Jinxed Jobs /Teachers in the WW/ What standards are we using... LONG

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 144353

> > Alla:
> > 
> > Trelawney's example is a PERFECT example IMO of how Dumbledore's 
> > several hats get confused. <snip> 
> 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.
<SNIP>


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 <veg>).

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:
<SNIP>
> 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.