. Not nice, but not a harbinger of future sadistic antisocial violence. Gnomes - two ways I can read that. Either gnomes are a household pest like cockroaches or mice, that homeowners deal with remorselessly. Or it's another example of wizards treating other magical creatures as objects with no feeling. If the latter, that's fine, but then Harry is just as guilty, since he joins right in the gnome-tossing. va32h From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Thu Dec 22 05:47:54 2005 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:47:54 -0800 Subject: "I came back ... After a fashion" (was: *When* did Dumbledore die?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1306814145.20051221214754@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145170 One thing has always puzzled me, and as it relates to the question of "When did Dumbledore die?", I'll put it in this thread: What exactly does Dumbledore mean when, on the tower, he tells Draco, "I came back ... after a fashion" (HBP, US Ed. p. 590) -- Came back from what? The cave? And why only in a figurative sense? So here's a totally wild idea that swam into my head: Is it possible that Dumbledore died in the cave? In this scenario I imagine DD at the point of death, and while Harry is distracted by his attempts to fill the goblet with water, DD enchants his own body so that after death it becomes an inferius and mimics the living DD until the body is blasted off the tower by Snape's bogus AK! I realize this idea is wrought with holes, starting with: A) The magic to animate DD's own dead body should not have worked because DD's magic should cease after death; B) By the same token, DD's spell immobilizing Harry shouldn't have worked at all; and C) Would any inferius be capable of intelligently engaging in a "pleasant little chat about Ways and Means" anyway? ... But I thought I'd put the thought out there anyway as a means of starting a "pleasant little chat" about what DD's words, "I came back after a fashion" mean, and how they might relate to this question of exactly when he died and how. -- Dave From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Dec 22 06:07:47 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 06:07:47 -0000 Subject: The Twins and the Puffskein In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145171 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: > > Montague is not described as being "nearly murdered" or "starved" as > I recall. Disoriented, yes. Practically dead, no. Shoving Montague > into the cabinet was not an exemplary act, but since none of the > teachers made much of an effort to find and punish the would- > be "murderers", it does not appear than anyone at Hogwarts > considered the situation that serious. Allie: Draco does tell Dumbledore that Montague "nearly died" attempting to apparate out of the cabinet. Maybe he just splinched himself and that's an exaggeration on Draco's part. (BTW - I'm assuming he must have disapparated while he was at Bourgin & Bourkes since it could not have been at Hogwarts??) It does seem quite mean to leave someone in a cabinet for days (or was it weeks?). OTOH, I don't think that a Slytherin would hesitate for a minute to do that to Harry if given the chance. (Not that that makes it okay, I know.) > The gnome & puffskein incidents: The puffskein squashing was > mentioned in a single offhand sentence in a book that is not even a > true part of the series. I can't believe that JKR intended this as > anything more than a throwaway line. Which means I don't give it > much weight - I mean, I saw it as equivalent to squashing a pet > cricket. Not nice, but not a harbinger of future sadistic antisocial > violence. Allie: I agree and disagree. A puffskein is definitely not a cricket - it would be horrible enough if they squashed Ron's pet cricket to death - but a puffskein is more like a guinea pig or a kitten, in my mind anyway. I didn't even take note of the puffskein incident when I read Fantastic Beasts, but when BetsyHP brought it up, I was very distubed. (I'm a vet!!) I really DON'T think JKR meant that to be taken seriously, since it was just ONE line in an ancillary book, so I am trying very hard to come up with another reasonable explanation to let the Weasley twins off the hook. (I'm okay with pretty much everything else they've done.) So far these are what I have: 1. The puffskein died from something else that would somehow be Ron's fault (maybe he fed it the wrong food), but the twins knew how upset Ron would be so they made up the bludger story. Let him be mad at them instead of himself. 2. Ron was embellishing the story. He brought the Puffskein outside while the twins were practicing and it died of natural causes. Or got hit by a stray bludger (ACCIDENTALLY). 3. Ron never had a Puffskein and he and Harry were just making up stories while they were bored in class. Someone help, are there any other explanations? I can't bear to think of the twins bludgeoning a poor little puffball on purpose! (They're SELLING them now, remember!) I feel much more at ease thinking it was one of the 3 above. (Does it help you at all, Betsy?) Allie From kjones at telus.net Thu Dec 22 06:40:03 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:40:03 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Heroes and Not. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43AA4A43.6090403@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 145172 > Lupinlore: > > I think that is PRECISELY what this scenario does. > > As with most DDM! speculation, it falls afoul of the fact > > that this is NOT SNAPE'S STORY. Nor is it Dumbledore's > > story. This kind of convoluted (and unbelievable) scenario > > has a tendancy to pull the focus completely off of Harry > > and his decisions and onto the decisions and plans of > > Dumbledore and Snape. KJ writes: Until the end of book 6, I do not see where Harry has been able to make any plans or decisions. He is still being forcibly funneled along by the will of others. Regardless of the scenario, the odd thing is, to my mind, that the story is about Harry's ability to adapt to a world not of his choosing or making, which is true of all kids. He gets to make few decisions. Harry's parents made the choices that they did, which caused a direct effect on Harry's life through no fault of his own. The mere fact of his birth to a witch and a wizard caused effects which influenced the behaviour of his aunt and uncle. Snape's choices also had a direct effect on Harry and completely changed the course of his life without any input from Harry. The choices made by the Marauders also had a direct effect on Harry's life. If they had been different people, Snape might have been different, Harry's whole story might have been different. The choices that Voldemort made are the whole reason for the prophecy and the threat to his continued existence. Sirius' choices and the results made a huge emotional impact on Harry, from which he has not entirely recovered. Dumbledore, I'm sure, has also caused Harry's life to be different from what it would have been if he had not been the focus of Dumbledore's need to rid the world of Voldemort. Few of the influences on Harry's life have been good ones. Perhaps it is his ability to weather the results of all the other actions and gain a little control in his own life that will make him a hero rather than the "grab a sword and run him through scenario". Perhaps Harry can put a stop to all the ripples in the pool and come up with a completely different scenario for success. KJ From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 07:02:43 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:02:43 -0000 Subject: Slughorn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145173 > Alla: > You know, it is strange, I am still trying to work out why >Slughorn > club gives me creeps and really cannot, because I don't see > anything > inherently bad in the Slughorn way of doing things . Saraquel: You know Alla, the moment old Slughorn squelched his way onto the pages of HBP I knew that I was going to hate him, and I also know why. Give me Snape any day, Snape is WYSIWYG, you know where you stand with him. Either he likes you or he hates you, and that is simply not going to change. With Slughorn, according to how external circumstances move, so will his favour or disfavour towards you. At least with Snape, you know that the relationship is personal, with Slughorn you can be sure that it is not. If one of your relations suddenly did something noteworthy, you could find yourself hauled in from the cold - then if they blew it, you would be unceremoniously dumped - No you're absolutely right Slughorn, it's nothing personal. > > > > > > Potioncat: > > Networking is supposed to be a normal part of life in today's > world, > > but Slughorn has twisted it to his own needs. For example, > inviting > > Harry to a party in front of Ron, but not including Ron. I agree Potioncat, I'm not sure that I would call what Slughorn does networking. It is very definitely about power and control, and maintaining privilege for himself. He sets up the Slug Club as an exclusive must-have accessory, and this flatters those who are invited. Interestingly, it is Hermione who falls for this flattery and effectively becomes Slughorn's potential servant of the future - this is the Hermione of SPEW fame, who refuses to understand that the house elves embrace their enslavement, (I have difficult with that one too, but then that's a whole different argument) and then falls into Slughorn's sugar coated poison trap. Oh dear woops, is my loathing for Slughorn and his RL counterparts showing.... Saraquel From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 09:40:49 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:40:49 -0000 Subject: Who told Umbridge leading to dark thoughts about Flitwick Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145174 Saraquel: I've been reading OotP and have come across a little puzzle. How did Umbridge find out that they had formed the DA? They had the meeting on Saturday and the notice banning all groups appeared on the following Monday. Now it could be coincidence, but the characters in the book are convinced that it is not, but they don't come up with an explanation. So, who knew they were in there, and who heard what was said? Hermione asked Flitwick whether they were allowed into the Hog's Head on Hogsmeade weekends. So Flitwick could have deduced that something was going down there. In the Hog's Head at the time of the meeting there was: Mundungus in the Witches outfit. Two hooded strangers talking in Yorkshire accents. A man at the bar, his head wrapped in bandages drinking fire whisky. And the barman (Aberforth, DDs brother we all assume.) None of the DA participants could have said anything because of Hermione's hex. However, Hermione does imply that telling Umbridge triggers it, but does not say whether telling anyone else would trigger it. (UK ed ch17 p315) We are told at some point, is it by Sirius? that Mundungus has been banned from the Hog's Head for 20 years, which is why he went in disguise, but we also know that Mundungus and Aberforth are actually on speaking terms (HBP, the stolen Black silver incident.) I don't recall any characters as having been specifically identified as having Yorkshire accents (although it is possible that Snape comes from Yorkshire ? Spinners End being in a mill town. However, IMO Snape is nowhere near this scene.) It could be someone posing as the whisky drinker - any ideas of who and why? I think that the likelihood of Mundungus telling Umbridge is pretty remote. We know that Mundungus reported back to the Order, so it is possible that everyone in the Order knew pretty quickly. Saturday night would be a good night for a meeting. This must include Snape, who, if you go in for ESE!Snape (which I don't) could have tipped Umbridge off. Personally I don't think so. It could be a yet unidentified spy in the Order, but thinking of the ESE!Tonks/Lupin adherents, you could point the finger there ? but I'd have real difficulty in seeing Lupin, however Evil and wanting to call a halt to things, tipping off Umbridge. Aberforth, the barman is as yet an unknown quantity. We have seen him in the photo of the order at the start of OotP, and Moody says it was the only time he met him. It would appear that DD has a fondness for him even if goats don't. I suspect that he is now in possession of the locket from Grimauld Place (Horcrux or not, as the case may be.) If anything, I think he is probably on the side of good rather than evil. I've been thinking a bit about Flitwick, and whether he might be a fly or even a spy in the ointment. I'd be really grateful if someone could point me to any ESE!Flitwick discussions which have taken place, as I'm sure there will have been some. Is he in the Order? IIRC, we never see him at the meetings at Grimauld Place, but he was patrolling the corridors on the fateful night in HBP. Could he have found out from Aberforth what was discussed in the Hog's Head, if he didn't find out through the Order. If he is ESE, then it could explain why Snape knocked him out when he ran to the Tower in HBP. That bit has never really made sense to me, as I really can't see Snape as being ESE, there are too many holes in it, but why would Snape take out Flitwick if he was OFH! or DDM!? Ah well, any thoughts anyone ? if it's been really discussed in length before (highly probable) I really would be grateful for a synopsis or a post number. Saraquel From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Thu Dec 22 09:58:58 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:58:58 +0100 Subject: Heroes and Not (WAS: Who killed Dumbledore?) References: <00f801c606a8$08123080$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: <005701c606de$553b3dd0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 145175 > Sherry > i suppose that depends on what you believe happened on the Tower. i > happen > to believe that Snape, for his own reasons, whatever they are, > murdered > Dumbledore. i don't believe it was a plan between him and DD. i > think he > should have died rather than fulfill the UV, if he was loyal to > Dumbledore. Miles: Just hold this point. What would have happened after this? Dumbledore was weak and wandless. Snape had no chance fighting four DEs alone, so Dumbledore would have been killed anyway. After Dumbledore's death Harry would have been able to move again. Would he? Possibly, and then? What you demand of Snape is absolutely senseless self sacrifice. If he acted that way, the 6th book most probably would be the last one. Miles From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Dec 22 10:47:34 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:47:34 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? Heroes and Not. / guilt / hero's journey In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145176 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "unlikelyauthor" wrote: > unlikely2: > > A couple of things come to mind. > > Harry discovering himself to be, even in part, responsible for > DD's death might give rise to the 'long dark night of the soul' > element of the hero's journey. Gerry: Might wel be, but to me there was already a lot of that in HPB, by Harry not coming to terms with the part he played in Sirius' death. Instead he kept on hating Snape. Maybe this next shock will be what is needed to get him out of that, but I don't see how it will change his views of Snape because Snape -did- cast the AK. I truly hope in the next part Harry will come to terms with his own role in the death of Sirius. > > Book six has been described as 'half a book'. This being so, > certain elements from the first book seem to me to be being > repeated, the 'giant' who arrives to embarrass the Dursleys > and tell Harry what he needs to know, for example. The > misidentification of Snape as the bad guy could be another. > This wasn't really addressed in PS. Perhaps it will be in the > last. We'll see and we'll have to wait : (. > > unlikely2 > > who wonders if letting go of hatred in order to bring about a > necessary alliance with Snape would be the act of a hero? If Harry stays on hating Snape, this will be very unhealthy for Harry. Would it be the act of a hero? I don't know, but it would definitely be the act of a truly mature person. > Gerry From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Dec 22 12:48:12 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:48:12 -0000 Subject: Who told Umbridge leading to dark thoughts about Flitwick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145177 > Saraquel: > In the Hog's Head at the time of the meeting there was: > Mundungus in the Witches outfit. > Two hooded strangers talking in Yorkshire accents. > A man at the bar, his head wrapped in bandages drinking fire whisky. > And the barman (Aberforth, DDs brother we all assume.) Potioncat: As I recall, the man whose head was wrapped in bandages was the same person who jinxed the muggle toilets. He was the one who told. I'm sure he's been named, but I don't remember it. It comes up in DD's office after the IS raid on the DA. Now, as to Flitwick....hmmmm, you could be on to something. Mundungus's status with the Order waxes and wanes like the moon. But I have a feeling his little trip to Azkaban in HBP was a set-up by the Order to get him near Lucius. Very good catch on the Yorkshire accents! It could be as unimportant as Mark Evans. But you're right, one of the theories about Snape is that he is from the Yorkshire area. From rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu Thu Dec 22 12:56:02 2005 From: rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu (susanbones2003) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:56:02 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Wrong? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145178 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "graverobber23" wrote: >> > graverobber: > > Voldemort didn't die when he cursed Harry Potter. He became a > spirit as we saw in Sorcerer's Stone. So therefore, LV's horcrux > did not die. So there are actually 5 horcruxes still out there. > 1) Hufflepuff's cup, 2)Something of Griffindor's, 3) Slitherin's > Locket, 4) Nagini, and 5) LV himself. (HBP) > > Now the true question is.... What is the thing from Godric > Griffindor? My thoughts are on Godric Griffindor's sword. Jen D here, Harry used that sword in COS. Wouldn't there have been some indication if it had been something as dark and dangerous as a horcrux? Are horcruxes neutral? The diary certainly seemed to have the power to do evil, given the right circumstances. Just a question. Jen D > From maliksthong at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 13:16:20 2005 From: maliksthong at yahoo.com (Chys Lattes) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:16:20 -0000 Subject: "I came back ... After a fashion" (was: *When* did Dumbledore die?) In-Reply-To: <1306814145.20051221214754@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145179 > I realize this idea is wrought with holes, starting with: A) The magic > to animate DD's own dead body should not have worked because DD's > magic should cease after death; B) By the same token, DD's spell > immobilizing Harry shouldn't have worked at all; and C) Would any > inferius be capable of intelligently engaging in a "pleasant > little chat about Ways and Means" anyway? ... But I thought I'd put > the thought out there anyway as a means of starting a "pleasant > little chat" about what DD's words, "I came back after a fashion" > mean, and how they might relate to this question of exactly when > he died and how. > > -- > Dave > Chys: Maybe he was dead all along and this was a running plan- maybe the ring horcrux had already killed him? Maybe he was alive like a vampire stays alive though they are the undead? Snape could have had something to do with that perhaps? Chys From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Dec 22 13:33:00 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:33:00 -0000 Subject: *When* did Dumbledore die?, and DD's hand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145180 _Dumbledore's hand?_ Bonnie wrote: > When I first read HBP I didn't think the damage to DD's hand was from the destruction of the Ring Horcrux. > I have always thought the Ring Horcrux is intact when DD comes to Privet Dr and when they go to see Slughorn. Valky: It's not. This is a quote from Chapter four HBP - "He [Dumbledore] shrugged and spread his hands wide, as though to say that age had its compensations, and Harry noticed a ring on his uninjured hand that he had never seen Dumbledore wear before: it was large, rather clumsily made of what looked like gold, and was set with a heavy black stone that had cracked down the middle." > > Does anyone think it reads this way or am I misreading it? > > Bonnie > Valky: Don't let it get you down :) a lot of people have read it this way first read. _When did Dumbledore Die?_ Pippin: > Dumbledore died of the poison, IMO, some ten or twenty minutes > after he'd fallen from the tower. He may have been > conscious long enough to open the locket, he may > have decided not to call for aid in order to preserve > Snape's cover and keep the vow from going into effect, > or because his first priority was to see that Snape and > Harry got the Death Eaters out of the school. Any > way you slice it, neither of them is a murderer in this > scenario. Death by misadventure. Orna added: Just want to add Harry's first intuition ? he badly wanted to get Snape and DD together ? feeling that that would reverse things. It would support your theory, since Snape would be the one who could heal DD ? perhaps. BUT ? that means that Snape ran away, while he knew DD's state, and him being the only one who can rescue him. So how does that help? AND ? Harry froze ? perhaps not because of shock as he thinks, but because DD was still alive when he fell over. OK. But his being able to move again ? how do you explain it? DD wandless freeing him, Snape nonverbally freeing him? I don't have an explanation for the fresh blood, but . As you said, it might be a flint, which could be explained away by ? the effect of the potion ? disabling the congenial of blood. Another_Potter_Fan replied to Pippin's post: Pippin, Only one thing: what of the Unbreakable Vow? If Snape didn't kill DD, then he should be dead as a consequence of breaking the UV. Thoughts? Valky Now: I think Orna's post answers Potter_fan's question best. IMO the most possible scenario to go wih DD dying by potion is that Snape becomes absolved of the UV by the act of refusing to save Dumbledore. It's fairly certain that in the immediate vicinity there is only one person that can save DD, and that person is Snape, hence the power to 'take away' DD's 'life' rests solely with Snape and he fulfills the UV by running away. However, that said, I have another proposition for the lateral thinkers among us, I am of an unpopular opinion also. IMO Dumbledore was right and the Unbreakable Vow never mattered, exactly as he said. Once you've soaked long enough in the idea that Dumbledore was pretty much the walking dead in HBP, living on borrowed time, stoppered at the threshold of death you start to question the validity of taking a vow to kill a dead man. So I wonder, and do you suppose, that this Vow was never possible to keep anyway, since it took place after Dumbledore had effectively begun his death. Going back to some thoughts that were posted shortly after HBP by Carol, about the nature of the DADA curse, it would seem that the curse acts on it's victim in such a way as to: reveal their innermost secret, and undo them by it. Quirrel's secret was that he carried Voldemort under his turban - this killed him, Harry's skin became deadly to him because he carried Voldemort. Lockhart's secret was that he was a fake who knew only one spell which he was willing to use unscrupulously. His unscrupulous use of the Obliviate spell was his undoing and it landed him in the nuthouse. Lupin's secret - his werewolf sides, a- The werewolf itself, and b- his childhood misdemeanours. Both of these secrets come together in the end when Snape takes his revenge for one secret by revealing the other to the general public. Moody's secret - inside his fortress of ultra security noone can hear you scream. Resulting in him spending a torturous year inside a trunk. Crouch's secret - he is the heinous DE who tortured the Longbottoms to madness and I am sure theres a little something about Snape in there. The result, Snape lets the dementors in and Barty's soul gets sucked leaving his mind to eternal torture. Umbridges secret - She's just a fascist bully in a pink bow. Result, her feigned innocence ticks off the kids and every decent person within shouting distance, her bigotry gets her a week in the Forbidden Forest with angry Centaurs. So then we come to Snape's secret, and instead of a nice clean answer we get the usual mixed bag of Sevvy delights to choose from- 1. The Unbreakable Vow 2. His Potions text. 3. His role in James and Lily's death. 4. Killing Dumbledore. Will the real Sev Snapey please stand up? In unravelling this I guess we could first say that Severus has *many* secrets. Perhaps so many that even the DADA curse couldn't sort them out. But then I think that the truth must be in there somewhere and if the truth is that DD never had a chance such a scenario points to the job of looking to one of these other secrets to be the major catalyst in Snape's undoing. Here's one thing that intrigues me. In every case of the DADA curse before Snape the teacher confessestheir undoing aloud. See here - Quirrel - Confesses that Voldemort is his master. Lockhart - he tells how gifted he is at performing the Obliviate charm. Lupin - Tells all about his werewolf affliction. Crouch - Confesses everything under Veritaserum. Umbridge - Calls the Centaurs filthy Half Breeds. But Snape, does 'Avada Kedavra' fit this pattern? No it doesn't. What fits this pattern is "I, the Half-Blood Prince". I submit this is a farly good canon reason to skip over the Unbreakable Vow and look for Snape's true secret elsewhere. But there is another corollary that follows this, so I am not done. Lets suppose for an instant that the Half Blood Prince is Snapes secret truth that could be his undoing once revealed by the DADA curse. Being the Half Blood Prince was not the reason he left Hogwarts, as we know, so is it possible then, that Dumbledore and Snape somehow managed to dodge the curse before it took full effect. Just to clarify what I mean by this, I work from the premise that Dumbledore clearly foresaw and anticipated the end of his life coming upon him and used his remaining time as best he could, rather than regret the mistake that had landed him on deaths door. Add to that the canon probability that the UV is not the revelation of Snape's secret because it is out of pattern order, and I come up with this scenario. To venture further afield in this proposition, because this post is getting long and it may as well stay that way , There is another pattern to the DADA teachers that could put the UV into a profitable context. In that pattern each DADA teacher begins the year with a nominal event - Quirrel - Appears in The Leaky Cauldron, later we discover he is there to steal the stone, he shakes Harry's hand. Lockhart- Appears in Flourish and Blotts selling his books, he gets his photo taken with Harry. Lupin- Appears on the Hogwarts express, he gives Harry the chocolate. Crouch- Is present at the Quidditch Cup, he steals Harry's wand. Umbridge - Appears at Harry's trial, she testifies against Harry. The first thing that jumps out at me in this pattern is that there are two theives (Quirrel and Crouch) and two liars (Umbridge and Lockhart), then there is Lupin handing out chocolate. The correspondence between Lupin and Snape here is quite compelling. Feel free to plan an intervention, I may be approaching this all too scientifically ;) but it seems to me that Lupins Chocolate and the UV are corresponding elements in this pattern. After thinking about how to label them, the best label I come up with is that they are both real DADA professors. Two liars, two theives and two professors of DADA. In this context it seems that the UV itself is nothing more than a proof that Snape knows his Dark Arts, just as Lupin's chocolate was proof that Remus knew his. I am pretty happy with the results of these correlations, and just for completion I'd like to go on to submit appropriate context for Snapes other secrets while I am on a roll.. 3. His role in James and Lily's death. Harry finds this part out very close to the end of the book, it is a terrible thing that the DADA professor has done in the past, I am supposing that this is in line with this pattern - Quirrel - Tried to kill Harry. Lockhart - Stole other people's achievements for his own glory and wiped their memories. Lupin - Kept Sirius' secret and in doing so had betrayed Dumbledore's good faith. Crouch - Killed his own father, Imperiused Victor Krum, Tortured the Longbottoms, list goes on. Umbridge - Sent Dementors to Little Whinging. 4. Killing Dumbledore. This is Snapes last act before leaving Hogwarts, I am not sure it really fits a pattern at all, and seems to be the only odd man out. I would just say this could mean that Snape didn't actually kill Dumbledore, but so as not to show my bias to the cover-up theory I will try to extrapolate a pattern anyway. Quirrel - Attempts to take the stone, but fails. Lockhart - Attempts to Obliviate Harry and Ron, but fails. Lupin - Almost commits murder, turns into a deadly werewolf, but in both cases doesn't do any lasting damage. Crouch - Attempts to kill Harry, fails. Umbridge - Attempts to silence Harry and overthrow Dumbledore, fails. there is a pattern... Snape - Casts the Avada Kedavra... Valky fails.... to change the minds of the staunch, but had fun trying. :) From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 22 14:25:54 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 14:25:54 -0000 Subject: FILK:The Ballad of Draco Malfoy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145181 The Ballad of Draco Malfoy A filk by Pippin To the tune of The Ballad of Rocky Raccoon by the Beatles Now somewhere in a dark manor home in Wiltshire There lived a young boy named Draco Malfoy One day his Daddy got sent off to Azkaban Potter put him in the can Draco didn't like that said I'm gonna get that boy So one day he went back to school Found him some space in that Come and Go Room Draco Malfoy set out to destroy By fixing the vanishing cabinet Draco had gone Equipped with a wand In order to take a stab at it The cabinet it seems Would help in his schemes Fulfilling Lord Voldemort's fancy He tried to succeed By poisoning mead But everyone knew it was chancy Now Albus and friend, his man to the end Flew up on their brooms to the tower Draco burst in and grinning a grin He said Dumbledore you're in in my power Then Harry got froze- Snape struck I suppose And Harry said Come back you coward! Now Harry gave chase to find but a trace And proceeded to stagger unstable I knew Dumbledore must be dead Though he looks like he could be in bed And I'll get Voldie I'll get Snape and Voldie as soon as I am able Now Draco Malfoy Escaped by a ploy Only to be Snape's disciple Albus checked out and he left us in doubt To wait for Book Seven's arrival From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Dec 22 15:03:52 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:03:52 -0000 Subject: "I came back ... After a fashion" (was: *When* did Dumbledore die?) In-Reply-To: <1306814145.20051221214754@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145182 >Dave wrote: > One thing has always puzzled me, and as it relates to the question > of "When did Dumbledore die?", I'll put it in this thread: > > What exactly does Dumbledore mean when, on the tower, he tells Draco, > "I came back ... after a fashion" (HBP, US Ed. p. 590) -- Came back > from what? The cave? And why only in a figurative sense? Potioncat: Well, if you ask me, DD is even slippier than Lucius. You never quite know what he's really talking about. But let's look at this quote again: >>>>"That's right," said Malfoy. "But she said you were just going for a drink, you'd be back..." "Well, I certainly did have a drink...and I came back...after a fashion," mumbled Dumbledore.<<< Draco pictures DD sitting at the bar, having a fire whiskey and returning to Hogwarts by the lane from the town. Of course, DD never planned to sit in a bar and have a normal drink. I doubt that he planned to have an abnormal drink, for that matter. But as it turned out, DD found himself forcing down a vile potion. He returned to Hogsmeade and wanted to send for Snape, but instead jumped on a borrowed broom and rushed back to the castle. So, he had a drink and returned to the castle....after a fashion. From goofball44306 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 09:19:53 2005 From: goofball44306 at yahoo.com (Matt) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:19:53 -0000 Subject: The Philosopher's stone and Dumbledore's age Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145183 O.K. I was just re-reading PS when something hit me. In the part where Hermione gets the book out to show them who Flamel is, it says he's six hundred and sixty five years old. I mean bloody hell thats great with his elixer and all but then, If he and Dumbledore worked together on it, how old does it make him? I might be wrong about bits and pieces of this but still, thats gotta make him older then originally thought right? Matt From greatowls at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 11:55:48 2005 From: greatowls at yahoo.com (Taylor A. Grey) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:55:48 -0000 Subject: Who told Umbridge leading to dark thoughts about Flitwick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145184 Saraquel: > I've been reading OotP and have come across a little puzzle. How > did Umbridge find out that they had formed the DA? They had the > meeting on Saturday and the notice banning all groups appeared on > the following Monday. Now it could be coincidence, but the > characters in the book are convinced that it is not, but they don't > come up with an explanation. Saraquel, (HBP spoilers included) Anyone who was at the meeting and who joined by signing the parchment would have the hex put on them. Mundungus didn't sign the paper, and was under no constraints. With out looking it up (and right now I am snug in my bed and the book is in the other room) Ok, you made me get up and get it and of course the refrigerator door was there as I left my reading glasses on the counter, and that lead to 3 christmas cookies disappearing from the tray- can't do research on an empty tummy...) I do know that Flitwick is not on the side of Umbridge. When Fred and George had set off the fireworks, he thanks her and said to her "He didn't think he had the authority" to do anything about them. After she was removed from her office, he was able to shrink the swamp with just a wave of his wand. Flitwick is loyal to Dumbledore. Argus however is loyal to whom ever is in charge, and loves to catch rule breakers. Look for your clues when they are speaking about telling others and who was hovering around. They (Argus and Umbridge) may have suspected something and had someone watching who went into the hogshead. Chapter 16 page 330 they are in the library looking up potion ingredients for Snape. Hermione mentions that she is still in contact with Victor, (They don't learn until later that the Owl posts are being monitored) Now, this is the important thing, they were in the library... During Sorcerers Stone, when Harry was sneaking about in the restricted section and the book screamed, Argus investigated. Why is that important? Of all the places in the School, WHY was Argus in the Library??? The answer to that is found in HBP, where Argus is escorting the librarian to the funeral... ergo, they are an item. This is important because it now creates a link. The Librarian may have over heard and then informed Argus, who informed Umbridge. Snape does not have a Yorkshire accent. Fudge does though. (or close to it) Any number of the people who were in the Hogs head could have informed Fudge esp as they would know Harry Potter by sight, and that the local papers have been pushing that he was off of his rocker. Now, up to that point there were no decrees saying they couldn't have a study group. This may fall under "Things that are relevant to the story line, but are not that important to the plot to explain fully" (IE, the same thing as the like of "Who is Mark Evans?" While the names are the same, he is no relation to anyone and was just the name of a child Dudley beat up. This is my very first post here- My name is Taylor Grey and you can find some of my writing at fanfiction.net Have a Great Holiday Season! Taylor From kevin_mcgoff at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 15:16:04 2005 From: kevin_mcgoff at yahoo.com (another_potter_fan) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:16:04 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Wrong? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145185 ---Allie wrote: > > I don't think it works like that. I think the idea with the Horcruxes is that as long as there IS Horcrux, Voldemort can't be killed. I don't think it's like a video game where he uses one up each time he's supposed to die. :) There's not much canon on how the Horcruxes actually work, though. > Another_Potter_Fan here: This begs the question: what happens to the soul in a horcrux when it is destroyed? Does it cease to exist? In CoS, it appeared that Tom Riddle's entity/soul was destroyed when the diary was destroyed. But according to your point ("as long as there IS Horcrux, Voldemort can't be killed"), wouldn't it stand to reason that (due to the existence of the other horcruxes) that his entity/soul shouldn't have been destroyed? Thoughts? Again, enjoying sharing ideas - still can't get the wife to read OotP. APF From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 22 15:25:08 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:25:08 -0000 Subject: Slughorn /Heroes or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145186 - > Alla: > > When did Snape save Ron? Just curious. > Pippin: In PoA he rescued Ron, Harry, Hermione and Sirius. It wasn't just a matter of Snape coming round and conjuring stretchers. Harry and Hermione had run down to the lake to help Sirius, leaving the unconscious Snape and Ron behind. Snape must have gone to look for the others once he came round, since TT!Harry sees them all at the shore of the lake. They were in graver danger than Snape knew, since Pettigrew would have nothing to fear if they were all dead. That was a brave thing to do, IMO, considering that as far as Snape knew there was a werewolf and an escaped murderer prowling the grounds and the dementors were retreating and wouldn't be coming to help if Sirius found him. Not exactly the Slytherin ideal of saving your own skin first. > Potioncat: > Slughorn didn't favor his own House, but he did favor those who could possibly return favors in the future. > > Alla: > > I would phrase it differently - he favored those with real talent > AND therefore they would achieve a lot and return favors to him. > > > You know, it is strange, I am still trying to work out why Slughorn > club gives me creeps and really cannot, because I don't see anything > inherently bad in the Slughorn way of doing things . Typically > Slytherin, but not inherently bad, IMO. The best I can come up with > is that Dumbledore's warning to Harry sounded as a warning to me > too, but I still want to figure out why what Slughorn does is bad. Pippin: One reason it's bad is that Slughorn's club is dedicated only to the advancement of its members. Slughorn has no interest in helping the weak and unconnected, no interest at all in joining the Order. Think of the help his connections could bring. He's been in hiding *for a year* at the beginning of HBP. Know what that means? He could have used his connections to persuade the WW that Harry was telling the truth. He's real proud of knowing the person who invented the wolfsbane potion, but it hasn't occurred to him to help the socially ostracized werewolves. Lupin doesn't get invited to dinner parties. > Alla: > > No, redemption is NOT necessarily the same as being the Hero, true, > but to me after HBP Snape fallen so deeply that the only way he can > gain redemption is to play a pivotal role in defeating Voldemort and > that IMO IS Harry's job. Posters argue ( Sydney?) that Hermione, > Ron, Lupin help Harry too. Too true, they do, BUT I have never seen > either Hermione or Ron or Lupin occupy CENTRAL place in the fight, > IMO of course and I am not sure we will see it in the last book. > HELP Harry defeat Voldemort? - Yes, take his place in defeating > Voldemort - I personally doubt it very much. Pippin: If Snape has been redeemed and is innocent, then maybe Harry has to save him from being killed out of hand. Then Snape will be able to do something that proves he's redeemed but is nevertheless secondary to defeating Voldemort. Like rescuing someone Harry cares about and can't save because he has to go on and face Voldemort. I think it plays into JKR's theme that the ultimate virtue is courage. What use is redemption if nobody has the courage to accept the lost sheep back into the fold? I see Snape as someone who has skewed values but nevertheless a great deal of moral courage. True, he doesn't see anything wrong with terrorizing children to get them to study and as far as he's concerned the House competitions aren't about merit and fair play, they're about *winning*. He takes it as a personal affront if otherwise talented students don't do well in his class. He thinks Harry owes him something on account of James, though to be fair, according to Dumbledore, he's also trying to *save* Harry for similar reasons. But there are things that Snape now believes are *right*, and regardless of what he did in the past, he is willing to risk his life for them. That makes him very different from Slughorn. And there are things that Snape believes are *wrong*, and he won't be intimidated or compromised into going along with them. That makes him very different from Lupin. All IMO, of course. And I could be wrong. Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Dec 22 15:32:56 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:32:56 -0000 Subject: Slughorn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145187 > Saraquel > I agree Potioncat, I'm not sure that I would call what Slughorn does > networking. It is very definitely about power and control, and > maintaining privilege for himself. He sets up the Slug Club as an > exclusive must-have accessory, and this flatters those who are > invited. Interestingly, it is Hermione who falls for this flattery > and effectively becomes Slughorn's potential servant of the future - > this is the Hermione of SPEW fame, who refuses to understand that > the house elves embrace their enslavement, (I have difficult with > that one too, but then that's a whole different argument) and then > falls into Slughorn's sugar coated poison trap. Oh dear woops, is > my loathing for Slughorn and his RL counterparts showing.... Magpie: Exactly. Slughorn not show favoritism? He's all about favoritism! He shows more blatant favoritism than Snape ever did, in fact. Can you imagine being in a class with him fawning over one student (especially with that bezoar stunt) and going on and on about his mother--not to mention, when Slughorn is ignoring other students I really don't think the idea is that they're not talented. They just don't seem like people who are going to have *power* which is a different thing. It's not strictly talent unless that talent looks like it's going to turn into future fame and influence. In the Potions class it's doubly brought home by the fact that the other students are the ones working honestly while Harry's book is responsible for his success. I mean, it's silly to give Slughorn any credit for excluding Malfoy and Nott when it's made quite clear that if their fathers weren't actual DEs who were in jail (and were just bigotted snobs who taught their sons the same values) they'd be in like Flynn. Lucius Malfoy was a favorite of Slughorn's. He's not keeping them out on some sort of moral basis--ironically he seems to have potentially even favored the worse Malfoy. (Though I too was very pleased to see Malfoy excluded, because it was very good for Malfoy to not have his name getting him favors; Slughorn *would* have favored him for his name if he'd been teaching in, say, third year instead of sixth.) And yeah, I find it really interesting that Hermione's the one who is obviously tempted by Slughorn's flattery. I like it. Especially since she doesn't seem to be getting in strictly on her brilliance (the only student who really shines in the class is Harry, Son of Lily) but because Slughorn recognizes her as Harry's best friend the Muggleborn who's also very smart. -m From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Thu Dec 22 15:41:06 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:41:06 -0000 Subject: Slughorn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145188 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > > Alla: > > > You know, it is strange, I am still trying to work out why > > Slughorn > > > club gives me creeps and really cannot, because I don't see > > anything > > > inherently bad in the Slughorn way of doing things . > > I am still struggling to figure it out. I mean,it is not an > exclusivity per se that bothers me. I do NOT mind an exclusivity > because of the talent and hard work, I mean as in exclusive club of > people who worked hard to get there or something like that, it is > not even an exclusivity that helps Slughorn that bothers me, because > even though he expects those kids to help him in the future, IMO he > helps them and helps them in a very significant way first. > > The fact that Slughorn takes in people simply for the reason of > good connections they have does bother me. THAT is simply for his > own gain,IMO and while I don't see anything bad with it, those kids > do not exactly deserve the honor either, because they only have > famous family members or something like that. But why does his club > bother me SO much? It is not like he is hurting people , you know, > he just helps those he thinks most worthy. Marianne: What bothers me about it is that Slughorn almost seems to be collecting objects rather than people. On one level he's dealing with the students as people, but they are all means to an end and in some way I find that that de-humanizes them, if that makes sense. He picks up the current bunch of glittery baubles, and then discards them as their usefulness to him diminishes. I think it was when he mentions to Harry how he wished he could have had both Black brothers, like they were some sort of valuable antique bookends or a pair of rare butterflies that he could capture and pin under glass, that made him seem somewhat off to me. Alla: > In any event, I was immensely pleased with him for excluding Draco. > It was a nice slap in the face for him,IMO. and I don't blame him > for exlcuding Theo either, because if his desire is to stay away > from DE, I think it would be a very reasonable assumption that son > of the DE can spy on him or hurt him in some way. > > As an aside, do you think that inventer of Wolfsbane ( belbey? > Felby? ) will show up in the books? Marianne: Oh, I'm all for someone, anyone to give Draco a bad time. But I'd think that Slughorn, who told DD about his hesitance in making himself conspicuous by going back to Hogwards, might have thought that making nice with Draco would be a smart tactical move. Unless he's sure that Daddy Malfoy will never again weild the sort of power and influence he's had in the past. With Vmort running around again, I'm not sure I'd make that bet. Marianne From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Dec 22 15:53:15 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:53:15 -0000 Subject: Heroes or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145189 Alla (comment apparated from #145160): > Yes, I understand that. And here I think lies my answer to Jen > Reese.( if she will read this post of course :-)) She asked in one > of her posts why ESE! or OFH!version of Snape is more interesting. > To me it is because it allows Snape to change during the story, > not in the distant past - Snape was DE , saw the error of his > ways, came to Dumbledore, boom, his story is done. No, to me Snape > who commits evil deeds or good deeds in front of us and struggles > with consequences is more interesting that static Snape. Jen: Alla, I read all your posts :). Truth be told, since September I've probably read every post on the list. Hopefully that will make someone feel better who worries about spending too much time here. Thanks for answering that question because I do see your side of things and how that makes a very interesting story. I think my view of Snape has a bit of your struggle in it, though not to the same extent. See to me, a Snape who had a personal transformation which led him away from Voldemort and a Snape who changed in front of us in HBP are not mutually exclusive. I think Snape did indeed leave Voldemort once and for all way back when, and he has never considered returning to life as a DE. But I don't think loyalty to Dumbledore has been a natural fit for him, either. There has likely been increasing pressure from Dumbledore since Harry arrived at Hogwarts, first as another set of eyes to watch out for Harry and then when Voldemort regained his body, the intensity of practicing nonstop Occlumency and playing a dangerous double-agent game. I don't think returning to Voldemort has ever been in question myself, but I think meeting the demands Dumbledore placed on him was getting increasingly difficult. Being Dumbledore's ally is a thankless job, really. He asks the very things of people which are THE most difficult to give: If you like comfort and security, he asks you to risk your neck; if you prefer fighting the good fight and feeling useful, you get locked up in your miserable childhood home. Werewolf trying to find paying work and live among wizards? Back to the exiled werewolf camp you go. Young man with a heart of gold who has a 'saving people' thing? Shove a nasty potion down the protesting throat of an old man and trusted mentor. My guess is Snape's least wanted task in life was to protect James Potter's son, so guess what? That was his ring in hell. And it was getting to him. It would be interesting if Snape were wavering in his loyalty throughout HBP. I don't think Snape himself knew his true feelings until that moment on the tower. If he really was someone with a history of slithering out of action and that wasn't just what he did to survive being a DE, then his choice on the tower was crucial. I think that's why Dumbledore pleaded with him to make the right choice, i.e., to safeguard Harry after Dumbledore's death, rather than commanding Snape to do so. Dumbledore had done everything he could do for Snape at that point, the choice was his. Betsy: > Harry has had crucial help, without which he would have failed, in > every single book in the series. Of course, in every single book > there is a moment when Harry stands alone, to succeed or fail on > his own. A crucial assist from Snape in book 7 would be along the > same lines, I think. Snape may well be the key to getting Harry > onto the field of battle, but the battle will be Harry's alone. Jen: What could Snape offer Harry that no one else could? I think it would have to be intelligence from inside Voldemort's camp. He's it. And somehow I think Dobby will be involved. ;) Since he's a free elf, he won't pass on to anyone else and if he thought following an order by Dumbledore even after death would save Harry, Dobby would do it in a heartbeat. He would keep Dumbledore's secrets even though he wasn't enslaved to him. I just keep thinking of that line in HBP, when McGonagall was pressing Harry to tell him what Dumbledore was doing the night he died and Harry said: "Professor Dumbledore never told me to stop following his orders if he died." I could see Dobby feeling the same way. Betsy: > Plus, if Harry has to gain an understanding of Snape to *gain* > that key, it makes the victory even *more* Harry's to my mind. > I think Snape is very much a "there but for the grace of God" > figure for Harry. If Harry becomes consumed by his hatred he > could become the very thing he hates. But if he takes that extra, > heroic step, of getting beyond his hatred, well, than he becomes a > man in a way that Snape has never achieved. And again, that gives > the lion's share of the victory to Harry. Jen: I second that. I think the moment of identification from Harry will come in a situation where he sees himself in Snape. There was a glimmer of it after the Pensieve scene, then again when Harry met the HBP. Perhaps it will be what Sydney and Orna were discussing, the guilt Harry will probably feel about following Dumbledore's orders in the cave, and the moment of discovery that Snape felt the same revulsion on the tower and guilt afterward. Jen, thinking Valky's latest post about the ring curse as the cause- of-death for Dumbledore would be the best 'out' for getting around the UV. From kelleyaynn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 15:37:39 2005 From: kelleyaynn at yahoo.com (kelleyaynn) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:37:39 -0000 Subject: Where was Firenze? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145190 > > Luckdragon: > > -Firenze told Harry about the use of Unicorn blood to save someone > close to death until they could be given a better potion(ie:Elixer > of Life) > -DD had fresh blood trickling from his mouth. > Kelleyaynn: I don' think Dumbledore was saved from Unicorn blood. Unicorn blood is silver-blue (SS/PS pg. 251 US paperback). I'm sure people would have noticed that the blood wasn't red if it were Unicorn blood trickling from his mouth. From krystynka at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 11:53:29 2005 From: krystynka at yahoo.com (Krycha Kowalska) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:53:29 -0000 Subject: Who told Umbridge leading to dark thoughts about Flitwick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145191 Krystyna: Hi, it's my first posting, I would like to say hello to all members of this fantastic group (I've been reading for quite some time now). I wonder if there are any other members form Poland?.. > Saraquel: > I've been reading OotP and have come across a little puzzle. How > did Umbridge find out that they had formed the DA? Krystyna: It was actually answered later in OOTP. Below please find information from HP Lexicon: "Widdershins, Willy A ne'er-do-well fellow who set up a series of regurgitating toilets to confound the Muggles. Arthur Weasley spent some time tracking him down and hushing up the incidents in question. Willy was caught in the explosion of one of the toilets and was captured. He was quite badly injured and spent some time heavily bandaged. Willy happened to be in the Hog's Head and overheard the first meeting of the DA. He reported this to Umbridge and Fudge let him go without prosecution as a reward (OP22, OP27). Saraquel: > Hermione asked Flitwick whether they were allowed into the Hog's > Head on Hogsmeade weekends. So Flitwick could have deduced that > something was going down there. > > I've been thinking a bit about Flitwick, and whether he might be a > fly or even a spy in the ointment. I'd be really grateful if > someone could point me to any ESE!Flitwick discussions which have > taken place, as I'm sure there will have been some. Krystyna: As JKR have said somewhere (interview? her website?), Flitwick has some goblin blood in him, therefore seems unlikely as an ally with pure-blood, human-obsessed Umbridge. Not to mention that we see him on many occasions being quite unhelpful towards Umbridge. Krystyna From kevin_mcgoff at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 15:04:43 2005 From: kevin_mcgoff at yahoo.com (another_potter_fan) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:04:43 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Wrong? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145192 Jen D wrote: > Are horcruxes neutral? The diary certainly seemed to have the power > to do evil, given the right circumstances. Just a question. Another_Potter_Fan here: I don't think the actual horcrux has the power to do evil. Tom Riddle said his soul was acting through the diary to control Ginny (or something like that - it's awkward to have my books at work!). APF From kevin_mcgoff at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 15:26:51 2005 From: kevin_mcgoff at yahoo.com (another_potter_fan) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:26:51 -0000 Subject: *When* did Dumbledore die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145193 --- lealess wrote: > If so, Draco hasn't really failed and Snape is off the UV hook. Another_Potter_Fan: If I recall, the UV for Snape meant that he had to complete what Draco might fail to do. I don't think LV would give an order to just "try" to kill DD - he would've told Draco to "just do it." If Snape had allowed DD to live, then the UV would kick in and Snape would be sharing portraits with DD. :) --- lealess wrote: > And Dumbledore may be out of the action, but he may not yet be dead. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. As much as I don't want it to be, he's dead. IMO, that's the only way that Snape's not pushing up daisies right now. APF From papa at marvels.org Thu Dec 22 16:06:09 2005 From: papa at marvels.org (Ralph Miller) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:06:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore Wrong? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <42FD969400032949@mta11.wss.scd.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145194 ---Allie wrote: I don't think it works like that. I think the idea with the Horcruxes is that as long as there IS Horcrux, Voldemort can't be killed. I don't think it's like a video game where he uses one up each time he's supposed to die. :) There's not much canon on how the Horcruxes actually work, though. ---Another_Potter_Fan wrote: This begs the question: what happens to the soul in a horcrux when it is destroyed? Does it cease to exist? In CoS, it appeared that Tom Riddle's entity/soul was destroyed when the diary was destroyed. But according to your point ("as long as there IS Horcrux, Voldemort can't be killed"), wouldn't it stand to reason that (due to the existence of the other horcruxes) that his entity/soul shouldn't have been destroyed? Thoughts? ---RM now: I apologize for not having much canon to back this up, but there just isn't that much on horcuxes. I see it like this - 1. The purpose of the horcrux is to hold a piece of soul so the the core soul is anchored to the real world - this is canon from numerous places. 2. The horcrux can't rejoin the core soul once separated - Mostly speculation, but backed up by the fact that LV isn't aware that the horcrux is destroyed. If his soul rejoined him, and he is capable of being aware of a soul piece as he would have to be in order to manipulate it into a horcrux, he should be aware if it rejoins him. 3. The core soul can't be destoyed, just diminished, as long as a horcrux exists - the proof of this is that the rebounded AK didn't kill the core soul, requiring rebuilding from a horcrux, but diminished him to less than living but not dead. 4. The destruction of a horcrux container releases/destroys the soul piece - the proof of this being that teen TR is released and disappears in CoS when Harry "breaks" the diary container. If these are all true, I draw the following conclusions - 1. Killing LV is impossible while even 1 horcrux exists, he can just be diminished and his core soul remains, not living and undead. 2. The horcruxes are not used up when he is supposed to die, they are only destoyed when released. 3. His rebirth in GoF was not the creation of a new LV with a horcrux, but rather the restoration of the core soul. 4. LV wouldn't know that his horcruxes are destroyed until he either checks them, or he is killed and realizes he can die. That's the way I see it anyway. Agree? Disagree? Think I spend entirely too much time thinking about this stuff? :-) From va32h at comcast.net Thu Dec 22 16:35:43 2005 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 16:35:43 -0000 Subject: The Twins and the Puffskein In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145195 > Allie wrote: > > Draco does tell Dumbledore that Montague "nearly died" attempting to > apparate out of the cabinet. Maybe he just splinched himself and > that's an exaggeration on Draco's part. va32h: I do think Draco was exaggerating. I have loaned out m y copy of HBP, but doesn't Draco even say it in passing? As in "After Montague nearly died..." Draco is not a character we can count on to be objective or reliable in his information giving. va32h From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 22 17:01:55 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:01:55 -0000 Subject: *When* did Dumbledore die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145196 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "another_potter_fan" wrote: > > --- lealess wrote: > > If so, Draco hasn't really failed and Snape is off the UV hook. > > Another_Potter_Fan: > If I recall, the UV for Snape meant that he had to complete what Draco > might fail to do. I don't think LV would give an order to just "try" > to kill DD - he would've told Draco to "just do it." If Snape had > allowed DD to live, then the UV would kick in and Snape would be > sharing portraits with DD. :) > > > --- lealess wrote: > > And Dumbledore may be out of the action, but he may not yet be dead. > > I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. As much as I > don't want it to be, he's dead. IMO, that's the only way that Snape's not pushing up daisies right now. > Pippin: The words of the vow are, "And, should it prove necessary...if it seems Draco will fail...will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?" One must assume that JKR and Narcissa chose their words carefully, just as in the prophecy. There are two conditions, and it is not clear how the magic decides whether the conditions have been fulfilled. But Narcissa clearly fears that the Dark Lord expects Draco to fail and be killed, either by the Order or by Voldemort. Binding Snape to carry out the task is an attempt to forestall the punishment. If Snape destroys Dumbledore then Dumbledore will not be able to kill Draco, and Voldemort won't want to if the plan itself succeeds, or so Narcissa must hope. It would make sense for the failure to be in the eyes of Voldemort. In that case the necklace and the poisoned mead were not failures because Draco was still in a position to carry out the plan. But if Dumbledore was dead or dying by the time Draco showed he was unable to carry out his task, then it would not be necessary for Draco to kill him and Snape is off the hook. It might not be necessary even if it only *seemed* that Dumbledore was dead or dying, as long as Voldemort was convinced that the plan had succeeded. It is complicated, but no more so than Dumbledore's reading of the prophecy. Pippin who thinks that Fawkes's song proves Dumbledore is dead. On the other hand, we have heard phoenix song twice when there was no phoenix present. Once in CoS, where Fawkes's song is heard before he appears, and once in GoF during the duel with Voldemort. From sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 17:07:19 2005 From: sophiapriskilla at yahoo.com (hekatesheadband) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:07:19 -0000 Subject: The Twins and the Puffskein In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145197 > Allie: > > I agree and disagree. A puffskein is definitely not a cricket - it > would be horrible enough if they squashed Ron's pet cricket to > death - but a puffskein is more like a guinea pig or a kitten, in my > mind anyway. I didn't even take note of the puffskein incident when > I read Fantastic Beasts, but when BetsyHP brought it up, I was very > distubed. (I'm a vet!!) I really DON'T think JKR meant that to be > taken seriously, since it was just ONE line in an ancillary book, so > I am trying very hard to come up with another reasonable explanation > to let the Weasley twins off the hook. (I'm okay with pretty much > everything else they've done.) So far these are what I have: > > 1. The puffskein died from something else that would somehow be > Ron's fault (maybe he fed it the wrong food), but the twins knew how > upset Ron would be so they made up the bludger story. Let him be > mad at them instead of himself. > > 2. Ron was embellishing the story. He brought the Puffskein > outside while the twins were practicing and it died of natural > causes. Or got hit by a stray bludger (ACCIDENTALLY). > > 3. Ron never had a Puffskein and he and Harry were just making up > stories while they were bored in class. > > Someone help, are there any other explanations? I can't bear to > think of the twins bludgeoning a poor little puffball on purpose! > (They're SELLING them now, remember!) I feel much more at ease > thinking it was one of the 3 above. I'm not a vet, but I am a vegan, and the sort of death-penalty opponent who thinks animal abusers ought to have toasters dropped in their bathtubs as a matter of course. I agree 100% with your take on the puffskein issue. Here's one other possible explanation: we don't know how old the twins were at the time of the alleged incident. What's really horrible in the world in general is that young children (eight and under, roughly) will sometimes do very serious, deliberate harm to small animals without having any true comprehension of what they're doing. It's strange, because you'd think they would, but some kids just don't have a fully realized, thorough understanding of others' suffering (their sense of empathy isn't fully internalized yet). Their understanding of mortality, of everything that can cause death and of the observable nature and quality of the passage between life and death. It's not all kids, but it is some, and it's horrible. But most do come to understand these things in time, and are horrified by what they've done when that understanding sinks in. I wouldn't support dropping toasters in their bathtubs. Anyway, for that reason I wouldn't extrapolate anything from that incident until we know how old the twins were at the time. If they were ten or eleven - as Tom Riddle was when he started killing his peers' pets - I'd be very troubled. If they were six or seven, I doubt they understood. In the same vein, I have a hard time believing that seven-year-olds with only a rudimentary knowledge of magic, and none of anything else involved, had any real comprehension of an unbreakable vow and what it entailed. As for the salamander: according to "Fantastic Beasts," they eat kindling and cavort around in fires, so I see a firecracker as more akin to eating a stronger curry than one expected than anything else. Also according to "Beasts," S.O.P. for gnomes has usually been siccing Jarveys on them to kill and eat them. Just a thought. -hekatesheadband Because the Sorting Hat is really Bono. From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Dec 22 17:05:11 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (bawilson at citynet.net) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:05:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: The best way to deal with Gnomes. WAS: Re: Digest Number 6734 Message-ID: <27460709.1135271111765.JavaMail.administrator@webmail> No: HPFGUIDX 145198 va32h: "Gnomes - two ways I can read that. Either gnomes are a household pest like cockroaches or mice, that homeowners deal with remorselessly. Or it's another example of wizards treating other magical creatures as objects with no feeling. If the latter, that's fine, but then Harry is just as guilty, since he joins right in the gnome-tossing." "Fantastic Beasts" says that the OTHER way of dealing with gnomes was to set a jarvey on them, but that many wizards think this is inhumane and prefer the tossing method. After all, the tossing doesn't seem to hurt them, and they come right back. Would you rather have the Weasley's set a jarvey on the gnomes? BAW From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Dec 22 18:09:05 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:09:05 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145199 SSSusan stumbles into the Royal George, blinking furiously in the light and spots quite a crew assembled on the *down* staircase. "Huh," mutters SSSusan, "never knew *that* staircase was there." [Okay, SSSusan is too exhausted to continue TBAYing at the moment. My humblest apologies.] So... Neri has Faith expounding her theo--, erm, hypothe--, um, Innocent Intellectual Exercise in LID!Snape and claiming: "DDM doesn't explain why Snape hates Harry so much ? LID does. DDM is yet to find a satisfactory explanation of what had happened on the tower ? LID doesn't have any problem with it." SSSusan responds: Oh, I don't know about this, Faith. I mean, I know you don't like SPECULATION, but at this point, we've got to have SOME of it. Jo left us scratching our heads and with jaws dropped *on purpose* at the end of HBP, you know. And honestly, I don't see why DDM *doesn't* explain Snape's hatred of Harry. Why would any of the three positions *not* be able to explain Snape's hatred of Harry? To me, a DDM!Snaper, it's independent of the position. IOW, Snape hates Harry; he just DOES. Whether that's because of James, whether that's because he finds the kid annoying as hell (a rule-flaunting, endangering-himself-and-others-without-a-care kind of brat), whether he hates the attention Harry gets and resents the importance the WW places on the kid & his role, who knows? But the hatred can be real, true, and deep and STILL have Snapey be DDM, no? I mean, yes, Snape's a royal ass to Harry. He's nasty and surly and sarcastic and demeaning and never misses an opportunity to put him down. But why does the DDM position not allow for this? After all, the DDM position has to do with Snape's loyalty to DUMBLEDORE, not with his loyalty to Harry or even to The Order, necessarily. As long as Snape can be loyal to DD and be hateful towards Harry at the same time, where's the problem? As to the contention that DDM doesn't explain the events on the tower, I beg to differ. There IS an explanation that many of us find quite satisfactory indeed. (True, OFH!Snapers and ESE!Snapers don't care for it, but it makes sense to DDM!Snapers.) And that is, at least in my version (sorry, Faith! ? I told you, with this scene we've just GOT to do some speculating!), that DD knew he was dying, that he drew Snape's attention to himself immediately with the very- surprising-for-DD "Severus... please," that *something* passed between the two in that moment (probably through legillimency), and that Snape AKed DD because DD wanted (or commanded) Snape to do so. Snape did it because he understood DD's reasoning (to save Draco, to get the DEs out of Hogwarts, to end DD's life quickly, to satisfy the UV, to secure Snape's "in" position with Voldy, possibly gathering info useful to Harry's quest, etc.). This is not to say that LID!Snape doesn't also have a way of explaining the events of the tower. I'm simply rebutting the notion that DDM hasn't offered up a reasonable explanation as well. Neri went on, offering this assist to Faith: "Hey, that part can actually be made even more convincing," said Neri. "Del and I posted about it. You see, if the Life Debt magic kills you when you take a part in killing the one you owe to, then Snape should have died after GH, but if Dumbledore saved him by magically transferring his Debt from James to Harry, then Snape would owe a Life Debt to Dumbledore too! That would certainly make Dumbledore trust him. And after Snape saved Dumbledore's life back from the ring curse, he could kill Dumbledore, but he still owes Harry..." SSSusan: Hmmm. This would only work if the Life Debt only prevented the person ONE TIME from participating in the death of the person to whom he owed a Life Debt, then? That "Snape saved DD once and so now's he free to kill him" notion. Is there a reason in canon to suspect it's a "one time and out" kind of thing? Anyway, more to the point for me... considering both this possibility and what Faith was just saying about what LID can do that DDM can't do, what I'd like to know is this: Exactly how does LID explain WHY Snape killed DD? What, in LID, was Snape's motivation on the tower? *If* you're right (and this is, imo, a pretty big "if") about being freed from any Life Debt he owed DD after the ring-horcrux saving thing, and thus COULD now kill DD safely, LID!Snape still doesn't, I don't think, explain why Snape WOULD do so. Would LID!Snape's explanation be that, in killing DD, Snape would be better able to get Harry out of Hogwarts, to ensure his safety from the DEs? Or something else? I had also been wondering the same thing a couple of others have brought up as well. That is, WHY would Snape still owe Harry, and specifically, didn't the 1st-year Quidditch rescue count? Neri offered this up: "Well, for repaying a Life Debt, this case wasn't exactly what you'd call clear-cut, was it?", said Faith. "I mean, from literary considerations wouldn't you expect something more dramatic? And the other cases of Snape saving Harry's life are even less clear-cut than that." SSSusan: Sorry, but this seems a weak argument for the Quidditch save not counting. Yet Faith asked us: "So tell me, what do you think is Snape's opinion? Does he behave as if he thinks the account was settled after that Quidditch match? Or after the end of the year? Or after the night of the Shrieking Shack? Has he really `gone back to hate James' memory in peace'? Was there any change in the way he treats Harry?" SSSusan: Well, no, he hasn't changed... but imo that can actually argue for DDM!Snape. I mean, let's assume the quidditch save DID end the Life Debt. Then for what reason would Snape continue to act to protect Harry? Because of his LOYALTY to DD! His dislike of Harry is true, but he continues to watch over him and protect him because DD wants him to, expects him to. And so he does, all the while despising the little bugger. Out of loyalty to DD. Lastly, Neri asks: DDM too requires an explanation why Dumbledore refused to give his reasons to trust Snape. What's the DDM explanation? SSSusan: Well, I know you don't like this, but one possibility is LOLLIPOPS. IOW, when DD considered telling Harry the reason in HBP... paused... but elected not to... it might have been that he believed the revelation simply too personal. Given the relationship between Snape & Harry, the degree of animosity already present, and all that Harry blames Snape for, how would Harry likely react to the news that DD trusted Snape because he had turned back to DD when he realized Lily was in danger and wanted to protect her? Exactly! "Eeewwwwww!!! Don't tell me that!" Harry might be expected to yell. If (and yes, this is a giant "if" of my own here) DD knew he was dying or likely would die soon, and if he hoped that somehow Snape & Harry would be able to set aside their dislike and loathing and work together, would he risk a revelation that might make that even LESS likely than it already was? Neri: "Hmmm... now that you mention it," said Neri thoughtfully, "Snape and Wormtail forced to share the same house in HBP, with no apparent plot reason for that... could it be foreshadowing? You know, the two of them, as much as they hate each other, compelled to cooperate in Book 7 in order to save Harry and repay both their Debts..." He trailed off when seeing the look on Faith's face. "Er... speculation again?" SSSusan: Oooooh, now I admit I like the sound of this! The two, hating each other, yet forced to work together because they both need to repay Life Debts to Harry. Hmmm. I also like its parallel to what I was saying about Harry & Snape having to work together in spite of their hatred for each other. What would compel them to do so? Not two Life Debts but perhaps two strong loyalties to DD. :-) Siriusly Snapey Susan, with a tip of hat to Neri for a fun TBAY and especially for FOLLIPOPS. From ladypensieve at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 18:13:03 2005 From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Kathy) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:13:03 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Wrong? In-Reply-To: <42FD969400032949@mta11.wss.scd.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145200 Snip >>--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ralph Miller" wrote:Agree? Disagree? Think I spend entirely > too much time thinking about this stuff? :-) I had to laugh when I read THAT part of your post. My friends think I'm bonkers...and they've used your exact words."Don't you think you spend too much time thinking about this stuff?" Meanwhile...your post made me realize that no matter what it is that Voldemort 'thought' he was doing by spliting his soul into seven pieces, he was slowly killing himself. With only a sliver of himself remaining, he would never be able to be redeemed, as with each split he became less and less human. This means that even if Harry kills him that ... well it's almost a 'mercy' killing, which as I wrote that made me think of Snape and Dumbledore. Hmmm. So I agree that as the horcruxes are released, so is that slice of LVs soul destroyed, and I agree that he isn't aware when each piece is destroyed. He's been detached from them for so long. It might be interesting if Harry could destroy the last piece right in front of him, so that Voldemort understands this really is a fight to the death for him. And I've said this part before and ended up berated for it, but somehow I think the last horcrux (with the exception of LV himself) to be destroyed will be the sorting hat. KathyO >Snip >>--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ralph Miller" wrote: > 1. Killing LV is impossible while even 1 horcrux exists, he can just be diminished and his core soul remains, not living and undead. > 2. The horcruxes are not used up when he is supposed to die, they are only destoyed when released. > 3. His rebirth in GoF was not the creation of a new LV with a horcrux, but rather the restoration of the core soul. > 4. LV wouldn't know that his horcruxes are destroyed until he either checks them, or he is killed and realizes he can die. That's the way I see it anyway. From ladypensieve at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 18:33:01 2005 From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Kathy) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:33:01 -0000 Subject: What really caused the damage to Dumbledore's hand? In-Reply-To: <20051221.174256.11912.205819@webmail46.lax.untd.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145201 This is a great question! I know that Dumbledore himself said that his hand was injured because of the horcrux - however, could there be another reason as well? We see Snape take the U Vow. What if Snape was actually Dumbledore? When Snape hesitated, could it be that Dumbledore had been too smart for his own good? Could it be that his hesitation was due to the knowledge that he was taking a vow to kill himself? A vow he obviously would not be able to fulfill? Therefore his hand withered. Snape would be the only other person to know...the only one to understand that Dumbledore - possibly from a combination of the UV and the horcrux - was dying. I know most don't like the mercy killing theory, but Dumbledore knew it was going to come to this, and Snape was the only one he could trust. As for the ring needing to be destroyed - the cover of the book has a broken stone in the ring. KathyO --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bonnie Harvey/ Alesia Gillefalyn" wrote: > > After reading Valky's Horcrux hypothesis, I started to question my own thinking. > > When I first read HBP I didn't think the damage to DD's hand was from the destruction of the Ring Horcrux. I read it that the damage from DD's hand came from whatever protective magic was guarding the ring (the equivalent of the potion for the locket). It would make sense there was some type of magic guarding all of Horcruxes (and clearly there is for the Locket). The diary is hard to say since it appears to have been left in Malfoy's care. > > I have always thought the Ring Horcrux is intact when DD comes to Privet Dr and when they go to see Slughorn. The ring is later gone from DD's office when Harry asks about the mouth-whistle at that point the Horcrux in the ring has been destroyed. I don't see how the Horcrux could be released from the ring and have the ring still be intact. I based this assumption on how the diary was destroyed in CoS. Clearly DD was wearing the ring to make a point to Slughorn that DD knew LV had made Horcruxes and had found one. It is quite possible DD already had the altered memory from Slughorn at this point but I don't think so. > > Does anyone think it reads this way or am I misreading it? > > Bonnie > From coverton at netscape.com Thu Dec 22 18:23:03 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:23:03 -0600 Subject: Why I think love is the most overrated of Harry's powers. Message-ID: <000001c60724$c6f15680$fca6acac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145202 Hi list members, it's Corey again. This is my first post of this day. I'm going to give my view on why I think love is an overrated power of Harry's as it relates to what he has to do. I'm also going to expound on a couple other matters relating to HP. Why I think love is overrated for Harry in his attempt to kill LV. 1. As every one knows in this group and in the WW there's a war going on between the DEs and the Order. If you can still call them that after Dumbledore's death. I don't believe love will help in the slightest to kill LV! 2. Why won't it help you might ask? Well I don't think Harry is going to love LV to death. In fact I'm sure of it. 3. Another reason love won't help him is because he'll have so much anger in him that love isn't going to help. Enough about love. Now to another point. Where do you think Harry will learn the AK spell? Who do you think will teach it to him? Who do you think he'll have to kill first with it? Cause I don't think he'll get to kill LV right away. LV will have plenty of DEs to get in the way first. 4. My last question and thought. Does any one think Harry will face any more dementors? I think he'll have to. I think LV is going to try to find every weakness that he thinks Harry has. And until he learned the patronus charm they were a weakness. Well that's my post. Hope it sparks good debate. Your fellow list member, Corey From ladypensieve at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 18:54:45 2005 From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Kathy) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:54:45 -0000 Subject: Snape was at the Potter's House That Night Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145203 I began to respond to the TBAY post, only as I did - this theory, based on canon, popped up. It started because of the question of Snape's need to protect Harry. Canon: Snape realized that he could no longer serve the Dark Lord and went to Dumbledore. Dumbledore asked Snape to continue to be with the Dark Lord and act as a double agent. If these are facts, doesn't it make sense that Snape could have been with Voldemort when he went to the Potters that night? (Laugh if you want, but years ago I said it was Snape that heard the prophecy and everyone laughed then too.) We've read that Lily yelled at James for being nasty to Snape. Again, canon. If Snape were in that house when James was killed - his deep seated hatred of the man would have left nothing for him to feel guilt about, however... Why did Voldemort tell Lily to get out of the way? Voldemort doesn't care about killing anyone...why did he try to save Lily? Because Snape was with him. Snape didn't want to be RESPONSIBLE for Lily's life, and the orphaning of her child. (LOL! As I write this I'm thinking of Snape coming to Dumbledore saying that he will now have to be responsible for Harry's life and so he'll take him in. Immediately Dumbledore, knowing the torture that the poor baby would be put through, decided that the Dursleys would be far better than Snape as foster parents! LOL!!!) Bottom line: Snape feels responsible for Harry, not just for a Quidditch game, not for saving his life once, twice, or thrice, but until he becomes a man - which in this case is one book away. Depending on the amount of guilt he feels - which is why he hates Harry, so it seems as if it's quite a lot - he may feel he needs to protect him beyond his 17th year... OK - I'm ready to be hit over the head...thoughts? KathyO From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 22 18:58:40 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:58:40 -0000 Subject: Who told Umbridge leading to dark thoughts about Flitwick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145204 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > Saraquel: > > > In the Hog's Head at the time of the meeting there was: > > Mundungus in the Witches outfit. > > Two hooded strangers talking in Yorkshire accents. > > A man at the bar, his head wrapped in bandages drinking fire whisky. > > And the barman (Aberforth, DDs brother we all assume.) > > > Potioncat: > As I recall, the man whose head was wrapped in bandages was the same > person who jinxed the muggle toilets. He was the one who told. I'm > sure he's been named, but I don't remember it. It comes up in DD's > office after the IS raid on the DA. > Krystyna: > It was actually answered later in OOTP. Below please find > information from HP Lexicon: > "Widdershins, Willy > A ne'er-do-well fellow who set up a series of regurgitating toilets > to confound the Muggles. Arthur Weasley spent some time tracking him > down and hushing up the incidents in question. Willy was caught in > the explosion of one of the toilets and was captured. He was quite > badly injured and spent some time heavily bandaged. Willy happened > to be in the Hog's Head and overheard the first meeting of the DA. > He reported this to Umbridge and Fudge let him go without > prosecution as a reward (OP22, OP27). Geoff: The actual canon is more explicit: 'He (Arthur Weasley) snatched up the Daily Prophet, shook it open again and said, "I was just reading about Willy Widdershins' arrest when you arrived. Youy know Willy turned out to be behind those regurgitating toilets back in the summer? One of his jinxes backfired, the toilet exploded and they found him lying unconscious in the wreckage covered from head to foot in -" "When you say you were 'on duty'," Fred interrupted in a low voice, "what were you doing?" "you heard your father," whispered Mrs.Weasley, "we are not discussing this here! Go on about Willy Widdershins, Arthur." "well, don't ask me how, but he actually got off the toilet charge," said Mr.Weasley grimly. "I can only suppose gold changed hands -"' (OOTP "St.Mungo's Hospital" pp.432-33 UK edition) '"You will remember, Minister, that I sent you a report back in October that Potter had met a number of fellow students in the Hog's Head in Hogsmeade -" "And what is your evidence for that?" cut in Professor McGonagall. "I have testimony from Willy Widdershins, Minerva, who happened to be in the bar at the time. He was heavily bandaged, it is true, but his hearing was quite unimpaired," said Umbridge smugly. "He heard every word Potter said and hastened straight to the school to report to me-" "Oh, so that's why he wasn't prosecuted for setting up all those regurgitating toilets!" said Professor McGonagall, raising her eyebrows. "What an interesting insight into our justice system!"' (OOTP "The Centaur and the Sneak" p.541 UK edition) Taylor: > Snape does not have a Yorkshire accent. Fudge does though. (or close > to it) Geoff: Can you quote canon for that information please? From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 22 19:14:35 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:14:35 -0000 Subject: The Philosopher's stone and Dumbledore's age In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145205 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Matt" wrote: Matt: > O.K. I was just re-reading PS when something hit me. In the part > where Hermione gets the book out to show them who Flamel is, it says > he's six hundred and sixty five years old. I mean bloody hell thats > great with his elixer and all but then, If he and Dumbledore worked > together on it, how old does it make him? I might be wrong about bits > and pieces of this but still, thats gotta make him older then > originally thought right? Geoff: JKR has stated on at least two occasions in interviews - on 12/03/01 and 16/07/05 - that Dumbledore is about 150 years old. Discussions on the group in the past have hypothesised that he came into contact with Flamel in his youth. The Frog Card states that he "is particularly famous for... ...his work on alchemy with his partner, Nicholas Flamel." From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Thu Dec 22 19:20:25 2005 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:20:25 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape was at the Potter's House That Night In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43AAFC79.8050006@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145206 Kathy wrote: >(snip) > >Because Snape was with him. Snape didn't want to be RESPONSIBLE for >Lily's life, and the orphaning of her child. > > > (snip) Voldemort was not there to kill James or Lily. He was there to kill Harry! James and Lily just got in his way. There would have been no orphans anyways as the child was the target if everything had gone to Voldemort's plan. Snape knew the target was Harry, but is not resposible for Voldemort's actions. Voldemort kills whomever he wants anyways (if he can).. Snape also defected to become a double agent before Harry's parents were killed, so would likely have found someway to NOT be there. Jazmyn From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Dec 22 19:32:13 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:32:13 -0000 Subject: The Twins and the Puffskein In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145207 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hekatesheadband" wrote: > Anyway, for that reason I > wouldn't extrapolate anything from that incident until we know how old > the twins were at the time. If they were ten or eleven - as Tom Riddle > was when he started killing his peers' pets - I'd be very troubled. If > they were six or seven, I doubt they understood. Allie: If they were having Bludger practice, that implies they were already Beaters on a Quidditch team, i.e. at least 12 or 13 years old. Which is why I needed another explanation. From kevin_mcgoff at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 19:23:28 2005 From: kevin_mcgoff at yahoo.com (another_potter_fan) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:23:28 -0000 Subject: *When* did Dumbledore die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145208 ---Pippin: > The words of the vow are, "And, should it prove necessary...if > it seems Draco will fail...will you carry out the deed that the > Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?" > There are two conditions, and it is not clear how the magic > decides whether the conditions have been fulfilled. APF: Thanks for the quote. In this whole discussion, I believe we all agree that LV has ordered Draco to kill DD? That said, the quote is your standard "if-then" statement: "If it seems Draco will fail... [then] will you carry out the deed the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?" (my addition in brackets) The only condition necessary for SS to act is "If it seems Draco will fail." The second part the quote requires action from SS. Now, to be honest, I've only read HBP once (and even then it was on loan so I only got through it once), but if I remember the essence of the scene, Draco had already lowered his wand and it appeared pretty evident that he wasn't going to go through with killing DD. Seeing this, SS had a choice to kill DD or to die as a result of the UV. ---Pippin: > It would make sense for the failure to be in the eyes of > Voldemort. I agree that DD was most likely dying as a result of the potion, but the thought I'm focusing on is the difference between the order to Draco and the UV. If Draco had tried to kill DD, and the potion beat him to it, then Draco might just survive the wrath of LV (doubtful ,but maybe). Or, in the case of the tower scene, if he had chickened out at the last minute, he could have gone into protective custody with the Order. On the other hand, by making the UV, SS was committed to killing DD once he saw Draco fail to kill DD when he had the chance ("If it seems Draco will fail..."). SS was already feeling the pressure anyway to kill DD, what with the poor attempts made by Draco throughout the year, as evidenced by the discussion between DD and SS overheard (in part) by Hagrid. APF, humbled by the fact everyone else knows more about HP than me and hoping that I'm not p***ing anybody off. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 19:35:51 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:35:51 -0000 Subject: Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat In-Reply-To: <00c401c60690$2730e190$7160400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145209 > Magpie: > > I agree it's intentionally up in the air what will happen next-- though he > was not about to cast an AK when Snape comes in. I believe we're told that > he's shaking so bad he can't even aim. Dumbledore is correct right from the > beginning that he's not going to kill anybody. a_svirn: I believe we are told that his wand was shaking so badly that he could barely aim. Which means, in effect, that he did aim, albeit in an unsatisfactory manner. As for Dumbledore, he was, after all, the one being held at wandpoint and tried to negotiate. Under the circumstances, I wouldn't take everything he said at its face value. > Magpie: > But I agree it's not in any way a scene of Draco switches sides-- the book > ends with him with the DEs but with a glimpse into what's going on inside > that may become important. Dumbledore's words may or may not turn out to > have an effect later, but I think his last words were about something more > important than just a minor strategic move in tempting the Malfoy kid with > escape--that's perhaps, imo, why it's important the book doesn't end with > Malfoy escaping. a_svirn: Well, his last words weren't about Malfoy period. From kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Dec 22 19:24:33 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:24:33 -0000 Subject: Why I think love is the most overrated of Harry's powers. In-Reply-To: <000001c60724$c6f15680$fca6acac@Overton> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145210 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Corey Overton" wrote: > 2. Why won't it help you might ask? Well I don't think Harry is > going to love LV to death. I think the point that DD is always making is that Harry's ability to love others and the mark left by his mother's love protects Harry in ways LV cannot get around easily. > Now to another point. Where do you think Harry will learn the AK > spell? Who do you think will teach it to him? Who do you think > he'll have to kill first with it? I personally don't think that is what will end up killing LV. I just think Harry won't be using that curse. It would just go against his nature. > 4. My last question and thought. Does any one think Harry will > face any more dementors? I do think the demenotor's will play a sizable part in Book 7. kchuplis From aprilsmiles1 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 19:22:59 2005 From: aprilsmiles1 at yahoo.com (Ann Marie) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:22:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: What the last word in the seventh book may be... In-Reply-To: <1134863954.2816.17643.m24@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20051222192259.47523.qmail@web50214.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145211 > "~*~Sandy~*~" wrote: > > Hey it's me Sandy and I just read this weeks > Entertainment Weekly (with Kong on the cover) > where there is a tiny little article on J.K. > Rowling towards the very end of the issue. > They talk about her and the possibility of > killing off Harry for the final book. The > article goes on to say that she has finished > more than half of the last chapter and that > the very final word to end the book might or > will be "scar". Thanks for this. I've heard so many rumors about it before and all I know is if any of the three main characters die in the final book, but especially Harry, then my love for the books would die also. As much as I enjoy them, I could never read them again. Sad to say but that's how I feel. It's happened in other series of books I've read and can no longer enjoy. I wonder just how many other readers feel the same way. I know as a writer, I write for myself and just hope others enjoy my work. So, JKR is more than likely doing the same. But it would be terrible shame go lose that wonder and joy. JMHO. Ann Marie Check out my website: http://aprilsmiles.bravehost.com _Zero 1 (featuring Hal Sparks)_ (http://myspace.com/zero1band) __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 19:47:16 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:47:16 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done? In-Reply-To: <005701c606de$553b3dd0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145212 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > > > Sherry > > ... I think he (Snape) should have died rather than fulfill > > the UV, if he was loyal to Dumbledore. > > Miles: > Just hold this point. What would have happened after this? > Dumbledore was weak and wandless. Snape had no chance fighting > four DEs alone, so Dumbledore would have been killed anyway. > After Dumbledore's death Harry would have been able to move > again. Would he? Possibly, and then? > > What you demand of Snape is absolutely senseless self sacrifice. > If he acted that way, the 6th book most probably would be the > last one. > > Miles > bboyminn: I'm with you Miles, and I now ask (again), point blank, what should Snape have done under those circumstances? It's nice and heartwarming to say Snape should have died, but that is an extremely narrow view of the event. Snape dies and THEN.... What? What happens next, what is the full impact of any conceivable alternate action on Snape's part? I asked this before, just recently, and the question was ignore. People have no trouble saying that Snape's chosen course of action was wrong or perhaps, incorrect, but no one offers a full-view alternate course of action. Of course, I admit, that to some extent, my asking that question is founded in a DDM!Snape view. To take an ESE!Snape view is easy; Snape killed Dumbledore, enough said. But for the moment if we do take at least a somewhat DDM!Snape view, what were Snape's alternate courses of action under these circumstances. Copied from my previous post - So, to the group in general, under these very specific circumstances, what should Snape have done? They are on the top of a tower with limited space and only one exit. An exit which leads down to a heated battle in progress. Dumbledore is down, weak, and defenseless. Harry is hidden and petrified. Draco has failed at his task. Snape arrives on the scene. Now what should Snape do? How should he act to maximize the situation for the greatest good and the greatest long term outcome? Or if you don't believe Snape should have acted for long term outcome or greatest good, that doesn't change the basic question. What should Snape have done? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . So...? What say you all? Steve/bboyminn for review: DDM!(name) = Dumbledore's Man ESS!(name) = Ever So Evil OFH!(name) = Out For Himself From kevin_mcgoff at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 19:39:54 2005 From: kevin_mcgoff at yahoo.com (another_potter_fan) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:39:54 -0000 Subject: Snape was at the Potter's House That Night In-Reply-To: <43AAFC79.8050006@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145213 > Kathy wrote: > >(snip) > > Because Snape was with him. Snape didn't want to be > > RESPONSIBLE for Lily's life, and the orphaning of her child. > Jazmyn: > Voldemort was not there to kill James or Lily. He was there to > kill Harry! James and Lily just got in his way. There would > have been no orphans anyways as the child was the target if > everything had gone to Voldemort's plan. Snape knew the target > was Harry, but is not resposible for Voldemort's actions. > Voldemort kills whomever he wants anyways (if he can).. Snape > also defected to become a double agent before Harry's parents > were killed, so would likely have found someway to NOT be there. Another_Potter_Fan: Jazmyn, I think what Kathy meant was by asking LV to spare Lily, and then with the result of the AK, SS feels responsible for Harry's situation and resents it very much. The orphan at his feet was just a bad consequence of his actions. Anyway, I'm not sure which side of the fence I'm on with this theory. On one hand, it would explain why LV offered Lily the chance to save herself (I mean, why else would he care?). SS asked him to spare her life. Also, if Snape were there, it could explain why he can show up late to a DE rally at a gravesite WAY LATE and still be accepted back into the fold - LV trusts him more than any other DE in the circle. Not that they're friends or anything close, but SS might be the closest thing to a #2 man that LV has. Here's the counter-argument: Didn't LV say at the DE gravesite rally in GoF that he was all alone until Quirrell found him in the forests of Transylvania (or wherever)? If Snape was with him, why didn't LV ask SS "Why didn't YOU do something? YOU were there!?!" Thoughts? APF From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Dec 22 19:57:29 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:57:29 -0000 Subject: Snape was at the Potter's House That Night In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145214 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kathy" wrote: > > If Snape were in that house when James was killed - his deep seated > hatred of the man would have left nothing for him to feel guilt > about, however... > Allie: This may or may not pertain to Snape, but for most people at least, there is a difference between hating someone and wanting them dead. And it would be possible for someone to be very sorry afterward, if someone they hated had died. Especially if it was their fault. Maybe Snape really was sorry, or maybe he wasn't, but it is certainly possible that he was. I'm surprised that Dumbledore was the only one in Potterverse to recognize that. I would have expected Lupin to understand. Whether Snape truly WAS sorry for James' death still remains to be seen. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 20:11:56 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:11:56 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145215 > > Miles: > > Just hold this point. What would have happened after this? > > Dumbledore was weak and wandless. Snape had no chance fighting > > four DEs alone, so Dumbledore would have been killed anyway. > > After Dumbledore's death Harry would have been able to move > > again. Would he? Possibly, and then? > > > > What you demand of Snape is absolutely senseless self sacrifice. > > If he acted that way, the 6th book most probably would be the > > last one. > > bboyminn: > > I'm with you Miles, and I now ask (again), point blank, what should > Snape have done under those circumstances? It's nice and heartwarming > to say Snape should have died, but that is an extremely narrow view of > the event. Snape dies and THEN.... What? What happens next, what is > the full impact of any conceivable alternate action on Snape's part? > > I asked this before, just recently, and the question was ignore. > People have no trouble saying that Snape's chosen course of action was > wrong or perhaps, incorrect, but no one offers a full-view alternate > course of action. > > Of course, I admit, that to some extent, my asking that question is > founded in a DDM!Snape view. To take an ESE!Snape view is easy; Snape > killed Dumbledore, enough said. But for the moment if we do take at > least a somewhat DDM!Snape view, what were Snape's alternate courses > of action under these circumstances. Alla: I am sorry Steve, but I have to say Huh? :-) I thought I answered that question multiple times, but I will answer again. Anybody who is tired of reading my POV, please, please feel free to skip this post. What Snape should have done? DD!M Snape I mean. Well, first and foremost he should have NOT under any circumstances enter Unbreakable Vow. If Snape will turn out to be DD!M I don't think he could ever escape the accusation of extreme stupidity and recklessness from me. If he is a good guy, he basically gave Voldemort a blank check to use himself as Voldemort sees fit that night, IMO. So, that is what Snape should have done. Now, what Snape should have done at the Tower? DD!M Snape I mean. I am sorry, but I strongly disagree with Miles' point of considering self-sacrifice senseless. And I think that canon disagrees with him too. Sorry, Miles. By its nature self-sacrifice cannot be sensible IMO. When you start counting what can you get out of it, it stops being a heroic action IMO. The book opens with self-sacrifice of the couple for their child. Did they expect to get ANYTHING from it? Not the way I see it. All James wanted was is for Lily and Harry to live. All that Lily wanted was for Harry to live and we KNOW that she was offered a chance to live and we KNOW that she was not planning any convoluted charms before her death to give Harry power. Her sacrifice in itself turned to be the ACTION, which gave Harry protection. Do I expect Snape to act the same way for Dumbledore? Sure I do. After all Dumbledore was the one who saved him from the hell of Azkaban. Yep, I do expect Snape to put his life on the line for him. Would anything come out of it? I said in the past, that I don't know. Maybe or maybe not, but I expected Snape to TRY at least. For example he could have start fighting while sending his Patronus to other Order Members. We had been shown that Snape IS a powerful wizard, I think he may have had a fighting chance or at least enough of chance to stall the time to let Harry and Draco to escape. After all, that is DD!M Snape primary consideration, isn't it? Safety of the boys? So, if he dies while defending them THAT would be IMO death of the real hero. Now, we of course have the possibility of UV kicking right away, but Pippin argued quite nicely today that UV was worded carefully and may not really matter in case Snape did not REALLY try to kill Dumbledore, so I think it is a fair argument to make that if UV was worded so carefully, it may not have matter if Snape was stalling for time or somehow started to defend Dumbledore. Did I answer your question? JMO, Alla From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 20:13:52 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:13:52 -0000 Subject: The Twins and the Puffskein In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145216 > > Allie: > > If they were having Bludger practice, that implies they were already > Beaters on a Quidditch team, i.e. at least 12 or 13 years old. Which > is why I needed another explanation. > Finwitch: Not necessarily. I can figure that 5-year-old twins began this practice because they wanted to be Gryffindor Beaters 7 years later. Fred improvised some stick for a beater-bat - now they just needs a bludger. They might try some rocks first, but Molly won't allow it (what mother would?). Then Fred improvices a softie-bludger: Puffskein. Ron gets terribly angry about that and he breaks Fred's toy- broomstick. Fred gets angry about that and so the Teddy-bear into Spider incident happened. You didn't think 3-year-old Ron just went and broke the broomstick? Not strong enough, but Revenge for the Puffskein would bring magic out... As to where they came up with an idea of becoming Beaters for Gryffindor? Suppose that Bill's two best friends who also happen to be twins made it to beaters on second year(meaning the position will be next vacant on the year Fred&George will be on second year and able to try out for it...) Finwitch From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 20:41:37 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:41:37 -0000 Subject: Another question about HBP in russian translation/Heroes or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145217 > Alla: > So, I wonder, do you guys get the sense out of this excerpt that > Dumbledore was informed about Voldemort's reactions to Diary > destructions? Because when I read it initially, I thought that > Dumbledore was simply hypothesizing about Voldie's reactions with > certainty so to speak, but I probably misread it. After all, how > else Dumbledore would learn about Voldemort's reactions unless being > informed by somebody. zgirnius: Hi Alla, I happened to be rereading 'Horcruxes' for unrelated reasons and came across (Top of pg. 508, US Ed.): "When Voldemort discovered that the diary had been mutilated and robbed of all its powers, I AM TOLD that his anger was terrible to behold." (Emphasis mine.) The Russian translator is not assuming anything mot found elsewhere in the text, apparently. Adn Snape does seem to be the most likely informant. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 20:42:24 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:42:24 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Wrong? - The Sword. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145218 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "susanbones2003" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "graverobber23" > wrote: > >> > > graverobber: > > > > Voldemort didn't die when he cursed Harry Potter. He became > > a spirit as we saw in Sorcerer's Stone. So therefore, LV's > > horcrux did not die. So there are actually 5 horcruxes still > > out there. > > 1) Hufflepuff's cup, > > 2)Something of Griffindor's, > > 3) Slitherin's Locket, > > 4) Nagini, > > 5) LV himself. (HBP) > > > > Now the true question is.... What is the thing from Godric > > Griffindor? My thoughts are on Godric Griffindor's sword. > > > Jen D here, > Harry used that sword in COS. Wouldn't there have been some > indication if it had been something as dark and dangerous as > a horcrux? Are horcruxes neutral? The diary certainly seemed > to have the power to do evil, given the right circumstances. > Just a question. > Jen D bboyminn: This bring up several thoughts, some of them tangental. We don't know anything about the Sword of Gryffindor before it appeared in the Chamber of Secrets. We don't know for a fact that it was in the possession of Dumbledore. Perhaps, the Sword was a lost relic; tucked away in some dusty attic or musty basement, or perhaps, lost in the 'throw away' version of the Room of Requirements. I don't recall the presences of a jewel encrusted Sword every being noticed in the Headmaster's office. It is conceivable that Gryffindor's Magic Hat would be able to draw Gryffindor's Sword from whatever lost location it might have been in, and bring it to Harry's aid in the Chamber. It is only after this event that the Sword holds a prominent place in Dumbledore's office. Now, I can't say with any certainty that Dumbledore didn't have the Sword neatly tucked way in some storage location. But it would have been nice and foreshadowing, if Harry had noticed a grand jeweled sword in Dumbledore's office, and then in a later book, have that Sword play a prominent role. That seems like JKR's writing style. So, I'm speculating that the magical power of the Sorting Hat which once belonged to Gryffindor himself, had the power to bring the Sword from whatever hidden, lost, or storage location it might have been in. Now to the central point, and I respond with pure speculation. I don't think a Horcrux object itself is inherently evil or dangerous. One could wear the Ring or the Locket on a routine basis without any harm, as long as they didn't try to destroy it or remove the soul piece from within. I suspect, as we see in the cave, it is the many external protective enchantments that guard the Horcrux, but are not actually part of it, that are the real danger. Further, we really don't know how Dumbledore injured his hand. Was it done by the protective enchantments? Was it due to the tremendous force release by releasing the soul piece for the Horcrux object? In this one case, did Voldemort add an additional curse to the Ring itself to protect it. The distinction here is the the Locket had curses and protections all around it, but the Locket itself didn't have a defensive or protective charm/curse placed ON it. Remember the Ring was at the Gaunt house, which by this time was hardly more than a derelict ruin close to a muggle village. There is a great likelihood that the local boys would come to the Gaunt House on an adventure, so in the event that they were able to touch the Ring, the addition of a curse place specifically on the Ring itself might have been an advantage in this case. For the Locket in the cave, adventuring boys would not be a problem. The cave was hidden and difficult to get to, and the locket was protected by many effective external charms and enchantments. So, no need to curse the object itself. So, my central point is that I don't think that a Horcrux itself is inherently dangerous. It isn't automatically a cursed object. One could handle and wear the object without fear. Again, that is a normal Horcrux. Harry handled and destroyed the Diary easily, but that object didn't have additional protections. It was meant to be found and used. The Ring and the Locket were never meant to be found and/or used, so their additional protections would have been much stronger. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 21:07:44 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:07:44 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Draco on the Tower (WAS Re: Peter's basic .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145219 zgirnius: Sorry, renamed my post, we are far off the topic of Peter and Snape now... > a_svirn: > I believe we are told that his wand was shaking so badly that he > could barely aim. Which means, in effect, that he did aim, albeit in > an unsatisfactory manner. As for Dumbledore, he was, after all, the > one being held at wandpoint and tried to negotiate. Under the > circumstances, I wouldn't take everything he said at its face value. zgirnius: Yes, but Dumbledore pretty deliberately put himself in that position. I think it was precisely in order to be able to say his piece. Harry able to move around would certainly have interfered in some way (even just knowing Harry was there would affect Draco). And, armed, Dumbledore could not prove his point to Draco. Because there are any number of reasons Draco might hesitate to try and kill an armed Dumbledore. > a_svirn: > Well, his last words weren't about Malfoy period. zgirnius: That is a bold statement. His last word were: "Severus, please...". And thus could have been about almost anything. We do know that immediately after he uttered these words, Snape cast an Avada Kedavra, apparently killing Dumbledore, and then removed Draco from the scene... From kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Dec 22 20:27:52 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:27:52 -0000 Subject: The Twins and the Puffskein In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145220 > "hekatesheadband" wrote: > If they were ten or eleven - as Tom Riddle was when he > started killing his peers' pets - I'd be very troubled. > If they were six or seven, I doubt they understood. kchuplis: I was thinking maybe it fell off Ron and they mistakenly just hit at it like they would when praciticing with golf balls or apples. From coverton at netscape.com Thu Dec 22 20:34:16 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 14:34:16 -0600 Subject: Last book, Harry not surviving In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c60737$17389e20$209ea0ac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145221 Hi all list members, Corey again. I'm glad my post got a response. What role do you think the dementors will play? What do you guys think about the possibility of Harry being killed by LV? I'm sure you guys know the rumor that was put on a previous post. On some magazine. Can't remember the name. I hope Harry doesn't die. But even if he does I'll still read. If JKR has the last chapter almost done then the 7th book should come out soon, don't you think? Well let me know what all of you are thinking out there. Your fellow list member, Corey From rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu Thu Dec 22 21:33:19 2005 From: rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu (susanbones2003) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:33:19 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Wrong? - The Sword. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145222 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > SNIPPED HEAVILY: > So, my central point is that I don't think that a Horcrux itself is > inherently dangerous. It isn't automatically a cursed object. One > could handle and wear the object without fear. Again, that is a normal > Horcrux. Harry handled and destroyed the Diary easily, but that object > didn't have additional protections. It was meant to be found and used. > The Ring and the Locket were never meant to be found and/or used, so > their additional protections would have been much stronger. > > For what it's worth. > > Steve/bboyminn You gave us two categories: an object that was meant to be used and then objects that were never meant to be used or found and therefore this type has additional protections. Which category would this put the sword in, if indeed it's a horcrux? It's confusing because I find it very difficult to think of Harry offing the basilisk with a weapon that contains part of LV's soul. Are there any other possible Gryffindor objects? Jen D > From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Dec 22 21:40:53 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:40:53 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145223 > > bboyminn: > > point blank, what should > > Snape have done under those circumstances? Snape dies and > > THEN.... What? What happens next, > > > Alla answered and wrote: > > Did I answer your question? Valky: I can't speak for Steve Alla, but IMO you gave an excellent answer, your point is well taken with the exception of one thing. Alla wrote: > All that Lily wanted was for Harry to live and we KNOW that she was > offered a chance to live and we KNOW that she was not planning any > convoluted charms before her death to give Harry power. > > Her sacrifice in itself turned to be the ACTION, which gave Harry > protection. > > Do I expect Snape to act the same way for Dumbledore? Sure I do. > After all Dumbledore was the one who saved him from the hell of > Azkaban. Yep, I do expect Snape to put his life on the line for him. Valky: Oho! Alla. I am going tyo ask you a question. Did *you* really, (what was that word you used, oh yeah) *expect* DD!M*Snape* to make a sacrifice comparable to Lily and James sacrifice? What I mean is that once long ago you and I were very much a pigeon pair on the same page when it came to Severus Snape. IIRC, neither of us would have under any circumstances, then, *expected* /Snape/ to die trying, no matter what his loyalty. Hence I wonder why you would place that expectation on him now. This is my rub with HBP!Snape essentially, you have really hit it on the head, I was sure he would be revealed as a nasty kid (Sectumsempra), I was sure he was the Hogshead eavesdropper (Correct), I was sure that Snape would act in a calculating and self-preserving manner under almost any circumstances (Proved too), BUT I never believed, nor do I now believe, that we could ever expect Snape to act saintly good or demonically evil. You see, my biggest rub with ESE!Snape in the tower scene is that it assumes Severus Snape is capable of acting one or both of those two ways. Snape?! Perhaps I was wrong, perhaps we were not actually on the same page there Alla, but pre HBP I would have said Alla wouldn't believe Snape could kill Dumbledore. Did anyone pre HBP think he could do that? Given a list of the awful things Severus *could* do in HBP, I know many of us wouldn't hesitate to choose one from the list, but would any of those of us have chosen 'killing Dumbledore' from that list? I know I wouldn't have. Does that make me stubborn? Perhaps. But I have a pretty good track record behind me on Snape, I am not so sure that I am wrong. ;) Valky Who thinks that seeing Snape for what he is means not assuming he could do what Lily and James did, he just isn't *that* good. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 21:47:17 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:47:17 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145224 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > > Miles: > > > Just hold this point. What would have happened after this? > > > ...edited... > > > > > > What you demand of Snape is absolutely senseless self sacrifice. > > > If he acted that way, the 6th book most probably would be the > > > last one. > > > > bboyminn: > > > > I'm with you Miles, and I now ask (again), point blank, what > > should Snape have done under those circumstances? It's nice > > and heartwarmingto say Snape should have died, but that is an > > extremely narrow view of the event. Snape dies and THEN.... > > What? What happens next, what is the full impact of any > > conceivable alternate action on Snape's part? > > > >...edited... > > > > Alla: > > I am sorry Steve, but I have to say Huh? :-) > I thought I answered that question multiple times, but I will > answer again. > bboyminn: Pardon my noticably snarky attitude, but you haven't answered the question. You've got a nice heartwarming 'what', but you fail greatly at the '...then what...?'. So, I answer your last question first- ALLA: "Did I answer your question?" to which I answer - NO. > Alla continues: > > ...edited... > > What Snape should have done? DD!M Snape I mean. Well, first > and foremost he should have NOT under any circumstances enter > Unbreakable Vow. If Snape will turn out to be DD!M I don't think > he could ever escape the accusation of extreme stupidity and > recklessness from me. > bboyminn: Yes, but we can't travel back into the past with a lot of wishful thinking. We have to start at the top of the tower as thing are at that point in time and answer the question, 'What should Snape do?'. To some extent I agree about the Vow. But I think on this issue, Snape is a victim of circumstance. Narcissa askes Snape to promise/Vow to watch over Draco, and that is what Snape agrees to. Then Narcissa starts the Unbreakable Vows. The first two items are exactly what Snape expects, and really are so vague and general as to be of no concern. Then Narcissa throws the 'Spanner into the Works', or for Americans, 'a monkey wrench into the gears'. She ask for the third Vow which makes Snape flinch and look as though he would like to withdraw his hand. But what can he do, he's commited to the unexpected and unwelcome third Vow? It would have looked very strange and suspicious, if Snape has withdrawn his hand at that point and tried to do some fast/smooth talking. Yes, the Unbreakable Vow was a mistake, but the third Vow was somewhat forced on him by circumstances, and is not what he originally agreed to do. Yet, at that point what are his options? How does he get out of it gracefully and without arrousing suspicious about himself? > Alla continues to continue: > > ...edited... > > Now, what Snape should have done at the Tower? DD!M Snape I > mean. ... When you start counting what can you get out of it, > it stops being a heroic action IMO. > bboyminn: I might agree, but those who die as heroes in the moment frequently throw their lives away because they don't weigh their actions to the best advantage of the greater cause and the greater good. It is one thing to heroicaly give your life away, but quite another to tragically throw it away. > Alla gets to the point: > > The book opens with self-sacrifice of the couple for their > child. Did they expect to get ANYTHING from it? Not the way > I see it. All James wanted was is for Lily and Harry to live. > > ...edited... > > Her sacrifice in itself turned to be the ACTION, which gave > Harry protection. > > Do I expect Snape to act the same way for Dumbledore? Sure I do. > ...edited... > > Would anything come out of it? I said in the past, that I don't > know. Maybe or maybe not, but I expected Snape to TRY at least. > For example he could have start fighting while sending his > Patronus to other Order Members. We had been shown that Snape > IS a powerful wizard, I think he may have had a fighting chance > or at least enough of chance to stall the time to let Harry and > Draco to escape. > bboyminn: So, you expect Snape to sacrific himself on the off and slim chance that his own death might afford Dumbledore some level of protection? Sorry, but to my mind that's not heroic scarifice, that merely throwing your life away on a slim to non-existance and unproven hope that some good might come out of it. Yes, I agree it is possible, but I really think the odds are astronomically against it. The circumstances surrounding Lily's sacrifice, while they have parallels to Snape's potential scarifice, are quite different. It is mother and child. Lily is offerred the chance to live, if she gives up Harry. Yes, these are parallel to Snape circumstances, but they are not the same, and while the chance is there, it is slim. So, Snape fights and dies. Now what happens to Dumbledore? Does he live, or does he die despite Snape's sacrific? When Dumbledore dies, is the enchantment holding Harry released, and does Harry then jump into the fray? And then, is Harry killed too? Killing Dumbledore allowed Snape to save Draco and Harry, as well as himself. It allowed him to end the siege and get the DE's out of the castle. That protects all the other student who are now coming out of the Dorms to see what is happening. > Alla continues: > > After all, that is DD!M Snape primary consideration, isn't it? > Safety of the boys? > > So, if he dies while defending them THAT would be IMO death of the > real hero. > bboyminn: Well, admittedly, we are just speculating here, but NO I don't see that as heroic. I see Snape's sacrifice as short sighted and wastefull. Far from Heroic, it most likely gives Voldemort the upper hand, and has grave long term consequences. Again, Snape sacrificing himself is a warm fuzzy feeling, but we must ask 'what then?'. Snape is dead. Dumbledore is weak and vulnerable, quickly followed by dead. Then Harry enters the fray, and he is quickly dead. Now Death Eaters are pretty much free to run amok at Hogwarts killing freely and indiscriminatly. How can I view that as anything other than a waste of human life? Now admittedly, there is a slim chance that Harry could have caught them off guard and defeated them. But, as you said, Dumbledore's intent, and therefore Snape's mandate, is to protect the boys. Harry entering the battle would not be consistent with Dumbledore's view of protecting Harry. He certainly would NOT want Harry entering the battle and took specific measures to prevent just that. > Alla concludes: > > Now, we of course have the possibility of UV kicking right away, > but Pippin argued quite nicely today that UV was worded carefully > and may not really matter in case Snape did not REALLY try to > kill Dumbledore, so I think it is a fair argument to make that > if UV was worded so carefully, it may not have matter if Snape > was stalling for time or somehow started to defend Dumbledore. > > Did I answer your question? > > JMO, Alla bboyminn: I've never been one to give much weight to the Unbreakable Vow. First, who is the arbiter of the Vow? What magical entity or power determines when Snape has failed? If Snape lives the next 100 years with the intent to kill Dumbledore, does that count in his favor? Would Dumbledore and Snape continue to live as long as Snape maintained the intent to kill Dumbledore but kept postponing the actual act? Certainly, Snape would take the Vow into consideration, and in the heat of the moment, I don't think he really had time analyze and gamble on potential loopholes in the Vow. Circumstances demanded that he act. So, while you obviously don't, I can't see Snape's sacrific of his own life as anything more than a grand empty gesture. Certainly, the wizard world would have considered his actions heroic, but nothing is really gained from the act. As Snape did choose, Draco, Harry, and Snape are alive. Snape got the DE's out of the Castle with minimum additional damage. Further, in making their exit, Snape prevents the other DE's from attacking Harry. Soldiers die in war, that is a dark and horrible fact. That is what I see Dumbledore's death as, a necessary but tragic casualty of war. I do see your 'what', and it has all the trappings of a noble act, but I ask 'What then?', 'What next?', Snape is dead and then what happens at the top of the tower? Banking on the self-scarifical protection of love and sacrific seems an unfathomly long and unlikely bet. A gamble that has far greater potential for tragic and disasterous consequences. So, no, I don't think you answered the question, nor do I think you answered completely or effectively. But of course, that's just my opinion. As a side note: Even I find it extremely odd that I had my doubts about Snape until he killed Dumbledore, then against the obvious evidence, I immediately concluded that he was indeed Dumbledore's Man. Sort of defies logic, I know. Steve/bboyminn From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Dec 22 22:10:19 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 22:10:19 -0000 Subject: IIn the Tower (was: Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145225 va32h: I do think Draco was exaggerating. I have loaned out m y copy of HBP, but doesn't Draco even say it in passing? As in "After Montague nearly died..." Draco is not a character we can count on to be objective or reliable in his information giving. Magpie: He's not objective but anyone can be accurate at times (this is the same way I look at Sirius' claim that Snape went around with a gang of Slytherins--Sirius may not be objective about Snape, but I take that line as accurate). I thought the Montague line was relatively accurate in the same way. Perhaps another person wouldn't have said "he might have died" but Draco offers this in the middle of a straightforward explanation of how he pulled off the cabinet thing. He says (since I've got my book for this post!): "Montague told me that when he was stuck in the Hogwarts one, he was trapped in limbo but sometimes he could hear what was going on at school, and sometimes what was going on in the shop, as if the Cabinet was travelling between them, but he couldn't make anyone hear him...in the end he managed to Apparate out, even though he'd never passed his test. He nearly died doing it. Everyone thought it was a really good story..." "Nearly died" is kind of vague and I doubt it's a clinical diagnosis, but in OotP there were ongoing mentions of Montague spending a long time recovering with Madam Pomfrey, indicating he really did suffer something serious, imo. There's no mention of him being splinched, which I think we should have heard about. He seemed more addled than missing body parts. I think this came from Apparating out of limbo and into Hogwarts (into which you're not supposed to be able to Apparate) rather than just a normal Apparition problem. Had he not been able to Apparate out we don't know how long he might have been stuck or how they'd have gotten him out, I guess. > a_svirn: > I believe we are told that his wand was shaking so badly that he > could barely aim. Which means, in effect, that he did aim, albeit in > an unsatisfactory manner. Magpie: I guess you could use that line to say that aiming=going to act, but it seems to deliberately rewrite the scene to add some suspense over whether Draco might throw the AK before he's stopped by Snape's arrival. Draco's already been aiming at DD since the beginning of the scene, meanwhile the DEs are standing around ordering him to act and being at a loss because he doesn't and won't. Dumbledore said pages ago Draco wouldn't kill him and I never saw any reason to think DD was wrong. HBP: "No, said the fourth Death Eater sharply. He had a heavy, brutal- looking face. 'We've got orders. Draco's got to do it. Now, Draco, and quickly.' "Malfoy was showing less resolution than ever. He looked terrified as he stared into Dumbledore's face, which was even paler, and lower than usual..." Magpie: He's even less resolute than he was before, and even before he did not make the move to kill Dumbledore. There's then more conversation with more Death Eaters ordering Draco to do it and (HBP): "Now, Draco, quickly!" said the brutal-faced man angrily. But Malfoy's hand was shaking so badly he could barely aim. "I'll do it," snarled Greyback, moving towards Dumbledore..." Magpie: So first Draco was looking even less resolute and more terrified, *staring into DD's face.* He was already aiming at him and had been throughout the scene. The description here to me seems more about showing Draco's disintegration ("Do it quickly--But Malfoy was shaking so badly he could barely aim") rather than a burst of intention on Malfoy's part (for instance, "Malfoy tried to point his wand at Dumbledore but his hand was shaking badly"). I think Draco's still mostly responding to Dumbledore in this scene-- and Dumbledore is aware of that connection too (until he's dead). There is, imo, no tug-of-war going on here with Draco wavering between the two sides. He's paralyzed, knowing what he isn't, but unsure of what he is. I don't think there's any suspense that Draco might AK DD. He's done. He knows something about what he is now and he can't go back to the person he was at the beginning of the scene, imo, which was DD's intention. "Draco, do it, or stand aside so one of us..." says the woman. When Snape comes in Amycus says, "We've got a problem, Snape...the boy doesn't seem able..." The constant repititions of "do it, Draco," seem to again stress that Draco isn't trying to do it. He's not acting. He's frozen, with, imo, probably a lot going on inside him that is coming out physically. (Elkins actually spotted this being something JKR did with Draco way back pre-OotP and I think HBP showed she was right in her readings of Draco's physical descriptions.) a_svirn: As for Dumbledore, he was, after all, the > one being held at wandpoint and tried to negotiate. Under the > circumstances, I wouldn't take everything he said at its face value. Magpie: I do take his words at face value, absolutely. Dumbledore has never been more on his game than he is in that last scene with Draco imo. Physically he's weak, but he's totally in control in his conversation with Draco. He's not negotiating, but talking the kid through the crisis he's come to. Just as I don't think DD would plead with Snape not to kill him, I don't see him negotiating with Draco to spare his life. He's known this was coming in one form or another. He's described as speaking kindly and like a teacher, gently guiding Draco towards his own conclusions. There's no indication, imo, that this is an act. (In fact ultimately Dumbledore's being unarmed is what makes him more powerful.) When Draco says DD should be afraid his, "But why?" seemed genuine to me, not a bluff. When I read this scene I really thought this was Dumbledore at his essence; his finest--dealing with a boy on the wrong path. I tend to think this was the DD that Snape knew. This is a Dumbledore I can imagine Snape being loyal to (in fact, this is a Dumbledore who I think could have inspired DDM!Draco, something I'd never have thought of pre-HBP--not that I'm saying that's happened). I'd love to get a glimpse of Snape's own second chance scene after this. > a_svirn: > Well, his last words weren't about Malfoy period. Magpie: I don't know everything his last words are about but okay, even if they're not about Draco his last scene is mostly a long conversation with Draco where Dumbledore talks about not being a killer and is patient and calm, very much the teacher, while Malfoy broadcasts physical signs of his internal conflict and distress. He swings back and forth emotionally, looks pale, trembles, his voice cracks and he looks like he's about to vomit. Draco's last words, which are I believe a first for him in canon, suggest respect of Dumbledore's opinion. HBP: "Am I to take it that you are attacking even without the full moon now? This is most unusual..you have developed a taste for human flesh that cannot be satisfied once a month? "That's right," said Greback. "Shocks you, that, does it, Dumbledore? Frightens you?" "Well, I cannot pretend it does not disgust me a little," said Dumbledore. "And, yes, I am a little shocked that Draco here invited you, of all people, into the school where his friends live..." "I didn't," breathed Malfoy. He was not looking at Greyback; he did not seem to want to even glance at him. "I didn't know he was going to come--" Magpie: I think that even with the arrival of the DEs Dumbledore retains his connection with Draco. In comes this walking reminder of the results of murder--Fenrir's taste for human flesh becomes worse the more he can't satisfy it just once a month. Dumbledore brings the lesson back to Draco: Did you bring him here? And Draco assures him he didn't, because it matters even if DD is about to die and the damage is done. He doesn't try to act tough about it or hide his own disgust in front of the DEs, he says something to make DD think better of him in front of them all. (The DEs are all speaking to DD with disrespect, as Draco had been doing earlier.) It is probably the only line Draco ever has in canon that suggests something like compassion or morality. To me this scene is so central to what DD must be about--and what Snape is about. In most modern Hollywood scripts this plays out differently: the hero offers mercy just so that the villain can reject it and get killed. The audience gets to watch the bad guys wiped out while still assuring themselves that the good guys offered mercy. I think JKR is writing the more interesting/difficult story, where mercy isn't just words, and second chances can make all the difference. -m From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 21:52:34 2005 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:52:34 -0000 Subject: The Needs of Snape's Redemption (was Re: Heroes or not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145226 Betsy: > I think that most folks going with a DDM!Snape who *will* have a > large role (though not the starring role) and a redemption story > line, *do not* think Snape maliciously killed Dumbledore. Hmmm. I guess a DDM!Snape by definition (well, almost) didn't maliciously kill Dumbledore. So I think that for DDM!Snape to come true, some explanation (poorly written as, IMO, it would inevitably be) would have to be given for that. Betsy: > But that's not what the "Snape is a good guy" people have to deal > with. We tend to think that Snape *doesn't* have to make up for > his behavior on the tower but for his role as a Death Eater. Which, unfortunately, we don't know much about. And that is a huge problem when it comes to "redeeming" Snape without pulling the focus off of Harry and in effect making Snape (who you are right, I and others think is definitely a child abuser) into the hero of the story. Multiple pages of explanation about this would have a tendency to lead in that direction. Betsy: > So book 7 won't *introduce* the redemption of Snape. It will > *reveal* a redemption well under way. *Harry* will have to > recognize Snape for who he really is, see Snape as Dumbledore saw > him. But the problem with that, for many of our perspectives, is that Harry's recognition CAN NOT come without penance and payment from Snape for many things -- payment and penance made specifically TO HARRY. For Harry to say, "Oh, you've been paying all this time, I realize that now," WITHOUT payment from Snape TO HIM for the things Snape has done to hurt Harry would be, IMO, a moral abomination. Payment made under the supervision of Dumbledore in no way lessens the specific wrongs Snape has done TO HARRY, and those wrongs MUST be acknowledged and specific restitution made within the context of that relationship. Now, payment can be of many kinds, but will probably (and should probably) include strong elements of both karmic punishment, as discussed in another thread, and a genuine apology from Snape to Harry. And redemption, for those of use who feel quite strongly that Snape IS a child abuser, MUST cover BOTH his actions against Harry's parents AND his abuse of Harry, himself. Anything else would, IMO, constitute a deep moral flaw in the final structure of the books. Is JKR trying to tell a moral story? She keeps saying she is, and therefore moral questions apply. I would say she's got a serious problem on her hands if she doesn't plan to deal rather specifically with the particular relationship of Snape and Harry. As I've said before, from many of our perspectives, saying that "Snape is DDM! and has been paying all along" doesn't fly any day of the week and doesn't fly twice on Sunday. So, to come back to your original question, even if Snape is DDM! he is not redeemed, IMO and that of others, without dealing specifically with many other issues. Sorry. Lupinlore From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 22:48:03 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 22:48:03 -0000 Subject: Why I think love is the most overrated of Harry's powers. In-Reply-To: <000001c60724$c6f15680$fca6acac@Overton> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145227 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Corey Overton" wrote: > > ... I'm going to give my view on why I think love is an > overrated power of Harry's as it relates to what he has to > do. I'm also going to expound on a couple other matters > relating to HP. > > Why I think love is overrated for Harry in his attempt to kill LV. > > 1. ... I don't believe love will help in the slightest to kill LV! > 2. ... I don't think Harry is going to love LV to death. I... > 3. ... because he'll have so much anger in him that love isn't > going to help. > > Enough about love. > bboyminn: Sorry to not respond in detail even though I agree with you, but back in the middle of November, I made a few posts on this subject that cover my feelings on the matter nicely. This is the original comment I made: Date: Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:49 am Subject: ...Grey Snape/Dumbledore/Harry - Harry Skill. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143092 This thread broke off into a new thread- Date: Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:18 pm Subject: Re: Love: the Opposite horcrux http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143148 Additional comments at- Date: Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:15 am Subject: Re: Love: the Opposite horcrux - Perspective - Then and Now http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143181 These are well worth reading even if they are old. Frequently, reading an old discussion will bring up new ideas that hadn't been considered before. Don't forget to go up and down the thread to view other people's opinions on the matter. Here is a quick summary of my position- Indeed in the end, after the fact, we may see that love really does conquer all. But the concept of love is too abstact. From where Harry is now, how can he even remotely apply love? He can't hone it. He can't refine it. He can't train it as a weapon. He can't weild it like a sword or hold it up like a shield. So, to prepare for the battles ahead, how can Harry possible, from a practical stand point, apply something as abstract as 'Love'? My initial reason for posting these comments was to re-enforce the idea that in the next book Harry needs to seriously start drawing on the resources available to him and start refining and expanding his skills. The circumstances are making tremendous demands on Harry, demand that I feel he isn't even remotely skilled enough to tackle. > Corey continues: > > Now to another point. Where do you think Harry will learn the > AK spell? Who do you think will teach it to him? ... > bboyminn: Oddly, I think everyone around Harry will discourage him from learning the Unforgivable Curses under the argument that if you use them, you become the very thing you are fighting against. The exact nature of how that will all play out is unclear to me however. There have been several somewhat recent discussion about Harry using Dark Magic and the Unforgivable Curses. Try searching 'unforgivable curse' in the Group search box and see where that leads you. If links don't come up on the first search, click the "Search More" button. Each search only searches a very limited number of posts, then each additional search moves farther back in time. Even some of us oldtimers occassionally go back and search old posts for inspiration. > Corey concludes: > > 4. My last question and thought. Does any one think Harry will > face any more dementors? ... > > Well that's my post. Hope it sparks good debate. > > Your fellow list member, Corey > bboyminn: I find the Dementors a complete mystery. Not in terms of their general nature, but in terms of how they will figure into the future of the story. Given Harry unbelievable lack of skill, does he even know how to get the Soul Pieces out of the Horcruxes? I once speculated that Dumbledore injured his hand by placing the Ring Horcrux through the Veil to release the Soul Piece. Actually, I've developed a whole complex theory based on that, and it can be found by searching old posts for 'bboy Veil Horcrux'. One other theory is that Harry could entice the Dementors to suck out the Soul Piece from the Horcrux, but that brings up the additional complication that is being discussed right now, or at least recently. What happen to the soul when it is sucked out by a Dementor? Is it destroyed? Is it preserved in side the Dementor so the Dementor can be feed off of it for eternity? And, if it is preserved inside the Dementor, is it then earthbound in a way that continues Voldemort's protection from death? Really... enquiring minds want to know. I have to believe that Dementors will enter the story again but when, where, and how is beyond me. Hope that helps. Steve/bboyminn From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Thu Dec 22 22:58:00 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:58:00 +0100 Subject: who will be the next significant half-blood? References: Message-ID: <01df01c6074b$292574a0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 145228 ravibaby1 wrote: > The good > characters are the most tolerant and embrace differences, while the > bad > ones are those who are most intolerant, race-proud, zenophobic > (obviously LV, but Malfoys/DE's in general, Umbridge, Kreacher). Miles: Kreacher is not a bad character, he is a victim of bad treatment. That is my understanding of what Rowling wants to show us - Kreacher was mistreated for a very long time, his kind is damned to internalize their own slavery, and in Kreacher's and Dobby's cases this caused mental defects. Umbridge has not objections to half-bloods (we haven't heard her mentioning this at all), she dislikes half*breeds*, part humans, like Hagrid, half giant. ravibaby1: > In > this context, the half-bloods are clearly significant. LV's power is > probably mitigated by the fact that he hates his mud-blood father. Miles: When talking of racial tolerance as a major message of the HP series (I think this is true), we should avoid the term mudblood and replace it with muggle-born. About mitigating LVs power - I don't understand? ravibaby1 > Snape is clearly more proud of his full-blood origin. Miles: Is he? I don't see it. We have his self-chosen nickname, but it only works because of the meaning of his mother's surname. And even if he favors his mother, there is no indication that the reason is her being the witch, not his father. We never heard a racist remark from adult Snape in the entire series so far. ravibaby1: > Harry has love > for both his full-blood and mudblood parents, and his love may give > him > a stronger power (no self-hatred to motivate him or weaken him). Miles: Harry is much more interested in James, isn't he? Obviously we know much more about James Potter than about Lily Evans, because Harry asked more questions about his father. Maybe because she is muggle-born ;). ravibaby1 > Now the > mudblood in the center is Hermione, and she and Ron Weasley will > likely > have a half-blood heir. However, doubtful that this will happen in > book 7. Who are the other half-bloods to note? Miles: I hope there will be no Ronione ... Bah, big drama. But your question - there are two "half-bloods" in the center, we don't need any more - Harry and Voldemort. The answer to racism is not "half-blood is good", but "it doesn't matter". And the final confrontation is not one of their blood, it is good or evil. Miles From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 23:05:47 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:05:47 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Wrong? - The Sword. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145229 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "susanbones2003" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > > SNIPPED HEAVILY: > > > So, my central point is that I don't think that a Horcrux > > itself is inherently dangerous. It isn't automatically a > > cursed object.... the Diary... was meant to be found and > > used. The Ring and the Locket were never meant to be found > > ..., so their additional protections would have been much > > stronger. > > > > For what it's worth. > > > > Steve/bboyminn > > Jen D: > > You gave us two categories: an object that was meant to be used and > then objects that were never meant to be ... found and therefore > this type has additional protections. Which category would this put > the sword in, if indeed it's a horcrux? It's confusing because I > find it very difficult to think of Harry offing the basilisk with a > weapon that contains part of LV's soul. Are there any other possible > Gryffindor objects? > Jen D bboyminn: Well, first we are laboring under the misconception of brevity. We have narrowed this discussion to a Gryffindor object, but the truth is, it could be a Gryffindor OR RAVENCLAW object, and I personally think it is more likely to be a Ravenclaw object. My speculation, either the Wand on the cushion in the Window of Ollivanders or the tiara the Harry used to mark the location of his Potions Book. I've said before, we don't know that the Sword was in Dumbledore possession before Chamber of Secrets. We don't know that it was not, but there is no indication that it was. So, I don't necessarily see the Gryffindor Sword as being available to enchant into a Horcrux. I think it magically appeared from obscurity, called by the Sorting Hat to come to Harry's aid. So, I was trying to answer the question in the context it was presented, but truthfully, I don't think the Sword is a Horcrux. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Dec 22 21:34:21 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:34:21 -0000 Subject: Last book, Harry not surviving In-Reply-To: <000001c60737$17389e20$209ea0ac@Overton> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145230 Corey wrote: > What do you guys think about the possibility of Harry being > killed by LV? I hope Harry doesn't die. But even if > he does I'll still read. kchuplis: IMO, if Harry got killed it would be the worst ending since J.R.'s shooting was a dream. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 22 23:16:44 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:16:44 -0000 Subject: Last book, Harry not surviving In-Reply-To: <000001c60737$17389e20$209ea0ac@Overton> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145231 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Corey Overton" wrote: Corey: > If JKR has the last chapter almost > done then the 7th book should come out soon, don't you think? Well > let me know what all of you are thinking out there. Geoff: Sadly, that doesn't necessarily follow. I'm not sure if you didn't know or have forgotten but JKR was writing drafts for the last chapter of Book 7 a long time ago. She made a reference to it in one interview certainly as long ago as 31/12/99. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 23:29:03 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:29:03 -0000 Subject: The Twins / Weasleys / Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145232 > >>va32h: > A few things I think are crucial in considering the Weasley twins > are: > 1) First and foremost - JKR has consistently expressed affection > for the Weasley family of characters. > Betsy Hp: Honestly, I *do* have a hard time figuring out what JKR herself thinks about the twins behavior. Does she think they're just high- spirited young lads? I don't know. However, if she is planning a surprise twist in book 7, she'd hardly warn us about it in an interview, IMO. > >>va32h: > 2) The twins are teenage boys. > Betsy Hp: By HBP they're eighteen going on nineteen, and young men in the eyes of the WW. And as I said, I *did* find their antics amusing in the first few books. It's as Fred and George grew older that I was less and less amused. > >>va32h: > 3)Personal experiences can affect how the reader perceives sibling > relationships in the Weasley family. > Betsy Hp: Very true, and I think my reactions to Molly are based on personal experiences. But the twins.... I may come across as an only child from a very protected household, but I'm actually the eldest of three very high spirited girls, and we've each got scars and bloody histories (including a tale of near drowning) to look back on and laugh about. So I do know about sibling high jinks. And I think the twins take things too far. > >>va32h: > As I said in the Hagrid/Draco/Buckbeak thread, violence and > physical injuries simply do not have the same weight in the > magical world, where such injuries are instantly fixable, as they > do in the "real" world. > > Harry has nearly died every year he's attended Hogwart's. > Betsy Hp: On the one hand I agree with you. There is less worry about physical injury in the WW. The seats in the Knight Bus aren't even bolted down, for goodness sakes! And yet... Isn't Draco looked at as behaving very badly for giving Harry a bloody nose? And when Harry is injured, doesn't he *act* injured? When he twists (or breaks?) his ankle, he really feels the pain. When Voldemort invades his mind, Harry actually pukes from the pain. Harry isn't blowing his injuries off as ho-hum. There is a level of cartoon violence, I agree. But it's not *all* on that level. When Slytherin plays a very ugly game of quidditch and Gryffindors are being injured -- they *feel* those injuries, and they get angry because of it. And I think JKR expects the readers to wince at the injuries as we would if witnessing this type of play on a football field. So the million dollar question is, how does she see the twin-caused injuries? And at this point, I can't answer that. I can only say how *I* see them. > >>va32h: > > The Quidditch teammate with the bloody nose (was that Katie or > Alicia?) also expressed no pain, only irritation at having her > practice spoiled. No one on the team expressed horror at a > teammate bleeding, merely annoyance that the practice was being > ruined. Betsy Hp: Actually, *Fred* expressed some horror when he realized he and George had given Katie the wrong product: "He saw Fred pull out something purple, examine it for a second, and then look around at Katie, evidently horrorstruck." (OotP p.293) But for some reason he does nothing until Angelina stops the practice: "It was plain that Angelina had stopped training just in time; Katie was chalk-white and covered in blood." (ibid) So, just in time for what? To prevent Katie from collapsing from her broom maybe? And I'd say Katie wasn't expressing much of anything, pain or irritation. Too weak from the blood loss maybe? Again, I'm really not sure how JKR wants us to read this, but I'd have appreciated Fred coming forward a little sooner. And I could have done without his "covering my ass" stuttering about *Katie* being the one to take the wrong product. > >>va32h: > The puffskein squashing was mentioned in a single offhand sentence > in a book that is not even a true part of the series. > > >>Allie: > > I really DON'T think JKR meant that to be taken seriously, since > it was just ONE line in an ancillary book, so I am trying very > hard to come up with another reasonable explanation to let the > Weasley twins off the hook. > Betsy Hp: I don't think the twins are monsters. At least, they don't start out that way. And it *was* a throwaway line, I agree. It's never refered to in any other book, so casual readers would know nothing about it. So I tend to agree with those who think that Fred was pretty young at the time, especially since it's far enough behind him that Ron seems very matter of fact about it. I do think Ron had a puffskein; I do think Fred killed it by hitting it with a bat. I tend to think this is along the lines of the twins' usual high spirits rather than a vicious act of sadism, because I do think Fred was young enough to not know any better. But it *is* a dead pet. If it was the only person or animal ever abused by Fred and his brother, I think I'd pretty much dismiss it. But since I sort of see a trend to their behavior, this is just one more item. > >>BAW: > "Fantastic Beasts" says that the OTHER way of dealing with gnomes > was to set a jarvey on them, but that many wizards think this is > inhumane and prefer the tossing method. After all, the tossing > doesn't seem to hurt them, and they come right back. Would you > rather have the Weasley's set a jarvey on the gnomes? Betsy Hp: I was unclear, sorry. I'm talking about the Christmas gnome: "Fred, George, Harry, and Ron were the only ones who knew that the angel on top of the tree was actually a garden gnome that had bitten Fred on the ankle as he pulled up carrots for Christmas dinner. Stupefied, painted gold, stuffed into a miniature tutu and with small wings glued to its back, it glowered down at them all, the ugliest angel Harry had ever seen, with a large bald head like a potato and rather hairy feet." (HBP p.329-330) It struck me as a rather involved and sadistic sort of revenge for a gnome behaving like a gnome. Though JKR may just have meant it for humor. Again, it didn't work for me, sent up a few warning flares, etc. But it may have just been me. Betsy Hp From rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu Fri Dec 23 00:06:39 2005 From: rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu (susanbones2003) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:06:39 -0000 Subject: The Needs of Snape's Redemption (was Re: Heroes or not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145233 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: >> Betsy: > > So book 7 won't *introduce* the redemption of Snape. It will > > *reveal* a redemption well under way. *Harry* will have to > > recognize Snape for who he really is, see Snape as Dumbledore saw > > him. > > But the problem with that, for many of our perspectives, is that > Harry's recognition CAN NOT come without penance and payment from > Snape for many things -- payment and penance made specifically TO > HARRY. For Harry to say, "Oh, you've been paying all this time, I > realize that now," WITHOUT payment from Snape TO HIM for the things > Snape has done to hurt Harry would be, IMO, a moral abomination. > Payment made under the supervision of Dumbledore in no way lessens > the specific wrongs Snape has done TO HARRY, and those wrongs MUST > be acknowledged and specific restitution made within the context of > that relationship. Now, payment can be of many kinds, but will > probably (and should probably) include strong elements of both > karmic punishment, as discussed in another thread, and a genuine > apology from Snape to Harry. And redemption, for those of use who > feel quite strongly that Snape IS a child abuser, MUST cover BOTH > his actions against Harry's parents AND his abuse of Harry, > himself. Anything else would, IMO, constitute a deep moral flaw in > the final structure of the books. > > Is JKR trying to tell a moral story? She keeps saying she is, and > therefore moral questions apply. I would say she's got a serious > problem on her hands if she doesn't plan to deal rather specifically > with the particular relationship of Snape and Harry. As I've said > before, from many of our perspectives, saying that "Snape is DDM! > and has been paying all along" doesn't fly any day of the week and > doesn't fly twice on Sunday. So, to come back to your original > question, even if Snape is DDM! he is not redeemed, IMO and that of > others, without dealing specifically with many other issues. Sorry. > > > Lupinlore > I do not believe you are going to be satisfied with the outcome of the final book and just how are you going to punish JKR if she doesn't set Snape up to apoligize to Harry? In all probability your scenario is not going to happen. Your very precise definition of child abuse is wonderful in a perfect world where bad things do not happen but she's writing about a world where awfully bad things happen, much worse than what Snape has done to Harry. Where are you going to find the justice for all the innocent lives LV has taken? Where are you going to find the justice for the precious time the Ministry wasted pretending he wasn't back? Where are you going to find all the justice needed to right all the wrongs? There are many many more and of much greater degree than the treatment Snape gave Harry. What about Umbridge? Has she paid enough for her sins against Harry? The Dursleys? Spend some time looking at all the various and sundry injustices and spread the anger and blame. A person is not helpless or of lesser value if they can not get all the wrongs committed against them righted. Yes, fighting for justice is noble and a high calling but sometimes you have to prioritize who to go after first. I don't think it's Snape. Just as Harry is the hero, Lord Voldemort is the villain. Jen D From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Dec 23 00:12:38 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:12:38 -0000 Subject: who will be the next significant half-blood? In-Reply-To: <01df01c6074b$292574a0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145234 ravibaby1: > > In > > this context, the half-bloods are clearly significant. LV's power is > > probably mitigated by the fact that he hates his mud-blood father. > Miles: > When talking of racial tolerance as a major message of the HP series (I > think this is true), we should avoid the term mudblood and replace it with > muggle-born. > About mitigating LVs power - I don't understand? Ceridwen: 'Mudblood' is a slur to mean the more proper 'Muggle-born', which is a witch or wizard born to two Muggle parents. Tom Riddle sr. was a Muggle. He had no magic. He is not a 'Mudblood'/'Muggle-born' wizard. ravibaby1 > > Snape is clearly more proud of his full-blood origin. > Miles: > Is he? I don't see it. We have his self-chosen nickname, but it only works > because of the meaning of his mother's surname. And even if he favors his > mother, there is no indication that the reason is her being the witch, not > his father. We never heard a racist remark from adult Snape in the entire > series so far. Ceridwen: I think we're stumbling over our words here. Snape is a Half-blood. Mother witch, father Muggle. But I think that's where this was trying to go anyway, in the maze of all the various levels of blood purity (which isn't even close to what has been used in the real world, but doesn't make it less of a minefield). > ravibaby1: > > Harry has love > > for both his full-blood and mudblood parents, and his love may give > > him > > a stronger power (no self-hatred to motivate him or weaken him). > Miles: > Harry is much more interested in James, isn't he? Obviously we know much > more about James Potter than about Lily Evans, because Harry asked more > questions about his father. Maybe because she is muggle-born ;). Ceridwen: Yeah, sure, Miles. ;) I think it's probably that Harry is a boy and more interested in the parent of the same sex, especially when he's younger. But, he could also have had enough of Lily's *relatives* that he'd like to find out what the Potters, starting with James, are like. And, he is constantly told that he looks like his father, and so many people who show up in his life volunteer information about his father, in particular his father's schoolyears friends. Heck, even Wormtail has something to say about James. Can he even avoid it? ;) ravibaby1 > > Now the > > mudblood in the center is Hermione, and she and Ron Weasley will > > likely > > have a half-blood heir. However, doubtful that this will happen in > > book 7. Who are the other half-bloods to note? > > Miles: > I hope there will be no Ronione ... Bah, big drama. > But your question - there are two "half-bloods" in the center, we don't need > any more - Harry and Voldemort. The answer to racism is not "half- blood is > good", but "it doesn't matter". And the final confrontation is not one of > their blood, it is good or evil. Ceridwen: Ronione?!? Or, Heronald? Twins, maybe? *runs* The two biggest Half-bloods: Harry and Voldemort. The third, making up a trio of plot-notable half-bloods, is Snape. Phineas Nigellus refers to Mundungus Fletcher as a half-blood when he hears he's stealing Black treasures in HBP. Dean Thomas was supposed to have a half-blood storyline, but JKR cut his backstory. It's on her site, though. Fleur is half witch, half Veela. Hagrid is half wizard, half Giant. They may be half*breeds* according to Umbridge, but they're also of half Wizarding World blood. Also, according to JKR's website, Flitwick has some part Goblin, which would make him both (to be broad) a 'half'-*breed* and a 'half'-blood. Though, someone with a better idea of fractions and percentages could probably come up with better terms in some cases of not quite pure anything but not fully half of either. Future half-bloods: Harry's and Ginny's children, if any; Ron's and Hermione's children, if any; George's (I think it was George) and the Muggle shop girl in the village's children, if there are any (true half-bloods, as Dad would be a wizard and Mom would be a Muggle). But, like Miles, I wonder why it would be significant. Maybe half- bloods have more power? Harry, Snape and Voldemort seem pretty powerful, but so does (pure-blood) Ginny. The whole significance of blood purity is that it isn't significant at all. IMO. Ceridwen. From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Dec 23 01:12:48 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:12:48 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Heroes and Not (WAS: Who killed Dumbledore?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43AB4F10.7030804@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145235 Sydney wrote: > I still don't understand how DDM!Snape makes him THE hero of the > story. I don't know what Hermionie, or Ron, or Lupin, or Hagrid(or > possibly even Regulus Black!) will do to help Harry in the end, but > how is Snape helping Harry uniquely damaging to Harry's heroism? > Snape is indeed a VERY strong presence in the story, as Orna says, and > by the end of HBP, good or bad, Snape and Harry's relationship is > established as the central conflict of the series-- the 'personal' > one, as JKR put it. But Snape is not the sort of character you make a > protagonist. He's like, I dunno, a truffle, or cardamon-- a little > goes a very long way! Harry's the MEAT of the story, Snape is the > spice. I certainly don't think Snape will Save the Day in Book 7, > Harry will. Bart: OK, consider the following. There is the link between Harry and Voldemort. Voldemort has taken control of Harry's access, but Harry, having failed to learn Occlumancy, is still vulnerable. He needs to work, and he needs to work hard, if he is going to survive. For that, he needs motivation. Snape, intentionally or not, has provided that inspiration. Snape's taunting of Harry Potter might be gloating, but it is also pushing Harry in the direction of developing the necessary skills to beat Voldemort. So, either Snape is incredibly stupid, or deviously clever. The former, he is working for Tommy Riddle. The latter, he is working for Dumbledore. Take your pick. Bart From sydpad at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 01:15:19 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 01:15:19 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145236 > bboyminn: > > I've never been one to give much weight to the Unbreakable Vow. I dunno, I think you HAVE to give a lot of weight to it-- otherwise why have it at all? The situation on the tower was pretty tightly choreographed by JKR to have a bunch of vectors converging on one point, and one of the critical vectors pretty much has to be the Vow, unless she's intending to pay it off in Book 7. Of course it's not the tightest legal language ever seen, but that's how magic generally works in JKR's universe-- it serves to create dramatic situations, not to adhere to logical guidelines (*cough*moon in PoA*cough*). IMO the Vow was engineered (I mean by the author) precisely to give the characters a certain set of choices. The interesting question to me is-- why the heck did Snape take the Vow? OFH!Snape would obviously never take a UV unless he was totally cornered- have to keep one's options open! and Snape wasn't cornered at all in that scene. I don't see why ESE!Snape would take the Vow either-- he wouldn't need to. In any event I'm a DDM!Snaper, so the options would be: a) Snape was taking a flyer on this being useful to the Cause by keeping him tight in with the Draco plan-- especially if he didn't know what it was. It was an act of impulsive decisiveness with tragic consequences. The parallel would be Dumbledore's drinking the potion at the end of the book-- a what-the-heck, fish-or-cut-line, bet-all-the-marbles, your-cliche-here thing. It's sort of in character, because we do get a lot of scenes where Snape acts very quickly and with decision, but on the other hand, it's really not-- I wouldn't call Snape impulsive b) It has something to do with Snape's relationship with the Malfoys, including Snape's 'sudden movement' when Harry outs Lucius as a DE in GoF. I have no theories about how this would work specifically though, I can't make head or tail of it c) My own suicidal!Snape theory, that Snape took the Vow in order to break it, or with the view that breaking it wouldn't be a tragedy (you can drag yourself through the whole theory in post #141872). This makes sense to me mainly because the set-up on the tower is so very, very specific to make Snape's fullfilling the Vow a hideous but necessary choice of the sort JKR loves to torture her characters with, and that's just so much stronger if Snape had no desire to live at that point. It also makes sense of the extremity of Dumbledore's emotion in "Severus.. please.." d) Dumbledore was already dying at the start of the book, from the curse on the ring Horcrux, and Snape and D-dore were already making contingency plans. If you want to be really Macchiavellian, it was Snape who nudged V-mort towards giving the assignment originally to Draco, so Snape could put the Malfoys in his debt. This would make sense of several things: the Vow, D-dore finally giving Snape the cursed DADA post, Snape's line that V-mort "intends me to do it in the end", and Snape's overheard line to Ddore that "he didn't want to do it ANYMORE." If Snape and D-dore had concocted an abstract plan that Snape would kill D-dore (to make lemonade, as it were, from the lemon of D-dore's dying), then the closer the event came the more Snape would start recoiling, so he could logically say, "I was okay with killing you a year ago, but I don't want to do it anymore." Personally I like c or d because they tie the Vow in with Hagrid's overheard conversation, and relate both directly to the events on the tower. I like tidy plotting :-). bboy: > As a side note: Even I find it extremely odd that I had my doubts > about Snape until he killed Dumbledore, then against the obvious > evidence, I immediately concluded that he was indeed Dumbledore's Man. > Sort of defies logic, I know. LOL! When I finished the book, I thought, "even the most diehard Snape-hater is going to have to think this is pretty fishy"... -- Sydney From mariabronte at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 01:59:26 2005 From: mariabronte at yahoo.com (Mari) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 01:59:26 -0000 Subject: Draco and DD on the tower: Repost of my thoughts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145237 This post seems to have got lost in all the other discussion in this thread, so am reposting it now: In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mari" wrote: Magpie: > Dumbledore makes his offer after it's clear Draco is not going to kill > him. Draco does not begin to lower his wand and then get tempted by > glory but the other way around. He says (slowly) "I've got this far, > you're in my mercy, I'm the one with the wand," to which Dumbledore > says it's *his* mercy that matters, and then he lowers his wand. > > Draco's stated intention in most of the scene is to kill Dumbledore- - > he pretty much thinks he has to to keep his family from being > executed, and he's got no reason to think that Dumbledore is going to > offer him anything like protection. But he doesn't do it. He keeps > talking, confessing, not doing the deed. He never makes any actual > move to kill Dumbledore at all, and Dumbledore correctly says that > he's not going to do it. > > I don't think Draco's line about getting farther than anyone thought > and having Dumbledore in his power are just about being tempted by > power--I think they're more important than that. Draco is telling > himself that he has power in the scene, he has done better than > expected at Voldemort's task and has Dumbledore at his mercy--but then > he starts to lower his wand anyway--iow, he could maybe have that > glory; if he lowers his wand he's choosing DD instead. The position > of "power" Draco reminds himself that he has there makes his > consideration of mercy worth more. He's proved something in getting > himself to this point, but must choose what step he wants to take > now. I think he's being offered and is tempted by mercy (implying > responsibility for what he's done and acknowledging this isn't > something Dumbledore owes him) there and not just acting out of self- > protection. That last scene--Dumbledore's last scene--seem to be all > about exactly that to me. The scene is, imo, not a political one but > one connected to the more important themes of the series. > > -m Now Mari: I agree with your interpretation of this scene, magpie. In fact, Dumbledore's saying "it is my mercy, and not yours, that matters now" was a strong sign to me, even before it actually happened, that he was prepared to die. This remark makes no sense if he was not thinking in terms of sacrificing himself, if necessary, to redeem draco. Also, Draco here is operating under a mistaken definition of mercy; to Dumbledore, and by implication JKR herself, a key element of genuine mercy is sparing/forgiving/offering grace to someone who does not *deserve* it. Draco, however, seems to equate mercy with helplessness and weakness; when he says Dumbledore is at his 'mercy' he means Dumbledore is in a vulnerable position. The real opportunity for mercy does indeed lie with Dumbledore. Dumbledore could disarm, disable or stun Draco. Here we come to the second specific element of mercy as I believe JKR is trying to define it; when it is offered, mercy, like grace, can be rejected. If there is no choice involved, the so called mercy or grace means little in the end. Puppets cannot receive mercy because puppets cannot make *choices* Doing good or being forgiven for being bad can't mean much if the opportunity for choosing one or the other isn't there in the first place. I can't help but think that this scene with Dumbledore will have a major effect on Draco; the question is whether he can accept what Dumbledore offered. People like to feel that they deserve what they are given; problem is, none of us can categorically say that we deserve mercy rather than justice; by definition mercy is not something anyone can 'deserve.' Hope these ramblings make some sense! :-) Mari. --- End forwarded message --- From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 02:04:40 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 02:04:40 -0000 Subject: The Needs of Snape's Redemption (was Re: Heroes or not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145238 > >>Betsy Hp: > > I think that most folks going with a DDM!Snape who *will* have a > > large role (though not the starring role) and a redemption story > > line, *do not* think Snape maliciously killed Dumbledore. > >>Lupinlore: > Hmmm. I guess a DDM!Snape by definition (well, almost) didn't > maliciously kill Dumbledore. So I think that for DDM!Snape to > come true, some explanation (poorly written as, IMO, it would > inevitably be) would have to be given for that. Betsy Hp: Exactly! As to how well it's written, I imagine it'll be as well written as all the *other* explanations JKR has given us in *every single book* in the series. > >>Alla: > Yes, I understand. DD!M Snape does not really have to pay for > anything except what he already paid for and that is what would > make DD!M Snape significantly less interesting to me. I should have > phrased myself clearer in my previous post. I DO think that > redemption is possible for OFH!Snape or ESE!Snape, I just hope that > it is handled very carefully Betsy Hp: Gosh, we really *do* disagree! Because I think it's impossible for an ESE or even an OFH Snape to be redeemed. Too little too late. Especially since, as we all agree, this is Harry's story. Personally, I find DDM!Snape *fascinating* (and not a little sexy ) so I've no worries on that particular front. Actually, I think finding out Snape's true nature and watching Harry's reactions will be most interesting! > >>Lupinlore: > > And that is a huge problem when it comes to "redeeming" Snape > without pulling the focus off of Harry and in effect making Snape > (who you are right, I and others think is definitely a child > abuser) into the hero of the story. Multiple pages of explanation > about this would have a tendency to lead in that direction. Betsy Hp: I think I see a much greater connection between Snape and Harry than you do. So in learning about the real Professor Snape, Harry will learn a lot about himself. (In some ways I think dealing honestly with Snape is a bigger obstacle for Harry to overcome in his journey to adulthood than finding the missing horcruxes.) In the end, it *is* all about Harry. It's how *Harry* sees Snape that matters. So it's impossible for Snape's story to pull the focus off of Harry, just as learning about James or Tom Riddle fails to pull the focus of the story off of Harry. > >>Lupinlore: > But the problem with that, for many of our perspectives, is that > Harry's recognition CAN NOT come without penance and payment from > Snape for many things -- payment and penance made specifically TO > HARRY. > Betsy Hp: This is exactly the way Snape thinks. And it's why he's failed to move on from what the Marauders did to him when he was a schoolboy. If Harry waits for action to come from Snape's end, he'll become exactly like Snape is now: bitter, angry and judgmental. And since this is Harry's story, I have a feeling JKR will keep the action, the growth, on Harry's side. I *hope* Snape will experience some growth himself, but that's not necessary for Harry to succeed. The other thing is, IMO, you pile far too much on Snape's plate. So there's an expectation for penance, on your end, for things I don't think Snape is actually responsible for. > >>Lupinlore: > > Now, payment can be of many kinds, but will probably (and should > probably) include strong elements of both karmic punishment, as > discussed in another thread, and a genuine apology from Snape to > Harry. And redemption, for those of use who feel quite strongly > that Snape IS a child abuser, MUST cover BOTH his actions against > Harry's parents AND his abuse of Harry, himself. Anything else > would, IMO, constitute a deep moral flaw in the final structure of > the books. Betsy Hp: And that's where the DDM folks differ from the OFH and ESE folks. Snape is *already* paying for what he did to Lily and James. That's a huge part of what makes him DDM. He's already paid for his actions against Neville, and he's in the midst of paying for his actions against Harry. But then, I know we strongly disagree about what those actions were exactly. In the end though, it's *Harry's* view that will matter. If *Harry* sees Snape in a new light, than that's all that's needed > >>Lupinlore: > > As I've said before, from many of our perspectives, saying > that "Snape is DDM! and has been paying all along" doesn't fly any > day of the week and doesn't fly twice on Sunday. So, to come back > to your original question, even if Snape is DDM! he is not > redeemed, IMO and that of others, without dealing specifically > with many other issues. Sorry. Betsy Hp: So, the murder is explained, and that's fine, but you've still got a problem because you see Snape as a child abuser. I get that. But I don't think most DDM folks see Snape as a child abuser. So it's kind of a non-starter, IMO. It's like saying, "Snape won't be redeemed until he pays for the polyester leisure suit." Yes, rules of fashion were harmed, but it has no connection to DDM!Snape. You can bring up the horror of the powder blue time and again, but it doesn't touch DDM!Snape So JKR does not have to deal with it. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > So book 7 won't *introduce* the redemption of Snape. It will > > *reveal* a redemption well under way. > > > >>Alla: > Yes, I understand that. And here I think lies my answer to Jen > Reese. ( if she will read this post of course :-)) She asked in > one of her posts why ESE! or OFH!version of Snape is more > interesting. To me it is because it allows Snape to change during > the story, not in the distant past - Snape was DE , saw the error > of his ways, came to Dumbledore, boom, his story is done. > Betsy Hp: Ooh, I don't think Snape's story is done *at all*. Returning to Dumbledore was just the beginning to my mind. And that's probably why I seriously doubt OFH Snape could possibly reach redemption in book 7. Redemption can be a seriously long and arduous journey, and I think it's something that takes more than a year, and much more than a bit of public humilitation and a mere apology to achieve. One must prove oneself. And that's what Snape has been doing all of these years. Though I also think he proved himself to Dumbledore a long time ago. I think right now Snape is trying to earn forgiveness from the hardest person possible: himself. > >>Jen Reese: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/145189 > > It would be interesting if Snape were wavering in his loyalty > throughout HBP. I don't think Snape himself knew his true feelings > until that moment on the tower. > > Dumbledore had done everything he could do for Snape at that > point, the choice was his. Betsy Hp: I read Snape's relationship with Dumbledore a bit differently. I think Dumbledore was very confident in Snape, and I think Snape was (and is) a hundred percent loyal to Dumbledore. However, I think *Snape* wasn't sure he had the strength to do what needed done. You gave an interesting list of Dumbledore asking people to perform the task most difficult for them, and suggested this for Snape: > >>Jen Reese: > > My guess is Snape's least wanted task in life was to protect James > Potter's son, so guess what? > Betsy Hp: I think the most difficult task for Snape was either to let Dumbledore die, or actually kill him himself. Because what was Snape horrified at being? What did he flee to Dumbledore to try and earn forgivness for? Killing. I think Snape *did* deeply regret his role in the deaths of the Potters, and now here was Dumbledore asking him to do that which he most hated about himself. And yet, it's what Snape *needed* to do if he was to be most useful to Dumbledore. Talk about a hell of a choice. And I think that's what Snape was wavering on. Now *that's* drama! At least, IMO. Betsy Hp From mskeshaffer at earthlink.net Fri Dec 23 02:16:38 2005 From: mskeshaffer at earthlink.net (Martha Shaffer) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:16:38 -0500 Subject: Surprise ending? WAS: Last book, Harry not surviving References: Message-ID: <000b01c60766$e9394120$4c065804@youryk5cbmeeo8> No: HPFGUIDX 145239 Corey wrote: > What do you guys think about the possibility of Harry being > killed by LV? I hope Harry doesn't die. But even if > he does I'll still read. Martha: My husband and I think, "Wouldn't it be a laugh if it turns out that Neville does LV in at the end? That Harry's whole story is a red herring?" I'm ducking and running now.... From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 03:30:47 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 03:30:47 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?/ Slughorn LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145241 bboyminn: > So, I answer your last question first- > ALLA: "Did I answer your question?" > > to which I answer - NO. Alla: Oh well then. I am going to try again, but I am afraid that I won't be able to give the answer that will satisfy you. :-) Sorry! > bboyminn: > > Yes, but we can't travel back into the past with a lot of wishful > thinking. We have to start at the top of the tower as thing are at > that point in time and answer the question, 'What should Snape do?'. > Yes, the Unbreakable Vow was a mistake, but the third Vow was somewhat > forced on him by circumstances, and is not what he originally agreed > to do. Yet, at that point what are his options? How does he get out of > it gracefully and without arousing suspicious about himself? Alla: I have to disagree and disagree quite strongly. I think that UV and Tower are so closely connected that we cannot NOT travel back in time in order to answer that question very strongly. IMO, taking UV from the beginning was foolishness, recklessness, idiocy, take your pick. That is of course JMO and only if Snape is indeed DD!M. If he is not, well, then he was just confirming the act of treachery of the Light side by taking it, IMO. Yes, third provision could have been a surprise, BUT if Snape is so clever, such a devious spy, I expect him to KNOW that Voldemort does NOT order his followers to take tasks which are not connected to what was Dumbledore said to Slughorn - "torture, murder", etc. How he could have got out of it? EASY, IMO, very easy. Bella gives him a perfect way out, IMO and he should have just said - no, Narcissa, you should not tell me, I won't do it. Goodbuy, ladies, let me enjoy a nice glass of wine with Wormtail here :-) I will see you on the next meeting of Voldie and Co or something like that. > bboyminn: > > So, you expect Snape to sacrific himself on the off and slim chance > that his own death might afford Dumbledore some level of protection? > Sorry, but to my mind that's not heroic sacrifice, that merely > throwing your life away on a slim to non-existence and unproven hope > that some good might come out of it. Alla: Not at all. I was talking about Lily's sacrifice mainly to argue that self-sacrifice is not a senseless thing. I don't expect Snape to just throw his life away, but to start fighting and TRY as I said to defend Dumbledore and the boys. Not fighting with expectation to die, but expectation to survive. I guess I just have more faith in Snape battling skills than you do :-) I do expect him capable to take on several DE, I also don't believe that Dumbledore was talking to Draco as the man who is about to drop dead any second, so I think that if Dumbledore was able to talk this idiot into lowering his wand a minute earlier, Dumbledore would be able to help Snape in fight. Just speculating here of course. Steve: > So, Snape fights and dies. Alla: This is the key difference between our opinions, I think. I absolutely do not believe that it is an absolute given that Snape would have died. > bboyminn: > > I've never been one to give much weight to the Unbreakable Vow. First, > who is the arbiter of the Vow? What magical entity or power determines > when Snape has failed? Certainly, Snape would take the Vow into consideration, and in the > heat of the moment, I don't think he really had time analyze and > gamble on potential loopholes in the Vow. Circumstances demanded that > he act. > > So, while you obviously don't, I can't see Snape's sacrific of his own > life as anything more than a grand empty gesture. Certainly, the > wizard world would have considered his actions heroic, but nothing is > really gained from the act. Alla: OK, aren't you arguing both ways? If you do not think that Snape will necessarily drop dead from not fulfilling Vow, why are you so sure that he will necessarily die? He is outnumbered? It is not like the odds are even ten to one, I fully expect him to be able to take on several DE and as I said I think that if Draco is out of the way, Dumbledore IMO could have helped out too. I would see your point more, if you think that Vow would kill Snape right away, but I agree that we don't necessarily know that. Steve: > So, no, I don't think you answered the question, nor do I think you > answered completely or effectively. But of course, that's just my opinion. Alla: Again, oh well. I did my best and I think that I gave you plausible scenario, but of course it is JMO. > Pippin: > One reason it's bad is that Slughorn's club is dedicated only to the > advancement of its members. Slughorn has no interest in helping > the weak and unconnected, no interest at all in joining the Order. > > Think of the help his connections could bring. He's been in hiding > *for a year* at the beginning of HBP. Know what that means? > He could have used his connections to persuade the WW that > Harry was telling the truth. He's real proud of knowing the > person who invented the wolfsbane potion, but it hasn't > occurred to him to help the socially ostracized werewolves. Lupin > doesn't get invited to dinner parties. Alla: Oh, I completely agree with you. Slughorn is not a public servant, far from it, he does not serve underprivileged and underserved, and in that aspect he does not have my complete respect as "real person". He is also a coward IMO and that is also one of his not so heroic qualities, BUT as long as there are public servants, I don't see anything inherently BAD usually in those who advance talented kids, you know. You know what I mean? Is it Slughorn's obligation to help weak and unconnected? Personally, I would say Yes, but looking at him from within the story, I may also say No. He is not refusing to teach anybody Potions doesn't he? He has his Slug club in his spare time, so what he does are basically extra curricular activities. > Saraquel: > You know Alla, the moment old Slughorn squelched his way onto the > pages of HBP I knew that I was going to hate him, and I also know > why. Give me Snape any day, Snape is WYSIWYG, you know where you > stand with him. Either he likes you or he hates you, and that is > simply not going to change. With Slughorn, according to how > external circumstances move, so will his favor or disfavor towards > you. At least with Snape, you know that the relationship is > personal, with Slughorn you can be sure that it is not. If one of > your relations suddenly did something noteworthy, you could find > yourself hauled in from the cold - then if they blew it, you would > be unceremoniously dumped - No you're absolutely right Slughorn, > it's nothing personal. Alla: Hmmm. Interesting. I agree with you that this is probably the worst of what I think Slughorn does in his club - namely drops kids who do not satisfy his expectations. I don't even mind so much that he does not invite some kids, but that he dropped some of those who he invited. But again, I don't think that I would take Slughorn over Snape. I don't see Slughorn's ignoring his former prot?g?s as worse offense that Snape's vicious hate. Consistency is good, I agree, but Horace simply ignores those who he does not think worthy , he does not hate them, no? And as I said above , he IS teaching them potions, right? Saraquel: > I agree Potioncat, I'm not sure that I would call what Slughorn does > networking. It is very definitely about power and control, and > maintaining privilege for himself. He sets up the Slug Club as an > exclusive must-have accessory, and this flatters those who are > invited. Interestingly, it is Hermione who falls for this flattery > and effectively becomes Slughorn's potential servant of the future - > this is the Hermione of SPEW fame, which refuses to understand that > the house elves embrace their enslavement, (I have difficult with > that one too, but then that's a whole different argument) and then > falls into Slughorn's sugar coated poison trap. Oh dear woops, is > my loathing for Slughorn and his RL counterparts showing.... Alla: You know, it is so funny that I only feel that what Slughorn does as wrong on the intuitive level, not on the intellectual one. Yes, it IS about getting privileges for him, absolutely, but those who he takes under his wing, also get his services, no? he introduces them to people who can help them get new jobs, achieve a lot. He does help those kids a lot, no? Even if he does not really aspire to help people for the joy of it. And I am not being sarcastic at all - I think that helping others could bring joy to the person who does it. Besides while it is clear to me that Slughorn accepts favors, I am not sure he wants to control his prot?g?s, I get the feeling that it is more like "I know famous people, envy me" "All ex-students, all signed. You'll notice Barnabas Cliffe, editor of the Daily Prophet , he's always interested to hear my take on the today's news. And Ambrosius Flume, of Honeydukes - a hamper every birthday, and all because I was able to give him an introductory to Ciceron Harkiss, who gave him his first job! And at the back - you'll see her if you just crane her neck - that's Gwenog Jones, who of course captains the Holyhead Harpies... People are always astonished to hear I'm on the first name terms with the Harpies and free tickets whenever I use them!" - HBP, p.71 Marianne: > What bothers me about it is that Slughorn almost seems to be > collecting objects rather than people. I think it was when he > mentions to Harry how he wished he could have had both Black > brothers, like they were some sort of valuable antique bookends or a > pair of rare butterflies that he could capture and pin under glass, > that made him seem somewhat off to me. Alla: I agree - the way he talked about Sirius and Regulus and Dumbledore's warning to Harry not to get collected do go together, me thinks, but on the other hand I did not get the sense that he was talking about Lily as object at all. IMO anyway. >> Marianne: > Oh, I'm all for someone, anyone to give Draco a bad time. But I'd > think that Slughorn, who told DD about his hesitance in making > himself conspicuous by going back to Hogwards, might have thought > that making nice with Draco would be a smart tactical move. Unless > he's sure that Daddy Malfoy will never again weild the sort of power > and influence he's had in the past. With Vmort running around > again, I'm not sure I'd make that bet. Alla: Oh, I was not surprised at all. I would think that after running from DE for a year, Slughorn would think that the best tactical move would be to stay as far away from DE and their offsprings as possible.I don't think that Slughorn woud want any kind of alliance with Azkaban prisoner. JMO of course. JMO, Alla From greatowls at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 20:51:23 2005 From: greatowls at yahoo.com (Taylor A. Grey) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:51:23 -0000 Subject: The Twins and the Puffskein In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145242 Allie: "I didn't even take note of the puffskein incident when I read Fantastic Beasts, but when BetsyHP brought it up, I was very distubed. (I'm a vet!!) I really DON'T think JKR meant that to be taken seriously, since it was just ONE line in an ancillary book, so I am trying very hard to come up with another reasonable explanation to let the Weasley twins off the hook. " I am thinking the puffskein is probably closer to the Star Trek Tribble- (after all, it eats boogers, doesn't it? and tribbles eat almost anything) I would think it would be something that the twins would have told him happened to the thing- because could you see Molly Weasley allowing them to get away with that? I think not! hekatesheadband: "I'm not a vet, but I am a vegan, and the sort of death-penalty opponent who thinks animal abusers ought to have toasters dropped in their bathtubs as a matter of course." Um, wow... (clearing throat as this is only my second post here and I don't want a howler-) No one except a court of law has the right to make that type of decision, and it begs many questions that are not HP related. hekatesheadband: "What's really horrible in the world in general is that young children (eight and under, roughly) will sometimes do very serious, deliberate harm to small animals without having any true comprehension of what they're doing." Again, this really may go beyond what this HP board is for! Taylor Grey From jmmears at comcast.net Fri Dec 23 04:05:51 2005 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 04:05:51 -0000 Subject: "I came back ... After a fashion" (was: *When* did Dumbledore die?) In-Reply-To: <1306814145.20051221214754@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145243 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Dave Hardenbrook wrote: > What exactly does Dumbledore mean when, on the tower, he tells Draco, > "I came back ... after a fashion" (HBP, US Ed. p. 590) -- Came back > from what? The cave? And why only in a figurative sense? > > So here's a totally wild idea that swam into my head: Is it possible > that Dumbledore died in the cave? In this scenario I imagine DD at > the point of death, and while Harry is distracted by his attempts to > fill the goblet with water, DD enchants his own body so that after > death it becomes an inferius and mimics the living DD until the body is > blasted off the tower by Snape's bogus AK! > > I realize this idea is wrought with holes, starting with: A) The magic > to animate DD's own dead body should not have worked because DD's > magic should cease after death; B) By the same token, DD's spell > immobilizing Harry shouldn't have worked at all; and C) Would any > inferius be capable of intelligently engaging in a "pleasant > little chat about Ways and Means" anyway? ... But I thought I'd put > the thought out there anyway as a means of starting a "pleasant > little chat" about what DD's words, "I came back after a fashion" > mean, and how they might relate to this question of exactly when > he died and how. I've been mulling over that scene as well and while I don't think that Dumbledore literally died in the cave, the quote you cited has got to be highly significant. My personal feeling is that Dumbledore knows that he is already a dead man walking at the point when he arrived on the Astronomy tower and that he's forcing himself through sheer will to use his waning energy to keep Draco from destroying himself. I also think that his strong desire to see Snape has more to do with needing to have one more conversation about what Snape had agreed to do earlier, than any desperate hope that Snape can rescure him from the effects of the horrible potion in the cave. In short, Dumbledore's life was ending regardless of what action Draco or Snape took when they met on the tower, and he was well aware of that fact. Whatever his earlier arrangement with Snape involved, I think that Dumbledore was making sure that his death would somehow further the cause (Voldemort's downfall), and not be in vain. Jo Serenadust, admiring David's imagination but skeeved out by the idea of Inferius!Dumbledore From whiggrrl at erols.com Fri Dec 23 00:05:54 2005 From: whiggrrl at erols.com (j. lutz) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:05:54 -0500 Subject: Where was Firenze? In-Reply-To: <1135273520.2136.57880.m24@yahoogroups.com> References: <1135273520.2136.57880.m24@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <43AB3F62.3070900@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145244 >> Luckdragon: >> Firenze told Harry about the use of Unicorn blood to save >> someone close to death until they could be given a better >> potion (ie:Elixer of Life) - DD had fresh blood trickling >> from his mouth. > Kelleyaynn: > I don' think Dumbledore was saved from Unicorn blood. Unicorn > blood is silver-blue (SS/PS pg. 251 US paperback). I'm sure > people would have noticed that the blood wasn't red if it > were Unicorn blood trickling from his mouth. Is there any canon indication of the color of dragon blood? Using dragon blood here would tie into 1) Slughorn's use of dragon blood to fake a break-in of the house in which he was squatting, and 2) Dumbledore's 12 innovative uses for the stuff. In /Order of the Phoenix/ Hagrid uses dragon meat (although it is described as green) on his black eye, which suggests that dragon products have healing properties. Merely my theory, and as such worth even less than what you paid for it, J.Lunatic From xxneuman07xx at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 03:18:04 2005 From: xxneuman07xx at yahoo.com (xxneuman07xx) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 03:18:04 -0000 Subject: Why I think love is the most overrated of Harry's powers. In-Reply-To: <000001c60724$c6f15680$fca6acac@Overton> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145245 Corey wrote: > Why I think love is overrated for Harry in his attempt to kill > LV: > > 1. in the WW there's a war going on between the DEs and > the Order. I don't believe love will help in the > slightest to kill LV! I do. > 3. Another reason love won't help him is because he'll have so > much anger in him that love isn't going to help. I don't think it will be for him, but love will kill finish LV off. Probably, Harry will be willing to die for someone he loves and the AK will rebound. How repetitive. > Where do you think Harry will learn the AK spell? Who do you > think will teach it to him? Who do you think he'll have to > kill first with it? I don't think he'll AK anyone. Ever. > 4. Does any one think Harry will face any more > dementors? I certainly HOPE so. You just don't introduce soul-sucking demons and then ignore them. -Neuman From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Fri Dec 23 04:46:51 2005 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 04:46:51 -0000 Subject: *When* did Dumbledore die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145246 --- pippin wrote: > Pippin > who thinks that Fawkes's song proves Dumbledore is dead. On the > other hand, we have heard phoenix song twice when there was no phoenix > present. Once in CoS, where Fawkes's song is heard before he appears, > and once in GoF during the duel with Voldemort. > CV: Fawkes' song may be an indicator of death, but I hardly think it is conclusive, for several reasons. One you posited yourself and is quoted above. Secondly, I believe Dumbledore consumed some Draught of Death. It could have been the Green Goo, or it could have been consumed at the bottom of the tower just after daubing on the blood for a faked death scene. In any regard, I believe the D of D is so powerful that it not only convinces wizardkind that the drinker is dead, but it can also convince phoenixes, portraits and hardware such as the Headmasters-Only lock on the Headmaster's Office. As you have been pointing out, the blood is just too obvious to be unimportant. I'm smelling Red Herring. But there is something else that is an even stronger supporter of Dumbledore Is Alive and that is the presence of Dumbledore's patronus (the white phoenix) at the funeral. I think Dumble was sending a message to the members of the Order that he is alive and that The Plan, whatever it is, is operating according to design. CV From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 05:05:07 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 05:05:07 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145247 After admiring Theory Bay from a distance for so long Alla decides to make her first and short trip to Royal George. Alla waves at Captain Neri, Jen, cautiously greets Faith ( is not ready to have any conversations with her yet) and finally founds the one she was looking for - SSSusan. Erm... you asked the question and I am here to provide my answer. :- ) SSSusan: > I had also been wondering the same thing a couple of others have > brought up as well. That is, WHY would Snape still owe Harry, and > specifically, didn't the 1st-year Quidditch rescue count? Alla is dying to wave her wand and see the words appear on the wall. YES, here they are: "No, no, no. I tried to kill you. Your friend Miss Granger accidentally knocked me over as she rushed to set fire to Snape at that Quidditch match. She broke my eye contact with you. Another five seconds and I'd have got you off that broom. I'd have managed it before then if Snape hadn't been muttering a countercourse, trying to save you." - PS/SS, p.289. Doesn't it look to you Susan that Quirrell thinks that Snape's rescue attempt was .... how should I put it...less than perfect? Yes, according to Quirrell Snape manages to slow down the action of the Quirrell's curse for some time, but Snape does not manage to stop it completely. That is before Hermione shows up and accidentally breaks the eye contact. THAT is what saves Harry IMO and even though we don't know exactly how life debt magic works, if Quirrell knows what happened, Snape knows too. I don't think that Snape would have considered the debt paid knowing that he was not the one who delivered the final blow so to speak. Yes, Faith, just as SSSusan I have to ask you humble forgiveness for this little speculation, but IMO the debt is not paid for that reason and of course as Captain Neri said earlier, Dumbledore's words at the end do not tell me that it was paid either. Alla, asks George for Pina Collada before leaving Theory Bay. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Dec 23 06:06:14 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 06:06:14 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145248 "Steve" wrote: > But what can he do, he's commited > to the unexpected and unwelcome third Vow? If Snape is as smart and cunning as I always thought he was I don't see why that vow would be so unexpected to him. If Snape is really a good guy I don't see why he couldn't say "The Dark Lord himself has not ordered me to take such a vow, so how can you? You are not my boss!" You are asking us to believe that Snape, a super sophisticated secret agent who has managed to stay alive and fool Voldemort for 14 years could nevertheless be so incredibly brain dead dumb as to agree to make a series of unbreakable vows with a known enemy. I don't buy it. And even if he had made such a colossal blunder he could have tried to make up for it that night in the Astronomy Tower, he could have violated his vow and attack the other Death Eaters; he was far more powerful than any one of them, and he had the element of surprise too. And then he could have done the only honorable thing a man who made a stupid and evil unbreakable vow could do, he could have died. Eggplant From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Dec 23 06:25:22 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 06:25:22 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145249 "Steve" wrote: > Now what should Snape do? You keep asking that, but let me ask a slightly different question, if Snape is really a good guy what is the absolutely positively worst thing he could possibly do that dreadful night in the Astronomy Tower? I would say it's murdering the strongest and kindest wizard on the good guy team. Conclusion: Snape is not on the good guy's team. I believe in the "Snape is evil and out for himself" theory because it satisfactorily explains all his actions, even saving Harry's life in book 1. Eggplant From Nanagose at aol.com Fri Dec 23 06:34:04 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 06:34:04 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145250 >> Lastly, Neri asks: >> DDM too requires an explanation why Dumbledore refused to give his >> reasons to trust Snape. What's the DDM explanation? > SSSusan: > Well, I know you don't like this, but one possibility is LOLLIPOPS. > IOW, when DD considered telling Harry the reason in HBP... paused... > but elected not to... it might have been that he believed the > revelation simply too personal. Christina: The reason Dumbledore trusts Snape doesn't have to have anything to do with Lily (although I personally think it does) for DDM to explain why DD didn't give Harry this information. Harry is a 16-year-old boy. Snape is a 36-year-old man who is certainly no buddy of Harry's. I don't understand why Dumbledore even needs a reason to keep his reasons for trusting Snape private- because they are, as Susan said, *private.* The reason that DD trusts Snape just *isn't any of Harry's business.* Now Dumbledore should have realized from the happenings in OotP that Harry isn't the sort to trust DD blindly on issues like Snape's loyalty, but that still doesn't mean that it's OK for DD to break a confidence with Snape to answer Harry's concerns. Maybe LV sent Snape to kill kittens and babies, maybe his mother was raped, maybe he and Lily were pals, maybe it has to do with Regulus Black- heck, maybe it's something much more mundane concerning Snape's ideals or political opinions. It doesn't matter what the reason is; turning from Voldemort to Dumbledore was one of the biggest events in Snape's life. Whatever it was that made him turn is obviously deeply personal, and DD has no right to go blabbing Snape's private life to a kid (particularly one he has no close relationship with). Christina From h2so3f at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 06:54:35 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 06:54:35 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145251 eggplant wrote: "if Snape is really a good guy what is the absolutely positively worst thing he could possibly do that dreadful night in the Astronomy Tower? I would say it's murdering the strongest and kindest wizard on the good guy team. Conclusion: Snape is not on the good guy's team. I believe in the "Snape is evil and out for himself" theory because it satisfactorily explains all his actions, even saving Harry's life in book 1." CH3ed: I have to say I agree with Steve. The end does justify the mean in this case even if we assume DDM!Snape. Or even if it is ESS!Snape, what happened on the tower was the best of a rotten thru-and-thru situation. The action doesn't end with Snape killing DD or Snape turning his wand on the DEs. If the UV kicks in the moment Snape turns his wand on the DEs to refuse to complete the UV (complete Draco's mission) it is very possible Snape'd just drop dead then and there. DD dies anyway, and Harry is released from the bind and jumps at the DEs the prolonged presence of the DEs in the school and the wearing off of the felix felicis would probably mean the DEs' curses would start hitting Ron, Hermione and Ginny instead of just missing them. I'd say the worse thing Snape could have done is to not only kill DD, but also doing in Harry as well. Or if he dies defending DD (who then dies anyway, having no wand and no cure for the cave potion), Harry is released from the bind, lunges at the DEs and get killed in the process. Game over. LV wins. And even if Snape survives the whole thing he'd no longer be any use as a spy on LV and whether he could have saved DD from the cave potion again is not a given either. DD was in a bad way. It is easy to romanticize a dashing heroic act like Snape dropping dead from the UV or get himself killed without being of help to Harry and Draco in refusing to harm DD. War veterans will tell you that heroic acts like that is the surest way of getting yourself (and your soldier mates) killed without getting the job done. From Nanagose at aol.com Fri Dec 23 07:06:48 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:06:48 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145252 Sydney: > The interesting question to me is-- why the heck did Snape take the > Vow? OFH!Snape would obviously never take a UV unless he was > totally cornered- have to keep one's options open! and Snape wasn't > cornered at all in that scene. I don't see why ESE!Snape would take > the Vow either-- he wouldn't need to. In any event I'm a > DDM!Snaper, so the options would be: > Christina: I couldn't agree more. The fact that Snape went ahead and killed Dumbledore didn't surprise me at all. First of all, there's what Steve has been saying about the uselessness of Snape dying (which I agree with). Second of all, Snape's actions are completely in character. He is a Slytherin after all, and when given the choice, Slytherins will always "save their own skins." I see it as a sense of self-preservation and a willingness to reason without emotion. Snape's reasoning may be a bit cold, I'll admit, but it's what's necessary in war and what's expected from an analytical Slytherin like Snape. The key question for me isn't why Snape killed Dumbledore- it's why Snape took the UV in the first place. In my mind, everybody (ESE, DDM, and OFH) needs to explain why Snape took it, because none of the three options affords an obvious explanation, IMO. It's not like Snape to lock himself out of so many options. I liked a few of the reasons Sydney gave, and I'm sure we could think of many more. I don't think that's something we'll know until Book 7 though, and it's very hard to wade through all the options with the scant info that we have now. >Alla: >What Snape should have done? DD!M Snape I mean. Well, first and >foremost he should have NOT under any circumstances enter Unbreakable >Vow. If Snape will turn out to be DD!M I don't think he could ever >escape the accusation of extreme stupidity and recklessness from me. Christina: Well, there are certain reasons that Sydney stated under which taking the UV wasn't such a reckless idea (if he and DD had planned it in advance, or suicidal!Snape). But assuming that Snape wasn't planning to take an UV in advance (through a scenario like the one Steve and others have suggested), I think his taking the UV is a bit like Lupin's actions at the end of PoA. The man is highly responsible, and he is very passive. He is aware of his lycanthropy and the dangers that come with it. Lupin does not at ALL seem the kind of man who would hop up and run out the door, forgetting to take his wolfsbane potion, no matter what the circumstances may be. And yet he does. A very smart and responsible man does an incredibly stupid and reckless thing when he was caught off his guard. The same goes for Moody, to an extent. Of all people, nobody would think that the paranoid, constantly vigilant ex-Auror would be the one to be kidnapped and Polyjuiced. Isn't he smarter than that? I think it all comes down to the "DADA curse." It works thematically, and the UV beats home the message behind the DADA curse- even the smartest among us do really stupid things sometimes. We all have the ability to mess up. Christina From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 07:10:52 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:10:52 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145253 > > SSSusan stumbles into the Royal George, blinking furiously in the > light and spots quite a crew assembled on the *down* staircase. > "Huh," mutters SSSusan, "never knew *that* staircase was there." > > [Okay, SSSusan is too exhausted to continue TBAYing at the moment. > My humblest apologies.] > Neri: Accepted. Now I have a good excuse to stop using it too. > So... Neri has Faith expounding her theo--, erm, hypothe--, um, > Innocent Intellectual Exercise in LID!Snape and claiming: > > "DDM doesn't explain why Snape hates Harry so much ? LID does. DDM is > yet to find a satisfactory explanation of what had happened on the > tower ? LID doesn't have any problem with it." > > > SSSusan responds: > Oh, I don't know about this, Faith. I mean, I know you don't like > SPECULATION, but at this point, we've got to have SOME of it. Jo > left us scratching our heads and with jaws dropped *on purpose* at > the end of HBP, you know. > Neri: If you are trying to convince Faith to start making explicit speculations I suspect you are wasting your time. Of course, I don't let her prevent me from speculating, so I don't see why anybody else should. > SSSusan: > And honestly, I don't see why DDM *doesn't* explain Snape's hatred of > Harry. Why would any of the three positions *not* be able to explain > Snape's hatred of Harry? To me, a DDM!Snaper, it's independent of > the position. IOW, Snape hates Harry; he just DOES. Whether that's > because of James, whether that's because he finds the kid annoying as > hell (a rule-flaunting, endangering-himself-and-others-without-a-care > kind of brat), whether he hates the attention Harry gets and resents > the importance the WW places on the kid & his role, who knows? But > the hatred can be real, true, and deep and STILL have Snapey be DDM, > no? > > I mean, yes, Snape's a royal ass to Harry. He's nasty and surly and > sarcastic and demeaning and never misses an opportunity to put him > down. But why does the DDM position not allow for this? After all, > the DDM position has to do with Snape's loyalty to DUMBLEDORE, not > with his loyalty to Harry or even to The Order, necessarily. As long > as Snape can be loyal to DD and be hateful towards Harry at the same > time, where's the problem? > Neri: What Faith neglected to clarify (always blame the personification, that's my motto ) is the way she was using the term "explain". You see, the way Faith and I were using it, there's a big difference between a statement like "Theory A *explains* canon fact B" and (as you wrote above regarding DDM) "Theory A *allows* for canon fact B". The second statement is almost always true if you are creative enough. For example, the ESE crew would argue that their theory allows for ESE!Snape saving Harry's life several times. He just did it because he didn't want to blow his cover. They can even say that their theory allows for ESE!Snape saving Harry in the end of HBP after Dumbledore was already dead. He did it because Voldemort warned the DEs that Harry belongs only to him. Now, would you say that the ESE!Snape theory *explains* why Snape keeps trying to save Harry's life? I wouldn't. It merely *allows* for it if the theoretician is creative enough. On the other hand, DDM *explains* why Snape keeps trying to save Harry's life. And LID explains it too, although in a different way. Attempting a more formal definition of the above, I'd suggest that a theory can be said to "explain" a certain canon fact if this fact follows directly from the basic assumptions of said theory. A basic assumption of DDM is that Snape is loyal to Dumbledore. From this it directly follows that he'd try saving Harry's life. A basic assumption of LID is that Snape owed a Life Debt to James and now to Harry. From this it directly follows that he'd try saving Harry's life. The basic assumption of ESE is that Snape is loyal to Voldemort. From this it does *not* directly follow that he'd try saving Harry's life. Just to clarify, the fact that ESE doesn't *explain* some Snape questions doesn't mean that ESE (and what it allows for) can't be true. It only means that I hope JKR would do better than such sorry excuses. Using my suggested definition above, I'd also repeat my former observation regarding the Unbreakable Vow (this is also an answer for Miles and other members): ESE, DDM, OFH and LID don't explain why Snape made the UV. Sure, they all *allow* for this and that creative explanations, but they don't *explain* it. ACID POPS does. Now, after this long clarification of terms, let's go back to Snape's hatred for Harry. A basic assumption of DDM is that Snape's remorse about his part in the death of James and/or Lily is genuine. Even more than genuine, it is so strong that even today, 15 years later, DDM!Snape constantly risks himself and, as Pippin put it, would sacrifice his life for Dumbledore's cause. Such Choices would show the present day DDM!Snape to be an extremely moral person, despite his past mistakes that he now deeply regrets. Such a moral person don't "just hate" an innocent 11 years old kid. Most surely not the orphan of the very parents that that moral person feels such remorse about. If such a moral person just can't help feeling this hate, then logically he'd be ashamed of it and try to hide it, most especially from that kid himself. He wouldn't revel in such hate, he wouldn't make it his flag. He'd surely try not to allow it to hurt the very cause he's risking everything for. IMHO, Snape's hatred for Harry doesn't follow directly from the DDM basic assumption. Sure, DDM can allow for it, if you are creative enough. > SSSusan: > As to the contention that DDM doesn't explain the events on the > tower, I beg to differ. There IS an explanation that many of us find > quite satisfactory indeed. (True, OFH!Snapers and ESE!Snapers don't > care for it, but it makes sense to DDM!Snapers.) Neri: Tell me frankly, did you become a DDM!Snaper because you found this explanation convincing, or do find it convincing because you are a DDM!Snaper? Personally I was never a Snape fan, but I was never a Snape hater either, and until HBP I believed him to be on Dumbledore's side. I'd still accept a DDM resolution gladly, *providing* that JKR's explanation for it would be convincing. Much more convincing than "Dumbledore asked Snape to finish him off" or any other tower theory I've heard until now. If JKR had the nerve to end HBP the way she did and *still* go for DDM!Snape, then she'd better have up her sleeve a solution that is at least as brilliant and as shattering as the PoA resolution or the GoF resolution. But you know, there is a possibility that what happened on the tower was very much what is seems to be, and the shattering resolution would come from other things. > SSSusan: > And that is, at > least in my version (sorry, Faith! ? I told you, with this scene > we've just GOT to do some speculating!), Neri: Faith invested some work in showing that with LID you can get everything you get from either ESE, DDM or OFH, but with nearly zero speculation. Where is the hole in this theo construct? > Neri went on, offering this assist to Faith: > "Hey, that part can actually be made even more convincing," said Neri. > "Del and I posted about it. You see, if the Life Debt magic kills you > when you take a part in killing the one you owe to, then Snape should > have died after GH, but if Dumbledore saved him by magically > transferring his Debt from James to Harry, then Snape would owe a Life > Debt to Dumbledore too! That would certainly make Dumbledore trust > him. And after Snape saved Dumbledore's life back from the ring curse, > he could kill Dumbledore, but he still owes Harry..." > > SSSusan: > Hmmm. This would only work if the Life Debt only prevented the > person ONE TIME from participating in the death of the person to whom > he owed a Life Debt, then? That "Snape saved DD once and so now's he > free to kill him" notion. Is there a reason in canon to suspect it's > a "one time and out" kind of thing? > Neri: Reason in canon? Of course not. This is why it was a speculation and Faith didn't want any part in it. But since I'm not Faith I can think of other reasons to like it beside canon. For example, that one time would be simpler and more elegant than two. Or three or seven. Of course, with JKR it might very well be seven. And I wouldn't be surprised if she got the count mixed up too. > SSSusan: > Anyway, more to the point for me... considering both this possibility > and what Faith was just saying about what LID can do that DDM can't > do, what I'd like to know is this: Exactly how does LID explain WHY > Snape killed DD? What, in LID, was Snape's motivation on the tower? > *If* you're right (and this is, imo, a pretty big "if") about being > freed from any Life Debt he owed DD after the ring-horcrux saving > thing, and thus COULD now kill DD safely, LID!Snape still doesn't, I > don't think, explain why Snape WOULD do so. Would LID!Snape's > explanation be that, in killing DD, Snape would be better able to get > Harry out of Hogwarts, to ensure his safety from the DEs? Or > something else? > Neri: Going with LID!Snape the way Faith would like it, Snape's reason to kill Dumbledore would be the most canonical and the one that would require the less convoluted reasoning. Namely, killing Dumbledore was the only way Snape could save his own life from the terms of the UV. > > I had also been wondering the same thing a couple of others have > brought up as well. That is, WHY would Snape still owe Harry, and > specifically, didn't the 1st-year Quidditch rescue count? > > Neri offered this up: > "Well, for repaying a Life Debt, this case wasn't exactly what you'd > call clear-cut, was it?", said Faith. "I mean, from literary > considerations wouldn't you expect something more dramatic? And the > other cases of Snape saving Harry's life are even less clear-cut than > that." > > SSSusan: > Sorry, but this seems a weak argument for the Quidditch save not > counting. > Neri: I could bring other arguments, such as Quirrell saying that he would have succeeded in unbrooming Harry even with Snape countering him if not for Hermione intervening. But I don't think the original argument is weak. In a story like HP, if a main character like Snape has a Life Debt to the hero, and to his father before that for many years, especially because of such a dramatic event as the famous Prank, I'd expect the way he repays this debt to be *at least* as dramatic. "He delayed Quirrell until Hermione intervened" just doesn't cut it, sorry. OTOH, saving the hero from the evil overlord in the seventh and last book of the series would be just perfect. And all the more so if they weren't on the same side at the time. > Yet Faith asked us: > "So tell me, what do you think is Snape's opinion? Does he behave as > if he thinks the account was settled after that Quidditch match? Or > after the end of the year? Or after the night of the Shrieking Shack? > Has he really `gone back to hate James' memory in peace'? Was there > any change in the way he treats Harry?" > > SSSusan: > Well, no, he hasn't changed... but imo that can actually argue for > DDM!Snape. I mean, let's assume the quidditch save DID end the Life > Debt. Then for what reason would Snape continue to act to protect > Harry? Because of his LOYALTY to DD! His dislike of Harry is true, > but he continues to watch over him and protect him because DD wants > him to, expects him to. And so he does, all the while despising the > little bugger. Out of loyalty to DD. > Neri: It can argue for DDM, sure, but wouldn't that be poorly plotted? I mean, if he saved Harry later because he was DDM, why couldn't he save him in SS/PS because he was DDM then too? Why did we need the whole "be quit with James' memory" story at all? And the whole debt plot would be backwards ? first JKR tells us that Snape is finally quit with James, *then* she tells us how he came to be indebted in the first place, and then she raises the stakes in the Shrieking Shack. This is backwards. Repaying the debt should be the *resolution* of the debt plot, not the first thing we are told about. > SSSusan: > Lastly, Neri asks: > DDM too requires an explanation why Dumbledore refused to give his > reasons to trust Snape. What's the DDM explanation? > > SSSusan: > Well, I know you don't like this, but one possibility is LOLLIPOPS. > IOW, when DD considered telling Harry the reason in HBP... paused... > but elected not to... it might have been that he believed the > revelation simply too personal. > Neri: Well, like Faith said it *can* be LOLLIPOPS. In fact I pretty much agree with her that it must be either LOLLIPOPS or LID, because nothing else explains why Snape first told Voldemort about the prophecy and then went to Dumbledore when he heard it's the *Potters* that Voldy is after. But LOLLIPOPS would have actually made more sense without the DDM part, because as I wrote above, such a strong remorse just doesn't go well with such vengeance. And LOLLIPOPS+DDM still don't explain (in my sense of the word) what happened on the tower, while LID has no problem with it. And LID has considerably more canon support than LOLLIPOPS (which has approximately zero canon). Add to this the considerable meta advantages that Faith discussed, and LID seems by far the better contender. Regarding the "too personal to tell Harry" excuse, it simply doesn't explain why Dumbledore couldn't tell it to Lupin, McGonagall or Moody. > SSSusan: > Given the relationship between Snape & Harry, the degree of animosity > already present, and all that Harry blames Snape for, how would Harry > likely react to the news that DD trusted Snape because he had turned > back to DD when he realized Lily was in danger and wanted to protect > her? Exactly! "Eeewwwwww!!! Don't tell me that!" Harry might be > expected to yell. If (and yes, this is a giant "if" of my own here) > DD knew he was dying or likely would die soon, and if he hoped that > somehow Snape & Harry would be able to set aside their dislike and > loathing and work together, would he risk a revelation that might > make that even LESS likely than it already was? > Neri: If Dumbledore thought he's likely to die soon, then all the more reason to tell several other Order members why he trusts Snape. Neri From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 08:09:26 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 08:09:26 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?/ Slughorn LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145254 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > bboyminn: > > > So, I answer your last question first- > > ALLA: "Did I answer your question?" > > > > to which I answer - NO. > > > Alla: > > Oh well then. I am going to try again, but I am afraid that > I won't be able to give the answer that will satisfy you. > :-) Sorry! > > > > bboyminn: > > > > Yes, but we can't travel back into the past with a lot of > > wishful thinking. We have to start at the top of the tower > > as thing are at that point in time ... > > > Yes, the Unbreakable Vow was a mistake, but the third Vow > > was somewhat forced on him by circumstances, ... > > Alla: > > I have to disagree and disagree quite strongly. I think that UV > and Tower are so closely connected that we cannot NOT travel back > in time in order to answer that question very strongly. > > IMO, taking UV from the beginning was foolishness, recklessness, > idiocy, take your pick.... > bboyminn: Quick note here, I'm not saying the UV is of NO significants. It certainly has consequences, and it certainly complicates matters. But it also does have some grey area to it. > ...edited... > > > > > bboyminn: > > > > So, you expect Snape to sacrific himself on the off and > > slim chance that his own death might afford Dumbledore > > some level of protection? > > ... > > Alla: > > Not at all. I was talking about Lily's sacrifice mainly to argue > that self-sacrifice is not a senseless thing. I don't expect Snape > to just throw his life away, but to start fighting and TRY as I > said to defend Dumbledore and the boys. Not fighting with > expectation to die, but expectation to survive. ...edited... > bboyminn: Sorry I completely misunderstood what you were getting at. I took you to say that Snape would protect Dumbledore by sacrificing himself. That way Snape would pass a 'sacrificial' protection to Dumbledore in the same way that Lily passed sacrificial protection on to Harry. Now, I see that that is of course NOT what you intended to say, and that does change things somewhat. Now, with the correct, interpretation of your intent, it is simply a matter of how well Snape can defend himself at the top of the tower. One point that I did emphasize with conscious intent, is that the top of the tower affords everyone limited space, and no protective cover. In otherwords, open close-quarters fighting. Depending on the circumstance that could work to the advantage of either side. But some one WILL definitely find an advantage in it. I certainly can't argue as strongly against Snape making a fight of it, as I did for Snape's hopefull self-sacrific, but it is still an extreme gamble. If he could count on Dumbledore's help, I would say differently, but at the time, Dumbledore can't even stand up, and probably can't get to his wand. That doesn't bode well for Dumbledore or Snape. So, the chances of Snape surviving are not good. He might get lucky and he might not. But either way, it's a tremendous gamble. In the course of action Snape did choose, Dumbledore dies, but everyone else lives. Draco is not at immediate risk. Harry doesn't jump into the battle at the top of the tower, so his risk is minimized. Snape gets the DE's out of the castle so they can do no more damage. Snape protect Harry from the other DE's. Snape defends himself, but doesn't attack Harry. Snape also warns Harry, and hints at the areas he needs to concentrate on if he has any hope of defeating Voldemort. Despite the dark and tragic loss of Dumbledore, Snape ends the siege with minimal damage. Further Snape preserves and even improves his position in Voldemort organization. He can still be usefull to the Order. With your method, win, lose, or draw, Snape is out of the picture; he goes from being the most important spy, to, at best, just being another soldier in the battle. That in itself is a substantial loss to the Order. My point isn't that Snape had no other choices, it is that Snape had no other /good/ choices. He choice, in a sense, the path of least resistance, and the path of least damage. He maximized his future value, while minimizing his short term loses. That seems like effective strategy, and Dumbledore, great a loss as it is, is still an exceptable trade off UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. Notice that I make my argument without reference to the Umbreakable Vow. Add that to the equation and Snape really doesn't have many choices at all. It is possible that the minute Snape acts to defend Dumbledore, the Vow will kick in and Snape will be dead, and that probably, most likely, means that Dumbledore's death will quickly follow. I try not to rely on the UV too much in making my arguments, because of its unpredictability, but none the less, in the moment, it is a huge consideration for Snape, and colors his actions greatly. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Fri Dec 23 08:29:55 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 08:29:55 -0000 Subject: The Twins / Weasleys / Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145255 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > I was unclear, sorry. I'm talking about the Christmas gnome: > > "Fred, George, Harry, and Ron were the only ones who knew that the > angel on top of the tree was actually a garden gnome that had bitten > Fred on the ankle as he pulled up carrots for Christmas dinner. > Stupefied, painted gold, stuffed into a miniature tutu and with > small wings glued to its back, it glowered down at them all, the > ugliest angel Harry had ever seen, with a large bald head like a > potato and rather hairy feet." (HBP p.329-330) > > It struck me as a rather involved and sadistic sort of revenge for a > gnome behaving like a gnome. Though JKR may just have meant it for > humor. Again, it didn't work for me, sent up a few warning flares, > etc. But it may have just been me. > Gerry I agree, it made me feel really uncomfortable too. Bit if you want to make Fred and George sadistic people because of this, then so are Harry and Ron, because they do nothing to prevent it or to excgange the gnome for the real angel. Gerry From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 08:58:15 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 08:58:15 -0000 Subject: Who told Umbridge leading to dark thoughts about Flitwick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145256 Saraquel: Thanks to Krysta, Taylor and Geoff, and welcome to the list Krysta and Taylor. No doubt, if I'd waited to post until after I'd finished my re-read, I'd have answered my own question! > Krystyna: > As JKR have said somewhere (interview? her website?), Flitwick has > some goblin blood in him, therefore seems unlikely as an ally with > pure-blood, human-obsessed Umbridge. Not to mention that we see him > on many occasions being quite unhelpful towards Umbridge. I quite agree about Flitwick hating Umbridge, but going down the line of Flitwick being ESE, even if he hated Umbridge, he could have used her to try anstop the DA from going ahead, so I don't think that being against Umbridge equals DDM per se. I still have a question mark as to why Snape took him out in HBP - it would indicate an ESE!Snape, but to me there is too much other evidence for things to be that straightforward - ho hum. Saraquel Good cricketing weather here, Geoff! From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Fri Dec 23 09:07:09 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:07:09 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145257 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Yes, according to Quirrell Snape manages to slow down the action of > the Quirrell's curse for some time, but Snape does not manage to > stop > it completely. That is before Hermione shows up and accidentally > breaks the eye contact. THAT is what saves Harry IMO and even > though > we don't know exactly how life debt magic works, if Quirrell knows > what happened, Snape knows too. Well, I don't agree (Surprise ;). Snape did a pretty good job in thwarting Quirrell, but he could not break the eye contact without stopping the counter-cursing, which would give Q. the opportunity to finish the job. >From the scene it is also not clear to me if Snape knew -who- was doing the cursing: Imagine the scene. Q starts cursing, Harry's broom starts throwing him off. Snape recognizes what happens. Can he start looking around for who is doing it? Not if he wanted Harry to stay on that broom. Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Fri Dec 23 09:09:40 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:09:40 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145258 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "Steve" wrote: > > > Now what should Snape do? > > You keep asking that, but let me ask a slightly different question, if > Snape is really a good guy what is the absolutely positively worst > thing he could possibly do that dreadful night in the Astronomy Tower? > I would say it's murdering the strongest and kindest wizard on the > good guy team. Conclusion: Snape is not on the good guy's team. > Well. ehm. Getting Harry discovered and killed? Gerry From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Dec 23 11:44:31 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 11:44:31 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145259 Alla: > > What Snape should have done? DD!M Snape I mean. Well, first > > and foremost he should have NOT under any circumstances enter > > Unbreakable Vow. bboyminn: *(snip)* > To some extent I agree about the Vow. But... Ceridwen: I've read everything, or nearly everything, about the UV and what people here think. I'm convinced that it was probably the dumbest thing Snape has done since getting into the DEs, at least that we have in canon. Maybe some weird potions mistake to explain the hair, but that would be speculation at its finest. For Snape taking the UV, after sidling through the door behind the Black sisters at Spinner's End, I did notice a dusty jar sitting just inside the doorway stuffed with ACID POPS. The whole chapter read, to me, as if there had been something between Snape and Narcissa at one time, at least on his part (would the geeky nerdy guy ever really tell the pretty, popular girl that he likes her?) and that he still has fond feelings toward her whether they are still romantic feelings, or not. Does he even suspect that she *could* snooker him into the third provision of the UV? He may not be as critical of Cissy and the whole thing blows by him until he's hit by its tail. But after the UV, I completely fall away from everything anybody else says. I *don't care* that our Ron tells us that to break the UV means you die. Somewhere, I think at Mugglenet, it is said that Ron is *never* right (unless he is joking). Ron isn't joking when he tells Harry that the UV kills if it is broken. And, Ron's proof is pretty slim. So, Arthur gets red-faced for once and yells about Ron and the UV the twins are trying to foist on him. And this is part of what he yells. The UV looks to me like Dark Magic, and one of the last people I would expect to really know about Dark Magic would be Arthur Weasley. (On Dark Magic, it's like pornography - I don't know much about it, but I know, or think I know, it when I see it) So, Arthur yelling that the UV would kill Ron if he broke it sounds more like warnings about going blind or growing hair on one's knuckles. Parents have been telling their kids that sort of thing for... centuries? millenia? and some parents may even believe it. The whole thing is shock value, to get kids to stop an activity and hopefully stay away from it, without going into the real reasons since kids have a habit of saying 'why?' a lot, and assuring the adult that it would 'never happen to me, I'd be careful/too smart'. Or just plain deriding the whole thing. Yell that 'this'll kill you!' and you get the kid's attention. I mentioned this before, without all the preliminaries. And I was bombarded by 'Ron said...' posts. Well, a few people answered, most people let it go by. But, it's called the 'Unbreakable Vow'. UNBREAKABLE. As in, it's impossible to break it. >From Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/search? q=unbreakable : adj. 1 Impossible to break; able to withstand rough usage: unbreakable plates. 2 Able to withstand an attempt to break. Used of a horse. n. An article or object that is not easily broken. ***The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright ? 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. adj 1: impossible to break especially under ordinary usage; "unbreakable plastic dinnerwear" [ant: breakable] 2: impossible to not honor; "an unbreakable promise" ***Source: WordNet ? 2.0, ? 2003 Princeton University I believe, Ron's explanation notwithstanding, that the UV is 'impossible not to honor'. And once Snape made the UV with Narcissa, he *could not* choose not to honor it. His choice in the matter was closed. There was no way out. That's why I think it's Dark Magic. It removes choice once the choice to enter into the UV is made. It's not as serious in the WW as the Imperius Curse, which also removes choice, since at least the witch or wizard agreed to go along with the UV in the first place while the Imperius removes even that little bit of choice. I would also put love spells and love potions under the broad general heading of Dark Magic for the same reason - the victim has no choice. And, HBP has other Dark Magic concerning the removal of choices in it. Rosmerta is under Imperius; Ron is under a Love Potion. Why not another removal of choice? More sophisticated than the love potion in the candies, but not an Unforgivable like Imperius. A mid-ground, the UV. Which explains the Tower for me just fine, thanks. The minute Snape is informed that Draco cannot/will not kill Dumbledore, then *Snape* must. The UV kicks in. Hate and revulsion on his face, because he has no choice, he cannot stop. He may (or may not) be thinking he was such a fool (kicks self in behind) for taking it, for being suckered, for Narcissa playing him like that, for ever going up to the tower to hear that news. He has to do it, he can't stop himself. Why didn't he just stay in his office and pretend Flitwick didn't exist? Etc. And no, he's not a coward, as he tells Harry. A fool, a jerk, a snookered idiot, but he won't say that. ACID POPS leave a nasty aftertaste. And even if ACID POPS isn't involved, he was still maneuvered into the vow by a mother's concern for her son, and his corresponding concern plus some flattery. The first two provisions are nothing. But they're the only thing Narcissa mentions before the vow begins. It could be a straight-up reading, that he broke down and agreed, it could be a spy reading, that he thought it would get him into position to learn more. Doesn't really matter as he's hoofing it out of Hogwarts. To any incarnation of Snape, that was the worst thing he could have done, and he had no choice. If ACID POPS were involved, I'll bet he tosses the lot of them and never has another. Because, by hiding the third provision, which was probably the real reason she came, Narcissa effectively betrayed him. She sacrificed him for her son, with unconcern aforethought. But any man should know that most mothers would sacrifice the Outsider for her child. A bachelor like Snape, who seems in some ways to be stuck back in his adolescence (grudges against Marauders), might not realize that until it's too late. Bachelor Snape certainly didn't see it coming. But, no matter what the trappings, no matter what Ron said that Arthur said, no matter what Snape *thought* he was getting into, the Unbreakable Vow is called 'Unbreakable' for a reason. And the definition of Unbreakable is, in part, 'Impossible to break; impossible not to honor'. Ceridwen. From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri Dec 23 13:29:51 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 05:29:51 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002601c607c4$f5083ca0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 145260 CH3ed: I have to say I agree with Steve. The end does justify the mean in this case even if we assume DDM!Snape. Or even if it is ESS!Snape, what happened on the tower was the best of a rotten thru-and-thru situation. The action doesn't end with Snape killing DD or Snape turning his wand on the DEs. If the UV kicks in the moment Snape turns his wand on the DEs to refuse to complete the UV (complete Draco's mission) it is very possible Snape'd just drop dead then and there. DD dies anyway, and Harry is released from the bind and jumps at the DEs the prolonged presence of the DEs in the school and the wearing off of the felix felicis would probably mean the DEs' curses would start hitting Ron, Hermione and Ginny instead of just missing them. Sherry now: I'm quite sure I said this long ago, in response to the question of what should Snape have done. But if I did, it was probably in the immediate post HBP deluge. so, here i go again. DDM Snape people, ask what should Snape have done. if he didn't kill DD, and the effects of the UV kick in, then the death eaters would have killed Dumbledore, Harry would have jumped into the fray and been killed; death eaters would have overrun the school. I ask you, canon please? Do we indeed *know* that is what would have happened? i believe that Harry notes that Dumbledore is sounding stronger toward the end of the conversation with Draco. Excuse me, if I'm not remembering correctly, but i've only read the tower scene once so far. Dumbledore is also the greatest wizard alive, possibly of all time. i cannot believe that he was incapable of summoning back his wand with a cute little nonverbal spell, and effectively dealing with the death eaters who were on the tower. We actually have no proof, either way, of what would have happened if Snape had not killed Dumbledore. i believe that if he was truly Dumbledore's man, through and through, he should have risked his own neck to save Dumbledore. We have no actual proof that Dumbledore could not have recovered from the potion in the cave, and in fact, he may have already been getting stronger. I'd bet on his power over those death eaters any day. So, i guess my answer is that though DDM Snape folks always say, if Snape didn't kill DD ... and go on about how everyone would have been killed on the tower and death eaters rampaging through the school, I have to ask your own questions back. How do you know that? Because we really can't know what would have happened. I see evidence that Dumbledore was recovering and could have dealt well with the situation. I guess none of us will know till book seven. Remember our Christmas present from JKR last year? The announcement of the release of HBP. How I wish we'd be getting a similar announcement soon. alas, two more years. sherry From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 13:42:39 2005 From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (laurie goudge) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 05:42:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Surprise ending? WAS: Last book, Harry not surviving In-Reply-To: <000b01c60766$e9394120$4c065804@youryk5cbmeeo8> Message-ID: <20051223134239.89144.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145261 > Martha: > My husband and I think, "Wouldn't it be a laugh if > it turns out that Neville does LV in at the end? > That Harry's whole story is a red herring?" > I'm ducking and running now.... > pesronally that is one of my many 'endings' that i have in my head as to the ending of HP. That Harry DOSEN'T kill LV but Neville DOES. But I take it one step further and have it Neville is remembered as the one who is rememebered as the one who KILLED LV and Harry fades into obscurity. laurie __________________________________ Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ From coverton at netscape.com Fri Dec 23 09:28:07 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 03:28:07 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Surprise ending? WAS: Last book, Harry not surviving In-Reply-To: <000b01c60766$e9394120$4c065804@youryk5cbmeeo8> Message-ID: <000a01c607a3$35b62130$28a18eac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145262 Martha: My husband and I think, "Wouldn't it be a laugh if it turns out that Neville does LV in at the end? That Harry's whole story is a red herring?" I'm ducking and running now.... Corey: What did you mean by a red herring? You can let me know off list or on. My email address for any one that wishes to email me off list is coverton at netscape.com. Your fellow list member, Corey From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 15:14:55 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 15:14:55 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145263 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spotsgal" wrote: > Christina: > The reason that DD trusts Snape just *isn't any of Harry's > business.* Now Dumbledore should have realized from the happenings > in OotP that Harry isn't the sort to trust DD blindly on issues like > Snape's loyalty, but that still doesn't mean that it's OK for DD to > break a confidence with Snape to answer Harry's concerns. Why not? Doesn't that fall under the heading of tough decisions that need to be done for the good of the overall cause? (Or does that only apply to things which Harry has to do?) Dumbledore must have realized from the end of OotP that it was going to take a lot to get Harry trusting Snape again; he may have been blind or underestimating the issue beforehand. But post those events, Dumbledore is actively involving Harry in his plans, telling him things, because he knows *and Harry knows* that Harry is going to have to handle a lot of heavy lifting. Harry is treated more like a partner than he ever has before, and it's about time because he needs to be his own agent now. Given Harry's importance and Dumbledore's knowledge of Harry's temperament/etc., I find it hard myself to put Snape's Issues ahead of that. Of course, Dumbledore probably doesn't--and hence his own responsibility for much of the mess at the end of the book. It's hard to speculate on what the characters can work out logically for themselves, because we just don't know what kind of information is out there. But Dumbledore's whole modus operandi is, IMO, tending to infantilization of people he ought to be giving more respect and information. And it's wholly thematic that his tendency to secrecy and to take the whole load fully upon himself (contra Harry with the Trio, who he's told about all kinds of things) bites him in the ass in the end. > Whatever it was that made him turn is obviously deeply personal, > and DD has no right to go blabbing Snape's private life to a kid > (particularly one he has no close relationship with). I don't know; I'm struck by a probably spurious parallel to the American legal system, where someone who wants to make a plea in court must adjudicate fully to their crime. That involves standing there, looking what family members who choose to be there in the face, and saying what they have done. A criminal is considered to have that obligation to those he has wronged. Harry is certainly a wronged party, particularly if Dumbledore's story about Snape being upset about finding out it was James and Lily who got targeted is true. I find that right of Harry's to know *why* he should trust someone more compelling than Snape's right to keep his secrets, particularly because Harry is, frankly, also more important in the long run to actually fight Voldemort--and this knowledge may help him. -Nora enjoys the balmy warm winter weather From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Dec 23 15:26:06 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 15:26:06 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. In-Reply-To: <002601c607c4$f5083ca0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145264 Sherry: > i believe that Harry notes that Dumbledore is sounding stronger > toward the end of the conversation with Draco. Excuse me, if I'm > not remembering correctly, but i've only read the tower scene once > so far. Dumbledore is also the greatest wizard alive, possibly of > all time. i cannot believe that he was incapable of summoning > back his wand with a cute little nonverbal spell, and effectively > dealing with the death eaters who were on the tower. Jen: This is the part of the tower I keep coming back to and wondering about. Dumbledore is weak from the potion, but the Dark Mark acts as a stimulant on him and he races with Harry back to Hogwarts. He flies immediately to the highest tower right under the mark and asks Harry to leave and go find Snape. When Draco appears, Dumbledore loses his wand casting two spells at once according to Harry. Then never at any point during the rest of the tower sequence does he attempt to get it back. Even in the moment where he appears to be facing death at the hands of the four DE's, he doesn't try to fight. He knows if they kill him Harry will unfreeze, but he doesn't nonverbally accio his wand, summon Fawkes or do anything overt to help himself or Harry. All he appears to be doing is trying to stay alive as long as possible How to explain his actions? There are two possibilities I see: 1) He is truly weakened by the potion as Harry believes and is incapable of using magic to help himself. The last effort to get back to Hogwarts spent his life and he is dying very quickly, hanging on only to finish the important business of leading Draco to understand he still has a choice no matter how dire the circumstances. Once that mission is accomplished, he is incapable of doing more and turns his and Harry's fate over to the other people present on the tower. It's clear Dumbledore is NOT well, that he is weak and using tremendous effort to stay alive. He uses his last effort and strength helping Draco and then faces the four DE's who appear. But what about Harry? Dumbledore is all about making hard choices and I don't for a minute blame him for using his last strength to help Draco see the right path. That's who he is. But he's spent 16 *years* attempting to safeguard Harry's life and all the people Harry will save by defeating Voldemort; he's guided him in the role fate dealt him and as he himself said, grown to love Harry. I can't believe no matter how weak Dumbledore was he wouldn't be trying to protect both Draco and Harry. So, that leads me to another option: 2) Dumbledore sees the Dark Mark and knows it is meant for him. He doesn't know how Draco could possibly get DE's into Hogwarts but his worst fear has happened. He flies directly to the tower and orders Harry away from him, telling him to put on his Invisibility Cloak, talk to no one and go get Severus. In this scenario, he believes by the time Snape and Harry return, he will either be dead or will have found a way to safeguard Draco and defeat the DE's who are after him. In the process both Harry and Snape will be safe, both from themselves interestingly enough ;): Harry from his saving people thing leading him to danger and Snape from the Unbreakable he took. Now this scenario fits better with who Dumbledore is, I believe. He is about protecting others even at the cost of his own life, and this plan would take into account all the different variables in play: He directs the DE's away from the others and to himself by landing on the tower, he ensures Harry's relative safety and he keeps Snape and his Unbreakable away from whatever choice Draco might make. Then Draco arrives and since I believe the above the scenario, there must be something Dumbledore is doing on the tower to save both Draco and Harry besides using his wand. He must hear what Harry hears, that the Order members are unable to get into the tower to help. I think it very likely he deduces instantaneously what Harry figures out later on, that only someone with a Dark Mark will be able to enter the tower. In my mind the only logical explanation is he is trying to stay alive long enough for Snape to appear. And from there personal opionin reigns--Dumbledore either made another mistake that night putting his trust in Snape or Snape did what Dumbledore expected he would. Either way, Harry and Draco got out alive and Draco apparently is considering his options. Jen R. From unix4evr at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 16:42:23 2005 From: unix4evr at yahoo.com (UNIX4EVR) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:42:23 -0000 Subject: Surprise ending? WAS: Last book, Harry not surviving In-Reply-To: <000b01c60766$e9394120$4c065804@youryk5cbmeeo8> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145265 I keep thinking about JK talking about how she is a Christian and that "by the end of book 7 no one will doubt it." This strikes me as setting up a death / resurrection for Harry (ala the lion in Narnia). I hope I'm wrong (I think it would be a cop-out), but given JK's comment it is a distinct possiblity. From rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu Fri Dec 23 17:28:36 2005 From: rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu (susanbones2003) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:28:36 -0000 Subject: Surprise ending? WAS: Last book, Harry not surviving In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145266 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "UNIX4EVR" wrote: > > I keep thinking about JK talking about how she is a Christian and > that "by the end of book 7 no one will doubt it." > > This strikes me as setting up a death / resurrection for Harry (ala > the lion in Narnia). > > I hope I'm wrong (I think it would be a cop-out), but given JK's > comment it is a distinct possiblity. Don't think so literally. In the first book, Harry had a figurative death and resurrection. Each book he faces something that kills something in him in a way. And there's always a "coming back to life" aspect. She can do this in symbolic terms. This isn't my idea, it's John Granger's, from "Looking for God in Harry Potter." He's got a website called "Hogwartsprofessor.com" where he discusses the symbolism of the books. Quite fascinating. Jen D From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 18:03:51 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 18:03:51 -0000 Subject: Translations of HBP - how the names are translated In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145267 Geoff wrote: > Grimmauld Place. JKR lives nowadays in Edinburgh, the Scottish > capital. "Auld" is a Scots dialect word for "old" and a name for > Edinburgh used in a familiar context by the Scots is "Auld Reekie" > = "old smelly", probably coined in days before the drains were built! Carol responds: I wonder if there's a specific connection between "Grim Old Place," the Blacks' ancestral home, and the resemblance of Sirius (Dog Star) Black's Animagus form to a Grim (a doglike death omen). Admittedly everyone dies at some point, whether they're a fictional character or a real person, but I think Padfoot's resemblance to a Grim, which receives so much emphasis in PoA, foreshadows his death a few books later, and perhaps the name of his house (which is "haunted by the spirit of his dead mother via the painting and decorated with the heads if dead house-elfs) reinforces that foreshadowing. But of course it's also a grim old place on a more literal and obvious level. BTW, Geoff, you forgot to mention Kreacher ("Creature") as a pun of this sort. Imagine being given that name by his mother! Or maybe it was Mrs. Black who named him. If names equate to destiny in the Potterverse (Remus Lupin, for example), poor Kreacher was doomed from birth. Geoff: > Weston-Super-Mare is a large coastal resort on the west coast of > North Somerset facing down the Bristol Channel. It is rather a > pretentious name, derived from the Latin for Weston-on-Sea!!! Carol: Wouldn't that be Weston-above-the-Sea? (Even more pretentious, I guess.) Carol From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 18:46:26 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 18:46:26 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - Snape's Odds of Winning? In-Reply-To: <002601c607c4$f5083ca0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145268 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > > CH3ed: > ... The end does justify the mean in this case even if we > assume DDM!Snape. Or even if it is ESS!Snape, what happened > on the tower was the best of a rotten thru-and-thru situation. > The action doesn't end with Snape killing DD or Snape > turning his wand on the DEs. ...edited... > > > > Sherry now: > > ... > > DDM Snape people, ask what should Snape have done? If he didn't > kill DD, and the effects of the UV kick in, then the death eaters > would have killed Dumbledore, Harry would have jumped into the > fray and been killed; death eaters would have overrun the school. > I ask you, canon please? Do we indeed *know* that is what would > have happened? > > ...edited... > > Sherry bboyminn: This is a very speculative point to be calling for canon on. I could just as easily turn the tables and ask for canon proving that Snape would win if he defended Dumbledore and attacked the Death Eaters. Certainly you could come up with some vague references that imply that Snape /might/ have been able to win; he is good at dueling. But then, of course, we would counter with the Unbreakable Vow. I have speculated that if Snape, under more favorable conditions, simply maintained the intent to kill Dumbledore, he could stave off the consequences of the Vow indefinitely. However, if he turns and defends Dumbledore, fighting the DE's in the process, there is no ambiquity. He has turned against the Vow, and will surely suffer the consequences. On this last point, if we, for the moment, accept Ron's statement that to break the Vow means death, we must then ask the mechanism of that death. Would Snape's heart stop and he would drop dead on the spot? Would Snape get incurable cancer and take a year to die? Or, would he remain in prefect health except for the unexplained fact that he was withering away, a circumstance that would cause his eventual death five or ten years later? Or, maybe at some random point in the undetermined future, Snape would step from the curb and get hit by a bus. We don't know this mechanism of death. But we do know that Snape is out numbers, in a small open space with no cover from which to fight. Maybe he will win and maybe he won't, and that is the very reason for not choosing to fight. The odds of winning are very much against him. To do so would take a huge risk that has the potential for EXTREMELY DISASTEROUS consequences. If Snape wins great, but then there is that nasty Vow to content with. If Snape tries and loses, then Snape, Dumbledore, and Harry are likely dead, and perhaps even Draco is dead as a result. True, you are correct, we don't know that Snape can't win, we don't know that Dumbledore can't help. But I think it is fair to say that the odds are against that happening. Dumbledore seems too weak to stand. Snape has to content with the Umbreakable Vow. Harry, with his 'saving people thing', is not likely to stay out of the fight. When every choice will have a disasterous outcome, the question then becomes 'What is the /least/ disasterous choice?'. Disasterous as it was, scary as it was to lose Dumbledore; I believe that Snape made the least disasterous choice. So, in the end, it's not a matter of whether Snape /could/ win if he chose to fight, it's a question of what are the odds of him winning under those circumstances? I say, if Snape fights, he has chosen a course of action that has an extremely high potential for a cataclysmicly disasterous outcome. I never thought I would see the day when I would defend Snape, but here we are. Steve/bboyminn From mskeshaffer at earthlink.net Fri Dec 23 17:53:38 2005 From: mskeshaffer at earthlink.net (Martha Shaffer) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 12:53:38 -0500 Subject: red herring Message-ID: <002901c607e9$ced4ba20$dc075804@youryk5cbmeeo8> No: HPFGUIDX 145269 Corey: "What did you mean by a red herring?" Martha: Sorry, Corey. Shoot, maybe I'm incorrect on the terms use. I think the term "red herring" means a story or event deliberately set up to distract attention away something else. For example, we were all made to believe that Snape was after the stone in the first book, when the perpetrator was actually Quirrell. Setting up all the suspicion about Snape was a "red herring", to distract us from other suspects. I have no idea where the phrase comes from! Martha [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From unlikely2 at btopenworld.com Fri Dec 23 13:29:11 2005 From: unlikely2 at btopenworld.com (unlikelyauthor) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 13:29:11 -0000 Subject: Snape was at the Potter's House That Night In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145270 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "another_potter_fan" wrote: If Snape was with him, why > didn't LV ask SS "Why didn't YOU do something? YOU were there!?!" > > Thoughts? > unlikely2 just thinking aloud . . . Maybe he doesn't know. It would depend on how Horcuxi (?) work. The Diary Voldemort didn't seem to know much at all. For all we know Snape, in a fit of pique, might have AKed Voldemort from behind at Godrick's Hollow. unlikely2 From ladypensieve at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 19:01:18 2005 From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Kathy) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:01:18 -0000 Subject: Snape was at the Potter's House That Night (& another Unbreakable Vow) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145271 Let's look at this from another perspective. Canon: Snape goes to Dumbledore and says he's through with LV. Dumbledore asks him to continue to be with the Dark Lord and help them put an end to his reign. Why is Snape always thinking of Harry? It isn't because he loves kids, or because he loves Harry. He hates Harry. Why? Because he looks like his father? Partly. JKR has used foreshadowing in all of her books. We just learned about the Unbreakable Vow in HBP. What if Snape came to Dumbledore and told him what happened at Godric's Hollow...told him that through no fault of his own the Potter boy is now an orphan, and he feels partly responsible for this. Dumbledore knows that Snape always had trouble with James, therefore decides that he cannot place Harry with him, but makes him take an Unbreakable Vow to take care of Harry. Now, whether Snape likes it or not, he is bound to the boy and will die if he doesn't. Now THERE's a reason to hate Harry! APF also wrote: Didn't LV say at the DE gravesite rally in GoF that he was all alone until Quirrell found him in the forests of Transylvania (or wherever)? If Snape was with him, why didn't LV ask SS "Why didn't YOU do something? YOU were there!?!" Kathy replies: Remember that the house was torn apart by the spell that warded off the AK. (Hagrid: "No, sir -- house was almost destroyed, but I got him out all right before the Muggles started swarmin' around. He fell asleep as we was flyin' over Bristol.") Snape may have been knocked out and when he went to find Voldemort, he found a body...or he found nothing. When Voldemort failed to appear, or when the dark mark on his arm almost disappeared, Snape and the other DEs figured that was it...the Dark Lord was dead. After all - why would anyone believe that you could overcome death? Also - if Snape wasn't there, how did Dumbledore know to send Hagrid so quickly...so quickly that the Muggles hadn't started to swarm around...hmmm...even as I write this it makes sense. How did Dumbledore know so quickly. As for Snape sniping at Sirius...that could be because he felt that Sirius was really the one responsible for everything. If Sirius had been the secret keeper he would have died rather than give away James & Lily's location...therefore Sirius is responsible for Lily's death and for Snape taking the Unbreakable Vow to protect Harry. In a sense, Snape isn't protecting Harry, he's protecting himself. Wow - thanks for responding to this post...it's really neat to 'talk it out' like this... KathyO --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "another_potter_fan" wrote: > > Jazmyn: > > Voldemort was not there to kill James or Lily. He was there to > > kill Harry! James and Lily just got in his way. There would > > have been no orphans anyways as the child was the target if > > everything had gone to Voldemort's plan. Snape knew the target > > was Harry, but is not resposible for Voldemort's actions. > > Voldemort kills whomever he wants anyways (if he can).. Snape > > also defected to become a double agent before Harry's parents > > were killed, so would likely have found someway to NOT be there. > Another_Potter_Fan: > Jazmyn, I think what Kathy meant was by asking LV to spare Lily, > and then with the result of the AK, SS feels responsible for > Harry's situation and resents it very much. The orphan at his feet > was just a bad consequence of his actions. > > Anyway, I'm not sure which side of the fence I'm on with this > theory. On one hand, it would explain why LV offered Lily the > chance to save herself (I mean, why else would he care?). SS asked > him to spare her life. Also, if Snape were there, it could explain why he can show up late to a DE rally at a gravesite WAY LATE and still be accepted back into the fold - LV trusts him more than any other DE in the circle. Not that they're friends or anything close, but SS might be the closest thing to a #2 man that LV has. > > Here's the counter-argument: Didn't LV say at the DE gravesite > rally in GoF that he was all alone until Quirrell found him in the > forests of Transylvania (or wherever)? If Snape was with him, why > didn't LV ask SS "Why didn't YOU do something? YOU were there!?!" > > Thoughts? > > APF > From AllieS426 at aol.com Fri Dec 23 19:03:00 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:03:00 -0000 Subject: Surprise ending? WAS: Last book, Harry not surviving In-Reply-To: <20051223134239.89144.qmail@web30710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145272 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, laurie goudge wrote: > pesronally that is one of my many 'endings' that i > have in my head as to the ending of HP. That Harry > DOSEN'T kill LV but Neville DOES. But I take it one > step further and have it Neville is remembered as the > one who is rememebered as the one who KILLED LV and > Harry fades into obscurity. > > laurie > Allie: I've thought of that too, but I can't figure how is Neville marked as Voldemort's equal and what is the power that the dark lord knows not? (The power of Herbology and the Mimbulus Mimbletonia!) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 19:05:08 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:05:08 -0000 Subject: The Twins / Weasleys / Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145273 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" > wrote: > > > Betsy Hp: > > I was unclear, sorry. I'm talking about the Christmas gnome: > > > > "Fred, George, Harry, and Ron were the only ones who knew that > > the angel on top of the tree was actually a garden gnome that > > had bitten Fred on the ankle ..." (HBP p.329-330) > > > > It struck me as a rather involved and sadistic sort of revenge > > ... > > > Gerry > > I agree, it made me feel really uncomfortable too. Bit if you > want to make Fred and George sadistic people because of this, > then so are Harry and Ron, because they do nothing to prevent > it or to excgange the gnome for the real angel. > > Gerry > bboyminn: Well, I have to admit that the Angel/Gnome incident made me cringe too, but for my own warped twisted thoughts more than the Twins actions. The minute I read that, my thoughts went to the method of securing the gnome to the tree accompanied by very unpleasant visions involving 'body cavities'. However, barring my unpleasant visions of 'body cavity' mounting, the Gnome is not really hurt. He is merely 'frozen' and later the Twins will probably unfreeze him, and set him free in the garden. Lesson learned and no real harm done. The Twins certainly engage in some childishly cruel activities, and I certainly don't approve of the way the are treating Percy, but really, have they actually done anyone any harm? Earlier in the discussion, someone commented that the Twins suffocating Dudley with their Ton-Tongue Toffee was very cruel, but the Ton-Tongue Toffee was a trick sweet they intended to sell to their friends. I seriously doubt that they invented a 'trick' sweet that would kill everyone who took it. I suspect that, much like the Canary Cream, the joke was self-limiting. Just as Neville only stayed a Canary for a minute or so before turning back into Neville, logic would say that the effects of the Ton-Tongue Toffee would have abated shortly and Dudley would have returned to normal. Now there is still an element of cruelty here. A wizard would understand that the effect were temporary. Dudley, on the other hand, would have certainly thought the worst and reacted accordingly. Still though, I contend that the effect would have worn off and Dudley would have been shaken, but no worse for the wear. Just a couple thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From h2so3f at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 19:11:04 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:11:04 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. In-Reply-To: <002601c607c4$f5083ca0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145274 Sherry wrote: "DDM Snape people, ask what should Snape have done. if he didn't kill DD, and the effects of the UV kick in, then the death eaters would have killed Dumbledore, Harry would have jumped into the fray and been killed; death eaters would have overrun the school. I ask you, canon please? Do we indeed *know* that is what would have happened?" CH3ed: We don't "know" either way, but there are more canon supporting death as the result of breaking the UV (albeit from Ron. But Arthur took it seriously enough he actually beat the twins for it -"Fred reckons his left buttock has never been the same since" HBP ch.16 p.326 Scholastic Hardback). We have canon that Ron, Hermione, and Ginny had near misses with DEs curses. And we can infer from canon that they couldn't have had a lot of felix after splitting what Harry gave them into three. We have canon that the OotP were far from gaining an upper hand on the invading DEs ("We were in trouble, we were losing," said Tonks in a low voice. "Gibbon was down, but the rest of the DEs seemed ready to fight to the death. Neville had been hurt, Bill had been savaged by Greyback...It was all dark...curses flying everywhere...") We have seen enough of Harry tearing of recklessly in the heat of emotion into danger that it is far more likely he would have done it again rather than not (jumping Sirius in the Shrieking Shack in PoA, going to the DoM in OotP, going after Bellatrix by himself in OotP). Had Snape been a true DE he could have easily killed Harry when he had him wandless and alone during his escape. It doesn't take a long time to perform the AK curse. If Snape had the time to block all of Harry's spell lazily, to prevent another DE from crucio-ing Harry, and to tell Harry to keep his mind closed and his mouth shut when cursing (and to not used Snape's spells), then Snape had ample time to AK Harry. Even if LV did order him not to kill Harry, Snape could have probably getaway with doing so since Harry was forcing a fight on him (and that Snape had just killed DD would help his case). ESS! Snape also could have joined the other DEs in fighting the OotP and DA members instead of calling them away. The other DEs were doing quite well against them before, with Snape and Draco added to the fray it is likely more good guys would have been killed. Sherry wrote: "I believe that Harry notes that Dumbledore is sounding stronger toward the end of the conversation with Draco. " CH3ed: This is after DD was done talking with Draco and the other DEs had joined them: "Malfoy was showing less resolution than ever. He looked terrified as he stared into Dumbledore's face, which was even paler, and rather lower than usual, as he had slid so far down the rampart wall." ( HBP, CH.27 p.594: Scholastic hardback) Snape enters the scene shortly after and DD didn't show any sign of recovering that we are told of. Sherry wrote: " Dumbledore is also the greatest wizard alive, possibly of all time. i cannot believe that he was incapable of summoning back his wand with a cute little nonverbal spell, and effectively dealing with the death eaters who were on the tower." CH3ed: I think JKR said in an interview that without a wand a wizard can do some small diffused magic, but he needs a wand to work a real spell. DD's wand wasn't just laying around the turret somewhere. It got blown all the way down the tower. DD himself got weaker and weaker since he drank the potion (the only time he seemed to have gained a second wind was when he learnt of the dark mark over the tower and got on the bloom to fly back). DD was a great wizard, but he was still a mortal and quite an old man and he knew it. He's been in the process of passing the torch on to Harry all year. CH3ed also wishes we won't have to wait another 2 years for Book 7. But at the same time thinks it better for JKR to spend time with her 3rd kid now and enjoy a good holiday season instead of writing much. :O) From Nanagose at aol.com Fri Dec 23 19:24:17 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:24:17 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145275 > Ceridwen: > I *don't care* that our Ron tells us that to break the UV > means you die. Somewhere, I think at Mugglenet, it is said that Ron > is *never* right (unless he is joking). Ron isn't joking when he > tells Harry that the UV kills if it is broken. > And, Ron's proof is pretty slim. So, Arthur gets red-faced for once > and yells about Ron and the UV the twins are trying to foist on him. > And this is part of what he yells. The UV looks to me like Dark > Magic, and one of the last people I would expect to really know > about Dark Magic would be Arthur Weasley.... > So, Arthur yelling that the UV would kill Ron if he broke it sounds > more like warnings about going blind or growing hair on one's > knuckles. Christina: I've always wondered why JKR chose to give us the information about the UV through Ron, rather than through Hermione, our usual little fountain of information. I agree that when Ron is trying to solve the mysteries of the books, he is often wrong (I've read the unless-he's-joking theory), but do we have similar canon for things that he says as *fact*, and not his opinion? I don't think Ron's given us enough "hard" information for us to judge how much we can really trust him. But like you said, we don't even have to doubt Ron's ability to pass on information, because it's very possible that Arthur was just exaggerating to him in the first place. I think you're right about the UV being Dark Magic, but it seems odd that the twins knew about it when they were so young (and at least had a rudimentary understanding of how to go about doing it). Ron says he was about five when it happened, making the twins about seven- they hadn't even gone off to Hogwarts yet. > Ceridwen: > I believe, Ron's explanation notwithstanding, that the UV > is 'impossible not to honor'. And once Snape made the UV with > Narcissa, he *could not* choose not to honor it. His choice in the > matter was closed. There was no way out. Christina: I don't remember you bringing this up before, and I honestly can't believe more people haven't gone this route in their speculation. Your explanation is just SO OBVIOUS, and it answers the tower scene neatly- why didn't Snape just not kill Dumbledore? He couldn't. The only problems I can see are the same problems that comes up with the original interpretation of the UV as well. Namely, 1) The language of the vow is vague, and so the vow itself must make a sort of judgement call about when it should kick in, and 2) How would the UV work if Snape didn't know what Draco's task was (if he didn't know what he was promising?) Thanks for re-introducing this, Ceridwen. I like it a lot. You can even have my share of the ACID POPS- I've never really found them appealing :) Christina From ladypensieve at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 19:29:33 2005 From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Kathy) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:29:33 -0000 Subject: Snape was at the Potter's House That Night In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145276 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "unlikelyauthor" wrote:> just thinking aloud . . . > > Maybe he doesn't know. It would depend on how Horcuxi (?) work. The Diary Voldemort didn't seem to know much at all. For all we know Snape, in a fit of pique, might have AKed Voldemort from behind at Godrick's Hollow. The diary was the very first horcrux. But...I like the idea of Snape AKing Voldemort from behind - possibly at the same time Voldemort had grown impatient and decided to AK Lily. That might explain why the house im/exploded. Normally an AK wouldn't do that - possibly the ripping of Voldemort from his body might...but what if two AKs hit at the same time...similar to 2 wands with the same care hitting at the same time? Hmmm...more food for thought, huh? KathyO From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 19:31:33 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:31:33 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Draco on the Tower (WAS Re: Peter's basic .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145277 > zgirnius: > Yes, but Dumbledore pretty deliberately put himself in that position. > I think it was precisely in order to be able to say his piece. Harry > able to move around would certainly have interfered in some way (even > just knowing Harry was there would affect Draco). And, armed, > Dumbledore could not prove his point to Draco. Because there are any > number of reasons Draco might hesitate to try and kill an armed > Dumbledore. a_svirn: Sorry, but it doesn't sound very convincing. According to you Dumbledore effectively sacrificed his life in order to "prove his point to Draco". The suggestion is simply to fantastical for me to accept. > > > > a_svirn: > > Well, his last words weren't about Malfoy period. > > zgirnius: > That is a bold statement. His last word were: "Severus, please...". > And thus could have been about almost anything. We do know that > immediately after he uttered these words, Snape cast an Avada > Kedavra, apparently killing Dumbledore, and then removed Draco from > the scene... > a_svirn: Yes, it was a bit overconfident. Yet, the chances of these famous last words to be about Draco are rather slim. Anorectic, even. From dreamofwriting at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 04:31:31 2005 From: dreamofwriting at yahoo.com (dreamofwriting) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 04:31:31 -0000 Subject: Interested in The Burrow? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145278 I just uploaded a map picture; I didn't get the title on it properly, it just says gif...it's on the last page of the photos. I got the pic from a map of England on the internet. It shows in Devon: Ottery St. Mary's, and there is a burrow hill farm and a place labeled Pottery, this is just so coincidental? Well, I thought it was interesting and maybe if I do get to England I will take myself a little drive to Ottery St. Mary's and have a look around, just for kicks! Merry Christmas everyone!! "dreamofwriting" [Elf note: I was able to title the pic "Devon.gif" and included "Ottery St. Mary's" in the description; I hope this link will work: http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/hpforgrownups/vwp?.dir==/&.dnm=?von.gif.gif&.src==gr --Kelley Elf] From latha272 at indiatimes.com Fri Dec 23 06:37:45 2005 From: latha272 at indiatimes.com (scamjunk22) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 06:37:45 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Wrong? - The Sword. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145279 > bboyminn: > We have narrowed this discussion to a Gryffindor object, but > the truth is, it could be a Gryffindor OR RAVENCLAW object, and > I personally think it is more likely to be a Ravenclaw object. > My speculation, either the Wand on the cushion in the Window of > Ollivanders or the tiara the Harry used to mark the location of > his Potions Book. > > I don't necessarily see the Gryffindor Sword as being > available to enchant into a Horcrux. I think it magically > appeared from obscurity, called by the Sorting Hat to come to > Harry's aid. > > So, I was trying to answer the question in the context it was > presented, but truthfully, I don't think the Sword is a Horcrux. Exactly ... it could be a Ravenclaw object... couldn't LV have said, "ok, let me lay my hands on a Ravenclaw object and then try for the Gryffindor object" ?? We DON'T know where he was after he left B&B and before he came back seeking employment at Hogwarts. So he would definitely have made three horcruxes in that time ... na? When he disappeared, he had in his possession the locket and the cup + he might have come across another object in B&B itself .... the cursed necklace!!! It could have been Ravenclaw's .. na? Why are we forgetting that? It has been mentioned twice already in the series with the last mention of it being sent to SNAPE! What (other than the fact that some of us *hope* that he is a DDM!!!) can have stopped him from returning it to LV .... (me assuming that Snapey knows about the Horcruxes)..????? Btw, if anybody has tried to speculate this before ---- where can the other horcruxes be? Nagini is with his all the time. The locket may be in Grimmauld Place for all we know ..... the cup?? Where could it be? If HP has to find it, it should have easy access ... na? JMO, Scam, who is going sick with speculation ... somebody please forward my plea for an early release of book 7 to JKR. From latha272 at indiatimes.com Fri Dec 23 06:43:54 2005 From: latha272 at indiatimes.com (scamjunk22) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 06:43:54 -0000 Subject: Last book, Harry not surviving In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145280 > Corey: > > If JKR has the last chapter almost done then the 7th book > > should come out soon, don't you think? > > Geoff: > I'm not sure if you didn't know or have forgotten but JKR was > writing drafts for the last chapter of Book 7 a long time ago. > She made a reference to it in one interview certainly as long > ago as 31/12/99. Yes, she did say that the last chapter is done a long long time back ... but she has recently said that it requires redrafting. Which would mean that some characters she previously wanted to be alive will not be so alive by the last chapter..... Also, now, we are not sure that the last word is "scar".... if it is still the last word, wouldn't it mean that Harry survives .... as the last chapter is about the survivors? I just hope Harry survives book 7 and not sacrifice himself like Neo....:( Scam From babyhrndz at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 18:55:38 2005 From: babyhrndz at yahoo.com (Amanda) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 18:55:38 -0000 Subject: *When* did Dumbledore die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145281 Pippin, I read what you said and I am thinking the same thing. In previous chapters, Hagrid tells Harry that he saw Snape and Dumbledore at the edge of the Forbidden Forest having an argument and Snape saying in a sense 'I can't do it, I want out'. Dumbledore KNEW that Snape was held under the unbreakable vow to 'do what Draco cannot'. Someone that powerful knowing what was in store would DEFINITELY have a plan. Call me crazy, but I think the argument was Snape telling Dumbledore about the vow and he didn't want to have to die if he broke the curse, and he didn't want to kill Dumbledore, yet if he didn't he would die. Snape and Dumbledore know Draco is still a child and knew that he would not be able to kill Dumbledore, also that if someone else besides Snape did it, Snape would die for breaking the vow. This shows me that if Dumbledore is the 'greatest wizard of the age' he would not so easily let Snape, or himself, die. ~Amanda From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 23 20:45:53 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:45:53 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. In-Reply-To: <002601c607c4$f5083ca0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145282 > Sherry now: > > I'm quite sure I said this long ago, in response to the question of what > should Snape have done. But if I did, it was probably in the immediate post > HBP deluge. so, here i go again. > > DDM Snape people, ask what should Snape have done. if he didn't kill DD, > and the effects of the UV kick in, then the death eaters would have killed > Dumbledore, Harry would have jumped into the fray and been killed; death > eaters would have overrun the school. I ask you, canon please? Do we > indeed *know* that is what would have happened? Pippin: We can't know. But if we couldn't know, then Snape couldn't either. Snape hasn't been there to see whether Dumbledore is getting stronger or weaker. All he can see is that Dumbledore is wandless, looking terrible, too weak to stand upright, too weak to do anything, apparently, but plead...for what? I can't say. But I do know that in every ethical system I'm familiar with (okay, not a lot) a person has the right to ask that no heroic measures be taken to prolong his life, and such a request should be respected. We're more used to think of "heroic measures" as artificial life support or experimental drugs. But in JKR's world things tend to be more literal than that. >From what you've said, you don't like that Harry or DDM!Snape would have to let Dumbledore go. How could they live with it? But in real life, rescuers *are* in that position all the time. If policemen or firemen or doctors fell apart every time they couldn't save someone, they couldn't do their jobs at all. Dumbledore is a great, wise and kindly wizard, but he does not believe that he has the power to defeat Voldemort. He believes that Harry has that power. The horcruxes are guarded by terrible curses which Dumbledore does not have the power to overcome. He believes that Snape has that power. So, if one of the three must die, whom would Dumbledore choose to sacrifice? Speaking more generally about the Vow, I think it may be like the prophecy in more ways than one. Not only is the specific wording important, I think it may be more important for what Voldemort *thinks* it will do than for what it actually does. Snape is bound to watch over Draco as he attempts to fulfill the Dark Lord's wishes. If he hadn't taken the vow, would DDM!Snape still want do this? Yes. Snape is bound, to the best of his ability, to protect Draco from harm. If he hadn't taken the vow, would DDM!Snape still want do this? Yes. Snape is bound, should it prove necessary, if it seems Draco will fail, to carry out the task the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform. It does not seem that DDM!Snape would *explain* as Neri puts it, why Snape would take an oath that binds him to betray Dumbledore. But let's state that provision another way. Snape is bound, should it prove necessary, if it seems Draco will fail, to die rather than betray Dumbledore. DDM!Snape would also choose to do this, would he not? Now Snape isn't dead, despite the fact that Draco seemed to fail, so it seems that Snape didn't do what the vow asked. This is what Voldemort would believe, certainly. But this is where the wording comes in. There are *two* tests: Should it prove necessary If it seems Draco will fail It's a nice little problem in Boolean algebra, a logic puzzle like the potions obstacle in SS/PS. We don't know the conditions under which the first variable 'necessary' is true. We also don't know the relationship between the two tests. Is it logical AND or OR? Do both conditions have to be true, or is it enough if one of them is? Since we don't know that, we don't know whether Snape isn't dead because he kept the vow, or because the conditions under which he would have to keep the vow or die weren't fulfilled. But why would DDM!Snape take the oath at all? Let's suppose that Narcissa was right and Voldemort told Snape something about the plan. As we saw, Draco would not be able to carry out his tasks without drawing Snape's attention, and in the absence of instructions from Voldemort, Snape, would assume that unworthy Draco was trying to do something on his own, just as he said he did with Quirrell. So Voldemort has to tell Snape what he needs to know: Draco is carrying out a task for me at Hogwarts and you are not to interfere. To which Snape, of whatever flavor, would naturally ask, Why him and not me? To which Voldemort apparently said, I expect you'll have to do it eventually, but I need you in your useful role as spy. And Snape would say, But, master, Draco has a way of drawing attention to himself. Dumbledore will notice if I'm not doing my job. And Voldemort would say that if Draco blunders *that* obviously, Snape need not concern himself with the consequences. Snape (and Dumbledore, if Snape is DDM!Snape) would thus know that there is a plan, and that any obvious interference with it will cost Draco his life. But they won't know what the plan is. They might think, for example, that the plan might be for Draco to steal something that could be used as a horcrux. There is canon for that, in that the students are searched on their way *to* Hogsmeade. So Snape would not necessarily think that Draco has been asked to kill anyone when he offers to help Draco. In the brouhaha over why Snape would take the vow, it's not noticed, I think, that it is Snape who first offers to help Draco. Once he's done that, how can he refuse to take the vow without exposing himself as insincere? ESE!Snape or OFH!Snape would be okay with that, because either of them would be perfectly happy for Draco to fail in his task. If either of them had the hots for Narcissa, they might want her to think they'd help save Draco, but they'd want a token of her affections *before* agreeing to take the vow. Only DDM!Snape *explains* why Snape would take the vow and ask nothing in return. Pippin From latha272 at indiatimes.com Fri Dec 23 08:34:08 2005 From: latha272 at indiatimes.com (scamjunk22) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 08:34:08 -0000 Subject: DD's reason for trusting Snape (Re: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145283 > Neri asks: > DDM too requires an explanation why Dumbledore refused to > give his reasons to trust Snape. What's the DDM explanation? > SSSusan: > Well, one possibility is LOLLIPOPS. IOW, when DD > considered telling Harry the reason in HBP... paused... but > elected not to... it might have been that he believed the > revelation simply too personal. > > Given the relationship between Snape & Harry, the degree of > animosity already present, and all that Harry blames Snape for, > how would Harry likely react to the news that DD trusted Snape > because he had turned back to DD when he realized Lily was in > danger and wanted to protect her? If DD knew > he was dying or likely would die soon, and if he hoped that > somehow Snape & Harry would be able to set aside their dislike > and loathing and work together, would he risk a revelation that > might make that even LESS likely than it already was? Scam: Just butting in here .... but am I reading this wrong or is it just that we all have assumed up to this point that the reason DD has given HP for trusting SS is untrue??? Because, I am counting myself out of the set that thinks this (from this point onwards) only for the simple reason that DD has "NEVER" told an outright lie to HP. When he has felt the need to withhold info, he has told HP that this is not the time for this particular knowledge. If he wanted to mislead HP, he could have done so on so many occasions. Told him that Snape actually loves him, but can't show it or some such crap. I NOW feel that DD has definitely given the exact reason for Snape's turnback .... not that I believe it to be a strong enough reason for somebody like Snapey ... but it sure is a reason which would change DD's opinion of a person!!! DD is that kind of a person, giving second chances where none is permissible, allowing leeway where others would have held back. And I feel that this *trust* has let him down a couple of times and still he continues it in the belief that a little more love in the world wouldn't hurt -- and so he practices love and forgiveness where others wouldn't care a damn. For DD alone knows that it is love that LV has never known in his life. And another note: And it is love that will defeat him -- for LV thinks that love makes a person weak. It leads to other weaknesses like attachment. And this is something LV takes advantage of. But, we also do see that it is HP's love for his parents, DD, friends and other magical creatures that is his strong AND weak point. Weak point because it provides LV a bridge into HP's heart .... to make him do things which he might not do for other reasons ....... what if LV says -- perform an unforgivable curse to save Ginny or something like that? Where DD says, it is love that would protect him from the dark side, it is the same love that might make him do dark things too? So what does this prove? Scam -- too confused with her current thoughts to continue on this note! From babyhrndz at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 19:37:33 2005 From: babyhrndz at yahoo.com (Amanda Shoffner) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 11:37:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dumbledore and Draco on the Tower (WAS Re: Peter's basic .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051223193733.72055.qmail@web30811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145284 > zgirnius: > > His last word were: "Severus, please...". And thus could > > have been about almost anything. We do know that immediately > > after he uttered these words, Snape cast an Avada Kedavra, > > apparently killing Dumbledore, and then removed Draco from > > the scene... a_svirn: > Yes, it was a bit overconfident. Yet, the chances of these > famous last words to be about Draco are rather slim. Per his convo with Snape by the forest, I agree, it was all planned. DD may have not known the date/time, but he know what he wanted to do. If you want to IM me, you can. "babyhrndz" From ldorman at researchbydesign.com Fri Dec 23 20:29:30 2005 From: ldorman at researchbydesign.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:29:30 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? Karmic justice and literary devices Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145285 Like many others, I was struck by the parallels between Harry's reaction to feeding Dumbledore the potion and Snape's reaction to AK'ing the Headmaster. Looking at the hypothesis that Harry killed (or contributed to the death of) Dumbledore with the green poison, it seems to me that JKR's intent is to show how very similar Harry and Snape really are. I'm coming from the DDM!Snape POV. If Snape is to be of any use to Harry in Book 7, they will have to reconcile somehow, at least to the point where they can talk. Harry has to have a basis to understand Snape's action. What better basis than to realize how close he himself (Harry that is) came to killing Dumbledore simply because Dumbledore asked him for his word and he willingly gave it. This situation gives Harry the ability to understand and ultimately forgive Snape for killing Dumbledore. (Whether Snape actually killed Dumbledore or not is irrelevant to my argument right here - the crux of the matter is that Harry believes Snape killed Dumbledore.) If Harry in any way contributed to to Dumbledore's death, it makes the lines between good and evil just a little more blurry and, in my opinion, more realistic. Yes, Harry is a good person and acted in good faith in the cave. But perhaps his actions result in something he wants no part of. The way out is for Harry to forgive Snape and, if he is to live with himself, to forgive himself. I think that is where JKR is leading us. "kibakianakaya" From coverton at netscape.com Fri Dec 23 20:41:36 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 14:41:36 -0600 Subject: Rita Skeeter Message-ID: <000001c60801$4bbe25a0$c5aa8dac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145286 Hi list members, Corey again. Why I think Rita Skeeter might just be in book 7: 1. 'Cause she can't stay a beetle for ever. 2. 'Cause I think some people miss her. 3. And after all she has to write the truth now, doesn't she or she gets found out as an Animagus. 4. The last reason I think she'll come back is cause she likes writing stories and she'd have plenty to write about the MoM's ineptitude. Your fellow list member, Corey From papa at marvels.org Fri Dec 23 20:42:48 2005 From: papa at marvels.org (Ralph Miller) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 15:42:48 -0500 Subject: red herring In-Reply-To: <002901c607e9$ced4ba20$dc075804@youryk5cbmeeo8> Message-ID: <42FD9694000330F3@mta11.wss.scd.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145287 Corey: "What did you mean by a red herring?" Martha: >> I think the term "red herring" means a story or event deliberately set up to distract attention away something else. For example, we were all made to believe that Snape was after the stone in the first book, when the perpetrator was actually Quirrell. Setting up all the suspicion about Snape was a "red herring", to distract us from other suspects. I have no idea where the phrase comes from! << RM: You are correct. According to the "Fallacy Files": The name of this fallacy comes from the sport of fox hunting in which a dried, smoked herring, which is red in color, is dragged across the trail of the fox to throw the hounds off the scent. Thus, a "red herring" argument is one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy. This frequently occurs during debates when there is an at least implicit topic, yet it is easy to lose track of it. By extension, it applies to any argument in which the premisses are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Dec 23 21:42:19 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:42:19 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. In-Reply-To: <002601c607c4$f5083ca0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145288 h2so3f" wrote: > If the UV kicks in the moment Snape > turns his wand on the DEs to refuse > to complete the UV (complete Draco's > mission) it is very possible Snape'd > just drop dead then and there. And if that happened the fault would be 100% Snape's for making that idiotic vow in the first place. There is no way that vow can excuse Snape's despicable actions, he's the one who made it! > I'd say the worse thing Snape could > have done is to not only kill DD, > but also doing in Harry as well. Irrelevant, Snape had no way of knowing Harry was anywhere in the vicinity. > Or if he dies defending DD (who then > dies anyway, having no wand and > no cure for the cave potion) Irrelevant, Snape had no way of knowing (nor do we) if Dumbledore was dieing or not, or if Dumbledore took the potion, or that that potion even existed, or that the cave existed for that matter. > It is easy to romanticize a dashing > heroic act like Snape dropping dead > from the UV If that had happened it would not be dashing heroic or romantic, it would be squalid. Snape would still be a brainless fool for making that vow and thus it would still be a humiliating way to die, but it would be less dishonorable than murdering Dumbledore. > Even if LV did order him not to kill > Harry, Snape could have probably > getaway with doing so since Harry > was forcing a fight If Snape had killed Harry (assuming he wanted to and he did not) Snape would be dead meat, no question. It's not difficult to figure out why Voldemort gave strict orders for his Death Eaters NOT to kill Harry. Voldemort tried to kill Harry 5 times and failed 5 times, if Snape had managed to kill Harry where his master had failed people might start to say "why should I follow Voldemort, I'll follow Snape instead". I don't think Voldemort would like that much. Voldemort would get medieval on Snape's ass. spotsgal" wrote: > The key question for me isn't why Snape > killed Dumbledore- it's why Snape took > the UV in the first place. In my mind, > everybody (ESE, DDM, and OFH) needs to > explain why Snape took it, because none > of the three options affords an > obvious explanation If would make perfect sense for Snape to make that vow if he was only vowing to do what he already had every intention of doing anyway; kill Dumbledore. In fact he may have only been repeating a vow he had already made to Voldemort. I believe Snape made another unbreakable vow 15 years ago to Dumbledore and that's why Dumbledore trusted him; Snape vowed to do everything he could to protect the life of Harry Potter. Snape wants to be the greatest wizard in the world but 2 wizards stand in his way. One of them is Dumbledore and that's why it was so easy for him to vow to kill him. The other wizard is Voldemort. Snape is one of only two people who have heard the ENTIRE prophesy, although he only told Voldemort the first half. Snape knows Harry is the only one who has a chance of killing Voldemort so he is determined to protect him until he can accomplish that mission. It seems to me that if you are determined to make Snape a good guy you must also accept that the man is also a moron who makes Hagrid look like Einstein. However if Snape is a very smart guy as I think he is then the above theory is the only one I can think of that fits the facts. Snape is out for himself, for 15 years both Dumbledore and Voldemort thought Snape was a spy working for them, and both were wrong. Eggplant From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Dec 23 21:18:36 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:18:36 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] DD's reason for trusting Snape (Re: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory) References: Message-ID: <014f01c60806$76921930$3361400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 145289 > Scam: > > Just butting in here .... but am I reading this wrong or is it > just that we all have assumed up to this point that the reason > DD has given HP for trusting SS is untrue??? Magpie: Dumbledore has refused to give Harry his reason for trusting Snape. He told him that Snape had remorse for giving Voldemort the prophecy when he found out how LV had interpreted it and Harry leapt to the conclusion that DD trusts Snape on the strength of Snape seeming to feel really bad about giving LV the prophecy, but DD never gave him the reason. Snape himself offers this same reason to Bellatrix (he says he spun DD a tale of remorse and DD fell for it) but we actually don't know what really happened to make DD feel like he can trust Snape absolutely. Harry also asks DD this question in GoF and Dumbledore says his reasons for trusting Snape are between himself and Snape. He's never lied about it, but he's also never revealed it to anyone as far as we know. -m From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 22:00:40 2005 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:00:40 -0000 Subject: The Needs of Snape's Redemption (was Re: Heroes or not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145290 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "susanbones2003" wrote: > > > > > I do not believe you are going to be satisfied with the outcome of > the final book and just how are you going to punish JKR if she > doesn't set Snape up to apoligize to Harry? In all probability your > scenario is not going to happen. Chuckle. I'm not going to punish her at all. I'll just think, and say very loudly, that she has committed a moral abomination and that I think she is an extremely poor writer, indeed. Won't hurt her at all. But I'll do it anyway, because IMO it will be exactly the right thing to do. What about Umbridge? Has she paid enough for her sins against > Harry? The Dursleys? Spend some time looking at all the various and > sundry injustices and spread the anger and blame. > Ah, but I don't think JKR is through with Umbridge. In fact, she has told us that she isn't. And I don't think she's through with the Dursleys, either. There are many more revelations to come on that front, and I would be very suprised if some of them are not very devestating for Petunia in particular. Lupinlore From babyhrndz at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 21:42:55 2005 From: babyhrndz at yahoo.com (Amanda Shoffner) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 13:42:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Rita Skeeter In-Reply-To: <000001c60801$4bbe25a0$c5aa8dac@Overton> Message-ID: <20051223214255.5867.qmail@web30810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145291 Corey wrote: > Why I think Rita Skeeter might just be in book 7: > > 1. 'Cause she can't stay a beetle for ever. > > 3. And after all she has to write the truth now, doesn't > she or she gets found out as an Animagus. I think Hermione will let her loose in the end...Hermione isn't the type to keep someone like that forever. I think Hermione will just say that certain topics are off limits and to curb her pen. babyhrndz From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 22:26:44 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:26:44 -0000 Subject: The Twins / Weasleys / Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145292 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > I was unclear, sorry. I'm talking about the Christmas gnome: > > > > > > "Fred, George, Harry, and Ron were the only ones who knew that > > > the angel on top of the tree was actually a garden gnome that > > > had bitten Fred on the ankle ..." (HBP p.329-330) > > > > > > It struck me as a rather involved and sadistic sort of revenge > > > ... > >>Gerry > > I agree, it made me feel really uncomfortable too. Bit if you > > want to make Fred and George sadistic people because of this, > > then so are Harry and Ron, because they do nothing to prevent > > it or to excgange the gnome for the real angel. Betsy Hp: I think for me it's that the twins were the ones to come up with the gnome punishment. I don't think that sort of idea would have occured to either Ron or Harry on their own. Though I also think the twins are a bit of a bad influence on them. It's interesting because if it hadn't been the twins, if say Harry had heard that the Slytherin Christmas tree angel was a frozen gnome, I think he'd have had no problem seeing the wrong in it. But since it the twins, and they're jolly lads, it's all good. I think Ron's verbal cruelty springs from the example his brothers set as well. And by teasing Moaning Myrtle as much as he did when she first mentioned a boy crying in the bathroom, Ron keeps Harry from questioning her further and finding out about Malfoy in a less confrontational manner. I like Ron, but Luna is right: sometimes he's funny, but sometimes he's just cruel. And I think he gets it from the twins, myself. > >>bboyminn: > Well, I have to admit that the Angel/Gnome incident made me cringe > too, but for my own warped twisted thoughts more than the Twins > actions. The minute I read that, my thoughts went to the method of > securing the gnome to the tree accompanied by very unpleasant > visions involving 'body cavities'. > > The Twins certainly engage in some childishly cruel activities, > and I certainly don't approve of the way the are treating Percy, > but really, have they actually done anyone any harm? > Betsy Hp: Lasting harm? Well, the puffskein is certainly dead, and Ron still has an unhealthy fear of spiders to this day. Percy has left the Weasley household, though we're not sure if it's for good. It's not lasting harm, but both Katie and Montague had to go the hospital wing after the twins got done with them. And Draco was certainly bruised and battered after George (and Harry) were done with him. And I'm not sure how healthy it is for any creature to withstand being stupified for a long period of time. You brought up the ton-tongue incident, and I think there *is* a lasting effect there. Arthur tried to point it out, but the twins have such little respect for their father they didn't listen, and Molly was very quick to stomp all over Arthur's point. There is a tension between wizards and muggles. The Dursleys hate wizards, think they're untrustworthy and dangerous. The twins proved their fears beautifully. And the twins also showed that they have no worries about attacking someone so much weaker than them. Actually, that seems to be their usual M.O. At least, IMO. Betsy Hp From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 23 22:26:35 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:26:35 -0000 Subject: Translations of HBP - how the names are translated In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145293 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Geoff: > > Weston-Super-Mare is a large coastal resort on the west coast of > > North Somerset facing down the Bristol Channel. It is rather a > > pretentious name, derived from the Latin for Weston-on-Sea!!! > > Carol: > Wouldn't that be Weston-above-the-Sea? (Even more pretentious, I guess.) Geoff: "Super", in Latin copes with above, on and over. Interestingly, in the UK, most coastal towns with this sort of suffix are -on-sea, e.g Southend-on-sea, Burnham-on-sea etc. Upon is usually reserved for a town on a river, e.g Burton-upon-Trent, Kingston-upon-Thames although these sometimes get abbreviated to -on-. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 23 22:32:09 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:32:09 -0000 Subject: red herring In-Reply-To: <42FD9694000330F3@mta11.wss.scd.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145294 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ralph Miller" wrote: > > Corey: > "What did you mean by a red herring?" > > Martha: > >> I think the term "red herring" means a story or event > deliberately set up to distract attention away something else. > For example, we were all made to believe that Snape was after > the stone in the first book, when the perpetrator was actually > Quirrell. Setting up all the suspicion about Snape was a "red > herring", to distract us from other suspects. I have no idea > where the phrase comes from! << > > > RM: > You are correct. According to the "Fallacy Files": > The name of this fallacy comes from the sport of fox hunting in > which a dried, smoked herring, which is red in color, is dragged > across the trail of the fox to throw the hounds off the scent. Geoff: Another phrase which covers this question of tricking people into believing the wrong things is "to pull the wool over someone's eyes." From babyhrndz at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 22:00:24 2005 From: babyhrndz at yahoo.com (Amanda Shoffner) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 14:00:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051223220024.66426.qmail@web30812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145295 spotsgal" wrote: > The key question for me isn't why Snape > killed Dumbledore- it's why Snape took > the UV in the first place. In my mind, > everybody (ESE, DDM, and OFH) needs to > explain why Snape took it, because none > of the three options affords an > obvious explanation. Eggplant: > If would make perfect sense for Snape to make that vow if > he was only vowing to do what he already had every intention > of doing anyway; kill Dumbledore. In fact he may have only > been repeating a vow he had already made to Voldemort. If all of this is true, then why the argument with SS & DD where SS tells DD he wants out? Hagrid tells Harry that he saw Snape and Dumbledore at the edge of the Forbidden Forest having an argument and Snape saying in a sense 'I can't do it, I want out'. Dumbledore KNEW that Snape was held under the unbreakable vow to 'do what Draco cannot'. Someone that powerful knowing what was in store would DEFINITELY have a plan. Call me crazy, but I think the argument was Snape telling Dumbledore about the vow and he didn't want to have to die if he broke the curse, and he didn't want to kill Dumbledore, yet if he didn't he would die. Snape and Dumbledore know Draco is still a teen and knew that he would not be able to kill Dumbledore, also that if someone else besides Snape did it, Snape would die for breaking the vow. Who do you think DD would want to go down on record as being killed by, SS/Draco? Also, DD knows EVERY detail that goes on at Hogwarts, he knew every step the students take, how could he miss Draco dissappearing SO many times and not know what was going on? I think he even had SS asking questions, like when HP was listening in on them and told DD 'hey, SS is bad' and in turn DD saying 'SS is trustworthy' I think it was ALL PLANNED! "babyhrndz" From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Fri Dec 23 22:35:32 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:35:32 +0100 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done? References: Message-ID: <011801c60811$30336a60$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 145296 Ceridwen wrote: > Which explains the Tower for me just fine, thanks. The minute Snape > is informed that Draco cannot/will not kill Dumbledore, then *Snape* > must. The UV kicks in. Hate and revulsion on his face, because he > has no choice, he cannot stop. Miles: Nice theory, thanks. But there is one thing you cannot explain - what is Dumbledore pleading for? For his life? Completely OOC, if you ask me. So, if Snape has only one choice, there is nothing Dumbledore could ask or plead him to do or not to do. Assuming DDM!Snape, Dumbledore knew about the vow. You really have a problem apart from this. You have canon for "the UV will kill you, when you break it". I agree, it is questionable because of Ron. But you have absolutely no canon for your own interpretation of "unbreakable". And no, your examples for curses and jinxes that limit choice are no canon for your theory. As we all know, there is no recognisable "theory" behind Rowling's magic. I'm afraid she never made anything like that, there are simply potions, curses and other kinds of magic, but you cannot say "this is possible, so according to magical logic and theory that has to be possible as well". No, that is not Rowling, not Potterverse. Your idea is possible, but not probable. And it lacks the explanation for Dumbledore's pleading, that the "UV kills you" variation provides. So - south korean theory ;). Miles From babyhrndz at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 22:18:42 2005 From: babyhrndz at yahoo.com (Amanda Shoffner) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 14:18:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: DD's reason for trusting Snape (Re: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory) In-Reply-To: <014f01c60806$76921930$3361400c@Spot> Message-ID: <20051223221842.19183.qmail@web30810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145297 Magpie: > Dumbledore has refused to give Harry his reason for trusting > Snape. He told him that Snape had remorse for giving Voldemort > the prophecy when he found out how LV had interpreted it and > Harry leapt to the conclusion that DD trusts Snape on the > strength of Snape seeming to feel really bad about giving LV > the prophecy, but DD never gave him the reason. I agree that we do not know what is going on between SS and DD. I personally believe that there might have been an unbreakable vow between SS and DD, in GoF with the pensieve, DD states to Crouch and the 'court' that he has not only said, but PROVEN to them that SS is trustworthy. "babyhrndz" From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 22:46:10 2005 From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (laurie goudge) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 14:46:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Surprise ending? WAS: Last book, Harry not surviving In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051223224610.99107.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145298 --- allies426 wrote: > I've thought of that too, but I can't figure how is > Neville marked > as Voldemort's equal and what is the power that the > dark lord knows > not? (The power of Herbology and the Mimbulus > Mimbletonia!) > it's called irony. it'd be ironic IF neville and NOT the chosen one nailed LV. for me it'd be great to see someone else come out of left field and kill LV laurie __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 22:50:36 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:50:36 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Draco on the Tower (WAS Re: Peter's basic .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145299 > >>zgirnius: > > Yes, but Dumbledore pretty deliberately put himself in that > > position. > > I think it was precisely in order to be able to say his piece. > > Harry able to move around would certainly have interfered in > > some way (even just knowing Harry was there would affect Draco). > > And, armed, Dumbledore could not prove his point to Draco. > > Because there are any number of reasons Draco might hesitate to > > try and kill an armed Dumbledore. > >>a_svirn: > Sorry, but it doesn't sound very convincing. According to you > Dumbledore effectively sacrificed his life in order to "prove his > point to Draco". The suggestion is simply to fantastical for me to > accept. Betsy Hp: It *is* fantastical. But it is also the foundation of Christianity. Dumbledore gave his life to save the soul of a child. I happen to think Dumbledore was already dying, so I'm not saying Dumbledore *is* Christ. But he certainly behaves in a very Christ-like way. I really liked what Mari had to say about this scene, particularly this part here: > >>Mari: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/145237 > > The real opportunity for mercy does indeed lie with Dumbledore. > Dumbledore could disarm, disable or stun Draco. Here we come to the > second specific element of mercy as I believe JKR is trying to > define it; when it is offered, mercy, like grace, can be rejected. > Betsy Hp: This is the sort of behavior Voldemort will never understand. Draco is a worthless child, not even a qualified wizard yet; Dumbledore is arguably the most powerful wizard in the WW. And yet Dumbledore wastes the last of his strength on this child. I think it's because Dumbledore sees worth in every person, and he values something much higher than his own life. Ultimately Dumbledore expressed an incredibly high level of love on that Tower. I'm quite confident his actions there will end up helping in the defeat of Voldemort. At least if JKR plans on being consistant with her stated theme. Betsy Hp From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Fri Dec 23 22:54:45 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:54:45 +0100 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) References: Message-ID: <012401c60813$df1230f0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 145300 nrenka wrote: > I find that right of Harry's to know *why* he should trust someone > more compelling than Snape's right to keep his secrets, particularly > because Harry is, frankly, also more important in the long run to > actually fight Voldemort--and this knowledge may help him. Miles: I agree he should know in order to share Dumbledore's trust. It's obviously important we don't know it and Harry does not. In the story itself, I belief the problem is Harry's incompetence in occlumency. We saw several confrontations between Harry and Voldemort. In every single one, Voldemort could have "seen" something according Severus Snape. Assuming, that the reason is not only convincing for Dumbledore, but for all other people who know about it, Voldemort himself would believe it and turn against Snape. That would be enough reason to make it a secret - telling nobody means nobody knows, so nobody can tell Voldemort. The other reason we don't know it is as obvious. If we, the readers, knew about why Dumbledore trusts Snape, we probably would not discuss ESE, OFH or DDM!Snape. We would know. Miles From rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu Fri Dec 23 22:53:55 2005 From: rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu (susanbones2003) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:53:55 -0000 Subject: The Needs of Snape's Redemption (was Re: Heroes or not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145301 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: >> > Ah, but I don't think JKR is through with Umbridge. In fact, she > has told us that she isn't. And I don't think she's through with > the Dursleys, either. There are many more revelations to come on > that front, and I would be very suprised if some of them are not > very devestating for Petunia in particular. > > > Lupinlore > You warm my heart. I feared you only sought vigilante justice for Snape and would pooh-pooh my reminder that lots of people have sinned against Harry and many owe him something. Doubtless Snape enjoys a special place of honor or ignominy, depending on how you read him. And I will be looking for your proclamation of abomination with glee! Jen D From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 23:31:56 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:31:56 -0000 Subject: Does Snape hate Harry? (was:Re: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145302 > >>Neri: > > What Faith neglected to clarify (always blame the personification, > that's my motto ) is the way she was using the term "explain". > You see, the way Faith and I were using it, there's a big > difference between a statement like "Theory A *explains* canon > fact B" and (as you wrote above regarding DDM) "Theory A *allows* > for canon fact B". The second statement is almost always true if > you are creative enough. Betsy Hp: Faith sure is one smart chick. (Or should credit go to the author? ) This is beautifully concise way to weigh the strength of various theories. > >>Neri: > > Now, after this long clarification of terms, let's go back to > Snape's hatred for Harry. A basic assumption of DDM is that > Snape's remorse about his part in the death of James and/or Lily > is genuine. Even more than genuine, it is so strong that even > today, 15 years later, DDM!Snape constantly risks himself and, as > Pippin put it, would sacrifice his life for Dumbledore's cause. > Such Choices would show the present day DDM!Snape to be an > extremely moral person, despite his past mistakes that he now > deeply regrets. Such a moral person don't "just hate" an innocent > 11 years old kid. Most surely not the orphan of the very parents > that that moral person feels such remorse about. If such a moral > person just can't help feeling this hate, then logically he'd be > ashamed of it and try to hide it, most especially from that kid > himself. He wouldn't revel in such hate, he wouldn't make it his > flag. He'd surely try not to allow it to hurt the very cause he's > risking everything for. IMHO, Snape's hatred for Harry doesn't > follow directly from the DDM basic assumption. Sure, DDM can allow > for it, if you are creative enough. > Betsy Hp: This is where I think I differ from a lot of folks, including the DDM!Snape people. I don't think Snape actually hates Harry. I know *Harry* is positive Snape hates him, is sure of it from the very first book. But I just don't buy it. It doesn't make sense for a grown man to hate a boy on first sight. No matter how much Harry resembles James. And Harry is generally wrong when it comes to Snape, anyway. But Harry may very well invoke a lot of guilt in Snape. Especially if he feels responsible for Harry's being an orphan. And Snape is just the sort of person to take his guilt and turn it into anger. He's not going to weep on Harry's shoulder. And he's not going to be tender. So he's incredibly, impossibly, hard on Harry. In a sense Snape is being defensive. Just as a parent will come down incredibly hard on a child who's scared the dickens out of them, Snape comes down incredibly hard on Harry and Harry defines Snape's actions as those of hate. Because you're absolutely correct, Neri. There's no explanation for DDM!Snape hating Harry. But there is an explanation for DDM!Snape to feel a whole boatload of guilt around Harry. And while I think this does fall more into the "allow" side of the scale, a guilty Snape could well act like a hating Snape, especially in Harry's eyes. (Do any of the Potterverse adults think Snape hates Harry? I think McGonagall or Lupin or even Dumbledore would have a pretty good idea of Snape's views towards Harry.) Betsy Hp From orchid_waves at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 23:15:49 2005 From: orchid_waves at yahoo.com (orchid_waves at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 15:15:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051223231549.38319.qmail@web36306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145303 --- eggplant107 wrote: > Snape is out for himself, for 15 years both Dumbledore and > Voldemort thought Snape was a spy working for them, and both > were wrong. This is the first Snape theory that I've read that makes sense to me. Almost everyone else wants Snape to either be a hero or a villain along the monumental lines of Greek tragedy. Why does that need to be so? Snape may have been playing two ends against the middle all along -- "The Dark Lord's" man when that serves his purposes, and Dumbledore's when that is the best thing -- for Snape. Ethics and morality don't enter into it. To Snape, killing Dumbledore was part mercy killing (after Harry fed him the potion -- at least that would be his self-justification,) and part means to an end. Now Voldamort will trust him absolutely, but don't expect Snape to be a loyal butt-kisser to "The Dark Lord," either. Anyone who stands in Snape's way is likely to get a figurative knife in the back -- or wand. Snape has always wanted power -- power and control and admiring throngs of wizards and witches falling all over themselves to worship him. Most people who have been abused as youngsters by their own peer group fantasize about revenge and making "them" all sorry. Dumbledore's death brought him that much closer to his goal, and killing Voldamort would bring him the rest of the way -- or so he thinks. Why didn't he kill Harry? Why should he? Apart from Voldamort's orders that Harry not be killed by the DEs, Harry was about as dangerous to Snape at that moment as a newborn infant. He couldn't even defend himself, let alone do serious damage to Snape. Snape played with him just as Harry's father played with Snape years before. The fact is, Snape's getting rid of Voldamort is what we WANT. He will do the dirty work just to get a competitor out of the picture -- but Harry will then have to kill Snape or risk an even worse monster than Voldamort rising in power. Rita (but not Skeeter) and new to the list... From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Sat Dec 24 00:09:33 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:09:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Horcrux Dumbledore? Message-ID: <20051224000933.13850.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145304 For the past few weeks I had been reading HP to my little cousin (she's 11). She loves Harry Potter but she hates to read, so I've read her the entire series. Anyway, right after we had finished reading HBP I asked about her opinions. Since she hasn't thought about the whole thing as much as we have, maybe she's right. So, she believes that Dumbledore had to die in order for Voldemort to die, when I asked her why she thought of that she replied that maybe Dumbledore is a Horcrux... It got me thinking. We have no idea (other than theories) about what Ravenclaw's item may be, so what if Dumbledore is a descendant of her? I know he's a Gryffindor, but he does posses some Ravenclaw traits (he's the smartest person "alive"). Let's say that somehow (I haven't a clue of how), LV placed a Horcrux in Dumbledore, so he had to be killed before Voldie dies. It does make a bit of sense. Who is the person least likely to be killed? Just the greatest wizard of the time, sure he may be a bit old, but he's still got strength in him. I know it's a bit far fetched, but what do you guys think? Perhaps she's onto something... Juli Aol: jlnbtr Yahoo: jlnbtr --------------------------------- Yahoo! Photos Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sat Dec 24 00:14:04 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 00:14:04 -0000 Subject: Does Snape hate Harry? (was:Re: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145305 > Betsy Hp: > Because you're absolutely correct, Neri. There's no explanation for > DDM!Snape hating Harry. But there is an explanation for DDM!Snape > to feel a whole boatload of guilt around Harry. And while I think > this does fall more into the "allow" side of the scale, a guilty > Snape could well act like a hating Snape, especially in Harry's > eyes. (Do any of the Potterverse adults think Snape hates Harry? I > think McGonagall or Lupin or even Dumbledore would have a pretty > good idea of Snape's views towards Harry.) Amiable Dorsai: If so, Lupin missed a teaching moment (or was uncharacteristically bad at communicating) in HBP. Do you not think that a profound and protracted sense of guilt could eventually inspire resentment, and even hatred? Particularly with all the other emotional baggage (including hatred for Harry's father James, and for Harry's champion, Sirius) that Snape carries around? Amiable Dorsai From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Dec 24 00:50:17 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 00:50:17 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done? In-Reply-To: <011801c60811$30336a60$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145306 Miles: > Nice theory, thanks. > But there is one thing you cannot explain - what is Dumbledore pleading for? > For his life? Completely OOC, if you ask me. > So, if Snape has only one choice, there is nothing Dumbledore could ask or > plead him to do or not to do. Assuming DDM!Snape, Dumbledore knew about the > vow. Ceridwen: You're welcome. Anything to tickle the fancy. I don't think Dumbledore would plead for his life. You're right, completely OOC. Dumbledore's already stated that to the well- organized mind, death is the next great adventure. But, does Dumbledore have to be pleading for anything connected directy and at that moment to the Tower? There's nothing in canon to back that up. Dumbledore changes from a conversational tone to sudden and frail pleading the minute Snape shows up. The change was so noteworthy that Harry's blood runs cold, or somesuch phrase. It was attention-getting. But, why would he have had to plead for his life, for his death, for Snape to save Harry, Draco, the Order members fighting downstairs, or Hogwarts? He could have been *merely* trying to get Snape's attention. It could have been about anything that had been discussed privately before. It could have been about their conversation in the forest, if that topic kept coming up all year between them, though we only have canon for the one time, and then only a partial conversation. It could have been a reminder for anything. Dumbledore never says. He obviously wants Snape's attention, and he obviously, IMO, feels that he can drop the strong act now and show how weak he has become. Aside from that, we don't know squat about why he did it. Dumbledore can't say, and Snape isn't saying. Miles: > You really have a problem apart from this. You have canon for "the UV will > kill you, when you break it". I agree, it is questionable because of Ron. > But you have absolutely no canon for your own interpretation of > "unbreakable". And no, your examples for curses and jinxes that limit choice > are no canon for your theory. As we all know, there is no recognisable > "theory" behind Rowling's magic. I'm afraid she never made anything like > that, there are simply potions, curses and other kinds of magic, but you > cannot say "this is possible, so according to magical logic and theory that > has to be possible as well". No, that is not Rowling, not Potterverse. Ceridwen: As far as I can see, JKR uses words in a competent manner. When she says Dumbledore's beard is white, it isn't brown. When she makes up names for spells, those names have something to do with what the spell, curse, charm, hex, jinx, whatever, does. She uses words creatively as well, and uses puns. When she says a location is 'Unplottable', it is. When JKR names a vow 'Unbreakable', it probably is. IMO, but then, I do have the dictionary to back me up, and JKR's consistent use of language. Miles: > Your idea is possible, but not probable. And it lacks the explanation for > Dumbledore's pleading, that the "UV kills you" variation provides. So - > south korean theory ;). Ceridwen: I'm not familiar with the phrase, 'south korean theory'. Sounds interesting. Could you explain, including where it comes from? My idea is as probable as any other being floated on the board and elsewhere. And it would explain Snape's actions on the tower for all versions of Snape. Since it's only speculation that Dumbledore is pleading for Snape to do the deed, my version doesn't suffer because of that, either. There have been many explanations offered for the plea, including, Don't do it now, I have so much left to teach Harry; Don't split your soul; Sacrifice me for the good of Hogwarts; Do go into 'deep cover' with LV as we need you to do. And, in fact, if my version is correct, then that last, a plea to go deeper under cover, would be the explanation for the plea. The argument in the forest, which was only partially overheard so our minds can go into overdrive speculating on that, would then be about Snape wanting out of the spying game altogether. It's too much on his nerves, it's a strain, Dumbledore just doesn't get how hard it is. This was suggested by someone, I don't remember who. But it would neatly cover the plea as a Last Request from Dumbledore to Snape. He has been tying up loose ends throughout the book, from his visit with the Dursleys to trying to cram as many lessons in with Harry as he can, to the point of being sharp with Harry about getting Slughorn's unabridged memory. He is trying to secure his spy, who may or may not become a saboteur in this scenario as someone else suggested recently, and making it his last request. Snape would know what he means, without using Legilimency, because they would have been discussing it all along. It's that sort of topic. But, in the end, any explanation for Dumbledore's plea is pure speculation. No canon for it at all. While we all try to fit the plea into some semblance of an idea of the whole, we have *nothing* to go on but the way we interpret the rest of canon. Anyway, thanks for the chance of seeing how the various 'Last Plea' explanations fit in! Ceridwen. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Dec 24 00:51:19 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 00:51:19 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145307 Neri: > Now, after this long clarification of terms, let's go back to Snape's > hatred for Harry. A basic assumption of DDM is that Snape's remorse > about his part in the death of James and/or Lily is genuine. Even more > than genuine, it is so strong that even today, 15 years later, > DDM!Snape constantly risks himself and, as Pippin put it, would > sacrifice his life for Dumbledore's cause. Such Choices would show the > present day DDM!Snape to be an extremely moral person, despite his > past mistakes that he now deeply regrets. Such a moral person don't > "just hate" an innocent 11 years old kid. Most surely not the orphan > of the very parents that that moral person feels such remorse about. > If such a moral person just can't help feeling this hate, then > logically he'd be ashamed of it and try to hide it, most especially > from that kid himself. He wouldn't revel in such hate, he wouldn't > make it his flag. He'd surely try not to allow it to hurt the very > cause he's risking everything for. IMHO, Snape's hatred for Harry > doesn't follow directly from the DDM basic assumption. Sure, DDM can > allow for it, if you are creative enough. > Pippin: It follows directly from Dumbledore's explanation in PS/SS. "Well, they did rather detest each other. Not unlike yourself and Mr. Malfoy. And then, your father did something Snape could never forgive." "What?" "He saved his life." "*What*?" "Yes..." said Dumbledore dreamily. "Funny, the way some people's minds work, isn't it? Professor Snape couldn't bear being in your father's debt..." Snape hated James, but he hated being under obligations to James even more. Then he put himself further in debt to James by endangering James's life. Naturally Snape would regret that deeply. But it didn't stop him from hating James...why should it? Then James died, and Harry inherited both the debt and the hatred. Snape has an obligation to Harry and, according to Dumbledore, wants very much to be quit of it. But nothing in the obligation requires Snape to be considerate of Harry or like Harry or feel sorry for Harry. So he isn't and he doesn't. Think of all the people who hate their landlords or their mortgage holders, think the whole property-owning class is rotten and their children are spoiled brats who will grow up to be just the same, but are far too proud to even dream of defaulting on their payments, much less murder. Pippin From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sat Dec 24 03:23:30 2005 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:23:30 -0800 Subject: More Surprise Endings In-Reply-To: <002901c607e9$ced4ba20$dc075804@youryk5cbmeeo8> References: <002901c607e9$ced4ba20$dc075804@youryk5cbmeeo8> Message-ID: <1105689399.20051223192330@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145308 UNIX4EVR: MS> This strikes me as setting up a death / resurrection for Harry (ala MS> the lion in Narnia). MS> MS> I hope I'm wrong (I think it would be a cop-out), but given JK's MS> comment it is a distinct possiblity. I too worry about a death/resurrection scenario -- We've "been there, done that" with Aslan, and I would hope Jo gives us something more original. However, I think there may be ways she could "get away with" a figurative or symbolic "death"/"resurrection" -- For example, if Harry makes a trip beyond the Veil... and then returns. Laurie: MS> it's called irony. it'd be ironic IF neville and NOT MS> the chosen one nailed LV. for me it'd be great to see MS> someone else come out of left field and kill LV It would, IMHO, also be ironic if Harry indeed destroyed LV, but somehow it leads to the END of his fame. I had this idea that possibly Snape or even Umbridge might manage to seize credit and get to bask in the glory, while Harry "fades into obscurity" -- Which I think would suit him fine when all is said and done, but *would* be ironic. -- Dave From AllieS426 at aol.com Sat Dec 24 03:30:07 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:30:07 -0000 Subject: Surprise ending? WAS: Last book, Harry not surviving In-Reply-To: <20051223224610.99107.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145310 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, laurie goudge wrote: > > it's called irony. it'd be ironic IF neville and NOT > the chosen one nailed LV. for me it'd be great to see > someone else come out of left field and kill LV > > laurie > > Allie again: Yes, I agree, but that would render the prophecy useless, and book 5 as well. (Eh, I'm not a huge fan of book 5 anyway.) I think the prophecy will end up coming true, though maybe some interpretation of it that we would not have forseen. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 24 03:34:16 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:34:16 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145311 > Neri: > > Now, after this long clarification of terms, let's go back to Snape's > > hatred for Harry. A basic assumption of DDM is that Snape's remorse > > about his part in the death of James and/or Lily is genuine. Even more > > than genuine, it is so strong that even today, 15 years later, > > DDM!Snape constantly risks himself and, as Pippin put it, would > > sacrifice his life for Dumbledore's cause. Such Choices would show the > > present day DDM!Snape to be an extremely moral person, despite his > > past mistakes that he now deeply regrets. Such a moral person don't > > "just hate" an innocent 11 years old kid. > Pippin: > It follows directly from Dumbledore's explanation in PS/SS. > Snape hated James, but he hated being under obligations to James even > more. Then he put himself further in debt to James by endangering James's life. > Naturally Snape would regret that deeply. But it didn't stop him from hating > James...why should it? > > Then James died, and Harry inherited both the debt and the hatred. Snape has > an obligation to Harry and, according to Dumbledore, wants very much to > be quit of it. But nothing in the obligation requires Snape to be considerate of > Harry or like Harry or feel sorry for Harry. So he isn't and he doesn't. > > Think of all the people who hate their landlords or their mortgage holders, > think the whole property-owning class is rotten and their children are > spoiled brats who will grow up to be just the same, but are far too proud > to even dream of defaulting on their payments, much less murder. > Alla: Oh, but Pippin, wait a second . Neri's argument the way I understand it is that the moral person, (and Dumbledore Man!Snape is a moral person, no?) simply does not do it - does not TRANSFER the hatred to the innocent child. Do you think that DD!M Snape is loyal to the Light or loyal only to Dumbledore? Even if he is loyal to Dumbledore only, it still IMO would mean that he at least partially loyal to what Dumbledore preaches and practices and that is not IMO hating children for the sins of their parents real or imaginery. Besides, I don't think Neri argued that Moral!Snape has to like Harry ( sorry Neri if I am misinterpreting your words), but that if his REMORSE is genuine, he just cannot behave that way, it is just unrealistic IMO. Of course I am making RL comparison again, but I just cannot imagine behaving even remotely close to what Snape does ( of course the analogy is loose - as close as possible in RL) to any person I would feel guilty about something. I would try my best to MAKE UP for what that person lost because of me if it i possible of course and partially because of Snape Harry lost his parents, so wouldn't it make more sense for truly remorseful Snape treat Harry with kindness or at least without hate? Yes, yes, I know it would be out of character for Snape to behave that way, but if Snape is truly so VERY sorry, wouldn't he try to overcome his unwillingness to be kind to Harry? Instead he attacks him as viciously as possible the first day Harry starts his lessons, IMO. I am sorry, but I cannot smell remorse even from very close distance here. As a little aside to the thread in general. It is funny actually, when I read Neri's introductory TBAY in this thread and I never miss anything he writes, my first reaction was a bit unusual from what I usually feel after I read his writings. Usually he shows me the connections in canon I totally miss and I find them incredibly agreeable, so I usually think. Oh, yes, Neri is a genuis, I had not seen it before, but now I totally see it. :-) But after reading this post my first reaction was "Duh!" . Pre HBP I was always sure that Snape wants to honor his debt to James and that is why he tries to save Harry. I never felt that Snape felt that he repaid his debt for al the reasons Neri stated and what I tried to add, but after HBP with all DD!M , ESE!, OFH! I indeed started to being less focused on the Life Debt as being the reason for Snape saving Harry, because I started to think that Snape who did in his mentor is not a very honorable person, but I am totally back to LID!Snape, because indeed he could betray Dumbledore and still have Life debt to James. Regardless of what Snape ultimate loyalties are, I believe that Life Debt is the reason Snape keeps saving Harry and won't rest till he makes one spectacular rescue in book 7. I think that Life debt will not be repaid till Snape will be the only one on the scene saving Harry from Voldemort. Does it mean that I believe that Snape is loyal to Dumbledore? Not necessarily at all, he just wants to be done with Debt, IMO and then going on to bigger and "better" things. So, erm... bravo Neri for reminding me of that. :-) JMO, Alla From dossett at lds.net Sat Dec 24 03:38:14 2005 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:38:14 -0000 Subject: *When* did Dumbledore die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145312 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" > Pippin > who thinks that Fawkes's song proves Dumbledore is dead. On the > other hand, we have heard phoenix song twice when there was no phoenix > present. Once in CoS, where Fawkes's song is heard before he appears, > and once in GoF during the duel with Voldemort. > Pat: I'm listening to GOF and just passed the duel scene, and it occured to me that the phoenix song happened becuase it's Fawke's feather that's the core in both wands: the effect of making 'brother wands' duel caused the phoenix song. May be right - may be wrong (probably wrong, but it didn't seem to make sense that Fawkes would just 'appear' because the brother wands were dueling.) Thanks. Pat From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Sat Dec 24 03:39:53 2005 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:39:53 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145313 Pippin said: > But this is where > the wording comes in. > > There are *two* tests: > Should it prove necessary > If it seems Draco will fail > > It's a nice little problem in Boolean algebra, a logic > puzzle like the potions obstacle in SS/PS. > > We don't know the conditions under which the first variable 'necessary' > is true. We also don't know the relationship between the > two tests. Is it logical AND or OR? Do both conditions > have to be true, or is it enough if one of them is? > > Since we don't know that, we don't know whether Snape isn't > dead because he kept the vow, or because the conditions > under which he would have to keep the vow or die weren't fulfilled. > CV: There is actually another problem with the nice little boolean algebra. There is no time limit stated in the vow. If he had vowed instead "I promise I will not kill Dumbledore" and then he did it, it would be a broken vow and he would have to suffer the consequences. But his vow was more along the lines of "I promise I will kill Dumbledore" (simplifying the vow for purposes of argument). How is the bind to know when that might happen? He did not promise to take the first opportunity to kill Dumbledore. He didn't even promise to kill Dumbledore IMMEDIATELY after Draco failed to do it. Couldn't he stall the vow bind indefinitely by continuing to *intend* to do it *eventually*? If I were Snape in the same position, that's what I would do. ~ Constance Vigilance From witherwing at sbcglobal.net Sat Dec 24 03:32:44 2005 From: witherwing at sbcglobal.net (Rebecca Scalf) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:32:44 -0000 Subject: Clue in chapter title - Spinner's End Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145314 I'm new and have been reading every post for the last couple of weeks. Thanks everyone for the endless entertainment and food for thought... I wonder about the word "Spinner" in Spinner's End. Is there a clue for us? Of course it is the name of the street where we find Snape's house. But JKR, as we know, chooses her proper nouns with care... According to my Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary there are seven definitions listed under "spinner:" a) a person who spins yarn; b) a shiny fish lure that spins like a propeller when drawn through the water; c) a domelike cap that fits over the hub of an airplane propeller; d) a football play in which the ball carrier whirls around to prevent the opposing team from knowing in which direction he will run; e) a garden spider or spinning spider; f) (rare) a spinnaret; g) a goatsucker. Next I looked up "goatsucker," and it means any various species of nocturnal birds of the genus "Caprimulgus" that feed on insects such as moths, gnats, beetles, etc. What surprised me is there is NO listing for one who "spins a yarn" meaning a "storyteller," with the added connotation that the stories are fantastical, far-fetched or unreliable. This is the definition I like to think JKR is playing with. If Snape is the spinner, and the events which unfold there signal the end of his spinning, there is certainly an implication of lying, but to whom has Snape been lying to? Which side? We still don't know. Definition d) may be Spinner JKR's little joke on us - she gave us just enough clues to keep us guessing which direction Snape will run. - Rebecca, spinning your thoughts into my own sorting hat. From kchuplis at alltel.net Sat Dec 24 01:57:21 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 01:57:21 -0000 Subject: Surprise ending? WAS: Last book, Harry not surviving In-Reply-To: <20051223224610.99107.qmail@web30702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145315 Laurie: > it's called irony. it'd be ironic IF neville and NOT > the chosen one nailed LV. for me it'd be great to see > someone else come out of left field and kill LV Kchuplis: Hmmm...irony. What if Harry has to make the decision to save Snape or kill LV and it ends up that saving Snape is the key to the death of LV.....hmmmm....... From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Dec 24 04:10:47 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 04:10:47 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145316 > > Alla: > > Oh, but Pippin, wait a second . Neri's argument the way I understand > it is that the moral person, (and Dumbledore Man!Snape is a moral > person, no?) simply does not do it - does not TRANSFER the hatred to > the innocent child. > > Do you think that DD!M Snape is loyal to the Light or loyal only to > Dumbledore? Even if he is loyal to Dumbledore only, it still IMO > would mean that he at least partially loyal to what Dumbledore > preaches and practices and that is not IMO hating children for the > sins of their parents real or imaginery. Pippin: Does Dumbledore ever say that? Does he ever even say that Snape shouldn't hate Harry? Nobody seems willing to say that, not even Sirius or Lupin, and given what we saw in the Pensieve, it's understandable, IMO. DD says he thought that Snape could overcome his feelings about Harry's father, but he *never* says that he blames Snape for not doing so. He doesn't even blame the Dursleys for hating Harry, only for showing him nothing but neglect and cruelty. I don't think one can say that Snape shows only cruelty and neglect to Harry. Even Harry doesn't think so -- the narrator tells us that it's Snape's attitude toward Sirius that Harry was unwilling to forgive. So when is this preaching happening? I must have missed it. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 24 04:25:45 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 04:25:45 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and hating children for their parents sins. WAS: TBAY; Definitely NOT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145318 Alla: > > Do you think that DD!M Snape is loyal to the Light or loyal only to > > Dumbledore? Even if he is loyal to Dumbledore only, it still IMO > > would mean that he at least partially loyal to what Dumbledore > > preaches and practices and that is not IMO hating children for the > > sins of their parents real or imaginery. > > Pippin: > Does Dumbledore ever say that? Does he ever even say that Snape > shouldn't hate Harry? Nobody seems willing to say that, not even > Sirius or Lupin, and given what we saw in the Pensieve, it's > understandable, IMO. > > DD says he thought that Snape could overcome his feelings about > Harry's father, but he *never* says that he blames Snape for not > doing so. Alla: What I meant is that Dumbledore IMO acts that way - namely not blaming children for the sins of their fathers and if Snape is loyal to him, I would think he should have at least try to act the similar way. Lucius Malfoy did everything possible in CoS IMO to throw Dumbledore out of school and that happened IMO when Dumbledore wanted and was needed in Hogwarts. That is a fact, IMO. Lucius Malfoy slipped the Diary to the daughter of the trusted member of the Order, something which Dumbledore IMO would not like at all. It sure did not look to me in HBP that Dumbledore acted as if he hold Draco in any way responsible for Lucius deeds and Dumbledore even offered to hide Lucius too. Hmmm, how about Snape taking a page out of Dumbledore's book and follow his examples? Because IMO throwing Dumbledore out of school was personal offense to Dumbledore. JMO, Alla From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Dec 24 04:41:55 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 04:41:55 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Draco on the Tower (WAS Re: Peter's basic .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145319 > a_svirn: > Sorry, but it doesn't sound very convincing. According to you > Dumbledore effectively sacrificed his life in order to "prove his > point to Draco". The suggestion is simply to fantastical for me to > accept. zgirnius: In a way, yes, that is what I am, saying. But I am not saying he intended to sacrifice himself. He fully expected Draco to choose not to kill him. (Correctly, in my opinion). But the gesture was necessary to make Draco see this for himself. I think, given a minute or two more, Dumbledore would have had his wand back and Draco on his way into hiding. Now, if he suspected there were Death Eaters in the school, it was a risky move, since someone else might happen along during the conversation. (As, in fact, several someone elses did.) But still not guaranteed to end in death. There were Order members about as well, after all. From mskeshaffer at earthlink.net Sat Dec 24 04:43:35 2005 From: mskeshaffer at earthlink.net (Martha Shaffer) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:43:35 -0500 Subject: Dumbledore's Patronus WAS: *When* did Dumbledore die? References: Message-ID: <003e01c60844$9ae44f90$c2305804@youryk5cbmeeo8> No: HPFGUIDX 145320 Luckdragon: "I am of the unpopular opinion that DD is not dead. I know canon indicates that he is gone, but DD just encountered and overcame too much in his life to be fooled by the LV/Draco plot." Martha: I feel he must come back somehow. I can't dismiss this answer by JKR in 2004: What form does Dumbledore's Patronus take? It is a phoenix, which is very representative of Dumbledore for reasons that I am sure you can guess. http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 24 05:26:05 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 05:26:05 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. In-Reply-To: <20051223220024.66426.qmail@web30812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145321 Amanda Shoffner wrote: > If all of this is true, then why the > argument with SS & DD where SS tells > DD he wants out? OK I admit it, when I said my theory explained all of Snape's actions I was overstating my case just a tad. My theory can explain almost everything about Snape, almost but not quite. If truth be told I don't have a clue what that argument with Dumbledore in the forest was all about, but I will say this; Dumbledore was a man who didn't lose his temper easily, the fact that he nevertheless lost it with Snape does not make the good Snape theory stronger. > DD knows EVERY detail that goes on at Hogwarts That's not true, Dumbledore knew nothing about the Marauder's activity. Much more seriously Dumbledore was very surprised that Death Eaters had gotten into the castle, even though Harry had warned him that something like that might happen when they were away finding the (fake) Horcrux; Harry even pinpointed where the danger was, the Room Of Requirement, and who was behind it, Draco. So Harry told Dumbledore when the danger would happen, where it would come from and who was behind it; but when it did happen just as Harry said it would Dumbledore was surprised. Dumbledore is not immune from making blunders, like trusting Severus Snape. Eggplant From juli17 at aol.com Sat Dec 24 05:37:13 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 00:37:13 EST Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. Message-ID: <87.35510ddb.30de3889@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145322 Sherry wrote: " Dumbledore is also the greatest wizard alive, possibly of all time. i cannot believe that he was incapable of summoning back his wand with a cute little nonverbal spell, and effectively dealing with the death eaters who were on the tower." Julie: But if you believe Dumbledore was capable of dealing with the Death Eaters on the Tower, and if you believe Dumbledore was pleading with Snape not to kill him/turn back to Voldy's side, then why didn't Dumbledore just take care of *Snape*? If he can take on the Death Eaters, surely he can take on Snape. I do agree that Dumbledore had plenty of resources at hand, even in his weakened state, not the least of which is his own quick mind, as well as his vast experience. He also had Fawkes at his disposal. If Dumbledore wasn't ready to die, and if he felt it beneficial as the greatest wizard who ever lived to remain alive and help Harry until the end, then he certainly could have saved himself. From Snape, from the Death Eaters, or from anyone else (even Voldemort). So why *didn't* Dumbledore save himself? Either because he didn't want to, or because he was already dying from something that his magic or Fawkes tears couldn't defeat--like one of the horcrux potions, so he saw little point in saving himself in the very short term. And if Dumbledore chose not to save himself, then where does that leave us? It leaves us with the presumption that Dumbledore *allowed* Snape to finish him off. And it also indicates that he wanted Snape to be the one who did the deed, for whatever reason. (Benefiting the Good side's cause against Voldemort, by keeping Harry alive, and getting Snape in deeper with Voldemort so Snape could weaken the Dark Lord's power from within are both very plausible reasons.) If Dumbledore willingly allowed Snape to "kill" him, then his plea, "Severus...please...", also can only be interpreted as Dumbledore encouraging Severus to go through with the dastardly deed. With a Dumbledore still capable of self-defense, nothing else makes sense. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Dec 24 05:50:12 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:50:12 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. In-Reply-To: <87.35510ddb.30de3889@aol.com> Message-ID: <008901c6084d$e8c338d0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 145323 Julie: But if you believe Dumbledore was capable of dealing with the Death Eaters on the Tower, and if you believe Dumbledore was pleading with Snape not to kill him/turn back to Voldy's side (snip) Sherry now: I've never said I thought Dumbledore was pleading with Snape not to kill him. It would be so out of character as to be unbelievable more than anything. But neither do I believe he was saying, come on Severus, do me in. He could have been pleading with Snape not to betray him, which is completely different than don't kill me. The betrayal would be emotional. Sigh. We go round and round neither side convincing the other, so I'll just say again, that I don't believe the only thing to do was for Snape to murder Dumbledore. I don't believe that it was necessarily the best thing for the greater good, and I don't believe Dumbledore was necessarily already dying. i don't believe Dumbledore would commit suicide by Snape, which is essentially what it would be if he was pleading for Snape to kill him. To me, that's as out of character as pleading to be killed. He knew Harry was right there seeing it all. He knew he would be condemning Snape to a life of hell, because what good can he do now. Nobody on the good side will ever believe him. No, i believe Snape murdered Dumbledore and showed his true loyalty in that moment. loyalty to himself, saving his own skin, just as Phineas nigelus said would be the act of a true Slytherin. I realize that I can be accused of making this judgment based on my emotions and not canon, but as far as I'm concerned, my reading has as much chance of being correct as the DDM Snape camp. None of us has real canon to support our beliefs, and we are all simply interpreting canon which is quite different. Sherry From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Dec 24 04:28:25 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:28:25 -0500 Subject: Ton-tongue Dudley Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145324 Betsy Hp: "You brought up the ton-tongue incident, and I think there *is* a lasting effect there. Arthur tried to point it out, but the twins have such little respect for their father they didn't listen, and Molly was very quick to stomp all over Arthur's point. There is a tension between wizards and muggles. The Dursleys hate wizards, think they're untrustworthy and dangerous. The twins proved their fears beautifully. And the twins also showed that they have no worries about attacking someone so much weaker than them. Actually, that seems to be their usual M.O. At least, IMO." Did they force the toffee down his throat? No, they did not. Dudley picked it up and ate it of his own free will and accord. I'm sure that Petunia told him not to take candy from strangers. Dudley has been taught all his life to fear and hate magic, yet when a couple of wizards throw some candy his way, does he leave it there, or throw it away, or otherwise avoid it? No, he does not; he shoves it into his fat, greedy mouth. He has nobody to thank for what happened but his own gluttonous self. Perhaps he'll think twice before doing something like that again, and anything that will get Dudley to think about anything is an improvement. How is it inappropriate to treat contemptible people with contempt? BAW From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 24 07:19:50 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 07:19:50 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Draco on the Tower (WAS Re: Peter's basic .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145325 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > This is the sort of behavior Voldemort will never understand. Draco > is a worthless child, not even a qualified wizard yet; Dumbledore is > arguably the most powerful wizard in the WW. And yet Dumbledore > wastes the last of his strength on this child. Geoff: As a Christian, I believe that no one is worthless otherwise there would be no redemption for anyone. Jesus died in human form so that anyone from any background - the good, the bad and the ugly - could still have an opportunity to turn fully to the good side. Unless you are making this statement as Voldemort's point of view? From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Dec 24 09:28:41 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 09:28:41 -0000 Subject: Snape was at the Potter's House That Night (& another Unbreakable Vow) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145326 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kathy" wrote: > JKR has used foreshadowing in all of her books. We just learned > about the Unbreakable Vow in HBP. What if Snape came to Dumbledore > and told him what happened at Godric's Hollow...told him that > through no fault of his own the Potter boy is now an orphan, and he > feels partly responsible for this. Dumbledore knows that Snape > always had trouble with James, therefore decides that he cannot > place Harry with him, but makes him take an Unbreakable Vow to take > care of Harry. Now, whether Snape likes it or not, he is bound to > the boy and will die if he doesn't. Now THERE's a reason to hate > Harry! Nice theory. But DD does not strike me as the type to exert such a vow from anyone. DD believes in people, gives second chances. The UV is typically a vow you would use if you do not really trust the other person. Otherwise their word would have been good enough. Rhis tells something about the DE camp: trust is not a high priority there. Force is far more important. Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Dec 24 10:28:03 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 10:28:03 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145327 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "h2so3f" wrote: > Had Snape been a true DE he could have easily killed Harry when he > had him wandless and alone during his escape. It doesn't take a long > time to perform the AK curse. If Snape had the time to block all of > Harry's spell lazily, to prevent another DE from crucio-ing Harry, > and to tell Harry to keep his mind closed and his mouth shut when > cursing (and to not used Snape's spells), then Snape had ample time > to AK Harry. Actually, I think Snape would have been in huge trouble if he had killed Harry. LV must be seen as the biggest baddy on the block, and Harry has defied in again and again. He must kill Harry himself to gain supremacy, and I'm sure Snape understands that. If he'd kill Harry, Snape would be toast as soon as LV learned about it. No, what he would and could have done, is reveal Harry was on the tower and then fail to restrain Greyback. "I'm truly sorry my Lord, he knew Potter was yours and yours alone. I tried to stop him. Petrified him, but I'm afraid it was already too late." Gerry From querubina_75 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 24 08:02:42 2005 From: querubina_75 at yahoo.com (~*~Sandy~*~) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 08:02:42 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Draco on the Tower (WAS Re: Peter's basic .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145328 Betsy Hp: > > This is the sort of behavior Voldemort will never understand. Draco > > is a worthless child, not even a qualified wizard yet; Dumbledore is > > arguably the most powerful wizard in the WW. And yet Dumbledore > > wastes the last of his strength on this child. Geoff: > As a Christian, I believe that no one is worthless otherwise there > would be no redemption for anyone. Jesus died in human form so that > anyone from any background - the good, the bad and the ugly - could > still have an opportunity to turn fully to the good side. > > Unless you are making this statement as Voldemort's point of view? You are forgetting that this task was given to Draco because of his own father's stupidity. Dumbledore probably thought it better to be finished off by someone like Snape than any other Death Eater or Werewolf that were present at that very moment. Snape ended the whole fiasco and fled with the rest leaving Harry and Co. behind. I'm pretty sure Dumbledore wanted it to happen that way, that is why he performed that Petrificus Totalus freezing charm on Harry. I'm sure if Dumbledore wouldn't have frozen Harry...Draco might've performed an AK on Harry instead. "Sandy/querubina_75" From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Sat Dec 24 10:49:55 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 10:49:55 -0000 Subject: Another Curse-Breaker + HP7 book title? In-Reply-To: <000001c60634$186f4810$3fb1a7ac@Overton> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145329 > Corey: > But why kill Dumbledore? Why not just go to Voldemort and try and find > out himself? He after all was a DE once. He's good at getting people to trust him after all. Here's another question. Do you think Harry and Snape will help each other in destroying the horcruxes? That'd be an odd team if ever there was one. Tell me what you think. > Dumbledore was dying anyway from the curse within Slytherin's ring. He decided to use his death to allow Snape to gain Voldemort's trust. At present Voldemort does not trust Snape enough to tell him anything. He even has wormtail spying on Snape!! Brothergib From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Dec 24 10:53:38 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 10:53:38 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145330 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > Irrelevant, Snape had no way of knowing Harry was anywhere in the > vicinity. > Yes he had. There were two brooms, yet only Dumbledore. Who has private lessons with the headmaster? Who is the only one who has an invisibility cloak? Who was not in the thick of the fight downstairs? Potter! Gerry From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Sat Dec 24 12:47:47 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 13:47:47 +0100 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. References: <20051223231549.38319.qmail@web36306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <008601c60888$3ef11800$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 145331 orchid_waves at yahoo.com wrote: > Snape has always wanted power -- power and control and admiring > throngs of wizards and witches falling all over themselves to > worship him. Miles: Is there any piece of canon that can support this? My understanding of the description of Snape's character is different. I never saw him wanting any power. He is arrogant, he tries to abuse the power as a Head of House and teacher to help Slytherin in the House Cup, he mistreats students he dislikes. But where did he try to gain more power? Miles From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com Sat Dec 24 13:00:43 2005 From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (laurie goudge) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 05:00:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Surprise ending? WAS: Last book, Harry not surviving In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051224130043.43652.qmail@web30711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145332 --- kchuplis wrote: > Laurie: > > it's called irony. it'd be ironic IF neville and > NOT > > the chosen one nailed LV. for me it'd be great to > see > > someone else come out of left field and kill LV > > Kchuplis: > Hmmm...irony. What if Harry has to make the decision > to save Snape or kill LV and it > ends up that saving Snape is the key to the death of > LV.....hmmmm....... > laurie again: that would also be irony too. And it'd also be like a big kick in the panst for Snape to have these 'damned' Potter men saving his hide at regular intervals. __________________________________ Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ From bartl at sprynet.com Sat Dec 24 14:02:55 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 09:02:55 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Needs of Snape's Redemption (was Re: Heroes or not) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43AD550F.2000008@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145333 susanbones2003 wrote: > I do not believe you are going to be satisfied with the outcome of > the final book and just how are you going to punish JKR if she > doesn't set Snape up to apoligize to Harry? In all probability your > scenario is not going to happen. Bart: I'm firmly in the "Snape is still on the side of the Order" camp, but I would be extraordinarily surprised if Snape will apologize to Harry. I suspect something on the order of this: "If you weren't insistent on living in your own little world, you would have seen that I was working against Voldemort. You clearly felt your little spying games were much more important than learning Occlumancy, in spite of how important Professor Dumbledore told you it was. So I gave up on that, and realized that the only way that you could be convinced to learn your lessons was to make it personal. I couldn't reveal what I was really doing, because you stupidly left your mind open to Voldemort, so, in our last encounter at Hogwarts, I gave you clues to what you needed to learn that even one as thick-headed as you would understand what you needed to learn. I am, however, gratified that SOMETHING I taught you managed to stick." Bart From rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu Sat Dec 24 14:18:28 2005 From: rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu (susanbones2003) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 14:18:28 -0000 Subject: The Needs of Snape's Redemption (was Re: Heroes or not) In-Reply-To: <43AD550F.2000008@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145334 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > susanbones2003 wrote: > > I do not believe you are going to be satisfied with the outcome of > > the final book and just how are you going to punish JKR if she > > doesn't set Snape up to apoligize to Harry? In all probability your > > scenario is not going to happen. > > Bart: > > I'm firmly in the "Snape is still on the side of the Order" camp, but I > would be extraordinarily surprised if Snape will apologize to Harry. I > suspect something on the order of this: > > "If you weren't insistent on living in your own little world, you would > have seen that I was working against Voldemort. You clearly felt your > little spying games were much more important than learning Occlumancy, > in spite of how important Professor Dumbledore told you it was. So I > gave up on that, and realized that the only way that you could be > convinced to learn your lessons was to make it personal. I couldn't > reveal what I was really doing, because you stupidly left your mind open > to Voldemort, so, in our last encounter at Hogwarts, I gave you clues to > what you needed to learn that even one as thick-headed as you would > understand what you needed to learn. I am, however, gratified that > SOMETHING I taught you managed to stick." > > Bart >Bart, Your scenario has plausibility. JKR will find a way, I believe for Harry and Snape to have some uneasy rapprocehment, but as per usual, I couldn't for the life of me predict how this will happen. My point, as usual ham-fistedly made, was that Snape could never apoligise to Harry for his behavior. As you pointed out, he could certainly explain and manage to work in some chiding and loads of anger, but he could never apologise. Just how your scene might transpire, I wouldn't want to guess. JKR chooses her methods and ways and they don't always satisfy. I, for one, was very sad at how easily Sirius slipped off the radar in HPB. It seemed that Harry went on so quickly with his life but I remind myself that JKR has a lot left to accomplish and precious little time for contemplation or looking back. Just a couple of disparate thoughts. Jen D From ornawn at 013.net Sat Dec 24 16:21:16 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 16:21:16 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145335 >~ Constance Vigilance >He did >not promise to take the first opportunity to kill Dumbledore. He >didn't even promise to kill Dumbledore IMMEDIATELY after Draco >failed to do it. Couldn't he stall the vow bind indefinitely by >continuing to *intend* to do it *eventually*? If I were Snape in the >same position, that's what I would do. Orna: There was something which Snape didn't do ? When the DE told him there was a problem because Draco seems unable to do it ? he didn't ask Draco what was the problem, or encourage him in any way to go ahead with it. He is his teacher after all, and had he wanted to "help" him there, he might have succeeded more than the Des. So it seems that he has an understanding of his own about things. One in which he is quite quick to free Draco from his mission. Help Draco is his mission under the UV, but doing it so quickly fits mostly into DD's desire to protect Draco. Another angle I want to point out ? the DE are all informed on Draco's mission to kill DD. So it doesn't seem it was an ultra- secret plan - at least not at this time. Since from the beginning the plan was to get Des into the school, it seems some of them were informed on something there. Draco threatening Borgin with Grayback seems to strengthen this theory. So, I have some questions ? how come Voldemort chose not to have Snape in this plan openly from POV of Draco? After all he was in Hogwarts, would be able to help etc. Either it's his way of spreading discordance (between Draco and his favorite teacher, using teenager proud- and recklessness for it, between Snape and Bellatrix). Or he just wanted Draco to fail, and have Snape entangled in an UV which makes him kill DD. The other thing which strikes me is, that the DE accept Snape as a natural leader, turn to him when problem arise, obey him etc. after all, Snape shouldn't be part of the mission, from their POV. So how come they turn to him the instant he arrives. So either Snape is a very charismatic leader for them, or they know something about Snape's commitment to Draco's mission. As it is they take it for granted that Snape knows what Draco's mission is. What information did they get? From whom? Orna From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Dec 24 16:38:28 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 16:38:28 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145336 > Pippin: > It follows directly from Dumbledore's explanation in PS/SS. > "Well, they did rather detest each other. Not unlike yourself and > Mr. Malfoy. And then, your father did something Snape could never forgive." > "What?" > "He saved his life." > "*What*?" > "Yes..." said Dumbledore dreamily. "Funny, the way some people's minds > work, isn't it? Professor Snape couldn't bear being in your father's debt..." > > > Snape hated James, but he hated being under obligations to James even > more. Then he put himself further in debt to James by endangering James's life. > Naturally Snape would regret that deeply. But it didn't stop him from hating > James...why should it? > > Then James died, and Harry inherited both the debt and the hatred. Snape has > an obligation to Harry and, according to Dumbledore, wants very much to > be quit of it. But nothing in the obligation requires Snape to be considerate of > Harry or like Harry or feel sorry for Harry. So he isn't and he doesn't. > > Think of all the people who hate their landlords or their mortgage holders, > think the whole property-owning class is rotten and their children are > spoiled brats who will grow up to be just the same, but are far too proud > to even dream of defaulting on their payments, much less murder. > Neri: Pippin, you are precisely illustrating the point I was making. The canon you quoted is the basic assumption of LID, not of DDM. There's nothing in Dumbledore's words here about Snape's remorse or about him changing sides or being Dumbledore's man, which are the necessary assumptions for DDM. So I repeat the point ? Snape's hatred for Harry does *not* follow directly from the basic assumption of DDM, and it *does* follow from the basic assumption of LID. BTW, Faith would be quick to point out here that LID is the only Snape theory that its basic assumption isn't an assumption at all ? it's canon (the very canon you quoted above). This is why she claims that LID isn't even a theory. Neri From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Dec 24 16:49:47 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 16:49:47 -0000 Subject: Life-debt Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145337 The life-debt is something which comes up again and again when discussing Snape or Peter (side-note, why is it not Severus and Pettigrew? Is it because that does not type as fast?, or because Snape is just not a man you call by his first name uninvited :)? In the first book, there is no hint that there is actually anything magical about saving someone's life. In PoA Dumbledore uses the words magic at its most deep (or something like that, books lies upstairs) and tells Harry that LV will not like it to have a servant who is in Harry's debt. But nowhere is there any explanation what kind of magic is at work here. Actually I don't think there is any magic at all. I think what Dumbledore talks about is more like "the power the Dark Lords knows not." Not magic, but the very real, very profound powers of any human. Conscience, decency, obligation. Any thoughts? Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Dec 24 16:56:00 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 16:56:00 -0000 Subject: Buckbeak and Draco Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145338 A couple of days ago I started to re-read PoA for the n-th time, and I came across the scene in which Buckbeak is tethered inside Hagrid's hut while Harry and Ron are visiting. Buckbeak has just been fed and is spitting out some ferret bones. I know at the time I thought nothing of it, just a bit weird to feed an animal ferrets. Surely chickens or rabbits would have been easier, and more logical. Now finally, I was reminded of the GoF scene with Draco the bouncing ferret. And suddenly there was something grimly amusing in that scene. And now I wonder, will it be more foreshadowing? Will Buckbeak get even with Draco? Gerry, who is really, really curious what Draco is going to do. From coverton at netscape.com Sat Dec 24 07:27:34 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 01:27:34 -0600 Subject: Rita Skeeter, Hermione In-Reply-To: <20051223214255.5867.qmail@web30810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000001c6085b$88e67a90$4b818eac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145339 Mandy/babyhrndz: > I think Hermione will just say that certain topics are off > limits and to curb her pen. Like Amanda said Hermione will tell Rita what she can and can't write. Does anyone think Hermione will let Rita write about the MoM? I think she will. Corey From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Dec 24 16:54:45 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 11:54:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ton-tongue Dudley References: Message-ID: <00c801c608aa$c2fcfca0$ca86400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 145340 Bruce: > Did they force the toffee down his throat? No, they did not. Dudley > picked it > up and ate it of his own free will and accord. I'm sure that Petunia told > him > not to take candy from strangers. Dudley has been taught all his life to > fear > and hate magic, yet when a couple of wizards throw some candy his way, > does he > leave it there, or throw it away, or otherwise avoid it? No, he does not; > he > shoves it into his fat, greedy mouth. He has nobody to thank for what > happened > but his own gluttonous self. Perhaps he'll think twice before doing > something > like that again, and anything that will get Dudley to think about anything > is an > improvement. >How is it inappropriate to treat contemptible people >with contempt? Magpie: Um, well, that would probably be the bully response, that it was the victim's fault--as if the twins' intentionally dropping the candy there so that someone would pick it up and eat it means nothing in the face of someone falling for the trap--but it doesn't speak to Betsy's or Arthur's point which is that pranking Muggles/Muggle-baiting is bad news and something he tries to stop. If a kid who's been taught to not talk to strangers gets picked up in the mall by a child molester that doesn't make it the kid's fault if he's attacked. Even if the kid's a contemptible brat in the eyes of the attacker. If a kid walks home down a street he's been told to avoid because a bully lives there and he gets beaten up by the bully the bully is still the one responsible for the beating. A "willing" victim doesn't make the aggressor less responsibile for his own actions. I understand that plenty of people are fine with the twins' joke here, and that's fine with me, but let's not go the Dursley-way of pretending it's not what it is, which is just two people getting their kicks out of causing others physical distress--all the better if the person has earned a spot on their "anything goes" list. Imo, no one has the right to go around deciding who's contemptible enough to deserve to be the butt of sadistic jokes, imo--especially Muggle-baiting jokes. Not James or Draco or the DEs or Dudley or the twins. If I were Petunia I'd certainly make a point of showing Dudley the danger of picking up candy strangers leave behind (the point behind that rule being that some strangers are malicious and untrustworthy). If they were my kids I'd apologize to the Dursleys and make them apologize to Dudley. -m From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Dec 24 17:50:15 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 17:50:15 -0000 Subject: Buckbeak and Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145341 Gerry wrote: >snip > Buckbeak has just been fed and > is spitting out some ferret bones. snip > Now > finally, I was reminded of the GoF scene with Draco the bouncing > ferret. And suddenly there was something grimly amusing in that scene. > And now I wonder, will it be more foreshadowing? Will Buckbeak get > even with Draco? Potioncat: I've often wondered if Crouch!Moody worked a spell to turn Draco into a ferret or if he worked a spell that turned Draco into the animal he was most like. (So that the same spell would turn James into a stag, Peter into a rat, etc.) But it will be interesting to see what becomes of Draco! From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Dec 24 19:06:12 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:06:12 -0000 Subject: Ton-tongue Dudley In-Reply-To: <00c801c608aa$c2fcfca0$ca86400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145342 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: > Magpie: > > Um, well, that would probably be the bully response, that it was the > victim's fault--as if the twins' intentionally dropping the candy there so > that someone would pick it up and eat it means nothing in the face of > someone falling for the trap--but it doesn't speak to Betsy's or Arthur's > point which is that pranking Muggles/Muggle-baiting is bad news and > something he tries to stop. But it was not Muggle-baiting. Like they said: they did not give it to him because he was a Muggle, but because he was a bullying git. It was a practical joke, nothing sadistic there and nothing in the scene suggests that they realized just how much worse such a thing would be for someone not used to magic. Gerry From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 24 19:28:29 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:28:29 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145343 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "h2so3f" wrote: > > > Had Snape been a true DE he could have easily killed Harry > > when he had him wandless and alone during his escape. It > > doesn't take a long time to perform the AK curse. ... Snape > > had ample time to AK Harry. > Gerry: > > Actually, I think Snape would have been in huge trouble if he had > killed Harry. LV must be seen as the biggest baddy on the block, and > Harry has defied in again and again. He must kill Harry himself to > gain supremacy, and I'm sure Snape understands that. > ...edited... > > Gerry > bbouyminn: I think this is true of Snape, but not necessarily the other DE's onthe scene. If Snape had killed Harry, I'm sure at first Voldemort would have express some disappointment, but then, in turn, congradulated Snape for getting rid of that /pest/ once and for all. But then he would start getting paranoid, thinking that maybe Snape could challenge his power and position. For any other DE, especially the other DE's on the scene, Voldemort won't have thought much of it because few if any of them could really challenge Voldemort's power. In otherwords, no one would even remotely think that they were more powerful than Voldemort. But Snape is a different case, I would say he is an extremely accomplished wizard and well schooled in the Dark Arts. It wouldn't take long for a paranoid Voldemort to start wondering about Snape, to start fearing that maybe Snape's goal all along had been to destory Voldemort and become the new Greatest Dark Wizard who ever lived. Given that level of paranoia, Voldemort would have no choice but to kill Snape in order to protect his 'throne'. My point is, that I think this level of paranoia would only be true if Snape, or possible one of an extremely few other DE's, killed Harry. Had it been any of the other mediocre DE on the top of the tower, or making their escape from Hogwarts, Voldemort would have been disappointed, but he wouldn't have seen them as a threat. So, we can't read much into Snape not killing Harry for just this reason, but I don't think this same reasoning applies to Snape not allowing the other DE to kill Harry. The Happiest of Holiday Seasons to All. Steve/bboyminn From lealess at yahoo.com Sat Dec 24 19:46:31 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:46:31 -0000 Subject: Ton-tongue Dudley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145344 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: > > > Magpie: > > > > Um, well, that would probably be the bully response, that it was > > the victim's fault--as if the twins' intentionally dropping the > > candy there so > > that someone would pick it up and eat it means nothing in the face > > of someone falling for the trap--but it doesn't speak to Betsy's > > or Arthur's > > point which is that pranking Muggles/Muggle-baiting is bad news > > and something he tries to stop. > > But it was not Muggle-baiting. Like they said: they did not give it > to him because he was a Muggle, but because he was a bullying git. > It was a practical joke, nothing sadistic there and nothing in the > scene suggests that they realized just how much worse such a thing > would be for someone not used to magic. > > Gerry > It was taking advantage of the weakness and inexperience of another to make them the butt of a joke, to humiliate or ridicule, to frighten at least, possibly to injure. If this is not bullying, what is? Dudley not only has an obvious compulsion to eat sweets, as a Muggle he is unfamiliar with the nature of wizard jokes. The twins have a cultural advantage, so I would count it as Muggle-baiting as well. One of my off-the-wall and off-the-cuff analogies, that I hope makes sense and doesn't offend anyone: Let's say I'm a white explorer and I encounter indigenous Americans for the first time and give them alcohol. They drink it and fall down drunk or get sick and think they are going to die. Well, I know they aren't going to die. I think it's a great practical joke, all my friends laugh at it. Look at the funny Indians. What if later I know that one of these people has developed an addiction to alcohol -- is it still funny when I place a bottle within his reach? If I am a wizard, I suppose I could justify it in some way: Manifest Destiny. That's how the Death Eaters justify their actions, no doubt: it is their destiny to rule over the "lesser" Muggles. And they probably started out on a small scale, with practical jokes on Muggles. I just fail to see how terrorizing anyone is just desserts or hilarious. Ton-tongue candy is not like our joke candy which turns the tongue blue -- which isn't very funny either. It's a cheap joke meant to make the joker feel superior. lealess From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Dec 24 19:24:42 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 14:24:42 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ton-tongue Dudley References: Message-ID: <012901c608bf$b17490a0$ca86400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 145345 festuco: > But it was not Muggle-baiting. Like they said: they did not give it to > him because he was a Muggle, but because he was a bullying git. Magpie: That is Muggle-baiting, imo (and also Arthur's opinion). It is teasing Muggles, who lack the ability to do magic, with magic. To use a real world analogy, if my child knows a blind person it is unacceptable for them to play tricks on that person using their blindness against him whether or not you're doing it because the person is blind. festuco: It was > a practical joke, nothing sadistic there and nothing in the scene > suggests that they realized just how much worse such a thing would be > for someone not used to magic. Magpie: Practical jokes are very often sadistic. I'm also noticing a trend toward a pseudoinnocence defense of the twins, one that seems to suggests they're seriously far behind in their mental development when it comes to this kind of thing, and I just don't see that in them. Not caring is not the same as not knowing. -m From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 24 20:10:21 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 20:10:21 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Draco on the Tower (WAS Re: Peter's basic .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145346 > >>Betsy Hp: > > This is the sort of behavior Voldemort will never understand. > > Draco is a worthless child, not even a qualified wizard yet; > > Dumbledore is arguably the most powerful wizard in the WW. And > > yet Dumbledore wastes the last of his strength on this child. > >>Geoff: > As a Christian, I believe that no one is worthless otherwise there > would be no redemption for anyone. Jesus died in human form so > that anyone from any background - the good, the bad and the ugly - > could still have an opportunity to turn fully to the good side. > Unless you are making this statement as Voldemort's point of view? Betsy Hp: Oh, yes! Sorry that wasn't clear. I was definitely speaking from Voldemort's point of view. He sees Draco as cannon fodder, a way to punish Lucius, nothing more. And he, reluctantly perhaps, sees Dumbledore as an incredibly powerful wizard. So to Voldemort's way of thinking, it's a no brainer: the kid gets it. But from *Dumbledore's* point of view, Draco is an innocent, full of potential, deserving of mercy. And that is something Voldemort can never, will never, understand. I have a feeling that blind spot will lead to Voldemort's doom. > >>"Sandy/querubina_75" > > I'm sure if Dumbledore wouldn't have frozen Harry...Draco might've > performed an AK on Harry instead. Betsy Hp: I'm not as sure of that. Dumbledore said, at least three times, that Draco is not a killer. There would have been a scuffle, I'm sure. But I'm not confident that either boy would have flung out a killing curse. Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 24 20:20:13 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 20:20:13 -0000 Subject: Does Snape hate Harry? (was:Re: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145347 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > (Do any of the Potterverse adults think Snape hates Harry? I > > think McGonagall or Lupin or even Dumbledore would have a pretty > > good idea of Snape's views towards Harry.) > >>Amiable Dorsai: > If so, Lupin missed a teaching moment (or was uncharacteristically > bad at communicating) in HBP. Betsy Hp: Lupin *is* bad at communicating. That's cannon, I believe. But what teaching moment was missed? > >>Amiable Dorsai: > Do you not think that a profound and protracted sense of guilt > could eventually inspire resentment, and even hatred? Particularly > with all the other emotional baggage (including hatred for Harry's > father James, and for Harry's champion, Sirius) that Snape carries > around? Betsy Hp: Yes, definitely. And I think there was certainly resentment by the OotP Occlumency lessons, and possibly some flashes of hatred in the moment following Harry's dip into Snape's "worst memory". However, at their very first meeting in PS/SS there hasn't really been time for resentment and hatred to build up. Harry is completely out of Snape's sight until he comes to Hogwarts. The entire Order has disbanded, and Snape probably has very little to do on his spying front. So I doubt Snape dwelled on Harry all that much. Which is why it doesn't make sense to me that Snape hated Harry on sight in PS/SS. Betsy Hp From ornawn at 013.net Sat Dec 24 20:31:17 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 20:31:17 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145348 >Ceridwen wrote: >That's why I think it's Dark Magic. It removes choice once the >choice to enter into the UV is made. It's not as serious in the WW >as the Imperius Curse, which also removes choice, since at least the >witch or wizard agreed to go along with the UV in the first place >while the Imperius removes even that little bit of choice. I would >also put love spells and love potions under the broad general >heading of Dark Magic for the same reason - the victim has no >choice. > Which explains the Tower for me just fine, thanks. The minute Snape > is informed that Draco cannot/will not kill Dumbledore, then *Snape* > must. The UV kicks in. Hate and revulsion on his face, because he > has no choice, he cannot stop. Orna: I like the description of what makes it dark magic. I think you have tapped on something crucial about the nature of dark magic- thanks. I feel it deserves more elaboration, but for now ? Thanks. Still I have some doubts about how this non-choice is working. (Perhaps I didn't understand you) And about how total control dark magic has: I don't think there is any curse ? except the AK ? and even that not, after Harry's scar, that has absolutely no counter possibility, provided you are strong enough, and/or ready to pay the price. It doesn't sound like what we know about other spells to have a spell which makes you do acts which involve complex human processes, like thinking, judging, feeling, and have it done as a robot, without any choice or submission to it, except the moment you take it. The imperius curse is resistible, the crucio ? can be stopped by another person ? as we see when Snape stops Harry's torture in HBP. So I find it difficult to imagine that the UV is a vow which works outside Snape's choice, like this. I am not saying it isn't binding, or having any consequences, if you don't follow it ? most certainly it is a powerful spell. I take it, that Ron might be wrong about being killed if you break it, but his father's reaction means it is a very powerful spell, with disastrous consequences, if you chose to disobey it. OTOH we see Snape trying in HBP to help Draco ? but he seems free to choose the time of intervention, the amount of effort he puts into it. So the point I'm trying to make is that Snape has choice about when to act, how to act etc., even if basically he can't break the spell (without very grave consequences, IMO) Like Ron wants Romilda desperately, but how to go about it ? is in his choice, in his character (I'm sure Neville under the love-potion's influence wouldn't hit Harry ? well perhaps with a plant ) That's also where he is open to influence. Hadn't the situation in the tower been that there were DEs there, and Snape had been informed Draco is unable to do it ? he would surely be able to check it with Draco, see if he can help him refine his skills, or have time to outline a plan for himself. He wouldn't be forced to rush to DD and AK him just like that, IMO. Snape's acts in the tower are IMO his decision about how to tackle this situation, with all the complexity he sees there. And not an involuntary robotic act produced out of the UV. Perhaps in principle a bit like the Felix-potion works? it makes you see the thing which feels right under its influence ? but you have some freedom to choose, and perhaps even to resist it - and pay the consequences. Orna From kjones at telus.net Sat Dec 24 20:59:09 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 12:59:09 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Does Snape hate Harry? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43ADB69D.7060404@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 145349 > Betsy Hp: > Yes, definitely. And I think there was certainly resentment by the > OotP Occlumency lessons, and possibly some flashes of hatred in the > moment following Harry's dip into Snape's "worst memory". > > However, at their very first meeting in PS/SS there hasn't really > been time for resentment and hatred to build up. Harry is > completely out of Snape's sight until he comes to Hogwarts. The > entire Order has disbanded, and Snape probably has very little to do > on his spying front. So I doubt Snape dwelled on Harry all that > much. Which is why it doesn't make sense to me that Snape hated > Harry on sight in PS/SS. KJ writes: This whole hate thing bothers me as well. The dichotomy of Snape's character makes very litle sense to me. On the one hand he is a young powerful, talented and knowledgeable wizard. How could he have accomplished so much in eleven years, if we look at PS/SS, if he is the vindictive, vengeful, juvenile, immature wizard we have all come to know. How could he be a successful Legilimens if he is unable to control his emotions. He isn't getting past Voldemort by luck. Why would Dumbledore have the trust he does in a wizard with the personality defects shown by Snape. Most of his skills and talents were kept hidden until the fifth and sixth books to encourage readers to believe that he was ineffective and bitter as a result. Will there be some other skill or talent, we will see in the seventh book. Has his behaviour to Harry and Neville been specifically to provide memories to show Voldemort on his return? What exactly does Dumbledore's "plan" entail? It seems as if we have two completely different Snapes here. KJ From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 24 21:36:30 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 21:36:30 -0000 Subject: Nature of the Vow: (was:Heroes& Not - What should Snape Have Done?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145350 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ornadv" wrote: > > >Ceridwen wrote: > > That's why I think it's Dark Magic. It removes choice once > > the choice to enter into the UV is made. ...edited... The > > minute Snape is informed that Draco cannot/will not kill > > Dumbledore, then *Snape* must. The UV kicks in. Hate and > > revulsion on his face, because he has no choice, he cannot > > stop. > > Orna: > > ...edited... > It doesn't sound like what we know about other spells to have > a spell which makes you do acts which involve complex human > processes, like thinking, judging, feeling, and have it done > as a robot, without any choice or submission to it, except the > moment you take it. > > ... > So I find it difficult to imagine that the UV is a vow which > works outside Snape's choice, like this. I am not saying it > isn't binding, or having any consequences, if you don't follow > it ? most certainly it is a powerful spell. ... OTOH we see > Snape trying in HBP to help Draco ? but he seems free to choose > the time of intervention, the amount of effort he puts into it. > > So the point I'm trying to make is that Snape has choice about > when to act, how to act etc., even if basically he can't break > the spell (without very grave consequences, IMO) ... > > Snape's acts in the tower are IMO his decision about how to > tackle this situation, with all the complexity he sees there. > And not an involuntary robotic act produced out of the UV. > ... > > Orna > bboyminn: I'm not saying I believe Ceridwen's version of events, but I do think it has some merits if you are willing to look at the middle ground. I don't think the 'force' of the UV turns you into a mindless robot who is forced to act. I do believe you can summor a force of resistance against the compulsion to fulfill the Vow. Yet, as you summon the will to resist, that starts a cascade that makes the compulsion to act that much stronger. You may once again summon an even stronger force of will to preventing you from carrying out the compulsion, but once again, the amplifier is turned up, and the compulsion becomes proportionally stronger. So this ever growing, every amplifying, cascade of compulsion and resistance increase until you either drop dead from a brain aneurysm or a heart attack, or you yeild to the compulsion. My point is, that while I can't accept the 'robot' idea, I can see the UV causing an uncontrollable compulsion that you must either yeild to or die trying to resist. Again, I am simply trying to come up with a working explanation of Ceridwen's idea. I don't necessarily believe it. I'm more in the camp that says the person swearing the UV has full free will, and that failure to uphold the Vow has the consequence of Death. Still, I think we have so very little information on the details of the Unbreakable Vow that almost any speculation is fair game. For example, who or what is the judge of the UV? How and what determines when and if the Vower has failed? I've used the example several times, that if Snape maintained the intent to kill Dumbledore, he could put off the consequences indefinitely. Also, recently I pointed out that we don't really know if the person who fails to uphold the Vow drops dead instantly, or if they die by seeming unrelated causes over time. Could the 'death by Vow' be getting cancer and taking a year to die? Could a person simply go into an unending 'wasting' phase that would lead to their death 5 years later? Or could it just be bad luck; hit by a bus at some indeterminent time in the future? Or, could it be that, as we seem to be assuming, the person will die relatively soon after failing the Vow? Still... a minute? ...an hour? ....a day? ...a week? This is JKR's magic as a writer, she gives us just enough information to drive us crazy, but not enough to truly answer the questions that come up. Just a thought. From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Dec 24 22:25:29 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 22:25:29 -0000 Subject: Ton-tongue Dudley In-Reply-To: <012901c608bf$b17490a0$ca86400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145351 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: > Magpie: > > Practical jokes are very often sadistic. I'm also noticing a trend toward a > pseudoinnocence defense of the twins, one that seems to suggests they're > seriously far behind in their mental development when it comes to this kind > of thing, and I just don't see that in them. Not caring is not the same as > not knowing. > Actually, I don't think Arthur understands either. Nor does anyone else of the WW. Look at the casual way they use memory charms. Look at how normal the obliviation of the site manager at the Quidditch Cup. Or how they fixed Aunt Marge's memory after her inflating incident. Arthur opposes to Muggle-baiting because it is discriminating and because a Muggle cannot do anything back. I'm quite sure he has no clue how it feels for a Muggle to suddenly find themselves objected to something magical, to which they are utterly defenseless and always thought it could not be real. As for the twins: they use a practical joke on a person they don't like at all. They really, really don't care whether this person is a Muggle or not. If he were a wizard they would have don exactly the same. Now, not everybody likes practical jokers, but in the environment of the twins there is simply nothing sadistic about the toffees. It is not my idea of fun, but sadism is something quite different. Gerry From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 24 22:33:32 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 22:33:32 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Draco on the Tower (WAS Re: Peter's basic .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145352 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "~*~Sandy~*~" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > > > This is the sort of behavior Voldemort will never understand. Draco > > > is a worthless child, not even a qualified wizard yet; Dumbledore is > > > arguably the most powerful wizard in the WW. And yet Dumbledore > > > wastes the last of his strength on this child. > > Geoff: > > As a Christian, I believe that no one is worthless otherwise there > > would be no redemption for anyone. Jesus died in human form so that > > anyone from any background - the good, the bad and the ugly - could > > still have an opportunity to turn fully to the good side. > > > > Unless you are making this statement as Voldemort's point of view? Sandy/querubina_75: > You are forgetting that this task was given to Draco because of his > own father's stupidity. Dumbledore probably thought it better to be > finished off by someone like Snape than any other Death Eater or > Werewolf that were present at that very moment. Snape ended the whole > fiasco and fled with the rest leaving Harry and Co. behind. I'm > pretty sure Dumbledore wanted it to happen that way, that is why he > performed that Petrificus Totalus freezing charm on Harry. I'm sure if > Dumbledore wouldn't have frozen Harry...Draco might've performed an AK on > Harry instead. Geoff: Perhaps I am being a trifle thick but I don't see a link between what you are saying and whether Draco has worth as an individual or not... From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Dec 24 22:36:05 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 22:36:05 -0000 Subject: Who petrified Greyback? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145353 When Harry follows the DE's from the tower he is attacked by Greyback, who almost kills him when he suddenly is petrified. I've been trying to figure out who did this, and I have no clue. When Harry gets up and starts running after Snape we get an overview from the battle and everybody is duelling. Except two bodies. One dead DE and Bill. But Bill was heavily wounded. So who saved Harry? Gerry From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Dec 24 22:45:39 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 22:45:39 -0000 Subject: The Twins / Ron / Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145354 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kchuplis" wrote: --I'd > like to see the family with children that are all perfect angels that do everything their > mother wants them to, expecially in the teen years. Finwitch: And I'd be *worried* to see a family like that. A child always acting like a perfect angel? I'd wonder what the poor child had to go trough on daily basis if so. A group of teens acting like self didn't matter at all? Like all they want is to please their mother? I'd send them to psychiatrist if I could, and really wonder about the mother... Finwitch From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Dec 24 22:45:17 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 22:45:17 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145355 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > > So, we can't read much into Snape not killing Harry for just this > reason, but I don't think this same reasoning applies to Snape not > allowing the other DE to kill Harry. > Gerry I'm not sure I follow you here. What reasoning are you referring to here? Snape knows if he kills Harry he will be toast. If Snape wanted Harry dead the only thing he had to do was to make sure that he was too late to prevent it. He would have nothing to fear from LV and he would have a nice dead Harry. Actually I think LV cannot risk even a mediocre DE to get away with killing Harry, because he will still have done something that LV could not. That can give a person airs. And can make him less loyal. If you are truly paranoid, you do not take these kind of risks. If Snape wanted Harry dead he would have set up a fall guy to do it. could have done it on the tower, he could have done it later. He did not. He protected Harry. Did he do it because he is DDM? Or because he so loyal to LV that he does not even let one of his mates have a little fun doing some major hurting? He is knowledgable enough to make him stop before deadly damage sets in. Gerry From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Dec 24 22:49:16 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 22:49:16 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145356 Orna: > I like the description of what makes it dark magic. I think you have > tapped on something crucial about the nature of dark magic- thanks. > I feel it deserves more elaboration, but for now ? Thanks. Ceridwen: It would be interesting to talk about what Dark Magic might be. I'm sure we all have ideas! Orna: > Still I have some doubts about how this non-choice is working. > (Perhaps I didn't understand you) And about how total control dark > magic has: > > I don't think there is any curse ? except the AK ? and even that > not, after Harry's scar, that has absolutely no counter possibility, > provided you are strong enough, and/or ready to pay the price. > It doesn't sound like what we know about other spells to have a > spell which makes you do acts which involve complex human processes, > like thinking, judging, feeling, and have it done as a robot, > without any choice or submission to it, except the moment you take > it. > The imperius curse is resistible, the crucio ? can be stopped by > another person ? as we see when Snape stops Harry's torture in HBP. > So I find it difficult to imagine that the UV is a vow which works > outside Snape's choice, like this. I am not saying it isn't binding, > or having any consequences, if you don't follow it ? most certainly > it is a powerful spell. I take it, that Ron might be wrong about > being killed if you break it, but his father's reaction means it is > a very powerful spell, with disastrous consequences, if you chose to > disobey it. OTOH we see Snape trying in HBP to help Draco ? but he > seems free to choose the time of intervention, the amount of effort > he puts into it. Ceridwen: At a certain point, in any sort of magic, or any decision, choice disappears. As decisions are made, further choices drop from the list of possibilities. But, Imperio, Crucio, the AK, the UV, Stupefy, Expeliarmus, etc., are never reciprocal. Some, like Imperio, can be resisted. Some, like Expeliarmus, sneak up on the victim so quickly (if you do it right and have been practicing your non-verbal spells ;) ) that they have no chance of resisting. And certainly, a victim's level of mastery would have something to do with how well he or she can react. I don't envision a robot-like response, just a sudden compulsion that takes over while you're still going, 'Wha' happened???' The 'victim' would, of course, be the person who took the vow, not the one who engineered it. Once that victim has agreed to the vow, he or she has given up further choice. bboyminn: > I don't think the 'force' of the UV turns you into a mindless robot > who is forced to act. I do believe you can summor a force of > resistance against the compulsion to fulfill the Vow. Yet, as you > summon the will to resist, that starts a cascade that makes the > compulsion to act that much stronger... Ceridwen: As Orna pointed out, even Imperio can be fought. But look at what happened to Barty Crouch sr. when he tried, it seemed his mind was going. But something like the UV would give you the immediate compulsion to just do it. Unlike the Imperius curse, the UV acts immediately. When we see Imperio being resisted, it takes time. I don't think the UV allows for time. Once you have agreed to the UV and have taken the vow, it is internalized. Unlike Expeliarmus (yes, I know this isn't Dark Magic), the UV works from the inside, so there's nothing to block. Orna: > So the point I'm trying to make is that Snape has choice about when > to act, how to act etc., even if basically he can't break the spell > (without very grave consequences, IMO) Like Ron wants Romilda > desperately, but how to go about it ? is in his choice, in his > character (I'm sure Neville under the love-potion's influence > wouldn't hit Harry ? well perhaps with a plant ) That's also where > he is open to influence. Ceridwen: Until Snape was informed that Draco was not going to do it, he had all the time in the world, as long as it fit in with the time table LV had set for Draco. If LV said that Draco had to do the deed by the first of June, then Snape would not have until the second. As well, Draco would be in danger from LV if the deed was put off another day. So the part of the vow to protect Draco would kick in too. The love potion chocolates were pretty crude, if you ask me. I think, whatever Ron's methods, they would have had to be equally crude. Would have been funny, though! Orna: > Hadn't the situation in the tower been that there were DEs there, > and Snape had been informed Draco is unable to do it ? he would > surely be able to check it with Draco, see if he can help him refine > his skills, or have time to outline a plan for himself. He wouldn't > be forced to rush to DD and AK him just like that, IMO. bboyminn: > I've used the example several times, that if Snape maintained the > intent to kill Dumbledore, he could put off the consequences > indefinitely. Ceridwen: I agree. If the DEs hadn't come up to the tower, they wouldn't have been able to inform Snape that Draco couldn't do it. So he would have been free to continue as he was (unless Draco broke down and admitted that he was unable). As long as he maintained the intent to watch over Draco, help him as needed, and fulfill the task if Draco couldn't, I think he could have gone on indefinitely. The problem with the scene on the tower is that they had to go and tell him that Draco wasn't doing it, didn't seem to be able. Trigger words for the vow. Orna: > Snape's acts in the tower are IMO his decision about how to tackle > this situation, with all the complexity he sees there. And not an > involuntary robotic act produced out of the UV. > Perhaps in principle a bit like the Felix-potion works? it makes you > see the thing which feels right under its influence ? but you have > some freedom to choose, and perhaps even to resist it - and pay the > consequences. Ceridwen: Oh. Okay! I see. You're saying that the vow wouldn't force completely robot-like responses, down to the method of killing. I agree. Someone who can't cast an AK couldn't possibly use one. There are plenty of ways to kill someone. How to tackle the situation would completely depend on the person who is under the influence of the vow, and on that person's abilities. Absolutely! I'm just saying that, whatever method Snape chose to use, he was forced, by the internal spell, to kill Dumbledore. It would make sense to use the AK, being Snape, and with all those DEs there. It also seems like a very quick way to go for Dumbledore, rather than some of the other options available. bboyminn: > Still, I think we have so very little information on the details of > the Unbreakable Vow that almost any speculation is fair game. For > example, who or what is the judge of the UV? How and what determines > when and if the Vower has failed? Ceridwen: I think, in the case of the UV, it would work like a thermostat set to a particular temperature. When the air gets too hot or too cold, the A/C or heat kick in. With the UV, when certain criteria germain to the vow are met, the UV kicks in. bboyminn: > This is JKR's magic as a writer, she gives us just enough > information to drive us crazy, but not enough to truly answer the > questions that come up. Ceridwen: This would be a pretty boring list if she didn't! Ceridwen. From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Dec 24 23:29:26 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 23:29:26 -0000 Subject: Where was Firenze? In-Reply-To: <43AB3F62.3070900@erols.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145357 J. Lunatic: > Is there any canon indication of the color of dragon blood? Using > dragon blood here would tie into 1) Slughorn's use of dragon blood > to fake a break-in of the house in which he was squatting, and 2) > Dumbledore's 12 innovative uses for the stuff. In /Order of the > Phoenix/ Hagrid uses dragon meat (although it is described as > green) on his black eye, which suggests that dragon products have > healing properties. Finwitch: Well, I've also heard JKR saying that the twelfth use is oven cleaner, so we might keep guessing. Also, they use Dragon Hide gloves (and boots and jackets) for protection; some wizards have wands with a dragon heart-string as a core... Anyway, merely the fact of a wand-core suggests powerful magic. Unicorn, Dragon and Phoenix. A Unicorn is the symbol of pure and innocent - and slaying such a creature means a cursed life. (says Firenze) Although Unicorn blood has *very* powerful healing properties in a way that it keeps you alive, no matter how weak you are. I wonder, though - does the curse work only if the unicorn must *die* for your life? I mean- you know, like with Harry in the graveyard. His blood was taken but he definately didn't *die* of it, did he? Would drinking Unicorn Blood contain the curse if the Unicorn lived? And of course, the Phoenix. Healing Tears. Magical Song. Ability to travel in fire (which was where wizards picked the idea for floo I guess) and carry heavy loads. Deep loyalty. Dies with fire and reborns from the ashes. Now, I suppose the dragon must ALSO have somesort of healing - all other wand-core creatures do. Flesh of Dragon? Why not. However -- I wonder -- maybe that yellow stuff the twins gave Hermione contains Dragon's blood? I really liked the twins in HBP - I don't see how any of you blame them about the telescope accident. Sure, they made it. They also found a cure. They forgot it in their room - where everyone - including Hermione - certainly should have known better than to touch any of the stuff. I found it a bit ironical - just because Hermione who usually had all the answers falls when everyone else avoids ALL the possible other traps AND she can't find a cure except by asking the twins. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Dec 24 23:41:28 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 23:41:28 -0000 Subject: Who petrified Greyback? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145358 Gerry: > When Harry follows the DE's from the tower he is attacked by Greyback, > who almost kills him when he suddenly is petrified. I've been trying > to figure out who did this, and I have no clue. When Harry gets up and > starts running after Snape we get an overview from the battle and > everybody is duelling. Except two bodies. One dead DE and Bill. But > Bill was heavily wounded. So who saved Harry? Finwitch: My guess: Bill. He got the wounds while doing the saving, you see. His wounds *are* from a werewolf/werewolves, remember? They were all a bit worried about that aspect - except for dear Fleur. She truly loves Bill, doesn't she? It's also interesting that Tonks' patronus represents Remus - her love. So - I'd say love IS powerful magic, after all. As for Harry -- Prongs for Patronus. I wonder what form Ginny- Patronus would take? Or could Harry summon Padfoot as well as those representing all his friends and even his mother? Now THAT might get Voldemort, would it? Finwitch From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Dec 24 23:42:08 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 23:42:08 -0000 Subject: Does Snape hate Harry? (was:Re: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145359 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > Lupin *is* bad at communicating. That's cannon, I believe. But > what teaching moment was missed? *obligatory bad joke* No, THIS is the cannon! *bang* > However, at their very first meeting in PS/SS there hasn't really > been time for resentment and hatred to build up. Harry is > completely out of Snape's sight until he comes to Hogwarts. The > entire Order has disbanded, and Snape probably has very little to > do on his spying front. So I doubt Snape dwelled on Harry all that > much. Which is why it doesn't make sense to me that Snape hated > Harry on sight in PS/SS. It may not make *sense*, but then Snape is not always presented to us as a rational being, either. Let's assume that Snape really does hate Harry on sight. This would then imply that Snape has some serious unresolved issues, as well as some serious control and transference problems. As Neri points out above, LID!Snape explains a Snape with obligations who acts as a protector but is still able to be resentful, as opposed to a penitent (who is presumably thus trying to act like one). Tie this together with James, and the proposition that those things just haven't been gotten over...well, it's not what we may like to think abot Snape, but it's awfully well-supported and delineated in canon. -Nora is a big fan of Faith herself, too... From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 24 18:24:39 2005 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:24:39 -0000 Subject: The Needs of Snape's Redemption (was Re: Heroes or not) In-Reply-To: <43AD550F.2000008@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145360 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > "If you weren't insistent on living in your own little world, you would > have seen that I was working against Voldemort. You clearly felt your > little spying games were much more important than learning Occlumancy, > in spite of how important Professor Dumbledore told you it was. So I > gave up on that, and realized that the only way that you could be > convinced to learn your lessons was to make it personal. I couldn't > reveal what I was really doing, because you stupidly left your mind open > to Voldemort, so, in our last encounter at Hogwarts, I gave you clues to > what you needed to learn that even one as thick-headed as you would > understand what you needed to learn. I am, however, gratified that > SOMETHING I taught you managed to stick." ROTFLMAO!! I'll lay good money that something like this is exactly what we WON'T see. Not only would it be, IMO, so reprehensible as to lodge an enormous moral flaw at the very heart of the Potter books (making them nothing but kindling) but it would also fly directly in the face of almost every pattern JKR has established to this point. Let's face it, JKR LOVE comeuppance, as Nora has often pointed out. It is the chief moral pattern of the entire series. Now, I grant you that not everything is nice and neat at all times, but for her to flatly place a child abuser in such a superior position would, I think, be so fatal to these "moral" books as to complete defeat her avowed purpose of telling a "moral" story. I have to confess I've never understood the appeal of Snape. The man is a childish blowhard and an abuser of children. But that he has such an appeal in some quarters is deniable. However, that he does not have such an appeal for JKR is, I think, also well-stated in her interviews. Now, it is possible that we will see SOME speech like this. But at the heart of the Harry/Snape "reconciliation/improved relationship/whatever?" I very, very seriously doubt it. Lupinlore From kchuplis at alltel.net Sat Dec 24 22:04:40 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 22:04:40 -0000 Subject: Ton-tongue Dudley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145361 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lealess" wrote: > Dudley > not only has an obvious compulsion to eat sweets, as a Muggle he is > unfamiliar with the nature of wizard jokes. The twins have a cultural > advantage, so I would count it as Muggle-baiting as well. The only problem with that is that Dudley has already had to have a pig's tail surgically removed from his bottom. I would say that counts as some familiarity with wizarding ways. I'm still trying to find the reference BetsyHP gave about the ton- tongue coffee almost smothering him (sorry, don't remember which post it was). Quite honestly, if it were Draco Malfoy they would have been just as apt to do something like that. I don't think this was any kind of a "racist" issue, but a "bully takes the bait" issue. kchuplis From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 24 18:17:14 2005 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:17:14 -0000 Subject: Disappointment with the Last Book (was The Needs of Snape's Redemption) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145362 Susanbones2003 wrote: > > > > You warm my heart. I feared you only sought vigilante justice for Snape > and would pooh-pooh my reminder that lots of people have sinned against > Harry and many owe him something. Doubtless Snape enjoys a special > place of honor or ignominy, depending on how you read him. And I will > be looking for your proclamation of abomination with glee! > ROTFL!! You will doubtless get it, if JKR indeed lets Snape go unpunished. In that case, she will have made a hero out of a child abuser, and the books will be worth nothing whatsoever but expensive mulch. Snape MUST be made to do penance for the pain he has inflicted on Harry. Otherwise, IMO, JKR has indeed committed a reprehensible abomination, as well as engaging in spectacularly bad writing. The same is equally true for Umbridge and the Dursleys, but for whatever reason they have not been the focus of attention, lately. Having said that, I doubt either of us will be very disappointed with the last book, or particularly satisfied. JKR has managed to get herself into a quite a bind, in the sense of having an enormous amount to deal with in the last book, and relatively little time or space in which to deal with it. I don't think, to be honest, that very much of anything is going to get the space it probably needs. In fact, however the final situation with Snape comes out, I think we will see pretty much all sides going "You mean that's IT?" Let's see, she has to deal with the Snape situation, deal with the horcruxes, deal with Voldemort, finish off the Dursley arc, deal with Voldemort, have an appearance from Umbridge, have an appearance from Krum, and let us know what's going on with Voldemort. She has to get Ron/Hermione off the ground, and I would be stunned (and I think almost everyone else would, too) if we don't have at least a couple of nods at Harry/Ginny. We are going to learn more about Dumbledore and meet another member of the Order. Wormtail, we have been told, has some role to play and the events in the Shrieking Shack will be important. We have the Draco arc to finish. We also have been told that the final chapter is basically a "whatever happened to..." piece. That's all at a bare MINIMUM. In addition, she has the whole Percy arc, the situation with House unity, the situation with the Ministry, the House Elves, the relations with other magical creatures, the final fate of Remus Lupin (who rumor has long said has a major role to play in Book VII) and many other things she could finish. Oh, and I think most people would be shocked and disappointed not to see Harry's protection in action, or to get some coverage of Bill and Fleur's wedding. Let's face it, over the last couple of books JKR has spun her wheels for 1300 out of 1700 pages. Everything that moved things along in a significant way in OOTP and GOF could easily fit into one book the size of POA or slightly longer. Now she's against the wall with a lot of time wasted and and a lot of pressing issues to address. Therefore I suspect that in Book VII we will see a lot of the same technique we saw in some parts of GOF: i.e. a "by-the-numbers approach" that finds the book going from issue to issue at a hurried pace while JKR checks off various boxes and ties up various loose ends. Much will be done by things being "denoted" -- a term from liturgics, which means you don't do the whole ritual you just speak the key lines and move along briskly (e.g. there are points in certain Greek Orthodox rituals where the first lines of long prayers and creeds are said and you move on, pretty much on the principle that everybody knows the rest, anyway, so we'll just act like we said it). We saw some perfect examples of this in GOF. Dumbledore's confrontation with the Dursleys was a shorthand way of dealing with the whole "Dumbledore approves of child abuse" controversy. Hagrid's one paragraph about the dangers of Hogwarts and parental worries dealt with THAT issue. Harry and Dumbledore's conversation in the Weasleys' shed denoted dealing with the issues of Sirius' death. The Harry/Ginny romance was one giant denotion squeezing into a few pages what probably should have been spread over parts of three books. I think much of what happens in Book VII will follow this pattern. A few lines about Hogwarts here, a couple of lines about Percy there. With Snape, I think we will see something very similar. As Alla has pointed out, an apology from Snape would likely take the form, "Potter, I'm very sorry for everything since that night in Godric's Hollow -- everything," followed by a large wet sound as Snape expires. Now, the problem with denotion is that it often makes little sense. Dumbledore's confrontation with the Dursleys really makes very little sense once you start thinking about all the issues and implications. Harry/Ginny springs from nowhere. Hagrid's talk about the dangers of Hogwarts nods to all sorts of issues and leaves them unexplored. But JKR ain't the world's best when it comes to thoroughness and consistency, and isn't even averse to taking people OOC when she needs to deal with something quickly and tie it off. So I think we may well find much in Book VII to be hurried and OOC. JKR just doesn't have time to deal with everything without cutting a lot of corners. I suspect Peter is a strong candidate for OOCness, as is Draco, and also Snape. Harry may be the best candidate, and I wouldn't be surprised if Remus' character shifts if he does indeed have a big part. Their arcs are just too involved and complicated for JKR to bring them to an end without cutting corners, i.e. without using the type of denotion that amounts to "something happened here, but I don't have time to go into it." So, does the type of apology Alla theorizes make sense, strictly speaking? Not really, but I'll lay 4-1 odds that something like that is exactly what we'll see (it would have been 5-4, but after the Remus/Tonks revelation in in GoF that probability of such techniques being employed expanded greatly). Does Peter suddenly coming out of nowhere to play a role in Harry's victory really make sense? No, but I'll lay 7-1 that we'll see that. In fact, I'll lay the following odds on things (and since gambling debts are not legally enforcable in the USA, good luck getting any money out of me). I know the odds aren't mathematically correct, but I don't do complex calculations when I'm on vacation: Snape living: 1-50 Snape being ESE: 1-10 Snape being OFH/Grey: 1-1 Snape being DDM/Grey: 1-1 Snape facing karmic punishment: 5-1 Snape giving an "Alla-style" apology: 4-1 A third party involvement in the Harry/Snape relationship: 1-1 Peter playing a role in Harry's victory: 7-1 Draco playing a role in Harry's victory: 1-1 Karmic punishment/revelation from Petunia: 3-1 Karmic punishment for Umbridge: 4-1 Snape finding/disabling horcruxes "Steve-style": 1-10 Snape giving a "Potter you dunderhead" speech instead of apology: 1-5 Remus seeming OOC in final book: 3-1 Snape seeming OOC in final book: 5-1 Harry dieing: 1-3 Ron/Hermione dieing: 1-9 Lupinlore From coverton at netscape.com Sat Dec 24 22:57:44 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 16:57:44 -0600 Subject: Buckbeak and Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c608dd$79d5d7d0$cb6988ac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145363 Hi all list members Corey here. I don't think the Ferret thing will amount to any thing. I just think Hagrid was feeding it to Buckbeak cause he liked them. After all I don't think Buckbeak will kill Draco. Besides Draco has bigger issues to deal with besides Buckbeak. Let me know your opinions. Corey From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Dec 24 23:33:14 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:33:14 -0500 Subject: The wages of gluttony. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145364 Magpie: "One of my off-the-wall and off-the-cuff analogies, that I hope makes sense and doesn't offend anyone: Let's say I'm a white explorer and I encounter indigenous Americans for the first time and give them alcohol. They drink it and fall down drunk or get sick and think they are going to die. Well, I know they aren't going to die. I think it's a great practical joke, all my friends laugh at it. Look at the funny Indians." Not a good analogy. The Indians had no idea that the White Man was not to be trusted. Dudley knows that wizards are not to be trusted--he's had that dinned into him since he was old enough to understand anything. Even if he didn't know what the toffee would do for him, he knew, or should have known, that SOMETHING unpleasant would happen; the last time he ran afoul of a wizard, he got stuck with a pig's tail. No, he had nothing to blame the engorgement of his tongue than his own gluttony. And besides, considering how mean he's been to Harry all these years, it is high time that something nasty should happen to him. BAW [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From brianna_hp2 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 24 16:13:23 2005 From: brianna_hp2 at yahoo.com (Brianna Sautter) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 08:13:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: What is wrong with resurrection? Message-ID: <20051224161323.70773.qmail@web30004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145365 I finally decided to jump in the conversation again - lots of Tarot translation on Harry Potter for seekers, and I wanted to to talk more broadly. I've always maintained JK is in the Inklings genre. There are many interesting ways to do the rebirth and resurrection bit, which she's already done. Tolkein did it in an interesting manner too, and the Gandalf resurrection to the series to a different level for me. It's not the "Hero dies" genre that O. Rank insists on, which is all Greek. Nor is this the Disney schtick version of fairytales. It's more true to life, as there is something that we might call "grace" or hope in the world. I can think of several possible ways she could do this, without being soap opera-ish or imitating exactly some other writer. The possibilities range from Sirius being an Elijah/Christ figure (never actually died - extensive legends on this) and helping Harry, to the "flower" scent Harry smells in potions class being related to some sort of reviving agent. I actually know an Elijah tale that has a reviving flower, that restores a dead man to life. The possibilities are endless, and JK is so creative. I don't really understand why anyone would want this series to end with Harry dying, and every thing black and depressing. To me, it would sort of be like the Passover story ending with waves of water crashing down on all the escaping Hebrew slave, drowning them all. The way that story traditionally ends is redemptive, yet we also know that it didn't result in "happily ever after." So yes, I'm opinionated on this one. What makes me wonder though, is that Harry and V. are alive at the same time now, so I think we don't have the full scenario about the prophecy to begin with. Brianna From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Sun Dec 25 00:39:14 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 01:39:14 +0100 Subject: Clue in chapter title - Spinner's End References: Message-ID: <005c01c608eb$a2a16220$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 145366 Rebecca Scalf wrote: > What surprised me is there is NO listing for one who "spins a yarn" > meaning a "storyteller," > with the added connotation that the stories are fantastical, > far-fetched or unreliable. This > is the definition I like to think JKR is playing with. Miles: We had this discussion before, and most of us agreed that this is the idea Rowling had when inventing the address of Snape's home for this chapter. This adds to the discussion about the Vow and whether to take it is a reckless action of Snapes, or better why he did it. The chapter is written very precisely. We don't know and do not learn what is most interesting for us: Does Snape know what mission Draco has? If he does, then taking the Vow would be indeed reckless. If he does not know the mission, and that's what I believe, the situation is different. Then (and this is either a DDM or e OFH!Snape interpretation) Snape tries to *find out* what mission Draco has. The conversation between Snape and Draco during Slughorn's christmas party fits better into the "Snape does not know"-theory. So, if Snape really tries to get information about Draco's mission by pretending he already knows about it towards Narcissa and Bellatrix, the Vow would still be a mistake, but only after we all know about its content. Back to Spinner's End. The Spinner could be Snape, the tale him pretending to know about Voldemorts plan with Draco, and his end, his fatal end is the Vow, binding Snape to something he didn't know until the end. Alas - just my interpretation, one of many possible of this chapter and its title. Miles, wishing Merry Christmas to all those celebrating it tonight/tomorrow, and reminding them of *what* they celebrate and most people tend to forget, deliberately neglecting pc rules of the fellow listies from the US ;) From coverton at netscape.com Sat Dec 24 07:50:56 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 01:50:56 -0600 Subject: Why Umbridge, Neville won't kill LV Message-ID: <000001c6085e$cc898370$4b818eac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145367 I believe it was Dave that said Umbridge will "kill LV." Here's why I think not Umbridge nor anyone but Harry will do this: Umbridge has neither the courage nor the talent. We also have to remember the prophecy that says "neither can live while the other survives." Which means as we all know Harry is the one to either kill LV or be killed by LV. And after all this is Harry's story. Another thing why I think Neville won't kill LV -- yes, I agree it would be nice for Neville to kill LV but it just won't happen. Why it would be good for Neville but why I think it won't happen: 1. It would be good for Neville because he would have done what his father couldn't do. 2. Let's not forget that Neville was raised by a strict grandmother who wishes Neville lived up to his father. 3. And also this isn't Neville's story, it's Harry's. I believe that Neville will be overjoyed if Harry were to finally kill LV but I just don't think Neville will be the one. Corey From coverton at netscape.com Sat Dec 24 09:36:54 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:36:54 -0600 Subject: Ton-tongue Dudley, Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6086d$9a0a6db0$a85b95ac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145368 Betsy Hp: > You brought up the ton-tongue incident, and I think there *is* > a lasting effect there. There is a tension between > wizards and muggles. The Dursleys hate wizards, think they're > untrustworthy and dangerous. The twins proved their fears > beautifully. Bruce: > Did they force the toffee down his throat? Dudley > picked it up and ate it of his own free will and accord. > He has nobody to thank for what happened but his own gluttonous > self. Corey: Bruce is right in my opinion, I have to disagree with Betsy. The twins aren't evil. If I remember after the incident in question Arther asks the twins why he gave it to the muggle and they said "we didn't give it to him cause he's a muggle; no, we gave it to him cause he's a great bullying git, isn't he Harry?" So even how I agree with Bruce now that I write this I can see both sides of the debate. Corey From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Dec 24 22:11:36 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 17:11:36 -0500 Subject: Spinner; Dumbledore & Draco Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145369 Rebecca: "Definition d) may be Spinner JKR's little joke on us - she gave us just enough clues to keep us guessing which direction Snape will run." As d) is a play in American football, rather than in soccer or rugby, and JKR is British, I think this is unlikely. BAW From coverton at netscape.com Sat Dec 24 22:20:49 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 16:20:49 -0600 Subject: Wormtail spying on Snape (Re: Another Curse-Breaker + HP7 book title?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c608d8$51e02500$cb6988ac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145370 Brothergib: > Dumbledore was dying anyway from the curse within Slytherin's > ring. He decided to use his death to allow Snape to gain > Voldemort's trust. At present Voldemort does not trust Snape > enough to tell him anything. He even has Wormtail spying on > Snape!! I forgot about Wormtail spying on Snape. I don't think Voldemort chose a very good spy. Don't think Wormtail is very good because he's too scared of Snape, imo. Well, hope to hear what you think. Your fellow list member, Corey From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 01:37:59 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 01:37:59 -0000 Subject: Does Snape hate Harry? (was:Re: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145371 Betcy Hp: > > However, at their very first meeting in PS/SS there hasn't really > > been time for resentment and hatred to build up. Harry is > > completely out of Snape's sight until he comes to Hogwarts. Nora: > It may not make *sense*, but then Snape is not always presented to us > as a rational being, either. Let's assume that Snape really does > hate Harry on sight. This would then imply that Snape has some > serious unresolved issues, as well as some serious control and > transference problems. Alla: Yes, besides in order not to sound as complete "me, too" Nora, let's not forget that being "out of Snape sight" for twelve years did not stop Snape from continue hating Sirius. Moreover James is "out of Snape sight" as Betsy put it so completely as in " he is dead" and if THAT did not stop Snape from letting go, I am not sure that seeing child who looks like him will not trigger the hate right away. I don't think that anybody will dispute that Snape still hates James, right? In any event, my point being is simply that I have no doubt that Snape can hate Harry the moment he saw the boy. Does it mean that I think he has unresolved issues as Nora put it? Oh, yeah. Plenty IMO. Does it mean that I think that he had any right to SHOW to Harry that he has those issues? No way, IMO. Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 02:30:17 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 02:30:17 -0000 Subject: JKR's website update - YES., YES, YES. :-)/ could be spoilers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145373 JKR updated the website and she puts the stop to several rumors. POSSIBLE SSSSSS PPPPPP OOOOOO IIIIII LLLLLL EEEEEE RRRRRRR SSSSSSS We can safely cross out Sorting Hat from the list of potential horcruxes now. Oh, and Petunia will not display the magic abilities. And Peter's silver hand will not kill Remus. Dare I hope that Remus will not be killed at all, JKR? Please? Oh, and Remus will not come back as DADA teacher. Go and read for yourself. :-) Happy Holidays! Alla From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sun Dec 25 02:40:08 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 02:40:08 -0000 Subject: FILK: I Am a Scary Hippogriff Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145374 One final Xmas/HP filk, and the first solo for Buckbeak I Am a Scary Hippogriff To the tune of the beloved Christmas classic God Rest Ye Merry Hippogriffs A Muggle variant of the tune available here: http://www.carols.org.uk/god_rest_ye_merry_gentlemen.htm Dedicated to the Great Pippin Revival THE SCENE: Before Hagrid's hut ? in the chaos following Dumbledore's murder, an unexpected ally intervenes on Harry's behalf. BUCKBEAK: I am a scary hippogriff To those I mark as prey I now shall target Snapey As he makes his getaway I have a special screech reserved For his young prot?g? Colliding with Snape and Malfoy Snape and Malfoy Colliding with Snape and Malfoy Three years ago at Hogwarts School I nearly lost my head That Malfoy lad told lies of me Of how his blood was shed But thanks to Harry and to Herm With Sirius I fled Oh, riding from Snape and Malfoy Snape and Malfoy Oh, riding from Snape and Malfoy I spent a year at Grimmauld Place Where Harry fed me rats And with the name of Witherwings Returned to my old flat Let Snapey hurl his worst hex I'll best him in combat I'm gliding at Snape and Malfoy Snape and Malfoy I'm gliding at Snape and Malfoy - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm A VERY HARRY CHRISTMAS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/Christmas.htm From luv2readhp at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 01:50:45 2005 From: luv2readhp at yahoo.com (Kimberly) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 17:50:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dumbledore Wrong? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051225015045.23071.qmail@web30909.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145375 > graverobber: > So there are actually 5 horcruxes still > out there. > 1) Hufflepuff's cup, 2)Something of Griffindor's, 3) > Slitherin's > Locket, 4) Nagini, and 5) LV himself. (HBP) > > Now the true question is.... What is the thing from > Godric > Griffindor? My thoughts are on Godric Griffindor's > sword. > > Kimberly here: I would agree that one of them is something of Gryffindor himself, however, as for the sword: "I am confident, however, that the only known relic of Gryffindor remains safe." Dumbledore pointed his blackened fingers to the wall beind him, where a ruby-encrusted sword reposed within a glass case. HBP, Amer. ed., p. 505 Now, is this an instance where Dumbledore is mistaken or JKR telling us it's something else ? Kimberly From luv2readhp at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 02:32:33 2005 From: luv2readhp at yahoo.com (Kimberly) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:32:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dumbledore Wrong? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051225023233.63736.qmail@web30904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145376 KathyO: And I've said this part before and > ended up berated > for it, but somehow I think the last horcrux (with > the exception of > LV himself) to be destroyed will be the sorting hat. Kimberly here: Forgive me if it's been stated already but what part of canon gives you that idea ? I've heard this theory before but in all my readings just can't muster it up as a possibility. Kimberly From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Dec 25 03:14:06 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 03:14:06 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145377 > Neri: > Pippin, you are precisely illustrating the point I was making. The > canon you quoted is the basic assumption of LID, not of DDM. There's > nothing in Dumbledore's words here about Snape's remorse or about him > changing sides or being Dumbledore's man, which are the necessary > assumptions for DDM. So I repeat the point ? Snape's hatred for Harry > does *not* follow directly from the basic assumption of DDM, and it > *does* follow from the basic assumption of LID. > Pippin: Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought the LID theory is that the obligation Dumbledore referred to is strictly magical. I think it is magical *and* moral. See, I think young Snape felt that he had never done anything as dirty to James as what the Marauders did to him with the werewolf prank, so when he found that he had lowered himself to James's level by siccing Voldemort on him, he did genuinely feel awful about it. I think up to that time he might have been OFH!, slithering out of action as Bella put it, witnessing the deaths of nameless strangers, but the realization that people he knew were going to die seems to have had an effect on him. It may have caused him to re-evaluate everything, just as Harry's discovery of who had written the Prince's book made him aware of the dark potential of everything in it. With a little encouragement from Harry, 'Snape gave information to Voldemort that turned out to concern the Potters' has morphed into 'Snape got the Potters killed' in the minds of some. But the prophecy says 'those who have thrice defied him.' That would hardly put Lily and James on Voldemort's fluffy bunny list. It seems to me Snape had an easy cop-out. He could have said, "The Dark Lord would get around to killing them anyway -- *I* didn't have anything to do with it." But he didn't. That may be part of what convinced Dumbledore that Snape was sincere. Now as to how Snape can treat Harry so badly, the fact that Snape thinks bullying is an acceptable teaching method is unfortunate, but not, unfortunately, a moral issue by wizarding standards. Few people in the WW see that there is anything wrong with bullying students any more than they see what's wrong with House Elf slavery. They've always done it that way, it seems to work, nobody's complaining, so what's the problem? Snape is no more likely to stop being a bully than he is to join SPEW. Doesn't mean he's not as much DDM as Hagrid, who also thinks the House Elves are happy as they are. After all, what is Snape bullying Harry to do? Follow Dumbledore's orders, not get carried away with his celebrity, study harder, pay attention in class, obey school rules, answer questions truthfully and speak politely to his teachers-- nothing wrong with those things, is there? That's very different from Umbridge or the Dursleys or Voldemort. You know, if you read 'Spinner's End' as straight exposition, presuming that Snape is telling the truth all the way through, then it is perfunctory and rather dull, but if you think Snape is DDM! it's like a Chinese puzzle, and deeply artful. Probably the best argument for DDM I've come up with yet. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 03:27:07 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 03:27:07 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145378 Pippin > With a little encouragement from Harry, 'Snape gave information to > Voldemort that turned out to concern the Potters' has morphed into > 'Snape got the Potters killed' in the minds of some. But the prophecy > says 'those who have thrice defied him.' That would hardly put Lily and James > on Voldemort's fluffy bunny list. It seems to me Snape > had an easy cop-out. He could have said, "The Dark Lord would get > around to killing them anyway -- *I* didn't have anything to do with it." > Alla: Yeah, Snape could have said that, Snape says many things, which I personally find quite unconscionable, but could you point me to canon which proves it, namely that without knowing the prophecy Voldemort would get around to killing them anyway? Do we KNOW that "thrice defied him" occurred before the Prophecy, not after it? I mean, it is likely that Lily and James were on the hit list as members of the Order, but there are hit lists and there are hit lists, IMO. It seems to me that after learning about the Prophecy, Voldemort placed Potters on very SPECIAL hit list. IMO of course. So, I am sorry, Pippin, but I don't see an easy cop out for dear Severus at all. IMO of course, Alla From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sun Dec 25 03:43:20 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 03:43:20 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter genetics In-Reply-To: <000001c5fadb$d50c44a0$6401a8c0@waterdeep> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145380 > > Setting aside the religious argument entirely, there is hard scientific evidence that everyone in the world is related to > one another if you go back far enough. A fascinating book > called "The Seven Daughters of Eve" > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393323145 details the > writer's scientific study of mitochondria dna. To quote: > "Unlike the DNA in the chromosomes of the nucleus, which is > inherited from both parents, everyone gets their mitochondria > dna from only one parent - their mother." The rate of > mutation for mitochondria dna sets the "common mitochondrial > ancestor for ALL modern humans" at around 150,000 years ago. > > I can guess that genetics have been discussed in relation to > Harry Potter, but since I emerged out of "no mail" mode quite > recently I'd be interested if anyone wants to discuss again. > > Perhaps Homo sapiens ability to do magic let them far out- > compete their Homo erectus bretheren in their dragon/unicorn/acromantula/dementor/etc infested world. Or > perhaps Homo sapiens' magical ability caused some creatures > to develop magical abilities themselves to defend against > overhunting and extinction. > > But where and how would the "magic" gene originate? In > anything? I suppose it's a little like the evolution of sight > question - how can you see without a fully formed eye? How > can you use magic without a fully formed magical ability > (regardless of how weak it might be *cough*Neville*cough*.) > > Perhaps any cell which could sense or create magic would be > useful to the original creature it evolved in. The better the > creature could sense or create magic, the more competitive > edge it would have. I can just see an early Homo sapien > hunting, and just as the creature they're chasing is about to > escape he wishes it would trip - and it does. Or perhaps > someone is gathering fruit but the best is far out of reach and > perhaps he wishes it would just fall - and it does. Or perhaps > an early Homo sapien suddenly senses an acromantula is stalking > her, and she knows to run and hide... > > Perhaps the magic genes are slightly toxic or cancerous, and the > unstable genes lead to the evolution of the many human-variant > creatures, like gnomes, leprechauns, banshees, giants, hags, > etc. I'd love to know what others think of evolution in the > context of the magical Harry Potter world. > > Jenny > I love this idea, and I'm sorry I haven't responded to it sooner. _The Seven Daughters of Eve_ is on my book club's long list; I'll push to see that we read it. I really like the idea that we're all cousins under the skin. I also love your theory of unstable "mutant" magic genes, though I think hagness is more of a psychological thing, like Snapeness , and not the result of genetic influences. Magical Purrs! --La Gatta From Nanagose at aol.com Sun Dec 25 03:48:09 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 03:48:09 -0000 Subject: JKR's website update - YES., YES, YES. :-)/ could be spoilers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145381 I don't think this needs a spoiler space (at least, I hope not)... > Alla: > Oh, and Petunia will not display the magic abilities. Christina: I'm so glad that she finally debunked this one. A lot of people that didn't think that Merope was the one to display magic late in life theorized that Petunia would take this role- thoughts from the Petunia-has-magic camp? > Alla: > And Peter's silver hand will not kill Remus. Dare I hope that Remus > will not be killed at all, JKR? Please? Christina: Even though Remus is my very favorite character, I used to like the idea of him dying for thematic reasons. I've given up on that idea a bit though since HBP. This does seem to lend some additional weight to the idea that the Marauders are dying in the reverse order that they appear on the map (a theory I've always kind of liked). Also, Harry-as-Metamorphmagus has been shot down, which really made me scratch my head. I had always liked that theory because it explained the purpose behind Tonks. Her role in OotP could have been easily filled by another character, so it seemed odd that JKR would introduce her at all. I think that this news might make more people interested in HBP Tonks theories, unless it turns out that *another* character is a metamorphmagus (ie, Narcissa- Tonks does seem to hint that being a metamorphmagus might be genetic). The only other possibility I can think of is that somebody's (Snape?) patronus will change in HP7 and JKR used Tonks to introduce the idea to us in HBP. Also, there's a new FAQ poll that includes three very enticing choices- including issues that we have debated extensively! Christina From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Dec 25 04:39:16 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 04:39:16 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145382 > Alla: > > Yeah, Snape could have said that, Snape says many things, which I > personally find quite unconscionable, but could you point me to > canon which proves it, namely that without knowing the prophecy > Voldemort would get around to killing them anyway? > Pippin: Well, that's what Dumbledore says, isn't it, that the prophecy doesn't make people do things? Alla: > Do we KNOW that "thrice defied him" occurred before the Prophecy, > not after it? I mean, it is likely that Lily and James were on the > hit list as members of the Order, but there are hit lists and there > are hit lists, IMO. It seems to me that after learning about the > Prophecy, Voldemort placed Potters on very SPECIAL hit list. IMO of > course. > Pippin: ROTFL! You mean there's a special list of people that Voldemort wants more dead than others? "Not only merely dead, but really most sincerely dead" ? Terminated with *more* than extreme prejudice? I haven't got my books available, but I don't recall any canon for this. Except maybe in the Oz books. IIRC, The Nome King once ordered some annoying visitors killed several times until they were dead. :-) Really, if Voldemort moved Lily and James ahead of other people he was planning to kill, then Snape saved some innocent lives, didn't he? He could have claimed credit for that too. Okay, not really. But would OFH!Snape see why he shouldn't? See, I don't understand how a person without any core belief that killing was wrong could convince someone like Dumbledore that he was a moral person, not for a few months but year after year. Pippin From uniquebeauty_177 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 04:38:38 2005 From: uniquebeauty_177 at yahoo.com (uniquebeauty_177) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 04:38:38 -0000 Subject: Madam Bones comments: Clues of Harry's protection? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145383 Hi everyone I'm new and it's my first time posting so forgive me if this has been discussed before. I tried searching for it in the messages but couldn't find anything. I'm wondering about the significance of Madam Bones comments in Harry's hearing in Book 5. " "We have no record of any witch or wizard living in Little Whinging other than Harry Potter," said Madam Bones at once. "That situation has always been closely monitored, given...given past events." " ( OOTP, pg 143 US, Ch 8) What exactly did she mean by "past events"? How big of an event or events was it that it had to be "closely monitored"? Was Harry going to live there the event? I don't think so. I think it has something to do with this passage from book 4. (LV talking) "But how to get at Harry Potter? For he has been better protected that I think even he knows, protected in ways devised by Dumbledore long ago, when it fell to him to arrange the boy's future. 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...." (GOF, pg, 657 US, Ch 33) IMO, DD did very big and important magic at Privet Drive before he took Harry there. And because the books say "ways" and "events" it was more than one single piece of magic. Enough to get the Ministry involed. It would explain the time thats missing from LV downfall and Harry showing up at the Dursleys. Also, how does LV know that he can't touch Harry there? LV's been "less than the meanest ghost" since that night he tried to kill Harry. So who told him about the ancient magic? Given the two passages and the few people LV came in contact with since that night I think it was Bertha Jorkins who told him. She would have known all about it if the Ministry had been monitoring that place since before Harry went to live there. What was the ancient magic, if any? How does this tie in with Book 7? And DDs story? I just wanted share my thoughts and ask everyone elses. --Monique From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sun Dec 25 05:08:57 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 05:08:57 -0000 Subject: Does Snape hate Harry? (was:Re: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145385 > ... > > As Neri points out above, LID!Snape explains a Snape with obligations > who acts as a protector but is still able to be resentful, as opposed > to a penitent (who is presumably thus trying to act like one). Tie > this together with James, and the proposition that those things just > haven't been gotten over...well, it's not what we may like to think > abot Snape, but it's awfully well-supported and delineated in canon. > > -Nora is a big fan of Faith herself, too... > What's LID? I don't find it on the List Acronyms list. --La Gatta From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 05:15:19 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 05:15:19 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145386 > Alla: > > > Do we KNOW that "thrice defied him" occurred before the Prophecy, > > not after it? I mean, it is likely that Lily and James were on the > > hit list as members of the Order, but there are hit lists and there > > are hit lists, IMO. It seems to me that after learning about the > > Prophecy, Voldemort placed Potters on very SPECIAL hit list. IMO of > > course. > > > > Pippin: > > ROTFL! You mean there's a special list of people that Voldemort > wants more dead than others? "Not only merely dead, but > really most sincerely dead" ? Terminated with *more* than extreme > prejudice? I haven't got my books available, but I don't recall > any canon for this. Except maybe in the Oz books. IIRC, The Nome > King once ordered some annoying visitors killed several times > until they were dead. :-) Alla: No, Pippin THAT was of course pure speculation of mine, but I was definitely trying to point out that the idea that without Snape blabbing to Voldemort the contents of the Prophecy, Voldemort would have killed Potters anyway does not have much canon support either, IMO. I was just pointing out that IF Voldemort was hunting Potters before Prophecy, then he would have made them the preferential targets after that, BUT even though it is quite possible that they were targets, we don't know that for sure, IMO. I am sorry, but I think that Snape committed something, which could not be easily dismissed by him, no matter how hard he would tried, that is if he has a conscience anyways which from time to time I sincerely doubt. Pippin: > See, I don't understand how a person without any core belief that > killing was wrong could convince someone like Dumbledore that > he was a moral person, not for a few months but year after year. Alla: LOLOL! Easy? Just keep lying to Dumbledore year after year after year. I mean, really Snape fooled either Dumbledore or Voldemort, right? I vote for Dumbledore :) JMO of course, Alla. From ShylahM at gmail.com Sun Dec 25 05:43:40 2005 From: ShylahM at gmail.com (Shylah) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 18:43:40 +1300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's website update - YES., YES, YES. :-)/ could be spoilers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <403e946f0512242143s4d51c929m27c809bdb28ee32c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145387 >Dumbledore11214 wrote: > > JKR updated the website and she puts the stop to several rumors. > > POSSIBLE > > SSSSSS > PPPPPP > OOOOOO > IIIIII > LLLLLL > EEEEEE > RRRRRRR > SSSSSSS > > Snipped. > > And Peter's silver hand will not kill Remus. Dare I hope that Remus > will not be killed at all, JKR? Please? > > Alla Tanya. After reading HBP and the introduction of Fenrir, and the discussions of the idea of Peter redeeming himself, bringing those two together could be a real possibility in my thinking if the tradition of silver still stands, just not for Remus. Been studying the wording to see, but I can't decide. From luv2readhp at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 03:57:33 2005 From: luv2readhp at yahoo.com (Kimberly) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:57:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: What the last word in the seventh book may be... In-Reply-To: <20051222192259.47523.qmail@web50214.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051225035734.90267.qmail@web30910.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145388 Ann Marie wrote: > if any of the three > main characters die in the final book, but > especially Harry, then my love for the books > would die also. > > As much as I enjoy them, I could never read them > again. Sad to say but that's how I feel. It's > happened in other series of books I've read and > can no longer enjoy. Kimberly here: For me, it would be very difficult to re-read the series knowing that Harry dies at the end. For me, he IS the series and I would definitely grieve to the point that re-reading it would be, to be frank, painful. I really hope that's not the ending she chooses although I haven't ruled out the possibility of it happening. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 08:10:14 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 08:10:14 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145389 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > So, we can't read much into Snape not killing Harry for just this > > reason, but I don't think this same reasoning applies to Snape not > > allowing the other DE to kill Harry. > > > > Gerry > > I'm not sure I follow you here. What reasoning are you referring > to here? Snape knows if he kills Harry he will be toast. ... > > Actually I think LV cannot risk even a mediocre DE to get away > with killing Harry, because he will still have done something > that LV could not. That can give a person airs. And can make > him less loyal. If you are truly paranoid, you do not take these > kind of risks. > > If Snape wanted Harry dead he would have .... He did not. He > protected Harry. Did he do it because he is DDM? Or because he > so loyal to LV ... > > Gerry > bboyminn: First, I'm aware that I rambled a bit and probably wasn't that clear in my intent. I agree with you about Snape. Snape is too smart and too powerful, and if he killed Harry, Voldemort's paranoia would set in right away. Voldemort would feel truly threatened by Snape, and would have to get rid of him. So, on that, we agree. But I don't agree that just any DE could kill Harry, and Voldemort would feel the same level of paranoia and threat. The goons at the top of the tower don't exactly strike me as 'cream of the crop'. So, I suspect Voldemort would feel much less threatened. Though, at the same time, I can see Voldemort either minimizing the role of the 'other' DE who killed Harry, or sending him on dangerous assignments until he failed and was killed. So, Voldie certainly wouldn't want to have any appearing-powerful DE's around. But I really don't think he would feel all that threatened by them. Eliminating them would merely be precaution disguised as a priviledge. Snape however would be a clear and ever present threat, and certainly Voldemort would see Snape as someone who truly could parlay the killing of Harry into getting rid of Voldemort and taking over. And, that would be independant of whether Snape actually wanted to do that. The point I am making is that in Voldemort's eyes, there would truly be a significant difference between Snape killing Harry and a random goon-DE killing Harry. The end result to the killer might be the same, but the attitude and level of paranoia would be very different. My other point is that, we can justify Snape not killing Harry with a variety of explanations. However, we can not so easily explain why Snape prevented other DE's from cursing or killing Harry. If Snape is truly Voldemort's man, then why would he care at all what happened to Harry. Some pain, some misery, perhaps even an injury, maybe even death, why should Snape care; if he is Voldemort's man. He did his job in killing Dumbledore, everything else is just gravy. If Snape could report back that Harry was injured or dead, as well as Dumbledore being killed, I don't see Voldemort complaining much. The difference between what you are saying and what I am saying is relatively small, but none the less distinct. I DO see a difference between Snape killing Harry, and a random DE killing Harry, with regards to Voldemort's reaction to the event. I further see a noticable distinction between Snape not killing Harry and Snape not allowing other DE's to harm or kill Harry. Don't know if I've made it better or worse, but there it is. Steve/bboyminn From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sun Dec 25 08:11:36 2005 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 00:11:36 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why Umbridge, Neville won't kill LV In-Reply-To: <000001c6085e$cc898370$4b818eac@Overton> References: <000001c6085e$cc898370$4b818eac@Overton> Message-ID: <4110375009.20051225001136@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145390 Corey: CO> I believe it was Dave that said Umbridge will "kill LV." CO> Here's why I think not Umbridge nor anyone but Harry will CO> do this: Umbridge has neither the courage nor the talent. Me: No, I theorized that Umbridge might *take credit* for killing LV. In this scenario, Harry is still the hero, but there's irony in that he's famous for being "The Boy Who Lived", i.e. for surviving through the sacrifice of another, but when he actually proactively vanquishes the Dark Lord, the glory goes to someone totally undeserving. -- Dave From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 08:28:06 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 08:28:06 -0000 Subject: JKR's website update - Silver Hand In-Reply-To: <403e946f0512242143s4d51c929m27c809bdb28ee32c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145391 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Shylah wrote: > > >Dumbledore11214 wrote: > > > > JKR updated the website and she puts the stop to several rumors. > > > > POSSIBLE > > > > SSSSSS > > PPPPPP > > OOOOOO > > IIIIII > > LLLLLL > > EEEEEE > > RRRRRRR > > SSSSSSS > > > > Snipped. > > > > And Peter's silver hand will not kill Remus. Dare I hope that > > Remus will not be killed at all, JKR? Please? > > > > Alla > > > Tanya. > > After reading HBP and the introduction of Fenrir, and the > discussions of the idea of Peter redeeming himself, bringing > those two together could be a real possibility in my thinking > if the tradition of silver still stands, just not for Remus. > Been studying the wording to see, but I can't decide. > bboyminn: Here is the problem I have with any and all 'Silver Hand' theories. The hand is surely silver colored, but there is nothing in the books that would make us think that Peter's hand is made out of the metal Silver. I suspect Peter could use his silver-colored hand in some way to defend Harry, perhaps by defeating a DE who was threatening Harry, but that would be due to the strength of the hand, and not to our assumption of its composition. Just a thought, and time for bed. Steve/bboyminn From coverton at netscape.com Sun Dec 25 08:24:35 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 02:24:35 -0600 Subject: Why Umbridge, Neville won't kill LV In-Reply-To: <4110375009.20051225001136@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <000201c6092c$aa49c490$4bb881ac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145392 Corey: CO> I believe it was Dave that said Umbridge will "kill LV." Dave: > No, I theorized that Umbridge might *take credit* for killing > LV. In this scenario, Harry is still the hero, but there's > irony in that he's famous for being "The Boy Who Lived", i.e. > for surviving through the sacrifice of another, but when he > actually proactively vanquishes the Dark Lord, the glory goes > to someone totally undeserving. Sorry if I misquoted you Dave. That's an interesting point. But I don't think Umbridge will take credit for that. I think the only one that will take credit for killing LV will be Harry. Corey From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sun Dec 25 10:34:45 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 10:34:45 -0000 Subject: Where was Firenze? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145393 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > A Unicorn is the symbol of pure and innocent - and slaying such a > creature means a cursed life. (says Firenze) Although Unicorn blood > has *very* powerful healing properties in a way that it keeps you > alive, no matter how weak you are. I wonder, though - does the curse > work only if the unicorn must *die* for your life? I mean- you know, > like with Harry in the graveyard. His blood was taken but he > definately didn't *die* of it, did he? Would drinking Unicorn Blood > contain the curse if the Unicorn lived? I thinkt it does. Unless the Unicorn offers it to you. Otherwise you will have taken its blood by force, weakened it. Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sun Dec 25 11:15:29 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 11:15:29 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145394 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Alla: > > No, Pippin THAT was of course pure speculation of mine, but I was > definitely > trying to point out that the idea that without Snape blabbing to > Voldemort the contents of the Prophecy, Voldemort would have killed > Potters anyway does not have much canon support either, IMO. Actually, I think there is. Somewhere in OoP I believe it is Remus who explains how the first time the DE's were killing the hugely outnumbered Order members one by one. Apparently being an Order member was enough to merit a place on the death list. OK, maybe not LV's personal one, but a death list nonetheless. Gerry, who is too lazy to find the exact quote From Nanagose at aol.com Sun Dec 25 16:46:47 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 16:46:47 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145395 > > Alla: > > > > No, Pippin THAT was of course pure speculation of mine, but I was > > definitely trying to point out that the idea that without Snape > > blabbing to Voldemort the contents of the Prophecy, Voldemort > > would have killed Potters anyway does not have much canon support > > either, IMO. > Gerry > Actually, I think there is. Somewhere in OoP I believe it is Remus > who explains how the first time the DE's were killing the hugely > outnumbered Order members one by one. > Gerry, who is too lazy to find the exact quote Christina: (OotP, Scholastic, page 177:) " 'Molly, that's enough,' said Lupin firmly. 'This isn't like last time...we're much better off than we were last time, you weren't in the Order then, you don't understand, last time we were outnumbered twenty to one by Death Eaters and they were picking us off one by one...' " Add to that the fact that out of the 22-or-so members of the Order who are in the original photograph, only about 15 lived to the night that the Potters died. That's not counting James and Lily, who were effectively out of the Order when they went into hiding. That left 12 wizards opposing LV's regime (the 13th was a traitor). As a matter of fact, if Snape hadn't blabbed about the prophecy, I'd argue that the Potters would have been in *more* danger. Voldemort targetted them specifically because of the news from Snape, which sent them into Fidelius. Now, obviously we know that Peter betrayed their position, but generally speaking, Lily and James were safer under the Fidelius (and even before that when they were "in hiding") than they would have been if they had been out visibly fighting. I'm not saying that Snape did them any favors, but I think it definitely supports the thought that Voldemort would have killed James and Lily anyway. I don't know how much it matters that LV would have killed the Potters even without Snape's information, but it absolutely has canon evidence. The Order and the Death Eaters weren't equals in the old war- the Order was more like an underground resistance that the Death Eaters hoped to squash. And with 12 wizards countering an entire regime (with at least one traitor thwarting their efforts), well...the picture seems bleak. Christina From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 25 16:50:07 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 16:50:07 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145396 "Steve" wrote: > I don't agree that just any DE > could kill Harry, and Voldemort > would feel the same level of > paranoia and threat. Perhaps, but I think Mr. Joe Average Death Eater would have a very difficult time killing Harry. With the significant exception of Snape none of the other Death Eaters in the tower that night were a match for Harry, not even the mighty werewolf, Harry disposed of them one after another. To my mind this suggests that both Harry and Snape are extraordinarily powerful wizards. > we can justify Snape not killing Harry > with a variety of explanations. However, > we can not so easily explain why Snape > prevented other DE's from cursing or > killing Harry. If Snape wants to be the top wizard he can't do that as long as Voldemort is around. I think Snape has heard the entire prophecy although he only told Voldemort the fist half because he new it would encourage him to attack the boy and he knew that attack would have disastrous consequences for the Dark Lord. Today the last thing in the world he'd want to is to let somebody kill Harry before he can defeat Voldemort for good and clear Snape's path to become the greatest wizard in the world. Eggplant From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 17:14:01 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 17:14:01 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145397 > Christina: > > (OotP, Scholastic, page 177:) > " 'Molly, that's enough,' said Lupin firmly. 'This isn't like last > time...we're much better off than we were last time, you weren't in > the Order then, you don't understand, last time we were outnumbered > twenty to one by Death Eaters and they were picking us off one by > one...' " > > Add to that the fact that out of the 22-or-so members of the Order who > are in the original photograph, only about 15 lived to the night that > the Potters died. That's not counting James and Lily, who were > effectively out of the Order when they went into hiding. That left 12 > wizards opposing LV's regime (the 13th was a traitor). Alla: Gah, obviously I am not being clear on what I am trying to say. YES, as I said upthread - Lily and James were in danger as Members of the Order, of course. BUT they were in no MORE danger than any other member, with Snape blabbing about prophecy, they became Voldemort's special targets, no? Hence my previous speculation about two hit lists, which may not have support in canon per se, but I think it is pretty much a given that when Voldemort learned about Prophecy, Lily and James stopped being in his mind just ANY Order Member, which should be killed sometimes, maybe and started being parents of the Chosen One, who should be killed ASAP and right now. I did not do the calculations, but I trust your numbers - so out of 22 original members of OOP, 15 lived, so Voldemort killed approximately 33%. I think that Lily and James had pretty big chance to be among those 15, no? I mean, they could have been killed or not, but Voldemort would not have paid them any special attention, no more than to others,no? JMO of course, Alla. From coverton at netscape.com Sun Dec 25 11:43:55 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 05:43:55 -0600 Subject: Why I think Lockhart will get out of St Mungo Message-ID: <000001c60948$83d1fc30$4bb881ac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145398 Hi all list members. Corey trying to start another debate. After all that's what the list is for right. Does any one except me think that Lockhart will get out of St. Mungo hospital. After all he's been their since CoS ended. 3 reasons why I think he'll get out. 1. He's been there entirely to long. 2 The curse that he got hit with was not a extremely bad curse so while it did cause distress and damage it should not keep him in St.Mungo for the rest of his life. 3. His Fans I think miss him even though he's a totally inept wizard who didn't do any of what he said he did but stole it from people he has fans as a great story teller. When he gets out I don't think he'll be doing anything which can put him back in St. Mungo any time soon. Corey From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 17:46:03 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 17:46:03 -0000 Subject: Wormtail spying on Snape (Re: Another Curse-Breaker + HP7 book title?) In-Reply-To: <000201c608d8$51e02500$cb6988ac@Overton> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145399 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Corey Overton" wrote: > > Brothergib: > > Dumbledore was dying anyway from the curse within Slytherin's > > ring. He decided to use his death to allow Snape to gain > > Voldemort's trust. At present Voldemort does not trust Snape > > enough to tell him anything. He even has Wormtail spying on > > Snape!! > > > I forgot about Wormtail spying on Snape. I don't think Voldemort > chose a very good spy. Don't think Wormtail is very good because > he's too scared of Snape, imo. Well, hope to hear what you think. > > Your fellow list member, > Corey > bboyminn: I think Wormtail WOULD spy on Snape. He would certainly seize any opportunity to put himself at an advantage and improve his standing in Voldemort's eyes. If he had the dirt on Snape, without hesitation, he would 'dish' it. But I don't think Voldemort sent Wormtail to Snape's with the specific intent of him spying. I suspect that Wormtail is simply warehoused. Peter is mostly useless to Voldemort. He can be seen in public, although, as Voldemort gets stronger, that becomes less of a problem. He really doesn't have the courage or reliability to take on assignments like the assault on Hogwarts. So, Voldemort has simply placed him at Snape's for safe keeping, and more so, to keep him out of Voldemort's hair (figuratively speaking, of course), and further to not have to listen to him whining, simpering, and sucking up all the time. Snape's house is somewhat remote, and Snape is only there for a few weeks out of the year, so it makes an ideal place to keep Wormtail in seclusion and out of the way. So, Wormtail certainly WOULD spy on Snape, but then any DE would spy on any DE because they are all trying anything they can to gain favor with Voldemort. But I don't think that is specifically why Peter is at Snape's. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 17:53:13 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 17:53:13 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Wrong? Hat not Horcrux In-Reply-To: <20051225023233.63736.qmail@web30904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145400 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kimberly wrote: > > KathyO: > > And I've said this part before and ended up berated > > for it, but somehow I think the last horcrux (with > > the exception of LV himself) to be destroyed will be > > the sorting hat. > > > > Kimberly here: > Forgive me if it's been stated already but what part > of canon gives you that idea ? I've heard this > theory before but in all my readings just can't muster > it up as a possibility. > > Kimberly > bboyminn: Well I think the canon is simply that the Sorting Hat is a Grffindor Object that wouldn't be hard to get to. However, in her most recent 'Rumor' update on her website, JKR flatly said the Sorting Hat is not a Horcrux. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rumours_view.cfm?id=43 Q: The Sorting Hat is a Horcrux? A: No, it isn't. Horcruxes do not draw attention to themselves by singing songs in front of large audiences. Also, - Peter will NOT kill Lupin with his silver hand. Lupin will NOT be the next DADA teacher. Mrs. Norris is just a cat. Harry is NOT a Metamorphmagus. Aunt Petunia will NOT exhibit magical tendencies. That certainly shoots down a lot of my best theories. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sun Dec 25 18:44:44 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 18:44:44 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145401 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > Perhaps, but I think Mr. Joe Average Death Eater would have a very > difficult time killing Harry. With the significant exception of Snape > none of the other Death Eaters in the tower that night were a match > for Harry, not even the mighty werewolf, Harry disposed of them one > after another. To my mind this suggests that both Harry and Snape are > extraordinarily powerful wizards. Nope. Greyback was doing fine before someone else petrfied him. Harry was also not doing well against the DE who used Crucio on hin. It was Snape who saved him there. Gerry From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 18:52:47 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 18:52:47 -0000 Subject: Does Snape hate Harry? (was:Re: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145402 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > >>Amiable Dorsai: > > If so, Lupin missed a teaching moment (or was uncharacteristically > > bad at communicating) in HBP. > > Betsy Hp: > Lupin *is* bad at communicating. That's cannon, I believe. But > what teaching moment was missed? The Christamas break converation with harry, when Lupin was explaining to Harry that he( Lupin) neither liked nor disliked Snape. > > > >>Amiable Dorsai: > > Do you not think that a profound and protracted sense of guilt > > could eventually inspire resentment, and even hatred? Particularly > > with all the other emotional baggage (including hatred for Harry's > > father James, and for Harry's champion, Sirius) that Snape carries > > around? > > Betsy Hp: > Yes, definitely. And I think there was certainly resentment by the > OotP Occlumency lessons, and possibly some flashes of hatred in the > moment following Harry's dip into Snape's "worst memory". > > However, at their very first meeting in PS/SS there hasn't really > been time for resentment and hatred to build up. Harry is > completely out of Snape's sight until he comes to Hogwarts. Amiable Dorsai: You give Snape no credit for imagination, memory, or anticipation. A person dwelling on his own guilt and regrets could make one hell of a stew in ten years. Amiable Dorsai From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 19:03:19 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 19:03:19 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter genetics - Diversity is the Key In-Reply-To: <000001c5fadb$d50c44a0$6401a8c0@waterdeep> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145403 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jenny" wrote: > > > --La Gatta: > > Although creationists can make the case that we're all > > related if you go back far enough > remarks on marrying cousins and other stuff> > Jenny: > > Setting aside the religious argument entirely, there is > hard scientific evidence that everyone in the world is > related to one another if you go back far enough. ... > The rate of mutation for mitochondria dna sets the "common > mitochondrial ancestor for ALL modern humans" at around > 150,000 years ago. > > I can guess that genetics have been discussed in relation to > Harry Potter, ... > > Perhaps Homo sapiens ability to do magic let them far out- > compete their Homo erectus bretheren in their > dragon/unicorn/acromantula/dementor/etc infested world. > Or perhaps Homo sapiens' magical ability caused some creatures > to develop magical abilities themselves to defend against > overhunting and extinction. > > But where and how would the "magic" gene originate? In > anything? ... I'd love to know what others think of evolution > in the context of the magical Harry Potter world. > > Jenny > bboyminn: There is one important aspect of nature and evolution that needs to be considered, and that is diversity. Nature thrives in diversity. It tries to create as many variations of the same thing as possible, because the more variations there are, the more like one or more variations is to survive. In all likelihood if there weren't dozens of variations of Blackbirds, then Blackbirds wouldn't exist at all. One single unique variety of blackbird could have never survived the environmental and evolutionary stresses over time. So, there is a very valid and important reason why there are thousands of varieties of birds, and thousands of varieties of turtles and monkeys, and this is because the more variations there are, the more likely one or more of those variations is to survive. The same applies to humans. We generally think of humans as coming in three variations - white, black, and yellow (referring to the races here), but it is much more complex than that. Each races is divided into many uniquely identifiable subraces, each subrace having it's own specially adapted characteristics. There is a reason directly related to the natural order of things for Scandinavians to be light skinned, blond, and carry their excess fat in their belly, and a natural reason why Africans are dark skinned, dark hair, and carry their fat in their hips. Further, there is a natural reason why pigmies are small and Zulu are tall. Pigmy live in the dense brush and jungle, it's to their advantage to be small. The Zulu live in the open plains, so it is to their advantage to be tall and lean. Amoung the Asian races, no one who is familiar with Asia would ever mistake a Lao for Chinese or Japanese, they are a unique and distinct subrace. But we must ask, did Pigmies evolve into short people, or did short people simply gravitate to an environment that suited them. The same with Zulu, did tall fleetfooted people evolve in the plains, or did people who were suited to the plains move to that environment. I suspect a combination of both. So, my point is that diversity and variety is a part of natural selection. Nature creates the largest and most diverse variety of any given creature that is possible because that insures that the creature in its many forms will survive. I see magical beings in the same light. They are merely one of many variations of humankind that have been evolved over time. Magical beings have the advantage of magical power and characteristics, but that also acts as a disadvantage in that other similar creatures would fear them and want to eliminate them from the gene pool. We see this in the on again-off again (mostly on again) pursecution of wizards and witches in Europe. When one species fears another, it either eliminates or is eliminated. Of course, in more primitive natural societies, the Shaman or wizard was revered rather than pursecuted, but those natural societies face other evolutionary pressures of their own which tended to keep their numbers small. Further, to the issue of evolution or gravitation; that is a being evolving so they are suited to an environment, or gravitating to an evironment to which they are also suited, I suspect we are involved in the old adage that 'birds of a feather flock together'. Given the general fear of beings more powerful than themselves, muggles drove wizards to band together which would in turn lead to intermarriage between magical beings, and that would tend to prepetuate the species. So, in short, I think magical beings in their various forms are nothing more that the natural diversity of life. The are one of the many many variation of mankind that nature created to insure its continued survival. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From kelleyaynn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 18:28:48 2005 From: kelleyaynn at yahoo.com (kelleyaynn) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 18:28:48 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter genetics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145404 > > Jenny: > > But where and how would the "magic" gene originate? In > > anything? I suppose it's a little like the evolution of sight > > question - how can you see without a fully formed eye? How > > can you use magic without a fully formed magical ability > > (regardless of how weak it might be *cough*Neville*cough*.) > > Kelleyaynn: There are varying degrees of complexity when it comes to eyes. The most primitive can only detect light versus dark. As you get more complex you can add some movement detection. There are even so- called "eyespots" in Euglena, which is neither an animal or a plant, but a protist. These eyespots detect light, since Euglena photosynthesize. So there really is no such thing as a fully formed eye, just different types with different complexities. And we are not necessarily the ones with the most complext eyes. Many insects can see ultraviolet light, which we cannot. So I could see magic working like that in an evolutionary sense: some magical ability arises, which over time evolves into what it is like in the Harry Potter books. Remember, some spells are very simple, other are very "complex" magic. > >Jenny: > > > > Perhaps the magic genes are slightly toxic or cancerous, and the > > unstable genes lead to the evolution of the many human-variant > > creatures, like gnomes, leprechauns, banshees, giants, hags, > > etc. I'd love to know what others think of evolution in the > > context of the magical Harry Potter world. Kelleyaynn: Though this is simplifying things, there really aren't "stable" or "unstable" genes. Evolution occurs because random mistakes are made when copying the DNA during cell division. Therefore the only mutations that contribute to evolution are the ones that occur in the cells that give rise to eggs and sperm (in animals). Genes cannot be described as "toxic" either, since they are only the instructions that the cell uses to manufacture proteins. If a protein composition is changed due to a mutation and it doesn't work properly, things go awry. But it isn't toxic in the poisonous sense. A structure won't be formed correctly, or perhaps a chemical reaction won't work because the protein enzyme needed is now non- functional. Likewise, genes themselves cannot be cancerous. Cancer arises from a series of mutations that occur over a long period of time in the genes that control cell division. When an individual has a gene that predisposes them to cancer, it means that they already inherited a gene with one or more mutations in those critical control genes. When a cell has undergone enough mutations over many "generations" of the cell (which it then passes onto the cell's progeny) that cell division is completely unregulated, then it is classified as cancerous. This also explains why tumors and such can be called precancerous; there is still some regulation occuring in cell division, and more mutations need to occur before that happens. I've often thought about how the evolution of magic could occur if it really did exist. The problem is that genes only code for proteins, so any magic gene or genes would code for a protein that somehow makes the individual able to do magic. It's hard to imagine a way a protein could do that. About the only way I've been able to come up with is for a protein that somehow makes the cell (perhaps the cell membrane) sensitive to the force of magic that already exists. Figuring out the Mendelian genetics of magic wouldn't be so difficult, but figuring out the molecular mechanism for how magic works is the hard part. Finally, as for creatures such as house elves, goblins, etc. That is likely the result of just regular, plain old natural selection, not having anything to do with the magic gene. They would, however, had to have evolved after humans acquired the ability to do magic. I could get into the whole molecular genetics of it, but I don't think anyone really wants me to go there. Kelleyaynn From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Dec 25 19:56:49 2005 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 25 Dec 2005 19:56:49 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 12/25/2005, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1135540609.15.32754.m24@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145405 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday December 25, 2005 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Notes: 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. To get into Chat, just go to the group online: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups and click on "Chat" in the lefthand menu. If you have problems with this, go to http://www.yahoo.com and in the bottom box on the left side of the page click on "Chat". Once you're logged into any room, type /join *g.HPforGrownups ; this should take you right in. If you have an Set up birthday reminders! http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13 Copyright 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/ Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ornawn at 013.net Sun Dec 25 20:31:35 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 20:31:35 -0000 Subject: Nature of the Vow: (was:Heroes& Not - What should Snape Have Done?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145406 >bboyminn: >I'm not saying I believe Ceridwen's version of events, but I do >think it has some merits if you are willing to look at the middle >ground. >I don't think the 'force' of the UV turns you into a mindless robot >who is forced to act. I do believe you can summor a force of >resistance against the compulsion to fulfill the Vow. Yet, as you >summon the will to resist, that starts a cascade that makes the >compulsion to act that much stronger. You may once again summon an >even stronger force of will to preventing you from carrying out the >compulsion, but once again, the amplifier is turned up, and the >compulsion becomes proportionally stronger. >So this ever growing, every amplifying, cascade of compulsion and >resistance increase until you either drop dead from a brain aneurysm >or a heart attack, or you yeild to the compulsion. >This is JKR's magic as a writer, she gives us just enough >information to drive us crazy, but not enough to truly answer the >questions that come up. >Just a thought. Orna: I'm happily joining the drive to be crazy . I liked the way you described this internal process of how the UV might work, it captures the point where with the same mechanism the vow is made unbreakable and the consequences of breaking it take place. I prefer it to the unrelated "drop dead" "get ill" or "get hit" scenario, which of course, as you said doesn't say anything about JKR's intention. Now, I like to play along with it further ? how would it be possible to break an UV, working like this? The imperius curse can be broken with force of will, and a willingness to suffer - pain, reality, individuality. I think it can be done, because the nature of the will is it works with a strong- willed wizard, enforcing his will on a weak (or off-guard and therefore at the moment weak) wizard. So the Anti-force needed is a strong will from the cursed person getting stronger-willed than the dark wizard's will. I imagine that perhaps the UV can be tampered with by not working with force of will, which might work as an amplifier to the compulsion, but by "weakness of will", so to speak. The UV is a spell in which a wizard willfully relinquishes his choice in the future. It is basically his "too forceful" will, because basically human's freedom of choices in future should be kept and honored. That's where the point of Dark Magic takes place. By weakness of will, I mean diffusing intention, willfulness and purpose ness. Not to fight against the vow, but somehow have your mind growing weak in intention. Not to be caught in the "I must"-"I must/will not" trap, but something like "a bit of this, a bit of that, nothing too enthusiastic or detailed, sort of sloppiness". I'm not talking about a psychopathic way of not honoring contracts, but of some growing out and away of it, perhaps combined with some humbleness (also a way of "weak will") of realizing deeply, that a mistake has been done. If you panic and just resist the compulsion, it won't work. But, if the person is able to just let his force of will diminish, the compulsion might work weaker. A person very good at occlumency, would have advantage, in shutting feelings down in one compartment of his mind. So he still might do something in the direction, but not with all his heart. Writing it down, it reminds me of Snape's behavior during the year with Draco ? it could be something like this, the way he acted. He invited him to meet him, tried to speak with him at Christmas, but it didn't sound very persuasive. Snape can be much more efficient ? see the way he drives the DE out, stops them from Crucio Harry, runs to the shack in PoA ? not that he is always succeeding, but he is more energetic and pointed, IMO. I agree, that the tower scene is different, because it might stir up strong emotions from a DDM!Snape, thus weakening his ability to work against the vow. Further imagination: - in the forest, while discussing things with DD, the basic plan might have been for Snape to lessen his commitment to the vow, and DD trusting his ability to protect the school from DE, on one hand, and OTOH be able to persuade Draco to give up his mission, and go for the witness-protection-program. Had Draco failed to open Hogwarts to the DE, and even now ? it was quite a possible plan, and I suppose that would influence the UV. The UV bound Snape to watch Draco wouldn't come to any harm ? that would fulfill the vow. The last, difficult part is that "Should it prove necessary...if it seems Draco will fail...". Had Draco decided not to do it, this part of the vow perhaps wouldn't be able to act as a compulsion, since Snape would be saying to it ? it's not necessary, it's not that Draco is failing". Compulsions act sometimes very ritualistic and concrete. As it was ?the worst happened ? the DE entered, Draco seemed to be failing ? the wording turned out to be very exact, because actually it seemed like this, and not like him having changed his mind. So perhaps you are right, that the vow under the circumstances got the strongest it could get. Snape couldn't very well get sloppy or unfocused. DD pleading seems to suggest, that Snape (DDM! Of course) could have resisted it, but only in the suicidal way you described. Having said all that, I remembered that the goblet of fire, when Harry was chosen, was clearly a moment, where great wizards realized that a mistake had occurred, and also that most probably dark magic was involved. Still they decided to go ahead with it, and respect the binding contract. So there is really every possibility that spells don't have any counteraction, and that the one moment you have a choice is when you decide to bind yourself in the contract. Hmm Another thought about UV: I tried to look at potential UV in RW. There are very few life- choices which are Unbreakable. None are without consequences, but altogether unbreakable, unchangeable? I immediately thought about marriage, (the UV does so much look like some perverted wedding- ceremony) but of course in most cultures there are circumstances allowing sort of divorces ? not without consequences, but still. Having children and being responsible for looking after them, see they come to no harm, is perhaps as near one can get to a sort of UV. Just too many thoughts, Orna From rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu Sun Dec 25 21:39:44 2005 From: rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu (susanbones2003) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 21:39:44 -0000 Subject: Disappointment with the Last Book (was The Needs of Snape's Redemption) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145407 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote:> Lots of snipping for brevity's sake: Lupinlore writes: > Having said that, I doubt either of us will be very disappointed with > the last book, or particularly satisfied. JKR has managed to get > herself into a quite a bind, in the sense of having an enormous amount > to deal with in the last book, and relatively little time or space in > which to deal with it. I don't think, to be honest, that very much of > anything is going to get the space it probably needs. In fact, > however the final situation with Snape comes out, I think we will see > pretty much all sides going "You mean that's IT?" Having not given this whole concept the difficulties JKR is going to finishing the series in a satisfying manner, I find myself more than a little unnerved by the process. There isn't time for all the characters and plots that deserve a decent story development and arc. I have faced this problem with the movies, the "denotation" you speak of. It gets very spotty to say the least and takes a heap of imagination to fill in the many blanks that are left. But the books? I always looked at those huge books that started to come out and giving adequate space to characters and storylines didn't seem to be the problem. Editing her, now that was the challenge! Who wanted to say to her "Uh, Jo, how are you going to finish the many many threads you've got going in one measly book?" No one, I'll wager, and I am not a betting woman. The best thing you can do is to keep hammering home that probably none of us is going to be satisfied, not the ones that want Snape flayed, not the ones who want to see Harry interact with Ginny, no body. Just getting hold of the horcruxes could easily take an entire book. Let's face it. Jen D > > Let's see, she has to deal with the Snape situation, deal with the > horcruxes, deal with Voldemort, finish off the Dursley arc, deal with > Voldemort, have an appearance from Umbridge, have an appearance from > Krum, and let us know what's going on with Voldemort. She has to get > Ron/Hermione off the ground, and I would be stunned (and I think > almost everyone else would, too) if we don't have at least a couple of > nods at Harry/Ginny. We are going to learn more about Dumbledore and > meet another member of the Order. Wormtail, we have been told, has > some role to play and the events in the Shrieking Shack will be > important. We have the Draco arc to finish. We also have been told > that the final chapter is basically a "whatever happened to..." piece. > > That's all at a bare MINIMUM. In addition, she has the whole Percy > arc, the situation with House unity, the situation with the Ministry, > the House Elves, the relations with other magical creatures, the final > fate of Remus Lupin (who rumor has long said has a major role to play > in Book VII) and many other things she could finish. Oh, and I think > most people would be shocked and disappointed not to see Harry's > protection in action, or to get some coverage of Bill and Fleur's > wedding. > > Let's face it, over the last couple of books JKR has spun her wheels > for 1300 out of 1700 pages. Everything that moved things along in a > significant way in OOTP and GOF could easily fit into one book the > size of POA or slightly longer. Now she's against the wall with a lot > of time wasted and and a lot of pressing issues to address. > > Therefore I suspect that in Book VII we will see a lot of the same > technique we saw in some parts of GOF: i.e. a "by-the-numbers > approach" that finds the book going from issue to issue at a hurried > pace while JKR checks off various boxes and ties up various loose > ends. Much will be done by things being "denoted" -- a term from > liturgics, which means you don't do the whole ritual you just speak > the key lines and move along briskly (e.g. there are points in certain > Greek Orthodox rituals where the first lines of long prayers and > creeds are said and you move on, pretty much on the principle that > everybody knows the rest, anyway, so we'll just act like we said it). > > We saw some perfect examples of this in GOF. Dumbledore's > confrontation with the Dursleys was a shorthand way of dealing with > the whole "Dumbledore approves of child abuse" controversy. Hagrid's > one paragraph about the dangers of Hogwarts and parental worries dealt > with THAT issue. Harry and Dumbledore's conversation in the Weasleys' > shed denoted dealing with the issues of Sirius' death. The > Harry/Ginny romance was one giant denotion squeezing into a few pages > what probably should have been spread over parts of three books. > > I think much of what happens in Book VII will follow this pattern. A > few lines about Hogwarts here, a couple of lines about Percy there. > With Snape, I think we will see something very similar. As Alla has > pointed out, an apology from Snape would likely take the > form, "Potter, I'm very sorry for everything since that night in > Godric's Hollow -- everything," followed by a large wet sound as Snape > expires. > > Now, the problem with denotion is that it often makes little sense. > Dumbledore's confrontation with the Dursleys really makes very little > sense once you start thinking about all the issues and implications. > Harry/Ginny springs from nowhere. Hagrid's talk about the dangers of > Hogwarts nods to all sorts of issues and leaves them unexplored. But > JKR ain't the world's best when it comes to thoroughness and > consistency, and isn't even averse to taking people OOC when she needs > to deal with something quickly and tie it off. So I think we may well > find much in Book VII to be hurried and OOC. JKR just doesn't have > time to deal with everything without cutting a lot of corners. I > suspect Peter is a strong candidate for OOCness, as is Draco, and also > Snape. Harry may be the best candidate, and I wouldn't be surprised > if Remus' character shifts if he does indeed have a big part. Their > arcs are just too involved and complicated for JKR to bring them to an > end without cutting corners, i.e. without using the type of denotion > that amounts to "something happened here, but I don't have time to go > into it." > > So, does the type of apology Alla theorizes make sense, strictly > speaking? Not really, but I'll lay 4-1 odds that something like that > is exactly what we'll see (it would have been 5-4, but after the > Remus/Tonks revelation in in GoF that probability of such techniques > being employed expanded greatly). Does Peter suddenly coming out of > nowhere to play a role in Harry's victory really make sense? No, but > I'll lay 7-1 that we'll see that. > > In fact, I'll lay the following odds on things (and since gambling > debts are not legally enforcable in the USA, good luck getting any > money out of me). I know the odds aren't mathematically correct, but > I don't do complex calculations when I'm on vacation: > > Snape living: 1-50 > Snape being ESE: 1-10 > Snape being OFH/Grey: 1-1 > Snape being DDM/Grey: 1-1 > Snape facing karmic punishment: 5-1 > Snape giving an "Alla-style" apology: 4-1 > A third party involvement in the Harry/Snape relationship: 1-1 > Peter playing a role in Harry's victory: 7-1 > Draco playing a role in Harry's victory: 1-1 > Karmic punishment/revelation from Petunia: 3-1 > Karmic punishment for Umbridge: 4-1 > Snape finding/disabling horcruxes "Steve-style": 1-10 > Snape giving a "Potter you dunderhead" speech instead of apology: 1- 5 > Remus seeming OOC in final book: 3-1 > Snape seeming OOC in final book: 5-1 > Harry dieing: 1-3 > Ron/Hermione dieing: 1-9 > > > Lupinlore > From lolita_ns at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 22:12:58 2005 From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 22:12:58 -0000 Subject: Snape's patronus changing (was Re: JKR's website update) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145408 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spotsgal" wrote: The only other possibility I can > think of is that somebody's (Snape?) patronus will change in HP7 and > JKR used Tonks to introduce the idea to us in HBP. > Lolita: Nice one. I've been thinking along the same lines. Into a Phoenix, perhaps? Thus both tastefully throwing red herrings of Still alive!DD into the game and confirming the theories of DDM!Snape... (This wording is the result of my belief that yes, DD is dead, and yes, SS is DDM. You are welcome to disagree.) The only thing that makes me ponderous about Snape's Patronus changing is the fact that the change, if it indeed happens, might be needed, at least partially, to make room for SS contacting Harry with some Patronus-delivered information throughout Year 7. (A slight digression: Snape might contact Hermione, she is, after all, the 'more gifted friend', but I don't think that he would try and contact any Order members. He knows the Prophecy - it is questionable to which extent, but still - and consequently knows that Harry - not the rest of the Order - is the one who could do with some help. Also, if I were a fugitive from the law whom the whole WW deemed responsible for one of their brightest members' death, and if I really had to pass some important information to the Side of Light, I would rather contact a teenager at odds with the representatives of that law - i.e. the Ministry - than a bunch of adults who would, no matter the differences of opinion, be only too happy to turn me in.) But if this were the case (i.e. Snape contacting Harry via Patronus), why would the change be needed at all? (I mean plotwise, not emotionwise) As far as we know, Harry has never seen Snape's Patronus. He has no idea what it looks like. He would be getting messages from a strange Patronus - regardless of the fact that it might have changed in the meantime. Of course, a Phoenix Patronus would make him wonder, since he saw DD die... Or maybe not. We, the readers, know that DD's Patronus was a Phoenix, courtesy of Ms Rowling, but I am not sure that Harry does. (Apart from that moment in GoF after DD and Harry had found Krum in the Forest, when DD shot sparks to call Hagrid to him, which was a clue for us - in hindsight - as to DD's Patronus, but apparently, Harry didn't muse over it.) On the other hand, why would Rowling not want to reveal what Snape's Patronus was, if she had planned for it to change? She said that revealing it would give away a lot... Hmmm... Maybe Harry *did* see it, somewhere in the background... I can think of no such instance, but it might be that my memory needs refreshing. In any case, her remark that revealing SS's Patronus would give away a lot, strongly suggests that we should be right to expect to see that Patronus. (Unless it is something as simple and tacky as having a Lily-shaped patronus or sth similar, which I think would be sentimentality at its worst, and not at all in character for SS) As far as emotions go, I would say that the odds of SS's Patronus changing into a form that is reminiscent of DD are pretty high. And, *if* an Order member were to intercept the message - which we have also seen happen - they would be, I think, both shaken and suspicious. Which makes it a nice device. Plus, this would strengthen the idea of SS being DDM, until we are shown the definite truth at the end of the book. Lolita From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 22:15:47 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 22:15:47 -0000 Subject: Nature of the Vow: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145409 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ornadv" wrote: > > >bboyminn: > > ... > > >I don't think the 'force' of the UV turns you into a mindless > >robot who is forced to act. I do believe you can summon a force > >of resistance against the compulsion to fulfill the Vow. Yet, > >as you summon the will to resist, that starts a cascade that > >makes the compulsion to act that much stronger. You may once > >again summon an even stronger force of will to preventing you > >from carrying out the compulsion, but once again, the amplifier > >is turned up, and the compulsion becomes proportionally stronger. > > >So this ever growing, every amplifying, cascade of compulsion > >and resistance increase until you either drop dead from a brain > >aneurysm or a heart attack, or you yeild to the compulsion. > > >... > > Orna: > .... > > I liked the way you described this internal process of how the UV > might work, it captures the point where with the same mechanism the > vow is made unbreakable and the consequences of breaking it take > place. ... > > Now, I like to play along with it further ? how would it be possible > to break an UV, working like this? > ... > > I imagine that perhaps the UV can be tampered with by not working > with force of will, ..., but by "weakness of will", .... > > By weakness of will, I mean diffusing intention, willfulness and > purposeness. Not to fight against the vow, but somehow have your > mind growing weak in intention. Not to be caught in the "I must"-"I > must/will not" trap, but something like "a bit of this, a bit of > that, nothing too enthusiastic or detailed, sort of sloppiness". > ... > > If you panic and just resist the compulsion, it won't work. But, if > the person is able to just let his force of will diminish, the > compulsion might work weaker. ... > > I agree, that the tower scene is different, because it might stir up > strong emotions from a DDM!Snape, thus weakening his ability to work > against the vow. > > .... > > ...edited... > > Just too many thoughts, > > Orna bboyminn: I've already commented that I think, under ideal circumstances, the Vow can be circumvented or at least delayed. Again, we have no clear judging-authority to determine the nature of the fulfillment of the Vow. So, what if, at the top of the tower, instead of resisting the Vow's compulsion, Snape mentally says, 'I will kill Dumbledore. I will kill him with a vengance and a fury. Oh but wait... it's almost midnight and I need to wash my hair. Plus there is all this noise and distraction. How can anyone possible concentrate? No... No... I'll have to do it tomorrow, first thing. I'll kill Dumbledore in the morning while he sleeps.' Now Snape has the absolute intent to kill Dumbledore, but 'now' just isn't the right time. The next morning Snape awakens fully intending to kill Dumbledore, but then realizes Dumbledore is in the Hospital wing and decides that's not the ideal location. So, he swears to kill him at breakfast the next day. He wakes in the morning with the full intend of killing Dumbledore, but realizes that at breakfast, there will be too many witnesses. So, he decides to do it in the afternoon, but then realizes he has double potions in the afternoon. So, he puts off until the next day; his full conscious intend to kill Dumbledore with a vengance and fury ...unless it's raining. So, in my scenario, rather than resist the compulsion, Snape lets himself fall into it, to be totally absorbed in it, but with minor conditions. He is genuinely yielding to it, but is simply looking for the best opportunity to fullfill the Vow. Further, he could convince himself, that while Draco has failed in the short term, he will soon come to his senses and carry out the action he is charged with. In a sense, as long as Snape maintains the genuine belief that Draco will eventually carry out his task, then in his mind, Draco hasn't failed, he has only delayed. Again, this is a way for Snape's attitude to stave off the consequences of the Vow. He hasn't denied the Vow, he has only delayed it. As long as he maintains the proper intent and the proper mindset, he hasn't failed the Vow. Now to your idea of minimizing a willfull resistance in order to minimize the strength of the compulsion. I could see this acting in the same way as I have described above. As long as you don't resist, the compulsion is managable. As long as you don't convince yourself that you have failed, then you should be able to control the compulsion. You should be able to set the when, where, and how of fulfilling that compulsion. In a sense, by not believing you failed and by not resisting the urge, you can control it. In someways, you are speculating what could be just a different perspective on what I am saying. In either case, the Vow is managable as long as you don't allow yourself to believe you have failed in the Vow. Perhaps, it is your own mind and your own belief that is the Judge, Jury, and Executioneer of the Vow. As long as you can create an internal mindset and belief that there is still hope of fulfilling the Vow, as un-rational as it might be, you could hold off the consequences for as long as you could maintain the belief. As long as Snape believes, while Draco isn't killing Dumbledore in the moment, that he will kill Dumbledore at some point, then the Vow hasn't been broken. I believe that Vow is real and that it's consequences are real; I also believe that it is a 'contract' riddled with loopholes. Narcissa didn't specify a time frame. She didn't say on the night when the Death Eaters break into Hogwarts castle, if Draco doesn't kill Dumbledore, then you, Snape, must do it for him. That doesn't leave Snape much room to move; not much leeway. But as it is, I think there is room for interpretation of events relative to the Vow. Unfortunately, while what I say is true in general, in the moment, there on the top of the tower, I don't see Snape in a position to create any artificial mindsets that will act as loopholes. He is under pressure, and I believe that Dumbledore was fading fast for a variety of reasons. Snape knew that Dumbledore was a goner, and he also saw a way to take that and maximize it to his best advantage. So, he finished Dumbledore off, and got everyone out of there before any more damage could be done. Now Snape is at the top of the scale of Death Eaters. It is doubtful any Death Eater could come up with a great and grand enough act to equal the killing of Dumbledore. So, Snape position as Top Dog is pretty much unchallanged by anyone. Voldemort can't help but trust him, especially when his 'grand and noble' act was witnessed by several DE's. That puts Snape in the ideal position to be either DDM! or ESE! or OFH! Given the level of 'Snape' discussion, I think we can all agree that JKR has done a remarkable job of creating doubt about Snape. On one hand, so many clues that he is Dumbledore's Man, yet, on the other hand, so much doubt at to his true allegance. You have to admit, it has been a masterful bit of storytelling. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 25 22:41:54 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 22:41:54 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145410 >Me: >With the significant exception of >Snape none of the other Death Eaters >in the tower that night were a match >for Harry, not even the mighty werewolf, >Harry disposed of them one after another. festuco" wrote: > Nope. Yep. >Greyback was doing fine before >someone else petrfied him. For a second or two you shook my confidence, I was wondering if I was crazy and you could be right, but I've just reread that part of the book. And I was right. Unless my eyes are deceiving me Harry is the one who petrified Greybeck not "someone else". No mater how you spin it Greybeck was not "doing fine". > Harry was also not doing well > against the DE who used Crucio on hin. That happened after Harry had already fought and defeated 5 or 6 Death Eaters, and it was a 2 on one attack, and it was a surprise attack from the rear. Do you really think any of them, apart from Snape, would have stood a chance against Harry in a one on one frontal attack? I don't. Eggplant From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 23:04:52 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 23:04:52 -0000 Subject: IIn the Tower (was: Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145411 Magpie: I guess you could use that line to say that aiming=going to act, but it seems to deliberately rewrite the scene to add some suspense over whether Draco might throw the AK before he's stopped by Snape's arrival. a_svirn: Even after your extended quotations I still don't see how else one can interpret "barely aiming". Draco had been aiming at Dumbledore throughout the episode; he did *not* lower his wand, even though at some point he seemed to be on the verge of doing so, and was still aiming when Snape arrived. Of course, since he was shaking like mad he would have probably missed, or failed the curse altogether, but it doesn't mean, that he wouldn't have attempted it. You yourself pointed out that he was steadily more terrified and less resolute during the scene; being terrified and irresolute what could he do but follow his orders? Faint? Magpie: I don't think there's any suspense that Draco might AK DD. He's done. He knows something about what he is now and he can't go back to the person he was at the beginning of the scene, imo, which was DD's intention. a_svirn: No, the suspense is what Draco's comrades-in-arms would do to him, of course. The trouble is that he shouldn't have been alive at that point of the proceeding. Draco acknowledged that much "they thought I'd die in the attempt". The fact that he didn't was a contingency they were ill-prepared for, and probably were supposed to do something about it. Even if they wouldn't kill Draco, it was a possibility that preyed greatly at his mind. That's why he sneak furtive glances at the door, that's why he was prepared to listen to Dumbledore, that's why he was so terrified. Magpie: I do take his words at face value, absolutely. Dumbledore has never been more on his game than he is in that last scene with Draco imo. Physically he's weak, but he's totally in control in his conversation with Draco. He's not negotiating, but talking the kid through the crisis he's come to. a_svirn: Absolutely. Except that I don't see why would "negotiating" and "talking the kid out of crisis" be mutually exclusive? Dumbledore suggested that Draco renounced Voldemort and offered him the protection of the Order in return. Sounds like negotiating to me. Magpie: When Draco says DD should be afraid his, "But why?" seemed genuine to me, not a bluff. When I read this scene I really thought this was Dumbledore at his essence; his finest--dealing with a boy on the wrong path. a_svirn: I agree. I never said Dumbledore was bluffing. But it's precisely because he was trying to talk Draco out of making bad things worse and to demonstrate that his case is not desperate, Dumbledore deliberately downplayed the gravity of Draco's crimes. It's all very well to say "Draco, Draco you are not a killer", but fact remains that he made two murder attempts and was the master-mind behind the third and ultimately successful one. Magpie: I think that even with the arrival of the DEs Dumbledore retains his connection with Draco. In comes this walking reminder of the results of murder--Fenrir's taste for human flesh becomes worse the more he can't satisfy it just once a month. Dumbledore brings the lesson back to Draco: Did you bring him here? And Draco assures him he didn't, because it matters even if DD is about to die and the damage is done. He doesn't try to act tough about it or hide his own disgust in front of the DEs, he says something to make DD think better of him in front of them all. (The DEs are all speaking to DD with disrespect, as Draco had been doing earlier.) It is probably the only line Draco ever has in canon that suggests something like compassion or morality. a_svirn: It could also suggest Draco's squeamishness and his contempt for half-breeds. Although I agree that the fact that he tried to justify himself to Dumbledore inspires some cautious optimism. But compassion? Morality? A few minutes before Grayback arrived Draco had inform Dumbledore that he'd stumbled on someone's dead body. He didn't sound even remotely compassionate. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 23:09:15 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 23:09:15 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Draco on the Tower (WAS Re: Peter's basic .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145412 > zgirnius: > Now, if he suspected there were Death Eaters in the school, it was a > risky move, since someone else might happen along during the > conversation. (As, in fact, several someone elses did.) But still not > guaranteed to end in death. There were Order members about as well, > after all. There was a big Dark Mark floating over the Castle. How could he not think that the Death Eaters were nearby? It would have been not a risky move, but a downright irresponsible one. a_svirn From catlady at wicca.net Sun Dec 25 23:34:59 2005 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 23:34:59 -0000 Subject: Weston-supra-Mare/Percy/Prior Incantato/Snape was with Voldemort/Map of Devo Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145413 Sandy Straubhaar wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144960 : << P. G. Wodehouse (as in Jeeves & Wooster) used lots of bizarre English town names in his stories, but ... I _think_ ... they are all real,like Weston-super-Mare >> This list used to have an active poster, IIRC named Mary Ann MacCloudt, who lived in Weston-supra-Mare. IIRC she said it was a boring place. kchuplis wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/145086 : << [Percy] absolutely alienates himself from the entire family. Willingly. With knowing hurt. That's really low. >> Young Sirius absolutely alienated himself from the entire Black family (well, maybe except for cousin Andromeda, who had probably already been disowned by then). Not only willingly, but eagerly. With what appears to me to be vindictive hope of hurt. Does that make young Sirius really low? There are several similar pairs in canon. 1) Dobby disobeyed his owners in order to help Harry defeat his owners. Kreachur disobeyed his owner (Sirius) in order to help his owner's enemy (Narcissa, Death Eaters, LV) defeat Sirius's team (and kill Sirius). 2) Peter spied for LV and betrayed his friends, the Potters, to LV, resulting in their deaths. Severus spied for Dumbledore and apparently informed on his friends, Evans, Rosier, Avery, and the Lestranges, which seems to be the cause of Evans and Rosier being killed by Aurors (while resisting arrest) and the rest captured. 3) Sirius and Percy both turned against their birth families. I believe that JKR intentionally put in so many parallels, in order to complicate the ethical debate: one can't decide good/evil by a simple rule like "He betrayed his friends" or "He disobeyed his master" but instead must consider the motives and the circumstances. So Sirius ditching his birth family was an act of goodness, because he was ditching their bigotry, Dark Magic, and other wrongdoing; he was ditching their approval of the Dark Lord's and the Death Eaters' plan to overthrow the Muggle-lovers and blood-traitors in command of the Ministry of Magic. So it sure looks like Percy ditched his birth family simply for career advancement, because we see him kissing up to Fudge and laughing excessively at Fudge's bad jokes, and saying things about Harry being a mentally unstable liar that he damn well should have known were not true, and saying that Harry was a criminal who got off on a technicality -- as if saving his own life and Dudley's from the Dementors was a technicality! -- and embracing lies and harming innocent people for the sake of career advancement is an act of evil. HOWEVER, suppose for the sake of argument that Percy really did believe what the government told him (I'm not sure what a European would say rather than 'the government', because I don't mean just the temporarily ruling party). That Harry was mentally unbalanced -- passing out, seeing visions, and temper tantrums would seem like evidence. That there was no evidence that Lord Voldemort had returned from the dead, and spreading such rumors would cause panic. That it was all Dumbledore's scheme to stir up panic in order to make a coup against Fudge. Then could it be that Percy was trying to assist Law and Order against a coup by a would-be dictator, rather than trying to advance his career? Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/145120 : << There's a simple spell, by the way, which could clear Snape of the AK or convict him *and* allow Dumbledore to explain what he meant by his last word. Priori incantatem. If there's no shade of Dumbledore, then Dumbledore was not AK'd by Snape's wand. If there is, then Dumbledore's shade can either accuse Snape or explain why Snape should not be blamed for killing him. >> I thought the Prior Incantato! *spell* would show only the latest spell that a wand had cast, and Snape's wand had cast curses after Dumbledore fell off the tower. The Priori Incantatem *effect* would force Snape's wand to disgorge all the spells it had cast until the link was broken, but making the link would require using Snape's wand's brother wand. We don't know that Snape's wand even HAS a brother. KathyO wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/145203 : << If these are facts, doesn't it make sense that Snape could have been with Voldemort when he went to the Potters that night? >> Remember Harry's dream right after he was Sorted in PS/SS? "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." I have long thought it was Harry's early childhood memory of the night his parents died, and supposed to be a clue that Severus Snape (seen in dream) and Lucius Malfoy (seen in dream, but mistaken for Draco) accompanied LV (high, cold laughter) to the Godric's Hollow event (a burst of green light). Christina wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/145250 : << DD has no right to go blabbing Snape's private life to a kid (particularly one he has no close relationship with) >> Nitpick: Snape caused the murder of Harry's parents and attempted murder of Harry. Isn't that a very close relationship? Dreamofwriting wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/145278 : << I just uploaded a map picture; I didn't get the title on it properly, it just says gif...it's on the last page of the photos. I got the pic from a map of England on the internet. It shows in Devon: Ottery St. Mary's, and there is a Burrow Hill Farm and a place labeled Pottery, this is just so coincidental? Well, I thought it was interesting and maybe if I do get to England I will take myself a little drive to Ottery St. Mary's and have a look around, just for kicks! >> And it is near Exeter University where JKR was a student. From previous discussion, I seem to recall that there is also a Stokes Hill or Stokeshead Hill in the area (cf Stoatshead Hill). Adding stoats and weasels to otters makes it sound very mustelid. Oh, and a town named Chudleigh, presumably the namesake of Ron's Chudley Cannons. From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Dec 26 01:01:12 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 01:01:12 -0000 Subject: The wages of gluttony. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145414 > Magpie: > > "One of my off-the-wall and off-the-cuff analogies, that I hope makes > sense and doesn't offend anyone: Let's say I'm a white explorer and I > encounter indigenous Americans for the first time and give them > alcohol. They drink it and fall down drunk or get sick and think they > are going to die. Well, I know they aren't going to die. I think > it's a great practical joke, all my friends laugh at it. Look at the > funny Indians." Bruce: > > Not a good analogy. Magpie: Not my analogy. I didn't write that. However, I will still reply to this idea: Bruce: The Indians had no idea that the White Man was not to be > trusted. Dudley knows that wizards are not to be trusted--he's had that dinned > into him since he was old enough to understand anything. Even if he didn't know > what the toffee would do for him, he knew, or should have known, that SOMETHING > unpleasant would happen; the last time he ran afoul of a wizard, he got stuck > with a pig's tail. No, he had nothing to blame the engorgement of his tongue > than his own gluttony. Magpie: What did say on this subject was that it doesn't matter whether someone should know better, that doesn't make the aggressor any less responsible for his own actions. If a child told not to take candy from strangers takes candy from a stranger and winds up poisoned or abducted, the candy-giver is the one responsible, not the child. If a woman walks down a dark street she's been told to a avoid and is attacked, the attacker can not blame her for what he did. The twins made candy, intentionally left it and wanted someone to eat it. Dudley's falling for it does not make that okay. They are far more to blame for the engorgement of his tongue, since they created the engorging thing and left it out for him to eat. Dudley's gluttony does not give them the right to do anything to him at all. Someone could, in fact, say that the Indians shouldn't have trusted the white man either. Plenty of people do. Bruce: > > And besides, considering how mean he's been to Harry all these years, it is high > time that something nasty should happen to him. Magpie: Well, sure. But there are a lot of people who have been mean in the world and that does not give me the right to do something mean to them. I could do that, but I would just be being mean. -m From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Dec 26 01:56:40 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 01:56:40 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145415 > Pippin: > Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought the LID theory is that the > obligation Dumbledore referred to is strictly magical. I think it is magical *and* > moral. Neri: LID doesn't say that the obligation is *strictly* magical. Faith wouldn't dream on constructing a theory that doesn't have any base in canon. On the contrary, canon suggests that most of the really strong Potterverse magic takes its power from moral (or immoral) sources, and it seems the Life Debt fits right in with this trend. In order to work, LID only requires that the magical and moral aspects of the Debt aren't one and the same. That is, that a generally immoral wizard might still repay his Debt. This goes well with the canon: Dumbledore seemed very sure that Wormtail would act to repay his Debt at the right moment, and yet I'm sure he doesn't consider Wormtail to be a moral person. He is still Voldemort's servant. This means that it would be possible for Snape to kill Dumbledore and still remain InDebted to Harry. And of course, if he was able to kill Dumbledore then bullying Harry wouldn't be a problem for him at all. You'll also notice that if the moral and magical aspects of the Debt aren't one and the same, then Dumbledore complete trust in Snape wasn't strictly because of his belief in Snape's remorse. That is, even if Dumbledore indeed believed with all his heart that Snape remorse was genuine, he also knew that even if his belief were mistaken, Snape would still be magically compelled to save Harry. Neri From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 21:25:13 2005 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 21:25:13 -0000 Subject: Hat not Horcrux (was: Dumbledore Wrong?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145416 bboyminn: > http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rumours_view.cfm?id=C > > Q: The Sorting Hat is a Horcrux? > > A: No, it isn't. Horcruxes do not draw attention to themselves by > singing songs in front of large audiences. I guess that means we can rule out Stubby Boardman and Celestina Warbeck as Horcruxes, too. Montavilla From AllieS426 at aol.com Mon Dec 26 03:28:21 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 03:28:21 -0000 Subject: conspicuous absence from the updated website Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145417 Happy Holidays! As you all know by now, JKR updated her website and one of the debunked rumors is "the Sorting Hat is a Horcrux." (Was that *really* a rumor or just a popular fan speculation?) To me, "Harry is a horcrux" would be something much more significant to debunk if it is indeed untrue. So by her NOT commenting on it, does that make it more likely to be true? I hate that idea, and when I saw the comment about the Sorting Hat, my heart just sank... Allie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 26 03:51:48 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 03:51:48 -0000 Subject: conspicuous absence from the updated website In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145418 Allie: > Happy Holidays! > > As you all know by now, JKR updated her website and one of the debunked > rumors is "the Sorting Hat is a Horcrux." (Was that *really* a rumor > or just a popular fan speculation?) > > To me, "Harry is a horcrux" would be something much more significant to > debunk if it is indeed untrue. So by her NOT commenting on it, does > that make it more likely to be true? I hate that idea, and when I saw > the comment about the Sorting Hat, my heart just sank... Alla: I don't think that her not commenting on "Harry is not a horcrux" means anything one way or another, you know. Why? Because if it is true, it is going to be a major plot point and even though I am a VERY firm believer that JKR does not lie to us in her interviews, I realise that it makes no sense for her to debunk major theory whether it is true or not. IMO anyways. Besides, she just started her " book 7 game" with us, fans, so IMO she has plenty of time to debunk some theories and she has to keep us on her toes , so if it is NOT true, she may do it at any time in the future before book 7 comes out. Oh, she may just leave us guessing with this one and I have a feeling she may do so. Now, she DID say that she may go ahead and debunk the theory which makes no sense at all - as an example she gave Vampire!Snape, if I remember correctly, so I guess if Harry!horcrux does not lead us to "anything interesting", I would think that that she may say it is not true someday in the future or not. But even if it has some sort of truth in it, it still does not mean that it is correct ( adn I do think it has some truth in it) - like for example Harry may not be a horcrux, but some other living being ( besides Nagini) could be or something like that and she does not want us to stop speculating about it. JMO of course, Alla From ricemouse at dream-country.net Mon Dec 26 02:57:47 2005 From: ricemouse at dream-country.net (Sevarem) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 21:57:47 -0500 Subject: Why I think Lockhart will get out of St Mungo Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145419 Corey said: >>3 reasons why I think he'll get out. > 1. He's been there entirely to long. > 2 The curse that he got hit with was not a extremely bad curse so while it did cause distress and damage it should not keep him in St.Mungo for the rest of his life. > 3. His Fans I think miss him even though he's a totally inept wizard who didn't do any of what he said he did but stole it from people he has > fans as a great story teller. Sevarem: Really, I don't think Lockhart will be getting out of St. Mungo's anytime soon. His plotline was in CoS and his brief appearance in OotP was more of a goofy cameo than anything else. (And, I suppose, to highlight the very real damange he had done to himself and the other witches and wizards he did the memory charm on). Quite simply, he's served his purpose in the series and with everything JKR has to accomplish in the 7th book, I don't think she has time to touch on Lockhart. As far as I can tell, he's just not important to the plot anymore. Sevarem From maliksthong at yahoo.com Mon Dec 26 06:03:46 2005 From: maliksthong at yahoo.com (Chys Lattes) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 06:03:46 -0000 Subject: JKR's website update - Draco a metamorph? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145420 > Christina: > > > in HBP Tonks theories, unless it turns out that *another* character is > a metamorphmagus (ie, Narcissa- Tonks does seem to hint that being a > metamorphmagus might be genetic). Chys: What about Draco as a Metamorph? He's Narcissa's son, so wouldn't it be possible if it's genetic, for it to show up in Draco later on in his life? If he really wants to change sides this could give him the opportunity to. Harry may even listen to him given that he saw him lower his wand. Just a thought, Chys From juli17 at aol.com Mon Dec 26 06:52:53 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 01:52:53 EST Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) Message-ID: <20e.105a43ed.30e0ed45@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145421 Pippin wrote: You know, if you read 'Spinner's End' as straight exposition, presuming that Snape is telling the truth all the way through, then it is perfunctory and rather dull, but if you think Snape is DDM! it's like a Chinese puzzle, and deeply artful. Probably the best argument for DDM I've come up with yet. Julie: I agree it's a strong argument. DDM!Snape is easily the most complex Snape of the bunch. He's Dumbledore's man, on the side of Good, yet in a constant internal struggle to keep a lid on his worst instincts (and he frequently fails). ESE!Snape is pretty much one-dimensional, evil through and through, no more than a master pretender for 16 years. (DDM!Snape is a master pretender too, but given Snape's outward nastiness, his core of good intent is what adds that extra dimension,) OFH!Snape is no more complex, acting always and only in his own best interests (basically, a Wormtail redux), with little internal battle going on between his conscience (pretty much absent) and his instincts. DDM!Snape is also by far the best piece of writing, IMO. ESE!Snape just gives us dozens of red herrings in Snape's behavior, meaningless moments and pointless inconsistencies inserted only to misdirect. OFH!Snape is easier to reconcile with Snape's inconsistencies, but he still lacks the complex motives and paradoxical personality traits that make Snape potentially one of the most fascinating fictional characters ever created. Pippin: > See, I don't understand how a person without any core belief that > killing was wrong could convince someone like Dumbledore that > he was a moral person, not for a few months but year after year. Alla: LOLOL! Easy? Just keep lying to Dumbledore year after year after year. I mean, really Snape fooled either Dumbledore or Voldemort, right? I vote for Dumbledore :) Julie: And therein lies the other best argument for DDM!Snape. You prefer a Snape that has fooled Dumbledore. But that means Dumbledore is less intelligent and less perceptive about humanity than Voldemort! Dumbledore, the greatest wizard who ever lived, is more easily fooled than Voldemort, the single-minded, egomaniacal sociopath who has never experienced actual love for or from anyone, the braggart who is so convinced of his own superiority that he cannot comprehend Harry being more than a gnat to be swatted away, so underestimates him over and over again. I think not. I don't buy that Dumbledore, not for a minute. He's very capable of mistakes, and admits so, but he's also JKR's mouthpiece of wisdom and goodness, and she's not going to compromise her "greatest wizard ever" (in every sense of the term) by making his judgment of perhaps the most crucial secondary character in the book dead wrong. It would irreparably damage Dumbledore's standing, and that would be painful to see (for me, anyway). Julie (who wants DDM!Snape as much for Dumbledore's sake as for Snape's sake--heck, even for Harry's sake!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Dec 26 07:05:45 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 07:05:45 -0000 Subject: conspicuous absence from the updated website.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145422 "allies426" wrote: > Harry is a horcrux" would be something > much more significant to debunk if it > is indeed untrue. So by her NOT commenting > on it, does that make it more likely to be true? Not necessarily, I don't think JKR wants people to stop people speculating, she just wants to kill speculation that she thinks is going in a stupid direction. Harry may or may not be a Horcrux, but at some point in the story I am almost certain Harry will think he is. By the way she also said 2006 is the year she will write the last book, does that mean by this time next year it will be finished? If so it should be published in the summer of 2007, about the time of the next movie. Eggplant From juli17 at aol.com Mon Dec 26 07:21:15 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 02:21:15 EST Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. Message-ID: <24d.4504fb8.30e0f3eb@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145423 "Steve" wrote: > I don't agree that just any DE > could kill Harry, and Voldemort > would feel the same level of > paranoia and threat. Eggplant wrote: Perhaps, but I think Mr. Joe Average Death Eater would have a very difficult time killing Harry. With the significant exception of Snape none of the other Death Eaters in the tower that night were a match for Harry, not even the mighty werewolf, Harry disposed of them one after another. To my mind this suggests that both Harry and Snape are extraordinarily powerful wizards. Julie: You may be right that the Average DE would have a difficult time killing Harry. That still doesn't explain why Snape stopped the DE from crucioing Harry. Even if the DE doesn't kill him (which would presumably be a nice bonus to Snape, who's only in trouble with Voldemort if he does the deed on Harry), what possible reason could Snape have for not letting the DE at least torture Harry for a long as he could? Snape detests Harry, so why wouldn't he see the cursed brat suffer while he makes his escape without any further interference? There's no good reason ESE! or even OFH! Snape is going to bother stopping the DE from crucioing Harry. But there is a very good reason for DDM!Snape to stop the DE from crucioing Harry. Festuco wrote: >Greyback was doing fine before >someone else petrfied him. Eggplant wrote: For a second or two you shook my confidence, I was wondering if I was crazy and you could be right, but I've just reread that part of the book. And I was right. Unless my eyes are deceiving me Harry is the one who petrified Greybeck not "someone else". No mater how you spin it Greybeck was not "doing fine". Julie: Sorry, but that moment is very ambiguous. Harry can't raise his wand before Fenrir is on him. Harry feels Fenrir's "hot greedy breath on his throat--" "Pertrificus Totalis!" Then "Harry felt Fenrir collapse against him; with a stupendous effort he pushed the werewolf off..." (etc, etc, as scene continues) I don't know if JKR was being deliberately vague, but it is not at all clear whether Harry managed the spell himself (wandless magic, is he even capable of it?), or if someone else shouted it. So you're not right. No one can be right on this one, because it's inconclusive. If JKR was reading this right now, and thought "Hey, I didn't realize I left that moment ambiguous!" she could play a game of musical chairs with her characters (at least the one's present in the area at the moment, like Bill, Ginny, Tonks, Snape, etc, right to Harry), and the last one standing gets to be the Petrificus Totalis caster ;-) Not that she'd want to, but still... Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 26 10:56:29 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:56:29 -0000 Subject: Weston-supra-Mare/Percy/Prior Incantato/Snape was with Voldemort/Map of Devo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145424 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > > Sandy Straubhaar wrote in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144960 : > > << P. G. Wodehouse (as in Jeeves & Wooster) used lots of bizarre > English town names in his stories, but ... I _think_ ... they are all > real,like Weston-super-Mare >> Catlady: > This list used to have an active poster, IIRC named Mary Ann > MacCloudt, who lived in Weston-supra-Mare. IIRC she said it was a > boring place. Geoff: If this was the correct name of her town, then it isn't the same place. I live in West Somerset and Weston-SUPER-Mare is a large coastaln North Somerset, about 40 miles away. Dreamofwriting wrote in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/145278 : > > << I just uploaded a map picture; I didn't get the title on it > properly, it just says gif...it's on the last page of the photos. I > got the pic from a map of England on the internet. It shows in Devon: > Ottery St. Mary's, and there is a Burrow Hill Farm and a place labeled > Pottery, this is just so coincidental? Well, I thought it was > interesting and maybe if I do get to England I will take myself a > little drive to Ottery St. Mary's and have a look around, just for > kicks! >> > > And it is near Exeter University where JKR was a student. From > previous discussion, I seem to recall that there is also a Stokes > Hill or Stokeshead Hill in the area (cf Stoatshead Hill). Adding > stoats and weasels to otters makes it sound very mustelid. Oh, and a > town named Chudleigh, presumably the namesake of Ron's Chudley Cannons. Geoff: Ottery St.Mary (no apostrophe 's') is about 8 miles east of Exeter, about 3 miles north of the coastal resort of Sidmouth and takes its name from the river Otter. Just to the north of Exeter is the village of Stoke Canon and the district of Exeter which lies between them is Stoke Hill. I have a friend who lives in Stoke Hill. Chudleigh lies about 5 miles south-west of Exeter roughly halfway between Exeter and Newton Abbot From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Dec 26 13:04:32 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:04:32 -0000 Subject: conspicuous absence from the updated website In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145425 Alla: > But even if it has some sort of truth in it, it still does not mean > that it is correct ( adn I do think it has some truth in it) - like > for example Harry may not be a horcrux, but some other living being ( > besides Nagini) could be or something like that and she does not want > us to stop speculating about it. Ceridwen: I thought it sounded like (we, and) Harry&Co., were being set up to believe that he was a horcrux, which would make for some drama as the trio tries to decide what to do. Harry will, of course, offer to sacrifice himself and Ron and Hermione will come to accept that, but still be looking desperately for another answer (which they will find, IMO). Without Dumbledore there to help, it will have to be the three of them alone trying to figure things out, which also ties in nicely with the Hero Without Mentor idea. Ceridwen. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Dec 26 14:31:02 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 14:31:02 -0000 Subject: Big Blond DE (was Re: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. In-Reply-To: <24d.4504fb8.30e0f3eb@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145426 > Julie: > Sorry, but that moment is very ambiguous. Harry can't raise his wand > before Fenrir is on him. Harry feels Fenrir's "hot greedy breath on his > throat--" > "Pertrificus Totalis!" > Then "Harry felt Fenrir collapse against him; with a stupendous effort > he pushed the werewolf off..." (etc, etc, as scene continues) > > I don't know if JKR was being deliberately vague, but it is not > at all clear whether Harry managed the spell himself (wandless > magic, is he even capable of it?), or if someone else shouted it. > So you're not right. No one can be right on this one, because > it's inconclusive. Potioncat: It is ambigious and I'm sure it's on purpose. If nothing else, it makes the battle scene more chaotic. But, I have an idea. I think the Big Blond DE petrified Greyback. I think he's one of DD's spies. Look at what he does. He's sending spells all over the place but doesn't hit any of the Order members. He kills one of the DEs (not told it's an AK) He fights with Hagrid, then sets his house on fire to distract him. (I think.) He seems to be trying to get out of Hogwarts while causing the least possible damage to anyone. Although some of the readers think he's the one who Crucioed Harry, we aren't told that. It could have been the brother of the sibling pair who was seen Crucioing earlier in the battle. All three of them are behind Harry at that moment. The weakest part of this theory is, if he was working for the Order, why didn't he send word about the attack on Hogwarts? Unless of course, he didn't have time. Also, if he is a spy, the Order members must not know him. From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Dec 26 16:09:27 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:09:27 -0500 Subject: Harry as a Horcrux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43B015B7.5070704@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145427 eggplant107 wrote: > Not necessarily, I don't think JKR wants people to stop people > speculating, she just wants to kill speculation that she thinks is > going in a stupid direction. Harry may or may not be a Horcrux, but at > some point in the story I am almost certain Harry will think he is. Bart: I was about to say how ridiculous the concept of Harry as a Horcrux is, but came up with one way it COULD work. This is based on a leap beyond the canon: that the pieces of the soul in the horcruxes are not homogenous. You see, the major problem with Harry being a Horcrux is that, based on our knowledge of Tommy Riddle's diary, there is no way that Voldemort's piece of soul would not show itself. The only way that it could have is if the piece of soul inside Harry contains all of Voldemort's goodness. This would actually fit in well with the story, as well as explain while Voldemort is unredeemable. Bart From coverton at netscape.com Mon Dec 26 11:42:47 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 05:42:47 -0600 Subject: questions about chocolate and Bellatrix accent Message-ID: <000001c60a11$8504e490$d99d91ac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145428 Hi All! Its the day after Christmas. I hope that everyone ate lots of food and got lots of cool gifts. Well enough random thoughts. To the questions I posed in the subject line. 1 How does chocolate help with Dementors? I know in PoA it tells it warms people up. but unless they melted it how would that work? Can anyone answer this? 2. I've listened to all the hp books from start to finish and i'm wondering about something. The narrator is Jim Dale. He made Bellatrix sound either French or German. Is she from any of those countries? or is that just Dales' one of many comedian voices? Hope to get some answers and maybe start some more debates cause its fun. Your fellow list member Corey From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Dec 26 16:46:06 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:46:06 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145429 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Hence my previous speculation about two hit lists, which may not > have support in canon per se, but I think it is pretty much a given > that when Voldemort learned about Prophecy, Lily and James stopped > being in his mind just ANY Order Member, which should be killed > sometimes, maybe and started being parents of the Chosen One, who > should be killed ASAP and right now. > > > I did not do the calculations, but I trust your numbers - so out of > 22 original members of OOP, 15 lived, so Voldemort killed > approximately 33%. > > I think that Lily and James had pretty big chance to be among those > 15, no? I mean, they could have been killed or not, but Voldemort > would not have paid them any special attention, no more than to > others,no? > Pippin: I would think they had stopped being just any Order members after they had defied Voldemort three times. Whether they did that before or after Voldemort knew about the prophecy doesn't matter very much, except that it would lessen Snape's culpability a bit if as far as he knew no one had ever done so. Voldemort might have decided to take up tatting or something, rather than risk creating the parents of the One. :) It diminishes James and Lily's heroism to say that they wouldn't have voluntarily risked their lives to confront Voldemort, just as it diminishes Sirius's heroism to say that he only went to save Harry because he had to prove he wasn't a coward. At bottom, Harry's need to blame Snape is a selfish one: James, Lily, Sirius and Dumbledore ultimately chose to leave him orphaned rather than abandon the fight against Voldemort, and Harry doesn't want to deal with that. Readers of the Discworld series will be familiar with Captain Carrot's mantra, "Personal is not the same as important." I think the same principle is being illustrated here. Pippin From sionwitch at yahoo.com Mon Dec 26 16:04:09 2005 From: sionwitch at yahoo.com (sionwitch) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:04:09 -0000 Subject: Website update and Rumour about the name of the Seven Book Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145430 Most of you know already that JK Rowling has updated her site yesterday, but I could not find a post about one rumour in particular that intrigued me the most. In the Rumours section, one gossip is: Book Seven will be called "Harry Potter and the Pyramids of Furmat" She answered "The Pyramids of Furmat lie a few miles east of the famous Fortree of Shadows, not far from the magnificent Pillar of Storge. Many tourists prefer to view theses ancient monuments at night, when they are illuminated by the Green Flame Torch." She never answered "Yes" or "No" to the rumour. What this mean? Could the name of book Seven include some of this words: Fortress of Shadows, Pillar of Storge,Green Flame Torch?. Sionwitch From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Mon Dec 26 16:54:31 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:54:31 +0100 Subject: questions about chocolate and Bellatrix accent References: <000001c60a11$8504e490$d99d91ac@Overton> Message-ID: <006801c60a3d$0be18650$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 145431 Corey Overton wrote: >1 How does chocolate help with > Dementors? I know in PoA it tells it warms people up. but unless they > melted it how would that work? Can anyone answer this? Miles: It seems to me that this is simply the same as with chocolate in our world. Dementors make you forget everything happy in your live, whereas chocolate contains phenylethylamine (is this English?), causing feelings of happyness in us, similar to the hormone status when fallen in love. > 2. I've listened to all the hp books from start to finish and i'm > wondering about something. The narrator is Jim Dale. He made Bellatrix > sound either French or German. Is she from any of those countries? or > is that just Dales' one of many comedian voices? Hope to get some > answers and maybe start some more debates cause its fun. Your fellow > list member Miles: I don't know the English audiobooks, but as Lestrange is a French name, maybe the narrator chose to give her/them an French accent. But I don't see any canon support for this. Miles, eating a Mozatkugel covered with good chocolate ;) From MadameSSnape at aol.com Mon Dec 26 17:02:42 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:02:42 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Website update and Rumour about the name of the Seven Book Message-ID: <2a3.2d6a940.30e17c32@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145432 In a message dated 12/26/2005 11:50:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, sionwitch at yahoo.com writes: Most of you know already that JK Rowling has updated her site yesterday, but I could not find a post about one rumour in particular that intrigued me the most. In the Rumours section, one gossip is: Book Seven will be called "Harry Potter and the Pyramids of Furmat" She answered "The Pyramids of Furmat lie a few miles east of the famous Fortree of Shadows, not far from the magnificent Pillar of Storge. Many tourists prefer to view theses ancient monuments at night, when they are illuminated by the Green Flame Torch." She never answered "Yes" or "No" to the rumour. What this mean? Could the name of book Seven include some of this words: Fortress of Shadows, Pillar of Storge,Green Flame Torch?. ------------------------------------ Sherrie here: Actually, this IS an answer to the question - in a tonue-in-cheek way. All of those items were listed at various times as titles of some of the books - IIRC, "Green Flame Torch" was OotP, "Pillar of Storge" was HBP, &c. Basically, JKR is saying there's about as much truth to "Pyramids of Furmat" as there was to the others - i.e., none at all. Warmest regards, Sherrie "Some kid a hundred years from now is going to get interested in the Civil War and want to see these places. He's going to go down there and be standing in a parking lot. I'm fighting for that kid." - Brian Pohanka, 1990 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 26 17:19:59 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:19:59 -0000 Subject: Snape and Prophecy and Harry WAS:Re: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145433 > Pippin: > I would think they had stopped being just any Order members > after they had defied Voldemort three times. Whether they did that > before or after Voldemort knew about the prophecy doesn't matter > very much, except that it would lessen Snape's culpability a bit if > as far as he knew no one had ever done so. Alla: Right, I think it is matters very much, but we have to agree to disagree on it. Pippin: > It diminishes James and Lily's heroism to say that they wouldn't have > voluntarily risked their lives to confront Voldemort, just as it > diminishes Sirius's heroism to say that he only went to save Harry > because he had to prove he wasn't a coward. Alla: I think it is SO very irrelevant to Snape's culpability as to whether James and Lily would have voluntarily risked their lives to confront Voldemort. I am sure they would have done so, but I am also quite positive that it was NOT Snape's business to speed up the process, which may have never happened in the first place. Pippin: At bottom, Harry's > need to blame Snape is a selfish one: James, Lily, Sirius and > Dumbledore ultimately chose to leave him orphaned rather than > abandon the fight against Voldemort, and Harry doesn't > want to deal with that. > > Readers of the Discworld series will be familiar with Captain > Carrot's mantra, "Personal is not the same as important." > I think the same principle is being illustrated here. Alla: Oh, of course, how DARE Harry is to blame the person who told Voldemort that his parents are the parents of the one who will dispose with Voldy eventually? Selfish Harry, very selfish. How dare he think that but for Snape's involvement he may have grown up in happy home and not abusive one? Of course Snape is NOT to blame for blabbing prophecy to Voldemort, because Lily and James would have died in any event. He is also NOT to blame for treating Harry like dirt in the classroom, because Harry needs to be kept in line or because Harry can deal with it or because Snape is too damaged and cannot help himself. :-) As to your argument that Dumbledore , Sirius and James and Lily chose to leave him orphaned, rather than abandon the fight, that it is IMO at the least unproven and at the most simply incorrect. Yes, they did not abandon the fight, but they also were not abandoning Harry, IMO. They were protecting Harry and from all those people only Lily as we know was ready to die, knowing that Harry may be left with nobody. Even James was probably hoping that Harry will have Lily. We have NO conclusive proof, IMO that Dumbledore wanted to die AT ALL, on the contrary, I think that Dumbledore would give anything to continue helping Harry in his mission and of course I see zero proof that Sirius wanted to die, CHOSE to die in MOM, I bet he wanted to save Harry and at the end live a long happy life with Harry after war. IMO anyway. So, NO I don't buy "chose to leave him orphaned" at all. More like "died protecting him" IMO and with this Harry deals and deals very maturely. "And Harry saw very clearly as he sat there under the hot sun how people who cared about him had stood in front of him one by one, his mother, his father, his godfather, and finally Dumbledore, all determined to protect him; but now that was over. He could not let anybody else stand between him and Voldemort; he must abandon forever the illusion he ought to have lost at the age of one, that the shelter of the parent's arms meant that nothing could hurt him. There was no waking from his nightmare, no comforting whisper in the dark that he was safe really, that it was all in his imagination; the last and the greatest of his protectors had died and he was more alone that he had ever been before" - p.645. I do NOT think that this mindset is very healthy for sixteen years old, but it is sure needed for the Chosen one to end the battle. I hope that Harry will get a support from loving adult at the end ( Lupin, please JKR?), but I guess if that happens that only happens in the epilogue, no earlier than that. JMO, Alla From ornawn at 013.net Mon Dec 26 17:58:43 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:58:43 -0000 Subject: Nature of the Vow: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145434 >Steve/bboyminn: >Perhaps, it is your own mind and your own belief that is the Judge, >Jury, and Executioneer of the Vow. Orna: I would like to add that since the vow is between two people, perhaps also the vow-requester has to believe in it, and has a say in the strength of the compulsion. The other person doesn't have to be there, but the Judge, Jury and executioner of the Vow could be something in you which represents also the other half of the bound person. If you or the other person would think the vow is due, under the circumstances ? the compulsion gets stronger. Perhaps that's the meaning of the hands and the flames with the bond ? some mind/feeling-sharing, which enables/pressures the vower to take into consideration the other persons judgment on the issue. Perhaps something like Harry's flashes of Voldemort's feeling in OotP. Looking at this from this POV, it explains also why the tower scene would be so much of putting the vow into action ? Draco being surrounded by DE witnessing his inability (as they understand it) to kill DD, would drive Narcissa to the most extreme pressure ? she wouldn't accept any excuse for postponement. Well, except the hair- wash >Steve/bboyminn >As long as you can create an >internal mindset and belief that there is still hope of fulfilling >the Vow, as un-rational as it might be, you could hold off the >consequences for as long as you could maintain the belief. >As long as Snape believes, while Draco isn't killing Dumbledore in >the moment, that he will kill Dumbledore at some point, then the Vow >hasn't been broken. Orna: Still, even like that - the longer you fool around with the vow - the more damaged you get. It does have consequences ? since it means tampering with your own mind ? instead of thinking sharp and precise, it means splitting or diffusing your thought. I imagine it might interfere somehow with abilities, not to mention the mental energy required for this "stereo thinking". Snape, as an occlument, should have the basic requirements for such an enterprise. I think that would explain Snape's willingness to risk such a Vow ? he is extremely good at controlling his mind, shutting feelings of, and basically the abilities needed for tampering with a UV are quite in line of a double spy's abilities. I find it important to be able to imagine that Snape took the UV with some vague idea of finding a way out, because if the UV is an iron-cast situation, IMO he should have found a way to slither out of action, on the dark lord's orders.... >Steve/bboyminn >Given the level of 'Snape' discussion, I think we can all agree that >JKR has done a remarkable job of creating doubt about Snape. On one >hand, so many clues that he is Dumbledore's Man, yet, on the other >hand, so much doubt at to his true allegance. You have to admit, it >has been a masterful bit of storytelling. Orna: Admit - happily! Orna From coverton at netscape.com Mon Dec 26 06:58:07 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 00:58:07 -0600 Subject: conspicuous absence from the updated website/Harry as horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c609e9$c090e8b0$a5b9acac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145435 Allie: "To me, "Harry is a horcrux" would be something much more significant to debunk if it is indeed untrue. So by her NOT commenting on it, does that make it more likely to be true? I hate that idea, and when I saw the comment about the Sorting Hat, my heart just sank..." Corey: Allie, why did you want the sorting hat to be a horcrux? Or did you want Harry to be one? Do you wonder how Professopr Slughorn knew about Horcruxes? Your friend, Corey From coverton at netscape.com Mon Dec 26 13:32:07 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 07:32:07 -0600 Subject: conspicuous absence from the updated website In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c60a20$cb25a130$911895ac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145436 Ceridwen: I thought it sounded like (we, and) Harry&Co., were being set up to believe that he was a horcrux, which would make for some drama as the trio tries to decide what to do. Harry will, of course, offer to sacrifice himself and Ron and Hermione will come to accept that, but still be looking desperately for another answer (which they will find, IMO). Without Dumbledore there to help, it will have to be the three of them alone trying to figure things out, which also ties in nicely with the Hero Without Mentor idea. Corey: I agree with both Alla and Ceridwen . But I'm going to say this I don't believe that Harry is a horcrux as I don't think any of you do. Please correct me if this is not true. But I do think that the 3 friends will have their hands full. I think Hermione will get tested brains wise. I don't think she has been tested as she will be in book 7 in the Potter series. Well lets see what happens let me know your thoughts . Your fellow member, Corey From stormydog2000 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 26 05:49:25 2005 From: stormydog2000 at yahoo.com (Dan S) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 21:49:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: What the last word in the seventh book may be... In-Reply-To: <20051225035734.90267.qmail@web30910.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051226054925.38476.qmail@web51403.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145437 > Ann Marie wrote: > > if any of the three main characters die in > > the final book, but especially Harry, then > > my love for the books would die also. > Kimberly here: > For me, it would be very difficult to re-read > the series knowing that Harry dies at the end. > > I really hope that's not the ending she chooses > although I haven't ruled out the possibility of > it happening. What if both Harry and LV die? I do not think Harry is a Horcrux but it because it takes a spell to make a horcrux and it was a thought that Harry could be with him (Harry) getting some of LV's powers. "stormydog2000" From ornawn at 013.net Mon Dec 26 18:49:53 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 18:49:53 -0000 Subject: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145439 bboyminn: > I don't think the 'force' of the UV turns you into a mindless robot > who is forced to act. I do believe you can summor a force of > resistance against the compulsion to fulfill the Vow. Yet, as you > summon the will to resist, that starts a cascade that makes the > compulsion to act that much stronger... >Ceridwen: >As Orna pointed out, even Imperio can be fought. But look at what >happened to Barty Crouch sr. when he tried, it seemed his mind was >going. But something like the UV would give you the immediate >compulsion to just do it. >Once you have agreed to the UV and have taken the vow, it is >internalized. Unlike Expeliarmus (yes, I know this isn't Dark >Magic), the UV works from the inside, so there's nothing to block. Orna: Agree. Crouch illustrates that fighting the curse is damaging. I suppose it was more damaging to him, since he might have loyalty conflict ? turning his son in, or resisting the curse. I think it might have to do with the UV, since breaking it, or postponing it the way Steve or I suggested, would have consequences on the way you function with your thoughts and mind. >Ceridwen: >I think, in the case of the UV, it would work like a thermostat set >to a particular temperature. When the air gets too hot or too cold, >the A/C or heat kick in. With the UV, when certain criteria germain >to the vow are met, the UV kicks in. Orna: Like this metaphor. It also leaves room for the possibility, that if you are good at shutting your feelings off, thereby cooling the thought-temperature, the UV would be less pressing. As you said, the tower scene, with dying DD, Draco, the De, hiding Harry, DD pleading and the trigger words, would hardly leave any room for choice. Still, IMO DD's pleading suggests, that Snape had some choice in what to do ? I suppose on the risk of sacrificing himself with the UV getting out of his control. >Ceridwen: >It would be interesting to talk about what Dark Magic might be. I'm >sure we all have ideas! Orna: Would be interested to hear about it. Some thoughts ? It has to do with generally harming yourself as a whole person, and harming the other person as a whole human being. The supreme dark magic has to do with splitting your soul ? killing and horcruxing. On a lesser level - The crucio curse works only if you mean it; enjoy enforcing pain on someone, thereby shutting yourself from compassion, feeling for the other. It's important that just being angry and revengeful ? doesn't work there. It's a very human feeling, which does leave room for other feelings to emerge. The UV doesn't only limit your choices ? it prevents you from rethinking your deeds, transforming. As I understand Arthur's anger ? it seems that once the vow is taken, there isn't a simple possibility of "undoing", even if both parties agree. That's for now, Orna From prongs at marauders-map.net Mon Dec 26 19:39:14 2005 From: prongs at marauders-map.net (SilverStag) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 14:39:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's website update - Silver Hand References: Message-ID: <000901c60a54$0e445e10$0201a8c0@betty9wiwuzem4> No: HPFGUIDX 145440 bboyminn:

Here is the problem I have with any and all 'Silver Hand' theories. The hand is surely silver colored, but there is nothing in the books that would make us think that Peter's hand is made out of the metal Silver. Betty/SilverStag:

There's also nothing that definitely states that silver effects werewolves in the Potterverse. No mention is made of what kind of goblet Snape uses to give the wolfsbane to Lupin. " "Come in," called Lupin. The door opened, and in came Snape. He was carrying a goblet, which was smoking faintly, and stopped at the sight of Harry, his black eyes narrowing." We know they use golden goblets for feasts. Does anyone remember a mention of any other day where goblets are described in detail? There is also no mention that Lupin uses a different goblet than the other presumably silver ones at the table at Grimmauld place. "Sirius," said Mundungus, who did not appear to have paid any attention to the conversation, but had been closely examining an empty goblet. "This solid silver, mate?" "Yes," said Sirius, surveying it with distaste. "Finest fifteenth century goblin-wrought silver, embossed with the Black family crest." ..... "The atmosphere in the room changed with the rapidity Harry associated with the arrival of Dementors. Where seconds before it had been sleepily relaxed, it was now alert, even tense. A frisson had gone around the table at the mention of Voldemort's name. Lupin, who had been about to take a sip of wine, lowered his goblet slowly, looking wary." It is for this reason that I've never bought the silver hand = death to Lupin theories floating around. Wouldn't Harry notice if one person used something different than everyone else for drinking? My 2 knuts and they probably need to be polished. Betty ---- Original Message ----- From: "Steve" To: Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2005 3:28 AM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's website update - Silver Hand > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Shylah wrote: >> >> >Dumbledore11214 wrote: >> > >> > JKR updated the website and she puts the stop to several rumors. >> > >> > POSSIBLE >> > >> > SSSSSS >> > PPPPPP >> > OOOOOO >> > IIIIII >> > LLLLLL >> > EEEEEE >> > RRRRRRR >> > SSSSSSS >> > >> > Snipped. >> > >> > And Peter's silver hand will not kill Remus. Dare I hope that >> > Remus will not be killed at all, JKR? Please? >> > >> > Alla >> >> >> Tanya. >> >> After reading HBP and the introduction of Fenrir, and the >> discussions of the idea of Peter redeeming himself, bringing >> those two together could be a real possibility in my thinking >> if the tradition of silver still stands, just not for Remus. >> Been studying the wording to see, but I can't decide. >> > > > bboyminn: > > Here is the problem I have with any and all 'Silver Hand' theories. > The hand is surely silver colored, but there is nothing in the books > that would make us think that Peter's hand is made out of the metal > Silver. > > I suspect Peter could use his silver-colored hand in some way to > defend Harry, perhaps by defeating a DE who was threatening Harry, but > that would be due to the strength of the hand, and not to our > assumption of its composition. > > Just a thought, and time for bed. > > Steve/bboyminn > > > > > > > Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text > > Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from > posts to which you're replying! > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Dec 26 20:05:04 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 20:05:04 -0000 Subject: Snape and Prophecy and Harry WAS:Re: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145441 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > As to your argument that Dumbledore , Sirius and James and Lily > chose to leave him orphaned, rather than abandon the fight, that it > is IMO at the least unproven and at the most simply incorrect. > > Yes, they did not abandon the fight, but they also were not > abandoning Harry, IMO. They were protecting Harry and from all those > people only Lily as we know was ready to die, knowing that Harry may > be left with nobody. Even James was probably hoping that Harry will > have Lily. > > We have NO conclusive proof, IMO that Dumbledore wanted to die AT > ALL, on the contrary, I think that Dumbledore would give anything to > continue helping Harry in his mission and of course I see zero proof > that Sirius wanted to die, CHOSE to die in MOM, I bet he wanted to > save Harry and at the end live a long happy life with Harry after > war. IMO anyway. > Pippin: Of course they wanted to save Harry. But if Voldemort took the Unbreakable Vow never to harm Harry or anyone who loves him as long as they or Harry didn't attack him, do you think Sirius, Dumbledore, James or Lily would have accepted the deal? Would you call them heroes if they did? I wouldn't. But we may have to agree to disagree on that. Pippin From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Mon Dec 26 20:11:43 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 20:11:43 -0000 Subject: The wages of gluttony. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145442 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > Magpie: > > Well, sure. But there are a lot of people who have been mean in the > world and that does not give me the right to do something mean to > them. I could do that, but I would just be being mean. > They played a trick on them. His tongue got engorged and Arthur fixed it. Not really nice, but quite a good practical joke from a wizarding point of view. It is not sadistic, not criminal. Just a practical joke. Ofcourse for a Muggle it will be hugely different. But I pointed out already that I don't think wizards really get that. And in Dudley's case, I don't think the Muggle argument is really that important, because he perfectly well knew he was eating wizarding candy. I don't like practical jokes, but I don't see the fuss. Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Mon Dec 26 20:18:47 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 20:18:47 -0000 Subject: Why I think Lockhart will get out of St Mungo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145443 > Corey said: > >>3 reasons why I think he'll get out. > > 1. He's been there entirely to long. > > 2 The curse that he got hit with was not a extremely bad curse so > while it did cause distress and damage it should not keep him in > St.Mungo for the rest of his life. > > 3. His Fans I think miss him even though he's a totally inept wizard > who didn't do any of what he said he did but stole it from people he has > > fans as a great story teller. > Actually it was an extremely bad curse. His memory charms were good enough to take credit from lots of people and write books about their heroic deeds passing them off as his own. His memory charms had to be permanent for that, because otherwise he would have huge, huge trouble if these truly brave people found out what had happened to them. They would at the very least visit his doorstep to get their share of the money he made... He could also not take the risk of Ron and Harry ever remembering what really happened, because that would be the end of his reputation and of course taking away people's memory is criminal. So I don't think he is too long in St. Mungo's. If he ever comes out he will be very lucky, because what he cast was a charm ment to last for life, only this time he hit the wrong person. Gerry From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Dec 26 21:36:51 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:36:51 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The wages of gluttony. References: Message-ID: <015301c60a64$861cce80$7566400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 145444 festuco: > They played a trick on them. His tongue got engorged and Arthur fixed > it. Not really nice, but quite a good practical joke from a wizarding > point of view. It is not sadistic, not criminal. Magpie: Well, where we get into subjectivity, I don't like practical jokes and I would never make someone's tongue swell up because to me it is sadistic and not funny. (I think their giving someone boils during their OWLS is similarly sadistic and not funny.) But my point here is not to insist that the twins should go to jail or that everyone must conform to my pov of the joke. I don't feel like I'm making a fuss so much as just calling a spade a spade. I have no trouble with people finding the joke funny or not sadistic. What I'm arguing against is the idea that because Dudley "should have known" that because these people he's never met who just left his house are wizards, that eating any candy they leave behind is like agreeing to have something hex put on him. That, imo, just silly. The twins are responsible for the joke that they played on Dudley that they planned and set up. I also think that the idea that because the twins are wizards Dudley should know not to trust them is exactly what Arthur is trying to fight against. He doesn't want his family confirming the stereotype that wizards all play magical pranks on Muggles. In the next book Dumbledore's bopping them in the head with mead and chiding them for being impolite in not taking his Wizarding Mead. If Lupin offered the Dursleys candy wouldn't their treating it like it was threatening be seen as inappropriate or even rude on their part? Not that the twins gave Dudley the candy, they just pretended to lose it accidentally and left it behind, but in both cases the Dursleys would be eating Wizarding food. -m From Wink45zes at aol.com Mon Dec 26 22:07:47 2005 From: Wink45zes at aol.com (Wink45zes at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:07:47 EST Subject: Nature of the Vow: Message-ID: <2d0.ad42de.30e1c3b3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145445 Orna: > Perhaps that's the meaning of the hands and the flames with > the bond ? some mind/feeling-sharing, which enables/pressures > the vower to take into consideration the other persons judgment > on the issue. Wink45: First let me say that I distrust that the UV causes death simply because that information came from Ron, who based his idea upon his father's anger. The idea of it causing a strong compulsion is interesting, but compulsions can be fought, and the time used in resisting can allow the situation to change in such a way that the UB can no longer be completed in any case. However I keep thinking about how the spell for the UV was set, with that binding of the hands. What if . . . and I admit this is a quick and dirty thought and not a fully formed theory . . . what if this spell means not so much that it is absolutely impossible to break the vow, but that it cannot be broken without the other person involved knowing that it was broken? (and perhaps also the person who set the spell?) Perhaps it is a flash of thought that a situation occurred where the vow could have been fulfilled but was not that is received by the vow requester (and perhaps also spell setter). Would this remove the possibility of Snape carrying forward an "intention" which could waylay the spell? I think it would simply inform the vow requester and or spell caster of a situation where the conditions of the spell could have been fulfilled and wasn't, leaving them with the opportunity to consider intentions or changed circumstances, as well as how and when to seek revenge for the broken vow. I need to do some more thinking on this, but for now I'll toss it out there and am interested in what others think. Wink45 From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Dec 26 23:07:02 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 23:07:02 -0000 Subject: The wages of gluttony. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145446 Gerry: > They played a trick on them. His tongue got engorged and Arthur fixed > it. Not really nice, but quite a good practical joke from a wizarding > point of view. It is not sadistic, not criminal. Just a practical > joke. Ofcourse for a Muggle it will be hugely different. But I pointed > out already that I don't think wizards really get that. And in > Dudley's case, I don't think the Muggle argument is really that > important, because he perfectly well knew he was eating wizarding > candy. I don't like practical jokes, but I don't see the fuss. > Pippin: Strictly speaking it was criminal -- a violation of the statute of secrecy, if nothing else. Harry's prosecution over the dementor attack shows that Dudley's prior knowledge of the wizarding world would not have been an excuse. But the twins were stepping out of their usual role here. Generally, they are jesters, and the point of their jokes is that anyone can be fooled, even, and most especially, figures in authority. The twins themselves can be fooled, as they found out when they discovered Ginny had been using their brooms. It's interesting that they target Percy, while Hermione and Snape who are every bit as officious and almost as full of themselves, go unscathed. Percy's problem, IMO, is that he thinks his position ought to protect him, while Hermione and Snape have no trouble skirting the rules when they are crossed and can get quite nasty too. But Montague and Dudley were targeted as punishment, and the fact that the vanishing cabinet eventually backfired on the Twins shows, I think, that JKR does not entirely approve. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 27 02:34:48 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:34:48 -0000 Subject: Snape and Prophecy and Harry WAS:Re: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145447 > Pippin: > Of course they wanted to save Harry. But if Voldemort took the > Unbreakable Vow never to harm Harry or anyone who loves him as > long as they or Harry didn't attack him, do you think Sirius, Dumbledore, > James or Lily would have accepted the deal? Would you call them > heroes if they did? > > I wouldn't. But we may have to agree to disagree on that. > > Alla: Sorry for repeating myself, but I don't think that this point is relevant in determining Snape's culpability in Lily and James' deaths. Strictly my opinion of course. But I will reply to it anyways. I don't think that such thing would ever happened. If Harry was just one of many children of the soldiers of the Light side, I don't think that they would have abandoned the fight, if they were promised that Harry would not be harmed. Here is the question of course how much you can trust Voldemort's word. IMO, you cannot at all. Nevertheless, because of Snape IMO Harry is not just the ordinary boy of the Light side. In many aspects Harry IS the fight, without him Voldemort is undefeatable, so abandoning the fight IMO pretty much equals abandoning Harry. And Voldemort promising to not to harm Harry is simply not possible. Why? Because of Snape of course IMO. Alla, knows that she rambles but cannot help herself From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Tue Dec 27 03:07:28 2005 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 03:07:28 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Horcrux In-Reply-To: <43B015B7.5070704@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145448 > Bart: > I was about to say how ridiculous the concept of Harry as a Horcrux is, > but came up with one way it COULD work. This is based on a leap beyond > the canon: that the pieces of the soul in the horcruxes are not homogenous. > > You see, the major problem with Harry being a Horcrux is that, based on > our knowledge of Tommy Riddle's diary, there is no way that Voldemort's > piece of soul would not show itself. The only way that it could have is > if the piece of soul inside Harry contains all of Voldemort's goodness. > This would actually fit in well with the story, as well as explain while > Voldemort is unredeemable. > > Bart > Antosha: I'm ambivalent about the Harry-as-Horcrux theories. It seems likely to me that Harry's vanquishing of Voldy will in fact center around an act of self-sacrifice on his part, but the Horcrux theory... :shrugs: Your idea has some interesting aspects, but I see one problem. It would presuppose that LV's goodness was set aside as the nasty parts were shunted off into one Horcrux after another. Setting aside the whole question of whether each Horcrux contains an identical AMOUNT of LV's soul (rather than a half of a half of a...), we're still left wondering why, as the good portion of him became a larger and larger percentage of his remaining soul, he kept getting nastier and nastier? If Harry's the last Horcrux, he'd have to be the last one, after all.... From 5682574 at sbcglobal.net Tue Dec 27 03:48:32 2005 From: 5682574 at sbcglobal.net (Pat) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 03:48:32 -0000 Subject: questions about chocolate and Bellatrix accent In-Reply-To: <006801c60a3d$0be18650$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145449 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > > Corey Overton wrote: > > 2. I've listened to all the hp books from start to finish and i'm > > wondering about something. The narrator is Jim Dale. He made Bellatrix > > sound either French or German. Is she from any of those countries? or > > is that just Dales' one of many comedian voices? > Miles: > I don't know the English audiobooks, but as Lestrange is a French name, > maybe the narrator chose to give her/them an French accent. But I don't see > any canon support for this. Pat: I hope that doesn't mean Jim Dale doesn't do his homework. She's Lestrange by marriage. Did he also give Bellatrix' sister, Narcissa, the same type of accent? I've only listened to OOTP. And I only liked a few of Dales' voices, Hagrid, Dumbledore, and Mundungus. I didn't like the way he did Harry or Hermione at all, for the way their voices sounded, or for the way he read the lines. For example, "Harry said dully" was read with enthusiasm, and Harry being rude was read politely. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Tue Dec 27 03:52:36 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 03:52:36 -0000 Subject: Interested in The Burrow? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145450 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dreamofwriting" wrote: > > Well, I thought it was interesting and maybe if I do get to > England I will take myself a little drive to Ottery St. Mary's > and have a look around, just for kicks! If you can, try to get there November 5th. Trust me. Amiable Dorsai From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Tue Dec 27 04:01:08 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 04:01:08 -0000 Subject: Website update and Rumour about the name of the Seven Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145451 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sionwitch" wrote: > > Most of you know already that JK Rowling has updated her site > yesterday, but I could not find a post about one rumour in particular > that intrigued me the most. > In the Rumours section, one gossip is: Book Seven will be called > "Harry Potter and the Pyramids of Furmat" > She answered > "The Pyramids of Furmat lie a few miles east of the famous Fortree of > Shadows, not far from the magnificent Pillar of Storge. Many tourists > prefer to view theses ancient monuments at night, when they are > illuminated by the Green Flame Torch." > > She never answered "Yes" or "No" to the rumour. What this mean? Could > the name of book Seven include some of this words: Fortress of Shadows, > Pillar of Storge,Green Flame Torch?. > Additionally, JKR conspicuously omitted all reference to the Toe- Nail of Icklib?gg, which conclusively proves that the title to Book Seven will be found - literally - underfoot. OTOH, the Pillar of Storge might allow for a lucrative tie-in to the CS Lewis/Narnia franchise..... - CMC From Nanagose at aol.com Tue Dec 27 04:51:15 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 04:51:15 -0000 Subject: JKR's website update - Silver Hand In-Reply-To: <000901c60a54$0e445e10$0201a8c0@betty9wiwuzem4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145452 > bboyminn: > Here is the problem I have with any and all 'Silver Hand' theories. > The hand is surely silver colored, but there is nothing in the books > that would make us think that Peter's hand is made out of the metal > Silver. > Betty/SilverStag: >

There's also nothing that definitely states that silver effects > werewolves in the Potterverse. ...... > There is also no mention that Lupin uses a different goblet than the > other presumably silver ones at the table at Grimmauld place. Christina: In response to you both, it's been pretty obvious for a while that werewolves in JKR's universe do not respond poorly to pure silver (in their human form, at least). But I had always given the silver hand theories value just because of the symbolic meaning. Kind of in the same way that Sirius's "grim" form and captivity at GRIMmauld Place foreshadowed his death. It doesn't have to be a scenario where Peter kills Lupin *with the silver hand,* but you could take the silver hand as foreshadowing because of it's traditional link between silver and werewolves. But, a futile exercise I guess, considering JKR has shot it down. Christina From juli17 at aol.com Tue Dec 27 07:15:25 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:15:25 EST Subject: Snape and Prophecy and Harry Message-ID: <8b.35183270.30e2440d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145453 Alla wrote: Nevertheless, because of Snape IMO Harry is not just the ordinary boy of the Light side. In many aspects Harry IS the fight, without him Voldemort is undefeatable, so abandoning the fight IMO pretty much equals abandoning Harry. And Voldemort promising to not to harm Harry is simply not possible. Why? Because of Snape of course IMO. Julie: It's *partly* because of Snape. And it's partly because Sirius picked the wrong secret-keeper, and partly because James and Lily placed their trust in that wrong person. If any of the above had done things differently (heck, maybe if Abelforth had come up the stairs a minute earlier instead of taking that long swig of whiskey behind the bar!), then it would have all turned out differently. It's basically the "butterfly" effect. And it never ends as long as you keep it going, looking for every little action that eventually led to a specific event. (In this case it may go all the way back to the Mauraders taunting Snape--perhaps the Prank incident was the last straw that sent Snape to Voldemort's side. Then again, if Snape's mother had never gotten pregnant... well, like I said, you can go on and on.) As for placing actual *blame* for the deaths of James and Lily, and Harry's "extra"ordinary status, I apportion it according to intent. Snape bears blame for informing LV of the prophecy, but that is somewhat mitigated by his efforts to atone by telling Dumbledore thus enabling him to hide James and Lily. Certainly he bears far less blame than does Peter, or Voldemort himself, the two who had deliberate intent to cause the Potters harm. BTW, it's always entertaining to wonder about those "what if" scenarios. In this case, what if Snape hadn't heard/told LV of the prophecy--then what would have happened to Harry's life, and where would he be now? My guess: The Order was outnumbered and being picked off one by one. Voldemort was undefeatable then, from everything we've heard. He would have eventually exterminated the Order, and taken over the WW. At which point Harry would still be an orphan, with no parents, *and* no Sirius, Lupin, Dumbledore, Weasleys, etc, etc. Harry wouldn't be "an ordinary boy on the Light side" but an ordinary boy who grew up in a WW ruled by the Dark side. He might well be indistinguishable from Draco Malfoy! In an ironic twist, it may be that Snape's actions, those that were partly to blame for Harry being orphaned, are also partly responsible for the WW being saved from defeat and descent into darkness when Voldemort was reduced to vapor at Godric's Hollow by his own failed AK. So, if you want to say Snape played a part in making Harry who he is, a boy with extraordinary gifts, who will save a WW that still exists to *be* saved, then I agree. Perhaps Harry should thank Snape? (Just kidding!!! But events play out the way they do because of all the actions that went before, with both good and bad actions and results--made good or bad by our judgment--inseparably entwined.) And maybe by the end of book seven, Harry won't be known as "The boy who Lived" but as "The boy who saved the Wizarding World--twice.") Julie (rambling a bit from the original point) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From luv2readhp at yahoo.com Tue Dec 27 02:46:52 2005 From: luv2readhp at yahoo.com (Kimberly) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 18:46:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Big Blond DE (was Re: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051227024652.69595.qmail@web30915.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145454 > Potioncat: > I think the Big Blond DE petrified Greyback. I think he's > one of DD's spies. Look at what he does. He's sending spells > all over the place but doesn't hit any of the Order members. > He kills one of the DEs (not told it's an AK) He fights with > Hagrid, then sets his house on fire to distract him. (I think.) > He seems to be trying to get out of Hogwarts while causing the > least possible damage to anyone. Although some of the readers > think he's the one who Crucioed Harry, we aren't told that. It > could have been the brother of the sibling pair who was seen > Crucioing earlier in the battle. All three of them are behind > Harry at that moment. Kimberly here: After reading this post I went back and re-read the scene where I believe Ginny relays to Harry what happened during the big battle scene. 2 things stuck out at me, one supporting this theory and one opposing it. The first that is that it was, "And a Death Eater's dead, he got hit by a Killing Curse that huge blond one was firing off everywhere-" but then the part that suggests the reason none of the Killing Curses hit them was "Harry, if we hadn't had your Felix potion, I think we'd all have been killed,...". So, the question is were they able to survive the battle because of "Felix" or because the blond DE deliberately didn't hit them? Kimberly From Wink45zes at aol.com Tue Dec 27 04:58:07 2005 From: Wink45zes at aol.com (Wink45zes at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 23:58:07 EST Subject: Nature of the Vow: Message-ID: <99.6d3f7a0e.30e223df@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145455 Wink 45 wrote: > what if this spell means not so much that it is absolutely > impossible to break the vow, but that it cannot be broken > without the other person involved knowing that it was broken? > (and perhaps also the person who set the spell?) Wink45: Okay, I'm replying to myself, but I did say I was going to do more thinking. . . . We have already seen an Unbreakable Vow broken, and the results. Hermione set one on the list of the students who signed up to be part of 'Dumbledore's Army.' (Hmm, what does it say about her that she didn't tell everyone what she had done?). Marietta, who broke that vow ("not to tell Umbridge or anyone else") broke out with "SNEAK" across her face in some sort of permanent dots. Any guesses what Bellatrix would choose to have Snape's face tattooed with? I think it would be something that would make it very difficult for him to remain at Hogwarts, and which the Death Eaters there on the tower would recognize as meaning that Snape has broken his vow to do Draco's mission if Draco failed. They do seem to know that Draco was vowed to kill Dumbledore, and seeing Draco fail they turned to Snape for direction. Snape had no choice . . . it was either kill Dumbledore, fulfilling his vow or have his face tattooed with "whatever?" at which time the Death Eaters would immediately turn on him and then kill the weakened Dumbledore and perhaps Draco as well. Wink45 From coverton at netscape.com Mon Dec 26 17:51:39 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:51:39 -0600 Subject: Snape and Prophecy and Harry WAS:Re: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c60a45$0c66e950$0cdb88ac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145456 Alla: > Oh, of course, how DARE Harry to blame the person who told > Voldemort that his parents are the parents of the one who > will dispose with Voldy eventually? How dare he think > that but for Snape's involvement he may have grown up in > happy home and not abusive one? > > Of course Snape is NOT to blame for blabbing prophecy to > Voldemort, because Lily and James would have died in any > event. He is also NOT to blame for treating Harry like dirt > in the classroom, because Harry needs to be kept in line or > because Harry can deal with it or because Snape is too damaged > and cannot help himself. :-) > > > So, NO I don't buy "chose to leave him orphaned" at all. More > like "died protecting him" IMO and with this Harry deals and > deals very maturely. Corey again here. I'm with Alla. I agree that a lot of people have died for Harry. As far as Snape, I just don't see how so many people can think he's DDM when they all know he killed him, jmo of course. But like they say there's 2 sides to every story. I once again agree with Alla when she says the thing about "Snape treating Harry bad in class." Well that's my opinion. Hope I combined this all right. Your fellow member, Corey From coverton at netscape.com Tue Dec 27 05:06:16 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 23:06:16 -0600 Subject: How Slughorn knew about horcruxes Message-ID: <000201c60aa3$4abd1310$590589ac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145457 Hi list members, I've wondered about something. Does any but me wonder how Slughorn knew about Horcruxes? He seemed to know about the subject. We know he had a memory about the topic. We know this because Harry gets it from him in HBP after some wine, of course. Just kicking ideas around. Your fellow list member, Corey From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Tue Dec 27 10:07:14 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:07:14 -0000 Subject: The wages of gluttony. In-Reply-To: <015301c60a64$861cce80$7566400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145458 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: I also think > that the idea that because the twins are wizards Dudley should know not to > trust them is exactly what Arthur is trying to fight against. He doesn't > want his family confirming the stereotype that wizards all play magical > pranks on Muggles. That is not what Arthur is fighting against, i.m.h.o. There are certain wizards who think it funny to play magical 'tricks' on Muggles because they are Muggles. It is their idea of fun, and is based on the idea that wizards are superior to Muggles. And Arthur is firmly against that idea. That is not what the twins were doing at all. They don't like Dudley because he bullies Harry. And that is why they played the joke on him. That he is also a Muggle does not interest them at all. Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Tue Dec 27 10:13:21 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:13:21 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145459 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "antoshachekhonte" wrote: > I'm ambivalent about the Harry-as-Horcrux theories. It seems likely to > me that Harry's vanquishing of Voldy will in fact center around an act > of self-sacrifice on his part, but the Horcrux theory... :shrugs: > The problem I have with this theory is that it is opposite of the prophecy. "Neither can live while the other survives." Harry sacrificing himself means that while the HC wil be gone, LV will still not be dead. And he is a very powerful wizard so quite hard to kill. Gerry From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Tue Dec 27 11:50:40 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 12:50:40 +0100 Subject: Nature of the Vow: References: <99.6d3f7a0e.30e223df@aol.com> Message-ID: <004801c60adb$c3f47010$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 145460 Wink45zes at aol.com wrote: > Wink 45 wrote: > We have already seen an Unbreakable Vow broken, and the results. > Hermione set one on the list of the students who signed up to be > part of 'Dumbledore's Army.' Miles: This was not an Unbreakable Vow, it was a simple magical contract. Up to now we only saw one UV, the one in Spinner's End, and it was very much different from the situation we saw in the Hog's Head in OotP. Furthermore, the only Vow we have seen was not broken as far we could see. The entire discussion about the function of the UV is based on the assumption, that Ron does *not* tell us the truth, or at least not all of it. Hm, can be an interesting discussion (like the discussion about Dumbledore being in Gryffindor - or not), but it could easily become one of the rumours blown away by JKR on her homepage ;). Miles From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Dec 27 13:12:46 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:12:46 -0000 Subject: Remix on Re: The wages of gluttony. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145461 Gerry wrote: That is not what the twins were doing at all. They > don't like Dudley because he bullies Harry. And that is why they > played the joke on him. That he is also a Muggle does not interest > them at all. Potioncat: To take this in a different direction, gluttony comes up more than once, sort of. Hermione uses Crabbe and Goyle's gluttony to trap them when the Trio tries out the Polyjuice Potion. Both Tom Riddle and Harry Potter use Slughorn's love of food to get secrets from him. The twins were getting back at Dudley for his treatment of Harry, and testing the candy at the same time. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Dec 27 13:26:28 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:26:28 -0000 Subject: Nature of the Vow: In-Reply-To: <99.6d3f7a0e.30e223df@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145462 Wink45: > We have already seen an Unbreakable Vow broken, and the results. > Hermione set one on the list of the students who signed up to be > part of 'Dumbledore's Army.' *(snip)* Ceridwen: That was not an Unbreakable Vow. The vow in 'Spinner's End' was very ritualized. Get onto knees, hold hands, a third party listens to the conditions of the vow and the agreement to them. As each condition is stated and agreed to, a red magical cord comes out of the binder's wand and ties the parties' hands together. This continues until the vow is finished. Hermione set a spell on a parchment (or its quill or ink) and said that if they signed, they were agreeing not to tell Umbridge, or anybody else, what they were up to. (OotP pg. 346, highly paraphrased). It was definitely a vow which was sealed by signing the parchment (with that quill and/or ink?), but it was nowhere near as ritualized as the UV we saw in 'Spinner's End'. But, for vows with consequences, the one Hermione snuck onto the DA members is a good example. By signing, they agreed. And by breaking it, Marietta wound up with a brand on her face. Which is the penalty Hermione inserted into the vow. I probably shouldn't think about this too much, because Hermione comes off as sneaky and manipulative in this scene. In fact, in this business and its aftermath, I don't care much for Hermione at all. Which, of course, makes me wonder what wording Fred and George used when they tried to get Ron to take a UV. Did they say '...or die trying', or something similar? Could that be why Arthur got so mad? Anyway, they're probably both part of a larger group of magical vows which have consequences to greater or lesser extent. The UV's consequence is, *IMO*, that the person would not be able to break the vow even if their feelings changed. Ceridwen. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Dec 27 13:38:03 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:38:03 -0000 Subject: How Slughorn knew about horcruxes In-Reply-To: <000201c60aa3$4abd1310$590589ac@Overton> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145463 Corey: > Hi list members, I've wondered about something. Does any but me > wonder how Slughorn knew about Horcruxes? He seemed to know about > the subject. We know he had a memory about the topic. We know this > because Harry gets it from him in HBP after some wine, of course. > Just kicking ideas around. Ceridwen: I didn't wonder, no. Slughorn is a contemporary of Dumbledore's. Which makes him pretty old. Even if he's slightly younger, (I got the impression that he's just a tad younger) it's possible that Hogwarts had a different curriculum when he was in school. Since textbooks have initial publication dates, and the Potions text was originally published fifty years before, it stands to reason that there was a text before that, which would have impacted the class differently. They may have taught DADA differently, too. And maybe N.E.W.T. students learned about various Dark Arts that the whole body of students weren't privy to. But, maybe it was taught as 'one of those things you just don't do' in the lower classes, too. Like Crouch! Moody showed the Unforgivables to fourth year students. Each head would leave his or her stamp, and each incarnation of the Board of Governors would have some say. So, it doesn't surprise me that Slughorn would know about horcruxes if Dumbledore did. And, Dumbledore did. I'm not questioning why Dumbledore knew, either. If nothing else, he and Slughorn have been around long enough to run across at least information about things like this. Ceridwen. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Dec 27 13:40:53 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:40:53 -0000 Subject: Hebridean Black Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145464 Silmariel started a thread at a different site and has given me permission to bring the idea here. The discussion had to do with Snape's possible Patronus. Suggestions that would reflect either DD or Lily come up fairly often, as do bats and spiders. Here's a new idea based on Snape himself. FBAWTFT p 13 under the heading of Dragons Hebridean Black summary: native to Britain, aggressive, has batlike wings. "The Hebridean Black feeds mostly on deer, though it has been known to carry off large dogs and even cattle." On page 11 Dragons are described in general. MOM rated XXXXX. Here's one comment, "There are ten breeds of dragon, though these have been known to interbreed on occasion, producing rare hybrids. Pure-bred dragons are as follows:..." OK, so that gives us Snape's aggressive tact toward Harry; fits the "great bat" comment from Quirrell (if memory serves) and the black color of his clothing; feeds on stags(deer) and big dogs (James and Sirius?; rare hybrid could be the Slytherin HBP; and the XXXXX rating explains some of the Snapefics out there.... So, dragon for Patronus, Animagus, or just another way to describe his rather unpleasant personality? Potioncat From ornawn at 013.net Tue Dec 27 15:32:41 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:32:41 -0000 Subject: Snape and Prophecy and Harry WAS:Re: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (lo Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145465 >Pippin: A>t bottom, Harry's > need to blame Snape is a selfish one: James, Lily, Sirius and > Dumbledore ultimately chose to leave him orphaned rather than > abandon the fight against Voldemort, and Harry doesn't > want to deal with that. >Alla: >Oh, of course, how DARE Harry is to blame the person who told >Voldemort that his parents are the parents of the one who will >dispose with Voldy eventually? >Selfish Harry, very selfish. How dare he think that but for Snape's >involvement he may have grown up in happy home and not abusive one? >Of course Snape is NOT to blame for blabbing prophecy to Voldemort, >because Lily and James would have died in any event. He is also NOT >to blame for treating Harry like dirt in the classroom, because >Harry needs to be kept in line or because Harry can deal with it or >because Snape is too damaged and cannot help himself. :-) >As to your argument that Dumbledore , Sirius and James and Lily >chose to leave him orphaned, rather than abandon the fight, that it >is IMO at the least unproven and at the most simply incorrect. Orna: I think, as usual, Snape is pulling all the attention to himself, thereby making it difficult to see other things ? it always comes back to him. I'll try and add something, but I'm sure I'll find myself in a minute back with Snape . I don't know if anybody really accuses James Lily and Sirius of leaving Harry orphaned, just because they want to fight Voldemort. And leaves Snape as the best guy in town. The point, as I understand it, that for a one year-old to loose his parents, it would be a natural feeling to accuse his parents for having left him orphaned because of whatever ? what does a one year- old (and more-year-old) really care about the why. It would be natural to have some resentment towards them, somehow. Or some questions of whether they did the right thing. Perhaps in form of "Why did they change the secret-keeper", something, anything, which would connect with a very immediate feeling that places the responsibility of a child's life with his parents. You are able to come into terms with it somehow, but it's something very natural to real emotions towards real parents. Now Harry grew up in surroundings, which made it nearly impossible to find his way there. The Dursleys related to Harry's parents as good for nothing or never to be mentioned. That would force Harry either to accept this POV, thereby seeing himself as a child of lousy parents, or to rebel against it forcefully ? imagining his parents were faultless. For the WW Harry's parents and himself are near-saints, sorts of miracles, in a way. Even DD, when he mentions James' rescue of Snape, doesn't hint anything of James being part of a far from perfect adventure. It's actually Snape who gives Harry a more accurate picture of his father, but he is so suffused with hate, that it is very difficult for Harry to digest, at least not without having to hate Snape more. I'm not forgetting Snape's part in Harry's parents' death, but his parents death was brought about by quite a few people ? Voldemort, Snape, Wormtail, Sirius. Of the four, we know only about Voldemort and Wormtail that they did it consciously and willfully. Snape was at the time a DE, it would be natural for him to tell Voldemort the prophecy. I want to add ? that's what basically war is about- two sides trying to kill each other. There would be never any hope for peace, if you can't reconcile with former enemies, once they are willing to stop killing you. The WW is not about peace right now, because Voldemort still leads his war. But if Snape was a DE and decided to go over to the "Good" Side, what's this obsession of interminably blaming him because of his former deeds? (If he is DDM!, of course). Harry has the right to be angry with him, not to be able to be any close with him. Lupin is quite a good model ? because he can appreciate Snape, without liking him, and without hating him. He is also one who shows Harry that his father wasn't a saint, but that growing up is possible, and that the world isn't divided between good nice people and bad evil ones. I wouldn't say his motive for not blaming his parents is a selfish one ? I think it is very difficult to blame dead parents, whom you know so little about ? not even how they ended up getting married. But it is an issue for him to deal with ? I agree there with Pippin. I think this marriage issue shows just how confusing this is for him - one moment he blows Marge up because she insulted his father, the other moment he is ready to believe that his father forced (!) his mother to marry him. So the pressure for him to find a tangible person whom he can blame ? is really very strong, and Snape is ideal for it ? in contrast to Voldemort, and to his parents ? he is real, he is always there somehow in important moments, and in daily and nightly life. And he has many characteristics which make him utterly revolting. The nearest he can get to dealing with those feelings, and not only accusing Snape, is in the OotP when he smashes DD's room ? somehow not pretending to be on the trail of the villain, but knowing he hurts and doesn't care about anybody, even if it's DD, who has saved him some minutes ago. But then he goes back to accuse Snape, although it is clear that basically he is just trying to lessen his own guilt: "Harry disregarded this; he felt a savage pleasure in blaming Snape, it seemed to be easing his own sense of dreadful guilt, and he wanted to hear DD agree with him". (OotP). And it does interfere with his ability to integrate complex feelings about the "Good Sirius" ? he can't stand hearing Sirius described as mistreating Kreacher. I'm not blaming Harry ? I'm just pointing out that the way he pictures his loved ones (especially those who are absent most of the time) and his hated ones, is very strongly colored by his needs to relieve himself of guilt feelings. I would like to add just another thought- Harry might be feeling guilty, even about staying alive, about his mother getting killed because of him. I know it's Voldemort, in fact, but somehow he might feel it's because of him. Riddle "helps" him there ? because he tells him in CoS that his mother didn't have to die ? what I would call a nice dose of guilt feelings brought casually right into your heart. IIRC, Jen said that Voldemort's power is in his ability to use people's vulnerable spots. Stressing Harry's guilt feelings might serve him in trying to make Harry less efficient in defending himself, and also might lead him to behave irrationally ? looking for another (relatively innocent in this connection, but greasy enough) person to blame. I want to underline, that I'm not accusing Harry ? just trying to see, how guilt and blame might be playing along, misdirecting his POV. Orna From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Tue Dec 27 15:40:29 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:40:29 -0000 Subject: Hebridean Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145466 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Silmariel started a thread at a different site and has given me > permission to bring the idea here. The discussion had to do with > Snape's possible Patronus. Suggestions that would reflect either DD > or Lily come up fairly often, as do bats and spiders. > > Here's a new idea based on Snape himself. > > FBAWTFT p 13 under the heading of Dragons > Hebridean Black > summary: native to Britain, aggressive, has batlike wings. "The > Hebridean Black feeds mostly on deer, though it has been known to > carry off large dogs and even cattle." > > On page 11 Dragons are described in general. MOM rated XXXXX. Here's > one comment, "There are ten breeds of dragon, though these have been > known to interbreed on occasion, producing rare hybrids. Pure-bred > dragons are as follows:..." > > OK, so that gives us Snape's aggressive tact toward Harry; fits > the "great bat" comment from Quirrell (if memory serves) and the > black color of his clothing; feeds on stags(deer) and big dogs (James > and Sirius?; rare hybrid could be the Slytherin HBP; and the XXXXX > rating explains some of the Snapefics out there.... > > So, dragon for Patronus, Animagus, or just another way to describe > his rather unpleasant personality? Marianne: Well, if the dragon's feeding on stags and big dogs is used to parallel Snape's potential hand in the deaths of James and Sirius, I'm all for it ;-). Seriously, would non-obsessive readers of the Potter books work out all these clues down to this level or start cross-referencing to Fantastic Beasts? I'd think not. But, I suppose it doesn't matter because it could work on different levels. Those of us with way too much time and emotion invested in the books will probably discover several layers of meaning for Snape's Patronus. (I don't think he's also an illegal Animagus - been there, done that.) While the casual reader will see a more surface level of connection. After all, a dragon is a creature who is not to be trifled with, which certainly fits the old Snapester. Marianne From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Dec 27 15:59:43 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:59:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry as a Horcrux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43B164EF.4020105@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145467 antoshachekhonte wrote: > Your idea has some interesting aspects, but I see one problem. It > would presuppose that LV's goodness was set aside as the nasty parts > were shunted off into one Horcrux after another. Setting aside the > whole question of whether each Horcrux contains an identical AMOUNT of > LV's soul (rather than a half of a half of a...), we're still left > wondering why, as the good portion of him became a larger and larger > percentage of his remaining soul, he kept getting nastier and nastier? > If Harry's the last Horcrux, he'd have to be the last one, after all.... Bart: Frankly, I don't believe it in any case. I was just trying to figure out a way it was even possible within the context of the story. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Dec 27 16:04:53 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:04:53 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's website update - Silver Hand In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43B16625.8080508@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145468 spotsgal wrote: > In response to you both, it's been pretty obvious for a while that > werewolves in JKR's universe do not respond poorly to pure silver (in > their human form, at least). Bart: Don't make the mistake of mistaking a lack of invulnerability with a vulnerability. It's not that silver will hurt a werewolf MORE than it would hurt a normal human, it's that it will hurt a werewolf AS MUCH as it would hurt a normal human. Unless you see normal humans dropping dead from drinking from silver chalices, a werewolf probably would not, either. Bart From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Dec 27 16:49:23 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:49:23 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The wages of gluttony. References: Message-ID: <008b01c60b05$8d884d60$c08c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 145469 festuco: > That is not what Arthur is fighting against, i.m.h.o. There are > certain wizards who think it funny to play magical 'tricks' on Muggles > because they are Muggles. It is their idea of fun, and is based on the > idea that wizards are superior to Muggles. And Arthur is firmly > against that idea. That is not what the twins were doing at all. They > don't like Dudley because he bullies Harry. And that is why they > played the joke on him. That he is also a Muggle does not interest > them at all. Magpie: Arthur is interested in Muggles in general. He now has a chance to go the house of some, obnoxious as they may be, and his kids show up and play a Prank on the kid that makes his tongue swell up. I'd think it was common sense that any good parent would teach their children not to do something like this when they went to someone's house no matter how they feel about the boy who lives there--or how much of a glutton you think they are. Muggle-baiting does not depend on your motivations for Pranking, it has to do with using Magic on a Muggle. I may consider Arthur a hypocrite for using memory charms on Muggles but it's pretty obvious he considers what the twins do outside of what's okay. Does he himself say this is Mugglebaiting? Seems to me he spoke up for himself in the chapter and said yes, this is what he thought. We've yet to meet a Wizard in canon who didn't think that Wizards were superior to Muggles that I can remember, and every time a wizard decides to "punish" a Muggle using magic they're proving they think that way. Potioncat: To take this in a different direction, gluttony comes up more than once, sort of. Hermione uses Crabbe and Goyle's gluttony to trap them when the Trio tries out the Polyjuice Potion. Both Tom Riddle and Harry Potter use Slughorn's love of food to get secrets from him. The twins were getting back at Dudley for his treatment of Harry, and testing the candy at the same time. Magpie: Yes, frankly, the books just seem to find fat people hilarious (while occasionally making Harry indignant when the proper weight euphamism isn't used about someone he likes). Ironically, people who spend time on the Internet are often stereotyped as fat gluttons as well. Personally, when I read the toffee scene I think more about the wages of Shamelessness (aka Lust, meaning not treating other people with dignity). -m From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Dec 27 17:53:52 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:53:52 -0000 Subject: Big Blond DE (was Re: Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?. In-Reply-To: <20051227024652.69595.qmail@web30915.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145470 > Kimberly here: snip > > So, the question is were they able to survive the battle because > of "Felix" or because the blond DE deliberately didn't hit them? > Potioncat: Good points. But the "Enormous blond DE" was fighting Tonks. She didn't get hurt, nor did he. So he was defending himself well enough even though his spells appeared to be flying wildly. None of the other Order members were hit either. As to the "Felix", wasn't it only Ginny, Ron and Hermione who drank it? Would their good luck extend to the others? From coverton at netscape.com Tue Dec 27 11:41:13 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 05:41:13 -0600 Subject: Big Blond DE In-Reply-To: <20051227024652.69595.qmail@web30915.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000501c60ada$76eba1e0$bc349bac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145471 > Potioncat: > I think the Big Blond DE petrified Greyback. I think he's > one of DD's spies. Kimberly here: After reading this post I went back and re-read the scene where I believe Ginny relays to Harry what happened during the big battle scene. So, the question is were they able to survive the battle because of "Felix" or because the blond DE deliberately didn't hit them? Corey here: I think it had to do more with the potion than anything. I doubt that DE is a spy for the order. Well except with the very very possible exception but I doubt it. DE are not going to be spies for the order. There trying to kill them, let's not forget. Well those are my thoughts on that topic. Corey. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 27 19:20:44 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:20:44 -0000 Subject: Does Snape hate Harry? In-Reply-To: <43ADB69D.7060404@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145472 > >>KJ: > This whole hate thing bothers me as well. The dichotomy of Snape's > character makes very litle sense to me. On the one hand he is a > young powerful, talented and knowledgeable wizard. How could he > have accomplished so much in eleven years, if we look at PS/SS, > if he is the vindictive, vengeful, juvenile, immature wizard we > have all come to know. How could he be a successful Legilimens if > he is unable to control his emotions. He isn't getting past > Voldemort by luck. Why would Dumbledore have the trust he does in > a wizard with the personality defects shown by Snape. Betsy Hp: What a wonderful Christmas gift, Kathryn -- a chance to expound on the inimitable Professor Snape! My cup runneth over. I think it's important to realize that Snape is an *extremely* gifted Legilimens. He's had to be to successfully pull the wool over Voldemort's eyes. (I'm not going to bother with OFH or ESE Snape, since I think most folks know they're not my cup of tea. So assume a DDM interpretation throughout.) JKR told us that an ability to detach or repress your emotions is vital to practicing Legilimes (backing up Snape's own instructions to Harry). So I think it's safe to assume Snape represses. Actually, I think understanding Snape is impossible without understanding that aspect of him. But, there is one place where Snape's talent at repression fails, and that's the Marauders. Every single time we see him completely blow his top, the Marauders are somehow involved. And Harry, with his strong link to the Marauders, is usually along to see the explosion. I'm quite sure Dumbledore is aware of Snape's weak spot with the Marauders. After all, he was there when that particular button was installed. He may *underestimate* it's ability to completely throw Snape, but he certainly knows of its existence. (Just as I think Dumbledore is aware of Harry's weakness regarding Snape.) > >>KJ: > Most of his skills and talents were kept hidden until the fifth > and sixth books to encourage readers to believe that he was > ineffective and bitter as a result. Will there be some other skill > or talent, we will see in the seventh book. Betsy Hp: I have a feeling we have all of the hints of Snape's skills right now. I doubt JKR will come up with something completely new for book 7. But I also think we've had hints of Snape's prowess throughout the books. I mean, it doesn't come *completely* out of left field that Snape is so gifted at DADA. (Frankly, I was surprised that Snape wasn't the inventor of Wolfsbane.) But JKR has done a good job at undermining the hints she's given. Lupin is an especially good tool for that. His bit about Snape being upset about the Order of Merlin is a perfect example. When has Snape ever looked like he was seeking a spot-light? But Harry trusts Lupin, we trust Lupin, so we take him at his word. However, to my mind it makes more sense that Snape is disappointed that not only did Sirius get away, but that he was never guilty in the first place. It must have been very comforting to think that Sirius really *was* rotten to the core and finally all the WW knew it. (I think his disappointment is on par with the disappointment several listies will feel if it turns out that Snape's been a good guy all along. ) > >>KJ: > Has his behaviour to Harry and Neville been specifically to > provide memories to show Voldemort on his return? > Betsy Hp: With Neville, I think Snape has just been a rather strict and scary teacher. I don't think Snape was motivated by anything other than a desire to force the requisite Potions knowledge into Neville's head. I know his methodology leaves a lot of listies crying abuse, but frankly, I don't think his method is all that far removed from McGonagall's. Now, the scene just before Neville faces his boggart, with Snape badmouthing Neville to Lupin *was* out of line. Horribly so. But I personally think that had more to do with Lupin than Neville. Snape had apparently forgotten Lupin was bringing his class into the staffroom, and he lashed out. Absolutely it was childish, but again, the behavior had a Marauder at its core. (Not at all comforting for poor Neville, I realize.) > >>KJ: > It seems as if we have two completely different Snapes here. Betsy Hp: I think we do. We have Harry's version of Snape, where all of his bad behavior is enlarged, and we have the real Snape. The one Dumbledore knows, and the one Harry needs to see, I think, before the seventh book ends. Betsy Hp From luv2readhp at yahoo.com Tue Dec 27 16:04:06 2005 From: luv2readhp at yahoo.com (Kimberly) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:04:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Hebridean Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051227160406.41692.qmail@web30913.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145473 Potioncat wrote: > OK, so that gives us Snape's aggressive tact toward Harry; > fits the "great bat" comment from Quirrell (if memory serves) > and the black color of his clothing; feeds on stags(deer) > and big dogs (James and Sirius?; rare hybrid could be the > Slytherin HBP; and the XXXXX rating explains some of the > Snapefics out there.... > > So, dragon for Patronus, Animagus, or just another way to > describe his rather unpleasant personality? Kimberly here: There's another remark in GoF referring to Snape as batlike. It's the Amer. ed., p. 566. "Maybe he didn't want you to get there!" said Ron Quickly. "Maybe-hang on-how fast d'you reckon he could've gotten down to the forest? D'you reckon he could've beaten you and Dumbledore there?" "Not unless he can turn himself into a bat or something," said Harry. " Doesn't prove much about his Patronus or being an animagus, but it does provide canon to possibly support this theory. Kimberly From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 27 19:33:10 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:33:10 -0000 Subject: Snape and Prophecy and Harry WAS:Re: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (lo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145474 > Orna: > I don't know if anybody really accuses James Lily and Sirius of > leaving Harry orphaned, just because they want to fight Voldemort. > And leaves Snape as the best guy in town. > > The point, as I understand it, that for a one year-old to loose his > parents, it would be a natural feeling to accuse his parents for > having left him orphaned because of whatever ? what does a one year- > old (and more-year-old) really care about the why. It would be > natural to have some resentment towards them, somehow. Alla: But I did NOT accuse Lily, James and Dumbledore of leaving Harry and my point is that we don't know whether Harry does or not. Pippin said that they chose to leave Harry and I argued against it. In any event, my point is whatever feelings Harry is experiencing towards his parents and it is quite possible that some subconscious resentment towards them, it is completely irrelevant in determining whether Snape is guilty or not, that is all. IMO of course. Orna: > I'm not forgetting Snape's part in Harry's parents' death, but his > parents death was brought about by quite a few people ? Voldemort, > Snape, Wormtail, Sirius. Alla: But without Snape, other three may not have done anything at all, no? I mean, Wormtail was passing information for a year, true, so he would not have been less bastard, but Voldemort may not have come to him to ask about Secret keeping, because there may not have been any need for secret keeping in the first place. Orna: There would be never any > hope for peace, if you can't reconcile with former enemies, once > they are willing to stop killing you. The WW is not about peace > right now, because Voldemort still leads his war. But if Snape was a > DE and decided to go over to the "Good" Side, what's this obsession > of interminably blaming him because of his former deeds? (If he is > DDM!, of course). Harry has the right to be angry with him, not to > be able to be any close with him. Alla: Oh, you said the "key words",actually. :-) Harry has a RIGHT to be angry with him. That is all I am asking for, because I very very strongly disagreed with Pippin's argument about Harry's selfishness in blaming Snape for part in his parents' deaths, even though Snape IMO undoubtedly played a part in Potters' deaths. I am arguing that Harry's anger was a righteous anger and DESERVED anger. It is just IMO Snape's guilt in many things are in the eyes of the beholder, but Snape's guilt in Potter's deaths is IMO a fact. I realise that not everybody agrees with that, but this is my opinion. So, I am all for reconciliation, but only after we learn from Snape that he is actually sorry for Potters' deaths. Orna: > So the pressure for him to find a tangible person whom he can blame ? > is really very strong, and Snape is ideal for it ? in contrast to > Voldemort, and to his parents ? he is real, he is always there > somehow in important moments, and in daily and nightly life. And he > has many characteristics which make him utterly revolting. > Alla: But Harry does not imagine Snape's guilt, he blames the person who IS guilty, no? So, whatever underlying psychological factors Harry has to put the blame on Snape. To me and to me only the key is that Harry blames the right person, the one who is guilty. JMO, Alla From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Tue Dec 27 19:47:35 2005 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:47:35 -0000 Subject: questions about chocolate and Bellatrix accent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145476 > > Corey Overton wrote: > > > 2. I've listened to all the hp books from start to finish and i'm > > > wondering about something. The narrator is Jim Dale. He made > Bellatrix > > > sound either French or German. Is she from any of those > countries? or > > > is that just Dales' one of many comedian voices? > > Pat: > I hope that doesn't mean Jim Dale doesn't do his homework. She's > Lestrange by marriage. Did he also give Bellatrix' sister, Narcissa, > the same type of accent? The Blacks and the Malfoys are very much about appearances. Bellatrix's French accent may be an affectation. That is one way that the accent can be explained without violating canon. But I think the truth is that Mr. Dale had to provide a voice for Bellatrix with nothing more to go on than her name when she makes her first appearance in the pensieve in GoF. By the time it became apparent that she is not likely to have a French accent naturally, it was too late. So I'm going with: It's a deliberate affectation put on by a vain aristocrat. Jim Dale is never wrong. And I love his Hagrid, by the way. ~ CV From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Dec 27 20:14:32 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (bawilson at citynet.net) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:14:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Shadenfreud Message-ID: <12976490.1135714472462.JavaMail.administrator@webmail> No: HPFGUIDX 145477 "Bruce: > And besides, considering how mean he's been to Harry all > these years, it is high time that something nasty should > happen to him. Magpie: > Well, sure. But there are a lot of people who have been > mean in the world and that does not give me the right to do > something mean to them. I could do that, but I would just > be being mean. Yes, but if you heard that someone ELSE had done something nasty to your tormentor, and done it in such a way that one of that tormentor's strongest character flaws triggered it, could anyone blame you for feeling some of what I believe our German friends call 'schadenfreud' (someone please correct my spelling)? If HARRY had slipped Dudley a piece of TTT, that would have been one thing--it could be argued that he was just 'descending to his level.' But Harry didn't do it; he didn't even ASK the Twins to do it; they came up with it on his own. As Harry is the character which JKR asks us to most identify, our exultation over Dudley's comeuppance is perfectly justified. And the fact remains, no matter how you argue it, if Dudley had kept his gluttonous mouth shut and his fat, grabby hands to himself, he would never have gotten his tongue engorged. The next time he's confronted with wizardling candy, he'll probably think twice at least before eating it, and anything that will make Dudley think can hardly be a bad thing. BAW From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Tue Dec 27 20:30:31 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 20:30:31 -0000 Subject: Snape and Prophecy and Harry WAS:Re: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (lo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145478 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Alla: > > But Harry does not imagine Snape's guilt, he blames the person who IS > guilty, no? So, whatever underlying psychological factors Harry has > to put the blame on Snape. To me and to me only the key is that Harry > blames the right person, the one who is guilty. So explain to me again why the person who told about the prophecy is more guilty then the person who actually betrayed the Potters? Because of Snape they had to go into hiding. They were SAFE in their hiding place, because THEY COULD NOT BE FOUND. Please tell me how this makes Snape guilty because after the Fidelius charm they were effectively out of LV's reach. Now Snape is fully to blame for the need for them to be in hiding, but how can he be guilty of their death if they were so safely hidden no-one could find them? Until Wormtail betrayed them and then LV killed them. Seems quite simpel who is guilty here: LV for doing the actual killing and Wormtail for giving him the opportunity to do so. Gerry From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 27 20:40:26 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 20:40:26 -0000 Subject: Hebridean Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145479 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Silmariel started a thread at a different site and has given me > permission to bring the idea here. The discussion had to do with > Snape's possible Patronus. ... > > Here's a new idea based on Snape himself. > > FBAWTFT p 13 under the heading of Dragons > Hebridean Black > summary: native to Britain, aggressive, has batlike wings. "... > feeds mostly on deer, ... known to carry off large dogs and > even cattle." > > ... > > ... Snape's aggressive tact toward Harry; fits the "great bat" > ... ... and the black color of his clothing; feeds on stags... > and big dogs ...; rare hybrid could be the Slytherin HBP; and > the XXXXX rating explains some of the Snapefics out there.... > > So, dragon for Patronus, Animagus, or just another way to describe > his rather unpleasant personality? > > Potioncat > bboyminn: In essense you see a correllation between personality and Patronus/Animagus form. Sirius has a bark-like laugh and his animagus form is a black dog, etc... Now drawing the same parallel to Snape, given there are sufficient references to lead a larger group of people to conclude that Snape is a Vampire, wouldn't it make more sense for his Animagus/Partonus to be a BAT. True the Hebridean Black, because it is black, has bat-like wings, but I suspect all Dragons have leathery skin/membrane wings, making them all bat-like except they are red or green or whatever. But beyond bat-like wings, there is nothing especially bat-like about the Black over other dragons, and if we are going to search for 'bat like' references then we would certainly do better to search among bats. As various 'Snape will help Harry' discussions have gone on and now that we are discussing Patronus, I think Snape's Patronus would be a very good way for Snape to send anonymous messages to Harry in the beginning. It certainly would be safer that confronting Harry at the moment. For what it's worth... though I'm sure not much. Steve/bboyminn From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Dec 27 20:45:18 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 20:45:18 -0000 Subject: Snape and Prophecy and Harry WAS:Re: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (lo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145480 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Alla: > > Oh, you said the "key words",actually. :-) Harry has a RIGHT to be > angry with him. That is all I am asking for, because I very very > strongly disagreed with Pippin's argument about Harry's selfishness > in blaming Snape for part in his parents' deaths, even though Snape > IMO undoubtedly played a part in Potters' deaths. I am arguing that > Harry's anger was a righteous anger and DESERVED anger. It is just > IMO Snape's guilt in many things are in the eyes of the beholder, but > Snape's guilt in Potter's deaths is IMO a fact. I realise that not > everybody agrees with that, but this is my opinion. > > So, I am all for reconciliation, but only after we learn from Snape > that he is actually sorry for Potters' deaths. Pippin: Harry has a right to be angry over the loss of his parents. We agree there. But to be obsessively angry with Snape about it when there are other people whose responsibility is far more direct suggests to me that he is doing it to avoid more painful feelings, including the realization that the parent who goes to war does so knowing that he risks dying in battle, leaving his children alone. Molly acknowledges this in OOP, IIRC, and Lupin assures her the Order won't let her children starve. Well, the Order didn't let Harry starve, exactly, but Molly has a right to be concerned considering what did happen to him. But she didn't give up the fight, even after Arthur was nearly killed. I don't think James and Lily would have either, even if they knew that Harry was going to wind up with the Dursleys instead of Sirius. It's canon that Voldemort is responsible for deciding that the prophecy was important, that James and Lily were the parents of the prophecy child, and that they, or at least James and Harry, should be destroyed. It's canon that Peter betrayed the Potters. Yet Harry, and quite a few readers, seem obsessed with revenge on Snape. I think that's because we know we are never going to get any satisfaction out of Voldemort, and Peter is so craven that seeing him humiliated isn't going to count for much -- when have we not seen him humiliated? Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 27 20:55:08 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 20:55:08 -0000 Subject: JKR's website update - Silver Hand In-Reply-To: <43B16625.8080508@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145481 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > spotsgal wrote: > > In response to you both, it's been pretty obvious for a while > > that werewolves in JKR's universe do not respond poorly to pure > > silver (in their human form, at least). > > Bart: > Don't make the mistake of mistaking a lack of invulnerability with > a vulnerability. It's not that silver will hurt a werewolf MORE > than it would hurt a normal human, it's that it will hurt a > werewolf AS MUCH as it would hurt a normal human. Unless you see > normal humans dropping dead from drinking from silver chalices, a > werewolf probably would not, either. > > Bart > bboyminn: Let me expand on what Bart said, and see if I can make his point in a stronger more obvious way. Killing Werewolves with silver doesn't involve getting the Wolf to drink from a silver Chalice, it involves piercing the Heart or the Head with an object of pure Silver. Bart's point is that if you pierce the head of a common muggle with a pure Silver projectile, they will most likely die. However, a common muggle will not die from drinking from a silver goblet, and logically neither will a werewolf. However, if we change Silver to lead, then according to some legends, if pierced throught the head or heart, the muggle will die, but the werewolf won't. The key is that a werewolf MUST be !!KILLED!! by something made of Silver, not that random common contact with Silver will kill them. So, contact by a werewolf and Silver is irrelavant unless that contact involves a means or method that would otherwise kill a person; Silver bullets, silver spears, silver tipped arrows, silver swords, silver knives, silver stakes though the heart, etc..., but NOT drinking from a Silver cup or eating from a Silver plate. Is that the point you were trying to make Bart? Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 27 21:04:28 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 21:04:28 -0000 Subject: Snape and Peter and Prophecy and Harry In-Reply-To: <8b.35183270.30e2440d@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145482 > Julie: > It's *partly* because of Snape. And it's partly because Sirius picked > the wrong secret-keeper, and partly because James and Lily placed > their trust in that wrong person. . Alla: Well, yes, EXCEPT Snape is the one who started all that and without Snape talking maybe nothing of the above would happened, IMO. Juli: > BTW, it's always entertaining to wonder about those "what if" > scenarios. In this case, what if Snape hadn't heard/told LV of the > prophecy--then what would have happened to Harry's life, and > where would he be now? My guess: The Order was outnumbered > and being picked off one by one. Voldemort was undefeatable > then, from everything we've heard. He would have eventually > exterminated the Order, and taken over the WW. At which point > Harry would still be an orphan, with no parents, *and* no Sirius, > Lupin, Dumbledore, Weasleys, etc, etc. Harry wouldn't be > "an ordinary boy on the Light side" but an ordinary boy who > grew up in a WW ruled by the Dark side. He might well be > indistinguishable from Draco Malfoy! Alla: It is interesting to speculate, isn't it? Voldie killed approximately 33% of the original Order Members. Who says that Lily and James could not have survived AND maybe Trelawney would have given a different prophecy that someone else , maybe not even a child could have defeated Voldemort and maybe that someone would have defeated Voldemort indeed AND maybe Lily and James were able to give Harry a happy home, without all hurt and pain he had to experience with Dursleys AND maybe Peter would not betrayed them, since there was nobody to betray AND since Sirius did not had a need to go after Peter, he did not end up in Azkaban. Of course we would not have a story then, but I can certainly imagine much happier life for Harry, if Snape did not do what he did. It is certainly possible that yours would turn out to be true too of course. Speculations, speculations. :-) Julie: > In an ironic twist, it may be that Snape's actions, those that > were partly to blame for Harry being orphaned, are also partly > responsible for the WW being saved from defeat and descent > into darkness when Voldemort was reduced to vapor at Godric's > Hollow by his own failed AK. Alla: Indeed, unforeseeable consequences, I agree, but I don't think that it makes Snape one yota less guilty, unless of course you argue that he is a Seer and could have foreseen all that. IMO of course. Julie: > So, if you want to say Snape played a part in making Harry > who he is, a boy with extraordinary gifts, who will save a > WW that still exists to *be* saved, then I agree. Perhaps > Harry should thank Snape? Alla: Perhaps not. :-) Julie: (Just kidding!!! But events play > out the way they do because of all the actions that went > before, with both good and bad actions and results--made > good or bad by our judgment--inseparably entwined.) Alla: Undoubtedly, but see above. Because then we should be thanking Voldemort too for going to kill the Potters, after all he made his own demise, no? But I doubt that he intended that, personally. Julie: > And maybe by the end of book seven, Harry won't be > known as "The boy who Lived" but as "The boy who > saved the Wizarding World--twice.") Alla: I hope so. :-) Gerry: > So explain to me again why the person who told about the prophecy is > guiltier then the person who actually betrayed the Potters? Because > of Snape they had to go into hiding. They were SAFE in their hiding > place, because THEY COULD NOT BE FOUND. Please tell me how this makes > Snape guilty because after the Fidelius charm they were effectively > out of LV's reach. Now Snape is fully to blame for the need for them > to be in hiding, but how can he be guilty of their death if they were > so safely hidden no-one could find them? Until Wormtail betrayed them > and then LV killed them. Seems quite simpel who is guilty here: LV for > doing the actual killing and Wormtail for giving him the opportunity > to do so. Alla: Good point, Gerry and I have not said that Snape is fully to blame for Potters' death, I said he played a PART in Potters' death, large part, but part nevertheless. BUT I believe that Snape is guilty in more than Potters' need to go in hiding. He is guilty in identifying them as targets for Voldemort. You are arguing that they were safe in their hiding place and I am not sure I agree with that. Secret Keeper CAN break the Fidelius Charm voluntarily, we know that, when Harry is told where 12 Grimmauld is located, so they must have known that Fidelius Charm is not 100% safe, so I don't see how "nobody could find them". Anybody who would learn the secret, could find them IMO. The fact that they were forced to use it AND that Voldemort started hunting for them, makes Snape guilty in my eyes. Peter is a treacherous bastard and it is quite possible that he is much worse bastard than Snape, IMO, but there are so many people who live their lives without being forced to show the worst in their natures, again IMO. I think that Snape's actions forced Peter to reveal the worst in his nature and betray Potters. No, Peter may not have been a better person if Snape did not do what he did, BUT it is a possible speculation, IMO that maybe Potters would have never learned of who Peter really is and especially not with the price of their deaths. For THAT I blame Snape. JMO, Alla From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 27 20:46:33 2005 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 20:46:33 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145483 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > > > But Dumbledore's whole modus operandi is, IMO, tending to > infantilization of people he ought to be giving more respect and > information. And it's wholly thematic that his tendency to secrecy > and to take the whole load fully upon himself (contra Harry with the > Trio, who he's told about all kinds of things) bites him in the ass > in the end. > I certainly agree. However, let me offer a somewhat different way in which DD's refusal to tell Harry why he trusts Snape fits in with LID! Snape. Let us suppose that LID!Snape is true. DD accepts Snape into Hogwarts, knowing he is magically compelled to protect Harry. Very good. But DD being DD, he wants Snape to ACTUALLY reform. That is, over time he wants Snape's expressions of remorse, which he recognizes may not be entirely genuine, to BECOME entirely genuine. How would he do that? By placing trust in Snape and backing him up at every opportunity. And most of all, by NOT LETTING THE SECRET OUT. Because if he does that everyone will dismiss any good that Snape DOES do as "well, of course he would do that, he HAS to you know." Now, why then did Dumbledore let spill about the life debt at all? It isn't in his nature to lie, directly, and that would be his only option in PS/SS. He could simply refuse to answer Harry, as well, but that probably wouldn't do in this situation, either. So he reveals part of the truth, establishing the fact of the debt without all its implications. Why doesn't he reveal the truth of LID!Snape in GoF? Because he still hopes against hope that Snape and Harry will reach some kind of reconciliation, and he knows if he lets the cat out of the bag that he will destroy any chance of that, because from then on out Harry will receive any protestations of Snape's goodness/trustworthiness with a knowing sneer and something to the effect of "well, when he's GOT to, I suppose." By the same token, I think we should remember that, as far as we know, he has never revealed to Snape about the prophecy. Why not? Well, for one thing it is very personal to Harry, just as Snape's situation is very personal to him. But then Nora's objections about the greater good, etc., become pertinent. Perhaps it's for the same reason. He wants a genuine reconciliation between the two of them, and he wants Snape to see Harry like he, Dumbledore, sees Harry -- or as much as possible like that, anyway. As many have speculated, he may well have hoped this would be an outcome of occlumency lessons, and may have been hurt to the quick when it was not. I.E. when he says "I thought Professor Snape could...." he's really saying "I thought once Severus saw into your mind and your life, he would come to see you to an extent as I do." The revelation of how much Snape's hatred blinds him would have been all that much worse, under this scenario. Therefore he doesn't share the prophecy with Snape, in part, because he fears that it would become a way for Snape to simply dismiss anything he says about Harry with a sneer and a "of course, he is necessary to the plan." Just some speculations on how LID!Snape might fit in with DD's keeping of secrets from BOTH Snape and Harry. Lupinlore From mudblood68 at yahoo.de Tue Dec 27 21:11:25 2005 From: mudblood68 at yahoo.de (Claudia) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 21:11:25 -0000 Subject: Does Snape hate Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145484 > Betsy Hp: > I think it's important to realize that Snape is an *extremely* > gifted Legilimens. He's had to be to successfully pull the wool > over Voldemort's eyes. (I'm not going to bother with OFH or ESE > Snape, since I think most folks know they're not my cup of tea. So > assume a DDM interpretation throughout.) JKR told us that an > ability to detach or repress your emotions is vital to practicing > Legilimes (backing up Snape's own instructions to Harry). So I > think it's safe to assume Snape represses. Actually, I think > understanding Snape is impossible without understanding that aspect > of him. > > But, there is one place where Snape's talent at repression fails, > and that's the Marauders. Every single time we see him completely > blow his top, the Marauders are somehow involved. Claudia here (snipping a lot to bring forth my "Snape is DDM!" argument): Since all Snape theories have at core that he is a superb occlumens to either fool DD or Voldemort, the fact that we see him quite emotional regularly at Hogwarts shows to me that he is DDM. It looks as if he feels safe enough at Hogwarts to let it go now and then. I don't assume that he does it on purpose, but that he is simply less on guard there. And when a Marauder (or anything concerning them) comes up he simply boils over, something he could never ever afford to let happen around Voldemort or his followers. Claudia From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 27 21:48:40 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 21:48:40 -0000 Subject: Website update and Rumour about the name of the Seven Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145485 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Caius Marcius" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "" > wrote: sionwitch: > > She answered > > "The Pyramids of Furmat lie a few miles east of the famous Fortree > of > > Shadows, not far from the magnificent Pillar of Storge. Many > tourists > > prefer to view theses ancient monuments at night, when they are > > illuminated by the Green Flame Torch." > > > > She never answered "Yes" or "No" to the rumour. What this mean? > Could > > the name of book Seven include some of this words: Fortress of > Shadows, > > Pillar of Storge,Green Flame Torch?. Caius Marcus: > Additionally, JKR conspicuously omitted all reference to the Toe- > Nail of Icklib?gg, which conclusively proves that the title to Book > Seven will be found - literally - underfoot. Geoff: Hm. I think you're stretching this one. Perhaps she had trouble fitting that name into her travelogue information. CMC: > OTOH, the Pillar of Storge might allow for a lucrative tie-in to the > CS Lewis/Narnia franchise..... Geoff: More likely a film version of "the Four Loves" :-) From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Dec 27 21:41:52 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 16:41:52 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Shadenfreud References: <12976490.1135714472462.JavaMail.administrator@webmail> Message-ID: <011901c60b2e$5d3d56e0$c08c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 145486 > "Bruce: >> And besides, considering how mean he's been to Harry all >> these years, it is high time that something nasty should >> happen to him. > > > Magpie: >> Well, sure. But there are a lot of people who have been >> mean in the world and that does not give me the right to do >> something mean to them. I could do that, but I would just >> be being mean. > > > Yes, but if you heard that someone ELSE had done something nasty > to your tormentor, and done it in such a way that one of that > tormentor's strongest character flaws triggered it, could anyone > blame you for feeling some of what I believe our German friends > call 'schadenfreud' (someone please correct my spelling)? Magpie: Sure. But it seems like throughout this thread I keep getting pushed into what people consider the opposite position of their own rather than what I'm actually saying, which I don't think is that extreme. I've got no problem with people finding this scene funny because Dudley has always been mean to Harry and eats a lot while Harry is starved. I am speaking only against the idea that because it's enjoyable it's something other than what it is, which is a scene where the twins are in control and Dudley is a Muggle being Pranked by wizards. I'm disagreeing not with the idea of Dudley being overweight and canonically greedy, but the idea of the innocent twins having no malicious intent and no way of understanding the effects this kind of prank has, and the idea that all notable blame for the Magic that takes place lies with Dudley because he ate a piece of candy left someone dropped in his house. It seems like a way of wanting to have one's schadenfreude without giving up pity. -m From silmariel at telefonica.net Tue Dec 27 22:13:39 2005 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (silmariel) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:13:39 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hebridean Black In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200512272313.20844.cualquier@servidor.net> No: HPFGUIDX 145487 > bboyminn: > > In essense you see a correllation between personality and > Patronus/Animagus form. Sirius has a bark-like laugh and his animagus > form is a black dog, etc... > > Now drawing the same parallel to Snape, given there are sufficient > references to lead a larger group of people to conclude that Snape is > a Vampire, wouldn't it make more sense for his Animagus/Partonus to be > a BAT. > Silmariel: There are enough references to bats and spider movement, and to vampires. Given we naturally associate vampires with bats, it's no wonder to assume that every bat-vampire reference is tied together making him a Vampire. My main problem with the bat patronus is that, as a spider or a snake, it doesn't say anything new or bangy about Snape. It's a reasonable assumption, but Jo usually goes for foreshadowed surprises - hidden in the front. When you have a dragon with bat wings, you can tie the Snape bat references to the dragon, if it happens to be black, and agressive, and hunting stags and big dogs, of course, not just because of the wings. I won't go into comparing Neville with the ocassional cow. Harry himself compares him to a dragon (the most interesting part is that paraphrases the school motto), as Talisman remembered me: "Deliberately causing mayhem in Snape's potions class was about as safe as poking a sleeping dragon in the eye." (CoS 186) I'd add that at the end of FBAWTFT's prologue, Dumbledore (you can read it as last words now he's gone), to wizards only say: never tickle a sleeping dragon. Snape certainly has been 'sleeping' all this years, lurking, and now has gone to the center of the scenary. > True the Hebridean Black, because it is black, has bat-like wings, but > I suspect all Dragons have leathery skin/membrane wings, making them > all bat-like except they are red or green or whatever. But beyond > bat-like wings, there is nothing especially bat-like about the Black > over other dragons, and if we are going to search for 'bat like' > references then we would certainly do better to search among bats. > But other dragons are not described as having bat like wings, so I deduce that Rowling doesn't see them bat-like. In fact, if she sees all wings as bat like, I don't know why to make the difference between the Norgewian Rideback and the Hebridean, being them both black, if all dragons are bat winged, they should have the same wings. But the Norwegian is compared to the Hungarian Horntail, instead (also black scales). In fact, I've reread all the Dragons' section and the only reference present to the wings, is for the Hebridean, so I assume the rest have standard dragon wings - excepting the chinese, that I assume will have standard chinese-dragon wings. It is good that beyond being black and the bat like wings, it isn't more like a bat, because it's a dragon. Hebridean doesn't have more in common with bats, he does have more in common with Snape - feeding habits, etc -, who walks in a spider - or a dragon inside a building - way. > As various 'Snape will help Harry' discussions have gone on and now > that we are discussing Patronus, I think Snape's Patronus would be a > very good way for Snape to send anonymous messages to Harry in the > beginning. It certainly would be safer that confronting Harry at the > moment. > Just asking an order member wouldn't reveal who those messages are from? If it's something extrange, that is. With a bat Hermione at least should have a good guess inmediately. Silmariel From ornawn at 013.net Tue Dec 27 23:03:52 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:03:52 -0000 Subject: Snape and Peter and Prophecy and Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145488 >Alla: >But Harry does not imagine Snape's guilt, he blames the person who >IS guilty, no? So, whatever underlying psychological factors Harry >has to put the blame on Snape. To me and to me only the key is that >Harry blames the right person, the one who is guilty. >Julie: > It's *partly* because of Snape. And it's partly because Sirius >picked the wrong secret-keeper, and partly because James and Lily >placed their trust in that wrong person. . >Pippin: >It's canon that Voldemort is responsible for deciding that the >prophecy was important, that James and Lily were the parents of >the prophecy child, and that they, or at least James and Harry, >should be destroyed. It's canon that Peter betrayed the Potters. Orna: I think that Harry's guilt, as an underlying factor might interfere with his ability to blame in the right amount and therefore in a way also to the right person, and to focus his actions in the best efficient way. Basically scapegoating is not about taking a complete innocent person and blaming him, but taking someone, who might be guilty in some respects, and accuse him more and more, even for deeds he is not responsible for. And usually some of the things have to do with putting blame on the least liked person, in order not to acknowledge it on some better liked person ? or the accuser himself. That's what the canon from OotP tells us in respect to Sirius' death. Snape has some responsibility in Harry's parents' death, and of course, if he hasn't renounced his DE ways, or felt remorse for his deeds ? he is ESE!. But he seems to get more responsibility there than anybody else, while as far as we know - he couldn't know it would be the Potter's who would be picked out. As from what we know, he might have told the prophecy, thinking Voldemort would wait to see who is endangering him. Speculating from a DDM!Snape's POV, he might have delivered the prophecy, and when he came to realize that Voldemort decided to kill the Potters and/or Harry ? as a baby, it might be then and there that he changed sides. He might be the one telling DD that Voldemort had chosen Baby-Harry. I mean, how did the Potters guess they were chosen and chosen for immediate death? They had defied him trice before the prophecy, and not gone into hiding just because of the danger, so it looks as if someone told them they were picked for immediate murder. Someone must have told DD, the way Voldemort had decided to deal with the prophecy. I think that Snape is a possibility there. I can see him feeling indebted to James, and I can even imagine him being horrified by an intention to kill a baby. If it was something like this, I think Harry would be able to have some reconciliation there. I don't imagine he can ever like Snape, or feel comfortable with him ? after all he had his hand in directing Voldemort to them, and I find it hard to imagine anybody being able to really forgive such a thing, but he might be able to understand and be less hateful towards him. Orna From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Dec 27 23:06:10 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:06:10 -0000 Subject: Hebridean Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145489 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Now drawing the same parallel to Snape, given there are sufficient > references to lead a larger group of people to conclude that Snape is > a Vampire, wouldn't it make more sense for his Animagus/Partonus to be > a BAT. > Pippin: A bat animagus would have nothing to fear from a werewolf. But a dragon animagus wouldn't be able to transform in a confined space like the tunnel to the Shrieking Shack. Also in OOP in one of the occlumency lessons, Harry remembers a great black dragon rearing up in front of him. If this is supposed to be the Hungarian Horntail, it's out of sequence, because it comes *before* Harry's recollection of seeing his parents' images in the mirror of Erised. I wonder if this memory actually ties into the "prior events" that took place at Privet Drive, the Dursleys' fear that if they leave Harry alone they will come back to find the house in ruins, and Voldemort's statements about how well protected Harry is at Privet Drive? Pippin From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Tue Dec 27 23:20:12 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:20:12 +0100 Subject: Significance of Snape's Patronus References: <12976490.1135714472462.JavaMail.administrator@webmail> <011901c60b2e$5d3d56e0$c08c400c@Spot> Message-ID: <00f801c60b3c$17323ef0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 145490 Just a side remark on the discussions about Patronuses and especially about the one Snape would produce: Do I recall correctly, that the starting point for most considerations about Snape's patronus is a remark from JKR that she wouldn't tell it, because it would give too much information to us? That would mean that the significance of our discussions about dragons, bats and what ever is based on JKR. Without this, it would be just as interesting to know Snape's Patronus as to know Ron's or McGonagall's (meeow)? I just went to the quick quotes quill to check Rowling's statement - and I only found this: >>Ernie: I wonder if you can let us know what form will Professor Snape's Boggart and Patronus take? I am very curious. JK Rowling replies -> Well, I'm not going to tell you Ernie, but that's because it would give so much away.<< http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm If THIS is the piece all started with (is it?), then we should reconsider it. If there is another piece of information I missed, please tell me and forget about this mail ;). Rowling was asked about Snape's Patronus and his Boggart shape - after all we know about the meaning of both forms for a person, I would think that Rowling in the first place did not want to answer the question about Snape's Boggart shape. To know what is Snape's greatest fear would really show us very much of his personality. As he is deeply involved into the WW situation, it is probably connected to the Voldemort-Order-Harry complex. The connection between a Patronus and the person who owns it seems to be much less informative to me. Let's have a look - Dumbledore's Patronus is a Phoenix. Aha. Ron's is a little dog - yes? Harry's is the animagus form of his father - does it tell anything about Harry himself? Tonks' Patronus is the only one that tells us something about her. A dragon that eats stags and dogs for Snape - so what? We won't be surprised. I know there were discussions about Snape's Boggart shape on the list before. I do not want to spoil all the Patronus discussions - they are fun, indeed. But are they significant? Maybe - but Rowling is not witness for this. Miles From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Dec 27 20:26:09 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (bawilson at citynet.net) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:26:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Real child abuse. Message-ID: <18095305.1135715169007.JavaMail.administrator@webmail> No: HPFGUIDX 145491 Lupinlore: "I have to confess I've never understood the appeal of Snape. The man is a childish blowhard and an abuser of children." Lupinlore, please show me when Snape abused a child. I will grant you that he has been harsh, mean, and unfair, but I can't see where he has been abusive. As I've said before, I used to be a teacher and I now work in the criminal justice system, and in both I have seen REAL child abuse; Snape doesn't come anywhere close. Even the Dursleys' efforts in that way have been halfhearted compared to some of the things I've seen. I won't go into details as I don't want to make you ill. BAW From dragonjcndm2 at aol.com Tue Dec 27 21:28:52 2005 From: dragonjcndm2 at aol.com (dragonjcndm2 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 16:28:52 -0500 Subject: The wages of gluttony. In-Reply-To: <1135717508.8210.25986.m26@yahoogroups.com> References: <1135717508.8210.25986.m26@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C7D943AAF44135-5A8-5B2B@mblk-r12.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145492 Gerry: > That is not what Arthur is fighting against, i.m.h.o. That is not > what the twins were doing at all. They don't like Dudley because > he bullies Harry. And that is why they played the joke on him. > That he is also a Muggle does not interest them at all. I also agree. If the twins were so apt to play tricks on Muggles because they feel superior to them, it would not explain their tendency to play these same tricks on other wizards and witches, which they do more often than on Muggles. I simply take the twins as a pair with brilliant minds, having more fun than most, and do know the basic good and evil sides. I feel they will both have a useful part in the last book. Jade Harry's To-Do List: 1. Get Up 2. Survive 3. Go Back To Bed From monica.schuster at mci.com Tue Dec 27 22:45:50 2005 From: monica.schuster at mci.com (captainconk) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:45:50 -0000 Subject: JKR's website update - Silver Hand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145493 > Steve/bboyminn: > So, contact by a werewolf and Silver is irrelavant unless that > contact involves a means or method that would otherwise kill a > person; Silver bullets, silver spears, silver tipped arrows, > silver swords, silver knives, silver stakes though the heart, > etc..., but NOT drinking from a Silver cup or eating from a > Silver plate. > > Is that the point you were trying to make Bart? Captainconk now: I think we are missing the bigger point here. She stated that Peter's silver hand will not be used to kill Lupin. What about Greyback? Peter owes Harry a life debt, I bet a silver hand puncturing his chest and maybe squeezing the heart would help fulfill that debt, or something along that line. Doesn't have to play out THAT way for Peter to still thwart Greyback. First thing that popped in my head when I read that was, "Ok so he isn't going to kill Lupin, good, we don't really want him to hurt Lupin... wrong werewolf... Now what about that jerk Greyback?" I think it's another red herring to make us think that the silver hand will not be used against a werewolf. It's been emphasized too much for me to think that it will not come into play in some way, and I hope it's to hurt Greyback, allot. Just a thought. From juli17 at aol.com Wed Dec 28 00:16:44 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:16:44 EST Subject: Snape and Peter and Prophecy and Harry Message-ID: <291.30fc0ea.30e3336c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145494 Alla wrote: I have not said that Snape is fully to blame for Potters' death, I said he played a PART in Potters' death, large part, but part nevertheless. BUT I believe that Snape is guilty in more than Potters' need to go in hiding. He is guilty in identifying them as targets for Voldemort. You are arguing that they were safe in their hiding place and I am not sure I agree with that. Secret Keeper CAN break the Fidelius Charm voluntarily, we know that, when Harry is told where 12 Grimmauld is located, so they must have known that Fidelius Charm is not 100% safe, so I don't see how "nobody could find them". Anybody who would learn the secret, could find them IMO. The fact that they were forced to use it AND that Voldemort started hunting for them, makes Snape guilty in my eyes. Julie: I agree that Snape is guilty as you state above. His actions did force the Potters into hiding. But there is also nothing more he could have done to rectify his mistake than what he did--warning Dumbledore, and getting the Potters into a safe place. It wasn't enough in the end, because, as you say, even a Fidelus Charm is not 100% certain protection. But it was enough that it mitigates Snape's guilt quite a bit, at least for me. I know it doesn't mitigate Snape's guilt to Harry, because Harry is quite invested in hating Snape. Enough so that he misstates Dumbledore's words to imply that Snape turned *after* James and Lily's deaths rather than before, and leaves out the fact that Snape tried to save his parents in the end. But I do expect Harry will reevaluate his hatred of Snape and how it actually fits with the facts in Book 7 (regardless of whether Snape turns out to be DDM, ESE, or OFH). It's necessary if Harry is to grow up :-) Alla wrote: Peter is a treacherous bastard and it is quite possible that he is much worse bastard than Snape, IMO, but there are so many people who live their lives without being forced to show the worst in their natures, again IMO. I think that Snape's actions forced Peter to reveal the worst in his nature and betray Potters. No, Peter may not have been a better person if Snape did not do what he did, BUT it is a possible speculation, IMO that maybe Potters would have never learned of who Peter really is and especially not with the price of their deaths. For THAT I blame Snape. Julie: Wow. I am SO far away from you on this one. Snape *forced* Peter to act on his worst instincts? Are you serious? Okay, you are, but I definitely disagree. It is NOT possible to speculate that Peter could be a better person, because Peter was passing information to Voldemort long BEFORE he betrayed the Potters. If Peter could have been a better person, why was he doing that? If Peter could have been a better person, why didn't he take the opportunity to REFUSE the secret-keeper role, by admitting he might crack under the pressure? Snape WENT to Dumbledore. Snape tried to save the Potters, whatever his real motivations. Does he not get any credit at all for that? Meanwhile Peter accepted the secret-keeper role with the PRIOR INTENT to betray them. Peter is scum. Scum. SCUM. And he was always scum, no matter what speculative universe he might have been in. Snape, OTOH, may be scum, or he may not be. He's certainly guilty of many things either way. But one thing is is NOT guilty of is making Peter Pettigrew the pitiful man he is, because Peter's "worst" nature is simply his nature, period. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 01:11:31 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:11:31 -0000 Subject: JKR's website update - Silver Hand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145495 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "captainconk" wrote: > > > Steve/bboyminn: > > So, contact by a werewolf and Silver is irrelavant unless that > > contact involves a means or method that would otherwise kill a > > person; ... > > > > Is that the point you were trying to make Bart? > > > Captainconk now: > > I think we are missing the bigger point here. > > She stated that Peter's silver hand will not be used to kill > Lupin. > > What about Greyback? Peter owes Harry a life debt, I bet a silver > hand puncturing his chest and maybe squeezing the heart would > help fulfill that debt, or something along that line. ... > > I think it's another red herring to make us think that the silver > hand will not be used against a werewolf. It's been emphasized > too much for me to think that it will not come into play in some > way, and I hope it's to hurt Greyback, allot. > > > Just a thought. > bboyminn: Thinks we need to establish, or at least consider- -Is Peter's silver-colored hand actually made out of the metal Silver? -Are werewolves in JKR's world protected from all forms of death OTHER THAN death by lethal penetration by a pure Silver object? -Do werewolves have the same protection from Death mentioned above in Human form as we suppose they might in Werewolf form? I don't think we can really answer the question at hand (no pun) without this information. It is entirely possible that Peter/Wormtail will kill Greyback in aid of Harry's defense. But that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the material his magic hand is made out of. The magic hand appears to be far more powerful than a normal hand, so it is more than capable of kill by a variety of means. That alone is enough to speculate that Peter will use it to help Harry. The question of the moment is, is the hands silver color and composition of any significants? Is it particularly significant with respect to being especially dangerous to werewolves? Personally, since I don't believe that the magic hand is literally Silver, I don't believe its relationship to werewolves is significant. What is significant is that Peter owes his life to Harry, and there may come a point where Peter and some other DE's realize that life under Voldemort isn't going to be as grand and glorious as they have previously speculated. I think they will see him as the oppressive tyrant that he is, and always will be, and turn against him. That is Peter's nature, to lay is bets and his allegiance with the biggest bully on the block, or at least with the apparant winner. Just a few rambling thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From juli17 at aol.com Wed Dec 28 01:40:06 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:40:06 -0000 Subject: Snape's post-HBP Patronus (was Re: Hebridean Black) In-Reply-To: <200512272313.20844.cualquier@servidor.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145497 Steve wrote: > > > As various 'Snape will help Harry' discussions have gone on and now > > that we are discussing Patronus, I think Snape's Patronus would be a > > very good way for Snape to send anonymous messages to Harry in the > > beginning. It certainly would be safer that confronting Harry at the > > moment. > > Julie: I agree that Snape's patronus would be a good way to send anonymous messages to Harry in the beginning, and maybe to the Order also, should there be a need. But I have two problems with a bat (or an image evocative of a bat, such as a Hebridean Black) being Snape's patronus in Book 7: 1. Why wouldn't members of the Order already know the identity of Snape's patronus? I think they would, and it could be that they know Snape's patronus has always been a bat (or Hebridean Black). And even if they don't, that would seem a pretty obvious patronus for Snape. And if the Order (or someone like Hermoine) would quickly figure out its origin, how could it remain anonymous? 2. JKR said she couldn't reveal Snape's patronus because it would give too much away. So far his patronus hasn't figured in the story at all, but if it does it book seven, and it's a bat/Hebridean Black, then how does that give too much away? It's a very likely patronus for Snape, and it doesn't give anything away since the only other imagery that might be associated with a bat is a vampire, and JKR has already confirmed Snape is not a vampire. So, if Snape's patronus is something that gives too much away (to reveal before it appears in canon), and it's something Snape can use to send messages anonymously, then a bat or Hebridean Black patronus won't work. Not in book Seven. My theory: Snape's patronus *was* a bat. That is how the Order members identify messages from him, messages they would certainly ignore after Snape's actions in HBP. So in book seven Snape will change his patronus to something else, the something JKR says will reveal too much (in essence, it will reveal his loyalty to Dumbledore). The brief mention of Tonk's changing her patronus in HBP already served to let us know that a patronus *can* be changed (this bit certainly served no other purpose in HBP). Snape will then use his new post-HBP patronus to send messages to Harry and/or the Order. And since it will have some association with Dumbledore, no one will suspect Dumbledore's murderer could possibly be the one sending anonymous, helpful information to the Good side. Thus Snape will help Harry without revealing himself and ending up dead or in Azkaban first. Julie From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 00:47:08 2005 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:47:08 -0000 Subject: Yet again, the end of Snape's arc (was Re: Real child abuse) In-Reply-To: <18095305.1135715169007.JavaMail.administrator@webmail> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145498 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, bawilson at c... wrote: > > > Lupinlore, please show me when Snape abused a child. Hmmm. I think one of the best discussions to date is that of Alla in messaged 144740: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144740 I also have a great deal of experience with abused teens -- abused literally to death in two cases. And from my point of view, Snape most definitely IS an abuser, over and out. So are the Dursleys, but for some reason they don't get as much press, these days. But perhaps we might have more luck coming at it this way: We have talked about Snape's child abuse. We have talked about Wizarding World standards. We have talked to an extent about Dumbledore and what he might or might not know. Let's look at it like this -- what do you think should be the outcome of Snape's arc, and how does his treatment of Harry and Neville figure into that? I submit that it MUST figure into the outcome of Snape's character arc, and that for it to figure as some would like it to, i.e. Harry saying "It's okay, you're mean but you're Dumbledore's man," would be reprehensible and an abomination beyond belief. For that matter, what will become of the Dursleys and Umbridge. . This may well just be a point on which JKR is going to get screamed at no matter what she does. Won't hurt her a bit, but there you have it. It's probably just one of the prices you pay for success in the writing world. And, like I've said in another thread, I have a feeling that no one, from the most dyed in the wool ESE theorist to the most rabid DDM supporter, is going to be very happy with what JKR does in the last book. She simply doesn't have the time to finish off complex character arcs in a satisfactory way and still get through all the plot points she has to cover (four horcruxes, the final confrontation with Voldemort, a Weasley wedding, etc). Lots of things are going to get short shrift, or at least much shorter than they need. I have a strong feeling that in the end, when it comes to Snape and a lot of other people, everyone on all sides is going to be standing around in consternation going "You can't mean that's IT?" Lupinlore From juli17 at aol.com Wed Dec 28 02:00:18 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 02:00:18 -0000 Subject: Secondary thought on Patronuses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145499 Thinking about Snape's patronus having some connection to Dumbledore, I started to wonder if two wizards can use the same patronus form at the same time? I.e., could another wizard also have a Jack Russell terrier patronus like Ron? If not, then what if a wizard can in a sense "will" his patronus to another wizard once he's gone? Maybe Harry's patronus is the same as his father's because once James died and no longer had a use for that patronus form (thus it became "available"), he in essence passed it down to Harry. If a wizard can pass on a patronus, or another wizard can take possession of a patronus no longer being used (and perhaps assuming the new wizard is an acceptable possessor to the previous possessor of the patronus), then could Snape use Dumbledore's patronus in book Seven? If he did, I don't think Order members would automatically assume Dumbledore was still alive. But they would certainly assume that Dumbledore had passed his patronus on to a trustworthy friend and ally (as he would certainly not pass it to a man who had coldly betrayed and murdered him). In which case the Order (or Harry) would accept and trust any messages from the patronus that was previously Dumbledore's. Which would make Snape's new patronus a phoenix. It may not be a workable concept, but the thought did occur to me, so I thought I'd share it :-) Julie From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 02:19:17 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 02:19:17 -0000 Subject: The wages of gluttony. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145500 > >>Magpie: > I also think that the idea that because the twins are wizards > Dudley should know not to trust them is exactly what Arthur is > trying to fight against. He doesn't want his family confirming > the stereotype that wizards all play magical pranks on Muggles. > >>Gerry: > That is not what Arthur is fighting against, i.m.h.o. Betsy Hp: But not in Arthur's opinion interestingly enough. He fights, daily, against Muggle-baiting. He's made rather unpopular laws against such acts. Work that has lead his family to be labeled "blood- traitors", I believe. So if anyone is able to recognize a bit of Muggle-baiting when he sees it, it's Arthur. And he's furious at the twins. > >>Gerry: > There are certain wizards who think it funny to play > magical 'tricks' on Muggles because they are Muggles. It is their > idea of fun, and is based on the idea that wizards are superior to > Muggles. And Arthur is firmly against that idea. That is not what > the twins were doing at all. They don't like Dudley because he > bullies Harry. And that is why they played the joke on him. That > he is also a Muggle does not interest them at all. Betsy Hp: And why did the twins think the ton-tongue toffee trick would be so amusing? Part of it must have been the panic they knew the muggles would feel. In fact, they laugh all the harder when Arthur describes the panic that set in, IIRC. I'm sure quite a few wizards pick only on muggles who've managed to upset them in some way: a rude salesperson, a noisy neighbor, etc. The entire point is they use a method of attack that the muggle has no chance at defending against. Also, Dudley *used* to bully Harry, like, years ago. Since Harry was revealed as a wizard Dudley has pretty much ignored Harry. So the twins are claiming to be getting revenge for Harry (who didn't ask for it, mind you) for something that was done to him years ago. > >>BAW: > > And the fact remains, no matter how you argue it, if Dudley had > kept his gluttonous mouth shut and his fat, grabby hands to > himself, he would never have gotten his tongue engorged. The > next time he's confronted with wizardling candy, he'll probably > think twice at least before eating it, and anything that will make > Dudley think can hardly be a bad thing. Betsy Hp: And yet, when Dudley *does* refuse to take food from a wizard, he gets repeatedly hit in the head with a glass. Can't seem to win for losing. I guess the lesson is, whatever the wizard decides is best is best, and muggles should shut up and do as their betters tell them. Yes, that must be JKR's overall lesson. (I'll add that it's incredibly hard to figure out *what* JKR's overall view is when it comes to muggles. Wizards that attack muggles are bad. Except when they're the good guys?) Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 03:07:57 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 03:07:57 -0000 Subject: Snape and Peter and Prophecy and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145501 Orna: I mean, how did the Potters > guess they were chosen and chosen for immediate death? They had > defied him trice before the prophecy, and not gone into hiding just > because of the danger, so it looks as if someone told them they were > picked for immediate murder. Alla: I said that earlier, but it bears repeating - I don't think we know that Potters thrice defied Voldemort before Snape delivered the Prophecy, I mean it is POSSIBLE of course and that would certainly diminish Snape's culpability in my eyes, since that would mean that Potters were already on "special hit list", but I don't think we know for sure. I can easily see Potters barely escaping Voldemort's wrath three times when they were already in hiding. Orna: Someone must have told DD, the way > Voldemort had decided to deal with the prophecy. > I think that Snape is a possibility there. I can see him feeling > indebted to James, and I can even imagine him being horrified by an > intention to kill a baby. Alla: Of course it is possible, but I want to SEE that Snape is actually remorseful, you know. :-) >> Julie: > Wow. I am SO far away from you on this one. Snape *forced* Peter > to act on his worst instincts? Are you serious? > > Okay, you are, but I definitely disagree. It is NOT possible to > speculate that Peter could be a better person, because Peter > was passing information to Voldemort long BEFORE he betrayed > the Potters. If Peter could have been a better person, why was > he doing that? If Peter could have been a better person, why didn't > he take the opportunity to REFUSE the secret-keeper role, by > admitting he might crack under the pressure? Alla: Well, I am speculating, but yeah I am seriously speculating. :-) But let me be clear WHAT I am speculating about. I did not say SNAPE forced Peter to reveal the worst in his nature, I said Snape's ACTIONS may have forced Peter to do it. Of course Snape is not responsible for what kind of person Peter is. If he is a scum, as you said, he is a scum, but IMO Snape's action were sort of key event which prompted Peter's to act. Peter would NOT have become a better person, had Snape not acted, but Peter may have no reason to show to the world how bad he really is, if it makes any kind of sense. Juli: > Snape WENT to Dumbledore. Snape tried to save the Potters, > whatever his real motivations. Does he not get any credit at all > for that? Alla: Oh, sure, if he went to Dumbledore with intention to save Potters, he gets credit from me( which does not cross out what he did, but credit nevertheless), I am just not sure we are clear on when he went to Dumbledore and with which intentions Juli: Meanwhile Peter accepted the secret-keeper role with > the PRIOR INTENT to betray them. Peter is scum. Scum. SCUM. > And he was always scum, no matter what speculative universe he > might have been in. Alla: Do we know about Peter's prior intent? But sure he is a scum, I am not arguing that. :-) JMO, Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Dec 28 04:00:37 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 04:00:37 -0000 Subject: Hebridean Black/Snape's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145502 > Pippin: snip Also in OOP in one of the > occlumency lessons, Harry remembers a great black dragon rearing > up in front of him. If this is supposed to be the Hungarian Horntail, > it's out of sequence, because it comes *before* Harry's recollection of > seeing his parents' images in the mirror of Erised. snip> Potioncat: Or, could Harry be remembering a Patronus sent to the house to warn James and Lily about LV's attack? Patronuses aren't limited by physical barriers. Miles wrote in post 145490 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/145490 > > The connection between a Patronus and the person who owns it seems to be > much less informative to me. Let's have a look - Dumbledore's Patronus is a > Phoenix. Aha. Ron's is a little dog - yes? Harry's is the animagus form of > his father - does it tell anything about Harry himself? Tonks' Patronus is > the only one that tells us something about her. A dragon that eats stags and ?? dogs for Snape - so what? We won't be surprised. Potioncat: I'm not sure the quote you provided is the origin of the Snape Patronus discussion, but it's not a surprise JKR wouldn't reveal his Boggart or Patronus. Even if we don't see his Patronus in Book 7, our knowing what is could give away important plot points, such as his actual loyalty. Many on this list think Snape's Patronus will be important when he attempts to communicate with the Order. (Or should I say, if he attempts?) JKR went to some effort to tell us about Patronuses just before HBP came out. If I recall correctly, the Patronus is unique and cannot be tampered with. Order members recognize each others' Patronus. She tells us each one is unique and almost the first thing we learn in HBP is that Tonks' unique Patronus has changed?K.to some other unique form. I didn't get the idea that Tonks intentionally changed her Patronus, but that it happened due to her mental state. Yet Snape recognizes it. Does Snape recognize it because DD sent a memo to everyone? Because the Patronus speaks with the sender's voice? Because even though it changed, something about it said "Tonks"? Why didn't anyone ever mention what it changed from? (Maybe it had been a Hebridean Black and Snape's mad it changed to a wolf.) Harry doesn't know what the different Patronuses of the Order members are. We don't either. Unless someone like McGonagall saw a Patronus and said, "Oh, look! Snape's Patronus used to be a big ugly snake and now it's a Phoenix. He must be loyal after all." We won't have any way of knowing that Snape's Patronus had made a significant change. (I've got it! His Head of House was something of a Patron, so his Patronus up till now has been a giant slug?K. Explains why it took so long to get word to the Order in OoP. Cough*5hours*cough.) Or it might say volumes that Snape's Patronus is, whether or not it was, a Phoenix or a bumblebee. It would be helpful to know what the other Order members' Patronuses are, if we are going to see Patronus-mail. No chance JKR will tell us. I would think whatever Snape's Patronus was or has become, the Order members will recognize it. Harry won't. I think we have a possible scene where the Order gets word in Patronus form but no one mentions who it is from and Harry, of course, doesn't ask. Or that Harry gets a Patronus-mail and doesn't know it's from Snape. He might assume a big black dragon is Charlie's Patronus. Patronus/Animagus: It seems to me the Animagus form reveals something about the wizard/witch. From JKR interviews, we know the wizard doesn't choose the form. She actually says something along the line of it would be embarrassing to do all that work and discover your form is a cockroach. (Which seemed to confirm one of my earliest theories that Snape is a cockroach Animagus. We won't go there right now.) Yes, we have barking Sirius who is a dog; James who preens for the females who is a stag; Peter, the dirty rat, who is a rat?K. The Patronus, however, seems to reflect the person or thing that the wizard sees as a Protector. So while Harry knew nothing about his father being a stag, his Patronus took on a Stag form. The Patronus (if I'm correct) wouldn't tell us so much about a person, as it would that person's source of security. I'm not sure if DD's Phoenix- Patronus reflects Fawlks or reflects Flammell. Or if I'm all wrong about the source of Patronus forms. It makes sense to me that Hermione's Patronus is an otter. Otters are linked in my mind to the Weasley family. I can't speak for Cho's swan or Ron's terrier. (I think of those dogs as hyperactive and the twins come across as hyperactive, so maybe the dog reflects them?) JKR often describes characters in terms of animals or magical creatures. Millicent looks like a troll. Crabbe, or was it Goyle, looked like a gorilla. Ginny is cat-like. Theodore Nott is rabbity. It just might make sense that Snape is like a Hebridean Black. It allows JKR to describe him in ways that make us think of other animals/creatures. He has also been described in dragon-like ways. (See previous posts in the thread.) Now, having said all that, would Snape's Patronus be the dragon? Only if he is so introverted that he thinks he can rely only on himself. He is his own protector. But I think not. Draco's might be a Hebridean Black, now that Snape has so successfully rescued him and was something of a Patron during his 6 years at Hogwarts. Snape's Animagus form, should he have one, might be a Hebridean Black. I think there is a strong connection between Snape and the dragon, but I'm not sure how it will play out. > From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Dec 28 05:21:57 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 05:21:57 -0000 Subject: Snape and Prophecy and Harry WAS:Re: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (lo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145503 Alla: > Oh, you said the "key words",actually. :-) Harry has a RIGHT to be > angry with him. That is all I am asking for, because I very very > strongly disagreed with Pippin's argument about Harry's > selfishness in blaming Snape for part in his parents' deaths, even > though Snape IMO undoubtedly played a part in Potters' deaths. I > am arguing that Harry's anger was a righteous anger and DESERVED > anger. It is just IMO Snape's guilt in many things are in the eyes > of the beholder, but Snape's guilt in Potter's deaths is IMO a > fact. Jen: I understand what you are saying here, Alla. The 'waves of shock' Harry felt when Trelawney spilled the beans on Snape's eavesdropping reminded me strongly of the moment he learned of Sirius' 'betrayl' of the Potters. And Sirius spent 12 years in Azkaban paying for a mistake he made with the best of intentions, while Snape was apparently taken under Dumbledore's generous wing after choosing to do something which was ethically wrong. Regardless of whether Snape knew who Voldemort would target, he was serving some family on a platter to Voldemort and appeared to understand that. If everything happened like Dumbledore laid it out in HBP, I'm a bit bothered about Dumbledore's explanation that Snape made a 'terrible mistake'. Snape's actions and Sirius' actions aren't equal to me because of the intentions behind them. Saying Snape made a mistake is saying he had no clue what Voldemort was capable of, and that seems an insult to his intelligence if nothing else. No one who has spent time with Voldemort would expect him to take a 'wait and see' approach to the prophecy. That's not in his psychological make-up and both Snape and Dumbledore know that. I guess you could say Sirius should have known Voldemort would target Peter as the weak link in the chain, but they aren't on the same scale to me. Besides the fact Sirius wasn't working for Voldemort, making a mistake in the act of trying to protect and making a mistake in the act of trying to harm are two different kinds of mistakes. To switch gears, in my mind there *are* extenuating circumstances, but they're merely speculation. I expect Snape did attempt to save the Potters after delivering the prophecy. I believe his remorse was real for whatever yet-to-be-revealed reason. But I do understand why you feel the way you do, Alla. All these things may have happened and these feelings been felt, but none of that was told to Harry by Snape himself. Dumbledore continues to run interference for Snape with Harry, attempting to make Snape more palatable in Harry's eyes, it seems, while Snape does nothing to make himself more palatable. Finding out about Snape was difficult for me after Sirius. I expected he was the eavesdropper b/c it fit so well, but didn't really think of the implications. It's hard not to think Snape got one helluva deal compared to Sirius, and their actions were *not* comparable in my mind. I start feeling the urge to snarl like boy- Riddle when I read Dumbledore's explanation of Snape's remorse: "Prove it!" But, sigh, that's probabably the point. Harry is saved by his love from being closed-hearted and full of hatred like Snape. He may feel the need for vengeance right now, but something will change his course. Reading POA to my son, I was struck by the flashbacks of Lily saying to Voldemort: 'have mercy, have mercy'...gah, it pulled at my heartstrings. Voldemort doesn't even know what that word means, and Harry knows only too well. It won't take much for Harry to see Snape with new eyes like his mom would. They both understand the meaning of mercy. Jen, trying to throw off her befuddlement after too many excellent feasts and starting a new job to boot. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 07:53:12 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:53:12 -0000 Subject: Secondary thought on Patronuses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145504 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "juli17ptf" wrote: > > Thinking about Snape's patronus having some connection to > Dumbledore, I started to wonder if two wizards can use the > same patronus form at the same time? I.e., could another > wizard also have a Jack Russell terrier patronus like Ron? > ...edited... > > If a wizard can pass on a patronus, or another wizard can > take possession of a patronus no longer being used ... > > Which would make Snape's new patronus a phoenix. > > It may not be a workable concept, but the thought did occur > to me, so I thought I'd share it :-) > > Julie > bboyminn: It's a good thought, but I don't think it is valid. I just doesn't make much sense for Partonus to be limited that way. True one person may have a Jack Russell Terrier as a Patronus, but that doesn't prevent another person from having a completely different Jack Russell terrier as his Partonus. It's not like there is one and only one Jack Russel terrier available. Also, we can speculate that when a Patronus appears with a message, it speaks in the voice of the sender. Two identical (or similar) Patronus would not speak with the same voice, so you would be much less likely to mix them up. Now, I may not agree with the 'how' but I think the 'what' is a valid speculation, slim but still valid. Why would JKR bring up Tonk Patronus changing? I suppose it could simply be to imply her longing for Remus, but the whole thing seems to be hinted at very thinly in the recent book. So, maybe the whole Remus/Tonks subplot existed merely to establish the fact that Patronus can change. Now if we further speculate that Snape's Partonus changes to something that resembles someone else's Patronus, say a Phoenix to resemble Dumbledore's Partonus, then we have a new misdirection for the next book. Harry could initially assume it is Dumbledore sending him messages from beyond the grave. Only later in the book, once we have, along with Harry and friends, accepted the premise, is it revealed that it is actually Snape sending the very helpful messages. I'm not sure I fully believe it, but it does have some potential. I am confident that somehow Snape will initially covertly help Harry, then later, somehow he will reveal himself, and he and Harry will have to come to an understanding so Snape can help get him to the final battle. I don't think this 'understanding' will come easily, but I think it will come. It seems an odd theory, Snape changing Patronus as a way of misleading the reader and Harry, but still it does have some potential. Just a thought, such as it is. Steve/bboyminn From silmariel at telefonica.net Wed Dec 28 12:40:49 2005 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (silmariel) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:40:49 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Significance of Snape's Patronus In-Reply-To: <00f801c60b3c$17323ef0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> References: <12976490.1135714472462.JavaMail.administrator@webmail> <011901c60b2e$5d3d56e0$c08c400c@Spot> <00f801c60b3c$17323ef0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: <200512281339.27953.cualquier@servidor.net> No: HPFGUIDX 145505 Miles: > I just went to the quick quotes quill to check Rowling's statement - and I > only found this: > >>Ernie: I wonder if you can let us know what form will Professor Snape's > Boggart and Patronus take? I am very curious. > JK Rowling replies -> Well, I'm not going to tell you Ernie, but that's > because it would give so much away.<< > http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm > A dragon that eats stags and dogs for Snape - so what? We won't be >surprised. Silmariel: Oh, yes, we would. I think the quote doesn't make sense if taken out of cronological context, it is from March 4, 2004, while HBP was published July 16, 2005. At that time, with only OoP, a dragon for a Patronus would mean that he was powerful (we were still discussing about if he was powerful or it was only a fandom legend), he is going to be central to the novels (again, this entering the front of the scenario surprised a lot of people, that have even complained about too much time wasted on him) because the school motto is the first thing you see opening the books, that he may be attached to Draco more closely than we expected (as we've seen, he attached to him at least by the Vow), and, as side effect, I doubt the identity of the HBP would have been a surprise. It may not be revealing now, but at the time she said it, it was very juicy, IMO. Of course, she might be refering to the boggart, and it seems fair that if you know Snape's fear you know the side he's in, and that, contrary to the Patronus, the boggart isn't something characters would know. I'm assuming his fear is not to be eternally deprived of the Order of Merlin . Hey, Harry can throw him a boggart to see what can be learned about him. > I know there were discussions about Snape's Boggart shape on the list > before. I do not want to spoil all the Patronus discussions - they are fun, > indeed. But are they significant? Maybe - but Rowling is not witness for > this. It's fun, that's the point. Silmariel From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 14:36:48 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:36:48 -0000 Subject: Snape and Prophecy and Harry WAS:Re: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (lo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145506 Gerry: > So explain to me again why the person who told about the prophecy is > more guilty then the person who actually betrayed the Potters? More guilty? Probably not. But Snape had to know that he was condemning someone, probably several someones, once he blabbed the prophecy. He's as guilty as a man who fires a gun into a crowd. Amiable Dorsai From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 15:35:22 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:35:22 -0000 Subject: Snape and Prophecy and Harry WAS:Re: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (lo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145507 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > Harry has a right to be angry over the loss of his parents. We agree > there. But to be obsessively angry with Snape about it when there > are other people whose responsibility is far more direct... Straw, camel, back. Amiable Dorsai From rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu Wed Dec 28 15:43:53 2005 From: rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu (susanbones2003) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:43:53 -0000 Subject: Last book woes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145508 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > >LIBERALLY SNIPPED:> > And, like I've said in another thread, I have a feeling that no one, > from the most dyed in the wool ESE theorist to the most rabid DDM > supporter, is going to be very happy with what JKR does in the last > book. She simply doesn't have the time to finish off complex > character arcs in a satisfactory way and still get through all the > plot points she has to cover (four horcruxes, the final confrontation > with Voldemort, a Weasley wedding, etc). Lots of things are going to > get short shrift, or at least much shorter than they need. I have a > strong feeling that in the end, when it comes to Snape and a lot of > other people, everyone on all sides is going to be standing around in > consternation going "You can't mean that's IT?" > > > Lupinlore > Jen D. here: I tried to say this in our previous exchange but it was Christmas Eve and things were chaotic but here's the thing: I believe you have hit on the most important factor in Book 7, the fact that JKR has no further books to clear things up, make things right, explain odd plot points, deal with relationships, answer questions, find those Horcruxes and deal with Voldemort. She has a whale of a job to do and extremely little time to do it in and I fear she'll rely on shorthand or worse a fair few deaths to eliminate the need to clear things up. Wars have deaths. And they clear out plot threads fast as well as create further motivation for winning the war. How far will this thing go? How many pages will Book 7 be? I agree with Lupinlore that we may all be saying "That's it?" about our favorite character or plotline but it may be a little more final than we expected. Jen D. From ladypensieve at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 17:17:38 2005 From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Kathy) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:17:38 -0000 Subject: Last book woes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145509 I believe that JKR will do fine. The reason for each book to be as long as they are is to get in plot points. The shorthand in the 7th book will be easy to understand because of the layered information given to us previously. You may have read my theory about why Snape 'protects and hates' Harry. If I can say it in a brief posting, I'm sure JKR will do wonders with it. As for the horcrux's...I somehow doubt that the book will be all about that. We've seen what Dumbledore went through to get the few he had. Granted that Harry destroyed the diary by himself, but what character will be able and willing to help Harry destroy the rest? There are still some surprises awaiting us, I'm sure. If we are disappointed, it is because all the questions will be answered and we will have no more reason to try and ferret out the answers. This has been an exciting ride, each book giving us a bit more insight into the puzzle...but it's a puzzle we've been working on for years. Once you've completed the puzzle...what do you do then? Ouch! KathyO snipped--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "susanbones2003" wrote: > > Jen D. here: >I believe ...JKR has no further books to clear things up, make things right, explain odd plot points, deal with relationships, answer questions, find those Horcruxes and deal with Voldemort. She has a whale of a job to do and extremely little time to do it in and I fear she'll rely on shorthand or worse a fair few deaths to eliminate the need to clear things up. ... I agree with Lupinlore > that we may all be saying "That's it?" about our favorite character > or plotline but it may be a little more final than we expected. > Jen D. > From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Dec 28 17:41:13 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:41:13 -0000 Subject: Last book woes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145510 > Jen D. here: > I tried to say this in our previous exchange but it was Christmas > Eve and things were chaotic but here's the thing: I believe you have > hit on the most important factor in Book 7, the fact that JKR has no > further books to clear things up, make things right, explain odd > plot points, deal with relationships, answer questions, find those > Horcruxes and deal with Voldemort. She has a whale of a job to do > and extremely little time to do it in and I fear she'll rely on > shorthand or worse a fair few deaths to eliminate the need to clear > things up. Wars have deaths. And they clear out plot threads fast as > well as create further motivation for winning the war. How far will > this thing go? How many pages will Book 7 be? I agree with Lupinlore > that we may all be saying "That's it?" about our favorite character > or plotline but it may be a little more final than we expected. Pippin: I don't think this will be as much of a problem as some readers are imagining provided the book is judged on its own terms. Look at GoF. In outline it has the same structure we might expect to find in HP7: four tasks preceded by a Weasley confab and followed by a showdown with LV, leading to a false climax, culminating in the genuine climax in which All is Revealed. GoF had subplots beyond subplots, including Rita Skeeter, the Crouch family saga, Ron's jealousy, Karkaroff, Snape's backstory, Bagman, the Twins, Krum's pursuit of Hermione, Harry's pursuit of Cho, House Elf liberation and more, but JKR managed to work them all in. In HP7 she won't be able to leave things hanging, but then she doesn't have to introduce any major new characters or plotlines either. Some saw unrealized possibilities in the Crouch saga, many readers were hoping the Pensieve mystery woman would reappear as a femme fatale, there are people who aren't yet satisfied with JKR's cursory explanations as to portkeys or who think we should have found out more about Bagman, but on its own terms the book works. I think HP7 will too. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Dec 28 18:07:46 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:07:46 -0000 Subject: Snape and Peter and Prophecy and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145511 > Alla: > > I said that earlier, but it bears repeating - I don't think we know > that Potters thrice defied Voldemort before Snape delivered the > Prophecy, I mean it is POSSIBLE of course and that would certainly > diminish Snape's culpability in my eyes, since that would mean that > Potters were already on "special hit list", but I don't think we > know for sure. I can easily see Potters barely escaping Voldemort's > wrath three times when they were already in hiding. Pippin: Okay, I'm confused. How did Voldemort decide that the Potters were the parents of the One if they hadn't yet defied him three times? > Orna: > Someone must have told DD, the way > > Voldemort had decided to deal with the prophecy. Pippin: This is interesting because the timeline Snape gave to Bella doesn't match the one JKR has given to us. According to JKR the Potters were already in hiding when Harry was christened, but Snape tells Bella he defected when he took up his teaching post. (According to OOP, Snape had been teaching for fourteen years.) If Snape was the spy who told Dumbledore that someone was after the Potters, then contrary to what Voldemort thinks, he actually defected a year before Voldemort sent him to Hogwarts. Of course Dumbledore had a number of spies, but we're supposed to have met all the principal characters, so it would be rather convoluted for JKR to introduce another DE spy now. I gather the CoE doesn't believe that a child must be christened in order to be saved, but since Sirius takes his godfather responsibility very seriously, one would assume the Potters did too. I don't think they would have put it off until Harry was a year old. Pippin From coverton at netscape.com Wed Dec 28 17:33:00 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 11:33:00 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Last book woes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c60bd4$c64571d0$06f09cac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145512 lupinlore wrote: > And, like I've said in another thread, I have a feeling that no > one, from the most dyed in the wool ESE theorist to the most rabid > DDM supporter, is going to be very happy with what JKR does in the > last book. She simply doesn't have the time to finish off complex > character arcs in a satisfactory way and still get through all the > plot points she has to cover.... Lots of things are going to > get short shrift, or at least much shorter than they need. I have > a strong feeling that in the end, when it comes to Snape and a lot > of other people, everyone on all sides is going to be standing > around in consternation going "You can't mean that's IT?" Jen D.: I believe you have hit on the most important factor in Book 7, the fact that JKR has no further books to clear things up, make things right, explain odd plot points, deal with relationships, answer questions, find those Horcruxes and deal with Voldemort. She has a whale of a job to do and extremely little time to do it in and I fear she'll rely on shorthand or worse a fair few deaths to eliminate the need to clear things up. Wars have deaths. And they clear out plot threads fast as well as create further motivation for winning the war. How far will this thing go? How many pages will Book 7 be? I agree with Lupinlore that we may all be saying "That's it?" about our favorite character or plotline but it may be a little more final than we expected. Corey: I agree with Jen D when she says "I think it will be more than we expected. I think she's right cause as we all know JKR has the great ability to work on not much time and still put out a good book. Yes I also agree with Lupinlore. About when he says that some of us might not get our money's worth so to speak. But I think we will get enough of a good book to make us happy for awhile. I think this because there will be such a long time between books 6 and 7. That the point will come when we'll all just want the speculation to end and read the 7th book. What ever the title will be. Why I think the 7th book will be better than people might think. 1. a Weasley wedding. No matter what Molly thinks about Fleur she and the rest of the family and Harry and Hermione will put all their effort to try and make it the best time in the world. After all it will be their last true moment of peace. As quoted in HBP at the end of the book. 2. Malfoy and Harry. This seems to be a never ending plot line. But it's a fun one imo. I'm thinking that Harry and Malfoy will cross paths again. Rather directly or indirectly. 3. Professor or should I say former professor Umbridge. If the rumors are true it will be interesting how she'll be in book seven. I loved to hate her in OotP! That quill of hers was just evil. 4. And there's good old Snape. I think he'll be what gives the 7th book its flair and spice. We've all gone round about Snape and it will be interesting to see what he is or isn't. 5. The horcruxes. We can't forget about them. They're the key to ending LV's reign once and for all. 6. The most important thing why book seven will be interesting will be finding LV himself. This will be important in my view 'cause as we all know he's not easy to find. I mean it's not like he knocks on your door and says come kill me. But that's what makes him such a good bad guy. Not good in the sense in that he kills people and ruins lives and families. What makes him a good bad guy is he's smart, very evil, and most of all very hard to find and kill. Well that's my first post of this day. Hope every one liked it. I worked hard on it. Your fellow list member, Corey From kchuplis at alltel.net Wed Dec 28 18:14:04 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:14:04 -0000 Subject: Last book woes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145513 pippin wrote: > I don't think this will be as much of a problem as some readers are > imagining provided the book is judged on its own terms. Look at > GoF. In outline it has the same structure we might expect to find > in HP7: four tasks preceded by a Weasley confab and followed by > a showdown with LV, leading to a false climax, culminating in the > genuine climax in which All is Revealed. GoF had subplots > beyond subplots, including Rita Skeeter, the Crouch family saga, > Ron's jealousy, Karkaroff, Snape's backstory, Bagman, the Twins, > Krum's pursuit of Hermione, Harry's pursuit of Cho, House Elf > liberation and more, but JKR managed to work them all in. In > HP7 she won't be able to leave things hanging, but then she > doesn't have to introduce any major new characters or plotlines > either. I have had concerns regarding all that is left to do as well, until I realized, like you, if all the B and C storylines are left out (and charming as they are, at this point in time, we are ALL just concerned with the final showdown), a book the length of any of the last three will probably be just fine. She does it so well, that I think people are not always aware of how much extraneous matter is in the books. It painted the whole wizarding world for us in great detail. We've got that now so it isn't so necessary. kchuplis From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 18:37:41 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:37:41 -0000 Subject: Last book woes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145514 > >>Pippin: > I don't think this will be as much of a problem as some readers are > imagining provided the book is judged on its own terms. > Betsy Hp: I agree. We all have our favorite bugaboos, but JKR will answer or tie-up only those things that are relevant to her story. So, for example, the house elves may well remain enslaved, the MoM may well remain semi-corrupt, the Weasley twins may well remain amusing menaces to society. JKR may give hints of changes to come: a more fair-minded Minister (as recognized by her readers), Hermione in a position of advocacy for magical creature rights. But I don't think she needs to leave us with a utopian society, and every possible question tied up in a neat bow. I think we saw an example of this when the Longbottom issue was left as it was. And while it is tragic that there doesn't seem a chance for healing for Neville's parents, it doesn't leave a huge open hole in the story. Personally, I think it was a choice that enriched Neville's story rather than lessened it. (Of course, book 7 may end with the Longbottoms restored to sanity, nullifying my point. ) Actually, I think the story line as a whole will be better with some open-ended issues. It's more realistic and it gives fans something to play with long after the last word is written. At least, IMO. Betsy Hp From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 18:51:34 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:51:34 -0000 Subject: TBAY: ...NOT a Snape Theory - NO Debt Repayment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145515 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > ...edited... > > "This snippet directly taken from canon, you mean? Everyone knows > Snape repaid his debt to James by safeguarding Harry in PS. You > heard Dumbledore, Snape worked to repay his debt so he could go back > to hating James' memory in peace. It's all in there, ...edited... > > Jen > bboyminn: Just one small point here, although it does support LID!Snape, it should not be taken as an endorsement of said non-theory. Snape didn't save Harry in PS/SS, so he couldn't have paid his Life Debt. True Snape was muttering counter jinxess to prevents Harry from being bucked off of his broom. However, we are only supposing that the fall would have killed him, and that other means would not have occurred to cushion his fall, as we see happen in PoA. So, while there was a potential for serious injury, death was not a give; a possibility, yes, but not a given. Further, it was Hermione who actually saved Harry by knocking Quirrel over and thereby breaking his eye contact and stopping the broom jinx. So, Snape tried to save Harry but didn't succeed. The same is true of his efforts in PoA. We assume that Snape logically assumed Harry was in danger, when in actuality Harry was not. Further, Snape had tremendous motivation for revenge in capturing Sirius, and had no trouble extending that revenge to Lupin. We can hardly say his motivation was pure under the circumstances. And, of course, Snape once again failed to save Harry. In fact, it is Harry (plus Hermione and Ron) who stops Snape's alleged attempt to rescue Harry. So, while Snape has indeed attempted to honor his Life Debt to James, he has failed every time. Snape has never saved Harry's life. He has tried, but never succeeded, so the Life Debt is very much in force. Next, Life_InDebted!Snape is based on a few assumptions whether you want to accept it or not. It assumes how the Life Debt works. Maybe 'Life Debt' is not a magical imperative but a moral one or even a social one. That doesn't mean 'magic at its deepest' can't be involved, but so far we have no evidence that Life Debt creates an irresistable magical compulsion to act in some specific way. It is entirely possible that the Life Debt can be completely ignore with no consequences beyond a guilty conscience. I'm not saying that is specifically true, only that we don't know the nature, actions, and consequences of a Life Debt. In fact, exactly what creates a Life Debt is a little grey. For example, JKR said in an interview that Ginny did NOT incure a Life Debt to Harry for his rescue of her from the Chamber of Secrets. That would imply that it is not simply a matter of saving another wizard. The action has to be direct, clear, and unambiguos and which saves a person from imminent, direct, and indisputable death. Another example that illustrates this fine distinction is that while James gave his life protecting Harry, his sacrifice didn't count in the same way that Lily's did. Lily's actions was far more direct and immediate. So, I say that Snape's Life Debt to James is still in effect. Snape has never 'saved' Harry's life. Further, we don't know the exact nature and mechanism of the Life Debt. Any Life Debt theories or non-theories are based in an assumption of how Life Debt works. Not trying to throw a spanner into the works...but I am. Steve/bboyminn From agdisney at msn.com Wed Dec 28 18:53:52 2005 From: agdisney at msn.com (Andrea Grevera) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:53:52 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's website update - Silver Hand References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145516 Christina: In response to you both, it's been pretty obvious for a while that werewolves in JKR's universe do not respond poorly to pure silver (in their human form, at least). But I had always given the silver hand theories value just because of the symbolic meaning. Kind of in the same way that Sirius's "grim" form and captivity at GRIMmauld Place foreshadowed his death. It doesn't have to be a scenario where Peter kills Lupin *with the silver hand,* but you could take the silver hand as foreshadowing because of it's traditional link between silver and werewolves. But, a futile exercise I guess, considering JKR has shot it down. Christina Andie: So, since JKR has shot down Peter killing Lupin - why can't Peter be involved in the death of Fenrir. I'm assuming that most if not all of the the DE's will meet their end in book VII. If they're not killed, at least they will be put out of commission somehow. I can't see JK leaving something as horrible as Fenrir around at the end of the series. Also, I do think that Harry used Petrificus Totalus on Fenrir himself. Maybe he couldn't raise his wand, but the wand could have been caught between them so when he said the spell it still worked. Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coverton at netscape.com Mon Dec 26 21:36:51 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:36:51 -0600 Subject: Why I think Lockhart will get out of St Mungo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c60a64$7f33b3e0$3396aaac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145517 Gerry: > His memory charms were good enough to take credit from lots > of people and write books about their heroic deeds passing > them off as his own. His memory charms had to be permanent > for that, because otherwise he would have huge, huge trouble > if these truly brave people found out what had happened to > them. They would at the very least visit his doorstep to get > their share of the money he made... Gerry, you bring up a good point about people wanting money. So I guess in retrospect he's safe in there. Thanks for replying to my topic. Your fellow list member, Corey From ornawn at 013.net Wed Dec 28 20:22:09 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:22:09 -0000 Subject: Snape and Prophecy and Harry WAS:Re: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (lo Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145518 >Alla: >I said that earlier, but it bears repeating - I don't think we know >that Potters thrice defied Voldemort before Snape delivered the >Prophecy, I mean it is POSSIBLE of course and that would certainly >Potters were already on "special hit list", but I don't think we >know for sure. I can easily see Potters barely escaping Voldemort's >wrath three times when they were already in hiding. Orna: I'm not sure that defying Voldemort trice means they were initially on a special hitlist. The thing is that most people don't survive the first encounter. The more you defy him ? the more you get "upgraded" on his hit-list ? you begin to look like a potential threat. Just by ordinary mathematical killers-rules. Anyway I understood that since the prophecy indicated parents who had defied Voldemort trice ? it took place before they were chosen by Voldemort. So, as I see it, the prophecy would be sure to direct Voldemort's attention to the Potters and the Longbottoms. >Pippin: >This is interesting because the timeline Snape gave to Bella doesn't >match the one JKR has given to us. According to JKR the Potters were >already in hiding when Harry was christened, but Snape tells Bella >he defected when he took up his teaching post. (According to OOP, >Snape had been teaching for fourteen years.) >If Snape was the spy who told Dumbledore that someone >was after the Potters, then contrary to what Voldemort thinks, >he actually defected a year before Voldemort sent >him to Hogwarts. Orna: Perhaps I don't understand, but I don't see the problem. A DDM!Snape could have gone over to DD's side, passing information. DD sent the Potters into hiding, and it took Snape some time to manipulate Voldemort somehow to send him as a spy to Hogwarts. He would want to be posted there, but he needed it to be on Voldemort's orders. Just like an ESE!Snape would need DD's order to join the DE at the end of GoF. That's how double spies are supposed to work, IMO, spinning their endless plots, until they get caught up in them. But as I said, perhaps I didn't understand something about the timetable-problem ? if so please explain. >Jen: >No one who has spent time with Voldemort would expect him to take >a 'wait and see' approach to the prophecy. That's not in his >psychological make-up and both Snape and Dumbledore know that. Orna: I can see what you mean, but I'm not fully sure. I agree that Voldemort wouldn't hesitate for mercy-reasons, and his usual way of dealing with obstacles (Cedric, Frank) is to kill immediately, no second thought spared. But still: DD said that "You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realized how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy". So it seems that there was something unexpected in the way Voldemort decided to go. Or just Snape wasn't aware it turned out to be people he knew, and was in a life dept towards one of them? Maybe - but that had nothing to do with Voldemort's interpretation - it was just a fact that the Potter's were potentially fullfilling the terms. Don't know. Perhaps: Voldemort has sometimes a sense of perverted dignity coupled with a need to prove himself ? like in GoF, when he wants to duel with Harry. Like in CoS when he feels he wants to challenge his powers against Harry's. And besides, this wait-and-see, as I see it, is not because he has no faith in the prophecy, contrary ? because he would have wanted to be sure he picked the right boy ? he might have wanted to wait. >Jen: >I guess you could say Sirius should have known Voldemort would >target Peter as the weak link in the chain, but they aren't on the >same scale to me. Besides the fact Sirius wasn't working for >Voldemort, making a mistake in the act of trying to protect and >making a mistake in the act of trying to harm are two different >kinds of mistakes. Orna: We know Snape had been a DE. The question IMO is what do we accept for being an acceptable act/s for accepting him to be one of the good guys. It's a really difficult question, because being a DE he is sure to have caused harm, or might even be deaths ? directly or non-directly, on top of his part in Potters death. We know from Bellatrix that he probably wasn't very active, slitherin out of action. Probably did a lot of cunning plans, potions and spell- inventing, which IMO are also quite harmful. But the question is ? what do we expect a change of sides to include? Sirius is on another level - I don't think anybody would really send him to Azkaban for the mistake he did. Anybody ? except his guilt- feelings. Or JKR as a sort of karmic punishment? Looks harsh, IMO. As it is, he lost his best friends that would be enough for me to account for a karmic punishment. I don't feel that every misfortune which comes to a character means punishment ? not even in a karmic sense. JKR's world pictures lots of suffering, not very explained or rationalizable, IMO. But that's part of the books appeal, because I think it resonates with a feeling about how things might be in the RW ? not every suffering can be justified as karmic punishment. Orna From jelly92784 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 20:24:42 2005 From: jelly92784 at yahoo.com (jelly92784) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:24:42 -0000 Subject: Why I think Lockhart will get out of St Mungo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145519 Corey said: 2 The curse that he got hit with was not a extremely bad curse so while it did cause distress and damage it should not keep him in St.Mungo for the rest of his life. Gerry said: Actually it was an extremely bad curse. His memory charms were good enough to take credit from lots of people and write books about their heroic deeds passing them off as his own. His memory charms had to be permanent for that, because otherwise he would have huge, huge trouble if these truly brave people found out what had happened to them. They would at the very least visit his doorstep to get their share of the money he made... He could also not take the risk of Ron and Harry ever remembering what really happened, because that would be the end of his reputation and of course taking away people's memory is criminal. So I don't think he is too long in St. Mungo's. If he ever comes out he will be very lucky, because what he cast was a charm ment to last for life, only this time he hit the wrong person. Janelle: Keep in mind that the reason Lockhart got hit with the memory charm in the first place is that he was using Ron's broken wand. It seems likely to me that his condition is much worse than that of others he performed the same charm on, due to some complication with the wand. At the same time, it is possible that he would get his memory back or at least be able to start over and be released from St. Mungo's. While possible, however, I doubt that we'll see this happen, it could possibly be mentioned, perhaps in the last chapter, but I can't see any plot points that would make Lockhart's presence necessary. From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Dec 28 20:10:26 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (bawilson at citynet.net) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:10:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Twins and Duddley/Snape as an abuser Message-ID: <15035697.1135800626726.JavaMail.administrator@webmail> No: HPFGUIDX 145520 "Magpie: Sure. But it seems like throughout this thread I keep getting pushed into what people consider the opposite position of their own rather than what I'm actually saying, which I don't think is that extreme. I've got no problem with people finding this scene funny because Dudley has always been mean to Harry and eats a lot while Harry is starved. I am speaking only against the idea that because it's enjoyable it's something other than what it is, which is a scene where the twins are in control and Dudley is a Muggle being Pranked by wizards." It seems to me that you don't see the difference between what the Twins did to Dudley and what the Death Eaters did to the Robinson family at the QWC. The Robinsons were minding their own business when a bunch of Death Eaters came along and levitated them upside down just for the fun of it. Dudley had made a career of tormenting his younger, smaller, weaker cousin, and had made a habit of eating anything that didn't eat him first. Now he was at the other end of the torment AND as a direct consequence of his inability to refrain from stuffing his fat, ugly face. The Death Eaters would have tormented any Muggles who had the misfortune to have come into their range. The Twins visited retribution upon someone who had injured their friend. Would it have been better had they not done so? Perhaps. Would it have been better had they used a more subtle method? Almost certainly. Lupinlore: "I also have a great deal of experience with abused teens -- abused literally to death in two cases. And from my point of view, Snape most definitely IS an abuser, over and out. So are the Dursleys, but for some reason they don't get as much press, these days." Being a meanie is not the same thing as being an abuser. Compared to cases I have seen, Snape is as a candle to a bonfire. The Dursleys, although not nice people, would seem positively cuddly compared to some of the poor excuses for parents/guardians I have encountered. "Betsy Hp: And yet, when Dudley *does* refuse to take food from a wizard, he gets repeatedly hit in the head with a glass." All Dudley--and his parents, for that matter--had to do was to hold the glass and put it on the table. He wasn't being forced to drink it. Besides, after what he and his parents did to Harry, being made to sit on a comfy sofa, having a glass of mead poke you in the head, and being told off by Dumbledore seems to be a fairly mild comeuppance. Dumbledore could have turned them all into frogs, after all. BAW From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 21:07:42 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 21:07:42 -0000 Subject: Snape and Prophecy and Harry/Snape as an abuser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145521 > Orna: > I'm not sure that defying Voldemort trice means they were initially > on a special hit list. The thing is that most people don't survive > the first encounter. The more you defy him ? the more you > get "upgraded" on his hit-list ? you begin to look like a potential > threat. Just by ordinary mathematical killers-rules. > Anyway I understood that since the prophecy indicated parents who > had defied Voldemort trice ? it took place before they were chosen > by Voldemort. > So, as I see it, the prophecy would be sure to direct Voldemort's > attention to the Potters and the Longbottoms. Alla: Oh, sorry, I did not mean that they were initially on the special hit list. I agree with you on this - the more you defy him, the more you get "upgraded" But I am not sure I agree about that occurring before Prophecy at all. We KNOW at least one of Trelawney prophecies, which mostly talks about future events, right? (Pettigrew returning to Voldemort), so I see no problem with Prophecy doing what it supposed to do and "prophesizing" thrice defied part as in it did not happen yet. But you and Pippin could certainly be right. > >Jen: > >No one who has spent time with Voldemort would expect him to take > >a 'wait and see' approach to the prophecy. That's not in his > >psychological make-up and both Snape and Dumbledore know that. > > Orna: > I can see what you mean, but I'm not fully sure. I agree that > Voldemort wouldn't hesitate for mercy-reasons, and his usual way of > dealing with obstacles (Cedric, Frank) is to kill immediately, no > second thought spared. > But still: > DD said that "You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt > when he realized how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy". > So it seems that there was something unexpected in the way Voldemort > decided to go. Or just Snape wasn't aware it turned out to be people > he knew, and was in a life dept towards one of them? Alla: I am fully with Jen on this one ( in fact, Jen I agree with every word of your post or probably almost every word). Have Snape expected that Voldemort will decide to invited for friendly dinner or tea the couple of the Prophecy? I just don't think that he could have seem any other outcomes, except that those whom prophecy is about will be dead meat ASAP the moment Voldemort learns about the Prophecy and decides to act. IMO of course. And I don't see contradiction in DD's words either. To me " unexpected" most likely meant that Potters turned out to be the couple of the Prophecy. That is if Snape's remorse indeed was genuine of course. > Orna: > We know Snape had been a DE. The question IMO is what do we accept > for being an acceptable act/s for accepting him to be one of the > good guys. It's a really difficult question, because being a DE he > is sure to have caused harm, or might even be deaths ? directly or > non-directly, on top of his part in Potters death. We know from > Bellatrix that he probably wasn't very active, slitherin out of > action. Probably did a lot of cunning plans, potions and spell- > inventing, which IMO are also quite harmful. But the question is ? > what do we expect a change of sides to include? Alla: The question in RL would be more complicated, but I sure know what I expect to include in a change of sides in the story of the character who supposedly looking for redemption. REMORSE, real genuine remorse and non-stop hard work to try to right the wrongs he committed, otherwise I don't buy him as one of the good guys. IMO of course. > Pippin: > Okay, I'm confused. How did Voldemort decide that the Potters > were the parents of the One if they hadn't yet defied him three times? Alla: Do we know for a fact that Voldemort was only looking for the couples that can fit under ALL criteria of the Prophecy? This Prophecy does matter only because Voldemort learned it, believed it and started to act upon it, according to Dumbledore, no? So, to me it is a very plausible scenario that for Voldemort the primary criteria was to look for the boy born in July, NOT how often the parents defied him and THAT part of the Prophecy sort of self fulfilled itself. > Jen: > To switch gears, in my mind there *are* extenuating circumstances, > but they're merely speculation. I expect Snape did attempt to save > the Potters after delivering the prophecy. I believe his remorse was > real for whatever yet-to-be-revealed reason. But I do understand why > you feel the way you do, Alla. All these things may have happened > and these feelings been felt, but none of that was told to Harry by > Snape himself. Dumbledore continues to run interference for Snape > with Harry, attempting to make Snape more palatable in Harry's eyes, > it seems, while Snape does nothing to make himself more palatable. Alla: YES, Jen exactly. Thank you for writing how I feel so eloquently. I want to Snape to say " sorry" from his mouth, NOT Dumbledore's or anybody else. Oooops, nobody else is actually sure that he is sorry now. But yes, your scenario is possible, but I want to hear the word from the man himself. As to Sirius, no I would not compare the failed plan to "save" Potters with conspiracy to kill them. > Lupinlore: > "I also have a great deal of experience with abused teens -- > abused literally to death in two cases. And from my point of > view, Snape most definitely IS an abuser, over and out. So are > the Dursleys, but for some reason they don't get as much press, > these days." BAW: > Being a meanie is not the same thing as being an abuser. > Compared to cases I have seen, Snape is as a candle to a bonfire. > The Dursleys, although not nice people, would seem positively > cuddly compared to some of the poor excuses for parents/guardians > I have encountered. Alla: Yes, being a meanie is not the same as being an abuser. NO, I don't see Snape as the worst abuser in the world, but how not being the worst one does not make him an abuser at all? I worked with domestic violence survivors and I saw some horrible cases of physical abuse, but it OFTEN started with very similar to what Snape does ( analogy is loose of course, I am only analogizing the behavior) - namely emotional abuse. I don't see the need to compare what Snape does with the worst cases, you know. On his own, I evaluate Snape as clear-cut example of emotional abuse. Again, I understand that many people don't see it like that, but that is my opinion . JMO, Alla From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Dec 28 21:25:34 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:25:34 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Twins and Duddley/Snape as an abuser References: <15035697.1135800626726.JavaMail.administrator@webmail> Message-ID: <00a701c60bf5$46c5d0a0$6678400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 145522 BAW: > It seems to me that you don't see the difference between what > the Twins did to Dudley and what the Death Eaters did to the > Robinson family at the QWC. Magpie: I see some things that are different and some things that are the same. This is a position I find myself in a lot in HP fandom. BAW: > The Robinsons were minding their own business when a bunch of > Death Eaters came along and levitated them upside down just for > the fun of it. Magpie: Yes. BAW: > Dudley had made a career of tormenting his younger, smaller, > weaker cousin, and had made a habit of eating anything that > didn't eat him first. Magpie: Perhaps the Robinsons had a similar career. I don't know anything about them. Regardless I've already acknowledged about a dozen times that I know who Dudley is and the type of person he is, and that still doesn't make the twins robots who couldn't help but do what they did, nor does it make them saints acting out of altruism. Just as, if Dudley were to suddenly gain magical powers and he showed up at the Weasleys and did something to them to get back at the twins for pranking him, I would consider him acting on his own volition. I realize that the scene is different given the histories of everyone involved. I still feel the same way about the scene as I've been describing. BAW: Now he was at the other end of the > torment AND as a direct consequence of his inability to refrain > from stuffing his fat, ugly face. Magpie: Yes, I get that he is now the one being tormented and that he is fat fat fat (a crime in itself, apparently). The DEs Magically torment Muggles they are not personally annoyed with. BAW: > The Death Eaters would have tormented any Muggles who had the misfortune > to have come into their range. The Twins visited retribution upon someone > who had injured their friend. Magpie: Yes, the twins certainly have no history of Pranking people other than those who have earned retribution by injuring their friend. They get no fun out of Pranking otherwise. Look, I'm not saying the twins are DEs, but I also don't see them as being so different there's nothing they could possibly have in common with them in any way. I think it would be better to acknowledge those similarities than insist they have nothing in common. As a Muggle I wouldn't trust being around either side. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 21:57:16 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 21:57:16 -0000 Subject: Twins and Duddley In-Reply-To: <00a701c60bf5$46c5d0a0$6678400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145523 > BAW: > > Dudley had made a career of tormenting his younger, smaller, > > weaker cousin, and had made a habit of eating anything that > > didn't eat him first. > > Magpie: > > Perhaps the Robinsons had a similar career. I don't know anything about > them. Regardless I've already acknowledged about a dozen times that I know > who Dudley is and the type of person he is, and that still doesn't make the > twins robots who couldn't help but do what they did, nor does it make them > saints acting out of altruism. Just as, if Dudley were to suddenly gain > magical powers and he showed up at the Weasleys and did something to them to > get back at the twins for pranking him, I would consider him acting on his > own volition. Alla: I may have missed something, even though I followed the thread for the most part. I am wondering who said that Twins cannot help what they did? IMO they definitely knew what they were doing, namely punishing Dudley AND testing their products But I completely disagree that they did not have good intentions here. Punishing the tormentor of your friend is IMO good intention, so yeah, I think they had altruistic reasons too,among others of course. I consider Twins to be in many instances the tool which JKR uses to punish bad guys. I would probably evaluated their behaviours a bit differently, if they were less sketchy characters, as it stands now, every time Twins acted, they were smacking the guys who needed to be smacked IMO. Again, I may have evaluated their behaviours a bit differently in RL, but in the books, I love them. Here is again a great example of JKR appeasing the readers who think that Twins behaviour crosses the line, IMO. I think that she is going to close the issue of Twins behaviour by showing that they learned their lesson with selling powder to the wrong hands. Do I think Twins will become DE? Not a chance in the world, if you ask me. IMO of course. Alla From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 22:18:39 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 22:18:39 -0000 Subject: Montague and the Large White Porcelain Bowl Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145524 This is kind of a borderline point, I suspect it should really be in the OT group, but since it does deal with direct interpretation of passages in the book, I'll give it a shot here. In OotP, Montague was thrown into the vanishing cabinet by the Twins for trying to take point from Gryffindor. Later he managed to Apparate out of the vanishing cabinet's nether world and reappeared in a toilet. In a toilet? So, he appeared in a room use for various bodily functions? Or, he literally appeared trapped in a large white porcelain bowl specifically used for said bodily functions? Everyone seem to make a pretty big fuss over him simply appearing in that particular room, so I instinctively went for him being magically trapped in a the porcelain bowl (toilet in that respect). If he simply appeared in the room, why do they even need Snape there, why not just get Madame Pomfrey to take him to the hospital wing? On the other hand if he is literally trapped in the porcelain bowl, that is a lot more complex, and might take some real magic to get him out. It could also account for his long stay in the hospital wing. It's a small point, but I am wondering how others read this, and how they still view in now that I've pointed out other possible interpretations? Oddly curious... oddly. Steve/bboyminn From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Wed Dec 28 22:20:24 2005 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:20:24 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Peter and Prophecy and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145525 Alla said: >Peter is a treacherous bastard and it is quite possible that he is >much worse bastard than Snape, IMO, but there are so many people who >live their lives without being forced to show the worst in their >natures, again IMO. >I think that Snape's actions forced Peter to reveal the worst in his >nature and betray Potters. No, Peter may not have been a better >person if Snape did not do what he did, BUT it is a possible >speculation, IMO that maybe Potters would have never learned of who >Peter really is and especially not with the price of their deaths. PJ: I have to agree with you that Snape's actions (revealing the prophesy to LV) started a domino affect which culminated in the death of Lily and James. For that he should be held accountable and not let off because of an "others were deeply involved too!" kind of thing. If it weren't for Snape's information none of the rest *may* have happened at all... One thing I've been wondering about since I heard about the lollipop theory is, was it really Snape that loved Lilly or could it have been Peter? Not sure I'll explain this well at all but please bear with me on this awhile. :) If Peter had loved Lily he very well may have been jealous of James... James already had money, looks, style and now, THE GIRL! One person shouldn't be allowed everything in life afterall (Peter's thinking I believe) and I feel that could very well be a key to why Peter went over to Voldermort's side and willingly gave him the location of the Potters. Remember, Lily was given a chance to live. What if the reason she was given that choice was a deal made between Voldermort and Peter? In PS/SS Voldermort tells Harry that he can help him be with his Mom and Dad again (but knowing LV, he probably meant beyond the veil even if Harry didn't take it that way) if Harry would join forces with him and give him the stone... What if Peter was sold the same bit of goods in exchange for James and Harry's lives? Peter may have had a fantasy going that once James and Harry were out of the picture she would lean on Peter for comfort and support in their "shared tragedy" and would, over time, realize just how wonderful Peter actually was and fall in love with him! It happens in RL all the time with just the same disastrous outcomes. Perhaps Snape's information didn't *force* Peter to reveal his worst side but iinstead enabled him to put a plan in motion that really had no chance of succeding except in Peter's own mind... Something Voldermort probably knew quite well but which gave him the opportunity to witness Peter's emotional devastation in the rejection first hand while still keeping a loyal follower. Anyway, it's just a half baked thought at the moment though I quite like it. :) PJ From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 22:37:45 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 22:37:45 -0000 Subject: Why I think Lockhart will get out of St Mungo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145526 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jelly92784" wrote: > > Corey said: > 2 The curse that he got hit with was not a extremely bad curse so > while it did cause distress and damage it should not keep him in > St.Mungo for the rest of his life. > > Gerry said: > Actually it was an extremely bad curse. His memory charms were > good enough to take credit from lots of people and write books > about their heroic deeds passing them off as his own. His memory > charms had to be permanent for that, ... life, only this time he > hit the wrong person. > > Janelle: > Keep in mind that the reason Lockhart got hit with the memory > charm in the first place is that he was using Ron's broken wand. > It seems likely to me that his condition is much worse than that > of others he performed the same charm on, due to some complication > with the wand. ... > bboyminn: You are all missing one critical point here. What Lockhart did to the people whose deeds he stole was a selective memory charm. He simply removed their memory of the event Lockhart was taking credit for. That is completely different from what he intended to do to Harry and Ron. He intended to completely wipe out their memories. He intended the memory wipe to be so complete that it appeared that Harry and Ron had lost their minds. That 'mind wipe' was the spell that backfired on him, and he is now suffering from what he intended to inflict on Harry and Ron. So, that is an important point to remember when evaluationg Lockhart's condition. Given the totality of the 'mind wipe', I don't see Lockhart reappearing in any significant or helpful way in the next book. However, I do not think he will have to spend the rest of his life in the hospital. At some point, he may be well enough to care for himself, but I think his days of adventure and wealth are over with. He is now, or eventually will be, doomed to an obscure existance, living of meager royalties from some of his remaining books. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Dec 28 22:47:55 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 22:47:55 -0000 Subject: Last book woes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145527 > Jen D. here: > I tried to say this in our previous exchange but it was Christmas > Eve and things were chaotic but here's the thing: I believe you have > hit on the most important factor in Book 7, the fact that JKR has no > further books to clear things up, make things right, explain odd > plot points, deal with relationships, answer questions, find those > Horcruxes and deal with Voldemort. She has a whale of a job to do > and extremely little time to do it in and I fear she'll rely on > shorthand or worse a fair few deaths to eliminate the need to clear > things up. Wars have deaths. And they clear out plot threads fast as > well as create further motivation for winning the war. How far will > this thing go? How many pages will Book 7 be? I agree with Lupinlore > that we may all be saying "That's it?" about our favorite character > or plotline but it may be a little more final than we expected. > Jen D. > Hickengruendler: I am more optimistic there, even though I wasn't right at after reading HBP. IMO, that's what the Horcruxes are thre for. They keep the plot going and Harry wherever Jo nees him to be. During the books there was made a point, that the wizarding world in Britain is not that big, therefore I don't think it would be too unrealistic, if maybe a bit too artificial, if Harry runs during his Horcrux hunt in several people he knows. One example: There is this theory, which I personally believe is very likely to be true, that Regulus indeed stole the locket, hid it in GP 12, where it was stolen by Mundungus (who later was arrested) and bought by Aberforth. If this is true, than the search for the locket could lead Harry a) back to GP 12, b) maybe to Azkaban and c) to a relative from Dumbledore. And at least the last point has to be significant. I mean, theoretically the crazy old barkeeper, who bought the locket from Mundungus, could have been Aberforth Miller instead of Aberforth Dumbledore. But no, it is the brother of the deceased headmaster, which suggests, that this special visit might tie in with Jo's statement, that we will find out something more about Dumbledore's family. Similarly, the visit at Grimmauld Place could have something to do with the promise, that the mirror will play another role. Or Lucius Malfoy in Azkaban could overhear Harry telling to Mundungus and later, after the breakout I'm sure will happen, tell Voldie about it and get back into his good graces. And this was just one Horcrux. The others could be tied in with some secondary characters storylines as well. Then of course there is the final battle. I know that it was discussed in fandom and used in fanfiction that often, that it's close to become a clich?. But that's not JKR's fault. I also know, that a big battle with many characters was used pretty often in fantasy literature, but so was the plot device about the prophecy, and I don't know a reason, why JKR shouldn't use it as well, if it makes for a satisfying ending. A final battle, particularly if it happens in Hogwarts (which could also tie in with the Horcrux hunt, since it is highly likely that Voldemort would choose Hogwarts as a place to hide a Horcrux. Voldemort could attack the castle in order to protect the last Horcrux, after he heard from the escaped Lucius Malfoy, that Harry was asking questions about the locket), could IMO satisfyingly resolve the subplots of several characters, and IMO not only because they die. Neville's storyline, for example, is IMO still open, not because his parents aren't cured, but because we (or at least I) want to see him appreciated and step out of their shadows. A heroic act during this battle could be one possibility. The same is true for Percy. Something like this could make him reunite with his family. Or similarly, Draco also has to make his final decision, if his friends lives are put in danger. And of course such an attack could do wonders for house unity, if they have to fight together for their lives. (Granted, it didn't in HBP, but then hardly anyone seemed to have realized that the DE's were there). Therefore one scene (if probably a very long one) could tie up several subplots. Of course not everything will be answered. I agree with Betsy, that there's no need to make the WW a Utopia with a fair minister and freed houseelves. There are also some questions, which I think are answered, for example Harry's discussion with Luna about the veil. IMO, the scene was there to present JKR's view, that there's a life after death, and that "they are just lurking out of death". It of course also is meant as a consolation for Harry. I might be mistaken and there will be more to it, but if it isn't, than I think the scene as it stands is poignant enough and does not need to be resolved any further. And finally, I want to mention, that Jo Rowling is after all the woman, who only needed one line (which even was a funny one) to resolve the subplot about the problems between Fleur and the Weasleys convincingly. Hickengruendler From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Dec 28 22:43:44 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:43:44 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Twins and Duddley References: Message-ID: <00de01c60c00$29692dd0$6678400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 145528 > Alla: > > I may have missed something, even though I followed the thread for > the most part. I am wondering who said that Twins cannot help what > they did? IMO they definitely knew what they were doing, namely > punishing Dudley AND testing their products Magpie: People have said that Dudley's tongue swelling up is all his fault. Thus it is not the twins fault--despite the fact that they are the ones that created the candy, went to Dudley's house and dropped it on the floor hoping someone would eat it. I don't know how else to say that all those actions are not their fault unless they somehow can't help what they did. Alla: > > But I completely disagree that they did not have good intentions > here. Punishing the tormentor of your friend is IMO good intention, > so yeah, I think they had altruistic reasons too,among others of > course. Magpie: Yes, I'm sure the fact that Harry would like seeing his old bully tormented was part of their thought process. James probably had similar thoughts when he flipped Snape upside down. He was a dark wizard and I suspect did plenty of awful things to other people. Alla: > > I consider Twins to be in many instances the tool which JKR uses to > punish bad guys. I would probably evaluated their behaviours a bit > differently, if they were less sketchy characters, as it stands now, > every time Twins acted, they were smacking the guys who needed to be > smacked IMO. Magpie: What they happen to wind up doing in the narrative is not the same as what their motivations, though. I don't think the twins always act just to smack down a bad guy, nor do I always agree with their ideas of how to smack down those they think are bad. Alla: > > Again, I may have evaluated their behaviours a bit differently in RL, > but in the books, I love them. Magpie: I like the twins just fine too. I can like them without seeing everything they do as good or feeling the Toffee thing has to be all Dudley's fault. Alla: > > Here is again a great example of JKR appeasing the readers who think > that Twins behaviour crosses the line, IMO. I think that she is going > to close the issue of Twins behaviour by showing that they learned > their lesson with selling powder to the wrong hands. Magpie: We'll see--and of course they also were instrumental in getting DEs into Hogwarts when they decided someone deserved something for trying to take points away from them (perhaps if someone had spoken up about what had happened to Montague during those long weeks he was in the infirmary they would have gotten rid of the Cabinet). But my point here has never been to say the twins have to be punished-that's not my thing. I'm just not going to see them as being all that heroic when they're having a laugh. I got into this thread to respond to the idea that what happened to Dudley with the toffee was all his fault by saying that the twins engineered the Prank. The response to that has been to say that Dudley was mean to Harry and that Dudley is fat and can't stop stuffing his face and I just don't think that makes the *kind* of difference it's being given here. Alla: > > Do I think Twins will become DE? Not a chance in the world, if you > ask me. IMO of course. Magpie: Not sure what that's in answer to. Where does the possibility of their becoming DEs come in? -m From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 23:46:02 2005 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:46:02 -0000 Subject: Lockhart is fairly useless (Was:Why I think Lockhart will get out of St Mungo) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145529 Well it looks like I'm late to the discussion and I preface this by saying that I agree with the post regarding the memory charms of Lockhart being selective. I also support the obliteration of Lockhart's memory and the likelihood that he will not come out of St. Mungo's. This is not an "I agree" post, however. I want to question whether Lockhart would have any value to anyone even if he did recover and re-enter the wizarding world. Other than his gift for memory charms (which I am going to assume is as good as he boasts) Lockhart had no particular talent. His efforts at fixing bones were disastrous, as was his attempt to recapture the (mildly inoffensive) Cornish pixies that he had released. Not to mention the fact that he wanted to run away rather than face the Basilisk (which ostensibly would have been a useful service had he genuinely been a gifted Dark Arts exponent). It is curious as to why Dumbledore hired him in the first place and my view on that is that it was a convoluted plot device. He would be of no value to anyone if he recovered and would most likely only contnue in the vein that is inferred from his espousals during the course of CoS, that is he would serve only himself being a vainglorious and shallow creature. Goddlefrood From h2so3f at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 23:51:48 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:51:48 -0000 Subject: Secondary thought on Patronuses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145530 Julie wrote: "1. Why wouldn't members of the Order already know the identity of Snape's patronus? I think they would, and it could be that they know Snape's patronus has always been a bat (or Hebridean Black). And even if they don't, that would seem a pretty obvious patronus for Snape. And if the Order (or someone like Hermione) would quickly figure out its origin, how could it remain anonymous? " CH3ed: I agree with Juli. I don't know exactly how a patronus communicates, but at least the 5 OotP members who were at 12 GP when Snape contacted them about Harry's disappearance have seen what Snape's pre HBP patronus was. Julie wrote: "My theory: Snape's patronus *was* a bat. That is how the Order members identify messages from him, messages they would certainly ignore after Snape's actions in HBP. So in book seven Snape will change his patronus to something else, the something JKR says will reveal too much (in essence, it will reveal his loyalty to Dumbledore). The brief mention of Tonk's changing her patronus in HBP already served to let us know that a patronus *can* be changed (this bit certainly served no other purpose in HBP). Snape will then use his new post-HBP patronus to send messages to Harry and/or the Order. And since it will have some association with Dumbledore, no one will suspect Dumbledore's murderer could possibly be the one sending anonymous, helpful information to the Good side. Thus Snape will help Harry without revealing himself and ending up dead or in Azkaban first." CH3ed: I agree with most of what Julie says except for the form of a patronus being the way to identify from whom the patronus is from and the intentional changing of one's patronus. Like PotionCat in the other thread, I don't think one can intentionally change one's patronus (just like one can't pick what animal one turns into when one learned how to become an animagus). Tonks' changed patronus form is likely involuntary( I wonder if her patronus is back to its pre-HBP form now that Tonks and Lupin are together). I think the change of one's patronus reflects the change in one's character and that's why JKR can't reveal Snape's patronus form (and his greatest fear...in the form of his boggart). It would spoil the mystery of where Snape really stands. Also if the form of the patronus is the only way to identify who sent it then Snape shouldn't have recognized Tonks' changed patronus in HBP. So I agree with Steve/bboyminn that there are other features in the message-delivering patronus that helps identify it beside its shape. CH3ed :O) From monica.schuster at mci.com Wed Dec 28 22:22:23 2005 From: monica.schuster at mci.com (captainconk) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 22:22:23 -0000 Subject: Twins and Duddley/Snape as an abuser In-Reply-To: <15035697.1135800626726.JavaMail.administrator@webmail> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145531 Bruce: > It seems to me that you don't see the difference between what > the Twins did to Dudley and what the Death Eaters did to the > Robinson family at the QWC. > > The Robinsons were minding their own business when a bunch of > Death Eaters came along and levitated them upside down just > for the fun of it. > > Dudley had made a career of tormenting his younger, smaller, > weaker cousin, and had made a habit of eating anything that > didn't eat him first. Now he was at the other end of the > torment AND as a direct consequence of his inability to > refrain from stuffing his fat, ugly face. SNIP A BUNCH Captainconk: I must admit when I read this scene (the twins and Dudley and the TTT) I cheered, because I feel like he did have something coming. He's a jerk and that is just canon. After reading this thread for however long it's been going on now, I can kinda see where the "Dudley was a victim of muggle bating" argument is coming from. It's kind of like the, "why don't you pick on someone your own size" idea. If the twins had say fought Dudley with no magic, or just had an argument or something along those lines NOT USING MAGIC, that would have been fair. But is it fair to use a technique that both sides cannot use? Dudley is guilty of this as well with Harry, using brute force when Harry clearly cannot fight back with the same effectiveness, but Harry also never resorted to magic to get back at Dudley (on purpose that is), not to mention that it was not the Twin's fight. But that is the thing right? Teenagers make bad choices all the time and get involved with issues that are not their's. So yeah, using magic when both parties can't use it is wrong, it's bully behavior, and it's just not fair. But so is beating up an underweight child who clearly cannot defend himself (Not to mention that Harry wears glasses!!!) in the same fashion that he is being attacked with. So everyone is wrong, and we are back to the whole teenagers make bad decisions all the time point. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 01:00:01 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 01:00:01 -0000 Subject: TBAY: ...NOT a Snape Theory - NO Debt Repayment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145532 > bboyminn: > Next, Life_InDebted!Snape is based on a few assumptions whether you > want to accept it or not. Neri: As I suggested in the original TBAY, I think Faith wasn't entirely truthful when she claimed she didn't use any assumptions in LID!Snape. She did gloss over some points. But IMO she still has a pretty strong case regardless, as I'll explain below. > bboyminn: > It assumes how the Life Debt works. Maybe > 'Life Debt' is not a magical imperative but a moral one or even a > social one. That doesn't mean 'magic at its deepest' can't be > involved, but so far we have no evidence that Life Debt creates an > irresistable magical compulsion to act in some specific way. It is > entirely possible that the Life Debt can be completely ignore with no > consequences beyond a guilty conscience. I'm not saying that is > specifically true, only that we don't know the nature, actions, and > consequences of a Life Debt. Neri: It is possible, of course, that the Life Debt doesn't create any magical compulsion, although if so, how exactly is it "magic in its deepest, most impenetrable"? But regardless of how the magical mechanics work (or not), for thematic reasons it seems almost impossible that Wormtail wouldn't at least try to pay his Debt as Dumbledore predicted, and that Snape wouldn't finally succeed in saving Harry's life. Both of these debts were highlighted in Dumbledore's end-of-the-year talks. I doubt very much that they were placed there just as red herrings. > bboyminn: > In fact, exactly what creates a Life Debt is a little grey. For > example, JKR said in an interview that Ginny did NOT incure a Life > Debt to Harry for his rescue of her from the Chamber of Secrets. That > would imply that it is not simply a matter of saving another wizard. > The action has to be direct, clear, and unambiguos and which saves a > person from imminent, direct, and indisputable death. > Neri: This grayness is the reason (beside the ideological) why Faith refuses to speculate about the nature of the Life Debt. We indeed know nearly nothing about it, which makes any speculation extremely... speculative. But the reason we know so little is precisely because JKR told us practically nothing about it. Now, in the case of theories like LOLLIPOPS (which also used a similar argument) I can say: "the reason that JKR told us nothing about LOLLIPOPS might simply be that there isn't such a thing". But I can hardly say: "the reason that JKR told us nothing about the Life Debt magic might simply be that there isn't such a thing". First, it's canon that it does exist; secondly, all the thematic considerations point out it's going to play big. Since you mentioned Ginny *not* owing a Life Debt to Harry it is worth checking JKR's exact wording when she said it: ************************************************** http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm MA: Does she have a life debt to Harry from book two? JKR: No, not really. Wormtail is different. You know, part of me would just love to explain the whole thing to you, plot of book seven, you know, I honestly would. ************************************************ So, there is a "whole thing" to explain here, only she can't because it would ruin Book 7. Now this doesn't make Life Debt speculations any less speculative. We still know practically nothing about it. But it suggests that at least we are speculating about an important issue. IOW, with the Life Debt we are in a situation where the less we are told about the details, the more we are sure that it's because these details are vital. > bboyminn: > Another example that illustrates this fine distinction is that while > James gave his life protecting Harry, his sacrifice didn't count in > the same way that Lily's did. Lily's actions was far more direct and > immediate. > Neri: Yes, but AFAIK it has never been suggested in canon that James' sacrifice does count. It has also never been suggested in canon that Ginny does owe a debt to Harry. But Snape continues trying to save Harry's life, while giving any other indication that he hates him, and Dumbledore said he does it because of his "debt" to James. So coming up in the end with a distinction like: "well, James *did* save Snape's life and Snape *did* want to pay this debt and this *is* why he tried to save Harry several times, *but* it wasn't really a Life Debt because..." is probably going to look like splitting extremely fine hairs. > bboyminn: > Further, we don't know the exact nature and mechanism of the Life > Debt. Any Life Debt theories or non-theories are based in an > assumption of how Life Debt works. > Neri: As I'm trying to say, Life Debt non-theories don't necessarily have to be based on the assumption of how the Life Debt works, because regardless of *how* it works there are very good indications, in fact practically canon status indications, that the Life Debt does exist, that it's important to the plot, and that it's at least part of the reason why Snape keeps attempting saving Harry. Neri From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Dec 29 01:17:54 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 01:17:54 -0000 Subject: Twins and Duddley/Snape as an abuser In-Reply-To: <00a701c60bf5$46c5d0a0$6678400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145533 Magpie: > > Yes, I get that he is now the one being tormented and that he is fat fat fat > (a crime in itself, apparently). The DEs Magically torment Muggles they are > not personally annoyed with. Ceridwen: Wasn't Dudley on a diet that year? If he was, then the temptation was probably far out of his hands. Sneaking a candy when his mother wasn't looking? A gift from heaven! I've been on diets. Ugh! The worst was when I had gestational diabetes. The husband and son sat there eating M&Ms and cupcakes, while I had nothing until the appointed time. Water and carrots just don't cut it when it's sweets you crave! And, Dudley wasn't on a diabetic diet, IIRC. It was just to get his weight down. Having been on non-diabetic diets, I know that if you don't 'cheat' once in a while, you end up going overboard and off the diet completely. I actually felt sorry for Dudley in that scene (though he did have some comeuppance due!). The twins played to a failing and a forbidden craving. I don't think it was nice. I also don't think they thought ahead very much at all on it. But, they've probably never had to diet, so what the heck, in their opinions. Ceridwen. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 01:37:16 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 01:37:16 -0000 Subject: TBAY: ...NOT a Snape Theory - NO Debt Repayment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145534 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > ...edited... > Neri: > As I'm trying to say, Life Debt non-theories don't necessarily > have to be based on the assumption of how the Life Debt works, > because regardless of *how* it works there are very good > indications, in fact practically canon status indications, that > the Life Debt does exist, that it's important to the plot, and > that it's at least part of the reason why Snape keeps attempting > saving Harry. > > > Neri > bboyminn: Neri, Right, I understand your point, and I accept it. Much speculation, meaning other theories (many of them my own), are based on the most scant canon, and merely expanded on by great speculation. However, in the Potter world, Life Debt is an absolute fact, and further, even though we don't know the details of it, the Life Debt Mechanism is also an absolute fact. Still further, we know for an absolute fact that Snape has a Life Debt to Harry's father, and Dumbledore indicates that, by some mechanism, the obligation of that Life Debt has transferred to Harry. So, in that sense, LID!Snape is founded on a lot solider ground than may other theories. Further, enough has been made of these Life Debts to reasonably assume that they will play a part in, what now will be, the final book. I was simply making a small side point, and that point was that many fans (perhaps even Hermione) are under the misconception that Snape has /actually/ saved Harry's life. Then extending that further, they mistakenly assume that these alleged 'life savings' cancel Snape's life debt. I'm pointing out that that is wrong. Snape never saved Harry life (so far, at least). I wasn't trying to shoot down the basic theory/idea/thought. I was merely clearing up a small misconception. Peace and love. Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 02:11:56 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 02:11:56 -0000 Subject: Twins and Duddley In-Reply-To: <00de01c60c00$29692dd0$6678400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145535 > Alla: > > > > But I completely disagree that they did not have good intentions > > here. Punishing the tormentor of your friend is IMO good intention, > > so yeah, I think they had altruistic reasons too,among others of > > course. > > Magpie: > > Yes, I'm sure the fact that Harry would like seeing his old bully tormented > was part of their thought process. James probably had similar thoughts when > he flipped Snape upside down. He was a dark wizard and I suspect did plenty > of awful things to other people. Alla: Well....yes. Except we don't know what thoughts James had and whether any underlying retribution played any part in what they did to Snape. I suspect it did and I said many times that while this scene would always be ugly on its own in my mind (unless we find out that dear Severus tampered with his memory just as Slughorn did), if retribution did play the part in that, I would certainly not judge James and Sirius as harshly as I do now. Their behaviour would never be justifiable to me, but it would definitely explain things. As to Dudley though - it is clear to me that it is JKR playing retribution on Dudley for all those years of "Harry's hunting", so no matter how many practical jokes twins play on Dudley, I am cheering them on and saying "More, please". As a small aside, I am certainly NOT a skinny person. I don't think that I am very big, but I guess am big enough to be called fat. It is funny that mockery of Dudley's gluttony does not bother me at the slightest. Why? Because what I see in Dudley first and foremost is a bully, a teenager of very unpleasant character and his weight does not even come into play for me to decide that I hate him and am happy to see him smacked by anybody. JMO of course. > Magpie: > > What they happen to wind up doing in the narrative is not the same as what > their motivations, though. I don't think the twins always act just to smack > down a bad guy, nor do I always agree with their ideas of how to smack down > those they think are bad. Alla: But I don't think that we are going to learn about their motivations a lot though, because they are not fully developed characters, that is why to me what they do in the narrative DOES equal their motivations. And we have to agree to disagree - I think that when Twins play rough, they do act to smack down bad guy. I don't think that they cross the line on their friends. As to whether I agree or disagree with their ideas of how to do it,well what matters to me the most is that bad guys ( whom I consider bad guys) get smacked. The execution is secondary to me. I am not even sure if I like practical jokes or not. I LOVE jokes, but I don't think that I had been subjected to jokes which could be analogised to what Twins do. My friends are just not that inventive in the jokes' department. > Magpie: > > I like the twins just fine too. I can like them without seeing everything > they do as good or feeling the Toffee thing has to be all Dudley's fault. Alla: Well, we all have different ways of liking characters, I guess. :-) With more developed character ( Sirius is a good example) I can certainly like him AND realize his multiple flaws, with less developed characters which Twins are IMO, I have to decide for myself what is their primary function in the text is and whether I like that function or not. If I don't like their function, I am not going to like sketchy characters, I am going to dislike them, because there would be nothing to like them for, if it makes any kind of sense. To me Twins' function in the text is to provide laughs to their friends AND to punish enemies. I like both, therefore I like pretty much everything they do. As to whether it was Dudley's fault, IMO it certainly was, but not for what he did in that scene, although really, nobody forced that candy into him, IMO, but primarily for what he did before that. > Magpie: > > We'll see--and of course they also were instrumental in getting DEs into > Hogwarts when they decided someone deserved something for trying to take > points away from them (perhaps if someone had spoken up about what had > happened to Montague during those long weeks he was in the infirmary they > would have gotten rid of the Cabinet). Alla: ?????? I thought Draco was the proximate cause of getting DE into Hogwarts. IMO Twins are way too remote from that. But that is JMO of course. > Alla: > > > > Do I think Twins will become DE? Not a chance in the world, if you > > ask me. IMO of course. > > Magpie: > > Not sure what that's in answer to. Where does the possibility of their > becoming DEs come in? Alla: Sorry, I was thinking about thread in general. I think Betsy thinks that one of the Twins will become DE, if I am not mistaken. JMO, Alla From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Thu Dec 29 02:32:54 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 03:32:54 +0100 Subject: Montague and the Large White Porcelain Bowl References: Message-ID: <00f701c60c20$3421b970$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 145536 Steve wrote: > This is kind of a borderline point, I suspect it should really be in > the OT group, but since it does deal with direct interpretation of > passages in the book, I'll give it a shot here. Miles: I don't think that it is borderline or OT, because it gives some fine points to start discussion and text work. Steve wrote: > In OotP, Montague was thrown into the vanishing cabinet by the Twins > for trying to take point from Gryffindor. Later he managed to Apparate > out of the vanishing cabinet's nether world and reappeared in a > toilet. Miles: Just found the quote: >>'They've found Montague, sir, he's turned up jammed inside a toilet on the fourth floor.' 'How did he get in there?' demanded Snape. 'I don't know, sir, he's a bit confused.'<< (OotP, ch 28) Steve wrote: > In a toilet? > So, he appeared in a room use for various bodily functions? > Or, he literally appeared trapped in a large white porcelain bowl > specifically used for said bodily functions? Miles: Hm, difficult for me to interpret English that exactly, maybe native speakers should do it. But I understand "jammed INSIDE a toilet" as "inside the bowl". A toilet understood as just a room, how could you get "jammed" inside it? Even a cubicle is big enough for more than one person to stand in without being jammed. Apart from this, just look at the question Snape asks - "How did he get in there?". He would not ask this if they spoke of a room. The answer would simply be "through the door", and not "I don't know". So, I think we can be quite sure that Montague is stuck in porcelain, otherwise the dialogue quoted would not make any sense. Steve wrote: > If he simply appeared in the room, why do they even need Snape there, > why not just get Madame Pomfrey to take him to the hospital wing? On > the other hand if he is literally trapped in the porcelain bowl, that > is a lot more complex, and might take some real magic to get him out. > It could also account for his long stay in the hospital wing. Miles: I think there are two points connected to this. 1) We know that apparating is quite tricky, even a lot of fully qualified wizards and witches avoid it and choose more secure ways of travelling. We read in HBP the way young wizards learn apparating. In the first hours no single student manages to move just a centimeter, and the first students who manage to do something splinter themselves, leaving parts of their bodies at the starting spot. We can imagine that Montague's problem is similar - he did not splinter, but didn't manage to concentrate on the location he wanted to apparate to. So he just ended up "somewhere outside the cabinet", and this could have been inside a wall as well, so maybe he was lucky to apparate just inside a toilet. Reminds me of the film Philadelphia Experiment... 2) The other problem is: You cannot apparate in Hogwarts. Hermine said so, so it must be right ;). But obviously you *can* apparate in Hogwarts, Montague did. Maybe the protection of Hogwarts is not described precisely in "A History of Hogwarts". Would not be too surprising, if it is vague concerning security. Just to start speculation: Maybe apparating in Hogwarts is extremely dangerous, because it is impossible to determine exactly where you appear. Obviously wizards concentrate on the target location, which is normally outside solid walls, not ten feet above ground, and not inside toilet bowls. Maybe it is impossible to "aim" in Hogwarts, so you are in high danger to end up somewhere inside the castle, but not at your destination. Assuming this theory, the problem of Montague was not that he apparated without being qualified to do so, but that he apparated in Hogwarts where noone is supposed to apparate. Miles From xxneuman07xx at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 03:14:54 2005 From: xxneuman07xx at yahoo.com (xxneuman07xx) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 03:14:54 -0000 Subject: The Second Horcrux Thief Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145537 The first Horcrux thief is R.A.B. The second Horcrux thief is none other then Lily Potter! It's such a simple solution that I'm amazed that no one thought of it before. Think about it: -Lily needs a character flaw. And a secret. -And she needs a reason to be offered a chance to live by LV. Needing to get his Horcrux back provides a reason. She wouldn't even need to know the significance of the thing she stole. -It provides a resonable way to advance the plot fairly quickly without stretching the suspension of disbelief to much. Well, thats all I got for now. As you can see, it barely has any cannon support. So, start poking holes in it, not that hard really. -Neuman From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Dec 29 04:11:29 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 04:11:29 -0000 Subject: Montague and the Large White Porcelain Bowl In-Reply-To: <00f701c60c20$3421b970$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145538 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > > Steve wrote: > > 2) The other problem is: You cannot apparate in Hogwarts. Hermine said so, > so it must be right ;). But obviously you *can* apparate in Hogwarts, > Montague did. > Maybe the protection of Hogwarts is not described precisely in "A History of > Hogwarts". Would not be too surprising, if it is vague concerning security. > Just to start speculation: Maybe apparating in Hogwarts is extremely > dangerous, because it is impossible to determine exactly where you appear. > Obviously wizards concentrate on the target location, which is normally > outside solid walls, not ten feet above ground, and not inside toilet bowls. > Maybe it is impossible to "aim" in Hogwarts, so you are in high danger to > end up somewhere inside the castle, but not at your destination. > > Assuming this theory, the problem of Montague was not that he apparated > without being qualified to do so, but that he apparated in Hogwarts where > noone is supposed to apparate. > > Miles > Allie: I think the idea really is you are not supposed to be able to apparate inside Hogwarts *at all* (unless you are a House Elf), regardless of aim, destination, etc. Maybe there is some sort of loophole/exception for life-threatening situations as there is in the Reasonable Restriction for Underage Sorcery? From ldorman at researchbydesign.com Thu Dec 29 03:31:07 2005 From: ldorman at researchbydesign.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 03:31:07 -0000 Subject: Montague and the Large White Porcelain Bowl Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145539 Miles wrote > Assuming this theory, the problem of Montague was not that he >apparated >without being qualified to do so, but that he apparated in Hogwarts >where >noone is supposed to apparate. Lana writes: The vanishing cabinet seems to use a mechanism that is quite different from apparition. Apparition occurs, as Miles wrote, when "wizards contentrate on the target location." It is a deliberate act of volition. On the other hand, the Vanishing Cabinet seems to send its occupants (riders?) to another location (the second, connected Vanishing Cabinet) rather like the Wizard equivalent of an elevator. Montague was stuck in some kind of limbo within Hogwarts because the second Cabinet was not connected to the Hogwarts Cabinet. Maybe Montague did not apparate out (Yes, Hermione, we know what you are going to say) but was thrust out by a Vanishing Cabinet with a mind of its own (and perhaps a sense of humor). Nowhere does Hermione or Jo tell us that you can't move by magical means around Hogwarts ? indeed, we see things move all the time by way of various spells. The Vanishing Cabinet might be exercising its own magical powers, maybe a Cabinet's equivalent of the Banishing Charm. Hmmm, I wonder if Jo intended to create a Vanishing Banishing Charm? Lana whose favorite dogs are Kiba, Kiana and Kaya From juli17 at aol.com Thu Dec 29 05:49:25 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 00:49:25 EST Subject: TBAY: ...NOT a Snape Theory - NO Debt Repayment Message-ID: <2cd.d0cde7.30e4d2e5@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145540 Steve wrote: In fact, exactly what creates a Life Debt is a little grey. For example, JKR said in an interview that Ginny did NOT incure a Life Debt to Harry for his rescue of her from the Chamber of Secrets. That would imply that it is not simply a matter of saving another wizard. The action has to be direct, clear, and unambiguos and which saves a person from imminent, direct, and indisputable death. Julie: I snipped the part about Snape not actually saving Harry's life in PS/SS or PoA, because it is techincally true if the action has to save the person from imminent, direct and indisputable death. But here's my problem: As I recall, James did NOT save Snape from imminent, direct and indisputable death. Yes, he stopped Snape from entering Lupin's lair, but we don't really know if Snape could have used magic to defend himself from a Lupin in werewolf form. Just like Harry falling off the broom in PS/SS, Snape might have been injured, but we don't know indisputably that he would have died if he'd entered the Shrieking Shack. In fact, Sirius didn't seem to think so, as he considered it all a big joke, even though Snape believed Sirius was actually trying to kill him. So why would Snape owe James a life debt, if his death wasn't a certain outcome? I'm not disputing the debt was owed, just the circumstances under which a life debt is incurred. We know Snape did owe that life debt to James. And since James effort to save Snape was from a *possible* death, wouldn't Snape doing the same for Harry in PS/SS-- trying to save Harry from a *possible* death--in effect pay the life debt (as Dumbledore did imply later in PS/SS)? Julie (who thinks Snape only owed one life debt---to James-- and that it has been paid back already) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Thu Dec 29 06:11:45 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 06:11:45 -0000 Subject: Secondary thought on Patronuses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145541 CH3ed wrote: > > Also if the form of the patronus is the only way to identify who > sent it then Snape shouldn't have recognized Tonks' changed patronus > in HBP. So I agree with Steve/bboyminn that there are other features > in the message-delivering patronus that helps identify it beside its > shape. > Julie: This is a good point. But it is possible Snape identified Tonks' changed patronus *after the fact.* When he saw that she was the one escorting Harry, he knew it was her patronus--one he didn't associate with her until that moment. I found it interesting that his snarky comment about her new patronus being "weak" was said as something of an afterthought. (And again, this brief mention was pointless to the plot of HBP, but there must be some reason JKR introduced the concept!) Julie From h2so3f at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 06:21:59 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 06:21:59 -0000 Subject: Montague and the Large White Porcelain Bowl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145542 CH3ed: I'll trust Hermione and say that Montague did not apparate inside Hogwarts. It seems that the vanishing cabinet was traveling between Hogwarts and B&B (adding to Montague's confusion while he was trapped in it). So I think it likely that he was having the hardest and fruitless time trying to apparate out of that cabinet while it and him were at Hogwarts. His semi-success probably came during the time that the cabinet was traveling to Hogwarts from B&B. My speculation, of course. CH3ed :O) From h2so3f at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 06:33:24 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 06:33:24 -0000 Subject: Secondary thought on Patronuses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145543 Julie wrote: "I found it interesting that his snarky comment about her new patronus being "weak" was said as something of an afterthought. (And again, this brief mention was pointless to the plot of HBP, but there must be some reason JKR introduced the concept!)" CH3ed: I wonder if that comment isn't meant to show Snape's dismissive attitude toward love. You know, 'love is for the weak' stuff. That would possibly be a result of him having a bad experience with it in the past. CH3ed is off in persuit of that flighty temptress, a good sleep. ;o) Good night all! From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 06:49:44 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 06:49:44 -0000 Subject: TBAY: ...NOT a Snape Theory - NO Debt Repayment In-Reply-To: <2cd.d0cde7.30e4d2e5@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145544 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote: > > > Steve wrote: > > In fact, exactly what creates a Life Debt is a little grey. > ... The action has to be direct, clear, and unambiguos and > which saves a person from imminent, direct, and indisputable > death. > > > Julie: > ...edited... > > So why would Snape owe James a life debt, if his death > wasn't a certain outcome? I'm not disputing the debt was > owed, just the circumstances under which a life debt is > incurred. We know Snape did owe that life debt to James. > And since James effort to save Snape was from a *possible* > death, wouldn't Snape doing the same for Harry in PS/SS-- > trying to save Harry from a *possible* death--in effect pay > the life debt (as Dumbledore did imply later in PS/SS)? > > > Julie bboyminn: Well, on the details, I can only speculate. It's one thing to think that Snape got so far, and James caught him and told Snape it was unwise to continue, and the two wandered back to the castle. But it's quite another if Snape resists. If Snape insist on going into the Shreiking Shack where he would be trapped in a confined space with a werewolf which would most likely kill him, and James had to force Snape to return to the castle. In the second case, James would surely be saving Snape. In the first case, they merely avoided a problem, but in the second case, James actively prevented a problem. Further, Snape, or was it Lupin, said Snape caught a glimpse of the werewolf, but what if it was more than a glimse? What if James had to fight off Lupin in order to save Snape? Again, to catch a glimpse is not that big a deal, but to actively have to fight off the werewolf to prevent him from getting to Snape is definitely a big deal. Again, this is just pure speculation, but it illustrates the point that there could have been circumstances in which Snape's life was truly in danger. All involved seem to agree that if Snape had actually entered the Shrieking Shack, he would be dead. We can argue that Snape could have fought the Werewolf, but I don't think werewolves are that much for face-to-face dueling. They more likely attack unexpectedly from a place of hiding, and rip your throat out before you even have a chance to react. Again, it's just speculation, but Dumbledore, Snape, James, and Lupin seem to agree that Snape would have been dead, and if pressed on the issue, I suspect Sirius would agree as well. Not sure what that all adds up to, but there it is. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 07:02:11 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 07:02:11 -0000 Subject: Montague and the Large White Porcelain Bowl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145545 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "h2so3f" wrote: > > CH3ed: > I'll trust Hermione and say that Montague did not apparate inside > Hogwarts. It seems that the vanishing cabinet was traveling between > Hogwarts and B&B .... So I think it likely that he was having the > hardest and fruitless time trying to apparate out of that cabinet > while it and him were at Hogwarts. His semi-success probably came > during the time that the cabinet was traveling to Hogwarts from > B&B. My speculation, of course. > > > CH3ed :O) bboyminn: Again, just speculating, but I think once you are in the Vanishing Cabinet you are, in a sense, nowhere. You are neither here nor there. In an odd sense, you are in a nether world or the twilight zone or in non-space or what ever you want to call it, but you are not in the real world. Consequently, when Montague apparated, he didn't apparate from somewhere to somewhere, he apparated from nowhere to somewhere and I think that was the loophole that allowed him to appear in the boundaries of Hogwarts. But I also agree, that the protections on the castle likely make his re-appearance an uncontrolled event; the castle resisted his appearance within its boundaries. When he busted out of nowhere, where he reappeared was up for grabs, and all normal safety measures associated with normal apparation were also up for grabs. So, that's why he ended up in the very unlikely place of 'jammed in a toilet'. Also, as someone else pointed out, Montague probably didn't have a specific destination in mind. He probably envisioned himself as 'out of here', and focused all his magic on accomplishing that. That also doesn't make for a very controlled apparation. A lot of speculation, but it seems like reasonable speculation to me. Steve/bboyminn From h2so3f at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 08:10:12 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 08:10:12 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145546 Monique wrote: "What exactly did she (Mme. Bones) mean by "past events"? How big of an event or events was it that it had to be "closely monitored"? Was Harry going to live there the event? -- I think it has something to do with this : (LV talking) "But how to get at Harry Potter? For he has been better protected that I think even he knows, protected in ways devised by Dumbledore long ago, when it fell to him to arrange the boy's future. 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...." (GOF, pg, 657 US, Ch 33) IMO, DD did very big and important magic at Privet Drive before he took Harry there. And because the books say "ways" and "events" it was more than one single piece of magic. Enough to get the Ministry involved. It would explain the time that's missing from LV downfall and Harry showing up at the Dursleys. CH3ed: Welcome to the group, Monique!! :O) I don't really know what Mme. Bones was referring to either. It could be from Harry's previous citations about using magic out of school (Dobby's levitating the cake in CoS, and Harry dilating his aunt in PoA). It seems they might have checked to make sure no wizard other than Harry lived in Little Whinging, and so it must have been Harry breaking the law. Or maybe Mme. Bones was referring to something else entirely. As to the second point, my impression is that the ancient magic was invoked by Lily's act of shielding her son.... and what DD did was completing the deal by making sure that Lily's only surviving relative allows Harry a house room. Once Petunia accepted Harry to live with her the ancient magical protection contract is sealed and became effective as long as Harry can call Petunia's house his home until he comes of age. Monique wrote: "Also, how does LV know that he can't touch Harry there? LV's been "less than the meanest ghost" since that night he tried to kill Harry. So who told him about the ancient magic? Given the two passages and the few people LV came in contact with since that night I think it was Bertha Jorkins who told him. She would have known all about it if the Ministry had been monitoring that place since before Harry went to live there." CH3ed: I doubt that Bertha Jorkins knew about Harry's ancient magic protection at The Dursleys'. I think it likely that LV deduced it from having that AK rebounded on him and from his encounter with Harry in PS/SS (Quirrell/LV couldn't touch Harry). I don't think LV didn't have an idea of how love magic works. He's just averse to it and so tends to ignore or dismiss it and that caused his own downfall the first time when he forgot he couldn't touch Harry after killing Lily (he admitted it in the graveyard scene in GoF). What I wonder about is why LV doesn't try to assassinate Petunia. It seems to me that if Petunia doesn't live, then Harry wouldn't have a 'place where his mother's blood dwells' as a safe place to hide in. Monique wrote: "What was the ancient magic, if any? How does this tie in with Book 7? And DD's story? I just wanted share my thoughts and ask everyone else's." CH3ed: I think the ancient magic is the love that Lily showed in dying in the place of her son. And that love is somehow tied to blood relatives, so Petunia must accept Harry into her home for the protection to kick in. DD's part is in recognizing that there was a deal to zeal, and he made sure that it got sealed indeed. I suppose there was a witness (live or portrait) to Lily's action at GH who told DD how LV's AK rebounded and LV didn't die from it, so DD would realized that LV had done something that prevented him from dying....probably made a horcrux...and so the danger wasn't over yet (tho plenty other wizards thought LV had died) and DD needed to protect Harry by utilizing Lily's selfless action. CH3ed .... sleep is a flighty temptess indeed, but I'm not giving up yet...just taking a break from my quest. ;O) From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Dec 29 08:38:12 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 08:38:12 -0000 Subject: Twins and Duddley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145547 > > Alla: > > ?????? I thought Draco was the proximate cause of getting DE into > Hogwarts. IMO Twins are way too remote from that. But that is JMO of > course. > Hickengruendler: But Draco basically got his idea with the vanishing cabinet from the twins. If the twins hadn't pushed Montague in there, or if anyone (including the Trio), who knew that would have told somebody, than the Death Eaters might never have made their way into the castle. Of course Draco is more responsible here than the twins are, starting with the simple fact that Draco wanted the Death Eaters to get into Hogwarts, while Fred and George never had anything like this in their minds. Nonetheless, it was one of their pranks, which more or less directly lead to disaster. And I must say, that I'm a bit glad about this, because the scene with Montague always disturbed me, not because of the twins' action itself, but because of the absolutely coldness and uncaringness from the Gryffindors involved after it happened (except maybe Hermione, and she, too, didn't say anything that she has informations about Montague's whereabouts in the end). Now, that there's a realistic chance that we are meant to feel the way I did and that the Death Eaters' using this to enter Hogwarts could be seen as karma getting back at our protagonists, I like the scene better. It's just a pity, that poor Bill has to suffer for it. Hickengruendler From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Dec 29 09:37:11 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:37:11 -0000 Subject: Twins and Duddley/Snape as an abuser In-Reply-To: <00a701c60bf5$46c5d0a0$6678400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145548 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: > > Perhaps the Robinsons had a similar career. I don't know anything about > them. We as readers don't know and it is a safe guess the groop of death eaters does not either. Besides two of the Robinsons are small children being tortured by a group of adults in public. Completely different from what the twins did. The twins don't discriminate and don't think themselves superior for having magic. Regardless I've already acknowledged about a dozen times that I know > who Dudley is and the type of person he is, and that still doesn't make the > twins robots who couldn't help but do what they did, nor does it make them > saints acting out of altruism. Nope, they are practical jokers. > Magpie: > > Yes, I get that he is now the one being tormented and that he is fat fat fat > (a crime in itself, apparently). The DEs Magically torment Muggles they are > not personally annoyed with. > Actually I don't think the fatness is the crime but him being fat while Harry goes hungry, which is mostly Petunia's fault. Gerry From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Dec 29 14:05:52 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 14:05:52 -0000 Subject: Montague and the Large White Porcelain Bowl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145549 "Steve" wrote: > So, he appeared in a room use for various bodily functions? > > Or, he literally appeared trapped in a large white porcelain bowl > specifically used for said bodily functions? Potioncat: Well, that's how I took it too. And since you've asked, two other thoughts have come to my mind.....at the same time, must be a record! 1) I'll bet Fred and George almost died laughing at that. 2) I've always wondered what the heck a vanishing cabinet was, given even young wizards can mangage an Evanesco spell, but, in a way, a toilet is a vanishing cabinet. In the US there is a toilet bowl cleaner by the name of "Vanish." If someone had actually told Madam Pomfrey what had happened, DD could have gotten rid of the thing. Although I wonder why Montague never told her? From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Dec 29 14:48:33 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 14:48:33 -0000 Subject: Patronuses in general (was Re: Secondary thought on Patronuses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145550 > Julie: > This is a good point. But it is possible Snape identified Tonks' > changed patronus *after the fact.* When he saw that she was the one > escorting Harry, he knew it was her patronus--one he didn't associate > with her until that moment. I found it interesting that his snarky > comment about her new patronus being "weak" was said as something of an > afterthought. (And again, this brief mention was pointless to the plot > of HBP, but there must be some reason JKR introduced the concept!) > Potioncat: There is so much we don't know about Patronuses! I thought Snape knew who the Patronus was from, before he heard it and certainly after he heard its message. I'm assuming it's only Order members who even know about this form of communication. His comment tells us that her Patronus had changed. I wonder how the less involved reader took that? It's only those like us who would have known that they are unique to the sender, etc., etc. Was his snarkiness directed at Lupin, perhaps? Snape is saying that Lupin is weak or weaker than whomever/whatever Tonk's former Patronus form was. Or was he commneting on Tonk's weakness? That she is weaker than she was? She says the Patronus was intended for Hagrid. Now, does that mean she sent it to Hagrid or to the place she expected Hagrid to be? That is, she expected Hagrid to be on "duty" at a special place, but instead Snape was on duty. If it was sent "to Hagrid" how did Snape "read" it? (Sort of reminds me of when my daughters' friends IM her when I'm the one on-line. A Mom can learn a lot that way ;-) ) And of course, how will a changing Patronus play out in book 7. Will it be someone's Patronus that we readers already know or will it be someone whose Patronus we don't know? Someone else who has had a big shock is Harry. Could his Patronus change from a stag to a Phoenix? Potioncat, as I've said before, we cats have more questions than answers. From coverton at netscape.com Thu Dec 29 14:48:32 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (corey_over) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 14:48:32 -0000 Subject: Fleur's role in book VII Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145551 Hi, all list members. This is my first time posting to the group's web site (instead of from e-mail). Why I think Fleur will be helpful in book 7. 1. She'll want revenge for what happened to Bill at the hands of Greyback. The reason I think this is cause she's got a little of a mean streak in her. It's not bad but beyond the beauty is a ferocity versus the dark side that might come out. I know this post doesn't have much weight, but I tried. Your fellow list member, Corey From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Thu Dec 29 15:24:31 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:24:31 -0000 Subject: Patronuses in general (was Re: Secondary thought on Patronuses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145552 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > Julie: > > This is a good point. But it is possible Snape identified Tonks' > > changed patronus *after the fact.* When he saw that she was the one > > escorting Harry, he knew it was her patronus--one he didn't > associate > > with her until that moment. I found it interesting that his snarky > > comment about her new patronus being "weak" was said as something > of > an > > afterthought. (And again, this brief mention was pointless to the > plot > > of HBP, but there must be some reason JKR introduced the concept!) > > > > > Potioncat: > There is so much we don't know about Patronuses! > I thought Snape knew who the Patronus was from, before he heard it > and > certainly after he heard its message. I'm assuming it's only Order > members who even know about this form of communication. Marianne: If Order members used this method of communication the first time around, then Peter also knows of it. If Peter knows, it's possible that Voldemort knows. Can a Patronus form be faked? IOW, could an extremely powerful wizard like Voldemort design something that looks like a Patronus and use it to send a false message? Potioncat: > Was his snarkiness directed at Lupin, perhaps? Snape is saying that > Lupin is weak or weaker than whomever/whatever Tonk's former Patronus > form was. Or was he commneting on Tonk's weakness? That she is weaker > than she was? Marianne: I don't think Snape would be looking at just the surface appearance of a Patronus, as to which animal form is stronger than other animal forms. I think Snape is too subtle for that. He'll go for the underlying meaning. If he knows of Tonks's evident longing for Remus, he could be displaying his usual charming behavior to let her know he thinks her weak - weak for having these emotions at all, for having them for Remus, ex-Marauder, specifically, for falling for a Dark Creature, or for losing some of her innate powers because of her emotion. Potioncat: > She says the Patronus was intended for Hagrid. Now, does that mean > she > sent it to Hagrid or to the place she expected Hagrid to be? That is, > she expected Hagrid to be on "duty" at a special place, but instead > Snape was on duty. If it was sent "to Hagrid" how did Snape "read" > it? Marianne: I'd guess that it could be read by anyone. If an Order member sent a message to 12 Grimmauld Place for Moody, let's say, and he's not there, what happens? Does the Patronus hang around waiting for him? Does it act like an owl and go looking for him? IF the latter, I'd think that then Tonks' message would have wandered about until it found Hagrid. For that reason, I think Patronus messages can be "opened" by any Order member who intercepts it. > And of course, how will a changing Patronus play out in book 7. Will > it > be someone's Patronus that we readers already know or will it be > someone whose Patronus we don't know? > > Someone else who has had a big shock is Harry. Could his Patronus > change from a stag to a Phoenix? > Potioncat, as I've said before, we cats have more questions than > answers. Marianne: I think Harry is a good bet. We've already had someone's unknown Patronus change into something else. It would have a bigger impact to see something we already know change into something with a specific meaning for us. OTOH, should Harry receive a message from a phoenix patronus, and find out afterwards that this is Snape's brand- new, revamped form, it would lend some weight to DDM!Snape. <> When the questions overwhelm the answers, it's time to do what all good cats do - take a nap! From jferer at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 15:38:17 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:38:17 -0000 Subject: Twins and Duddley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145553 Magpie: "Yes, I'm sure the fact that Harry would like seeing his old bully tormented was part of their thought process. James probably had similar thoughts when he flipped Snape upside down. He was a dark wizard and I suspect did plenty of awful things to other people." What the twins did to Dudley comes under the heading of "rough justice." JKR has shown us several times she has no problem with people who deserve it getting their comeuppance. What James did to Snape was bullying. The intent of the twins, their state of mind, is quite different from James's when he went after Snape. With the twins, you can count on it that if you don't mess with the twins or their friends, or bully someone in front of them, you'll be okay. The twins don't pick on the weak; when they turned Neville into a canary it was actually a form of acceptance that I bet Neville was glad for, to be included in the fun even if it was slightly at his own expense. In other words, the twins are just, DE's are not. I don't know if James was like that. He certainly wasn't very attractive in the scene with Snape we saw, and Sirius acknowledged he wasn't proud of some of the things they'd done. James seems to have grown up after that, at least enough to get Lily to marry him and fight Voldemort. I hope so. Jim Ferer From jferer at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 15:54:37 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:54:37 -0000 Subject: Twins and Duddley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145554 Alla: "?????? I thought Draco was the proximate cause of getting DE into Hogwarts. IMO Twins are way too remote from that. But that is JMO of course." Hickengruendler: "But Draco basically got his idea with the vanishing cabinet from the twins. If the twins hadn't pushed Montague in there, or if anyone (including the Trio), who knew that would have told somebody, than the Death Eaters might never have made their way into the castle. Of course Draco is more responsible here than the twins are, starting with the simple fact that Draco wanted the Death Eaters to get into Hogwarts, while Fred and George never had anything like this in their minds. Nonetheless, it was one of their pranks, which more or less directly lead to disaster." There's no way in my opinion that the twins can be hung with any moral responsibility for Draco's use of the cabinet-link. How could they possibly know what use might be made of that? Draco could easily have gotten an evil inspiration from far more innocent activities. JKR has no problem with the idea of rough justice. Montague in the closet is just one example; Draco getting his on the train twice are just two more. I sure don't like the idea that murderous enemies getting into the castle through the cabinet is some kind of karmic justice. That's a gross injustice by itself. Jim Ferer From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 29 17:03:07 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 17:03:07 -0000 Subject: Twins and Duddley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145555 Jim Ferer: > JKR has no problem with the idea of rough justice. Montague in the > closet is just one example; Draco getting his on the train twice are > just two more. I sure don't like the idea that murderous enemies > getting into the castle through the cabinet is some kind of karmic > justice. That's a gross injustice by itself. Pippin: But that might be the point, that this kind of rough justice is too rough for most of us -- would we really want to live in a universe that was intent on exacting its pound of flesh? JKR admits she enjoys thinking up awful things to do to the bad guys...but who made them bad guys? She did. Would you really want to live in a universe where some all powerful being made you wicked and then punished you for it? And laughed? I thought the ton-tongue thing was hilarious when I first read it. >From the perspective of OOP, where Dudley becomes a three dimensional character who has a violent reaction to dementors, and HBP where we are told that Dudley has suffered far worse than Harry in some ways, it's not so funny any more. It's the Pinocchio effect -- Dudley became a real boy, not just a goon, so suddenly his suffering mattered. But it should have mattered before and I was forced to realize that I, like the DE's, must have shut down my compassion. I think it's what happens then that Rowling is interested in. It's easy to say that a character should have known better all along, but it's what happens when they finally do know better that counts. Do they make excuses for themselves and continue what they were doing, or do they try to change? Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 29 17:15:43 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 17:15:43 -0000 Subject: Snape and Prophecy and Harry WAS:Re: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (lo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145556 > > Pippin: > > Harry has a right to be angry over the loss of his parents. We agree > > there. But to be obsessively angry with Snape about it when there > > are other people whose responsibility is far more direct... Amiable Dorsai > Straw, camel, back. Pippin: The blame belongs far more to the camel packer than to the one who sold him the straw. I would hardly insist that the fellow who sold the straw beg my forgiveness sixteen years after the fact, especially if he'd spent the intervening time trying to put the camel packer out of business. And if the straw salesman hated camels with a passion I wouldn't expect him to get over it just because he felt sorry about the one that died. Pippin From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Thu Dec 29 17:24:55 2005 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:24:55 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Real child abuse. In-Reply-To: <18095305.1135715169007.JavaMail.administrator@webmail> References: <18095305.1135715169007.JavaMail.administrator@webmail> Message-ID: <43B41BE7.8060803@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145557 bawilson at citynet.net wrote: >Lupinlore: >"I have to confess I've never understood the appeal of Snape. >The man is a childish blowhard and an abuser of children." > >Lupinlore, please show me when Snape abused a child. I will grant >you that he has been harsh, mean, and unfair, but I can't see where >he has been abusive. As I've said before, I used to be a teacher >and I now work in the criminal justice system, and in both I have >seen REAL child abuse; Snape doesn't come anywhere close. Even the >Dursleys' efforts in that way have been halfhearted compared to some >of the things I've seen. I won't go into details as I don't want to >make you ill. > >BAW > > > > I am glad someone besides me doesn't see Snape as a child abuser. He is tough on the kids, yes, but no more tough then my old math teacher. Its clear the kids are learning and that he commands their attention, but he doesn't do anything that can be called child abuse, even by muggle standards. By wizard standards, well, we only know that children are not transformed as a punishment and most punishments seem to have to do with cleaning things. One wonders what the house elves think of that? By wizard standards its apparently okay to abuse a house elf though. Besides.. Wizard kids come from tougher stock then muggle kids. By muggle standards the whole school is guilty of child endangerment just by the fact that children are exposed to potentially deadly creatures and plants.. and spells. What happens if a kid's ear muffs fall off while harvesting mature mandrake? What muggle parent would want their kid in the Tri Wizard Competition, fighting dragons??? Snape teaching methods seem tame next to all of that. While he threatens to use poison to get kids to learn how to brew antidotes, noone has actually died from poisoning in his class. Not even Trevor. Jazmyn From kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Dec 29 15:15:23 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:15:23 -0000 Subject: The Second Horcrux Thief In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145558 Neuman wrote: > The first Horcrux thief is R.A.B. The second Horcrux thief is none > other then Lily Potter! It's such a simple solution that I'm amazed > that no one thought of it before. Think about it: kchuplis: Well, it does give a plot reason to go back to Cedric's Hollow. We know Harry is going to go there in Book 7 and right now, there is no plot motivation, just character motivation and we all know she is not going to be able to dwell on "B" lines much. NOt a bad idea. Might be helpful too, if we find others had figured out the horcrux thing and were attempting to find them before the big blow up. Then RAB and Lily get killed. Heck, half the aurors got killed, which put a halt to it. Hmmm. Interesting theory anyway. kchuplis From kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Dec 29 15:22:06 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:22:06 -0000 Subject: Fleur's role in book VII In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145559 Corey: Why I think Fleur will be helpful in book 7. > > 1. She'll want revenge for what happened to Bill at the hands of > Greyback. The reason I think this is cause she's got a little of a mean > streak in her. It's not bad but beyond the beauty is a ferocity versus the dark side that might come out. I know this post doesn't have much weight, but I tried. > kchuplis: It brings up an interesting point. Will the three living Triwizard Champions all have a role to play? We know Viktor wanted to come back, is a "good guy". Fleur has more than enough reason, as does Harry and to be chosen for GoF, they apparently have more talent than many. Interesting. kchuplis From iam.kemper at gmail.com Thu Dec 29 17:26:20 2005 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:26:20 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Secondary thought on Patronuses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40512290926r71539bedhc68392aa3856b860@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145560 Julie wrote: "I found it interesting that his snarky comment about her new patronus being "weak" was said as something of an afterthought. (And again, this brief mention was pointless to the plot of HBP, but there must be some reason JKR introduced the concept!)" CH3ed responded: I wonder if that comment isn't meant to show Snape's dismissive attitude toward love. You know, 'love is for the weak' stuff. That would possibly be a result of him having a bad experience with it in the past. Kemper adds: When we found out about Remus and Tonks, I reflected back that the 'weak' comment was directed as a slam against Remus. It seemed to me that Snape recognized Tonks' patronus as a wolf and put it together that Tonks pined for Remus. My initial reading was that Snape thought Remus a poor/weak choice for a lover. . But I like CH3ed's idea that the comment was to show Snape's dismissiveness or disdain towards love. Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coverton at netscape.com Thu Dec 29 17:15:05 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (corey_over) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 17:15:05 -0000 Subject: Nevill seeing his parents being tortured and my thoughts of his retribution. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145561 Hi list members Corey again. Got more stuff to possibly work with this time. There is some debate in older posts that Nevill saw his Parents torture. I like that some other members of the list think he saw this. 1. He was in the house at the time. 2. He has a very deep memory of the curse that tortured his parents. This is brought up in GoF when he names the curse. 3. You can't be in the same room with your parents being tortured and not have some bad dreams about it. Now on to Nevill's retribution. I think we can all agree that Nevill is going to do some pay back for what happened to his parents. I think he'll get this in book 7. Rather indirectly by Harry either killing the DEs who did it. Or Nevill personaly doing something to get them back. Lets not forget that Nevill held his own at the Ministry and in book 7 he'll be older and better. Corey From pegdigrazia at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 17:35:17 2005 From: pegdigrazia at yahoo.com (Peg DiGrazia) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:35:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and Prophecy and Harry WAS:Re: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (lo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051229173517.55815.qmail@web42201.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145562 > > Pippin: > > Harry has a right to be angry over the loss of his parents. We agree > > there. But to be obsessively angry with Snape about it when there > > are other people whose responsibility is far more direct... Amiable Dorsai > Straw, camel, back. Pippin: <> Peg: But Snape has much more experience as the camel packer than as the the straw salesman. I mean, here's a guy who's hated you from day one (and for no reason readily apparent to you,) treated you horribly inside and outside the classroom for six years, you just watched him murder your mentor in cold blood (at least from your perspective,) AND you found out he was the one who betrayed your parents to the enemy, leading to their deaths? Yeah, even though he sold that last straw to someone else, he's also the one who loaded your back to the breaking point. He's not the most directly responsible, but at this point, Harry hates him so much that obsessive anger seems the natural response. JMO, of course! Peg From coverton at netscape.com Thu Dec 29 15:13:50 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (corey_over) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:13:50 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145563 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Diann Recla" wrote: > Why is Vernon so scared of the magic community? Is it possible that Vernon > was related to the Riddles? > Who was older, Lily of Petunia? > How much knowledge does Petunia have of the magic world? > > Dudley Dursley is Vernon and Petunia's son, Harry's cousin. Is the overindulgence of his parents a form of abuse? Dudley appears to > believe that he should always get his way. > Did Dudley learn anything from eating candy from Fred and George? Corey: There are many more questions I agree. 1. What will happen to the Dursleys' family when Harry moves out? I personaly don't think much will happen the Dursleys will be glad when he is gone. 2. Will Harry make up with the Dursleys? Logic says no but I think he will because after all they did give him a place to stay. They might not have wanted to,but they did. Corey. From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Dec 29 16:57:16 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 11:57:16 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Twins and Duddley/Snape as an abuser References: Message-ID: <007401c60c99$0332fa80$1198400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 145564 festuco: > We as readers don't know and it is a safe guess the groop of death > eaters does not either. Besides two of the Robinsons are small > children being tortured by a group of adults in public. Completely > different from what the twins did. The twins don't discriminate and > don't think themselves superior for having magic Magpie: Yes I know that. Honestly, I think if I have to say this again I'm going to scream. How many times do I have to say that I get this obvious distinction? I understand what the twins did. I understand how it's different from the DEs. I also think the twins absolutely do think they are superior for having magic just like every flipping wizard in canon feels they are superior for having magic. I think the twins consider themselves superior to a whole lot of people, for different reasons. If you see them as more paragons of respect towards Muggles please let's just agree to disagree. They're practical jokers. I agree, and have since the beginning of the thread. potioncat: If someone had actually told Madam Pomfrey what had happened, DD could have gotten rid of the thing. Although I wonder why Montague never told her? Magpie: He was confused for a long time...I wonder if he only remembered afterwards when he was out of the infirmary? Either he didn't tell anyone or maybe he didn't know exactly how he got into the thing. Draco didn't say the twins pushed him in when he was talking to DD, he said Montague got lost in it. And yes, re: the other post, that's what I was referring to when I said the twins' prank was connected to DEs getting into Hogwarts while obviously Draco was the one responsible. It's not a question of it being the twins' fault but that if I were the twins I'd think about the consequences of my actions. Going through life thinking that you get to administer punishment or play jokes on whoever you deem a good target, and only thinking of your friends and family can lead to trouble. Jim Ferer: What the twins did to Dudley comes under the heading of "rough justice." JKR has shown us several times she has no problem with people who deserve it getting their comeuppance. What James did to Snape was bullying. The intent of the twins, their state of mind, is quite different from James's when he went after Snape. With the twins, you can count on it that if you don't mess with the twins or their friends, or bully someone in front of them, you'll be okay. Magpie: James' picking on Snape could certainly be considered the same kind of rough justice if he was a Dark Wizard who had gone after James and his friends in the past--which I see every reason to think he did. If you want to live under the justice of the twins, that's great. You're also free to dismiss any connection between what the twins' did to Montague and Hogwarts' security being breached. You're certainly right that the twins had no intention of letting DEs in the castle when they shoved Montague into the Cabinet. They just wanted to administer some of their trademark rough justice--he tried to take points from Gryffindor so of course deserved to be shoved into limbo and need months of recuperation. This sort of thing just happens to be one of those consequences of doing that. Personally I think it's a good thing to acknowledge those connections, though of course it sometimes makes it more difficult to dole out punishment to whoever you think deserves it at that moment. I'm not misunderstanding how the twins are being viewed here. I get it, I see all the distinctions being made. I just don't have the same reaction to it. -m From pegdigrazia at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 17:45:46 2005 From: pegdigrazia at yahoo.com (Peg DiGrazia) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:45:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Second Horcrux Thief In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051229174546.24660.qmail@web42204.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145565 Neuman: > The first Horcrux thief is R.A.B. The second Horcrux thief is none other then Lily Potter! > kchuplis: <> Peg: It would make sense, too, for Regulus to share the information about the hurcruxes with the Potters. He probably doesn't have any friends who aren't DEs and his brother has rejected him completely, so who to turn to with this knowledge? His brother's best friend, who is a leader in the fight against LV, might actually listen to him. So maybe they didn't have to figure out the horcrux thing -- maybe it was handed to them. And maybe they know where a relic of Godric Gryffindor is hidden in Godric's Hollow... Peg From leora at nycap.rr.com Thu Dec 29 17:48:19 2005 From: leora at nycap.rr.com (leora) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 12:48:19 -0500 Subject: Nevill seeing his parents being tortured and my thoughts of his retribution. References: Message-ID: <006d01c60ca0$0e7ad730$0200a8c0@anakin> No: HPFGUIDX 145566 Well, we all saw that Neville is getting much better at his magic...and we can all just assume that he's going to play a big role in this...so I was thinking...with Harry angry at Bellatrix for Sirius' death, and Neville angry at Bellatrix for his parents, it is plain to see that she will be killed by the one of them, intentionally. But remember, she's also Voldemort's right hand woman, really, she knows more than any other Death Eater, and right now the only person I can see old Voldemort liking more than Bellatrix would be Severus Snape...and Harry's damn angry about Dumbledore...so, maybe Harry and Neville will kill the two right hand people (...er, one left hand?) to Voldemort right before this "final battle". That's what I think will happen. It seems pretty likely, at least. Leora From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Dec 29 17:59:10 2005 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 12:59:10 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fleur's role in book VII In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43B423EE.9010201@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145567 corey_over wrote: > 1. She'll want revenge for what happened to Bill at the hands of > Greyback. The reason I think this is cause she's got a little of a > mean streak in her. It's not bad but beyond the beauty is a ferocity > versus the dark side that might come out. I know this post doesn't > have much weight, but I tried. Bart: Well, she WAS chosen for the Triwizard Tournament. We're not sure exactly how the Goblet of Fire works, but she certainly must be pretty competent in the magic department. Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 18:37:23 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:37:23 -0000 Subject: Twins and Duddley/Twins and Montague. In-Reply-To: <007401c60c99$0332fa80$1198400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145568 > Magpie: You're certainly right that the twins had no > intention of letting DEs in the castle when they shoved Montague into the > Cabinet. They just wanted to administer some of their trademark rough > justice--he tried to take points from Gryffindor so of course deserved to be > shoved into limbo and need months of recuperation. This sort of thing just > happens to be one of those consequences of doing that. Alla: Well.... I guess you are being ironic, but I have to agree with it in non-ironic way. Montague IMO certainly deserved something to be done to him. I don't think Twins intended for him to suffer months of recuperation, but I have no problems with Twins intending him to suffer a bit. Again, I evaluate them mostly as tools to punish bad guys and provide laughs for their friends. In RL I would probably say that Twins should have found another way to deal with it. Montague not just wanted to take a point from Gryffindor. Montague openly supported a creature, which I cannot even call a human being. I am talking about Umbridge of course. I DO think that while it does not make Montague a horrible person, what he did was bad and I think that Rowling thinks it was bad and does not mind Montague suffer. JMO, Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Dec 29 18:50:49 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:50:49 -0000 Subject: Big Blond DE In-Reply-To: <000501c60ada$76eba1e0$bc349bac@Overton> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145569 > Corey here: > I think it had to do more with the potion > than anything. I doubt that DE is a spy for the order. Well except with the very very possible exception but I doubt it. DE are not going > to be spies for the order. There trying to kill them, let's not forget. Well those are my thoughts on that topic. Potioncat: Well, we know DD had more than one spy. Of course, another DE who is really a spy for the Order might be too much. OTOH, JKR tells us we'll be getting to know an Order member better in book 7. Most of us think that's Aberforth, but who knows? It seems very strange to me that JKR gives so much attention to this particular DE who seems to be firing wildly, fighting off Tonks, and the only person he harms at all is a fellow DE who is killed. He is however, fighting well enough that Tonks doesn't hurt him. So either he's defending himself well while appearing not to, or Tonks was only pretending to fight him. I can't see them doing a pretend fight with real enemies there. So I'm assuming Tonks didn't know him. OTOH, she didn't name him. So he may be even less important than Mark Evans. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Dec 29 19:34:14 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 19:34:14 -0000 Subject: Twins and Duddley/Twins and Montague. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145570 Magpie: > > You're certainly right that the twins had no > > intention of letting DEs in the castle when they shoved Montague > into the > > Cabinet. They just wanted to administer some of their trademark > rough > > justice-- *(snip)* Alla: > Well.... I guess you are being ironic, but I have to agree with it in > non-ironic way. Montague IMO certainly deserved something to be done > to him. I don't think Twins intended for him to suffer months of > recuperation, but I have no problems with Twins intending him to > suffer a bit. Again, I evaluate them mostly as tools to punish bad > guys and provide laughs for their friends. In RL I would probably say > that Twins should have found another way to deal with it. *(snip)* Ceridwen: This thread reminds me of the thread about Snape's culpability in the Potters' deaths. *IF* Snape hadn't told LV about the prophecy, then Wormtail might not have revealed the secret, so LV couldn't have gotten into GH... *IF* the twins hadn't pushed Montague into the VC, then Draco probably wouldn't have found out that the VC was linked to B&B's, and he wouldn't have gotten the DEs into Hogwarts... After reading all the threads on these issues, I think Snape and the twins are equally responsible for the dominos they knocked down. Ceridwen, resisting the urge to play with a yo-yo. From ornawn at 013.net Thu Dec 29 19:40:47 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 19:40:47 -0000 Subject: Snape and Prophecy and Harry/Snape as an abuser Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145571 >Alla: >Have Snape expected >that Voldemort will decide to invited for friendly dinner or tea the >couple of the Prophecy? I just don't think that he could have seem >any other outcomes, except that those whom prophecy is about will be >dead meat ASAP the moment Voldemort learns about the Prophecy and >decides to act. IMO of course. >And I don't see contradiction in DD's words either. To me " >unexpected" most likely meant that Potters turned out to be the >couple of the Prophecy. That is if Snape's remorse indeed was >genuine of course. Orna: Well, yes - I do think Snape expected Voldemort to invite the couple for a friendly dinner and toast no home-taxi needed. So you mean that Snape's remorse (if there was one), was because he realized the people concerned were the Potters? I find it a little bit difficult to believe Snape telling himself and DD ? as long as I didn't think about whom is involved, I was OK with it. But now that it's James, who was my dear pal at school and his son (Lily wasn't in the sure hit-list), I can't stand it any more. I'm a bit cynical, but I just say, that I would like something more substantial than that. OTOH it might be possible, that once you realize that the killing is not just wizards, muggles, but a person you know ? something of the evilness involved may finally hit you. Perhaps his life dept functions into it. Snape could be a person not feeling well, that a person, whom he owes his life to, is a person, who will be killed because of his contribution. I can see that Snape, with his aristocratic half-blood-prince self-image, would find it unacceptable to himself. He might have tried to alarm DD and James as well, and not succeeding would trap him in a life-long dept, he would want to get rid ASAP. That would explain his continuous hatred towards Harry. It's possible, but I don't find it satisfying for a genuine remorse. I also don't see why he would be so surprised of the way Voldemort interpreted this prophecy ? it had to do with someone who had (or was about to have) a child in July. Snape could figure it out for himself ? who was concerned. Two more thoughts I am having ? the first evil one: 1) Perhaps Voldemort, who hasn't got anything against killing on a large scale, decided to kill every baby born in July ? just in case. Since ? as you said, prophecies can relate to future events, he may have decided that July born babies were to be killed ? from now on. I thought that perhaps Bellatrix torturing of the Longbottoms might be something of revenge. Snape's way of relating to Neville is somehow suspicious of special significance. Perhaps a way like this to interpret the prophecy may have shake? Snape more deeply. 2) Another thought was, that perhaps Voldemort who is great in sadistic moves towards his servants, wanted Snape to have an active part in killing Harry. The same way he used Wormtail to get Harry, sensing somehow that Wormtail was reluctant to do it. I'm not sure he knew about Wormtail being saved by Harry, and Snape being saved by James, but he might sense something there, and it would be quite in his nature and his amusement to order Snape some active involvement in killing James. That might be a moment when Snape wouldn't want to be in it any more. Orna From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 19:40:15 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 19:40:15 -0000 Subject: Twins and Duddley/Twins and Montague. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145572 > Ceridwen: > This thread reminds me of the thread about Snape's culpability in the > Potters' deaths. > After reading all the threads on these issues, I think Snape and the > twins are equally responsible for the dominos they knocked down. Alla: LOL, Ceridwen! Believe it or not, I expected somebody to make that comparison and I have to disagree that Twins and Snape are equally responsible , in fact I don't think it is even a close cut. But that is of course strictly my opinion. Snape, IMO, could not expect anything else , but Voldemort going out to hunt and kill the unnamed couple and their baby. I absolutely don't see how Twins could have expected AND intended for DE to come to school because they pushed Montague there. Again, JMO. > Ceridwen, resisting the urge to play with a yo-yo. > LOL! Alla. From juvenni at hotmail.com Thu Dec 29 16:48:39 2005 From: juvenni at hotmail.com (Juvenal Barraza) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 16:48:39 -0000 Subject: Fleur's role in book VII In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145573 Corey: Why I think Fleur will be helpful in book 7. > > 1. She'll want revenge for what happened to Bill at the hands of > Greyback. The reason I think this is cause she's got a little of a mean > streak in her. It's not bad but beyond the beauty is a ferocity versus the dark side that might come out. Juvenni: Well I as an Fleur/Bill shipper do also think that, Fleur will play a big part in the events of book 7. It seems that every event in the plot that J.K Rowling writes, is done for a reason, and the Bill/Fleur wedding is no exception. Do we have here a french ally, perhaps? Juvenni. From kelleyaynn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 20:03:17 2005 From: kelleyaynn at yahoo.com (kelleyaynn) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 20:03:17 -0000 Subject: Fleur's role in book VII In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145574 > kchuplis: > It brings up an interesting point. Will the three living Triwizard > Champions all have a role to play? We know Viktor wanted to come > back, is a "good guy". Fleur has more than enough reason, as does > Harry and to be chosen for GoF, they apparently have more talent than > many. Interesting. Kelleyaynn: I've always thought we will see Victor again. Since Durmstrang actually teaches the dark arts, not just defense against the dark arts, he could be very helpful to the trio in their hunt for the horcruxes. Kelleyaynn From kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Dec 29 20:39:52 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 20:39:52 -0000 Subject: Fleur's role in book VII In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145575 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kelleyaynn" wrote: >> > I've always thought we will see Victor again. Since Durmstrang > actually teaches the dark arts, not just defense against the dark > arts, he could be very helpful to the trio in their hunt for the > horcruxes. > > Also, the sorting hat and various other things have been pointing at "all the different nations/houses must band together to win" fairly heavily in the last two books and we haven't seen that cooperation to a big degree yet. Book 7 must have more of that I would think. kchuplis From whtwitch91 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 21:41:37 2005 From: whtwitch91 at yahoo.com (whtwitch91) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:41:37 -0000 Subject: Snape's patronus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145576 I have a hypothesis that I have been mullin over for some time and am now ready to submit to the group. We have the location of probably five of the horcruxes: the ring, the locket, the diary, the cup, Voldemort, and possibly Harry as the sixth. We know that Voldemort is working on the true immortality problem. Immortality implies a truly aggless body or a younger host every few decades or so. Suppose Voldemort has arrived at the latter conclusion, turns to his side and sees Snape, (a likely host with strong powers of his own), and by various means inserts a horcrux into him leaving Snape unaware of this new acquisition. I theorize it might have happened in the summer before OotP takes place. It sleeps until activated. Possibly we have been looking at Voldemort in parts of Book 6. Suppose it isn't Snape intact killing DD on the astronomy tower, but Voldemort? Would that explain the expression on Snape's face? Have we ever though Snape felt disgust toward DD? But surely Voldemort does - all that horrible goodness. Eventually Voldemort will transmit most of his personality into Snape and take over his body completely, but if Voldemort had control for that moment on the tower is Snape culpable in any sense of the word for the death of DD? At this point the transmutation of the patronus becomes clear. Snape's patronus, whatever it was, becomes a snake. And if the member of the Order of the Phoenix see this, the game is up. Unfortunately I am too concise so I hope this is clear enough. Incidentally I am new to the group and have only been reading it the last few weeks. Hopefully this hypotheis hasn't been hashed out. Sue From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 21:49:26 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:49:26 -0000 Subject: Twins and Duddley In-Reply-To: <15035697.1135800626726.JavaMail.administrator@webmail> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145577 > >>BAW > It seems to me that you don't see the difference between what > the Twins did to Dudley and what the Death Eaters did to the > Robinson family at the QWC. > Betsy Hp: There is a difference. That's why Arthur merely tried to lecture his boys rather than throw them in jail. But it's a slippery slope. One that I'm surprised so many folks are unable, or refuse, to see. Here's an analogy. It's not perfect (so few analogies are) but it might help illuminate how I see the twins behavior. It's bad form for a man to physically assult a woman, because, in general, a man is physically stronger than a woman. What the Death Eaters did at the QWC can be equated with a group of men raping a woman. What the twins did to Dudley can be equated with two boys (sixteen years old) pushing a girl (fourteen years old) down in the school yard, maybe rubbing her face in the mud. The two are different acts requiring different responses, but if not checked, the second act might just lead to the first. You can argue that the girl was a bully who, four years ago, picked on their little brother's friend. (Keep in mind she stopped once he got bigger and stronger than her.) But what Arthur is trying to tell his boys is that, even if a girl asks for it, you don't hit her. Boys are stronger than girls so boys should never hit a girl. It doesn't matter if she's lippy or wears a short skirt or is really, really fat, a boy should not hit a girl. A wizard should not attack a muggle with magic. > >>Betsy Hp: > > And yet, when Dudley *does* refuse to take food from a wizard, > > he gets repeatedly hit in the head with a glass." > >>BAW: > All Dudley--and his parents, for that matter--had to do was to > hold the glass and put it on the table. He wasn't being forced > to drink it. > Betsy Hp: Of course. The wizard, being the more powerful, is always right. Muggles should always submit to what the wizard wants. Any bumps or bruises suffered by not fully submitting are the fault of the Muggle. And shame on them for making the wizard discipline them so. [end sarcasm] > >>Alla: > > I think Betsy thinks that one of the Twins will become DE, if I am > not mistaken. Betsy Hp: I *hope* one of the twins turns out to be associated with the Death Eaters. They don't even have to be a full out Death Eater themselves. Just slipping a bit of money or product to them in order to avoid a Voldemort slap-down on their store would work for me. Because I *do* see a disturbing trend towards a coldhearted calculation that what's good for the twins is good and what's bad for the twins is bad. I can't argue that JKR is taking them that way. Other than their store not getting torched by Death Eaters, there's not really any canon pointing towards such an occurance. I do think the books' morals will be lessened a bit if JKR supports the notion that a boy taking house points away deserves to be locked in limbo until he starves to death. (Though dehydration would probably have gotten Montague first. Could that be why he turned up in a toilet?) But, to clarify, I don't *think* one of the twins is a Death Eater. I'm not even close to positive JKR will reveal any ties at all. It's just a little hope of mine that I'd love to see fulfilled. Betsy Hp From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 21:51:23 2005 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:51:23 -0000 Subject: Portrait in GH Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145578 Someone brought up the possibility of a portrait/live person that possibly witnessed Lily's sacrifice. I know it's been brought up before, but if it was a portrait that was able to report back to DD/Order, who's portrait was it? I would love to hear what everyone thinks.... Alora From chewbacca98407 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 21:04:21 2005 From: chewbacca98407 at yahoo.com (chewbacca98407) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:04:21 -0000 Subject: The Second Horcrux Thief(and Longbottom) In-Reply-To: <20051229174546.24660.qmail@web42204.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145579 > Neuman: > > The first Horcrux thief is R.A.B. The second Horcrux thief is none other then Lily Potter! > > > kchuplis: > <> > > Peg: > It would make sense, too, for Regulus to share the information about the hurcruxes with the Potters. Chewie now: Let's not forget the Longbottom affair. Dumbledore tells Harry that they were tortured by Bella and co. for information on the whereabouts of Lord V right.....stay with me.....if Lilly stole a horcrux( as postulated above) then couldn't the Longbottoms have one also? Bellatrix could have been more than mad that the Longbottoms were concealing info. on her master's location, she could have believed they stole a horcrux. Again, as stated by Neuman, they may or may not even have known the significance of what they had taken. We only have conjecture, but if one is possible so is the second. It would also tend to add more weight to that whole torture scene. I have believed (upon re-reading) that ever since the Spinner's End slip when Bella is talking of LV entrusting her with "his most prescious" that this "precious" was a horcrux. I think she lost track of the one he gave to her to keep safe. It may or may not have been the locket, but if it was, and RAB is Regulus...I could go on and on. IMHO that torture scene with the Longbottoms was always a little over the top, but this would make more sense to me. Oh my...J.K. will have to take us to Nevile's house next...eeekkk...gran scares me! Chewie From jferer at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 22:02:12 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:02:12 -0000 Subject: Real child abuse. In-Reply-To: <43B41BE7.8060803@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145580 Jazmyn: "I am glad someone besides me doesn't see Snape as a child abuser. He is tough on the kids, yes, but no more tough then my old math teacher. Its clear the kids are learning and that he commands their attention, but he doesn't do anything that can be called child abuse, even by muggle standards. By wizard standards, well, we only know that children are not transformed as a punishment and most punishments seem to have to do with cleaning things. One wonders what the house elves think of that? By wizard standards its apparently okay to abuse a house elf though." Count me in with you. The term 'child abuse' is being thrown around carelessly here, drawing no distinction between bullying students (reprehensible though it is) and kids covered with cigarette burns, broken limbs, and 14 year olds that weight 70 pounds. I've seen this, and it's nauseating. Snape's actions aren't remotely child abuse. But I don't agree with you that Snape is just 'tough on students.' He bullies them and does nasty things to Neville's head, and treats his non-favorites unfairly. To me the opposite of Snape is McGonagall, who is the anti-Snape: tough, demanding, and uncompromising, but fair and caring for the students. Her style is well suited for 'gut' courses like Transfiguration. I've learned a lot under the McGonagalls I've met, even if I didn't like it at the time. There's no place for Snape in teaching, in my opinion, but plenty for McGonagall. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 22:16:26 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:16:26 -0000 Subject: Real child abuse/ Mcgonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145581 Jim Ferer: > Count me in with you. The term 'child abuse' is being thrown around > carelessly here, drawing no distinction between bullying students > (reprehensible though it is) and kids covered with cigarette burns, > broken limbs, and 14 year olds that weight 70 pounds. I've seen this, > and it's nauseating. Snape's actions aren't remotely child abuse. Alla: I won't argue with you about whether Snape is a child abuser or not, I've done plenty of arguing on this topic and suspect that I will do plenty more in the future, I just want to object to "term being thrown around carelessly". Please believe me, I do not throw around the words "child abuse" carelessly, I certainly thought a lot before I determined for myself that Snape is a child abuser and of course I make the distinctions between cases you described and what Snape does. The cases you describe are the cases of physical abuse IMO Snape is an emotional abuser with the strong potential to be the physical one as shows IMO what he did to Harry after Pensieve trip. Jim Ferrer: > But I don't agree with you that Snape is just 'tough on students.' He > bullies them and does nasty things to Neville's head, and treats his > non-favorites unfairly. Alla: The line though between bullying and especially emotional abuse is very thin, no? What one person sees as bullying, especially by the person in power, another one sees as abuse, IMO. Jim Ferrer: To me the opposite of Snape is McGonagall, who > is the anti-Snape: tough, demanding, and uncompromising, but fair and > caring for the students. Her style is well suited for 'gut' courses > like Transfiguration. I've learned a lot under the McGonagalls I've > met, even if I didn't like it at the time. There's no place for Snape > in teaching, in my opinion, but plenty for McGonagall. > Alla: On that we completely agree, although as I said before I think Mcgonagall also treated Neville badly couple of times, but in general I love her very much. JMO of course, Alla. From foodiedb at optonline.net Thu Dec 29 22:23:29 2005 From: foodiedb at optonline.net (foodiedb) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:23:29 -0000 Subject: Mrs. Weasley and Gringotts/Peeves Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145582 Hi all, I'm rather new at this so I am sorry if this has been asked: How (in GOF) did Mrs. Weasley get some of Harry's gold for him out his Gringotts vault? Also,why does Dumbledore allow Peeves to stay at Hogwarts? Thanks, DB From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Dec 29 22:50:07 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:50:07 -0000 Subject: Twins and Duddley/Twins and Montague. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145583 Alla: > > LOL, Ceridwen! Believe it or not, I expected somebody to make that > comparison and I have to disagree that Twins and Snape are equally > responsible , in fact I don't think it is even a close cut. But that is > of course strictly my opinion. Ceridwen: I'm surprised no one has made it before. I thought I would be told to take it to the OT board. *g* As it is, this just might be my fourth post, so I'll be ironing my fingers into the night anyway. Alla: > Snape, IMO, could not expect anything else , but Voldemort going out to > hunt and kill the unnamed couple and their baby. > > I absolutely don't see how Twins could have expected AND intended for > DE to come to school because they pushed Montague there. Again, JMO. Ceridwen: Degrees of what was done after the fact, and whether either party thought it through, is beside the point. If the twins, or Harry, or etc., etc., are going to grow up to be grown-ups and skip the lingering angst, they have to learn to think ahead. If the twins hadn't learned, by the age of seventeen, that their pranks could come back to bite them in some fashion, then they should have been able to figure it out. Seventeen is adult in the WW. Only about four years younger than I've seen it assumed that Snape was when he divulged the first half of that prophecy to LV. At eighteen, as of HBP, I don't think the twins are thinking ahead *yet*. Love potions, daydream kits, Peruvian darkness powder, and so on. Their "crime" may be on a smaller scale, but not by much. And on the most basic level, it's the same. They didn't look before they leaped, they did instead of thinking, fools rush in, and so on. And, since I think the UV would not have kicked in if the DEs hadn't told Snape that Draco couldn't do the deed ('if if seems he should fail...'), then I see them as the third step removed from the death of Dumbledore. Intentional, or not. As much as Snape is third step removed from the killing of the Potters, intentional or not. Doesn't mean I don't like the twins, because sometimes they're funny. I like funny. But sometimes people we like do things that make us wonder if they took stupid pills that morning. And sometimes, stupid turns into tragic. *shrug* (And, I wondered when someone would come back with 'it isn't the same thing'. LOL!) Ceridwen. From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Thu Dec 29 22:51:05 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:51:05 +0100 Subject: Real child abuse/ Mcgonagall References: Message-ID: <010401c60cca$5bb00ff0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 145584 dumbledore11214 wrote: > The line though between bullying and especially emotional abuse is > very thin, no? What one person sees as bullying, especially by the > person in power, another one sees as abuse, IMO. Miles: You are talking about emotional abuse - but the prerequisite for emotional abuse is a emotional connection between abuser and abused. Typical emotional abuse happens between parents and children. Sometimes an adult builds up a situation of trust, security and love to a child and exploits this emotional relationship later - teachers can do this. There is no such thing like an emotional relationship between Neville and Snape, and Snape is far away from a position to emotionally abuse Neville. Another necessity for abuse is that they cause or could cause serious behavioural, cognitive, emotional, or mental disorders. We never saw any student of Snape's classes that suffers from any of this. The only situation I would agree that child abuse happened in HP are the detentions with Umbridge. We discussed this before - the symptoms are striking: Harry feels responsible for his humiliation, he does not dare to complain because he fears Dumbledore could get into trouble. He never talks about the abuse (shame), and when finally Ron and Hermione find out about it, they are aghast far beyond anything that they ever thought about Snape. And finally, Harry could only talk openly about the abuse to ... was it Dean?, another victim of Umbridge. This is the description of classic child abuse, very well done by Rowling, and I'm quite sure she studied true cases of abuse to give us this dense subplot. She did it very well. We can agree, that Snape is a nasty person and an unfair teacher, far away from treating his students equally and respectful. But abuse - no canon support for this, if we do not use very private definitions of child abuse, but scholastic ones. Miles From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Thu Dec 29 22:59:47 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:59:47 +0100 Subject: Mrs. Weasley and Gringotts/Peeves References: Message-ID: <010e01c60ccb$9196c770$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 145585 foodiedb wrote: > Hi all, I'm rather new at this so I am sorry if this has been asked: > How (in GOF) did Mrs. Weasley get some of Harry's gold for him out his > Gringotts vault? Miles: I guess that either Harry gave her written allowance, or simply the key. In PS/SS, the goblin only asks for the small key of Harry's vault, and opens the one with the Philosopher's Stone because of the letter from Dumbledore Hagrid gave to him. Obviously there is nothing like cheque cards at Gringott's ;). foodiedb wrote: > Also,why does Dumbledore allow Peeves to stay at Hogwarts? Miles: Why not? Peeves is a poltergeist, and he does what poltergeists do. He is loud, teases students and rocks the boat... castle. And Hogwarts is his home. Peeves never causes serious damage, so he is part of the Community. Miles From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Dec 29 23:00:48 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:00:48 -0000 Subject: Big Blond DE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145586 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: enemies there. So I'm assuming Tonks didn't know him. > > OTOH, she didn't name him. So he may be even less important than Mark > Evans. > Or it is Ludo Bagman. Either a spy or a DE all along who got aquitted because of his fame. As an ex-beater him missing continually is, hm, a bit strange so that would count for the spying. On the other hand he does not strike me as the spying type and it could all be the FF. Gerry From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 23:02:35 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:02:35 -0000 Subject: Mrs. Weasley and Gringotts/Peeves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145587 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "foodiedb" wrote: > > Hi all, I'm rather new at this so I am sorry if this has been > asked: > How (in GOF) did Mrs. Weasley get some of Harry's gold for him > out his Gringotts vault? > bboyminn: On this, I have nothing but speculation. I speculate that the Goblins have magical means of determining the validity of a transaction. If Mrs. Weasley had been trying to get into Harry's vault to rob him, they would have likely detected deceit, and wouldn't have allowed her to have the money. However, since Mrs. Weasley is truly acting on Harry's behalf, she has, in a sense, implied permission to access his vault for a specific purpose. The Goblins see this as a valid transaction, Harry gave implied permission, and they allow it. Also, let's not forget that Mrs. Weasley's son works at Gringotts, and that would probably lend to her credibility. I've also speculated that Gringotts has something resembling Checks or Credit Cards. In my own fiction, to savey Harry and Ron from having to carry money around all the time, they simply sign their name to the check/bill/receipt for what ever they buy, be it lunch, drinks, or merchandise. That signature turns the check/bill/receipt into a Bank Draft/Check that authorises the transfer of funds to the account of the merchant in the amount specified. So, extending this, to buy Harry books and supplies for him, Mrs. Weasley probably signs the receipts and indicates the Vault Number, and the bank accepts the receipt as if it were a Bank Draft or Credit Card authorization. In otherwords, they bill Harry's vault directly based on Mrs. Weasley's signature. Again, the Goblins magical truth detection comes into play. They are able to determine that Molly's requests for funds from Harry Vault are valid requests on Harry's behalf and they let them go through. Again, speculation, but reasonable speculation, I think. > DB: > > Also,why does Dumbledore allow Peeves to stay at Hogwarts? > > > Thanks, > DB bboyminn: JKR answered this in an interview. It might have been the MuggleNet/LeakyCauldron interview. Dumbledore and all the other headmasters allow Peeves to stay because they /can't/ get him out. The best they can do is hope to exert some degree of control over him. I believe JKR compared Peeves to a fungus that you can never quite get rid of once it starts to grow. Remember, that since Peeves is a Poltergeist, he is not a ghost or a departed human. He is a malevolent essense that thrives in chaos and disorder. Unlike ghosts, Peeves can be both solid and ethereal. He can interact with objects in the real world in ways the ghosts can't. So, Peeves is a very unique circumstance that the headmasters have to put up with. That said, I don't think Dumbledore would get rid of Peeves even if he could. I think he likes the idea that Peeves keeps school life from getting boring. I can imagine former students, many years later, sitting around having a drink and trading Peeves stories, to the uproarious laugher of their friends. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Dec 29 23:52:11 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:52:11 -0000 Subject: Snape and Prophecy and Harry/Snape as an abuser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145588 > Orna: > Well, yes - I do think Snape expected Voldemort to invite the > couple for a friendly dinner and toast no home-taxi needed. Jen: Hah--love that. Orna: > So you mean that Snape's remorse (if there was one), was because > he realized the people concerned were the Potters? I find it a > little bit difficult to believe Snape telling himself and DD ? as > long as I didn't think about whom is involved, I was OK with it. > But now that it's James, who was my dear pal at school and his son >(Lily wasn't in the sure hit-list), I can't stand it any more. I'm > a bit cynical, but I just say, that I would like something more > substantial than that. Jen: I want it to be more substantial than that, too, and will go into why later on. Dumbledore's explanation made it sound like your above conjecture was pretty much it, though: "But he did not know-- he had no possible way of knowing--which boy Voldemort would hunt from then onwards, or that the parents he would destroy in his murderous quest were people that Professor Snape knew..." (chap. 25, p. 512, Bloomsbury). The surprise for Snape was not that Voldemort would plan to murder a child, but which child he ultimately chose. Orna: > OTOH it might be possible, that once you realize that the killing > is not just wizards, muggles, but a person you know ? something of > the evilness involved may finally hit you. Perhaps his life dept > functions into it. That > would explain his continuous hatred towards Harry. It's possible, > but I don't find it satisfying for genuine remorse. Jen: No, the life debt doesn't explain the true, deep remorse Dumbledore professed Snape felt about the prophecy. In another post upthread you suggested this: Orna: > Perhaps: Voldemort has sometimes a sense of perverted dignity > coupled with a need to prove himself ? like in GoF, when he wants > to duel with Harry. Like in CoS when he feels he wants to > challenge his powers against Harry's.And besides, this wait-and- > see, as I see it, is not because he has no faith in the prophecy, > contrary ? because he would have wanted to be sure he picked the > right boy ? he might have wanted to wait. Jen: That idea could be a possible out for Snape's actions: His first thought, like Harry's, was that Voldemort would do the rational thing and wait to see which child was more powerful as he grew up. Another possibility is that Snape was already working against Voldemort on his own and did overhear the entire propehcy but didn't deliver it all to Voldemort, particularly the 'mark him as his equal' part. I think we're supposed to take Dumbledore's OOTP explanation of the prophecy and the HBP eavesdropping at face-value, but there's still the outside chance Snape had his own agenda which happened to intersect with Dumbledore's. Orna: > I also don't see why he would be so surprised of the way Voldemort > interpreted this prophecy ? it had to do with someone who had (or > was about to have) a child in July. Snape could figure it out for > himself ? who was concerned. > Two more thoughts I am having ? the first evil one: > 1) Perhaps Voldemort, who hasn't got anything against killing on a > large scale, decided to kill every baby born in July ? just in > case. Snape's way of relating to Neville is somehow > suspicious of special significance. Perhaps a way like this > to interpret the prophecy may have shake? Snape more deeply. Jen: People have argued Snape didn't single out Harry until he appeared to act like James (or Snape perceived it that way), or Neville until he acted incompetently. But the specific, pointed, ongoing problems he has with both children seem beyond that to me. Snape being who he is, the emotions come out as anger bordering on rage; however, I don't think immense guilt can be ruled out. Personally, it would fit very nicely if the explanation for Snape's speech about "Fools who wear their hearts on their sleeves...weak people....stand no chance against his powers" dovetails with Snape's delivery of the prophecy in some way. That he was manipulated in that situation much like Draco was, into thinking he was being drafted for an important mission only to discover how horrific the actual work was, and how merciless Voldemort can be. That ties in to another thought from your previous post, Orna: Orna: > We know Snape had been a DE. The question IMO is what do we accept > for being an acceptable act/s for accepting him to be one of the > good guys. It's a really difficult question, because being a DE he > is sure to have caused harm, or might even be deaths ? directly or > non-directly, on top of his part in Potters death. We know from > Bellatrix that he probably wasn't very active, slitherin out of > action. Probably did a lot of cunning plans, potions and spell- > inventing, which IMO are also quite harmful. But the question is ? > what do we expect a change of sides to include? > Sirius is on another level - I don't think anybody would really > send him to Azkaban for the mistake he did. Anybody ? except his > guilt-feelings. Jen: I left out something important upthread about why I was comparing Snape and Sirius. Dumbledore called Snape's delivery of the prophecy a terrible mistake. Why? It's not on-par with what Sirius did in my opinion, which well qualifies as a terrible mistake. Sirius was attempting to protect people he loved while Snape was putting some child and parents into harm's way. It's not that I personally feel Snape should pay endlessly for being a DE, especially if he did attempt to safeguard the Potters and became a spy 'at great risk to himself'. It's more that I'm still stunned about the explanation Dumbledore gave Harry when confronted with the eavesdropping incident. Dumbledore knows excusing Snape incites Harry, and yet he employs that strategy over and over. And why would he excuse *anyone* for selling out a baby to Voldemort? That's pretty despicable. Either we're supposed to be switching into fantasy mode here since we're talking about a prophecy, or there's more going on. That's at the core to me of all the Snape stuff, not just why Dumbledore trusts Severus Snape so completely but what fuels his need to protect him so thoroughly. Is it guilt for what he asks Snape to do? Something he knows about Snape's past? Something about Dumbledore's past? I know I'm asking the million-dollar question here, but so far none of the explanations ring completely true for me as to why Dumbledore would sacrifice SO much for Snape, including all his carefully laid plans for Harry. Maybe Dumbledore honestly doesn't think Harry's growing hatred for Snape will interfere with his protection against the lure of Voldemort's power, even though intense hatred, fear and other negative emotions combined with dark arts seem to be pavers in the road to ruination in Potterverse. The only other plausible explanation I can think of is that Dumbledore's hands are tied in some way that Harry is unaware of yet. Something keeps Dumbledore from actively attempting to intervene in the Snape/Harry relationship even though it's obviously gone sour, and I hope the answer is not "plot mechanism". Orna: > 2) Another thought was, that perhaps Voldemort who is great in > sadistic moves towards his servants, wanted Snape to have an > active part in killing Harry. The same way he used Wormtail to get > Harry, sensing somehow that Wormtail was reluctant to do it. I'm > not sure he knew about Wormtail being saved by Harry, and Snape > being saved by James, but he might sense something there, and it > would be quite in his nature and his amusement to order Snape some > active involvement in killing James. That might be a moment when > Snape wouldn't want to be in it any more. Jen: This reminded me of the Draco scenario again, too. I would view this as a mitigating circumstance, but am not sure why Dumbledore would withold that information from Harry once he found out about the eavesdropping. Harry has proven himself very capable of seeing people in a new way with more information, even Snape after he saw the Pensieve scene. What gives? What could be more important to Dumbledore than cultivating a decent working relationship between the two people he depends on the most for defeating Voldemort? Surely six years into the endeavor he's figured out his trust of Severus Snape and insistence on Harry calling him Professor haven't accomplished anything. Jen From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Thu Dec 29 23:54:42 2005 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:54:42 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Real child abuse/ Mcgonagall In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43B47742.4030507@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145589 dumbledore11214 wrote: > Alla: > >I won't argue with you about whether Snape is a child abuser or not, >I've done plenty of arguing on this topic and suspect that I will do >plenty more in the future, I just want to object to "term being >thrown around carelessly". Please believe me, I do not throw around >the words "child abuse" carelessly, I certainly thought a lot before >I determined for myself that Snape is a child abuser and of course I >make the distinctions between cases you described and what Snape >does. The cases you describe are the cases of physical abuse IMO >Snape is an emotional abuser with the strong potential to be the >physical one as shows IMO what he did to Harry after Pensieve trip. > > > > If someone had gone into my most private thoughts, I would have been a lot more violent then Snape. What Harry did was unforgivable, carelessly diving into the private thoughts of not only another person, but a teacher and a member of the Order of the Phoenix. The pensieve was in use to keep Harry away from those memories and he knew it and violated the pensieve anyways. Secrets he could have picked up from this in the wrong memory might have made him a terrible danger to the cause. He is a CHILD and should not be just peeking at the private thoughts and memories of a spy for the Order!!!! Snape was in fact a lot more restrained then most people in his position would be. I would likely have throttled the little git. How does one handle a nosey, egotistical brat who can't keep out of the 'Top Secret files'?? Harry is a loose canon who doesn't care about the consequences of his actions, who leads his friends onto danger, his monstrous ego believing he can defeat Voldemort as nothing more then a kid. Harry should be locked up before he gets anymore people killed or worse. He is already responsible for leading his godfather to his death. Jazmyn From labmystc at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 00:39:02 2005 From: labmystc at yahoo.com (Chris) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:39:02 -0000 Subject: Real child abuse/ Mcgonagall In-Reply-To: <43B47742.4030507@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145590 Jazmyn: > Harry is a loose canon who doesn't care about the consequences of his > actions, who leads his friends onto danger, his monstrous ego believing > he can defeat Voldemort as nothing more then a kid. Harry should be > locked up before he gets anymore people killed or worse. He is already > responsible for leading his godfather to his death. I haven't written anything here in a long time, but when I saw this paricular piece, I had to respond. What is the justification of calling Harry a "loose cannon" who cares not about consequences or the lives of his friends? Harry helps Ron save Hermione from a troll in CoS at the risk of his own life. He saves Sirius from a sure dementor's kiss in PoA. He brings back Cedric's body at the end of GoF at his own peril. He enters the cave with DD and nurses him back to normalcy after DD drank the potion, all the while at great risk from the Inferi. Sounds like he cares a little about the lives of his friends to me. Also, the last thing I would associate with Harry is a monstrous ego. The only thing he knows for sure is that he is good at Quidditch. I believe he recognizes that his magical abilities are limited...after all he does state that Hermione is far better than he. I do not think that Harry knows for sure whether he can defeat LV or not. And we really can't blame him for being in this battle to begin with...it was LV that marked him for death, not the other way around. Whether or not his little excursion to the ministry to "save" Sirius was warranted, he felt the need to try. I think that shows his love for Sirius...that it led to his death is ultimately not Harry's fault. It was Bellatrix that killed Sirius, not Harry. Plus, Sirius was ordered to remain at HQ. I think he shares some of the blame in his own demise. This post makes me wonder if we were reading the same books. Harry does not strike me as someone who revels in his position of "chosen one." He was thrust into that role...he didn't choose it. Remember, he asks DD why he can't just walk away from the fight. And DD responds that to walk away is not possible...LV will never stop until someone stops him. Chris From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 01:35:40 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 01:35:40 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145591 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "corey_over" wrote: > Corey: > There are many more questions I agree. 1. What will happen to the > Dursleys' family when Harry moves out? I personaly don't think much > will happen the Dursleys will be glad when he is gone. Amiable Dorsai: I wonder... What exactly was it that Dumbledore was reminding Petunia of when he he wrote (bellowed?) "Remember my last, Petunia!"? I've had the idea for a while now that it was that the protection Harry receives from staying at Privet Drive is reciprocal--it protects the Dursleys as well as Harry. If so, their protection ends when Harry hits 17--and there's a war on. Wouldn't it be delicious irony if the Dursleys had to come to Harry (on bended knee, if there's any justice) to arrange to be hidden from Tommy's Toerags? I wonder if he could find a nice cupboard at Grimmauld Place for them? > Corey > 2. Will Harry make up with the Dursleys? Logic says no but I think > he will because after all they did give him a place to stay. They > might not have wanted to, but they did. Amiable Dorsai: If I'm right, it will be the Dursleys who have to make up with Harry. Heh-heh-heh. Amiable Dorsai From coverton at netscape.com Fri Dec 30 00:17:45 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:17:45 -0600 Subject: Fleur's role in book VII In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c60cd6$78ff26c0$125e86ac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145592 Juvenni: Well I as an Fleur/Bill shipper do also think that, Fleur will play a big part in the events of book 7. It seems that every event in the plot that J.K Rowling writes, is done for a reason, and the Bill/Fleur wedding is no exception. Do we have here a french ally, perhaps? Corey: Don't know about what you meant by a French if your refering to me or not. But I think Fleur would be a very loyal and great help. I also think she wants to prove to Hermione that she's not just a cute little veela and that if need be she can fight with the best of them. There is no canon to support my view about Fleur and Hermione but Hermione just gives off that vibe that she doesn't think Fleur is anything but this CockyFrench Veela that doesn't do a whole lot. Corey From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 02:04:17 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 02:04:17 -0000 Subject: Real child abuse/ Snape again In-Reply-To: <010401c60cca$5bb00ff0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145593 > Miles: > You are talking about emotional abuse - but the prerequisite for emotional > abuse is a emotional connection between abuser and abused. Typical emotional > abuse happens between parents and children. Sometimes an adult builds up a > situation of trust, security and love to a child and exploits this emotional > relationship later - teachers can do this. > There is no such thing like an emotional relationship between Neville and > Snape, and Snape is far away from a position to emotionally abuse Neville. Alla: IMO, there is no such thing as typical emotional abuse - it can happen between different parties in very different situations - parents and children, husband and wife, as you acknowledge between teachers and children. I would also disagree about no emotional connection between Snape and Neville and I see that you did not argue that there is no emotional connection between Snape and Harry, so I take we DO agree that there is an emotional connection between them - in fact I would argue that Snape purposefully increased such connection and made SURE that Harry knew about it. Those kids are in boarding school, they don't see their parents for many months, in fact Harry and Neville have NO parents to see and teachers stay in loco parentis for all of them anyway. I would argue that teachers have HUGE emotional power over those kids and gross misuse of such power is in fact emotional abuse. Miles: > Another necessity for abuse is that they cause or could cause serious > behavioural, cognitive, emotional, or mental disorders. We never saw any > student of Snape's classes that suffers from any of this. Alla: You may have not seen it, but I definitely did - to me Neville's boggart is a metaphor for all that. IMO of course. Miles: > We can agree, that Snape is a nasty person and an unfair teacher, far away > from treating his students equally and respectful. But abuse - no canon > support for this, if we do not use very private definitions of child abuse, > but scholastic ones. Alla: Sorry, Miles, but I am not sure what you meant by "private" definition of emotional abuse. I hope you don't mean that I evaluare abuse by definitions "written" by me or something, because then it is simply incorrect. The definition of emotional abuse I brought up was actually in response to your post and I was not the author. :-) There IS a huge canon support for Snape being an emotional abuser, IMO. I gave multiple quotes recently and will send them to you again, if you wish. You interpret that differently, I understand and that is your right. Actually at this point I am just arguing against the idea that people who DO see Snape as abuser somehow make "outlandish" arguments. I understand the other interpretation, it is certainly reasonable, but mine is reasonable too IMO. Jasmyn: > Harry is a loose canon who doesn't care about the consequences of his > actions, who leads his friends onto danger, his monstrous ego believing > he can defeat Voldemort as nothing more then a kid. Alla: Do you have any canon support for Harry's monstrous ego? Jasmyn: Harry should be > locked up before he gets anymore people killed or worse. Alla: MAHAHAHA! I suspect the whole Wizarding World will disagree with you. Because without Harry they are doomed, don't they? But that is of course strictly my opinion, Alla From AllieS426 at aol.com Fri Dec 30 02:14:52 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 02:14:52 -0000 Subject: The Second Horcrux Thief(and Longbottom) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145594 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "chewbacca98407" wrote: > > > Let's not forget the Longbottom affair. Dumbledore > tells Harry that they were tortured by Bella and co. for information > on the whereabouts of Lord V right.....stay with me.....if Lilly > stole a horcrux( as postulated above) then couldn't the Longbottoms > have one also? Allie: It's only significant that anyone stole a Horcrux if they also destroyed it. Otherwise, it would still function, although that would make it less safe for Voldemort than before. It would certainly shortcut Harry's problem if Lily or the Longbottoms had already found and destroyed a Horcrux. From thubanofllanmoel at yahoo.co.uk Thu Dec 29 11:27:39 2005 From: thubanofllanmoel at yahoo.co.uk (thubanofllanmoel) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 11:27:39 -0000 Subject: Where is Godric's Hollow? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145595 Hi everyone, I am new here; just saying hello. I live in England and I am very old. Does anyone have any thoughts on where Grodric Hollow is? Have fun and I hope to see you around. Si From thubanofllanmoel at yahoo.co.uk Thu Dec 29 11:49:37 2005 From: thubanofllanmoel at yahoo.co.uk (simon harris) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 11:49:37 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why I think Lockhart will get out of St Mungo In-Reply-To: <000801c60a64$7f33b3e0$3396aaac@Overton> Message-ID: <20051229114937.10245.qmail@web25809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145596 Gerry: > > His memory charms had to be permanent for that, because otherwise > > he would have huge, huge trouble if these truly brave people found > > out what had happened to them. They would at the very least visit > > his doorstep to get their share of the money he made... Corey: > Gerry, you bring up a good point about people wanting money. So I > guess in retrospect he's safe in there. I am new here and I do not want to jump on toes, etc., but Tom Riddle breaks a memory charm in between PoA and GoF, Bertha I think her name is. So I believe that Lockhart will get his memory back. The wand used was Ron's old wand which was broken. Si From fuzz876i at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 02:13:20 2005 From: fuzz876i at yahoo.com (fuzz876i) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 02:13:20 -0000 Subject: Reason Dumbledore is killed Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145597 I think the reason Dumbledore is killed in this book is because Voldemort uses people who are close to Harry and he is the closest to him at this point. So he had to be killed off to make Harry a stronger person and more determined to face him. Fuzz From kchuplis at alltel.net Fri Dec 30 00:39:40 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:39:40 -0000 Subject: Mrs. Weasley and Gringotts/Peeves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145598 Steve wrote: > > That said, I don't think Dumbledore would get rid of Peeves even if he > could. I think he likes the idea that Peeves keeps school life from > getting boring. I can imagine former students, many years later, > sitting around having a drink and trading Peeves stories, to the > uproarious laugher of their friends. > And as big a PITA as he may be, he does serve as a very good "errant student" alert system. How many times has he blown the whistle on students doing what they shouldn't? Yup. You can't buy that kind of system with Gringott's gold. :D kchuplis From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 02:31:55 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 02:31:55 -0000 Subject: Real child abuse/ Mcgonagall In-Reply-To: <43B47742.4030507@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145599 Jazmyn Concolor wrote: > If someone had gone into my most private thoughts, I would have > been a lot more violent then Snape. Amiable Dorsai: *You* have the right to keep your thoughts private. Harry could reasonably conclude that Snape doesn't, not from Harry. Jazmyn: > What Harry did was unforgivable, carelessly diving into the > private thoughts of not only another person, but a teacher and a > member of the Order of the Phoenix. Amiable Dorsai: And a man who, unprovoked, has been making Harry's life hell for five years--and whose training in Occlumency has had the apparent side-effect of opening Harry's mind even further to Voldemort. Harry took an opportunity to get intelligence on the enemy--and, whether he's DDM or not, Snape has given Harry plenty of reason to believe that he's Harry's enemy Jazmyn: > The pensieve was in use to keep Harry away from those memories > and he knew it and violated the pensieve anyways. Secrets he > could have picked up from this in the wrong memory might have > made him a terrible danger to the cause. Amiable Dorsai: Tough noogies. He might also have discovered that Snape was, in fact, an unrepentant Death Eater. Harry's been right when all the adults were wrong too many times for him to miss an opportunity like that. Jazmyn: > He is a CHILD... Amiable Dorsai: That very notion cost Sirius Black his life. Harry is the target of two forces--the Ministry and Lord Voldemort--and his adult allies are treating him like a mushroom. If Harry takes things into his own hands, well, what did they expect? Jazmyn: > Snape was in fact a lot more restrained then most people in his > position would be. I would likely have throttled the little git. > How does one handle a nosey, egotistical brat who can't keep out > of the 'Top Secret files'?? Amiable Dorsai: By treating him like a human being? Jazmyn: > Harry is a loose canon who doesn't care about the consequences of > his actions, who leads his friends onto danger, his monstrous ego > believing he can defeat Voldemort as nothing more then a kid. Amiable Dorsai: Which he has, in fact, done. More than once. Jazmyn: > Harry should be locked up before he gets anymore people killed > or worse. He is already responsible for leading his godfather > to his death. Amiable Dorsai: As a result of the policy of keeping him "locked up". Why would you wish to repeat the same mistake again? Amiable Dorsai From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Dec 29 21:46:44 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (bawilson at citynet.net) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 16:46:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Umbridge and Snape; the surviving Triwizard champions Message-ID: <31341929.1135892804772.JavaMail.administrator@webmail> No: HPFGUIDX 145600 Jazmyn: "I am glad someone besides me doesn't see Snape as a child abuser. He is tough on the kids, yes, but no more tough then my old math teacher. Its clear the kids are learning and that he commands their attention, but he doesn't do anything that can be called child abuse, even by muggle standards." BAW: If you want real child abuse in HP, take a look at Prof. Umbridge. Now THERE's a nasty piece of work. Harry will bear the scar from her detention for the rest of his days. Next to Umbridge, Snape looks positively cuddley; at least Snape really wants his students to learn. kchuplis: "It brings up an interesting point. Will the three living Triwizard Champions all have a role to play? We know Viktor wanted to come back, is a "good guy". Fleur has more than enough reason, as does Harry and to be chosen for GoF, they apparently have more talent than many. Interesting." BAW: Cho can stand for Cedric. BAW From peppermintpattie4 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 02:33:06 2005 From: peppermintpattie4 at yahoo.com (patricia bindrim) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:33:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Reason Dumbledore is killed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051230023306.46649.qmail@web54105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145601 Fuzz wrote: > I think the reason Dumbledore is killed in this book > is because Voldemort uses people who are close to > Harry and he is the closest to him at this point. So > he had to be killed off to make Harry a stronger > person and more determined to face him. > Peppermintpattie: I agree with this reason why Dumbledore is killed. But also I think another reason to this is Dumbledore has always stood between Voldemort and what he always wanted ultimate power in the wizard world. From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri Dec 30 03:06:50 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 19:06:50 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Real child abuse/ Mcgonagall In-Reply-To: <43B47742.4030507@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: <007401c60cee$153a7460$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 145602 Harry is a loose canon who doesn't care about the consequences of his actions, who leads his friends onto danger, his monstrous ego believing he can defeat Voldemort as nothing more then a kid. Harry should be locked up before he gets anymore people killed or worse. He is already responsible for leading his godfather to his death. Jazmyn Sherry now: I think we must be reading completely different books! the last thing I'd accuse Harry of is being a loose cannon or having a monstrous ego. he has agonized over the danger his friends are in simply because of the fact that they are his friends. he didn't ask for the role he has been given. He was a baby when his parents were murdered and when the curse rebounded and he survived. He doesn't want this fight. But I really cannot let the accusation about his role in the death of Sirius pass. It is like blaming the victim of terrorism to say that Harry is responsible for Sirius death. Harry reacted as anyone would react to information that someone he loved was being held captive and tortured. It doesn't matter that it was a fake vision. He had already had one real vision, and that vision had saved Arthur's life. he could not have acted any other way than as he did. The one to blame for the death of Sirius is bella, or whoever killed her, if you buy into the idea that it could have been someone else. Bella and Voldemort. Not Harry, the victim. not Sirius the victim either. Sherry From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Fri Dec 30 03:20:07 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 03:20:07 -0000 Subject: JKR's website update - YES., YES, YES. :-)/ could be spoilers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145603 > > Oh, and Petunia will not display the magic abilities. > La Gatta Lucianese: I just hope Petunia doesn't turn out to be the person Snape was loved by. Poor man, nobody could be "deeply horrible" enough to deserve *that*. (I think my mother and Aunt Petunia were separated at birth...) From yankee_bubba at hotmail.com Fri Dec 30 03:23:24 2005 From: yankee_bubba at hotmail.com (bubbaqrib) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 03:23:24 -0000 Subject: The Locket and Mundungus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145604 If RAB is Regulus could it be that Mundungus has the locket? If Regulas brought the locket back to #12 Grimmauld Place. Did he take it in his pilfering or maybe stuck in the folds of Kreachers bed. I wonder if Mundungus has it or sold it somewhere and thats why we saw him in Hogsmeade with items from the Black house. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 03:28:01 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 03:28:01 -0000 Subject: Where is Godric's Hollow? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145605 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "thubanofllanmoel" wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I am new here; just saying hello. I live in England and I am very old. > > Does anyone have any thoughts on where Grodric Hollow is? Based on Hagid's statement that--en route from Godric's Hollow to Surrey--he passed Bristol, many people have concluded that it's somewhere in South Wales. Of course, he had 24 hours to kill, he may have taken a detour or two, or he may belong to the Mad-Eye Moody school of navigation. Or, as a female friend of mine once suggested, when the subject of the missing 24 hours came up, he may simply (being male) have refused to stop and ask directions. The women privy to this conversation seemed inordinately fond of this explanation. Amiable Dorsai From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 03:35:42 2005 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 03:35:42 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys and Luna's Purpose in the Series In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145606 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amiabledorsai" wrote: > I've had the idea for a while now that it was that the protection > Harry receives from staying at Privet Drive is reciprocal--it protects > the Dursleys as well as Harry. If so, their protection ends when > Harry hits 17--and there's a war on. Wouldn't it be delicious irony > if the Dursleys had to come to Harry (on bended knee, if there's any > justice) to arrange to be hidden from Tommy's Toerags? > That would be a great and wonderful way to finish off the Dursleys' arc, would it not? I am actually intrigued as well be JKR's mention in an interview about how it's probably too late for Petunia and Vernon but she feels sorry for Dudley. What might that portend, if anything? Here is a delicious scenario: The Dursleys are packed off to hide in the wizarding world. In the process they come into contact with different wizards and their families. Dudley, frightened and lonely, develops an adolescent crush on the only witch near his age who will talk to him for more than thirty seconds -- Luna Lovegood. Now, try to imagine Petunia and Vernon's reaction to Luna -- not only a witch, but in her disregard of convention the utter antithesis of everything that they use as the guiding light of their lives. Try to imagine their reaction if the romance actually gets off the ground and they are faced with the prospect of Luna as a daughter-in-law and magical grandchildren! This scenario, in addition to being deeply satisfying on many levels, would also explain Luna's purpose in the series. I think most of us have expected that she must be there for some reason. Why introduce her and build her up so late in the day unless there is something for her to do, something for which she is uniquely suited? So far she hasn't done anything, in terms of advancing the plot, that another character could not have done just as well -- except perhaps to comfort Harry for the loss of a loved one, and it seems like a huge waste of time and energy to develop an entirely new character for that one scene (and even there Neville might have done the same thing in a different way). I suppose that the chief theory was that she was supposed to provide a romantic interest for someone. Well, we know it won't be Harry or Ron, and JKR has said it won't be Neville. Maybe Dudley? After all, who else would put up with him? Not a prediction, just a speculation. Lupinlore From kchuplis at alltel.net Fri Dec 30 03:45:16 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 03:45:16 -0000 Subject: The Locket and Mundungus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145607 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bubbaqrib" wrote: > > If RAB is Regulus could it be that Mundungus has the locket? If > Regulas brought the locket back to #12 Grimmauld Place. Did he take > it in his pilfering or maybe stuck in the folds of Kreachers bed. I > wonder if Mundungus has it or sold it somewhere and thats why we saw > him in Hogsmeade with items from the Black house. > I'm betting on Kreacher's bed. *Something* is in Kreacher's little den anyway. I just was left with the impression, for some reason, that the scene where they peak in there is important for the future. kchuplis From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 04:11:31 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 04:11:31 -0000 Subject: JKR's website update - YES., YES, YES. :-)/ could be spoilers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145608 > > Alla: > > Oh, and Petunia will not display the magic abilities. > > Christina: > > I'm so glad that she finally debunked this one. A lot of people that > didn't think that Merope was the one to display magic late in life > theorized that Petunia would take this role- thoughts from the > Petunia-has-magic camp? Carol responds: I was equally glad to see the rumor debunked, and I'll restate what I've always said on this topic: The person most likely to "perform magic *late in life* *under desperate circumstances*" is IMO Mrs. Figg, who grew up with a knowledge of magic but unable to perform it. She knows what a wand is for and knows the incantations for certain spells. There's a vestige of magic in her or she couldn't communicate with cats. So I think that a rush of adrenalin and really, really meaning it would enable her to scream "Stupefy" at a Death Eater and actually succeed in performing magic. Since she's an elderly woman, she certainly meets the criterion for "late in life." She's an Order member with the duty of keeping an eye on Harry. Who better to spot a group of DEs lying in wait for the magical protection at 4 Privet Drive to end as Harry turns seventeen? (It's also possible that the magic would merely be summoning the Order members, but as I understand it, "Stupefy" is a less difficult spell than "Expecto Patronum," especially when the Patronus spell is combined with a message.) Anyway, I don't think it's Merope, who was only about twenty and whose love potion was not performed under "desperate circumstances." In fact, her desperation occurred when she admitted she was a witch and *gave up* magic. So my candidate is, as always, Mrs. Figg. I'm also happy that the Sorting Hat is not a Horcrux, a theory I argued against at some length months ago. Still, I understand how the advocates of those theories feel, having once believed that Mark Evans would show up as a Muggleborn in OoP. Carol, thanking JKR for the well-timed updates, including a new FAQ poll, and wishing everyone a happy Fifth Day of Christmas (or whatever you celebrate) From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 04:24:03 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 04:24:03 -0000 Subject: Snape and Prophecy and Harry WAS:Re: TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (lo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145609 > > Pippin: Harry has a right to be angry over the loss of his parents. We agree there. But to be obsessively angry with Snape about it when there are other people whose responsibility is far more direct... > > Amiable Dorsai: > > Straw, camel, back. > > Pippin: > The blame belongs far more to the camel packer than to the one who > sold him the straw. Amiable Dorsai: Snape's been piling shi... straw on Harry for six years. Regardless of his reasons or mitigating offstage circumstances, he's piled a mighty load. Amiable Dorsai From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Dec 30 05:10:28 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 05:10:28 -0000 Subject: Portrait in GH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145610 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "alora67" wrote: > Someone brought up the possibility of a portrait/live person that > possibly witnessed Lily's sacrifice. I know it's been brought up > before, but if it was a portrait that was able to report back to > DD/Order, who's portrait was it? I would love to hear what everyone > thinks.... Jen: I've changed my mind several times but now have to go with a portrait of Godric Gyffindor. We have yet to see any of the Founder's portraits. That seems odd, doesn't it? Harry doesn't know all the people in the portraits in Dumbledore's office, one could easily be GG. Or all the Founder's pics could be on the wall of the head's office and haven't been identified. Gryffindor works best, though, since the house was in Godric's Hollow. Seems like a house in Godric's Hollow might have a portrait of Godric in it. Especially if the owner who speculatively loaned out the house to the Potters was also related to Gryffindor . Jen, keeping up her lonely campaign for the Dumbledore brothers to be descended from GG. From crystal_of_ravenclaw at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 03:34:08 2005 From: crystal_of_ravenclaw at yahoo.com (Crystal Williams) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 19:34:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Not Harry's Fault (Was Re: Real child abuse/ Mcgonagall) In-Reply-To: <007401c60cee$153a7460$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: <20051230033408.27276.qmail@web37013.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145612 Jazmyn wrote: Harry is a loose canon who doesn't care about the consequences of his actions, who leads his friends onto danger, his monstrous ego believing he can defeat Voldemort as nothing more then a kid. Sherry wrote: It is like blaming the victim of terrorism to say that Harry is responsible for Sirius death. Harry reacted as anyone would react to information that someone he loved was being held captive and tortured. It doesn't matter that it was a fake vision. He had already had one real vision, and that vision had saved Arthur's life. He could not have acted any other way than as he did. The one to blame for the death of Sirius is Bella, Crystal: I agree with Sherry! Harry even talks about how he doesn't want that role. He wishes he could be normal with his parents still alive. Harry isn't responsible for his godfather's death b/c it was Voldemort who planted the vision into his head and he acted because he thought it was real. The only people I can blame for Sirus's death is Voldemort and his cousin Bella. And Harry usually tries to hold his friends back but they insist on coming any ways. And he never said he definitely would be able to kill Voldemort. He isn't sure how he is going to but he's going to try. Crystal From h2so3f at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 08:14:10 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 08:14:10 -0000 Subject: Portrait in GH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145613 Jen wrote: "I've changed my mind several times but now have to go with a portrait of Godric Gyffindor. We have yet to see any of the Founder's portraits. That seems odd, doesn't it? Harry doesn't know all the people in the portraits in Dumbledore's office, one could easily be GG. Or all the Founder's pics could be on the wall of the head's office and haven't been identified." CH3ed: I don't know. IMO the magic of leaving an imprint of a deceased wizard as a portrait probably wasn't invented/discovered yet back in the Founding Fathers' time. If there are portraits of the FF in the Head's Office, then DD and other headmasters shouldn't have had such a hard time finding the Chamber of Secrets... and they should have known of certain about the existence of one (from what Binn said it seems the CoS was considered a legend rather than factual). And the FF portraits should have been able to tell DD what their heirlooms are so DD and Harry wouldn't have to be guessing in HBP when they discussed LV's possible horcruxes. Also it seems to me if the portraits of the FF are in the office they would be the ones the other portraits(and probably most of the Headmasters) defer to, instead of remaining so quiet for 6 of 7 books. Also, I would think that the FF, being so revered, would be the ones to have their portraits in MoM and other places, so DD would have used one of two of them to go check on Arthur in OotP rather than the 2 he used (the witch was used because her other portrait was at St. Mungo's... but if any portrait of the FF exist then I'd think there'd be at least one of them at St. Mungo's as well...perhaps Ravenclaws' for inventing a cure for some bad diseases). Anyhow, I doubt very much that there exists a portrait of any of the FF (or LV would be after the Slytherin one to make a horcrux out of it, probably). But I agree with Jen that Albus and Aberforth Dumbeldore might be Gryffindor's heirs. CH3ed :O) From crystal_of_ravenclaw at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 03:38:37 2005 From: crystal_of_ravenclaw at yahoo.com (Crystal Williams) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 19:38:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Reason Dumbledore is killed In-Reply-To: <20051230023306.46649.qmail@web54105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051230033837.36052.qmail@web37001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145614 Peppermintpattie wrote: > I agree with this reason why Dumbledore is killed. But > also I think another reason to this is Dumbledore has > always stood between Voldemort and what he always > wanted ultimate power in the wizard world. Crystal: I think Voldemort had Dumbledore killed because Dumbledore is the one wizard he really fears. Dumbledore to me has always stood as sort of a block between Voldemort from getting harry. Plus Dumbledore had lots of information about his life that Voldemort didn't want known. From fuzz876i at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 15:50:12 2005 From: fuzz876i at yahoo.com (fuzz876i) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:50:12 -0000 Subject: re the locket and mundungus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145615 I kind of agree. I thought about Regulus Black being rab. His middle name is not given in any of the books. All we know for certain is that he was killed by Lord Vodemort. If he is RAB then either one of two people have the locket and they are Kreacher or Mundungus Fletcher. I would definitely check in Kreacher's den or try to find where Dung is hiding underground. Because that locket needs to be destroyed. Fuzz From coverton at netscape.com Fri Dec 30 16:48:43 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:48:43 -0600 Subject: Merope's life and real abusers and Hermione and Fleur. Message-ID: <000001c60d60$ebf82ed0$f90499ac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145616 Hi list members, heres some thoughts to think about. Life of Merope. 1. If any one was abused in the HP books it was Merope. 2. She was almost killed by that locket chain, She was verbally abused by not only Gaunt but Morfin as well, She lived in a shack out in the middle of know wear where hardly know one saw her,Talk about isolation. She came out of it okay but the effects were great. Know wonder she didn't like using her magic powers. She was so down that she didn't feel like using them. If I was her I wouldn't be feeling very magical either. Since we're on the abuse topic here are 3 people that are way worse than Snape could ever be. 1. Umbridge by far. 2. Gaunt a close second and Morfin a distant third. Now on to the topic of Hermione and Miss Fleur. 1. Hermione doesn't respect Fleur in my eyes. Want cannon to validate this? Here it is. I believe in Ron's room Harry, Ginny, and Hermione are all talking. Harry and Ron are talking about Fleur. don't have the tape in front of me so I'm going on memory.Hermione says "not you as well",referring to Harry. This to me is a lack of respect of Fleur. Now that I think of it it might have been Ginny who said that, but I could be wrong. If any one knows let me know. I think Hermione sees Fleur as this long haired cocky little villa girl who just gets by on looks and talent and in her opinion Fleur can't fight very well. If JKR allows it to be I think Fleur will more than hold her own JMO of course. Your fellow list member, Corey [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bawilson at citynet.net Fri Dec 30 18:08:11 2005 From: bawilson at citynet.net (bawilson at citynet.net) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:08:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Late-blooming magic user. Message-ID: <32204655.1135966091440.JavaMail.administrator@webmail> No: HPFGUIDX 145617 Lupinlore: "This scenario, in addition to being deeply satisfying on many levels, would also explain Luna's purpose in the series. I suppose that the chief theory was that she was supposed to provide a romantic interest for someone. Well, we know it won't be Harry or Ron, and JKR has said it won't be Neville. Maybe Dudley? After all, who else would put up with him?" BAW: I like this; almost as much as my idea that it will be Uncle Vernon who does magic. The man who most hates and fears it finds out that HE has it himself. Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants? And, knowing that there is sorcerous blood on BOTH sides of the family, I'd imagine that he'd examine the genealogies of Dudley's girlfriends very carefully. (One is tempted to think that no girl would look at Dudley twice, but as my great-grandmother used to say, "Theres no pot so crooked that no lid will fit it.") BAW From kchuplis at alltel.net Fri Dec 30 18:19:41 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:19:41 -0000 Subject: JKR's website update - YES., YES, YES. :-)/ could be spoilers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145618 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: The person most likely to "perform > magic *late in life* *under desperate circumstances*" is IMO Mrs. > Figg, who grew up with a knowledge of magic but unable to perform it. > She knows what a wand is for and knows the incantations for certain > spells. There's a vestige of magic in her or she couldn't communicate > with cats. I thought this too as she seems pretty deeply involved with the Order for a "squib". She is one of the first named by Dumbledore when he orders "the old gang" activated. She certainly knew the dementors were there and it is said muggles cannot see them (although I don't know that "squib" really equals "muggle"). kchuplis From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 19:18:48 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:18:48 -0000 Subject: The Locket and Mundungus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145619 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kchuplis" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bubbaqrib" wrote: > > > > If RAB is Regulus could it be that Mundungus has the locket? > > If Regulas brought the locket back to #12 Grimmauld Place. > > Did he take it in his pilfering or maybe stuck in the folds > > of Kreachers bed. I wonder if Mundungus has it or sold it > > somewhere and thats why we saw him in Hogsmeade with items > >from the Black house. > > > > kchuplis: > > I'm betting on Kreacher's bed. *Something* is in Kreacher's > little den anyway. I just was left with the impression, for > some reason, that the scene where they peak in there is > important for the future. > > kchuplis bboyminn: It's not likely that Mundungus has the Locket since it was thrown in the garbage and I don't think Mundungus was around at the time. However, we know that Kreacher was lurking about with the specific intent of salvaging items. So, I'm betting Kreacher removed it from the trash and added it to his little horde. That makes me wonder how Harry will ever find it. Kreacher doesn't seem very cooperative, and is unlikely to voluntee the information. I can't help but wonder what circumstance will occur in which Kreacher will give Harry the information he needs. Here is a question that I'm sure we CAN'T answer but it would be good to know. What happened to the objects from the Black house that were thrown away? Were they taken out back and vansihed? Were they set on the curb for the trashman to pick up? Are they just lying in a big pile behind the house? If they were vanished, can they be un-vanished? We see Bill 'vanish' a lot of maps and documents in the beginning of OotP when Harry enters the kitchen after the Order's meeting. Certainly, he would not want to permanently vanish those documents. Of course, the fact that the documents vanished doesn't necessarily mean they were 'vanished'. I wonder what Harry will do about Mundungus stealing from Sirius's house? I hope he forces Mundungus to go find every object and bring it back. I was also very disappoint that Sirius's purge of the house was so ruthless. First many of the object he so uncerimoniously threw away were valuable, both in cash value and in historic value. I suspect at some point Harry will very much regret that those objects aren't around as reminders of Sirius and his family history. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Dec 30 19:38:36 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:38:36 -0000 Subject: Half-Blood Hints Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145620 Here is one my all time favorite Snape lines: ****CoS, chp 11 Snape is speaking: "A bad idea, Professor Lockhart, said Snape, gliding over like a large and malevolent bat. "Longbottom causes devastation with the simplest spells. We'll be sending what's left of Finch-Fletchley up to the hospital wing in a matchbox." Neville's round, pink face went pinker.***** This line is so good, they kept it in the movie, though they changed Longbottom to Weasley and Finch-Fletchley to Potter. It's such a great line! But one thing used to bother me about it: Why the heck would a wizard ever need a matchbox? How would a wizard even know about matches or matchboxes? And it hit me, was this a hint of Snape's background? And more importantly, are there more hints? If anyone is currently re-re-re-reading the books, speak up if you see any other hints. And, BTW, doesn't "large malevolent bat" sound just like a Hebridean Black Dragon to you? Oh, and one thing, though I shouldn't bring this up (I hope Alla isn't listening.) Here again, Snape embarrasses Longbottom in front a DADA teacher. Potioncat, using a matchbox when lighting the scented candles she got at Christmas. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 30 20:18:52 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 20:18:52 -0000 Subject: Half-Blood Hints In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145621 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > And more importantly, are there more hints? If > anyone is currently re-re-re-reading the books, speak up if you see > any other hints. > Pippin: >From memory, as I haven't got my books except HBP: The instructions for the potions logic puzzle are written on paper (not parchment) Pensieve!Snape wears pants (Archie prefers a breeze) Snape's speaking style when alone with Filch is less affected Pippin who has imagined a happy ending where Ginny shows up riding a dragon, rescues Harry from the burning lava, and they fly off to a cave where they are greeted by live!Dumbledore. The dragon turns out to be Animagus!Snape. Hey, a girl can dream... From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 21:19:15 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 21:19:15 -0000 Subject: Real child abuse/ Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145622 > >>Miles: > > You are talking about emotional abuse - but the prerequisite for > > emotional abuse is a emotional connection between abuser and > > abused. > > > >>Alla: > > I would also disagree about no emotional connection between Snape > and Neville and I see that you did not argue that there is no > emotional connection between Snape and Harry, so I take we DO > agree that there is an emotional connection between them... > Betsy Hp: I think what Miles is referring to is the level of trust that must exist between an abuser and the abused for any sort of emotional trauma to take place. For example, if a teacher I didn't like to begin with told me I was a worthless idiot, I'd think "screw you, buddy" and move on. (Harry's reaction.) But if it were my parent or someone I looked to to help define myself as a person, those words would really hit home. Is there anything in any of the books that suggests Harry thinks Snape's view of him is correct? Neville thinks he's an idiot, but that's not just because of Snape. McGonagall, his grandmother, his classmates, all assure Neville that he's a bit of a hopeless mess. I think his grandmother's view, being she's his main care-giver would have the most affect on Neville. Which means that Snape's methodology with Neville is not the best, but it doesn't make Snape an abuser. > >>Alla: > Those kids are in boarding school, they don't see their parents > for many months, in fact Harry and Neville have NO parents to see > and teachers stay in loco parentis for all of them anyway. > I would argue that teachers have HUGE emotional power over those > kids and gross misuse of such power is in fact emotional abuse. Betsy Hp: It's an interesting argument, and it would have legs if the books showed any support for it whatsoever. But Snape is not their head of house. He interacts with Neville *only* as a Potions teacher. Neville only sees him as a teacher. *McGonagall* is their in loco parentis and I notice that you never argue that *she* emotionally abuses Neville. Though she shames him, in front of his entire house (or family), at least twice. Both times completely undeserved. So I think it's inconsistent to suddenly shove *Snape* into the parental role in order to argue abuse. Especially with Neville. Harry, with his role in the fight against Voldemort, does have a closer working relationship with Snape. But Harry has never trusted Snape, ever. That in itself is a problem to my mind. But it's not one of abuse. > >>Miles: > > Another necessity for abuse is that they cause or could cause > > serious behavioural, cognitive, emotional, or mental disorders. > > We never saw any student of Snape's classes that suffers from > > any of this. > >>Alla: > You may have not seen it, but I definitely did - to me Neville's > boggart is a metaphor for all that. IMO of course. Betsy Hp: That just doesn't make any sense to me. Neville *defeated* his boggart. Quite successfully. So how on earth does that suggest an inability to mature? How does it suggest a serious emotional block? We've *seen* Neville suffering from a huge emotional blow. He was a total mess after Fake!Moody's class and their private little meeting. Neville was *not* a mess after his boggart scene. In fact, I'd say facing down his boggart was a moment of *growth* on Neville's end. And it was fairly easily done, too. One try and Neville was laughing at what you're arguing is a huge emotional wound in his life. Would Harry laugh at his mother's dead body so easily? Or Sirius's? > >>Miles: > > We can agree, that Snape is a nasty person and an unfair > > teacher, far away from treating his students equally and > > respectful. But abuse - no canon support for this, if we do not > > use very private definitions of child abuse, but scholastic ones. > >>Alla: > Sorry, Miles, but I am not sure what you meant by "private" > definition of emotional abuse. I hope you don't mean that I > evaluare abuse by definitions "written" by me or something, > because then it is simply incorrect. The definition of emotional > abuse I brought up was actually in response to your post and I > was not the author. :-) Betsy Hp: I agree with Miles, Alla. I think you've cherry picked out a partial definition of emotional abuse. Yes, you didn't write the definition you used, but you ignored those portions that directly contradict your argument. To my mind you ignore the behavior an abused child exhibits. I'll requote from my old post on this subject: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144366 "Interestingly enough, the very definition of emotional child abuse includes an effect. IMO, this means that we cannot merely say, "Snape is sarcastic and belittling so he is therefore an emotional abuser." His words must cause real and identifiable problems in his victim. "Within the same site there is a list of behaviors that point towards a child being a victim of emotional abuse:" [ http://www.therapistfinder.net/Child-Abuse/Emotional-Verbal- Abuse.html ] : ********* Child's Behavior: Appears overly compliant, passive, undemanding; Appears very anxious or depressed; Attempts suicide; Avoids doing things with other children; Behaves younger than his or her age; Finds it difficult to make friends; Is extremely aggressive, demanding or enraged; Lags in physical, emotional, and intellectual development; Is very demanding or very obedient; Behaves very adult-like; Wets or soils the bed.2,10 ********** > >>Alla: > > Actually at this point I am just arguing against the idea that > people who DO see Snape as abuser somehow make "outlandish" > arguments. I understand the other interpretation, it is certainly > reasonable, but mine is reasonable too IMO. Betsy Hp: Honestly, you can pull up example after example of Snape behaving badly. But, as Miles has said, being a scary, badly behaved, unfair teacher is not abuse. And so I *do* see the "Snape is a child abuser" arguments as very "outlandish". Certainly I don't see them a reasonable. That's my opinion, anyway. Betsy Hp From coverton at netscape.com Fri Dec 30 07:53:09 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 01:53:09 -0600 Subject: The Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c60d16$184cdd50$9103acac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145623 Amiable Dorsai: If I'm right, it will be the Dursleys who have to make up with Harry. Heh-heh-heh. Corey: Ami brings up a good point about Dursleys possibly making up with Harry. But they are so afraid of magic that will they make up with him in time? Some people think that even after all the torment they gave him, Harry will find in it his heart to forgive them. After all Harry has bigger problems than the Dursley family, lets not forget. He has to avenge the death of his parents. So I'm afraid the Dursley issue will be put on the back burner so to speak. Corey From coverton at netscape.com Fri Dec 30 19:01:07 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (corey_over) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:01:07 -0000 Subject: SHIP Dudley and Luna/Luna and Harry. WAS: Re: Late-blooming magic user. In-Reply-To: <32204655.1135966091440.JavaMail.administrator@webmail> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145624 > Lupinlore: > "This scenario, in addition to being deeply satisfying on many levels, would > also explain Luna's purpose in the series. I > suppose that the chief theory was that she was supposed to provide a romantic > interest for someone. Well, we know it won't be Harry or Ron, and JKR has said > it won't be Neville. Maybe Dudley? After all, who else would put up with > him?" Corey: Dudley and Luna. Somehow I don't think it will happen. If Luna goes out with anyone it won't be Dudley. Don't think who it would be but somehow I just don't see Dudley and Luna making a good couple. IMO Luna doesn't seem very interested in dating people. Yes she went to Slughorn's Christmas party with Harry but they didn't really do anything. Harry just hung around. And Luna spent the balance of the party talking to Trelawney.Why I don't know. You'd think Luna seeing how she was jumping for joy to get invited would spend more time with Harry. Your fellow list member, Corey From hexicon at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 21:23:33 2005 From: hexicon at yahoo.com (Kristen) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 21:23:33 -0000 Subject: Half-Blood hints/Matchbox Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145625 Potion Cat said: "A bad idea, Professor Lockhart, said Snape, gliding over like a large and malevolent bat. "Longbottom causes devastation with the simplest spells. We'll be sending what's left of Finch-Fletchley up to the hospital wing in a matchbox." Neville's round, pink face went pinker.***** This line is so good, they kept it in the movie, though they changed Longbottom to Weasley and Finch-Fletchley to Potter. It's such a great line! But one thing used to bother me about it: Why the heck would a wizard ever need a matchbox? How would a wizard even know about matches or matchboxes? And it hit me, was this a hint of Snape's background? And more importantly, are there more hints? If anyone is currently re-re-re-reading the books, speak up if you see any other hints. Now Hexicon: I like this idea, but in PoA doesn't someone say that Pettigrew's mother received his remains in a matchbox? I can't seem to find it in the book though--movie contamination? From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 21:45:05 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 21:45:05 -0000 Subject: Real child abuse/ Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145626 > > Miles: > > You are talking about emotional abuse - but the prerequisite for > emotional > > abuse is a emotional connection between abuser and abused. Typical > emotional > > abuse happens between parents and children. > > Alla: > > IMO, there is no such thing as typical emotional abuse - it can > happen between different parties in very different situations - > parents and children, husband and wife, as you acknowledge between > teachers and children. I would also disagree about no emotional > connection between Snape and Neville and I see that you did not > argue that there is no emotional connection between Snape and Harry, > so I take we DO agree that there is an emotional connection between > them - in fact I would argue that Snape purposefully increased such > connection and made SURE that Harry knew about it. a_svirn: Somehow I don't think you use the term "emotional connection" quite the same way Miles does (correct me if I'm wrong, Miles). You mean that Snape hates Harry and despises Neville in a very "emotional" way, while Miles is talking about closeness and affinity between children and those who are dearest to them. I wouldn't say that Snape fits the profile. > Alla: > Those kids are in boarding school, they don't see their parents for > many months, in fact Harry and Neville have NO parents to see and > teachers stay in loco parentis for all of them anyway. a_svirn: Are you suggesting that SNAPE stands in loco parentis to Harry and Neville?! I will be first to agree that Neville is an emotionally abused kid, but you are looking in the wrong place. He may be an orphan for all intends and purposes, but he has a parent figure ? his grandmother. And she is doing a very good job of abusing him emotionally. It's from her he's got an idea about being an inadequate wizard and an unworthy son of his heroic parents. > Miles: > > Another necessity for abuse is that they cause or could cause > serious > > behavioural, cognitive, emotional, or mental disorders. We never > saw any > > student of Snape's classes that suffers from any of this. > > Alla: > > You may have not seen it, but I definitely did - to me Neville's > boggart is a metaphor for all that. IMO of course. a_svirn: This is debatable to say the least. Why do you think Neville's boggart is less "normal" than Sean's or Ron's? Ron's is a spider; by the way, does it mean that Ron has an awful mental disorder triggered, no doubt, by the Twins' abuse of him? (You know this story about teddy-bear?) By this rate you'll get all DADA class tucked up in a padded cell in no time at all. I agree it's significant, that Snape turned out be his boggart. In fact, it's downright fishy, and precisely because there is absolutely NO apparent connection between the two, emotional or otherwise. Personally I suspect very strongly that Snape was involved somehow in the Longbottoms' affair, and the memory of him lingered somewhere in a remote nook of Neville's mind. Hence his terror. From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Fri Dec 30 21:52:30 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 21:52:30 -0000 Subject: Real child abuse/ Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145627 > ... > > Miles: > > Another necessity for abuse is that they cause or could cause > serious > > behavioural, cognitive, emotional, or mental disorders. We never > saw any > > student of Snape's classes that suffers from any of this. > > Alla: > > You may have not seen it, but I definitely did - to me Neville's > boggart is a metaphor for all that. IMO of course. > ... > La Gatta Lucianese: Alla, take my mother--please! You need a little practical experience in emotional child (and adult) abuse (she's very good at both) before you hold forth on it before all the world. I'm sure you could work out a deal with her. She probably wouldn't even charge you, she'd be having so much fun. A few posts back, I made the distinction of CONTEXT and EFFECT as a factor in extablishing whether an adult's treatment of a child qualifies as emotional abuse. IMCE, the abuser has to be not only cruel to the child, but also a principal caregiver with genuine ability to affect the child's emotional growth. I've had the occasional snarky teacher in the course of my educational life, but not one of them had the effect on me that my mother had. To be a true abuser, an adult has to (1) have *absolute* power over the child, as my mother did over me when my father was at work (most of my waking hours while I wasn't in school), and (2) be someone on whom the child has a strong *emotional* dependency--i.e., the child really *cares* what this person thinks and feels about them, to the extent of self- hating if the adult expresses anger and hatred toward the child ("I must be a really bad person if my mother feels this way about me"). None of my teachers had this sort of effect on me. As I said before, never was I throwing-up afraid of one of my teachers. I often was of my mother. I really don't think that Snape, nasty as he is, satisfies either of the two conditions above. Harry doesn't like Snape, but he doesn't fear him, and he knows that he isn't absolutely under Snape's control (after the Flying Ford Anglia episode, he and Ron know that Snape isn't even in a position to get them expelled), and he certainly has no emotional dependency on him; I think he and Ron both refer to him as a "git" at one time or another. (For the same reason, I don't think the Dursleys qualify as genuine abusers *after* Harry gets to Hogwarts--*before* is another matter--, because Harry knows they don't really control him and he doesn't care what they think of him.) Neville is a rather more difficult case, because he is so impared by the time he gets to Snape that he doesn't have the confidence to see that Snape really can't do anything to him; Neville is simply terrified of any adult, and any adult criticism simply reduces him to jelly. As I said, to be a real abuser, the adult has to be someone with real control over the child (and the child knows it), to whom the child has strong emotional ties. In Harry's case, that adult is Albus Dumbledore, with perhaps Molly and Arthur Weasley as backup in the emotional department. None of these are remotely abusive; Harry knows he can depend on them absolutely for strong, positive support. Neville's case is quite different; I think he is abused, by his awful old grandmother, who in the few glimpses we get of her bears a strong resemblance to my mother. Her treatment of Neville so undermines his self-confidence that he is incapable of sticking up for himself with any adult. I think the real ruling terror in his life is that an adult expressing anger at him will report him to his grandmother. In fact, I think the real genius of Lupin's ridikkulus spell for Neville is that it teaches him to laugh not only at Snape, but at his grandmother as well. So, Alla, yes, Snape is an upleasant teacher, and, I think, a deeply disturbed and unhappy person (the victim of abuse himself, which rarely sets one up for a well-balanced approach to life), but I don't think he's an abuser, because he simply isn't in the *position* to be an abuser, whatever his personal feelings in the matter may be. Do please acquire a little practical experience on this subject, before you irritate those of us who've been in the trenches by holding forth on something that we know about only too well. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 21:52:30 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 21:52:30 -0000 Subject: Real child abuse/ Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145628 > Betsy Hp: >> *McGonagall* is their in loco parentis and I notice that you never > argue that *she* emotionally abuses Neville. Though she shames him, > in front of his entire house (or family), at least twice. Both > times completely undeserved. So I think it's inconsistent to > suddenly shove *Snape* into the parental role in order to argue > abuse. Especially with Neville. Alla: EXCEPT, I did in fact said several times what you just argued. If you did not read the posts where I certainly argued that Mcgonagall treated Neville badly, that does not mean that they do not exist. In fact I could refer you upthread to read one of my posts in this thread (when Mcgonagall name was there), where I most certainly said that Mcgonagall treated Neville badly, I think I even said twice, but the fact and the matter is that Mcgonagall is NOT Neville's boggart, Snape IS, to me it suggests that Mcgonagall's behavior does not amount to the level of emotional abuse, while Snape does IMO. And Mcgonagall also changes her behaviour towards Neville and even praises him sometimes. Betsy Hp: > Harry, with his role in the fight against Voldemort, does have a > closer working relationship with Snape. But Harry has never trusted > Snape, ever. That in itself is a problem to my mind. But it's not > one of abuse. Alla: IMO, it is. Harry never trusted Snape because Snape made sure to treat Harry as enemy. Harry had no clue who Snape was till Snape showed him what "teacher" like him can do. > > >>Miles: > > > Another necessity for abuse is that they cause or could cause > > > serious behavioral, cognitive, emotional, or mental disorders. > > > We never saw any student of Snape's classes that suffers from > > > any of this. > > > >>Alla: > > You may have not seen it, but I definitely did - to me Neville's > > boggart is a metaphor for all that. IMO of course. > > Betsy Hp: > That just doesn't make any sense to me. Neville *defeated* his > boggart. Quite successfully. So how on earth does that suggest an > inability to mature? How does it suggest a serious emotional block? Alla: Where did I say that Neville's boggart suggests "inability to mature"? I said that Neville's boggart is a metaphor for all things which abused child experiences as consequence of interactions with his abuser. We have NO indication in the text that Neville's Boggart changed, so it is still there. JKR has no book space to show what Neville suffers because of Snape, so she just gives us a shortcut, IMO. Betsy Hp: > We've *seen* Neville suffering from a huge emotional blow. He was a > total mess after Fake!Moody's class and their private little > meeting. Neville was *not* a mess after his boggart scene. In > fact, I'd say facing down his boggart was a moment of *growth* on > Neville's end. And it was fairly easily done, too. One try and > Neville was laughing at what you're arguing is a huge emotional > wound in his life. Would Harry laugh at his mother's dead body so > easily? Or Sirius's? Alla: Harry is afraid of the Dementors, nevertheless he defeats them with his Patrobus. Are you arguing that Harry is NOT afraid of the dementors anymore? That he overgrew them or something ? The fact that Neville can defeat his Boggart suggests to me that he can face his wounds, NOT that such wounds do not exist. IMO of course. > Betsy Hp: > I agree with Miles, Alla. I think you've cherry picked out a > partial definition of emotional abuse. Yes, you didn't write the > definition you used, but you ignored those portions that directly > contradict your argument. To my mind you ignore the behavior an > abused child exhibits. Alla: I used the full definition of emotional abuse which I found on the Internet. That may not have been the most detailed definition , but I certainly did not ignore anything . And I do not know how many times I have to say that - to me Neville's boggart is a metaphor for all those behaviors. You do not accept it, that is fine, but if I am answering the inquiry not to your satisfaction, it is NOT the same as not answering it at all, IMO. BY the way, I also don't think that to show abused child, JKR is obligated to show ALL behaviors. To me, in Neville and in Harry she showed the main indicators and that is good enough for me. I think that Sirius was absolutely depressed in Grimmauld place and JKR showed the main indicators perfectly, but did she show everything, I doubt it. Same with Harry's posttraumatic stress disorder, which I personally have no doubt that he had after Graveyard. > Betsy Hp: > Honestly, you can pull up example after example of Snape behaving > badly. But, as Miles has said, being a scary, badly behaved, unfair > teacher is not abuse. Alla: Yes, but if you interpret those examples as abuse, then they are. Betsy Hp: And so I *do* see the "Snape is a child > abuser" arguments as very "outlandish". Certainly I don't see them > a reasonable. That's my opinion, anyway. Alla: That is your right and prerogative. It is my right and prerogative to argue against it. JMO, Alla From zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 22:00:34 2005 From: zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com (zeldaricdeau) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 22:00:34 -0000 Subject: Half-Blood Hints In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145629 Pippin wrote: > The instructions for the potions logic puzzle are written on paper > (not parchment) zeldaricdeau now: It may have been mentioned somewhere before, but looking back, I think Snape using a logic puzzle as his task was a clue. As Hermione says, most wizards aren't very adept at logic. But maybe a half- blooded wizard with ties to the muggle world would be? > Pippin > who has imagined a happy ending where Ginny shows up riding a > dragon, rescues Harry from the burning lava, and they fly off to > a cave where they are greeted by live!Dumbledore. The dragon > turns out to be Animagus!Snape. Hey, a girl can dream... zeldaricdeau: Can I dream along with you? :) -ZR From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 22:19:47 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 22:19:47 -0000 Subject: Real child abuse/ Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145631 > a_svirn: > Somehow I don't think you use the term "emotional connection" quite > the same way Miles does (correct me if I'm wrong, Miles). You mean > that Snape hates Harry and despises Neville in a very "emotional" > way, while Miles is talking about closeness and affinity between > children and those who are dearest to them. I wouldn't say that > Snape fits the profile. Alla: Sort of but not quite - I think that what Snape does to them creates emotional connection because emotional connection can be both positive and negative - as in ability of Snape to influence their emotions if that makes any kind of sense. > a_svirn: > Are you suggesting that SNAPE stands in loco parentis to Harry and > Neville?! Alla: Even though Head of the House is indeed in loco parentis, IMO all teachers are from time to time. Say, child is hurt - emotionally or physically, needs help with anything and Head of the House is not available, I am not sure that in that case any other teacher will refuse help, which goes beyond what they do in class room. > a_svirn: > This is debatable to say the least. Why do you think Neville's > boggart is less "normal" than Sean's or Ron's? Alla: Snort. Of course it is debatable, but I do think that having person as Boggart IS less normal that any other fears. It suggests specific relationship with this person. IMO anyway. A_svirn: > I agree it's significant, that Snape turned out be his boggart. In > fact, it's downright fishy, and precisely because there is > absolutely NO apparent connection between the two, emotional or > otherwise. Personally I suspect very strongly that Snape was > involved somehow in the Longbottoms' affair, and the memory of him > lingered somewhere in a remote nook of Neville's mind. Hence his > terror. Alla: There are some AMAZING posts on this topic in the archives,absolutely amazing. Some argued that Snape was among torturers, some argued that Snape came to save Longbottoms. I would LOVE the first thing to be true, personally I am inclined to think that Snape SENT Bella and Co to Lonbottoms, just speculating here. But if we will learn that he was not involved at all, I think that it will further support that Snape did abuse Neville. JMO, Alla From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Dec 30 23:00:20 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:00:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Real child abuse/ Snape again References: Message-ID: <00e601c60d94$cfb69c50$a492400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 145633 > Alla: > > I do think that having person > as Boggart IS less normal that any other fears. It suggests specific > relationship with this person. IMO anyway. Magpie: Hermione's boggart is a person too, isn't it? Isn't it McGonagall? I believe she tells Hermione she's failed everything. Obviously Herimone isn't afraid or traumatized by McGonagall, but she represents an authority figure who can tell her she's a failure. I think Snape represents a similarly general concept for Neville along wtih being himself. -m From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 23:27:53 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 23:27:53 -0000 Subject: Real child abuse/ Snape again In-Reply-To: <00e601c60d94$cfb69c50$a492400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145634 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: > > > Alla: > > > > I do think that having person > > as Boggart IS less normal that any other fears. It suggests > specific > > relationship with this person. IMO anyway. > > > Magpie: > > Hermione's boggart is a person too, isn't it? Isn't it McGonagall? I > believe she tells Hermione she's failed everything. Obviously Herimone > isn't afraid or traumatized by McGonagall, but she represents an authority > figure who can tell her she's a failure. I think Snape represents a > similarly general concept for Neville along wtih being himself. > > -m > No one has seen Hermione's boggart, though. I strongly suspect she made up the whole thing. She would hardly scream herself hoarse if McGonagall told her this kind of news in real life. I would expect crying or even fainting, rather. Even throwing a tantrum would be a bit over the top. Certainly, shaking in terror is not a likely reaction. a_svirn From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Fri Dec 30 23:30:00 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:30:00 +0100 Subject: Real child abuse/ Snape again References: Message-ID: <010d01c60d98$f4f90b70$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 145635 Thank you to Betsy Hp, a_svirn and La Gatta for writing much better answers to Alla's response than I could have written. Just some additional remarks from my side. The reason I keep insisting on correct definitions of child abuse and their proper understanding is, that this point is much more important than the entire Harry Potter series. Not the definition - but what happens to children. It's important to talk about it, but it is as important not to mix up abuse with unfriendliness or even nastiness. > Alla: > Sort of but not quite - I think that what Snape does to them creates > emotional connection because emotional connection can be both > positive and negative - as in ability of Snape to influence their > emotions if that makes any kind of sense. Miles: This is certainly no basis for emotional abuse. And sorry, Alla, but this is beyond personal opinion, it is an unfounded stretching of the definition of emotional abuse you brought into our discussion. Sorry if it sounds rude, but it's really ad rem, not ad personam. You need a position of emotional dependence for this kind of abuse, and Snape never was in that kind of position. We see Snape in that kind of position in his relation to Draco, and he acts in a completely different way. I described Harry's reactions to *real* abuse by Umbridge, and this is totally different to his reactions to Snape. I do think that Rowling described the feelings of Harry and his reactions as the ones of an abused child because she wanted to show us, that Umbridge is not only "nasty" like Snape, but she is an abuser, a criminal. In the scene when he and his friends are caught in Umbridge's office (OotP) he turns to SNAPE to ask him for help. Just think about it. Miles From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 00:15:47 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:15:47 -0000 Subject: Real child abuse/ Snape again In-Reply-To: <010d01c60d98$f4f90b70$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145636 > Miles: > This is certainly no basis for emotional abuse. And sorry, Alla, but this is > beyond personal opinion, it is an unfounded stretching of the definition of > emotional abuse you brought into our discussion. Sorry if it sounds rude, > but it's really ad rem, not ad personam. > You need a position of emotional dependence for this kind of abuse, and > Snape never was in that kind of position. > We see Snape in that kind of position in his relation to Draco, and he acts > in a completely different way. Alla: Miles, I cannnot help but feel that you are questioning my expertise to decide what constitute abuse and what is not. I think that three years of working with domestic violence survivors and getting adequate training, means that I am competent to decide what constitutes abuse and what is not. You disagree with me, that is your right. But you seem to say that "Snape is not abuser" is fact. That is only your opinion, in my opinion. Reread the definition which I brought up in response to your earleir post, please and tell me how does it constitutes unfounded stretching of anything. Those kids ARE in the position to be emotionally dependent from Snape and books show it and with Harry they show it A LOT, IMO. IMO the fact that Snape interacts with Harry outside the classroom shows that Snape IS in that position. Reread for example the scene from GoF where Harry runs to the Dumbledore's office to tell him about Barty Sr. Is there ANYTHING in that scene that shows that these two interact because of Potions? It is totally unrelated and Snape runs his mouth at Harry simply because he gets some kind of sadistic pleasure doing it, IMO of course. Do I think that this kind of mistreatment constitutes emotional abuse? Yes, I absolutely do. Do I think that when Snape starts telling Harry how bad his father is costitutes emotional abuse? YES, and Snape is in the position, the unique position if I may to make Harry emotionally dependent from him, IMO. Miles: > I described Harry's reactions to *real* abuse by Umbridge, and this is > totally different to his reactions to Snape. I do think that Rowling > described the feelings of Harry and his reactions as the ones of an abused > child because she wanted to show us, that Umbridge is not only "nasty" like > Snape, but she is an abuser, a criminal. Alla: You determined that Umbridge abuse is "real" while Snape's is not based on what ? Of course Harry will react differently to Umbridge than to Snape because Umbridge's abuse is more SERIOUS that Snape's NOT because Snape is not an abuser, IMO of course. Just my opinion of course, NOT a fact. Alla From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sat Dec 31 00:17:20 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:17:20 -0000 Subject: Half-Blood Hints In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145637 > ... > > Pippin > who has imagined a happy ending where Ginny shows up riding a > dragon, rescues Harry from the burning lava, and they fly off to > a cave where they are greeted by live!Dumbledore. The dragon > turns out to be Animagus!Snape. Hey, a girl can dream... > La Gatta Lucianese: Speaking of large, black, batlike creatures, has it occurred to anyone that Snape's animagus might be a thestral? It too has bat wings, can fly, and is ridable. And it's more like a unicorn (my other choice for Snape's patronus) than a dragon is. I keep hoping that we'll learn more about thestrals in Book 7. (Hey, a girl can dream...) Canon (all OotP, American Edition); emphasis mine throughout: Chapter 10: "The coaches were no longer horseless. There were creatures standing between the carriage shafts; if he had had to give them a name, he supposed he would have called them horses, through there was something reptilian about them too. They were completely *fleshless*, their black coats clinging to their skeletons, of which every bone was visible. Their heads were dragonish, and their pupil- less eyes white and staring. Wings sprouted from each wither--vast black leathery wings that looked as though they ought to belong to *giant bats*. Standing still and quiet in the gathering gloom, the creatures looked eerie and *sinister*. *Harry could not understand* why the coaches were being pulled by these *horrible* horses, when they were quite capable of moving by themselves." Now Snape is described repeatedly as being thin, and his eyes (SS.8) are described as "cold and empty". Quirrell (SS.17) describes him as "swooping around like an overgrown bat", and says he "does seem the type" to be Voldemort's agent--certainly sinister. JKR calls Snape a "deeply horrible person". And Harry repeatedly says he cannot understand what Snape is doing at Hogwarts, just as he can't understand why the thestrals are pulling the carriages. More Canon: Chapter 33: "Harry whirled around. Standing between two trees, their white eyes gleaming eerily, were two thestrals, watching the whispered conversation as if they understood every word." Compare the description of Snape's eyes glittering strangely (GoF.36). He also has a habit of coming up silently behind people and overhearing their conversations, whispered and otherwise (CC.5). And here is the really interesting kick in the head as to where Harry's relationship with Snape may be going (more Canon): Chapter 34: "Harry wound his hand tightly in the main of the nearest thestral, placed a foot on a stump nearby, and scrambled clumsily onto the horse's *silken* back.... He looked down at the back of his thestral's *glossy black head*.... He closed his eyes and put his face down into the horse's *silky mane*.... He gave his thestral a quick, *grateful* pat.... " And here's the real kicker, when Harry first catches sight of the thestrals in the Forbidden Forest: Chapter 33: "'Yes,' he whispered, moving toward them. They tossed their reptilian heads, throwing back *long black manes*, and Harry stretched out his hand eagerly and patted the nearest one's shining neck. *How could he ever have thought them ugly?*" Will Harry ever feel that way about Snape? I'm betting on it. From Wink45zes at aol.com Fri Dec 30 22:47:08 2005 From: Wink45zes at aol.com (Wink45zes at aol.com) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 17:47:08 EST Subject: The Locket and Mundungus Message-ID: <1d8.4c52d7af.30e712ec@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145638 bboyminn: It's not likely that Mundungus has the Locket since it was thrown in the garbage and I don't think Mundungus was around at the time. However, we know that Kreacher was lurking about with the specific intent of salvaging items. So, I'm betting Kreacher removed it from the trash and added it to his little horde. That makes me wonder how Harry will ever find it. Kreacher doesn't seem very cooperative, and is unlikely to voluntee the information. I can't help but wonder what circumstance will occur in which Kreacher will give Harry the information he needs. Wink45: Just a couple points to think about. While this wasn't the old Black locket, but one brought to the house by Regulus. However it seems that although it was known that Regulus tried to leave Voldemort's ranks, he was not blasted off the family tree, so Kreacher may have saved the locket in memory of Regulus anyway. I think it would be fairly easy for Harry to order Kreacher to tell him where it is, if Harry remembers he has that power. On the other hand, while the Hog's Head barkeep (Alberforth?) didn't seem interested in buying all of the Black loot, he may have picked out a few choice items, including the locket. I do note that the exact circumstances around Regulus's death are not known. Sirius says that he was killed by Voldemort or on his orders. But what if Regulus had managed to destroy the Horcrux, and the act cost him his life? Remember, that locket is broken, when it was found in the cabinet no one could open it. Just as the stone in the ring was cracked, broken. And as the diary book was destroyed. bboyminn: Here is a question that I'm sure we CAN'T answer but it would be good to know. What happened to the objects from the Black house that were thrown away? Were they taken out back and vansihed? Were they set on the curb for the trashman to pick up? Are they just lying in a big pile behind the house? If they were vanished, can they be un-vanished? We see Bill 'vanish' a lot of maps and documents in the beginning of OotP when Harry enters the kitchen after the Order's meeting. Certainly, he would not want to permanently vanish those documents. Of course, the fact that the documents vanished doesn't necessarily mean they were 'vanished'. Wink45: I think there are a couple different spells that make objects seem to vanish. One would be what is used to clean up after a potions lesson, vanishing for good and ever all the good and disastrous attempts at potions making. These smelly and potentially dangerous solutions are not something you want hanging around. The other spell would be move like "sending" and object, like Bill sends the maps to a cabinet elsewhere, or Dumbledore sends Harry's trunk to the Burrow. Kind of like Apparating, but doing it to an object rather than the self. I think we can forget about leaving it all out for the trashman. Arthur would never condone letting magical items fall into Muggle hands. Because its a mixture of magical and mundane, I suspect it was just bagged up and held until someone remembered to take it into the Ministry of Magic where the Department of Muggal Artifacts could sort it all out. bboyminn: I wonder what Harry will do about Mundungus stealing from Sirius's house? I hope he forces Mundungus to go find every object and bring it back. I was also very disappoint that Sirius's purge of the house was so ruthless. First many of the object he so uncerimoniously threw away were valuable, both in cash value and in historic value. I suspect at some point Harry will very much regret that those objects aren't around as reminders of Sirius and his family history. Wink45: I do think Harry will want to have anything that was a personal item of Sirius's; the things he liked and kept. But the Black Family things that Sirius had rejected wouldn't hold any meaning for Harry. Besides, he has the portrait of old Mrs. Black and the family tree tapestry with which to remember that family's history. I think Harry was more upset that Sirius was being robbed; about the act of violation rather than about the things that were taken. In fact, I strongly suspect that Harry will return to 12 Grimauld Place to collect some of Sirius's stuff (as well as the locket?). On her website, Rowling has hinted that the mirror from Sirius "will help more than [we] think" in the last books. Hmm, could it be that Harry will find the mating mirror, and give it to Ron so they can stay in touch while Harry is off hunting Horcurxes? Wink45 ] From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Sat Dec 31 01:41:02 2005 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 02:41:02 +0100 Subject: Real child abuse/ Snape again References: Message-ID: <014101c60dab$48ce34c0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 145639 dumbledore11214 wrote: > Miles, I cannnot help but feel that you are questioning my expertise > to decide what constitute abuse and what is not. I think that three > years of working with domestic violence survivors and getting > adequate training, means that I am competent to decide what > constitutes abuse and what is not. You disagree with me, that is > your right. But you seem to say that "Snape is not abuser" is fact. > That is only your opinion, in my opinion. Miles: I do not think that personal expertise is decisive in our discussion. I rarely is in any discussion. I could be a professor for children's psychiatry, but for all that I still could be wrong. You may have recognised that several people referred to their personal expertise. I did not - and I really do not want to discuss it, because it leads us to nowhere. AFAIR I was the first one to ask for definitions of abuse and to bring in a definition in order to structure the discussion. Later you introduced a definition of emotional abuse - which is similar to the English and German definitions I found so far - and tried to show Snape's actions as abuses of this kind. What you missed (and I neither think you intended to do nor that the reason is a lack of personal expertise on your side) is to point out, that the kind of relationship between abuser and abused when speaking of emotional abuse has to meet special conditions, like trust, dependence, and exclusiveness. These conditions, to speak of Harry, are met by Dumbledore, Sirius, maybe Molly and Arthur - but never by Snape. To speak of my opinion or your opinion - I really think in this special point the "IMO" is a meta one: In my opinion your understanding of the definition is wrong, missing decisive elements; it is not only a different opinion. I'm speaking of your understanding of the concept of emotional abuse, of nothing more. You may be right with your basic assumption that Snape is an abuser, though I personally doubt it - IMO he is not. But the term "emotional abuse" - no. Other forms of child abuse - maybe, yet to be discussed. Miles, trying to be ad rem, showing off his Latin ;) From kchuplis at alltel.net Fri Dec 30 23:31:59 2005 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 23:31:59 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Triumphant: Speculate Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145640 I have been looking for something to follow up Harry's observation when telling Dumbledore and Sirius about LV cutting him and using his blood in GoF pg. 696 Scholastic hardback: "He said the protection my - my mother left in me - he'd have it too. And he was right - he could touch me without hurting himself, he touched my face." For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes. ___________________ Why would that spark triumph in Dumbledore? And yet, it seems the sort of clue that is often followed up on way later. Any ideas? kchuplis From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Dec 31 02:19:41 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 02:19:41 -0000 Subject: JKR's website update - YES., YES, YES. :-)/ could be spoilers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145641 > > > Alla: > > > Oh, and Petunia will not display the magic abilities. Carol: > I don't think it's Merope, who was only about twenty and whose > love potion was not performed under "desperate circumstances." In > fact, her desperation occurred when she admitted she was a witch and > *gave up* magic. Valky: I do think Merope's love potion was made under desperate circumnstances, in the sense that she became desperate to make her dream of marrying Tom Riddle Sr come true, he had married and hence her dream was fast slipping away from her, additionally she knew that her father and brother could come back some day so her desperation to escape while she could do so qualifies in my book. OTOH I don't think the Merope qualifies for magic 'late in life' for two reasons. The first is that she is not unmagical to begin with, her father may call her a squib but she is not a squib, she is clearly a witch who has been mistreated and badly trained. The second reason is that she is barely (if at all) a decade older than eleven when she does correctly make the love potion, to that end its leter than eleven but I wouldn't really call it "late in life". The second reason is not bulletproof, around 20yrs old can technically be called late in life for magic to develop in the Potterverse, but IMO lat*er* in life actually seems more accurate for this scenario. In any case I think the first reason is quite bulletproof. Merope, like other children of the WW displayed magical ability while still a child, as observed by Ogden, hence she probably isn't the person JKR is talking about here. > Carol: > So my candidate is, as always, Mrs. Figg. Valky: I became fairly certain that Petunia's secret was not magical ability recently, so I am with you on that. IMO Figgy was alaways the better candidate. Figg or Filch are for sure the best candidates that canon seems to suggest. Filch has been caught by Harry with the kwickspell course and there is some canon evidence to the suggestion that Figgy two has been trying spells and potions (ie "I have never been able to transfigure a teabag", sounds like she tried to at one stage, and the smells of her house are reminiscent of potion smells.) Canon suggests that these two squibs have been trying to and want to become magical, and it would be very disappointing if nothing came of either of them in the end, I think. > Carol: > I'm also happy that the Sorting Hat is not a Horcrux, Valky: Ditto! Though I never really minded others flagging the theory I just felt it was never going to be. From xxneuman07xx at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 01:53:11 2005 From: xxneuman07xx at yahoo.com (xxneuman07xx) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 01:53:11 -0000 Subject: The Second Horcrux Thief(and Longbottom) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145642 > Allie: > > It's only significant that anyone stole a Horcrux if they also > destroyed it. Otherwise, it would still function, although that would > make it less safe for Voldemort than before. It would certainly > shortcut Harry's problem if Lily or the Longbottoms had already found > and destroyed a Horcrux. > It's very significant in that it makes them a lot easier to get to. Which is easier, traveling to the Pyramids of Furmat or visiting Neville? Neuman From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Dec 31 04:15:02 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 04:15:02 -0000 Subject: Who was with Voldemort at GH? (Re: Portrait in GH) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145643 CH3ed: > I don't know. IMO the magic of leaving an imprint of a deceased > wizard as a portrait probably wasn't invented/discovered yet back > in the Founding Fathers' time. If there are portraits of the FF in > the Head's Office, then DD and other headmasters shouldn't have > had such a hard time finding the Chamber of Secrets... and they > should have known of certain about the existence of one (from what > Binn said it seems the CoS was considered a legend rather than > factual). Jen: Hmmm, maybe you are right about no portraits of the Founders. Darn. Will have to rethink who might have had a portrait at Godric's Hollow. About the COS though, not even the Founders could verify the existence for sure. Even if Slytherin told the other Founders he was leaving the chamber behind, they still were not able to prove it according to Binns. My impression was it became a legend when no one could locate it, not the other way around. CH3ed: > Also it seems to me if the portraits of the FF are in the office > they would be the ones the other portraits(and probably most of > the Headmasters) defer to, instead of remaining so quiet for 6 of > 7 books. Also, I would think that the FF, being so revered, would > be the ones to have their portraits in MoM and other places, so DD > would have used one of two of them to go check on Arthur in OotP > rather than the 2 he used (the witch was used because her other > portrait was at St. Mungo's... but if any portrait of the FF exist > then I'd think there'd be at least one of them at St. Mungo's as > well...perhaps Ravenclaws' for inventing a cure for some bad > diseases). Jen: Boy, you keep piling up the evidence, don't you? ;) OK, so if the alleged portrait at Godric's Hollow was not Godric himself, it would need to be someone with a portrait in the head's office so Dumbledore was warned the minute Voldemort arrived, before the house was blown up. Although...much as I like the portrait idea, Fortescue and Dippet were the only two former heads Harry learned by name who didn't have a portrait somewhere else, right? That might be an interesting twist if one of them warned Dumbledore, but it's not really the 'AHA' I'm expecting Godric's Hollow to be. A bigger deal would be if someone was with Voldemort that night, a question JKR refuses to answer. Snape would be the biggest surprise, and Harry did have that dream the first night after meeting Snape where Snape's 'laugh became high and cold--there was a burst of green light...' indicating the possibility Snape and Voldemort are connected in his mind somehow (unless that was just a red herring for PS). The only problem is Snape was already on DD's side by then and would have tried to warn Dumbledore, unless Voldemort surprised him with the trip to GH. Snape would be tricky, if he was there from the start, you'd think (or Harry would anyway) that thwarting Voldemort from killing the Potters and Harry would be well worth blowing his cover for. If he came without Voldemort's knowledge and was too little too late, would it really matter? I feel like we have enough built up between Snape and Harry to fuel the fire, more seems like overkill. Who else would be a WOW, though? Peter or Lucius wouldn't be a big surprise. Now perhaps Bella was there, could that have been what she meant about being trusted with 'his most precious....'; instead of his most precious treasures, i.e. horcruxes, how about his most precious mission? That might explain why she went to the Longbottoms if she learned something about the prophecy at Godric's Hollow. Still, even if her presence connects the dots she wouldn't be *unexpected*. I get the feeling we will be surprised by who was there because JKR has kept it so secretive. Another traitor, then? CH3ed: > But I agree with Jen that Albus and Aberforth Dumbeldore might be > Gryffindor's heirs. Jen: Cool! From schumar1999 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 04:15:14 2005 From: schumar1999 at yahoo.com (Marianne S.) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 04:15:14 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys In-Reply-To: <000001c60d16$184cdd50$9103acac@Overton> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145644 > Amiable Dorsai: > If I'm right, it will be the Dursleys who have to make up with Harry. > Heh-heh-heh. > > Corey: > Ami brings up a good point about Dursleys possibly making up with > Harry. But they are so afraid of magic that will they make up with him in time? Some people think that even after all the torment they gave him, Harry will find in it his heart to forgive them. After all Harry has bigger problems than the Dursley family, lets not forget. He has to avenge the death of his parents. So I'm afraid the Dursley issue will be put on the back burner so to speak. Marianne S: I have always thought it would be just desserts for the Dursleys if, for their protection, they agree to let Harry hide them (possibly after the Death Eaters destroy their home on Privet Drive). What better place for Harry to put them in "thanks" to all those years of "hospitality" but Grimmauld Place. Just imagine Vernon facing Mrs. Black and that whole house full of magic. Heehee. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 04:02:13 2005 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 04:02:13 -0000 Subject: Real child abuse/ Snape again In-Reply-To: <014101c60dab$48ce34c0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145645 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > > You may be right with your basic assumption that Snape is an abuser, though > I personally doubt it - IMO he is not. But the term "emotional abuse" - no. > Other forms of child abuse - maybe, yet to be discussed. > Well, now that's really the nub, isn't it? I'm afraid trying to impose definitions, or even reach them by consensus, isn't going to work. It has never worked with the Dursleys, and I seriously doubt, in fact I'm certain, it will never work with Snape and his abusive behavior. Lupinlore From AllieS426 at aol.com Sat Dec 31 04:32:16 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 04:32:16 -0000 Subject: The Second Horcrux Thief(and Longbottom) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145646 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "xxneuman07xx" wrote: > > > > Allie: > > > > It's only significant that anyone stole a Horcrux if they also > > destroyed it. Otherwise, it would still function, although that would > > make it less safe for Voldemort than before. It would certainly > > shortcut Harry's problem if Lily or the Longbottoms had already found > > and destroyed a Horcrux. > > > > It's very significant in that it makes them a lot easier to get to. > Which is easier, traveling to the Pyramids of Furmat or visiting Neville? > > Neuman > Allie: Sorry I should have said significant to Voldemort. Although I guess as any Evil Overlord he would rage and storm about it and want the thief found. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 05:03:38 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 05:03:38 -0000 Subject: Who was with Voldemort at GH? /quick PoA question./Real child abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145647 Jen: A bigger deal would be if someone > was with Voldemort that night, a question JKR refuses to answer. > Snape would be the biggest surprise The only problem is Snape was already on DD's side by then and would > have tried to warn Dumbledore, unless Voldemort surprised him with > the trip to GH. Alla: Jen, I think that Snape IS a best candidate to be at Godric Hollow, simply because the BANG will be even bigger and IMO you can never have enough hate built up between Harry and Snape. I don't see Snape being there as a problem either for the reason you described IF He is DD! Man OR that he never truly wanted to warn the Potters and longed to be there IF he is truly Voldemort second in command and maybe he just wanted to see Voldemort fulfilling his promise and giving him Lily as a prize. Ewwwww. Jen: > Who else would be a WOW, though? Peter or Lucius wouldn't be a big > surprise. I get the feeling we will be surprised by who was > there because JKR has kept it so secretive. Another traitor, then? Alla: I agree, NOBODY will have such an effect, BUT Snape IMO and as you said we know it is important. That is the same reason why I was sure that Snape was an eavesdropper - made no sense to introduce somebody else and Snape would be BANGy. > > CH3ed: > > But I agree with Jen that Albus and Aberforth Dumbeldore might be > > Gryffindor's heirs. > > Jen: Cool! > Alla: Heeeee. Me too, me too and don't forget that JKR said that Fawkes is Albus' possession, not Hogwarts. Alla: I am rereading PoA now and have a small question. When Harry buys books for the school year, the one which he buys for Divination is called "Unfogging the future" by Cassandra Vablatsky - PoA, p.53, hardcover, am.edition. Trelawney's ancestor name is Cassandra. Is it the same Cassandra? Does it mean that Trelawney IS able to teach her students something at least, since she knows which books to select? Maybe the real Seer will emerge from the students in book 7? Miles: > You may be right with your basic assumption that Snape is an abuser, though > I personally doubt it - IMO he is not. Alla: Oh, I do think that Snape has all the skills to be physical abuser and showed it off quite nicely couple of times too. So, I don't think that he is just an emotional abuser. It is just something that he is especially good at, IMO, but he has all the potential in the world to be good at physical abuse too, IMO. I think he learned well from his days with Voldie. Miles: But the term "emotional abuse" - no. Alla: You say no, I say yes. Unless you could show to me that your word has more value than mine, I will keep thinking that our opinions are of equal validity. Sorry about that. JMO, Alla. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 05:05:29 2005 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 05:05:29 -0000 Subject: Punishments for the Dursleys Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145648 We have a minor cottage industry developing coming up with suitable fates for the Dursleys. There seem to be several that are plausible. For one thing, it doesn't seem very believable that Voldy will just shrug and let them go -- it ain't in his character. So an attack on Privet Drive seems in the cards. We know now that won't result in Petunia showing magic, once a favorite theory. It also seems unlikely that any of them will be killed or soul-sucked. JKR likes to torment them too much for that. An attack might, however, result in the Dursleys having to be hidden, as several have suggested. In any case, here are some ideas that have been recently broached along with a few of my own. None of these are predictions (from me, anyway) just speculations/funny ideas: 1) The Dursleys have to be hidden at Grimmauld Place. This would be delicious in several ways. It would also give a very ironic twist to Vernon's interest in the house Harry inherited. 2) Dudley achieves "salvation" through a romance with a witch. 3) The Dursleys demand protection. The Ministry obliges by assigning them a witch they want to keep out of the public eye, namely Dolores Umbridge. 4) Petunia, learning that Dumbledore is dead, contacts McGonnagall and demands payment for keeping Harry all those years. McGonnagall obliges by promising Petunia a magical servant -- and asks Harry to dispatch Kreacher to keep house for his aunt. 5) Ron and Hermione come to stay with Harry at Privet Drive. Dudley makes a pass at Hermione, resulting in Ron losing his temper and (now an adult and legal wizard, remember) doing something extremely nasty and somewhat permanent. 6) Ginny comes to Privet Drive to celebrate Harry's coming-of-age. Dudley attempts to press his favors on her (being under age she can't use her bat bogey hex in this situation). However, Harry, now of age, loses his temper and does something rather nasty (remember, we do have a hint in an early JKR interview that Harry will use magic on Dudley). 7) Ginny comes to visit at Privet Drive on Harry's birthday. Vernon, deeply frustrated by having two adult wizards (Ron and Hermione) in the house who can't be touched (and who won't tolerate his bullying of Harry), loses his temper and grabs her in much the same way he grabbed Harry in OOTP. Harry is not pleased and nastiness ensues. And of course, many of these are not mutually exclusive. Anyway, as I say, not predictions, just possibilities. I do think of all of them the Grimmauld place eventuality might have been foreshadowed (i.e. Vernon's interest in the house Harry inherited) and would certainly be poetic. It could also be done without taking up a great deal of space, as Harry need not interact with the Dursleys at Grimmauld Place. They could be shipped there and then a comic line every now and then through the book could catch us up on their misadventures. And God knows, Book VII will probably desperately need a line of comic relief here and there. Also, we do know that Ron and Hermione will be going to stay at Privet Drive while Harry awaits his birthday. It seems unbelievable that their presence would not give rise to ample opportunity for the Dursleys to put their foot in it, so to speak. Anyway, anybody else have any ideas? Lupinlore From ladypensieve at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 06:47:00 2005 From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Kathy) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 06:47:00 -0000 Subject: Who was with Voldemort at GH? /quick PoA question./Real child abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145649 See my post 145203 - I know it was Snape at GH. It's the only thing that ties everything together...it gives us the reason Dumbledore trusts Snape - and the reason Snape is tied to Harry. It's the only logical answer. KathyO --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Jen: > A bigger deal would be if someone > > was with Voldemort that night, a question JKR refuses to answer. > > Snape would be the biggest surprise The only > problem is Snape was already on DD's side by then and would > > have tried to warn Dumbledore, unless Voldemort surprised him with > > the trip to GH. > > > Alla: > > Jen, I think that Snape IS a best candidate to be at Godric Hollow, > simply because the BANG will be even bigger and IMO you can never > have enough hate built up between Harry and Snape. I don't see Snape > being there as a problem either for the reason you described IF He > is DD! Man OR that he never truly wanted to warn the Potters and > longed to be there IF he is truly Voldemort second in command and > maybe he just wanted to see Voldemort fulfilling his promise and > giving him Lily as a prize. Ewwwww. > > > Jen: > > Who else would be a WOW, though? Peter or Lucius wouldn't be a big > > surprise. I get the feeling we will be surprised by who was > > there because JKR has kept it so secretive. Another traitor, then? > > Alla: > > I agree, NOBODY will have such an effect, BUT Snape IMO and as you > said we know it is important. That is the same reason why I was sure > that Snape was an eavesdropper - made no sense to introduce somebody > else and Snape would be BANGy. > > > > > CH3ed: > > > But I agree with Jen that Albus and Aberforth Dumbeldore might be > > > Gryffindor's heirs. > > > > Jen: Cool! > > > > Alla: > > Heeeee. Me too, me too and don't forget that JKR said that Fawkes is > Albus' possession, not Hogwarts. > > > Alla: > > I am rereading PoA now and have a small question. When Harry buys > books for the school year, the one which he buys for Divination is > called "Unfogging the future" by Cassandra Vablatsky - PoA, p.53, > hardcover, am.edition. > > Trelawney's ancestor name is Cassandra. Is it the same Cassandra? > Does it mean that Trelawney IS able to teach her students something > at least, since she knows which books to select? Maybe the real Seer > will emerge from the students in book 7? > > > > Miles: > > You may be right with your basic assumption that Snape is an > abuser, though > > I personally doubt it - IMO he is not. > > Alla: > > Oh, I do think that Snape has all the skills to be physical abuser > and showed it off quite nicely couple of times too. So, I don't > think that he is just an emotional abuser. It is just something that > he is especially good at, IMO, but he has all the potential in the > world to be good at physical abuse too, IMO. I think he learned well > from his days with Voldie. > > > Miles: > But the term "emotional abuse" - no. > > Alla: > > You say no, I say yes. Unless you could show to me that your word > has more value than mine, I will keep thinking that our opinions are > of equal validity. Sorry about that. > > JMO, > > Alla. > From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 07:48:43 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 07:48:43 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Triumphant: Speculate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145650 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kchuplis" wrote: > > I have been looking for something to follow up Harry's > observation when telling Dumbledore and Sirius about LV > cutting him and using his blood in GoF pg. 696 > Scholastic hardback: > > ... > > For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a gleam of > something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes. > > ___________________ > > Why would that spark triumph in Dumbledore? And yet, it seems > the sort of clue that is often followed up on way later. Any > ideas? > > kchuplis > bboyminn: Well of course, and sadly, the answer is, we don't know. JKR has hinted as much as the 'gleam of triumph' being Dumbleodre's realization that Voldemort's actions were flawed. Voldemort had made a mistake that he had not anticipated. But Dumbledore never told Harry or anyone close to Harry what it all meant, so we are left to speculation. This is the most we know - from the MuggleNet/LeakyCauldon interview - http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/extras/aa-jointerview3.html MA: Does the gleam of triumph still have yet to make an appearance? JKR: That's still enormously significant. And let's face it, I haven't told you that much is enormously significant, so you can let your imaginations run free there. ES: I think everybody realized it was significant when they read it but we didn't see it materialize in 5 or 6. JKR: Well, it still is. ES:We've been kind of waiting for the big revelation. JKR: Absolutely, that's for seven. That's for seven. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . So, with out a doubt, the 'Gleam of Triumph' is important and significant. But exactly what it means, we don't know. Steve/bboyminn From h2so3f at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 08:38:08 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 08:38:08 -0000 Subject: Who was with Voldemort at GH? /quick PoA question./Real child abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145651 Jen wrote: "About the COS though, not even the Founders could verify the existence for sure. Even if Slytherin told the other Founders he was leaving the chamber behind, they still were not able to prove it according to Binns. My impression was it became a legend when no one could locate it, not the other way around." CH3ed: Yeah, I think you have it right there. I bet that didn't do anything to leave the remaining 3 FF's irritation with Slytherin after he left. ;O) Jen wrote: Boy, you keep piling up the evidence, don't you? ;) CH3ed: Sorry, bad habit from work. ;O) You're right; tho, if the witness at GH was a portrait that portrait should have had a copy at Hogwarts Head's Office. I don't think we know that Fortescue and Dippet don't have a a portrait or two hanging anywhere beside in the Head's Office yet. If anything I expect that if Fortescue the ex- headmaster was related to Florean Fortescue of the ice cream parlor, then there should have been a copy of his portrait at Fortescue's residence or at the parlor (tho Harry hadn't noticed it for us) and DD may have had a good idea of what happened to Florean. Alla wrote: "I think that Snape IS a best candidate to be at Godric Hollow, simply because the BANG will be even bigger and IMO you can never have enough hate built up between Harry and Snape." CH3ed: I think Snape is indeed a candidate for the biggest BANG. Like Jen, I also think it might be a bit of an overkill tho. It is hard to imagine any more hate is possible between Harry and Snape. I think their mutual hate bond is getting over-saturated. Anymore would make it impossible for any reconciliation in the end even if Snape does turn out to be DDM. While I agree with KathyO that Snape's remorse has to do with Lily's death and it might have been on Snape's request that LV tried to spare Lily, I don't think that constitutes conclusive evidence that Snape was at GH when LV attacked. LV didn't mention Snape's presence when he was recounting the scene to the DE in the graveyard scene in GoF. In my twisted moments I suspect old Figgy as the witness. She is a squib... someone whose presence nobody (in the WW) would pay attention to. She has a good surprise quality for it. :O) Alla wrote: "And don't forget that JKR said that Fawkes is Albus' possession, not Hogwarts." CH3ed: Yeah! In my case the absence of Fawkes in the fight at the end of HBP pretty much seals the deal for me that DD anticipated his own assassination (I don't say he expected it, but I think he foresaw it as a possibility). Phoenixes are loyal. I think only DD ordering him to stand down would have prevented Fawkes from showing up to swallow Snape's AK or wisk DD away from the tower scene with that firy apparition thing that Fawkes does. Alla wrote: "Trelawney's ancestor name is Cassandra. Is it the same Cassandra? Does it mean that Trelawney IS able to teach her students something at least, since she knows which books to select? Maybe the real Seer will emerge from the students in book 7?" CH3ed: I think it is probably the same Cassandra (I think Umbridge confirms it is OotP when she audited Trelawney's class, I could be wrong tho.. don't have OotP to check at the moment). I suspect Trelawney picks the book because of her connection with her famous great great grandmother more than anything. She's a bit of a show off (except that most of the time she shows herself to be a fraud rather than real seer). I think Firenze is right about her having the gift but discredits herself by making bogus frivolous predictions. CH3ed :O) From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 03:56:25 2005 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 03:56:25 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys In-Reply-To: <000001c60d16$184cdd50$9103acac@Overton> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145652 Corey: > So I'm afraid the Dursley issue will be put on the back burner > so to speak. Well, IMO that would be incredibly poor writing on JKR's part, and bordering on morally reprehensible. We shall have to see, I guess. There are just so many issues to wrap up in the last book. But, I think the Dursley issue is one of the most important ones with which she has to deal. Lupinlore From maliksthong at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 09:47:14 2005 From: maliksthong at yahoo.com (Chys Lattes) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 09:47:14 -0000 Subject: Harry as a Horcrux- about what JKR said In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145653 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "antoshachekhonte" > wrote: > > > I'm ambivalent about the Harry-as-Horcrux theories. It seems likely to > > me that Harry's vanquishing of Voldy will in fact center around an act > > of self-sacrifice on his part, but the Horcrux theory... :shrugs: > > > The problem I have with this theory is that it is opposite of the > prophecy. "Neither can live while the other survives." Harry > sacrificing himself means that while the HC wil be gone, LV will still > not be dead. And he is a very powerful wizard so quite hard to kill. > > Gerry > Chys: Didn't JKR just say in her recent site update something interesting about the sorting hat and something that contradicts the 'Harry is a Horcrux' theory? It was something along the lines of 'Who would want a talking horcrux that could give away your secrets?' Well, we know it's not intentional, if at all. I think that may have been a hint in that direction, or maybe I'm reading this too deeply. He has a connection to the man, but he isn't the man himself, right? But here I go remembering DD and the silver instrument- a good question to JKR would be what was the significance of that? Chys From PenapartElf at aol.com Sat Dec 31 10:39:33 2005 From: PenapartElf at aol.com (PenapartElf at aol.com) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 05:39:33 EST Subject: Reminder - chap. disc. of HBP7 (The Slug Club) Message-ID: <28d.35fc73f.30e7b9e5@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145654 Since the dissection of HBP ch. 7 (The Slug Club) is now in the offing, we would like to suggest that everyone who is interested in participating meaningfully *reread* this chapter and refresh your memory of canon. Look for the post from akh in the week of January 2nd! The discussion schedule is at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database Just click on the "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" table. Thanks and enjoy! From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Dec 31 12:09:08 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 12:09:08 -0000 Subject: The Locket and Mundungus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145655 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kchuplis" wrote: > That makes me wonder how Harry will ever find it. Kreacher doesn't > seem very cooperative, and is unlikely to voluntee the information. I > can't help but wonder what circumstance will occur in which Kreacher > will give Harry the information he needs. Probably when Hermione thinks Kreacher might know about the locket and has Harry give him a direct order : ). > > Here is a question that I'm sure we CAN'T answer but it would be good > to know. What happened to the objects from the Black house that were > thrown away? Were they taken out back and vansihed? Were they set on > the curb for the trashman to pick up? Are they just lying in a big > pile behind the house? Actually I think they are in various second hand wizard shops around the corner courtesy of M.F. > I wonder what Harry will do about Mundungus stealing from Sirius's > house? I hope he forces Mundungus to go find every object and bring it > back. If he can... Mundungus was loyal to Dumbledore. Now Dumbledore is dead. How reliable is he now? I have my doubts. > > I was also very disappoint that Sirius's purge of the house was so > ruthless. First many of the object he so uncerimoniously threw away > were valuable, both in cash value and in historic value. I suspect at > some point Harry will very much regret that those objects aren't > around as reminders of Sirius and his family history. I don't think so. Harry was interested in Sirius himself, and Sirius considered his family history and values utter rubbish. I don't think Harry would care about something which was so unimportant to Sirius himself. Now his motorbike though, that would be different. Gerry From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Sat Dec 31 12:25:24 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 12:25:24 -0000 Subject: The Locket and Mundungus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145656 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Here is a question that I'm sure we CAN'T answer but it would be good > > to know. What happened to the objects from the Black house that were > > thrown away? Were they taken out back and vansihed? Were they set on > > the curb for the trashman to pick up? Are they just lying in a big > > pile behind the house? Gerry: > Actually I think they are in various second hand wizard shops around > the corner courtesy of M.F. Marianne: I wouldn't be surprised if some of them turn up in Borgin & Burkes. bboyminn: > > I wonder what Harry will do about Mundungus stealing from Sirius's > > house? I hope he forces Mundungus to go find every object and bring it > > back. Gerry: > If he can... Mundungus was loyal to Dumbledore. Now Dumbledore is > dead. How reliable is he now? I have my doubts. Marianne: Hmmm...Do you suppose Mundungus might have sold some things to Narcissa Malfoy? He might have been looking for cash, whereas she may have recognized that certain objects had more than mere monetary value. Was is in CoS that something was mentioned about a hiding place at the Malfoy home where certain valuables are kept hidden? bboyminn: > > I was also very disappoint that Sirius's purge of the house was so > > ruthless. First many of the object he so uncerimoniously threw away > > were valuable, both in cash value and in historic value. I suspect at > > some point Harry will very much regret that those objects aren't > > around as reminders of Sirius and his family history. Gerry: > I don't think so. Harry was interested in Sirius himself, and Sirius > considered his family history and values utter rubbish. I don't think > Harry would care about something which was so unimportant to Sirius > himself. Now his motorbike though, that would be different. Marianne: I agree with Gerry. I think Sirius made it quite clear that he desired a total disassociation with anything that reminded him of his family's past. And, since Sirius held these objects in such low esteeem, they wouldn't represent something of value to Harry. Even when Harry got angry with Dung for stealing the silver goblets in HBP, he cooled down somewhat when he remembered that Sirius didn't care for them. Marianne From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sat Dec 31 13:12:52 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 13:12:52 -0000 Subject: Half-Blood hints/Matchbox In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145657 > > Now Hexicon: > I like this idea, but in PoA doesn't someone say that Pettigrew's > mother received his remains in a matchbox? I can't seem to find it > in the book though--movie contamination? > La Gatta Lucianese: I think the book just says that his mother got back his finger (the largest bit of him they could find) in a *box*. More or less standard mortuary procedure, I think. I doubt a finger would fit in a matchbox, unless it was the large, economy sort. From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Dec 31 16:25:36 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 08:25:36 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who was with Voldemort at GH? /quick PoA question./Real child abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001a01c60e26$d581af70$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 145658 See my post 145203 - I know it was Snape at GH. It's the only thing that ties everything together...it gives us the reason Dumbledore trusts Snape - and the reason Snape is tied to Harry. It's the only logical answer. KathyO Sherry now: Here's my biggest objection to Snape at Godric's hollow, in terms of the possibility of DDM Snape. i am a bad Snape person, however, Snape at Godric's hollow makes evil Snape a strong possibility in the end. So, if a person believes in DDM Snape and believes that Snape was at GH, that would appear to be a big contradiction. Here's why I believe that. We know from the scene in OOTP, when the order comes to take Harry to headquarters, that only the secret keeper could reveal the location. moody or Lupin could not tell Harry where it was. In the same way, Voldemort couldn't tell Snape where to find GH. So, the secret keeper had to tell him. Even if Peter wrote it down, it still stretches Snape's credulity too far for me. i've been thinking about this a long time, wondering how Snape could not know the identity of the SK. Unless Peter was absolutely never at a death eater meeting, how could Snape not know? The difference between peter and Sirius in appearance, even if they were always hooded is way too much to make it believable that Snape wouldn't have known the difference. i bet Snape knew the simple physical outward appearance of Sirius very well. I'm thinking of height, build, things like that, not facial features. Sirius had been his enemy for years. i can't believe he wouldn't have known Sirius instantly at a death eater meeting, his way of standing, of carrying himself, the way he moves his head. Can't sighted people recognize such things about people they know well, even if they see them in such a way that they don't see their faces? In the same way, how could he not have recognized small, squeaky voiced Peter? So, unless Snape and Peter were absolutely never together at death eater meetings, i find it far too difficult to believe Snape would not have recognized one of the group of people he considers his old school time enemies and bullies. I would certainly recognize the voice of the people who did the most damage to me, even after thirty years. So, if Snape did by chance know Peter was a death eater, then he had to have known the truth about Sirius. No matter how much he hated Sirius, if he was truly a warm pussy cat at heart, Snape would not have allowed an innocent man to go to Azkaban for all those years or worked so hard to get him back there without being able to speak up in his own defense, during POA. In fact, Snape's actions during that whole confrontation and the aftermath, could fit very neatly into the idea that Snape knew Sirius was innocent and had never spoken up with his knowledge. Hmmm. I kinda like that idea. From Snape's point of view, think of the ways he could have held it over Sirius' head, if he had been the one to be responsible for Sirius' freedom and not his imprisonment. He could have had some fun with that. It would also be something guaranteed to send Harry's hatred of Snape into even greater heights, making redemption nearly impossible I'd say. i got side tracked as I wrote, because that whole Sirius and Snape idea sort of happened as I was writing. So back to GH, i can see the bang possibilities of Snape at GH, but personally, it doesn't seem like a very strong possibility, unless Snape was still truly working for Voldemort at that time. Wasn't he supposedly already on Dumbledore's side by then? Perhaps someone else was there, or perhaps not, but if it was Snape, it will make him much harder to redeem or excuse. For me, he's already on that line, because of murdering Dumbledore, of course. Sherry From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Dec 31 17:05:21 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 17:05:21 -0000 Subject: Who was with Voldemort at GH? /quick PoA question./Real child abuse In-Reply-To: <001a01c60e26$d581af70$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145659 Sherry: > > Here's my biggest objection to Snape at Godric's hollow, in terms of the > possibility of DDM Snape. i am a bad Snape person, however, Snape at > Godric's hollow makes evil Snape a strong possibility in the end. So, if a > person believes in DDM Snape and believes that Snape was at GH, that would > appear to be a big contradiction. Here's why I believe that. > > We know from the scene in OOTP, when the order comes to take Harry to > headquarters, that only the secret keeper could reveal the location. moody > or Lupin could not tell Harry where it was. In the same way, Voldemort > couldn't tell Snape where to find GH. So, the secret keeper had to tell > him. Even if Peter wrote it down, it still stretches Snape's credulity too > far for me. i've been thinking about this a long time, wondering how Snape > could not know the identity of the SK. Unless Peter was absolutely never at > a death eater meeting, how could Snape not know? The difference between > peter and Sirius in appearance, even if they were always hooded is way too > much to make it believable that Snape wouldn't have known the difference. Ceridwen: I snipped as much as I could of a very good argument. I agree, though I come at Snape from a different perspective. To answer your question: "Can't sighted people recognize such things about people they know well, even if they see them in such a way that they don't see their faces?" Yes. Absolutely! The build, the stance or way of walking, the way they hold their head, coloring, clothing or the type of clothes you'd expect them to wear. The way the hair lays, even, or a quirk of tilting the head just so when talking. Even in DE robes, Snape would have at the very least suspected that it was either Sirius or Peter, if the Order spy even showed up. He may not have known them as well as someone sharing a dormitory with them, but he would have had ample opportunity while at school to see them, together or seperately, at a distance, and avoid or attack. The same things would come into play at a distance as they would in DE robes. I'm not convinced that the Order spy (we know it's Peter) came to DE meetings. LV may have wanted to keep him under wraps in case there was a traitor in his midst. Or, Peter may not have been a full- fledged DE at the time, in case he would have turned, himself, and reported back to the Order, or if it turned out he was a plant. The events at GH would have blown his cover, since he was the Secret Keeper and neither he nor LV had an absolute way of knowing that the Potters or Sirius hadn't told Dumbledore about the switch. I think that would be the occasion when he was fully initiated, right before going to GH. He would not be able to return to the Order after he was exposed like that. And, possibly, it would mean that he wouldn't turn defense witness against other DEs and LV if things went south. So, Peter or Sirius, I don't think Snape would have known who the spy was, since I don't think the spy would have been in the DE ranks at meetings. I don't think LV would expose his ace in the hole that way, to so many followers, not just Snape, who would have seen Peter at school. The only possibility would be that at PP's initiation and receipt of the Dark Mark, LV no longer had a reason to hide him. Just because he gets the Mark doesn't mean it has to be done in front of everyone. But taking the Mark would also mean in this case, that he has made a choice to be solely on LV's side so there would be no reason to hide him. But it would have to be done immediately before going to GH, so any other spy wouldn't have a chance to reveal the true traitor. I think that once the secret's been betrayed and the place is in rubble, the protection is no longer in place, but that's just me and I don't know how it would work. But, for Snape to have been there before the actual killings, he would have had to have heard the secret from the SK, or have read a note from him (unlikely IMO, but not impossible). And he may have been able to recognize Peter's writing, too, since Slytherin and Gryffindor do share some classes. So, though it would be BANGy, even for a DDM!Snape caught off his guard, I don't think the person, if any, at GH with LV, would be Snape. My guess would be Peter Pettigrew himself. Until LV entered, there was no reason to suspect him, so he could have knocked and gotten James or Lily to open the door, and then in comes LV. Pure surprise, made even moreso by the fact that they trusted Peter and wouldn't have foreseen this event. Also, Peter is still alive and able to tell what happened if Rowling doesn't use the Pensieve idea for a trip back to that night. I wouldn't care for the story coming out at the end, which I think it would if PP is used for exposition. But I do think it will come out. Ceridwen. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 17:35:43 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 17:35:43 -0000 Subject: The Locket and Mundungus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145660 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat4001" wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" > wrote: > > > Marianne: > > I wouldn't be surprised if some of them turn up in Borgin & Burkes. > > > bboyminn: > > > I was also very disappoint that Sirius's purge of the house > > > was soruthless. First many of the object he so uncerimoniously > > > threw away were valuable, both in cash value and in historic > > > value. I suspect at some point Harry will very much regret > > > that those objects aren't around as reminders of Sirius and > > > his family history. > > Gerry: > > I don't think so. Harry was interested in Sirius himself, and > > Sirius considered his family history and values utter rubbish. > > I don't think Harry would care about something which was so > > unimportant to Sirius himself. Now his motorbike though, that > > would be different. > > Marianne: > I agree with Gerry. I think Sirius made it quite clear that > he desired a total disassociation with anything that reminded > him of his family's past. And, since Sirius held these objects > in such low esteeem, they wouldn't represent something of value > to Harry. Even when Harry got angry with Dung for stealing the > silver goblets in HBP, he cooled down somewhat when he remembered > that Sirius didn't care for them. > > Marianne > bboyminn: I see your point and it is certainly valid, but I'm not sure I agree completely. History is always being written; today's headlines are tomorrows history. While Sirius's family may have had an unpleasant view of what it meant to be a 'Black', Sirius re-wrote that history. He gave new value and meaning to the 'Black' name. To Sirius the many objects he purged represented his family and their dark history, but to Harry, those very objects represent Sirius and the new values and history he gave to the 'Black' family. When Harry sat down to dinner in the Black house, and ate off of plates and drank from goblets with the Black family crest, he would be thinking of Sirius's bravery and loyalty, and not of Sirius's 'witch' of a mother. So, while the span of Black family history may be dark, it ended with a very bright and brave spot. It ended with a new set of values that gave the name a whole new meaning. It is because of this that those artifacts would symbolize Sirius to Harry. Again, how he feels is up to Harry, but I feel the loss of those artifacts was a great loss indeed. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From juli17 at aol.com Sat Dec 31 17:40:11 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 17:40:11 -0000 Subject: Who was with Voldemort at GH? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145661 > > > Alla wrote: > "I think that Snape IS a best candidate to be at Godric Hollow, > simply because the BANG will be even bigger and IMO you can never > have enough hate built up between Harry and Snape." > > > CH3ed: > I think Snape is indeed a candidate for the biggest BANG. Like Jen, > I also think it might be a bit of an overkill tho. It is hard to > imagine any more hate is possible between Harry and Snape. I think > their mutual hate bond is getting over-saturated. Anymore would make > it impossible for any reconciliation in the end even if Snape does > turn out to be DDM. While I agree with KathyO that Snape's remorse > has to do with Lily's death and it might have been on Snape's > request that LV tried to spare Lily, I don't think that constitutes > conclusive evidence that Snape was at GH when LV attacked. LV didn't > mention Snape's presence when he was recounting the scene to the DE > in the graveyard scene in GoF. > Julie now: I agree that we don't need any additional reason to stoke Harry's hatred of Snape, if Snape is DDM. What we need is reasons for Harry to step back from his feelings and take a second look at Snape, and to realize that Snape is not the one-note bad guy Harry believes he is. While I also agree that Snape's remorse is tied to Lily's death more than James', if he's DDM I think he didn't want *either* to die, and did try to prevent their deaths. I also don't believe Snape was at Godric's Hollow with Voldemort pleading for Lily's life, or made any deal that Lily would be spared specifically for him. Since I'm firmly in the DDM camp, I don't see any way Snape making a deal to spare Lily while coldly condoning the deaths of James, and Lily's baby boy, can work. If Snape was willing to make that deal, certainly DD wouldn't trust him, and it's doubtful such a self-serving Snape would bother with 16 years of servitude to Dumbledore's wishes. (Though I do think Snape could have pleaded for the lives of the *Potter family* by stating or implying his feelings for Lily, and Voldemort could have used this knowledge to offer Lily her life, intending to present Snape with a "reward" for his good service so to speak.) Still, I *do* think Snape is a good candidate for the unknown person at Godric's Hollow. But if he was there (and assuming as DDM) then he was not there helping Voldemort. Here is my theory: Snape arrive at Godric's Hollow right *after* Voldemort had killed James and Lily. Either he was following Voldemort, suspicious of what Voldemort was doing, or he was with Voldemort and waiting nearby for Voldemort to finish a task about which he had no knowledge (since Snape wasn't the secret keeper, he had no way of knowing Godric's Hollow was the Potters hiding place). Once James and Lily died, the secret keeper protection was lifted, and Snape would be able to see the house (and probably feel through the Dark Mark that something had happened to Voldemort). At that point he would have notified Dumbledore by Patronus or other means (thus explaining how Dumbledore found out so quickly). At this point Snape may have simply left the scene, knowing Dumbledore would send someone. Or he may have gone into the house and seen James and Lily dead, and Harry still alive. (The question here is whether Voldemort in his vapor form could have known who came in the house?). I also wonder if it could have been Snape who "destroyed" the house, to hide the evidence of magic, while obviously insuring the bodies of the Potters, and the surviving boy- who-lived were protected from the destruction. (I've frequently wondered how Harry remained alive and safe inside the house if it was completely destroyed by the failed AK.) Anyway, I'm certain *if* Snape was the unknown person at Godric's Hollow, it was as DDM, not as helper of Voldemort. And I like the continued irony of Harry's images of Snape, including seeing Snape in PS/SS and hearing the high cold laugh, and the dragon image, if Snape *was* at GH, and was in fact working with Dumbledore to help save baby Harry after the fact. Julie From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 17:42:53 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 17:42:53 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145662 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > Corey: > > > So I'm afraid the Dursley issue will be put on the back burner > > so to speak. > > > Well, IMO that would be incredibly poor writing on JKR's part, and > bordering on morally reprehensible. We shall have to see, I guess. > There are just so many issues to wrap up in the last book. But, I > think the Dursley issue is one of the most important ones with which > she has to deal. > > Lupinlore > bboyminn: According to Ron, Ron and Hermione are going to be with Harry at the Dursley's house. Please, you must see the comic come-uppance potential in that? I know, or at least it seems, that Lupinlore wants a direct accounting of people's actions, but I think it is going to be more subtle than that. The Dursleys will once again be put in their place, but not by being held accountable for their actions, but, as we have discussed, by a Karmic twist of fate and circumstances. Just having Ron and Hermione there at the Dursley will be torturous enough for the Dursleys, but when Ron and Hermione expect civilized treatment that will just be too much. The frustration and intimidation alone represent a good deal of Karmic justice in my book. And if Privet Drive is attacked, and the Dursleys are forced to seek refuge at 12 Grimmauld Place, then I will be a happy camper. The will be justice enough for me. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From lealess at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 19:00:05 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 19:00:05 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145663 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > > > Corey: > > > > > So I'm afraid the Dursley issue will be put on the back burner > > > so to speak. > > > > > > Well, IMO that would be incredibly poor writing on JKR's part, and > > bordering on morally reprehensible. We shall have to see, I > > guess. There are just so many issues to wrap up in the last book. > > But, I think the Dursley issue is one of the most important ones > > with which she has to deal. > > > > Lupinlore > > > > bboyminn: > > According to Ron, Ron and Hermione are going to be with Harry at the > Dursley's house. Please, you must see the comic come-uppance > potential in that? > > I know, or at least it seems, Lupinlore wants a direct accounting > of people's actions, but I think it is going to be more subtle than > that. The Dursleys will once again be put in their place, but not by > being held accountable for their actions, but, as we have discussed, > by a Karmic twist of fate and circumstances. > > Just having Ron and Hermione there at the Dursley will be torturous > enough for the Dursleys, but when Ron and Hermione expect civilized > treatment that will just be too much. The frustration & intimidation > alone represent a good deal of Karmic justice in my book. And if > Privet Drive is attacked, and the Dursleys are forced to seek refuge > at 12 Grimmauld Place, then I will be a happy camper. The will be > justice enough for me. > > Just passing it along. > Steve/bboyminn > I would actually like Ron and Hermione to behave civilly to the Dursleys. I am sure that is not what they would expect, however, as that has not been their experience with wizards. The thing with people is that they don't always learn the lessons you think they should. Sometimes they come up with different conclusions on their own. Many people have posited that the twins leaving ton-tongue toffee for Dudley to find was a kind of rough justice, retribution for the abuse Harry put up with at Dudley's hands. I see a parallel to Sirius' putting temptation in Severus' way, leading him to the Whomping Willow and the Prank. Both incidents were set up by teenagers no doubt convincing themselves they acted on noble impulse, preying on the weakness of another (in Severus' case, his insatiable curiosity or "nosiness"), without considering the full consequences. For the Prank, those consequences were pretty damaging, and included the potential loss of someone's life, if not subsequently his soul. And was the lesson meant to be taught actually learned? The beneficiary of the Prank believed that the one who "saved" him only did so to prevent the expulsion of the prankster and his friends. In the case of the prank on Dudley, what lesson did Dudley learn? To stop bullying Harry? He had already learned that lesson. It may be he learned again how dangerous wizards can be to Muggles. Severus went to quite an extreme to make sure there were consequences for the Marauders' prank. Consider what Dudley might do. In him, the magical world may one day have a potent enemy. In pranking Muggles, wizards may plant the seeds of their own destruction. Perhaps Arthur was so angry with the twins not only because preying on the weak is morally wrong, but because doing so exposes the magical world to danger. In spite of their power, wizards are numerically disadvantaged compared to Muggles. Wizards went into hiding because they were being persecuted by Muggles, at a time when the technology for finding and eliminating others was far less developed than it is today. Yet wizards show a continual disdain for Muggles. It surprised me that Scrimgeour was so cavalier with the Muggle prime minister. As far as that prime minister may be concerned, it is wizards of all persuasions who form a threat. Suppose Scrimgeour had visited the current U.S. president? That president would have characterized wizards as "terrorists" and mobilized U.S. forces against them without blinking an eye. And for those who might think he'd be crazy to talk of forces of evil or something similar, I am sorry to say there would be many ready to fall in line. Dumbledore's supposedly polite offer of drinks to the Dursleys is another example of a wizard demonstrating casual superiority to Muggles. So it would be nice if Hermione and Ron reversed this trend, supported their friend but not at the expense of others, and saved the Dursleys while they were at it. If Dudley survives a potential attack on Privet Drive which is preceded by Hermione and Ron's retribution on the Dursleys, it wouldn't surprise me to see Dudley devote his life to eradicating wizards from England. lealess From coverton at netscape.com Sat Dec 31 07:15:34 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (corey_over) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 07:15:34 -0000 Subject: life of Merope and real abusers. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145664 Hi list members here are some thoughts to think about. If any one was abused during the HP books it was Merope. 1. She was almost killed by that locket chane. 2. She was verbally abused by Gaunt and Morfin as well.She came out of it okay but lets not forget she lived in a shack in the middle of who knows where with hardly any visitors. Talk about isolation. Since where on the topic of abuse here are 3 people that are way worse than Snape: 1. Umbridge by far. 2. Gaunt a close second 3. Morfin a distant third. Your fellow listmember Corey From coverton at netscape.com Sat Dec 31 06:23:30 2005 From: coverton at netscape.com (Corey Overton) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:23:30 -0600 Subject: Punishments for the Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c60dd2$beaaddc0$a360a7ac@Overton> No: HPFGUIDX 145665 Lupinlore: We have a minor cottage industry developing coming up with suitable fates for the Dursleys. There seem to be several that are plausible. Corey here : I hope Umbridge doesn't have any contact with the Dursleys. I know they weren't the best family but there certainly better than Umbridge. As for the Dursleys coming to Privet dr. I agree with Lupinlore when he says "They might be taken there" "And we might be given lines about their misadventures" The question is what could happen to them at Grimmald place? The house is vacant after. And there's not much magic in there any more. Oh I forgot about Blacks mother. I wonder how she'll react to muggles. As far as Kreature goes, I think he'll stay at Hogwarts. Corey From monalila662 at earthlink.net Sat Dec 31 19:41:18 2005 From: monalila662 at earthlink.net (lisa graves) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 19:41:18 -0000 Subject: The events in Godric Hollow Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145666 Excuse my intrusion-- I have read a few pages of posts and this is my first in a very long time. I apologize ahead of time if you've covered these topics previously. (please don't throw eggs- they make my keyboard all sticky and smelly). This unkown person with Voldemort at Godric's Hollow.. could it possibly have been Regulus Black? Have we all agreed that he is R.A.B? This could have tipped Regulus off that there were Horcruxes right? I mean, he would've seen that Voldemort was NOT dead and realized something screwy was going on. My theory is that whoever was there- knows that VM made these Horcruxes. Wouldn't that make sense? From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Dec 31 20:07:50 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 20:07:50 -0000 Subject: Who was with Voldemort at GH? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145667 Sherry: > In the same way, Voldemort couldn't tell Snape where to find GH. > So, the secret keeper had to tell him. Even if Peter wrote it > down, it still stretches Snape's credulity too far for me. i've > been thinking about this a long time, wondering how Snape could > not know the identity of the SK. Jen: If Snape didn't know the writing on a note, he wouldn't know the SK; Harry only figured out the SK of Grimmauld because he'd seen Dumbledore's writing. I could see Voldemort ordering Peter to write a note for Snape and Voldemort requiring Snape to go with him, espcecially if he sensed Snape was having second thoughts. LV's very sadistic that way. *But* this idea stretches credulity for me in a different way. Very simply, I don't think Snape was inside the house because he's still alive and Dumbledore still trusts him. If he was in the house and didn't intervene, I don't think Dumbledore would put such great faith in him. Harry doesn't hear anyone protesting Voldemort's actions in his dementor memories after all. And if Snape did intervene, Voldemort would have killed him. Julie: > Still, I *do* think Snape is a good candidate for the unknown > person at Godric's Hollow. But if he was there (and assuming as > DDM) then he was not there helping Voldemort. Here is my theory: > Snape arrive at Godric's Hollow right *after* Voldemort had killed > James and Lily. Either he was following Voldemort, suspicious of > what Voldemort was doing, or he was with Voldemort and waiting > nearby for Voldemort to finish a task about which he had no > knowledge (since Snape wasn't the secret keeper, he had no way of > knowing Godric's Hollow was the Potters hiding place). Jen: Another possible addition: If the house was indeed Dumbledore's and he offered it to the Potters for hiding, he would at least know the general area (even if it wasn't his house, I think). As in the case with the Order guarding the prophecy, I think he would have had a guard posted somehwere in the area to alert him if Voldemort was seen or if anything strange occurred. In that way Snape could have been near Godric's but had no way to intervene since he couldn't see the house. It may have been how Dumbledore was alerted so quickly. Julie: > I also wonder if it could have been Snape who "destroyed" the > house, to hide the evidence of magic, while obviously insuring the > bodies of the Potters, and the surviving boy-who-lived were > protected from the destruction. (I've frequently wondered how > Harry remained alive and safe inside the house if it was > completely destroyed by the failed AK.) Jen: Like Ceridwen, I tend to think Peter was the one there because he had Voldemort's wand in the graveyard and must have picked it up at Godric's. I imagined the blowing up of the house was his spell, similar to the spell he used to blow a hole in the street and murder the Muggles. I could see him removing Harry prior to the spell, too fearful to murder him since Harry had just destroyed LV. Or more simply the backfire of the AK caused the destruction and Peter somehow didn't die in the explosion, grabbed the wand and apparted. Hmmm, I don't know. None of this fits very well for having Snape in the area at all. For one, why was he not there when Hagrid and Sirius arrived? Did he just leave baby Harry sitting there wailing? I guess Dumbledore could have said "keep your cover, make sure Harry is alive and in a safe place, I'm sending Hagrid to pick him up." That would still leave open a DE coming along before Hagrid arrived and killing Harry, as it seems the house was no longer under the Fidelius once James and Lily died. Sounds more like a Voldemort plan than a Dumbledore one! No, I'm starting to think Peter was with Voldemort and Snape wasn't around. It fits for me Voldemort forced Peter to go along to ensure it wasn't a trick. Snape probabaly did warn Dumbledore something had happened to Voldemort when his Dark Mark changed or disappeared, but that was it for his involvement. Although I DO think he worked with Dumbledore prior to the murders trying to safeguard the Potters after being such a dummkopf and passing the prophecy information. Jen, thinking JKR might be keeping Peter-at-Godric's a surprise because something he saw that night will inadvertently help Harry and fulfill the life debt. From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sat Dec 31 20:21:20 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 20:21:20 -0000 Subject: Thestrals Again Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145668 La Gatta Lucianese: Odd, in GoF.37, even though he has witnessed Cedric Diggory's death, Harry sees "the horseless carriages that were trundling up the drive" (well, the exact wording is, "Hermione turned away, smiling at the horseless carriages...", but since the point of view is Harry's, we can assume that he too is seeing horseless carriages; at least he expresses none of the shock he later does at seeing what is pulling the carriages). It isn't until OotF that Harry is actually able to see the thestrals. So, my question is, does it take a while for thestral-seeing to set in, or did JKR drop a byte in there somewhere? ;D From schumar1999 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 20:56:46 2005 From: schumar1999 at yahoo.com (Marianne S.) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 20:56:46 -0000 Subject: Thestrals Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145669 > La Gatta Lucianese: > So, my question is, does it take a while for thestral-seeing to set > in, or did JKR drop a byte in there somewhere? ;D > Marianne S: Quoting from hp-lexicon.org: Harry has never seen the Thestrals pulling the school carriages before, but he has witnessed death several times: his mother and Cedric. Why didn't he see the Thestrals before? Rowling has answered that question in the Royal Albert Hall interview (RAH) Thursday June 26, 2003. She said that it takes a while for a death to be processed, to be accepted. Harry hadn't yet come to that point with Cedric's death at the end of the last school year. He was too young to understand his mother's death and so that never registered in the same way. Further down on the page there was an email and response to her asking the same question: Email: Harry saw his parents die so why hasn't he been able to see the Thestrals before? JK Rowling: I knew I was going to get that one that is an excellent question. And here is the truth. At the end of Goblet of Fire we sent Harry home more depressed than he had ever been leaving Howarts. I knew that Thestrals were coming, and I can prove that because they're in the book I'd produced for Comic Relief (UK) Fantastic Beaststs and Where to Find Them. These are lucky Black Winged Horses. However, if Harry had seen them and it had not been explained then it would cheat the reader. So, to explain that to myself, I decided you had to have seen the death and allowed it to sink in a bit slowly these creatures became solid in front of you. So that's how I'm going to sneak past that one. Hope that helps! Marianne S. From kjones at telus.net Sat Dec 31 21:36:49 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 13:36:49 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who was with Voldemort at GH? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43B6F9F1.4050605@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 145670 > Julie: > > I also wonder if it could have been Snape who "destroyed" the > > house, to hide the evidence of magic, while obviously insuring the > > bodies of the Potters, and the surviving boy-who-lived were > > protected from the destruction. (I've frequently wondered how > > Harry remained alive and safe inside the house if it was > > completely destroyed by the failed AK.) > > Jen: Like Ceridwen, I tend to think Peter was the one there because > he had Voldemort's wand in the graveyard and must have picked it up > at Godric's. I imagined the blowing up of the house was his spell, > similar to the spell he used to blow a hole in the street and murder > the Muggles. I could see him removing Harry prior to the spell, too > fearful to murder him since Harry had just destroyed LV. Or more > simply the backfire of the AK caused the destruction and Peter > somehow didn't die in the explosion, grabbed the wand and apparted. KJ writes: This thread brings a few other interesting questions to mind. It might not have been only Voldemort's wand that was taken from the house. There is the matter of James' invisibility cloak which ended up in Dumbledore's hands. There has been no information on what else was removed from the house. There has been no information on what else might be in the Potter vault which is now Harry's. Nothing has been said about the Potter's wands. We have seen Sirius' will, but nothing about any Potter wills, although we might have expected that Sirius was named executor. We don't know if Petunia was given any of Lily's personal effects. We don't know what information will come from Dumbledore's will, if there is one. We don't know where James and Lily are buried although we must assume that Lupin, Dumbledore, and the older Order members would know. Do the answers to any of these questions have any impact on the plot of book 7? From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Dec 31 21:45:30 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 21:45:30 -0000 Subject: Real child abuse/ Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145671 Alla: > > Those kids are in boarding school, they don't see their parents for > many months, in fact Harry and Neville have NO parents to see and > teachers stay in loco parentis for all of them anyway. > > I would argue that teachers have HUGE emotional power over those > kids and gross misuse of such power is in fact emotional abuse. > Pippin: Binns has HUGE emotional power? Trelawney? Sinistra? I don't think so. *Hogwarts* has huge emotional power over Harry. But Hogwarts overall was not an abusive situation for Harry or Neville, IMO,except when Umbridge was in charge. It's a challenging environment, comparable to a school for fine arts or the kind of intensive training Olympic athletes get, and Snape was one of the challenges. Emotional manipulation is one of the techniques Dark Wizards use, and Harry has to learn how to deal with it. Neville doesn't *have* to learn to deal with it, but he's a Gryffindor. He wants to be strong enough to prevail, IMO. It's significant that even though Harry receives unconditional love and acceptance at the Burrow, it's still only his second favorite building. Like Bill, Harry wants to be tested. He has, as the Sorting Hat told him, a nice thirst to prove himself. But though Harry realizes that he mustn't let his ambition run away with him, his need for approval is another story. He can resist the more obvious attempts to manipulate him but subtler ones have so far been very effective. Harry and Neville have been so starved of approval that they can be manipulated by anyone who dangles it in front of them, whether it's done by withholding it as Snape does, or giving it as Fake!Moody does. Harry knows that Snape tries to manipulate him but he hasn't realized yet that it's his own thirst for approval that makes it possible for Snape to do it. It's like the Twins and the TTT. The Twins took advantage of him, but Dudley's craving for sweets is *his* problem. Snape took advantage of Harry, but Harry's and Neville's desperate need for approval makes them vulnerable to people who are far more dangerous to them than DDM!Snape -- Fake!Moody, for example. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 22:12:02 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 22:12:02 -0000 Subject: Real child abuse/ Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 145673 > Alla: > > > > Those kids are in boarding school, they don't see their parents for > > many months, in fact Harry and Neville have NO parents to see and > > teachers stay in loco parentis for all of them anyway. > > > > I would argue that teachers have HUGE emotional power over those > > kids and gross misuse of such power is in fact emotional abuse. > > Pippin: > Binns has HUGE emotional power? Trelawney? Sinistra? I don't think > so. Alla: I definitely do, or more like they have the potentially huge emotional power over their students, but we don't see them either using or misusing it either because it is not important for the story or because they don't misuse it. IMO of course. Pippin: *Hogwarts* has huge emotional power over Harry. But Hogwarts > overall was not an abusive situation for Harry or Neville, IMO,except when > Umbridge was in charge. Alla: Oh, but Hogwarts cannot exercises its power by itself, but only through teachers, I think. Pippin: > Harry and Neville have been so starved of approval that they can > be manipulated by anyone who dangles it in front of them, whether > it's done by withholding it as Snape does, or giving it as Fake! Moody > does. Harry knows that Snape tries to manipulate him but he hasn't > realized yet that it's his own thirst for approval that makes it possible > for Snape to do it. Alla: Since when students wanting and needing approval from their teacher is a bad thing? It is certainly not in my opinion. IMO teacher who does not want to give such approval is not a good one, NOT student who wants one. But I know that it is ALL Harry and Neville's fault and nothing is Snape's. :-) In fact, I think it is Harry's fault to be born, because he should have predicted that he would upset poor Snape, when he will come to Hogwarts. Just kidding of course. I see nothing wrong in that Harry took a liking to Fake!Moody. I mean, of course it was bad within the story, BUT IMO there were no signs for Harry that man was exhibited abnormal behaviour. I think that he behaved as a good teacher. IMO of course. Except if he was showing Unforgivables in order to purposefully upset Neville of course, but personally I doubt it. For some strange reason I think Fake!Moody truly wanted them to learn about unforgivables. I think you argued in the past that Snape does a good thing by Hermione, since she does not need teachers' approval anyway and does better in the challenging environment, but she GLOWES when Lupin praises her, therefore I don't think that Snape does Hermione any good either. IMO of course, Alla From crystal_of_ravenclaw at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 02:51:11 2005 From: crystal_of_ravenclaw at yahoo.com (Crystal Williams) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:51:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dumbledore Triumphant/Sirius's Mirror/ Re: Late-blooming magic user/Re: the surviving Triwizard champions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051231025111.21184.qmail@web37007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145674 Kchuplis wrote in Message 145640: > Harry's observation when telling >Dumbledore and Sirius about LV cutting him and using >his blood in GoF pg. 696 Scholastic hardback: >"He said the protection my - my mother left in me - >he'd have it too. And he was >right - he could touch me without hurting himself, he >touched my >face." ___________________ >Why would that spark triumph in Dumbledore? And yet, it seems the >sort of clue that is often followed up on way later. Crystal: I think this will somehow backfire on Voldemort. I'm not completely sure how it will yet but I am sure it will. ******************************************** Wink45 wrote in message 145638: > On her website, Rowling has hinted that the mirror from Sirius "will > help more than [we] think" in the last books. Hmm, could it be > that Harry will find the mating mirror, and give it to Ron so they > can stay in touch while Harry is off hunting Horcurxes? Crystal: I think Harry will somehow get a link to Sirus with the mirror because I still have a feeling that Sirus is alive somehow. But Harry may also use it to communicate with others if he finds the matching one somewhere. ******************************************* Lupinlore wrote in message 145606: > This scenario, in addition to being deeply satisfying on many > levels, would also explain Luna's purpose in the series. I > suppose that the chief theory was that she was supposed to provide a > romantic interest for someone. Well, we know it won't be Harry or > Ron, and JKR has said it won't be Neville. Maybe Dudley? After > all, who else would put up with him?" Crystal: I would love to see Dudley somehow be a wizard. I can imagine him finding out somehow while having a huge arguement with someone and then demanding his parents let him go to Harry's school. I could see him as Hufflepuff. Then Luna, being the nice person she is, hook up with him and sort of annoy him but hes desperate. Thats just my vision of it... sort of strange but ok. ********************************************** kchuplis wrote in message 145559: > It brings up an interesting point. Will the three living Triwizard > Champions all have a role to play? We know Viktor wanted to come > back, is a "good guy". Fleur has more than enough reason, as does > Harry and to be chosen for GoF, they apparently have more talent > than many. Interesting." Crystal: I can see Krum and Fleur being in the Order or somehow helping by fighting people off for Harry. Fleur would probably be helping her fiance a lot though because of the bite from Greyback. From crystal_of_ravenclaw at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 04:34:15 2005 From: crystal_of_ravenclaw at yahoo.com (Crystal Williams) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 20:34:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051231043415.14892.qmail@web37006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145675 Marianne S: > I have always thought it would be just desserts for the Dursleys > if, for their protection, they agree to let Harry hide them > (possibly after the Death Eaters destroy their home on Privet > Drive). > What better place for Harry to put them in "thanks" to all those > years of "hospitality" but Grimmauld Place. Just imagine Vernon > facing Mrs. Black and that whole house full of magic. Heehee. Crystal: I would love to read/see that one. They wouldnt know what to do especially if Kreacher had to come back there now that Hogwarts may be closed there wouldn't be any kitchens to work in. I some how have a feeling that in the end they all will make up with each other but won't be the best of friends. Also I some how think that Dudley will discover some magical talent and Petunia and Vernon will help with the order somehow. From crystal_of_ravenclaw at yahoo.com Sat Dec 31 20:42:51 2005 From: crystal_of_ravenclaw at yahoo.com (Crystal Williams) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 12:42:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Thestrals Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051231204251.44385.qmail@web37007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 145676 La Gatta Lucianese: > Odd, in GoF.37, even though he has witnessed Cedric Diggory's > death, Harry sees "the horseless carriages that were trundling up > the drive" > It isn't until OotP that Harry is actually able to see > the thestrals. > So, my question is, does it take a while for thestral-seeing to > set in, or did JKR drop a byte in there somewhere? ;D Crystal: I'm pretty sure that it's just Harry is still taking in Cedric's death and as the summer went on the death had more time to sink in and by the time the school year started again, Harry had accepted it so he could see the thestrals.