From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 00:52:50 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 00:52:50 -0000 Subject: Harry and starvation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123595 phoenixgod2000 wrote: "Harry would be able to handle whatever came along because he is the son of two people who defied the dark lord three times. He endures because he is the son of a man who held off a wizard whom is the boogyman of his world for as long as he could. He can perservere because his mother was the kind of woman who would shield her child from a killing curse with her own body and weave a spell of ancient power in her dying moments. Blood tells." Del replies: Blood tells nothing, and one's parents don't determine how one is going to evolve. Draco doesn't measure up to his father in any way. Sirius rejected his family. And most of all, Neville, the son of two people who defied the dark lord three times, the grandson of an old woman with a strong backbone, is only starting to pull himself together. If blood tells, then the pureblood ideologists have it right, and the Muggleborns (the descendants of people who persecuted and killed the wizards) should indeed be excluded from the WW. Del From navarro198 at hotmail.com Tue Feb 1 01:13:36 2005 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (Ravenclaw Bookworm) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 01:13:36 -0000 Subject: Privet Drive (was Harry and starvation) In-Reply-To: <016a01c507c8$c2cee600$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123596 Dungrollin: Hmmm... Safe enough to wander around Privet Drive and get attacked by Dementors? TrekkieGrrr;: But then, the Blood Protection thing could be keyed against VOLDEMORT, and no-one would imagine that someone from the ministry would set Dementors loose on Harry, so that wasn't taken into account when the protection was spelled out. Bookworm: That's exactly the reason. (OoP, Ch37) Dumbledore tells Harry, "She may have taken you grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly, yet still she took you, and in doing so, she sealed the charm I placed upon you. Your mother's sacrifice made the bond of blood the strongest shield I could give you.... While you can still call home the place where your mother's bolld dwells, there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort.... You need return there only once a year, but as long as you can still call it home, there he cannot hurt you." So Harry can't just visit there for a month then move back to 12GP. He must still call it home. Ravenclaw Bookworm From rowena_grunnionffitch at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 01:56:28 2005 From: rowena_grunnionffitch at yahoo.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 01:56:28 -0000 Subject: Harry and starvation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123597 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > Blood tells." > > Del replies: > Blood tells nothing, and one's parents don't determine how one is > going to evolve. > > Draco doesn't measure up to his father in any way. > > Sirius rejected his family. > > And most of all, Neville, the son of two people who defied the dark > lord three times, the grandson of an old woman with a strong backbone, > is only starting to pull himself together. Goodness or badness is not hereditary - obviously - but strength of character may be - to a degree. As for the rest; 'We are defined by our choices'. Sirius chose to use the strength of character inherited from that fury or a mother of his to reject the twisted values she tried to teach him. Poor Draco doesn't seem to have much strength or character. And he's accepted *his* family's values. Thanks to James and Lily's genetic endowment, or their early influence, or both Harry is able to overcome his negative enviroment and become a decent, caring person. Poor Neville had his self confidence undermined, (unmeaningly I'm sure) by his harridan of a grandmother. But given incentive his latent strength, both magical and moral, finally begins to come to the fore. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 02:07:51 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 02:07:51 -0000 Subject: Controlling anger -- Crouch!Moody and Snape (was Re: Abusive Crouch!Moody) In-Reply-To: <20050127050324.38354.qmail@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123598 Michele wrote: > Regarding Crouch/Moody, I don't think that his action was purely anger based (turning Draco into a ferret). Sure there is the whole underlying anger towards his father deal, but I think it was more to get Harry's trust. I think that Crouch was masterful at controlling his anger. I am not a fan of his, but it would take great discipline to do what he did. > To be in disguise, surrounded by all of those that he despises, and not succumb to the urge to destroy them all. I don't think that Snape has that control. He demonstrated his lack of it every time he was around Sirius. Carol responds: If Snape didn't have that control, wouldn't *he* use magic on the students? I'm sure he's been tempted many times to transfigure Harry (or any other student who annoys him), but he doesn't do it. Most of his punishments involve the house point system, with detention as a close second. Unlike Filch, he's never expressed a desire to torture students. I didn't mean that Crouch!Moody (full of hatred for the DEs who "walked free" and their children) didn't disguise his anger as a well-deserved punishment for a transgression, I only meant that he's using a brutal punishment of a type that Snape has refrained from using. Whether with Harry or with Sirius, Snape uses words as his weapons, and (unlike Sirius), his anger is more often cold than hot. Crouch!Moody, BTW, is a highly intelligent and highly motivated fanatic who has to disguise his murderous intentions toward Harry under the guise of helping him, and quite possibly a psychopath as well. An Oscar-winning performance, but not one I'd like to see Snape or anyone else emulate. Carol From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 02:33:25 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 02:33:25 -0000 Subject: Harry and starvation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123601 Phoenixgod2000 wrote: "Harry would be able to handle whatever came along because he is the son of two people who defied the dark lord three times. He endures because he is the son of a man who held off a wizard whom is the boogyman of his world for as long as he could. He can perservere because his mother was the kind of woman who would shield her child from a killing curse with her own body and weave a spell of ancient power in her dying moments. Blood tells." Del replies: Blood tells nothing, and one's parents don't determine how one is going to evolve. Draco doesn't measure up to his father in any way. Sirius rejected his family. And most of all, Neville, the son of two people who defied the dark lord three times, the grandson of an old woman with a strong backbone,is only starting to pull himself together. If blood tells, then the pureblood ideologists have it right, and the Muggleborns (the descendants of people who persecuted and killed the wizards) should indeed be excluded from the WW. Alla: I interpreted Phoenixgod' argument as it is much more likely that Harry got his strength of character from his parents than from resisting Dursleys' abuse. Of course , blood is not a guarantee that person will turn out a certain way ( and it should not be,IMO), BUT it is a possibility ( which I wholeheartedly agree with Rowena) that child will genetically inherit certain character qualities from the parents. Child may or may not be anything like his parents in character, but I do agree with Phoenixgod that Harry inherited the best qualities of both of his parents and THAT made him strong. Just my opinion of course, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 02:53:42 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 02:53:42 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123602 Nora wrote: > Remember the canon from PoA from McGonagall about Sirius and > James, "...very bright, of course--exceptionally bright, in fact..". > How fondly I remember all the times I didn't have to study in high > school...oh, those were the days. Arrogant, yes; true, > (unfortunately?) also yes. > > [That's enough canon, McGonagall and the studying, to argue that > James and Sirius were actually much brighter than Severus in school, > right? (take that with a grain of salt, everyone)] Carol responds: Nope, I'm not going to give you that one. First, Sirius is talking about the Transfiguration exam, not the DADA exam that we know Severus studied for. He doesn't need to study Transfiguration because that's what he and James have been doing since they discovered that Remus was a werewolf, not in order to get high marks (which were a side benefit) but in order to become Animagi. No wonder McGonagall thinks they're exceptionally bright. They do exceptionally well in *her* subject, the only one she sees them in. Nor is she an unbiased witness. She was head of Gryffindor House; they were Gryffindors. And James, wh died fighting Voldemort, is a hero in the WW. Quite possibly James and Sirius do well in other classes without studying, getting high marks because they both have the kind of short-term memory that allows them to retain information just long enough to get high marks on a test (I did that, too. Too bad all those A's I "earned" in Latin and physics don't indicate that I really know anything about those subjects.) Severus, in contrast, clearly *knows* DADA in detail and clearly cares about what he knows. He's not trying to get a high mark for its own sake or to "get by" like rich boys Sirius and James, who won't need to earn a living when they finish school. Severus clearly wants to *master* the subject, possibly to use it in his career, possibly because the subject itself is important to him. Just because a student studies doesn't mean he or she isn't naturally bright. Look at Hermione. Snape quite possibly has the same sort of retentive memory as Hermione, which enables him to write more than the question probably calls for in response to the DADA OWL. Hermione does much the same thing for the essays she turns in to her teachers. Hermione memorizes her schoolbooks. Snape has memorized many complicated potions, which he transfers to the chalkboard with a flick of his wand. And we *know* that Snape is bright. We've seen him put two and two together time and again. We never see Sirius do anything of the sort. As for James, we don't see him do much of anything except tease Remus about being a werewolf, show off with a Snitch, hex Severus, and talk briefly to a girl who thinks he's a bully. So, no. I don't for a moment buy your argument that they were "much brighter" than Severus (or the equally studious Remus, who hasn't mastered Transfiguration because he didn't have to learn it to transform into a werewolf). And their behavior doesn't indicate intelligence, either. I see no indication of brilliance in the MWPP conversation in the Pensieve scene, do you? All we have is the fact that James became Head Boy and the testimony of the less than objective Minerva McGonagall, who never saw those boys in Potions or DADA or or Charms or any subject except Transfiguration. Nora wrote: > You can't make good statements about a hapax. [Umm, to make that clearer--we have one event witnessed by us (albeit in an unusual way), and some sketchy accounts of other behavior. With presentDay!Snape, we have a whole string of observations of behavior. The latter can be seriated, the former cannot. The term comes from classical philology, and is used there and in semiotics, as well as archaeology.] Carol responds: Um, erm, what? I'm lost. What do you mean by "seriated" and how does it relate to the Severus/MWPP discussion? And "hapax"???? Carol From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 03:11:42 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 03:11:42 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123603 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol responds: > Severus, in contrast, clearly *knows* DADA in detail and clearly > cares about what he knows. He's not trying to get a high mark for > its own sake or to "get by" like rich boys Sirius and James, who > won't need to earn a living when they finish school. Severus > clearly wants to *master* the subject, possibly to use it in his > career, possibly because the subject itself is important to him. > Just because a student studies doesn't mean he or she isn't > naturally bright. Look at Hermione. Goodness. I don't think I've had a statement that was made tongue-in- cheek and labeled as such responded to with such vehemence in some time. I have to point out that you are also assuming a lot when you argue that James and Sirius are only just 'getting by'; could be, could not. With Hermione, she is certainly naturally bright, but she also works very hard at it; it is canonically honestly hard to tell where the actual balance falls there. > Snape has memorized many complicated potions, which he transfers to > the chalkboard with a flick of his wand. And we *know* that Snape > is bright. We've seen him put two and two together time and again. > We never see Sirius do anything of the sort. As for James, we > don't see him do much of anything except tease Remus about being a > werewolf, show off with a Snitch, hex Severus, and talk briefly to a > girl who thinks he's a bully. We also see Snape make various kinds of deductive errors (often of the "when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me" variety). We do not see either Sirius or James in situations that we see Snape, so we have no model of comparison. But we do have McGonagall's testimony (not disputed by the present Flitwick), and the amazing (and textually noted as such) Animagi feat. And, frankly, it's better generally to take what you have than what you don't, which leads into number two... > Carol responds: > Um, erm, what? I'm lost. What do you mean by "seriated" and how does > it relate to the Severus/MWPP discussion? And "hapax"???? A hapax (short for 'hapax legomenon') is something which occurs only once in a corpus of works and therefore ranges from extremely problematic to impossible to evaluate, as you have no models of comparison. To apply that to the situation at hand, we have actually SEEN *one* (count 'em, one) episode of MWPP's schooldays. That makes it a problem to elevate that to the model for the whole--it leaves us eminently open to get smacked by future revelations. As has been stated before, it would be like taking Harry and the gang's reaction to Draco and crew at the end of GoF as a completely isolated incident; we would read it very differently without having it put into a series. You can find some detail about seriation here: http://www.explore-anthropology.com/anthropology/S/Seriation.html It began as a principle in classical philology, and has since spread its wings into disparate areas such as archaeology and semiotics, especially music with the works of Jean-Jacques Nattiez. And to quote from that article, here's an art historian about it: 'Whether we deal with historical or natural phenomena, the individual observation of phenomena assumes the character of a 'fact' only when it can be related to other, analogous observations in such a way that the whole series 'makes sense.' This 'sense' is, therefore, fully capable of being applied, as a control, to the interpretation of a new individual observation within the same range of phenomena. If, however, this new individual observation definitely refuses to be interpreted according to the 'sense' of the series, and if an error proves to be impossible, the 'sense' of the series will have to be reformulated to include the new individual observation.' At present, we do not have an actual series; we have one witnessed event, one event that is decidedly (and deliberately, methinks) fragmentary, and some scattered comments that never reach the status of 'event'. Note the "new individual observation". This is what I suspect you will find downthread (if you haven't read it already) when I pointed out that our perception of one event can be strongly changed by the addition of others. That's seriation at work; one thing by itself has a lack of proper context. When you get a new thing, you have to try to fit them together, and so on as you add more things. -Nora thought she had an explanation of seriation downthread... From juli17 at aol.com Tue Feb 1 03:57:16 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:57:16 EST Subject: Time Turner...(TT during PoA) Message-ID: <147.3e74ca36.2f30581c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123604 > Sandra: > After a long lie down, my headache has finally passed... and after weighing > up everything that people have written (and I'm grateful to all of them) I > no > longer know what day it is. > The example you gave about the road-crossing was working fine, but could > only actually work if you stopped on the way to the road to step forwards in > > time, rather than back. It's the same with Harry - he can't go back in time > to > save himself from the Dementors because there's no way he could survive > the attack in order to go back there. And that's why the story falls down... > > anyway, I'm pleased to see that so many other people don't get it either, > although it's a bit sad that so few people notice such a monstrous loop hole > in > the first place. > Thanks, Ginger, you're thoughts are appreciated! Sandra. > Julie says: Although we observe time as linear, that is not its true nature. It's a bit like a "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" thing. There is no beginning or end of the time loop, and the "past" event doesn't necessarily occur before the "future" event, except from our limited perception. You can jump into the loop at any point (sort of). Theoretically, anyway. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 04:05:06 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 04:05:06 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123605 Carol responds: Nope, I'm not going to give you that one. First, Sirius is talking about the Transfiguration exam, not the DADA exam that we know Severus studied for. He doesn't need to study Transfiguration because that's what he and James have been doing since they discovered that Remus was a werewolf, not in order to get high marks (which were a side benefit) but in order to become Animagi. No wonder McGonagall thinks they're exceptionally bright. They do exceptionally well in *her* subject, the only one she sees them in. Nor is she an unbiased witness. She was head of Gryffindor House; they were Gryffindors. And James, wh died fighting Voldemort, is a hero in the WW. Alla: Ummm, just one very small comment, which I think gives some extra points for McGonagall objectivity ( please remember that I am not arguing who were brighter James and Sirius OR Severus, I am simply arguing that James and Sirius WERE smart). When McGonagall makes this statement - she has absolutely NO reason to remember Sirius fondly, because she considers him to be a traitor AND she still says that. Also what Nora said about Flitwick not contradicting her. All three of them were academic genuises, how about that idea? :o) JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 04:09:11 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 04:09:11 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-Additional Points In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123606 "Steve" wrote: > > First, yes, I think Dumbledore checked back. I think he had regular > reports from Mrs. Figg, and suspect that on rare occassion Dumbledore himself may have observe the situation; first hand, but from a distance. > > In addition, Harry points out that on several occassions /strange/ > people would bow to him, or wave to him, or smile at him. I suspect > those may have been Dumbledore spies observing Harry. Carol responds: Not just spies. I'm willing to bet that they're Order members. One of them (the tiny man in the purple tophat who bows to Harry in a shop) is definitely Dedalus Diggle. The man in the violet cloak could be Elphias Doge and the woman in green who smiles and waves could be Hestia Jones, who behaves in a similar way in "The Advance Guard." or there may be other Order members we haven't met yet. I'm sure that DD is making sure that Harry is safe and well and attending school. If he had significant bruises or a broken arm, DD would know. As it is, there's nothing more significant to report than broken glasses and oversized clothes. Carol, wondering how Aunt Petunia would have reacted if they'd encountered Mundungus Fletcher instead of Dedalus Diggle From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 04:34:08 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 04:34:08 -0000 Subject: DD knew Moody=Barty Crouch before Polyjuice expired In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123607 Carol earlier: > > > > > Crouch!Moody then does two things that the real Alastor Moody probably would not have done: he transfigures a student (Draco)into a ferret and bounces him around, and he not only demonstrates all three Unforgiveable Curses on spiders but actually casts the Imperius Curse on his own students (I'm assuming all of them, at least in the fourth year and up, and not just Harry's class.) Either he asks and receives Dumbledore's permission for this blatant disregard of the laws of the WW, probably arguing that he's an ex-auror and that Mr. Crouch has authorized the aurors to use the Unforgiveable Curses, or he lies to the students, telling them that he has received Dumbledore's permission when he hasn't, a bit of information that would reach Dumbledore's ears rather quickly. < > Pippin replied: > I agree with the first part of the analysis, the real Moody wouldn't> have bounced Draco (though as we saw with Vernon he isn't above a little intimidation where it will do some good). But as for the second, we saw in OOP that in order to learn advanced defensive skills, you do have to practice against real jinxes. And [Crouch!]Moody confirms this, "According to the Ministry, I'm not supposed to show you what illegal Dark curses look like until you're in the sixth year. But Professor Dumbledore's got a higher opinion of your nerves, he reckons you can cope, and I say, the sooner you know what you're up against, the better." --A lie about what the ministry allows to be taught in NEWT DADA (and thus tests for on the NEWTs) would be obvious to a lot more people than just Dumbledore. I think Moody is telling the truth here. Carol responds: Thanks to both you and Steve for the points you made regarding my analysis. As to Crouch!Moody, you may be right that NEWT students normally see the Unforgiveable Curses demonstrated on spiders or other small animals (the WW isn't big on animal rights), but practicing them on the students is, IMO, another matter. It's strictly illegal and the curses are by definition Unforgiveable. The real Moody was authorized to cast them on Death Eaters at great need. Casting them on students is another matter. And notice that *only* Harry could resist the Imperius Curse, and he didn't learn how to do that from Crouch!Moody. He just somehow had it in him to resist the curse's power. So I think C!M was taking the permission to teach the Curses early farther than the real Moody would have done and this was one reason why DD suspected him to be an imposter. It was certainly one reason why I, as a reader, was very uncomfortable with the character, though I certainly didn't figure out that he was a polyjuiced DE who faked his own death in Azkaban. I don't think we can take Crouch!Moody's word for anything, and while the Unforgiveable Curses undoubtedly show up on the *written* portion of the NEWT DADA exam, I doubt that they show up on the practical. Certainly the examiners aren't going to AK or Crucio the students and ask them to demonstrate their resistance. I doubt that they'd Imperio them, either. The Imperius Curse is not only illegal, it requires the desire to violate the mind and will of the victim. That's why it, like the Cruciatus Curse and Avada Kedavra, is Unforgiveable. For me, the fact that C!M easily and comfortably performed an illegal curse on his students, dismissing Hermione's protest with the excuse that DD had authorized him to do so, was an indication (along with the bouncing ferret incident) that something was not as it should be with this particular professor. Carol From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Feb 1 04:37:29 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 04:37:29 -0000 Subject: MWPP seriation is there any? WAS Re: James, a paragon of virtue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123608 > > Carol responds: > > Um, erm, what? I'm lost. What do you mean by "seriated" and how does it relate to the Severus/MWPP discussion? And "hapax"???? > Nora > A hapax (short for 'hapax legomenon') is something which occurs only once in a corpus of works and therefore ranges from extremely > problematic to impossible to evaluate, as you have no models of > comparison. > ... edited.... > At present, we do not have an actual series; we have one witnessed > event, one event that is decidedly (and deliberately, methinks) > fragmentary, and some scattered comments that never reach the status of 'event'. > ..edited... > Note the "new individual observation". This is what I suspect you > will find downthread (if you haven't read it already) when I pointed out that our perception of one event can be strongly changed by the addition of others. That's seriation at work; one thing by itself has a lack of proper context. When you get a new thing, you have to try to fit them together, and so on as you add more things. > Valky: Thanks Nora, for the detailed explanations. I kind of understood the meanings of those words from the context that you used them in. And I agreed mostly with what you said. Now that you explain it this well, though. I just have one quibble about it. I still agree that the penseive event is fragmented, like you have said, but I don't fully agree that the marauders era is quite so fragmented. Lets take a look at it. The Marauders Map tells us a lot.... There was a witty intelligent author among them, and someone quite adept at complex charms, maybe the same person. The Animagii is a giveaway that at least one of them was extraordinarily talented and able to learn the principles of the transfiguration to a teaching level at a very young age. The Snitch James played with and Peter's reaction, James reputation as a Quidditch player, they tend to add up toward a conclusion that James had remarkably good reflexes. James Romantic interest in Lily doesn't have much seriation yet, but it has the potential to add seriation to "James always hated the Dark Arts" when you compound it with Lily's apparently staunch and public opposition to social wrongs, and his caring for Remus. As for Severus, we have experienced time and time again throughout the books that *nothing* he does is completely revealed without the seriation. The example I gave earlier of since Occlumency/Legilimency were given to us in canon, we have had no end of discovering what Snape was *really* doing in that scene where he *appeared* to be doing NOTHING at all. So that in itself is a seriation of Severus Snape that we just can't ignore. The Mudblood comment, the blood drawing curse, are they just more examples of Severus standing in the corridor purely observing a petrified Mrs Norris, Harry and others and saying "nothing" to Dumbledore? Valky (gotta get the babe from Preschool, but I am keen to discuss this more) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 05:50:32 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 05:50:32 -0000 Subject: The Mauraders' Generation -- no parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123609 "Lisa (Jennings) Mamula" wrote: > I know that the HP stories center around the Trio and their peers, but what about the generation above them? Where are the parents of these characters? > > Molly & Arthur -- Do the Weasley kids not have any grandparents? > > Sirius -- We know they are dead, but how? Sirius is young; it seems his parents would be too young to die of natural causes. > > Tonks -- So, her mum Andromeda was Sirius' favorite cousin... Where is she now (and where is her husband, Ted)?? > > Remus -- Any clue there? > > James -- He was so very young when he died; what happened to his parents? > > Lily & Petunia -- Another mystery. Carol responds: While we're at it, why not add Snape to the list? (I know, I know! His dad was a DE killed by the aurors and his mother's in St. Mungo's in the closed ward, having been partially turned into a dog by her evil husband. Well, that's my half-baked theory, anyway.) And we do know of one Marauder (other than Sirius, whose parents seem strangely old) with a living parent at the time of Godric's Hollow: Peter's mother received his finger and his Order of Merlin first class. (I hope for her sake she didn't live to learn the truth.) The Weasleys aren't really the same generation as MWPP. They seem to be older than Hagrid and Tom Riddle, so they would actually represent the generation you're talking about (as would the apparently childless Mad-eye Moody). (See my earlier comments on Ogg the gamekeeper and Apollyon Pringle the caretaker who preceded Filch, both of whom were on the Hogwarts staff in Arthur and Molly's schooldays.) I think that James Potter's parents were killed by Voldemort or the DEs. That may be one of the occasions when he and Lily defied Voldemort. It would certainly be a motivation for them to join the Order if they had not already done so. At any rate, they were alive when Sirius stayed at James's house when he left home at sixteen; they were dead (along with Lily's parents) by the time Harry was fifteen months old. Too much of a coincidence for both to die in such a short time unless they were killed by DEs or other Voldemort agents. (Lily's parents are Muggles. Hard to say why Voldemort would have gone after them, but they're dead, too, so maybe he did.) Remus's parents? Maybe his father is the werewolf who bit him? Note the name Lupin, suggesting "wolf." (No theory about his mother, but if she's alive he would at least have had a place to live when he was unemployed before 12 GP became available.) My sense is that Tonks' parents are still alive. I think she or Sirius would have mentioned it if they were dead. But you're right. We do seem to be missing almost a whole generation. Carol, who wonders what happened to all the women (other than Lily, the Black sisters, and Bertha Jorkins) of MWPP's own generation From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 06:25:08 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 06:25:08 -0000 Subject: Half Blood Prince Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123610 Pook wrote: > Most are thinking the half blood prince is half wizard and half muggle. > > What about other combinations? > Half giant/half wizard > Half centaur/half wizard First, "half-blood" does mean half wizard and half Muggle, not half-wizard/human and half some other species. (That would be "half breed," a term that I believe is used in the books, possibly by Rita skeeter, but I could be wrong.) And second, what about the "prince" part? Hagrid's father was an ordinary wizard, his mother an ordinary giantess, not the daughter of the Gurg, so far as we know. No royalty there. And the centaurs don't seem to have a king or even a chief. (Ronan may or may not be the leader, but he doesn't seem to have any more authority than Bane or anyone else.) Also, as someone else mentioned, the centaurs are unlikely to mate with humans even if they weren't so sure of their own superiority. Imagine what kind of child they'd have. Then again, I'd rather not. So I'll stay with the view that "half-blood" is used in its usual HP sense. I'd like the HPB to be Godric Gryffindor, but more likely it's a living person, maybe Felix Felicis, who may or may not be the lionlike man described in the snippet on JKR's website. Carol, who thinks that if a toad and a wizard produce offspring, they'll look like Umbridge From caesian at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 06:43:57 2005 From: caesian at yahoo.com (caesian) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:43:57 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DD knew Moody=Barty Crouch before Polyjuice expired In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123611 Carol, Steve and Pippin all responded with some very good explanation as to why DD could have reasoned it was Barty Jr. during Harry's fourth year, and also recounted additional ways the reader was clued into this developing plot. It's got me thinking this week, though, about the possibility that DD knew Barty Jr. was alive long before GoF. How or why he would have known this is impossible to say. I keep coming back to this one speculation however, so what the heck. I'll be brief: 1) DD doesn't approve of the Dementors at Azkaban. 2) He is probably not the only one who feels this way. 3) What if Crouch's mode of escaping the Dementors was not a unique incident but one of many (?) organized by wizards opposed to conditions within Azkaban. A sort of underground railroad. Progressive, powerful DD would have been consulted or may even be an organizer. There are all sorts of logical problems with this - like what to do with the escapees, where to get the dying subs, and why elvis and the other former inmates are not spotted more often. Just a wacky thought. Caesian From caesian at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 07:05:03 2005 From: caesian at yahoo.com (caesian) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 23:05:03 -0800 Subject: Harry's dead (short lifeline) Message-ID: <98A5A454-741F-11D9-BF14-000A95C61C7C@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123612 In PoA, Professor Trelawney wastes no time telling Harry he has the shortest life line she has ever seen. We all know that poor T is blinkered. She can't SEE the future even when she actually does. I.e., she can see the future (e.g. Sirius) but almost always misinterprets it (e.g. The Grim). Her observation got me thinking - what if Harry does have an incredibly short life line? For example, the life line of someone who died in infancy. What if Harry, the Boy Who Lived, didn't. This is weird, but bear with me. There has been some speculation as to what happened when the curse 'rebounded', or whatever it did. We wonder what Harry and Voldemort might share as a result. A common technique in logic is to get the listener to agree to the premise without actually considering it. "How did Harry survive?" is asked again and again, and so we wonder. But the question assumes that he did survive. Maybe this is not quite true. I know that death is permanent in the WW, and so technically Harry can't have died. But what if he didn't survive on his own steam. What if Harry and LV now share a common mortality. In other words, Harry actually would have been killed, but because his life became tied to Voldemort's by the 'rebound' (or whatever), when Voldemort was able to resist death, Harry resisted death as well. In that scenario, when Voldemort dies, so does Harry. Or perhaps DD's glint of triumph was not related to Voldemort's defeat, but to an increase in Harry's likelihood of survival... Or, maybe not. Caesian From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Feb 1 07:48:36 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 07:48:36 -0000 Subject: Is Harry arrogant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123613 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: Valky: > I do agree with you both about Gryffindor courage and teenage boys, > but not about Harry. > Let me just point out that Harry was 11 when he marched himself into > battle with his first full grown wizard foe. I'm not just talking > about OOtP here, while Harry was already thinking, before he knew > *anything* about *anything*, that he should save the day, while his > classmates like Neville, Ron and Draco, were actively avoiding the > grown up thoughts Harry was having, like duty and self sacrifice. > Now Ron and Neville showed when it came to the crunch that each > possessed one of these virtues, but it is Harry who had them both in > spades *all year*. And that is *just a little* extraordinary. Geoff: I agree with a lot of that analysis, but does that make Harry "arrogant"? One dictionary definition gives - arrogant > adjective having an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities Looking at the incident which Valky mentioned... '"SO WHAT?" Harry shouted. "Don't you understand? If Snape gets hold of the Stone, Voldemort's coming back! Haven't you heard what it was like when he was trying to take over? There won't be any Hogwarts to get expelled from! He'll flatten it or turn it into a school for the Dark Arts! Losing points doesn't matter any more, can't you see? D'you think he'll leave you and your families alone if Gryffindor win the House Cup? If I get caught before I can get to the Stone, well I'll have to go back to the Dursleys and wait for Voldemort to find me there. It's only dying a bit later than I would have done because I'm never going over to the Dark Side! I'm going through that trapdoor tonight and nothing you two say is going to stop me! Voldemort killed my parents, remember?" He glared at them.' (PS "Through the Trapdoor" pp.196-97 UK edition) To me, that doesn't smack of arrogance. There's almost a hint of resignation in it. From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Tue Feb 1 08:05:23 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 03:05:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's dead (short lifeline) In-Reply-To: <98A5A454-741F-11D9-BF14-000A95C61C7C@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050201080524.19937.qmail@web52007.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123614 caesian wrote: In PoA, Professor Trelawney wastes no time telling Harry he has the shortest life line she has ever seen. We all know that poor T is blinkered. She can't SEE the future even when she actually does. I.e., she can see the future (e.g. Sirius) but almost always misinterprets it (e.g. The Grim). Her observation got me thinking - what if Harry does have an incredibly short life line? For example, the life line of someone who died in infancy. What if Harry, the Boy Who Lived, didn't. This is weird, but bear with me. There has been some speculation as to what happened when the curse 'rebounded', or whatever it did. We wonder what Harry and Voldemort might share as a result. A common technique in logic is to get the listener to agree to the premise without actually considering it. "How did Harry survive?" is asked again and again, and so we wonder. But the question assumes that he did survive. Maybe this is not quite true. I know that death is permanent in the WW, and so technically Harry can't have died. But what if he didn't survive on his own steam. What if Harry and LV now share a common mortality. In other words, Harry actually would have been killed, but because his life became tied to Voldemort's by the 'rebound' (or whatever), when Voldemort was able to resist death, Harry resisted death as well. In that scenario, when Voldemort dies, so does Harry. Or perhaps DD's glint of triumph was not related to Voldemort's defeat, but to an increase in Harry's likelihood of survival... Or, maybe not. Caesian Luckdragon: "The boy who died" That would explain why "neither can live while the other survives". So now we are right back where we started. Will Harry defeat Voldemort and live or vice versa or must both die for Voldemort to be vanquished? Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/hbfile.html Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! --------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 08:09:17 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 08:09:17 -0000 Subject: Time Turner...Harry2 Arrived at 6pm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123615 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sandra87b" wrote: > > bboyminn: > > Think about the first time through the time loop. > > Harry WAS save; the Dementors didn't get him. That IS a fact; that > > IS history; that IS the book's account of the first time through > > the loop. > > Sandra: > Hi there - and this is an interesting angle which I hadn't thought > of before! ...edited... Mind you, I think the first time through the > loop as you show it ISN'T the first time through the loop - it's the > first which JKR tells us about, and that's why it's wrong. > ...edited... > > The important thing to remember is that Harry was never able to save > himself because the Dementors got to him and Sirius, and they > couldn't do anything about it. - full stop. > > Sandra. bboyminn: First note, that I thought it was reasonably clear that I was using the 'first time loop/second time loop' as an illustration. It was an attempt to frame my 'one and only one time' theory into the framework of the viewpoint of those holding the opposite view to show that both documented accounts of events in the loop recount the exact same details but from a different perspective. So... Harry entered the timeline at 6pm, therefore, there was one and only one /time/. Time only happened once; it's Harry that happened twice. FULL AND COMPLETE STOP. While I do see your point, I simply don't agree. That point of view creates too many unresolvable problems, FAR MORE unresolvable problems than the book itself creates. Further, it's based in suppositions that are a great leap from what is contained in the book, and what is necessary to explain what happened. JKR put clues in the first Entrance Hall scene to let us know that the second set of time traveling Harry and Hermione were there. Nothing really changes between the first version, as told by normal Harry and Hermione, and the second version, as told by Time Traveling Harry and Hermione. All seeming inconsistencies are resolved. For example, in seening the events the second time, we realize that the sounds of the second group of people in the Entrance Hall are really TT!Harry and TT!Hermione running to hide in the second closet. We hear the axe fall and Hagrid howl at which time Harry/Ron/Hermione assume Buckbeak was executed, but the in second version, we discover the axe was struck into a post, and Hargid howled for joy at Buckbeak's escape. In the first account, Harry assumes he sees his father, in the second account, we learn that he really saw himself. All the signs are that TT!Harry arrived at 6pm and was there through the entire event; the one and only event which occurred one and only one time in time. Now, you are certainly free to create a third timeline (actually, the first of three) that was shattered by Harry's return in time, and that is a valid theory of time travel and response, but it is far more complex than is necessary to resolve the events which can quite easily be resolved by a more simple explanation. In your version, there is a span of history that did occur that was shattered by Harry going back in time, and replaced by a new timeline. One huge gap of history, of the lives of every living thing in the entire vast universe, was erased and /magically/ replace by a different sequence of events. All of which is undocumented and unaccounted for in the books. Fair enough, but if Harry died the in the /shattered/ timeline, how was he able to travel from the future in which he is dead to the past to save himself? Dead men don't travel in time. Not saying one can't speculate several far fetched explanation to resolve this, like Harry jumped between parallel universes. Or in the shattered timeline, there is an alternate /savior/; Sirius, Tom Riddle, Dumbledore, Godric Gryffindor, person(s) not yet introduced, etc.... But, like I said, too many, too complex, too unresolvable problems with that choice. Especially when the book implies a simpler more reasonable explanation and more workable theory of time travel. You're free to believe what you want, but it's far simpler for TT!Harry to arrive at 6pm and hide in the forest until it time for him to save himself. A theory which very closely mirrors the books account of what happened. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Feb 1 08:42:06 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 08:42:06 -0000 Subject: Is Harry arrogant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123616 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" > wrote: > > Valky: > classmates like Neville, Ron and Draco, were actively avoiding the > > grown up thoughts Harry was having, like duty and self sacrifice. > > Now Ron and Neville showed when it came to the crunch that each > > possessed one of these virtues, but it is Harry who had them both in spades *all year*. And that is *just a little* extraordinary. > > Geoff: > I agree with a lot of that analysis, but does that make > Harry "arrogant"? > > One dictionary definition gives - > arrogant > adjective having an exaggerated sense of one's own > importance or abilities > Valky: Well I do see arrogance in the way I described it before, as a knightly quality of ego - using the definition that you have used Harry has a sense of exaggerated importance and abilities, it is evident in his sense of duty in the quote below. Geoff: > Looking at the incident which Valky mentioned... > > '"SO WHAT?" Harry shouted. "Don't you understand? If Snape gets hold of the Stone... Valky: This is the first evidence of arrogance about his grown up duty. Assuming, that the way Snape will NOT get hold of the stone is if He (Harry) himself stops him. Quote continues: > ".....Voldemort's coming back! Haven't you heard what it was > like when he was trying to take over? There won't be any Hogwarts to get expelled from! He'll flatten it or turn it into a school for the Dark Arts! Losing points doesn't matter any more, can't you see? > D'you think he'll leave you and your families alone if Gryffindor win the House Cup?" Valky: This is evidence of the resignation and compassion he feels, this is all very Lily in Harry, so again, Geoff you are entirely correct.. but then.... ".............If I get caught before I can get to the Stone, well I'll have to go back to the Dursleys and wait for Voldemort to find me there. " Here is Harry again citing his arrogance, in saying "I am going to fight Voldemort, 11 years old I'll take it all on, just bring it"... imagine Snape hearing this sentence, Harry would be laughed heartily into a corner, and what would Snape say exactly? Would it come out something like.. "Potter you are exaggerating your importance and abilities...." The quote continues: ".....It's only dying a bit later than I would have done because I'm never going over to the Dark Side!...." Valky: This is a mixture of arrogance and a bit of resignation. It comes late in the rant, and I think purposely, because it comes late to Harrys mind. Harry starts off with his faith that *he* has to stop Snape, granted DD is not there so Harry feels a bit resigned and is not going to sit down and do nothing. OTOH imagine say, Fred and George in his position, would they make the same decision, probably not. Fred and George would stir a raucous in the halls or some other *creative* way of alerting the teachers to Snape's (which is actually Quirrel) absence. It is Harry that comes to the conclusion that *he* must go down the trapdoor, alone if he has to, and fight the bad guy one on one to the death if necessary, to do his duty. ".....I'm going through that trapdoor tonight and nothing you two say is going to stop me! Voldemort killed my parents, remember?" He glared at them.'" Valky: Harry ends with a hint of revenge, so he has swayed back, most likely, to overestimating his ability to make an impact on Voldemort. The most important thing I am trying to say is that Harry's arrogance is the kind of arrogance that a warrior takes into battle. The warrior is not actually an arrogant person, but they assume a sense of it when faced with a situation that calls for them to be brave. This part of Harry is like James. Though in James case, I think, he was *always* trying to be brave and often ended up looking arrogant instead. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Feb 1 09:45:24 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 09:45:24 -0000 Subject: The Mauraders' Generation -- no parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123617 > > I would really like to have some explanation from JKR about the > > genetics behind all this - some Muggles can have witch/wizard kids and some witch/wizards can have squib kids. Where is the logic? > > Hickengruendler: > > To be honest, and please don't feel offended, if I were on your > place, I would stop waiting for an explanation to this. JKR is not > the maths or scientific type, and I doubt she will try to explain > this in great detail. We know that according to Mendel it is > impossible, because then either Squibs or Muggleborns shouldn't > exist. But I don't really care about it anyway, just like I don't > care why two blond people can have a red haired child. It's just how it is. Of course the Squib/muggleborn thing is impossible from a > biological point of view, but then, it's a world full of magic. So > who knows what the magic gene does ;-). Of course I don't mean that your thoughts aren't valid, I just really, really doubt, that your question will ever be answered. Valky: I wonder if you both have read this on JKRowling.com http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=19 It's a rather long and detailed insight into just the question you are both asking. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Feb 1 10:02:23 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 10:02:23 -0000 Subject: The Mauraders' Generation -- no parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123618 > > Valky: > I wonder if you both have read this on JKRowling.com > > http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=19 > > It's a rather long and detailed insight into just the question you > are both asking. Oops that's not the half of it.. check out this one too if you haven't already. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/faq_view.cfm?id=58 From librarybookgrl at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 01:11:30 2005 From: librarybookgrl at yahoo.com (librarybookgrl) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 01:11:30 -0000 Subject: Pre-Hogwarts Schooling Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123620 Obviously kids like Harry and Hermione who don't know they are wizards until they get their letter go to regular muggle schools (especially if both parents are muggles) before going to Hogwarts. Often there is mention of Harry's pre-Hogwarts school experiences, particularly in reference to how he didn't have many friends because no one wanted to be on Dudley's bad side. However, what about kids like Malfoy and the Weasleys who are from wizarding families? Certainly they wouldn't send their kids to muggle schools until they're 10! Are we to assume that these kids are home-schooled in some way, but just in the three R's and never any magic? Forgive me if this has been addressed in the past. I'm new, there are a lot of postings, and it would take me months to read all the way back to 2000! What are the theories? Thanks, librarybookgrl From tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 01:44:44 2005 From: tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com (Pyros Wife) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:44:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Luna's Mother's Death- Correction (Wizards and firearms ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050201014444.70178.qmail@web61202.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123621 Finwitch: You know - what would a witch/wizard DO with a gun, considering the many uses of a wand? Using a wand is much more effective, you know -- Tayla: Let us not forget that many witches/wizards don't even know HOW to use muggle artifacts! Ron calling Harry, Harry specifically stating, "I told Mr. Weasley how to use a telephone." I just have images of old Tom and Jerry cartoons running through my head of Mr. Weasley pointing a shotgun in the wrong direction! *shudder* --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmrazo at hotmail.com Tue Feb 1 03:21:07 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 03:21:07 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123622 > Carol responds: He's not trying to get a high mark for its own > sake or to "get by" like rich boys Sirius and James, who won't need to > earn a living when they finish school. Phoenixgod2000: I think your letting your biases show. There is no evidence that James is actually rich. Harry might just happen to have a lot of money because he had access to accounts which haven't done anything except acrue interest. Of course for a child who grew up with nothing and his only other vault example being that of a poor family, Harry might have false impression of exactly how much money he actually has. And who knows how rich Sirius actually was since he was stricken from the family tree. Carol: > So, no. I don't for a moment buy your argument that they were "much > brighter" than Severus (or the equally studious Remus, who hasn't > mastered Transfiguration because he didn't have to learn it to > transform into a werewolf). And their behavior doesn't indicate > intelligence, either. I see no indication of brilliance in the MWPP > conversation in the Pensieve scene, do you? All we have is the fact > that James became Head Boy and the testimony of the less than > objective Minerva McGonagall, who never saw those boys in Potions or > DADA or or Charms or any subject except Transfiguration. Actually I would assume the head of house knows quite a bit about how her students are doing in all of their classes since its her job to give them career advice. McG certainly seemed to know how Harry was doing in all of his classes. Doesn't seem to be the type to exaggerate that sort of thing in conversation so if she says they had real talent then I am going to listen. I actually agree with you that there is no evidence that Snape is less intelligent than the MWPP. I hate Snape with the fire of a thousand suns but he is both brave to be a spy and good at what he does. I just disagree with your explanation why. phoenixgod2000 From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Tue Feb 1 11:27:41 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 11:27:41 -0000 Subject: Privet Drive (was Harry and starvation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123623 > > Dungrollin: > > I've never found a satisfactory reason for this continued > > protection at Privet Drive malarkey. If Grimmauld Place isn't > > safe, why does Harry get to stay there for a month? If it is > > safe, then why does Harry have to go back to Privet Drive at > > all? > > > > Yes, yes, to renew the blood protection - so that he can still > > call Privet Drive 'home'. But why not call 12GP 'home' if it's > > as safe? > > bboyminn: > > Just because you have a new fortress doesn't mean you burn down the > old one, and just because the old fortress exists doesn't mean the > new one is worthless. > > Grimmauld Place is well protect and safe. It has all the > protections placed on it by the Black family over the years, and > now it has the Secret Keeper's Charm protecting it. In addition, > there are wizards and witches at Grimmauld Place who are able to > protect Harry in case of emergency. > But when Harry has his greatest > level of pretection at the Dursley's, it would be poor strategy to > abondon that and let the Blood Charm be broken. There may come a > time when things get so bad that Harry and friends have to retreat > to the safe, but annoying, haven of the Dursley's. Dungrollin: Yeah, that was the only reason I could come up with too - that DD wants a place of last resort where Harry will be safe. But it seems so unsatisfactory. Harry is clearly *not* safe at Privet Drive; he's already been attacked by Dementors there, and now the Dementors have left Azkaban and (presumably) abandoned the Ministry and rejoined You-Know-Who, he's even less safe there. He was so *not safe* at the Dursleys' that DD had to assign a member of the Order to guard him all day every day. That's one Order member wasted, when there's always somebody at 12GP anyway, who could look out for Harry at the same time as holding the fort. I'm not convinced that Harry *is* better protected at Privet Drive than he is at GP; there's no secret-keeper for Privet Drive, anyone who wants to get at Harry just has to wait until he leaves the house, and then there's nobody (apart from an unreliable crook and a squib) to protect him. At least at GP they wouldn't be able to see the house in the first place, and there is always guaranteed to be a trained witch/wizard nearby. But, on the point you made that it's worth having a last resort, I suppose I have to agree. I just don't like it much, the benefits don't seem to outweigh the costs and risks. Dungrollin From tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 00:55:12 2005 From: tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com (Pyros Wife) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:55:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050201005512.76595.qmail@web61204.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123624 Betsy: But the sympathy doesn't last. By the end of OotP Harry's hatred for Snape soars to new hights. And from what I've seen on this list, the sympathy didn't last long among some readers either. Tayla: Ahhh, but is Harry's negative feelings towards Snape really what Harry is feeling, or is it more from LV? From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 08:28:18 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 00:28:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Mauraders' Generation -- no parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050201082819.62349.qmail@web31107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123625 Nicky Joe wonders: I would really like to have some explanation from JKR about the genetics behind all this - some Muggles can have witch/wizard kids and some witch/wizards can have squib kids. Where is the logic? Arynn explains: It's simple genetics, {exampli gratia: both of my parents have brown eyes. I have blue eyes). Because brown eyes are B/b (Brown/blue) they both have a dominant Brown and a recesive blue. I just happened to get both of their recessive genes. (b/b) Maybe wizards have a similar getetic coding. W/m (wizard/muggle) and m/m (muggle squared), so even if most of the family is W/m a m/m could come along. Since we know squibs are WAY rarer than muggleborns, obviously the wizard gene is dominant. So alot of muggles must have latent Wizard genes. --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 07:59:26 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 23:59:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Werewolves (Was:I'd like feedback on this theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050201075926.18139.qmail@web31108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123626 Is silver harmful to werewolves? There's no cannon to suggest that. You can just go by "muggle" mythology, if they were right vampires wouldn't be able to go out in the daytime, which according to FB they can. FB never mentions silver as harmful to werewolves. --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 13:34:20 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 13:34:20 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123627 > Carol responds: > Nope, I'm not going to give you that one. First, Sirius is talking > about the Transfiguration exam, not the DADA exam that we know > Severus studied for. He doesn't need to study Transfiguration > because that's what he and James have been doing since they > discovered that Remus was a werewolf, not in order to get high marks > (which were a side benefit) > but in order to become Animagi. No wonder McGonagall thinks they're > exceptionally bright. They do exceptionally well in *her* subject, > the only one she sees them in. Nor is she an unbiased witness. She > was head of Gryffindor House; they were Gryffindors. And James, wh > died fighting Voldemort, is a hero in the WW. > > Alla: > > Ummm, just one very small comment, which I think gives some extra > points for McGonagall objectivity ( please remember that I am not > arguing who were brighter James and Sirius OR Severus, I am simply > arguing that James and Sirius WERE smart). > > > When McGonagall makes this statement - she has absolutely NO reason > to remember Sirius fondly, because she considers him to be a traitor > AND she still says that. > > Also what Nora said about Flitwick not contradicting her. > > > All three of them were academic genuises, how about that idea? :o) Neri adds: Perhaps this was mentioned upthread and I missed it, but at least in regard to James, we have a very strong independent corroboration that he was the brightest student of his year: DD chose him, not Severus, to be Head Boy. At least in RL British schools this is an honor based mainly on academic excellence (see Shaun Hately's article) and I don't know any reason to think Hogwarts is different in this regard. This means DD also thought James was very bright, even though he didn't know at the time about the animagus feat or the map. And I don't think he appointed James solely based on his Transfiguration marks. I'm not sure if this fits with the definition of seriation, but since McGonagall's testimony is strongly corroborated regarding James, I'm even more inclined to trust it regarding Sirius also. To summerize, we have at least four independent confirmations that the marauders in general and James in particular were very bright: 1. McGonagall's testimony. 2. The animagi feat. 3. The Marauder's Map (which grownup Snape can't break into). 4. DD choosing James as Head Boy. Definitely a series. Also, when DD tells Harry in the end of PoA that Sirius told him about becoming animagi, he notes: "an extraordinary achievement ? not least, keeping it quiet from me". DD doesn't use praises like "extraordinary" often, and he seems to think that "keeping it quiet from him" is a fifth confirmation of the marauders being bright. Regarding Severus's academic genius, I'd better let other members count the evidence for it, but I suspect it would be much more patchy. Neri From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Tue Feb 1 14:11:51 2005 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:11:51 -0000 Subject: Magic and genetics (wasRe: The Mauraders' Generation) In-Reply-To: <20050201082819.62349.qmail@web31107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123628 > Nicky Joe wonders: > I would really like to have some explanation from JKR about the > genetics behind all this - some Muggles can have witch/wizard kids > and some witch/wizards can have squib kids. Where is the logic? > > Arynn explained: > Maybe wizards have a similar getetic coding. W/m (wizard/muggle) and m/m (muggle squared), so even if most of the family is W/m a m/m could come along. Since we know squibs are WAY rarer than muggleborns, obviously the wizard gene is dominant. So alot of muggles must have latent Wizard genes. Hannah: Nice explanation of genetics Arynn! JKR said that the magic gene is a very strong dominant gene - which works fine for the squibs side of it, as explained above. Unfortunately, it doesn't account for the Muggle-born wizards and witches. If a gene is dominant, then the parent carrying it would have to have magical ability as well. So I guess we have to assume that the Muggle-born wizards/witches are the result of a new mutation in the 'magic' gene. As most half- bloods are magical, it wouldn't make sense for the gene to be recessive. Of course, there's also the possibility of multiple genes being involved, or of imprinting... or just that it's 'magic.' I find the genetics of magic one of things in HP that it's better not to think about too much! Hannah From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 14:12:16 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:12:16 -0000 Subject: Wizarding genetics (recent website comments) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123629 Since this is going around, I thought I would add my own two cents, because I think it's a productive two cents and avoids certain potholes. Words frequently have technical as well as general meanings. When JKR says that magic is a "dominant, resilient gene", it ends up very messy trying to figure it out if you start drawing genetic cross- boxes and all that, because dominant genes don't actually work that way. Take it in a less technical sense, and what she is saying makes perfect sense. It is a huge theme that there are *no actual physical/ontological/whatever* differences between a Muggleborn, a half-blood, and a pureblood. If anything states or hints otherwise, I would love to see it. The pureblood ideology thread, IMO, is one of the most major themes of the books, but its only actual reality is on the cultural level (there are/have been some reasons for worry there), but decidedly not on more physically real grounds. Magic arises by chance in the Muggleborn, but then their children are not either more or less likely than the children of purebloods to become Squibs. Once you have someone who has the magic capacity, that thing is going to preserve itself. We really don't have too many cases of magical exogamy to play with, either. We have Dean Thomas who thinks he's Muggleborn but actually isn't (per the website info; and note that he is the only magical one, but has a number of half- brothers and sisters), we have Tom Riddle's parents, we have some possibility of Lupin's parents. I think this reading of the comments makes sense with theme, and leaves us not having to worry about details of genetics. :) -Nora gets ready to go copy some manuscripts From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Feb 1 14:33:13 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:33:13 -0000 Subject: Werewolves (Was:I'd like feedback on this theory) In-Reply-To: <20050201075926.18139.qmail@web31108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123630 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Arynn Octavia wrote: > > Is silver harmful to werewolves? There's no cannon to suggest that. You can just go by "muggle" mythology, if they were right vampires wouldn't be able to go out in the daytime, which according to FB they can. FB never mentions silver as harmful to werewolves. > Pippin: What's the canon from FB about vampires going out in daytime? Pippin From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Feb 1 14:47:20 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:47:20 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123631 Carol: > Severus, in contrast, clearly *knows* DADA in detail and clearly > cares about what he knows. He's not trying to get a high mark for > its own sake or to "get by" like rich boys Sirius and James, who > won't need to earn a living when they finish school. Severus > clearly wants to *master* the subject, possibly to use it in his > career, possibly because the subject itself is important to him. > Just because a student studies doesn't mean he or she isn't > naturally bright. Look at Hermione. > > Snape quite possibly has the same sort of retentive memory as > Hermione, which enables him to write more than the question probably > calls for in response to the DADA OWL. SSSusan: I think there's a WHOLE lotta assumin' goin' on here. How do know all this stuff about Severus Snape -- that he clearly *cares* about what he knows, that he's not interested in getting a high mark just for a high mark's sake but because he wants to *master* the subject? How do we know he's not studying hard and trying to do well because he wants to impress or please his potential boss, Lord Voldemort? How do we know that his writing a long response on his DADA OWL exam means he has a strong, retentive memory? I DO think the man is very bright and skilled, at least as we see him as an adult, but surely there are other possibilities than what you've stated that this scene shows? How 'bout he's struggled to come up with a response, has had lots of fits & starts or moments of "writer's block," and so he's rushing to complete the essay at the end? How do we know he's not a master bullshitter? I mean, *I* know all about that skill -- I got by on quite a few exams through a combination of quick comprehension of material and a good, strong ability to bullshit my way through an essay. And guess what? I was often one of the last ones to turn in my exams. I just don't see how you know all this stuff about Severus, sorry. Carol: > Snape has memorized many complicated potions, which he transfers to > the chalkboard with a flick of his wand. And we *know* that Snape > is bright. We've seen him put two and two together time and > again. We never see Sirius do anything of the sort. As for James, we > don't see him do much of anything except tease Remus about being a > werewolf, show off with a Snitch, hex Severus, and talk briefly to a > girl who thinks he's a bully. SSSusan: You're mixing time periods here. Snape *does* do what you say [though I suppose it could also be that he's simply "recorded" those complicated potion recipes in his wand and that he "releases" those instructions with a flick of his wand], but he's an ADULT who's been teaching his subject area for more than a dozen years. You're comparing that to what we see of Sirius & James as teens. We *have* no examples of James in his adult work setting, nor Sirius, really. Sirius was removed from the opportunity to learn a trade, practice any skills, for most of his adult life. I just don't see much sense in comparing adult Snape to teen James or Sirius and trying to show that it means Snape is brighter than they were. Carol: > All we have is the fact that James became Head Boy and the > testimony of the less than objective Minerva McGonagall, who never > saw those boys in Potions or DADA or or Charms or any subject > except Transfiguration. SSSusan: I don't think I'd class James' being chosen as Head Boy as something trivially "all" we have. Rather, I think it's a BIG-time clue to his brightness. And presumably, before a Head Boy or Girl is selected, at least all Heads of House, if not all Hogwarts staff, are involved in the process, as they try to ascertain which students are deserving of the honor & responsibility. Sorry. I respect many things about Snape and enjoy his character, but I just don't think we know all of these things about him. Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Feb 1 15:06:03 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 15:06:03 -0000 Subject: James' money (was: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123632 Phoenixgod2000: > There is no evidence that James is actually rich. Harry might just > happen to have a lot of money because he had access to accounts > which haven't done anything except acrue interest. Of course for a > child who grew up with nothing and his only other vault example > being that of a poor family, Harry might have false impression of > exactly how much money he actually has. SSSusan: Sorry -- not so that there's no evidence James was rich. We have this from JKR in an AOL chat from 2000: J.K. Rowling: Well, I can't go into too much detail, because you're going to find out in future books. But James inherited plenty of money, so he didn't need a well-paid profession. You'll find out more about both Harry's parents later. Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Feb 1 15:12:01 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 15:12:01 -0000 Subject: Privet Drive (was Harry and starvation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123633 Dungrollin: > Yeah, that was the only reason I could come up with too - that DD > wants a place of last resort where Harry will be safe. But it seems > so unsatisfactory. > > Harry is clearly *not* safe at Privet Drive; he's already been > attacked by Dementors there, and now the Dementors have left > Azkaban and (presumably) abandoned the Ministry and rejoined You- > Know-Who, he's even less safe there. > > I'm not convinced that Harry *is* better protected at Privet Drive > than he is at GP; there's no secret-keeper for Privet Drive, anyone > who wants to get at Harry just has to wait until he leaves the > house, and then there's nobody (apart from an unreliable crook and > a squib) to protect him. At least at GP they wouldn't be able to > see the house in the first place, and there is always guaranteed to > be a trained witch/wizard nearby. > > But, on the point you made that it's worth having a last resort, I > suppose I have to agree. I just don't like it much, the benefits > don't seem to outweigh the costs and risks. SSSusan: This is why I'm becoming more & more convinced that there is a two- way protection thing going on -- that DD must have offered protection to Petunia, and that Harry returns to Privet Drive to renew his own protection *and* to renew theirs. 'Course, I hesitate to suggest this too boldly onlist, because I suspect the possibility that this is true & that DD has kept mum on it to Harry will only FURTHER annoy those who are angry with DD for what they see as toying with Harry, for considering him as a weapon rather than as a boy. Siriusly Snapey Susan From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Feb 1 15:31:06 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 15:31:06 -0000 Subject: DD knew Moody=Barty Crouch before Polyjuice expired In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123634 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > I don't think we can take Crouch!Moody's word for anything, and while the Unforgiveable Curses undoubtedly show up on the *written* portion of the NEWT DADA exam, I doubt that they show up on the practical. Certainly the examiners aren't going to AK or Crucio the students and ask them to demonstrate their resistance. I doubt that they'd Imperio them, either. The Imperius Curse is not only illegal, it requires the desire to violate the mind and will of the victim. < Pippin: This sounds like an extrapolation...we only have Bella's lecture about what it takes to cast Crucio. That doesn't tell us what it takes to cast Imperio, unless I am mistaken. The Unforgivable designation is a legal one, and if it is like other ministry laws, it probably represents a compromise between a number of differing moral philosophies and interests. We do have canon that there are recognized techniques for resisting Imperius, though I agree that Harry may not have learned them, much to the detriment of his progress at Occlumency: "The Imperius curse can be fought and I'll be teaching you how, but it takes real strength of character and not everyone's got it."--Fake!Moody, GoF ch 14 a couple of weeks go by, then To their surprise, Professor Moody had announced that he would be putting the Imperius curse on each of them in turn, to demonstrate its power and to see whether they could resist its effects. --GoF ch15 After the demonstration, the class is instructed to read up on it.. Ron:And when are we supposed to read up on resisting the Imperius curse with everything else we've got to do? --GoF 15 Since Fake!Moody's efforts were announced well in advance, I don't think this was something he had to sneak past Dumbledore. There is independent confirmation that there are ways to resist Imperius: Lupin:... most of the Wizarding community are completely unaware anything's happened, and that makes them easy targets for the Death Eaters if they're using the Imperius Curse. --OOP ch 5 It is hard for me to imagine that, after having had a warning, Fake!Moody would still go out of his way to antagonize Dumbledore by endangering students unnecessarily and yet manage his role so superbly otherwise that he couldn't be detected. What Fake!Moody gives as Dumbledore's justification, that Dumbledore wouldn't want them to have to practice for the first time what Imperio feels like when a Dark wizard uses it on them, sounds plausible to me now and did when I first read it. That it *was* a Dark Wizard after all is just one of JKR's delicious little ironies. We don't know if there is a way to resist Crucio -- or whether Dumbledore would approve of it, since he says that pain is part of being human. Pippin From pegruppel at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 15:35:43 2005 From: pegruppel at yahoo.com (Peggy) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 15:35:43 -0000 Subject: Harry's dead (short lifeline) In-Reply-To: <98A5A454-741F-11D9-BF14-000A95C61C7C@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123635 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, caesian wrote: > In PoA, Professor Trelawney wastes no time telling Harry he has the > shortest life line she has ever seen. > > We all know that poor T is blinkered. She can't SEE the future even > when she actually does. I.e., she can see the future (e.g. Sirius) but > almost always misinterprets it (e.g. The Grim). > > Her observation got me thinking - what if Harry does have an incredibly > short life line? For example, the life line of someone who died in > infancy. > Peg: I think the idea is imaginative, but I can't quite agree with all of it. I do agree most emphatically that Harry and LV are caught up in each other's fates, but JKR (who's very good at ambiguity) wouldn't have referred to Harry as "The Boy Who Lived" unless she really meant it. I'll admit that the actual connection between Harry and LV is unclear, and the nature of the connection is "yet to be revealed." Still, I don't think DD, faulty human that he has turned out to be, would have missed the fact that the baby Hagrid retrieved wasn't alive anymore. I'm hoping that we'll get a better idea of the nature of the connection in the next book. In the meantime, I'm looking for apparently irrelevant statements in the earlier books that might give me a hint. Peg From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 15:49:51 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 15:49:51 -0000 Subject: James' money (was: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123636 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > SSSusan: > Sorry -- not so that there's no evidence James was rich. We have > this from JKR in an AOL chat from 2000: > > J.K. Rowling: Well, I can't go into too much detail, because you're > going to find out in future books. But James inherited plenty of > money, so he didn't need a well-paid profession. You'll find out > more about both Harry's parents later. So, to hijack onto this thread, this opens up a number of possibilities: One is that James, being rich, didn't have to worry about earning money and thus didn't need to do well in school. This assumes, however, that well-paying jobs and sheer academic achievement are closely commensurate. I can tell you myself that *that's* not true, at least in the RL. :) Often times the better-paying jobs are the result of academic compromise, and this is likely also true in the highly patronage/who's-your-daddy/who do you know WW system. We have some correlation of good jobs and number of OWLS/NEWTS/whatever, but it seems more based on other ideas of prestige. [I have friends who do the doctor thing for money so they can then do what they want--and many of them are "I wish I could have spent more time studying other things". Not necessarily the case, but an idea.] But what pops into my mind given what we know is that "James is rich, therefore he didn't *have* to go take a well-paying job--he could spend his time and energy as a member of the Order of the Phoenix, fighting things that we saw he already had a developed dislike of (if a poorly-principled one) in school". James was Head Boy, which does seem to indicate academic achievement in our RL models, although that could not be true. (This has been better discussed in other posts upthread) It is, however, notably not dependent upon prefect status, which is not purely academic but almost more social. Do we have a case of noblesse oblige here? Who knows--but it's an idea. -Nora gets back to transcribing...ouch, my hands... From mercy_72476 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 15:59:38 2005 From: mercy_72476 at yahoo.com (Lisa (Jennings) Mamula) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 15:59:38 -0000 Subject: The Mauraders' Generation -- no parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123637 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > "Lisa (Jennings) Mamula" wrote: > > > I know that the HP stories center around the Trio and their peers, > but what about the generation above them? Where are the parents of > these characters? > > > > Molly & Arthur -- Do the Weasley kids not have any grandparents? > > > > Sirius -- We know they are dead, but how? Sirius is young; it seems > his parents would be too young to die of natural causes. > > > > Tonks -- So, her mum Andromeda was Sirius' favorite cousin... Where > is she now (and where is her husband, Ted)?? > > > > Remus -- Any clue there? > > > > James -- He was so very young when he died; what happened to his > parents? > > > > Lily & Petunia -- Another mystery. > > > > Carol responds: > While we're at it, why not add Snape to the list? (I know, I know! His > dad was a DE killed by the aurors and his mother's in St. Mungo's in > the closed ward, having been partially turned into a dog by her evil > husband. Well, that's my half-baked theory, anyway.) LisaMarie: Oh, yes, I forgot to list dear Severus, didn't I? How horrible of me; and I call myself a Snape-lover! Hmph! Your theory is interesting; I never thought of Sevie's dad as a DE; I figured he was just another Dark wizard, rather like the Black family. (That would, at least, go with my romantic ideal of Sirius and Severus having quite a bit in common, but with different reactions to it; rather like two sides of a coin. But that's just me.) :) I'd like to know where the dog bit came from! :) Carol: > And we do know of one Marauder (other than Sirius, whose parents seem > strangely old) .... LisaMarie: Yes, Sirius' parents *do* seem strangely old!! I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks so. Surely they weren't old enough to die of old age; wizards live long natural lives!! Carol: > The Weasleys aren't really the same generation as MWPP. They seem to > be older than Hagrid and Tom Riddle, so they would actually represent > the generation you're talking about (as would the apparently childless > Mad-eye Moody). (See my earlier comments on Ogg the gamekeeper and > Apollyon Pringle the caretaker who preceded Filch, both of whom were > on the Hogwarts staff in Arthur and Molly's schooldays.) LisaMarie: Yes, you're right about the Weasleys' generation; I don't consider them to be contemporaries of MWPP, of course, but as their children are still so young, I expect them to be less than ancient, which makes me want for them to have parents, too!! Think of it: All those wonderful Weasley children, and no grandmother to backe them cookies or grandfather to teach them magic they can irk their parents with? It's sad, really. :) Carol: > I think that James Potter's parents were killed by Voldemort or the > DEs. That may be one of the occasions when he and Lily defied > Voldemort. It would certainly be a motivation for them to join the > Order if they had not already done so. At any rate, they were alive > when Sirius stayed at James's house when he left home at sixteen; they > were dead (along with Lily's parents) by the time Harry was fifteen > months old. Too much of a coincidence for both to die in such a short > time unless they were killed by DEs or other Voldemort agents. (Lily's > parents are Muggles. Hard to say why Voldemort would have gone after > them, but they're dead, too, so maybe he did.) LisaMarie: I agree; I think that LV probably got to both sets of the Potters' parents. These absences on their own would not be conspicuous, but it adds to the "parentless" epidemic. Carol: > Remus's parents? Maybe his father is the werewolf who bit him? Note > the name Lupin, suggesting "wolf." (No theory about his mother, but if > she's alive he would at least have had a place to live when he was > unemployed before 12 GP became available.) LisaMarie: Yes, it does seem that they are gone, otherwise he would have gone to them. But, again, it just adds to the epidemic. Carol: > My sense is that Tonks' parents are still alive. I think she or Sirius > would have mentioned it if they were dead. LisaMarie: I don't think her parents are dead, either, but they are not mentioned. I just wonder about it. Carol: > But you're right. We do seem to be missing almost a whole generation. > LisaMarie, who really needs to log off and go teach her next class. :) From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 16:07:49 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:07:49 -0000 Subject: Harry's dead (short lifeline) In-Reply-To: <20050201080524.19937.qmail@web52007.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123638 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bee Chase wrote: > > > caesian wrote:(snip) I know that death is permanent in the WW, and so technically > Harry can't have died. But what if he didn't survive on his own steam. What if Harry and LV now share a common mortality. In other words, Harry actually would have been killed, but because his life became tied to Voldemort's by the 'rebound' (or whatever), when Voldemort was able to resist death, Harry resisted death as well. > Luckdragon said: > "The boy who died" > That would explain why "neither can live while the other survives". So now we are right back where we started. (snip) ------------ Tonks now: Following this idea, does the *mark him as his equal* mean that LV marked Harry for death? Sort of like the mark of original sin? I don't know about this idea since it does not fit with my concept of who Harry is, but I think it goes with the above idea. Also, by the way, I saw a PBS show last week about the Nazis and was shocked to see that on their uniforms, at the collar, they wore 2 pins that look just like the mark on Harry's forehead. You know the DE do sound a like like them, did she model the evil and the DEers after the Nazis? Tonks_op From jmrazo at hotmail.com Tue Feb 1 03:55:23 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 03:55:23 -0000 Subject: Harry and starvation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123639 > Del replies: > Blood tells nothing, and one's parents don't determine how one is > going to evolve. I knew I was going to get into trouble over this. Actually, blood does tell. Look at twin studies. They can be seperated at birth and share any number of characteristics that no one would suspect have any sort of biological basis. But they do. I think parent and child can share similar characteristics. It is my contention that Harry would have been just as strong in a different home because he has inherited traits from both of his parents. Even the characters you present below show inherited traits from their familes which prove my point. > Draco doesn't measure up to his father in any way. Sure he does. Draco *is* his father writ small, petty, and inexperienced. > Sirius rejected his family. Yes he did. Sirius, a proud, strong, independant wizard, rejected his mother. A proud, strong, independant witch. Surely no connection there... > And most of all, Neville, the son of two people who defied the dark > lord three times, the grandson of an old woman with a strong > backbone,is only starting to pull himself together. Neville showed hints of spine as far back as the first book. He has it within him, it just needs to be brought to to the fore. It's hard to make the distinction since we don't see the Longbottoms in any othe way other than sick but I bet Neville is more like his parents than even he knows. > If blood tells, then the pureblood ideologists have it right, and the > Muggleborns (the descendants of people who persecuted and killed the > wizards) should indeed be excluded from the WW. > Del Why? I think that there are clearly inherited personality traits/temperments that a child can get from his parents even when parents aren't there to model them because they're dead or insane. That doesn't mean anything for what a child does with those traits. If Draco Malfoy decided in his cunning slytherin mind that the best way to make the Malfoy name strong and respected in the wizarding world was to entrap his father and turn him over to the ministry I could make the same arguement because he would be drawing on the same traits that he does as a junior death eater. The traits he got from his parents. I make no moral decision about people based on their blood, but your parents and blood do matter when it comes to personality and traits. Of course Muggleborns should be in the wizarding world. They are no less wizards than purebloods, they are just wizards with a different culture and understanding. > Alla: > > I interpreted Phoenixgod' argument as it is much more likely that > Harry got his strength of character from his parents than from > resisting Dursleys' abuse. That is what I am saying. I knew there was a reason why I liked you so much ;) > Of course , blood is not a guarantee that person will turn out a > certain way ( and it should not be,IMO), BUT it is a possibility ( > which I wholeheartedly agree with Rowena) that child will > genetically inherit certain character qualities from the parents. > Alla That too. Once again, look at twin studies. There are more things about us that are at least partially nature instead of nuture than even we understand about ourselves. This whole post is of course, just my most humble opinion. phoenixgod2000, who just realized this post can be used to justify H/G as an inherited predisposition towards redheads and runs out of the room screaming. From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 12:26:33 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 12:26:33 -0000 Subject: Werewolves (Was:I'd like feedback on this theory) In-Reply-To: <20050201075926.18139.qmail@web31108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123640 Arynn Octavia wrote: > > Is silver harmful to werewolves? There's no cannon to suggest that. You can just go by "muggle" mythology, if they were right vampires wouldn't be able to go out in the daytime, which according to FB they can. FB never mentions silver as harmful to werewolves. > northsouth17: Post repeatedly accidentally deleted...urg...third try... (doing it in wordpad this time!) I think silver is fairly integral to the whole werefwolf myth. (although generally in the form of a silver bullet, while Werewolves seems to have been around long before firearms, so maybe it;s actuallya recent invention. On the other hand, I do associate werewolves with silver very strongly, and I think this sort of mythic- borrowing is only really effective if it sticks to the myth as we recognize it. (The whole house elves thing was very irritating to me, because I never heard of brownies or any of the other things they're based on, but once I read up a bit about british household spirits, book 2 became rather more appealing) and I think we do associate silver with werewolves...). On the other hand, JKR dosen't ususally take it 100%. Maybe Lupin has a mild allergy to silver. (Honestly, I think I could convince myself of anythignt hat keeps Lupin safe. I like him too much.) I very much hope though that Lupins end (Which wont come. He'll live happily ever after, I just know it!) or Big Moment of some sort will not revolve around his lycanthropy. That is, if he dies, or is hurt, of acheives somethign great, I don't want him to it *as* a werewolf. I just don't really see Lycanthropy as his defining trait or great weakness or anything. northsouth17 From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 16:32:07 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:32:07 -0000 Subject: Werewolves (Was:I'd like feedback on this theory) In-Reply-To: <20050201075926.18139.qmail@web31108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123641 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Arynn Octavia wrote: > > Is silver harmful to werewolves? There's no cannon to suggest that. You can just go by "muggle" mythology, Tonks: I tried to research werewolves and found nothing about silver. However, the article I found said they eat babies and corpses. Which made me wonder if a Werewolf could distroy LV. This would involve some combination of things, not just the werewolf himself. He could figure in the destruction of LV somehow. Wild idea I know. Kinda sickly one too. Tonks_op From csyep at jaegan.net Tue Feb 1 16:14:17 2005 From: csyep at jaegan.net (jaegan) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 11:14:17 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's dead (short lifeline) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5268D532-746C-11D9-99CF-003065F25ECE@jaegan.net> No: HPFGUIDX 123642 On Tuesday, Feb 1, 2005, at 10:35 US/Eastern, Peggy wrote: > Peg: > > I think the idea is imaginative, but I can't quite agree with all of > it.? I do agree most emphatically that Harry and LV are caught up in > each other's fates, but JKR (who's very good at ambiguity) wouldn't > have referred to Harry as "The Boy Who Lived" unless she really meant > it. Russ: Definitely and interesting premise. Of course, as the original poster said, that phrase could be subtle misdirection on JKR's part. However see below for my interpretation, where the phrase is true, but not the whole story. > Peg again: > > I'll admit that the actual connection between Harry and LV is > unclear, and the nature of the connection is "yet to be revealed."? > Still, I don't think DD, faulty human that he has turned out to be, > would have missed the fact that the baby Hagrid retrieved wasn't > alive anymore. Russ: Hehe. True enough, but I think what the original poster was suggesting was not that Harry actually _is_ dead, but rather that he should be, and is only being kept alive due to his connection to Voldemort. No way to know at this point, I think, but certainly seems plausible. > Peg again: > > I'm hoping that we'll get a better idea of the nature of the > connection in the next book.? Russ: I hope so as well, but have a sinking feeling JKR intends to draw this out to the end of book 7. -Russ From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 16:43:55 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:43:55 -0000 Subject: Harry and starvation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123643 phoenixgod2000 wrote: "It is my contention that Harry would have been just as strong in a different home because he has inherited traits from both of his parents." Del replies: But in that case, he didn't *need* to have another home. If DD thought like you, that Harry would be strong anyway because he was James and Lily's son, then he would have had no qualms putting him in a non-loving environment : "the boy is strong, he'll get through", and all our arguments about how it was cruel/irresponsible of DD to leave Harry with the Dursleys become much more baseless. If there was no risk of Harry breaking down because he was so inherently strong, then the *only* reason that remains against putting Harry with the Dursleys is "it wasn't nice", which is pretty weak compared to the advantage to his security. phoenixgod2000 wrote: "Of course Muggleborns should be in the wizarding world. They are no less wizards than purebloods, they are just wizards with a different culture and understanding." Del replies: A culture of misunderstanding witchcraft and wizardry, a culture of witch-burning, a culture of hatred of anything wizard. No wonder the pureblood ideologists want to keep the Muggleborns away. phoenixgod signed: "phoenixgod2000, who just realized this post can be used to justify H/G as an inherited predisposition towards redheads and runs out of the room screaming." Del replies: Both H/G and R/H, in fact. Harry himself noted how much Ron and Hermione are reminiscent of Mr and Mrs Weasley. Del From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 16:53:17 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:53:17 -0000 Subject: Wizard Genetics (was: The Mauraders' Generation -- no parents) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123644 Nicky Joe: > I would really like to have some explanation from JKR about the > genetics behind all this - some Muggles can have witch/wizard kids > and some witch/wizards can have squib kids. Where is the logic? Hickengruendler: >To be honest, and please don't feel offended, if I were on your >place, I would stop waiting for an explanation to this. Don't worry, I don't offend easily. Even if JKR couldn't come up with some logical explanation for this other than, "Oh, it's just magic" I was hoping some geneticist Harry Potter fan with too much time on his/her hands could cook something up. And frankly, I'd be very surprised if JKR doesn't already have this figured out. Since a large part of the plotline involves "muggle" blood, if she bends logic too far, fans are going to be screaming about it later. And "it's just magic" is too weak an explanation. As with Dumbledore, I shall continue to have faith in JKR until she proves me wrong. Nicky Joe From megalynn44 at hotmail.com Tue Feb 1 16:55:53 2005 From: megalynn44 at hotmail.com (megalynn44) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:55:53 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty, Working Wizard Women; was Molly & Arthur - was Why I like Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123645 , Jocelyn Grunow wrote: For example, the Weasleys' poverty is often discussed, but why are they poor? Because Arthur's job doesn't pay well. Why doesn't he get a better paying job? Arthur has made the decision not to move further up in the Ministry because he loves muggle inventions, and he loves his job. All well and good, and I certainly don't want to suggest he should move to a job he hated, but he has 6 children to support & establish - isn't this a very selfish decision? Molly and Arthur have been a partnership for twenty-odd years (how old is the eldest son?) and are now stuck in a bad pattern. Now Me: I myself have often had several issues with the Poor Weasleys. The first issue is the one Jocelyn so directly pointed out. If you are going to have 7 children, you should be prepared to make some sacrifices for them. Now, I am in no way saying the Weasley's are bad parents. It is obvious they love their children very much, and make them their top priority. A second issue I have is Molly Weasley's role as a homemaker. Having so many young children at home, having to raise AND homeschool them certainly warrants a stay-at-home mom. However, with all the children out of the house 10 months out of the year, what does she do all day? If the family was so strapped for cash (and the years when 5 of their children were in school-books 2 and 3- were certainly the tightest) why not get a job? Come to think of it, how many mothers in the work force have we seen in canon? Now my last bit of nitpicking. BY book 6, the Weasley's being poor better not be an issue. There are now only 2 Weasley children in school and without jobs. This can hardly be a huge financial burden, even for a government job. It shouldn't have been that bad in OOTP. From mommystery at hotmail.com Tue Feb 1 17:03:17 2005 From: mommystery at hotmail.com (mommystery2003) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 17:03:17 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123646 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: > I actually agree with you that there is no evidence that Snape is > less intelligent than the MWPP. I hate Snape with the fire of a > thousand suns but he is both brave to be a spy and good at what he > does. I just disagree with your explanation why. Well I don't hate Snape. I do detest Black, Potter and Pettigrew though. And I have to say while I think McGonagall would have an idea of just how her students are doing in all classes, she Notice we don't see anything of Pettigrew in class in Snape's pensieve. I'm sure he wasn't the smartest nut in the bag, and I bet he wasn't just sitting there cruising through the exam. Unless he was cheating, which wouldn't surprise me, since, if they already had the map done at that point, Black and company could already have known all the answers. I'm not even sure why Snape's intelligence is ever in question. His knowing more hexes, an affinity for the dark arts at a young age seem to indicate to me someone with brains (and since Black comes from a family of dark wizards, I'm sure he knew some also). The man is a Potions Master, he's a spy, he's a professor and he's Head of House. The last two alone must be qualifiers of having brains, since you are dealing with students (although his methods leave a lot to be desired) all day long and then all the House problems 24/7. What qualifies a person to be Head of House anyway? What did Potter do after Hogwarts? Join the Order? Big deal. If he had lived, what would he have done with his life? Work at the Ministry? What did Black do? Those are questions I'd like to see answered in HBP. Black, to his credit, managed to stay alive for 12 years in inhuman conditions. Lily is the one who ensured Harry stayed alive, James is never mentioned for any part of that - it's always Lily's love that keeps Harry alive. I'm always surprised that there wasn't any secondary defense of their house, like when Voldemort stepped foot on their property, didn't any alarms go off so they could disapparate? That should have been James's job. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 17:22:32 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 17:22:32 -0000 Subject: DD knew Moody=Barty Crouch before Polyjuice expired In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123647 > wrote: > > The Imperius > Curse is not only illegal, it requires the desire to violate the mind > and will of the victim. > > Pippin: > This sounds like an extrapolation...we only have Bella's lecture > about what it takes to cast Crucio. That doesn't tell us what it > takes to cast Imperio, unless I am mistaken. The Unforgivable > designation is a legal one, and if it is like other ministry laws, it > probably represents a compromise between a number of > differing moral philosophies and interests. > Neri: This is indeed a slight extrapolation, but a very reasonable one. Bella's exact words are: "Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you, boy? You need to mean them, Potter! You need to really want to cause pain--to enjoy it- - righteous anger won't hurt me for long..." Bella's first two sentences clearly relate to all three Unforgivables. The third sentence relates only to Crucio (because this is what Harry tried at the time). So according to Bella "you need to mean" also Imperio and Avada Kedavra. This fits with Crouch! Moody saying that all the class could point their wands at him and say the words, and he won't get more than a headache. And by a very modest and reasonable extrapolation from Crucio, Imperio requires you to enjoy violating one's freedom, and Avada Kedavra requires you to enjoy killing somebody. Also, we don't have strict canon for that, but my feeling is that the definition of the Unforgivables is MUCH more than legal. The legal definition by itself can indeed be compromised, as Crouch did, but this is only another evidence of Crouch compromising his moral principles, which made him similar to the evil he tried to fight. It appears that the Unforgivables are unforgivable because they are by their very nature evil. Very much like Sauron's ring, they are evil means that corrupt even the noblest goal. Neri From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Feb 1 17:26:08 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 17:26:08 -0000 Subject: Selfish Weasleys? Re: Molly & Arthur - was Why I like Ginny! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123648 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jocelyn Grunow wrote: > For example, the Weasleys' poverty is often discussed, but why are they poor? Because Arthur's job doesn't pay well. Why doesn't he get a better paying job? . All well and good, and I certainly don't want to suggest he should move to a job he hated, but he has 6 children to support & establish - isn't this a very selfish decision? > Pippin: I guess it depends on what you mean by selfish. Draco Malfoy says the Weasleys have more children than they can afford. The Weasleys would rather have lots of children and give less to each than have just one showered with material advantages, like some of the other wizarding families we've seen. It's just not a Weasley priority, say, to get new clothes for their children when there are perfectly serviceable used ones available, even if other children in their social class get new clothes every year. Fortunately wizards don't place a high value on being like everyone else. Here's what Jo had to say about that... http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1999/0399-salon-weir.ht m The wizards represent all that the true "muggle" most fears: They are plainly outcasts and comfortable with being so. Nothing is more unnerving to the truly conventional than the unashamed misfit! ---- You know, that quote really explains a lot about the WW. Pippin From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 17:30:52 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 17:30:52 -0000 Subject: Time Turner...(TT during PoA) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123649 For anyone wrestling with the Time Turner timeline, there is an excellent chart on hp-lexicon.org that makes it a bit easier to wrap your brain around. Here is the link: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/timeline_end-of-pa_chart.html Amazing site, for anyone that hasn't found it already. Nicky Joe From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Feb 1 17:37:37 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 17:37:37 -0000 Subject: Is Harry arrogant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123650 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: Valky: > Harry ends with a hint of revenge, so he has swayed back, most > likely, to overestimating his ability to make an impact on Voldemort. > > The most important thing I am trying to say is that Harry's > arrogance is the kind of arrogance that a warrior takes into battle. > The warrior is not actually an arrogant person, but they assume a > sense of it when faced with a situation that calls for them to be > brave. This part of Harry is like James. Though in James case, I > think, he was *always* trying to be brave and often ended up looking > arrogant instead. Geoff: I think that we have a different interpretation of "arrogance". Most of the folk I know would probably agree with me that it has a very negative connotation. If I were called arrogant, I would consider that I had been grossly insulted. A person is arrogant when they assume that they know everything about a particular topic ? often when they don't, who make a point of letting everyone know about this belief and who treat anyone who dares to disagree with them with disdain. In the English phrase, they "look down their noses at everyone". They are bumptious and full of themselves. Arrogance is a word which I would use to describe people such as Draco Malfoy and his father. With their obsessively elitist ideas about pure-blood wizards and their rude and deprecating remarks to half-bloods and Muggles, they are supremely arrogant. Harry is not. In the section we have looked at, Harry has apparently been backed into a corner. He believes that Snape is the person trying to gain the Philosopher's Stone for Voldemort. Dumbledore has been summoned urgently to London and Professor McGonagall is quite convinced that the Stone is well-protected. Therefore, he can see no one to whom he can turn. So he decides to try to get to the Stone first. Hermione's priority is that Harry might get detention; it is Harry who sees the bigger picture ? the possible implications of Voldemort getting possession of the Stone. He has enough knowledge to realise that what he is doing is risky and is resigned to go ahead despite the potentially fatal results for him. He is not boasting about his knowledge or experience, he is not being disdainful to others. He sees this as the only option. This is not arrogance. It is not his "saving people" syndrome. Arrogance is not bravado, which is the word I think I would use in your example of going into battle. What Harry is displaying is the sort of determined guts which kept people such as the Londoners in the East End going during the 1940 blitz, trying to carry on a normal life regardless but not knowing if they would still be alive to tell the tale the next day. From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 17:41:33 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 17:41:33 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123651 > the Weasleys' poverty is often > discussed, but why are > they poor? Seven kids are expensive, and of course his fondness for Muggles has hindered promotion but I think there is another reason they are poor , unlike most Author refuses to accept bribes, the ministry seems full of corruption to me. Eggplant From pfsch at gmx.de Tue Feb 1 17:48:15 2005 From: pfsch at gmx.de (Peter Felix Schuster) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 17:48:15 -0000 Subject: Magical weddings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123652 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, leslie41 at y... wrote: [Leslie] > Congrats on your wedding! Thanks! :) [Setrok before] > > I doubt > > they'd go to a church or a muggle office to do so. [Leslie] > I don't know if I can really answer your question, but it doesn't > seem at all odd to me that there would have been a wedding in a > church, as Harry was christened, and Sirius was his godfather. [Setrok now] It's just that we've never seen a church before. And the WW refer very rarely to God, they say more often "by Merlin's beard" etc, just as Moondance said. [Moondance] > An interesting question! And would a ceremony be performed only by a > MoM official, or is there also a religous ceremony with a > wizard/witch clergy? [...] [Setrok] Well, *if* there are Wizard churches (I really doubt the WW "uses" muggle churches) I imagine the church ceremony can *replace* the MoM ceremony. [Moondance] > Does a ceremony use > traditional symbols of muggles (i.e., white wedding gown, rings, > flowers, cake, honeymoon, etc.)? [Setrok] I reckon the symbols might be pretty much the same as with (British) Muggles. The WW also knows the institution of best man etc. But there'll be differences: the white wedding gown might be more like witches' clothing, the wedding cake might have a WW flavor (Berty Bott's all-flavored cakes?). Goodbite setrok (http://www.mondratte.de) From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Feb 1 18:18:15 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 18:18:15 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123653 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mommystery2003" wrote: > I'm always surprised that there wasn't any > secondary defense of their house, like when Voldemort stepped foot on > their property, didn't any alarms go off so they could disapparate? > That should have been James's job. They can't dissapparate Harry, He is too young. Valky James' very big fan who believes he did all he could. From sylviablundell at aol.com Tue Feb 1 18:41:23 2005 From: sylviablundell at aol.com (ladyramkin2001) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 18:41:23 -0000 Subject: Choice of James as Head Boy (was Re: James, a paragon of virtue?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123654 I want to challenge Neri's assumption that in RL British schools, the Head Boy or Girl is chosen mainly on the basis of academic excellence.In my old school, and in most of the schools I have taught in, this choice was based on character. Naturally, they would not chose someone completely dumb, but character was the clincher. I knew several highly academic youngsters who were passed over in favour of people the headmaster considered more mature or grounded. Dumbledore may have considered James had a potential for leadership that qualified him for the position. As to Snape, I think he was probably academically more brilliant than either James or Sirius, but lacked the qualities necessary for leadership. A loner like Severus would never be chosen as Head Boy in a British school if he had a brain like Einstein. Sylvia (who never made it as Head Girl either) From larriepam2000 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 17:51:03 2005 From: larriepam2000 at yahoo.com (larriepam2000) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 17:51:03 -0000 Subject: Sirius' motorbike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123655 Casil: > > I do think that Arthur Weasley does have it somewhere and > > that he took it apart to see how it was made to fly and that's how he > > figured out how to make the Ford Anglia fly. Finwitch: > We only know (for certain) that Hagrid got it as he arrived to # 4 > Privet Drive on it - with Harry. > > What happened to it afterwards, is speculation. I have never had a problem with where the motorcycle is now. My problem has been the size of the motorcycle itself. The motorcycle that Sirius Black would ride, Could Hagrid ride? I have a mental image of an adult on a tricycle. Could magic make it bigger for Hagrid to fit? As for where it is now, Has anyone checked Hagrid Pockets? If Hagrid rode it out to the island I figured Dumbledore could magic to anywhere from there. ACCIO MOTORCYCLE!! Pam From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 18:56:24 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 18:56:24 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123656 >> Mommystery: >> I'm always surprised that there wasn't any secondary defense of >> their house, like when Voldemort stepped foot on their property, >> didn't any alarms go off so they could disapparate? That should >> have been James's job. > > Valky: > They can't dissapparate Harry, He is too young. I'm not sure that it's that Harry is too young, but it is certainly only in the world of fanfics where you can Apparate *with* someone. It seems to be canon that you *cannot*--Portkeys seem to be required to move multiple people at once (hence the way to go to the QWC, and Dumbledore creating the Portkey to move Harry at the end of OotP). As well, we have no idea of what kinds of wards and protections were on the house, whether Voldemort could have trapped them in it somehow, etc. It seems clear that James died *fighting* Voldemort, trying to let Lily escape...but like anything is clear at present about those events. Here's hoping we get the play-by-play! -Nora wishes she could Apparate a few hundred miles north... From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 19:01:38 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 19:01:38 -0000 Subject: Magic and genetics (wasRe: The Mauraders' Generation) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123657 Hannah writes: >So I guess we have to assume that the Muggle-born wizards/witches >are the result of a new mutation in the 'magic' gene. As most half- >bloods are magical, it wouldn't make sense for the gene to be >recessive. Of course, there's also the possibility of multiple >genes being involved, or of imprinting... or just that >it's 'magic.' I find the genetics of magic one of things in HP that >it's better not to think about too much! Sorry, but the genetic thing is almost as fascinating as trying to figure out what's in the next book. I'm thinking it has to be the latent wizard gene from a squib bloodline that's "triggered" by something else that would produce a wizard like Hermione from muggle stock. Like the multiple gene idea Hannah suggested. I'm writing a character that has X powers and somewhere along the second book I had to go back and figure out where these X powers came from and how the hero acquired them. Eventually, even when writing fiction, you have to surrender to the wicked gods of logic or they will turn on you quite nastily when you least expect it. (Turned out his mother had a secret affair with a being with X powers that dramatically affected my feelings toward the hero's mother, even though it affected the book not one iota because the hero never knew about it.) I think JKR had to do this same thing with her characters, and has it all jotted down on a sheet of notebook paper stuffed in a drawer somewhere. Hmmm, maybe one of Hermione's parents had an affair with a wizard. We really don't know anything about them, after all... Nicky Joe From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 19:44:38 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 19:44:38 -0000 Subject: Privet Drive (was Harry and starvation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123658 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > > > Dungrollin: > > > I've never found a satisfactory reason for this continued > > > protection at Privet Drive malarkey. If Grimmauld Place isn't > > > safe, why does Harry get to stay there for a month? If it is > > > safe, then why does Harry have to go back to Privet Drive at > > > all? > > > > > > Yes, yes, to renew the blood protection - so that he can still > > > call Privet Drive 'home'. But why not call 12GP 'home' if it's > > > as safe? > > bboyminn: > > > > Just because you have a new fortress doesn't mean you burn down > > the old one, and just because the old fortress exists doesn't mean > > the new one is worthless. > > > > > Grimmauld Place is well protect and safe. ... there are wizards > > and witches at Grimmauld Place who are able to protect Harry ... > > > > > But when Harry has his greatest level of pretection at the > > Dursley's, it would be poor strategy to abondon that and let the > > Blood Charm be broken. ... > Dungrollin: > Yeah, that was the only reason I could come up with too - that DD > wants a place of last resort where Harry will be safe. But it seems > so unsatisfactory. > > Harry is clearly *not* safe at Privet Drive; he's already been > attacked by Dementors there, ... > > He was so *not safe* at the Dursleys' that DD had to assign a member > of the Order to guard him all day every day. ... > > I'm not convinced that Harry *is* better protected at Privet Drive > than he is at GP; ...edited... > > But, on the point you made that it's worth having a last resort, I > suppose I have to agree. I just don't like it much, the benefits > don't seem to outweigh the costs and risks. > > Dungrollin bboyminn: You are intermixing two /separate/ things as if they were one and the same; they are not. Privet Drive is NOT the /house in which Harry's blood dwells/. It is merely the neighborhood in which we find the house in which Harry blood dwells. Harry may have some general protection while in the vicinity of #4 Privet Drive, but he has his greatest protection in the house in which his blood dwells; that is in Petunia's home. By his own admission, even Voldemort can not touch him there. For the record, I think Harry is protected not only in the house, but also on the grounds (yard, garden, etc) of that house. Those grounds equally constitue his /home/. In addition, although not specifically supported by the books, I think Harry's protection fades the farther he wanders from the Dursley's house and grounds. So he may have some protection on Privet Drive, but less than when in the house. Once he wanders from Privet Drive, the protection fades quickly. That explains why Dumbledore felt the need to provide Harry with a personal guard. Without a doubt, having that 'protection of blood' covering such a limited area (the house and possibly grounds) is a problem, but in that house, Harry has the ultimate protection. There he is untouchable. I think Dumbledore and the Order see exactly what you see. They are aware that now that Harry is a teenager and not incline to spend all his time in the house or yard, and now that Voldemort is back and the DE's are active, they can't protect him as well as they previously could. That's why Harry's stay at #4 Privet Drive will be the shortest ever, because they realize he has outgrown that protection. But, given that at that one location, the Dursley's house, Harry has the highest possible protection, it would be foolish to abondon it and let the Blood Protection Charm be broken. So, Dumbledore will only require Harry to say for a couple of weeks, just long enough to maintain the protection, before he pulls Harry out and let's Harry get on with more pressing, more important, and more vital business. In addition, given the severe loss and trama that Harry has just been through, Dumbledore and/or the Order have taken steps to make sure Harry short stay at the Dursley's is at least a more pleasant one. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From Agent_Maxine_is at hotmail.com Tue Feb 1 20:26:58 2005 From: Agent_Maxine_is at hotmail.com (Brenda M.) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 20:26:58 -0000 Subject: Embedded Clues Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123659 Dear Cool People who dig the Wizarding World, I was just checking my livejournal today, and came across this entry, which left me feeling very intrigued. I don't know if these have been discussed here due to my prolonged absence, but decided to post anyways :) 1. "angeliclildevil" noticed: ~ Wide-Mouthed Tree Frog - We've known ever since Sorcerer's (Philosopher's) Stone that Harry was going to be replaced as seeker! At the beginning of the chapter right after Harry catches the snitch in his mouth, Draco is making fun of Harry and saying how a "wide- mouthed tree frog is going to replace Harry as seeker" next. This didn't exactly come true, but in [Order of the Phoenix], Umbridge (the wide-mouthed tree frog, check all the toad references about her) bans him from the team, essentially replacing him with Ginny! ~ 2. "abelincoln1864" connected the dots: ~ [In Prisoner of Azkaban], at Christmas dinner Trewlawney freaks out because 13 people are dining together, and "the first to stand is going to be the first to die" it's just laughed off then. Then later, in OOtP, they have most of the Order and Harry sitting in Sirius' house at a meeting, 13 of them dining together, and Sirius gets mad at Molly and -- stands up first. :O ~ There are other oddies & coincidences on Mugglenet.com as well, which I'm sure you've all read :) Ta-Ta for now! Brenda Freaky huh? From Gregory.Lynn at gmail.com Tue Feb 1 20:43:11 2005 From: Gregory.Lynn at gmail.com (Gregory Lynn) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 15:43:11 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's dead (short lifeline) In-Reply-To: <20050201080524.19937.qmail@web52007.mail.yahoo.com> References: <98A5A454-741F-11D9-BF14-000A95C61C7C@yahoo.com> <20050201080524.19937.qmail@web52007.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123660 On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 03:05:23 -0500 (EST), Bee Chase wrote: > > > caesian wrote: > In PoA, Professor Trelawney wastes no time telling Harry he has the > shortest life line she has ever seen. > > > Her observation got me thinking - what if Harry does have an incredibly > short life line? For example, the life line of someone who died in > infancy. > On the other hand, what if it's short because no time has really passed since that night? Harry has his mother's protection and can't be killed. The AK can't be stopped. Irresistable force meets immovable object and it causes a rift in the space time continuum and all existence is in a kind of loop where they experience life progressing, but it isn't actually. Like if you had a time turner and went back an hour, waited an hour, went back another hour, waited an hour, and repeated a number of times. You'd feel like you waited ten hours or so but in reality it's the same time as when you left. Harry and Voldemort are linked and neither can live while the other survives. Taken literally, the only way the stories make sense is if no time has elapsed. I think it is entirely possible that in a story where nothing is as it seems, the best way to hide the key to it all would be to have it taken literally. How many times have we had things repeated? Book four is essentially a repeat of book one--go through challenges try to stop Voldie from coming back--and book five is essentially a repeat of book two--find a way into a secret chamber to rescue someone. Time playing itself over again--time turner, Riddle coming back to finish Salazar Slytherin's "noble work", the baby-headed death eater. The references to Dumbledore's age and the gleam of triumph could mean that he is somehow outside the temporal loop and for whatever reason, can't proceed until the loop is resolved. Voldemort taking Harry's blood means the thing can be resolved and Dumbledore can go on to the next great adventure. -- Gregory Lynn From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 20:44:35 2005 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 20:44:35 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123661 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > > > the Weasleys' poverty is often > > discussed, but why are > > they poor? > > Seven kids are expensive, and of course his fondness for Muggles has > hindered promotion but I think there is another reason they are poor > , unlike most Author refuses to accept bribes, the ministry seems full > of corruption to me. > > Eggplant On the contrary, he excepts Quidditch World Cup box tickets for fixing a "problem" for Bagman. That IS a bribe. From alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk Tue Feb 1 21:02:33 2005 From: alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk (alshainofthenorth) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:02:33 -0000 Subject: Embedded Clues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123662 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Brenda M." wrote: > 2. "abelincoln1864" connected the dots: > ~ [In Prisoner of Azkaban], at Christmas dinner Trewlawney freaks > out because 13 people are dining together, and "the first to stand > is going to be the first to die" it's just laughed off then. > > Then later, in OOtP, they have most of the Order and Harry sitting > in Sirius' house at a meeting, 13 of them dining together, and > Sirius gets mad at Molly and -- stands up first. :O ~ > Alshain, in de-bunking mode: This is a pretty hypothesis that's been advanced lots of times since June 2003, but it doesn't hold water. Sirius is in fact the *third* person who rises from the table that night. Quotes: "For some reason, Mrs Weasley threw a very nasty look at Sirius before getting to her feet and going to fetch a large rhubarb crumble for pudding." P. 82, British edition. "[...]Ginny, who had lured Crookshanks out from under the dresser, was sitting cross-legged on the floor, rolling Butterbeer corks for him to chase." P. 83. Sirius doesn't rise from the table until page 86. Someone explain to me why Molly and Ginny count among the thirteen people having dinner but avoid getting struck by the curse. Do only males count or what? Trelawney's other predictions probably involve breaking mirrors, leaving keys on the table, walking under ladders or spitting after black cats, and I count the "thirteen at dinner" superstition among them. JKR has established very strongly that Trelawney only makes real predictions while in a trance. Sort of a reverse Cassandra who doesn't believe in her real prophecies. Alshain From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 21:16:47 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:16:47 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123663 >>Nora: > Betsy: More things to do *other* than discussing Harry Potter!!??! Heaven forfend! ;) >>Betsy: >If it's the interview I'm thinking of, we don't really learn anything new. >I don't think she's told us *why* Dumbledore's made this decision.< >>Nora: >Actually, she did--she says that Dumbledore thought teaching DADA might "bring out the worst" in Snape. Yes, that can be read a number of different ways (if I were less lazy and about to go make s'mores I'd dig them out of the archives--poke me later and I'll try, honestly), but still, that does tell us a *good deal* about Dumbledore and what he thinks of Snape. It doesn't tell all, but it's revealing.< Betsy: The very fact that the quote can be read in so many different ways (and don't bother with the archive, I can well imagine! :)) means that it doesn't really answer anything. So, therefore, still not a fact, still a fairly ambiguous tap-dance. Hopefully, by time the series is done, we *will* know exactly what's going on and can say, "Ah, so *that's* what she meant!" >>Betsy: >...but in my flitting about the fan blogs, most of his supporters are fully aware that he probably participated in some horrors. What I take issue with is the idea that he's broken somehow and can only achieve pleasure by causing pain in others. If Snape was *that* twisted, Dumbledore wouldn't let him teach *anything*.< >>Nora: >On this very list, you will find a number of arguments aimed at minimizing Snape's participation in any kind of horrors. Some, but not all. I think he *does* take pleasure in the distress of others, but that's not his sole defining characteristic--you have to read some passages rather skeezily to get around that basic idea, though.< Betsy: That's why I said, "most." Though I should have further clarified, "those with whom I agree." I do like Snape, I do think he's on Dumbledore's side, but I don't breeze over his past. Actually, the fact that he overcame years of training and prejudice to choose the right side is one of the main reasons I admire him. To take away, or whitewash Snape's past as a Death Eater is to lessen the strength of his character, IMO. I also think Snape is a wit, and he does enjoy the power of his wicked tongue. Though I do take umbridge at the idea that he revels in his treatment of students like Neville (Harry is his own peculiar case). His actions strike me more like a man frustrated with an impossibly foolish student and by God determined to *make* the boy learn, if he has to scare him to an inch of his life to do it. I'm aware that we disagree on this. But I do not feel that I'm ignoring Snape's history when I come to these conclusions. >>Nora: >Snape is *something* enough that Dumbledore won't let him teach DADA. The question is, what how and why?< Betsy: The million dollar questions, Nora. I eagerly await the answers. :) (One month down, six to go!) Betsy From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 21:18:21 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:18:21 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty, Working Wizard Women; was Molly & Arthur - was Why I like Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123664 I like Molly and Arthur. I do not see one thing wrong with them. A lot of people are poor if they have a large family. It is not a sin. Having the best of everything is not that important. Molly doesn't henpeck Arthur. Like any good husband he does what his wife tells him. Would you have Molly be a "yes dead, wife!!" Uck!! And Molly must be in her mid to late 50's. Women of that age and older feel that it is the *man's* job to work outside the home. I am surprised at so many women here question why Molly doesn't get a job. It just show that things in our society have changed *a lot* in the past 35 years. But ol' Molly and I think it's Arthur's job to bring home the bacon, and it is nice if he can enjoy the work that he does. He should also jolly well do what his wife tells him!! Tonks_op (hiding behind the sofa now. I can hear them coming for me. ;-p) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 21:41:48 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:41:48 -0000 Subject: Draco and Lucius (was: Harry and starvation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123665 >>Del (I think?): >Draco doesn't measure up to his father in any way.< >>Phoenixgod: >Sure he does. Draco *is* his father writ small, petty, and inexperienced.< Betsy: Sorry, I just can't let this one go. :) Because Draco really is *nothing* like his father. Sure, he looks like him, but personality and skills wise, these are two vastly different characters. Lucius is a political animal - well versed in deception and obfuscation. Draco is a performer, an attention grabber who has no earthly idea of when to keep his mouth shut. Back in message # 123478 I said about Lucius: "The Lucius who managed to talk his way out of Azkaban while Crouch was still in power strikes me as at least a tiny bit politically astute. We know who Lucius is because Dumbledore and the Weasleys know who he is. The WW does not (or did not - the MoM battle changes things of course). Lucius is probably not the Pimpdaddy!Lucius of the movies, nor the seducer of innocents of fanfic, but he is a political player. He would not have challenged Dumbledore while still a student at Hogwarts - certainly not openly by attacking young Gryffindors." Compare that to Draco who in CoS yelled out, "You're next Mudbloods!" in a fit of excitement in front of professors, no less, (and I believe Dumbledore) after Mrs. Norris was attacked. Not smooth. At all. Or let slip to the trio that his folks just might be out with the hooligan Death Eaters in GoF, or that Sirius had been spotted on platform 9 3/4 in OotP. Draco likes to be center of attention, and he doesn't care what secrets he might be spilling to get there. (I'm quite certain his father would not have been pleased at the Sirius spill.) I wouldn't make a big deal about this, but I think it's essential to the Draco and Lucius characters that they are so different. There are hints in PoA that Lucius is not well pleased with his son's lack of political intuition. And I think it may be important in the upcoming books. That Draco worships his father is obvious. The possibility that Draco is failing to live up to his father's expectations could have interesting repercussions. Betsy, who's dying to call Pheonixgod, "Peh-ho-nix god" 'cause she gets far too much enjoyment out of the FedEx ads. From mercy_72476 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 21:42:59 2005 From: mercy_72476 at yahoo.com (Lisa (Jennings) Mamula) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:42:59 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty, Working Wizard Women; was Molly & Arthur - was Why I like G In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123666 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > I like Molly and Arthur. I do not see one thing wrong with them. A > lot of people are poor if they have a large family. It is not a sin. > Having the best of everything is not that important. Molly doesn't > henpeck Arthur. Like any good husband he does what his wife tells > him. Would you have Molly be a "yes dead, wife!!" Uck!! LisaMarie: I completely agree with you, Tonks! I do not have and have never had a problem with the Weasleys. They are Ron's family, they are loyal to Dumbledore, they raise awesome children, they love Harry (which is most important, in my book), and they are poor. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with them being poor. They obviously weren't the heirs of some old family fortune, and Arthur's job doesn't pay well. So? I don't see the problem. Some people are just poor. Tonks: > And Molly must be in her mid to late 50's. Women of that age and > older feel that it is the *man's* job to work outside the home. I > am surprised at so many women here question why Molly doesn't get a > job. It just show that things in our society have changed *a lot* in > the past 35 years. But ol' Molly and I think it's Arthur's job to > bring home the bacon, and it is nice if he can enjoy the work that > he does. He should also jolly well do what his wife tells him!! Yes, it's true that lots of women in Molly's age group feel that the man should be the bread winner of the family. I feel that way, and I am only 24. Of course, I am the bread winner in our family at the moment, because my husband is in graduate school. When he is out and working full time, if he is able to support us with his salary, I will stop teaching *in a heartbeat*!!! Maybe Molly just chooses not to have a job outside her home. More power to her, I say! > Tonks_op > (hiding behind the sofa now. I can hear them coming for me. ;-p) LisaMarie, telling Tonks to get out from behind that sofa! :) From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Feb 1 22:40:17 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:40:17 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123667 > > Betsy: > That's why I said, "most." Though I should have further > clarified, "those with whom I agree." I do like Snape, I do think > he's on Dumbledore's side, but I don't breeze over his past. > Actually, the fact that he overcame years of training and prejudice to choose the right side is one of the main reasons I admire him. To take away, or whitewash Snape's past as a Death Eater is to lessen the strength of his character, IMO. > Valky: Just curiously, Betsy. Don't you think that whitewashing, Snapes past as a DE isn't exactly what will be achieved by canon stating that James' and Sirius' mistreatment of him at Hogwarts, forced his hand into deciding to do it? Just that *I* can only see you contradicting yourself here, unless you explain more thoroughly how you see otherwise, sorry. From pjarrett at gmail.com Tue Feb 1 22:52:33 2005 From: pjarrett at gmail.com (Patrick Jarrett) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 17:52:33 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Weasley Poverty, In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3def328f0502011452470d2183@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123668 Unnamed speaker: > > On the contrary, he excepts Quidditch World Cup box tickets for > fixing a "problem" for Bagman. That IS a bribe. Patrick says: Definition: - bribe, noun: payment made to a person in a position of trust to corrupt his judgment - to bribe, verb: make illegal payments to in exchange for favors or influence As I recall, he received tickets in thanks for handling of a situation. So, if he received them post-action it is /not/ a bribe. But If I am wrong and he received them, or promise of them, to influence his action - then it is indeed a bribe. If it is a bribe, I can't say I see it as proof that he would accept other bribes. This is rather small, things like this happen among the most 'honorable' of people in the MW at least. Regardless, their poor wealth is, in my opinion, a gentle nudge at the state of the government (both WW and MW) and the pay it offers many of its 'non-essential' employees. And so it might be JKR prodding society behind the pages of her story, or it might be simply an observation she carried to the WW. As with most government employees they make enough to live on and aren't hurting when it comes to food or the necessities, it is the 'extras' in life. -- Patrick From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 19:26:07 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 11:26:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius' motorbike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050201192607.11726.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123669 I found some canon that implies Sirius may have his own bike: "Yeah," said Hagrid in a very muffled voice, "I'll be takin' Sirius his bike back. G'night, Professor McGonagall -- Professor Dumbledore, sir." (PS/SS Ch1) We don't actually know if he got Sirius his bike back, but he sure intended to. "Here," said Kingsley brusquely to Mr Weasley, shoving a sheaf of parchment into his hand. "I need as much information as possible on flying Muggle vehicles sighted in the last twelve months. We've received information that Black might still be using his old motorcycle." (OoP ch7) Maybe this is also a lie, but I'm guessing Sirius's got his bike. Juli From tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 21:53:18 2005 From: tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com (Pyros Wife) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:53:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Magic and genetics (wasRe: The Mauraders' Generation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050201215319.73249.qmail@web61204.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123670 Hannah: So I guess we have to assume that the Muggle-born wizards/witches are the result of a new mutation in the 'magic' gene. As most half- bloods are magical, it wouldn't make sense for the gene to be recessive. Of course, there's also the possibility of multiple genes being involved, or of imprinting... or just that it's 'magic.' I find the genetics of magic one of things in HP that it's better not to think about too much! Tayla: Let's not assume much of anything, because, in Muggles, the wizarding trait would have to be a recessive trait. Let's not forget that the WW had been marrying Muggles for at least a thousand years, during that time, the wizarding gene could have been hidden deep within many muggles. That would account (and I wouldn't put it past JKR to make us think about the blending effect that it would have with RL) for "Muggles" studying things like...telepathy, telekensis, pyrokensis, etc. Several instances where something extraordinary gets out of control, not much power, but enough for that recessive wizarding gene to show itsself. Muggles study it and try to understand it, but they can't because it's MAGIC! Food for thought if I wasn't being confusing. Tayla From easimm at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 22:16:44 2005 From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:16:44 -0000 Subject: A Fully Realized World (Was: Re:Harry's Seclusion and the Weasley Suspicion) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123671 reply to "meriaugust" , message # 123468 > Meri wrote: > > I would agree that there are some unsavory parts to the WW, just > like there are some unsavory parts to the real world and IMHO JKR > did this on purpose to make parallels between the RW and the WW in > order to make her world more understandable and accessible. The > example of the gnomes is similar to how Muggles would treat a > household or garden pest, in fact it is more humane that most > Muggle treatments for mice, ants, etc. Snorky wrote: Yes, except that gnomes appear to be at least as intelligent as monkeys (walking with heads down because they know they are losing their homes, carrying their sacks away on sticks.) |:,( >Meri wrote: > This (the treatment of the mandrakes) could be seen as a parallel of >animal testing (something I am against) but is also a bit of a fuzzy >area, seeing as mandrakes are techinically plants, and most people >don't feel much compunction about cutting up, say, a carrot for their >personal benefit. Snorky wrote: Don't read this answer unless you don't mind silly asides - I'm making my point at the end of this message. Real plants may have feelings. I know some that close quickly when you touch them. Perhaps someone can start a campaign to eat only inorganic materials:) > Meri wrote: > ...And as for the example of the Muggles being memory charmed, Mr. > Roberts and his family were being memory charmed to make them forget > about being attacked and levitated by the DEs, but I am as sure as I > can be that the Obliviators were being as careful as they could when > modifying their memories. ... Snorky wrote: True, but they are still risking harm to muggles for a game. > Meri wrote: > ...Anyway, all of these examples serve to make the WW more like our > RW. ... Snorky wrote: All very good points, and well argued. The problem is that so far, except for Hermione who is from the muggle world I haven't noticed philosophers and gadflies who arguing against the practices I mentioned. Dumbledore knows this crassness (lack of ethics?) is going to haunt the wizards during the fight with LV because in their lack of thought they have alienated intelligent creatures, but I don't see evidence that Dumbledore has started to think about the manifestations of thoughtlessness in his regular world. It seems obvious from Dumbledore's comments in OOTP that the wizarding world's lack of introspection(thoughtlessness?) will be a big theme in the last two books. Of course, since our point of view is almost always Harry's, and he's a bit oblivious to what's happening around him at times, we might not know about the WW's gadflies. I hope I didn't anger you- my sarcastic side gets the best of me sometimes. The thought had been nagging at the back of my mind for some time- that there is something we aren't seeing about the WW world, and maybe something we're not seeing about our own. Perhaps we are supposed to start seeing what we are willing to let by and compromise to live our comfortable lives. Or (because I love conspiracy theories) something more even more awful is going on - hence, my human sacrifice comment. PS: I've been meaning to read Don Quijote. Now I'll start looking into it in earnest. From jmrazo at hotmail.com Tue Feb 1 22:19:14 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:19:14 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty, Working Wizard Women; was Molly & Arthur - was Why I like Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123672 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > I like Molly and Arthur. I do not see one thing wrong with them. A > lot of people are poor if they have a large family. It is not a sin. > Having the best of everything is not that important. Molly doesn't > henpeck Arthur. Like any good husband he does what his wife tells > him. Would you have Molly be a "yes dead, wife!!" Uck!! So its better to have a "Yes dear husband?" Wheres's the equity in that? IMO, Arthur is henpecked. And Henpecked badly. Certainly his wife talks to him in a way I would never find acceptable in my significant other. But I find the way Molly talks to everyone unacceptably rude. I may never forgive her for the way she treats Sirius at the begining of OOTP. > And Molly must be in her mid to late 50's. Women of that age and > older feel that it is the *man's* job to work outside the home. I > am surprised at so many women here question why Molly doesn't get a > job. It just show that things in our society have changed *a lot*in > the past 35 years. I don't think that you can compare our social mores with that of the wizarding world. Magic is a great equalizer. Wands do not discriminate. There doesn't seem to be that much evidence that women were second class citizens AFAICR. Madam Bones and Umbridge both have powerful political positions regardless of their gender. Tonks seems to be well regarded as an auror. Mrs. Black was clearly a formidable woman. Bellatrix is clearly the scariest of the DE's outside of the big V himself. There's also a debate on the ages of the Weasleys but I fall on the side of Molly and Arthur being older than their fifties. IMO, Molly has absolutely no excuse to not work when all of her children are gone for so long out of the year. She has the time to work if she wanted to. I honestly don't know why she doesn't since she clearly doesn't like being poor any more than Ron does. phoenixgod2000 From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 22:38:16 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:38:16 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123673 > >>Nora: > >Snape is *something* enough that Dumbledore won't let him teach > DADA. The question is, what how and why?< A really excellent potions master? Perhaps I've never given it quite enough thought, but that's what I've always thought. I've always gotten the impression that Snape is not merely good at Potions, but downright amazing, exceptional, once-in-a- century sort of thing. And if not, and I don't think there's anything in canon to say he's more than "pretty darn good", he seems to like it - His Potions speech in Book 1 remains one of the nicest things he's ever said, IMO. I've never been able to come up with any reason why Snape would actually *want* the DADA position (A personal, rather thaan dastardly political one, that is). I mean, he really cares about potions! It's not like he took any particular relish in DADA when he did teach it in POA. Why does Snape want to teach DADA? (I think it's just beacuse what he applied for/assumed he would be teaching way back when he first started, figuring he was just the man, DE experience and all, while Dumbledore figured, for percisely that reason, that messing about with DA all day was not the best thing for him (Not for his students, for him. I think he did awful thigns a a DE that DUmbledore was tryign to distance him from.)And he;s just been stubbornly reapling for the position ever since) --NorthSouth From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 00:01:19 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:01:19 -0000 Subject: Sirius' motorbike In-Reply-To: <20050201192607.11726.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123674 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli wrote: > > I found some canon that implies Sirius may have his > own bike: > > "Yeah," said Hagrid in a very muffled voice, "I'll be > takin' Sirius his bike back. G'night, Professor > McGonagall -- Professor Dumbledore, sir." (PS/SS Ch1) > > We don't actually know if he got Sirius his bike back, > but he sure intended to. > > "Here," said Kingsley .... "... We've received > information that Black might still be using his old > motorcycle." (OoP ch7) > > Maybe this is also a lie, but I'm guessing Sirius's > got his bike. > > Juli bboyminn: It seems that Sirius was caught the day after Harry was brought to the Dursley's; at the most, the day after that. It also appears from the books that Sirius left Godric's Hollow and immediately went looking for Peter. So, I don't think Sirius was available to receive the bike even if Hagrid tried to return it. Also, given that Sirius was estranged from his family, it's doubtful that Hagrid return the bike to the Black family. On another point, Arthur and Molly were not in the Order of the Phoenix last time, so it's unlikely that the bike would have been give to them. So, I speculate, as I already have, that Hagrid was stuck with the bike, and stored it somewhere. That means it is likely to be at or near Hogwarts. I'm still desperately hoping that at some point Harry finds it and uses it. That would be almost as cool as receiving a Firebolt. Of course, there is the small matter of Harry not having a muggle driver's license. I'm pretty sure you aren't able to get one until you are 17 in the UK, and then you must pass a written test, a driver's education course, and take a driving test. All of which cost substantially more money in the UK than they do in the USA. If Harry get's pulled over by the police, he can probably 'enchant' his way out of it, but what if he get busted by a traffic camera? That could be a problem trying to explain that. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From pegruppel at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 00:02:35 2005 From: pegruppel at yahoo.com (Peggy) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:02:35 -0000 Subject: Harry's dead (short lifeline) In-Reply-To: <5268D532-746C-11D9-99CF-003065F25ECE@jaegan.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123675 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, jaegan wrote: > > Russ: > Hehe. True enough, but I think what the original poster was suggesting > was not that Harry actually _is_ dead, but rather that he should be, > and is only being kept alive due to his connection to Voldemort. No > way to know at this point, I think, but certainly seems plausible. Peg: An interesting point. Still, I think it's more likely that it's Voldemort who's dependent on Harry's existence. Harry *is* alive, but LV is the one "surviving" according to the prophecy. Until the connection, whatever it is, is broken, Harry is stuck with an uninvited guest in his head. I believe that LV isn't really "all there" in a fashion. I posted a theory on this a couple of weeks ago that the jinxed search engine won't retrieve for me just now (IlovecomputersIlovecomputersIlovecomputers). The short form of the theory is that LV is a construct of intellect, magical powers, and a physical form, but without a soul. The AK that rebounded stripped his soul out, and it (the soul, not the curse) retreated into some magical object. If that's true, the final quest won't be aimed at confronting LV, but rather at retrieving the object (Philosopher's Stone, anyone?) and releasing the trapped soul. Peg > > Peg: > > > > I'm hoping that we'll get a better idea of the nature of the > > connection in the next book.? > > > Russ: > I hope so as well, but have a sinking feeling JKR intends to draw this > out to the end of book 7. > > -Russ Peg: I suppose so. Sigh. She'll string us along until the next-to-last chapter. I'll be happy so long as she does give a plausible explanation for the connection, and has an ending that provides genuine closure to the tale. Cheers! Peg From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 00:35:42 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:35:42 -0000 Subject: Why doesn't Snape get DADA? (Was Re: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123676 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "northsouth17" wrote: >> Nora: >> Snape is *something* enough that Dumbledore won't let him teach >> DADA. The question is, what how and why?< > Northsouth: > > A really excellent potions master? > > Perhaps I've never given it quite enough thought, but that's what > I've always thought. I've always gotten the impression that Snape > is not merely good at Potions, but downright amazing, exceptional, > once-in-a-century sort of thing. And if not, and I don't think > there's anything in canon to say he's more than "pretty darn good", > he seems to like it - His Potions speech in Book 1 remains one of > the nicest things he's ever said, IMO. The canon we have is that he can make the Wolfsbane Potion, which Lupin describes as being difficult to make--and that he can't do it, so he's grateful that Snape can. This statement has been subject to varied and highly entertaining different readings, by (IIRC) both Neri and Pippin, different sides of the Lupin coin. :) > I've never been able to come up with any reason why Snape would > actually *want* the DADA position (A personal, rather thaan > dastardly political one, that is). I mean, he really cares about > potions! It's not like he took any particular relish in DADA when > he did teach it in POA. Well, I once threw out the idea (mainly for laughs) that Snape's Potions speech is the speech of a man who has been forced to settle for second best and gradually come to enjoy it, but that it comes out of partial resentment as much as anything. [However, there is pretty much no solid canon to suggest either way on what he *really* feels about potions. This is a recurring pattern with the character, you will note...] > Why does Snape want to teach DADA? > (I think it's just beacuse what he applied for/assumed he would be > teaching way back when he first started, figuring he was just the > man, DE experience and all, while Dumbledore figured, for percisely > that reason, that messing about with DA all day was not the best > thing for him (Not for his students, for him. I think he did awful > thigns a a DE that DUmbledore was tryign to distance him from.)And > he's just been stubbornly reapling for the position ever since) If you take the interview answer as telling you something (hush over there, Betsy), it *does* state that Snape came to Dumbledore and said "I'd like to teach DADA"...it's a point of contention whether he really means it when he keeps on applying for it or whether it's something of a personal joke. I have to say that when Dumbledore was willing to hire an obvious fraud over Snape, that's, ummm, telling. We have zippo canon on whether Potions expertise is the rare and prized thing that fanfic authors tend to make it out to be. None. While we do know that DADA has had trouble getting a teacher. Indeed, 'Potions Master' itself is probably more likely referring to the institutional position than to any outside certification or especial skills. I myself doubt that it is Snape's special irreplacable Potions skills that keep Dumbledore from letting him have DADA. He's not exactly a model pedagogue, although we have hints that he gets results. [High standards are not a de facto confirmation that he gets said results, after all.] I tend to agree with your idea that Dumbledore thinks, for whatever reason, that it's not the best thing for Snape to be doing (and that's what the interview states in the broadest general terms). We just don't quite know exactly *why* at present. -Nora notes that she will be genially smug iff'n the most obvious readings of the interviews comes out to be the right one, of course From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 00:50:58 2005 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:50:58 -0000 Subject: Time Turner...(TT during PoA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123677 Sandra wrote: Here's another issue here - I think all the HP stories are undermined by the Time Turner's own existence. If the spell or technology exists which can influence time, nothing is final unless the ability to create such a piece is very, very restricted. Which in Harry's world, it isn't. I would have thought that anyone with such a piece could change whatever they wanted. If the all-powerful Voldemort got hold of it, he could prevent Harry being born either in a very subtle way (prevent Mr & Mrs Potter marrying) or by going back in time and killing Harry at any stage of his life. Likewise, Dumbledore could do the same to Voldermort... and let's not forget that Harry could go back and save Sirius in Book 5, or prevent the death in Book 4 (forgotten the poor chap's name). And maybe, just maybe, he could give it a really good spin and go back and save his parents etc etc... you see where this is going? So because the Time Turner exists as it is shown to, nothing is final. Whoever holds that holds a huge amount of power, because that power is not restricted or regulated. And don't get me started on the potential if there's more than one Time Turner - after all, why shouldn't there be? In my view, the whole series of stories gets horribly undermined by one simple plot-aid in Book 3. Doesn't it? Laurasia replies: I'm not going to get drawn into the argument about whether TT!Harry&Hermione *changed* time, or whether they just *ensured* it happened correctly. It's extremely difficult to explain any alternate version of Time Travel. There are *many* version of Time Travel, not just one. I've been invovled in several Time Travel Debates, and the only posts that can stand alone without re-reading the entire old threads are: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/79043 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/79045 which people involved in this current debate may or may not find useful (hopefully the former). Excuse my linkable-narcissism. ;-) However, I'd like to address the point of why we don't see people using Time Travel to change whatever they please. Either, a) you can not change anything (which is why no one tries), b) you actually can change whatever you want but it has too high a cost, or c) you can only change things that you don't already know the outcome of. a) Applies to people who belive that time only happened once, not that it was rewritten. b) Is no fun because you can just say 'something bad and unexpected will happen if you change time, probably making it worse and you'll run out of Time-Turner batteries before you can fix it all up.' c) Is probably the most applicable. For example, in PoA, Harry and Hermione only hear the swish and thud of an axe when they leave Hagrid's Hut and then see Macnair swing his axe into a fence. Which might mean that so long as the version of events from their Time-Traveled POV includes the swish and thud of an axe, they can do whatever they please. Or, alternatively, think about this scenario- Muggles arrives at Godric's Hollow to find James and Lily dead, the house destroyed and Harry vanished. Dumbledore knows that he can do whatever he wants so long as James and Lily die and Harry disappears before the Muggles arrives. So he sends Hagrid back in time at the exact moment when Voldemort is vapourised to pick up Harry and take him to a safe place. So, if we accept that you can only change what is not yet noticed, then you can change whatever you want, so long as it gives the appearance of not being changed at all. So, you *could* go back and save Sirius, provided you had someone who had taken a Polyjuice Potion containing one of his hairs swap places with him. Or, when Hermione misses a charms class, she can't go back and take it because her absense was noted by Ron and Harry. She *could,* however, nip up to the Boy's Dorm, borrow Harry's invisibilty cloak and take the class remaining invisible. So, maybe the reason why nobody kills Tom Riddle before he becomes too terrible is simply because they know for sure that he wasn't killed. They could go back and, maybe, curse him with some slow-acting spell that takes years to develop because there is (as yet) no evidence to suggest that that didn't happen. ~<(Laurasia)>~ From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 00:51:57 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:51:57 -0000 Subject: Snape as DE (was: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123678 >>Betsy: >Actually, the fact that he overcame years of training and prejudice to choose the right side is one of the main reasons I admire him. To take away, or whitewash Snape's past as a Death Eater is to lessen the strength of his character, IMO.< >>Valky: >Just curiously, Betsy. Don't you think that whitewashing, Snapes past as a DE isn't exactly what will be achieved by canon stating that James' and Sirius' mistreatment of him at Hogwarts, forced his hand into deciding to do it? Just that *I* can only see you contradicting yourself here, unless you explain more thoroughly how you see otherwise, sorry.< Betsy: Mmm. Really good question, Valky. I don't think James' and Sirius' behavior *forced* Snape to become a Death Eater. Canon tells us that Snape came to Hogwarts already trained in Dark Arts, which shows that his family upbringing had philosophical similarities with Voldemort. Canon also suggests that Snape was taken under Lucius Malfoy's wing at some point while at Hogwarts, so Snape was already of interest to an older student that we know became one of Voldemort's soldiers. However, canon also suggests that Snape is reasonably intelligent and can think things through for himself (his suspicions of Harry are generally fairly accurate). And Snape was sorted into Slytherin, which suggests that he's not predisposed to following someone blindly. So, my theory (though not clearly backed by canon, I will admit) is that one of the reasons this particular memory has such emotional resonance with Snape is because he had been considering becoming a Death Eater, and this incident pushed him over the edge. James and Sirius weren't *the* reason Snape became a Death Eater, but they were a factor. They were the other side, and they certainly made it clear that Snape would never be one of them. If the Mauraders had behaved differently, would Snape have not taken the path he did? I hope it wasn't that simple. I think Snape is too deep a thinker to be so easily influenced. But their behavior was a factor, and one that Snape remembers. (Though I don't think Snape blames them for his choices. I don't see any canon that supports that idea.) Betsy From mommystery at hotmail.com Wed Feb 2 00:57:53 2005 From: mommystery at hotmail.com (mommystery2003) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:57:53 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123679 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: It seems clear that James died *fighting* Voldemort, > trying to let Lily escape...but like anything is clear at present > about those events. Here's hoping we get the play-by-play! I get the impression that Voldemort just walked in and AK'd James - that he never got the chance to fight. Couldn't Lily have flooed somewhere with Harry? It just seems to me that there weren't enough precautions taken. Ces From mommystery at hotmail.com Wed Feb 2 01:05:50 2005 From: mommystery at hotmail.com (mommystery2003) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 01:05:50 -0000 Subject: Choice of James as Head Boy (was Re: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123680 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ladyramkin2001" wrote: Dumbledore may have considered James had a potential for leadership that qualified him for the position. As to Snape, I think he was probably academically more brilliant than either James or Sirius, but lacked the qualities necessary for leadership. James may have had a potential for leadership, but we'll never know. I think it more likely Dumbledore chose him because he favors Gryffindors. But why not Remus? He was already a Prefect. He must have been hurt to be chosen over someone who wasn't even a Prefect. As for Snape being more brilliant than James or Sirius, I concur 100%. Those two were more concerned about taunting Severus and breaking the rules. Remus does tell Harry his father had a habit of finding trouble. I'm sure Severus isn't the only one those two harassed either. They were bullies. That alone should have precluded James from being Head Boy. From mommystery at hotmail.com Wed Feb 2 01:28:12 2005 From: mommystery at hotmail.com (mommystery2003) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 01:28:12 -0000 Subject: Why doesn't Snape get DADA? (Was Re: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123681 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: Potions Master' itself is probably more likely referring to > the institutional position than to any outside certification or > especial skills. I myself doubt that it is Snape's special > irreplacable Potions skills that keep Dumbledore from letting him > have DADA. He's not exactly a model pedagogue, although we have > hints that he gets results. [High standards are not a de facto > confirmation that he gets said results, after all.] I think there has to be some very important skills in Potions or else anyone could do it. And I do think he has some outside certification. Most of the professors have been there for years, the DADA position being the exception. The reason (in my view) for that is because JKR needs that position empty every year to introduce an important character. Lupin's telling Harry that the Wolfsbane potion isn't easy to make does tell a lot about Snape's skills. If anyone could do it he could buy it at Diagon Alley. And if Snape brought his high standards from Potions to DADA, just think how skilled the students would be. But why does Dumbledore let him teach the classes when Lupin is unable, but not trust him to teach it full-time? Either it will bring out the worst in him or it won't, but why give him the temptation? There's more to that story than meets the eye! Ces From mommystery at hotmail.com Wed Feb 2 01:52:54 2005 From: mommystery at hotmail.com (mommystery2003) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 01:52:54 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123682 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: We also see Snape make various kinds of deductive errors (often of > the "when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me" variety). > We do not see either Sirius or James in situations that we see Snape, so we have no model of comparison. But we do have McGonagall's testimony (not disputed by the present Flitwick), and the amazing and textually noted as such) Animagi feat. Ces: The deductive errors Snape makes are usually based on the facts that the entire wizarding world have accepted as true, such as Black killing Pettigrew. Snape can't be blamed for that error. He does let his feelings for Harry stand in the way of rational thinking, but he is usually right. I think he still believes the kids were under a Confundus curse in PoA. While James had quick reflexes in quidditch, I know plenty of athletes who have that, yet in many other facets of life, their reflexes aren't that quick. I too was able to pass most of my high school classes with A's, and was considered quite exceptional by my teachers, but that doesn't mean a month later I could take the same information and pass a test again with flying colors. Plus, my teachers liked me - and I think that helped some where they would let me get by with a less than perfect answer, where someone else didn't get the same pass. I feel that applied to James and Sirius too. I have no doubts they were good in her class. They liked it, therefore they did well in it. While Flitwick didn't disagree with McGonagall's statement, neither did he corroborate it. And did Severus ever show any interest in being Head Boy? We've never heard anything about that. I really don't think he cared one way or another, especially as he has never made any comments to Harry about it. What I see when I read the pensieve scene are two boys looking for trouble and finding it in someone who wasn't even bothering them. He was minding his own business, unlike Potter and Black, who, because one was bored, had to start bullying. Ces From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Feb 2 02:04:12 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 02:04:12 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123683 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > It seems clear that James died *fighting* Voldemort, > > trying to let Lily escape...but like anything is clear at present about those events. Here's hoping we get the play-by-play! > > I get the impression that Voldemort just walked in and AK'd James - > that he never got the chance to fight. Couldn't Lily have flooed > somewhere with Harry? It just seems to me that there weren't enough precautions taken. > > Ces Only problem with flooing is that you have to state your destination loudly and clearly, If Lv was exceptionally keen of hearing he would know where Harry had gone. Of course Lily could Floo and Floo and Floo until LV lost the trail, but that would be running, where Lily and James were known for their defiance of Voldemort, so it would simply be out of character. I seriously doubt that the couple sat in hiding at Godrics Hollow and did nothing to prepare in case of Voldemorts arrival. Quite likely they studied and trained in defensive spells together the whole time, giving themselves the best chance to stand and fight if that day should come. I am not sure where you get the impression that James was just AKed in a snap, unless it's that canon polluting medium-that-must-not-be- named here again. This quote should help remedy that in a jiffy. PS/SS The Man with Two Faces. "... Yes, boy, your parents were brave... I killed your father first and he put up a courageous fight..." Valky From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Feb 2 02:09:49 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 02:09:49 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123684 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mommystery2003" wrote: > > What I see when I read the pensieve scene are two boys looking for > trouble and finding it in someone who wasn't even bothering them. He was minding his own business, unlike Potter and Black, who, because one was bored, had to start bullying. > > Ces Valky: I don't think the Sirius series we have corroborates this at all. Sirius makes it quite clear, in the Pensieve scene and in Grimmauld place that when he is bored he craves not trouble, but *danger*. From alex51324 at hotmail.com Wed Feb 2 02:24:50 2005 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex boyd) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 02:24:50 +0000 Subject: mendelian genetics In-Reply-To: <1107264975.100767.44148.m1@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123685 I don't *think* anyone has posted this yet on the genetics "how do squibs happen?" thread, but.... It's important to remember that complex traits are typically governed by more than one gene. It's not even clear (to the best of my knowledge) that eye color (the example usually used in biology textbooks) is governed only by one gene. So if being a wizard or not is genetically determined (and maybe it isn't), it's probably determined by lots of genes. And maybe a person has to have a certain number of W's (to use the notation established earlier in the thread) to manifest the wizard trait. And, given that muggle-born wizards are much more common than Squibs (according to Ron, anyway), I'd say the Wizard gene (or genes) is probably dominant. Alex From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 02:40:55 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 02:40:55 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty, Working Wizard Women; was Molly & Arthur - was Why I like Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123686 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: IMO, Molly has absolutely no excuse to not work when all of her children are gone for so long out of the year. She has the time to work if she wanted to. I honestly don't know why she doesn't since she clearly doesn't like being poor any more than Ron does. Tonks now: The woman has born 7 children, she has more than fullfilled any duty she has to society and to her husband. AND she cared for them and her husband, and home schooled them for God sakes. She doesn't have to work one more day!! I *totally* disagree with you. She can work if she wants to, but she doesn't have to. Besides she does work for the Order too. And being a homemaker she does a lot more than her Husband does, even when there are no children at home. The poor woman works like a house elf!! Tonks_op From alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk Wed Feb 2 02:44:14 2005 From: alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk (alshainofthenorth) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 02:44:14 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty, Working Wizard Women; was Molly & Arthur - was Why I like Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123687 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "megalynn44" wrote: > A second issue I have is Molly Weasley's role as a homemaker. Having > so many young children at home, having to raise AND homeschool them > certainly warrants a stay-at-home mom. However, with all the children > out of the house 10 months out of the year, what does she do all day? > If the family was so strapped for cash (and the years when 5 of their > children were in school-books 2 and 3- were certainly the tightest) > why not get a job? Come to think of it, how many mothers in the work > force have we seen in canon? >From the orchard where the Weasley kids play Quidditch, throwing apples to each other instead of proper balls, and from the several chickens picking in the garden, I had the impression that Molly is running a small-scale farm with free-range poultry, eggs, apples etc. at the Burrow. If so, that's a full-time job right there. We can ask ourselves how many trees one needs to have an orchard instead of just a great many apple trees, or how many chickens "several" are, but I've had the impression that it's more than just a hobby. We've always speculated about where the wizarding world gets its food, and the Burrow could be part of that answer. As an idle speculation, since the Weasleys seem to live in the West Country and the region is famous for scrumpy, Molly could have a cider press on the premises as well. At least I hope she has. :-) Alshain, who loves English cider From mail at chartfield.net Tue Feb 1 17:05:16 2005 From: mail at chartfield.net (queen_astrofiammante) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 17:05:16 -0000 Subject: The Mauraders' Generation (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123688 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lisa (Jennings) Mamula" wrote: > [snip] > Molly & Arthur -- Do the Weasley kids not have any grandparents? "The Weasleys are the biggest blood traitors of all." How should we define 'The Weasleys'? Is it the family we know, or a larger, extended family? Taken to mean the family we know, is it possible that Arthur has had a disagreement with traditionalist relatives who don't approve of his egalitarian attitudes? In this scenario, the Weasley grandparents probably wouldn't acknowledge their grandchildren. However, now we know who Molly's family is (The Prewetts) and that they were Order members. Where are Arthur's two brothers who recently got a mention on JKR's website? Given Arthur's statement about seeing the Dark Mark over your house and knowing what it means, it would seem most likely that the Weasley relatives (like the Prewetts) were casualties of VWI. They would have to be pretty hard-hearted not to acknowledge the first girl to be born into the family for generations, after all. Another possibility. Because, metaphorically speaking, the camera is on Harry's shoulder we know what he knows, no less, no more and with very few exceptions. So, possibly Harry isn't particularly interested in Ron's grandparents, and has never thought to ask - family stuff not exactly coming naturally to him. Or it's a technical necessity that JKR doesn't allow us, or Harry, to have this information, because all Purebloods are related, and Molly, Arthur and (I am assuming) James Potter are all purebloods, and if Harry asked too many questions then something would be revealed about his background that blows the finale. My pet theory is that we only know part of the truth about the blood magic that keeps Harry safe at Privet drive. He is in the care of one of three adults virtually the whole time - Petunia, Dumbledore or Molly Weasley and it would not surprise me to find that there is a hidden relationship between these three people. > Sirius -- We know they are dead, but how? Sirius is young; it seems his parents would be too young to die of natural causes.Tonks -- So, her mum Andromeda was Sirius' favorite cousin... Where is she now (and where is her husband, Ted)?? We know that Sirius and Regulus Black were the offspring of one male member of the Black line. We also know that he must have had a male sibling in order to produce three cousins with the surname Black - Bellatrix, Andromeda and Narcissa (assuming they are first cousins). Furthermore, we know about Uncle Alphard, who left Sirius a decent bit of gold when he died, but we don't know if he is a Black, or if he is the father of Bellatrix etc. It is informed speculation to state that anyone who sided with Sirius in the family politics was unlikely to have raised daughters with the views of Bellatrix and Narcissa. We do not know if Sirius had any other Black uncles and aunts, or who their offspring might be. We also do not know who Mrs Black is (Sirius' mother) but isn't it interesting how she refers to Grimmauld Place as 'the house of MY fathers'? It's a fact that members of The Marauders (at least, the ones that aren't Wormtail) are referred to as 'embracing like brothers' or 'you'd have thought Potter and Black were brothers'. I just offer this for completism - almost certainly one of JKR's famous red herrings, eh? > Remus -- Any clue there? Exactly four canon words - in the shrieking shack, when he's explaining about being a werewolf, he says: "My parents tried everything." Thus confirming that he had them, and he knew them, but that's about it. > James -- He was so very young when he died; what happened to his parents? Lily & Petunia -- Another mystery. I'm firmly in the camp that believes Voldemort killed Mr and Mrs Potter Sr. They get a couple of canon references - largely in reference to their kindness to Sirius when he ran away from home. I think this may have been one of the three times when Lily and James defied Voldemort - getting through that one without being killed themselves. I wonder if Voldemort is working his way down the Potter bloodline, and whether this is connected the fact he is also killing off all his own known relatives? One of the most interesting things Petunia ever says comes right at the beginning of Philosopher's Stone. She refuses to leave Harry alone while Dudley and gang go to the zoo in case she comes back to find the house in ruins - just like Godric's Hollow, no? She could be referring to Lily's fate, or perhaps to some first-hand experience of Voldemort's methods which explains why she is so frightened when she hears he is active again. > Vernon -- Also no mention of parents (that I remember). No ideas at all. Sorry. ;- )) From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Feb 2 03:03:37 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 03:03:37 -0000 Subject: Snape as DE (was: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123689 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > So, my theory (though not clearly backed by canon, I will admit) is that one of the reasons this particular memory has such emotional > resonance with Snape is because he had been considering becoming a > Death Eater, and this incident pushed him over the edge. > > James and Sirius weren't *the* reason Snape became a Death Eater, but they were a factor. They were the other side, and they certainly made it clear that Snape would never be one of them. If the Mauraders had behaved differently, would Snape have not taken the path he did? I hope it wasn't that simple. I think Snape is too deep a thinker to be so easily influenced. But their behavior was a factor, and one that Snape remembers. (Though I don't think Snape blames them for his choices. I don't see any canon that supports that idea.) > > Betsy Valky: Well, Besty, It's very thin... for that reason I like it. The fact that it doesn't mess itself with unseriated outcries of James' & Sirius' intentions and blame means I am naturally inclined to *not* shoot canonballs at it. ;D Although it's only thinly possible,IMHO I do agree fairly much with the shade of Snape's greyness in it. However, I really hope it doesn't become the full story in canon, mainly because of the inability of it to clear up anything about the black streak in James. I am kind of hoping, since my own ship is sailing in that cove, that the final insight into Snape *will* be part of the balancing into whole colour the greyness of James. From tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 22:02:23 2005 From: tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com (Pyros Wife) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:02:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] James' money (was: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050201220223.77007.qmail@web61204.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123690 Phoenixgod2000: > There is no evidence that James is actually rich. Harry might just > happen to have a lot of money because he had access to accounts > which haven't done anything except acrue interest. Of course for a > child who grew up with nothing and his only other vault example > being that of a poor family, Harry might have false impression of > exactly how much money he actually has. SSSusan: Sorry -- not so that there's no evidence James was rich. We have this from JKR in an AOL chat from 2000: J.K. Rowling: Well, I can't go into too much detail, because you're going to find out in future books. But James inherited plenty of money, so he didn't need a well-paid profession. You'll find out more about both Harry's parents later. Tayla: Not to mention that I don't think that Goblins are much into the "interest" thing that Muggles may be inclined to. Even in RL, if you put something that is of value into a vault, it doesn't accrue interest, it just sits there...and sits there. Maybe that is the American in me and things are different in the UK, but here, you can put diamonds into a safety deposit box, but you don't get interest on the value of the diamonds. OTOH, what would the interest rate be on something like the Sorcerer's (Philosopher's) Stone? Tayla --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmrazo at hotmail.com Tue Feb 1 22:41:05 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:41:05 -0000 Subject: Draco and Lucius (was: Harry and starvation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123691 Betsy: > Sorry, I just can't let this one go. :) Because Draco really is > *nothing* like his father. Sure, he looks like him, but personality > and skills wise, these are two vastly different characters. Lucius > is a political animal - well versed in deception and obfuscation. > Draco is a performer, an attention grabber who has no earthly idea of > when to keep his mouth shut. > > Back in message # 123478 I said about Lucius: "The Lucius who > managed to talk his way out of Azkaban while Crouch was still in > power strikes me as at least a tiny bit politically astute. >Compare that to Draco who in CoS yelled out, "You're next Mudbloods!" > in a fit of excitement in front of professors, no less, (and I > believe Dumbledore) after Mrs. Norris was attacked. Not smooth. He was twelve. No boy is the soul of tact at the age of twelve. At fifteen he was smart enough to see where the wind blows and got on the Inquisitorial squad thanks to Umbridge, which was more than HP could claim at the same age. Lucius himself is also prone to rashness. Witness his basically spur of the moment decison to use the diary against the Weasleys. I'm sure there were more efficent uses of a magical diary that contained the soul of his lord and master than the torment of a preteen girl. Betsy: > I wouldn't make a big deal about this, but I think it's essential to > the Draco and Lucius characters that they are so different. There > are hints in PoA that Lucius is not well pleased with his son's lack of political intuition. And I think it may be important in the upcoming books. That Draco worships his father is obvious. The possibility that Draco is failing to live up to his father's expectations could have interesting repercussions. I think Draco's basic imcompetence will have interesting reprecussions, and I do think that Lucius is displeased with is son but I think that's more about his spoiled petulant nature than anything else. I personally see parrallels between Lucius and Draco. But Draco is younger, less worldly, and clearly more spoiled than Lucius. At their cores however, I think they are mirror images. > Betsy, who's dying to call Pheonixgod, "Peh-ho-nix god" 'cause she > gets far too much enjoyment out of the FedEx ads. Peh-ho-nix god, who doesn't much care what people call him as long as god is in the title phoenixgod2000 From jmrazo at hotmail.com Tue Feb 1 23:01:31 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 23:01:31 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123692 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mommystery2003" wrote: > Well I don't hate Snape. I do detest Black, Potter and Pettigrew > though. And I have to say while I think McGonagall would have an > idea of just how her students are doing in all classes, she > > Notice we don't see anything of Pettigrew in class in Snape's > pensieve. I'm sure he wasn't the smartest nut in the bag, and I bet > he wasn't just sitting there cruising through the exam. Unless he > was cheating, which wouldn't surprise me, since, if they already had > the map done at that point, Black and company could already have > known all the answers. I don't think there is any evidence of the Marauders cheating. If anything I think their pride in their arts would preclude them from cheating. Plus they clearly knew at least Transfiguration at a post hogwarts level since they were all animagi. Honestly the pensieve scene seemed nothing more than a group of popular friends taking it easy after a final. Sounded like my water polo teammates and I during high school. No need to drag conspiracy theories about them cheating into it. > What did Potter do after Hogwarts? Join the Order? Big deal. If he > had lived, what would he have done with his life? > Black, to his credit, managed to stay alive for 12 years in inhuman > conditions. Lily is the one who ensured Harry stayed alive, James is > never mentioned for any part of that - it's always Lily's love that > keeps Harry alive. I'm always surprised that there wasn't any > secondary defense of their house, like when Voldemort stepped foot on > their property, didn't any alarms go off so they could disapparate? > That should have been James's job. I honestly did not know how to respond to this section. Joining the Order not a big deal! The order is clearly a small elite group of wizards and witches that operate outside the normal ministry chain of command. Joining the order is a big deal and it was a big deal that cost them both their young lives. they were a young married couple with a newborn volunteering for a war. No freakin' wonder James was in Gryffindor. Lily too. As for secondary defenses. There are spells to bring those down, and somehow I think they are not beyond the ability of Voldemort to do so. Last thing. when Harry gets around dementors he hears this: "Lily, take Harry and run. I'll hold him off!" James is a man who can stand between his family and a wizard so bad he's the equivalent of the bogeyman in their world fifteen years after he's dead. If I learn nothing else good about him, I will still have learned all I need to know about who he is as a man. phoenixgod2000, who freely admits he was wrong about James not being rich, having never seen the interview that spelled that out. My bad. From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Wed Feb 2 03:09:28 2005 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 03:09:28 -0000 Subject: FILK: Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123693 The next in the Cap Awry series. (The others are up at the filk site http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm) After this one, there's only one left, the capstone, so to speak! As in Cabaret, this filk series operates on two levels. There is the "backstory", which is the canon from OOP, and the parody which takes place as the floorshow at the Three Broomsticks. The EmCee is the Sorting Hat and only he and the Three Broomsticks boys and girls (the DADA teachers and a few others) are actors in the parodies. But sometimes, we authors stretch the point. ..... Backstory: In this episode, disaster has happened at the Ministry of Magic. Voldemort was able to lure Harry into his trap. It could have been avoided if Harry had only been treated like an adult instead of being kept in the dark like a child. Harry's rage at Dumbledore and the whole world erupts in a fury in Dumbledore's office as he smashes things and lashes out in hate at Dumbledore. Dumbledore, in sadness, agrees. The worst possible thing has resulted because he, Dumbledore, had allowed his love for Harry to override Harry's, and the whole Wizarding World's, best interests. At the Three Broomsticks: The curtain comes up on the Sorting Hat, who is stirring a small silver cauldron. It's the Pensieve! >From the cauldron, a silvery white smoke arises, which forms into a shimmering image of Dumbledore's office. The office is in disarray, with broken glass and shattered objects everywhere. Harry's rage is spent and Dumbledore sadly begins to sing: "Harry" (To the tune of "Married", from Cabaret) http://www.hamienet.com/6861.mid When your parents died, I put tears aside. I made a plan for you, Harry. What our world must do would depend on you. That's when I looked at you, Harry. And my fortitude somehow came unglued. The set of my chin came unset. With so much to say on that awful day. I knew I would tell you, but not just yet. When you saved the stone, fighting all alone, I nearly told you then, Harry. You were still so young, and I held my tongue. I should have told you then, Harry. But too soft a heart kept us worlds apart I never gave you your due. You've a right to hate, now it's come too late. I never counted on loving you. ~ Constance Vigilance From bob.oliver at cox.net Wed Feb 2 03:11:22 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 03:11:22 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI, what you do and don't want to see In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123694 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > > Tonks here: > > I think that ol' Lupinlore likes to stir things up. Get us all riled > up so he can see what we all have to say when push comes to shove. > It does help one to sort out what one really believes. So to me > Lupinlore is the the Devil' advocate. Maybe not all the time, but > often. I think that he likes to have fun with us. (Course he could > be a recovering DE, that falls off the wagon now and then. ;-) > Actually, no, I'm almost always deadly serious in everything I say. In this case, shoot me but I don't like heavy, simplistic, moral allegories. Those belong in Sunday School literature, not in popular fiction. I would not like it at all if JKR descends into heavy moralizing/Christian allegory of the type: "Harry nobly rises above all the pain and abuse in his life as, filled with self-sacrificial love, he gives forgiveness to all that have wronged him, renounces all his hopes and dreams, and offers himself up to save a world that has scorned him." However, I feel with a sense of ever-increasing dread and nausea that some of that might be coming up. Lupinlore From tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 23:40:14 2005 From: tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com (Pyros Wife) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 15:40:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050201234014.91059.qmail@web61201.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123695 phoenixgod2000 wrote: >I'm not even sure why Snape's intelligence is ever in >question. His knowing more hexes, an affinity for the dark >arts at a young age seem to indicate to me someone with >brains (and since Black comes from a family of dark wizards, >I'm sure he knew some also). The man is a Potions Master, >he's a spy, he's a professor and he's Head of House. >The last two alone must be qualifiers of having brains, >since you are dealing with students (although his methods >leave a lot to be desired) all day long and then all the >House problems 24/7. What qualifies a person to be Head of >House anyway? Tayla: I am inclined to agree with Phoenixgod here, I happen to like Snape, there are things yet to discover about him, and that is why I like him as an antagonist (because let's face it, that is what he is more than Draco is) however we are also losing site of the fact that he has KNOWN many of the things that Harry has been up to, but he has been unable to PROVE it. With DD helping Harry to get away with some of the stuff he has, Snape proving anything has got to be a difficult task to do. He is a very intelligent character in the book, and his aversion to Harry runs much deeper than I think JKR has led us to believe. With every book, I find myself more and more going "what is up with you?" THAT makes for a GOOD character. Phoenixgod wrote: >I'm always surprised that there wasn't any secondary defense >of their house, like when Voldemort stepped foot on their >property, didn't any alarms go off so they could >disapparate? That should have been James's job. Tayla: Unless I am missing something here, I don't believe you can disapparate carrying a child. I could be mistaken, but if you could disapparate with a child, there would be no reason for portkeys and the Floo network, would there? So even if there were some kind of alarm, where would you go, out the window? It seems to me that LV came right in the front door, killed James, went upstairs and killed Lily and failed with Harry. Now, there could have been Portkeys in the house with an alarming trigger right? Nora: >Snape is *something* enough that Dumbledore won't let him teach DADA. The question is, what how and why? NorthSouth: Why does Snape want to teach DADA? (I think it's just beacuse what he applied for/assumed he would be teaching way back when he first started, figuring he was just the man, DE experience and all, while Dumbledore figured, for percisely that reason, that messing about with DA all day was not the best thing for him (Not for his students, for him. I think he did awful thigns a a DE that DUmbledore was tryign to distance him from.)And he;s just been stubbornly reapling for the position ever since) Tayla: Does anyone ever remember where that nasty rumor about Snape wanting the position of DADA? Think about this one kiddies. PERCY! Now, we know his acuracy when it comes to personality traits, but where was it ever said, other than Percy that Snape wanted the position? I cannot come up with anything on this one, and I am going through the books AGAIN! Besides, if DD didn't trust Snape with DADA, then why would he have allowed him to substitute in PoA repeatedly? I have to say that I would rather chance things with Snape than have someone like toadlady in the school again. The DADA position possibilities are obviously thinning out anyway. Tayla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 03:18:26 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 03:18:26 -0000 Subject: James' money (was: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: <20050201220223.77007.qmail@web61204.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123696 Phoenixgod2000: There is no evidence that James is actually rich. Harry might just happen to have a lot of money because he had access to accounts which haven't done anything except acrue interest. Of course for a child who grew up with nothing and his only other vault example being that of a poor family, Harry might have false impression of exactly how much money he actually has. SSSusan: Sorry -- not so that there's no evidence James was rich. We have this from JKR in an AOL chat from 2000: J.K. Rowling: Well, I can't go into too much detail, because you're going to find out in future books. But James inherited plenty of money, so he didn't need a well-paid profession. You'll find out more about both Harry's parents later. Tayla: Not to mention that I don't think that Goblins are much into the "interest" thing that Muggles may be inclined to. Even in RL, if you put something that is of value into a vault, it doesn't accrue interest, it just sits there...and sits there. Maybe that is the American in me and things are different in the UK, but here, you can put diamonds into a safety deposit box, but you don't get interest on the value of the diamonds. OTOH, what would the interest rate be on something like the Sorcerer's (Philosopher's) Stone? Alla: Susan, thanks for typing the quote. I agree that James was rich ( another circumstantial evidence to that effect is his invisibility cloak). I am not sure though why being "rich" should necessarily say something negative about your character. (Susan, I know you did not say that, I thought it was implied upthread) I sure hope that if I ever become rich, my friends won't think that I changed for worse. :o) By the way, I am pretty sure that both James and Lily worked. The quote says " didn't NEED " not "didn't have" well paid profession. Didn't JKR also said that their jobs will turn out to be important for the plot? About the interest - I don't think we know much one way or another, but why not? Maybe Goblins count interest totally different way than we muggles do. JMO, Alla From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 00:28:09 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:28:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius' motorbike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050202002809.75634.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123697 Steve/bboyminn wrote: It seems that Sirius was caught the day after Harry was brought to the Dursley's; at the most, the day after that. It also appears from the books that Sirius left Godric's Hollow and immediately went looking for Peter. So, I don't think Sirius was available to receive the bike even if Hagrid tried to return it. Juli: I guess you're right, there just wasn't enough time for Hagrid to return it. Steve: On another point, Arthur and Molly were not in the Order of the Phoenix last time, so it's unlikely that the bike would have been give to them. Juli: Once again I complete agree. It doesn't seem likely to me that the bike somehow founf its way into Arthur's garage. I'm sure that if it was there we sould have heard sooner, the twins would have probably taken it for a drive. Steve: I'm still desperately hoping that at some point Harry finds it and uses it. That would be almost as cool as receiving a Firebolt. Juli: That would be nice, very nice indeed. I can almost see it, Harry arriving at the Burrow (after killing LV) in his bike. Steve: If Harry get's pulled over by the police, he can probably 'enchant' his way out of it, but what if he get busted by a traffic camera? That could be a problem trying to explain that. Juli: I bet it has an invisibility button just like the Ford Anglia. Juli- enjoying the thought of watching the Ford Anglia and the Bike racing all over the forest __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From kgpopp at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 02:34:37 2005 From: kgpopp at yahoo.com (kgpopp) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 02:34:37 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty, Working Wizard Women; was Molly & Arthur - was Why I like Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123698 Jocelyn Grunow wrote: > For example, the Weasleys' poverty is often discussed, but why are > they poor? Because Arthur's job doesn't pay well. Why doesn't he > get a better paying job? Arthur has made the decision not to > move further up in the Ministry because he loves muggle inventions, > and he loves his job. All well and good, and I certainly don't want > to suggest he should move to a job he hated, but he has 6 children > to support & establish - isn't this a very selfish decision? > > > megalynn44 wrote: > I myself have often had several issues with the Poor Weasleys. The > first issue is the one Jocelyn so directly pointed out. If you are > going to have 7 children, you should be prepared to make some > sacrifices for them. Now, I am in no way saying the Weasley's are > bad parents. It is obvious they love their children very much, and > make them their top priority. > > A second issue I have is Molly Weasley's role as a homemaker. > Having so many young children at home, having to raise AND home- > school them certainly warrants a stay-at-home mom. However, with > all the children out of the house 10 months out of the year, what > does she do all day? If the family was so strapped for cash (and > the years when 5 of their children were in school-books 2 and 3- > were certainly the tightest) why not get a job? Come to think of > it, how many mothers in the work force have we seen in canon? > > Now my last bit of nitpicking. BY book 6, the Weasley's being poor > better not be an issue. There are now only 2 Weasley children in > school and without jobs. This can hardly be a huge financial > burden, even for a government job. It shouldn't have been that bad > in OOTP. Now Kristen ..... Hi, I've been out of the loop for a while but this post caught my eye and I had to jump in w/ my 2 cents. So here it goes. First I surprized that the posts are refering to the Weasley's as living in poverty. I'm not really sure where I draw the line between poverty, poor or working class; but to me poverty suggest an inablity to feed and cloth your family. Poor would be scrapping by with the necessities. And "working class" means no luxury but the occasional frills and treats. I guess I saw the Weasley's as somewhere between working class and poor; because they have to live on a budget; the kids wear handmedowns, and their belongs are modest and used. I always to the reference of them being poor as the comments of typical kids who are enveous of kids who parents are rich to wealthy. Why should Molly and Arthur appoligies for not being wealthy? Their kids have food and clothes, they manage to get them some frills like brooms and pets. Granted they do not get tons of toys at x-mass but they way I read it the kids are not lacking in the basics. Look at it another way what would thier kids get if they had more money? More toys at Xmas? Nicer brooms? More candy? More trendy clothes? Yes these are nice things but they should not be the measure if the kids happiness or good parenting. I just don't see what is missing from these kids lives? I think JK is trying to teach kids a valuable lessson about money through Ron, Precy, and Draco. On the extrems we have, Precy who is a pratt that thinks a persons value or importance comes from their job title & bank account. And Draco who values people based on their bank account and their blood line. Niether of these views is appealing to me and I have little hope that Precy or Draco will see the errors of their ways. But then there is Ron, who I see as a typical kid who wants to be popular and fit in; and thinks that it would be easier if he had new and nicer things; and like most of sometimes get jelous of those who have more. But life is like that, there will always be those who have something you don't, or someone who has a better model than what you have. Learning to value what you have, and learning that having "things" is not what bring you true happiness is important. I have hope that Ron will grow out of this phase and come to realize that he his better off for not having everything handed to him, and that his happines comes froms his friends and family not his possessions. To me good parents do not spoil their kids with toys but rather teach you values, support you, belive in you and love you even when you make mistakes. I think this is the lesson JK is trying to teach. I'm not saying there are not things that I'd like to see Molly and Arthur do better. But I don't think they should take a different or 2nd job just so the kids can have more toys or "cooler" belongs. From ladymlb777 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 02:42:05 2005 From: ladymlb777 at yahoo.com (Michele) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 18:42:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Controlling anger -- Crouch!Moody and Snape (was Re: Abusive Crouch!Moody) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050202024205.18618.qmail@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123699 Yes Snape doesn't go around cursing his students, but I think that there is a distinction between loathing someone, and hating them with all of your being. Snape loathes Harry, he can't stand Nevile, but to say that he utterly despises them will all of his existence, well that is pushing it a little. So, as it does take some self control, I am sure, not to hurt them a little more than verbally, I doubt that it is an internal struggle for him. Regarding his actions towards Sirius, you can clearly see his demise towards him. He can not control his anger to even be civil towards Sirius. My point was,we now know that Moody/Crouch hated Harry, but it was not as transparent as Snape's hatred towards Sirius. He controlled himself a lot better, because he knew what the long term goal was to be. It took great discipline for Moody/Crouch, and I think that he preformed masterfully. michele From jmrazo at hotmail.com Wed Feb 2 03:17:02 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 03:17:02 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty, Working Wizard Women; was Molly & Arthur - was Why I like Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123700 Tonks now: > > The woman has born 7 children, she has more than fullfilled any duty > she has to society and to her husband. AND she cared for them and > her husband, and home schooled them for God sakes. She doesn't have > to work one more day!! It's not about duty to society or husband. It's about common sense. In the book where Harry goes with the Weasleys to their vault, I think CoS, Molly is fretting about being able to afford books for all of her kids and their vault is nearly empty. While I realize that wizards have longer productive years, what are they going to retire on? Do they have any savings at all? Her kids are gone ten months out of the year. She should get some sort of job so they can build up their savings and better afford things for their kids. It just doesn't make sense that she wouldn't have a job making some kind of money, even if it was just something she could run out of the burrow. your argument holds up for the past when she had a lot of young children underfoot, but now I think she needs to get a job. Maybe she does and it just hasn't been mentioned. I *totally* disagree with you. She can work > if she wants to, but she doesn't have to. Besides she does work for > the Order too. And being a homemaker she does a lot more than her > Husband does, even when there are no children at home. The poor > woman works like a house elf!! > > Tonks_op I don't think we need to get into an argument about who does more work between a husband and wife. That way lies maddness. I will say that Arthur puts in a lot of long hours and clearly works hard. I will take issue with your assertion that she works like house elf. She works like a house elf doing what, exactly? Her kids are out on their own or at Hogwarts being taken care of by actual house elves. I can't imagine that cleaning charms are all that hard to cast, especially after many decades of using them. without all those people underfoot I doubt her house even needs that much cleaning all the time. I could have understood the argument if we were only talking about summer. she was clearly working hard before the World Cup, but on the average I doubt she spends all that much time in mindless household drudgery. Magic is cool like that. phoenixgod2000 From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 03:26:34 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 03:26:34 -0000 Subject: Choice of James as Head Boy (was Re: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123701 >>Mommystery: >James may have had a potential for leadership, but we'll never know. I think it more likely Dumbledore chose him because he favors Gryffindors. But why not Remus? He was already a Prefect. He must have been hurt to be chosen over someone who wasn't even a Prefect. >I'm sure Severus isn't the only one those two harassed either. They were bullies. That alone should have precluded James from being Head Boy.< Betsy: But you're forgetting that the pensieve memory isn't the end of James' character development. I think that James showed something (leadership, good judgement, bravery) during the much- anticipated "Prank." James was definitely a complete snot in the memory, but he does change, otherwise Lily would never have chosen him. And he would not have been named Head Boy. Betsy From rachel.evans14 at btinternet.com Tue Feb 1 20:18:42 2005 From: rachel.evans14 at btinternet.com (rachel) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 20:18:42 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's dead (short lifeline) In-Reply-To: <98A5A454-741F-11D9-BF14-000A95C61C7C@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123702 Caesian wrote What if Harry, the Boy Who Lived, didn't. This is weird, but bear with me. There has been some speculation as to what happened when the curse 'rebounded', or whatever it did. We wonder what Harry and Voldemort might share as a result. A common technique in logic is to get the listener to agree to the premise without actually considering it. "How did Harry survive?" is asked again and again, and so we wonder. But the question assumes that he did survive. Maybe this is not quite true. I know that death is permanent in the WW, and so technically Harry can't have died. But what if he didn't survive on his own steam. What if Harry and LV now share a common mortality. In other words, Harry actually would have been killed, but because his life became tied to Voldemort's by the 'rebound' (or whatever), when Voldemort was able to resist death, Harry resisted death as well. In that scenario, when Voldemort dies, so does Harry. Or perhaps DD's glint of triumph was not related to Voldemort's defeat, but to an increase in Harry's likelihood of survival... This makes some sense, and has more evidence in canon. OOTP p 415 - 416, when Harry is in Dumbledore study following his vision of Arthur Weasley - Dumbledore uses a strange instrument from which a snake appears, and then divides into a two headed snake '"Naturally, naturally," murmured Dumbledore apparently to himself, still observing the stream o smoke without the slightest sign of surprise. "But in essence divided."' Does this mean that Harry and LV share the same essence? Rachel From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 03:36:12 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 03:36:12 -0000 Subject: The Mauraders' Generation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123703 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "queen_astrofiammante" wrote: My pet theory is that we only know part of the truth about the blood magic that keeps Harry safe at Privet drive. He is in the care of one of three adults virtually the whole time - Petunia, Dumbledore or Molly Weasley and it would not surprise me to find that there is a hidden relationship between these three people. Tonks now: That is an interesting observation. I never really noticed that about one of the 3 of them always being with him or in the same location (house, castle, etc.) In CS it describes Albus when he was a younger man and he has auburn hair. The Weasley's have red hair, and I think Lily had auburn hair too. Maybe there is some link there. But we know that Harry has no other relatives or at least none on his mothers side which is where the blood protect resides. Also since all the old wizarding families are inter-related I have wondered about the Potters, Blacks and Snape families. Wouldn't it be a kicker if Snape turned out to be Harry's uncle or something? Queen said: I wonder if Voldemort is working his way down the Potter bloodline, and whether this is connected the fact he is also killing off all his own known relatives? Tonks now: I have suggested this in the past. LV is the last of the Slytherin line. But there could be another line in the family. There has got to be a reason he went there to kill James and Harry and not Lily. I know, I know the prophesy, but how else do we explain that Lily didn't have to die. LV isn't that nice of a guy. Tonks_op From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 03:37:48 2005 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 03:37:48 -0000 Subject: mendelian genetics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123704 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Alex boyd" wrote: > I don't *think* anyone has posted this yet on the genetics "how do squibs > happen?" thread, but.... > > It's important to remember that complex traits are typically governed by > more than one gene. It's not even clear (to the best of my knowledge) that > eye color (the example usually used in biology textbooks) is governed only > by one gene. So if being a wizard or not is genetically determined (and > maybe it isn't), it's probably determined by lots of genes. And maybe a > person has to have a certain number of W's (to use the notation established > earlier in the thread) to manifest the wizard trait. > > And, given that muggle-born wizards are much more common than Squibs > (according to Ron, anyway), I'd say the Wizard gene (or genes) is probably > dominant. > > Alex Antosha: You know, Celaria (I don't know if she's on HPfGU) pointed out to a few of us that, if the 'W' gene is truly dominant, (and if there is just one gene) then there could be no such thing as Muggle-born magic-users, since, if the gene was present in either parent, the trait would have manifested. Of course, she then wrote a lovely fic that explored just how Hermione's discovery of this very fact blew her family apart. :-) In any case, we theorized that 'W' is a linked gene--like green eyes or red hair. Which would explain why it seems to manifest more strongly in some (ie Harry, Tom Riddle or Dumbledore) than in others (ie, Neville, Umbridge or Sybill Trelawney). From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 03:41:26 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 03:41:26 -0000 Subject: Snape as DE (was: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123705 >>Valky: >Well, Besty, It's very thin... for that reason I like it. The fact that it doesn't mess itself with unseriated outcries of James' & Sirius' intentions and blame means I am naturally inclined to *not* shoot canonballs at it. ;D < Betsy: Hee! Yeah, I recognize there's not really anything to back it up - so I'm not going to go to the wall on it or anything. It's more a sense of structural story-telling arch that it would be cool for the three memories in the pensieve to be, 1. Snape decideds to join the Death Eaters, 2. Snape does and/or witnesses something that turns him off the Death Eaters 3. Snape decideds to join the Order. Though I like the idea that Snape's "you wait" has a deeper threat than simple school-boy revenge behind it. We shall see. :) >>Valky: >Although it's only thinly possible,IMHO I do agree fairly much with the shade of Snape's greyness in it. However, I really hope it doesn't become the full story in canon, mainly because of the inability of it to clear up anything about the black streak in James. I am kind of hoping, since my own ship is sailing in that cove, that the final insight into Snape *will* be part of the balancing into whole colour the greyness of James.< Betsy: I myself am hopeful that the Prank will do a lot to (dare I say it?) *redeem* James. But than I kinda like the black. I like my hero's with a bit of shadow in them. (I kinda liked Harry beating the crap out of Draco too. I'm weird like that.) Betsy From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 04:03:28 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 04:03:28 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty, Working Wizard Women; was Molly & Arthur - was Why I like Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123706 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: > I will take issue with your assertion that she works like house elf. She works like a house elf doing what, exactly? (Snip> I can't imagine that cleaning charms are all that hard to cast, especially after many decades of using them. without all those people underfoot I doubt her house even needs that much cleaning all the time. (Snip) but on the average I doubt she spends all that much time in > mindless household drudgery. > > Magic is cool like that. Tonks now: Maybe it would be an insult to Arthur if she took a job. I think they have old values. Also as someone else mentioned she has more than the house to look after. There is a small farm there. Also most Muggles think that magic is just wave a wand and that is it. Look at Harry when he cast some spells it wipes him out. A witch or wizard put energy into a spell. I think it takes just as much energy to clear the house with magic as it does with a vacuun cleaner, etc. Molly has done more than her share of work and if she doesn't want to become some sort of *modern* witch that can only fullfill herself by working at some job that she would probably hate, then I say that she does not have to!!! Money isn't everything. And as to their old age. Again this is the WW, not the *modern* Muggle world. They has 7 children, the children will take care of them, just like it has always been in the old days. That is why people with no money have lots of kids. Or at least one of the reasons. Their world is not like ours. Tonks_op (who has never had kids because I don't want to work that hard!!) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 04:05:19 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 04:05:19 -0000 Subject: Draco and Lucius (was: Harry and starvation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123707 >>Betsy: >Compare that to Draco who in CoS yelled out, "You're next Mudbloods!" in a fit of excitement in front of professors, no less, (and I believe Dumbledore) after Mrs. Norris was attacked. Not smooth.< >>Pheonixgod: >He was twelve. No boy is the soul of tact at the age of twelve. At fifteen he was smart enough to see where the wind blows and got on the Inquisitorial squad thanks to Umbridge, which was more than HP could claim at the same age.< Betsy: I'm betting Lucius wouldn't have yelled something like that out. Harry certainly knew when to keep his mouth shut at that age (and at eleven too). Plus, Draco still babbling secrets when he's fifteen (the Sirius remark). And I imagine he joined Umbridge's squad because she was so obviously against Harry. (Draco's just a tiny bit obsessed.) And he wasn't very smooth in that squad either. Umbridge didn't seem to trust him anyway. >>Pheonixgod: >Lucius himself is also prone to rashness. Witness his basically spur of the moment decison to use the diary against the Weasleys. I'm sure there were more efficent uses of a magical diary that contained the soul of his lord and master than the torment of a preteen girl.< Betsy: Was that rash? At the beginning of CoS Mr. Weasley has raided his home looking for illegal dark items. By planting the diary on a Weasley child, Lucius set up Mr. Weasley for at least a major embarrassment that could have curtailed his efforts on the raids, or at the most, landed Mr. Weasley (or Ginny) in Azkaban. And the only reason the diary got linked back to Lucius was that his house-elf turned on him. Which I believe is a huge rarity in the WW. (I also wonder if Lucius was really all that thrilled with the idea of Voldemort returning.) >>Pheonixgod: >I think Draco's basic imcompetence will have interesting reprecussions, and I do think that Lucius is displeased with is son but I think that's more about his spoiled petulant nature than anything else. >I personally see parrallels between Lucius and Draco. But Draco is younger, less worldly, and clearly more spoiled than Lucius. At their cores however, I think they are mirror images.< Betsy: Is Draco spoiled? I haven't really seen anything that shows it. Sure, he told Harry in PS/SS that he was going to bully his parents into buying him a broom - but he didn't get one. And in CoS, in the one scene that we see Draco and Lucius interacting together, Lucius refuses to buy Draco anything and lists out his failures in front of the shop keeper. I also note that Draco did not have any friends with him at the Quiddich World Cup. Draco can be petulant, and emotional, but I'm not sure that he's actually spoiled. Betsy, who really hopes we see more of Draco in the next book. From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 04:23:05 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 04:23:05 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: <20050201234014.91059.qmail@web61201.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123708 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Pyros Wife wrote: > > Tayla: > > Does anyone ever remember where that nasty rumor about Snape > wanting the position of DADA? Think about this one kiddies. > PERCY! Now, we know his acuracy when it comes to personality > traits, but where was it ever said, other than Percy that Snape > wanted the position? I cannot come up with anything on this one, > and I am going through the books AGAIN! Besides, if DD didn't > trust Snape with DADA, then why would he have allowed him to > substitute in PoA repeatedly? I have to say that I would rather > chance things with Snape than have someone like toadlady in the > school again. The DADA position possibilities are obviously > thinning out anyway. There is the interview quote we've been mentioning over and over again: "However, when Professor Dumbledore took Professor Snape onto the staff and Professor Snape said he'd like to teach Defence Against the Dark Arts please and Professor Dumbledore felt that it might bring out the worst in Professor Snape, so Dumbledore said: "I think we'll let you teach potions and see how you get along there." You also, in your complete survey of the books, seem to have missed OotP chapter 17: "You applied first for the DADA post, I believe?" Professor Umbridge asked Snape. "Yes," said Snape quietly. "But you were unsucessful?" Snape's lip curled. "Obviously." ... "And you have applied regularly for the DADA post since you first joined the school, I believe?" "Yes," said Snape quietly, barely moving his lips. He looked very angry. (end quote) Weren't *we* all surprised when Percy's rumor turned out to have legs to it. So it's worth keeping all those things in mind. I didn't take it seriously until OotP. But I also didn't take the idea that Snape might have been genuinely annoyed at the loss of the Order of Merlin until OotP, either. -Nora goes to sleepyland From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 04:28:20 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 04:28:20 -0000 Subject: Harry's dead (short lifeline) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123709 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rachel" wrote: > Dumbledore uses a strange instrument from which a snake appears, and then divides into a two headed snake '"Naturally, naturally," murmured Dumbledore apparently to himself, still observing the stream o smoke without the slightest sign of surprise. "But in > essence divided."' > > Does this mean that Harry and LV share the same essence? > Tonks here: I think it means that they share some part.. *mind* I would guess. But their soul is the essence and at that level they are still 2 seperate people. I would also say that they can never be merged at that level because they are so different. The evil in LV could never become one with the Love in Harry. And this may have something to do with how the series will end. But I am not sure how. Tonks_op From alex51324 at hotmail.com Wed Feb 2 05:11:27 2005 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 05:11:27 -0000 Subject: mendelian genetics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123710 > Antosha: > > You know, Celaria (I don't know if she's on HPfGU) pointed out to a few of us that, if the 'W' > gene is truly dominant, (and if there is just one gene) then there could be no such thing as > Muggle-born magic-users, since, if the gene was present in either parent, the trait would > have manifested. D'oh! Yeah, you're right--and the fic sounds good, I'll have to look for it. What I perhaps should have said--given that the main point of my post was that magic probably wasn't governed by a single gene--is that it takes more M genes to cancel out a W gene than it takes W genes to cancel out an M. or something like that. I'm thinking of how having 6 digits is a dominant trait--if your parents have it, you're almost always going to have it (in cats, and I'm pretty sure in humans too)--but it can also somehow be hidden in the phenotype for a while but still exist in the genotype, so it can skip generations without spontaneous mutation to recreate it every time. I'm not sure how the actual mechanism works, but it does work, with the 6-finger trait, so it's plausible that magic could be the same way. Alex, who really knows far less about genetics than I should if I'm going to weigh in on this thread From jwright at amdocs.com Wed Feb 2 04:53:11 2005 From: jwright at amdocs.com (pitaprh) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 04:53:11 -0000 Subject: Book 6 Chapter 1 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123711 On JK's web site she posted the following a long time ago (Extra Stuff - Coffee cup - Edits section). Probably something worth pondering now that the book is in our near future. "The Opening Chapter of Book Six. I have come close to using a chapter very like this in 'Philosopher's Stone' (it was one of the discarded first chapters), 'Prisoner of Azkaban' and 'Order of the Phoenix' but here, finally, it works, so it's staying. And that's all I'm going to say, but when you read it, just know that it's been about thirteen years in the brewing." What kind of chapter is this - A flash back? The books all start with Harry at the Dursleys'. This one must not??? Any ideas? Jodi From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 06:10:24 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 06:10:24 -0000 Subject: The Mauraders' Generation -- no parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123712 Carol earlier: > > While we're at it, why not add Snape to the list? (I know, I know! His dad was a DE killed by the aurors and his mother's in St. Mungo's in the closed ward, having been partially turned into a dog by her evil husband. Well, that's my half-baked theory, anyway.) > > LisaMarie: > Oh, yes, I forgot to list dear Severus, didn't I? How horrible of me; and I call myself a Snape-lover! Hmph! > > Your theory is interesting; I never thought of Sevie's dad as a DE; I figured he was just another Dark wizard, rather like the Black family. I'd like to know where the dog bit came from! :) Carol responds: Well, of course I was only half-serious in my post, but the dog-faced woman is Agnes, whom HRH see briefly, along with Bode, Alice Longbottom, and Lockhart in the closed ward of St. Mungo's. The Healer tells Agnes that her son will be visiting her that evening (it's Christmas). Someone on this list came up with the idea that the son is Snape, who shows up at 12 GP to tell Harry about Occlumency soon afterwards. Turns out that the timeframe isn't exactly right--it's well after Christmas when Snape arrives at GP in his traveling cloak--but a week's time difference doesn't eliminate the possibility that he could also have been visiting his, erm, ailing mother at Christmas (an uncomfortable secret for Sevvie to be hiding and one he wouldn't want his students to know about, I'm sure--not the visit per se, but his mother's condition). It just seems odd that JKR would have mentioned Agnes the dog-faced woman and her son if they weren't going to reappear in the story--one of the little hints she likes to drop, like Hagrid borrowing the flying motorcycle from "young Sirius Black." An Snape is a perfect candidate for an adult son whose parents we know little about. As for Snape's father being a DE and responsible for his mother's condition, that's wild speculation bordering on fanfic on my part, with no basis in canon beyond the raging father and crying mother in Snape's memory. Carol, wondering whether the little crying Severus in the memory loved his mother and guessing that he did Carol From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Wed Feb 2 06:16:49 2005 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 06:16:49 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty, Working Wizard Women; was Molly & Arthur - was Why I like G In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123713 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" > wrote: > IMO, Molly has absolutely no excuse to not work when all of her > children are gone for so long out of the year. She has the time to > work if she wanted to. I honestly don't know why she doesn't since > she clearly doesn't like being poor any more than Ron does. I am a single mother who has always been working in a male dominated profession (software engineering), yet I find this comment condescending and insulting. Equal rights and opportunities mean first and foremost the right to make choices on what is best for you and for your family, without regard to what the social elite of the time thinks. Once women were expected not to work and society frowned on those who did, today it seems that too many have gone the same sanctimonious path in the other direction and frown on those who have made, together with their spouse, a decision on what is best for their family as a whole. Molly has spent 20+ grueling years raising seven kids on a single small income of her husband's, educating them at home moreover (I find weekends with my two rather exhausting - can't imagine doing it fulltime with seven...). By all accounts she has done a magnificent job on both housekeeping and child rearing. When her last child went to Hogwarts she finally could take it easier - maybe focus on home maintenance and upkeep chores she has had to put aside, perhaps pick up a hobby. At close to 50 years old and 20+ years out of the workforce she would face the same long odds that muggle women do under similar circumstances. What jobs are there in the wizarding world? The only ones we have seen that pay a salary are ministry and teaching jobs or newspaper reporter and the like. She has no qualifications for any of those. Anything else are enterpreneurial (sp?) positions (run a cafe, sell or make wands, sew robes, etc. - all incidentally require upfront investment to start which she does not have). Well, she could start a mail order selling cookies out of her home I suppose - this will sure be a runaway success... :-) In the last year she took care of the OoP (whose active members all seem to be unemployed or retiries). Much more important to society than whatever else she could have done to earn a little money. So barring 2-3 years of well deserved rest (rather less chores), she has been working very hard her entire adult life. As for Arthur getting a better job - clearly he is very commited to do a good job at the ministry and has been blocked from promotion by the bias of the establishment (as Molly says at the end of GoF after Fudge storms out of the hospital wing). If he loves what he does, excells in it and feels that without him the status of the people he is responsible for (muggles) will be compromised significantly, then all I can say is that he is a much better person than those of us who choose a job mostly based on how much it pays. Salit From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 06:43:11 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 06:43:11 -0000 Subject: Severus and the DADA exam (Was: James, a paragon of virtue? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123714 Carol earlier: > > Severus, in contrast, clearly *knows* DADA in detail and clearly cares about what he knows. Severus clearly wants to *master* the subject, possibly to use it in his career, possibly because the subject itself is important to him. > > Just because a student studies doesn't mean he or she isn't > > naturally bright. Look at Hermione. > > > > Snape quite possibly has the same sort of retentive memory as > > Hermione, which enables him to write more than the question probably calls for in response to the DADA OWL. > > > SSSusan: > I think there's a WHOLE lotta assumin' goin' on here. How do know > all this stuff about Severus Snape -- that he clearly *cares* about > what he knows, that he's not interested in getting a high mark just > for a high mark's sake but because he wants to *master* the subject? > How do we know he's not studying hard and trying to do well because > he wants to impress or please his potential boss, Lord Voldemort? > > How do we know that his writing a long response on his DADA OWL exam > means he has a strong, retentive memory? I DO think the man is very > bright and skilled, at least as we see him as an adult, but surely > there are other possibilities than what you've stated that this scene shows? How 'bout he's struggled to come up with a response, has had lots of fits & starts or moments of "writer's block," and so he's > rushing to complete the essay at the end? How do we know he's not a > master bullshitter? I mean, *I* know all about that skill -- I got > by on quite a few exams through a combination of quick comprehension > of material and a good, strong ability to bullshit my way through an > essay. And guess what? I was often one of the last ones to turn in > my exams. > > I just don't see how you know all this stuff about Severus, sorry. Carol responds: He's not stopping and crossing out words. He's writing quickly in a minuscule hand trying to get everything he has to say onto the page. The implication is that he knows the subject and the words are just coming out of him. Afterwards he studies the questions as if trying to be sure that he remembered everything. That in itself is evidence that he cares about the subject, or at least about the results of the exam. And I didn't say that I *know* all this. Note the repeated use of "possibly." As always, it's my interpretation of the evidence--in response to other people's interpretations that I disagree with, especially the idea that a student who studies (like Severus or Remus or Hermione) is less bright than one who doesn't (like James or Sirius). (Not that James and Sirius aren't also bright, especially James, who may well have settled and started studying before he was awarded with the position of Head Boy and therefore deserved it, not as a reward for his natural intelligence but for the uses to which he had put it. But at the time of this scene, James doesn't seem to care one way or another about the DADA exam, the only one we see him take. He doodles Lily's initials on his exam sheet when he's done, jokes about the werewolf question, and plays with a snitch afterward. Severus *does* care. He studies the exam questions, undoubtedly going over his own answers in his mind, to the point of being oblivious to everything else.) Maybe Severus *does* want to get a position with Lord Voldemort to make use of his interest in and knowledge of the Dark Arts, as you suggest. I don't know his motivation. But it's clear to me, at least, that he not only cares about this exam but that he knows his stuff. And I'm willing to bet every knut in my possession that he got an O on that exam (and probably in Potions, too, but that's not part of the wager). Carol, who is not trying to denigrate James, only to argue that Severus did know DADA From snow15145 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 06:55:14 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 06:55:14 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123715 There are some, even Pippin the originator of the ESE Lupin theory (having read her first post, post # 39362, on the idea), that didn't/don't want to admit for many reasons that Lupin could be evil but you have to put your feelings aside if you are to find the answer. Scrimmaging around in the archives as I often do (sticks tongue out at Yahoomort), I found a bit of what I think is evidence that Pippin is quite right in her theory about Lupin even if none of us would like to admit it. I came across a post; first post actually, from a poster N Fry post #39298, who posed a few critical canon-based proposals: "The above theory works if you assume that he has to drink the potion just once on the night of the full moon. But in PoA ch. 18, Lupin tells the trio, "As long as I take it *in the week proceeding the full moon*, I keep my mind when I transform..." Earlier (in ch. 8), when Snape drops the goblet of potion off at Lupin's office, he informs Lupin that he made an entire cauldronful if he needs more. Lupin replies that he should probably drink some more the next day." If Lupin keeps his mind as long as he has taken his potion the week preceding the full moon, why did he attack Sirius after the Shrieking Shack episode? Did Lupin forget to take the potion for the entire week before the full moon? This potion sounds like any drug that needs to be taken consistently to have the full effect but if one dose is missed it doesn't nullify its total effect. So was Lupin in a sound or semi-sound mind even after he transformed? Who notified those dementors, again? Very interesting, at least I thought so. Pippin defiantly has canon cannons to question, "Where his loyalties lie". Snow From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Wed Feb 2 06:59:37 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 06:59:37 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character Discussion: Voldemort - further explanation Message-ID: <20050202065937.15029.qmail@web25102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123716 Before I continue I want to make a point of clarification and provide some background thoughts about the Voldemort-Harry-Sirius situation. I want to repeat that my aim in this series is to show you that Jo is writing an allegory of what I call the Path of Alchemical Liberation. From comments in the group and privately I see that some people think I'm trying to persuade people to accept the Path of Liberation as true. That is NOT so. What I AM saying is the JO believes in this Path, and my aim is to prove that. I am presenting the teachings of the Path to you to the best of my ability and giving you the opportunity to compare Harry Potter and the Path. When Geoff says he rejects the Path of Liberation utterly this proves he's missed the point. It's not a matter of accepting or rejecting the Path. It's a matter of us discovering together what is the arch-matrix on which Jo is basing her story. People who really want to know that, will consider any theory which shows a remarkable number of coincidences, even if they don't believe in the basic principles which form the arch-matrix. Just to make this really clear: say I discover a totally unknown book from the 18th century. This book holds all sorts of crazy theories about martians landing and secretly setting up a magic world with a secret coach station, underground headquarters, communication by owls, etc. Now OK none of us may believe this theory, but if I could prove that everything in Harry Potter has its parallels in this book, surely you'd want to know about it? Then you'd say, "Aha! So that's where Jo gets it all!" Now of course it is pretty obvious that I personally am going the Path of Alchemical Liberation. That is obviously the reason why I know so much about it. You wouldn't want to hear it from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. But I repeat: I am NOT trying to persuade people of the truth of the Path, except that it exists, and that Jo and I both believe in it. In any case, the absolute basic requirement of the Path is that unless one fervently, even desperately, yearns for liberation one cannot even take the first step. James has to woo and marry Lily first! Now for some background information before I post message "Sirius (2)". You need to have a good visual image of a human microcosm. To give you this visual picture, the microcosm is spherical in shape. Imagine yourself standing in a glass sphere, several metres in diameter. I'm not too good on remembering figures. Anyway it extends beyond your body quite a bit. The very centre of the sphere is in your heart. If you are a seeker we may presume it is radiating a certain amount of weak force into your astral body, making you seek. That centre is not spirit, but was created BY the spirit. That's why it's called a spirit-spark. It contains the plan or conception of the perfect, only begotten son. This spirit-spark has no connection with the higher self at all. Only in seekers does this spark send weak signals to the lower self. In millions of people this spark is totally dormant and so has no connection with the person in whose heart it's situated. The higher self is situated all around you at a slight distance from your body, and right up to the shell of the microcosm, usually called the "ring". In the ring of the microcosm there are numerous magnetic concentrations. Imagine them as lights shining inwards at you. They can be roughly divided into twelve groups and as they look like stars in the sky they could be called your microcosmic zodiac. These "stars" send magnetic lines of force into your head and heart. As these lines are full of light and movement they resemble flames dancing around your head. Each star is an astral concentration of force that causes you to experience an astral sensation, i.e. an emotion or desire. You're interested in literature? OK there's a bright star which stimulates you to read. You used to collect butterflies but have lost interest? Well then, there's a little star fading away into oblivion. While you are alive in the physical world, you can and do change your microcosmic zodiac. When you die your physical body drops away, but your etheric, astral and mental bodies go on. After a while your etheric body also drops away, followed by your astral and mental bodies. The threefold consciousness is left over, which then also dissipates. The higher self, however, stays just as it is, and some time later it adopts a foetus. It connects itself to the foetus and this new person will be just like the previous one, except that he will be influenced by the blood of his ancestors and by his new environment. As he has a new brain he obviously won't be able to remember the previous life. However the higher self also concentrates a tremendous power centre into the spine, as I said in a previous post, and this is connected to the subconscious mind. It is therefore possible to "remember" previous lives by going deep into the subconscious mind. The higher self is personified by Voldemort or Lucifer, as I have stated in my theory. Please remember that the higher self is not a person but an astral concentration of forces which we have accumulated during hundreds of lives. Astral concentrations have the property of developing consciousness. In fact the magical world of Harry Potter is very much like how the astral world really is. There, talking pictures or walking suits of armour are nothing special. Such a consciousness is not like ours, though. I can only describe it as automatic. If we think about something very intensely and for a long time, and we connect it with emotions, and desire it strongly, our brain will create a thought form. This looks like a little cloud of light, and its most striking characteristic is its eyes, which are focused on our eyes. Such a thought form has a very strong urge to survive and it will fix its little eyes on us, to hypnotise us as it were to make us feed it. And we feed it by thinking about the original subject. If this is a particular fear of something happening, or a depressing thought, or the idea of suicide, such a thought form can merge from obsession into possession, and can end in horrendous suffering, as we all know. Voldemort, our higher self, is the sum total of all our thoughts, actions, desires and feelings. One of his manifestations is the figure of a human being, huge and fiery. Stories of Satan and hellfire refer to this. However I emphasise again that Voldemort/Lucifer is not evil in essence. He is the sum total of all our lives and he is evil to the extent that we have done evil in the past, and good to the extent we've been good. And in the present we and our higher self are in perfect harmony until we go the path of liberation. Perhaps some of you can remember being obsessed by some thought that wouldn't leave you. I'm talking about something very powerful that doesn't normally occur. Something fanatical or causing extreme emotions for a long time. If you haven't had this you may have heard how political extremists or religious terrorists feel. Their thought form has become so strong they are possessed by it. The thought form is extremely dynamic and demands all their attention and energy. It doesn't give a damn about its enslaved human being; all it wants is more food, i.e. thoughts and emotions. It can quite easily lead to the death of the slave, as in terrorism. This thought form has a consciousness, but it extends only to ways to get more food. It doesn't reason in any way, its consciousness is "automatic" in the sense of just wanting more for itself. Well our higher self could be compared to this in some ways. It just wants to prompt us to feed it, and in return we get the satisfaction of pursuing our desires etc. Not that we have any choice. Everything we call our character is the result of what our higher self has poured into us. That's what I mean by "projection". Although our lives may be very noble and spiritual, they are still what the higher self has projected into us. And the whole higher self, of every single human being in this fallen universe, is outside the divine plan. And anything that exists outside of the divine plan is called "sin". Seen in this light, sin takes on a totally different meaning. We live in the universe of sin. This is not shocking; it just explains why things are always going wrong, why there are terrorists killing people right now, why there are always wars and diseases and natural disasters. This whole universe is a vast prison where the divine plan does not operate. That is, until Harry is born. As soon as the inner Rose or Lily or Lotus opens up, an astral force of a MUCH HIGHER VIBRATION that the higher self can master, enters our microcosm. This force is inimical to the higher self, because it's like a fire that burns the higher self. It cannot control it; it's outside of its jurisdiction so to speak. This is why Voldemort hates Harry. Harry personifies a new force in the microcosm that will burn up the higher self. If you can imagine how powerful one single thought form can be, just imagine all the thoughts and desires you've had over hundreds of incarnations, all bundled up into one mighty concentration that will fight to the death to preserve itself. That's Voldemort/Lucifer. From the point of view of the divine plan Voldemort is "evil", because he is the sum total of all our actions in the past millennia that have been outside of the divine plan. I personally prefer the word "erroneous". Opposite to everything in our universe is the Spirit. The Spirit is the omnipresent "mind" (I can't think of a better word) of God. It is the opposite of matter. It is everywhere at once and has absolutely no restrictions whatsoever. It's imperceptible and totally unlike anything we can perceive. It's what Lao Tzu calls "Tao". If you can see it, it's not spirit. If you can feel it, it's not spirit. If it's had a beginning it's not spirit. I guess only negatives can describe it, which doesn't help a lot. But I want to tell you something wonderful and miraculous and marvellous: Harry can perceive the Spirit. Why? Because the Spirit created Harry, the new soul. Harry is the "spark" of the Spirit. Harry's glorious future, when all his tribulations are finished, is to be reunited with the spirit. Whenever he wants to, Harry will be able to raise himself up into the Plane of the Spirit and open himself up to it. And the Spirit will enter him, and he will know the ultimate, total, utter Truth. He will know his purpose, and he will enter into the absolute, mind-blowing, blissfully ecstatic Peace that surpasses all understanding. That is what Jo Rowling is telling us with her consciousness that reaches beyond what we can imagine. And that is our future if we allow Harry to be born in us. Thanks Jo! To get back to the microcosm: the microcosm has seven planes. Remember my original visual picture: imagine the microcosm again as a glass sphere, but this time imagine seven spheres, one inside the other. Stretch your imagination beyond its limits and imagine that these spheres are all the same size. Each glass sphere is the same size, and takes up the same space. Impossible? Well imagine that each sphere is made of a different type of glass that vibrates at a different rate, and can interpenetrate with the other spheres. Imagine that you're in the glass sphere and by taking a lift you can go to another sphere. Only the lift doesn't physically go upwards, but increases in vibration rate, so you're actually within the same location. What I'm saying is that different spheres of life can exist in the same location without touching each other. Each of these spheres in turn has seven planes of density: physical, etheric, astral, mental, and the three levels of consciousness. The ultimate aim of the human being is to become conscious in all these 49 planes at once. The path to liberation is not part of the divine plan. It's the way to get BACK to the divine plan. The "sinful" creation (don't take that the wrong way) has to be replaced by the new lower self (Harry) and the new higher self (Sirius). This is what's meant by, "He who gives up his life for my sake shall keep it." The path of liberation leads to the SIXTH sphere, out of the seventh. This is all very cryptic, but please be patient, I will explain everything to the best of my ability in my future posts. The lower self has seven vehicles: physical, etheric, astral, mental, and the three planes of consciousness. As far as I know the higher self is purely astral. And it's immortal. That's why Voldemort is said to be immortal. He cannot be killed... except by Harry. He has the power to vanquish the dark lord. The spirit withdrew from the microcosm during the fall. That's why things gradually got worse. Once the spirit leaves you, you're in the dark. Really liberation could be summed up as the re-entry of the spirit into the microcosm. The thought-spark of the spirit began to stop glowing during the fall. The lily withdrew into its petals. The soul became mortal then. In my next post we'll get back to Sirius, but I feel it wouldn't have made sense unless I'd given you this background information. ===== Hans Andra see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://www.harrypotterforseekers.com/ Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Feb 2 07:47:43 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:47:43 -0000 Subject: Sirius' motorbike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123717 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: Steve/bboyminn > I'm still desperately hoping that at some point Harry finds it and > uses it. That would be almost as cool as receiving a Firebolt. Of > course, there is the small matter of Harry not having a muggle > driver's license. I'm pretty sure you aren't able to get one until you > are 17 in the UK, and then you must pass a written test, a driver's > education course, and take a driving test. All of which cost > substantially more money in the UK than they do in the USA. > > If Harry get's pulled over by the police, he can probably 'enchant' > his way out of it, but what if he get busted by a traffic camera? That > could be a problem trying to explain that. Geoff: Yes, but we /are/ talking about a magic flying motorbike. Whether HArry would have an opportunity to use that in the world of UK driving licences and traffic lights is open to question. I have a mental picture of him being flagged down by a wizard on a Firebolt with a flashing blue light clamped to the bristles. :-) Geoff Enjoy views of Exmoor National Park and see the steam locomotives of the West Somerset Railway. Visit http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From drednort at alphalink.com.au Wed Feb 2 08:32:42 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:32:42 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42012ADA.23264.12516E0@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 123718 On 1 Feb 2005 at 13:34, nkafkafi wrote: > Neri adds: > Perhaps this was mentioned upthread and I missed it, but at least in > regard to James, we have a very strong independent corroboration that > he was the brightest student of his year: DD chose him, not Severus, > to be Head Boy. At least in RL British schools this is an honor based > mainly on academic excellence (see Shaun Hately's article) and I don't > know any reason to think Hogwarts is different in this regard. Ah, not so. The office of Head Boy and Head Girl have often in real life schools required a reasonable level of academic achievement, but they actually tend to be based on multiple factors, not single ones. They tend to be 'all rounder' types - those who are good at a lot of things, though perhaps not the *best* at any one of those things. What the article says is that *with specific regards to Hogwarts* there does seem to be some link between academic achievement (academics in terms of the Wizarding World) and becoming Head Boy or Head Girl, but that is not the same as saying that this is an honour based mainly on academic excellence. To quote from the article: "The offices seem to be associated with a considerable level of magic power and academic achievement - at least relative to the age of the pupils. Of the five students identified in the books as having held these offices, two - James Potter and Lily Potter nee Evans - are described by Rubeus Hagrid as among the best wizards he ever knew (Rowling, 1997, p.45); Bill Weasley holds a responsible position as a curse breaker at Gringotts (Rowling, 1999, p.12) and is successful enough that he can apparently ignore the conventions of normal wizarding dress (Rowling, 2000, p.59). Percy Weasley moves directly from school into what appears to be a fairly senior entry level position at the Ministry of Magic (Rowling, 2000, p.53) and, like his eldest brother Bill, does unusually well in his exams (Rowling, 1998, p.40). Tom Riddle, of course, went onto become Lord Voldemort (Rowling, 1998, p.242). So it seems that at Hogwarts, the qualities wanted most for these offices is a reasonable level of power and academic achievement, coupled with the fact that they must be someone the Headmaster is willing to entrust with the safety of their fellow students. Historically, it is probably this last factor - that of trust - that is most relevant in the public schools appointments of their school captains. These students, whatever their title, are expected to be trustworthy enough to act for the benefit of their fellow students. Their level of power and responsibility has often been far more than many people would expect to be entrusted to a mere student (Lambert, 1968, p.154)." I've seen the idea that it is primarily academics that determines who the Head Boy and Head Girl are mentioned a few times over the yearson the list, and actually part of the reason I wrote the article was because I felt that was actually a misunderstanding. At many schools academics are one fairly important consideration in the selection of such pupils, and there is some evidence for thinking this may be the case at Hogwarts - but there's a difference between something being one important factor and considering it to be the main factor. In actual fact, if there is a single main factor, I think it is that these syudents are *trusted*. 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 justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 08:36:15 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 08:36:15 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Lily run? (Was: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123719 Ces wrote:> > I get the impression that Voldemort just walked in and AK'd James - > that he never got the chance to fight. Couldn't Lily have flooed > somewhere with Harry? It just seems to me that there weren't enough > precautions taken. Carol responds: As Valky points out in another post in this thread, Voldemort himself says that James put up a courageous fight. She quotes SS/PS. I had thought there was a similar comment in the graveyard scene in GoF along the lines of, "Your father fought bravely, but your mother didn't have to die." This quote has led to speculation that Voldemort was actually willing, or even intending, to spare Lily. I don't see it that way; I think he just wanted her to get out of the way, and since she was unarmed, unlike James, he had no reason to fight her. That aside, however, I think there was a very good reason that Lily didn't "take Harry and run," as James shouted to her to do before his fatal fight with LV. She knew that she had to die, that she had to sacrifice herself to save Harry. As I've argued elsewhere, I don't think that the sacrifice was all that was involved; I think she anticipated the encounter with LV and placed a protective charm on Harry that would be activated by her death. She had to die first or it wouldn't work. Other posters have argued that by killing her, LV "signed" a "binding magical contract" to trade her life for Harry's that he violated by killing Harry, and that Lily knew this would happen. Either way, she couldn't run or the "ancient magic" wouldn't work. Her only option was to protect Harry and be sure that Voldemort killed her first. I also think that she arrived at this desperate measure, possibly in conjunction with Dumbledore, as a last-ditch protection for Harry in case the Fidelius Charm failed. She may also have known that she couldn't apparate with a baby and that Floo powder wouldn't work even if sh had time to use it--Voldemort would hear her call out her destination and follow her. It might have been better if DD had porvided her with a portkey, but he didn't. So she did the only thing she could. She stayed to defend Harry, not by fighting Voldemort but by giving him no choice but to murder her--unarmed and defenseless--a willing sacrifice and not a fight. Carol, who hopes someone else will find that quote, which I could have sworn was in GoF From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 08:42:57 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 08:42:57 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty - In Perspective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123720 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jocelyn Grunow wrote: > > For example, the Weasleys' poverty is often discussed, but why are > they poor? Because Arthur's job doesn't pay well. Why doesn't he > get a better paying job? ...edited... I certainly don't want to > suggest he should move to a job he hated, but he has 6 children to > support & establish - isn't this a very selfish decision? > > ...edited.. > > Jocelyn bboyminn: I'm not sure where to jump into this thread, but I guess this is as good a place as any. First, there is a parallel thread going on about Harry/James wealth, and whether or not James was rich, and what I say here applies as much to James's wealth as it does to Weasley's alledged poverty. When regarding rich or poor, the true measure is not absolute, rather it is relative and subjective. Researchers found that nearly everybody considers themselves Middle Class regardless of how much money they make. The $50,000 a year factory worker considers himself Middle Class, just as the $2,000,000 a year executive considers himself Middle Class. For most people, the poor are the people who make significantly less than you, and the rich are the people who make significantly more than you. So, let's look at just how poor the Weasleys really are. They managed to keep 7 kids healthy and well fed. They managed to keep them in servicable clothes. True the kids may not have had all new clothes and may not have had the latest fashions, but they had perfectly servicable clothing. They were not wandering the streets in rags in the dead of winter, nor, given the fine feasts we've seen Molly lay out, were any of her kids going hungry. In addition, Mr Weasley owns a farm, which must, based on the description, contain several acres of land. I estimate about 10 acres at least. Anyone who has grown up on a farm will tell you, that it generally makes for healthy independant hard-working kids and strong families. You can also attest to the fact that it's entirely possible to have a good life, that includes not a lot of money, and a lot of hard work. You certainly grow up with a stronger set of ethics and sense of appreciation when compared to a lot of pampered city kids. The Weasleys are involved parents, who provide a structured environment, there are rules and standards of conduct in the household, and there are certainly actions and consequences that instill a consistent impression of right and wrong on the kids. In addition, they are certainly a loving family. Also, they are an expressive family; none of the Weasleys seems afraid to speak their minds. All of these are good things, all of these things that I have mention are the things that you look for in a healthy functional family. So, are they richer or poorer than some kid who lives in a suburban wasteland filled with nothing but houses and strip malls? A kid who has the latest fashions, but little or no rules, order, structure, or supervision? A kid who spends most of his time alone because his parents are too busy working? Having a rich father. as Draco does, is not the same as having a rich family life. The Weasleys certainly seem to live that rich family life; they are outgoing, confident, intelligent, and certainly will make productive, innovative, self-determined adults. So, on the question of poverty, is it better to have rich parents, or parents who give you a rich life even if it isn't a wealthy one? The Weasleys are not POOR poor, they are simply on the low end of the economic scale. In my area, we would call them 'working class'. And trust me, here in the heartland, there are alot of kids who grow up 'working class' and manager to get by just fine. The Weasleys do not have a lot of spare money, but they are far from poor, in the general and in the truest sense, and regardless of what Ron says. As far as Molly not working, she lives on a farm and raised 7 kids, she certainly has been working. Now that most of the kids are gone, she and Arthur can now have a well deserved break. In addition, now that most of the kids are working, the Weasleys probably do have a reasonable amount of money, so at this time, there isn't a strong need for Molly to work. Also, as has already been mentioned by others, just when the kids are finally all out of the house, Voldemort comes back and Molly and Arthur are involved in the Order. I'm sure protecting the wizard world from the Darkest Dark Wizard in a Century is a little higher priority than some extra cash. My point... the Weasley are no poorer than many many millions of other working people living in the UK. They have no luxuries, but on the other hand, aren't really lacking for anything either. You hear it here first. Steve/bboyminn From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Wed Feb 2 10:17:36 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Brenda) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 10:17:36 -0000 Subject: Jo's Squib error? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123721 Luckdragon: On Jo's website under "Miscellaneous" she states that Arabella Figg never saw the dementors that went after Harry and Dudley in the alleyway in Little Whinging, however; at Harry's trial Mrs. Figg says she saw the dementors gliding towards the boys and goes on to describe them. Is Mrs. Figg lying or has Jo made another (Colin Creevey Camera) error? From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Wed Feb 2 10:21:35 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 10:21:35 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Lily run? (Was: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123722 > > I also think that she arrived at this desperate measure, possibly in > conjunction with Dumbledore, as a last-ditch protection for Harry in > case the Fidelius Charm failed. I completely agree with you on this point. I am sure that this 'last resort' is the brainchild of Albus Dumbledore. The question I wonder about is whether DD thought that the counter charm used by Lily would end up killing LV. In this way, the prophecy would have been fulfilled i.e. Harry would have vanquished LV. The power the 'Dark Lord knows not' would have been Lily's love. It seems very likely to me that since LV was suprised that he cheated death (the scene in GOF where he cannot even say what had actually saved his life), then DD would have not been expecting LV to survive. Perhaps this incident taught DD that he cannot 'manipulate' the prophecy and will have to let events take their own course. Brothergib (who still knows we haven't heard the full prophecy - far too many 'ands' in one sentence!!) From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Wed Feb 2 10:27:41 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 10:27:41 -0000 Subject: Harrymort - again Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123723 In OOTP, in the scene where LV possesses Harry, LV calls out to DD. 'If death is nothing Dumbledore, kill the boy' Harry, who is clearly in excrutiating pain, says something along the lines of - Yes, kill us. Since LV referred to Harry in the singular when talking to DD, why did Harry refer to himself in the plural (presumably himself + LV). We know that LV can survive the death of a host - Professor Quirrel's demise in PS/SS. Does this suggest that Harry now realises (perhaps subconsciously) that he is completely linked with LV? Brothergib From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Wed Feb 2 10:34:32 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 10:34:32 -0000 Subject: Book 6 Chapter 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123724 > > What kind of chapter is this - A flash back? The books all start > with Harry at the Dursleys'. This one must not??? > Any ideas? > > Jodi I think it has to be some kind of mental link with LV. Whether it is a direct communication between HP and LV, I don't know. Or perhaps Harry finally gets a glimpse of what happened at Godric's Hollow through LV. This would certainly seem to work as an opening to both PS/SS or OOTP. In PS/SS, we could have started with grown up Harry having some kind of nightmare about his parents directly from LV's head. This ties in to LV getting stronger with the help of Quirrel. In OOTP, LV is reborn and the book focuses heavily on the increasing link between Harry and LV - so why not start with a Godric's Hollow flashback. Brothergib From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Wed Feb 2 12:03:56 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 07:03:56 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Jo's Squib error? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200502020704118.SM01332@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 123725 > Luckdragon: > On Jo's website under "Miscellaneous" she states that > Arabella Figg never saw the dementors that went after Harry > and Dudley in the alleyway in Little Whinging, however; at > Harry's trial Mrs. Figg says she saw the dementors gliding > towards the boys and goes on to describe them. Is Mrs. Figg > lying or has Jo made another (Colin Creevey Camera) error? Vivamus: Mrs. Figg was lying. Here is the quote: 'A Squib, eh?' said Fudge, eyeing her closely. 'We'll be checking that. You'll leave details of your parentage with my assistant Weasley. Incidentally, can Squibs see Dementors?' he added, looking left and right along the bench. 'Yes, we can!' said Mrs Figg indignantly. Fudge looked back down at her, his eyebrows raised. 'Very well,' he said aloofly. 'What is your story?' 'I had gone out to buy cat food from the corner shop at the end of Wisteria Walk, around about nine o'clock, on the evening of the second of August,' gabbled Mrs Figg at once, as though she had learned what she was saying by heart, 'when I heard a disturbance down the alleyway between Magnolia Crescent and Wisteria Walk. On approaching the mouth of the alleyway I saw Dementors running -' 'Running?' said Madam Bones sharply. 'Dementors don't run, they glide.' That's what 1 meant to say,' said Mrs Figg quickly, patches of pink appearing in her withered cheeks. 'Gliding along the alley towards what looked like two boys.' 'What did they look like?' said Madam Bones, narrowing her eyes so that the edge of the monocle disappeared into her flesh. 'Well, one was very large and the other one rather skinny -' 'No, no,' said Madam Bones impatiently. 'The Dementors. describe them.' 'Oh,1 said Mrs Figg, the pink flush creeping up her neck now. They were big. Big and wearing cloaks.' Harry felt a horrible sinking in the pit of his stomach. Whatever Mrs Figg might say, it sounded to him as though the most she had ever seen was a picture of a Dementor, and a picture could never convey the truth of what these beings were like: the eerie way they moved, hovering inches over the ground; or the rotting smell of them; or that terrible rattling noise they made as they sucked on the surrounding air. In the second row, a dumpy wizard with a large black moustache leaned close to whisper in the ear of his neighbour, a frizzy-haired witch. She smirked and nodded. 'Big and wearing cloaks,' repeated Madam Bones coolly, while Fudge snorted derisively. 'I see. Anything else?' 'Yes,' said Mrs Figg. 'I felt them. Everything went cold, and this was a very warm summer's night, mark you. And I felt. as though all happiness had gone from the world. and I remembered. dreadful things.' Her voice shook and died. Madam Bones's eyes widened slightly. Harry could see red marks under her eyebrow where the monocle had dug into it. 'What did the Dementors do?' she asked, and Harry felt a rush of hope. They went for the boys,' said Mrs Figg, her voice stronger and more confident now, the pink flush ebbing away from her face. 'One of them had fallen. The other was backing away, trying to repel the Dementor. That was Harry. He tried twice and produced only silver vapour. On the third attempt, he produced a Patronus, which charged down the first Dementor and then, with his encouragement, chased the second one away from his cousin. And that that is what happened,' Mrs Figg finished, somewhat lamely. Madam Bones looked down at Mrs Figg in silence. Fudge was not looking at her at all, but fidgeting with his papers. Finally, he raised his eyes and said, rather aggressively, That's what you saw, is it?' That is what happened,' Mrs Figg repeated. 'Very well,' said Fudge. 'You may go.' Vivamus: I read her testimony as her lying, but having been coached by DD. If you read carefully what she says, she first says that squibs can see dementors, then that she saw the dementors running -- which Harry thought was a dead giveaway that she hadn't really seen them, because they glide, not run -- but then describes what happened without referring to herself. She did accurately describe the attempts to drive the dementors off, as well as the feelings produced by dementors. When Fudge asks her directly if that is what she saw, she doesn't answer his question, instead saying "That is what happened." I take this to mean that she saw Harry and Dudley and what they did, but not the dementors, although she felt them. DD would have questioned her about it, and figured out what the dementors were doing, and coached her on it. While some may think it unethical to lie, someone has just tried to have Harry (the only hope for the WW) soul-sucked, and Fudge is trying to throw Harry into Azkaban, where it probably will happen to him. If the presence of dementors is not established in the court, DD might not be able to protect Harry. I think DD is absolutely right to coach Mrs. Figg to lie in those circumstances. Vivamus (an act deontologist [but his cat Snickersqueak is a pure hedonist]) From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Feb 2 13:04:54 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:04:54 -0000 Subject: Severus and the DADA exam (Was: James, a paragon of virtue? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123726 > > SSSusan: I think there's a WHOLE lotta assumin' goin' on here. How do know all this stuff about Severus Snape -- that he clearly *cares* about what he knows, that he's not interested in getting a high mark just for a high mark's sake but because he wants to *master* the subject? > Carol responds: > The implication is that he knows the subject and the words are just > coming out of him. Afterwards he studies the questions as if trying to be sure that he remembered everything. That in itself is evidence that he cares about the subject, or at least about the results of the exam. snip ...at the time of this scene, James doesn't seem to care one way or another about the DADA exam, the only one we see him take. Potioncat: There was a saying in the Navy, "Rank among Ensigns is like virtue among prostitutes." (quote cleaned a bit) That quote comes to mind in this discussion about James and Severus. All we really know, from this one memory, is that they take tests differently. Knowing from canon that James was one of the brightest students, it isn't surprising that the completed the test, felt confident about it, and doodled for the remainder of the time. We know from canon that the adult Snape is very competent and skilled. We see that Severus, wrote everything he knew, then went over the test afterwards (as we've been told several times in canon, Hermione does) It doesn't tell one that one is brighter, or that one is less serious about the test. I can make a leap (of course I might crash) and say that James knew the information and felt somewhat cocky about it, which to me is very Gryffindor-like. While Severus, who also knew the information, was driven by ambition to be successful, used every moment and every word at his disposal which is very Slytherin. JMHO Potioncat From elsyee_h at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 13:12:56 2005 From: elsyee_h at yahoo.com (Tammy) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:12:56 -0000 Subject: Choice of James as Head Boy (was Re: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123727 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > >>Mommystery: > >James may have had a potential for leadership, but we'll never know. > I think it more likely Dumbledore chose him because he favors > Gryffindors. But why not Remus? He was already a Prefect. He must > have been hurt to be chosen over someone who wasn't even a Prefect. > > >I'm sure Severus isn't the only one those two harassed either. They > were bullies. That alone should have precluded James from being Head > Boy.< > > Betsy: > But you're forgetting that the pensieve memory isn't the end of > James' character development. I think that James showed something > (leadership, good judgement, bravery) during the much- > anticipated "Prank." James was definitely a complete snot in the > memory, but he does change, otherwise Lily would never have chosen > him. And he would not have been named Head Boy. > Tammy: I agree that perhaps there is more coming regarding James' character. But he'd have to have been virtually a saint in my book in order to rate him being named Head Boy. I'd just as much expect either Fred or George to be named Head Boy (or co-Head Boys) as have James as Head Boy. Then again, it all depends on what Dumbledore looks for in naming a Head Boy and Girl. Is it popularity? If that's true, how on earth did Percy make Head Boy? We simply don't have enough canon to even make a judgement on this, as we know only a few of the Head Boys and Girls. However, I think that Dumbledore is extremely biased towards the Gryffindors. This arguement has been made before on this group, so I don't think it needs to be made again. He's not a saint, he's simply a wizard - complete with flaws and unconcious bias. From elsyee_h at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 13:37:03 2005 From: elsyee_h at yahoo.com (Tammy) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:37:03 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Lily run? (Was: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123728 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Ces wrote:> > > I get the impression that Voldemort just walked in and AK'd James - > > that he never got the chance to fight. Couldn't Lily have flooed > > somewhere with Harry? It just seems to me that there weren't enough > > precautions taken. > > > Carol responds: > As Valky points out in another post in this thread, Voldemort himself > says that James put up a courageous fight. She quotes SS/PS. I had > thought there was a similar comment in the graveyard scene in GoF > along the lines of, "Your father fought bravely, but your mother > didn't have to die." This quote has led to speculation that Voldemort > was actually willing, or even intending, to spare Lily. I don't see it > that way; I think he just wanted her to get out of the way, and since > she was unarmed, unlike James, he had no reason to fight her. > > Carol, who hopes someone else will find that quote, which I could have > sworn was in GoF Tammy: The only quote like you described that I could find was this one from PS/SS, the same one Valky quoted: "I killed your father first, and he put up a courageous fight... but your mother needn't have died... she was trying to protect you..." I think that adequately illustrates your point. I agree that Lily may have known something about the ancient magic that would protect Harry through her sacrifice, otherwise why not just take Harry and run? Why stay and die, leaving your child alone and defenseless? Voldemort seems to be saying that he wouldn't have harmed her, but what mother would have walked away from her child? From ms-tamany at rcn.com Wed Feb 2 13:52:02 2005 From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 08:52:02 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Jo's Squib error? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <420094B2.5435.1AC2863@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 123729 On 2 Feb 2005 at 10:17, Brenda wrote: > > Luckdragon: > On Jo's website under "Miscellaneous" she states that Arabella Figg > never saw the dementors that went after Harry and Dudley in the > alleyway in Little Whinging, however; at Harry's trial Mrs. Figg says > she saw the dementors gliding towards the boys and goes on to > describe them. Is Mrs. Figg lying or has Jo made another (Colin > Creevey Camera) error? Squibs *can't* see dementors. But squibs can *FEEL* dementors, just like a wizard can, ever so much more than a muggle can, and squibs can certainly be coached before an illegal trial in how to describe what dementors look like when they're chasing their prey! };-> Whaaaaat? Doesn't anyone else here think that maybe Dumbledore instructed Mrs. Figg in what a dementor attack would LOOK like? *** Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at rcn.com Want to back-up your expensive DVDs? Check out DVD Wizard Pro: http://www.dvdwizardpro.com/idevaffiliate/idevaffiliate.php?id=398 Want to earn a Sony Vaio for only $5? Check out EZ Laptop: http://www.ezlaptop.com/index.php?ref=8574 From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 14:26:18 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 14:26:18 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123730 > Snow wrote: > > If Lupin keeps his mind as long as he has taken his potion the week > preceding the full moon, why did he attack Sirius after the Shrieking > Shack episode? Did Lupin forget to take the potion for the entire > week before the full moon? This potion sounds like any drug that > needs to be taken consistently to have the full effect but if one > dose is missed it doesn't nullify its total effect. So was Lupin in a > sound or semi-sound mind even after he transformed? Who notified > those dementors, again? Neri: Your suspicion seems to imply that a prime target of ESE!Lupin is Sirius. If so, why didn't ESE!Lupin simply went to DD (or even better, straight to the Ministry) in the beginning of the PoA year and told them that Black is a dog animagus? The ministry and the dementors would have then done Lupin's dirty work for him. If ESE!Lupin doesn't want to admit to DD that as a boy he betrayed his trust, he can hide from DD the marauders story, and tell him that Black became an animagus after he had left Hogwarts. Who's to tell DD otherwise? Neri From cat_kind at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 14:31:36 2005 From: cat_kind at yahoo.com (cat_kind) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 14:31:36 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty, Working Wizard Women; was Molly & Arthur - was Why I like G In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123731 > Tonks: (snip) > Molly has done more than her share of work and if she doesn't want > to become some sort of *modern* witch that can only fullfill herself > by working at some job that she would probably hate, then I say that > she does not have to!!! Money isn't everything. And as to their old > age. Again this is the WW, not the *modern* Muggle world. They has 7 > children, the children will take care of them, just like it has > always been in the old days. That is why people with no money have > lots of kids. Or at least one of the reasons. Their world is not > like ours. catkind: What an interesting discussion. (As usual) I find points to agree with on both sides. What does disturb me is that a lot of people seem to turn this into a "women vs men" issue, or "feminists vs traditionalists". Why should anyone, male or female, be obliged to work for money if they can live without and choose not to? Of course, if Arthur were unhappy about the division of labour in his marriage, it would be a different question. Has anyone seen any signs of this? And why shouldn't one partner in a marriage be the assertive one? Perhaps that is the way their relationship works, Arthur goes out and works hard at the ministry, and it is Molly's job to discipline the children. If that suits them, why not? Why should there be some prescribed way that Healthy Relationships Must Be, either with equal footing for all or with one partner being the boss or whatever? Again and of course, if Molly resented having to do all the discipline, or Arthur resented being treated like a little boy on occasion, then sure, it's time they did some talking. Again, I see no evidence that they are anything but happy as they are. And Molly doesn't just boss Arthur around, she bosses everyone around, which to me suggests that that's simply the way her personality is. Are we going to condemn assertive people across the board? Or only if they happen to be full-time housewives as well? The idea that Molly should somehow be obliged to go out to work because her children are away at school I find very disturbing. Of course, a lot of full time parents would find that after their children are at school they have some time on their hands and would like to get out there and meet people and do something for themselves. And yes, they might enjoy having that bit more money in the family. On the other hand, starting a new career after such a long break is hard work, and some people might want to take some time to relax, or involve themselves with voluntary work first. Indeed, Molly is doing precisely the latter with her work for the Order. There also seems to be an idea hanging around that it is the kids' right to have more money in the family or something. Um, why? I mean, if they weren't fed and clothed then maybe. But I don't see that they have a right to the latest broomstick or regular exotic holidays or even regular new /new/ clothes. The Weasleys seem to have decided that there are things more important than having new gear all the time. For example, when they win money in a lottery they splash almost all of it on a big family holiday. If they wanted to live a wealthier lifestyle, if they (Molly and Arthur) actually resented being poor, wouldn't they have kept that money for day-to-day things? Okay, once or twice they are worried about immediate expenses, for example schoolbooks in CoS, but that seems to me to be more bookkeeping worries than a real unhappiness with their financial situation. Sure, the kids sometimes resent this choice of their parents'. Children hate being different, and are bound to be a bit jealous if their friends have more nice things than them. Sometimes, though, kids don't know what's best for them. By all the evidence, they're growing up healthy, doing great in school, and ending up in good careers. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that people have *duties* imposed from on high, whether to work or to bring up children or to obey their spouses or whatever. I certainly detest the idea that said duties should depend on whether you are male or female. IMO, you pays your money (or in this case, puts in your hours) and you takes your choice. catkind ps Having written that, I see Salit makes a similar point rather better in post #123713. I'll post anyway, I hope I'm at least making the point in a different way. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 14:45:18 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 14:45:18 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: <42012ADA.23264.12516E0@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123732 Shaun Hately wrote: > > The office of Head Boy and Head Girl have often in real life > schools required a reasonable level of academic achievement, but > they actually tend to be based on multiple factors, not single > ones. They tend to be 'all rounder' types - those who are good at a > lot of things, though perhaps not the *best* at any one of those > things. > Apologies for misinterpreting you. So I guess this leaves me with the Marauder's Map, McGonagall's "exceedingly bright" and DD's "extraordinary achievement" as canon for James' academic excellence, and we have to think about additional reasons why DD appointed him Head Boy. Neri From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Feb 2 15:05:32 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 15:05:32 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123733 > Neri: > Your suspicion seems to imply that a prime target of ESE!Lupin is Sirius. If so, why didn't ESE!Lupin simply went to DD (or even better, straight to the Ministry) in the beginning of the PoA year and told them that Black is a dog animagus? The ministry and the dementors would have then done Lupin's dirty work for him. > > If ESE!Lupin doesn't want to admit to DD that as a boy he betrayed his trust, he can hide from DD the marauders story, and tell him that Black became an animagus after he had left Hogwarts. Who's to tell DD otherwise? > Pippin: Animagi are supposed to be rare, which makes the whole thing sound only slightly less fantastic than Sirius disguising himself as a potted plant. In order to be taken, er, seriously, Lupin would have had to explain how he knew and why he had waited twelve years to mention it. Much simpler to call the Dementors on Sirius himself. Pippin From hhbarmaid at gmail.com Wed Feb 2 15:23:15 2005 From: hhbarmaid at gmail.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 15:23:15 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty, Working Wizard Women; was Molly & Arthur - was Why I like G In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123734 phoenixgod2000 wrote: IMO, Molly has absolutely no excuse to not work when all of her children are gone for so long out of the year. She has the time to work if she wanted to. I honestly don't know why she doesn't since she clearly doesn't like being poor any more than Ron does. Then Salit wrote: I am a single mother who has always been working in a male dominated profession (software engineering), yet I find this comment condescending and insulting. Equal rights and opportunities mean first and foremost the right to make choices on what is best for you and for your family, without regard to what the social elite of the time thinks. Once women were expected not to work and society frowned on those who did, today it seems that too many have gone the same sanctimonious path in the other direction and frown on those who have made, together with their spouse, a decision on what is best for their family as a whole. As for Arthur getting a better job - clearly he is very commited to do a good job at the ministry and has been blocked from promotion by the bias of the establishment (as Molly says at the end of GoF after Fudge storms out of the hospital wing). If he loves what he does, excells in it and feels that without him the status of the people he is responsible for (muggles) will be compromised significantly, then all I can say is that he is a much better person than those of us who choose a job mostly based on how much it pays. Salit Now The Barmaid: This thread had a lot of branches and it is hard to figure out where to jump in. So here goes. There seem to be two main topics entwined here: class and gender Class: There seems to be an assumption in some posts on this topic that everyone has some sort of moral obligation to make as much money as they possibly can. The Weasleys make enough to cover the basics and take a nice trip now and then. Unlike, oh say, the Malfoys, they do have to make some choices about how to spend their limited resources. Sometimes they make choices I would make, sometimes not. But there is nothing innately morally right or wrong about them choosing to visit their son in Egypt and at the same time buying used books or hand down cloths among their kids. From Ron's perspective (and Draco's) they are poor and he does not get everything he wants because of that. But frankly Ron is benefiting from many of those choices and from the rich family life the Weasleys have built. It is likely that he will appreciate the non-material wealth of his family as he matures. (Or I should say it would be likely were he an actual person and not a character in a book, which, by the way, he is, they are ? not real) Gender: I do not really get why people paint JKR's WW as having old fashioned ideas about gender. I do not see this in canon at all. There have been women Headmistresses of Hogwarts and women Ministers of Magic. There are an equal number of women and men teachers at Hogwarts. Quidditch is amazing and unparalled in our world ? a sport where men and women play together and excel equally. We see examples of women that work outside the home and own businesses and women that work inside the home. What is very important to remember is that we have seen _very few_ examples of domestic life in the WW. We just do not know much about how most WW families really work. Given what we do see of public life it seems safe to assume that there is a mix of family arrangements. I am sure that if Molly decided to get a job outside the home (or not) there would be no social stigma assigned to either her or Arthur. The Malfoys hate the Weasleys and we do not know the whole story there. It seems to me that it is connected to political and philosophical issues, things like Muggle Relations and tolerance of Dark Arts. Draco and his father know that one way they can belittle their _political_ enemies is to present the class differences as a moral failing on the part of the Weasley family. I would humbly suggest that we should not follow this example. -- Just a Humble Barmaid no accumulated wealth here. From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 15:25:34 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 15:25:34 -0000 Subject: Severus and the DADA exam /James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123735 > Potioncat: > All we really know, from this one memory, is that they take tests > differently. Knowing from canon that James was one of the brightest > students, it isn't surprising that the completed the test, felt > confident about it, and doodled for the remainder of the time. We > know from canon that the adult Snape is very competent and skilled. Finwitch: I agree - as I myself feel that a test done well usually takes me least amount time to do - Of one I even got full score, it took me 5 minutes to do, but we were still compelled to stay for 15 minutes... Now lets see, the others -- "Did you like question ten, Moony?" Remus goes out about his name etc. and Wormtail complains about how 'difficult' it was... and knowing what came of him, was Wormtail faking the stupidity or mean something other than Sirius figured with the 'difficult'? Dunno if Remus *really* wrote to his test all that 'his name is Remus Lupin... I am a werewolf' - business or was he just joking with Sirius... So Severus... he was into Dark Arts, as Sirius told Harry long since... Hmm.. Was he reading his exam for the grades' sake or just reading question ten over and over, because it had nagged to him about something? You know... I was thinking about something about James. Harry has one memory of his OWN about his father and mother. That memory shows what came of them, willing to heroically die for him. Remus&Sirius could probably show Harry some memories of their own - like the decision to become animagi, how they helped Wormtail to learn it... something nice, that is. I mean-- how about James' reaction to Sirius' family-thing as inviting Sirius to his place for the Summer (sometime after that OWL?) Something about James as a father (Sirius was probably there). But all in all, after how Tom Riddle can show memories - memories that made Harry doubt Hagrid, well... I wouldn't put too much trust on that single memory on how James was. In fact, I like to put more weight on Harry's memory - that 'It's him! Lily! Take Harry and go! I will hold him back!' - not just because it's Harry's - but because well, that was what became of them. Snape had joined Death Eaters(he DOES have the mark), while Sirius Black (against the pov of his family, too), James Potter and Lily Evans fought back. Besides, what was the thing about Snape knowing so many curses before he came to Hogwarts (acc. Sirius)? Or the matter about James/Severus being very much like Harry/Draco(acc. Dumbledore)? Finwitch From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 11:51:14 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 11:51:14 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123736 snow15145 wrote: > Did Lupin forget to take the potion for the entire > week before the full moon? This potion sounds like any drug that > needs to be taken consistently to have the full effect but if one > dose is missed it doesn't nullify its total effect. northsouth17: Unless it really needs to be takes *every* night that week, perhaps especially the night of the transformation. As far as I understood it, Lupin did not so much forget to take the potion, as ran off to the shack before Snape had shown up with it. He's just putting the blame squarely on himself, rather than going "Well, *Snape* hadn't shown up yet". northsouth17 From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 11:20:14 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 11:20:14 -0000 Subject: Why doesn't Snape get DADA? (Was Re: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123737 Ces: > And if Snape brought his high standards from Potions to DADA, just > think how skilled the students would be. > northsouth17: I don't think Snape is a terrible person or anything, but I do think he's a dreadful teacher. I don't know that we've been shown how well he really passes along his subject material, and I think some students are probably far too stressed out in his classes to be any good. (Not to mention, he's a terrible teacher-figure - mean, nasty, openly and shamelessly biased and unfair, downright abusive. I can forgive Snape any amount of nasty comments and behaviour - so long as it's not directed at students. "I see no differece" made me like a Snape a *lot* less.) And I think Snape's weaknesses as a teacher would stand out far more in a subject like DADA, which seems to have a lot more student-teacher interaction. That said, Dumbledore seems to give his teachers very free reign as to how they teach their classes, (Hagrid, Trelawny, Lockhart), so I do think it's do with Snape-as-Snape, rather than Snape-as-teacher. northsouth17 From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Feb 2 15:41:16 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 15:41:16 -0000 Subject: Severus and the DADA exam /James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123738 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > So Severus... he was into Dark Arts, as Sirius told Harry long > since... > > Hmm.. Was he reading his exam for the grades' sake or just reading > question ten over and over, because it had nagged to him about > something? > Valky: I have to say, finwitch, I have had a sneaking suspicion of this all along. Being asked to name several ways to spot a werewolf has a definite possibility of becoming a catalyst in Young Severus realising he *knows* a werewolf, after all that's exactly the way Hermione did it, and in an assignment SET by Snape, no less. A while ago, I posted that the Duelling club scene where Snape *embarrasses* Lockhart with the expelliarmus spell has a strangely familiar resonance with the pensieve scene. Again, with this, Snape sets an essay asking the *same question* that was on his OWL DADA exam, with, Remus posits, the intention of calling the familiarity of the list to a students mind. We've been looking at seriation a lot in this debate and to be quite honest I am definitely beginning to believe that we are seeing a series of Snape drawing on his life experiences with the Marauders as an adult. So I am just about banking you are right on this one. From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 15:42:41 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 15:42:41 -0000 Subject: Choice of James as Head Boy (was Re: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123739 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tammy" wrote: > > However, I think that Dumbledore is extremely biased towards the > Gryffindors. This arguement has been made before on this group, so I > don't think it needs to be made again. He's not a saint, he's simply a > wizard - complete with flaws and unconcious bias. Finwitch: Well, if Dumbledore values bravery (as his awards in points show that he does - look how Harry got a 60 for pure nerve and courage; 50 to Hermione for 'cool logic in a hot situation'; 50 for Ron considering the 'best chess game' -- the game including a self- sacrifice; Neville 10 for the courage of standing up to his friends) and Chivalry (help the weak/manners?) well - those values DO happen to be what gets you sorted into Gryffindor! However, I see Dumbledore appreciating loyalty and kindness as well. These are Hufflepuff values. What comes to Ravenclaw, well-- I don't know how much Albus appreciates their values, but I'd guess that not-entirely-sure-if-he- can-read Aberforth certainly doesn't. Slytherin well... ambition? Resourcefulness? certain disregard for rules? ready to do ANYTHING for your goal? Don't see Albus Dumbledore (or Aberforth) appreciating these values at all. So I'd say AD isn't biased per se - it's just that his values happen to agree with Gryffindor and Hufflepuff. Don't forget that the Sorting Hat considers your *VALUES* when it decides which house you'll be put. (And the author happens to value bravery, so there. Gryff good.) Finwitch From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Feb 2 15:42:53 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 15:42:53 -0000 Subject: Severus and the DADA exam /James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123740 > Finwitch: > > I agree - as I myself feel that a test done well usually takes me > least amount time to do - Of one I even got full score, it took me 5 > minutes to do, but we were still compelled to stay for 15 minutes... Potioncat: Just in case I didn't make my point clear, I don't think the speed involved revealed how well either knew the material, or how much either cared about the material, but rather different ways of taking a test. > Finwitch: > Now lets see, the others -- "Did you like question ten, Moony?" > Remus goes out about his name etc. and Wormtail complains about > how 'difficult' it was... and knowing what came of him, was Wormtail > faking the stupidity or mean something other than Sirius figured > with the 'difficult'? > > Dunno if Remus *really* wrote to his test all that 'his name is > Remus Lupin... I am a werewolf' - business or was he just joking > with Sirius... > > So Severus... he was into Dark Arts, as Sirius told Harry long > since... > > Hmm.. Was he reading his exam for the grades' sake or just reading > question ten over and over, because it had nagged to him about > something? Potioncat: This jarred my thoughts. (As I'm sure you intended.) Did James initially want to distract Severus from re-reading a test that might cause him to put two-and-two together about Remus? Of course, it doesn't excuse what happens next. And that jarred my thoughts again. It's the same sort of tactic that the adult Snape uses. From mail at chartfield.net Wed Feb 2 12:39:07 2005 From: mail at chartfield.net (queen_astrofiammante) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 12:39:07 -0000 Subject: The Mauraders' Generation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123741 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > In CS it describes Albus when he was a younger man and he has auburn hair. The Weasley's have red hair, and I think Lily had auburn hair too. Maybe there is some link there. AstroF says: Hello Tonks, and thanks for your reply. You've hit the nail on the head - the auburn hair is my exactly my reason for thinking this (I didn't want to make this post even longer by spelling it all out). Have you noticed that we never get an unambigous physical description of Molly Weasley? I would put money on her having auburn hair too - Lily and Dumbledore are the only other people ever described with it, all the others are 'vivid red' or 'Weasley red'. Like Steve Vander Ark on The Lexicon, I think the Weasley red hair is a massive distraction from the *important* redheads in this story (forgive me, Weasleyfans! ;- )) Tonks said: > But we know that Harry has no other relatives or at least none on > his mothers side which is where the blood protect resides. AF says: Yes, I agree. This is a seemingly insurmountable obstacle. But we also know very well that what we know is not the full story, and that there is something about Petunia's background yet to be explained which will reveal how she has more knowledge than is usual among Muggles about the wizarding world. So much space have been devoted on this board to working out how the Evans family could be both muggle and wizarding - not least to try to justify Mark Evans - and everyone has their own theories. Which leads me neatly on to... Tonks said: > Also since all the old wizarding families are inter-related I have > wondered about the Potters, Blacks and Snape families. Wouldn't it > be a kicker if Snape turned out to be Harry's uncle or something? AF says: I am afraid that I am a great believer in Perseus Evans, so all my attempts to solve the problem above have focused on trying to relate Muggle-born Lily and at-least-halfblood Snape. I have to own up and say I have never managed to find a completely convincing way of doing it. It makes no sense to me for Harry to be anything other than a halfblood - otherwise all sorts of things like the balance of the Trio, and the books' big themes, go out of the window I did read a great theory somewhere that suggested Snape as an illegitimate Black that had enjoyed none of the advantages/wealth/prestige that Sirius had - thus the hatred, resentment and a degree of physical resemblance between them. I feel very convinced by the idea of a blood relationship between James and Sirius. On the plus side, references in the books to them being 'like brothers', a degree of physical resemblance again (how many characters seem to have black hair...), Sirius being made Harry's godfather and Mr and Mrs Potter Sr's willingness to take Sirius in when he left home. Also the fact it would be reasonably easy to graft a line onto the Black family tree - perhaps an aunt of Sirius' married a Mr Potter and those two are James' parents? On the minus side, Harry has seen at least a version of the Black family tree - would his eye not have been drawn to the word 'Potter'? And we are told again and again that Petunia is his only living relative. My mind keeps coming back to that confrontation in OotP between Sirius and Molly Weasley, when they are arguing about who cares most about Harry. The subtext to me is that these are two people who are his blood relatives - on the Potter and Evans sides respectively. I realise that doesn't fit with what we know - that Harry has no blood relatives. But in a world where people are so closely interrelated, how can that actually be true? As usual, we have part of the story, but not the whole story, and we can't really guess what the whole story is on the information we currently have. I'll sign off with one last wild theory - It wouldn't surprise me at all to find the anonymous witch that gave birth to Tom Riddle represented on the Black family tree somewhere, as well. From noesumeragi at yahoo.es Wed Feb 2 13:22:59 2005 From: noesumeragi at yahoo.es (noesumeragi) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:22:59 -0000 Subject: Why doesn't Snape get DADA? (Was Re: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123742 "Ces" wrote: > I think there has to be some very important skills in Potions or else > anyone could do it. And I do think he has some outside > certification. Most of the professors have been there for years, the > DADA position being the exception. The reason (in my view) for that > is because JKR needs that position empty every year to introduce an > important character. (snipped) Noe here: Well, the DADA position is the exception *only* since Harry's first year in Hogwarts. Before, it's assumed Quirrell had hold the DADA position for more than a year. (Indeed, I've checked the hp-Lexicon, and there is an interesting essay by Melissa Erin Friedline, explaining why PS/SS could be Quirrell's fourth year) It's only after Harry arrived at Hogwarts (And Voldemort started again his little plots) that the DADA position seems to be jinxed (to JKR's great pleasure). I do not think you need a "certification" to teach, or Lockhart would had never been hired. He has only his supposed merits and deeds to offer. I believe it's Dumbledore who decides, and part of the problem might be that Dumbledore is looking for someone trustworthy (see Lupin and Moody), not that is *sooooo* difficult to find someone who knows DADA. And then, in Ootp, Dumbledore is heavily discredited by the ministry, and "strange" things happened at Hogwarts at the end of TW tournament. So, not the best moment for starting to work there. >"nrenka" wrote: > Potions Master' itself is probably more likely referring to > > the institutional position than to any outside certification or > > especial skills. I myself doubt that it is Snape's special > > irreplacable Potions skills that keep Dumbledore from letting him > > have DADA. (snniped) "Ces" again: Lupin's telling Harry that the Wolfsbane potion > isn't easy to make does tell a lot about Snape's skills. If anyone > could do it he could buy it at Diagon Alley. > > And if Snape brought his high standards from Potions to DADA, just > think how skilled the students would be. (snipped) Noe again: actually, I think you need a different set of skills if you want to teach DADA or Potions, and Dumbledore is aware of *that*. Both positions need knowledgeable teachers and and both are risky, but in a different way. Teaching Potions, you need to be very strict and attentive if you don't want your class blowing up. Snape's *general* way of teaching (not his personal behavior around Harry) is good enough, IMHO. But in DADA, you are treating with your students' fear. (I'm thinking about the kind of a DADA class which Lupin or even Moody taught) How would Snape teach the boggart lesson? I'm sure he would have pushed Neville (or any student, really) in front of the boggart after reading the lesson and expected him/her to do it right, or snapping bits of advice. Getting over the lesson might be almost traumatic for some students. Snape would destroy their autoesteem, and if you don't feel sure making a potion, you don't make it and buy it instead, but if there is a dark wizard in front of you and you don't feel sure... well, you can easily deduce what happens. From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 13:28:53 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 05:28:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050202132853.2746.qmail@web31108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123743 N Fry (in post#39298): > The above theory works if you assume that he has to drink the potion just once on the night of the full moon. But in PoA ch. 18, Lupin tells the trio, "As long as I take it *in the week proceeding the full moon*, I keep my mind when I transform..." Arynn: I always interprited that quote as meaning he had to take the potion every day in the week proceding the full moon. It might be like birth control pills, missing even one dose can increase risk of pregnancy. (Oddly enough the menstral cycle is tied to the moon as well.) --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) From mail at chartfield.net Wed Feb 2 13:35:47 2005 From: mail at chartfield.net (queen_astrofiammante) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:35:47 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory (not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123744 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: > There are some, even Pippin the originator of the ESE Lupin theory > (having read her first post, post # 39362, on the idea), that > didn't/don't want to admit for many reasons that Lupin could be evil > but you have to put your feelings aside if you are to find the > answer. Scrimmaging around in the archives as I often do (sticks > tongue out at Yahoomort), I found a bit of what I think is evidence > that Pippin is quite right in her theory about Lupin even if none of > us would like to admit it. AstroF writes: It's a great theory, enormous fun to read and hats off to Pippin for digging up so much compelling evidence! I've not had such a good time since reading the arguments for ESE!McGonagall, and I'm certainly prepared to concede there are many ambiguities about Lupin's character. But here, quoted from the FAQs of JKR's website is the one thing that makes it impossible for me to believe: "Who is your favourite character? I love Harry, Hermione, Ron, Hagrid, Dumbledore, Ginny, Fred, George and Lupin. I love writing (though would not necessarily want to meet) Snape." I don't think EverSoEvil!Lupin would appear on that list - especially given the way Snape is qualified. Although I'm sure legions of believers in ESE!Hermione, ESE!Ron, ESE!Twins and, naturally, ESE!Dumbledore will descend to contradict me... ; -)) From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 13:33:56 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 05:33:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Jo's Squib error? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050202133357.59204.qmail@web31103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123745 Luckdragon: > On Jo's website under "Miscellaneous" she states that Arabella Figg never saw the dementors that went after Harry and Dudley in the alleyway in Little Whinging, however; at Harry's trial Mrs. Figg says she saw the dementors gliding towards the boys and goes on to describe them. Is Mrs. Figg lying or has Jo made another (Colin Creevey Camera) error? Arynn: I think Figgy was lying. That's why her description of them was not very visual (She said they were "big and wearing cloaks" and "running" toward Harry and Dudders), but feeling-based. Dumbledore said muggles can feel them and not see them. Squibs are similar. Harry mentions that her description sounded like she had merely seen a picture of them. --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) From cat_kind at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 15:57:58 2005 From: cat_kind at yahoo.com (cat_kind) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 15:57:58 -0000 Subject: Character Discussion: Voldemort - further explanation In-Reply-To: <20050202065937.15029.qmail@web25102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123746 Hans Andr?a: > In my next post we'll get back to Sirius, but I feel it wouldn't have made > sense unless I'd given you this background information. catkind: Makes no sense to me already. I won't quote Hans' entire post, which is rather long, but will try to summarise. Pseudo-science and imagery aside, Hans' point seems to be that Voldemort represents what you call the "higher self", which is a kind of accumulation of one's character and experiences across a series of reincarnations, is more or less immortal and is not in itself evil. Harry represents something created by what you call the "spirit", which seems to be more or less a/the god. Coming from a higher plane (my terminology), he has to learn stuff to get back up to that higher plane, and is then able to destroy the higher self. (If this is an unfair summary, I would challenge you, Hans, to write your own.) In what way does this tie in with the Harry Potter books except in that Harry will presumably defeat Voldemort? For a start, Rowling has said that Voldemort IS in himself evil. And if Rowling believes in this theory and has based her books on it, why should she deny it? Wouldn't that be dishonest? catkind From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Feb 2 16:04:29 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 16:04:29 -0000 Subject: Harry as Job, Snape as the Satan Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123747 I've had reason lately, to wander about among the old posts. Sometimes it's hard to tell them from the current ones. The same old arguments that fill the screen today, filled screens years ago with the same lack of resolution. But I came upon a post (38508) with a very interesting slant, and at that, one I haven't seen before. Following the thread back led me to a copyrighted essay in the HPfGU files written before Order of the Phoenix. Don't be put off by the Hermione type title. It's a thought provoking, readable essay and it may generate some new discussions. It addresses some of the same issues that I've seen on the list lately, "How could DD allow this to happen?" "Why did Snape do that?" The Conundrum of Justice and the Divine Adversary: Literary Parallels between Harry Potter and the Book of Job By Porphyria, 2002. I'll attempt a link to the essay, but in case it doesn't work, go the side bar on your left and click "files." Scroll down to "Essays" and open that file. Go down about 13 entries to "job.html" and open it. Here is an attempted link: http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/8OoAQtL0Urfh-iVI- QrxMEAOs_rt3FLXPULm_o6m8zSfbzbRrnZSk4GzOQbHPSf4bnhbVe79abd8PykIVwC1PK FyWovU9zs/Essays/job.html The essay gives some background about the story of Job and also about the Hebrew view of the Satan as portrayed in the Book of Job. We aren't talking about the devil here, not really. Part I looks at Harry as being very Job like. He is innocent, yet he suffers. Dumbledore, the benevolent God-like figure, seems to look the other way. Harry's friends and neighbors (fellow students) sometimes reject him or certainly question him. Personally I like this idea, better than Harry as a Christ figure. A Job-figure has to stay loyal, a Christ-figure implies a certain type of sacrifice. Part II looks at Snape as being in the Satan role. Satan's role is test Job, and to act as Prosecutor or Accuser. Now, that's a role Snape could enjoy! He also is charged with roaming the earth. (Roaming Hogwarts?) Thinking of Snape as the Accuser actually explains much of his behavior in the books. Here is a sample of Porphyria's text about the Satan: "The Christian sense of "Satan" as the supreme agent of Evil, the fallen angel who rebelled against God, did not come into use until hundreds of years after the Book of Job was written.6 In her book An Adversary in Heaven Peggy L. Day explains that the Hebrew word "satan" is best translated as "adversary" or "accuser" and that this often has the strictly forensic sense of a prosecuting attorney or the opponent in a legal case.7 snip . In the Book of Job, the character called "the satan" is a member of the divine council, meaning he is an angel, and a perfectly loyal one at that. Snip In the Book of Job, God specifically seeks out the satan from among his divine council and questions him. For a character with few lines, the satan exerts a sardonic and eloquent presence in the text." That sounds just like our beloved Snape! Well, what do you think? Would anyone like to discuss the literary parallels of Job to the Harry Potter series? The essay was written before Order of the Phoenix came out. Potioncat From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 16:04:40 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 16:04:40 -0000 Subject: Jo's Squib error? In-Reply-To: <200502020704118.SM01332@devbox> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123748 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Vivamus" wrote: > When Fudge asks her directly if that is what she saw, she doesn't answer his question, instead saying "That is what happened." I take this to mean that she saw Harry and Dudley and what they did, but not the dementors, although she felt them. DD would have questioned her about it, and figured out what the dementors were doing, and coached her on it. > Tonks here: I don't think that DD coached her, or if he did he didn't tell her to lie. DD has a thing about lying, he doesn't believe in doing it himself so I don't think that he would ask her to. I think she rehearsed it like many of us would in a situation like that. We would go over and over again in our mind what we would say. And she was embarrased about being a Squib and on her own came up with a bit of a lie. Course, she was under oath and that was not good, but she was trying to help Harry so one could understand why she would do it. It was good that she said "that is what happened" instead of "that is what I saw". Because if she had said the second then her whole testimony would probably have been thrown out. Tonks_op From va32h at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 14:02:21 2005 From: va32h at yahoo.com (va32h) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 14:02:21 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty - In Perspective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123749 I wonder if this subject isn't being a bit over-thought. Harry's being rich is a plot device. How else is an orphaned child whose caretakers despise him going to pay for his unusual schooling? Well, conveniently, he has inherited a bunch of wizard gold from his parents. Ron's poverty is another plot device. First, it sets up a surce of conflict between him and Harry that runs throughout the book. Second, it sets up a conflict between Draco and Ron (and by association Harry). Many times, the "poverty" of Ron's character is essential to the story. Ron can't afford a new wand when his is broken, so he has to use his faulty one, which then backfires when Lockhart is trying to use a memory charm on Ron & Harry - thus saving the boys. Ron't family can't buy him a new pet, so they keep the old rat Scabbers, who sets the entire plot of PoA rolling. Some elements of the books are there to be exactly that - an element of the story, not a social commentary. I don't understand why a book series that is based primarily on the notion that there is an alternate world full of people with magical powers is criticized for not having enough cold hard realism. va32h From legacylady at prodigy.net Wed Feb 2 15:34:19 2005 From: legacylady at prodigy.net (LegacyLady) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 07:34:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Why didn't Lily run? (Was: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050202153419.59415.qmail@web80208.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123750 Tammy wrote: > Voldemort seems to be saying that he wouldn't have harmed her, but what mother would have walked away from her child? LegacyLady: Excellent point, Tammy! But, could the answer to your question about what mother would have "walked away" been ... Voldemort's mother?!? Do we know enough about HOW he ended up in the Muggle orphanage to know that he wasn't abandoned? Voldemort seems to have not known love of any kind and has developed a lifetime of resentment/hatred (toward Muggles) because of his father "abandoning his mother when he discovered she was a witch". But do we know what ACTUALLY happened to HER? Perhaps he truly believed that Lily would leave Harry to him (as an infant) and just walk away. Interesting thread! LegacyLady From hhbarmaid at gmail.com Wed Feb 2 16:50:10 2005 From: hhbarmaid at gmail.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 16:50:10 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty - In Perspective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123751 va32h wrote: I wonder if this subject isn't being a bit over-thought. Harry's being rich is a plot device. How else is an orphaned child whose caretakers despise him going to pay for his unusual schooling? Well, conveniently, he has inherited a bunch of wizard gold from his parents. Ron's poverty is another plot device. First, it sets up a surce of conflict between him and Harry that runs throughout the book. Second, it sets up a conflict between Draco and Ron (and by association Harry). Many times, the "poverty" of Ron's character is essential to the story. Ron can't afford a new wand when his is broken, so he has to use his faulty one, which then backfires when Lockhart is trying to use a memory charm on Ron & Harry - thus saving the boys. Ron't family can't buy him a new pet, so they keep the old rat Scabbers, who sets the entire plot of PoA rolling. Some elements of the books are there to be exactly that - an element of the story, not a social commentary. I don't understand why a book series that is based primarily on the notion that there is an alternate world full of people with magical powers is criticized for not having enough cold hard realism. va32h Barmaid: While I do lay out a sort of social commentary argument in my post on this topic (123734) I also agree with you. This is, at its core, a plot device. The poverty/wealth contrast between the Malfoys and the Weasleys serves to reveal certain social constructs in the wizarding world no doubt, but much of what we see of the Weasley's so called poverty is simply a great way to get us information we need or to move the story in a way it must be moved. On this and many topics on these boards, I think your remark "I don't understand why a book series that is based primarily on the notion that there is an alternate world full of people with magical powers is criticized for not having enough cold hard realism." is well considered. -- Barmaid... who over-thinks as a way of life! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 17:00:18 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 17:00:18 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty - In Perspective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123752 In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: I wonder if this subject isn't being a bit over-thought. Harry's being rich is a plot device. How else is an orphaned child whose caretakers despise him going to pay for his unusual schooling? Well, conveniently, he has inherited a bunch of wizard gold from his parents. Ron's poverty is another plot device. First, it sets up a surce of conflict between him and Harry that runs throughout the book. Second, it sets up a conflict between Draco and Ron (and by association Harry). snip. I don't understand why a book series that is based primarily on the notion that there is an alternate world full of people with magical powers is criticized for not having enough cold hard realism. Alla: To some extent I agree with you - that Weasleys' poverty IS a plot device, BUT It does not mean that we cannot consider some realistic reflection of the social issues in the book. And about your last remark - I can only speak for myself of course. I don't criticise the book for not having enough realism, because indeed there is only as much realism as possible in the books about magic, but I ABSOLUTELY want the characters to be realistic on some level, because again I think that in OOP JKR dived in too many "reallistic" issues to just let them drop. Same on the character development level - even if the characters ARE people with magical powers, they are still people and I want their reactions to be recognisable to me, otherwise I would not be able to identify with characters. Of course, it is VERY hard to blend realism with magic, but I want to believe that it is possible for JKR. Just my opinion, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Feb 2 17:12:20 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 17:12:20 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory (not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123753 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "queen_astrofiammante" wrote: > But here, quoted from the FAQs of JKR's website is the one thing that makes it impossible for me to believe: > > "Who is your favourite character? I love Harry, Hermione, Ron, Hagrid, Dumbledore, Ginny, Fred, George and Lupin. I love writing (though would not necessarily want to meet) Snape." > > I don't think EverSoEvil!Lupin would appear on that list - especially given the way Snape is qualified. > Pippin: The question is, does JKR think the dark side of human nature only manifests itself in monstrous beings like Voldemort, or in deeply unlikable people like Snape? Or can it gain the upper hand in nice people, even her favorites? Pippin From cat_kind at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 17:49:58 2005 From: cat_kind at yahoo.com (cat_kind) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 17:49:58 -0000 Subject: Realism (was Re: Weasley Poverty - In Perspective) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123754 va32h: (snip) > I don't understand why a book series that is based primarily on the > notion that there is an alternate world full of people with magical > powers is criticized for not having enough cold hard realism. (snip) > > Alla: (snip) Same on the character > development level - even if the characters ARE people with magical > powers, they are still people and I want their reactions to be > recognisable to me, otherwise I would not be able to identify with > characters. (snip) catkind: Good point. Or if not, I want to be able to understand why and how their reactions are different. You can identify with someone who, say, comes from a different culture, or has very different beliefs from me, but it's hard until you know what the culture or beliefs are. You can identify with animal characters in childrens' books, or alien characters in SF, and at least in the best cases they really aren't humans in costume. So wizards can be fundamentally not human, and react in fundamentally non-human ways if the author wants, as long as it is consistent and understandable. For example, I think maybe wizards react very differently to physical violence than RL humans, because they can mend physical damage so much easier. Thus I come a bit unstuck when I try to judge the fighting between Hogwarts students by real life standards. I think we also look for this sort of consistency in the world itself. We like to be able to reason out the magic: if you can do this and this, then it must logically be possible to do that. IMO the people-consistency is excellent in the Harry Potter books. The magic-consistency is less solid, because there is such a huge volume of cool little tricks, and thus far at least no logical framework around them. I think if we sit down and start adding up little tricks, we find wizards ought to be able to do a lot more than they do do in this world. Anyone with me here? catkind From A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk Wed Feb 2 18:04:32 2005 From: A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk (Edis) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:04:32 -0000 Subject: Why doesn't Snape get DADA? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123755 There is a plot-structural reason why Snape might get DaDa in HBP. Harry still (we surmise) has the ambition to be an Auror. To do this he needs Potions at NEWT level. We have Canon that he felt he did better at OWL potions than he expected but it is unlikely he will get a top grade and we know Snape is implacable about only accepting top grades into his Potions NEWT classes. I can't see Jo pulling an academic miracle and giving Harry that grade... But if Snape becomes DaDa teacher this year then there is scope for a new potions teacher to be more lenient and accept Harry into class. And maybe Snape will show some actual Dark Arts in his new class... at least for NEWTs. Given the war situation the extra aggro Snape would cause in class could be justified by the need to get people up to speed in advanced techniques. One consequence, the new teacher would be a potions teacher. From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Wed Feb 2 18:59:56 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 13:59:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Jo's Squib error? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050202185956.31137.qmail@web52005.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123756 Tonks wrote: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Vivamus" wrote: > When Fudge asks her directly if that is what she saw, she doesn't answer his question, instead saying "That is what happened." I take this to mean that she saw Harry and Dudley and what they did, but not the dementors, although she felt them. DD would have questioned her about it, and figured out what the dementors were doing, and coached her on it. > Tonks here: I don't think that DD coached her, or if he did he didn't tell her to lie. DD has a thing about lying, he doesn't believe in doing it himself so I don't think that he would ask her to. I think she rehearsed it like many of us would in a situation like that. We would go over and over again in our mind what we would say. And she was embarrased about being a Squib and on her own came up with a bit of a lie. Course, she was under oath and that was not good, but she was trying to help Harry so one could understand why she would do it. It was good that she said "that is what happened" instead of "that is what I saw". Because if she had said the second then her whole testimony would probably have been thrown out. Tonks_op Luckdragon: I just find it hard to believe Dumbledore would take such a risk. If they were desperate enough to make Harry stand before the whole Wizengamot, they could have just as easily ordered Figg to take Veritaserum and if her lie was detected it would have been all over for Harry. Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/hbfile.html Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! --------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Feb 2 19:06:06 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:06:06 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory (not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123757 queen_astrofiammante wrote: > > But here, quoted from the FAQs of JKR's website is the one > thing that makes it impossible for me to believe: > > > > "Who is your favourite character? I love Harry, Hermione, Ron, > > Hagrid, Dumbledore, Ginny, Fred, George and Lupin. I love > > writing (though would not necessarily want to meet) Snape." > > > > I don't think EverSoEvil!Lupin would appear on that list - > > especially given the way Snape is qualified. Pippin: > The question is, does JKR think the dark side of human nature > only manifests itself in monstrous beings like Voldemort, or in > deeply unlikable people like Snape? Or can it gain the upper > hand in nice people, even her favorites? SSSusan: As always, Pippin, you do a fantastic job of distillation. I think this is the question. And for me, I think the answer is, "Yes to the extent that we see his demons & faults, but *not* to the extent of Lupin's being fully ESE!" If, for instance, Lupin were so dark, so "bad" as to be Sirius' murderer [for purely selfish reasons, right?], it would speak to more than a dark side of a nice person; I think it would move him altogether from the category of nice people, of one of her favorites. 'Tis how I see it anyway. Siriusly Snapey Susan From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 20:02:38 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:02:38 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123758 > > Neri: > > Your suspicion seems to imply that a prime target of > ESE!Lupin is Sirius. If so, why didn't ESE!Lupin simply went to > DD (or even better, straight to the Ministry) in the beginning of > the PoA year and told them that Black is a dog animagus? The > ministry and the dementors would have then done Lupin's dirty > work for him. > > > > > Pippin: > Animagi are supposed to be rare, which makes the whole thing > sound only slightly less fantastic than Sirius disguising himself > as a potted plant. In order to be taken, er, seriously, Lupin would > have had to explain how he knew and why he had waited twelve > years to mention it. Much simpler to call the Dementors on Sirius > himself. > Neri again: >From your answer I must conclude that, had Lupin been honest and told DD everything about the marauders in the beginning of the year, or even many years before, DD wouldn't have believed him. After all, THREE animagi at the same time are far more fantastic than one. Hmm, now at last I understand why Lupin never told DD. Seriously (er... yes) now, the Ministry had on the loose someone who was considered Voldemort's second-in-command, an extremely dangerous and capable wizard, the only one who ever broke out of Azkaban and no one knows how he did it. Clearly he has some secret ability. All the Ministry's aurors can't track him down and they are desperate enough to put his picture in the muggles media. Now it turns out he can break into Hogwarts despite the dementors guarding it. The situation of the Ministry is desperate and the Daily Prophet is having a field day. Suppose ESE!Lupin comes to them and tells them: "I knew him before he was arrested and I suspect that Voldemort taught him how to become a dog animagus". They might believe him or not, but they should be extremely stupid not to tell the aurors and the people in Hogsmead, just in case, to watch also for a big black dog. Sounds much simpler and safer for ESE!Lupin than taking on Sirius in werewolf form, especially since he is likely to lose his job if anybody notices a werewolf running around the grounds. Neri From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 20:25:54 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:25:54 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory (not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123759 > Pippin: > > The question is, does JKR think the dark side of human nature > > only manifests itself in monstrous beings like Voldemort, or in > > deeply unlikable people like Snape? Or can it gain the upper > > hand in nice people, even her favorites? > > > SSSusan: > As always, Pippin, you do a fantastic job of distillation. I think > this is the question. And for me, I think the answer is, "Yes to the > extent that we see his demons & faults, but *not* to the extent of > Lupin's being fully ESE!" > > If, for instance, Lupin were so dark, so "bad" as to be Sirius' > murderer [for purely selfish reasons, right?], it would speak to more > than a dark side of a nice person; I think it would move him > altogether from the category of nice people, of one of her favorites. > Neri: "It is our choices that show what we truly are" According to JKR/DD, if you choose to betray and murder your friends, then this is what you truly ARE: a murderer and a traitor. And probably not likable, to anybody who knows what you truly are. From mommystery at hotmail.com Wed Feb 2 20:26:30 2005 From: mommystery at hotmail.com (mommystery2003) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:26:30 -0000 Subject: Why doesn't Snape get DADA? (Was Re: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123760 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "northsouth17" wrote: > I don't think Snape is a terrible person or anything, but I do think he's a dreadful teacher. I don't know that we've been shown how well he really passes along his subject material, and I think some > students are probably far too stressed out in his classes to be any > good. But he must pass on his subject material well because most students do turn in acceptable potions. And even Umbridge says he is teaching students beyond 5th year levels. He wouldn't do that if they had been any serious accidents or the students weren't capable of producing them. Also, he only allows the highest OWL grades into his advanced class. Which means students move on to much more difficult potions. Obviously students make it into that class which means he is good enough to get some students that far. Ces From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 20:29:48 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:29:48 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty - In Perspective & Poor-Boy Ron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123761 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: > > I wonder if this subject isn't being a bit over-thought. > > Harry's being rich is a plot device. ... > > Ron's poverty is another plot device. ... > > Many times, the "poverty" of Ron's character is essential to the > story. Ron can't afford a new wand when his is broken, so he has to > use his faulty one, which then backfires when Lockhart is trying to > use a memory charm on Ron & Harry - thus saving the boys. > > Ron't family can't buy him a new pet, so they keep the old rat > Scabbers, who sets the entire plot of PoA rolling. > > Some elements of the books are there to be exactly that - an element > of the story, not a social commentary. > > I don't understand why a book series that is based primarily on the > notion that there is an alternate world full of people with magical > powers is criticized for not having enough cold hard realism. > > va32h bboyminn: You'll get no agrument from me on the points you made. As far as your accusation that we tend to over-think things, I would say that is an understatememt. We don't just over-think, we hyper-, ultra-, uber- overthink. Why? Well, it's fun and it beats drinking too much; all the excitement and no hang-over. We analyse these books, and literature in general, from two perspectives - internal and external. Internal analysis looks a the world from within that world, and searches for logic and consistency. External analysis is from the perspective of a reader; we analyse plot devices, structure, form, and other aspect of writing. You, in a sense, have shifted the discussion for Internal analysis to external analysis. I'm just pointing that out; not implying that it's a problem. My main point was that from an internal perspective, the Weasley are not truly poor. Many readers/posters continue to emphasize and harp on how desperately poor the Weasleys are, but the truth is they are not poor, they simply are not rich. The Weasleys are working class, they have a steady income and are able to provide for all their needs (food, shelter, clothing, etc...) and have money left over in some cases. Witness the fact that Ron has 'pocket money'. If Ron gets an allowance ('pocket money' in the UK) then one can reasonably assume that all the kids who are still at home get an allowance. That doesn't spell poverty to me. If people can shift out of their 'Suburban Middle Class Defines the World' mentality, they will see that much like many many many millions of working class people around the world, the Weasleys have a perfectly normal functional life. All their earthly needs are taken care of with money left over; not much money, but money left over none the less. We must be careful not to let Ron's 'little kid' perspective cloud our adult judgement. I remember when I was a kid, all the other kids wore white P.F. Flyer's (sneakers), but white cost more, as did P.F.Flyer's (think Converse All-Stars). Sadly, from my kid's perspective, I was alway broken-hearted that I had to get the black generic brand of sneakers. To me, as a kid, that was a tragedy, but now that I'm an adult, it actually seems funny. So, the Weasleys have a perfectly servicable income. They provide for a comfortable life meeting all their basic needs. They simple don't have excess cash for what usually turns out to be pointless luxuries, like $40 T-shirt, $70 baggy jeans, and $250 sneakers. Some additional points regarding Ron and his 'poor-boy' attitude. Ron broke his wand, it's not because his family is poor that he didn't get it replaced, he didn't get it replaced because he couldn't face another 'telling off' by Molly. In all likelihood, if Ron had said something, the family, knowing he needed a functional wand for school, would have probably made some arrangement. In addition, I can't believe with all that magic can do, there wasn't a mending charm that could fuse two little pieces of wood back together. If worst comes to worst, lose the Spellotape, and try some common wood glue. But Ron being stubborn, and afraid of another 'telling off', and in true typical kid fashion, never bothered to go to an adult and see if anything could be done. He had the same problem with his robes. I suspect, if he had taken the time to do something about them, he could have found someone at Hogwarts to improve them (Dobby, Flitwick, or even McGonagall). But NO, in true typical kid fashion, he ignored it until the last minute and did a half-arsed job of fixing it himself. Too proud and stubborn to ask for help. Kind of reminds me of me at that age. Still just trying to keep things in perspective. Steve/bboyminn From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Wed Feb 2 20:36:34 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:36:34 -0000 Subject: Snakes and scars and stuff Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123762 Twice in OotP, before the MoM debacle, Harry has close contact with DD, and both times it does something very curious and powerful to Harry. It's clearly not a reaction from Harry, the feeling rose "unbidden, unwanted, but terrifyingly strong" ? it's got to be an effect of the link with You-Know-Who. But does it affect the bit of Voldy left in Harry, or does it affect Voldy through the link that Harry has with him? I've mentioned before that I find it suspicious that the only two times (each lasting a matter of seconds) in a period of nearly a year that they have contact (once when DD looks Harry in the eye, and once when he grabs hold of his wrist), this snakelike reaction occurs. If the reaction is caused by the link through the scar, Voldy would have had to have been concentrating very very carefully on the link with Harry in order to catch these two moments, so that he'd be ready and waiting. And if his intention was to make Harry attack DD, why wait until DD looks Harry in the eye, or touches him? Being in the same room is surely enough. When Harry has the urge to attack DD, it's the urge to bite him like a snake, not throttle him, or AK him, or poke his eyes out with his wand. *Bite* him. "...it was like something rose up inside me, like there's a *snake* inside me..." No matter how I twist it, I can't see how Harry biting DD would help You-Know-Who. Harry is not, as far as we know, poisonous. I therefore think it's more likely to be an effect on the bit of Voldy left in Harry, rather than something planned by Voldy to aid the bad guys. When did this reaction start? Well DD avoids Harry's eyes right from the hearing at the beginning of OotP, though he had been happily looking at Harry right up to the toast at the leaving feast in GoF. The first time that Harry and DD look into each others' eyes after this, is in DD's office, just after the attack on Arthur. We don't, therefore, know whether the reaction dates from Voldy figuring out the connection, or from him regaining his body. Neither quite works ? if it dates from Voldy regaining his body, why was it fine for DD to look at Harry after the graveyard incident in GoF? And if it dates from Voldy knowing about the connection through the scar, why does DD avoid looking at him throughout the Autumn term of OotP? (Or was he pre-emptively ignoring Harry in the expectation that Voldy would figure it out?) And why oh why, after a year of avoiding looking at Harry is it suddenly unproblematic for DD to have a good long chat with him at the end of OotP? Which brings me on to snakes. Voldy has a flattened nose and an anguineous face. One supposes that his less-than-handsome appearance is due to the transformations he went through after leaving Hogwarts, "Consorting with the worst of our kind". There appears to be a snake-like element to the whole thing. Voldy's a Parselmouth, as was Slytherin, and as is Harry. Nagini ? Who wouldn't want a 12 foot long venomous chum you can really *talk* to? I came to the conclusion in post 115333 that she's a bushmaster (Lachesis muta ? which I now know for sure means "silent fate"). When Voldy possesses Harry in the MoM, Harry's wrapped in the coils of a creature that sounds very much like a snake, though it has red eyes like Voldy (unlike snakes) ? well, I doubt that it's an earthworm. So, are all the snake references (and there are plenty more that I haven't mentioned) in connection with You-Know-Who there to make him a baddie-with-a-theme, or is there more to it? Snakes fit rather charmingly with Slytherin ? far better than do Badgers with Hufflepuff or eagles with Ravenclaw. For loyalty and hard work I'd immediately think dogs or horses, and for wisdom and learning, owls ? but never mind, snakes are apt. They do have some lovely connotations, the major one being untrustworthiness (of biblical proportions), which is appropriate for a house associated with cunning and deviousness. Trying to draw some of this together: 1. The bit of Voldy that is capable of possessing is very very snakelike. According to Hagrid there was not much human left in Voldy before GH ? so if I had to bet what the non-human part of him is, I'd bet snake. 2. The bit of Voldy inside Harry that wants to bite DD is also very very snakelike, and it is also this bit of Voldy in his head that makes Harry a parselmouth. To which I would like to add: 3. It must be significant that Harry's scar has no reaction to Diary! Tom in CoS, but that it only reacts to present-day Voldy ? significant in that at the age of 16 Tom had not yet conducted his experiments on immortality. Which leads me to think that 4. Whatever transformations Voldy went through to stop himself dying involved snakes, and it is some part of this anguineous!Riddle that was transferred to Harry when the AK rebounded. However, this does not explain why 5. Although Harry has been a parselmouth since GH, the venomous reaction to DD only became active some time between the end of GoF and Christmas of OotP. Moreover There's one reference to snakes that has always puzzled me, and that's after the hearing in OotP, Lucius Malfoy says "Quite astonishing, the way you continue to wriggle out of very tight holes ... *snakelike*, in fact." (The Woes of Mrs. Weasley.) One assumes that he's referring to Harry's escape from the graveyard; but why call Harry *snakelike*? It's clearly a reference to Slytherin/Voldy matters, but what, exactly? Lucius knows that Harry's a parselmouth, it was all over the school in CoS, and from Rita Skeeter's articles they know that he gets attacks of pain in his scar. From the context it sounds like a veiled threat, or a reference to something that Harry should know about, but doesn't pick up on. Could it be that Lucius knows about the connection with Voldy? Even though Voldy himself apparently doesn't know about it until around four months later during snake vs Weasley. I doubt that we've seen the last of snakes, and would be willing to bet a large bag of cockroach clusters that they're integral to some of the big questions we want answered. Although, personally I think it's a shame that Voldy's snakelike attributes don't extend to an amusing lisp: "Luthiuth, my thlippery friend..." Dungrollin From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Wed Feb 2 21:14:45 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 16:14:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Jo's Squib error? In-Reply-To: <20050202185956.31137.qmail@web52005.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200502021614500.SM01332@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 123763 > Tonks wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Vivamus" wrote: > > When Fudge asks her directly if that is what she saw, she doesn't > answer his question, instead saying "That is what happened." I > take this to mean that she saw Harry and Dudley and what they > did, but not the dementors, although she felt them. DD would > have questioned her about it, and figured out what the > dementors were doing, and coached her on it. > > > > Tonks here: > > I don't think that DD coached her, or if he did he didn't > tell her to lie. DD has a thing about lying, he doesn't > believe in doing it himself so I don't think that he would > ask her to. I think she rehearsed it like many of us would in > a situation like that. We would go over and over again in our > mind what we would say. And she was embarrased about being a > Squib and on her own came up with a bit of a lie. Course, she > was under oath and that was not good, but she was trying to > help Harry so one could understand why she would do it. It > was good that she said "that is what happened" instead of > "that is what I saw". Because if she had said the second then > her whole testimony would probably have been thrown out. > > Tonks_op > > Luckdragon: > > I just find it hard to believe Dumbledore would take such a > risk. If they were desperate enough to make Harry stand > before the whole Wizengamot, they could have just as easily > ordered Figg to take Veritaserum and if her lie was detected > it would have been all over for Harry. Vivamus: I think it would be a far greater risk to NOT lie, because there are really only two possibilities for the source of those dementors. They either came from LV, or they came from someone at the Ministry. Either way, there MUST be acknowledgement of that for Harry's protection, lest it happen again when he is unable to defend himself. If no one but Harry saw the dementors, and you have only "crazy" Harry for support, then two very bad things happen. 1. Harry is left unprotected against further attacks, and 2. he is in deep trouble for the Patronus charm, because it was obviously unjustified if the dementors weren't there. In addition to those two things, attention is diverted away from who actually sent the dementors, regardless of whether it was LV or someone at the Ministry. If Arabella also can say she saw the dementors, however, there is corroboration, and Harry is off the hook. The only actual lie she said was that squibs could see dementors. (In fact, we don't know for sure that was a lie. It may be that SOME squibs can see them, even though she cannot.) What she claimed happened was, in fact, exactly what did happen. We now know that Harry is far more important than it seemed before. DD is faced with an attempt to soul-suck Harry, either by LV or Fudge (or Fudge's minions.) DD can't protect Harry if the presence of dementors cannot be established. My earlier comment on the ethics of DD coaching Arabella to lie was snipped, but it was basically saying that the particular situation gave rise to a ethically higher order of need (i.e., save the WW from LV), and that necessitated DD (the epitome of goodness) encouraging Arabella to lie. (Let me be quick to point out that this is NOT advocating either situational or teleological [=the end justifies the means] ethics. This was a situation in which action was necessary for the good of all involved, including Fudge and DU, which on the surface might be considered unethical.) Vivamus From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 21:22:22 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:22:22 -0000 Subject: Veritaserum RANT In-Reply-To: <20050202185956.31137.qmail@web52005.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123764 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bee Chase wrote: > > Tonks_op > > Luckdragon: > > I just find it hard to believe Dumbledore would take such a risk. If they were desperate enough to make Harry stand before the whole Wizengamot, they could have just as easily ordered Figg to take Veritaserum and if her lie was detected it would have been all over for Harry. > bboyminn: First, nothing personal LuckDragon, this rant relates to an ever on-going belief of too many people. ...and with apologies, for my somewhat snarky attitude. People need to get over the idea that Veritaserum flows like pumpkin juice at a Hogwart's feast. They need to get over the idea that Truth Serum is the answer to all problems; it's not. The book, via Snape, clearly states that the use of Veritas/truth serum is STRICTLY regulated by the Ministry of Magic, so you can't just be handing it out like party treats. In the wizard world, and in the real world, truth /devices/ are flawed, and that's why it is illegal to use them. They DO NOT produce reliable evidents, and are a violation of a defendants rights. Note, lacking as it may be, the wizard world does have the 'Wizengamont Charter of Rights'. Truth devices don't give absolute truth, they give the defendants preception of truth. Examples- By Fudge's own statement at the end of Goblet of Fire - Dumbledore: "As Minerva and Severus have doubtless told you, we heard Barty Crouch (Jr) confess. Under the influence of Veritaserum...." Fudge: "Come now... come now... certainly, Crouch (Jr) may have /believed/ himself to be acting upon You-Know-Who'a orders -- but to take the word of a lunatic like that...." Using Truth Serum to clear or convict Sirius- Even 12 years later, when Sirius and Harry finally meet, Sirius admits that he is responsible for James and Lily's death. Harry takes that as a confession that Sirius killed them, but that's not what Sirius means at all. Again, under truth serum, Sirius's testimony would be unreliable and misleading. He is suffering under the horrible crushing guilt, that his choices were responsible for James and Lily's death. In that sense, yes, he did kill them, but he is not responsible for murdering them. So, depending on the nature and form of the questions he was asked, that could very easily lead to his conviction even though he is innocent. Real World example - the Lie Detector - The problem with a Lie Detector is that it doesn't detect lies, it detects stress. If you knew you were facing capital punishment, and you knew you were the prime suspect in a murder, and you were then asked, while connect to a lie detector, if you had commited the murder, knowing the your very life depended on your answer and your reaction, wouldn't you reasonably be expected to show a high stress response? In another case, you are asked, while connected to a lie detector, if you have ever had sex with someone who was underage. If you say Yes, that is an implied admission of a crime. If you say, NO, as you will see, that would be a detected lie. The problem is, you too may have been underage when the sex occurred, in which case, under the right circumstances, it wouldn't be a crime. That creates a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. You are completely at the mercy of the nature and form of the questions you are asked. Back to the wizard world.... In the middle of PoA, if you gave Harry truth serum and asked him if Sirius killed his parents, he would say Yes, and it would register as truth. If you asked him the same question at the end of PoA, he would answer NO, and that would register as Truth. Truth is not absolute, if's a matter of opinion and personal preception. Consequently, truth devices, while helpful to law enforcement on occassion, are not a reliable means of divining the truth. So, please, cork your Veritaserum bottles, that's not the answer to all life's sticky problems. It's a RANT, try not to take it personally. Steve/bboyminn From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 21:27:41 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:27:41 -0000 Subject: Realism (was Re: Weasley Poverty Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123765 va32h: > I don't understand why a book series that is based primarily on the > notion that there is an alternate world full of people with magical > powers is criticized for not having enough cold hard realism. I don't think anyone joined this list to criticize JKR or the novels for lacking realism, we joined because it's great fun to dissect every single line of the books; to look for clues; to spot inconsistencies or mistakes; and to examine every single nuance of every single character, whether realistic or not. I, personally, did not care for the first two books and only read the third one because someone had bought me a four-book set. But after reading Prisoner of Azkaban, I began to sit up and take notice. I think it's because JKR began to incorporate a lot more "realism" into the stories. I'm a fantasy reader and I like my fantasy to have good "bones" - the story can be as fantastic and outlandish as the author can make it but there had better be good background behind it. If pink and purple flying unicorns suddenly appear in downtown Manhattan, I would like a "realistic" explanation or I will throw the book across the yard into a tree. All fiction relies on the reader's ability to suspend their disbelief and accept everything the writer is telling them. I had trouble with the first novel because I could not accept the idea that a child had lived in a cupboard and wore oversized clothing for TEN YEARS and not a single person was even nice to him - he had no friends, no mentors, no confidants. That just didn't seem "realistic" even for a fantasy novel. Yet I had no trouble at all in book three of accepting that a man could turn into a dog, track down a man that turned into a rat, and had spent the last twelve years imprisoned in a place where horrible creatures sucked out his life essence because there were "realistic" explanations for all of these things. Catkind also mentions consistency, which can either add to or destroy the realism. If a spell works a certain way in one book, it had better work exactly the same way in the next book (or have a darned good reason why it doesn't) because the reader has already stretched the limits of credibility just by accepting that the spell works at all. Nicky Joe From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Feb 2 21:33:13 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:33:13 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory (not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123766 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > Neri: > > "It is our choices that show what we truly are" > > According to JKR/DD, if you choose to betray and murder your friends, then this is what you truly ARE: a murderer and a traitor. And probably not likable, to anybody who knows what you truly are.< Pippin: But JKR believes people can change -- or at least there's not much point in teaching morality or offering redemption if they can't. If Lupin is a murderer JKR need not believe he must remain one..."Though your sins be as scarlet" and all that. I expect he will be offered a chance to redeem himself, though I think he will turn it down and have his soul sucked out. And JKR will cry buckets. Pippin From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Feb 2 21:48:13 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:48:13 -0000 Subject: Character Discussion: Voldemort - further explanation (long) In-Reply-To: <20050202065937.15029.qmail@web25102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123767 In message 123716, Hans wrote, inter alia, the following: "From comments in the group and privately I see that some people think I'm trying to persuade people to accept the Path of Liberation as true. That is NOT so. What I AM saying is the JO believes in this Path, and my aim is to prove that . . When Geoff says he rejects the Path of Liberation utterly this proves he's missed the point. It's not a matter of accepting or rejecting the Path. It's a matter of us discovering together what is the arch-matrix on which Jo is basing her story. People who really want to know that, will consider any theory which shows a remarkable number of coincidences, even if they don't believe in the basic principles which form the arch-matrix . .But I repeat: I am NOT trying to persuade people of the truth of the Path, except that it exists, and that Jo and I both believe in it ." Geoff: I have tended to avoid replying to Hans'long series of posts outlining character analyses of the main Harry Potter personalities, partly because I felt it was difficult in so doing to avoid going seriously off-topic. However, since Hans afforded me the honour of being the only individual contributor named, I felt I should rise to the occasion and put pen to paper (or should it be keys to VDU?). Let me start by saying that I have never written that I have rejected the path of liberation utterly. That would be an insult to Hans' world view. What I have said in the past is that Bible passages quoted as part of liberation teaching are taken out of context. As an example, in message 76745, I wrote: "Actually, the young man came to Jesus and asked what he needed to do to gain eternal life, which I so not consider equates with the four sections of your Path of Liberation .. ..The crux of Christian teaching can be summed up in John 3:16 and not by looking at the four paths which are not founded in the teaching of Christ." This was in response to an interpretation of the rich young ruler's question to Jesus. Hans has made an assumption that Jo Rowling believes in the Path of Liberation and has structured his comments about the books on that hypothesis. As far as I know, the author has not at any point made any such statement of faith. In an exchange of thoughts in message 121695, we wrote the following: "Hans: By the way, Geoff Bannister said some time ago that he thought it unlikely that Jo would choose such an "obscure" publication as a source. In 1616, when this book was published, it was certainly not obscure! It was one of a set of three books called "The Rosicrucian Manifestos" published during three years. This set raised a real furore in Europe in those days. Of course the common people couldn't read, let alone afford books, but many of the elite in Europe got hold of it and there was a hell of a controversy. In fact this is perhaps the most fundamental of all Rosicrucian publications, and literally hundreds of other books appeared as a result of it. It was definitely the Harry Potter for Grownups in 1616! Geoff: I was speaking in modern terms. I wonder how many people here, prior to your expositions, knew of the Rosicrucians? (I did - I have a friend who is one.) And, how many folk today throughout the world would count themselves as Rosicrucians? Perhaps you can provide an answer." At the moment, I have received no answer to that. As I said, I have a friend, a one-time next-door neighbour who is a Rosicrucian which was why I knew of the order but I am given to conclude that the number of followers is small and it seems to be little known which is why I wondered how Jo Rowling, assuming that she /does/ know of it, came into contact. With the two other commonly quoted writers on this group, namely CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien, Contributors have pointed out that you can pick up on their Christian faith from their writings. Lewis made no secret of the fact that the Narnia books were overt allegories of the Christian faith; "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" has Aslan the Lion, the Son of the Great Emperor-over-Sea as a Christ figure who is killed in the place of a traitor and comes back to life. Tolkien, a devout Catholic, did not express his beliefs so overtly but there are nods in the direction of Christian belief in the book and, if you read the opening sections of "the Silmarillion" ? "Ainulindal?" and "Valaquenta" you will find a cosmology of angelic beings, one of whom is fallen, not dissimilar to that accepted, particularly in Catholic circles. JKR has intimated in the past that she is a Christian and worships with the Church of Scotland ? which as an aside provoked a thread on Calvinism quite recently ? and I believe that, like Tolkien, her belief shows covertly in the way in which her stories progress. I see no evidence of the Path of Liberation ideas which could easily be picked up and realised by an average reader and if that is the case, why weave this world view into a book where it will not be recognised? With respect, I have not missed the point about Liberation teaching; I do not see it being present as the matrix of the story. I do agree that, personally, I do not accept the idea of the Path of Liberation. In message 76588, Hans, writing as Ivan Vablatsky said: "In previous messages I have expounded my theory that HP is the timeless story of human liberation." and again, he made the observation in post 111592: "Hans: OK that's my theory. Tell me I'm insane; I can take it. But let me tell you this: the same story is told in the Bible, the Alchemical Wedding of Christian Rosycross, and many other books." Now, we are being told that Jo has embraced the Liberation ideal and is writing Harry Potter as an allegorical representation of this. And yet, theory? Many people on this group subscribe to different world views. I accept this, but I also know that I subscribe to the Christian view because it is so simple and yet so profound and I have experienced it not as a theory but practically in my life. In reply to Hans' message 111592 (quoted above), I wrote: "With respect, the basis of Christian belief is much less complicated than that and can be summed up in two quotes from Jesus: God so loved the world that He gave his only Son so that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. Very simple to understand but very difficult to accept and commit to." This is Christian belief stripped of theory, ritual or even religion, It is faith. And I believe it has permeated the writings of the three authors I have discussed because it represents their core belief and thus - overtly or covertly ? their view of the created world. My apologies for a post which was intended to be short but, like Topsy, has growed. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 21:55:44 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:55:44 -0000 Subject: Jo's Squib error? In-Reply-To: <200502021614500.SM01332@devbox> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123768 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Vivamus" wrote: > > Tonks wrote: > > > > Vivamus: > I think it would be a far greater risk to NOT lie, because there are > really only two possibilities for the source of those dementors. > They either came from LV, or they came from someone at the Ministry. > > ...edited... > > The only actual lie she said was that squibs could see dementors. > (In fact, we don't know for sure that was a lie. It may be that > SOME squibs can see them, even though she cannot.) What she claimed > happened was, in fact, exactly what did happen. > > ..edited... > > Vivamus bboyminn: I'm going slightly off the point, but I think this is still relevant. It seems that everyone, including Harry, doubted Mrs. Figg's physical desciption of the Dementors, but in the end, it's not her physical desciption that sways the court; it's he account of the effects and the events. Madam Bones even comments that Figg's account of the effects are very accurate. In addition, when Mrs Figg give her account of the events, she loses he 'learned by heart' demeanor, the pink flush leaves her face, and her speech become more articulate and dynamic. Consider that, a produced corpereal Petronus really doesn't do much in the absents of a Dementor. The court has already determined that Harry produced a Patronus, and Figg's description confirms that the Patronus didn't just wander around looking cute. I make two clear and direct attacks, and I can't seen any reason why a Patronus would attack unless there was truly something there to attack. So, the verdict didn't hinge on whether or not Figg saw the Dementor, her desciption of the effects were enough to convince the Judges that she had at least experience the presences of a Dementors. Futher, her testimony of the actions of the Patronus itself confirmed the presence of Dementors. So, her one potential 'little white lie' wasn't the deciding factor. It was, for the most part, ignored in reaching the verdict. And finally, I think it might be a fair speculation that some Squibs can under some circumstances see Dementors. Either Figg and/or Dumbledore may have been banking on that fact that it can't be proven one way or the other that Squibs can't see Dementors. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From swirskyr at rogers.com Wed Feb 2 16:23:29 2005 From: swirskyr at rogers.com (Rachel) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 16:23:29 -0000 Subject: Jo's Squib error? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123769 > Luckdragon: > On Jo's website under "Miscellaneous" she states that Arabella Figg > never saw the dementors that went after Harry and Dudley in the > alleyway in Little Whinging, however; at Harry's trial Mrs. Figg says > she saw the dementors gliding towards the boys and goes on to > describe them. Is Mrs. Figg lying or has Jo made another (Colin > Creevey Camera) error? Hi there, I know I do not post often, I spend most of my time hiding in a cardboard box trying to catch up on everyone else's theories, but this one really caught my attention. It is funny how we can all read the same thing and interpret it so differently. I, for one, am not sure Figgy was lying. I see no reason why Squibs can not see dementors. I see Squibyness (sp) as being a genetic difference. They can not DO MAGIC. They might have the other, inhereted traits that come from being born to magic parents. They can see magical or enchanted things. This was my explanation to myself as to why Filch can work at Hogwarts... a place designed to be hidden from muggles. Ok, back into my cardboard box I go Rachel From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Wed Feb 2 22:03:44 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 17:03:44 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Jo's Squib error? Message-ID: <14.3e174f16.2f32a840@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123770 In a message dated 2/2/2005 11:15:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca writes: Luckdragon: I just find it hard to believe Dumbledore would take such a risk. If they were desperate enough to make Harry stand before the whole Wizengamot, they could have just as easily ordered Figg to take Veritaserum and if her lie was detected it would have been all over for Harry. ********************************************** Chancie: Well, I agree, but then again I don't. It would look pretty bad on Harry when it was discovered that she didn't actually 'SEE' the dementors, but as soon as Mrs. Figg came to describing the Dementor attack, and the remainder of her story, Fudge would have no longer been able to claim she made the whole thing up. I don't know if the WW has purgery (sp? believe it or not, I couldn't find it in my spell check/dictionary) laws or not, that would cause the whole statement to be thrown out if part of a statement is found to be false. So maybe it would fall back more on that as too if it would have helped or hurt Harry. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From skater314159 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Feb 2 21:32:15 2005 From: skater314159 at yahoo.co.uk (Megan) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:32:15 -0000 Subject: Harry's last 'living' relatives (was Re: The Mauraders' Generation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123771 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "queen_astrofiammante" wrote: > (snipped stuff here...) > ...And we are told again and again that Petunia is his only living > relative. > > My mind keeps coming back to that confrontation in OotP between > Sirius and Molly Weasley, when they are arguing about who cares > most about Harry. The subtext to me is that these are two people > who are his blood relatives - on the Potter and Evans sides > respectively. I realise that doesn't fit with what we know - that > Harry has no blood relatives. But in a world where people are so > closely interrelated, how can that actually be true? skater314159 writes: Well, I really like what you wrote here, because it fits into something I have been thinking about/theorising about lately: JKR, being the "Queen of Mislead", I think wants us to really think about Petunia being Harry's only *living* relative. I agree with you that I think the families are all inter-related, and yes, I think Tom Riddle is somewhere in BOTH Sirius' & Harry's family tree(s). The key word to me in all of this is of course - living... would a Vampyre or Zombie or UnDead person in the WW not qualify as one of Harry's "living" relatives then? I think so. I think we are supposed to think "ah, he doesn't have any relatives left" which is quite diffrent from "no *living* relatives". I also think the Death Eaters are undead or some shade of non- living... but I don't know how that fits into all of this... But that's just my opinion, Skater314159 (This discussion of family trees reminds me of a tape one of my friends in college had - 'You might be a redneck if your family tree is a bush'... how would that go in the WW? 'You might be a pure blood if your family tree is a shrub'? heheh) From va32h at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 21:29:00 2005 From: va32h at yahoo.com (va32h) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:29:00 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty - In Perspective & Poor-Boy Ron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123772 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > You'll get no agrument from me on the points you made. As far as > your accusation that we tend to over-think things, implying that > it's a problem." I think accuse is a rather strong word. I read several HP discussion forums, and I realize that analysis of minutiae is the norm. I just feel that on many questions, the honest answer is "because it's a book, and that is what works for the story". Suppose Rowling has spent countless hours developing the character of Mrs. Weasley, why she does or does not work, her feelings on whether mothers should work, any job training or interviews she may have gone on, jobs she held before she had children, her daily schedule at home, her discussions with Arthur about the families financial situation at any other conceivable aspect of Molly working or not working. How is this supposed to fit in the story? Should it have a place at all in a story about a boy becoming a wizard? The story is about Harry and what is important to Harry. Whatever supporting characters we readers may become fascinated with, their background, upbringing, personal lives, aspirations, frustrations, unrequited loves or how they spend their spare time are not going to be part of the story - unless it is relevant to Harry. Speculating on whether the professors of Hogwart's are married or how many students there really are in Harry's year, or how Lupin was bitten by a werewolf, or whether Molly Weasley works outside the home might be fun to do while we await further books, but I do consider arguing about such subjects pointless. If Rowling thinks anything is important to the story, she will include it. If she doesn't address a subject, I feel confident that it is irrelevant to the story of Harry Potter. "va32h" From skater314159 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Feb 2 20:57:45 2005 From: skater314159 at yahoo.co.uk (Megan) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:57:45 -0000 Subject: Choice of James as Head Boy (was Re: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123773 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > Slytherin well... ambition? Resourcefulness? certain disregard for > rules? ready to do ANYTHING for your goal? Don't see Albus > Dumbledore (or Aberforth) appreciating these values at all. > skater314159: I have to disagree with you here... But this is how I see it (in other words, this is just my opinion...) ambition: Hermione shows ambition in her school work - she wants to show people that she is just as smart as any Wizard-born peer - and McGonagal and Dumbledore support her by letting her have a time- turner in PoA resourcefullness: the trio have been VERY resourceful (checking books out of the restricted section, making Polyjuice Potion, etc.) in all of the books, and this is what allows them to defeat Voldemort and save the day. certain disregard for the rules: sneaking about after curfew under an invisibility cloak (that DD *gave* to Harry for his first Christmas...), the forbidden DA meetings that defied Umbridge's tyranny, Fred & Georges *excellent* exit from Hogwarts, helping Buckbeak "escape" with Sirius under the nose of the Ministry officials - these are all examples of a disregard for the rules that I think several professors (not just DD) admire, and which were good actions. ready to do ANYTHING for your goal: Harry spent extra time underwater to save the others during the Task, Hermione lied to Gilderoy to have him sign the slip so they could get the book to make Polyjuice Potion, taking a flying car to get to Hogwarts when the barrier closed, not letting the Dursleys squish the magic out of you, being stubborn during Occlumency lessons just so Snape can't get at you... while these may have had some deleterious effects, they showed that Harry, Hermione and Ron are willing to sacrifice house points, their reputation or even their wellbeing to reach a goal that they have set for themselves. These are not all of the examples, I know, and I am sorry for not citing, but I do not have the books to hand at the moment - but I think you can see what I mean. skater314159 -who hopes her second post doesn't earn her detention with Umbridge From MorganAnnAdams at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 18:17:32 2005 From: MorganAnnAdams at yahoo.com (Morgan Adams) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 10:17:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Weasley and poverty In-Reply-To: <1107366640.40984.52372.m24@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20050202181733.76581.qmail@web41821.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123774 Cat kind said: "The idea that Molly should somehow be obliged to go out to work because her children are away at school I find very disturbing. Of course, a lot of full time parents would find that after their children are at school they have some time on their hands and would like to get out there and meet people and do something for themselves." Are we forgetting that Molly has a job, though unpaid? She is volunteering her time to the Order. Even if they are in need of money, that is a more worthy cause. --Morgan --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 20:44:11 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:44:11 -0000 Subject: Why doesn't Snape get DADA? (Was Re: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123775 > "northsouth17" wrote: > > I do think he's a dreadful teacher. I don't know that we've been > > shown how well he really passes along his subject material, and > > I think some students are probably far too stressed out in his > > classes to be any good. Ces wrote: > But he must pass on his subject material well because most students > do turn in acceptable potions. And even Umbridge says he is > teaching students beyond 5th year levels. He wouldn't do that if > they had been any serious accidents or the students weren't capable > of producing them. > > Also, he only allows the highest OWL grades into his advanced > class. Which means students move on to much more difficult potions. > Obviously students make it into that class which means he is good > enough to get some students that far. It's still not necessarily a particular mark of his skill as a teacher. I've had dreadful teachers where I still got good grades, not due to them. I imagine Hermione, for example, could manage good grades in any subject without showing up at all. I don't think he's an inept teacher, like Lockhart, but I don't think that he manages to get exceptioanl results either. A very talented man, who's either in the wrong profession entirely or has some heavy personal demons that are keeping him from being a good teacher. Although maybe non-Gryffs get more out of Snape's classes, as I do think he has what to give as a teacher, unlike Trelawney or Lockhart. "northsouth17" From tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 22:16:03 2005 From: tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com (Pyros Wife) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:16:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Weasley Poverty, Working Wizard Women; Molly & Arthur / Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050202221603.912.qmail@web61203.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123776 Kristen Wrote: > To me good parents do not spoil their kids with toys but rather > teach you values, support you, believe in you and love you even > when you make mistakes. I think this is the lesson JK is trying > to teach. > > I'm not saying there are not things that I'd like to see Molly > and Arthur do better. But I don't think they should take a > different or 2nd job just so the kids can have more toys or > "cooler" belongings. Tayla Now: I have to agree with many of the things that Kirsten says in her post, and I snipped much of it down *sorry* but let's look at all of the Weasley children. Did they suffer, no. I am sure that they took the child's perspective as Ron does at times, but all in all, they were raised well and are very balanced (except for Percy, but I will get there) and well adjusted. They are good kids, and as a mother of two, I pray that I have children as adjusted as they are. In every family, there are always going to be those kids that no matter what you do, the values that you try to instill in them just won't take. I think that is where Percy comes in. He sees things so differently from the rest of his family, and therefore doesn't see the value in something that is intangible. Perhaps he will learn, but I don't think it will be a lesson that he learns before the end of book 7. If the lesson didn't take as a child or teenager, it becomes a difficult lesson to learn. Percy isn't a bad kid, just a bit misguided by his own strictness. Tayla --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lexical74 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 23:23:48 2005 From: lexical74 at yahoo.com (Brian Brinkman) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 23:23:48 -0000 Subject: Ron's draw as a talking point Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123777 I find the Weasley story (Ron's especially) interesting because his life, as we understand it so far, is more normal than Harry's. Is normal interesting by itself? No. When placed next to abnormal, it becomes interesting in my view because the results of the mix are unpredictable. Now some of Ron's actions have been predictable. His sensitivity about being "noticeably less wealthy than many of his peers (how's that for a hedge?) is normal. If it weren't normal, people who handled feelings of inadequacy gracefully by not showing them or folks who seem not to have them at all wouldn't be viewed as exceptional. Though Ron's life has been less difficult than Harry's in many ways (no Dursleys, fewer times of mortal peril, etc.), he faces the emotional/psychological/intellectual peaks and valleys that the average Joe faces when coping with exceptionality. What do you do when you are the least exceptional of your friends, so far? How does it feel? How do your friends deal with you? For example, JKR's husband, Dr. Murray, must have a way of looking at things to help him deal with his wife's prominence and nearly unimitable success. Thus far, Ron seems to be the most average of the trio. JKR hasn't let him shine, yet. In my view, she has written his character as a plodder. My childhood minister (Presbyterian) once spoke of Isaac in the Hebrew Bible as a plodder because his father was Abraham and his son was Jacob (Israel). That is, Isaac's claim to fame is as the link between two high-profile patriarchs. Unless Ron demonstrates some new talent or dimension to his personality, he will be a self- aware plodder, I think, and that's not always a bad thing. Now it seems that plodders are a fact of life. The name sounds disparaging, but they are the mortar of life. The good ones are unsung heroes. JKR once said of Ron, "He's always there when you need him." In the long view, that's a heroic trait, because it is not common. It's not an attention-getting trait in day-to-day life, though. I guess most of this is pretty obvious since Ron is the "sidekick," but I am surprised by my own interest in his character and I guess it's because I relate to him, more. I have been a member of groups in which I am the one with the least apparent talents. As I've grown up (matured), the only way to sustain a psychologically healthy membership in such a group is to find a way to value yourself. Ron's story, so far, seems to be an example of this. Notice that in OOTP he tentatively and timidly tried out for Quidditch, endured several humiliating failures, wanted to quit, but couldn't. In the end, he got some success. That success will, hopefully, become part of Ron's growth. Another point of growth that JKR highlighted IMO was his rejection of Percy's advice. Why did Hermione look at him funny? My guess is she wasn't sure what he would do. His track record in handling family pressure, in OOTP, was not good. In fact, his problems with Fred and George practically ruined his tenure as a prefect and nearly ruined his Quidditch attempt. Perhaps Hermione saw his actions re: Percy as a leap for Ron. On a SHIPping note, I interpreted Hermione's reaction to the above event as one of several instances in which she was appraising Ron. I have no idea who Ron will end up with, if anyone, but I certainly felt that he was under Hermione's microscope. Notice her hypothesis on Fred's and George's effect on Ron's Quidditch. It's a sharp, well- reasoned idea. So it's Harry's story and I'm OK with that. Harry is a compelling character. We have some evidence as to how Harry internalizes things as a recently self-aware exception. For example, he is a Quidditch natural and he works hard to deal with Ron's frustrations in OOTP (by giving Ron time to pretend to be sleeping, etc.). So we have insight into how Harry is handling his relatively dense group of recent successes in the WW. It would be interesting to find out how those who can relate more to Harry read Ron's development. Brian B. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 23:25:34 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 23:25:34 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory (not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123778 > > Neri: > > > > "It is our choices that show what we truly are" > > > > According to JKR/DD, if you choose to betray and murder your > friends, then this is what you truly ARE: a murderer and a traitor. > And probably not likable, to anybody who knows what you truly > are.< > > Pippin: > > But JKR believes people can change -- or at least there's not > much point in teaching morality or offering redemption if they > can't. If Lupin is a murderer JKR need not believe he must > remain one..."Though your sins be as scarlet" and all that. > > I expect he will be offered a chance to redeem himself, though I > think he will turn it down and have his soul sucked out. And JKR > will cry buckets. Neri again: Umm, let me see if I got that right. ESE!Lupin is a traitor and a murderer several times over, yet JKR likes him because he may change. She will offer him a chance to change, but he will refuse it and die a traitor and a murderer. Sorry, I think I lost it again. Why did you say she likes him? Oh, because he may change. But he won't. Goodness, I'm completely baffled now... Also, according to this argument, can I assume that Snape, who is now having his second chance, also may have murdered 12 innocent muggles or something similar when he was a DE? But still, since he has now changed, why isn't he included in the list of characters JKR likes? Neri From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Feb 2 23:42:27 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 23:42:27 -0000 Subject: Harry's last 'living' relatives (was Re: The Mauraders' Generation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123779 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Megan" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, > > "queen_astrofiammante" wrote: > > (snipped stuff here...) > > ...And we are told again and again that Petunia is his only living > > relative. > > > > My mind keeps coming back to that confrontation in OotP between > > Sirius and Molly Weasley, when they are arguing about who cares > > most about Harry. The subtext to me is that these are two people > > who are his blood relatives - on the Potter and Evans sides > > respectively. I realise that doesn't fit with what we know - that > > Harry has no blood relatives. But in a world where people are so > > closely interrelated, how can that actually be true? Geoff: this came up a number of times in the good old "Mark Evans" days and I wrote, on one occasion in message 85020: "On the question of Petunia being the only living relative, we have looked at the possibility of folk further over on the family tree. I mentioned in a message some weeks ago on this very topic that I went to Yorkshire earlier this year to meet a distant cousin on my father's side of the family. I knew of her existence but never realised that she was a family member until after my father's death ten years ago. Although I am related to her, if someone were to ask me to name my cousins etc., I think I would be inclined to forget to include her on the list. She is in fact a relative via my great- grandparents... and don't ask me which cousin that makes her. Pass." Do we only count "close" relatives? From snow15145 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 2 23:45:42 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 23:45:42 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123780 Snow previously: > > If Lupin keeps his mind as long as he has taken his potion the week > preceding the full moon, why did he attack Sirius after the Shrieking > Shack episode? Did Lupin forget to take the potion for the entire > week before the full moon? This potion sounds like any drug that > needs to be taken consistently to have the full effect but if one > dose is missed it doesn't nullify its total effect. So was Lupin in a > sound or semi-sound mind even after he transformed? Who notified > those dementors, again? Neri: Your suspicion seems to imply that a prime target of ESE!Lupin is Sirius. If so, why didn't ESE!Lupin simply went to DD (or even better, straight to the Ministry) in the beginning of the PoA year and told them that Black is a dog animagus? The ministry and the dementors would have then done Lupin's dirty work for him. Snow: I thought that question was more-or-less answered already by Lupin in the Shrieking Shack when he said: "All this year, I have been battling with myself, wondering whether I should tell Dumbledore that Sirius was an Animagus. But I didn't do it. Why? " POA--Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs Lupin couldn't very well tell Dumbledore or the Ministry without betraying Dumbledore's trust as Lupin puts it because he would had to have admitted that his best friends had become illegal animagus because of him. Neri: If ESE!Lupin doesn't want to admit to DD that as a boy he betrayed his trust, he can hide from DD the marauders story, and tell him that Black became an animagus after he had left Hogwarts. Who's to tell DD otherwise? Snow: Exactly, why didn't he tell Dumbledore then? Regardless of which way you look at the character of Lupin there still exists the reason he did not tell Dumbledore about Sirius. northsouth17: Unless it really needs to be takes *every* night that week, perhaps especially the night of the transformation. As far as I understood it, Lupin did not so much forget to take the potion, as ran off to the shack before Snape had shown up with it. He's just putting the blame squarely on himself, rather than going "Well, *Snape* hadn't shown up yet". Arynn: I always interprited that quote as meaning he had to take the potion every day in the week proceding the full moon. It might be like birth control pills, missing even one dose can increase risk of pregnancy. (Oddly enough the menstral cycle is tied to the moon as well.) Snow: It isn't so much the fact that he forgot one dose of his potion; it is more the fact that he had been taking the potion for up to a week preceding the full moon that counts. As in Arynn's example of birth control pills, if you miss a dose you increase the chance of becoming pregnant but the effect of the doses you did take would be more effective, than that one missed dose, to you not becoming pregnant. In other words the effect of the drug is not rendered useless because of one missed dose. I see the same situation with Lupin, he must take the potion one week *prior* to the full moon, so why was it so important for him to have that one missed dose on the night of the full moon? Didn't he already take his quota since the moon is in full the night of the Shrieking Shack incident? AstroF writes: It's a great theory, enormous fun to read and hats off to Pippin for digging up so much compelling evidence! I've not had such a good time since reading the arguments for ESE!McGonagall, and I'm certainly prepared to concede there are many ambiguities about Lupin's character. But here, quoted from the FAQs of JKR's website is the one thing that makes it impossible for me to believe: "Who is your favourite character? I love Harry, Hermione, Ron, Hagrid, Dumbledore, Ginny, Fred, George and Lupin. I love writing (though would not necessarily want to meet) Snape." I don't think EverSoEvil!Lupin would appear on that list - especially given the way Snape is qualified. Although I'm sure legions of believers in ESE!Hermione, ESE!Ron, ESE!Twins and, naturally, ESE!Dumbledore will descend to contradict me... ; -)) Snow: If JKR were to have said she either didn't like Lupin or omitted him from her favorite character list, wouldn't that have made her audience suspicious? Then again she may like this character with all his flaws. It is reasonable to accept that a person turned out the way they did, if you have been given realistic reasons as to why, and still like him in spite of those flaws. A hypothetical example would be to have a loving child who grows up to make less than smart choices because his mother died and he didn't have proper guidance because his father had to work and so on, would you hate the child or hate that the child had made the choices he did? You can still like the person but hate what they have become. Snow From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 00:36:24 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 16:36:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050203003625.99374.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123781 --- lupinlore wrote: > I think what Alla and I and others are saying is > that even if the WW was too dangerous, WHY DIDN'T DD MAKE THE > DURSLEYS ACT BETTER? It seems very difficult to conceive that > there was no way he could put pressure on them, UNLESS he had to > enter into some kind of binding agreement NOT to interfere. And > THAT I think is what we want to know, WAS ALBUS PREVENTED FROM > INTERVENING? If so, then the morals of the situation slide in one > direction. If not, he just CHOSE not to intervene for whatever > reason, then they slide radically in the other direction. Yes, personally I think Dumbledore WAS prevented from intervening as Harry was growing up. I think the Dursleys, once they got over their shock at finding a baby on their doorstep (which would floor anyone at 7 am, you must admit), did make it clear to Dumbledore in person or by owl that they would accept Harry only on condition that "you freaks" as Vernon would put it stayed as far away as possible. The first time a witch or wizard showed her/himself on Privet Drive, little Harry would be at the UK equivalent of Children's Services faster than you can say "snitch". The Dursleys never had more leverage than during that first 24 hours after they found Harry on their porch. They could have called the police and reported a found infant, the authorities would have swept in and taken him away and they could have forgotten the whole unpleasant shock. The longer that Harry was in the house, the harder it would be to come up with answers for the authorities that would be credible to themselves as innocent bystanders. And I think Dumbledore agreed, without telling them about Harry getting his Hogwarts letter a decade down the road, or about Mrs. Figg a few streets away (after all, the Dursleys don't know what squibs are and so Mrs. AF wouldn't fall under their ban). So yes, I think Dumbledore was prevented from intervening closely. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 00:42:47 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 00:42:47 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory (not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123782 Pippin: But JKR believes people can change -- or at least there's not much point in teaching morality or offering redemption if they can't. If Lupin is a murderer JKR need not believe he must remain one..."Though your sins be as scarlet" and all that. I expect he will be offered a chance to redeem himself, though I think he will turn it down and have his soul sucked out. And JKR will cry buckets. vmonte responds: For a minute I thought you were talking about Snape until I got to the part where you stated that JKR would cry buckets. :) Vivian From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Feb 3 00:50:26 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 00:50:26 -0000 Subject: Harry's last 'living' relatives (was Re: The Mauraders' Generation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123784 > > > > "queen_astrofiammante" wrote: I realise that doesn't fit with what we know - that Harry has no blood relatives. But in a world where people are so closely interrelated, how can that actually be true? > > Geoff: > this came up a number of times in the good old "Mark Evans" days and I wrote, on one occasion in message 85020: "On the question of Petunia being the only living relative, we have looked at the possibility of folk further over on the family tree. Potioncat: Well, as to the first question, the "blood" relative needs to be on Lily's side. Harry could have IMO, distant Potter relatives or distant Mrs. Potter's maiden name relatives. But they wouldn't count in the blood protection. I don't think it's that hard to come up with no relatives on one side, or as Geoff says, there could be Evans relatives "further out" but at what point does the blood connection become too thin? From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 01:01:34 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 17:01:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Neville and stuff (Was: In Defense of Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050203010134.5859.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123785 --- justcarol67 wrote: > If I were Neville, my boggart would be the DEs who Crucio'd my > parents. Maybe as of PoA, he hasn't allowed that fear to take > shape in his conscious mind yet.... I think that > maybe he transferred his fear of his formidable (but nevertheless > DD-supporting) grandmother onto Snape, making a minor fear into a > major one because the major one (Bellatrix and friends) is > incomprehensibly terrifying? > Well, it's a pretty traumatic thing to admit that you're afraid of your Gran. Snape makes a suitable substitute, and has the added bonus, if you will, of not being a relative or having done nice things for him as a small child. Also I suspect that young Neville doesn't know what a DE looks/ed like and that in his young mind a DE looks rather like scary Snape. So it all kind of comes together in one image for him. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 01:10:28 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 17:10:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050203011028.51903.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123786 --- Tonks wrote: > Do we really think that a wizard, one of the greatest and most > powerful wizard of the day, should *threaten* a Muggle with magic. > Using magic in a Muggle area is against the WW laws. Bribery is > against everyone's laws. Only the weak, the bullies, *threaten* > others. DD is a very wise man, he knows people and their actions > and motives very well. He has learned something in his 150+ years. The key to the protection that Harry had at the Dursleys was that Petunia took him in willingly. Had Dumbledore had to threaten her, then the protective spell would not have worked. OOTP, Chapter 37: "...I put my trust therefore in your mother's blood. I delivered you to her sister, her only remaining relative." "She doesn't love me," said Harry at once. "She doesn't give a damn-" "But she took you," Dumbledore cut across him. "She may have taken you grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly, yet still she took you, and in doing so she sealed the charm I placed upon you..." There are other points Dumbledore makes in the next few paragraphs about how Petunia took Harry in as a "surrogate son". They all point to the same thing: Petunia had to be willing to accept Harry. Had he threatened her or bribed her, the spell would not have worked. I mentioned in another thread that the Dursleys had leverage that Dumbledore had to acknowledge; this willingness to accept Harry was part of that leverage. They could have called in the social services people and claimed they didn't know him; they weren't completely helpless in negotiations. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jferer at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 01:19:24 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 01:19:24 -0000 Subject: Why doesn't Snape get DADA? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123787 Edis:"We have Canon that he felt he did better at OWL potions than he expected but it is unlikely he will get a top grade and we know Snape is implacable about only accepting top grades into his Potions NEWT classes. I can't see Jo pulling an academic miracle and giving Harry that grade... But if Snape becomes DADA teacher this year then there is scope for a new potions teacher to be more lenient and accept Harry into class." That seems plausible, if scary. Giving Snape DADA seems like a mad idea, though. Dumbledore probably didn't give Snape DADA for the same reason you wouldn't give a recovering alcoholic the keys to the liquor cabinet. I thought the problem would be resolved by Harry getting a shockingly unexpected "O" in Potions, thereby forcing Snape to take Harry into his class. It would be profoundly irritating to Snape, all the more so because a) he always trashed Harry's grades, and b) He can't repudiate Harry's grade because it would be turning down a compliment (my student got an "O.") Snape looks bad no matter what he does in this scenario. Here's another factor that makes your hypothesis believable: Neville. He ought to be an automatic into DADA (fighting real DE's heroically ought to get you into advanced something) and he will do better in Potions than expected as well. I expect Neville and Harry to stay together in most classes. How do you think Snape would feel if a new, supportive, Lupin-like teacher made students like Neville excel? Jim Ferer From a_b_desert_king at hotmail.com Thu Feb 3 01:35:50 2005 From: a_b_desert_king at hotmail.com (a_b_desert_king) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 01:35:50 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape and Snape and DD as a team In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123788 > Carol: > ...I've always read that scene as Snape reminding Lupin of who Neville is, a > Longbottom, whose boggart ought logically to be a Death Eater, just as > Harry's ought logically to be Voldemort. Lupin prevents Harry from > demonstrating and confronting his boggart assuming that it will be too > terrifying for the rest of the class to see (which may well be true > even though it's a Dementor rather than LV). Surely a masked, > wand-wielding DE would be almost equally terrifying? > > Unfortunately for him, Snape's strategy (if that's what it is) > backfires, and the boggart turns out to be himself. >snip Heather here: Sorry to be so far behind in posts, but I just couldn't resist pointing out at this stage that (presumably) Neville's boggart *is* a DE - Snape! From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 00:26:19 2005 From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 00:26:19 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123789 Snow previously: > > > > If Lupin keeps his mind as long as he has taken his potion the week > > preceding the full moon, why did he attack Sirius after the > Shrieking > > Shack episode? Did Lupin forget to take the potion for the entire > > week before the full moon? This potion sounds like any drug that > > needs to be taken consistently to have the full effect but if one > > dose is missed it doesn't nullify its total effect. > northsouth17: > Unless it really needs to be takes *every* night that week, perhaps > especially the night of the transformation. As far as I understood > it, Lupin did not so much forget to take the potion, as ran off to > the shack before Snape had shown up with it. He's just putting the > blame squarely on himself, rather than going "Well, *Snape* hadn't > shown up yet". > Lyra: I'm a Lupin fan, but this one fact has always bothered me about him. If your sanity, and the safety of those around you depends on you taking a medication, how could you possibly "forget" to take it? (OK, I've never been dependent on a medication, so I can't speak from experience, but it seems like the more important the medicine is, the more effort you'd put into making sure you took it). And I certainly don't think there's any reason to try to pin this one on Snape. Lupin is, presumably, an adult who is responsible for making sure he's taken the medication he needs, and if he has to go down to the dungeons to check on, so be it. Yes, he got carried away by the moment, presumably, but (since I can't buy ESELupin) neglecting the potion was certainly stupid and dangerous on his part. From skater314159 at yahoo.co.uk Thu Feb 3 01:07:30 2005 From: skater314159 at yahoo.co.uk (Megan) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 01:07:30 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty, Working Wizard Women; was Molly & Arthurwas Why I like Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123790 (citing Jocelyn who wrote:) ~snip~"... Because Arthur's job doesn't pay well. Why doesn't he get abetter paying job? ~snip~ Arthur has made the decision not to move further up in the Ministry because he loves muggle inventions, and he loves his job. All well and good, and I certainly don't want to suggest he should move to a job he hated, but he has 6 children to support & establish - isn't this a very selfish decision?"~snip~ and meganlynn wrote in agreement: ~snip~"If you are going to have 7 children, you should be prepared to make some sacrifices for them. Now, I am in no way saying the Weasley's are bad parents. It is obvious they love their children very much, and make them their top priority."~snip~ skater314159 writes: I have to disagree with both of you, in that I think Arthur is doing fine where he is. He works in the government (which doesn't pay much in the WW or the RW) because he wants to make a difference. He believes (probably correctly - based upon how the characters talk about/react to Muggles) that if *he* doesn't do the job, it probably won't get done at all. I also feel that Arthur at some point in his life had to ask himself an important question: "What am I going to do with my life? Am I going to a)make money doing a job that pays well and will give my family more money b) am I going to follow my heart/ethics/beliefs and do what I think/believe/feel that I need to do to make this world a better place, even if it means I won't make as much money or have as much prestige." I applaud him for choosing b). It is not easy to do that (especially in America where making money, buying goods and having high prestige are very important to adults - moreso than in other countries). I do not think it is a "selfish" decision at all that Arthur made. To me it is a decision to forsake personal benefit for the good of all. I think that doing that shows that he *lives* out what he believes - practises what he preaches - which is a very good thing for a father to do. I think his choice is very important to the family in that it influences the children. All of them have jobs that they love and that are beneficial - and except for Fred and George (who seem to be doing quite well in the joke market) I don't recall any of them being "finacially endowed". I just do not think that not being rich is bad for a family ... and I don't think that one of the "sacrifices" a parent must make for the sake of his children is to give up the ideologies or beliefs that he holds dear. Also he should not have to give up "honour" in order just to make money and have his family live in posh surroundings just because society is materialistic/consumer-driven. Another point I must disagree on follows... meganlynn wrote: ~snip~"A second issue I have is Molly Weasley's role as a homemaker. Having so many young children at home, having to raise AND homeschool them certainly warrants a stay-at-home mom. However, with all the children out of the house 10 months out of the year, what does she do all day? If the family was so strapped for cash (and the years when 5 of their children were in school-books 2 and 3- were certainly the tightest)why not get a job? " ~snip~ Now its me (skater314159) again: First of all, I don't think that we should judge Molly. If she was a real person - suppose she was my neighbour for example - and I heard someone say this, I would be appalled. I think a woman's decision where to work should be up to her. If she decides to work in the home, then she should be able to without people talking bad about that decision. Today there seems to be the belief that a woman can do anything (well, most anything) she wants to - as long as it isn't that she chooses to be a housewife! This seems hypocritical to me, because if a woman can decide for herself, shouldn't "housewife" be an acceptable choice? Also, as alshainofthenorth stated in post# 123687: ~snip~"From the orchard where the Weasley kids play Quidditch, throwing apples to each other instead of proper balls, and from the several chickens picking in the garden, I had the impression that Molly is running a small-scale farm with free-range poultry, eggs, apples etc. at the Burrow. If so, that's a full-time job right there." ~snip~ This is *very* true. When I was growing up, my dad had a farm (there were cattle, crops, chickens,and grapes(for wine),and more that were all "organic"/"all-natural" and everything was run with solar power that came from solar-panels - because he believed that was the right way to live)and let me tell you that it is *hard work*! It took much time, effort, hard-work and money (investment in equipment and upkeep) to keep it going. It is *not* easy. Taking care of something like that, while possible for a family to do, is a *full-time job*. Add to that she has to cook and clean and do chores even when the kids are gone (which is still *work*) and I can see why she does not have a job. Skater314159 ~who loves homemade fruit pies almost as much as pi~ :) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 01:53:45 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 01:53:45 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123791 AstroF writes: snip. But here, quoted from the FAQs of JKR's website is the one thing that makes it impossible for me to believe: "Who is your favourite character? I love Harry, Hermione, Ron, Hagrid,Dumbledore, Ginny, Fred, George and Lupin. I love writing (though would not necessarily want to meet) Snape." I don't think EverSoEvil!Lupin would appear on that list - especially given the way Snape is qualified. Snow: If JKR were to have said she either didn't like Lupin or omitted him from her favorite character list, wouldn't that have made her audience suspicious? Then again she may like this character with all his flaws. Alla: I don't know, Snow. People hypothecised that she does not even wish her "villains" Happy Birthday. :o) I happen to think that when she says that she likes Lupin, she means it and especially when she wishes that kind of teacher for her daughter. But I know that Pippin disagrees. :o) And of course what you said is a possibility too. I am just not convinced. :o) Sorry! JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Feb 3 01:55:54 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 01:55:54 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory (not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123792 > Neri again: > Umm, let me see if I got that right. ESE!Lupin is a traitor and a murderer several times over, yet JKR likes him because he may change.She will offer him a chance to change, but he will refuse it and die a traitor and a murderer. Sorry, I think I lost it again. Why did you say she likes him? Oh, because he may change. But he won't. Goodness, > I'm completely baffled now... Pippin: Goodness, she doesn't like him because he might change. She likes him because he's clever and kind and gives good lessons. JKR could love him like a mom who recognizes her grownup son has become a criminal, but still loves him and wishes he could change. Give some credit to JKR's creativity. Anybody can imagine a cruel, stupid sadistic person doing evil things. But how dull! How much more challenging to create a wonderful man who, because of one failing, being too cowardly to stand up to his friends, is entrapped in a secret life that eventually destroys him. Neri: > Also, according to this argument, can I assume that Snape, who is now having his second chance, also may have murdered 12 innocent muggles or something similar when he was a DE? But still, since he has now changed, why isn't he included in the list of characters JKR likes?< 'Cause he's nasty. But again, it's no great challenge to make a nasty guy, who has all the qualities one happens to dislike in a person, a baddie. How much more interesting to imagine that because he has one strength, (what it is, we don't know yet and JKR is decidedly not telling) he was able to find redemption. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 02:01:43 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 02:01:43 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123793 Lyra: I'm a Lupin fan, but this one fact has always bothered me about him. If your sanity, and the safety of those around you depends on you taking a medication, how could you possibly "forget" to take it? (OK, I've never been dependent on a medication, so I can't speak from experience, but it seems like the more important the medicine is, the more effort you'd put into making sure you took it). And I certainly don't think there's any reason to try to pin this one on Snape. Lupin is, presumably, an adult who is responsible for making sure he's taken the medication he needs, and if he has to go down to the dungeons to check on, so be it. Yes, he got carried away by the moment, presumably, but (since I can't buy ESELupin) neglecting the potion was certainly stupid and dangerous on his part. Alla: I have to take certain type of medication every day and let me tell you - you absolutely CAN forget about it. (Granted, my life is not threatened if I forget about it, but it is not good for me either to forget on the regular basis) It WAS dangerous what Remus did, but he just discovered that one of his friends whom he believed to be dead for twelve years - can be alive. He also discovered that another one of his friends,whom he believed to be a traitor for twelve years may not be one. I'd say he was in a very interesting state of mind and it is quite possible that taking a potion was the last thing on his mind. Just my opinion, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 02:07:03 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 02:07:03 -0000 Subject: Neville and stuff (Was: In Defense of Snape) In-Reply-To: <20050203010134.5859.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123794 Carol earlier: > > If I were Neville, my boggart would be the DEs who Crucio'd my> > parents. Maybe as of PoA, he hasn't allowed that fear to take shape in his conscious mind yet.... I think that maybe he transferred his fear of his formidable (but nevertheless DD-supporting) grandmother onto Snape, making a minor fear into a major one because the major one (Bellatrix and friends) is incomprehensibly terrifying? > > > Magda responded: > Well, it's a pretty traumatic thing to admit that you're afraid of > your Gran. Snape makes a suitable substitute, and has the added > bonus, if you will, of not being a relative or having done nice > things for him as a small child. > > Also I suspect that young Neville doesn't know what a DE looks/ed > like and that in his young mind a DE looks rather like scary Snape. > So it all kind of comes together in one image for him. Carol again: I was thinking of a masked and hooded Death Eater, possibly female if he knows about Bellatrix. Surely he's seen old photos or sketches or someone has given him a sufficiently accurate description that he'd be able to picture a Death Eater, just as we can. It's even possible that the boggart would know what a DE looks like, just as it knows how to look like a Dementor. Carol, who today began tutoring fourteen- to seventeen-year-old boys in a yeshiva high school and felt like she was in Hogwarts but with rabbis instead of wizards (I was the only person who wasn't male and Jewish!) From a_b_desert_king at hotmail.com Thu Feb 3 02:14:55 2005 From: a_b_desert_king at hotmail.com (a_b_desert_king) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 02:14:55 -0000 Subject: Why Distrust Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123795 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > Renee: > > > If they [James & Sirius] had no particular reason to distrust > > > Lupin, the possibility that it *was* Peter ought to have > > > crossed their minds. > > SSSusan: > FWIW, I agree fully with Renee on this. This is surely an area that > JKR is going to flesh out in book 6 or 7. Whether the friendships > among the four marauders began to disintegrate "naturally" post- > Hogwarts or not, as Carol has suggested, I don't think that could > account for James & Sirius suspecting Remus over Peter. I believe > there must have been something else -- an event, a rumor, > *something* -- which caused them to have doubts about Lupin's > loyalty. Heather: Afraid I just cannot see ESE:Lupin (or maybe just don't want to...). Maybe I'm just taking it at face value, but I really think the reason PP wasn't suspected as the "rat" is that no one really thought he had the intelligence to pull it off. I can relate perfectly to a classmate in University (we are all mature students working on our second careers); she appears totally immature, flighty and disorganized, but she is making top marks; sometimes even *the* top mark in our classes. Until I saw her marks I fully expected her to be a "Christmas grad". Now I realize that she is fully capable. I suspect that MPP and Lily truly didn't believe that PP was capable of being the informer, thus it had to be one of the two who were capable. Since Sirius was so close to James, the only one left was Lupin. Heather, who may just be totally gullible but can honestly see how James and Sirius would be arrogant enough to underestimate tag along Peter From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Feb 3 02:22:16 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 02:22:16 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: <20050203011028.51903.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123796 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > > > The key to the protection that Harry had at the Dursleys was that > Petunia took him in willingly. Had Dumbledore had to threaten her, > then the protective spell would not have worked. > > OOTP, Chapter 37: > > "...I put my trust therefore in your mother's blood. I delivered you > to her sister, her only remaining relative." > > "She doesn't love me," said Harry at once. "She doesn't give a > damn-" > > "But she took you," Dumbledore cut across him. "She may have taken > you grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly, yet still she took > you, and in doing so she sealed the charm I placed upon you..." > > There are other points Dumbledore makes in the next few paragraphs > about how Petunia took Harry in as a "surrogate son". They all point > to the same thing: Petunia had to be willing to accept Harry. Had he > threatened her or bribed her, the spell would not have worked. > > I mentioned in another thread that the Dursleys had leverage that > Dumbledore had to acknowledge; this willingness to accept Harry was > part of that leverage. They could have called in the social services > people and claimed they didn't know him; they weren't completely > helpless in negotiations. > > Magda > And yet in your own quote, Magda, Dumbledore says, "she may have....UNWILLINGLY...." Do you think DD is using the word "willing" in a different sense than what you mean? Not being sarcastic, just asking. Lupinlore > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 02:34:52 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 02:34:52 -0000 Subject: Harry as Job, Snape as the Satan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123797 I've had reason lately, to wander about among the old posts. Sometimes it's hard to tell them from the current ones. The same old arguments that fill the screen today, filled screens years ago with the same lack of resolution. But I came upon a post (38508) with a very interesting slant, and at that, one I haven't seen before. Following the thread back led me to a copyrighted essay in the HPfGU files written before Order of the Phoenix. Don't be put off by the Hermione type title. It's a thought provoking, readable essay and it may generate some new discussions. It addresses some of the same issues that I've seen on the list lately, "How could DD allow this to happen?" "Why did Snape do that?" The Conundrum of Justice and the Divine Adversary: Literary Parallels between Harry Potter and the Book of Job By Porphyria, 2002. The essay gives some background about the story of Job and also about the Hebrew view of the Satan as portrayed in the Book of Job. We aren't talking about the devil here, not really. Part I looks at Harry as being very Job like. He is innocent, yet he suffers. Dumbledore, the benevolent God-like figure, seems to look the other way. Harry's friends and neighbors (fellow students) sometimes reject him or certainly question him. Personally I like this idea, better than Harry as a Christ figure. A Job-figure has to stay loyal, a Christ-figure implies a certain type of sacrifice. Part II looks at Snape as being in the Satan role. Satan's role is test Job, and to act as Prosecutor or Accuser. Now, that's a role Snape could enjoy! He also is charged with roaming the earth. (Roaming Hogwarts?) Thinking of Snape as the Accuser actually explains much of his behavior in the books. Here is a sample of Porphyria's text about the Satan: "The Christian sense of "Satan" as the supreme agent of Evil, the fallen angel who rebelled against God, did not come into use until hundreds of years after the Book of Job was written.6 In her book An Adversary in Heaven Peggy L. Day explains that the Hebrew word "satan" is best translated as "adversary" or "accuser" and that this often has the strictly forensic sense of a prosecuting attorney or the opponent in a legal case.7 snip . In the Book of Job, the character called "the satan" is a member of the divine council, meaning he is an angel, and a perfectly loyal one at that. Snip In the Book of Job, God specifically seeks out the satan from among his divine council and questions him. For a character with few lines, the satan exerts a sardonic and eloquent presence in the text." > > > That sounds just like our beloved Snape! > > Well, what do you think? Would anyone like to discuss the literary > parallels of Job to the Harry Potter series? The essay was written > before Order of the Phoenix came out. > Alla: I want to thank you for making me reread "Book of Job". I read Porphiria's essay back in my lurking days. I happen to think that OOP put some holes in to that interpretation, maybe others will disagree with me. Yes, "Harry as Job" sounds about right before OOP, but Job never ever questions the G-d authority, no matter how badly he suffers and no matter how upset he becomes ( and yes, at the end he becomes a bit upset) ( at least in the translation I read) Despite what his friends tell him ( to change his behaviour and then G-d will return his blessings to Job, etc), Job keeps his faith. It does not sound to me that at the end of OOP Harry keeps a lot of faith in Dumbledore. Snape as Satan? As Accuser? Sure, why not? :o) She argues though that just as Satan, Snape never does more than allowed by Dumbledore and theoretically I could accept such reading before OOP, even if I personally disagreed with it, I could see it - Snape's function in the text as testing Harry, looking at how worthy of being a Hero he is. I think that after OOP it could be argued that "Satan" oops, Snape started to do MORE to hurt "Job" Harry than G-d allowed. Although if I assume for myself that "Satan" started to make his own decisions without G-d permission, I can see that Snape retains the function of testing Harry's worthiness as Hero. Besides, I don't see Dumbledore as God like figure anymore, not even close. Alltogether essay was very interesting and when I reread it today, I felt the same way I usually do when I see the cool piece of creative writing - I want to write like that. :o) These were my first impressions after rereading. I would love to talk more. Just my opinion, Alla From snow15145 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 02:38:50 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 02:38:50 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123798 AstroF writes: snip. But here, quoted from the FAQs of JKR's website is the one thing that makes it impossible for me to believe: "Who is your favourite character? I love Harry, Hermione, Ron, Hagrid,Dumbledore, Ginny, Fred, George and Lupin. I love writing (though would not necessarily want to meet) Snape." I don't think EverSoEvil!Lupin would appear on that list - especially given the way Snape is qualified. Snow previously: If JKR were to have said she either didn't like Lupin or omitted him from her favorite character list, wouldn't that have made her audience suspicious? Then again she may like this character with all his flaws. Alla: I don't know, Snow. People hypothecised that she does not even wish her "villains" Happy Birthday. :o) I happen to think that when she says that she likes Lupin, she means it and especially when she wishes that kind of teacher for her daughter. But I know that Pippin disagrees. :o) And of course what you said is a possibility too. I am just not convinced. :o) Snow: The thread has veered off course just a tad from my original intension, which was to find out why Lupin would have been dangerous if he had taken his meds. as the doctor ordered. It was crucial for Lupin to take the potion during the week preceding the full moon, which I have to assume he has since we have not been told otherwise, to obtain its full effect. The only dose Lupin missed was on the exact night of the full moon, at this point he had already taken at least 6 doses, why is he acting like a full-fledged, out of his mind werewolf? As far as wishing a happy birthday to villains or not, I guess time will do the telling, for Lupin must have a birthday by July 30th ,which is the first recorded Happy birthday to the site, or he is ESE by this theory. How convenient that this occurs only two weeks after we get the next book. Hmmmmm. Just because Lupin may be bad does not make him a bad teacher, likewise, just because Snape is seen as a bad teacher does not necessarily make him bad. You can be good at heart and be an awful teacher or vice versa. The one does not equal the other. JKR could get away with honestly stating that as far as teaching goes, she would want her daughter taught by Lupin, after all he is a great teacher. Snow From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 02:53:11 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 02:53:11 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123799 Carol wrote: Severus, in contrast, clearly *knows* DADA in detail and clearly cares about what he knows. He's not trying to get a high mark for its own sake or to "get by" like rich boys Sirius and James, who won't need to earn a living when they finish school. Severus clearly wants to *master* the subject, possibly to use it in his career, possibly because the subject itself is important to him. Just because a student studies doesn't mean he or she isn't naturally bright. Look at Hermione. vmonte responds: My favorite psychology professor once told me that (in his experience) the brightest students usually finished their exams fastest and had the ability to not just memorize information but apply information in ways that the average "A" student could not. There is a difference between students who excel because they are memorizers and fact spewers, and students who excel because they understand the material and have the ability to apply it in new ways. I think that James and Sirius were probably exceptionally bright students (another reason for Snape to hate them). I'm not saying that Snape isn't a hard worker; I just don't think he is all that exceptional either. SSSusan: I think there's a WHOLE lotta assumin' goin' on here. How do know all this stuff about Severus Snape -- that he clearly *cares* about what he knows, that he's not interested in getting a high mark just for a high mark's sake but because he wants to *master* the subject? How do we know he's not studying hard and trying to do well because he wants to impress or please his potential boss, Lord Voldemort? snip How 'bout he's struggled to come up with a response, has had lots of fits & starts or moments of "writer's block," and so he's rushing to complete the essay at the end? How do we know he's not a master bullshitter? vmonte again: Excellent point SSSusan. Carol: Snape has memorized many complicated potions, which he transfers to the chalkboard with a flick of his wand. And we *know* that Snape is bright. We've seen him put two and two together time and again. We never see Sirius do anything of the sort. As for James, we don't see him do much of anything except tease Remus about being a werewolf, show off with a Snitch, hex Severus, and talk briefly to a girl who thinks he's a bully. vmonte: I have seen him put two and two together and come up with the wrong answer time and time again. SSSusan: ...[Snape's] an ADULT who's been teaching his subject area for more than a dozen years. You're comparing that to what we see of Sirius & James as teens. We *have* no examples of James in his adult work setting, nor Sirius, really. vmonte: Exactly! From ellyn337 at earthlink.net Thu Feb 3 02:57:06 2005 From: ellyn337 at earthlink.net (mclellyn) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 02:57:06 -0000 Subject: What if the theme of Harry Potter were -- we are our own worst enemy? (long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123800 Gadfly McLellyn writes: This past summer I happened to come across the book MAN AND HIS SYMBOLS by Carl Gustav Jung. From that book I postulated the theory that the ending of the Harry Potter books would be that Harry Potter and Voldemort had to merge into one being (post 110941). Most of us are aware that Jo Rowling likes to foreshadow what is coming. The sorting hat saying the houses have to unite might be foreshadowing the unifying of opposites -- Harry and Voldemort. Also, Paracelsus is mentioned twice in the books. Once in the first book as a chocolate frog card and in THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX when Peeves is going to drop a bust of Paracelsus on the next person to go up to the owlery. In another C. G. Jung book called ALCHEMICAL STUDIES, he writes about Paracelsus and behold one of the sections is named "The Union of Man's Two Natures". In MAN AND HIS SYMBOLS, Carl Jung stated that in dreams we become aware of parts of our personality that we prefer not to acknowledge consciously. Dreams are peppered through the Harry Potter series and in ORDER OF THE PHOENIX the dreams are becoming more important. Go back through the series and see how often Harry's dreams are foreshadowing some event in the books. Carl Jung goes on to say that the unconscious and the conscious "implies the existence of two ... personalities within the same individual ....And it is the curse of modern man that many people suffer from this divided personality." (page 23 MAN AND HIS SYMBOLS) Before you dismiss this as only people in mental wards are like this, have you ever had someone complain to you about someone else and think why can't this person see they are exactly like the person they are complaining about? Oh, hi Mom. Now, if my Mom were to realize she is like the person she is complaining about then Carl Jung would call it the "realization of the shadow"; the philosophers would say "know thyself" or "an unexamined life is not worth living"; Jesus would say "take the log out of your own eye before you try to remove the sliver from your neighbor's eye." The wisdom is similar. Is it any wonder there are so many mirrors in the Harry Potter series? Mirrors are used to examine yourself. "Dr. Jung has pointed out...Ego and shadow, although separate, are inextricably linked together in much the same way that thought and feeling are related to each other" MAN AND HIS SYMBOLS p118. This, I believe, is how Harry and Voldemort are linked. Realizing that there is the aspect we do know about ourselves (the ego conscious) and the aspects we refuse to recognize about ourselves (the shadow unconscious), I thought if I say symbolically that Harry is consciousness and Voldemort is unconsciousness then this would tie many things together from the Harry Potter books. For example: 1.) The prophecy makes more sense. MAN AND HIS SYMBOLS explains why neither is truly alive while the other survives. Carl Jung's basic message is a person "becomes a whole, integrated, calm, fertile and happy when the conscious and unconscious have learned to live at peace and to complement one another." (page 14 MAN AND HIS SYMBOLS) It is interesting in ORDER OF THE PHOENIX p835 when Dumbledore is about to tell Harry about the prophecy that Dumbledore says, "Five years ago you arrived at Hogwarts, Harry, safe and whole, as I had planned and attended. Well -- not quite whole." Harry and Voldemort are only surviving and not truly living. It is hard to live a calm, fertile, happy life when you have a mortal enemy to worry about constantly and haunting your dreams. According to Jung, neither is whole as long as they are divided and not assimilating the important qualities and powers of the other. In other words, neither is truly alive. 2.) This gives some insight why in ORDER OF THE PHOENIX Dumbledore says in his office, "But in essence divided?" after Harry tells him about Mr. Weasley being attacked by the snake. Harry, the conscious, and Voldemort, the unconscious, were briefly united in the relaxed state of Harry's dreams. Exactly where Jung says the unconscious visits us. 3.) This theory of Voldemort being the unconscious explains some characteristics about him. Voldemort being the unconscious explains why he knows everyone's hidden thoughts detecting everyone's lies and fears. Voldemort is part of the "collective unconscious" in Jungian terms and that is why Voldemort always knows. If someone made a potion or performed a charm to turn Harry's attacker into the unconscious self, with no body, then he isn't quite mortal and isn't able to die. You could say that the Avada Kadavra curse hit both Harry and Voldemort killing something in each of them. Perhaps killing Harry's shadow unconscious and Voldemort's physical being? Killing half of each equals killing a whole? Only book 7 will tell. 4.) Dumbledore didn't kill Voldemort in the lobby of the Ministry of Magic because he knows that Harry's task is to become whole with his shadow unconscious - Voldemort. I believe that Dumbledore may have gone through the uniting of the unconscious shadow with his ego consciousness when he defeated the dark wizard Grindelwald. Notice it doesn't say Dumbledore killed Grindelwald on the chocolate frog card. I believe Jo Rowling is foreshadowing the fact that Harry and Voldemort will not die when Dumbledore tells Voldemort in Phoenix p 814 that "We both know there are other ways of destroying a man, Tom." Maybe you can defeat them in the magical world by fusing with them -- assimilating their powers. MAN AND HIS SYMBOLS states it this way: "Even evil must not be a triumphant or degrading enemy, but a power collaborating in the whole." p270 . I believe we see this evil being a collaborating power in Dumbledore. He has a frightening and powerful rage that we see in PHOENIX, "An awful voice filled the kitchen, echoing in the confined space, issuing from the burning letter on the table. "REMEMBER MY LAST, PETUNIA." (p 40). Later in the book, "He was so angry," Hermione in an almost awestruck voice. "Dumbledore. We saw him. When he found out Mundungus had left before his shift had ended. He was scary." (p 64). I believe these awful and scary parts of Dumbledore are the Grindelwald within - so to speak. If the plot device is that Harry and Voldemort are aspects of the same person then it is logical to say that the theme of Harry Potter is we are our own worst enemy. So many times we put limits on ourselves. We don't see all we could be capable of. Think of when Harry is sitting in Mad Eye Moody's office as the fake Mad Eye is trying to give him hints on how to get by the dragon. Think of what you are good at. Nothing but quiddich Harry thinks. Yet he is a young wizard who earlier in the book got in trouble because he can produce a powerful Patronus. Harry doesn't acknowledge the part of himself that is powerful. Perhaps it would seem too much like the wizard who says there is only power and those too weak to use it? Harry, like all of us, needs to expand his view of himself. For those prone to the alchemical philosophy and believe Harry will be decapitated, perhaps decapitation is symbolic for letting go of your old ideas of who you are. That is the true liberation. I believe this is Harry/Voldemort's final journey: "In the case of an adult, a sense of completeness is achieved through a union of the consciousness with the unconscious contents of the mind. Out of this union arises what Jung called "the transcendent function of the psyche," by which a man can achieve his highest goal: the full realization of the potential of his individual self." p149 MAN AND HIS SYMBOLS. Hmm, so Harry can grow old, have twelve children, and become the Minister of Magic? I think Trelawny got that one right. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 03:09:45 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 03:09:45 -0000 Subject: James' money (was: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123801 Alla wrote: > > Susan, thanks for typing the quote. I agree that James was rich ( > another circumstantial evidence to that effect is his invisibility > cloak). I am not sure though why being "rich" should necessarily say > something negative about your character. (Susan, I know you did not > say that, I thought it was implied upthread) I sure hope that if I > ever become rich, my friends won't think that I changed for > worse. :o) Carol responds: I didn't mean to imply that being rich was somehow bad. (Wish *I* were rich!) I only meant that it wasn't crucial for James or the not-yet-disinherited Sirius to do well on their exams because their parents had a lot of money and they didn't need to worry about earning a living after they left Hogwarts. Consequently, they weren't terribly worried about their DADA OWL (or the Transfiguration OWL, which they really *didn't* need to study for, having spent most of their free time in earlier years doing just that so they could become animagi). What evidence we have indicates that Severus and Remus, in contrast, did not come from wealthy families, which means that they both knew they would have to work after Hogwarts. If your future hinges on your OWL scores, you study. And that's exactly what Severus and Remus did, not because they were less intelligent than James and Sirius, but because they were motivated by necessity, and in Severus's case, most likely by ambition (or the heartfelt need to have his talents acknowledged) as well. Carol, who wishes *she* had a vault full of galleons, sickles, and knuts--or better yet, a few hundred thousand dollars in savings From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 03:13:12 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 03:13:12 -0000 Subject: Severus and the DADA exam /James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123802 Finwitch wrote: Now lets see, the others -- "Did you like question ten, Moony?" Remus goes out about his name etc. and Wormtail complains about how 'difficult' it was... and knowing what came of him, was Wormtail faking the stupidity or mean something other than Sirius figured with the 'difficult'? snip So Severus... Hmm.. Was he reading his exam for the grades' sake or just reading question ten over and over, because it had nagged to him about something? vmonte responds: THIS IS IT!!!! This is the real reason that Snape put this memory into the penseive. He did not want Harry to know that by the time of Sirius's prank he already knew that Lupin was a werewolf. God. What was Snape up to that night?! Vivian From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 03:20:36 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 03:20:36 -0000 Subject: Severus and the DADA exam /James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123803 Finwitch wrote: Now lets see, the others -- "Did you like question ten, Moony?" Remus goes out about his name etc. and Wormtail complains about how 'difficult' it was... and knowing what came of him, was Wormtail faking the stupidity or mean something other than Sirius figured with the 'difficult'? snip So Severus... Hmm.. Was he reading his exam for the grades' sake or just reading question ten over and over, because it had nagged to him about something? Vmonte responds: THIS IS IT!!!! This is the real reason that Snape put this memory into the penseive. He did not want Harry to know that by the time of Sirius's prank he already knew that Lupin was a werewolf. God. What was Snape up to that night?! Alla: Ummmm, I will be the first one to argue that we don't know the major part of the events,which occurred that night yet, BUT the only conclusion I can make from this hypothecis is that Snape KNEW how to handle fully grown werewolf and I am not sure how. Was he planning to kill Remus because of Sirius' stupidity that night? Why, why,why Snape listened to Sirius and WENT there, especially if he knew about Remus' condition? He is not an idiot, far from it, or is he? MAHAHAHAHA! JMO, of course. Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 04:17:18 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 04:17:18 -0000 Subject: The Mauraders' Generation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123804 Tonks wrote: > I have suggested this in the past. LV is the last of the Slytherin line. But there could be another line in the family. There has got to be a reason he went there to kill James and Harry and not Lily. I know, I know the prophesy, but how else do we explain that Lily didn't have to die. LV isn't that nice of a guy. Carol responds: Absolutely, he's not that nice a guy, but I don't think we need to postulate that LV was in any way reluctant to kill Lily, for pity or any other uncharacteristic reason. IMO, she "didn't have to die" (in LV's view) because, unlike James, she wasn't resisting LV. James, in contrast, fought bravely and could only be gotten rid of (permanently) with an AK. In Lily's own view, she *did* have to die, but through self-sacrifice, not by fighting. She was in LV's way, preventing him from doing what he wanted to do (kill Harry), but if she had only placed her life above Harry's and stepped aside, she would not, in LV's view, have had to die. (Not understanding a mother's love for her child and not aware of the "ancient magic" Lily had in mind, LV seems to have believed that she had a choice in the matter.) Also, I don't think that LV went to GH to kill *James* and Harry. He only went there to kill Harry. He could have stupefied James, but why take the chance that he'd wake up and fight again? James was a hated enemy offering a fight and Voldemort gave it to him. But unlike James, who was only trying to give Lily a chance to run away with Harry (I don't think he knew about her contingency plan involving "ancient magic"), Voldemort, in a hurry to destroy the one who would some day have the power to kill him, had no scruples about using an AK. He fought and killed James but saw no need to kill Lily until he realized that there was no other way to get her to stop blocking his path. Carol, who sees no need for any further explanation though she could, of course, be wrong From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 04:38:57 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 04:38:57 -0000 Subject: Draco and Lucius (was: Harry and starvation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123805 Betsy asked: > Is Draco spoiled? I haven't really seen anything that shows it. > Sure, he told Harry in PS/SS that he was going to bully his parents > into buying him a broom - but he didn't get one. And in CoS, in the > one scene that we see Draco and Lucius interacting together, Lucius > refuses to buy Draco anything and lists out his failures in front of > the shop keeper. I also note that Draco did not have any friends > with him at the Quiddich World Cup. Draco can be petulant, and > emotional, but I'm not sure that he's actually spoiled. Carol responds: Well, I'd say that his mother *indulges* him, at least, sending him sweets just about every day and wanting him near her (at Hogwarts rahter than Durmstrang). Even his father, who pressures Draco to get higher marks because it's disgraceful (in his view) for a Muggleborn like Hermione to outperform him, buys the whole Slytherin team Nimbus 2001s when Draco becomes the new Seeker. So I'd say there's at least *some* evidence that Draco is spoiled. And his behavior at Hogwarts certainly indicates that he's used to getting his way. I don't, however, think he'd get very far trying to "bully father." Carol, who agrees with Betsy that Draco needs to learn to keep his mouth shut From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 04:52:14 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 04:52:14 -0000 Subject: Book 6 Chapter 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123806 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pitaprh" wrote: Jodi wrote: > On JK's web site she posted the following a long time ago (Extra > Stuff - Coffee cup - Edits section). > "The Opening Chapter of Book Six. > > I have come close to using a chapter very like this in 'Philosopher's Stone' (it was one of the discarded first chapters), 'Prisoner of Azkaban' and 'Order of the Phoenix' but here, finally, it works, so it's staying. And that's all I'm going to say, but when you read it, just know that it's been about thirteen years in the brewing." > > What kind of chapter is this - A flash back? The books all start with Harry at the Dursleys'. This one must not??? > Any ideas? Carol responds: Actually, SS/PS starts with the Dursleys and then Dumbledore and McGonagall before baby Harry arrives at 4 Privet Drive, and GoF starts with a flashback to a fifty-year-old murder at the Riddle House and slips from there into the conversation between LV and Wormtail overheard by Frank Bryce. So a flashback to Godric's Hollow, which is what I'm anticipating (read hoping for), would not be wholly unprecedented as the first chapter of HBP. It will be interesting to see how she handles the PoV. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 05:16:30 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 05:16:30 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty, Working Wizard Women; was Molly & Arthur - was Why I like G In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123807 Salit wrote: > Molly has spent 20+ grueling years raising seven kids on a single small income of her husband's, educating them at home moreover (I find weekends with my two rather exhausting - can't imagine doing it fulltime with seven...). By all accounts she has done a magnificent job on both housekeeping and child rearing. When her last child went to Hogwarts she finally could take it easier - maybe focus on home maintenance and upkeep chores she has had to put aside, perhaps pick up a hobby. At close to 50 years old and 20+ years out of the workforce she would face the same long odds that muggle women do under similar circumstances. Carol responds: Besides her work with the Order and her housework, both of which you mentioned but I snipped, she has all those Weasley jumpers and socks to knit. Even with magic that would take a while (note that Harry's sweater had a dragon on the front). And if the Burrow is anywhere near as hard to clean as 12 Grimmauld Place, that job is no picnic with or without magic. And she probably has to degnome the garden by herself when the boys are gone, not to mention tending it in a more ordinary way. I'd say she has plenty to do at home and plenty of reason to believe that she needs to stay there when she's not doing work for the Order. So I agree with you on that point, though I'm not so sure about age discrimination in the WW. We certainly see some elderly witches and wizards administering the OWLs. Regardless, based on her description of her school days at Hogwarts, I think she's considerably older than fifty or even seventy like Voldemort as of OoP. She speaks of Ogg the gamekeeper and Apollyon Pringle the caretaker. The implication is that her school days predate Hagrid's and probably Tom Riddle's as well. But of course seventy for a witch and seventy for a Muggle are two different things, and fifty (which for us is late middle age at best and early senility to kids in their teens and twenties) is barely middle-aged to wizards. (Notice the narrator's reference to Lupin, who'd be about 34 at the beginning of PoA, as "quite young.") Carol, who doubts that she'll be quite as "sprightly" as McGonagall (or Molly) at seventy but fortunately doesn't have to worry about it for awhile From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 06:00:02 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 06:00:02 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Lily run? (Was: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: <20050202153419.59415.qmail@web80208.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123808 Tammy wrote: > > Voldemort seems to be saying that he wouldn't have harmed her [Lily], but what mother would have walked away from her child? > LegacyLady responded: > Excellent point, Tammy! But, could the answer to your question about what mother would have "walked away" been ... Voldemort's mother?!? Do we know enough about HOW he ended up in the Muggle orphanage to know that he wasn't abandoned? > > Voldemort seems to have not known love of any kind and has developed a lifetime of resentment/hatred (toward Muggles) because of his father "abandoning his mother when he discovered she was a witch". But do we know what ACTUALLY happened to HER? Perhaps he truly believed that Lily would leave Harry to him (as an infant) and just walk away. > Carol notes: We do know what happened to her because Diary!Tom explains it to Harry in SS/PS. Assuming that the Muggle orphanage told Tom the truth, and I don't see why they wouldn't, his mother died immediately after he was born, living just long enough to name him after his father and grandfather. My thought is that she still loved the husband who deserted her or she wouldn't have named her son for him, and I'm guessing that she loved her father, too, or gave Tom the name Marvolo as a clue to his wizard heritage. IMO, the names she gave him with her dying breath were her last gift to him, along with his life. But why a witch would die in childbirth or how her child could end up in a Muggle orphanage has never been clear to me. I would guess, though, that her own parents were already dead since Tom is the last descendant of Slytherin and that descent comes through his mother. So maybe, poor and ill and desperate, she went to a Muggle hospital to give birth, knowing that her child would at least be taken care of if not loved. Carol, who believes that Tom's mother loved him but he never learned to appreciate that love, in part because he never knew her and in part because, in his view, his father's callous desertion outweighed his mother's dying gift From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 06:29:53 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 06:29:53 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Lily run? (Was: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123809 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > But why a witch would die in childbirth or how her child could end up in a Muggle orphanage has never been clear to me. I would guess, > though, that her own parents were already dead since Tom is the last descendant of Slytherin and that descent comes through his mother. So maybe, poor and ill and desperate, she went to a Muggle hospital to give birth, knowing that her child would at least be taken care of if not loved. Tonk here: I assume that Tom's mother was disowned by her family because she married a Muggle. And if she was poor, ill, alone and desperate it was because her own people turned their back on her. And here is a new thought: Maybe there was some reason she was hiding out in the Muggle world. Somewhat like Lily. Would her family have wanted the boy dead because he was a mud-blood? Befouling the blood line of the noble pureblood Slytherin himself? After all the name Marvolo doesn't sound like the sweet grandfather next door! Sounds rather sinster to me. Maybe Muggleland is where Wizards go to hide? Course, why would she give him his grandfather's name if that were the case. Yes, there is a *riddle* mystery here. Tonks-op From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 06:49:27 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 06:49:27 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory (not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123810 > Pippin: > Goodness, she doesn't like him because he might change. Neri: My apologies. I thought that in your previous post you were answering why she likes him. > Pippin: > She > likes him because he's clever and kind and gives good lessons. > JKR could love him like a mom who recognizes her grownup > son has become a criminal, but still loves him and wishes he > could change. > Neri: All of JKR's characters are her "sons" and daughters in this sense. But my question is, why does she like some of them more than others. The very fact that she chose to answer a question like this, out of the thousands of questions she gets, shows that she doesn't think of her characters as her children. You can imagine what any mother would say if you'd ask her which of her children she likes best. The difference is that a mother has only a limited effect on the personality of her son, and she must accept him and love him the way he is. JKR doesn't have to wish Lupin could change. She can give him the power to change. And if she decided he is evil and won't change, she doesn't have to like him. > Pippin: > Give some credit to JKR's creativity. Anybody can imagine a > cruel, stupid sadistic person doing evil things. But how dull! How > much more challenging to create a wonderful man who, > because of one failing, being too cowardly to stand up to his > friends, is entrapped in a secret life that eventually destroys him. > Neri: I certainly appreciate three-dimensional arch-villains who have good qualities, deep motives and superficially nice personality. But this is not the question. My question is why would JKR *like* such an arch-villain the same way she likes Harry or Hermione. I'm sure there are authors who could like their arch-villains that way, but I doubt JKR is such an author. One of JKR's main themes seems to be crystallized in the sentence (and forgive me for repeating myself): "It is our choices that shows what we truly are, far more than our abilities" JKR invested a lot of effort in showing us that Harry is very similar to Voldemort in his abilities, to the point of carrying a bit of Voldy in him, and yet he is very different from Voldy, in fact he is the anti-Voldy, *only* because he has made the opposite choices. This view of JKR does not fit well with your image of ESE!Lupin as a wonderful person who ontologically *is* kind, clever, likable and a good teacher, but because he was tragically trapped in his secret life, he just *happened* to betray his best friends to death, murder 12 innocent people, trick another innocent friend into life in jail, murder another innocent boy, and finally murder the friend who had recently managed to break out of jail (and sorry if I missed any additional crimes). JKR's view of ESE!Lupin would be exactly the opposite of this image. Being nice, clever, likable and a good teacher are all abilities. In JKR's view they are very secondary. Murdering and betraying all these people were ESE!Lupin choices, and according to JKR's view, they show what he truly, ontologically *is*. So in JKR's view ESE!Lupin would *be* a heinous mass murderer and traitor who, very superficially, has some good abilities. He certainly cannot be described as a "wonderful" person. She might write such a character, but *liking* him seems out of the question. In fact, it is probably not a coincidence that JKR is bad at writing three-dimensional, likable arch-villains. They don't go very well with one of her most fundamental themes. But she's certainly not "dull" with many other kinds of characters. > Neri (previously): > > Also, according to this argument, can I assume that Snape, > who is now having his second chance, also may have murdered > 12 innocent muggles or something similar when he was a DE? > But still, since he has now changed, why isn't he included in the > list of characters JKR likes?< > > Pippin: > 'Cause he's nasty. But again, it's no great challenge to make a > nasty guy, who has all the qualities one happens to dislike in a > person, a baddie. How much more interesting to imagine that > because he has one strength, (what it is, we don't know yet and > JKR is decidedly not telling) he was able to find redemption. Neri: We indeed don't know yet about Snape, and I can only guess here. My guess is that Snape is not just a nasty person who makes the right choices. He is not "a good guy even if he is not the nice guy". If he were, then JKR would have liked him without any qualms, because it is his choices that would be important, not his nasty disposition. So my guess is that Snape must have made some very bad choices in the past (and keeps doing some not very good choices in the present), but he "redeems" himself by also making some good and very brave choices. This conflict is why JKR enjoys writing him, but also why she won't like him very much as a person. It is the conflict between good and bad choices that is really interesting in Snape's character, not the conflict between choices and abilities. And regarding second chances, the reason JKR and DD uphold them is precisely because of this choice business. If you *are* what you choose, it means you can change what you are by changing your choices. Even a murderer may choose to reform. This does not eliminate his choice to murder. A person died and this cannot be undone (there's a good reason why JKR is adamant that no magic can bring you back from the dead). But a true decision to reform *is* a new choice. So perhaps a murderer who was reformed, according to JKR's view, does not stop being a murderer, but he is a *reformed* murderer. Neri From pjarrett at gmail.com Thu Feb 3 08:35:04 2005 From: pjarrett at gmail.com (Patrick Jarrett) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 03:35:04 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Veritaserum RANT In-Reply-To: References: <20050202185956.31137.qmail@web52005.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3def328f050203003538548518@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123811 > bboyminn: > People need to get over the idea that Veritaserum flows like pumpkin > juice at a Hogwart's feast. They need to get over the idea that Truth > Serum is the answer to all problems; it's not. > Truth is not absolute, if's a matter of opinion and personal > preception. Consequently, truth devices, while helpful to law > enforcement on occassion, are not a reliable means of divining the truth. > > So, please, cork your Veritaserum bottles, that's not the answer to > all life's sticky problems. Patrick: I completely agree. BUT. It's presence can't simply be ignored. Indeed, it is not a free flowing and easily acquired substance, but the threat of its presence cannot simply be ignored. I whole heartedly agree that it is not a panacea for story lines or plot holes, but your rant does seem rather strong. Yes, there are flaws to its use. Yes you are right that it is only as correct as the speaker's knowledge. But Veritaserum, as presented in the books, is not a lie detector machine of the muggle world. It is a potion mixed by potions masters which is to be used to force the speaker to speak only in truths as far as they know. They say there are three sides to any story, your side, my side, and the truth. And that may be what applies here. JKR has implemented numerous tools for the WW, numerous spells, charms, potions, toys, gadgets, doohickeys, watchamacallits and thingamajigs. All with a niche, whether it be a plot device, a common tool, or a product of higher skills for use in certain situations. And Truth serum has its place as well. I just don't think it can be corked and set aside like that. I realize it is a rant and so it carries an emotional weight to it, but I felt I should voice my dissenting agreement to it. -- Patrick From pjarrett at gmail.com Thu Feb 3 08:49:45 2005 From: pjarrett at gmail.com (Patrick Jarrett) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 03:49:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snakes and scars and stuff In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3def328f050203004910fa25e7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123812 Dungrollin: > 2. The bit of Voldy inside Harry that wants to bite DD is also very > very snakelike, and it is also this bit of Voldy in his head that > makes Harry a parselmouth. ... > 5. Although Harry has been a parselmouth since GH, the venomous > reaction to DD only became active some time between the end of GoF > and Christmas of OotP. Patrick: I always thought of it like a sleeper agent. It's there. It's causing small things, unnoticeable until someone else says something, eg. Parselmouthedness. But now that Voldy is returning to power, there is a connection which is restoring and isn't to full strength yet but it is growing. Dungrollin: > 3. It must be significant that Harry's scar has no reaction to Diary! > Tom in CoS, but that it only reacts to present-day Voldy ? > significant in that at the age of 16 Tom had not yet conducted his > experiments on immortality. Patrick: When Harry's scar is affected he seems to be temporarily disabled, the searing pain through his head seems to cause him to lose focus and as it gets worse to immobilize him and interfere with his activities. So I tend to think that JKR might have simply made it this way to avoid the obvious problems with any form of combat. But we also know the scar is affected by Voldemort's emotions, anger and happiness being the most prominent ones. We don't really see Diary!Tom's emotions anywhere near what it could be for Voldemort. Dungrollin: > Moreover > > There's one reference to snakes that has always puzzled me, and > that's after the hearing in OotP, Lucius Malfoy says "Quite > astonishing, the way you continue to wriggle out of very tight > holes ... *snakelike*, in fact." (The Woes of Mrs. Weasley.) > > One assumes that he's referring to Harry's escape from the > graveyard; but why call Harry *snakelike*? It's clearly a reference > to Slytherin/Voldy matters, but what, exactly? Lucius knows that > Harry's a parselmouth, it was all over the school in CoS, and from > Rita Skeeter's articles they know that he gets attacks of pain in > his scar. From the context it sounds like a veiled threat, or a > reference to something that Harry should know about, but doesn't > pick up on. Could it be that Lucius knows about the connection with > Voldy? Even though Voldy himself apparently doesn't know about it > until around four months later during snake vs Weasley. Patrick: I always thought of this line as more of an insult. Malfoy insulting the 'high Gryffindor' by comparing him to the arch-enemy house mascot, and a mythically low creature, the snake. I suppose it could be a veiled threat, but I doubt Malfoy knows of the connection before Voldemort does. *shrugs* Time will tell I suppose. -- Patrick From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Feb 3 08:57:41 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 08:57:41 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory (not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123813 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > Neri again: > Umm, let me see if I got that right. ESE!Lupin is a traitor and a > murderer several times over, yet JKR likes him because he may change. > She will offer him a chance to change, but he will refuse it and die a > traitor and a murderer. Sorry, I think I lost it again. Why did you > say she likes him? Oh, because he may change. But he won't. Goodness, > I'm completely baffled now... Yep, me too. We should also bear in mind that in JKR's mind, the story is complete. So, it's not even that Lupin will refuse to change (future tense), but that (in her head), he has already done so. So, one of her favorite characters is a person who betrayed his best friends and their baby boy and condemned his other best friend to a lifetime in Azkaban, and who *she knows* hasn't the courage or heart to change. Naama From eloiseherisson at aol.com Thu Feb 3 09:30:11 2005 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloise_herisson) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:30:11 -0000 Subject: Snakes and scars and stuff In-Reply-To: <3def328f050203004910fa25e7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123814 > Dungrollin: > > There's one reference to snakes that has always puzzled me, and > > that's after the hearing in OotP, Lucius Malfoy says "Quite > > astonishing, the way you continue to wriggle out of very tight > > holes ... *snakelike*, in fact." (The Woes of Mrs. Weasley.) > > > > One assumes that he's referring to Harry's escape from the > > graveyard; but why call Harry *snakelike*? Patrick: > I always thought of this line as more of an insult. Malfoy insulting > the 'high Gryffindor' by comparing him to the arch-enemy house mascot, > and a mythically low creature, the snake. I suppose it could be a > veiled threat, but I doubt Malfoy knows of the connection before > Voldemort does. Eloise: Well, the whole school knows that Harry is a Parselmouth after the Duelling Club episode; I should imagine he has snake-like associations for almost everyone now. I imagine that Malfoy, like others, is aware of Harry's Slytherin traits, aware that here is a wizard who could (perhaps from his POV) *should* have been a Slytherin and is pointing this out. I am quite certain that a Slytherin wouldn't view the snake as a low creature. Outside of Christianity, I suspect that the snake has more good mythological press than bad, being associated with healing and eternal life. I think it was not so much as insult as a barbed comment: "You're much more like us than you want to admit." And of course he knows exactly where to hit home as Harry has not come to terms with that fact. It's the equivalent of the Sorting's Hat's "You would have done well in Slytherin," an unsettling remark, reminding both Harry and the reader that there is a side of his personality that he has to learn to deal with. ~Eloise From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 09:50:09 2005 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:50:09 -0000 Subject: Book 6 Chapter 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123815 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pitaprh" wrote: > > On JK's web site she posted the following a long time ago (Extra > Stuff - Coffee cup - Edits section). Probably something worth > pondering now that the book is in our near future. > > "The Opening Chapter of Book Six. > > I have come close to using a chapter very like this in 'Philosopher's > Stone' (it was one of the discarded first chapters), 'Prisoner of > Azkaban' and 'Order of the Phoenix' but here, finally, it works, so > it's staying. And that's all I'm going to say, but when you read it, > just know that it's been about thirteen years in the brewing." > > What kind of chapter is this - A flash back? The books all start > with Harry at the Dursleys'. This one must not??? > Any ideas? > > Jodi Doddiemoemoe here: My idea is that Harry finds that some of his father's relatives still exist...(hence the Godrics Hollow mystery).. Harry had to live with the Dursley's due to HIS MOTHER'S sacrifice and whatever charms she protected Harry with; nothing is mentioned of his fathers protections--I'd guess his father would leave him more than prongs.. We've been hearing about James history throughout so many books...Is book six where we find out that the Potter's home has been restored..or will it be that this time Harry gets to go on a proper vacation(like Ron and Hermione in previous books)??? Could it be that one of James's relatives escaped to another country,or went into hiding, and Harry finally gets to visit them? One of the biggest hints/suggestions in book II is that Harry was able to use the sword of Godric Gryphindor with no explanation given other than it was the choices we make--when so much of that book and the following books deal with what others have bestowed upon Harry (whether marking as an equal, ultimate protection, exile from the WW, etc.). After book V we can assume that the whole WW recognizes Voldemort has returned so presumably Harry can return to it to live if he is protected. It is the type of thing that DD would hold back until it needed to be(If Harry can teach defense against the dark arts to fifth years and above then clearly HE needs to learn more after the dueling scenes in the MOM. Could where Sirius went into hiding after POA be a clue--those huge tropical birds bringing the post(do they breed exotic species in Godrics Hollow?)? Also has anyone considered that the battle may end at #4 privet Drive? Ahh poor Voldie, permanently locked in the cupboard under the stairs--teehee. Of course, it could simply be that the Dursley's...ignorant as they are refuse Harry to communicate with those in the WW properly and Moody/Tonks et. al. turn up to "put the Dursleys straight"! I have no answers...just possible solutions; to possible scenarios.. Doddiemoemoe From madettebeau at gmail.com Thu Feb 3 13:17:12 2005 From: madettebeau at gmail.com (madlysarcastic) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:17:12 -0000 Subject: Book 6 Chapter 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123816 > Jodi wrote: > > On JK's web site she posted the following a long time ago (Extra > > Stuff - Coffee cup - Edits section). > > "The Opening Chapter of Book Six. > > > > I have come close to using a chapter very like this in > 'Philosopher's Stone' (it was one of the discarded first chapters), > 'Prisoner of Azkaban' and 'Order of the Phoenix' but here, finally, it > works, so it's staying. And that's all I'm going to say, but when you > read it, just know that it's been about thirteen years in the brewing." > > > > What kind of chapter is this - A flash back? The books all start > with Harry at the Dursleys'. This one must not??? > > Any ideas? > Carol responds: > Actually, SS/PS starts with the Dursleys and then Dumbledore and > McGonagall before baby Harry arrives at 4 Privet Drive, and GoF starts > with a flashback to a fifty-year-old murder at the Riddle House and > slips from there into the conversation between LV and Wormtail > overheard by Frank Bryce. So a flashback to Godric's Hollow, which is > what I'm anticipating (read hoping for), would not be wholly > unprecedented as the first chapter of HBP. It will be interesting to > see how she handles the PoV. I believe it to definitely be a flashback. I guess I'm thinking in terms of memories and how the only ones who could remember that scene would be Harry (who was too young, and probably didn't witness James's death) and Voldemort. So it could come as a result of the Voldemort-Harry mind connection. But I can't think of why Voldemort would either show that to Harry or be so focused on the memory that Harry sees it too. The other idea I have for the first chapter of HBP, is that it would be the night that Harry became 'the boy who lived', but from a different perspective than those who were inside the Potters' home. It could be about the reactions of people finding out what has happened, namely Sirius and Hagrid. It could be Sirius, Hagrid and DD realizing what has happened. I'm not sure how this would add to the plot (except to satisfy curiousity), but now that Sirius is dead, it might be the first appropriate time to tell a bit of the story from his point of view. =) Maddy From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Feb 3 13:19:42 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:19:42 -0000 Subject: Harry as Job, Snape as the Satan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123817 >>>Potioncat: > The Conundrum of Justice and the Divine Adversary: Literary > Parallels between Harry Potter and the Book of Job > By Porphyria, 2002. > > > The essay gives some background about the story of Job and also > about the Hebrew view of the Satan as portrayed in the Book of Job. snip >> Alla: I want to thank you for making me reread "Book of Job". I read Porphiria's essay back in my lurking days. I happen to think that OOP put some holes in to that interpretation, maybe others will disagree with me. Potioncat: My thoughts were along similar lines. Snape's role has changed by OoP, which wouldn't make Porphyria's observations wrong for the first ones, unless of course, readers disagree from the beginning. Snape is discussed so often. But it's from the standpoint of "why did DD hire him?" or "why doesn't he try a different method?" or "why was he so mean to ______?" I began to wonder, why did JKR write this character? What is his real role in this story? And as I was on my couch in pensieve mode, erm I mean pensive mood, I came across the Job essay. And it seemed to fit very well. >>Alla: Yes, "Harry as Job" sounds about right before OOP, but Job never ever questions the G-d authority, no matter how badly he suffers and no matter how upset he becomes ( and yes, at the end he becomes a bit upset) ( at least in the translation I read) Despite what his friends tell him ( to change his behaviour and then G-d will return his blessings to Job, etc), Job keeps his faith. It does not sound to me that at the end of OOP Harry keeps a lot of faith in Dumbledore. Potioncat: To be honest, I haven't re-read my version of Job. But although Harry isn't too happy with DD at the end of OoP, he is still loyal (faithful) to him, in spite of doubts. >>Alla: I think that after OOP it could be argued that "Satan" oops, Snape started to do MORE to hurt "Job" Harry than G-d allowed. Although if I assume for myself that "Satan" started to make his own decisions without G-d permission, I can see that Snape retains the function of testing Harry's worthiness as Hero. Potioncat: Although the essay was very clear that it was the Hebrew "the Satan" that Snape was reflecting, in OoP I think he begins to look more like the Christian Satan. As the commentary in my version says, Satan was trying to create a wedge between Job and God. In fact as I read the commentary, I thought, if JKR did either intentionally or subconsciously create Snape-as-Satan,(rather than Snape-as-the- Satan) then Snape's loyalty is still in question. >>Alla: Besides, I don't see Dumbledore as God like figure anymore, not even close. Potioncat: No, I'm beginning to see Snape as the Satan to JKR as "the creator", rather than to DD as a God-like figure. >>Alla: Alltogether essay was very interesting and when I reread it today, I felt the same way I usually do when I see the cool piece of creative writing - I want to write like that. :o) Potioncat: Absolutely! I wish I could write like that too! From pegruppel at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 13:42:19 2005 From: pegruppel at yahoo.com (Peggy) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:42:19 -0000 Subject: Ron's draw as a talking point In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123818 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Brian Brinkman" wrote: > > > Thus far, Ron seems to be the most average of the trio. JKR hasn't > let him shine, yet. In my view, she has written his character as a > plodder. My childhood minister (Presbyterian) once spoke of Isaac in > the Hebrew Bible as a plodder because his father was Abraham and his > son was Jacob (Israel). That is, Isaac's claim to fame is as the > link between two high-profile patriarchs. Unless Ron demonstrates > some new talent or dimension to his personality, he will be a self- > aware plodder, I think, and that's not always a bad thing. > Peg: I think the most important word in your post is "yet." I still remember the chess game in SS/PS. Others (sorry, can't pull up all of the posts!) have suggested that the search for the Stone was a preview of things to come, so to speak. Ron's strategic abilities haven't really been revisited. Maybe we'll see more of that if he does become Quidditch Captain for Gryffindor, but I have a sneaking suspicion that his abilities will become important in the last two books. When he realizes that what they need to do requires his strategic thinking abilities, we'll see him shine. I see your minister's point about Isaac, but I'd use the word "linchpin" instead of "plodder." Without the linchpins (plodders) nothing else happens. Abraham and Jacob need Isaac. I think, without Ron, the story wouldn't "happen." The story needs him, just as much as Harry does. Peg--who should drink her coffee instead of posting to the list at this hour. From mommystery at hotmail.com Thu Feb 3 13:49:11 2005 From: mommystery at hotmail.com (mommystery2003) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:49:11 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123819 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: It WAS dangerous what Remus did, but he just discovered that one of > his friends whom he believed to be dead for twelve years - can be > alive. He also discovered that another one of his friends,whom he > believed to be a traitor for twelve years may not be one. > > I'd say he was in a very interesting state of mind and it is quite > possible that taking a potion was the last thing on his mind. We know that Snape brought the potion to him at least once, so I've always figured that maybe Snape was on his way up with the potion when he sees Lupin run out and follows him. If so, it wouldn't be a case of Lupin forgetting, just that Snape and he hadn't met up yet to give and get the medicine. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 14:44:03 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 06:44:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Seclusion and the Weasley Suspicion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050203144403.56773.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123820 --- Jay wrote: > As a Hufflepuff, I'll be the first to admit that I'm sure Zacharias > Smith can get on your nerves. He would get on mine if I had to > share > a dorm with him. But that still doesn't justify Fred and George > wanting to molest him with pointy objects as soon as he voices his > opinion about Harry and Voldemort. They don't seem able to think > outside their own comfort zones. In fourth year one of his > (Zacharias's) housemates, was found dead. All they knew was that > Harry came out of the maze carrying Cedric's body. Harry was the > only one who really knew what went on, and let's face it, all the > evidence seemed to point that Harry did something. While he may > have come off a bit strong, Zacharias had every right to be > suspiscious. It's about > time a Hufflepuff finally stands up to a Gryffindor. I pretty much agree, and Jay points out a good point that was missing from much of the recent discussion about whether Harry was justified or not in not talking about what really happened in the graveyard that night until he gave the interview to the Quibbler. The great response to that article - both inside the school and from the public at large - show that once they heard the truth (and the truth was pretty incredible, to be fair) people were willing to believe that Voldemort was back. Jay's point is that for Zacharias Smith and Ernie MacMillan, Cedric was not just another school mate who died mysteriously. He was their House champion, the pride of the Hufflepuffs and the Head Boy, and very likely someone they personally liked as well as respected. For the other kids in Hogwarts, Cedric's death was a shock and a tragedy. For the Huffs, it was very PERSONAL, and they were going to find out what happened when they went to that first meeting for the DA. I was a little annoyed at Harry's annoyance frankly; I think he might have figured out that Cedric would be special to the Huffs and that they weren't just indulging in unwholesome curiosity. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Feb 3 15:14:21 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 15:14:21 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory (not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123821 Neri: So in > JKR's view ESE!Lupin would *be* a heinous mass murderer and traitor who, very superficially, has some good abilities. He certainly cannot be described as a "wonderful" person. She might write such a character, but *liking* him seems out of the question Pippin: Why? We seem to have agreed that liking and favoring are superficial emotional reactions to superficial traits. Genuine compassionate love, which hopes and endures all things as one teacher put it, has nothing to do with them. So, IMO, JKR can like ESE!Lupin even though she knows what he is, because, in her mind, he is a tragic figure whose end will inspire pity and fear rather than hatred and loathing. Neri: In fact, it is probably not a coincidence that JKR is bad at writing three-dimensional, likable arch-villains. They don't go very well with one of her most fundamental themes. But she's certainly not "dull" with many other kinds of characters. Pippin: You are referring to Voldemort, I presume? But you ignore the possibility that we are *supposed* to feel unsatisfied with Voldemort's portrayal at this point. Our understanding of the other characters has deepened, yet Voldemort remains a cardboard black hat in the eyes of the WW. JKR has told us there is more to come about him and said we should be wondering why Dumbledore does not try to kill him. I believe JKR is teaching us that it is shallow to think of our enemies as black hats, and that we should seek to understand them and even to have compassion on them. Pippin From kempermentor at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 15:28:07 2005 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 15:28:07 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Lily run? (Was: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123822 Carol wrote and was snipped earlier: > > > > But why a witch would die in childbirth or how her child could end > up in a Muggle orphanage has never been clear to me. I would guess, > > though, that her own parents were already dead since Tom is the > last descendant of Slytherin and that descent comes through his > mother. So maybe, poor and ill and desperate, she went to a Muggle > hospital to give birth, knowing that her child would at least be > taken care of if not loved. > > Tonk replied: > I assume that Tom's mother was disowned by her family because she > married a Muggle. And if she was poor, ill, alone and desperate it > was because her own people turned their back on her. And here is a > new thought: Maybe there was some reason she was hiding out in the > Muggle world. Somewhat like Lily. Would her family have wanted the > boy dead because he was a mud-blood? Befouling the blood line of the > noble pureblood Slytherin himself? After all the name Marvolo > doesn't sound like the sweet grandfather next door! Sounds rather > sinster to me. Maybe Muggleland is where Wizards go to hide? Course, > why would she give him his grandfather's name if that were the case. > Yes, there is a *riddle* mystery here. Kemper now: I think Carol gave a good explanation for Marvolo in Tom's name that being it is the first name of her father. But I don't think that's quite it. I think it was Tom's mother's maiden name. I know that was some time ago and not very common in the Muggle world, but the WW had a witch prime minister well over a century ago so it would seem the WW is past any patriarchal social system. Look at Hogwarts. But I go off tangent... The reason Carol gave for his mom giving him that middle name, as a clue to his wizard heritage, is spot on. Kemper who has more than a few friends whose middle name is their mom's maiden name. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Feb 3 15:30:49 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 15:30:49 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123823 > Snow: > > The thread has veered off course just a tad from my original intension, which was to find out why Lupin would have been dangerous if he had taken his meds. as the doctor ordered. It was crucial for Lupin to take the potion during the week preceding the full moon, which I have to assume he has since we have not been told otherwise, to obtain its full effect. The only dose Lupin missed was on the exact night of the full moon, at this point he had already taken at least 6 doses, why is he acting like a full-fledged, out of his mind werewolf? > Pippin: It's possible that the active ingredient in the potion has a "threshold" -- that is, you have to take the entire weeks' dosage or it has no effect. I can believe that Lupin forgot to take it, or even that he knew that Snape was coming but decided that going after Peter was a higher priority. But the fact that he would have already had several doses that week makes it difficult for me to think that he also forgot it was the night of the full moon. How could he, when he was talking about the potion and its effects on being a werewolf with the Trio and Sirius? And then, he completely blows off Snape's announcement that he hasn't taken his potion. IMO, that is either criminally irresponsible or there is something else going on -- such as that he did take his potion as the ESE!Lupin theory postulates. I believe the 'smoking' goblet explains why Snape couldn't bring the potion out to the Shrieking Shack. Apparently the stuff breaks down as it cools. Anyway, Snape couldn't run while carrying a goblet of hot potion in his hands, and being charmed might hurt it. Pippin From noesumeragi at yahoo.es Thu Feb 3 11:26:30 2005 From: noesumeragi at yahoo.es (noesumeragi) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 11:26:30 -0000 Subject: Severus and the DADA exam /James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123824 > Finwitch wrote: > > (snipped) > So Severus... > > Hmm.. Was he reading his exam for the grades' sake or just reading > question ten over and over, because it had nagged to him about > something? Vmonte responds: > > THIS IS IT!!!! This is the real reason that Snape put this memory > into the penseive. He did not want Harry to know that by the time of > Sirius's prank he already knew that Lupin was a werewolf. God. What > was Snape up to that night?! > > Alla wrote: > > Ummmm, I will be the first one to argue that we don't know the major > part of the events,which occurred that night yet, BUT the only > conclusion I can make from this hypothecis is that Snape KNEW how to > handle fully grown werewolf and I am not sure how. (snipped) noe now: But the test was about how RECOGNIZE a werewolf, not about how HANDLE one. This had been discussed before, I'm sure. We don't now how to stop a werewolf (at least in POA, not information about spells or similar are given, apart of calming the wolf down by an animagi) If it were easily done (a stunning spell, for example), it would not be such a fuss about werewolves being so dangerous and bla bla. > Alla wrote: > (snipped) > Why, why,why Snape listened to Sirius and WENT there, especially if > he knew about Remus' condition? > noe again: I hope Rowling will tell us! But I'm not so sure Snape *knew* about Lupin. The only canon we have says that Snape -knowing his lot- recognized sucessfully the first steps of Remus' transformation as those of a werewolf, when he get a glimse of it while being pulled out by James. After all, why would Snape suspect? As werewolves were regarded, *who* would let one be enroled in Hogwarts? From legacylady at prodigy.net Thu Feb 3 14:56:07 2005 From: legacylady at prodigy.net (LegacyLady) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 06:56:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book 6 Chapter 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050203145607.87805.qmail@web80207.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123825 Maddy wrote: But I can't think of why Voldemort would either show that to Harry or be so focused on the memory that Harry sees it too. LegacyLady: That has bothered me a bit too, though I am one of the "believers" that the chapter will be a "flashback" of sorts to what happened at Godric's Hollow. The only reason *I* can see that Voldemort might be "thinking about/remembering it" - and thereby Harry seeing it through the mind-connection Maddy mentioned - is because he might be trying to garner further clues about the lost/destroyed prophesy. Perhaps Voldemort might believe that he can figure out how Harry survived that night if he "replays" what happened. When he does, then perhaps Harry learns what happened that fateful night as well. A lot of "perhaps" in my post, but that's about all any of us can do at this point ... speculate. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mommystery at hotmail.com Thu Feb 3 16:08:38 2005 From: mommystery at hotmail.com (mommystery2003) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:08:38 -0000 Subject: Jo's Squib error? In-Reply-To: <420094B2.5435.1AC2863@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123826 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tammy Rizzo" wrote: Doesn't anyone else here think that maybe Dumbledore instructed Mrs. Figg in what a dementor attack would LOOK like? Could Dumbledore put a memory of a dementor attack in a pensieve and let Mrs. Figg see it that way so she would know? Ces From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Feb 3 16:20:53 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:20:53 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory (not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123827 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Neri: > > So in > > JKR's view ESE!Lupin would *be* a heinous mass murderer > and traitor who, very superficially, has some good abilities. He > certainly cannot be described as a "wonderful" person. She > might write such a character, but *liking* him seems out of the > question > > Pippin: > Why? We seem to have agreed that liking and favoring are > superficial emotional reactions to superficial traits. In that quote JKR talks about the characters she *loves*. Naama From mommystery at hotmail.com Thu Feb 3 16:23:40 2005 From: mommystery at hotmail.com (mommystery2003) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:23:40 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123828 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: As for secondary defenses. There are spells to bring those down, and > somehow I think they are not beyond the ability of Voldemort to do > so. But that's my point. Why didn't some alarm go off even if those defenses were brought down? Why wasn't there some other way to get them out? As for my comment about James's joining the Order not being a big deal - I meant it in the context of what else did he do? Most Order members have some other job - Molly being an exception. What did James and Sirius do with their time? And James would have had to change almost his whole personality in my opinion to make him the paragon of virture Sirius portrayed him as. In school, he was a bully. And I take great exception to people who go after someone who was minding his own business. Ces From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Feb 3 17:22:06 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:22:06 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory (not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123829 Neri: > > > So in JKR's view ESE!Lupin would *be* a heinous mass murderer > > > and traitor who, very superficially, has some good abilities. > > > He certainly cannot be described as a "wonderful" person. She > > > might write such a character, but *liking* him seems out of the > > > question Pippin: > > Why? We seem to have agreed that liking and favoring are > > superficial emotional reactions to superficial traits. Naama: > In that quote JKR talks about the characters she *loves*. SSSusan: And IIRC, she *doesn't* qualify it by saying "love to *write* about," as she does on another occasion when talking about Snape. Siriusly Snapey Susan From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 17:26:56 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:26:56 -0000 Subject: Harry's last 'living' relatives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123830 Dumbledore said Harry had no other living relatives and clearly Dumbledore doesn't know what he was talking about. Of the 6 billion people on this planet not one of them can say they have only 2 living relatives. Think about it, you have 2 parents 4 grandparents 8 great-grandparents and so on, go back 15 or 20 generations, just a few hundred years, and everybody is related to everybody. In the small wizard community this would be even more true. Petunia may be his closest relative but I don't care what Dumbledore says, Harry has other living relatives, mathematics demands it. Eggplant From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 17:35:07 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 09:35:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050203173507.98667.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123831 > That Petunia seemed quite frightened & did *not* kick Harry out > after receiving DD's Howler makes me believe: 1) that DD *has* > provided ongoing protection; and 2) that she still very much wants > that protection. So *now* DD knows that! And perhaps it was only > *now* -- when Harry's 15 and more able to fend for himself, knows > what's going on in the WW & with Voldemort -- that DD could risk > issuing a threat which might lead to the Dursleys backing out of > Harry's life. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan > I pretty much agree with the rest of SSS's post (which I snipped - sorry) but I think there's another explanation for Petunia's response to the Howler - the same explanation for Harry's sudden awareness that Petunia was his mother's sister (which he realizes he's never quite thought of before). The explanation is that Petunia has just realized that night - after Dudders almost gets Demented, the arrival of the Howler - that whether she likes it or not, they're all in this together. That it's just not a matter of "we'll take the brat in until he's 18 and carry on with life as if he's not really around" - there are wicked and evil people out there who are a danger to her family and that family is not safe just because they're not magic. It's not a matter of tossing Harry over the side of the sinking lifeboat; they've all got to pull together now because the threat - Voldemort's return - is greater than ever and needs everyone on the same side. She can't walk away or pretend it doesn't concern her anymore. Vernon doesn't get it - yet. But he's aware that something's changed for Petunia, and his uncertainty is quite obvious. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Feb 3 17:39:11 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:39:11 -0000 Subject: Harry's last 'living' relatives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123832 Eggplant wrote: Think about it, you have 2 parents 4 grandparents 8 > great-grandparents and so on, go back 15 or 20 generations, just a few hundred years, and everybody is related to everybody. In the small wizard community this would be even more true. Petunia may be his closest relative but I don't care what Dumbledore says, Harry has > other living relatives, mathematics demands it. Potioncat: Yeah, go back and you can lots of ancestors and relatives...most of them dead. But at what point are you no longer related to the living? Is my great-great-great-grandfather's great-great-great- great niece still my cousin? At some point you no longer share blood (DNA). And if you have a few generations of one child families it could happen pretty quick. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 17:40:06 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 09:40:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050203174006.29307.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123833 --- Steve wrote: > Now, Dumbledore can't let the 'affectionately humaized' > boy he cares about continue to be treated with less than the > respect he deserves. I'm sure independent of whether Dumbledore > instigated the end of book meeting with the Dursleys, the members > of that group all feel strongly that Harry has suffered enough, and > the Dursleys should not be allowed to compound that suffering. > > Just a few thoughts. Great post, Steve. Personally I don't think Dumbledore instigated the group threat to the Dursleys at the end of OOTP; I think he finally gave into the requests of others to allow them to do something for Harry's benefit. In short, Dumbledore is sufficiently chastened at the end of OOTP that he's willing to listen to others' ideas about the best thing for Harry. My read, anyway. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com From heos at virgilio.it Thu Feb 3 17:45:50 2005 From: heos at virgilio.it (chrusotoxos) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:45:50 -0000 Subject: SNAPE'S "WORST" MEMORY? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123834 Hi everyone! I've just read Maline's 2nd editorial about Snape on Mugglenet (if you haven't, shame on you :)) and here is my answer to her. As her next one could be in weeks, given the way she carefully does researches about them, I've decided to post my opnion here and see what people think. I'm very interestd in this. To give you a background (if you haven't read her text), she says that Snape showed intentionally one of his memories to Harry since he knew that that particular memory would hurt Harry a lot - having broken into his mind, he knew that Harry himself had been bullied. Here is my opnion: ***************** RE: MALINE'S SNAPE EDITORIAL N.2 Oh god, Maline, I don't thank you...I'm so confused now, even more than I was before. Your editorial is great, plus I respect you for being a Snape lover as I am, but all the same...I feel like go and read Peter Rabbit for a while...sigh... Here are my doubts: 1) Of course, the chapter's title is ery strange. Snape's Worst Memory. Before reading your editorial, I sincerely thought that the title alone proved that Snape was a very bad person. After all is JKR who chooses them, she should know, shouldn't she? That Snape, after having witnessing horrible things in his years as a DE (possibly not over yet) still thought about a child's teasing as of his worst memory...well, that would mean that he doesn't give a damn about other people's suffering (as is partially proved in COS with his reaction at Filch's sorrow, or in GOF with Hermione's teeth...) and he's ready to accept wounds on his own body if they help him in the way of knowledge/power (I see DE's initiaitions rituals as something bloody and scary). But now that I have read your point of you, it makes a lot of sense. 2) Still, there is something annoying me. Snape is a bastard, but I do believe that he's working for Dumbledore. And Dumbledore must have said to him (or he could have guessed himself, he's not so stupid after all) how important it was for Harry to learn Occlumency at his hands. Maybe he doesn't believe the prophecy, or he doesn't know it, but he has never disobeyed an order by Dumbledore before. He hates the boy, ok, but would he jeopardize the wizarding's world only chance of peace just to make Harry sad? No, he wouldn't, unless he's loyal to the other side. But anyway it's strange that he put something like that in a Pensieve and then let him lying around. 3) My conclusion is that he prepared that specific memory intentionally so that Harry should see it, as you said, but that afterwards he went further then he wanted to. He got angry by the thought that maybe Harry was enjoying himself after all (as he himself would have done if roles were reversed), and decided to take the Pensieve thing as an excuse not to teach Harry again. A moment later he realized he'd been wrong, that he was essential for Harry to shut his mind, but then a) he didn't think that Harry could master such a subtle subject anyway, and b) he was way too proud to call him back to his classroom. Ever. So he tries to do his part as he can, giving Umbridge fake Veritaserum (why would he do that? Harry doesn't know anything whcih would be dangerous but anyone but him, after all. He cannot even reveal where Sirius is, as he's not the Order Secret Keeper) and the like. That's my opnion. Looking forward to Snape n.3, *********** Please help me out there! What do you think about all this mess???? From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 17:48:50 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:48:50 -0000 Subject: Severus and the DADA exam. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123835 "vmonte" > THIS IS IT!!!! This is the real reason that > Snape put this memory into the penseive. > He did not want Harry to know that by the > time of Sirius's prank he already knew that > Lupin was a werewolf. Sirius's prank could have happened before the pensive memory. Eggplant From noesumeragi at yahoo.es Thu Feb 3 17:55:48 2005 From: noesumeragi at yahoo.es (noesumeragi) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:55:48 -0000 Subject: Choice of James as Head Boy (was Re: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123836 > "finwitch" wrote: > Slytherin well... ambition? Resourcefulness? certain disregard for rules? ready to do ANYTHING for your goal? > Don't see Albus Dumbledore (or Aberforth) appreciating these values at all. > > > skater314159 wrote: > > (heavily snipped, more detail in post #123773) > > ambition: Hermione shows ambition in her school work (...) and McGonagal and Dumbledore support her by letting her have a time- turner in PoA > > resourcefullness: the trio have been VERY resourceful (...) and this is what allows them to defeat Voldemort and save the day. > > certain disregard for the rules: sneaking about after curfew under an invisibility cloak (that DD *gave* to Harry for his first Christmas...), (...) > > ready to do ANYTHING for your goal: (...) they showed that Harry, Hermione and Ron are willing to sacrifice house points, their reputation or even their wellbeing to reach a goal that they have set for themselves. > noe now: Exactly. DD uses and even encourage those traits when he deems that the goals obtained through that way are all good and right, exactly as Salazar Slytherin probably regarded his own goals about muggleborns and the like. But since those *neutral* traits were Salazar's chosen ones, Albus 'the biased gryffindor' cannot appreciate them *openly*, as he does when he gives out points for Gryffindor bravery and Hufflepuff loyalty. At the end, Dumbledore chooses a coragenous, charismatic, gryffindor 'reformed bully' like James as a Head Boy . And yes, by then James has changed his ways and he is more matured; and yes, Albus respects and appreciates very much that kind of effort (fortunately also for DE!Snape); but I'm not *at all* sure that an ex-bully (or part-time bully, if you are teen!Snape) would make a good 'role model'. (exactly what I think the `Head Boy' post represents, IMHO) Remember that Tom Riddle was also made Head Boy, so Slytherin qualities can be very much appreciated too. noe From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Thu Feb 3 18:53:31 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:53:31 +0000 Subject: Head Boy characteristics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123837 Noe said: >At the end, Dumbledore chooses a coragenous, charismatic, >gryffindor 'reformed bully' like James as a Head Boy . And yes, by >then James has changed his ways and he is more matured; and yes, >Albus respects and appreciates very much that kind of effort >(fortunately also for DE!Snape); but I'm not *at all* sure that an >ex-bully (or part-time bully, if you are teen!Snape) would make a >good 'role model'. (exactly what I think the `Head Boy' post >represents, IMHO) > >Remember that Tom Riddle was also made Head Boy, so Slytherin >qualities can be very much appreciated too. I think that the Head Boys and Girls we are aware of (James, Lily, Tom Riddle, Percy) all share the quality of leadership and/or charisma. This is not necessarily the same thing as being a role model, although the two can go together. (Remember, Percy's stint as Head Boy came before he went downhill. If it comes to that, so did Tom Riddle's, as far as most people know ...) Janet Anderson From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Feb 3 18:54:51 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:54:51 -0000 Subject: Choice of James as Head Boy (was Re: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123838 Noe: > At the end, Dumbledore chooses a coragenous, charismatic, > gryffindor 'reformed bully' like James as a Head Boy . And yes, by > then James has changed his ways and he is more matured; and yes, > Albus respects and appreciates very much that kind of effort > (fortunately also for DE!Snape); but I'm not *at all* sure that an > ex-bully (or part-time bully, if you are teen!Snape) would make a > good 'role model'. (exactly what I think the `Head Boy' post > represents, IMHO) > > Remember that Tom Riddle was also made Head Boy, so Slytherin > qualities can be very much appreciated too. Potioncat: I think DD appreciates the qualities that S.Slytherin valued, although he wouldn't go as far in the "means for an end" as a Slytherin might.(Pretty darn close though, if you ask me.) He may be biased toward Gryffindor, but not by much. Unless I'm mistaken, we really only know three Head Boys: Tom Riddle (chosen by Dippet), James Potter and Percy Weasley (chosen by DD) Tom and Percy both had 12 NEWTS or was it OWLs? (Someone? Anyone?) In JP's year group, we only know the Marauders and Snape. So we don't know what the competition for the position was like. Sorry, I can't see Severus as Head Boy material, although I'm sure he might think he deserved to be one. Absolutely not Sirius...Peter and Remus don't seem to fit the bill either. Based on the glowing reports we all knew about James before we fell into the Pensieve with Harry, I think James must have done a major about face. Add that to the courage he demonstrated in rescuing Severus and he probably deserved the role of Head Boy. Potioncat, who hopes everyone appreciates her support of James From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Feb 3 19:09:55 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 19:09:55 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: <20050203173507.98667.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123839 SSSusan earlier: > > That Petunia seemed quite frightened & did *not* kick Harry out > > after receiving DD's Howler makes me believe: 1) that DD *has* > > provided ongoing protection; and 2) that she still very much > > wants that protection. So *now* DD knows that! And perhaps it > > was only *now* -- when Harry's 15 and more able to fend for > > himself, knows what's going on in the WW & with Voldemort -- that > > DD could risk issuing a threat which might lead to the Dursleys > > backing out of Harry's life. Magda: > I pretty much agree with the rest of SSS's post (which I snipped - > sorry) but I think there's another explanation for Petunia's > response to the Howler - the same explanation for Harry's sudden > awareness that Petunia was his mother's sister (which he realizes > he's never quite thought of before). > > The explanation is that Petunia has just realized that night - after > Dudders almost gets Demented, the arrival of the Howler - that > whether she likes it or not, they're all in this together. That > it's just not a matter of "we'll take the brat in until he's 18 and > carry on with life as if he's not really around" - there are wicked > and evil people out there who are a danger to her family and that > family is not safe just because they're not magic. > > It's not a matter of tossing Harry over the side of the sinking > lifeboat; they've all got to pull together now because the threat - > Voldemort's return - is greater than ever and needs everyone on the > same side. She can't walk away or pretend it doesn't concern her > anymore. Vernon doesn't get it - yet. But he's aware that > something's changed for Petunia, and his uncertainty is quite > obvious. SSSusan: But I think this argument falls apart some if there *isn't* any protection from DD for the Dursleys. That is, why *wouldn't* Petunia just pitch him overboard at this time if keeping Harry provides the Dursleys no protection? Why would they need to stick together? Would she REALLY expect Harry to come to their defense?? If Petunia is not counting on some kind of protection from DD in exchange for taking Harry in & keeping him, then why NOT kick Harry out and get him as far away as possible? I'd think his being there would be more likely to draw the attention of the "wicked & evil people out there," whereas if he were GONE, they could reasonably tell any wicked & evil people that they've washed their hands of him, have no idea where he is any longer. Wouldn't the baddies be more inclined to leave them alone if Harry were gone? The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced that there has been a deal with DD. Up to this time I think that it's been a delicate balance for DD in convincing the Dursleys to keep Harry [in exchange for a protection for the family] but in not pushing them too far or too hard for "perfect behavior," because he knows they could say "no more!" and toss Harry out. At *this* point, with his Howler, I think DD is reminding her of the protection he'd provided for 14 years. If I'm right, then previously -- before Voldy returned -- it would've been MORE tempting for Petunia to have kicked Harry out, because the wicked & evil people out there would've seemed less real and therefore less likely to come after them. But now -- now that she KNOWS Voldy is back -- she knows she more desperately needs that protection DD has offered more. And the only way she's going to keep that is to also keep Harry. Or so that's how I see it. Siriusly Snapey Susan From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 19:55:50 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 19:55:50 -0000 Subject: Choice of James as Head Boy (was Re: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123840 > Potioncat: > Unless I'm mistaken, we really only know three Head Boys: Tom > Riddle (chosen by Dippet), James Potter and Percy Weasley (chosen by > DD) Tom and Percy both had 12 NEWTS or was it OWLs? (Someone? > Anyone?) > Neri: Bill Weasley was also a Head Boy, according to the lexicon http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/bill.html I don't think we know how many OWLs Tom had, but IIRC Bill also had 12 OWLs, although his page in the lexicon doesn't mention it. Did I only dream it? The fact that Bill and Percy were Head Boys but Charlie didn't suggests to me that academic record DOES counts a lot, or anyway more than Quidditch abilities. So James was chosen more because of his academic record than being a Quidditch star (although the last probably helped). 3 Gryffindors out of 4 known Head Boys, and all the 3 from DD's time, plus 1 Gryffindor Head Girl, sounds like DD's Gryffindor favoritism. However, this could be just an illusion created because we know so many more Gryffindors than students from the other houses, and much more closely too. > Potioncat, who hopes everyone appreciates her support of James Neri: I do ;-) From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 18:18:07 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:18:07 -0000 Subject: Harry's last 'living' relatives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123841 Eggplant wrote: > Think about it, you have 2 parents 4 grandparents 8 great-grandparents and so on, go back 15 or 20 generations, just a few hundred years, and everybody is related to everybody. In the small wizard community this would be even more true. Petunia may be his closest relative but I don't care what Dumbledore says, Harry has other living relatives, mathematics demands it. Potioncat: > Yeah, go back and you can lots of ancestors and relatives...most of them dead. But at what point are you no longer related to the living? Is my great-great-great-grandfather's great-great-great-great niece still my cousin? At some point you no longer share blood (DNA). And if you have a few generations of one child families it could happen pretty quick. northsouth17: Just a thought on this subject - The WW did got hrough a war. If Moodys Original Order photograph is an indication, survival rates amongst some segments of the population were not particualrly good. People who fought Voldemort - or for Voldemort, for that matter - died off rather nastily in rather large amounts. I guess we can assume that a lot of the Potter family was involved, and that many of James's uncles and cousins may have died during the war. NOT to generally go there, but I have a very small extended family (I need to get to fourth cousins to rack up a dozen relatives) - as a lot of my grandparents siblings didn't make it past WW2, and it's been significantly longer since WW2 than since VoldyWar1. northsouth17 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 20:11:44 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 20:11:44 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: <20050203174006.29307.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123842 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > --- Steve wrote: > > > Now, Dumbledore can't let the 'affectionately humaized' > > boy he cares about continue to be treated with less than the > > respect he deserves. I'm sure independent of whether Dumbledore > > instigated the end of book meeting with the Dursleys, the members > > of that group all feel strongly that Harry has suffered enough, > > > > Just a few thoughts. > Madga: > > Great post, Steve. Personally I don't think Dumbledore instigated > the group threat to the Dursleys at the end of OOTP; I think he > finally gave into the requests of others to allow them to do > something for Harry's benefit. In short, Dumbledore is sufficiently > chastened at the end of OOTP that he's willing to listen to others' > ideas about the best thing for Harry. > > My read, anyway. > > Magda bboyminn: I tried to keep my original post somewhat neutral and all inclusive, but in truth, I don't think Dumbledore instigated the end of book confrontation with the Dursleys, but I think he openly approved of the idea. I think the key is, for all concerned, that Harry has become 'humanized'; he is no longer a legend, story, or rumor. He is a kind and brave boy who is trapped in a cruel fate. All the members of the Order who showed up for the confrontation, are people who now know Harry personally, and have developed an affection for him. Now in a manner of speaking, they are cursed (figuratively) with empathy; they share and feel Harry's pain, and more importantly they care that that pain exists. Moody can certainly empathized with Harry. He knows first hand, the pain, trama, and sacrifice that comes with being a Dark Wizard fighter. Given how thoroughly that role in life has damaged him, he wouldn't wish that pain on anyone. Lupin, in his year as a teacher, tried to maintain a professional teacher/student distance from Harry; an emotional distance. But I think dispite his best efforts, given the circumstances, he couldn't help but develope a closeness and fondness for Harry. Lupin had been very close to Harry's father, almost like a brother, that created a circumstance in which Lupin became like a close Uncle to Harry. Despite the fact the he still tries to maintain a dignified emotional distance, he can't help but love Harry like family. As a side note on Lupin, I think part of the reason Lupin hasn't made more of an effort to get closer to Harry is because he is somewhat insecure and uncertain about what his allowable role in Harry's life should be. Dumbledore is mentor and guide, Sirius is Godfather and confidant, the Weasleys are surrogate family, leaving Lupin on the fringe, once again, unsure of where he fits in. None the less, like everyone else, he knows Harry has suffered more than enough, and he refuses to allow any more suffering if it is at all in his power to stop it. Of course, the Weasely family have known Harry the longest, and they are, without a doubt, his surrogate family. They are his only and best role models for what a normal family should be like. In addition, no one can doubt that the entire Weasley family have a great affection for Harry. Molly has always restrained herself from criticizing the Dursley, they are afterall Harry's true family, and generally, people hold the belief that you don't interfere in the way another man raises his family. But enough is enough, Molly could barely stand the pain Harry has already endured. She, along with Arthur, have certainly reached their limits, and they simply can not and will not allow Harry to suffer any more. Finally, Dumbledore; Dumbledore is caught between a rock and a hard place. Knowing that Harry has a mostly inescapable dark and dangerous destiny, I think he is inclined to keep his distance. He has already caused a serious and deadly blunder partly because he allowed his affection for Harry to cloud his judgement. Now more that ever, he must force himself to maintain an objective emotional distance. He simply can't afford another blunder like the last one. Harry is certainly important, but upon Dumbledore's decisions, hangs the fate of the entire wizard world. Despite that, I'm sure he approves of the Order members intervening on Harry's behalf. Despite having to maintain a practical emotional distance from Harry, that's no reason for Harry to be miserable at the Dursleys. Given the overwhelming emotional pain and conflict that Harry is certainly feeling, it's well within reason, to rein in the Dursleys. Further, I'm completely convinced that Dumbledore deeply regrets not having done so sooner. In addition, there is work to be done, strategically, they have lost the luxury of letting Harry languish in seculsion at the Dursley's every year. There is too much ground to cover, too much preparation to be done. So, one they have sufficiently reenforced the 'Protection of Blood' Charm, it time to pull Harry out, and get down to the business at hand. Hence, Harry's shortest stay ever at the Dursley's. As a side note, I'm secertly hoping that Harry is pulled away to attend Neville's birthday party, mostly because I think Gran' Longbottom needs a good telling off regarding her attitude about Neville. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From caesian at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 20:26:42 2005 From: caesian at yahoo.com (caesian) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 12:26:42 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry as Job, Snape as the Satan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123843 On Feb 2, 2005, at 8:04 AM, potioncat wrote: > I came upon a post (38508) with a very interesting slant, and at > that, one I haven't seen before.? Following the thread back led me > to a copyrighted essay in the HPfGU files written before Order of > the Phoenix. Don't be put off by the Hermione type title.? It's a > thought provoking, readable essay and it may generate some new > discussions. It addresses some of the same issues that I've seen on > the list lately, "How could DD allow this to happen?" "Why did Snape > do that?" > > The Conundrum of Justice and the Divine Adversary: Literary > Parallels between Harry Potter and the Book of Job > By Porphyria, 2002. > > I'll attempt a link to the essay, but in case it doesn't work, go > the side bar on your left and click "files."? Scroll down > to "Essays" and open that file. Go down about 13 entries > to "job.html" and open it. > The essay gives some background about the story of Job and also > about the Hebrew view of the Satan as portrayed in the Book of Job. > We aren't talking about the devil here, not really. > Part II looks at Snape as being in the Satan role.? Satan's > role is > test Job, and to act as Prosecutor or Accuser. Now, that's a role > Snape could enjoy!? He also is charged with roaming the earth. > (Roaming Hogwarts?)? Thinking of Snape as the Accuser actually > explains much of his behavior in the books. > > Here is a sample of Porphyria's text about the Satan: > > "The Christian sense of "Satan" as the supreme agent of Evil, the > fallen angel who rebelled against God, did not come into use until > hundreds of years after the Book of Job was written.6 In her book An > Adversary in Heaven Peggy L. Day explains that the Hebrew > word "satan" is best translated as "adversary" or "accuser" and that > this often has the strictly forensic sense of a prosecuting attorney > or the opponent in a legal case.7 > > snip > . In the Book of Job, the character called "the satan" is a member > of the divine council, meaning he is an angel, and a perfectly loyal > one at that. > > Snip > > In the Book of Job, God specifically seeks out the satan from among > his divine council and questions him. For a character with few > lines, the satan exerts a sardonic and eloquent presence in the > text." > > That sounds just like our beloved Snape!? > > > Potioncat Caesian responds: Hear ye, hear ye! IMHO, Potioncat's post above is the best I've seen in months! I think the comparison between Snape and The Accuser is especially apt. Their roles are uncannily similar, in fact. It is comforting to know that, as the accuser, Snape has considerable job security (maybe even immortality ;-). I suppose my curiosity revolves around whether the similarities between Snape and the Accuser are intentional (i.e., will they continue in books 6 & 7). Actually, I've been wondering about JKR's original intentions for Snape ever since the Vampire!Snape debacle*. *As an explanation for those who didn't followed the arguments, the idea that Snape is a vampire has been advanced multiple times with reasonable support from the Canon. Then, JKR was asked in a web chat whether there was "any relation between Snape and Vampires" and her response was something like "um, no, not that I know of." Thus dashing that theory pretty completely. The thing that puzzles me is JKR's own artwork of Snape's character. Everyone interested in JKR's original conception of Snape should take a look at her drawing - the instructions for finding it are below. I'll let you draw your own conclusions as to which popular cultural stereotype he most closely resembles. [I found this in the Photos section from the HPfGUs main page, it is the third folder "Harry Potter & Me", a TV special where JKR held up illustrations from her notes, including her own illustrations of the characters. The Link, which may not work, is. http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/hpforgrownups/vwp?.dir=/ Harry+Potter+%26+Me&.src=gr&.dnm=profsnape.jpg&.view=t&.done=http%3a// photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/hpforgrownups/lst%3f%26.dir=/ Harry%2bPotter%2b%2526%2bMe%26.src=gr%26.view=t ] The problem with further discussion of Harry Potter and the Book of Job is that the original author (thank her very much for the essay) and Potioncat have already had most of the real fun. :-) There are some small things (boils, anyone?) we could comment on. Maybe the Neville-ites would like a stab at this one. And Job is my second favorite book. In all fairness, it should be my very favorite, but I just can't resist Jonah. Jonah cracks me up. If we wanted to talk about Biblical comparisons, let's talk about Ron and Jonah. The God of Ron Weasley's life obviously has a sense of humor. Poor Jonah, the reluctant prophet. He's spiteful, he's rebellious, and God keeps messing with him. I was laughing so hard that I fell off my chair the first time I read how God causes a bush to grow up and provide shade for poor sweltering Jonah and then immediately causes the bush to die again. Ron is like Jonah in many ways. He's reluctant about almost every mission he's sent on. He can become inappropriately and hilariously flustered, or embarrassed. He may have some prophetic capacities, but he'd certainly not be happy to discover this. And of course, we enjoy seeing him suffer, a bit, but only in good fun. Caesian - who thinks that in the oh-so-very-Goth (admit it) world of Hogwarts, Snape is the one with the most black velvet. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 20:32:49 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 20:32:49 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty, Working Wizard Women; was Molly & Arthurwas Why I like Ginn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123844 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Megan" wrote: > > (citing Jocelyn who wrote:) > ~snip~"... Because Arthur's job doesn't pay well. Why doesn't he get > a better paying job? > and meganlynn wrote in agreement: > > ~snip~"If you are going to have 7 children, you should be prepared > to make some sacrifices for them. ... and make them their top > priority."~snip~ > skater314159 writes: > I have to disagree with both of you, in that I think Arthur is doing > fine where he is. He works in the government (which doesn't pay much > in the WW or the RW) because he wants to make a difference. ... > > ...~~ extreme snip ~~... > > Skater314159 bboyminn; I'm with Skater314159 100% on this. There is nothing wrong with being a 'working class' guy, and the truest measure of a man is not the pointless luxuries he can provide his family. Love and affection will out value a snowmobile and a bunch of designer clothes any day. To prove my point, let's shift the focus using a different illustration... Why would anyone be a teacher; a difficult, under-appreciated, overworked, unglamorous, and underpaid job? Certainly the same level of education it takes to be a teacher would net you twice the money and much more room for advancement in the business world. By the logic of 'money is everything', all teachers should go find better jobs. I mean, don't they own it to their families? Isn't it unfair that they work at a job they love that makes a profound difference in the world, while their poor downtrodden kids have to wear Wal-Mart T-shirts and jeans? Hummm.....? So, once again, I point out that the Weasley family is not poor. They have all of life's material necessities and more, and more importantly, they have an abundance of life's truly important necessities. They may not be rich, but they are certainly enriched. Can't say it enough. Steve/bboyminn From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Feb 3 21:16:08 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 21:16:08 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory (not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123845 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" wrote: > > > Neri: > > > > So in > > > JKR's view ESE!Lupin would *be* a heinous mass murderer and traitor who, very superficially, has some good abilities. He certainly cannot be described as a "wonderful" person. She might write such a character, but *liking* him seems out of the question > > > > Pippin: > > Why? We seem to have agreed that liking and favoring are > > superficial emotional reactions to superficial traits. Naama: > In that quote JKR talks about the characters she *loves*. Pippin: Here's the quote: I really like Professor Lupin, the character, because he's somebody who also has his failing he's such a great man and he's a wonderful teacher in fact I would say that Lupin is the one time I'vewritten a teacher I loved really liked to have had because ProfessorMcGonnagol is a very good teacher but she can be quite scary at times, very strict. So Lupin's a wonderful teacher and a very nice man but he has a failing and his failing is that he does like to be liked and that's where he slips up because he has been disliked so often that he's always so pleased to have friends so he cuts them and awful lot of slack. http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2003/0626-alberthall-fry. htm So it sounds there as if she's talking about liking him as a character, she says he's a wonderful *teacher*, and she corrects herself from "loved" to "really liked". I really think that can be interpreted any number of ways. There is no quote, AFAIK, where she says he's a good person. Pippin From megalynn44 at hotmail.com Thu Feb 3 21:27:33 2005 From: megalynn44 at hotmail.com (megalynn44) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 21:27:33 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty, Working Wizard Women; was Molly & Arthurwas Why I like Ginn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123846 > bboyminn; There is nothing wrong with being > a 'working class' guy, and the truest measure of a man is not the > pointless luxuries he can provide his family. Love and affection will > out value a snowmobile and a bunch of designer clothes any day. Megalynn: In reading through everyone's posts there seems to me to be a divergence from my question. I am not disputing that the Weasley's are good parents that have made a good life for their kids. I do not begrudge Arthur his job or Molly her housewife status. I think they are great. What I am having trouble with is that in books 2, 3, and 4 all of the children were gone from the house 10 months out of the year. This leaves seriously little housework or cooking or errands comparatively. Also, the lack of money was big issue with the family. A real problem at times. All of the family feels teh strain. Even Molly, laments that she wishes she could get Ron better dress robes. If we can stipulate that this was indeed the case, then why wouldn't Molly do something with that time to make a little extra for the family? Is it a social thing? Have we seen any other evidence in canon to explain why it would not be obvious for a mother with an empty nest and a cash strapped family to get some sort of side job? ~megalynn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 21:28:09 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 21:28:09 -0000 Subject: Harry's last 'living' relatives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123847 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Eggplant wrote: > > Think about it, you have 2 parents 4 grandparents 8 > > great-grandparents and so on, go back 15 or 20 generations, just a > > few hundred years, and everybody is related to everybody. ... Harry > > has other living relatives, mathematics demands it. > Potioncat: > Yeah, go back and you can lots of ancestors and relatives...most of > them dead. But at what point are you no longer related to the > living? bboyminn: There is a difference between being technically relatives and significant relatives. You may one day discover your 6th cousin twice removed, and while that may be an interesting curioustity, it's not really significant. Although my math might be slightly off, let's look at just how related you are to your cousins. In a sense, your first cousin (common grandparents) is your half-blood cousin. Both of your father's are from the same family (all patriachal connections for this illustration), so you share half the same blood. Now your second cousin (common great grandparents) only shares a quarter of your blood. You third cousin only shares 1/8th blood with you; 4th cousin=1/16th blood, 5th=1/32nd, etc.... Depending on where you live, you can't marry your first cousin, but you can marry your second cousin (legal, but not recommended), and for the most part, legally, no one cares if you marry your 3rd cousin. So, from a legal perspective, 3rd cousins (common great-great grandparents) are no long considered family. The blood connection is so small as to be insignificant. In all likelihood, unless if involves a really big inheritance, anything beyond second cousin loses all significants. So, yes, technically Harry has relatives, but not significantly. Steve/bboyminn From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Thu Feb 3 22:10:59 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 22:10:59 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character Discussion: Voldemort - further explanation Message-ID: <20050203221059.94861.qmail@web25108.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123848 Replies to Cat_kind and Geoff. Thanks for that excellent post, Cat_kind! It was a brilliant idea to give me back your perception of what I said. That way I can see how Im coming across. I wish more people would do that, and Id be very grateful if youd look at my other posts and do the same. Cat_kind wrote: Hans' point seems to be that Voldemort represents what you call the "higher self", which is a kind of accumulation of one's character and experiences across a series of reincarnations, is more or less immortal and is not in itself evil. Hans: Not bad at all, Cat_kind! Id just like to qualify your words, is not in itself evil. The teachings of systems like Theosophy, Anthroposophy and Schools of Liberation are that the higher self or microcosmic consciousness is good to the extent that the personality (lower self) is good, and evil to the extent that the personality is evil. In other words your higher self will have as much goodness as you do and as much evil as you do. The trouble is whats good and whats evil? There are no definitions possible and its a very subjective judgement to say one thing is good and another evil. The higher self is an astral entity with a consciousness. It dominates the personality and makes it do what it wants. It will cause the personality to do a mixture of good and evil things, as we all do. It does not have a conscience and knows no mercy or feeling of pity for the personality. The higher selfs actions are automatic. Its not programmed to distinguish between good and evil. This is why Voldemort says, through Quirrell: There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it.... However from an absolute point of view, there is the Divine Plan and there is the possibility of not following the divine plan. Accordingly there are two universes: one absolutely Good without evil, and another which is a mixture of subjective good and evil. The teachings of liberation say that the universe where Good exists is known as The Kingdom of Heaven or Nirvana, or whatever its called, depending on your religion. We in this fallen universe are not part of the Divine Universe, and so from an absolute point of view we live in sin, i.e. we do not live according to the Divine Plan. In this picture, Voldemort is the accumulation of all our past actions which were not in the Plan. Hence he represents all our past sins (in the new definition Ive just given). If we go on the journey that Harry Potter symbolises, then a spark of life from the absolutely Good universe shines in our heart. The microcosmic self experiences this as a burning fire, because its Light while the microcosmic self is a mixture of grey and black. This is where it becomes our opponent: the meaning of the word Satan. This is why Voldemort opposes Harry. Harry radiates light which will ultimately end Voldemorts life. Compared to the Light Harry shines out, all the shades of grey appear just as black as the black does. Hence: compared to Harry, Voldemort is evil. Now I dont expect you to accept or reject the above. Im asking you whether you understand it. In your post you give the impression this all sounds new, however these teachings are very ancient. The idea of reincarnation is surely not new in this 21st century? Surely then its obvious that if theres reincarnation there has to be something that survives in between incarnations? Well, quite simply, thats Voldemort. Cat_kind: Harry represents something created by what you call the "spirit", which seems to be more or less a/the god. Hans: Yes, thats not bad. I didnt think it was all that strange to refer to God as spirit though. Surely thats a fairly traditional Christian concept? To make your sentence more accurate: Harry symbolises the Immortal Divine Soul of the microcosm that was created by the Original Spirit of God before time started. Cat_kind: Coming from a higher plane (my terminology), he has to learn stuff to get back up to that higher plane, and is then able to destroy the higher self. Hans: Id give that one 40% for accuracy. The MICROCOSM originally came from a higher plane. Once again I would have thought thats fairly acceptable to traditional Christians. Man fell from Paradise. You need only read Genesis in the Old Testament. I wouldnt take it too literally if you want to understand what Im saying though. When the microcosm fell, the original soul died (The soul that sins shall die.) and inside the centre of the microcosm was left the dormant soul. This is symbolised in Harry Potter by Lily. The Path of Liberation teaches that this soul can be revivified when the seeker longs to return to God. Once again, very traditionally Christian. Thats the story of the Prodigal Son. He has to learn stuff to get back up to that higher plane is a very crude way of putting it, but I guess its basically true. The teachings of Liberation as symbolised by Harry Potter say that the microcosm is tied to the fallen universe with seven chains. In each volume Harry breaks one of the chains. In my essay Harry Potter: Christian Rosycross in Jeans (under Essays in the groups files) I explain each chain and how Harry breaks it. In April 2003 I predicted which chain Harry would break in book 5 and it turned out to be correct. Your words and is then able to destroy the higher self are wrong. The seven chains in fact constitute Voldemort. Each time Harry breaks a chain he weakens Voldemort. Harry will destroy the last chain in book 7 and that will finish Voldemort. Not until then can Harry enter that higher plane. Cat_kind: In what way does this tie in with the Harry Potter books except in that Harry will presumably defeat Voldemort? Hans: I had no choice but to put in this explanatory post before I could continue my series of character discussions on Sirius. What I have to say in Sirius (2) wouldnt make sense unless I explained the background first. I did feel a bit guilty about not mentioning Harry Potter very much, but Ill be a good boy and stick more closely from now on. I just had to do it for clarity. Im sure you will agree that Harry Potter is a vast tapestry of archetypes, symbols and many, many layers of meaning. If it wasnt, there wouldnt be 120,000 posts discussing it! Well my assertion is that its so complex because its based on the teachings of Liberating Alchemy. The only way I can tell this group about my startling discovery is to make another tapestry to show you the similarities. Both tapestries are incredibly complex. Ive been posting for nearly two years and I havent even got half way. What I did in the post were discussing is take a little detailed patch and explain what it means and how it fits into the big picture. Im assuming that people who are interested enough to read my series of posts have become more or less used to my theory. A particular post has to be seen in the context of all my earlier posts. If youve lost track I advise you to visit the Yahoo group harrypotterforseekers where all my posts are concentrated densely. Theyre open to the public and in the right order. Cat_kind: For a start, Rowling has said that Voldemort IS in himself evil. Hans: Yes, from the Divine point of view Voldemort IS evil. As I said he becomes Satan as soon as Harry is born, and has no conscience. He will leave no method untried, no matter how evil, if it will kill Harry. I have explained this in past posts and will explain this in more detail in future posts. Cat_kind: And if Rowling believes in this theory and has based her books on it, why should she deny it? Wouldn't that be dishonest? Hans: She hasnt denied it. She has said that she couldn't answer the questions about the book's religious content until the conclusion of book seven. See http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1999/1099-chictimes-tucker.html Geoff: Let me start by saying that I have never written that I have rejected the path of liberation utterly. That would be an insult to Hans' world view. Hans: OK I wasnt quoting literally. This is a quote from your post No. 120508: As I have remarked on previous occasions, I cannot buy into your views on the Path of Liberation. You have said that quite emphatically several times, and I interpreted that to mean you rejected the Path utterly. If thats not what you meant I apologise. However you are saying you cannot buy into my views. That to me means youre rejecting my view of the Path itself rather than on my theory that Jo bases Harry Potter on the teachings which I espouse. Im not even halfway with my explanation so I beg you to suspend judgement till Ive finished. Ill do a summary then. Geoff: Hans has made an assumption that Jo Rowling believes in the Path of Liberation and has structured his comments about the books on that hypothesis. As far as I know, the author has not at any point made any such statement of faith. Hans: I guess to you it may seem like an assumption, but can you accept that to me its recognition? In post 107405 I explained that reading Harry Potter to me is like walking in a garden which is exactly like another garden with which Im extremely familiar. The reason no one else in this group has that overwhelming sense of recognition is that no one else knows the teachings of liberation. Its as simple as that. Wouldnt you say its my duty as a member of this group and as a keen Harry Potter fan to TELL you all what I see if it provides evidence of the origins of Harry Potter? Im assuming, of course, that Im being regarded as an honest and sane person telling the truth. When I say I recognise the teachings of Alchemical Liberation in Harry Potter Im assuming people like you are not saying Im either lying or living in a delusion. If thats what you think theres nothing to discuss. Geoff: At the moment, I have received no answer to that [how many Rosicrucians there are]. As I said, I have a friend, a one-time next-door neighbour who is a Rosicrucian which was why I knew of the order but I am given to conclude that the number of followers is small and it seems to be little known which is why I wondered how Jo Rowling, assuming that she /does/ know of it, came into contact. Hans: If youll try a good search engine Im sure youll be able to find out how many people call themselves Rosicrucians. Ill be the first to admit the Rosicrucians are a small group. That is why I am so absolutely astounded at my discovery! Yes, Geoff, and everyone, it is indeed incredible that teachings which are known by only a handful of people are being incorporated symbolically in the best selling book ever (well, the Bible has had 2000 years to run up its figures). Sometimes I have to pinch myself to convince myself Im not dreaming! But again and again the similarities are too great and too obvious to be dismissed. Jo is definitely using the ancient symbols used not only by a certain small group of Rosicrucians (there are many kinds) but by the Mystery Schools of Greece and Egypt. As to how Jo knows these obscure teachings, I have my theory on that but Id prefer to leave that for now. I have posted that to HPfS if you really want to know. It would take us way off the present topic. Geoff: I see no evidence of the Path of Liberation ideas which could easily be picked up and realised by an average reader and if that is the case, why weave this world view into a book where it will not be recognised? Hans: As I said, I have not even got half way with my expostulation. I will present evidence upon evidence and will summarise at the end. I do emphasise that the teachings of liberation are very carefully hidden. Why? Tonks has explained this very well. Harry Potter is making an extremely powerful impact upon the human subconscious. This is something Ive explained before in great detail. Carl Gustav Jung said that the unconscious mind has more influence upon our lives than the conscious mind. Once Harry Potter is finished millions upon millions of children will unconsciously have absorbed the teachings of Alchemical Liberation and they will be open to and accept the teachings when they are presented overtly and not symbolically. They will recognise them as I recognise them. As I said in my essay, Harry Potter will be part of a new world religion that will last for 3000 years. We are privileged to witness the birth of a new world religion. My sincere thanks to both Geoff and Cat_kind for the time and effort theyve put into their posts! ===== Hans Andra see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://www.harrypotterforseekers.com/ ___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Feb 3 22:46:45 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 22:46:45 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty, Working Wizard Women; was Molly & Arthurwas Why I like Ginn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123849 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "megalynn44" wrote: > A real problem at times. All of the family feels teh strain. Even > Molly, laments that she wishes she could get Ron better dress robes. > > If we can stipulate that this was indeed the case, then why wouldn't Molly do something with that time to make a little extra for the family? Is it a social thing? Have we seen any other evidence in canon to explain why it would not be obvious for a mother with an empty nest and a cash strapped family to get some sort of side job? > Pippin: We don't actually know that Molly doesn't have a part-time job during the school year--she could be clerking during the Christmas rush or maybe she's (shhh) an accountant during tax season if British wizards have one. But in Book Two, Molly hasn't got an empty nest until Ginny goes away to school --too late to help with Ginny's expenses. And she's had to purchase *5* complete sets of Lockhart books. In Book Three, the Weasleys get a windfall and spend it on a trip to Egypt. Many families would do that instead of buying fancy stuff for the kids. In Book Four, I think there is something going on which you may not have caught. The Weasleys, unlike other wizarding families, are honest enough not to take advantage of knowing that the TWT will be revived. So Molly doesn't go shopping for used dress robes until the Hogwarts letters arrive, by which time those in the know might have already picked over what's available. Pippin From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 23:08:54 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 23:08:54 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory (not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123850 > > Naama: > > In that quote JKR talks about the characters she *loves*. > > Pippin: > Here's the quote: > > I really like Professor Lupin, the character, > because he's somebody who also has his failing > > http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2003/0626-alberthall-fry. > htm Neri: I believe Naama was talking about another quote, the one from JKR's website: "Who is your favourite character? I love: Harry, Hermione, Ron, Hagrid, Dumbledore, Ginny, Fred, George and Lupin. I love writing (though would not necessarily want to meet) Snape. My favourite new character is Luna Lovegood." http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/faq_view.cfm?id=8 Perhaps of more significance than the words love/like/favorite is the natural way in which JKR groups Lupin together with the kids, Hagrid and DD, while (as SSSusan mentioned) she does make the distinction regarding Snape. And again, it is probably one of many questions she gets, so she didn't have to answer it, or she could have chosen a less direct wording. We all know how good she is at evasion. Neri Neri From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Feb 3 23:27:36 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 23:27:36 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory (not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123851 > Neri: > > I believe Naama was talking about another quote, the one from JKR's > website: > > "Who is your favourite character? > > I love: Harry, Hermione, Ron, Hagrid, Dumbledore, Ginny, Fred, George and Lupin. I love writing (though would not necessarily want to meet) Snape. My favourite new character is Luna Lovegood." > > http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/faq_view.cfm?id=8 > > Perhaps of more significance than the words love/like/favorite is the natural way in which JKR groups Lupin together with the kids, Hagridand DD, while (as SSSusan mentioned) she does make the distinction regarding Snape. Pippin: By that reasoning, we could claim that she must love all her favorites because they are the epitome of goodness, since she put them in the same category as Dumbledore. I don't think many people would accept that description applied to Fred and George! Pippin From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 23:30:24 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 23:30:24 -0000 Subject: Are Lily and Harry Animagi? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123852 OT Chatter had pictures of cats. Looked at pictures and saw green eyes. Thought of Harry and Lilly. Pondering if they could both be animagi. Which leads to this thought. If Harry and Lilly were animagi, what would they be? Well green eyes suggest cats, but I can't see Harry as a kitty and I can't see a cat running around with a Stag. Now Harry could be a lion, but I would hope that JKR would not go there since the XC symbolism would be far too obvious. But I think that it would be possible for a witch as talented as we assume Lily to be and with a husband who was an animagus to be one herself. And I think that she would be a Unicorn. It fits. I can see a Unicorn running with a Stag. Also the symbolism fits with the pure Lily. We have both the symbol of the Easter flower and the pure victim whose blood is sacred. It might explain why LV didn't want to kill her if he knew that she was also a Unicorn and the curse that would befall him. But then in his strong desire to kill Harry and his impatience with her, without thinking he just AKed her. So we have both the ancient magic that she or DD preformed on Harry and the Love sacrifice of the Unicorn/Lily that made her death a bit different than that of any other mother. Only problem with this is that I think Unicorns have blue eyes. Buy maybe if one were really a Human its eyes would be green. Any thought? Tonks_op From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 23:54:40 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 23:54:40 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory (not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123853 > > Neri: > > "Who is your favourite character? > > > > I love: Harry, Hermione, Ron, Hagrid, Dumbledore, Ginny, Fred, > George and Lupin. I love writing (though would not necessarily > want to meet) Snape. My favourite new character is Luna > Lovegood." > Pippin: > By that reasoning, we could claim that she must love all her > favorites because they are the epitome of goodness, since she > put them in the same category as Dumbledore. I don't think > many people would accept that description applied to Fred and > George! > > Pippin Neri: Well, Since she pointedly didn't include Snape in this list, would it be acceptable reasoning to give Lupin a goodness mark slightly higher than that of Snape, as a worst possible scenario? Neri From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Fri Feb 4 00:25:01 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 19:25:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Are Lily and Harry Animagi? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050204002501.52446.qmail@web52007.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123854 Tonks wrote: OT Chatter had pictures of cats. Looked at pictures and saw green eyes. Thought of Harry and Lilly. Pondering if they could both be animagi. Which leads to this thought. If Harry and Lilly were animagi, what would they be? Well green eyes suggest cats, but I can't see Harry as a kitty and I can't see a cat running around with a Stag. Now Harry could be a lion, but I would hope that JKR would not go there since the XC symbolism would be far too obvious. But I think that it would be possible for a witch as talented as we assume Lily to be and with a husband who was an animagus to be one herself. And I think that she would be a Unicorn. It fits. I can see a Unicorn running with a Stag. Also the symbolism fits with the pure Lily. We have both the symbol of the Easter flower and the pure victim whose blood is sacred. It might explain why LV didn't want to kill her if he knew that she was also a Unicorn and the curse that would befall him. But then in his strong desire to kill Harry and his impatience with her, without thinking he just AKed her. So we have both the ancient magic that she or DD preformed on Harry and the Love sacrifice of the Unicorn/Lily that made her death a bit different than that of any other mother. Only problem with this is that I think Unicorns have blue eyes. Buy maybe if one were really a Human its eyes would be green. Any thought? Tonks_op Luckdragon: I think with Harry's connection to Dumbledore, his affiliation with Fawkes, Hedwig, and Buckbeak and his love of flying he would probably be a bird of some kind and I'm leaning towards a Phoenix. As for Lily always being described as pure, I'm inclined to see her as a dove or swan, so it's birds for both in my books. Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/hbfile.html Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! --------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 00:48:54 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 16:48:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco and Lucius (was: Harry and starvation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050204004854.78853.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123855 > Compare that to Draco who in CoS yelled out, "You're next > Mudbloods!" > in a fit of excitement in front of professors, no less, (and I > believe Dumbledore) after Mrs. Norris was attacked. Not smooth. > At all. Or let slip to the trio that his folks just might be out > with the hooligan Death Eaters in GoF, or that Sirius had been > spotted on platform 9 3/4 in OotP. Draco likes to be center of > attention, and he doesn't care what secrets he might be spilling > to get there. (I'm > quite certain his father would not have been pleased at the Sirius > spill.) > > Betsy, Yes, they're definitely different; personally I think Lucius' best moment in the series comes in COS when they're in Borgin's shop and he shoots down all Draco's whining complaints with the practiced ease of a man who's heard it all (too many times) before. Notice that Draco often quotes Lucius as "my father says....". Not "my father told me that...." Sounds to me like Draco spends a lot of time around the manor listening in on Lucius' conversations from hiding places. Does he go back to Hogwarts and brag to Snape about everything he knows? Bet you anything he does. And of course, even though Draco is normally as dumb as a box of rocks, he'd be one of the first customers of those Extendable Ears that George and Fred were selling. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From a_b_desert_king at hotmail.com Fri Feb 4 00:53:25 2005 From: a_b_desert_king at hotmail.com (a_b_desert_king) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:53:25 -0000 Subject: James: Paragon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123856 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Alex boyd" Alex wrote: > I have one small thing I want to add about the Snape/James pensieve scene. > I agree that we don't have enough information to develop an authoratative > reading of this scene; *however*, I can't help thinking it's an important > clue that James's choice of obnoxious-thing-to-do in this scene is to turn > Snape upside down, revealing his undergarments....exactly as we see the > Death Eaters doing at the Quidditch World Cup in GoF. He easilly could have > done something else (or, to put it another way, JKR could have made him do > something else), so the parallel *has* to mean something. (Unless it's a > Mark Evans, of course, but it's such an important scene that I really don't > think so.) > Heather: It has been suggested before that there is a very important parallel to these two scenes. Some believe that it is an indicator that Snape may have been part of the muggle-baiting at the QWC and that he was the one to turn the muggle woman upside down to reveal her under- drawers. However, those who believe in ESE:Lupin or ESE:Sirius would argue that it could just as easily have been either of those two present. Another thought is that perhaps LV attempted to kidnap HP at the QWC and found there was too much guard on him there. So he decided to have a little fun and stir up the 'free' DEs to see how many would respond to a 'spot of muggle baiting'. This would suggest that Wormtail was the person to turn her upside down. Canon to suggest this is only in GoF when reincarnated:LV mentions in his speech to his DEs that he thought "...[Harry's] protection might be weaker [at the Quiddich World Cup], away from his relations and Dumbledore, but I was not yet strong enough to attempt kidnap in the midst of a horde of Ministry wizards". As to what this may portend, I have no idea. But I too think that there must be a connection between the two events. Maybe in Book 6... Heather From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 18:26:48 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 10:26:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Support for the ESE Lupin theory (not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050203182649.45106.qmail@web31105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123857 > Neri: "It is our choices that show what we truly are" According to JKR/DD, if you choose to betray and murder your friends, then this is what you truly ARE: a murderer and a traitor. And probably not likable, to anybody who knows what you truly are.< >>Pippin: But JKR believes people can change << Arynn: Since her view of him is coloured by all that he will do/expirience, not just by what we have read so far, I think I trust her judgement. >>Pippin: I expect he will be offered a chance to redeem himself, though I think he will turn it down and have his soul sucked out.<< Arynn: There's no evidence that he NEEDS to redeem himself. Not in cannon anyway, (there are a few "theories" that are bassed on half-truths and assumptions). These "theories" would never fly in the actual world of criminal detection. >Pippin: She likes him because he's clever and kind and gives good lessons. JKR could love him like a mom who recognizes her grownup son has become a criminal, but still loves him and wishes he could change. Give some credit to JKR's creativity. Anybody can imagine a cruel, stupid sadistic person doing evil things. But how dull! How much more challenging to create a wonderful man who, because of one failing, being too cowardly to stand up to his friends, is entrapped in a secret life that eventually destroys him.< > Neri: This view of JKR does not fit well with your image of ESE!Lupin as a wonderful person who ontologically *is* kind, clever, likable and a good teacher, but because he was tragically trapped in his secret life, JKR's view of ESE!Lupin would be exactly the opposite of this image. Being nice, clever, likable and a good teacher are all abilities. In JKR's view they are very secondary. Murdering and betraying all these people were ESE!Lupin choices, and according to JKR's view, they show what he truly, ontologically *is*. So in JKR's view ESE!Lupin would *be* a heinous mass murderer and traitor who, very superficially, has some good abilities< Arynn: JKR says that not only does she like Lupin, but that she would like him to teach her daughter. Would someone ever say that about a murderer? Has ANYONE ever said anything along the lines of "He's a really wonderful person, dispite his tendancy to kill/betray people"? Just having some good qualities doesn't make you good, just as having bad ones doesn't make you bad. Would you ever say you would like someone to teach your child, knowing he was a killer, just because he is "clever and kind and gives good lessons"? Besides, how can you call a murderer kind? Since JKR listed him as one of her favourite characters, I think we can all assume that he is not ESE. All of the theories as to why she listed him at all are just a little too far fetched for my believing. --Arynn (A Criminal Psychology Major and Lupin lover) From tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 21:49:52 2005 From: tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com (Pyros Wife) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 13:49:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Weasley Poverty, Working Wizard Women; was Molly & Arthurwas Why I like Ginn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050203214952.78714.qmail@web61207.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123858 Megalynn: What I am having trouble with is that in books 2, 3, and 4 all of the children were gone from the house 10 months out of the year. This leaves seriously little housework or cooking or errands comparatively. Also, the lack of money was big issue with the family. A real problem at times. All of the family feels teh strain. Even Molly, laments that she wishes she could get Ron better dress robes. If we can stipulate that this was indeed the case, then why wouldn't Molly do something with that time to make a little extra for the family? Is it a social thing? Have we seen any other evidence in canon to explain why it would not be obvious for a mother with an empty nest and a cash strapped family to get some sort of side job? Tayla: I don't know about anyone else in the UK, but in the US, if you don't have experience in ANY job for a number of years, GETTING a job to begin with is extremely difficult. Most employers will look down their noses at a "housewife trying to get back into the workforce" and end up hiring someone with "more experience". I ran into this problem when I was medically bedridden during my second pregnancy and took time to be with my daughter (1 year). I was only out of work for a little over a year and I ended up with a low end job that I hated. Took much work to get another job that I enjoy. Perhaps Molly doesn't have that much available to her career-wise. She has been spending the better part of her adult life caring for her children and after a long period of time, you lose some of the skills that you had right out of school. Just a thought. Tayla From tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 22:23:25 2005 From: tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com (Pyros Wife) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:23:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Support for the ESE Lupin theory! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050203222325.41067.qmail@web61205.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123859 Pippin: It's possible that the active ingredient in the potion has a "threshold" -- that is, you have to take the entire weeks' dosage or it has no effect. I can believe that Lupin forgot to take it, or even that he knew that Snape was coming but decided that going after Peter was a higher priority. But the fact that he would have already had several doses that week makes it difficult for me to think that he also forgot it was the night of the full moon. How could he, when he was talking about the potion and its effects on being a werewolf with the Trio and Sirius? And then, he completely blows off Snape's announcement that he hasn't taken his potion. IMO, that is either criminally irresponsible or there is something else going on -- such as that he did take his potion as the ESE!Lupin theory postulates. Tayla: He could have thought that with all of the doses that he took, he may have had more control over himself, but when faced with the fact that he has been wrong for all of these years as to WHO betrayed the Potters, his anger at himself could have left him with little control. Think about going through most of your life and finding out your opinion was wrong all that time. Wasn't Harry himself angry at the Dursleys for less, but essentially the same thing? Tayla --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! ? Try it today! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 22:08:46 2005 From: tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com (Pyros Wife) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:08:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050203220846.36049.qmail@web61202.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123860 SSSusan: But I think this argument falls apart some if there *isn't* any protection from DD for the Dursleys. That is, why *wouldn't* Petunia just pitch him overboard at this time if keeping Harry provides the Dursleys no protection? Why would they need to stick together? Would she REALLY expect Harry to come to their defense?? If Petunia is not counting on some kind of protection from DD in exchange for taking Harry in & keeping him, then why NOT kick Harry out and get him as far away as possible? I'd think his being there would be more likely to draw the attention of the "wicked & evil people out there," whereas if he were GONE, they could reasonably tell any wicked & evil people that they've washed their hands of him, have no idea where he is any longer. Wouldn't the baddies be more inclined to leave them alone if Harry were gone? Tayla: Because we don't exactly know what was in the letter to Petunia, I am not going to speculate on that one. However, here is a thought. If LV showed up on the Dursley's doorstep, would he NOT kill them? NO, let's face it, they are the embodiment of EVERYTHING LV HATES about muggles. I also think that he would kill them because the remind him of things that he would rather not think about. Keeping Harry around is preventing LV from showing up on the doorstep. Besides, I think that it is also becoming clear to Petunia that muggles (alright, her family only but still) are in a very real danger that they are not equipped to handle. Like it or not, they are going to NEED a wizard around if they are to have a CHANCE to survive. Why would Harry protect them? Let's look at this one a bit, no matter how bad the Dursleys are, do they really need to become victims? Would Harry in good conscience allow them to become victims to LV? No, he wouldn't. They may have mistreated him, but he would be sinking to worse than their level if he just let LV have his way with them. That would be completely out of character for Harry. He just doesn't want to be there getting treated the way that he has been, I don't think that Harry wants them dead. Tayla __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 01:51:20 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 01:51:20 -0000 Subject: SNAPE'S "WORST" MEMORY? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123861 chrusotoxos wrote: Hi everyone! I've just read Maline's 2nd editorial about Snape on Mugglenet (if you haven't, shame on you :)) and here is my answer to her. As her next one could be in weeks, given the way she carefully does researches about them, I've decided to post my opnion here and see what people think. I'm very interestd in this. To give you a background (if you haven't read her text), she says that Snape showed intentionally one of his memories to Harry since he knew that that particular memory would hurt Harry a lot - having broken into his mind, he knew that Harry himself had been bullied. vmonte responds: The article is pretty good. Here is the link: http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/thenorthtower/nt36.shtml Vivian From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 01:31:41 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 01:31:41 -0000 Subject: Are Lily and Harry Animagi? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123862 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > OT Chatter had pictures of cats. Looked at pictures and saw green > eyes. Thought of Harry and Lilly. Pondering if they could both be > animagi. Which leads to this thought. > (huge snip) Just to straight answer the question the subject title asks, no Harry is not, and will not be an Animagus, at least for the duration of Hoggwarts. The reason I think that is because JKR says so (' No, Harry's not in training to be an animagus... No, Harry is not, Harry is going to be concentrated elsewhere, he's not going to have time to do that. ') http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1999/1099- pressclubtransc.html Which I think deals with Harry, but Lily is different. I feel that however great a witch she may be, she won't have become an Animagus because (and now I'm into my own speculation) it being such a hard thing to do, you would want a reason. Granted, as yet we see no reason for McGonagall learning, but all the others we know of definately have reasons. (Interestingly, all the others we know of are unregistered and therefore illegal. Just a thought.) The mauraders reason is simple - to keep Lupin company. Rita Skeeter is also fairly simple - to get her stories without being seen, to get the gossip no-one in their right mind would tell her to her face. I'm on a tangent now... back to Lily. I see no real reason for her to have become an Animagus. Perhaps she has one that we don't know yet. Also, it's clear that it takes time to learn, even for a very powerful witch or wizard, and she has been busy having a child and also with the OotP. So, overall, I don't think it's very likely, although it's certainly not impossible. Becky (whos suddenly realised that this must mean Rita Skeeter is powerful and is wondering if we'll see anything more interesting from her...) From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Feb 4 01:57:43 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 01:57:43 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory (not) In-Reply-To: <20050203182649.45106.qmail@web31105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123863 > Arynn: > There's no evidence that he NEEDS to redeem himself. Not in cannon anyway, (there are a few "theories" that are bassed on half-truths and assumptions). These "theories" would never fly in the actual world of criminal detection. Pippin: An interesting thought. I'd love to have your expert opinion on how many of JKR's criminals could have been detected on the evidence present before they revealed themselves. Do you think one could get a warrant to seize Scabbers based on the fact that Ron said he was "quite old" and the fact that he had one toe missing? > > Arynn: > JKR says that not only does she like Lupin, but that she would like him to teach her daughter. Would someone ever say that about a murderer? > > Has ANYONE ever said anything along the lines of "He's a really wonderful person, dispite his tendancy to kill/betray people"? < Pippin: People who love murderers say things like that all the time when they're begging the court to have mercy on their loved ones. Or so I gather from the news. If JKR believes that Lupin made the choices he did because he was damaged by the choices of others, and that this damage occurred in part because he was denied the chance to perform the work he seemed born to do, then she could believe that in the real world he would never have made the choices he did. She might well wish that he were a real person who could teach her daughter. Pippin From a_b_desert_king at hotmail.com Fri Feb 4 01:58:23 2005 From: a_b_desert_king at hotmail.com (a_b_desert_king) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 01:58:23 -0000 Subject: That very Bad Thing Harry Does in HBP..... In-Reply-To: <200501310512406.SM01056@devbox> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123864 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Vivamus" wrote: > Vivamus, who was so taken in by the mooseming posts that he took much of the > comments to heart as canon, and won't be entirely convinced either way until > he reads the next book, sometime before sunrise on July 16. I hear you Vivamus. And perhaps not until Book 7. Taken with a few grains of salt though.... My intuition just keeps pinging me in the head about this one. Heather From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 02:18:53 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 02:18:53 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory (not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123865 Neri: "Who is your favourite character? I love: Harry, Hermione, Ron, Hagrid, Dumbledore, Ginny, Fred, George and Lupin. I love writing (though would not necessarily want to meet) Snape. My favourite new character is Luna Lovegood." Pippin: By that reasoning, we could claim that she must love all her favorites because they are the epitome of goodness, since she put them in the same category as Dumbledore. I don't think many people would accept that description applied to Fred and George! Neri: Well, Since she pointedly didn't include Snape in this list, would it be acceptable reasoning to give Lupin a goodness mark slightly higher than that of Snape, as a worst possible scenario? Alla: LOL, Neri! Pippin, I am honestly not being sarcastic,when I am saying it, but you can count me absolutely confused now too. Didn't you say in your previous post that "liking", not "love" can be interpreted any number of ways? This quote says that she "loves" Lupin , not likes, loves. Are you saying that it also can be interpreted any number of ways? I mean, sure, if she would say that she "loves to write him", I can see SOME ambiguity left open, but she not only says that she loves him she puts him on the same level as trio, Hagrid and Dumbledore. I mean, you can always say that JKR lies to us and that POV is absolutely valid, but I just don't see it at all. Sorry! By the way, as to Fred and George, I could never see them as NOT good guys, so their inclusion seems quite logical to me. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 02:39:43 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 02:39:43 -0000 Subject: Snakes and scars and stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123866 dungrollin wrote: > Nagini ? Who wouldn't want a 12 foot long venomous chum you can > really *talk* to? I came to the conclusion in post 115333 that > she's a bushmaster (Lachesis muta ? which I now know for sure > means "silent fate"). Carol responds: Well, yes and no. Lachesis is one of the three Fates, probably not coincidentally the one who measures the length of a person's life (though Atropos, the Fate who snips the thread of life, might be even more appropriate as the name for a genus of deadly snakes). The name Lachesis relates to drawing lots--the arbitrariness of fate, especially in relation to death? Makes Nagini seem even more sinister, if that's possible. BTW, the association of snakes with cunning and deception is not universal, BTW. The Greeks associated them with the cunning Hermes, the messenger and herald who was the patron of thieves and businessmen (the Slytherins would have taken him to heart), but also with Aesculapius (okay, that's the Latin spelling but the Romans borrowed him from the Greeks, caduceus and all), the god of healing. A snake with its head in its mouth is a symbol of eternity in several cultures. But JKR's view of snakes has always struck me as deriving chiefly from the wily serpent of Genesis. Dungrollin wrote: > I doubt that we've seen the last of snakes, and would be willing to > bet a large bag of cockroach clusters that they're integral to some > of the big questions we want answered. Carol responds: Ergh, no! Keep the cockroach clusters and any dungbeetle bombs you may have secretly concocted. (Sorry; I know you think dungbeetles are maligned; I feel the same way about rats, lab rats, anyway.) Besides, I'm sure you're right. Anyone think that Voldy is a snake animagus who resorted to possessing snakes rather than transforming into one when he lost his body and therefore (temporarily) lost his other powers? And if he possessed Nagini when he/she bit Mr. Weasley, why didn't Nagini die when he left her body? (Maybe the possession was for too brief a time to harm her?) Carol, wondering if Tom Riddle ever possessed the basilisk From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 03:33:53 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 03:33:53 -0000 Subject: Jo's Squib error? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123867 Rachel wrote: > I know I do not post often, I spend most of my time hiding in a cardboard box trying to catch up on everyone else's theories, but this one really caught my attention. It is funny how we can all read the same thing and interpret it so differently. > > I, for one, am not sure Figgy was lying. I see no reason why Squibs can not see dementors. I see Squibyness (sp) as being a genetic> difference. They can not DO MAGIC. They might have the other, inhereted traits that come from being born to magic parents. They can see magical or enchanted things. This was my explanation to myself as to why Filch can work at Hogwarts... a place designed to be hidden from muggles. > > Ok, back into my cardboard box I go > > Rachel Carol responds: I believed Foggy, too, until I read the information on Squibs in the Extra Stuff Miscellaneous section of JKR's website. We can tell ourselves that the site isn't really canon and that JKR is confused again (as she clearly is and was about the older Weasley sons' ages and the number of students at Hogwarts), but the fact remains that she has unambiguously stated that Mrs. Figg can't see Dementors. (Would Figgy be able to see Hogwarts? Probably. The Muggle-repelling charms apparently don't apply to Squibs or it would be rather difficult for Filch to work there. OTOH, Hermione's parents somehow got into Diagon Alley in CoS, so they must have been able to see the Leaky Cauldron, which Muggles ordinarily pass right by.) Inconsistent? Not thought through? I don't know. But there it is: "Incidentally, Arabella Figg never did see the Dementors that attacked Harry and Dudley." Unlike many of her statements (mostly from interviews and chat), this one is uninterrupted, written by JKR herself rather than transcribed, and completely clear. Would that it weren't. I still want Mrs. Figg to be the one who performs magic late in life, but I fear it will be Muggle Petunia rather than Squib Arabella, though that makes even less sense from a canonical perspective and Petunia's age is not "advanced." (BTW, JKR is clearly *wrong* about magic being a dominant gene, which would make all Muggleborns dependent on spontaneous mutations, so maybe she's "wrong" about Squibs, too. J.R.R. Tolkien changed his mind rather frequently about "what really happened," so maybe JKR will change her mind about Squibs. Not much hope for that, though.) Carol, who likes Figgy, anyway. Here's to catfood cans and tartan slippers! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 03:49:12 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 03:49:12 -0000 Subject: Harry as Job, Snape as the Satan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123868 Alla earlier: I want to thank you for making me reread "Book of Job". I read Porphiria's essay back in my lurking days. I happen to think that OOP put some holes in to that interpretation, maybe others will disagree with me. Potioncat: My thoughts were along similar lines. Snape's role has changed by OoP, which wouldn't make Porphyria's observations wrong for the first ones, unless of course, readers disagree from the beginning. Snape is discussed so often. But it's from the standpoint of "why did DD hire him?" or "why doesn't he try a different method?" or "why was he so mean to ______?" I began to wonder, why did JKR write this character? What is his real role in this story? And as I was on my couch in pensieve mode, erm I mean pensive mood, I came across the Job essay. And it seemed to fit very well. Alla: Absolutely. It is an interpretation which I can totally see, actually I can see it MUCH easier that Snape as "disciplining parent" function in the text. Accuser, often an unfair accuser seems to suit him MUCH better. Alla earlier: Yes, "Harry as Job" sounds about right before OOP, but Job never ever questions the G-d authority, no matter how badly he suffers and no matter how upset he becomes ( and yes, at the end he becomes a bit upset) ( at least in the translation I read) Despite what his friends tell him ( to change his behaviour and then G-d will return his blessings to Job, etc), Job keeps his faith. It does not sound to me that at the end of OOP Harry keeps a lot of faith in Dumbledore. Potioncat: To be honest, I haven't re-read my version of Job. But although Harry isn't too happy with DD at the end of OoP, he is still loyal (faithful) to him, in spite of doubts. Alla: Well, yes, Harry is loyal to the Light and most likely you are right that he will continue to be loyal to Dumbledore, but he does doubt him and he questions the decisions Dumbledore made. Job - not really, IMO. He wants G-d to tell him "Why all of that had been happening to him", but he does not question the fact that regardless of why it happened, G-d has a right to decide, that everything is up to G-d. Us humans should not question the wisdom of the divine decisions. :( That is how I understand Job's mood anyway, keep in mind that I am NOT an in depth religious scholar. I think that Harry does questions Dumbledore's decisions ( and I am soooo with him on this one :o)) Potioncat: Although the essay was very clear that it was the Hebrew "the Satan" that Snape was reflecting, in OoP I think he begins to look more like the Christian Satan. As the commentary in my version says, Satan was trying to create a wedge between Job and God. In fact as I read the commentary, I thought, if JKR did either intentionally or subconsciously create Snape-as-Satan,(rather than Snape-as-the- Satan) then Snape's loyalty is still in question. Alla: You just had to do it, right? I told you that I am having my doubt about Snape's loyalty to Light ONLY on my bad days and I thought that today is the good one. :) That is another reason why i love talking to you so much - because you are not afraid to play for other side temporarily. :) Alla: Besides, I don't see Dumbledore as God like figure anymore, not even close. Potioncat: No, I'm beginning to see Snape as the Satan to JKR as "the creator", rather than to DD as a God-like figure. Alla: Ooooo, I like it a lot. Snape certainly never hurts Harry more or tests him more strictly than JKR allows him. :o) I like this take a lot and I think I agree with it. You know what I think? If indeed there are parallels between Harry and Job, then I may get my wish for happy ending for Harry, or relatively happy, since all Job had was taken away from him, but he got more as new blessings, as fresh start. Alla earlier: Alltogether essay was very interesting and when I reread it today, I felt the same way I usually do when I see the cool piece of creative writing - I want to write like that. :o) Potioncat: Absolutely! I wish I could write like that too! Alla: You can write like that and you actually do. :) JMO, Alla From bethanymil79 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 01:31:19 2005 From: bethanymil79 at yahoo.com (bethanymil79) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 01:31:19 -0000 Subject: What if the theme of Harry Potter were -- we are our own worst enemy? (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123869 Gadfly McLellyn wrote in #123800: > This past summer I happened to come across the book MAN AND HIS > SYMBOLS by Carl Gustav Jung. From that book I postulated the > theory that the ending of the Harry Potter books would be that > Harry Potter and Voldemort had to merge into one being (post > 110941). Most of us are aware that Jo Rowling likes to foreshadow > what is coming. The sorting hat saying the houses have to unite > might be foreshadowing the unifying of opposites -- Harry and > Voldemort. I think your theory looks quite sound. I guess the only question I have for you would be.. what happens to Harry when/if he defeats Voldemort? Are you saying the "good" in their split would take over and Harry would be as he has always been? Vice versa if Voldemort were to defeat Harry would the "evil" in their split take over and Voldemort would be as he has always been? I think this sounds excellent. It would explain all the "one can't be without the other" reasoning. Would also explain as you said the reason that Dumbledore didn't kill Voldemort at the Ministry. Very Good!! Kudos! Bethany From juli17 at aol.com Fri Feb 4 04:08:58 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 23:08:58 EST Subject: Weasley Poverty, Working Wizard Women; was Molly &Arthurwas Why I like Ginn Message-ID: <1c8.23448698.2f344f5a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123871 Megalynn: What I am having trouble with is that in books 2, 3, and 4 all of the children were gone from the house 10 months out of the year. This leaves seriously little housework or cooking or errands comparatively. Also, the lack of money was big issue with the family. A real problem at times. All of the family feels teh strain. Even Molly, laments that she wishes she could get Ron better dress robes. If we can stipulate that this was indeed the case, then why wouldn't Molly do something with that time to make a little extra for the family? Is it a social thing? Have we seen any other evidence in canon to explain why it would not be obvious for a mother with an empty nest and a cash strapped family to get some sort of side job? The Weasley situation doesn't make much sense. I think Molly would be likely to do something extra to earn money if she could. If she didn't mind her kids having so little, she wouldn't fret about it. Not to mention that Bill and Charlie are now off working, and in many families (mine included) it's common for siblings/aunts/uncles/etc to help out those in their family who might not be as fortunate, especially the children. Why wouldn't Bill or Charlie send Ron or Ginny the occasional useful gift like a new wand, set of schoolbooks, or dress robes, knowing as they do how strapped their parents are to provide these things? They would in a more real situation, I think (especially given the loving type of family we see in the Weasleys). The real explanation is that JKR is using Ron to make some points about being rich in possessions versus being rich in love. She can't do that unless she has the Weasleys constantly struggling to provide. Thus Molly doesn't work, and Bill and Charlie don't contribute monetarily to the family. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 03:49:33 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 19:49:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory (not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050204034933.2371.qmail@web31102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123872 Pippin: > So it sounds there as if she's talking about liking him as a > character, she says he's a wonderful *teacher*, and she corrects > herself from "loved" to "really liked". I really think that can be > interpreted any number of ways. There is no quote, AFAIK, where > she says he's a good person. Arynn: That quote you just quoted does. Or do "great man" and "really nice man" mean someting different than "good person"? Pippin: > By that reasoning, we could claim that she must love all her > favorites because they are the epitome of goodness, since she > put them in the same category as Dumbledore. I don't think > many people would accept that description applied to Fred and > George! Arynn: The only one on that list that could remotely be considered the epitome of goodness is Dumbledore. Harry is rebellious and Hagrid has a tendency to drink too much. Even Dumbledore makes mistakes. The question wasn't who the best people are morally, but who her favourite characters are. No one is ALL good or ALL bad. Everyone makes mistakes. According to JKR Lupin's mistake is he is a people-pleaser who has trouble standing up to his friends. It's understandable when you look at the fact that most people dislike him, before ever getting to know him, because of something which is beyond his control. Most people can't understand that, but believe me, for people like us (Lupin and I) when someone shows us kindness and looks past our "problems", it means alot, and we're likely do anything to keep ourselves in their favour. --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) From dontask2much at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 05:01:33 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 00:01:33 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Support for the ESE Lupin theory! References: Message-ID: <003701c50a76$992e1540$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 123873 Snow: >> >> The thread has veered off course just a tad from my original > intension, which was to find out why Lupin would have been > dangerous if he had taken his meds. as the doctor ordered. It > was crucial for Lupin to take the potion during the week > preceding the full moon, which I have to assume he has since > we have not been told otherwise, to obtain its full effect. The only > dose Lupin missed was on the exact night of the full moon, at > this point he had already taken at least 6 doses, why is he > acting like a full-fledged, out of his mind werewolf? >> > > Pippin: > I can believe that Lupin forgot to take it, or even that he knew that > Snape was coming but decided that going after Peter was a > higher priority. But the fact that he would have already had > several doses that week makes it difficult for me to think that he > also forgot it was the night of the full moon. How could he, when > he was talking about the potion and its effects on being a > werewolf with the Trio and Sirius? > > And then, he completely blows off Snape's announcement that > he hasn't taken his potion. IMO, that is either criminally > irresponsible or there is something else going on -- such as that > he did take his potion as the ESE!Lupin theory postulates. > > I believe the 'smoking' goblet explains why Snape couldn't bring > the potion out to the Shrieking Shack. Apparently the stuff breaks > down as it cools. > > Anyway, Snape couldn't run while carrying a goblet of hot potion > in his hands, and being charmed might hurt it. > Charme: While your thought is one view, Pippin, there can easily be another. First some canon from PoA: "I've just been to your office, Lupin. You forgot to take your potion tonight, so I took a gobletful along. And very lucky I did... lucky for me, I mean. Lying on your desk was a certain map. Oneglance at it told me all I needed to know. I saw you running along this passageway and out of sight." "Severus --" Lupin began, but Snape overrode him...." Ok, so how could Snape know Lupin "forgot to take his potion" when he "took a gobletful along"? Along to where? Lupin's office? Snapey Poo is better than I thought: he must be able to predict the future. Plus Snape overrode what Lupin tried to say after that lovely, apparently Seer-like explanation Snape gave. I mean, the last time we saw Lupin take the potion, Harry was in attendance and Snape *brought* it to Lupin's office for him to take. Uhm and how did Lupin blow off Snape's announcement anyway? He said 1 word: Severus. (Don't shoot the messenger - that's what the canon states.) Seems to me that maybe someone should be trying to figure out how Snape knew in advance of bringing Lupin his potion that Lupin'd fogotten to take it...... Charme From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 05:45:55 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 05:45:55 -0000 Subject: What if the theme of Harry Potter were -- we are our own worst enemy? (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123874 Gadfly McLellyn wrote: I believe we see this evil being a collaborating power in Dumbledore. He has a frightening and powerful rage that we see in PHOENIX, "An awful voice filled the kitchen, echoing in the confined space, issuing from the burning letter on the table. "REMEMBER MY LAST, PETUNIA." (p 40). Later in the book, "He was so angry," Hermione in an almost awestruck voice. > "Dumbledore. We saw him. When he found out Mundungus had left before his shift had ended. He was scary." (p 64). I believe these awful and scary parts of Dumbledore are the Grindelwald within - so to > speak. Carol responds: "Awful" is one of many words whose meaning has diminished or degenerated within the last century or so. It's mostly used colloquially to mean "disgusting" or "bad"--"that medicine tastes awful," "that was an awful movie," etc. We seldom use it to mean something really terrible or horrible: "Aren't those Dementors awful?" The word, which *used* to mean "inspiring awe," now means something closer to "yucky." Its use in that sense trivializes the truly terrible or horrible. But the primary meaning of "awful" is neither terrible nor bad in this trivial sense but "inspiring awe." When Shelley wrote in "Mont Blanc" (1816), awful scene, Where Power in likeness of the Arve comes down From the ice gulfs that gird his secret throne, Bursting through these dark mountains like the flame Of lightning through the tempest, he certainly did not mean that the scene was terrible or evil, much less disgusting. He meant that it was almost incomprehensibly sublime--awe-inspiring in its hugeness and power and splendor. Now granted, Dumbledore's anger is not sublime, but it *is* "awful" in the Shelleyan sense of inspiring awe through its power and intensity. Note that Hermione's voice is described as "awestruck," as Hermione herself undoubtedly is. She is not repelled; she does not think him evil; she is in awe of his *righteous* anger. Hermione is not afraid but deeply respectful almost to the point of being reverential. I think that JKR is using the word "awful" with regard to Dumbledore's voice in its primary and original sense and that to read it in any other way is to misread it. Dumbledore is powerful at all times and not to be underestimated. His anger is terrible to behold even if you're not its object. It's scary, even terrifying. But in the case of the Howler, and of Mundungus's dereliction of duty, Harry's life is at stake, and Harry is the only person who can destroy Voldemort. We see the same power and anger in the MoM when Dumbledore saves Harry. Like Gandalf the White, Dumbledore can be magnificently, powerfully enraged. But only evil (read DEs and dark lords) need fear him. Interesting that, as you point out, Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald but did not kill him. I hope that implies a similar "murderless" victory for Harry. Carol, wondering exactly what happened to Grindelwald and hoping we'll find out in HBP From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 08:00:47 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 08:00:47 -0000 Subject: Jo's Squib error? A Few Minor Points In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123875 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol responds: > > ... but the fact remains that she has unambiguously stated that Mrs. > Figg can't see Dementors. ...edited... bboyminn: Something I wanted to point out before in this thread by forgot to add to my previous posts. Despite Fudge pulling together the entire Wizangamont Court in an attempt to intimidate Harry, this event wasn't really a trial, it was a disciplinary hearing; /hearing/ being the operative word. If you remember conversations before the hearing, it was expected that Harry would appear before Madame Amelia Bones in her office for questioning, and indeed, once we got past Fudge's blustering, it was Madame Bones who did most of the questioning in the courtroom. The fact that the normal course of events would have been for Harry to meet Madame Bones in her office to explain himself, should be the point from which we draw our impression of the true magnitude of this problem. So, perhaps there is a different standard of /truth/ for a Hearing. Perhaps people merely gave statements rather than sworn testimony. If that were true then, while it was certainly unethical, it may not have been perjury for Mrs. Figg to embellish her statements slightly. Given that Fudge was trying to corrupt the whole legal process and, as we say in the states, railroad Harry, Dumbledore and/or Figg may not have seen this slight adjustment to the truth as that big a deal. It pales compared to the level of corruption that Fudge is engaged in. Carol continues: > > OTOH, Hermione's parents somehow got into Diagon Alley in CoS, so > they must have been able to see the Leaky Cauldron, which Muggles > ordinarily pass right by.) Inconsistent? Not thought through? I > don't know. > > ...substantial edit... > > Carol, who likes Figgy, anyway. Here's to catfood cans and tartan > slippers! bboyminn: I surmise you are just making a literary point, and not truly seeking an answer to these questions, but I'll answer them anyway. I don't think Mr/Mrs Granger can see the Leaky Cauldron. It would be next to impossible for them to find it themselves. But, Hermione is a witch, she can certainly see the gateway to the wizard world. All she had to do was lead her parent into the pub, and there wouldn't have been any problems after that. Some might initially see that as an authoral inconsistency, but it's a problem that is quite easy to solve /off page/. In closing, I like Mrs. Figg as a character too. I really hope we see Harry spending some time at her house in the next book. Clearly she is a bit batty, but is probably very nice now that her secret is out, and she doesn't care what the Dursley's think. Just a couple of small points. Steve/bboyminn From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 08:12:24 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 08:12:24 -0000 Subject: Harry's name Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123876 I am sure that someone has probably tried this before. If so tell me where to find the post. If Tom Mavolo Riddle spells our "I am Lord Voldemort" What does Harry James Potter spell? I came up with "The Master .... and a lot of letters left that I don't know what to do with. I can not spell, it is not one of my better skills, so I am at a lost. Any of you folks that are smarter than I at these thing what to try it? Tonks_op From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 09:01:42 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 09:01:42 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: <20050203220846.36049.qmail@web61202.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123877 > Tayla: > > Because we don't exactly know what was in the letter to Petunia, I am not going to speculate on that one. However, here is a thought. If LV showed up on the Dursley's doorstep, would he NOT kill them? NO, let's face it, they are the embodiment of EVERYTHING LV HATES about muggles. I also think that he would kill them because the remind him of things that he would rather not think about. Keeping Harry around is preventing LV from showing up on the doorstep. > > Besides, I think that it is also becoming clear to Petunia that muggles (alright, her family only but still) are in a very real danger that they are not equipped to handle. Like it or not, they are going to NEED a wizard around if they are to have a CHANCE to survive. > > Why would Harry protect them? Let's look at this one a bit, no matter how bad the Dursleys are, do they really need to become victims? Would Harry in good conscience allow them to become victims to LV? No, he wouldn't. They may have mistreated him, but he would be sinking to worse than their level if he just let LV have his way with them. That would be completely out of character for Harry. He just doesn't want to be there getting treated the way that he has been, I don't think that Harry wants them dead. Finwitch: You know-- I think that this 'blood protection' Dumbledore put in doesn't *really* count. Because Harry never was able to call the place *home*. I don't know if Harry has realised that thoroughly yet. The protection is in that well, Voldemort&DEs *believe* it's effective and won't so much as *try*. Before Hogwarts, Harry's visit to the zoo and his empathy for snake in the cage... 'at least he (Harry) got to visit the rest of the house'. After his first year, early book Two, Locked up in a room with bars in the window... look at his dream that clearly presents how Harry considers that place to be: A cage with a sign; Underage Wizard. (And Dobby outside of it- Harry Potter will be safe there) - A cage, closing up to a prison. He emphatises with Dobby - seeing how Dobby has it yet worse than he does-- as a slave. In the third book, Harry gets a glimpse of news - Sirius Black had escaped from Prison (and Vernon complains because they don't say which Prison it was). Perhaps this inspired Harry - and so he follows the example set by (as he finds out later) his godfather. Harry escapes the prison. What kept Harry at Dursleys after that? Where did his determination to leave disappear? Did he get trapped in the fact that he now had something to intimidate them with? Still, home is not a place where you intimidate the other people living in it just to be able to do your schoolwork... No. The #4 Privet Drive is not a home to Harry. It never was. With Sirius, Harry now gets limited physical liberty (he can go out for a jog and he doesn't need to be weeding in heat anymore). Spiritally, he's still trapped. As the Dementor visit makes it painfully obvious to me, as now, Harry's physically safe/free, but his soul isn't. After all, Dementors don't, strictly speaking, kill - they just make you feel *miserable*. (Which is what Harry feels Vernon's goal in treating him is). Me... wishful thinking, perhaps - Sirius didn't truly die; he was, as Luna said, hiding behind that Veil. Because Harry had to *believe* he had died, in order to be protected from possession. Beyond the veil, as I feel a fanfic coming to me - Sirius has a long talk with Lily&James, and then he goes to a time before he went into Azkaban. (Like Hermione got that TimeTurner). Remember that Quibbler article? About Stubby Boardman, a lead singer of the Hobgoblins? It's the Stubby Boardman Sirius will live his life as after he comes out from behind the Veil. As Stubby, he composes a song called 'God Rest Ye, Merry Hippogriffs' - as a tribute to Buckbeak. (Sirius *was* singing it on Christmas, being happy). The songs are a therapy for him to fully recover from his troubled youth in 12 Grimmauld Place, and Azkaban. His secret lifeout is under Fidelius Charm, protected by a fellow Hobgoblin (say, Griphook the *goblin* for example). This requires great deal - as he must go trough with the knowledge of how Harry suffers and do nothing - until *after* the thing in MoM happened. It pains him, but he'll endure it - because he must. His task is not to guard Harry's life - as we all must die eventually - but his soul. Honest, I *don't* think it's good for Harry to intimidate Dursleys to get what he wants/needs - (one thing when it was only Sirius, but the whole order now?) I mean really, if Harry must be intimidating people to get any peace, what does that mean to him morally? And I feel that well, he *should* be getting BIG trouble for that failed Crucio. That he'd even *think* of casting such a thing. I think he's on the edge - the edge that might have him fall to Dark Arts. And I see Sirius consider the very thought of casting an unforgivable curse as a bad sign, whereas Dumbledore would argue that Harry's disability to cast it was a good one... Finwitch From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri Feb 4 09:23:43 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 09:23:43 -0000 Subject: Jo's Squib error? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123878 > Carol wrote: > I believed Foggy, too, until I read the information on Squibs in > the Extra Stuff Miscellaneous section of JKR's website. We can tell > ourselves that the site isn't really canon and that JKR is confused > again (as she clearly is and was about the older Weasley sons' ages > and the number of students at Hogwarts), but the fact remains that > she has unambiguously stated that Mrs. Figg can't see Dementors. "Incidentally, Arabella Figg > never did see the Dementors that attacked Harry and Dudley." Unlike > many of her statements (mostly from interviews and chat), this one > is uninterrupted, written by JKR herself rather than transcribed, > and completely clear. Would that it weren't. Dungrollin: I'm surprised you take it so seriously, Carol! She never said squibs *can't* see dementors, she just said the Figgy *didn't* on this occasion. If you check out your OotP, the end of chapter 1: Dudley Demented, you'll see that Mrs. Figg doesn't even arrive until *well* after the Dementors have left, so she couldn't have seen them (even if she could see them, if you see what I mean...). Whether squibs can/can't see dementors is still an open question. From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 10:01:25 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 10:01:25 -0000 Subject: Severus and the DADA exam /James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123880 > Vmonte responds: > > > > THIS IS IT!!!! This is the real reason that Snape put this memory > > into the penseive. He did not want Harry to know that by the time > of > > Sirius's prank he already knew that Lupin was a werewolf. God. What > > was Snape up to that night?! > > > > > Alla wrote: > > > (snipped) > > Why, why,why Snape listened to Sirius and WENT there, especially if > > he knew about Remus' condition? Finwitch: You know, that's the big question, even if Snape did NOT know. Honest, they clearly saw each other as enemies (and for the most part, still do) - I can't so much as see a situation... what - Snape taking orders from Sirius, particularly when they're not on the same side? WHAT??? I just can't believe it. Sirius *may* have let slip (respoding to a taunt) how to get past the Whomping Willow - but.. what got Snape to *Act* on it? The whole thing is ridiculous! i can't see much reason for Snape to go there at all. I wonder... was Snape up to getting rid of Lupin, James Potter and Sirius Black back then, by *deliberately* going down there and accuse James Potter & Sirius Black for setting it up, in order to avenge that humiliation we saw, even if it would cost him his life? (Remember, what the hat told as of Slytherin: ANY means to get what you want - including suicide.) Of course, James spoiled it by saving his life - and getting *credit* for it (and Lily as well, I suppose) instead of the big trouble Snape intended him & the others to get. And why do I think Sirius didn't do a thing? This is the one who defied his entire family because of a set of beliefs, defied his family of Dark Arts. You know what - Snape may well have been up to framing Sirius, or he may have wrongly believed it was a prank set up by Sirius&James (you know how he keeps accusing Harry - even about things that Harry is farthest thing from). You know, I don't think Sirius would have been able to handle it 12 years in Axkaban if a prank that *might* have led to someone dying had ever been done by him. He never did it - it's just Snape barking the wrong tree again. Finwitch From cortana.costume at free.fr Fri Feb 4 08:11:02 2005 From: cortana.costume at free.fr (Cortana) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 09:11:02 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Are Lily and Harry Animagi? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c50a91$12af2110$0a03a8c0@fontcombe> No: HPFGUIDX 123881 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > OT Chatter had pictures of cats. Looked at pictures and saw green > eyes. Thought of Harry and Lilly. Pondering if they could both be > animagi. Which leads to this thought. > (huge snip) Just to straight answer the question the subject title asks, no Harry is not, and will not be an Animagus, at least for the duration of Hoggwarts. The reason I think that is because JKR says so (' No, Harry's not in training to be an animagus... No, Harry is not, Harry is going to be concentrated elsewhere, he's not going to have time to do that. ') http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1999/1099- pressclubtransc.html Which I think deals with Harry, but Lily is different. I feel that however great a witch she may be, she won't have become an Animagus because (and now I'm into my own speculation) it being such a hard thing to do, you would want a reason. Granted, as yet we see no reason for McGonagall learning, but all the others we know of definately have reasons. (Interestingly, all the others we know of are unregistered and therefore illegal. Just a thought.) The mauraders reason is simple - to keep Lupin company. Rita Skeeter is also fairly simple - to get her stories without being seen, to get the gossip no-one in their right mind would tell her to her face. I'm on a tangent now... back to Lily. I see no real reason for her to have become an Animagus. Perhaps she has one that we don't know yet. Also, it's clear that it takes time to learn, even for a very powerful witch or wizard, and she has been busy having a child and also with the OotP. So, overall, I don't think it's very likely, although it's certainly not impossible. >Becky (whos suddenly realised that this must mean Rita Skeeter is powerful and is wondering if we'll see anything more interesting from her...) > Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I thought people were born animagus. So it is why the fact the marauders manage to learn that ability was such an exploit. Maybe Lily was an animagus, but I can't find any clues of that in what we know, even if the idea is lovely. And if she was, as she was kind of serious girl, wouldn't she be registered as Mc Gonagall ? Cortana (who should be out, doing some concrete, to keep is house on her feet instead of being here) Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/hbfile.htm l Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! _____ Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From skater314159 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Feb 4 10:52:00 2005 From: skater314159 at yahoo.co.uk (Megan) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 10:52:00 -0000 Subject: Harry's last 'living' relatives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123882 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > > Dumbledore said Harry had no other living relatives and clearly > Dumbledore doesn't know what he was talking about. Of the 6 billion > people on this planet not one of them can say they have only 2 living > relatives. Think about it, you have 2 parents 4 grandparents 8 > great-grandparents and so on, go back 15 or 20 generations, just a few > hundred years, and everybody is related to everybody. In the small > wizard community this would be even more true. Petunia may be his > closest relative but I don't care what Dumbledore says, Harry has > other living relatives, mathematics demands it. Skater314159 comments: I have to disagree with you here... I am a person who personally has no living relatives... It isn't impossible if you are the only child of only children... esp. if they had few living relatives. You also need to think about cases in modern history where whole families have been whiped out (the Shoah,the Nazi genocide of the Sinti, the genocide in Rwanda, the 'ethnic-cleansing in the Balkans, Pol Pot's genocide, etc.). If Voldemort's last reign of terror is as bad as we hear in the books, I think it could have been a sort of genocidal event for Wizardkind. From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 12:45:01 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 12:45:01 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123883 > > Alla: > > I have to take certain type of medication every day and let me tell > you - you absolutely CAN forget about it. (Granted, my life is not > threatened if I forget about it, but it is not good for me either to > forget on the regular basis) > > It WAS dangerous what Remus did, but he just discovered that one of > his friends whom he believed to be dead for twelve years - can be > alive. He also discovered that another one of his friends,whom he > believed to be a traitor for twelve years may not be one. > > I'd say he was in a very interesting state of mind and it is quite > possible that taking a potion was the last thing on his mind. Finwitch: Oh, indeed it was. Just - well, I mean, Pettigrew had BEEN there all the time and he didn't notice? How about -- well, yes, about Sirius having been innocently in Azkaban... I mean he must feel that he absolutely MUST settle things right at once. I don't see Lupin's act as all that irresponsible, BTW. I mean, look at WHERE all was happening. The very place where Lupin had spent his transformation-times as a student. Lupin may not have thought about the *potion*, (which was Snape's responsibility to brew and bring anyway. He left the map on the desk so Snape would know where to bring it, just in case he DID arrive in time) but Lupin *was* heading to the place where his transformation would be of LEAST danger. And since that place was also the one where he wanted to go at the moment, well, why the hell not... About the kids, well... in the past, his animagi friends had done what the Potion did *now*. Perhaps, not just to indicate the regained friendship, but also to tell Sirius that he's likely to transform - is that he uses the ANIMAGI name, after all Moony, Padfoot etc. began so that he'd be getting their company. Very subtle. Indicating he may need *Padfoot* soon. It wasn't foolish of him to go there, nor about the explaining things -- After all, he expected - as things went when the Moon rose - that Padfoot would keep him from biting the kids. Hadn't they done that sort of thing over and over again as students, every full moon? They blew on the method on bringing Pettigrew in, but otherwise things worked out reasonably well. And since *both* Lupin and Sirius had been planning to kill the traitor Pettigrew, well... All in all, it wasn't quite enough. And that's why Lupin quit. Because he didn't want to take another chance, not another close call. I think part of it was that he had been dependant on Snape to take care of it, instead of taking the measures himself. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 13:15:47 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:15:47 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory! NOT - howabout ESE!Snape? In-Reply-To: <003701c50a76$992e1540$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123884 - > Charme: Plus Snape overrode > what Lupin tried to say after that lovely, apparently Seer-like explanation > Snape gave. I mean, the last time we saw Lupin take the potion, Harry was in > attendance and Snape *brought* it to Lupin's office for him to take. Uhm and > how did Lupin blow off Snape's announcement anyway? He said 1 word: Severus. > (Don't shoot the messenger - that's what the canon states.) Seems to me that > maybe someone should be trying to figure out how Snape knew in advance of > bringing Lupin his potion that Lupin'd fogotten to take it...... > > Charme Finwitch: Right. Snape was LATE. Lupin took a secondary measure, and left for the safety-place that had been there when Lupin was a student, leaving the map behind -- for Severus to bring it *there*! AND, aside from the safety place, Lupin knew, now, that Padfoot was innocent and definately would keep him from harming anyone if it came to that. Uck. Snape's blaming Lupin for *his own* mistake! Snape's the one brewing it (Lupin doesn't know how) As, I believe, he's been accusing Sirius of the event during their teen-years long ago... And Lupin knows that. 'Ah, that trick' - the SAME trick Severus used again. Snape's trick of saying things to make others look bad, while being - in their careful wording, - true enough to even the Legilimens... And don't forget, the RAT did much the same thing - frame others and act innocent! Both of them bear the Dark Mark, and both of them are as good at acting innocent as Barty Crouch Jr. Dumbledore can keep repeating his 'I trust Severus Snape' mantra all he likes, but I won't be trusting that Dark-Mark bearer. No way. Finwitch From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Feb 4 13:17:52 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:17:52 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: <20050203220846.36049.qmail@web61202.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123885 SSSusan: >>> But I think this argument falls apart some if there *isn't* any protection from DD for the Dursleys. That is, why *wouldn't* Petunia just pitch him overboard at this time if keeping Harry provides the Dursleys no protection? Why would they need to stick together? Would she REALLY expect Harry to come to their defense?? If Petunia is not counting on some kind of protection from DD in exchange for taking Harry in & keeping him, then why NOT kick Harry out and get him as far away as possible? I'd think his being there would be more likely to draw the attention of the "wicked & evil people out there," whereas if he were GONE, they could reasonably tell any wicked & evil people that they've washed their hands of him, have no idea where he is any longer. Wouldn't the baddies be more inclined to leave them alone if Harry were gone? <<< Tayla: > If LV showed up on the Dursley's doorstep, would he NOT kill them? > NO, let's face it, they are the embodiment of EVERYTHING LV HATES > about muggles. SSSusan: While I don't disagree with you that it's likely Voldy would go right ahead & kill them if he ever was standing on their doorstep, I would still argue that he'd be less likely to even go there if he knew Harry was no longer residing there. As for the Dursleys being the embodiment of everything Voldy hates about muggles... this may be a nitpick, but do we know how much Voldy hates muggles? We know he hates *mudbloods* and we know he would like to keep the WW separate from the MW, but do we know that, simply by extension, he HATES muggles? Tayla: > Besides, I think that it is also becoming clear to Petunia that > muggles (alright, her family only but still) are in a very real > danger that they are not equipped to handle. Like it or not, they > are going to NEED a wizard around if they are to have a CHANCE to > survive. SSSusan: And, imo, it's *Dumbledore* they're likely to "trust" or turn to for that protection, not Harry. I believe the Dursleys will keep Harry until he's ready to move on because they believe *DD* can offer them protection. Tayla: > Why would Harry protect them? Let's look at this one a bit, no > matter how bad the Dursleys are, do they really need to become > victims? Would Harry in good conscience allow them to become > victims to LV? No, he wouldn't. They may have mistreated him, but > he would be sinking to worse than their level if he just let LV > have his way with them. That would be completely out of character > for Harry. He just doesn't want to be there getting treated the > way that he has been, I don't think that Harry wants them dead. SSSusan: While I don't think Harry would go running from half-way across the world or anything to save the Dursleys if he heard they were in trouble, I do agree with you that, if he were right there, it's not really in him to just stand back and *let* someone die. OTOH, do the DURSLEYS know that/believe that about Harry? I suspect if ol' Petunia considers how they've treated Harry, she may just be worried about whether Harry *would* just stand back, arms crossed, and do nothing if they were attacked. Hence, as I said above, I think they'll turn to DD, and I also think they'll try a little harder to be decent to Harry. Siriusly Snapey Susan From alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk Fri Feb 4 13:31:11 2005 From: alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk (alshainofthenorth) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:31:11 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory! In-Reply-To: <20050203222325.41067.qmail@web61205.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123886 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Pyros Wife wrote: > > > Pippin: > It's possible that the active ingredient in the potion has a > "threshold" -- that is, you have to take the entire weeks' dosage or it has no effect. > > I can believe that Lupin forgot to take it, or even that he knew that Snape was coming but decided that going after Peter was a higher priority. But the fact that he would have already had several doses that week makes it difficult for me to think that he also forgot it was the night of the full moon. How could he, when he was talking about the potion and its effects on being a werewolf with the Trio and Sirius? > > And then, he completely blows off Snape's announcement that > he hasn't taken his potion. IMO, that is either criminally > irresponsible or there is something else going on -- such as that he did take his potion as the ESE!Lupin theory postulates. > > > > Tayla: > > He could have thought that with all of the doses that he took, he may have had more control over himself, but when faced with the fact that he has been wrong for all of these years as to WHO betrayed the Potters, his anger at himself could have left him with little control. Think about going through most of your life and finding out your opinion was wrong all that time. Wasn't Harry himself angry at the Dursleys for less, but essentially the same thing? > > Tayla Alshain: There's also the matter of three children and their safety. Whoever of Lupin's old friends betrayed the Potters' whereabouts to Voldemort, this person had no scruples at all about killing people. Lupin set off just as much to protect three of his students; we can argue about what Pettigrew's intentions were towards Harry or if he'd have had the guts to kill him explicitly and in cold blood. But then and there, Lupin wasn't 100 % sure that he wouldn't just whip out a wand and AK him on the spot, and he *is* a Gryffindor, after all. I wish that JKR had been more consistent about the lunar phases and the influence of the moon (irritated me to no end when writing a fanfic account of Lupin's year at Hogwarts. If he doesn't transform inside the shack, how come he does it inside the castle?) but it may be that Lupin thought he might somehow make it before moonrise or that six doses of Wolfsbane potion would be enough to make him safe. By his own admission, he's no good at Potions, so I suppose he might have been taking it as non-experts generally take more complex medicines; knowing that it worked somehow, but ignorant of the finer mechanics. BTW, I hope Lupin has better calendars of the lunar phases than JKR. The times in POA are all out of synch, but the one in June is worst of all. Alshain the meticulous From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Feb 4 13:37:08 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:37:08 -0000 Subject: Severus and the DADA exam /James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123887 Vmonte: > > > THIS IS IT!!!! This is the real reason that Snape put this > > > memory into the penseive. He did not want Harry to know that by > > > the time of Sirius's prank he already knew that Lupin was a > > > werewolf. God. What was Snape up to that night?! Alla wrote: > > Why, why,why Snape listened to Sirius and WENT there, especially > > if he knew about Remus' condition? Finwitch: > You know, that's the big question, even if Snape did NOT know. > Honest, they clearly saw each other as enemies (and for the most > part, still do) - I can't so much as see a situation... what - > Snape taking orders from Sirius, particularly when they're not on > the same side? WHAT??? I just can't believe it. > > Sirius *may* have let slip (respoding to a taunt) how to get past > the Whomping Willow - but.. what got Snape to *Act* on it? The > whole thing is ridiculous! i can't see much reason for Snape to go > there at all. SSSusan: I thought the general idea was just that everyone knew Snape was a nosy kind of guy, and that he *really* wanted to know what these four were doing whenever they ran off. The idea, then, is that Snape wanted to follow Lupin in order to spy on him, not to confront him, convinced that he'd find him/them doing something illegal that he could report them for, getting them expelled. Of course, if you believe that Snape had figured out Lupin was a werewolf by this time, then it doesn't really make much sense that he'd have followed. Surely he wouldn't have thought himself able to control Lupin as werewolf? Unless we believe he's play-acting whenever he talks about how Sirius/James/Remus tried to KILL him that night [as if he had *no* idea what he was facing and certainly *no* idea how to protect himself]. Personally, I think whoever it was who suggested that Snape was thinking hard about this question because *something* about it was nagging at him may have been right. I think Snape had gotten far enough in thinking about Lupin's disappearances that, when faced with the werewolf DADA question, it gave him pause... but I think he was still puzzling things out. So I guess I buy the straightforward approach to this question: Sirius knew Snape would go to the tunnel because his curiosity would be stronger than his suspicion that Sirius was setting him up. Siriusly Snapey Susan From cat_kind at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 13:57:53 2005 From: cat_kind at yahoo.com (cat_kind) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:57:53 -0000 Subject: Character Discussion: Voldemort - further explanation In-Reply-To: <20050203221059.94861.qmail@web25108.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123888 catkind: One more reply to Hans on this list, if he wishes to continue the discussion further we should take it elsewhere. Please bear with me, there is something on topic somewhere here. Hans: > Thanks for that excellent post, Cat_kind! It was a brilliant idea to give me > back your perception of what I said. That way I can see how I?m coming > across. I wish more people would do that, and I?d be very grateful if you?d > look at my other posts and do the same. catkind: well, er, thanks. I have to say that, to me, you are coming across rather patronising and extremely obscure and long-winded. Hence the attempt to summarise. I wonder if you could summarise your ideas yourself, if you would like more people to read them. catkind's revised summary of Hans on evil: Voldemort represents the higher self, which is not in itself evil, but compared to god (aka the spirit, or the divine, or Harry) is in fact evil incarnate. catkind: You seem to be saying that Voldemort is no more evil than the average person's human failings. The books seem to require Voldemort to be a great deal more evil than your average human. Hans: > Now I don?t expect you to accept or reject the above. I?m asking you whether > you understand it. In your post you give the impression this all sounds new, > however these teachings are very ancient. The idea of reincarnation is > surely not new in this 21st century? Surely then it?s obvious that if > there?s reincarnation there has to be something that survives in between > incarnations? Well, quite simply, that?s Voldemort. catkind: I am still having trouble finding a concrete enough point in your theory to agree with or disagree with. I do understand that your religion is not a new thing, however I am not familiar with it. I am, of course, familiar with concepts from more mainstream religions, such as reincarnation. What isn't clear is how many of these ideas you are presupposing. I'm happy to suppose reincarnation for the sake of argument, and of course there then has to be an immortal part. What is new is that 1) you are making this assumption, 2) your term for the immortal part is the higher self, and 3) that this is in your theory represented by Voldemort. > Cat_kind: > Harry represents something created by what you call the "spirit", which > seems to be more or less a/the god. > > Hans: > Harry symbolises the Immortal Divine Soul > of the microcosm that was created by the Original Spirit of God before time > started. catkind: Okay, I'm going to dissect this sentence, because it is a typical example of what I mean by obscure and long-winded. You throw the word microcosm around a lot. A microcosm is a relatively small system that represents a larger and/or more complex one. I take it that here you mean a human being (as a combined physical/spiritual entity) as a microcosm of creation (by which I mean "all that is", physical or spiritual or whatever). So, your microcosm has an "Immortal Divine Soul". Immortal - lives forever. Divine - coming from or related to a deity. Soul - the immortal part of a human being. Said soul was created by the Original Spirit of God. As far as I can see both Original and Spirit are here redundant. So Harry symbolises a piece of god in a human soul? In any case, if I have understood this parallel in the least, I disagree with it. It seems to me unlikely that a character like Harry Potter should represent anything divine. He is after all extremely human in the books, a bit of an everyman even. Harry seems to be an ordinary boy in an extraordinary situation, which is why everyone can identify with him. >Hans: Your words ?and is then able to destroy the higher self? are wrong. The > seven chains in fact constitute Voldemort. catkind: In your last post Voldemort symbolised the higher self. Which is it? > Hans: I?m sure you will agree that Harry Potter is a vast tapestry of archetypes, > symbols and many, many layers of meaning. If it wasn?t, there wouldn?t be > 120,000 posts discussing it! catkind: Now that is an excellent question. My personal take is that there aren't actually many layers of meaning, that the books are quite simple and what you see is what you get. (I mean simple, morally speaking. The plots are of course quite intricate.) Precisely because there is no fixed underlying theme that explains everything, and there is such a huge cast of ideas and characters, we can devise our own layers of meaning. And isn't it fun! > Cat_kind: > And if Rowling believes in this theory and has based her books on it, why > should she deny it? Wouldn't that be dishonest? > > Hans: > She hasn?t denied it. She has said that ?she couldn't answer the questions > about the book's religious content until the conclusion of book seven.? catkind: Firstly, I believe Rowling has said that she is a Presbyterian, which would rather rule out her being a Rosicrucian. Secondly, a quote from JKR's website: >Q: Where do you get your ideas? >A: This is the question every author is asked most. The answer is >'out of my head?, but people don?t seem very satisfied with that, > it?s too boring, even though it?s true. I suppose an idea might be > triggered by something you see or hear, though I can?t remember an > instance of that happening to me. That would seem to rule out it all coming from the Path of Liberation. I can understand you see your own beliefs reflected in the books. I'm not accusing you of lying, Hans, or being deluded, just of getting a little carried away. We all tend to see reflections of our own interests in things, if we look hard enough. catkind From quigonginger at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 13:59:41 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:59:41 -0000 Subject: Weasley Poverty, Working Wizard Women; was Molly & Arthurwas Why I like Ginn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123889 > Megalynn: > > In reading through everyone's posts there seems to me to be a > divergence from my question. I am not disputing that the Weasley's > are good parents that have made a good life for their kids. I do not > begrudge Arthur his job or Molly her housewife status. I think they > are great. (snip)Have we seen any other evidence in > canon to explain why it would not be obvious for a mother with an > empty nest and a cash strapped family to get some sort of side job? Ginger: I agree with the vast majority of what has been said defending Molly, especially those who have pointed out that she is running not just a house, but what we would call a homestead. (Chickens, garden, apple trees, etc.) When the kids are gone, she has all their chores to do. One thought I'd like to add: The Weasley house has been lived in for many years, mostly with children (for at least the last 20+ years). Molly may well have a long list of things to do along the home improvement lines. I have been working two jobs for a long time, and am looking forward to the day when I will have time to put up new wallpaper, linoleum etc. The situation reminds me of my cousin who homeschooled for many years due to problems in the local district, then moved to a different town and enrolled the kids in the schools there. I talked to her on her first day of "freedom" and asked her how she was enjoying it. She was almost giddy. She couldn't wait to clean out the linen closet. Perhaps Molly, like my cousin, is intending to return to the work force, but has a lot of things to get done first. I can imagine her apparating home after dropping off the kids in CoS, and capering around the kitching trilling, "I get to whitewash the henhouse today! I'm free!" Or she could be like my cousin and give piano lessons on the side, or something that we just don't see. Selling jam or eggs, or jumpers;) Whatever one might say about Molly, I don't see her as lazy by any means. Just some random thoughts from Ginger, who wishes everyone a Merry February From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Feb 4 14:00:01 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 14:00:01 -0000 Subject: Are Lily and Harry Animagi? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123890 --Tonks wrote: > > > > OT Chatter had pictures of cats. Looked at pictures and saw green eyes. Thought of Harry and Lilly. Pondering if they could both be animagi. > > > Becky: > I'm on a tangent now... back to Lily. I see no real reason for her > to have become an Animagus. Perhaps she has one that we don't know > yet. Also, it's clear that it takes time to learn, even for a very > powerful witch or wizard, and she has been busy having a child and > also with the OotP. So, overall, I don't think it's very likely, > although it's certainly not impossible. > > Valky: Hermione has read the list of registered animagi. Though we can't be sure there is certainly a doubt that she would not mention Lily's name appearing on there. My guess for anyone looking for animagi is check out Hermiones reaction to hearing their name. If she runs to the library... you may be right. ;D From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Fri Feb 4 14:12:29 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 09:12:29 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Jo's Squib error? A Few Minor Points In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200502040912574.SM01332@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 123891 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" > wrote: > > > Carol responds: > > > > ... but the fact remains that she has unambiguously stated that Mrs. > > Figg can't see Dementors. ...edited... > > bboyminn: > > > So, perhaps there is a different standard of /truth/ for a Hearing. > Perhaps people merely gave statements rather than sworn > testimony. If that were true then, while it was certainly > unethical, it may not have been perjury for Mrs. Figg to > embellish her statements slightly. > > Given that Fudge was trying to corrupt the whole legal > process and, as we say in the states, railroad Harry, > Dumbledore and/or Figg may not have seen this slight > adjustment to the truth as that big a deal. It pales compared > to the level of corruption that Fudge is engaged in. Vivamus: I fear I must disagree that it was "certainly" unethical for Mrs. Figg to embellish her statements. I think it was entirely ethical for her to do so, facing a kangaroo court with a predetermined outcome that would most likely result in the destruction of the entire WW. It is not that two wrongs make a right, nor even that the corruption of Fudge is greater, but that the ethical thing to do in that situation is what protects the WW from LV's victory. You could, actually, also argue that because the "hearing" was a fraud, and Fudge had manipulated the machinery to get rid of Harry rather than have an actual hearing, that their right to the truth, even in testimony, is null and void. I think that's a weaker argument, but it does support that Fudge did not deserve to be told the truth. Here is an ethical comparison. Someone comes up to you, looking for someone they are trying to murder, and asks you where their target is. You happen to know that the person is hiding behind the couch you are sitting on. You also know that the would-be murderer will kill you AND find the person behind you if you say nothing or say you don't know. So, what is the ethical thing to do? Do you save yourself, and tell him where the victim is? Do you lie, say you don't know, and be killed along with the victim? Do you say nothing and be killed along with the victim? Or, do you save both of you, lie, and give some version of "he went that-away" that sends the attacker in the wrong direction? To consider Arabella's testimony, she did not actually lie any more than absolutely necessary. She definitely did lie when she said she saw the Dementors running, but everything else may have been true (including, possibly, that Squibs can see Dementors.) She was there for the attack, and she could certainly sense something, because she came charging into the alley immediately afterwards, going on about Dementors. She may never have seen one, but she must have been able to tell what they were from her feelings at their presence. We know (from JKR's statement) that she could not see the Dementors (because she did sense their presence but didn't actually see them.) I'm wondering if she could see the Patronus, or if that was also an embellishment. Vivamus From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Feb 4 14:07:49 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 14:07:49 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory! (potion) In-Reply-To: <003701c50a76$992e1540$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123892 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Charme" wrote: > > > Charme: > > While your thought is one view, Pippin, there can easily be another. First some canon from PoA: > > "I've just been to your office, Lupin. You forgot to take your potion tonight, so I took a gobletful along. And very lucky I did... lucky for me, I mean. Lying on your desk was a certain map. One glance at it told me all I needed to know. I saw you running along this passageway and out of sight." > "Severus --" Lupin began, but Snape overrode him...." > > Ok, so how could Snape know Lupin "forgot to take his potion" when he "took a gobletful along"? Along to where? Lupin's office? Snapey Poo is better than I thought: he must be able to predict the future. Plus Snape overrode what Lupin tried to say after that lovely, apparently Seer-like explanation Snape gave. I mean, the last time we saw Lupin take the potion, Harry was in attendance and Snape *brought* it to Lupin's office for him to take. Uhm and how did Lupin blow off Snape's announcement anyway? He said 1 word: Severus. > (Don't shoot the messenger - that's what the canon states.) Seems to me that maybe someone should be trying to figure out how Snape knew in advance of bringing Lupin his potion that Lupin'd fogotten to take it...... > Pippin: Um, because Snape, being Snape, knew exactly how much potion was in the cauldron after Lupin took his last dose and there wasn't any less there? I quote Hermione, "He didn't take his potion tonight! He's not safe!" She sees no reason to doubt Snape's word, and no reason to think that an underdose of potion will be enough to protect her. But Hermione takes her cue from the adults she trusts. IMO, because Lupin didn't seem alarmed to hear that he hadn't taken his potion, she wasn't either, until Lupin began to transform. That's what I mean by blowing it off. Of course there can be other points of view. That's the fun of it.:) Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Feb 4 14:37:57 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 14:37:57 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123893 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "alshainofthenorth" wrote: > I wish that JKR had been more consistent about the lunar phases and the influence of the moon (irritated me to no end when writing a fanfic account of Lupin's year at Hogwarts. If he doesn't transform inside the shack, how come he does it inside the castle?) but it may be that Lupin thought he might somehow make it before moonrise or that six doses of Wolfsbane potion would be enough to make him safe. < Pippin: Ah, JKR's misdirection. Lupin's transformation is controlled by the full moon. That is what FBAWTFT says. Not by the moonrise or the moon's visibility, whatever Harry thinks. Lupin *does* transform inside the shack, and JKR never said he didn't. That's how all the furniture came to be broken, and the reason the villagers heard the howls and screeching. Here's the way I interpret JKR's explanation: Lupin went out to the Shrieking Shack before the moon was full and *coincidentally* before it was up. He transformed when he came out on the night of the SS because the moon reached full and *coincidentally* became visible. It had been visible several times before on that evening: The moon drifted in and out of sight behind the shifting clouds.--PoA ch 21. Lupin missed the Christmas feast in PoA and told Dumbledore he was too ill to attend, although the moon should not have been full yet if it was full at the Quidditch match. But of course, one needn't be transformed to be ill. Dumbledore asked if Snape had made the potion for him, but the potion has to be made the week before the transformation, which fits perfectly. Does that help? Whether Lupin really was ill over Christmas, or this was the sort of illness that afflicted his sick mother, we may yet learn. Perhaps ESE!Lupin had business elsewhere. Pippin From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri Feb 4 14:55:03 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 07:55:03 -0700 Subject: Fred and George good? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002401c50ac9$82641af0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 123894 > Neri: > > I believe Naama was talking about another quote, the one from JKR's > website: > > "Who is your favourite character? > > I love: Harry, Hermione, Ron, Hagrid, Dumbledore, Ginny, Fred, George and Lupin. I love writing (though would not necessarily want to meet) Snape. My favourite new character is Luna Lovegood." > > http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/faq_view.cfm?id=8 > > Perhaps of more significance than the words love/like/favorite is the natural way in which JKR groups Lupin together with the kids, Hagridand DD, while (as SSSusan mentioned) she does make the distinction regarding Snape. Pippin: By that reasoning, we could claim that she must love all her favorites because they are the epitome of goodness, since she put them in the same category as Dumbledore. I don't think many people would accept that description applied to Fred and George! Pippin Sherry now: actually, in a strange way, I do think Fred and George are good. They are pranksters, sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean bad or evil. in fact, they have an abundance of qualities I admire. Chief among those for me is loyalty. They are very loyal to their family and friends. They aren't concerned about their position in the world like Percy. They are strangely compassionate kids, too. I mean strangely, because you wouldn't think it of such practical jokers. But I think they showed a truly caring side of their natures by giving the marauder's map to Harry. I don't think they did that just to allow him to get into mischief. I think they were upset about his not being allowed to go into Hogsmeade and did something to help him. Even their battle with Umbridge was more than just pranks to me. I believe they will join the order, use their jokes to good purpose in the war, and fight bravely when necessary. So, yes, in an odd sort of way, I consider the twins very good characters. I would love to know them, or kids like them! I agree with Harry, that the WW needs people like them, because as things heat up, a little humor and some jokes will be precious. Sherry From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Feb 4 15:07:55 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:07:55 -0000 Subject: Harry's last 'living' relatives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123895 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Megan" wrote: Skater314159: > I have to disagree with you here... I am a person who personally has > no living relatives... > It isn't impossible if you are the only child of only children... > esp. if they had few living relatives. > You also need to think about cases in modern history where whole > families have been whiped out (the Shoah,the Nazi genocide of the > Sinti, the genocide in Rwanda, the 'ethnic-cleansing in the Balkans, > Pol Pot's genocide, etc.). > If Voldemort's last reign of terror is as bad as we hear in the > books, I think it could have been a sort of genocidal event for > Wizardkind. Geoff: I wonder if that's true if you go far enough back.... Last year, we had a series of programmes on BBC TV in which various well-known personalities followed their family tree back. One of the people involved discovered that he had a distant cousin and the family line had diverged in 1764! I agree with a previous contributor that we probably tend to forget anything beyond second cousins, but even with a long line of only children of only children, you would expect that somewhere, there is a link, even if only tenuous. From alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk Fri Feb 4 15:12:56 2005 From: alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk (alshainofthenorth) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:12:56 -0000 Subject: Choice of James as Head Boy (was Re: James, a paragon of virtue?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123896 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > > Potioncat: > > Unless I'm mistaken, we really only know three Head Boys: Tom > > Riddle (chosen by Dippet), James Potter and Percy Weasley (chosen > by > > DD) Tom and Percy both had 12 NEWTS or was it OWLs? (Someone? > > Anyone?) > > > > Neri: > Bill Weasley was also a Head Boy, according to the lexicon > http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/bill.html > > I don't think we know how many OWLs Tom had, but IIRC Bill also had > 12 OWLs, although his page in the lexicon doesn't mention it. Did I > only dream it? Alshain: No, Neri, you aren't dreaming at all. COS, chapter "At Flourish & Blott's", p.40 (Bloomsbury ed.) "[...]Twelve OWLs and he hardly gloated at all.' 'Ordinary Wizarding Levels,' George explained[...]. 'Bill got twelve, too. If we're not careful, we might get another Head Boy in the family.'" This is conjecture, but I'm fairly sure that Cedric would have become Head Boy in the OOTP year, had he lived. How could he not? Now to the question of Dumbledore's bias and an attempt to be statistical about it: AFAIK, we don't know who picks prefects and Head Boys/Girls. It may be that when the Sorting Hat sorts pupils, most Head Boy/Girl material automatically goes to Gryffindor on account of their virtues. Or Gryffindor House, the Weasleys, and Harry, may pay greater attention to former Gryffindors as being of their ilk, in which case the selective bias lies with our POV character. Dumbledore has been Headmaster for more than twenty years, and Gryffindor would have to get the HB and HG posts anyway, even were they selected at random. The probability for the HB or the HG to be a Gryffindor in any year is 1/4, and 1/16 for both. Three Gryffindor HB's and one HG are quite reasonable, so the data aren't statistically significant and don't support the null hypothesis. As additional evidence against it, I'd like to point out that Dumbledore has awarded the House Cup to Slytherin for seven years in a row without doing anything about it. However, the sample is skewed, there's no doubt about that, and we don't know enough of the track records of other Heads to make assumptions of how Hogwarts is run. *If* Dumbledore is biased towards his own house, he might not be any worse than former incumbents. Of course, the evidence doesn't exclude it, either from the Headmaster or the author, but I'm sticking to the old rule that negatives can't be proven. Alshain From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Feb 4 15:19:41 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:19:41 -0000 Subject: Voldie's willing executioners: was Re: Support for the ESE Lupin theory (not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123897 > Neri: > > "Who is your favourite character? > > I love: Harry, Hermione, Ron, Hagrid, Dumbledore, Ginny, Fred, > George and Lupin. I love writing (though would not necessarily > want to meet) Snape. My favourite new character is Luna > Lovegood." > Neri later: > Well, Since she pointedly didn't include Snape in this list, would it be acceptable reasoning to give Lupin a goodness mark slightly higher than that of Snape, as a worst possible scenario? > > > Alla: > > LOL, Neri! Pippin, I am honestly not being sarcastic,when I am > saying it, but you can count me absolutely confused now too. > > Didn't you say in your previous post that "liking", not "love" can > be interpreted any number of ways? > > This quote says that she "loves" Lupin , not likes, loves. Are you saying that it also can be interpreted any number of ways? Pippin: Obviously it can. She is not talking about the kind of love which demands we have as much compassion for our enemies as we have for our friends, for example. I do think that Snape can be evil in a different way than Lupin or the others in that list could be if they fell, because I think JKR is writing about two different kinds of evil. They're both bad, but they become much worse when they combine. There are people who are so stunted that they actually prefer being cruel. This is where we find Snape and Voldemort. Voldemort, of course, does not care that his instincts are evil; he enjoys it. Snape, IMO, knows he cannot trust his instincts; they have been damaged and/or corrupted. His only hope is to follow the rules of society and Dumbledore's guidance. IMO he tries to do this, though he doesn't always succeed. And where they fail him , not being perfect, he fails too. But in each of the books Voldemort has a willing executioner, and this person's instincts are *not* stunted. This person does evil, not because he prefers it to good, but because he has decided there is no other acceptable choice. In contrast to Voldemort, Quirrell does not *want* to drink unicorn blood, but he dares not defy his master. Ginny didn't *want* to give her soul to the Diary, but she stole it back, because she dreaded losing her innocent image --just like Lupin in PoA. Peter didn't *want* to betray Lily and James but he dreaded losing his life. Young Barty seems to have spent seventeen years trying to get his father to pay attention to him by being good, before he gave up and found someone who would pay attention to him for being evil. Even Kreacher only wanted to live in peace with his memories. Yeah he was a racist toerag. So what? He wouldn't have hurt anyone if he'd been left alone. If he were a senile old human being, would you think it just if he were robbed of the things he loved by someone who had no use for them and then made to live as a slave to the thief? Wouldn't you rebel? If Voldemort, in the guise of someone you trusted, offered you an escape from conditions you found intolerable, would you have the wisdom to look the gift horse in the mouth? Pippin From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Fri Feb 4 15:22:27 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:22:27 -0500 Subject: Creative Magic (was: Fred and George good?) In-Reply-To: <002401c50ac9$82641af0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: <200502041023477.SM01332@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 123898 > Sherry: > > actually, in a strange way, I do think Fred and George are > good. They are pranksters, sure, but that doesn't > necessarily mean bad or evil. in fact, they have an > abundance of qualities I admire. Chief among those for me is > loyalty. They are very loyal to their family and friends. > They aren't concerned about their position in the world like > Percy. They are strangely compassionate kids, too. I mean > strangely, because you wouldn't think it of such practical > jokers. But I think they showed a truly caring side of their > natures by giving the marauder's map to Harry. I don't think > they did that just to allow him to get into mischief. I > think they were upset about his not being allowed to go into > Hogsmeade and did something to help him. Even their battle > with Umbridge was more than just pranks to me. I believe > they will join the order, use their jokes to good purpose in > the war, and fight bravely when necessary. So, yes, in an > odd sort of way, I consider the twins very good characters. > I would love to know them, or kids like them! > I agree with Harry, that the WW needs people like them, > because as things heat up, a little humor and some jokes will > be precious. Vivamus: I think you are absolutely right, Sherry. Giving away something as valuable to them as the map was quite something. They are truly heroic characters, partly BECAUSE they don't take themselves seriously. It brings up a separate question for me, though, having to do with Creative Magic. F&G are the principle perpetrators of original magic in the books, with all their inventions, jokes, etc., but we also have the Marauder's Map, and many other examples of someone doing something with magic that has not been done before -- i.e., used magic in an original and creative way. The spells Harry and company are using all seem to be cookbook spells, that is, they are recitations of spells out of books. That includes even the Patronus and the Protean charm. But many spells done by others -- especially F&G -- seem to be invented spells, and some magic (such as the MMap and TR's diary) seem to be invented properties to making a magical object. Someone had to invent the spells that are in those books, and it is apparent that magic spell invention is going on all the time. I'm wondering when Harry & co. are going to start inventing spells, and what the process is for figuring out how to do something magical when there is no known spell for it. It may actually have a lot to do with whatever Lily did to protect Harry, and what Harry will have to do to defeat LV. Will it be a part of NEWT classes to learn to use improvisational magic, do you think? Or to know the spell so well that you can focus your mind on it without using a wand (such as Quirrell with the ropes that bind Harry, or the innkeeper at the Leaky Cauldron with the fire)? (Sorry, I know wandless magic was part of a long discussion recently.) Vivamus From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 15:45:37 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:45:37 -0000 Subject: Harry's last 'living' relatives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123899 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > > Dumbledore said Harry had no other living relatives and clearly > Dumbledore doesn't know what he was talking about. Tonks: Actually JKR says on Page 2 of POA. "Uncle Vernon, Aunt Petunia and their son Dudley, were Harry's only living relatives." So I think that this pretty much settles this one. And DD always knows what he is talking about, even it seems to some that he doesn't. ;-) Tonks_op (DD's most loyal follower) From alex51324 at hotmail.com Fri Feb 4 15:49:27 2005 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:49:27 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory! NOT - howabout ESE!Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123900 Finwitch wrote: Snape's blaming Lupin for *his own* mistake! Snape's the one > brewing it (Lupin doesn't know how) As, I believe, he's been accusing > Sirius of the event during their teen-years long ago... And Lupin > knows that. 'Ah, that trick' - the SAME trick Severus used again. > Snape's trick of saying things to make others look bad, while being - > in their careful wording, - true enough to even the Legilimens... > > And don't forget, the RAT did much the same thing - frame others and > act innocent! er, do we know that Snape was supposed to deliver the potion to Lupin personally? I rather doubt that he would--having delivered it the once that we know about seems highly uncharacteristic of him. I see it more like this: "Am I supposed to sit here and stir this all night, or is the werewolf going to hurry up and come get it already?" "Maybe he forgot. Maybe he'll transform here in the castle and start eating students!" "But what if Potter finds out and tries to subdue him and save everyone...stupid strutting brat....then I'd have to save him again, and I had other plans for the evening. Besides, I'm sure if someone gets killed, everyone will find a way to blame *me*. It's not fair; just because I'm a DeathEater and have an unpleasant personality, I get blamed for everything!" "And what if he killed a Slytherin? Dumbledore would probably make me tell the little rodent's parents what a wonderful student he or she was. The mother might cry." "I suppose I had better take it down to him. I have to do everything around this place. Nobody appreciates me. I go to the trouble of brewing this fiendishly difficult potion, just so Lupin doesn't kill anyone, and he doesn't even have the decency to come get it himself. Does he think I'm his errand boy?" "Merlin's balls! He *is* going to kill Potter! There go my plans for the evening! Oh, if only Potter *pere* hadn't saved me from the werewolf in the first place, I wouldn't be in this mess!" Yeah, like that, only with fewer exclamation points. Alex From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 15:55:03 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:55:03 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123901 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > If Petunia is not counting on some kind of protection from DD in > exchange for taking Harry in & keeping him, then why NOT kick Harry out and get him as far away as possible? Tonks: Either she is a good and decent person who would not see her sister's only child die and feel responsible and consumed with guilt because of it, or she would be worried about what other people would think if the newspaper headlines read "Local child murdered when relatives threw him out of their home!". I think it is a bit of both. Tonks_op From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Fri Feb 4 16:14:43 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 16:14:43 -0000 Subject: Full Moon (was: Support for the ESE Lupin theory!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123902 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "alshainofthenorth" > wrote: > > > I wish that JKR had been more consistent about the lunar > phases and the influence of the moon (irritated me to no end > when writing a fanfic account of Lupin's year at Hogwarts. If he > doesn't transform inside the shack, how come he does it inside > the castle?) but it may be that Lupin thought he might somehow > make it before moonrise or that six doses of Wolfsbane potion > would be enough to make him safe. < > > Pippin: > Ah, JKR's misdirection. Lupin's transformation is controlled by > the full moon. That is what FBAWTFT says. Not by the moonrise > or the moon's visibility, whatever Harry thinks. Lupin *does* > transform inside the shack, and JKR never said he didn't. That's > how all the furniture came to be broken, and the reason the > villagers heard the howls and screeching. > > Here's the way I interpret JKR's explanation: > > > Lupin went out to the Shrieking Shack before the moon was full > and *coincidentally* before it was up. He transformed when he > came out on the night of the SS because the moon reached full > and *coincidentally* became visible. > > It had been visible several times before on that evening: > The moon drifted in and out of sight behind the shifting > clouds.--PoA ch 21. > Renee: Here I was, going to leave this subject alone for a change, but apparently I can't help myself. Fact is, that the full moon rises at sunset (and sets at sunrise), give or take a few minutes depending on where you are in the world. Ergo, if the moon was repeatedly visible before Lupin transformed, the sun was down and the moon had risen. Which automatically means it was full *before* Lupin transformed. My interpretation: JKR wanted a spectacular Hollywood scene and therefore didn't bother to get the facts right. I seem to remember that once challenged on this, she tried to amend the error by claiming the moon rose precisely at the moment the clouds parted (unfortunately I can't find the quote). And it doesn't help, because as you point out, she did mention the presence of the moon before that particular moment. Apparently, JKR hasn't put much thought into handling this werewolf transformation business in such a way that it makes sense - from not checking any lunar charts to remaining vague about the Wolfsbane regime. From which I deduce that the details surrounding Lupin's lycanthropy aren't very important in the overal story arc, and that it's not particularly meaningful to attach too much significance to them. Renee From jferer at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 16:31:35 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 16:31:35 -0000 Subject: Are Lily and Harry Animagi? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123903 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > --Tonks wrote: > > > > > > OT Chatter had pictures of cats. Looked at pictures and saw > green eyes. Thought of Harry and Lilly. Pondering if they could both > be animagi. > > > > > > > Becky: > > I'm on a tangent now... back to Lily. I see no real reason for her > > to have become an Animagus. Perhaps she has one that we don't know > > yet. Also, it's clear that it takes time to learn, even for a very > > powerful witch or wizard, and she has been busy having a child and > > also with the OotP. So, overall, I don't think it's very likely, > > although it's certainly not impossible. > > > > > > > Valky: > Hermione has read the list of registered animagi. Though we can't be > sure there is certainly a doubt that she would not mention Lily's > name appearing on there. > My guess for anyone looking for animagi is check out Hermiones > reaction to hearing their name. If she runs to the library... you > may be right. ;D Harry's not an Animagus. You have to work hard to become an Animagus. I always thought the talent for becoming an Animagus wasn't so incredibly rare (althought you need a good bit of talent), it's mostly that it's so much work most wizards don't bother. If the talent is that rare, then it would be nothing short of a miracle that Lupin's three friends all managed it. Here's a question: if you train to be an Animagus, will the animal you become be the same as your Patronus? J.K. Rowling has stated in two interviews that Harry will not be an Animagus. As to Lily being an Animagus (animaga?), why? Because James is? (not going there). From jferer at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 16:34:17 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 16:34:17 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Patronus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123904 I was looking up what JKR had to say about Animagi; she was asked in an interview what animal she would become if she was an Animagus. Her answer? "An otter." How likely is it that a person's Patronus is the same as their Animagic form, if they ever develop one? Jim Ferer From jjpandy at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 16:51:43 2005 From: jjpandy at yahoo.com (jjpandy) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 16:51:43 -0000 Subject: Full Moon (was: Support for the ESE Lupin theory!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123905 > > Renee wrote: > Here I was, going to leave this subject alone for a change, but > apparently I can't help myself. > > Fact is, that the full moon rises at sunset (and sets at sunrise), > give or take a few minutes depending on where you are in the world. > Ergo, if the moon was repeatedly visible before Lupin transformed, > the sun was down and the moon had risen. Which automatically means > it was full *before* Lupin transformed. > > My interpretation: JKR wanted a spectacular Hollywood scene and > therefore didn't bother to get the facts right. I seem to remember > that once challenged on this, she tried to amend the error by > claiming the moon rose precisely at the moment the clouds parted > (unfortunately I can't find the quote). And it doesn't help, because > as you point out, she did mention the presence of the moon before > that particular moment. > > Apparently, JKR hasn't put much thought into handling this werewolf > transformation business in such a way that it makes sense - from not > checking any lunar charts to remaining vague about the Wolfsbane > regime. From which I deduce that the details surrounding Lupin's > lycanthropy aren't very important in the overal story arc, and that > it's not particularly meaningful to attach too much significance to > them. > > Renee JJPandy's reply: Perhaps Lupin's transformation on the night of the full moon was delayed because he had taken all of his other doses that week (6 out of the 7 required). Maybe the effects of the previous nights' doses were wearing off and the sight of the full moon triggered the transformation. JJPandy (who refuses to believe Lupin is evil) From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 17:08:35 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 17:08:35 -0000 Subject: Harry's last 'living' relatives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123906 "Tonks" wrote: > Actually JKR says on Page 2 of POA. "Uncle Vernon, > Aunt Petunia and their son Dudley, were Harry's > only living relatives." > So I think that this pretty much settles this one. I love JKR but nobody is perfect, in 5 books that was her single biggest error. Everybody, absolutely everybody has living relatives, and lots and lots of them. Eggplant From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Feb 4 17:14:50 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 17:14:50 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error so far (was: Harry's last 'living' relatives?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123907 Tonks" wrote: > > Actually JKR says on Page 2 of POA. "Uncle Vernon, > > Aunt Petunia and their son Dudley, were Harry's > > only living relatives." > > So I think that this pretty much settles this one. Eggplant: > I love JKR but nobody is perfect, in 5 books that was her single > biggest error. Everybody, absolutely everybody has living relatives, > and lots and lots of them. SSSusan: Now *there's* a thread I could sink my teeth into. I don't agree with Eggplant that this is JKR's Single Biggest Error, but I can't say that right off the top of my head I'd be able to put forth what I think that SBE was. I would really enjoy seeing other people's nominations. Anybody been dying to get an SBE nomination off his/her chest?? Siriusly Snapey Susan From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Feb 4 17:16:51 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 17:16:51 -0000 Subject: Full Moon (was: Support for the ESE Lupin theory!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123908 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" > Fact is, that the full moon rises at sunset (and sets at sunrise), > give or take a few minutes depending on where you are in the world. Pippin: Yes and no. Shaun or one of our other astronomy buffs will set me straight on this if I am wrong, but astronomically, the moon is full only for a moment, which can be day or night depending on where you are. Am I right? For example, according to the Farmer's Almanac, the full moon will occur at 3:58 PM EST on March 25 2005. Sunset for that day is 6:13 PM (in New York City). Lupin asks Hermione whether she noticed that he was always ill at the full moon. (This does not, of course, preclude his being ill at other times such as Christmas.) Lupin's absences *must* occur in the daytime-- otherwise how in heck would Hermione know about them? Apparently he transforms for a period around when the moon is full astronomically, and remains that way for some time -- perhaps six hours to so since he has reverted to human form by "firs' thing this mornin'". And it *is* important, because he should have known, by the lunar chart, exactly when he was going to transform. At least that's my explanation. It makes sense of the canon and to borrow a phrase, I'm sticking to it. :) Pippin From dontask2much at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 17:37:40 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 09:37:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Support for the ESE Lupin theory! (potion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050204173740.18798.qmail@web61002.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123909 pippin_999 wrote: Pippin: Um, because Snape, being Snape, knew exactly how much potion was in the cauldron after Lupin took his last dose and there wasn't any less there? I quote Hermione, "He didn't take his potion tonight! He's not safe!" She sees no reason to doubt Snape's word, and no reason to think that an underdose of potion will be enough to protect her. But Hermione takes her cue from the adults she trusts. IMO, because Lupin didn't seem alarmed to hear that he hadn't taken his potion, she wasn't either, until Lupin began to transform. That's what I mean by blowing it off. Of course there can be other points of view. That's the fun of it.:) Charme: That Snape made extra potion the time before and, to your point, knew how much potion was left in the cauldron tends to make one wonder why Snape didn't bring the potion along with him to the Shack. If we follow this course, this means the potion can sit for some period of time and still be viable thereby possibly being at odds with a prior post you made about it perhaps "breaking down" before Snape could get it to the Shack. To me, we really don't know (and aren't told) enough about how it's created to make that assumption. You quote Hermoine correctly, and it's darn right that Lupin didn't take his potion. Possible questions: * Did he not take the potion because he got swept up in seeing Sirius/Peter on the map with the Trio prior to the whole affair in the Shack itself - remember, Sirius is supposedly guilty and Peter is supposed to be dead and *they are with Harry Potter*; * Did he intentionally not take it because he's really ESE!Lupin; * Did he not get to take his potion because Snape conveniently avoided giving it to him? I think it's a combination of the first and the last, myself. Snapey's admittedly *seen* the map and one look at it apparently told him all he "needed to know" - which is probably Snape's assumption from the beginning of PoA that Lupin was helping Sirius. Why not let Lupin transfigure into a werewolf and attack his own friend and as a bonus, blame Lupin in the process for a lapse in safety precautions? And lo and behold, Snape will have outwitted the DADA teacher -the very job he wants and covets. What irony THAT would be from Snape's perspective, huh? Snape probably figures what's good enough for him (in the case of James saving him) is good enough for Sirius....and if Snape's statements about the Dementors and watching them kiss Sirius and his loss of his emotional self control when Sirius escapes on Buckbeak is any indication, he fully expected Sirius to be dead one way or the other by the end of that night. As DD said, Snape suffered "a severe disappointment" when Sirius escaped. Charme Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/hbfile.html Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 18:01:35 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 18:01:35 -0000 Subject: Harry's last 'living' relatives? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123910 Megan" wrote: > I am a person who personally has > no living relatives... That is quite imposable. If you go back just 500 years, 20 generations (probably a lot less) you will find, unless you are a pure blood Australian Aborigine, that I am related to you. > You also need to think about cases in > modern history where whole > families have been whiped out I'm not saying that everybody in the past has modern decedents, but I am says that all modern people, you included, have ancient ancestors, BILLIONS of ancient ancestors. I have billions of ancestors too, and let me tell you cousin, some of my billion are the same as your billion. Eggplant From scarah at gmail.com Fri Feb 4 19:01:06 2005 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 11:01:06 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's name In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <32025905020411013d4d8222@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123911 Tonks: > What does Harry James Potter spell? Sarah: A THAMES JERRY PORT A TERAPH, JERRY'S TOM A HEARTY JEST, MR PRO HEART JAR PREYS TOM TOM AJAR, TRY HERPES TOM TRY RESHAPE JAR TOM APE TRASH JERRY TOM RAPE HARRY, JEST TOM RAPE JERRY'S HAT From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 19:12:32 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 19:12:32 -0000 Subject: Harry's name - Anagram Generators In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123912 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > I am sure that someone has probably tried this before. If so tell me > where to find the post. > > If Tom Mavolo Riddle spells our "I am Lord Voldemort" > > What does Harry James Potter spell? > > I came up with "The Master .... and a lot of letters left that I > don't know what to do with. I can not spell, it is not one of my > better skills, so I am at a lost. Any of you folks that are smarter > than I at these thing what to try it? > > Tonks_op bboyminn: I'm definitly not smarter, but I assumed there must be someone who is, do I did a search for anagram creators on the internet. Here is a pretty advance Internet Anagram Server that created an very extensive list of possiblities. Give it a try. http://www.wordsmith.org/anagram/advanced.html Examples: A SHAM PROJET RETRY A RARE JETS MYTH PRO A RARE JEST THY ROMP A EAR SEPT MYRRH JOT A EAR JET TOSH MR PRY A PEAR ERR MYTH JOTS A PEAR JEST OH MR TRY A PEAR JEST MYRRH TO AHA JEER MR TORT SPY RAJAH EM RETORT SPY RAJAH EM ROTTER SPY RAJAH EM OTTERS PRY MARTHA JEERS TO PRY AJAR HEMP STORE TRY AJAR HEMP REST TROY RAJA THEYRE MR POTS Temporary he's at jr It generated !!SEVERAL!! hundred possibilities. For more anagram creators, search Google for 'anagram creator' or 'anagram generator'. It helps to run the phrase through more than one anagram generator, they use a different approach and produce different results. Another Generator with different results- http://www.mi.uib.no/~ingeke/anagram/index_eng.html Just trying to help. Steve/bboyminn From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 19:16:51 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 11:16:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Weasley Poverty, Working Wizard Women; was Molly & Arthur - was Why I like G In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050204191651.10381.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123913 --- hogsheadbarmaid wrote: > From Ron's perspective > (and Draco's) they are poor and he does not get everything he wants > because of that. But frankly Ron is benefiting from many of those > choices and from the rich family life the Weasleys have built. It > is likely that he will appreciate the non-material wealth of his > family as he matures. To come to Ron's defence, he's the one who sticks up for his father when he says that Arthur could have been promoted lots of times but he likes where he is. Which I believe. But I think Ron's defensiveness about being poor comes from something other than Draco Malfoy's taunts. After all, he wouldn't be vulnerable to them if he weren't already believing it himself. Ron's complaint isn't that he doesn't get stuff; it's that "everything I own is rubbish". Molly can't be bothered to remember that he doesn't like corned beef sandwiches (PS/SS), that he doesn't like the colour maroon, and culminating in the humiliating moment when she presents him with hideous dress robes with no appreciation about how a teen will feel wearing them (and its clear from the description that they are indeed ugly). It's not poverty Ron objects to: it's always being at the end of the line, getting what's left over regardless of how many hands it's been through before getting to him, of simply being the last Weasley boy. It's tied into what he saw in the Mirror of Erised: always being in the shadow of his brothers, he dreams of exceeding them all. As he says in PS/SS, no matter what he does, another brother has been there first. Poverty isn't always a lack of money; sometimes there are other things that are lacking where poverty is a handy excuse. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 19:27:56 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 19:27:56 -0000 Subject: Jo's Squib error? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123914 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > Dungrollin: > I'm surprised you take it so seriously, Carol! She never said squibs > *can't* see dementors, she just said the Figgy *didn't* on this > occassion. > If you check out your OotP, the end of chapter 1: Dudley Demented, > you'll see that Mrs. Figg doesn't even arrive until *well* > after the Dementors have left, so she couldn't have seen them (even > if she could see them, if you see what I mean...). Whether squibs > can/can't see dementors is still an open question. bboyminn: Just read that last night, and I agree with you that Figg doesn't arrive 'on-page' until after the Dementors are gone, but clearly she arrived 'on-scene' before she arrived 'on-page'. It was Mrs Figg who brings up the subject of Dementors and mentions them several times. To my memory, in that scene, Harry never once mentions Dementors. So, even though we didn't see Figg, she certainly saw what was going on, and while JKR has ruled that Figg didn't see the Dementors, it's clear she felt them and knew what they were. In addtion, she witness the counter-attack by Harry's Patronus, and as I mentioned before, there would be no logical reason for a Patronus to attack once, much less twice, unless there were indeed Dementors to there to attack. On your main point, I agree; whether or not Mrs Figg, in that one circumstance, saw Dementors, does not dictate whether Squibs in general are able to see them. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Feb 4 20:22:39 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:22:39 -0000 Subject: Character Discussion: Voldemort - further explanation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123915 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cat_kind" wrote: catkind: > So Harry symbolises a piece of god in a human soul? > > In any case, if I have understood this parallel in the least, I > disagree with it. It seems to me unlikely that a character like > Harry Potter should represent anything divine. He is after all > extremely human in the books, a bit of an everyman even. Harry > seems to be an ordinary boy in an extraordinary situation, which is > why everyone can identify with him. Geoff: I have made this very point on many occasions mainly in discussion with Hans. There was an instance where Hans made what, to me, was a contradictory statement when, in message 84481, he wrote: "A few months ago there was a big debate in this group about whether Harry Potter is everyman or Christ. I say he is both! For every man can become a Christ-figure if he is willing to sacrifice his I- consciousness for the Christ-consciousness, which is potentially present." If anyone likes to follow up occasions when I have outlined the idea of Harry as a Christian everyman, subject to the same temptations and failings as ourselves, they include the following: 81249, 84552, 84695, 104472, 107680, 111636 and 120538. Some of them may repeat ideas but, if you are an insomniac and need something to make you drop off, you are welcome to plough through these.... Geoff - about to return to preparing the Powerpoint for Sunday's services. From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Fri Feb 4 20:28:51 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:28:51 -0500 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200502041528828.SM01332@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 123916 > SSSusan: > Now *there's* a thread I could sink my teeth into. I don't > agree with Eggplant that this is JKR's Single Biggest Error, > but I can't say that right off the top of my head I'd be able > to put forth what I think that SBE was. I would really enjoy > seeing other people's nominations. > > Anybody been dying to get an SBE nomination off his/her chest?? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Vivamus: All right, I'll bite, but my nomination is a group of errors. Ignorance of snakes. 1. No snake that has ever lived, AFAIK, could chomp on someone like the snake that bit Arthur Weasley. She describes the snake splintering bones with it's bite, which snakes' jaws are not physically capable of doing. Snakes have three ways of biting that I know of: (1) a purely defensive bite-and-withdraw, (2) injecting venom through its fangs, if it is a venomous snake, and (3) as the first move in wrapping the victim up in coils, if it is a constrictor. The thing (Nagini, I presume) attacked Arthur as if it were a dog, not a snake, and did damage accordingly. Even if it were being controlled by LV and therefore not attacking as a snake normally would, it still would not have caused that much damage just by biting. 2. No matter how big Nagini is, there is no way a venomous snake is going to be big enough to eat a 14 year old boy. I've seen the world record King Cobra (largest venomous snake of any kind on record, I believe) stuffed in the Miami Serpentarium, at (I think) 16 feet. It could probably have swallowed something the size of an infant, but it is nowhere near large enough to swallow a boy. Only a constrictor would even have that possibility. A Rock Python (Kaa, in the Jungle Book) or an Anaconda would be able to do it, but they are constrictors, without venom, and you would need a snake better than 20 feet long (and weighing hundreds of pounds) to be able to do it. (But even a constrictor that big wouldn't be able to crunch bones with it's jaws.) The snake that bit Arthur, moreover, had fangs, so it isn't a constrictor. (For the record, the largest snakes ever found are South American Anacondas, with a verified record of 34 feet, and reports of much longer ones killed or sighted. Tracks in the Amazon mud seem to suggest snakes well in excess of 40 feet, and possibly **much** longer. Could one of those eat a grown human? Absolutely.) (There was a report of a 49-foot, 980-pound reticulated python caught in December of 2003, but the snake turned out to be less than 21 feet long.) 3. People don't, usually, bleed when bitten by a poisonous snake. In fact, they don't usually bleed when bitten by a non-poisonous snake, except for defensive bites, which the attack on Arthur certainly was not. I've heard someone say that Nagini must be a Bushmaster. It's possible, as Bushmasters get up to almost four meters in length, and Nagini is described as being over twelve feet long. But Bushmasters (Lachesis mutus) have extremely powerful hemotoxin in their venom, and the larger a snake is, the more venom it can inject. With all the time it took to get McGonagall and get to DD's office, Arthur would have been long since dead by the time they got to DD. I'm not counting this one as an error, because we don't really know what kind of snake it was, but most venomous snakes of that size would have killed Arthur too quickly for help to arrive. You could, MAYBE, argue around some of the problems if you said that Nagini was a 25-foot python, and the references to fangs were references to teeth, not fangs, but there are also references to poison. 4. Harry "could see the vast, bloody eye sockets, see the mouth stretching wide, wide enough to swallow him whole, lined with fangs long as his sword, thin, glittering, venomous" Venomous snakes only have two fangs. Even the highly magical Basilisk is not likely to vary from that. The mouth of a snake can also only open really wide when it is unhinging its jaws to get around its food, and it needs to lever them around the food to do so. In other words, it has to bite something too big to swallow, and then work its jaws around what it is swallowing to get its mouth open wide. It's a fascinating process to watch. I'm not counting this one as an error, either, though, because the stories are from Harry's POV, and to Harry, the mouth might well have *looked* big enough to swallow him whole. Anyway, I have no trouble ignoring most of the little inconsistencies that any excellent work of fiction contains, but the attack on Arthur in particular screamed at me. I'm kind of puzzled no one in the editorial process said, "Wait a minute!" when they read it. I don't think phases of the moon not fitting the actual calendar can be called an error, btw, because it is fiction, after all, and certain things are just pushed by the plot. JKR might have used an actual calendar to plan out her sequence of events, but she never actually gives us an exact date, except for the death-day party for NHN. I think asking her to accurately fit the phases of the moon with the actual lunar calendar is too much. (The full moon rising much later than sunset is, of course, an error, and I did not catch that one at all.) Vivamus, who hopes that JKR, if she reads this thread, doesn't take any of it too seriously or think we don't love her or her books anyway. He just wishes there had been a proofer with more scientific background for the last couple of books. (And yes, if you want one, I would be *happy* to do it for free, and sign a confidentiality agreement in blood as well.) (I am also sure there would be over 13,000 other volunteers from this group for the same honor.) From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 20:44:40 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 12:44:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron's draw as a talking point In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050204204440.91853.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123917 --- Brian Brinkman wrote: > > Another point of growth that JKR highlighted IMO > was his rejection of Percy's advice. Why did Hermione look at him > funny? My guess is she wasn't sure what he would do. His track > record in handling family pressure, in OOTP, was not good. In > fact, his problems with Fred and George practically ruined his > tenure as a > prefect and nearly ruined his Quidditch attempt. Perhaps Hermione > saw his actions re: Percy as a leap for Ron. Personally I think Ron's biggest problem is that he's most like Percy but wants to be like Fred and George. I'll be interested to see how he comes into his own now that Fred and George have left school. It's not a coincidence that he has his first good Quidditch game AFTER they left. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From scarah at gmail.com Fri Feb 4 20:54:32 2005 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 12:54:32 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snakes and scars and stuff In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <32025905020412547fa1188f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123918 Dungrollin: > There's one reference to snakes that has always puzzled me, and > that's after the hearing in OotP, Lucius Malfoy says "Quite > astonishing, the way you continue to wriggle out of very tight > holes ... *snakelike*, in fact." (The Woes of Mrs. Weasley.) Sarah: I think this reference takes on a new significance when compared to Draco Malfoy a bit later on: 'I seem to have touched a nerve,' said Malfoy, smirking. 'Well, just watch yourself, Potter, because I'll be *dogging* your footsteps in case you step out of line.' Even Harry caught on to that one. Like father, like son? How much does Lucius know about the Harry - Voldemort connection? Sarah From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 20:55:14 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 12:55:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050204205514.22905.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123919 --- lupinlore wrote: > > And yet in your own quote, Magda, Dumbledore says, "she may > have....UNWILLINGLY...." > > Do you think DD is using the word "willing" in a different sense > than what you mean? Not being sarcastic, just asking. > Yes, I do. The question on this thread was whether Dumbledore had bribed or threatened the Dursleys in some way to make them take infant Harry into their home. I meant "willing" in the sense that Petunia didn't have to be bribed or threatened. She accepted the responsibility and wasn't happy about it one damn bit. But she still did it willingly - in an unwilling way, of course. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo From sara.dietz at erac.com Fri Feb 4 16:53:12 2005 From: sara.dietz at erac.com (Dietz, Sara A) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 09:53:12 -0700 Subject: Harry's Name / anagrams Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123920 Tonks_op: > I am sure that someone has probably tried this before. > > If Tom Mavolo Riddle spells our "I am Lord Voldemort" > > What does Harry James Potter spell? > > I came up with "The Master .... and a lot of letters left that > I don't know what to do with. Any of you folks that are > smarter than I at these thing what to try it? There is a web site www.wordsmith.org that let's you play with anagrams. There is a list of over 62,000 anagrams for Harry James Potter, but they're all made with common English words. It might take a bit of playing with by entering in WW terms as a required word...but who knows, you might be on to something! My favorite is SARA JEER THY MR POT Happy Friday, SaraShanks From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 21:10:21 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 13:10:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] SNAPE'S "WORST" MEMORY? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050204211021.887.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123921 --- chrusotoxos wrote: > > Please help me out there! What do you think about all this mess???? Snape did not "plant" the memory in the pensieve so that Harry would see it. He would not have assumed that it would hurt Harry; he would have assumed that Harry would have found it funny or have cheered for his dad. I think the reason this was Snape's worst memory ties back to what he told Harry in GOF: that James thought he was better than "the rest of us", implying that Snape was one of the crowd. In fact, the memory shows that James treated Snape with special derision, and that Snape in fact was not one of any crowd, but rather the campus loner geek. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk Fri Feb 4 17:28:08 2005 From: sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk (sandra87b) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 17:28:08 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error so far (was: Harry's last 'living' relatives?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123922 > Eggplant: > > I love JKR but nobody is perfect, in 5 books that was her single > > biggest error. Everybody, absolutely everybody has living relatives, > > and lots and lots of them. > SSSusan: > I don't agree with Eggplant that this is JKR's Single Biggest Error, > but I can't say that right off the top of my head I'd be able to put > forth what I think that SBE was. I would really enjoy seeing other > people's nominations. Hello Susan, Yes, I have a nomination! The truly enormous error was introducing the Time Turner! The whole series gets blown apart by the existence of such a device because a) it's a rogue element, uncontrolled and therefore nothing is final, and b) the way she implements the logic of it is all wrong. I've read and re-read everyone's replies to my topic on that one, and now feel sure that unless you're looking through a pair of rose-tinted specs, JKR made a howler of a plot-error. But that's just my opinion! :0) Sandra, who no longer has a time-conundrum headache. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 21:15:48 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 13:15:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050204211548.47625.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123923 --- cubfanbudwoman wrote: > > I'd think his being there > would be more likely to draw the attention of the "wicked & evil > people out there," whereas if he were GONE, they could reasonably > tell any wicked & evil people that they've washed their hands of > him, > have no idea where he is any longer. Wouldn't the baddies be more > inclined to leave them alone if Harry were gone? Didn't work for the Longbottoms, did it? Even though they didn't have the info that Bellatrix and company were looking for, they were tortured into insanity. No, the "wicked & evil" people would assume they were lying when they say they don't know where Harry is, and might indulge in some recreational torture just to "refresh" their memories. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 21:16:39 2005 From: ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com (ohneill_2001) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 21:16:39 -0000 Subject: Harry's last 'living' relatives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123924 Eggplant wrote: > I love JKR but nobody is perfect, in 5 books that was her single > biggest error. Everybody, absolutely everybody has living relatives, > and lots and lots of them. Now Cory: I think we have to give JKR a little latitude here -- we could probably find "mistakes" everywhere we look if we read everything absolutely literally. Sure, we've all got lots of living relatives. Depending on a particular person's religious persuasion, one might believe that each of us is a "living relative" of everyone else, all decended from Adam and Eve or whoever else you believe in. However, if I were the only survivor of a meteor that struck my family reunion, killing my parents, all of their direct ancestors, all of my siblings, and all of my aunts, uncles, and their descendants, and anyone else that I am close to, I would probably think of myself as having no remaining living relatives, even though somewhere in Manitoba there may be someone I've never met who somehow shares my family's bloodline. If you were to disagree with me, I'd probably tell you that you were taking my words a little too literally... --Cory From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 17:31:32 2005 From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 17:31:32 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory! NOT - howabout ESE!Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123925 > Finwitch wrote: > > Snape's blaming Lupin for *his own* mistake! Snape's the one > > brewing it (Lupin doesn't know how) Alex wrote: > Er, do we know that Snape was supposed to deliver the potion to > Lupin personally? I rather doubt that he would--having delivered > it the once that we know about seems highly uncharacteristic of him. > I see it more like this: > "I suppose I had better take it down to him. I have to do > everything around this place. Nobody appreciates me. I go to the > trouble of brewing this fiendishly difficult potion, just so Lupin > doesn't kill anyone, and he doesn't even have the decency to come > get it himself. Does he think I'm his errand boy?" > > "Merlin's balls! He *is* going to kill Potter! Oh, if only > Potter *pere* hadn't saved me from the werewolf in the first place, > I wouldn't be in this mess!" Lyra now: Yes, Alex, exactly. That's what I was trying to convey, and utterly failed to way back on this thread. Snape's job is only that of pharmacist, dispensing the medication. Presumabley, DD didn't tell him to be a nurse (or mom), chasing Lupin down and spoonfeeding him his potion. (And if DD did expect Severus to take on that role, Snape for once has every right to be his usual resentful self.) Snape probably told Lupin to come by his office after classes were dismissed, or maybe he uses that nifty floo powder trick to let Lupin know it's ready, but it's Lupin's responsibility to get the stuff and drink it (IMO). From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 20:29:10 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:29:10 -0000 Subject: Harry's name / anagrams In-Reply-To: <32025905020411013d4d8222@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123926 > > Tonks: > > > What does Harry James Potter spell? > > > > Sarah: > > A THAMES JERRY PORT > > A TERAPH, JERRY'S TOM > > A HEARTY JEST, MR PRO > > HEART JAR PREYS TOM > > TOM AJAR, TRY HERPES > > TOM TRY RESHAPE JAR > > TOM APE TRASH JERRY > > TOM RAPE HARRY, JEST > > TOM RAPE JERRY'S HAT Northsouth: Some of those are just a mite creepy, especially with all the "Tom"s. "HEART JAR PREYS TOM" is rather sad though. Clearly, poor Tom Riddle's mother chose the time honored wizarding burial of Mummification (quite Slytherinish, I think), including having her internal organs removed and placed in special jars. Not content with the death fate had dealt her however, her *heart* (jar and all) continued to desperately haunt her young son...who, being raised a muggle, had no idea what was going on, and so grew increasingly more suspicious and, indeed, terrified of this strange manifestation of, uh, heart to heart. Love, he realized, was out to get him, when the heavy jar fell on him yet again on some lonely night. By the time he arrived at Hogwarts, possessing not a few awful heart themed recurring nightmares, and a couple rather serious blows to the head, just the thought of "Love" made him shiver. Well, you can see where this is going... Anyway...I thought the name "Harry Potter" came from JKR's neighbour or something of the sort. Seems unlikely that it's an anagram. Also...if Harry turns out to be an anagram, it strikes me as a bit sinister. All the cases of name changes so far have been for less than precisely wonderful reasons. The marauders' nicknames are an act of deception, and Riddle's whole deconstruction of his name is just pathetic and awful all at once. Northsouth17 From madettebeau at gmail.com Fri Feb 4 21:51:01 2005 From: madettebeau at gmail.com (madlysarcastic) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 21:51:01 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123927 Jim Ferer wrote: > I was looking up what JKR had to say about Animagi; she was asked in > an interview what animal she would become if she was an Animagus. Her > answer? "An otter." > > How likely is it that a person's Patronus is the same as their > Animagic form, if they ever develop one? That is an interesting idea. Sadly, we know of too few Partoni (I think I just invented the plural form of Patronus...it's easier than Patronuses) to be able to know for sure. If only we had had a chance to see Sirius's. Though, I highly doubt his Patronus would have been a great big dog. Why? Well, Harry's Patronus has to do with his father, and since a Patronus has to do with protection, something associated with his parents who died trying to protect him, it makes sense. It would seem a little odd if someone's symbol of protection was themself. Although, in some cases, perhaps it is possible. I guess I could see Sirius as thinking he was the only one needed to protect himself. But I don't think that would be the case for every Animagi. Can you picture Peter Pettigrew having his rat form as his Patronus? Or Rita Skeeter's a beetle? Or McGonagall's a cat? This brings me to another question, though. Do you think Patroni are always animals? Or can they be something else? =) Maddy From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Feb 4 21:54:25 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 21:54:25 -0000 Subject: Harry's name / anagrams In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123928 Northsouth17 > Also...if Harry turns out to be an anagram, it strikes me as a bit > sinister. All the cases of name changes so far have been for less > than precisely wonderful reasons. The marauders' nicknames are an > act of deception, and Riddle's whole deconstruction of his name is > just pathetic and awful all at once. > Potioncat: Sorry. Can't help it. I live to make others laugh. I do not take credit for figuring this out, read it here at the last anagram hunt. Since Harry James is so depressing, let's look to Draco. Draco Malfoy.....Lord of a YMCA From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 22:09:20 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 22:09:20 -0000 Subject: Are Lily and Harry Animagi? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123929 Tonks wrote: > > > > OT Chatter had pictures of cats. Looked at pictures and saw green eyes. Thought of Harry and Lilly. Pondering if they could both be animagi. Which leads to this thought. > > > (huge snip) > > Becky responded: > Just to straight answer the question the subject title asks, no Harry is not, and will not be an Animagus, at least for the duration of Hoggwarts. The reason I think that is because JKR says so > http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1999/1099-pressclubtransc.html (Carol notes that the URL should link this time because I unchecked "Wrap message text.") > > Which I think deals with Harry, but Lily is different. I feel that however great a witch she may be, she won't have become an Animagus because (and now I'm into my own speculation) it being such a hard thing to do, you would want a reason. (Interestingly, all the others we know of are unregistered and therefore illegal. Just a thought.) > > The mauraders reason is simple - to keep Lupin company. > Rita Skeeter is also fairly simple - to get her stories without being seen, to get the gossip no-one in their right mind would tell her to her face. > > back to Lily. I see no real reason for her to have become an Animagus. Perhaps she has one that we don't know yet. Also, it's clear that it takes time to learn, even for a very powerful witch or wizard, and she has been busy having a child and also with the OotP. So, overall, I don't think it's very likely, although it's certainly not impossible. Carol adds: I agree with Becky that Lily had no reason to become an animagus and almost certainly would not have done so illegally. Also, we learn in SS/PS that James's wand was excellent for Transfiguration, our first hint that he was an Animagus. Her chief talent, suggested in that same conversation with Mr. Ollivander, was for Charms ("nice wand for charm work"). So we have at least one important hint that she could have placed the Fidelius Charm on Peter Pettigrew (DD certainly didn't do it) and that her "ancient magic" involved something beyond self-sacrifice, presumably a charm, but nothing to suggest that she had any special affinity for Transfiguration. And, as a Prefect and Head Girl, she would (IMO) have devoted her time to setting a good example and studying for her exams, not to conducting illegal experiments on herself. I doubt that she would have approved of what MWPP were doing had she known about it, based on the little we've seen of her in canon. Her courage can't be doubted, but she's neither mischievous nor rash. (Voldemort might disagree about the rashness, but I think he's dead wrong.) Also, it would be very difficult to learn to become an Animagus by herself. McGonagall must have had someone's (Dumbledore's?) help so he could turn her back into a person when she was first learning, just as James and Sirius would have transformed each other and Peter back to human form. We have no evidence that Lily had any close friends who would have helped her turn into an illegal animagus, and if McGonagall had helped her turn into a legal one, we would surely have heard about it. (She'd have been on the list of registered animagi and Hermione would have informed Harry, for one.) Just my opinion, but I will be very surprised to find that Lily was an animagus, as well as annoyed with JKR for not dropping any clues to that effect. Carol, suspending her disbelief to imagine Unicorn!Lily running with the boys on full moon nights--or with her female friends at some other time of month From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Fri Feb 4 22:34:18 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 17:34:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Are Lily and Harry Animagi? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050204223418.21252.qmail@web52007.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123930 Carol wrote: snip: Just my opinion, but I will be very surprised to find that Lily was an animagus, as well as annoyed with JKR for not dropping any clues to that effect. Carol, suspending her disbelief to imagine Unicorn!Lily running with the boys on full moon nights--or with her female friends at some other time of month Luckdragon now: Maybe we just missed the hint. Remember the scene in the forest when Firenz saves Harry from Voldemort,who was drinking Unicorn blood, he tells Harry that Unicorn blood is so pure it will sustain you, but you will only live a half life. The name Lily means purity; and there has been a lot of discussion in past weeks about Lily possibly having done a blood/sacrifice charm to protect Harry and then we have the prophecy about neither Harry nor Voldemort living while the other survives. Both basically sharing a half life. Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/hbfile.html Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! --------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 22:42:55 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 22:42:55 -0000 Subject: Support for the ESE Lupin theory! In-Reply-To: <20050203222325.41067.qmail@web61205.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123931 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Pyros Wife wrote: > > > Pippin: > It's possible that the active ingredient in the potion has a > "threshold" -- that is, you have to take the entire weeks' dosage or it has no effect. > > I can believe that Lupin forgot to take it, or even that he knew that Snape was coming but decided that going after Peter was a higher priority. But the fact that he would have already had several doses that week makes it difficult for me to think that he also forgot it was the night of the full moon. How could he, when he was talking about the potion and its effects on being a werewolf with the Trio and Sirius? > > And then, he completely blows off Snape's announcement that > he hasn't taken his potion. IMO, that is either criminally > irresponsible or there is something else going on -- such as that he did take his potion as the ESE!Lupin theory postulates. Carol responds: Not sure how relevant this is, but everyone seems to be forgetting that the potion doesn't prevent him from turning into a werewolf; it only calms him down and enables him to keep his sanity. So even if he had taken all of the doses on time, he would still have transformed into a werewolf, terrifying HRH and unable to explain to them that he was harmless. And PP would still have seized the moment to transform into Scabbers and run away. But it's the fact that neglecting to take the potion made him *dangerous* that makes his action irresponsible, especially once he knew that the children were there along with PP and SB. Carol, not at all sure that this paragraph makes any sense From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Feb 4 22:44:53 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 22:44:53 -0000 Subject: Draco and Lucius (was: Harry and starvation) In-Reply-To: <20050204004854.78853.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123932 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: Magda: > Yes, they're definitely different; personally I think Lucius' best > moment in the series comes in COS when they're in Borgin's shop and > he shoots down all Draco's whining complaints with the practiced ease > of a man who's heard it all (too many times) before. > > Notice that Draco often quotes Lucius as "my father says....". Not > "my father told me that...." Sounds to me like Draco spends a lot of > time around the manor listening in on Lucius' conversations from > hiding places. Does he go back to Hogwarts and brag to Snape about > everything he knows? Bet you anything he does. Geoff: Way back, I wrote in message 83661 - "I have very mixed feelings about Draco. Once, I considered him to be an absolute pain in the backside but I sometimes find myself harbouring more then a little bit of sympathy for him; who couldn't, with a father like Lucius?! He obviously wanted, for some reason or another, to befriend Harry right at the beginning but managed to mess this up in no uncertain terms because of his arrogant approach and that has coloured their relationship ever since. (Perhaps I have read too much fanfic lately in which he manages to reach a rapprochement with Harry, Ron and Hermione in one way or another.)" I think there is little love as such in the Malfoy household. Draco has only had his father going on at him about Mudbloods being scum and Death Eaters being wonderful; it's not surprising that the guy has hangups! An interesting point came back to me after reading Magda's comment above about Malfoy's references to his father. It has been commented on that there seems to be only one place in the whole of the books where he refers to Lucius as "Dad". It happens when he confronts Harry in the Entrance Hall at the end of OOTP. '"You think you're such a big man, Potter," said Malfoy, advancing now, Crabbe and Goyle flanking him. "You wait. I'll have you. You can't land my father in prison -" "I thought I just had," said Harry. "The Dementors have left Azkaban," said Malfoy quietly. "Dad and the others will be out in no time..."' (OOTP "The Second War begins" p.750 UK edition) That is most interesting. He always refers to his father almost distantly as "my father" but here, suddenly, "Dad" pops out which is most un-Draco-ish. As Mr.Ollivander would say, "Curious". I wonder what our tame psychologists can make of that? From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 22:55:58 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 22:55:58 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error so far (was: Harry's last 'living' relatives?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123933 >>SSSusan: >Now *there's* a thread I could sink my teeth into. I don't agree with Eggplant that this is JKR's Single Biggest Error, but I can't say that right off the top of my head I'd be able to put forth what I think that SBE was. I would really enjoy seeing other people's nominations.< Betsy: The one place where I think JKR made an error was with Ginny. Now, I love OotP's Ginny. I like that she's athletic and outgoing and flirty - a nice balance for Hermione. But she did come out of nowhere. Rereading the books, it does become apparent that JKR had this personality in mind for Ginny from the beginning, but I think one or two bigger hints would have made the transition a little less jarring. Just a scene or two of Harry walking in on her before she spotted him (like the Weasley picnic in GoF) so the reader has some idea of what Ginny is like without her big crush affecting her. Betsy From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Fri Feb 4 23:24:27 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 23:24:27 -0000 Subject: Full Moon (was: Support for the ESE Lupin theory!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123934 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" > > Fact is, that the full moon rises at sunset (and sets at sunrise), > > give or take a few minutes depending on where you are in the > world. > > Pippin: > Yes and no. Shaun or one of our other astronomy buffs will set > me straight on this if I am wrong, but astronomically, the moon is > full only for a moment, which can be day or night depending on > where you are. Am I right? > > For example, according to the Farmer's Almanac, > the full moon will occur at 3:58 PM EST on March 25 2005. > Sunset for that day is 6:13 PM (in New York City). Renee: Yes, the astronomical full moon lasts less than a minute, IIRC. I only realised that's what you were probably thinking of after I'd hit the Send button. (But see below) > Lupin asks Hermione whether she noticed that he was always ill > at the full moon. (This does not, of course, preclude his being ill > at other times such as Christmas.) Lupin's absences *must* > occur in the daytime-- otherwise how in heck would Hermione > know about them? Renee: Some of Lupin's absences must indeed occur during the daytime if his transformations are linked to the astronomical full moon. But I hope you're not suggesting all of them took place during daytime - you can hardly deny his transformation at the end of PoA takes place at night, for instance, and this wouldn't be the only instance of a nightly full moon in the course of nine months. The time of the astronomical full moon shifts according to a pattern of 29.x days (don't know by heart what the x is). If Lupin *only* missed lessons because he was in wolf shape during those hours, he would have been able to teach on days following a full moon early at night, and there wouldn't have been enough of a pattern to his absences to make Hermione suspicious. It's more likely his absences during the daytime have at least something to do with his need for recovery after a rough night. Pippin: > Apparently he transforms for a period around when the moon is > full astronomically, and remains that way for some time -- > perhaps six hours to so since he has reverted to human form by > "firs' thing this mornin'". And it *is* important, because he > should have known, by the lunar chart, exactly when he was > going to transform. At least that's my explanation. It makes > sense of the canon and to borrow a phrase, I'm sticking to it. :) > Renee: It's a pity no one ever suggested this possibility to JKR, for I'm sure she'd have adopted it at once to explain Lupin's transformation at that particular moment, instead of coming up with inadequate explanations. :) As it is, she doesn't have a very good record of being adequate with dates and science-related data. It is as you say: your explanation *makes* sense of this piece of canon, but the sense wasn't quite there when she wrote it. finally, the part about the lunar chart makes it actually more plausible that Lupin just screwed up. Having to remember the full moon is one thing, having to keep in mind when exactly your transformation will take place after 1) you've just discovered you believed a lie and hated the wrong person for almost 13 years and 2) you have to unmask the real traitor to prove a friends innocence to the son of another friend - that's something different altogether. No wonder it slipped his mind! From jhnbwmn at hotmail.com Fri Feb 4 23:14:26 2005 From: jhnbwmn at hotmail.com (johnbowman19) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 23:14:26 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123935 > This brings me to another question, though. Do you think Patroni are > always animals? Or can they be something else? > > > =) > Maddy Hey Maddy If you go the HP Lexicon you should be able to find this information on a wizard named Andros the Invincible who appears on the Chocolate Frog Cards: Ancient Greek, dates unknown Alleged to have been the only known wizard to produce a Patronus the size of a giant This info is different from what I remeber first reading, in that I remeber him being able to actually produce a giant as a patronus. In any case, what patronus could he produce that was the size of a giant, and not a giant in the first place? This is the closest example of anything not being an animal (are giants animals?) and still being a patronus. John who hopes that helps From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 23:33:57 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 23:33:57 -0000 Subject: Draco and Lucius (was: Harry and starvation) In-Reply-To: <20050204004854.78853.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123936 >>Magda: >Yes, they're definitely different; personally I think Lucius' best moment in the series comes in COS when they're in Borgin's shop and he shoots down all Draco's whining complaints with the practiced ease of a man who's heard it all (too many times) before.< Betsy: This scene caused me to have great pity for Draco. As Geoff pointed out in his post, there doesn't seem to be a lot of love there. Lucius pretty much sets it up that if Draco does anything right, it's not because Draco has skills, it's because of his blood, and he should be the best. But if Draco messes up, than he's a big failure and is letting down his entire family line. Though I agree that Lucius has probably had to hear a lot about Harry Potter favoritism. :) >>Magda: >Notice that Draco often quotes Lucius as "my father says....". Not "my father told me that...." Sounds to me like Draco spends a lot of time around the manor listening in on Lucius' conversations from hiding places. Does he go back to Hogwarts and brag to Snape about everything he knows? Bet you anything he does.< Betsy: Yeah, I've wondered if Spy!Draco won't be making an appearance. Of course, sometimes it's hard to recognize if you're (and by you, I mean me ) being unduly swayed by fanon. Especially with a character like Draco who gets little play in the books and *so* much play in fanfic. >>Magda: >And of course, even though Draco is normally as dumb as a box of rocks, he'd be one of the first customers of those Extendable Ears that George and Fred were selling.< Betsy: Oh yes, Draco is a wonderful little eavesdropper! But I'm not sure about dumb. He's not very political, but again based on the Borgin's shop scene, Lucius says that Draco gets beaten by Hermione on every exam. (So much for Snape's bias!) If she's the *only* one who beats him, than Draco must not be too dumb. Of course, you could read the scene to mean that Draco does poorly and doesn't it suck that a Muggle-born has top marks when Draco should be making them. (And very tacky of Lucius to upbraid his son in front of a stranger.) >>Geoff: >An interesting point came back to me after reading Magda's comment above about Malfoy's references to his father. It has been commented on that there seems to be only one place in the whole of the books where he refers to Lucius as "Dad". It happens when he confronts Harry in the Entrance Hall at the end of OOTP. '"You think you're such a big man, Potter," said Malfoy, advancing now, Crabbe and Goyle flanking him. "You wait. I'll have you. You can't land my father in prison -" "I thought I just had," said Harry. "The Dementors have left Azkaban," said Malfoy quietly. "Dad and the others will be out in no time..."' (OOTP "The Second War begins" p.750 UK edition) That is most interesting. He always refers to his father almost distantly as "my father" but here, suddenly, "Dad" pops out which is most un-Draco-ish. As Mr.Ollivander would say, "Curious". I wonder what our tame psychologists can make of that?< Betsy: Not a psychologist - tame or otherwise - but I've never let lack of expertise stop me! :) I do think Draco is a performer, and I think he's usually performing in front of Harry (and his friends for that matter). So he declaims a lot, and it sounds much more dignified and proper to say, "my father." But I think Lucius being imprisoned has really shaken the foundations of Draco's world, so real unfiltered emotion regarding his father pours through. What I'm quite curious about is what direction will Draco fall? Will he fall in with Death Eaters and join Voldemort to bring sweet, sweet revenge on Harry? Or will a better influence (Snape?) encourage Draco to slip from his father's grasp and do the right thing? I know what I *hope* will happen, but I honestly cannot make a prediction. I know there must be a "good" Slytherin, to cleanse the house and reunite Hogwarts and possibly the WW. I think the Slytherin does need to be a peer of Harry's, but I just don't know if Draco will fill that role. I think JKR has done a fairly good job at riding the edge with Draco. I'm eager to see how his story finally ends. Betsy, who's quite sure this has been discussed to death on this list, and so apologizes for boring everyone! :) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Feb 4 23:43:24 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 23:43:24 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys- "Unwillingly" & Threat In-Reply-To: <20050204205514.22905.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123937 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > > --- lupinlore wrote: > > > > And yet in your own quote, Magda, Dumbledore says, "she may > > have....UNWILLINGLY...." > > > > Do you think DD is using the word "willing" in a different sense > > than what you mean? Not being sarcastic, just asking. > Yes, I do. The question on this thread was whether Dumbledore had > bribed or threatened the Dursleys in some way to make them take > infant Harry into their home. I meant "willing" in the sense that > Petunia didn't have to be bribed or threatened. She accepted the > responsibility and wasn't happy about it one damn bit. > > But she still did it willingly - in an unwilling way, of course. > > Magda bboyminn: If my Mom makes me clean my room, I do so unwillingly, but I, none the less, choose to do what she said. I think that illustrates the nature of 'unwilling' in Dumbledore's statement. Petunia preferred not to have anything to do with Harry. She had a profound lack of interest in and desire to help Harry, she was reluctant and hesitant, but finally chose to take Harry in. un?will?ing - adj. 1. Not willing; hesitant or loath: unwilling to face facts. 2. Done, given, or said reluctantly: unwilling consent. will?ing - adj. 1. Disposed or inclined; prepared: I am willing to overlook your mistakes. 2. Acting or ready to act gladly; eagerly compliant 3. Done, given, accepted, or borne voluntarily or ungrudgingly. Notice that in neither the definition of /willing/ or /unwilling/ is there the implication of refusal; it's all about eagerness and reluctance. In a sense, as others have tried to imply, we have a context shift between Petunia /unwillingly/ taking Harry in, and her being /unwilling/ to take him in. Again, the first implies a hesitance or reluctants, the second implies a refusal. So, it is perfectly reasonable and logical to unwillingly willingly do something; in other words, willingly do it with great reluctance. On a separate but related issue, I think there was an implied threat in the letter explaining to Petunia what happened at Godric's Hollow, and why she needed to take Harry in. But I don't think it was Dumbledore who was outwardly threatening Petunia. In otherwords, Dumbledore wasn't saying, 'do this for me, or else, I will do that to you'. I think the threat was more of an implied general danger. In other words, it was a combination of the Voldemort, Harry's parents death, and the general state of the world that was the implied threat to Petunia. Since, it appeared that someone was trying to wipe out the Potter clan, and was likely to take the Evan clan out with it, Petunia had ample reason to be afraid; ample reason to feel threatened. I will admit, it may have been more paranoia than actual, but under the circumstances, a little paranoia is a prefectly reasonable response. I do think, that, while in the Dursley's house and on the Dursley's grounds (yard, garden, lawn,...) the umbrella of Harry's protection covers the Durselys, and that reasonable assumption could have been part of what swayed the Dursleys to take Harry in. Knowing that there was this Dark Wizard out there who had kill Petunia's sister, and knowing that taking Harry in would make the Dursley's a protected place, it's reasonable to extent that to the Dursleys thinking the protection of place would extent to them. It may or may not be true, but I can easily see the Dursleys reaching that logical conclusion. I'm really hoping in the next book, Harry forces Petunia to sit down and talk with him. I futher hope that Harry brow-beats her into showing him the original letter from Dumbledore. At least, once we see that letter, we'll have a better foundation to speculate from. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 00:36:04 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 16:36:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Support for the ESE Lupin theory! In-Reply-To: <003701c50a76$992e1540$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: <20050205003604.95601.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123938 --- Charme wrote: > Ok, so how could Snape know Lupin "forgot to take his potion" when > he "took a gobletful along"? Along to where? Lupin's office? > Snapey Poo is better than I thought: he must be able to predict > the future.... I mean, the last time we saw Lupin take the potion, > Harry was in attendance and Snape *brought* it to Lupin's office > for him to take. Yes, but that was early in the year and from Snape's comments at the time (about having made an entire cauldronful of the stuff) could have been the first portion of that month. I can certainly see Lupin being polite enough to go to Snape's office for the following evenings so that he can drink it. Also from Lupin's point of view, Snape walking through the corridors for a week every month with a smoking goblet to Lupin's office might cause unwelcome speculation... Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sat Feb 5 01:04:06 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 12:04:06 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Full Moon (was: Support for the ESE Lupin theory!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4204B636.334.601A74A@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 123939 On 4 Feb 2005 at 17:16, pippin_999 wrote: > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" > > Fact is, that the full moon rises at sunset (and sets at sunrise), > > give or take a few minutes depending on where you are in the > world. > > Pippin: > Yes and no. Shaun or one of our other astronomy buffs will set > me straight on this if I am wrong, but astronomically, the moon is > full only for a moment, which can be day or night depending on > where you are. Am I right? Yes, you are - but it's importantly to remember that depending on where you are the astronomical full moon may well be below the horizon in any given month (indeed, on average, pretty much half the time it will be). If you are in a region where in a particular month the astronomical full moon will be visible that month, then it will rise relatively near sunset and set relatively near sunrise. The closer the totality point is to your local midnight the closer the rise and set will match the rise and set of the sun. > Apparently he transforms for a period around when the moon is > full astronomically, and remains that way for some time -- > perhaps six hours to so since he has reverted to human form by > "firs' thing this mornin'". And it *is* important, because he > should have known, by the lunar chart, exactly when he was > going to transform. At least that's my explanation. It makes > sense of the canon and to borrow a phrase, I'm sticking to it. :) This is very hard to say. The lore of lycanthropy differs from source to source. Generally speaking, most sources seem to use the term full moon to describe a moon that looks full to the human eye. This is a different definition from the one astronomers use. Yes, we do have a point of totality, but really the difference between what the moon looks like 10 minutes before that point and at that point is only detectable by pretty fine work. For most purposes - including most mythical purposes - a 99% or a 98% or even a 95% full moon will be considered a full moon. Sometimes measures like 'the night before and after the night of totality' are also full moons. The implications for this in Harry Potter really are, that JKR can define things whichever way she likes. She can say the full moon is a three day period. She can say that the change to werewolf happens at the moment of totality and persists. In both these cases, Lupin should realistically know when it will happen. Or it may be that it happens when the light of the full moon (however defined) hits him. Or a combination - maybe he changes when the light of a nearly full moon hits him - but will change at the moment of totality, regardless. Science can be useful in looking at these things, as can real world legends, but in the final analysis, the author can set their own rules on this, of course. 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 Sat Feb 5 01:23:33 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 01:23:33 -0000 Subject: Harry as Job, Snape as the Satan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123940 snipping here and there: > Alla:> > Absolutely. It is an interpretation which I can totally see, > actually I can see it MUCH easier that Snape as "disciplining > parent" function in the text. Accuser, often an unfair accuser seems to suit him MUCH better. Potioncat: Yes, JKR has given him some sort of Accuser/enforcer/advosarial role in these books. I'm not sure we readers have figured it out yet. > Potioncat:(earlier) > Although the essay was very clear that it was the Hebrew "the Satan" that Snape was reflecting, in OoP I think he begins to look more like the Christian Satan. As the commentary in my version says, Satan was trying to create a wedge between Job and God. In fact as read the commentary, I thought, if JKR did either intentionally or subconsciously create Snape-as-Satan,(rather than Snape-as-the- Satan) then Snape's loyalty is still in question. > > Alla: > > You just had to do it, right? I told you that I am having my doubt > about Snape's loyalty to Light ONLY on my bad days and I thought > that today is the good one. :) > > That is another reason why i love talking to you so much - because > you are not afraid to play for other side temporarily. :) Potioncat: I think some of us at HPfGU have given so much thought to certain characters...be it Snape, Lupin, Black...that we forget we have theories, not canon. And just because we can back our ideas up with canon, doesn't mean we're right. Valid maybe, but not right. So I have to keep it in my mind, even if only in a small part, that Snape could turn out to be bad. > > Alla:> > > You know what I think? If indeed there are parallels between Harry > and Job, then I may get my wish for happy ending for Harry, or > relatively happy, since all Job had was taken away from him, but he > got more as new blessings, as fresh start. Potioncat: That's my hope as well...Trelawney will be right and he'll have 12 kids and a long life. Potioncat, thanking Alla for her kinds words From ellyn337 at earthlink.net Sat Feb 5 01:37:56 2005 From: ellyn337 at earthlink.net (mclellyn) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 01:37:56 -0000 Subject: What if the theme of Harry Potter were -- we are our own worst enemy? (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123941 Gadfly McLellyn wrote in #123800: This past summer I happened to come across the book MAN AND HIS SYMBOLS by Carl Gustav Jung. From that book I postulated the theory that the ending of the Harry Potter books would be that Harry Potter and Voldemort had to merge into one being (post 110941). Bethany wrote: I think your theory looks quite sound. I guess the only question I have for you would be.. what happens to Harry when/if he defeats Voldemort? Are you saying the "good" in their split would take over and Harry would be as he has always been? Vice versa if Voldemort were to defeat Harry would the "evil" in their split take over and Voldemort would be as he has always been? snip Gadfly McLellyn writes: I'm hoping there are some Jung experts out there who will make this clearer than I can. I just stumbled onto this book. I'm a very analytical person not an analyst, but I will try to explain as best I can. I think that Harry will assimilate Voldemort's power and qualities. According to Jung, this will promote growth and creativity -- think Dumbledore and the Weasley twins. In my other long, hard-to-read post 110941 it goes into this a bit. I believe what Jung is saying is if you do not know yourself then you act out in self-defeating ways. I think most us have seen this in other people. As much as we would like to think we do not have Voldemort/or Harry (depending on your point of view) qualities, we do and in order to be mentally healthy we have to acknowledge them to be able to focus them creatively. Some quotes about the forces of opposites from MAN AND HIS SYMBOLS: "(Greek thinkers) postulated the existence of a sort of life-giving "tension" (tonos), which supports and moves all things." p306 . "for Jung saw that the relationship between the conscious and unconscious mind also forms a complementary pair of opposites." pg 308 "This is that every personification of the unconscious--the shadow......, and the Self -- has both a light and a dark aspect. We saw before that the shadow may be base or evil, an instinctive drive that one ought to overcome. It may, however, be an impulse toward growth that one should cultivate and follow. In the same way the anima and animus have dual aspects: they can bring life-giving development and creativeness to the personality, or they can cause petrification and physical death." page 216. "We can also see that the arrangement of archetypal symbols follows a pattern of wholeness in the individual, and that an appropriate understanding of the symbols can have a healing effect. And we can see that the archetypes can act as creative or destructive forces in our mind; creative when they inspire new ideas, destructive when these same ideas stiffen into conscious prejudices that inhibit further discoveries." pg 304. I believe both Dumbledore and the Weasley twins exhibit the creativeness in the last two quotes, and I believe that is the journey Harry is heading for. In the Weasley twins, the pair of opposites leading to creativity is shown in GOBLET OF FIRE p566 when they are arguing about blackmailing Ludo Bagman for not paying them in real gold. This is "....when the conscious and unconscious have learned to live at peace and to complement one another." p14 Introduction MAN AND HIS SYMBOLS. The twins are mischievous like their hero Dumbledore, but they know where that line is. Their joke shop creativity is also an example of when the dual aspects of the personality that brings "life-giving development and creativeness to the personality". p216 The Weasley twins consciousness and unconsciouness are in balance and it has brought them success. That is what will happen to Harry when he acknowledges/assimilates Voldemort. Does that help? Gadfly McLellyn From ellyn337 at earthlink.net Sat Feb 5 01:47:51 2005 From: ellyn337 at earthlink.net (mclellyn) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 01:47:51 -0000 Subject: What if the theme of Harry Potter were -- we are our own worst enemy? (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123942 Gadfly McLellyn wrote: I believe we see this evil being a collaborating power in Dumbledore. He has a frightening and powerful rage that we see in PHOENIX, "An awful voice filled the kitchen, echoing in the confined space, issuing from the burning letter on the table. "REMEMBER MY LAST, PETUNIA." (p 40). Later in the book, "He was so angry," Hermione in an almost awestruck voice. "Dumbledore. We saw him. When he found out Mundungus had left before his shift had ended. He was scary." (p 64). I believe these awful and scary parts of Dumbledore are the Grindelwald within - so to speak. Carol responds: "Awful" is one of many words whose meaning has diminished or degenerated within the last century or so. It's mostly used colloquially to mean "disgusting" or "bad"--"that medicine tastes awful," "that was an awful movie," etc. We seldom use it to mean something really terrible or horrible: "Aren't those Dementors awful?" The word, which *used* to mean "inspiring awe," now means something closer to "yucky." Its use in that sense trivializes the truly terrible or horrible. But the primary meaning of "awful" is neither terrible nor bad in this trivial sense but "inspiring awe." During your whole post all I could think of was Mr Ollivander saying to Harry SS/PS p 85, "After all, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things -- terrible, yes, but great." Terrible things inspire awe too. Gadfly McLellyn From ms-tamany at rcn.com Sat Feb 5 02:40:56 2005 From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 21:40:56 -0500 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4203EBE8.6591.A35C2F7@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 123943 Okay, so I am honestly confused here. I just cannot understand this. Maybe someone can help me? My problem is . . . HOW can anyone POSSIBLY be confused about the Time Turner? It's so simple and straightforward, after all. Everything happens as it happens, as it has always happened, as it will always happen; nobody changes anything, nobody *can* change anything -- 'Time' only happens once, no matter how many times a character travels through it. All a Time Turning character can do is what he's already done, so what *IS* the big confusion? There is no 'first time/second time' of anything -- it's all THE ONLY TIME. Different perspectives from different trips through 'time' bring light to different parts of the incident, but it's all THE ONLY TIME, and anything that happens is what has always happened and what will always happen. It's *SO SIMPLE*! Harry and Hermione saved Sirius and Buckbeak because they saved Sirius and Buckbeak. Buckbeak had never been killed; they didn't CHANGE the outcome of the executioner's visit -- they'd already rescued Buckbeak before the executioner had come out to kill him. Harry saved himself and Sirius from the dementors at the lake because he saved himself and Sirius from the dementors at the lake. Hermione couldn't go back and take the charms class she had missed because she had missed it. Nobody can TimeTurn back to save Sirius at the MoM, because Sirius *DID* fall through the Veil, nothing can change that, and any attempts to change it will still only result in what has already happened, because any attempts to go back and change it will have already been incorporated into what has already happened, because it HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. Simple. Straightforward. Why, oh WHY, do people get confused over it? I just don't understand that. There *IS* no paradox, no matter how you look at it. And before anyone brings up Hermione's thing with wizards who had killed their past or future selves, my take on that is simple -- she's very bright, she reads a lot more than I do (and I have two or three books-in-progress in every room of the house), but she's also under a lot of pressure during the year of PoA, and under conditions of near-hysteria (her panic over missing class) and constant sleep deprivation (remember, they often stay up past midnight working on homework, which she's done TWICE as much of, in TWICE as much time, and she doesn't Time Turn for more sleep), and in cases like that, the brain simply wouldn't always correlate data properly. Anything she quotes as simple fact must be looked at with that possibility, that she MIGHT have been just a LITTLE bit confused *that year*. Sure, wizards could kill their future selves, but not their past selves. I think she read in the book that wizards had experienced their future selves being killed BY their past selves. The danger isn't to the timeline (nothing can change what has already happened), but to the wizards themselves. I mean, YOU try staying up for 24 hours straight, getting maybe four to six hours sleep, and doing it all over again, day in, day out, for ten months, while also making sure that NOBODY catches on to what you're doing, and see if YOU don't make a mistake or two with your fact-retention. As for the idea of Time Turning back to GH to affect (as in 'exert influence on') the events there, or even to effect (as in 'cause to happen') the events there . . . well, from what we know of TTs, they move you backwards in time. That's it. From there, you have to trudge forwards in time the same way as everyone else does. So, while it would be practically impossible to TT back in time to the events at GH (does anyone think they could possibly keep track of how many hours that is, and therefore how many turns of the TT it would take), it is not theoretically impossible to TT back there. But it wouldn't change anything at GH, it would simply be what had already happened, and whoever DID try to TT back to GH would be faced with re-living the years between then and now, and not being able to make ANY changes for that whole time, because whatever they did on their second trip through the intervening years had already happened anyway. *** Tammy Rizzo (as opposed to the other Tammy, who's not me) ms-tamany at rcn.com Want to back-up your expensive DVDs? Check out DVD Wizard Pro: http://www.dvdwizardpro.com/idevaffiliate/idevaffiliate.php?id=398 Want to earn a Sony Vaio for only $5? Check out EZ Laptop: http://www.ezlaptop.com/index.php?ref=8574 From lexical74 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 02:48:33 2005 From: lexical74 at yahoo.com (Brian Brinkman) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 02:48:33 -0000 Subject: Lexical Semantics Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123944 Again and again, I'm amazed at the sophistication demonstrated by some members of this board, only because they touch on things that people write dissertations on! In this case, I'm thinking of lexical semantics. What does JKR mean when she uses the word "awful" to describe the voice that issues from the Howler? My leaning (and it's only that) is that she means "awful" as in [+terrifying]. Early in OOTP Hermione gives a description of DD that backs this up: "He was so angry," said Hermione in an almost awestruck voice. "Dumbledore. We saw him. When he found out Mundungus had left before his shift had ended. He was scary." Dumbledore ain't no saint. He's the epitome of goodness, but he's still human. Brian B. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 03:32:59 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 03:32:59 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error so far (was: Harry's last 'living' relatives?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123945 SSSusan: Now *there's* a thread I could sink my teeth into. I don't agree with Eggplant that this is JKR's Single Biggest Error, but I can't say that right off the top of my head I'd be able to put forth what I think that SBE was. I would really enjoy seeing other people's nominations. Anybody been dying to get an SBE nomination off his/her chest?? Alla: Well, for the biggest inconsistency in the plot, I guess I have to say non-use of Veritaserum at Sirius' trial . Sure, tightly regulated drug and all that, but if not at such trial then when exactly is it supposed to be used? Is that the type of error you meant, Susan or were you just asking about ANY Flint? Oh, and I would like to disagree with the the assertion that Time - turner introduction was a mistake PER SE. I consider it to be one of most flawless, elegant introduction of the time-travel theme in the fantasy books EVER. JMO, Alla From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 03:39:19 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 03:39:19 -0000 Subject: Full Moon - A Rant About Lycantrophy Symptoms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123946 > Renee: > Here I was, going to leave this subject alone for a change, but > apparently I can't help myself. > > Apparently, JKR hasn't put much thought into handling this werewolf > transformation business in such a way that it makes sense - from not > checking any lunar charts to remaining vague about the Wolfsbane > regime. From which I deduce that the details surrounding Lupin's > lycanthropy aren't very important in the overal story arc, and that > it's not particularly meaningful to attach too much significance to > them. Neri: Renee, I agree with all my heart that JKR didn't put much thought into the whole transformation thing, which most probably means it's not something important in the story. I once got very interested with Potterverse lycanthropy and did a full research on Lupin's symptoms. A lot of wasted time. What was I thinking? That I'm going to discover the cure for lycanthropy and win myself an Order of Merlin? Anyway, after a lot of work I had to stop because too many things just didn't add up. This unfinished research was gathering virtual dust in my hard disk for many months now, and I think I'm going to publish a synopsis now in the form of a rant. And I'm not even going to bother with annotated quotes, so you'll have to take my word for it or go and look it up for yourself, if you don't have a better way to waste your weekend. You see, I started by asking a very simple, in fact an elementary question: When, in the phase of his illness, does Lupin appears ill? In the days just before the transformation? After it? For this I needed to track his transformations over the school year, and immediately I ran into the first flint. Looking at the calendar of any year, from Halloween (Oct 31) to Christmas (Dec 25) there are 55 days. A lunar cycle (as Renee mentioned) is between 29 and 30 days. In Halloween day Harry sees Lupin taking his potion, but Lupin still appears in good health and shows up for the Halloween feast that night. So this must be during the week before his transformation (Lupin tells us in the Shack that he has to take the potion for a week before the full moon). And indeed, several days after Halloween (I couldn't find exactly how many from the text, but definitely more than two days) Snape substitutes for Lupin in DADA. Up until here everything fits. But in Christmas Lupin isn't present at the feast, and from DD's comments it's clear that this is the night of his transformation. This just won't work. The 55 days between Halloween and Christmas are a bit less than two lunar cycles. If Lupin indeed transformed in Dec 25, his previous transformation (the memorable Snape substitution) should have been in Nov 26, which is almost four weeks, not seven days, after Halloween, and the transformation before that would have been Oct 28, which is BEFORE Halloween. So why is Lupin taking his potion in Halloween's day??? If OTOH you assume that at Halloween it was indeed sometime during the week before transformation, and start counting from there, it means that the transformation in which Snape substituted for him was between Nov 1 and Nov 6, so there was another transformation we are not told about sometime between Nov 30 and Dec 5, and so at Christmas, when he doesn't make it for the feast, Lupin should still be several days before his next transformation (Dec 29 the earliest, but probably later). This inconsistency immediately foiled my plans to have a nice sample of transformation dates for concluding at what phase of the moon Lupin is sickly. So I just gave up the Christmas transformation as a flint and went for the Halloween case, because it is much more detailed. So in Halloween Lupin is during the week before his transformation, Harry sees him taking the Wolfsbane Potion during the day, and in the evening at the Halloween feast he looks "as well as he ever did" and "talking animatedly" with Flitwick. Several days later he is "indisposed" and Snape substitutes for him in DADA. Several additional days after that he shows up for his class, but he looks very ill. So this means that whenever Lupin looks ill, it is during several days AFTER his transformation. Sounds logical, right? A transformation must be a very tiring an unhealthy experience. This would imply that at the start of the school year at the Hogwarts Express, when Lupin appeared very unwell (at one point the trio were afraid he's dead!), he was just after his transformation. Several days after the Hogwarts Express, during his first DADA class (the boggart lesson) he is already looking much better, "as if he had several square meals". But very frustratingly, having a transformation a day or two before Sep 1, the canon date for the Hogwarts Express, fits PERFECTLY (exactly four lunar cycles) with the Christmas transformation, the one I already had to discard as a flint. But if you count backward from the week-after-Halloween transformation (the one from which it is possible to conclude that Lupin feels ill after the transformation) you'll find that at the Hogwarts Express (Sep 1) he was in the week BEFORE his transformation. Nothing adds up. At this point I realized that I won't be awarded the Order of Merlin any time soon, nor am I going to astound the members of HPfGU with a well annotated and dated study of Lycanthropy symptoms. So I set my sights lower, gave up on the transformations during the school year as a one big flint, and went straight for the famous and detailed transformation at the night of the Shrieking Shack. Does Lupin appear ill before this transformation, or after it? Well, it certainly doesn't look like it was before. The day of the transformation night Lupin is well enough to conduct the DADA final exam. We aren't specifically told how he looks like, but the exam includes several dark creatures, and we know that not all the students were up to handling all of them, so good shape seems to be required from the teacher. And Lupin sounds quite cheerful when he commends Harry for his success in the exam. Aha! So he must be ill in the days after the transformation. Right? Wrong. In the very day after the transformation night, when he is supposed to be exhausted, Lupin resigns and during his whole talk with Harry, in which we get plenty of information about his manner, he is never described as tired, sickly or weak, although this would have fitted very well with the tone of the conversation. It is almost expected that JKR would use here words like "pallid", "exhausted" and "old", in order to play on our sympathy for Lupin, but she doesn't. At the end of this conversation Lupin says to DD "there is no need to see me to the gates, I can manage ", and leaves the room carrying both his suitcase and the empty grindylow tank. Neither DD nor the sympathetic Harry feel that he'll need any help carrying these all the way around the lake to the gate. So in fact, around the most famous transformation of the year, Lupin is NEVER described as looking ill. Hey (I thought to myself). This might be a clue! What was special about this last transformation? Lupin forgot to take his potion! He had a good fight with Padfoot and a run around the grounds instead of curling in his office. So maybe it is not his lycanthropy at all that makes Lupin feel ill. It's side effects of the Wolfsbane Potion! Not an Order of Merlin size discovery, to be sure, but might I still scrub an article in the Salem Medical Journal? Nope. This doesn't work either. Because in Snape's Pensieve memory in OotP, many years before the Wolfsbane Potion was even invented, young Remus is already looking "peaky", and Harry thinks the full moon might be approaching. In fact, pensieve!Remus looking ill during the days BEFORE his transformation is also suggested by pensieve!Sirius wishing it would be full moon already. And this of course is a glaring contradiction with the well-documented week-after-Halloween transformation above. As I say, nothing adds up. JKR can't even decide in what phase of the moon Lupin appears ill. And you won't catch me studying Potterverse lycantrophy with a ten feet pole, even if I get a thousand galleons grant from the Lexicon. Neri From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sat Feb 5 04:05:07 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 23:05:07 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's Single Biggest Error so far (was: Harry's last ... Message-ID: <1d6.35d9b10a.2f359ff3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123947 In a message dated 2/4/2005 10:37:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com writes: Well, for the biggest inconsistency in the plot, I guess I have to say non-use of Veritaserum at Sirius' trial . Sure, tightly regulated drug and all that, but if not at such trial then when exactly is it supposed to be used? ============ Sherrie here: They couldn't use Veritaserum at Sirius' trial - there WAS no trial. Crouch had him sent to Azkaban without even a sham trial. Sherrie "We cannot escape history." - Abraham Lincoln [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 04:10:11 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 04:10:11 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error so far (was: Harry's last ... In-Reply-To: <1d6.35d9b10a.2f359ff3@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123948 Alla: Well, for the biggest inconsistency in the plot, I guess I have to say non-use of Veritaserum at Sirius' trial . Sure, tightly regulated drug and all that, but if not at such trial then when exactly is it supposed to be used? Sherrie here: They couldn't use Veritaserum at Sirius' trial - there WAS no trial. Crouch had him sent to Azkaban without even a sham trial. Alla: Yes, I know. Sorry for being unclear - what I meant is using veritaserum when they tried to figure out whether Sirius was guilty or innocent. I at least hope they conducted SOME sort of investigation, because Dumbledore did testify at some kind of hearing. Although, I suppose if Dumbledore gave "evidence" of Sirius' guilt, they did not bother with Veritaserum. I still consider it to be very inconsistent. JMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 04:53:09 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 04:53:09 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error so far (was: Harry's last 'living' relatives?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123949 >>Alla: >Well, for the biggest inconsistency in the plot, I guess I have to say non-use of Veritaserum at Sirius' trial . Sure, tightly regulated drug and all that, but if not at such trial then when exactly is it supposed to be used?< Betsy: I'm rereading GoF and I ran across this passage: "D'you know Crouch, then?" said Harry. [...] "Oh I know Crouch all right," [Sirius] said quietly. "He was the one who gave the order for me to be sent to Azkaban -- without a trial." "*What?*" said Ron and Hermione together. "You're kidding!" said Harry. "No, I'm not," said Sirius... (GoF Scholastic Hardback p. 526) So without a trial there was no opportunity for Veritaserum to be used. And once Sirius was in Azkaban -- that was it. No appeals, no second chances, and a steady descent into madness. Sirius didn't stand a chance. (And there was no opportunity for him to claim innocence, so no chance of any doubt amongst his friends. Actually, I think JKR was pretty tight with this particular story line.) Betsy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 04:59:12 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 04:59:12 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error so far (was: Harry's last 'living' relatives?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123950 Alla: Well, for the biggest inconsistency in the plot, I guess I have to say non-use of Veritaserum at Sirius' trial . Sure, tightly regulated drug and all that, but if not at such trial then when exactly is it supposed to be used?< Betsy: I'm rereading GoF and I ran across this passage: "D'you know Crouch, then?" said Harry. [...] "Oh I know Crouch all right," [Sirius] said quietly. "He was the one who gave the order for me to be sent to Azkaban -- without a trial." > "*What?*" said Ron and Hermione together. > > "You're kidding!" said Harry. > > "No, I'm not," said Sirius... > > (GoF Scholastic Hardback p. 526) > So without a trial there was no opportunity for Veritaserum to be used. And once Sirius was in Azkaban -- that was it. No appeals, no second chances, and a steady descent into madness. Sirius didn't stand a chance. (And there was no opportunity for him to claim innocence, so no chance of any doubt amongst his friends. Actually, I think JKR was pretty tight with this particular story line.) Alla: Unless Sirius was sent in Azkaban right away, there was a possibility to use veritaserum - since as I said in my previous post, they did have time to conduct some kind of the hearing,where Albus testified ( it is possible of course that they conducted such hearin with Sirius already in Azkaban . WW justice system does make me cringe quite often) Besides, Albus sure did not hesitate to use veritaserum on Crouch Jr., in times of great need. JMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 05:03:59 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 05:03:59 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error so far (was: Harry's last ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123951 >>Sherrie here: >They couldn't use Veritaserum at Sirius' trial - there WAS no trial. Crouch had him sent to Azkaban without even a sham trial.< >>Alla: >Yes, I know. Sorry for being unclear - what I meant is using veritaserum when they tried to figure out whether Sirius was guilty or innocent. I at least hope they conducted SOME sort of investigation, because Dumbledore did testify at some kind of hearing. >Although, I suppose if Dumbledore gave "evidence" of Sirius' guilt, they did not bother with Veritaserum. I still consider it to be very inconsistent.< Betsy: Heh. I guess Sherrie and I posted at about the same time? But I have a question for you Alla - why do you think Dumbledore gave any kind of testimony in regards to Sirius being innocent or guilty? I have it my head that Sirius is captured at the explosion scene, covered in dirt and blood, with witnesses to Peter's accusation, and he's laughing. So he's dragged into Crouch's presence (or maybe someone just floo's Crouch?) and Crouch is all, "Throw him in Azkaban, and loose the key!" and that's the end for Sirius. Is there anything that suggests a calm discussion of fact went on? Betsy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 05:12:43 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 05:12:43 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error so far (was: Harry's last ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123952 Betsy: Heh. I guess Sherrie and I posted at about the same time? But I have a question for you Alla - why do you think Dumbledore gave any kind of testimony in regards to Sirius being innocent or guilty? I have it my head that Sirius is captured at the explosion scene, covered in dirt and blood, with witnesses to Peter's accusation, and he's laughing. So he's dragged into Crouch's presence (or maybe someone just floo's Crouch?) and Crouch is all, "Throw him in Azkaban, and loose the key!" and that's the end for Sirius. Is there anything that suggests a calm discussion of fact went on? Alla: What do you mean, "why do I think that Dumbledore gave the testimony?" It is not me, it is canon, which gives us the reason to think if not for sure, but at least with a big possibility that some kind of hearing occurred ( with or without Sirius) "I myself gave the evidence to the Ministry that Sirius had been Potters' Secret Keeper" - PoA, p.392, paperback. Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 05:56:28 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 05:56:28 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error so far (was: Harry's last ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123954 >>Alla: >What do you mean, "why do I think that Dumbledore gave the testimony?" >It is not me, it is canon, which gives us the reason to think if not for sure, but at least with a big possibility that some kind of hearing occurred ( with or without Sirius) >"I myself gave the evidence to the Ministry that Sirius had been Potters' Secret Keeper" - PoA, p.392, paperback.< Betsy: Thanks! :) That's exactly what I was looking for, because I didn't remember Dumbledore saying anything about testifing. So that clarifies things. But, Dumbledore doesn't say that he gave that evidence at a trial. Perhaps the evidence was given when the Ministry was trying to figure out who betrayed the Potters, in other words, who they needed to hunt down. I'm sure Dumbledore was questioned fairly quickly (maybe the same morning Petunia found Harry on her doorstep?) and then the manhunt was on to find Sirius. And then he was found with a bunch of dead Muggles and Peter's finger, and was thrown into Azakaban and that was that. Crouch was happy, and Sirius was screwed. I get the feeling that the Potter's were fairly well liked within the WW. So I imagine there was an outcry when they were killed, and so I'm betting there was a lot of pressure on the Ministry to take immediate action, and so I think there was very little that could be done for Sirius once he was in the Ministy's clutches. Plus, the circumstantial evidence looked really, really bad. Plus, Sirius came from a long line of dark wizards and his own brother was a Death Eater, so I'm sure public opinion was way against him. And everyone loved Crouch, because he appeared to be doing something. So I'm betting that once Sirius was in Azkaban, nothing was getting him out. And he could have screamed his innocence to the guards, but the Dementors wouldn't have cared, and I think you need special Ministry permission to visit prisoners, and Dumbledore, much as we love him, doesn't seem popular with authority 'cause he's such a loose cannon, so once that file was neatly closed, I think it was all over. Which a really long babble-y way of saying, Sirius had no trial, no hearing, no meeting, no discussions. He went straight from blown-up Muggles to jail. Do not pass Go. Betsy, who is exhausted (see babble) and will now go to bed and apologizes if she came across snippy, cause she really, really didn't mean to. :) From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 06:26:07 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 06:26:07 -0000 Subject: Severus and the DADA exam /James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123957 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123958 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: Betsy: > I get the feeling that the Potter's were fairly well liked within > the WW. So I imagine there was an outcry when they were killed, > and so I'm betting there was a lot of pressure on the Ministry to > take immediate action, and so I think there was very little that > could be done for Sirius once he was in the Ministy's clutches. > Plus, the circumstantial evidence looked really, really bad. Plus, > Sirius came from a long line of dark wizards and his own brother > was a Death Eater, so I'm sure public opinion was way against him. > And everyone loved Crouch, because he appeared to be doing > something. So I'm betting that once Sirius was in Azkaban, nothing > was getting him out. Geoff: This reminds me of some of the events in the UK when the IRA problem was at its worst in the middle to late 1970s. There were a number of high-profile attacks which roused public fury. There were demands that the police "do something" and various people were arrested, tried and sent to prison. The flip side was that, certainly in the 1990s, quite a number of these prisoners were released because of retrials when evidence was being found to be flawed, including forensic evidence covered up or ignored and some police forces had been offering flimsy or "doctored" submissions to the courts. The result is that there is often suspicion in the UK over cases, not necessarily IRA related, in which there seems to be conflicting views. Fudge is very much a spin doctor and I read it that he wanted to be seen to be actively producing results and also maintaining a populist public image. After all, he sems to have been a second choice for teh job after Dumbledore indicates a lack of interest. From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 08:00:14 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 08:00:14 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI. The Dursleys or the WW? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123959 Phoenixgod2000 wrote: If the Dursleys were the best that Dumbldore can do, then he suffered a failure of imagination, IMO. He's a wizard for merlins sake! In the end I do think we're going to get only what we've gotten so far, that it was 'the only way' end of story. Harry is going to plaster on his stiff upper lip and go forth to kick V's behind. I think JK is simply too wedded to her Cinderella begining for Harry to have used any other mechanism for his begining which means DD is forced to look bad. vmonte responds: Unless it was Snape who swayed Dumbledore into sending Harry to the Dursleys. 'You know headmaster, perhaps Potter would be safer if he were placed with his aunt in a muggle neighborhood. A modest upringing may do him some good. You do remember, headmaster, the arrogance of his father. A liitle humility may foster in Harry some compassion for others. Lily seems to have benefitted from a muggle upbringing, blah, blah, blah...' From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 08:04:13 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 08:04:13 -0000 Subject: Severus and the DADA exam. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123960 SirEggplant wrote: ius's prank could have happened before the pensive memory. vmonte responds: I don't think so. Harry actually mentions during "Snape's Worst Memory" that Lupin was looking strange and he wondered whether the full moon was approaching. I think the prank happened that night after finals. From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 12:14:44 2005 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 12:14:44 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: <4203EBE8.6591.A35C2F7@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123961 Tammy Rizzo wrote: >>> HOW can anyone POSSIBLY be confused about the Time Turner? It's so simple and straightforward, after all. Everything happens as it happens, as it has always happened, as it will always happen; nobody changes anything, nobody *can* change anything-- 'Time' only happens once, no matter how many times a character travels through it. All a Time Turning character can do is what he's already done, so what *IS* the big confusion? There is no 'first time/second time' of anything -- it's all THE ONLY TIME. Different perspectives from different trips through 'time' bring light to different parts of the incident, but it's all THE ONLY TIME, and anything that happens is what has always happened and what will always happen. It's *SO SIMPLE*! >>> Laurasia replies: Whilst I realise that you were asking a rhetorical question, the question certainly persists. Why is there no unanimous understanding of Potterverse Time Travel? There are many stories involving Time Travel that employ the device differently, but usually in a self-consistent manner. So whilst the time travel in 'Harry Potter' is inconsistent with 'Back to the Future' (and we don't expect any consistency) is there an internal inconsistency that is enabling multiple interpretations of it? The problem, I think, is choice. JKR has spent a good deal of time showing us the importance of choices. And she gets the most credible, experienced and wise character she has (Dumbledore) spout freewill/choice rhetoric at regular intervals. In which case, mustn't time be malleable? If JKR wanted to prove to us that every character has freedom of choice, mustn't she be showing us a version of Time Travel where characters go back and radically change past events? Undoing outcomes; changing events to their own choosing; creating a history that follows their conscious decisions instead of tolerating the events as they are throw at them. But she doesn't. Instead JKR shows us Hermione hiding behind Hagrid's Hut pleading with Harry that he *CANNOT* burst in and seize Pettigrew! Why is Harry's freedom of choice so resolutely BLOCKED? Why not send Harry and Hermione *4* *turns* back so they can nip down to Hagrid's ahead of time and whisk Wormtail out of the jug? JKR shows us a pair of feet and a door slamming in the Entrance Hall 3 hours before Harry and Hermione leave to make them. We have seen the _cause_ shown before the _effect_. The normal understanding is that cause must always come before effect. Until we see and experience the cause, the effect cannot exist. Until we see Harry *go* back in time, he cannot already *be* back in time. The only way we can see effect *before* cause is if Time is predefined. If Time is fixed then order isn't important. If Time is fixed then the future is not dependant on the past. Time and cause-and-effect could flow backwards or forwards or back and forth because the future isn't defined by actions in the past- it has already been decided. If Time is fixed, then it makes perfectly plausible to see the effects of Harry and Hermione's Time Travelling before we see the cause of it. But, back to choice. How the hell can Time exist in a predefined fashion if JKR's most significant theme is that it is our choices who define who we are? *THAT* makes apparently no sense, right? A fluid, malleable, repeatable version of Time means freedom, right? A fixed rigid version of Time would lack choice, right? Malleable Time enables indefinite changes. Time would be endlessly repeatable, instead of unique. Choices are diminished because of their abundance. Nothing that you choose to alter in Time really matters because you can always go back and change it later or erase it entirely. If you can always go back and change you mind, why bother stressing the importance of making the best choice? In this version of Time Travel, choices are largely irrelevant, because they are so reversible. At the end of his fifth year, Harry *chose* to 'rescue' Sirius, Sirius *chose* to go to Harry's aid. These choices lead to Sirius' death. If Harry finds a Time-Turner and makes 84 attempts of engineering a scenario that doesn't involve Sirius' death, won't that undermine the other 83 attempts, not to mention the original choices he and Sirius made? Won't it mean that no choice has consequence? Alternatively, is a fixed rigid version of Time lacking in choice? It is certainly unique, which means choices can't be undone which increases their significance. That would account for Dumbledore's emphasis on the importance of choices. The problem is that it has to be *fixed* in order to know effect before cause. BUT, why is this logic never wheeled out to contradict the presence of Prophecies? Isn't a Prophecy proof that a future event is known before the cause of it has come into play? Is it because Prophecies work in vague and cryptic ways? Is it because there is only a mystic voice telling you what the future holds, instead of a character's own memory and eyes? Is it because a Prophecy is only appears as a guide, not an indisputable fact? What does "fixed" mean anyway? Does "fixed" mean no character chooses their own actions, or does it mean the just aren't aware of their choices yet, but Time is (magically...)? I think the reason why there is no unanimous understanding of Time Travel in the Potterverse is because there are many version of Time Travel to begin with, and because there is an apparent discrepancy between JKR's most visible theme of freewill and Time Travel. In order to resolve this discrepancy I suppose we might interpret Time Travel as more Prophecy-like: a guide, not a rigid demand. That is, Harry has no choice about things he *knows* happened (Pettigrew was in the milk jug), but he has normal choice over the things he doesn't (a swish and a thud does not ensure an execution). In this way, we could still see effect before cause without annihilating choice and without making All Time predefined. All it would mean is that what a Time-Traveller observed from their original point of view must be protected. This does not portray the entire system of Time as rigid or fixed, it just makes personal awareness and knowledge the most important factor in making a choice. Knowledge and experience create freedom of choice, not a fun toy around your neck. I don't think there is any thematic consistency with an endlessly repeatable version of Time because it eliminates repercussions by giving each Time-Traveller the opportunity to change any action indefinitely. Just as a perfectly predefined system of Time has obvious flaws as well. Of course, JKR doesn't explain it this way at all, except to say 'I knew I could do it this time because I'd already done it...' ;-) ~<(Laurasia)>~ Off to shut up about Time Travel for another 18 months. From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Sat Feb 5 12:56:01 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 07:56:01 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Severus and the DADA exam. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200502050756773.SM01080@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 123962 > SirEggplant wrote: > ius's prank could have happened before the pensive memory. > > vmonte responds: > I don't think so. Harry actually mentions during "Snape's > Worst Memory" that Lupin was looking strange and he wondered > whether the full moon was approaching. I think the prank > happened that night after finals. Vivamus: Oh ho! I think you might have hit on it! Harry never got to the "worst memory." He only got as far as the taunting scene, but the adult SS interrupted him before he got any farther. The pensieve "worst memory" sequence actually goes on through that evening, with Sirius suckering SS into chasing a werewolf, and SS realizing he was about to be eaten, and rescued -- heroically -- by the boy he most despised in the whole world, leaving him forever in the debt of the man he most hated. When Harry asked DD about SS's feelings towards James, DD did tell him that James did something SS could never forgive -- he saved his life. In your other very interesting comment, vmonte, you said > I find it hard to believe that this is Snape's worst memory > (watching or participating in the torture of other people is > not his worst memories though). JKR also lets us see other > humiliating childhood memories of Snape, but Snape doesn't > even react to Harry seeing these, That's bizzare.) I think it could indeed be his worst memory, to be hung upside-down in front of a bunch of girls and have his pants pulled off by his worst enemy. The other thing that would make this his worst memory is if he were in fact in love with Lily Evans. Then it could be either (1) being hung up in the air with his pants pulled down in front of *her*, or (2) his calling her a mudblood, or (3) her calling him Snivellus, or (4) this is the point at which he finally realizes he has lost all chance with her forever. Any one of those could have stayed with him and haunted him. As to SS planting the memory in the pensieve, I don't think it fits the context. This was the only Occlumency lesson in which they were interrupted and SS had to go out and leave Harry alone. It was because they had found Montague, and DU wanted SS's help, so it wasn't something contrived. SS also seems to be filled with rage. Here is the scene: There was another flash of light, and Snape was once again hanging upside-down in the air. 'Who wants to see me take off Snivelly's pants?' But whether James really did take off Snapes pants, Harry never found out. A hand had closed tight over his upper arm, closed with a pincer-like grip. Wincing, Harry looked round to see who had hold of him, and saw, with a thrill of horror, a fully grown, adult-sized Snape standing right beside him, white with rage. 'Having fun?' Harry felt himself rising into the air; the summer's day evaporated around him; he was floating upwards through icy blackness, Snape's hand still tight upon his upper arm. Then, with a swooping feeling as though he had turned head-over-heels in midair, his feet hit the stone floor of Snape's dungeon and he was standing again beside the Pensieve on Snape's desk in the shadowy, present-day Potion masters study. 'So,' said Snape, gripping Harry's arm so tightly Harry's hand was starting to feel numb. 'So. been enjoying yourself, Potter?' 'N-no,' said Harry, trying to free his arm. It was scary: Snape's lips were shaking, his face was white, his teeth were bared. 'Amusing man, your father, wasn't he?' said Snape, shaking Harry so hard his glasses slipped down his nose. 'I - didn't -' Snape threw Harry from him with all his might. Harry fell hard on to the dungeon floor. 'You will not repeat what you saw to anybody!' Snape bellowed. 'No,' said Harry, getting to his feet as far from Snape as he could. 'No, of course I w-' 'Get out, get out, I don't want to see you in this office ever again!' I don't think SS was acting; I think he did not want Harry to see that memory. But MAYBE it was the later part of it -- with the Prank -- that made it the worst memory. Vivamus From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Feb 5 13:27:52 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 13:27:52 -0000 Subject: Severus and the DADA exam. In-Reply-To: <200502050756773.SM01080@devbox> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123963 > Vivamus wrote: > The pensieve "worst memory" sequence actually goes on through that evening, with Sirius suckering SS into chasing a werewolf, and SS realizing he was about to be eaten, and rescued -- heroically -- by the boy he most despised in the whole world, leaving him forever in the debt of the man he most hated. > Valky (just quickly before I read the rest of your post Vivamaus): Now, THAT! I CAN believe might be called "Snapes Worst Memory". From silvanaroven at yahoo.de Fri Feb 4 23:48:17 2005 From: silvanaroven at yahoo.de (Silvana Roven) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 00:48:17 +0100 Subject: AW: JKR's Single Biggest Error In-Reply-To: <1107548978.30943.61639.m23@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123964 > Vivamus: > All right, I'll bite, but my nomination is a group of errors. > Ignorance of snakes. > Silvana: Indeed, we do not know, what kind of snake nagini is. I think, nagini MUST be a magical creature. And - as it already was stated some weeks ago - "Nagini" is the name of a kind of Snake-Goddess! So in my opinion it *could* be possible, if Nagini *was* able to bite Arthur more like a dog rather than a snake. And perhaps she *has* not only two fangs. Only JKR knows. ;-) Think of the other creatures she made up! IMO this woman has a really brilliant imagination. > Vivamus: > (The > full moon rising much later than sunset is, of course, an error, and I did > not catch that one at all.) > Silvana: If the moon rises at sunset it is purely by chance! I agree with Pippin. Technically the Full Moon does not need to be full at moonrise [although it might already occour (to our eyes) to be]. You can determine the exactly minute of the Full Moon astronomically. For example: I live in Germany and Luna will happen to be full next time on Thursday, 2005-02-24 at 05:52 am. BUT she rises on Wednesday, 2005-02-23 at 04:58 pm and sets on Thursday, 2005-02-24 at 07:15 am. So she has plenty of time "pretending" to be full... I think, this actually *is*, what happened in POA. Greetings from Germany Silvana From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 08:41:40 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 08:41:40 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI. The Dursleys or the WW? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123965 > Phoenixgod2000 wrote: > If the Dursleys were the best that Dumbldore can do, then he > suffered a failure of imagination, IMO. He's a wizard for merlins > sake! > vmonte responds: > Unless it was Snape who swayed Dumbledore into sending Harry to the > Dursleys. I don't think that Snape at this point has much sway on Dumbledore. He's only been teaching for 1-2 years, he's very young, his grudge against James is probably still nice and hot. I don't think DD is going to be swayed by, of all people, Snape at this point. He overrides all of McG's arguments without much thought. Come to think of it, when would Snape have has time to persuade anyone of anything anyhow? It was a Monday night that Voldemort showed up in Godric's hollow. Persumably, Snape was busy teaching all of Tuesday anyhow. (I wonder how McG managed to get away for a day). And DD appears to have come up with the orders to Hagrid very quickly - Hagrid showed up at GH before the muggles did, having had time to go get a motorbike off Sirius first. DD seems to have arrived at the decision to place Harry with the Dursleys very very quickly. Northsouth From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 14:03:51 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 14:03:51 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123966 Tammy Rizzo wrote: HOW can anyone POSSIBLY be confused about the Time Turner? It's so simple and straightforward, after all. Everything happens as it happens, as it has always happened, as it will always happen; nobody changes anything, nobody *can* change anything-- 'Time' only happens once, no matter how many times a character travels through it. All a Time Turning character can do is what he's already done, so what *IS* the big confusion? There is no 'first time/second time' of anything -- it's all THE ONLY TIME. vmonte responds: I don't think it so simple. Even Harry and Hermione know that they must go back in time during PoA to change events. Vivian From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Feb 5 14:28:44 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 14:28:44 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123967 Tammy Rizzo wrote: > HOW can anyone POSSIBLY be confused about the Time > Turner? It's so simple and straightforward, after > all. Everything happens as it happens, as it has > always happened, as it will always happen; nobody > changes anything, nobody *can* change anything-- > 'Time' only happens once, no matter how many > times a character travels through it. All a Time > Turning character can do is what he's already done, > so what *IS* the big confusion? There is no 'first > time/second time' of anything -- it's all THE ONLY > TIME. vmonte responded: > I don't think it so simple. Even Harry and Hermione know that they > must go back in time during PoA to change events. SSSusan They didn't *change* events. They went back to play their parts in what *already* happened the one & only time things happened. If they really had *changed* things, you'd be saying that Buckbeak DID get executed and they went back and *changed* that. But that's not the case. The trio believed Beaky was killed, but he never was killed, because TT!Harry and TT!Hermione were there all along, removing him from the scene after the Trio got out of the way. The PERCEPTION of the events changed for the Trio, but the events themselves remained unchanged. JKR actually muddies the waters a bit when she "allows" Hermione to say, "There must be something that happened around now that [DD] wants us to change." Similarly, Hermione's comment about lots of witches & wizards having killed their past AND FUTURE selves did a disservice to people's understanding. Rather similarly to the recent discussion of "willingly" vs. "unwillingly" in regards to Petunia, and how she could have unwillingly [grudgingly] but still willingly [voluntarily] taken Harry in, I think JKR is letting Hermione use a more "vernacular" definition of "change" [meaning, to cause something to be different than it would have been IF no TTing had happened], as opposed to the more standard sense in which most people would think of it [to cause something which DID happen to be REDONE in a different way]. Am I making any sense here? :-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sat Feb 5 14:33:04 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 09:33:04 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's Single Biggest Error so far (was: Harry's last ... Message-ID: <8b.2061f484.2f363320@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123968 In a message dated 2/5/2005 12:15:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com writes: It is not me, it is canon, which gives us the reason to think if not for sure, but at least with a big possibility that some kind of hearing occurred ( with or without Sirius) "I myself gave the evidence to the Ministry that Sirius had been Potters' Secret Keeper" - PoA, p.392, paperback. =============== Sherrie here: There may indeed have been an ex post facto "hearing" - or at least witness interviews - to justify throwing Black into Azkaban. ("See, I was right - it couldn't have been anyone else!") The Ministry was still working on a war footing - and things are winked at in war that wouldn't be tolerated in peacetime. (Andersonville, Elmira...) I'm NOT saying that's a good thing (not 'ardly!) - just stating that it happens. Sherrie "We cannot escape history." - Abraham Lincoln [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Sat Feb 5 14:46:37 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 09:46:37 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] AW: JKR's Single Biggest Error In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200502050947226.SM01080@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 123969 > > Vivamus: > > All right, I'll bite, but my nomination is a group of errors. > > Ignorance of snakes. > > > > > Silvana: > Indeed, we do not know, what kind of snake nagini is. I > think, nagini MUST be a magical creature. And - as it already > was stated some weeks ago - "Nagini" is the name of a kind of > Snake-Goddess! So in my opinion it *could* be possible, if > Nagini *was* able to bite Arthur more like a dog rather than > a snake. And perhaps she *has* not only two fangs. Only JKR > knows. ;-) Think of the other creatures she made up! IMO this > woman has a really brilliant imagination. Vivamus: Okay, I guess this could be an official "way out" of the FLINT. If Nagini is a magical creature, she can have any sort of bizarre attributes. My impression was that she is magical in the sense that Hedwig is magical, that is, a normal creature with some magical powers to aid as a familiar. (Where owls and other creatures GET their magical powers is an interesting question for another thread. From the comments at the examination of Scabbers, they appear to have them naturally.) The "lined with fangs" line is about the Basilisk, btw, which is of course a highly magical creature. If it is not really a snake, though, why would it understand Parseltongue? If it is a snake, one would expect it to follow the general pattern of a snake, even as a super-deadly magical monster snake. The silly thing in the movie was quite spectacular, but didn't look much like a snake. It didn't fit JKR's description in the book, either, but my feeling is that the way Nagini(?) bit Arthur was more like what a smaller form of the movie version of the Basilisk would do. If you say Nagini is a completely magical creature (rather than a normal creature with some magical powers,) and therefore can have any form at all, then okay, it can look like a smaller version of that movie Basilisk, have jaws that can crush things and also have fangs. Just like hippogriffs, it doesn't really have to follow logic in its construction. I think it still is a FLINT, though, and here is why. One would expect that the venom from a magical giant snake would be no less deadly than that of a non-magical snake. TR did tell Harry in CoS that he had about a minute to live after the Basilisk fang got him. Whatever Nagini is might not be as deadly as a Basilisk, but it must have been ten minutes at the very least after seeing the attack that Harry & co. could even have gotten to DD's office, and probably another ten before anyone could physically have gotten to Arthur to help him, and probably another ten minutes after that before he could get any kind of treatment. The snake bit him four times, so he probably got a full load of venom from a 12+ foot long snake. Arthur would be dead long before anyone could get there. (To put it in perspective, there are some snakes that can kill an adult in a matter of seconds.) To provide JKR a way out of this, we can assume (1) the snake that bit Arthur wasn't Nagini, but some other snake-like magical creature LV transported into the MoM, and this magical creature kills with the crush of it's bite, but not normally its venom, so it has weak venom. Since we have no view of this creature from the outside, it could look like anything, so long as it looks like a snake from inside its mind. Or, (2) it was Nagini, and Nagini is different that way, but for some magical reason still looks like an ordinary snake (i.e., with no jaw muscles.) Or, (3) it was Nagini, and Harry never saw it close enough to see that it is a different creature. > > Vivamus: > > (The > > full moon rising much later than sunset is, of course, an > error, and I > > did not catch that one at all.) > > > > Silvana: > If the moon rises at sunset it is purely by chance! Vivamus: (smacks hand on forehead) You are right, of course. The moon is full according to its relation to Earth, not according to any particular place on the earth. So the phase of the moon has nothing at all to do with when it rises and sets. I've just GOT to stop taking these stupid pills (but they taste so good!) Vivamus From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sat Feb 5 14:51:44 2005 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 14:51:44 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI. The Dursleys or the WW? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123970 > > Phoenixgod2000 wrote: > > If the Dursleys were the best that Dumbldore can do, then he > > suffered a failure of imagination, IMO. He's a wizard for merlins > > sake! > > > > vmonte responds: > > Unless it was Snape who swayed Dumbledore into sending Harry to the Dursleys. > Northsouth wrote: > I don't think that Snape at this point has much sway on Dumbledore. > He's only been teaching for 1-2 years, he's very young, his grudge > against James is probably still nice and hot. I don't think DD is > going to be swayed by, of all people, Snape at this point. He > overrides all of McG's arguments without much thought. > > Come to think of it, when would Snape have has time to persuade > anyone of anything anyhow? It was a Monday night that Voldemort > showed up in Godric's hollow. Persumably, Snape was busy teaching all of Tuesday anyhow. (I wonder how McG managed to get away for a day). > And DD appears to have come up with the orders to Hagrid very > quickly - Hagrid showed up at GH before the muggles did, having had time to go get a motorbike off Sirius first. DD seems to have arrived at the decision to place Harry with the Dursleys very very quickly. Hannah: With regards to where Snape was, this is assuming he was actually teaching at Hogwarts at the time. It can be argued that he'd started the previous September (just before GH), but it is also possible that he didn't take on his role at the school until after GH, perhaps mid-year, or maybe not until the following September. This latter would make more sense to me. But from the dates he gives Umbridge in OotP, we know the *longest* he can have been teaching is two months, if he has been at all. Secondly, I think normal life was suspended for the few days after GH, so there probably weren't any lessons. Hence DD, McG, Hagrid and, if necessary, Snape were all able to devote themselves to other things. I agree that I don't see anyone else swaying DD in his decision of where to send Harry. He knew what he wanted to do. Disturbingly, it seems likely he had made that decision *before* the events at GH actually happened, or at least extremely rapidly afterwards, not allowing time for much (or any) consultation. From what we have seen of the way DD operates in subsequent books, it seems that he rarely consults anyone in his plans, or even informs them of what is going on. I doubt he'd have listened to anybody else on something as important as the fate of baby Harry. Hannah From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Feb 5 15:01:26 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 15:01:26 -0000 Subject: Full Moon (was: Support for the ESE Lupin theory!) In-Reply-To: <4204B636.334.601A74A@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123971 Shaun: > If you are in a region where in a particular month the astronomical full moon will be visible that month, then it will rise relatively near sunset and set relatively near sunrise. The closer the totality point is to your local midnight the closer the rise and set will match the rise and set of the sun.< Pippin: Thanks, Shaun, for a clear and useful explanation (as usual). The other thing people seem to overlook is that Hogwarts is in the mountains. To an observer near the lake, which must be at the lowest point in the valley, the sun could set behind the ridges to the West long before the moon rises above the ridges in the East. Shaun points out that there are other explanations consistent with the canon than the one I gave. And since there are several ways it could be worked out, it seems odd to me that JKR wouldn't bother. I'm always suspicious when she doesn't answer the question... Q: Can you explain how Lupin turns into a werewolf, since he didn't turn in the Shrieking Shack in Prisoner of Azkaban, but instead he turned only when the full moonlight hit him outside the tunnel? If he only turned into a wolf in the moonlight, why didn't he just stay inside? Did it have to do with the potion? Or was the moon not up yet? A: The moon wasn't up when he entered the Shrieking Shack. Pippin: Quite dodgy, that. The innocent chatter is trying to figure out what happened when Lupin came out of the tunnel, and JKR only says what happened when Lupin went into it. And she needn't even have been talking about the same instance -- after all, Lupin went into the tunnel loads of times as a student. Of course that would be devious, and JKR is *never* devious. And if you believe that, may I offer you a once in a lifetime opportunity to download a xerox of Book Six... There is additional canon that werewolves transform during the day: "A werewolf?" whispered Mrs. Weasley, looking alarmed. "Is he safe in a public ward? Shouldn't he be in a private room?" "It's two weeks till full moon," Mr. Weasley reminded her quietly. --OOP ch 22. Not, you'll note, "It's daytime, Molly, nothing to worry about right now." Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Feb 5 15:17:48 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 15:17:48 -0000 Subject: Full Moon - A Rant About Lycantrophy Symptoms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123972 > Neri: > Renee, I agree with all my heart that JKR didn't put much thought int the whole transformation thing, which most probably means it's not something important in the story. I once got very interested with Potterverse lycanthropy and did a full research on Lupin's symptoms. A > lot of wasted time. What was I thinking? That I'm going to discover the cure for lycanthropy and win myself an Order of Merlin? Pippin: Poor Neri! I know the feeling. Nobody's going to give me an Order of Merlin for my work either. Though you would certainly rate a LOON. I agree that Lupin's secondary symptoms aren't consistent, but that makes it realistic to me. Just because the outbreaks are periodic doesn't mean the secondary symptoms are regular...as I'm sure you know if there's anyone in your life dealing with PMS and/or menstrual cramps. Outbreaks of MS can be the same way. My sister *knows* she's going to get an exacerbation of her MS two weeks after she catches cold...but no idea of how bad it's going to be. As you point out, Lupin's absences in the book are not regular nor are his bouts of illness, and so it seems that JKR is being careless, since they are a clue to what he is. But not really. Unlike Hermione we readers can't make anything of Lupin's absences. We don't observe enough of them and we don't get a lunar chart to compare them to. But I'd say JKR is well aware of this, and to make up for it, she gave the readers a clue that Hermione couldn't use: Lupin's name. Pippin From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 15:27:33 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 15:27:33 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI. The Dursleys or the WW? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123973 Hannah said: > I agree that I don't see anyone else swaying DD in his decision of > where to send Harry. He knew what he wanted to do. Disturbingly, > it seems likely he had made that decision *before* the events at GH actually happened, or at least extremely rapidly afterwards, not > allowing time for much (or any) consultation. From what we have > seen of the way DD operates in subsequent books, it seems that he > rarely consults anyone in his plans, or even informs them of what is going on. I doubt he'd have listened to anybody else on something as important as the fate of baby Harry. > Tonks now: I agree with your post except for one minor point. DD knew what *had to be done*, rather than *what he wanted to do*. He knew what had to be done to protect Harry because of the Ancient magic. Yes, I think he knew this ahead of time. I think that He and the Potters had it worked out already. I don't think that Petunia knew anything about it until Harry showed up on her doorstep. Although it is interesting that *she* was the one to find him first. DD is very, very wise and good and he knows what is best. We don't know that he doesn't consult with the old Headmasters on occasion. Even when it looks to us, and even to him, that he has made a mistake I still don't think that his judgment is flawed in anyway. Call me in denial if you will, but until the series is finished I trust DD 110%. I trust DD with my life. Tonks_op DD's most loyal servant From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sat Feb 5 15:38:15 2005 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 15:38:15 -0000 Subject: Timeline question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123974 Hi All, I have a timeline question. I looked on the Lexicon and couldn't find anything there, so I wondered if anyone here could help. It relates to the time after Harry gets his 'snake attacking Arthur' vision in OotP. Reading carefully, it's clear that almost two full days have gone by between the night of the attack and the time that Hermione turns up at GP. Day one is that immediately following the night of Harry's vision, where they visit Arthur in St Mungo's. There is then another night and most of a day (with Harry hiding away) and then Hermione arrives at about six o'clock. All well and good. But then Hermione says; 'Dumbledore told me what had happened first thing this morning...' (OotP p441 UK hardback) Here's where I'm confused. If DD told her first thing *that* morning, it means a whole day had gone by with Harry, Ron, Ginny, and the twins all missing, and nothing having been explained to Hermione. You can imagine the kind of fuss she'd have made, trying to work out what was going on. So do we assume that DD actually told her the morning immediately after it happened, and the 'this' morning is a FLINT? Or was she left in the dark for a whole day? Have subsequent editions of OotP been altered? Has anyone else ever wondered about it? Does this have any bearing on conspiracy theory? I know it seems like a tiny little thing to be picking on, but there's not much left that hasn't been discussed in detail, and it's really bothering me. So what do people think? Hannah From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 16:09:19 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:09:19 -0000 Subject: Severus and the DADA exam /James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123975 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: vmorte wrote: Anyway, the marauders are discussing the exam (all the while calling each other by their animagus nick names). Snape also seems to be engrossed over the exam as he walks past James. Was Snape also engrossed over question 10? (Thanks Finwitch for pointing this out.) Was he putting two-and-two together about Lupin? If so, does it mean that he already knew what Lupin was when he followed Sirius during the prank? If so, what was Snape up to? (It really reminds me of PoA when Snape follows Lupin into the Whomping Willow. Was he planning on killing Lupin so that he could get some stupid award? Did James ruin his plan?) Tonks replies: Snape knew a lot about the Dark Arts even then. Did he figure that Lupin was a werewolf or something else about Lupin/werewolf that has to do with the Dark Arts? Or did he want to try out a new potion recipe that he had. After all if DD and others knew that Lupin was a werewolf back then, why would they have allowed him to suffer every full moon? Maybe because there was no special potion at that time. Maybe young Snape wanted to find the cure? Not to save Lupin, of course, but to get the fame that he craved. I think that Snape is a much better potions *Master* than we know. I think that he can "stopper death". And DD keeps him in that position because he needs him there. vmonte wrote: I remember reading somewhere that the books seem to be building on the theme of mistaken identity and that by the 7th book something large was going to be revealed. I think that Harry is going to tell Hermione about this memory and she is the one who is going to figure out what Snape is all about. She did it with Lupin, she will do it again. Tonks replies: Hummm. So Harry is really Neville and Neville is really Harry. Switched at birth. Nah.. But Snape well Hermione would be the one to figure it out. You might be on to something here. Question 10. We really need to explore this in more detail. Now to do a little Legilmency into Snape's mind. There must be something really *big* in that whole scene that we are all missing. Something under all of the emotion. I think someone else hear suggested awhile back that the emotional part of the whole situation with Harry and Snape was meant to throw us off. Hummmm.. So what else happens in the pensive scene that might be a big clue to something that Snape doesn't want Harry or LV to see??? And ideas folks??? Tonks_op From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 00:23:32 2005 From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 00:23:32 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys- "Unwillingly" & Threat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123976 bboyminn: > I'm really hoping in the next book, Harry forces Petunia to sit down > and talk with him. I futher hope that Harry brow-beats her into > showing him the original letter from Dumbledore. At least, once we see > that letter, we'll have a better foundation to speculate from. Lyra: And you just gave me a thought. Perhaps the much discussed first chapter will tell the events of Godric's Hollow through the letter DD left for the Dursleys. That'd be a way to get around the POV issues everyone's been talking about and keep it in the context of Harry and his current state of being/knowledge/emotion. From casil30 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 06:03:10 2005 From: casil30 at yahoo.com (Lisa C.) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 06:03:10 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123977 Maddy: > That is an interesting idea. Sadly, we know of too few Partoni (I > think I just invented the plural form of Patronus...it's easier than > Patronuses) to be able to know for sure. If only we had had a chance > to see Sirius's. Though, I highly doubt his Patronus would have been a > great big dog. Why? Well, Harry's Patronus has to do with his father, > and since a Patronus has to do with protection, something associated > with his parents who died trying to protect him, it makes sense. > > > > This brings me to another question, though. Do you think Patroni are > always animals? Or can they be something else? Well, that brings up some very interesting thoughts. Following your theory of the Patronus as a protector, that would make Dumbledore's Patronus being a phoenix make perfect sense. Fawkes is most definitely his protector having helped him escape from Fudge and swallowed the AK meant for him. Harry's father tried to protect him and Lily by taking on LV first although I do wonder why his Patronus didn't have something to do with Lily. I guess that his father's contribution had to come into the story somewhere. There has been lots of speculation on Hermione's otter having something to do with Harry, the otter as the animal form of Potter. Going with your theory that would make sense if she sees Harry as her protector. If this is true though, then the answer to your question would have to be that a Patronus always takes an animal form. I'm not sure that's the right answer though or that I'm ready to believe that because I'd really like the idea of Ron's Patronus being a chess piece. It wasn't my idea. I read it somewhere a while back and have always liked it. I don't really see how it fits into the role of protector but I still like it. The question that has been going through my mind since reading the Patronus part of OotP is why on earth is Cho's Patronus a swan of all things? Casil From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 16:30:54 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:30:54 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error so far (was: Harry's last ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123978 Alla wrote: "It is not me, it is canon, which gives us the reason to think if not for sure, but at least with a big possibility that some kind of hearing occurred ( with or without Sirius) "I myself gave the evidence to the Ministry that Sirius had been Potters' Secret Keeper" - PoA, p.392, paperback." Del replies: I don't have PoA on hand, so I can't check the context of that statement, but is it possible that DD gave this evidence *before* the events of GH? When the Potters went into hiding, it is possible the Ministry asked DD if they were fine and what had happened to them, and he told them they were in hiding, protected by the Fidelius Charm, with Sirius as Secret-Keeper. If Sirius's plan was to lure LV into going after him, it would make sense that his being the SK would have been made known to quite a few people. Just an idea, Del From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 16:32:38 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:32:38 -0000 Subject: Severus and the DADA exam /James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123979 Another thought about Snape and Lupin/Werewolf. What if young Snape who knows about the Dark Arts had a theory about what LV did. Doen't it say that Tom Riddle went through transformations? Human/Werewolf is a transformation. Maybe Snape had a theory then and was researching it when the whole Lupin Werewolf transformation - James saves Snape thing happens. What if Snapes knows something about LV that we don't. DD knows because Snape told him or because DD is an expert at transfigeration. DD can't trust Snape to teach DADA because of the fear that Snape might be tempted himself, or whatever. The point here is what if Snape learned something that night that would help in the eventual distruction of LV. Maybe some combination of transformation and potions (stopper death) is an answer. I am probably just out on a limb here. Tonks_op From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 15:52:06 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 15:52:06 -0000 Subject: Snapes Teaching Career - Dates and Causes (WAS: DD and Harry in Book VI. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123980 > Hannah: With regards to where Snape was, this is assuming he was > actually teaching at Hogwarts at the time. It can be argued that > he'd started the previous September (just before GH), but it is also > possible that he didn't take on his role at the school until after > GH, perhaps mid-year, or maybe not until the following September. > This latter would make more sense to me. But from the dates he > gives Umbridge in OotP, we know the *longest* he can have been > teaching is two months, if he has been at all. The way I worked it out, Snape was in his second year teaching at Hogwarts during GH. He says to Umbridge he's been there 16 years. (This before Harry turns 16)so he either started teaching midyear, or was rounding up to 16, or perhaps was even in his 16th year as a teacher, which would mean he was in his *third* year during GH. I tend to believe that he was rounding like McG, and had not yet finished his 16th year. Since Harry was about a year and 3 months old during GH,(I'm assuming the year because he's the same age as Dudley, who's already talking some) Snape started teaching either mid year before the summer Harry was born, or in September after it. On a slightly related subject: Why did Snape take up teaching at such a young age: Hagrid mentions in PS/SS that Hogwarts was the only safe place there was. Could Snape have been placed there by Voldemort to spy on DD and the Order, and then taken the opportunity, once he knew he was in a safe place, to turn coat, or had been given a teaching position that kept him safe, at Hogwarts, by DD, after he had betrayed Voldemort (pretending he was a spy *for* Voldie, of course, but still out of his grasp for most of the time just in case). Northsouth From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 16:49:10 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:49:10 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Smallest Error In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123981 I don't think it's a big deal and I admit I'm nitpicking but there are 2 astronomy errors in Order of the Phoenix. In the final exam Harry is looking at Venus and Orion, but Venus can only be seen near sunrise or sunset and this was about midnight, and Orion is a winter constellation and it was June. Eggplant From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 16:55:08 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:55:08 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123982 SSSusan wrote: "The PERCEPTION of the events changed for the Trio, but the events themselves remained unchanged. JKR actually muddies the waters a bit when she "allows" Hermione to say, "There must be something that happened around now that [DD] wants us to change." Similarly, Hermione's comment about lots of witches & wizards having killed their past AND FUTURE selves did a disservice to people's understanding. " Del replies: For me, where JKR *really* muddied the waters is when Harry managed to perform the Patronus Charm because he had seen himself do it. In this instance, Future!Harry had a very definite influence on Past!Harry. Past!Harry is able to do something in his own future because he saw Future!Harry do it. What bothers me is that Harry *managed* to cast the Patronus Charm *because* he saw himself do it. Harry did have a significant probability of not managing to cast the Patronus Charm. The only thing that turned the odds in his favour is the fact that he saw himself do it before. Had he not known he could do it, maybe he would not have managed, in which case his past self would have died, in which case he should be dead too. So basically, Harry survived because he saw Future!Himself, which is a direct violation of the "Time-Turning can't change what happened" rule. It seems that in that case, there's a significant probability that Time-Turning!Harry *did* change the past. The only thing that reassures me is that Harry may be completely wrong as to why he managed to cast the Patronus Charm. He had already managed it once after all, so it is possible that he didn't need any mental reassurance at all, and that he would have succeeded anyway, even if he hadn't seen himself do it. But this is not what he *says*... Del From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sat Feb 5 16:58:44 2005 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:58:44 -0000 Subject: Severus and the DADA exam /James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123983 Tonks wrote: > We really need to explore this in more detail. Now to do a little > Legilmency into Snape's mind. There must be something really *big* > in that whole scene that we are all missing. Something under all of > the emotion. I think someone else hear suggested awhile back that > the emotional part of the whole situation with Harry and Snape was > meant to throw us off. Hummmm.. So what else happens in the pensive > scene that might be a big clue to something that Snape doesn't want > Harry or LV to see??? And ideas folks??? Hannah: I would definitely agree there is more to that pensieve scene than meets the eye. Something we're overlooking. But what? Here's one idea I came up with a while back (and probably others have too). What is Snape doing in that scene, that we know of, before he gets attacked? Reading over his past exam paper. So Snape, looking through the questions, suddenly realises he turned over two pages at once and has missed off half the questions. Or answered two essays instead of three... all too easily done, especially towards the end of exam season when the brain begins to boggle... For Severus, studious, desperate to prove himself better than Potter and Black, it's a nightmare. Imagine the dropping sensation in his stomach as he realises he's just accidentally failed what is likely to be one of his favourite subjects (this being the boy who was always fascinated with the Dark Arts). He heads off to try and explain to DD, but is intercepted by James and co. Would this qualify it as his worst (or one of his worst, because I doubt it can be *the* worst) memory? Perhaps not alone, but imagine what might lead on from it... 'What, Snivelly, a 'T' for DADA? And I thought the Dark Arts was the only thing you knew about. Must have been all that grease you got on the parchment...' ... 'Sorry, Severus, Gilderoy Lockhart might not be the ideal candidate for the job but at least he passed his DADA OWL at the first attempt...' It's just a suggestion, of course. Not very exciting from a conspiracy theory point of view though! Hannah From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 17:07:08 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 17:07:08 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123984 Del replies: For me, where JKR *really* muddied the waters is when Harry managed to perform the Patronus Charm because he had seen himself do it. In this instance, Future!Harry had a very definite influence on Past! Harry.Past!Harry is able to do something in his own future because he saw Future!Harry do it. What bothers me is that Harry *managed* to cast the Patronus Charm *because* he saw himself do it. Harry did have a significant probability of not managing to cast the Patronus Charm. The only thing that turned the odds in his favour is the fact that he saw himself do it before. Had he not known he could do it, maybe he would not have managed, in which case his past self would have died, in which case he should be dead too. So basically, Harry survived because he saw Future!Himself, which is a direct violation of the "Time-Turning can't change what happened" rule. It seems that in that case, there's a significant probability that Time-Turning!Harry *did* change the past. The only thing that reassures me is that Harry may be completely wrong as to why he managed to cast the Patronus Charm. He had already managed it once after all, so it is possible that he didn't need any mental reassurance at all, and that he would have succeeded anyway, even if he hadn't seen himself do it. But this is not what he *says*... Alla: But this IS classical paradox of time-travelling . Now, I see it quite clearly in mind, but I do having trouble explaining it. Sure, Harry performs trhe Patronus because he already seen himself doing it, but on THE SAME TIMELINE. Events did not happen twice, they only happen once. The paradox as I understand it as that we don't know when they started. You know, when Harry is still in the past for the first time, future Harry already travelled back. Ugh! Sorry. There was a WONDERFUL article on Mugglenet, explaining it very nicely and if I find it, I will post the link. The author was saying that Hermione is sued as "external" factor of the paradox or something to that effect. One more thing - sure, I have no trouble beleiving that Harry could perform Patronus, but he indeed needed this EXTRA factor of seeing himself do that as final push, so I would not discard it. Sorry for being unclear. JMO, Alla From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sat Feb 5 17:08:06 2005 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 17:08:06 -0000 Subject: Snapes Teaching Career - Dates and Causes (WAS: DD and Harry in Book VI. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123985 > NorthSouth wrote: > The way I worked it out, Snape was in his second year teaching at > Hogwarts during GH. He says to Umbridge he's been there 16 years. > (This before Harry turns 16)so he either started teaching midyear, or > was rounding up to 16, or perhaps was even in his 16th year as a > teacher, which would mean he was in his *third* year during GH. I > tend to believe that he was rounding like McG, and had not yet > finished his 16th year. Since Harry was about a year and 3 months old > during GH,(I'm assuming the year because he's the same age as Dudley, > who's already talking some) Snape started teaching either mid year > before the summer Harry was born, or in September after it. > > On a slightly related subject: Why did Snape take up teaching at > such a young age: Hagrid mentions in PS/SS that Hogwarts was the only > safe place there was. Hannah: In my copy of OotP, he says '14' years in response to Umbridge's enquiry. Page 323 UK hardback 1st ed. It may have changed in subsequent editions, but I'd not read that on any of the fan sites. So... Harry is 15 in OotP. Thus depending on if Snape is rounding up or down, and on if JKR has got her maths right (and we know she sometimes doesn't), he either started at Hogwarts immediately before GH, or the year after (or sooner afterwards if he started mid year). I have always believed that Snape was given the job at Hogwarts by DD to keep him safe from any recriminations from the DE's, and maybe to keep an eye on him/ keep him out of temptation. I can't see him *wanting* to teach. I think he ended up in the job reluctantly for security reasons, contributing to his current bitterness. Hannah From peckham at cyberramp.net Sat Feb 5 17:08:23 2005 From: peckham at cyberramp.net (luna_loco) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 17:08:23 -0000 Subject: Timeline question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123986 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > > Hi All, > > I have a timeline question. I looked on the Lexicon and couldn't > find anything there, so I wondered if anyone here could help. It > relates to the time after Harry gets his 'snake attacking Arthur' > vision in OotP. Reading carefully, it's clear that almost two full > days have gone by between the night of the attack and the time that > Hermione turns up at GP. Day one is that immediately following the > night of Harry's vision, where they visit Arthur in St Mungo's. > There is then another night and most of a day (with Harry hiding > away) and then Hermione arrives at about six o'clock. > > All well and good. But then Hermione says; 'Dumbledore told me what > had happened first thing this morning...' (OotP p441 UK hardback) > Here's where I'm confused. If DD told her first thing *that* > morning, it means a whole day had gone by with Harry, Ron, Ginny, > and the twins all missing, and nothing having been explained to > Hermione. You can imagine the kind of fuss she'd have made, trying > to work out what was going on. So do we assume that DD actually > told her the morning immediately after it happened, and the 'this' > morning is a FLINT? Or was she left in the dark for a whole day? > > Have subsequent editions of OotP been altered? Has anyone else ever > wondered about it? Does this have any bearing on conspiracy > theory? I know it seems like a tiny little thing to be picking on, > but there's not much left that hasn't been discussed in detail, and > it's really bothering me. So what do people think? > > Hannah Short answer: We don't know. That being said, I believe that Hermione's story is accurate: Dumbledore did not tell her what had happened until the morning of the second day. This would have been done to protect Hermione as much as Dumbledore and the Order. If Hermione did not know anything that was not generally known by everyone else at the school then Umbridge could not hold it against her. The sentence immediately after the one you quote has Hermione saying "Umbridge is already livid that you lot disappeared right under her nose, even though Dumbledore told her Mr. Weasley was in St. Mungo's, and he'd given you all permission to visit" (OotP p498-499 US hardback). Combine this with Mrs. Weasley's statement that "Dumbledore's been able to think up a good cover story for Arthur" (OotP p480 US hardback) upon her arrival at #12 Grimmauld early on morning of the first day and we have a basis on which to build a possible timeline. At the moment Harry and the Weasley children are portkeyed to Sirius, Umbridge is aware that something is going on. McGonagall was sent to delay her, but it would not be long before Umbridge knew that Harry and the Weasleys had left. At this time Dumbledore would have needed an explanation as to how the news of Mr. Weasley's going to St. Mungo's had arrived at Hogwarts. The most obvious story is that Everard just happened to be visiting his painting in the Ministry when he noticed something wrong and raised the alarm. After Mr. Weasley was discovered, Everard would then have returned to his painting in the headmaster's office and informed Dumbledore. Dumbledore could then claim to have told McGonagall, who retrieved Harry and the Weasleys from there dorm rooms. This fictional timeline would provide Umbridge an explanation that matched the facts that the Ministry knew. Hermione would not have been told anything until she awoke. At that time a partial explanation could be given to Hermione by McGonagall, the Head of House for Gryffindor. This explanation would have been minimal, so that Hermione would not know anything she should not know. After Umbridge had finished questioning Hermione, and everyone else that was close to either Harry or the Weasleys, it would have been safe to give her the rest of the story. This occured on the morning of the second day. Hope this helps, Allen From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 17:16:47 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 17:16:47 -0000 Subject: Filk: Tuesday, Tuesday Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123987 "Tuesday, Tuesday" to the tune of "Monday, Monday" by the Mamas and the Papas. Tell me you didn't see that coming :0) To the Great One himself, CMC Gertie Keddle (in her first filk?) wrote this in her diary: Tuesday, Tuesday Glanced 'cross the bog. Tuesday morning Hexed a man, that hairy hog. Oh, Tuesday morning, Tuesday morning, thought would guarantee That Tuesday evening they'd think twice Of bugging me. Tuesday, Tuesday Again I see Tuesday, Tuesday They try to stick balls in a tree. Oh, Tuesday morning Just doing my chores and picking nettles for tea. Oh, Tuesday, Tuesday, This pointless ribbish's grating me. Every other day, Every other day, Every other day, the whole marsh is mine (mine), yeah But whenever Tuesday comes, But whenever Tuesday comes, I will find them flying all of the time. Tuesday, Tuesday Big leather ball Tuesday, Tuesday That's when Gwenog came to call. But Tuesday morning, Tuesday morning over nettle tea, "Come Tuesday evening" Gwenog said, "I play with glee." Tuesday, Tuesday Home in disgust. Tuesday, Tuesday Flying rocks are now a must. Oh, Tuesday, Tuesday Seems they will stay. Tuesday, Tuesday Can't hex them away. Oh, Tuesday, Tuesday Ginger, getting all excited for Superbowl From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 17:18:22 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 17:18:22 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123988 OK, sorry for replying to my own post, but I did find that specific editorial on Mugglenet here is the link. http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit- goetschalckx01.shtml The name of the article is "The possibility of time-turning" by Bram Goetschalckx Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Feb 5 17:41:13 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 17:41:13 -0000 Subject: Snapes Teaching Career - Dates and Causes (WAS: DD and Harry in Book VI. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123989 > > Hannah: In my copy of OotP, he says '14' years in response to > Umbridge's enquiry. Page 323 UK hardback 1st ed. It may have > changed in subsequent editions, but I'd not read that on any of the fan sites. Potioncat: Yeah, it was 14 years for Snape. I think it was 16 for Trelawney. Although I should know better than to post form memory. From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Sat Feb 5 17:53:32 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 17:53:32 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123990 Casil asked: >The question that has been going through my mind since >reading the Patronus part of OotP is why on earth is Cho's Patronus a >swan of all things? Good question. I could see a swan as Cho's *animagus,* though, so perhaps it's for the same reason: Swans are beautiful, but they are also extremely dangerous when threatened or when protecting their young. And they mate for life. Cho has had two boyfriends since Cedric's death (Roger Davies and Harry -- if you can count him), but in my opinion her emotions are still engaged with Cedric and will be for a long time. Janet Anderson From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 18:07:02 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 18:07:02 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123991 SSSusan They didn't *change* events. They went back to play their parts in what *already* happened the one & only time things happened. If they really had *changed* things, you'd be saying that Buckbeak DID get executed and they went back and *changed* that. But that's not the case. The trio believed Beaky was killed, but he never was killed, because TT!Harry and TT!Hermione were there all along, removing him from the scene after the Trio got out of the way. The PERCEPTION of the events changed for the Trio, but the events themselves remained unchanged. JKR actually muddies the waters a bit when she "allows" Hermione to say, "There must be something that happened around now that [DD] wants us to change." Similarly, Hermione's comment about lots of witches & wizards having killed their past AND FUTURE selves did a disservice to people's understanding. vmonte responds: I know what you are saying, I'm not sure why Hermione would have incorrect info though. You would think that she would be warned of all the dangers associated with time travel (rather thoroughly) by Minerva. After all, what a deadly weapon (and it is definitely something that could be used as a weapon) to give a student in order to take more classes?! It sounds more like Dumbledore training future Order members to me (we've discussed this before SSSusan). It would be careless of the adults to allow Hermione use this device without proper training/warnings. Let's face it --- I hate time travel! Unfortunately, it's definitely coming back. Vivian From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sat Feb 5 18:17:26 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 18:17:26 -0000 Subject: Full Moon (was: Support for the ESE Lupin theory!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123992 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Q: > Can you explain how Lupin turns into a werewolf, since he didn't > turn in the Shrieking Shack in Prisoner of Azkaban, but instead > he turned only when the full moonlight hit him outside the > tunnel? If he only turned into a wolf in the moonlight, why didn't > he just stay inside? Did it have to do with the potion? Or was the > moon not up yet? > > A: > The moon wasn't up when he entered the Shrieking Shack. > > Pippin: > Quite dodgy, that. The innocent chatter is trying to figure out what > happened when Lupin came out of the tunnel, and JKR only > says what happened when Lupin went into it. And she needn't > even have been talking about the same instance -- after all, > Lupin went into the tunnel loads of times as a student. Renee: As the person who asks the question is very obviously referring to the Shrieking Shack scene in POA, you're really overtaxing people's credulity here, Pippin. You have to, of course, as JKR obviously doesn't remember the moon was alreadu up when Lupin entered the shack. From PoA, chapter 21, after Harry and Hermione have gone back in time: "They watched the four men climb the castle steps and disappear from view. For a few minutes the scene was deserted. Then - `Here comes Lupin!' said Harry, as they saw another figure sprinting down the stone steps and haring towards the Willow. Harry looked up at the sky. Clouds were obscuring the moon completely. They watched Lupin seize a broke branch from the ground and prod the knot on the trunk. The tree stopped fighting, and Lupin, too, disappeared into the gap in its roots." Pippin: >Of course > that would be devious, and JKR is *never* devious. Renee: Nor, as we all know perfectly well, has she *ever* made a single mistake in the entire HP series. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 18:40:13 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 18:40:13 -0000 Subject: Snakes and scars and stuff In-Reply-To: <32025905020412547fa1188f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123993 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Scarah wrote: > Dungrollin: > > > There's one reference to snakes that has always puzzled me, and > > that's after the hearing in OotP, Lucius Malfoy says "Quite > > astonishing, the way you continue to wriggle out of very tight > > holes ... *snakelike*, in fact." (The Woes of Mrs. Weasley.) > Sarah: > I think this reference takes on a new significance when compared to > Draco Malfoy a bit later on: > > 'I seem to have touched a nerve,' said Malfoy, smirking. 'Well, just > watch yourself, Potter, because I'll be *dogging* your footsteps in > case you step out of line.' > > Even Harry caught on to that one. Like father, like son? How much > does Lucius know about the Harry - Voldemort connection? > > Sarah bboyminn: Sarah, I think you've got a handle on Lucius's comment. I think it was just a 'dig' at Harry. Sort of a short hand way of saying, 'We both know who and what I am, but there's nothing you can do about it Potter'. I'm not sure it's a reference to the scar connection, but I am sure it's Lucius's subtle attempt to make a reference to Voldemort, just as Draco mention of 'dogging' in another context, was intended to imply to Harry that Draco was in on Harry's little secret. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 18:44:57 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 18:44:57 -0000 Subject: Full Moon (was: Support for the ESE Lupin theory!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123995 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123996 Tonks replies: But Snape well Hermione would be the one to figure it out. You might be on to something here. Question 10. We really need to explore this in more detail. Now to do a little Legilmency into Snape's mind. There must be something really *big* in that whole scene that we are all missing. Something under all of the emotion. I think someone else hear suggested awhile back that the emotional part of the whole situation with Harry and Snape was meant to throw us off. Hummmm.. So what else happens in the pensive scene that might be a big clue to something that Snape doesn't want Harry or LV to see??? And ideas folks??? vmonte responds: I think it's more that Snape doesn't want Dumbledore to find out something. If Snape had known all along what the maraurders were, then he was never really in trouble during the prank; and his hatred of James (for saving his life) and protection of Harry is unjustified. So, what is he really mad at, and why is he supposedly watching over Harry? Is he watching over something else entirely? Or does he owe Lily for something? Or is it Harry? Vivian From ms-tamany at rcn.com Sat Feb 5 18:46:51 2005 From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 13:46:51 -0500 Subject: Why a swan Patronus? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4204CE4B.15960.DAA1F9A@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 123997 Casil wrote (in small part): > The question that has been going through my mind since > reading the Patronus part of OotP is why on earth is Cho's Patronus a > swan of all things? Now Tammy Rizzo says: Well, that's easy. Have you ever wandered too near a swan's nest? Those suckers are MEAN! They hiss, they batter at you with their VERY strong wings, they peck and leave awful bruises, they BITE and can not only break the skin but can actually take pieces of flesh, and they don't give up their territory! They fight until YOU back off, or you kill them. Swans are MEAN beasts! They are, if this is possible, meaner than geese, though swans, since they don't hang out in groups like geese do, might not be AS *dangerous* as geese (who are generally somewhat smaller than swans but have numbers in their favor most times). It didn't surprise me at all to find that Cho's Patronus was a swan. Or, well, that SOMEONE'S Patronus was a swan, at least. Oh, wait. Were you asking why ANYONE had a swan Patronus, or why CHO had one? *** Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at rcn.com Want to back-up your expensive DVDs? Check out DVD Wizard Pro: http://www.dvdwizardpro.com/idevaffiliate/idevaffiliate.php?id=398 Want to earn a Sony Vaio for only $5? Check out EZ Laptop: http://www.ezlaptop.com/index.php?ref=8574 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 18:53:47 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 18:53:47 -0000 Subject: Severus and the DADA exam /James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123998 Vmonte responds: I think it's more that Snape doesn't want Dumbledore to find out something. If Snape had known all along what the maraurders were, then he was never really in trouble during the prank; and his hatred of James (for saving his life) and protection of Harry is unjustified. So, what is he really mad at, and why is he supposedly watching over Harry? Is he watching over something else entirely? Or does he owe Lily for something? Or is it Harry? Alla: Here is an interesting idea of "what was Snape up to that night?" - another Mugglenet editorial called "Suicide by werewolf" by Thereas Faustina http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit-tfaustina01.shtml She also argues that Snape knew that Remus was a werewolf BEFORE Prank and that he wanted to commit suicide that night. Alla From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 18:55:03 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 18:55:03 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI. The Dursleys or the WW? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123999 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > Tonks now: > > I agree with your post except for one minor point. DD knew what *had > to be done*, rather than *what he wanted to do*. He knew what had to > be done to protect Harry because of the Ancient magic. Yes, I think > he knew this ahead of time. I think that He and the Potters had it > worked out already. I don't think that Petunia knew anything about > it until Harry showed up on her doorstep. Although it is interesting > that *she* was the one to find him first. DD is very, very wise and > good and he knows what is best. We don't know that he doesn't > consult with the old Headmasters on occasion. Even when it looks to > us, and even to him, that he has made a mistake I still don't think > that his judgment is flawed in anyway. Call me in denial if you > will, but until the series is finished I trust DD 110%. I trust DD > with my life. Finwitch: Well... considering he thought Sirius was a traitor - yes, well - it was the Dursleys or himself. I think that's where his options were limited to. What Harry learned at Dursleys were defiance, certain independence, quick reflexes -- but also great distrust. It could have been, however, that Harry would have ended up depressed. It could have been that Harry ended up in an orphanage (did Dumbledore mention Tom Riddle having been raised at one and turning up as Voldemort?-- Take the kid in or he might one day kill you all...). It could have been that Harry turned out to be a magical Dudley. But, with all the what-ifs, you never know. However, I'm not so certain whether he had consulted with the Potters at all. After all, Lily and James had named Sirius to be Harry's guardian - and while that wasn't exactly an option, not until the early 5th book anyway. Even though Sirius wasn't OFFICIALLY cleared - well -- I think that Harry living at 12 Grimmauld Place with his godfather would have been better - for both Sirius and Harry. After all, with Harry NOT there, he gets attacked. Don't think Harry's all that safe there - or if he ever was. Still... Dumbledore's gravest error was to actively prevent Harry from getting information. (and Molly... I mean - that thing about Azkaban at Sirius -- well, that sums one thing up. It had to do with just about everyone - apart from Harry&Sirius themselves - questioning Sirius' role as Harry's guardian. No wonder, to me...) Finwitch From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Sat Feb 5 19:42:06 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 14:42:06 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why a swan Patronus? In-Reply-To: <4204CE4B.15960.DAA1F9A@localhost> Message-ID: <200502051442758.SM01080@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 124000 > Casil wrote (in small part): > > > The question that has been going through my mind since reading the > > Patronus part of OotP is why on earth is Cho's Patronus a > swan of all > > things? > > Now Tammy Rizzo says: > > Well, that's easy. Have you ever wandered too near a swan's > nest? Those suckers are MEAN! They hiss, they batter at you > with their VERY strong wings, they peck and leave awful > bruises, they BITE and can not only break the skin but can > actually take pieces of flesh, and they don't give up their > territory! They fight until YOU back off, or you kill them. > Swans are MEAN beasts! They are, if this is possible, meaner > than geese, though swans, since they don't hang out in groups > like geese do, might not be AS *dangerous* as geese (who are > generally somewhat smaller than swans but have numbers in > their favor most times). It didn't surprise me at all to > find that Cho's Patronus was a swan. Or, well, that > SOMEONE'S Patronus was a swan, at least. Oh, wait. Were you > asking why ANYONE had a swan Patronus, or why CHO had one? Vivamus: Cho's patronus is a swan: 'Oh, don't be such a killjoy,' said Cho brightly, watching her silvery swan-shaped Patronus soar around the Room of Requirement during their last lesson before Easter. They're so pretty!' From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 19:50:12 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 19:50:12 -0000 Subject: Severus and the DADA exam /James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124001 > > Hannah: I would definitely agree there is more to that pensieve > scene than meets the eye. Something we're overlooking. But what? > Here's one idea I came up with a while back (and probably others > have too). What is Snape doing in that scene, that we know of, > before he gets attacked? Reading over his past exam paper. So > Snape, looking through the questions, suddenly realises he turned > over two pages at once and has missed off half the questions. Finwitch: Hmm-mm. It's a possibility. BUT: There WAS a question about recognising a werewolf. 1)Now, either Snape DID know (which certainly puts his being in the shrieking shack something like a suicide attempt, with a goal to get Lupin expelled/killed or whatever.) This would reveal something about Snape - that he has this habit of doing what he can to get others into trouble (a form of bullying not easily recognised). OR-- 2)he's ashamed for NOT figuring it out about Lupin. Good heavens, look at Sirius' comment: 'I'm bored. Wish it were *full moon*'. They as good as TOLD him now, even if Sirius was attempting to make him think Sirius was the werewolf. And I think that, with that competition-thing going on, James saving Severus' life.. Entirely possible that James & Sirius, after rescuing Snape, take him to Dumbledore's office and told all about it. (While Severus is kept under SILENCIO so he can't explain.) I also suspect that well - James *liked* detentions. So much he confessed every time he broke the rules - just so he got the school record. I imagine a scene... James&Sirius take Severus to Dumbledore's office in a manner of police officers walking a prisoner. They, though not being even prefects, get trough Dumbledore's Gargoyle as easily as any teacher would. Then, James starts talking about a confession - about being out of bounds. 'Of course, I could have chosen not to break rules - but that would have been murder. Severus Snape was about to meet a Gryffindor Prefect, who was, due to his disease, unable to choose anything else but kill this intruder on his privacy. I, however, had the option to take this student away, to make that choice so I did'. And all about saving Snape. "I'm not going to compete with Sirius. We're the best students now, and nothing you do, Severus Snape, will ever change that, because you owe your life to me". And all in all, this provided James the sort of moral test he'd been yearning for, and so he was now able to stop defying rules and concentrate on courting Lily. Finwitch From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 17:40:34 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 17:40:34 -0000 Subject: Snape's Teaching Career - Dates and Causes (WAS: DD and Harry in Book VI. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124002 Hannah: > So... Harry is 15 in OotP. Thus depending on if Snape is rounding > up or down, and on if JKR has got her maths right (and we know she > sometimes doesn't), he either started at Hogwarts immediately before > GH, or the year after (or sooner afterwards if he started mid year). > Doh! You're right, of course. It's Trelawney who has been teaching 16 years, my apologies. (I don't have the book to hand, and both me and my sister remembered 16...). Sigh, there goes all my reasoning. Any clue as to whether this was before or after he was revealed as a DE by Karkaroff in the trial? Hm. Umbridge says that he originally applied for the DADA job. I wonder if it was his initiative then, whether willingly or not, to become a teacher? That is, at least partially uncoordinated with DD, as if he and DD (or DD without him, for that matter) had worked the whole thing out before hand, Snape's position would be all sorted out already. Northsouth From ms-tamany at rcn.com Sat Feb 5 20:35:29 2005 From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 15:35:29 -0500 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner (getting long here) In-Reply-To: References: <4203EBE8.6591.A35C2F7@localhost> Message-ID: <4204E7C1.24689.E0D977B@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 124003 > Tammy Rizzo first wrote: > HOW can anyone POSSIBLY be confused about the Time > Turner? It's so simple and straightforward, after > all. Everything happens as it happens, as it has > always happened, as it will always happen; nobody > changes anything, nobody *can* change anything-- > 'Time' only happens once, no matter how many > times a character travels through it. All a Time > Turning character can do is what he's already done, > so what *IS* the big confusion? There is no 'first > time/second time' of anything -- it's all THE ONLY > TIME. > > To which Laurasia replies: > Whilst I realise that you were asking a rhetorical question, the > question certainly persists. Why is there no unanimous understanding > of Potterverse Time Travel? Now Tammy R says: Actually, it wasn't a rhetorical question. I *HONESTLY* cannot fathom why there's such a confusion about such a simple and straightforward concept as the Time Turner. It's just so *basic*. > Laurasia continues: > JKR has spent a good deal of time showing us the importance of > choices. And she gets the most credible, experienced and wise > character she has (Dumbledore) spout freewill/choice rhetoric at > regular intervals. > > In which case, mustn't time be malleable? If JKR wanted to prove to us > that every character has freedom of choice, mustn't she be showing us > a version of Time Travel where characters go back and radically change > past events? Undoing outcomes; changing events to their own choosing; > creating a history that follows their conscious decisions instead of > tolerating the events as they are throw at them. Now Tammy R says: I don't think a fixed Timeline negates choice or free will, not at all. Nor do I think that choice or free will demands a malleable Timeline. What happens is what happens is what happens is what happens, and that's all there is to it, but what happens happens because of the free choices that people (or characters) make. They make the choice, they do whatever, and that *IS* what happened. If they had made a different choice, something else would have happened, but what *HAPPENED* is what happened. THAT is the choice they made, it's made, it's done, it's happened, and it cannot be changed, no matter how many times they might Time Turn back to try, because anything they might try to do to change what happened *HAS ALSO ALREADY HAPPENED*, it's part of what has already happened, and that's all there is to it. > Laurasia again: > But she doesn't. Instead JKR shows us Hermione hiding behind Hagrid's > Hut pleading with Harry that he *CANNOT* burst in and seize Pettigrew! Now Tammy R: Of course Harry can't burst in and seize Pettigrew. Hermione won't let him. In the time when he _thinks_ he MIGHT have been able to do something like that (which he never did, because he never did, and so he never did), she's too busy trying to get it through his head that he can't do it, so his *percieved* opportunity goes by. But that's not a paradox -- that's just what already happened. > Laurasia: > Why is Harry's freedom of choice so resolutely BLOCKED? Why not send > Harry and Hermione *4* *turns* back so they can nip down to Hagrid's > ahead of time and whisk Wormtail out of the jug? Tammy R: Harry's freedom of choice isn't being blocked here by anything other than Hermione's rather INSISTANT attempts to dissuade him from trying to change things. It's not that he doesn't have the choice, it's that he DID choose . . . to listen to Hermione. If he had chosen something else, then something else would have happened, and it might or might not have been noticed by their earlier selves. But Harry DID make a choice (even choosing not to decide is still making a choice, after all), and this choice leads to what happens -- they stay where they are at the time. And Dumbledore only suggested that three turns should be just about right. Hermione is the one who CHOSE to take his suggestion. If she had chosen to go back earlier and get Wormtail out of the milk jug, then THAT is what would have happened, and everything WOULD have gone differently, but it all happened the way it happened. She didn't go back to an earlier hour to get Wormtail, so she didn't go back to an earlier hour to get Wormtail. Not that she COULDN'T -- just that she DIDN'T. She didn't think of it, or she didn't think she could do it, or whatever, but she CHOSE to take DD's suggestion of three turns. Harry, on the other hand, simply stood there wondering what the heck was Hermione doing. > Laurasia: > JKR shows us a pair of feet and a door slamming in the Entrance Hall 3 > hours before Harry and Hermione leave to make them. We have seen the > _cause_ shown before the _effect_. Tammy R: You mean the _effect_ before the _cause_ there, right? > Laurasia: > The normal understanding is that cause must always come before effect. > Until we see and experience the cause, the effect cannot exist. Until > we see Harry *go* back in time, he cannot already *be* back in time. Tammy R: No, the effect can and will and does exist, whether we have experienced the cause or not. > Laurasia: > The only way we can see effect *before* cause is if Time is > predefined. If Time is fixed then order isn't important. If Time is > fixed then the future is not dependant on the past. Tammy R: The PAST *is* fixed. The past cannot be changed. The future is dependant upon the past, in that what has gone before helps to form the choices that the characters make, but the future is NOT fixed, until it has passed and become the past, and has *become* fixed. > Laurasia: > Time and > cause-and-effect could flow backwards or forwards or back and forth > because the future isn't defined by actions in the past- it has > already been decided. Tammy R: No, that doesn't follow at all. A fixed past does not require a fixed future, nor does a fixed past negate choice. Cause and effect still holds sway, whether the cause or the effect *happens* first, timewise. WE see the effect of TimeTurning only after DD makes his suggestion to Hermione. That doesn't mean that the effects that we *didn't realize* were effects of that cause didn't happen until after DD made his suggestion. We didn't realize that the footsteps and the closing door were an effect of the TT until after we'd seen the TT being used, but that doesn't mean that the footsteps and closing door hadn't HAPPENED yet. Cause and effect are still joined in the journey through Time, even if a minor swirl or eddy in the Timestream makes them SEEM to come in reverse order. Where there is a cause, there is an effect, but also, where there is an effect, there *IS* a cause. Somewhere. > Laurasia: > If Time is fixed, then it makes perfectly plausible to see the effects > of Harry and Hermione's Time Travelling before we see the cause of > it. Tammy R: If it's happened, it's happened. In that way, Time is fixed. But what is yet to come is yet to come and is yet to be shaped by what has already come to pass and the choices people make because of what has already come to pass. The future is not fixed, only the past. > Laurasia: > But, back to choice. How the hell can Time exist in a predefined > fashion if JKR's most significant theme is that it is our choices who > define who we are? *THAT* makes apparently no sense, right? Tammy R: Actually, according to DD, it's our choices that SHOW who we are, not define who we are. But to answer your question, as I've been saying, it's only what has already happened that has already happened. If it is yet to come in the unshaped future, then it hasn't happened yet. And all the choice in the world cannot change what has already come to pass, though it can and does shape the future. > Laurasia: > BUT, why is this logic never wheeled out to contradict the presence of > Prophecies? Isn't a Prophecy proof that a future event is known before > the cause of it has come into play? Is it because Prophecies work in > vague and cryptic ways? Is it because there is only a mystic voice > telling you what the future holds, instead of a character's own memory > and eyes? Is it because a Prophecy is only appears as a guide, not an > indisputable fact? Tammy R: Now we're touching on a real-world facet here. I have absolutely no problems with a true prophecy reflecting an unshaped future based upon a set-in-stone past, but that's because of my religious upbringing. I also have absolutely no problem believing in an all-knowing God who knows exactly what we're going to do before we do it, even though WE choose in the here-and-now what we're going to do. Free will and prophecy have never been contradictory in my personal belief system in real life, so I have NOOOO problems with it here, either. > Laurasia: > What does "fixed" mean anyway? Does "fixed" mean no character chooses > their own actions, or does it mean they just aren't aware of their > choices yet, but Time is (magically...)? Tammy R: As I've been saying, what has happened has already happened, thanks to the choices made *as* things happened, but it's only the past that is set and unchangeable. The future is undetermined and very, very plastic. Every character is still free to make their own choices, but the choices that they have *already* made, and what has *already* happened because of those choices, has already come to pass, and cannot be changed. *** Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at rcn.com Want to back-up your expensive DVDs? Check out DVD Wizard Pro: http://www.dvdwizardpro.com/idevaffiliate/idevaffiliate.php?id=398 Want to earn a Sony Vaio for only $5? Check out EZ Laptop: http://www.ezlaptop.com/index.php?ref=8574 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 20:37:47 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 20:37:47 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124004 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > > vmonte responds: > I know what you are saying, I'm not sure why Hermione would have > incorrect info though. You would think that she would be warned of > all the dangers associated with time travel (rather thoroughly) by > Minerva. After all, what a deadly weapon ... to give a student in > order to take more classes?! ... > > Let's face it --- I hate time travel! Unfortunately, it's definitely > coming back. > > Vivian bboyminn: It was indeed Minerva who told Hermione about time-traveling wizards killing their past and future selves (Am Ed PB pg 399). However, that doesn't mean it was true, and in that moment, (McGonagall talks to Hermione) it doesn't matter if it was true. It was simply a teacher warning a student of the potential serious consequences of misusing the Time Turner. I think it is reasonable for McGonagall to have arrange the Time Turner for Hermione. Hermione is a very intelligent and responsible student, who McGonagall reasonably assumed could be trusted with this responsibility. In addition, since Hermione signed up for every single available class, it would be a chance for a Gryffindor to break the record for most OWLs ever received. McGonagall might be strict, but she is not above having a healthy dose of Gryffindor pride. So, I buy the idea of McGonagall convincing the Ministry that the Time Turner would be used by a responsible student under strict controlling guide lines. To a point by a previous poster who claimed that time /couldn't/ be changed. I'm not sure that's true, certainly time SHOULDN'T be change, and certainly it is against the law to do so (Am Ed PB pg 398). But the fact that they require a law prohibiting the changing of history, implies that it is possible to do so; if it /can't/ be changed then why have a law. Related to the concept of 'not being seen', I think that is more a matter of common sense than a hard and fast rule, or an indicator of disaster. Take Hermione for example; in the normal course of her day, she is traveling within a very short span of time. Given that, at any given time, all existing versions of Hermione understand what is going on, it wouldn't have been a problem if she had seen herself; both versions would know and understand what was happening. However, if she is in a situation that allows her to see herself, that also puts her in a situation where a third party could see both version of Hermione, and that could certainly cause problems. That would equally cause problems if a third party saw the second time traveling Harry and Hermione skulking about the grounds. So, Hermione seeing herself wouldn't be a problem, but as Hermione points out, if a second Harry came bursting into Hagrid's, the first /unknowing/ Harry would not understand it, and might do something rash. Although, I seriously doubt the normal Harry would have killed TT!Harry, he could have certainly stunned him, and that would have completely screwed up the rescue attempt. So, reasonably, /unknowing/ Harry should not see TT!Harry. As far as Harry seeing himself when he cast the Patronus that saved himself (and Hermione & Sirius), I think the realization that HE cast the Patronus and not his father would have created a sufficient rush of joy that he would have had the necessary motivation to cast the spell. Also note that from across the lake Harry was not under the disabling influence of the Dementors. Given all that, I don't find it all that amazing that he was able to do it. Certainly, in that circumstance we can pile on the "what if's", but if you are going to get into that, you might just as well say, 'what if Harry had an extra glass of water, and was peeing behind the bush just in that very moment when he should have been casting the Patronus'? That unlikely scenerio makes just as much sense as any other 'what if'. There are an infinite number of "what if's" that are all far more unlikely that 'what did' happen. Although I'm paraphrasing somewhat, I do agree with the person who said that the Time Turner is not so much a problem in PoA, as the events there are sufficiently resolved if you look at the information and clues available in the book. The real problem is not its use in PoA, but what its existence mean for the fictional world in general. Much like Veritaserum, people post here all the time with time travel as the quick and easy solution for everything; why not go back and save Harry's parents from Voldemort, why not go back and reform Tom Riddle before he becomes Voldemort, why not go back and stop Tom Riddle from being born, why not go back and save Sirius. These are the big problems regarding the Time Turner. The situation is even more complicated because while a good guy can time travel back to stop Voldemort, a bad guy can travel back to help Voldemort. A good guy can travel back in time to save Sirius while a bad guy goes back in time to kill Sirius years before he ever goes to the Ministry. One wizard goes back in time to force the price of a stock up while another goes back to force the stocks price down. In addition, all aspects of life and time are tightly and minutely intermingled. A small change in the past could have unforeseen and disasterous consequences in the future as can be witness in the recent movie 'The Butterfly Affect'. It's possible that a significant change in the past, could have cataclysmic consequences; it could destroy the present and future; it could be enough to cause the world to revert back to the stoneage. In my opinion, the events of PoA are very consistent and easily understood by anyone willing to look at the information available with an open mind. But the greater, grander, broader, and deeper implications of the mere existance of the Time Turner creates a tremendously unresolved dilemma. If Time Turners exist, then why doesn't everybody use them all the time to solve all their preceived problems? Then again, maybe that question is it's own answer. I think JKR resolved the events of time travel in PoA very nicely. But she has a LONG LONG LONG way to go in explaining how Time Turners fit into the grander scheme of things. I could say more, but I won't (at least not for now). Steve/bboyminn From ms-tamany at rcn.com Sat Feb 5 20:53:14 2005 From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 15:53:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4204EBEA.13849.E1DD8A9@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 124005 > Del says: > What bothers me is that Harry *managed* to cast the Patronus Charm > *because* he saw himself do it. Harry did have a significant > probability of not managing to cast the Patronus Charm. The only thing > that turned the odds in his favour is the fact that he saw himself do > it before. Had he not known he could do it, maybe he would not have > managed, in which case his past self would have died, in which case he > should be dead too. So basically, Harry survived because he saw > Future!Himself, which is a direct violation of the "Time-Turning can't > change what happened" rule. It seems that in that case, there's a > significant probability that Time-Turning!Harry *did* change the past. Now Tammy R says: Actually, Harry seeing what he thought was his father casting the Patronus across the lake was no violation of the "TimeTurning can't change what's happened" rule. It was a violation of "Don't be SEEN" rule, which is a rule set in place (I believe) simply to protect those wizards who are TTing from spooking themselves into killing themselves. The "TTing can't change what happened" rule is actually a law. Like the law of gravity, or the law of the speed of light. TT!Harry didn't change the past by casting the Patronus. He couldn't change the past. It's impossible. It's not that "you can't change the past" because it would cause problems. It's that "you can't change the past" because it's impossible to do, because what has already happened has already happened. Harry was able to cast the Patronus because he knew he could do it. Where does faith end and knowledge begin? While Harry and Sirius were surrounded by the dementors, Harry wasn't able to cast a respectable Patronus from there, because he had very little faith in his ability -- after all, the only *real* Patronus he'd cast before had been at Draco, not at a *real* dementor. He'd NEVER faced a REAL dementor since learning the Patronus, and now he had to deal with hundreds of them at once? How could he NOT have lost faith in his ability to cast a real Patronus then? But TT!Harry, watching from across the lake, knowing that SOMEONE had cast a spectacular Patronus from right where he was, WAITING for that someone to show up, REALIZING that *HE* was that someone -- any faith he used to have in his ability _or inability_ to cast a REAL Patronus was left behind in the sudden sure and certain KNOWLEDGE that he COULD do it, because he already had seen it done. No paradox there at all. No changing of the past. It's all simply what already happened. *** Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at rcn.com Want to back-up your expensive DVDs? Check out DVD Wizard Pro: http://www.dvdwizardpro.com/idevaffiliate/idevaffiliate.php?id=398 Want to earn a Sony Vaio for only $5? Check out EZ Laptop: http://www.ezlaptop.com/index.php?ref=8574 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 21:02:06 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:02:06 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error so far - ie: Veritaserum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124006 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Alla: > > Unless Sirius was sent in Azkaban right away, there was a > possibility to use veritaserum - since as I said in my previous > post, they did have time to conduct some kind of the hearing,where > Albus testified ( it is possible of course that they conducted such > hearin with Sirius already in Azkaban . WW justice system does make > me cringe quite often) > > Besides, Albus sure did not hesitate to use veritaserum on Crouch > Jr., in times of great need. > > JMO, > Alla bboyminn: I still maintain my position that people jump into the use of Veritaserum a little too easily and a little too quickly. Ask yourself this, why, in this one instance (Sirius), would they have been motivated to use Truth Serum? They caught Sirius at the scene, they had eye/ear testimmony of witnesses. Given that Sirius was in shock; filled with grief and a crushing sense guilt, he very probably felt that he was indeed the cause of the Potter's death. Given all that, I don't think he was doing much to defend himself, and given what seemed like overwhelming evidence, I can't imagine why the idea of using Truth Serum would have occurred to anyone. Now, if Sirius had lived, and his case was reinvestigated, certainly it would be a great idea to give him Truth Serum, and determine if he really was innocent, or if he had just befuddled Dumbledore, and Harry and friends. That makes sense, but I still can't imagine why it would have occurred to anyone in the original incident to consider the use of Truth Serum. Truth in that event, given Sirius most likely lack of a legal self defense, probably seemed clear cut, and evidence overwhelming. In the case of Crouch!Moody, there was a great deal of uncertainty, and ean extremely high likelihood that a caught Death Eater would lie. True, knowing Crouch JR, he probably would have bragged rather than lied, but Dumbledore has no way of knowing that. In addition, the circumstances are dire, and it is vitally important to get at the truth as soon as possible. All that makes for a very different case when compared to Sirius's orignal capture. Really, Veritaserum (and Time Turners) are not the answer to all life's problems. Steve/bboyminnn From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Feb 5 21:11:42 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:11:42 -0000 Subject: Full Moon (was: Support for the ESE Lupin theory!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124007 > > > Q: > > Can you explain how Lupin turns into a werewolf, since he didn't turn in the Shrieking Shack in Prisoner of Azkaban, but instead he turned only when the full moonlight hit him outside the tunnel? If he only turned into a wolf in the moonlight, why didn't he just stay inside? Did it have to do with the potion? Or was the moon not up yet? > > > > A: > > The moon wasn't up when he entered the Shrieking Shack. > > > > Pippin: Quite dodgy, that Renee: > As the person who asks the question is very obviously referring to the Shrieking Shack scene in POA, you're really overtaxing people's credulity here, Pippin. Pippin: Um, I don't think so. The question is not just relevant to the Shrieking Shack scenes in PoA, as I'm sure both the asker and JKR knew quite well. It's relevant to the prank. If Lupin doesn't transform in the shack then there's no prank. Snape will get as far as this house and meet, um, Remus Lupin, calmly studying transfiguration. No rescue, no life debt, no big moment for James...nope, sorry, that's a biggie. Very important to the plot. And if Sirius can't *know* whether Lupin will be transformed or not when Snape arrives...well, it's a bit of a dud, isn't it? Sirius is much cleverer than that...and that means the timing of Lupin's transformation is ever so important, I'm afraid. Pippin also smirking From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sat Feb 5 21:14:12 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:14:12 -0000 Subject: Details (was Re: Full Moon - A Rant About Lycantrophy Symptoms) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124008 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > Neri: > Renee, I agree with all my heart that JKR didn't put much thought into > the whole transformation thing, which most probably means it's not > something important in the story. I once got very interested with > Potterverse lycanthropy and did a full research on Lupin's symptoms. A > lot of wasted time. What was I thinking? That I'm going to discover > the cure for lycanthropy and win myself an Order of Merlin? Anyway, > after a lot of work I had to stop because too many things just didn't > add up. Renee: I'm snipping the rest of your post, which I enjoyed a lot - thank you for studying this so meticulously! This whole lycanthropy business, along with the current "biggest error" thread and many past references to all kinds of flints, only serves to confirm my suspicion that JKR simply doesn't spend equally much time and care on every single detail in the Potterverse. Not everything matters, and when it doesn't, why put a lot of effort into it? The temptation to be blunt and call this sloppiness, and to make a connection with the sloppy and less than polished writing found in OotP, with its numerous adverbs clogging almost every page, is huge. But I'll stop just short of this, and not just because I know JKR must be working under a lot of pressure, what with hordes of fans breathing down her neck and looking over her shoulder. There's no way she can get every minor detail right without spending twice as much time on her writing as she does now. It took Tolkien more than fifteen years to write LotR, a text that is only half as long as the first five HP books. (And he did carefully figure out all the phases of the moon during the journey of the Fellowship, something people only found out when his notes were published by his son. When you get something right, nobody gives it another thought...) When it really matters, when we're dealing with important plot twists and developments, JKR does seem to get it right. (I haven't quite accepted her explanation for Harry's failure to to use the two- way mirror in an emergency yet, but that's about it.) Most of the errors, flints and inconsistencies are about matters of secondary importance and not detrimental to the overal story. I'd almost be inclined to say something like "if it's erroneous and/or leads to confusion, it's most likely not crucial". However, one problem with such a statement is, that we can't be sure it's valid as long as we've still got two books to go. Another problem is that we (or maybe it's just me?) seem to lack a good overview. Does anyone remember details from an earlier book that seemed wrong at the time but suddenly made sense when viewed in the context of later developments and revelations? Contradictions resolved over the course of several books? Apparent mistakes that turned out to be no such thing? I'm not talking about details that stood out as strange or inconsistent in retrospect, but about things that did so at first sight. On the other hand, I'm also curious about errors persistent enough to seem deliberate. This is JKRs world, after all. Expecting everything to conform to our knowledge and perception of our own, primary world is not realistic. From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sat Feb 5 21:20:45 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:20:45 -0000 Subject: Full Moon (was: Support for the ESE Lupin theory!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124009 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > > > Q: > > > Can you explain how Lupin turns into a werewolf, since he > didn't turn in the Shrieking Shack in Prisoner of Azkaban, but > instead he turned only when the full moonlight hit him outside > the tunnel? If he only turned into a wolf in the moonlight, why > didn't he just stay inside? Did it have to do with the potion? Or > was the moon not up yet? > > > > > > A: > > > The moon wasn't up when he entered the Shrieking Shack. > > > > > > Pippin: > Quite dodgy, that > > Renee: > > As the person who asks the question is very obviously referring > to the Shrieking Shack scene in POA, you're really overtaxing > people's credulity here, Pippin. > > Pippin: > Um, I don't think so. The question is not just relevant to the > Shrieking Shack scenes in PoA, as I'm sure both the asker and > JKR knew quite well. It's relevant to the prank. If Lupin doesn't > transform in the shack then there's no prank. Renee: Sorry, but I think you're reading things into the question that aren't there. And your answer doesn't change anything about the fact that JKR's answer contradicts the PoA canon and is just plainly wrong. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sat Feb 5 21:49:26 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:49:26 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error In-Reply-To: <200502050947226.SM01080@devbox> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124010 > Vivamus (snipped): > All right, I'll bite, but my nomination is a group of errors. > Ignorance of snakes. > > 1. No snake that has ever lived, AFAIK, could chomp on someone > like the snake that bit Arthur Weasley. She describes the snake > splintering bones with it's bite, which snakes' jaws are not > physically capable of doing. Dungrollin: I've been researching this, recently (it was me in post 115333), and I think that Bushmasters can strike hard enough to break bones, though I can't find a specific reference for you to prove it. Snakes generally leave half their length coiled on the ground and strike with the other half of their length, a tube of solid muscle 6ft long would, I think be able to provide enough force to break a few ribs. Moreover, I found some info on WebMed Health to suggest that a bite from a non-poisonous snake can break bones, so I don't see why poisonous snakes shouldn't be able to. (Hope these links work - if not you should be able to cut and paste.) http://my.webmd.com/hw/health_guide_atoz/sig241206.asp Moreover, bushmasters are known to deliver more than one bite in a single attack. I don't see the bite as such (i.e. the pressure of the jaws being brought together and crushing the ribs between them) splintering the bones, but the force of the strike on a man's unprotected ribs could easily crack them as a sledgehammer would. Vivamus: > 2. No matter how big Nagini is, there is no way a venomous snake > is going to be big enough to eat a 14 year old boy. Dungrollin: Agreed. However, in the graveyard Voldy doesn't specifically say anything about feeding Harry to Nagini, he says rather vaguely "Just a little longer, Nagini" which, to be honest, could refer to anything at all. It's in chapter 29: The Dream where he says it explicitly: "Nagini [...] you are out of luck. I will not be feeding Wormtail to you, after all ..." ? But it might be significant that he's talking to Wormtail, and a rat *would* be just the right sized snack. Vivamus: > 3. People don't, usually, bleed when bitten by a poisonous snake. > In fact, they don't usually bleed when bitten by a non-poisonous > snake, except for defensive bites, which the attack on Arthur > certainly was not. > > I've heard someone say that Nagini must be a Bushmaster. It's > possible, as Bushmasters get up to almost four meters in length, > and Nagini is described as being over twelve feet long. Dungrollin: Yup, that was me (post 115333 again). And I'm going to disagree again; L. muta venom has neurotoxic, cardiotoxic, myotoxic, anticoagulant and haemorrhagic effects, here's a list of symptoms: Edema (swelling) & Pain Haemorrhage (gingival [gums], wound, rectal) Blister formation around wound site Abdominal pain (intense colic) Bloody diarrhea Hypotension (diastolic & systolic) Bradycardia Diminished heart sounds Brief loss of consciousness Blurry vision Dizziness Vomiting http://www-surgery.ucsd.edu/ent/DAVIDSON/Snake/Lachesis.htm Haemorrhaging from the site of envenomation (the bite) is quite common with Crotaline snake bites (rattlesnakes, water moccasins, Fer-de-Lance etc) though all these symptoms (from what I've discovered) are very variable, and depend very much on how much venom was injected. Vivamus before: But Bushmasters (Lachesis mutus) have > extremely powerful hemotoxin in their venom, and the larger a > snake is, the more venom it can inject. With all the time it took > to get McGonagall and get to DD's office, Arthur would have been > long since dead by the time they got to DD. I'm not counting this > one as an error, because we don't really know what kind of snake > it was, but most venomous snakes of that size would have killed > Arthur too quickly for help to arrive. > > Vivamus later: > I think it still is a FLINT, though, and here is why. One would > expect that the venom from a magical giant snake would be no less > deadly than that of a non-magical snake. TR did tell Harry in CoS > that he had about a minute to live after the Basilisk fang got > him. Whatever Nagini is might not be as deadly as a Basilisk, but > it must have been ten minutes at the very least after seeing the > attack that Harry & co. could even have gotten to DD's office, and > probably another ten before anyone could physically have gotten to > Arthur to help him, and probably another ten minutes after that > before he could get any kind of treatment. The snake bit him four > times, so he probably got a full load of venom from a 12+ foot > long snake. Arthur would be dead long before anyone could get > there. > > (To put it in perspective, there are some snakes that can kill an > adult in a matter of seconds.) Dungrollin: I disagree (for a change...). Venomous snakes can very finely judge the amount of venom they inject ? we simply don't know how much Arthur got (and by the way it was only three bites, not four), and the Basilisk undoubtedly injected a hell of a lot more venom than Nagini would be able to. I've seen some case studies on the web where people were bitten by bushmasters and didn't receive treatment for 2 hours, 5 hours and more, and they all survived. "There are many factors that influence the seriousness of a bite, including the individual's health, size, age, and psychological state. The nature of the bite may also vary, like penetration of one or both fangs, amount of venom injected, location of the bite, and proximity to major blood vessels. The health of the snake and the interval since it last used its venom mechanism is also important. These multiple variables make every bite unique. Depending on circumstances, the bite of a 'mildly' venomous snake may be life-threatening and that of a 'strongly' venomous snake may not." http://www.manbir-online.com/htm2/snake.22.htm I stick to my deduction that Nagini (on the basis of the information we have) is a bushmaster. I don't think she's a magical snake ? what we've seen her do so far requires no magic at all. But you were originally criticising JKR for not having done enough research... I'm trying to track down a paraphrased quote posted ages ago: "JKR was asked if there was anything in PS/SS she wished she could go back and change. She said that at the time it was published, she thought boa constrictors were poisonous." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/31778 Unfortunately I've had no luck so far ? if anyone knows the quote I'd be very very grateful for a reference (it's not on QQQ or Madame Scoop). I think that JKR wanted the boa constrictor in PS/SS to be Nagini, then realised her error and had to abandon it. But after making an error like that, you'd be certain to do your research properly the next time around, wouldn't you? Well, I would. So I stick with my 'Nagini is a bushmaster' theory. (No, hang on, that's not very catchy, how about N.O.B.B.Y ? Nagini Obviously a Bushmaster, Beware, Young'uns!) Dungrollin Apologising to Vivamus if he's(?) an expert on this, in which case I'll defer to superior knowledge gracefully. My pet gripe is the whole of GoF, and why Fake!Moody wasted a whole year when he could have given Harry a portkey at any time. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Feb 5 21:54:21 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:54:21 -0000 Subject: Details (was Re: Full Moon - A Rant About Lycantrophy Symptoms) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124011 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" wrote: Most of the errors, flints and inconsistencies are about matters of secondary importance and not detrimental to the overal story. I'd almost be inclined to say something like "if it's erroneous and/or leads to confusion, it's most likely not crucial". < > However, one problem with such a statement is, that we can't be sure it's valid as long as we've still got two books to go. Another problem is that we (or maybe it's just me?) seem to lack a good overview. Does anyone remember details from an earlier book that seemed wrong at the time but suddenly made sense when viewed in the context of later developments and revelations? Contradictions resolved over the course of several books? Apparent mistakes that turned out to be no such thing? I'm not talking about details that stood out as strange or inconsistent in retrospect, but about things that did so at first sight. > Pippin: Oh yes. Scabbers suddenly falling asleep in PS/SS seemed very contrived to me at the time but made sense once I found out he's not only a phony rat but a "sleeper" servant of Voldemort. Ginny's tearful collapse at the end of CoS was so overdone it seemed phony. In the light of OOP, I now understand it was intended that way. Not only is Ginny not the shy helpless damsel she appeared to be for four books, she's crying to conceal her guilt. Mr. Weasley lectures her about not showing the diary to him or her mother, and Ginny sobs two answers in a row about how she didn't know the diary was dangerous. Clearly a lie, if you think about it. She *did* know it was dangerous by the time she stole it back from Harry. Dumbledore interrupts "firmly" and sends her off to the hospital wing. Legilimens that he is, he must know full well that she's holding her guilty knowledge back, and *that's* why he reassures her that there has been no lasting harm done. Pippin From eloiseherisson at aol.com Sat Feb 5 22:18:50 2005 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloise_herisson) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 22:18:50 -0000 Subject: Full Moon (was: Support for the ESE Lupin theory!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124012 JKR in interview: > > A: > > The moon wasn't up when he entered the Shrieking Shack. > > > > Pippin: > > Quite dodgy, that. The innocent chatter is trying to figure out > what > > happened when Lupin came out of the tunnel, and JKR only > > says what happened when Lupin went into it. And she needn't > > even have been talking about the same instance -- after all, > > Lupin went into the tunnel loads of times as a student. > > Renee: > As the person who asks the question is very obviously referring to > the Shrieking Shack scene in POA, you're really overtaxing people's > credulity here, Pippin. You have to, of course, as JKR obviously > doesn't remember the moon was alreadu up when Lupin entered the > shack. From PoA, chapter 21, after Harry and Hermione have gone back > in time: > > "They watched the four men climb the castle steps and disappear from > view. For a few minutes the scene was deserted. Then - > > `Here comes Lupin!' said Harry, as they saw another figure sprinting > down the stone steps and haring towards the Willow. Harry looked up > at the sky. Clouds were obscuring the moon completely. Eloise: How about the explanation that JKR *did* make a mistake, but a different one, or even more than one. It seems to me obvious that in the text, she is drawing attention to the presence of the moon and the fact that *it is obscured* as Lupin enters the Whomping Willow. In this case it could be that when she answered the question on the hoof as it were, she meant "the moon was not visible" rather than "the moon was not up", as obviously it was. When Lupin transforms, it is when *the moon emerges from behind a cloud*. The two events are clearly linked. Now, as Pippin states, this potentially causes big problems for the so-called Prank, *unless* the fact is that the moon only became full at the point it emerged from the cloud, its earlier obscurance additionally masking the fact that it was not yet full (not that you can really discern that with the naked eye). I don't really buy that one. I am very afraid that JKR has not been consistent here. It is clear that Lupin *did* transform when in the SS, as it is either stated or implied that the havoc wreaked in there and the sounds of hauntings that went on in there were caused by Lupin in his transformed state Was there an unobscured window available through which he might have observed the moon? I think it doubtful. The text regarding the "Prank" suggest that it is timing which is the crucial thing, that regarding the night of the SS that it is the presence of a visible full moon. One consistent scenario I can construct is one whereby a werewolf transforms *if the moon is visible in the sky*, whether or not he is in direct line of sight or not. This means that if Severus entered the tunnel on a clear night, then he was in danger. Can't say I care for it much. Alternatively, we may posit that Lupin was at lesser danger of transformation on the night in question (PoA) because he had been taking his Wolfsbane Potion: having missed that night's dose he should have been OK had he not come into the presence of the full moon, but the compromised dosage in combination with the light/sight of the exposed moon was just too much. I think I like that better. It is a consistent explanation if we accept that JKR made a mistake in saying "the moon was not up" when she meant "the moon was not visible". Wolfsbane Potion doesn't seem to have been available to Lupin as a student, so back then the moon's effect would have been potent whether visible or not. I leave others to decide what implication this theory has for ESE! Lupin. ~Eloise From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 5 22:20:27 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 22:20:27 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error (GoF portkey) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124013 >> Dungrollin: >My pet gripe is the whole of GoF, and why Fake!Moody wasted a whole year when he could have given Harry a portkey at any time.< Betsy: I've seen some good theories thrown around for Fake!Moody's waiting until the end of the Tournament. One is that the potion Voldemort had made took several months of brewing. So why take the risk of grabbing Harry early? Instead, brew the potion and then grab Harry when his blood is actually needed. Another is that making a portkey from scratch that would operate within Hogwarts grounds is well nigh impossible. So instead Fake! Moody took the portkey Dumbledore had already made within his power as headmaster of the school, and just modified it a little bit to include a little detour from the ultimate destination. This theory has the added benefit of explaining how the Cup worked as a return portkey when Harry grabbed Cedric's body and escaped. The third theory is more psychological. Voldemort knew enough about Harry to recognize that Harry would get a big boost out of actually winning the Tournament. The thought of hitting Harry's pride by revealing the truth that Harry won only because Fake!Moody helped him was too much for Voldemort to resist. The old, set him up high so he has farther to fall when you knock him down, plan. Personally, I like all three in combination. The brew takes a while so we can't grab Harry immediately, and the end of the Tournament involves a portkey which gives us an open window of opportunity if we can get Harry into the Tournament, and when we finally grab the boy we'll have a great time making him suffer. Sounds dastardly clever and evil enough for me! ;) I didn't come up with these theories, and I honestly can't remember where I stumbled across them - so if anyone recognizes any of these ideas, I apologize in advance for not giving credit. Betsy From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 00:29:52 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 00:29:52 -0000 Subject: Pensive Peeking Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124015 If someone peeks in you pensive, how do you know how much the pensive peeper saw? Does Snape assume that Harry saw more than he did? Tonks_op I hope someone here writes a poem about pensive peepers. From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 00:34:03 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 00:34:03 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124016 bboymin wrote: It was indeed Minerva who told Hermione about time-traveling wizards killing their past and future selves (Am Ed PB pg 399). However, that doesn't mean it was true, and in that moment, (McGonagall talks to Hermione) it doesn't matter if it was true. It was simply a teacher warning a student of the potential serious consequences of misusing the Time Turner. I think it is reasonable for McGonagall to have arrange the Time Turner for Hermione. Hermione is a very intelligent and responsible student, who McGonagall reasonably assumed could be trusted with this responsibility. In addition, since Hermione signed up for every single available class, it would be a chance for a Gryffindor to break the record for most OWLs ever received. McGonagall might be strict, but she is not above having a healthy dose of Gryffindor pride. So, I buy the idea of McGonagall convincing the Ministry that the Time Turner would be used by a responsible student under strict controlling guide lines. To a point by a previous poster who claimed that time /couldn't/ be changed. I'm not sure that's true, certainly time SHOULDN'T be change, and certainly it is against the law to do so (Am Ed PB pg 398). But the fact that they require a law prohibiting the changing of history, implies that it is possible to do so; if it /can't/ be changed then why have a law. Related to the concept of 'not being seen', I think that is more a matter of common sense than a hard and fast rule, or an indicator of disaster. Take Hermione for example; in the normal course of her day, she is traveling within a very short span of time. Given that, at any given time, all existing versions of Hermione understand what is going on, it wouldn't have been a problem if she had seen herself; both versions would know and understand what was happening. However, if she is in a situation that allows her to see herself, that also puts her in a situation where a third party could see both version of Hermione, and that could certainly cause problems. That would equally cause problems if a third party saw the second time traveling Harry and Hermione skulking about the grounds. vmonte responds: I believe that time-travel can change events. And if I'm reading your posts correctly you are also saying this. So, why is Hermione wrong about wizards killing their past or future self? I also think that Dumbledore's warning to Harry and Hermione about not being seen is not only with regards to their past selves spotting their future selves, but also to be careful about a third party spotting both versions. I've posted this before as well. I still don't buy that Hermione was given the TT just so that she can take extra classes. She was given permission to use it for her classes but it gave her several months of training until she got to use it for Dumbledore's intended purpose. It's kind of how in CoS the right plants just happened to be at the school that would later cure petrification. Vivian From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 00:42:44 2005 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 00:42:44 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124017 Del wrote: >>>> For me, where JKR *really* muddied the waters is when Harry managed to perform the Patronus Charm because he had seen himself do it. In this instance, Future!Harry had a very definite influence on Past!Harry. Past!Harry is able to do something in his own future because he saw Future!Harry do it. What bothers me is that Harry *managed* to cast the Patronus Charm *because* he saw himself do it. >>>> Laurasia replies: It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Voldemort only attacks Harry because he heard a prophecy which suggested Harry may be a threat, but until he makred him as equal with that AK there was no threat... Harry only casts the Patronus because he believed that the Patronus must be cast. Are you equally bothered by the idea of self-fulfilling prophecies? Events in the past that *only happened* because the future gave them the idea in the first place? Without that prophecy, Voldemort would not have bothered to go after a baby boy... IMO, it's the same idea. But I've never heard anyone express frustration with the idea of Voldemort and his self-fulfilling prophecy, yet the same logic gets applied to Harry and his Patronus. ~<(Laurasia)>~ Tammy Rizzo, I agree with what you wrote in post 124003. I was just trying to fathom the difficulty some people have in seeing Time Travel in such a simple way. From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 00:52:19 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 00:52:19 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: <4204EBEA.13849.E1DD8A9@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124018 Now Tammy R says: Actually, Harry seeing what he thought was his father casting the Patronus across the lake was no violation of the "TimeTurning can't change what's happened" rule. It was a violation of "Don't be SEEN" rule, which is a rule set in place (I believe) simply to protect those wizards who are TTing from spooking themselves into killing themselves. The "TTing can't change what happened" rule is actually a law. Like the law of gravity, or the law of the speed of light. TT!Harry didn't change the past by casting the Patronus. He couldn't change the past. It's impossible. It's not that "you can't change the past" because it would cause problems. It's that "you can't change the past" because it's impossible to do, because what has already happened has already happened. Harry was able to cast the Patronus because he knew he could do it. snip No paradox there at all. No changing of the past. It's all simply what already happened. vmonte responds: If there is a warning about not spooking yourself so that you won't inadvertently kill yourself, then it has to be possible for you to mess with the past. Why warn someone about anything if the past always happens the way it's going to happen? Spelling out the rules/ warnings to someone implies that the past is not fixed and you must be careful. It seems to me that the events of PoA unfolded the way they did because Dumbledore made a conscious choice to send Hermione and Harry back to save lives. He planned the event, and then H&H followed through with his plan. If he had never told H&H what he wanted them to do, they would have never known to TT back. Vivian From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Feb 6 00:54:12 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 00:54:12 -0000 Subject: Full Moon (was: Support for the ESE Lupin theory!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124019 > JKR in interview: > > > A: > > > The moon wasn't up when he entered the Shrieking Shack. > > > > > > Pippin: > > > Quite dodgy, that. The innocent chatter is trying to figure out > > what happened when Lupin came out of the tunnel, and JKR only says what happened when Lupin went into it. And she needn't even have been talking about the same instance -- after all, Lupin went into the tunnel loads of times as a student. > > > > Renee: > > As the person who asks the question is very obviously referring to the Shrieking Shack scene in POA, you're really overtaxing people's credulity here, Pippin. You have to, of course, as JKR obviously doesn't remember the moon was already up when Lupin entered the shack.<< Eloise: (summarized) Maybe JKR meant to say the moon wasn't visible, not that it wasn't up. Pippin: The *narrator* says the moon was completely obscured by clouds. But if the moon is completely obscured he can't tell whether it's risen or not. It could be the narrator who makes the mistake, just as it(he?) says that Harry's parents died in a car crash. If you check back in the archives of this group around the time of the scholastic chat, you can find the genesis of the interview question or a similar one (there were several HPFGU members submitting questions which are in the files). The aim of the questioner was to resolve the contradictions in PoA. JKR's answer, even if it didn't further contradict the narrator, would still have been completely useless for that purpose as it doesn't explain why Lupin didn't transform until he came outside, when Lupin states elsewhere that he was transformed inside the shack. "Once a month, I was smuggled out of the castle, into this place, to transform." -- PoA ch 18. I have no doubt JKR knew that quite well. I'm sure it wasn't the first time she'd been asked that one. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 01:21:03 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:21:03 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error so far - ie: Veritaserum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124020 Bboyminn: I still maintain my position that people jump into the use of Veritaserum a little too easily and a little too quickly. Ask yourself this, why, in this one instance (Sirius), would they have been motivated to use Truth Serum? They caught Sirius at the scene, they had eye/ear testimmony of witnesses. Given that Sirius was in shock; filled with grief and a crushing sense guilt, he very probably felt that he was indeed the cause of the Potter's death. Given all that, I don't think he was doing much to defend himself, and given what seemed like overwhelming evidence, I can't imagine why the idea of using Truth Serum would have occurred to anyone. Alla: What do you mean, a little bit too quickly? Veritaserum is a drug, which makes you tell the truth - not from time time , but ALWAYS. ( I disagree by the way that it can be closely analogised with lie detector, because polygraph CAN be fooled and as far as we know ( unless there is something in canon to the opposite, which I don't remember) Veritaserum cannot be fooled. It seems VERY inconsistent to me that veritaserum is not used in ALL criminal investigations of WW. I mean, we don't know maybe it IS used in some, but then again why wasn't it used in Sirius' hearing, investigation, whatever occurred there? I mean, I guess it goes more to justice system as whole, but nevertheless I think JKR did not think it through that well. I guess the answer I want to know is if veritaserum is not supposed to be used in situation like Sirius' than when exactly it is supposed to be used for? Steve: Really, Veritaserum (and Time Turners) are not the answer to all life's problems. Alla: Definitely not, but don't you think that Veritaserum was created to be answer to SOME? I want to know which ones JKR had in mind. Just my opinion of course, Alla From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 01:25:02 2005 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:25:02 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error so far - ie: Veritaserum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124021 Alla: What do you mean, a little bit too quickly? Veritaserum is a drug, which makes you tell the truth - not from time time , but ALWAYS. (I disagree by the way that it can be closely analogised with liedetector, because polygraph CAN be fooled and as far as we know (unless there is something in canon to the opposite, which I don't remember) Veritaserum cannot be fooled. Laurasia: We know that there are difference strengths of Veritaserum (Dumbledore asks for Severus to fetch his 'strongest'). Perhaps the real problem is that, like the Imperius Curse, it can resisted to some degree. Why bother having varying strengths otherwise? Why not economise and get Severus to fetch his veritaserum-on-a-budget bottle? Or do the strengths just dictate how long it lasts? In which case there is still a problem- how does an interrogator know whether the serum has worn off yet? Or perhaps one builds up resistances to it over time. Maybe giving a criminal a little bit now might mean that any later dosage would have less effect. Which would mean that they told the absolute truth the first time, but then, with each progressive dosage, their body could resist it more and more... So, perhaps they hold off on using is *just* *in* *case* there is a time in the future when it is absolutely necessary to be told the truth. (Similar to how some people refuse to take antibiotics or pain medication). It seems that Dumbledore gave the veritaserum to Crouch Jr because there was not going to be a 'next time.' The MoM wouldn't bother is such case because they don't appear to care WHY Crouch Jr did what he did, only that it was done (Fudge, at least, has this opinion). I don't see how they could force a witness to take it, and in the circumstance where there was a guarantee that the convicted person would never be released from Azkaban, the Ministry appears not to care about finding the whole truth, just finding guilt. In contrast, Dumbledore interrogates Kreacher and explains his behaviour to Harry as a natural manifestation of his environment. He never judges Kreacher as 'guilty' or 'not guilty,' but instead tries to find out what caused him to be that way. Dumbldore cares about finding preventative measures, the Ministry is more concerned with punishment. The MoM might just ask 'Did you do it?' IMO, veritaserum would only work when the person asking the questions is trying to find the whole truth, not just the parts of it that prove/disprove guilt. ~<(Laurasia)>~ From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sun Feb 6 01:27:52 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 12:27:52 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR's Single Smallest Error In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42060D48.18078.45E26A4@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 124022 On 5 Feb 2005 at 16:49, eggplant9998 wrote: > I don't think it's a big deal and I admit I'm nitpicking but there are > 2 astronomy errors in Order of the Phoenix. In the final exam Harry is > looking at Venus and Orion, but Venus can only be seen near sunrise or > sunset and this was about midnight, and Orion is a winter > constellation and it was June. Actually I've done some considerable astronomical analysis of this, and it's just *very* marginally possible to make this work - but it is very marginal indeed. We know the exam is on a Wednesday in June - as far as I have been able to work out we can't pin it to a precise date in June. If the Astronomy Owl takes place on June 25th 1996, the last date consistent with the information in the book, both Venus and a *few* faint stars of Orion are visible before sunrise. That far north in summer, sunrise comes quite early, so it really depends on precisely how long the exam went for - it would have had to have gone for some hours. But it's just inside the realms of possibility for that date. I don't think JKR pays much attention to such issues - but it you want to get technical it can *just* work. 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 MadameSSnape at aol.com Sun Feb 6 02:04:41 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:04:41 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's Single Biggest Error so far - ie: Veritaserum Message-ID: <15a.49b9a750.2f36d539@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124023 In a message dated 2/5/2005 7:06:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com writes: It seems VERY inconsistent to me that veritaserum is not used in ALL criminal investigations of WW. I mean, we don't know maybe it IS used in some, but then again why wasn't it used in Sirius' trial? --------------------------- Sherrie here: IMHO, there was no "criminal investigation" - they caught Sirius (as it appeared) red-handed - scene of the crime, wand drawn, thirteen sets of remains at the point of it. The fact that they apparently had witnesses was just icing on the cake, in their minds. Sirius went straight to Azkaban, do not pass Go, do not collect $500. If there was any sort of ex post facto hearing, Sirius wasn't there. They didn't NEED him, or his testimony, with or without Veritaserum - they had all the "proof" they could have asked for. People have been hanged on less evidence. Also IMHO, Veritaserum would suffer from at least one of the same shortcomings as RW "truth sera" - you have to ask the right questions. You might get truthful answers - at least, the truth as the subject perceives it - but you'll get the answers only to the questions you ask. Word it wrong, and... Sherrie "We cannot escape history." - Abraham Lincoln [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bethanymil79 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 01:39:45 2005 From: bethanymil79 at yahoo.com (Bethany) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:39:45 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124024 Maddy wrote: > snip 2 > That is an interesting idea. Though, I highly doubt his Patronus would have been a > great big dog. Why? Well, Harry's Patronus has to do with his father, > and since a Patronus has to do with protection, something associated > with his parents who died trying to protect him, it makes sense. > > > > This brings me to another question, though. Do you think Patroni are > always animals? Or can they be something else? It seems to me that they are most always animals. I can't think of one case in the book where they were anything but an animal. The idea of them being a "protector" would make absolute sense. For example when practicing against the bogarts and for Harry they appeared as dementors, Lupin said it appeared that what Harry feared most was "fear itself". In this way the patronus must indicate something that makes you feel safest because dementors represent actual fear. As far as animagi go, doesn't it seem that you choose what form you take? I mean, how convenient was it for Rita Skeeter to turn into a bug? I don't know, I've never heard one way or another on that - just thought it would be way too easy for her if she just so happened to turn into the smallest thing possible to detect while stealing her stories. What about that? -Bethany (new girl) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 02:25:05 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 02:25:05 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124025 >>vmonte: >I still don't buy that Hermione was given the TT just so that she can take extra classes. She was given permission to use it for her classes but it gave her several months of training until she got to use it for Dumbledore's intended purpose.< Betsy: How on earth did Dumbledore know that Hermione would need to use the Time Turner by the end of the year? Wouldn't that mean he would also know that Sirius was innocent and that Scabbers was Wormtail? It doesn't make sense to me, and frankly, the whole story falls apart if Dumbledore knew what was coming. Betsy From department.of.mysteries at gmail.com Sun Feb 6 02:18:37 2005 From: department.of.mysteries at gmail.com (Kaesa Aurelia) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 20:18:37 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Weasley Poverty, Working Wizard Women; was Molly & Arthur - was Why I like G In-Reply-To: <20050204191651.10381.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050204191651.10381.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124026 Magda: > Molly can't be bothered to remember > that he doesn't like corned beef sandwiches (PS/SS), that he doesn't > like the colour maroon, and culminating in the humiliating moment > when she presents him with hideous dress robes with no appreciation > about how a teen will feel wearing them (and its clear from the > description that they are indeed ugly). Kaesa (me): I have to just step in here briefly and say that these aren't necessarily the marks of uncaring parents, or even overly busy parents who have way too many kids. My mother has done all of these things to me, and, as an eighteen-year-old, while I'm going to be relieved to get out of the house in a few months and go to college, it's not because she doesn't love me, or because we're poor, or because I have too many brothers and sisters (as I'm an only child). He may percieve it as being left behind, but really, it's pretty typical. And yes, he does deserve more thought, but it's not as though he's being neglected by Molly. He's just being Ron. I love Ron, but really, his life isn't as bad as he thinks it is. If he *is* at the end of his rope, his rope is very short. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Feb 6 02:40:08 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 02:40:08 -0000 Subject: Severus and the DADA exam /James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124027 > Finwitch: > > I imagine a scene... > > James&Sirius take Severus to Dumbledore's office in a manner of > police officers walking a prisoner. They, though not being even > prefects, get through Dumbledore's Gargoyle as easily as any teacher would. > > Then, James starts talking about a confession - about being out of > bounds. > > 'Of course, I could have chosen not to break rules - but that would have been murder. Severus Snape was about to meet a Gryffindor > Prefect, who was, due to his disease, unable to choose anything else but kill this intruder on his privacy. I, however, had the option to take this student away, to make that choice so I did'. > > And all about saving Snape. "I'm not going to compete with Sirius. We're the best students now, and nothing you do, Severus Snape, will ever change that, because you owe your life to me". > > And all in all, this provided James the sort of moral test he'd been yearning for, and so he was now able to stop defying rules and > concentrate on courting Lily. > Valky: Sorry to say Finwitch, as much as I agree with the precept of James yearning for a moral test, and most all else you have said on this thread, I kinda really dislike this one. In my imaganation both Sevvie and James are injured by Remus and by the end of the prank James is carrying Severus and not arresting him. I imagine the scene in a far more *truly* heroic way, and that James *really* coming out smelling roses, rather than with pretense of it, is the reason Severus could never forgive. Soon, soon we will know. I don't think James did, nor ever could, get over his yen to be a moral champion, hence the order and his battles with Voldemort. Finally, (oops snipped it OK working from memory) I think we are in agreement, that Young Sevvie while pondering question 10 on his DADA OWl, if that is what he did, might not have fully realised that Lupin was a Werewolf, or he might. But either way the fact that he might be inclined to look so hard for ways to get others into trouble *is* a type of bullying and the word "snivelling" *is* used in close association to this behaviour. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 02:41:20 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 02:41:20 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124028 My apologies for this being late. The summary is LONG ( I mean it) and it would have been much longer, if wonderful Penapart elf would not have helped me to edit it. I just had trouble throwing out anything from this chapter. So, many thanks to Penapart Elf. Please feel free to skip the summary and go right to discussion questions and of course feel free to add your own discussion questions. Chapter 37 - The Lost Prophecy. The chapter starts with Harry landing in Dumbledore's office. Harry is blaming himself for Sirius's death, while he waits for Dumbledore. Phineas Nigellus tries to talk to Harry, but Harry cannot bring himself to tell him that Sirius is dead. Dumbledore arrives; he puts baby Fawkes on the tray of ashes, and then tells Harry that none of the students will suffer lasting damage after MoM. Dumbledore tells Harry that the fact that he can suffer like that proves that Harry is still human and that this is his greatest strength. Harry does not want to talk about how he feels. Rage fills him up and he screams that he just wants all of it to end. Harry wants to run out from Dumbledore's office, but Dumbledore won't open the door. Dumbledore says that he won't let Harry go, till he had his say. Although Harry protests, Dumbledore insists, because "you are not nearly as angry with me as you should be." The Headmaster says that it is his fault that Sirius died, because Sirius was not the type to sit at home while others are in danger. Dumbledore tells Harry that if he was as open with him as he should have been, Harry would have known earlier that Voldemort would try to lure him to the Department of Mysteries and Harry would not have been tricked into going there and Sirius would not have gone after Harry. Dumbledore says that the blame lies with him and him alone. Phineas then asks Dumbledore whether it is true that his great-great-grandson is dead. When Dumbledore confirms the news, Phineas does not believe it and goes to check on it in Grimmauld Place. Dumbledore asks Harry to sit down, because he owes Harry an explanation of "an old man's mistakes." Dumbledore tells Harry about him figuring out that thanks to the scar, Harry became more and more connected to Voldemort. Harry responds that Snape told him that part. Dumbledore corrects him "Professor Snape, Harry" and inquires whether Harry wondered why Dumbledore himself did not teach him Occlumency.Harry confirms that he had wondered. Dumbledore tells him that he was afraid that Voldemort may try to use Harry to spy on him; Dumbledore says he was trying to protect Harry, therefore he distanced himself. Dumbledore acknowledges that even though he believes he was correct in assuming that Voldemort may have tried to use Harry this way, to distance himself was an old man's mistake, because as Voldemort demonstrated in the battle of MoM, the possession was done to kill Harry, not Dumbledore.Dumbledore continues talking. He tells that after Sirius told him about Harry's visions of Arthur's attack, Dumbledore arranged occlumency lessons with Professor Snape. Meanwhile Harry notices that Phineas had still not returned. The headmaster talks about Professor Snape discovering that Harry had been dreaming about the door to Department of Mysteries for months and since Voldemort was obsessed with hearing the prophecy for months, so was Harry, although he did not know what it meant. Dumbledore says that when Harry saw Rookwood, it became even more important that Harry learned Occlumency. Harry responds that he did not learn it; he did not practice, even though Hermione kept telling him to do it. Harry feels heavy guilt inside of him again. Harry tells Dumbledore that he spoke to Kreacher in the fire, who told him that Sirius was not there. Dumbledore explains to Harry about Kreacher's treachery in detail. Harry wonders how Dumbledore knows all that. The headmaster responds that Snape figured out what Harry's warning about Padfoot meant and checked on Sirius right away. According to Dumbledore when Harry did not return from the trip to Forbidden Forest, Snape grew worried and alerted certain order members at once. Tonks, Moody, Kingsley and Remus agreed to go to Harry's aid. Snape requested that Sirius remained behind to report to Dumbledore,who was due at Headquarters any minute, but Sirius decided to go to the MoM. Harry changes the subject to Snape and starts blaming him. Harry says that Snape just sneered, when Harry told him about Padfoot's imprisonment, but Dumbledore rebutts that Snape had no choice but to not take him seriously in front of Umbridge. Dumbledore also says that Snape deduced what happened when Harry did not return from the Forest and that he gave Umbridge fake Veritaserum. Harry blames Snape for stopping Occlumency lessons and Dumbledore replies that he is aware of it and that it was a mistake for the Headmaster not to teach Harry himself, although at the time he was sure that nothing was more dangerous than to open Harry's mind further to Voldemort while in the headmaster's presence. Harry also complains that Snape made matters worse, that his scar was always hurting after the lessons. Harry wonders how Dumbledore knows that Snape was not trying to soften him up for Voldemort. Dumbledore interrupts him half way into the sentence and replies with "I trust Severus Snape." Dumbledore also says that he forgot that some wounds run too deep for healing and that he thought that Professor Snape could overcome his feelings about James. Dumbledore admits that he was wrong to think that. Harry gets angry again and blames Dumbledore for locking Sirius up in the house he hated and Dumbledore responds that he was trying to keep Sirius alive. Harry observes Dumbledore and gets even angrier that Dumbledore shows signs of weakness, because Dumbledore has no business being weak while Harry wants to rage and storm at him. Dumbledore asks Harry to sit down, because he is going to tell Harry everything. Dumbledore tells Harry that five years ago he arrived at Hogwarts safe though not quite whole. Harry had suffered. Dumbledore knew that he was condemning Harry to ten dark and difficult years, when he was leaving Harry on Dursleys' door steps. Dumbledore says that his priority was to keep Harry alive. Even though Voldemort was gone, his followers were still at large and Dumbledore also did not believe that Voldemort was gone forever. Dumbledore decided to protect Harry with an ancient magic which Voldemort despises and has always underestimated. Dumbledore says that he is talking about the fact that Lily died to protect Harry and gave him protection that Voldemort never expected. Dumbledore puts his trust in Lily's blood and delivered Harry to her sister, Lily's only remaining relative. Harry says that she never loved him. Dumbledore responds that Petunia took Harry in "grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly," but she still took Harry in and by doing so sealed the charm Dumbledore placed. The essence of the charm is that while Harry can call the place his mother's blood dwells his home, he cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort. Harry needs only to return there once a year. Dumbledore also says that Petunia knows it, because he explained it in the letter he left on their doorsteps. Harry realizes that Dumbledore sent the Howler to Petunia when they wanted to throw him out after the Dementors' attack. Dumbledore admits to that and says that he thought that Petunia needed reminding of the pact she had sealed. Harry wonders what it has to do with Dumbledore's plan, so Dumbledore reiterates that when five years ago Harry arrived at Hogwarts, he thought that his plan was working well. Dumbledore remembers the events of Harry's first year and tells him how proud he was of him. Nevertheless the Headmaster says that he discovered the flaw in his plan, but thought that he could prevent it. Dumbledore tells Harry that he could not bring himself to add another burden on his shoulders, because he cared about Harry so much. Dumbledore tells Harry that he knows Harry had been ready for such knowledge for a long time. Dumbledore tells him that Voldemort tried to kill him when Harry was a child because of a prophecy made shortly before Harry's birth. When Voldemort attempted to kill Harry, according to Dumbledore, he believed that he was fulfilling the prophecy. Ever since Voldemort returned to his body, he was determined to hear that prophecy in its entirety. Dumbledore tells Harry that the weapon Voldemort was so actively seeking the whole year was the knowledge of how to destroy Harry. Harry tells Dumbledore that the prophecy smashed, but the Headmaster replies that that was only a record, because the person who heard it has the means to recall it perfectly. Dumbledore explains that he was the one who initially heard the prophecy in the Hogs Head sixteen years ago. He was conducting a job interview with Trelawney, who is a great granddaughter of a very famous and gifted seer. Dumbledore was disappointed to see no trace of the gift in Sybil. Just as he turned to leave, she made the following prophecy: "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches...born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies...and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not...and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives...the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies..." Harry wonders what it means and Dumbledore tells him that the boy will be born at the end of July from the parents who already defied him thrice with the power to defeat Voldemort. Harry wonders whether it is him and Dumbledore replies that it may not have been him, because he and Neville Longbottom were born under similar circumstances. Nevertheless Dumbledore is sure now that it is definitely Harry, because Voldemort chose him (marked him as equal), not Neville. Dumbledore tells Harry that Voldemort saw himself in Harry and that he chose not the pureblood Neville, but half-blood Harry. According to the Headmaster, in failing to kill Harry, Voldemort gave Harry powers and a future, which had fitted Harry to escape Voldy not three, but four times. Harry wonders why Voldemort tried to kill him as a baby since it would be more logical to wait to see who indeed was more dangerous once he and Neville were older. Dumbledore tells Harry that it happened this way because Voldemort only knows the first part of the prophecy about the birth of the baby who will have the power to kill him. Dumbledore explains that there was an eavesdropper in the Hogs Head that night, who was thrown out of the building after he had been discovered. Harry says that he doesn't have any powers that can help him against Voldemort. Dumbledore tells him that there is a room in the Department of Mysteries which is filled with most wonderful, mysterious and powerful force. Harry possesses that power which is within that room. Supposedly, this power helped Harry to save himself from Voldemort's possession. Harry realizes that according to the prophecy either he or Voldemort have to kill each other.Dumbledore also informs Harry that he did not choose him as a prefect because Harry had enough responsibility to be going on with. When Harry looks up he sees a single tear on Dumbledore's cheek. Discussion questions: 1. Do you think we will ever meet Phineas again? What do you think about the possibility of the network of portraits playing even larger role in the later battles? 2. Harry blames himself for Sirius's death. Do you? 3. Dumbledore is sure that Harry IS the person the prophecy talks about. Are you? 4. Harry complains to Dumbledore that Occlumency lessons were weakening him. Dumbledore replies with his usual vow of trust for Snape. Do you trust Snape? 5. Dumbledore blames himself for Sirius death. Do you? 6. Voldemort did not choose the pureblood wizard like Neville "which, according to his creed, is the only kind of wizard worth being or knowing." Does this quote make a difference in your view on whether Voldemort himself is sufficiently interested in promoting "purebloodism" or just in grabbing power, no matter who helps him achieve it? 7. Do you agree with the possibility that Neville may turn out to be the real prophecy child? 8. Do you think that there is a possibility that the prophecy does not speak about either Harry or Neville? Can you offer completely new and unexpected interpretation of it? 9. Dumbledore tells us that Sibyll is the great granddaughter of Cassandra Trelawney. As we know from mythology, nobody believed Cassandra's predictions which turned out to be true. Do you think that JKR is hinting that Sibyll is a more gifted seer that Dumbledore thinks? Do you think that there is more to Sibyll than meets the eye? 10. Who is the infamous eavesdropper? 11. Dumbledore tells Harry, "In the end, it mattered not that you could not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you." Does this mean that occlumency lessons were unnecessary in the first place? Was Dumbledore aware that Harry has plenty of that power in that room BEFORE possession occurred? 12. Do you think that this chapter was well done "plot wise"? I don't remember my complete reaction when I read it for the first time, but I remember that disappointment was definitely there. I was thinking something like "that is the big secret"? Do you think that it would have been more effective if Harry learns about the contents of the prophecy from somebody else? Yesterday for some reason I was imagining Voldemort explaining things to Harry instead of Dumbledore. "Potter, we have to kill one another or be killed. You better be prepared." :o) What do you think? 13. We see Dumbledore crying in this chapter for the first time in the books. Despite the fact that a similar question was already posted couple of days ago,(message 123486) I decided not to delete mine. What did you feel when you read about Dumbledore's tear? NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/67817 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/85829 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/116919 "OotP Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 02:53:59 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 02:53:59 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124029 >I vmonte wrote: I still don't buy that Hermione was given the TT just so that she can take extra classes. She was given permission to use it for her classes but it gave her several months of training until she got to use it for Dumbledore's intended purpose.< >Betsy responded: How on earth did Dumbledore know that Hermione would need to use the Time Turner by the end of the year? Wouldn't that mean he would also know that Sirius was innocent and that Scabbers was Wormtail? It doesn't make sense to me, and frankly, the whole story falls apart if Dumbledore knew what was coming. vmonte again: That's the million dollar question! Strange how Harry, Hermione, and Ron just happen to be introduced to just the right gadgets, animals, and spells they need to save each other at the end of each book. Vivian From elsyee_h at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 03:00:20 2005 From: elsyee_h at yahoo.com (Tammy) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 03:00:20 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error (GoF portkey) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124030 > >> Dungrollin: > >My pet gripe is the whole of GoF, and why Fake!Moody wasted a whole > year when he could have given Harry a portkey at any time.< > > Betsy: > I've seen some good theories thrown around for Fake!Moody's waiting > until the end of the Tournament. One is that the potion Voldemort > had made took several months of brewing. So why take the risk of > grabbing Harry early? Instead, brew the potion and then grab Harry > when his blood is actually needed. > > Another is that making a portkey from scratch that would operate > within Hogwarts grounds is well nigh impossible. So instead Fake! > Moody took the portkey Dumbledore had already made within his power > as headmaster of the school, and just modified it a little bit to > include a little detour from the ultimate destination. This theory > has the added benefit of explaining how the Cup worked as a return > portkey when Harry grabbed Cedric's body and escaped. > > The third theory is more psychological. Voldemort knew enough about > Harry to recognize that Harry would get a big boost out of actually > winning the Tournament. The thought of hitting Harry's pride by > revealing the truth that Harry won only because Fake!Moody helped him > was too much for Voldemort to resist. The old, set him up high so he > has farther to fall when you knock him down, plan. > Tammy: I always thought it was obvious - The portkey was set up because then after killing Harry, Voldemort and co. could then portkey right on back to Hogwarts and then surprise and kill his biggest enemy, Albus Dumbledore. With Dumbledore gone, Voldie would have little trouble conquering the entire WW. The error with the whole GOF portkey thing, IMHO, is that in the beginning of the book JKR makes a big deal of explaining that portkeys work by setting them up to work at a specific time and then going and making the triwizard cup portkey work simply by touching it. I know it can be explained away, it's possible they can work both ways - but why make a big deal of the whole teleporting at a prearranged time? From elsyee_h at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 03:23:07 2005 From: elsyee_h at yahoo.com (Tammy) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 03:23:07 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124031 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Discussion questions: > > > 2. Harry blames himself for Sirius's death. Do you? > Actually I think that most of the evidence points to Dumbledore being at fault for Sirius' death. Had Dumbledore explained even a few small things to Harry, then Sirius needn't have died. For example, had Dumbledore been the one to explain to Harry why Occlumency was so necessary, then Harry may have taken the lessons more seriously. Had Harry known that Voldemort needed him to fetch the prophecy, he wouldn't have fallen for the trick either. Dumbledore is the one that put Harry in that situation. Of course there can be another arguement made that Sirius is responsible for his own death as well. > 3. Dumbledore is sure that Harry IS the person the prophecy talks > about. Are you? I think it's clear that it's Harry *now*. At the time it was made it could have been Neville. When Voldemort picked Harry to kill, he marked Harry as the one the prophecy talks about. > > 4. Harry complains to Dumbledore that Occlumency lessons were > weakening him. Dumbledore replies with his usual vow of trust for > Snape. Do you trust Snape? I think that Snape is being a true Slytherin and looking out for himself. If Snape's best interests are to be on the side of good - then that's where he is. If Snape is better served by being on the side of evil - then that's where he is. > > 5. Dumbledore blames himself for Sirius death. Do you? Yup. See #2 > > 6. Voldemort did not choose the pureblood wizard like > Neville "which, according to his creed, is the only kind of wizard > worth being or knowing." > Does this quote make a difference in your view on whether Voldemort > himself is sufficiently interested in promoting "purebloodism" or > just in grabbing power, no matter who helps him achieve it? I think that Voldemort wants to eliminate those who wronged him - the muggles. To him, muggleborns are little better than the muggles, so they should all be eliminated. When you're pushed down and pushed around, you need someone to blame (*enter the standard World War II German-Jew example here*). The muggles and those with muggleblood are a nice starting point. > > 7. Do you agree with the possibility that Neville may turn out to > be the real prophecy child? No, not unless Neville is "marked" by Voldemort somehow that we don't know about. And I doubt that JKR would go through making a series called "Harry Potter" and have the ultimate hero be Neville Longbottom. That being said, I think that Neville will have a big role in the ultimate battle, but Harry will still be the hero. -Tammy From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Feb 6 03:34:57 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 20:34:57 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003101c50bfc$d4eb6d30$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 124032 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Discussion questions: > > > 2. Harry blames himself for Sirius's death. Do you? > Actually I think that most of the evidence points to Dumbledore being at fault for Sirius' death. Had Dumbledore explained even a few small things to Harry, then Sirius needn't have died. For example, had Dumbledore been the one to explain to Harry why Occlumency was so necessary, then Harry may have taken the lessons more seriously. Had Harry known that Voldemort needed him to fetch the prophecy, he wouldn't have fallen for the trick either. Dumbledore is the one that put Harry in that situation. Of course there can be another arguement made that Sirius is responsible for his own death as well. Sherry now: Actually, I blame Bellatrix LeStrange for the death of Sirius, and Voldemort. I do not blame the victims. Sirius and Harry are the victims, and neither of them are to blame. To me, that would be like blaming the victims of a mugging for getting shot or the victims of terrorism for getting killed. The fault is with the one who did it and the one who arranged it--Bella and Voldemort. I don't believe for one minute, that even if Dumbledore had spilled all the beans before that night, Harry wouldn't have rushed off to save Sirius. Not after the true vision of Arthur being attacked. He'd never have risked the chance that it might be true. And Sirius would have gone after Harry, to try to save him, because that's what any parent or guardian would do. Sherry G From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 03:54:48 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 22:54:48 -0500 Subject: Patronus: Not Just for Dementors Anymore? Message-ID: <003b01c50bff$9b400fc0$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 124033 I've been half rereading sections of PoA because of some of the threads here lately, and I'm wondering if anyone else is as curious as I am about the Patronus Charm. We have it from Fantastic Beasts that Flavius Belby survived a Lethifold attack by casting a Patronus against it, and then we find that the same charm works in repelling Dementors. Curious, but this would lead one to speculate what the Patronus was used for prior to old Flavius executing the effectiveuse of it against a Lethifold. (And for those of you without FB, Flavius tried a Stunning and an Impediment hex on the Lethifold prior to trying a Patronus) Lupin says it is "ridiculously advanced" and that even qualified wizards have problems with it. How interesting this statement is, when you compare it to references to OoP, where Harry, Hermione, and Cho we know have produced a corporeal Patronus, although admittedly Harry's the only one to do so under duress. The Patronus is described as "silvery" for the most part, and if you're wondering why I'm pointing that out, bear with me and I promise I'll get to that. :) Where this all gets interesting is in OoP, where other spells and charms have that same "silver" description. For example, thoughts which are put in the Penseive are described as One is in DD's office when Umbridge busts the DA: "A streak of silver light flashed around the room; there was a bang like a gunshot and the floor trembled; a hand grabbed the scruff of Harry's neck and forced him down on the floor as a second silver flash went off; several of the portraits yelled, Fawkes screeched and a cloud of dust filled the air" And then again in the DoM: One of the Death Eaters shot their own Stunning Spell at Neville; it missed him by inches. Harry and Neville were now the only two left fighting the five Death Eaters, two of whom sent off streams of silver light like arrows which missed but left craters in the wall behind them." There's also the shining "silver" shield LV produces when dueling with DD. I'm not sure, but I suspect that these silver charm and spell descriptions all deal with more advanced magic in the class of the Patronus Harry will need to learn or master moving forward in HBP and beyond. However, this brings us full circle with the Patronus: what *exactly* was the spell for before the first known record of its use against a Lethifold? What (or who) else will it repel and how? Things to make you go hmmmm...... Charme From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 03:57:05 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 03:57:05 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy . REPOST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124034 Alla: OK, this is the repost. The discussions questions are absolutely the same. The summary looks shorter and much better ( I think) Many thanks again to Penapart Elf for the help. CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 37, The Lost Prophecy The chapter starts with Harry landing in Dumbledore's office. Feeling guilty about Sirius's death, Harry cannot bring himself to tell Phineas Nigellus that Sirius is dead when the portrait brings up the subject. Dumbledore arrives and tells Harry that none of the students will suffer lasting damage after MoM. But even after explaining that the fact that he can suffer like this proves that Harry is still human and that this is his greatest strength, Dumbledore cannot ease Harry's pain from shame and the loss of the closest thing to a parent he had ever known. On the contrary, Harry's rage fills him up and he screams that he just wants it to end. Refusing to let Harry run away, Dumbledore insists on having his say because, as he states to Harry, "you are not nearly as angry with me as you ought to be." The Headmaster asserts that it is almost entirely his fault that Sirius died, because Sirius was not the type to sit at home while others are in danger. For if Dumbledore was as open with Harry as he should have been, Harry would have known earlier that Voldemort would try to lure him to the Department of Mysteries. Harry would not have been tricked into going there and Sirius would not have gone after Harry. That blame thus lies with Dumbledore and him alone. Hearing this, Phineas asks whether it is true that the last of the Blacks is dead. Refusing to take Dumbledore's word for it, Phineas leaves, perhaps to see Grimmauld Place for himself. Dumbledore's explanation of "an old man's mistakes" begins with Harry's scar and its role in Harry's ever-growing connection to Voldemort. We finally learn why Dumbledore himself did not teach Occlumency to Harry: Dumbledore was afraid that once Voldemort becomes aware of this connection, he may try to use Harry to spy on him. In distancing himself the headmaster was trying to protect Harry from being possessed/used by Voldemort. Dumbledore acknowledges that even though he believes he was correct in assuming that Voldemort would have tried to use Harry this way, to distance himself was an old man's mistake, because as Voldemort demonstrated in the battle of MoM, the possession was done to kill Harry, not Dumbledore. We learn that after Dumbledore was told by Sirius about Harry detecting Voldemort inside himself after the vision of Arthur's attack, he arranged occlumency lessons with Professor Snape. The headmaster brings up Professor Snape's discovery of Harry dreaming about the door to the DoM for months and explains that since Voldemort was obsessed with hearing the prophecy, so was Harry, although he did not know what it meant. After Rookwood revealed to Voldemort that only Voldemort or Harry can take hold of the prophecy, it became even more urgent that Harrylearned to resist Voldemort's assaults on Harry's mind. Harry feels heavy guilt; he did not practice Occlumency, even though Hermione kept telling him to do it. Harry tells of checking on Sirius. Dumbledore explains to Harry about Kreacher's treachery in detail. The headmaster tells of how Snape figured out what Harry's warning about Padfoot meant and checked on Sirius right away. According to Dumbledore when Harry did not return from the trip to Forbidden Forest, Snape grew worried and alerted certain order members at once. Tonks, Moody, Kingsley and Remus agreed to go to Harry's aid. Snape requested that Sirius remained behind to report to Dumbledore, who was due at Headquarters any minute, but Sirius decided to go to the MoM, just as Kreacher intended. Harry goes off on a rant about how Snape just sneered when Harry told him about Padfoot's imprisonment. Dumbledore rebuts that Snape had no choice but to not take him seriously in front of Umbridge, that it was Snape who deduced what happened when Harry did not return from the Forest and that he gave Umbridge fake Veritaserum. Undeterred, Harry blames Snape for stopping the Occlumency lessons. Dumbledore counters that his not teaching Harry himself was his mistake, although at the time he was sure that nothing was more dangerous than to open Harry's mind further to Voldemort while in the headmaster's presence. Harry also complains that Snape made matters worse, that his scar was always hurting after the lessons, and demands to know how Dumbledore is sure that Snape was not trying to soften him up for Voldemort. Dumbledore interrupts him with "I trust Severus Snape" and notes that he forgot that some wounds run too deep for healing. He admits that he was wrong to think that Professor Snape could overcome his feelings about James. Harry also blames Dumbledore for locking Sirius up in the house he hated, which made Sirius want to get out and go to the MoM. Dumbledore responds that he was trying to keep Sirius alive. Now seeming exhausted or sad (which only infuriates Harry even more since he wants to rage and storm), Dumbledore asks Harry to sit down because he is going to tell Harry everything. Five years ago Harry arrived at Hogwarts safe though not quite whole. Harry had suffered. Dumbledore knew that he was condemning Harry to ten dark and difficult years when he left Harry on the Dursleys' door steps. Dumbledore's priority was to keep Harry alive. Even though Voldemort was vanquished, his followers were still at large and Voldemort was not gone forever. Dumbledore decided to exploit Voldemort's weakness by protecting Harry with an ancient magic which Voldemort despises and has thus always underestimated. Because Lily died to protect Harry, she gave him protection that Voldemort never expected. Dumbledore puts his trust in Lily's blood and delivered Harry to her sister, Lily's only remaining relative. Though Petunia never loved Harry, she did take Harry in though grudgingly, furiously, and unwillingly. In doing so (with full knowledge of the protection she may be providing), Petunia sealed the strongest shield at Dumbledore's disposal. While Harry can call the place where his mother's blood dwells his home, he cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort. Harry realizes that Dumbledore is the one who sent the Howler to Petunia when they wanted to throw him out after the Dementors' attack. Dumbledore admits that he thought Petunia needed reminding of the pact she had sealed. Harry wonders what all this has to do with Sirius as Dumbledore picks up where he left off. Five years ago, Dumbledore thought that his plan was working well for though Harry was not as happy/well nourished as he would have liked, Harry was as normal as could be hoped for under the circumstances and far from a pampered little prince. Dumbledore's plan does have a flaw, one that he alone can prevent and so that is what he endeavored to do. But because Dumbledore wanted to save Harry more pain than the young boy had already suffered, the old man fails over and over again to simultaneously arm *and* burden Harry with the whole truth: that Voldemort tried to kill him when Harry was a child because of a prophecy made shortly before Harry's birth. When Voldemort attempted to kill Harry, he believed that he was fulfilling the prophecy. The weapon Voldemort has been seeking is the knowledge of how to destroy Harry and thus his determination to hear the rest of the prophecy. Though the prophecy has smashed, it was only a record. Dumbledore has the means to recall it perfectly since he is the one who initially heard the prophecy in the Hog's Head sixteen years ago during a job interview with Trelawney. As Sybil is a great-great- granddaughter of a very famous and gifted seer, Dumbledore was disappointed to see no trace of the gift in her. Just as he turned to leave, she made the following prophecy: "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches...born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies...and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not...and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives...the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies..." Dumbledore tells Harry that the person with the only chance to conquer Voldemort for good was born at the end of July from the parents who already defied him thrice. Two boys were born under similar circumstances, Harry and Neville Longbottom. Dumbledore is sure now that it is definitely Harry, because Voldemort chose him (marked him as equal), not Neville. Voldemort saw himself in Harry and chose not the pureblood Neville, but half-blood Harry. In failing to kill Harry, Voldemort gave Harry powers and a future, which had fitted Harry to escape Voldy not three, but four times. Harry wonders why Voldemort tried to kill him as a baby since it would be more logical to wait to see who indeed was more dangerous once he and Neville were older. Voldemort's misstep stemmed from knowing only the first part of the prophecy about the birth of the boy who's to be his downfall. His informant was thrown out of the Hog's Head before Sybil got to the part about the boy having power the Dark Lord knows not. Harry protests that he doesn't have any powers that Voldemort hasn't got. Dumbledore corrects him and tells Harry that he possesses a force "more wonderful and more terrible than death, than human intelligence, than forces of nature" and perhaps the most mysterious of all subjects being studied in the DoM. So much so that the room containing this force is kept locked at all times. In his heart, Harry has this force in great quantities while Voldemort not at all. This power took Harry to save Sirius as well as saved Harry from Voldemort's possession for Voldemort was repelled by the force he detests. Dumbledore confirms that according to the prophecy either Harry or Voldemort have to kill the other. Dumbledore also informs Harry that he did not choose him as a prefect because Harry had enough responsibility to be going on with. When Harry looks up he sees a single tear on Dumbledore's cheek. Discussion questions: 1. Do you think we will ever meet Phineas again? What do you think about the possibility of the network of portraits playing even larger role in the later battles? 2. Harry blames himself for Sirius's death. Do you? 3. Dumbledore is sure that Harry IS the person the prophecy talks about. Are you? 4. Harry complains to Dumbledore that Occlumency lessons were weakening him. Dumbledore replies with his usual vow of trust for Snape. Do you trust Snape? 5. Dumbledore blames himself for Sirius death. Do you? 6. Voldemort did not choose the pureblood wizard like Neville "which, according to his creed, is the only kind of wizard worth being or knowing." Does this quote make a difference in your view on whether Voldemort himself is sufficiently interested in promoting "purebloodism" or just in grabbing power, no matter who helps him achieve it? 7. Do you agree with the possibility that Neville may turn out to be the real prophecy boy? 8. Do you think that there is a possibility that the prophecy does not speak about either Harry or Neville? Can you offer completely new and unexpected interpretation of it? 9. Dumbledore tells us that Sibyll is the great granddaughter of Cassandra Trelawney. As we know from mythology, nobody believed Cassandra's predictions which turned out to be true. Do you think that JKR is hinting that Sibyll is a more gifted seer that Dumbledore thinks? Do you think that there is more to Sibyll than meets the eye? 10. Who is the infamous eavesdropper? 11. Dumbledore tells Harry, "In the end, it mattered not that you could not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you." Does this mean that occlumency lessons were unnecessary in the first place? Was Dumbledore aware that Harry has plenty of that power in that room BEFORE possession occurred? 12. Do you think that this chapter was well done "plot wise"? I don't remember my complete reaction when I read it for the first time, but I remember that disappointment was definitely there. I was thinking something like "that is the big secret"? Do you think that it would have been more effective if Harry learns about the contents of the prophecy from somebody else? Yesterday for some reason I was imagining Voldemort explaining things to Harry instead of Dumbledore. "Potter, we have to kill one another or be killed. You better be prepared." :o) What do you think? 13. We see Dumbledore crying in this chapter for the first time in the books. Despite the fact that a similar question was already posted couple of days ago, I decided not to delete mine. What did you feel when you read about Dumbledore's tear? NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/67817 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/85829 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/116919 "OotP Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 04:24:33 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 04:24:33 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124035 >>Betsy responded: >How on earth did Dumbledore know that Hermione would need to use the Time Turner by the end of the year? < >>vmonte again: >That's the million dollar question! Strange how Harry, Hermione, and Ron just happen to be introduced to just the right gadgets, animals, and spells they need to save each other at the end of each book.< Betsy: I think maybe you're overthinking things. We, the readers, need to have the various animals, plants, spells, etc. explained so that we know what's going on. So JKR takes advantage that this is a school and Harry is learning about the WW to introduce new stuff. Plus, there's the side benefit of foreshadowing. Of course, if you want to look at it from *inside* the world, and not as a reader, you could say that Harry and crew do a good job using what they have on hand. Harry takes what he's learned and adapts it to whatever problem he's facing. Then again - there is that handy, Dumbledore is Ron theory kicking around. :) Betsy From technomad at intergate.com Sat Feb 5 15:57:16 2005 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 09:57:16 -0600 Subject: Ron and Percy Message-ID: <004f01c50c09$7d62e7c0$dc560043@technomad> No: HPFGUIDX 124036 One thing to keep in mind about Percy, vis-a-vis Ron's opinion of him, is that Ron and Percy are quite possibly not very close, and Ron doesn't necessarily know Percy very well. There's more than enough difference in their ages to make it difficult for them to interact when they were young, and with Gred-and-Forge around hogging attention and between Percy and Ron, it might well be that Ron and Percy really just don't know each other as well as one might expect from siblings. On top of age differences and distraction, they're very different people, and even if they were thrown together in family activities, they don't strike me as having much in common. I don't think Ron would go to Percy if he needed some older-brother time---Bill, Charlie or the twins would be likelier choices. So when Ron says things about Percy, he might not know as much about his brother as he thinks he does. --Eric Oppen, who likes Percy and hopes we find out that he's been working undercover for D'dore all this time. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Feb 6 05:10:35 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 05:10:35 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy . REPOST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124037 >Alla wrote: > Discussion questions: > > 1. Do you think we will ever meet Phineas again? What do you think > about the possibility of the network of portraits playing even > larger role in the later battles? Potioncat: I hope we'll see him again. I love his sense of humor! > > 2. Harry blames himself for Sirius's death. Do you? Potioncat: No, but I understand why he does. And I understand why DD blames himself. And I suspose Moody, Snape and Lupin have some guilt feelings. But I'm not sure anyone has any blame for it happening. Except for Bellatrix (or whomever) > > 3. Dumbledore is sure that Harry IS the person the prophecy talks > about. Are you? Potioncat: I think the prophecy will have some unexpected twist...either in who it means or in what it means will happen. It's almost a rule that a prophecy comes true, but not as expected. > > 4. Harry complains to Dumbledore that Occlumency lessons were > weakening him. Dumbledore replies with his usual vow of trust for > Snape. Do you trust Snape? Potioncat: I think in the end Snape will prove to have been loyal...that is I hope...but I think JKR has set it up so we have good reason to doubt. > > 10. Who is the infamous eavesdropper? Potioncat: I think DD told the story in such a way that it was misleading. For example, I'm not sure when he found out about the eavesdropper. And I think it could have been Pettigrew/Scabbers. > 13. We see Dumbledore crying in this chapter for the first time in > the books. Despite the fact that a similar question was already > posted couple of days ago, I decided not to delete mine. What did > you feel when you read about Dumbledore's tear? Potioncat: Well, I don't remember. But suddenly I'm reminded that the tears of a phoenix have healing power and I wonder how close to a phoenix DD is and does he have similar powers? Potioncat: Great job Alla! From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Sun Feb 6 05:24:30 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 00:24:30 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione's Patronus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124038 In a message dated 2/5/2005 6:26:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, bethanymil79 at yahoo.com writes: As far as animagi go, doesn't it seem that you choose what form you take? I mean, how convenient was it for Rita Skeeter to turn into a bug? I don't know, I've never heard one way or another on that - just thought it would be way too easy for her if she just so happened to turn into the smallest thing possible to detect while stealing her stories. What about that? -Bethany (new girl) ************************************************************** Chancie Hi Bethany, welcome to HPforGU! I do agree with you that Rita was lucky that her animagus form was so small, but I'm sorry to say that according to JKR, it has nothing to do with choice ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Does the animal one turns into as an Animagi reflect your personality? Very well deduced, Narri! I personally would like to think that I would transform into an otter, which is my favorite animal. Imagine how horrible it would be if I turned out to be a cockroach! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So perhaps Rita's being a bug simply symbolizes the fact that she's a pest! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 05:28:42 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 05:28:42 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy . REPOST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124039 >>1. Do you think we will ever meet Phineas again? What do you think about the possibility of the network of portraits playing even larger role in the later battles?< Betsy: I sure hope we see Phineas again! I loved that portrait! And I wonder if the entire castle of Hogwarts will play a role. It was created as a fortress in the beginning (I think). It'd be nice to see Hogwarts in full protective action. >>2. Harry blames himself for Sirius's death. Do you?< AND >>5. Dumbledore blames himself for Sirius death. Do you?< Betsy: I'm going to agree with Sherri on this one. Bellatrix killed Sirius; Voldemort set the whole thing in motion. They are the ones to blame for the death of Sirius. >>3. Dumbledore is sure that Harry IS the person the prophecy talks about. Are you?< AND >>7. Do you agree with the possibility that Neville may turn out to be the real prophecy boy?< Betsy: I don't think JKR is going to pull a big switch on this. I think the ambiguity comes in the final part of the prophecy - how exactly does Harry defeat Voldemort. Of course, I could be wrong! :) >>4. Harry complains to Dumbledore that Occlumency lessons were weakening him. Dumbledore replies with his usual vow of trust for Snape. Do you trust Snape?< Betsy: Yup! :) >>Tammy: >I think that Snape is being a true Slytherin and looking out for himself. If Snape's best interests are to be on the side of good - then that's where he is. If Snape is better served by being on the side of evil - then that's where he is.< Betsy: The one problem with that, Tammy, is that Snape switched sides before Voldemort turned to vapor in GH. And at that time, Voldemort was definitely winning. So at that time, Snape chose the losing side. Of course, maybe Snape was thinking of where his moral conscience would be best served. :) >>11. Dumbledore tells Harry, "In the end, it mattered not that you could not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you." Does this mean that occlumency lessons were unnecessary in the first place? Betsy: I'm always leery of ignorance being a good thing. If Harry knew Occlumency and then chose not to use it, that would be one thing. But he refused to learn it (or had a bad teacher - to include all theories :)) and so wasn't able to choose how to fight Voldemort. It's apparent that Voldemort can get into Harry's head and give him suggestions and visions that influence Harry's behavior. If Occlumency gives Harry more control over his mind, Harry needs to learn it. And if Harry's emotions give him an edge over Voldemort, being in control of his emotions would only make Harry more formidable. >>12. Do you think that this chapter was well done "plot wise"? I don't remember my complete reaction when I read it for the first time, but I remember that disappointment was definitely there. I was thinking something like "that is the big secret"? Do you think that it would have been more effective if Harry learns about the contents of the prophecy from somebody else? Yesterday for some reason I was imagining Voldemort explaining things to Harry instead of Dumbledore. "Potter, we have to kill one another or be killed. You better be prepared." :o) What do you think?< Betsy: I actually liked this chapter, and was surprised that Harry has to actually *kill* Voldemort. I think it's a huge emotional burden to put on someone (especially a child). I can understand why Dumbledore was reluctant to do so. I also think it's dramatically interesting for Harry to have time to ponder exactly what his role is. Learning his part in the prophecy now, while he has time to reflect rather than in the midst of some future battle, means Harry will fully comprehend what he needs to do and will make his choices with eyes wide open. I was also very touched with Harry's emotional breakdown and the way Dumbledore handled it. Harry had been under so much pressure and went through such a horror, he really needed a safe place to explode. I loved that Dumbledore gave him that time and place and that he wouldn't allow Harry to leave until he had gone through it. >>13. We see Dumbledore crying in this chapter for the first time in the books. Despite the fact that a similar question was already posted couple of days ago, I decided not to delete mine. What did you feel when you read about Dumbledore's tear?< Betsy: I was very touched. The prophecy makes it plain that Harry was never going to be a normal boy. He was born, essentially, to be an assassin. I think Dumbledore did everything he could to keep Harry as normal as possible, and I think he hates that he had to place such a burden on such young shoulders. The full impact of that burden is expressed in Dumbledore's tear - this is something Dumbledore wishes he could change. And he cannot. That is huge. Harry can no longer depend on Dumbledore to fix things for him. The fight is Harry's now. And it truly sucks, and I can understand why Dumbledore himself would weep. Betsy From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 05:33:47 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 05:33:47 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124040 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124042 >Alla wrote: Discussion questions: 1. Do you think we will ever meet Phineas again? What do you think about the possibility of the network of portraits playing even larger role in the later battles? vmonte: Yes! Maybe! 2. Harry blames himself for Sirius's death. Do you? vmonte: No way! 3. Dumbledore is sure that Harry IS the person the prophecy talks about. Are you? vmonte: Hmmm. I'm not sure, and I hate the idea of a prophecy. 4. Harry complains to Dumbledore that Occlumency lessons were weakening him. Dumbledore replies with his usual vow of trust for Snape. Do you trust Snape? vmonte: No I do not. 5. Dumbledore blames himself for Sirius death. Do you? vmonte: No, Sirius was destined to die. 6. Voldemort did not choose the pureblood wizard like Neville "which, according to his creed, is the only kind of wizard worth being or knowing." Does this quote make a difference in your view on whether Voldemort himself is sufficiently interested in promoting "purebloodism" or just in grabbing power, no matter who helps him achieve it? vmonte: Voldemort is only interested in power. 7. Do you agree with the possibility that Neville may turn out to be the real prophecy child? vmonte: I think that Neville will help Harry defeat Voldemort. If the Longbottoms and Potters were friends, there is a possibility that Neville's mom also put the ancient protective spell on him. If so, Voldemort may be in trouble if he tries to kill Neville. 8. Do you think that there is a possibility that the prophecy does not speak about either Harry or Neville? Can you offer completely new and unexpected interpretation of it? vmonte: I guess it could be about Dumbledore. 9. Dumbledore tells us that Sibyll is the great granddaughter of Cassandra Trelawney. As we know from mythology, nobody believed Cassandra's predictions which turned out to be true. Do you think that JKR is hinting that Sibyll is a more gifted seer that Dumbledore thinks? Do you think that there is more to Sibyll than meets the eye? vmonte: Sibyll bothers me more than any other character in HP. Where is free will? I hope Harry learns not to listen to her garbage. 10. Who is the infamous eavesdropper? I don't know. And you know it doesn't have to be a DE. It could just have been someone that had a big mouth and spilled the beans to the wrong person. I hope it wasn't Dobby. 11. Dumbledore tells Harry, "In the end, it mattered not that you could not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you." Does this mean that occlumency lessons were unnecessary in the first place? Was Dumbledore aware that Harry has plenty of that power in that room BEFORE possession occurred? vmonte: I think that Harry must learn to control his emotions. Occlumency will become important, but a better teacher is needed. 12. Do you think that this chapter was well done "plot wise"? I don't remember my complete reaction when I read it for the first time, but I remember that disappointment was definitely there. I was thinking something like "that is the big secret"? Do you think that it would have been more effective if Harry learns about the contents of the prophecy from somebody else? Yesterday for some reason I was imagining Voldemort explaining things to Harry instead of Dumbledore. "Potter, we have to kill one another or be killed. You better be prepared." :o) What do you think? vmonte: I was unhappy with it as well because I feel that Dumbledore is still not being completely honest with Harry. 13. We see Dumbledore crying in this chapter for the first time in the books. Despite the fact that a similar question was already posted couple of days ago,(message 123486) I decided not to delete mine. What did you feel when you read about Dumbledore's tear? vmonte: No comment. Nice work Alla! I hope you do more of these!!! Vivian From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 06:56:42 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 06:56:42 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124043 Discussion Questions: 2. Harry blames himself for Sirius death. Do you? 5. Do you blame DD? Sirius is dead because Bella chose of her own free will to kill him. So the primary blame is hers. Bella killed Sirius. DD did not and Harry did not. It is important that we remember that. As to Harry: Harry was told to study Occlumency. Told by DD, a person whose judgment Harry trust. Harry didn't like his teacher, but even still he did go to the sessions. He made an attempt. The *main* reason that Harry did not learn Occlumency was his curiosity. Harry's curiosity has gotten him into trouble time and time again. Hermione has a lot of curiosity too but she thinks first and consults a book for facts before acting. Harry on the other hand has a tendency to just jump right in and worry about the consequences later. I know that DD says that he should have told Harry sooner, but I am not so sure that Harry was ready sooner. DD blames himself. How many of us can see the future and if we knew now what we will know then would do something different now? One simply can not do that. DD used his best judgment at the time, which was all he or any of us can be expected to do. I do not blame DD. Harry on the other hand was given a direct order by his Headmaster and Harry should have followed it without question. (Now I know some of you will jump up and down and disagree with the idea of following authority no matter what, but hear me out. First there are 2 types of authority. One is the type that DD has, and the other the type that Umbridge has. Let's not go off on a tangent here. We are talking about the lawful authority of a respected person that Harry knows to have his best interest at heart. Umbridge would be a different matter.) So, moving on Harry disregarded a direct order and that was not good. Harry wanted to see what was behind the door. Harry had a choice, many choices in fact, and he blew it. He had a choice to follow DD (an older, wiser person who Harry knew had his best interest at heart) and he did not take this seriously enough. Harry had a choice to do his homework and practice, but again he choice not too. Harry wanted to see what was behind the door and he deluged himself, and allowed LV to delude him as well, into believing that since he saved Arthur's life it was really a good thing to keep seeing these things. Ah... such is the way of LV he works in a person's mind to make them think that the wrong thing is really the right thing. A true Slytherin!!! And it worked. Harry half believed that is was the right thing, even when he heard the wee small voice of Hermione in his head telling him that it was the wrong thing. But Harry is young and we can cut him a little slack because of that. He has not learned to listen to that soft quiet voice of reason and truth and be able to follow it. This is called Discernment of Spirits, and it is a skill that Harry has yet to learn. So following in the direction that LV lead him, Harry ends up putting himself and his friends in mortal danger. And as always wiser more experienced wizards and ultimately DD have to come to his rescue. Harry made some serious mistakes. He was lead astray by LV and by his own natural sense of curiosity. He is young. He has been through a lot. It is hard to think and act rationally when you have a migraine (his scar hurting.) Remember in book 2 when Ginny did all of those terrible things ? attacking people ? when under the power of LV? Then DD said that she was forgiven because she was not acting of her own free will. The implication is that if she was acting of her own free will, even as a child, she would have been guilty and subject to punishment. Now let us turn back to Harry. How much of this was Harry and how much was LV? Can Harry say *the devil made me do it*? Maybe, maybe not. Harry made a series of poor choices. (Frankly I am shocked by this, because I really did not think that he would ever do that. So my young hero has fallen from grace. And I along with DD have a tear in my eye for him.) There are choices and there are choices. Harry's intent has always been for the good. Harry has not taken the wrong path because he *knowingly* choose to do what he knew to be wrong. Harry gave in to his curiosity, but curiosity in and of itself is not evil. Harry did make other bad choices that he thought was for the right reason. He has done what many before him have done. We all learn from our mistakes and go on to do better next time. Harry will have to look at his actions and sort out the real crime from the imagined. Harry should have worked harder at the Occlumency lessons. He should have respected Snape's privacy and not looked in the pensive and gotten tossed out of the sessions. He should have told someone older and more experienced what was happening to him and gotten their help to sort it all out. I don't think that Harry has ever deluded himself into thinking that he was a match for LV. He always seems to know that he can not face LV alone. So I don't think that it is arrogance here. Harry will undoubtedly blame himself for everything that has happened. But he is not to blame for Sirius' death. He made a poor choice for the right reason and as a result placed himself and his friends in danger. They made choices also. Harry friends made choices of loyalty. Sirius felt an adult's duty and love for a child. Harry friends and Sirius did the only thing that people of love and honor could do. One can not blame any of them for that. They were willing to die for a friend. Once Harry sorts it all out he will see his mistakes and learn from them. And he will have to forgive himself for any part that he may have played in his Godfather's death. In conclusion: The ultimate *blame* for Sirius's death is Bella's and Bella's alone. She is the one that made the choice to kill. LV is guilty as well because he deceived and lied to Harry and led his astray and thus set the stage for the evil that was to occur. DD has no blame in this and it is his feeling of grief that is talking when he says that he has. Harry made some serious mistakes. I once thought that he was above that, but the true is that Harry is very, very human. JKR shows that here. Harry's mistakes have been at a very high cost. Such a high cost at such a young age, it just tears you heart out to watch. Harry's intent was not to do harm. His intent was to help. LV used what he saw as Harry's weakness against him. I am sure that DD would say that what seems to be our greatest weakness (our ability to love) is our greatest strength. Harry must forgive himself for what part he had in this and grow from it to be a wiser and stronger wizard, as I know that he will. Tonks_op From snow15145 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 07:09:54 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 07:09:54 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy . REPOST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124044 Discussion questions: 1. Do you think we will ever meet Phineas again? What do you think about the possibility of the network of portraits playing even larger role in the later battles? Snow: Absolutely! Phineas never came back from 12 Grimmald Place where the little toe rag that "done Sirius in" is talking to his former mistress in undertones of glee until Great Grandpappy Phineas comes to question the whys of Sirius death for himself. 2. Harry blames himself for Sirius's death. Do you? Snow: Everyone was aware of the game plan except Harry. The Order all knew that it was essential for Harry to close his mind to what Voldy would make him see. Harry not taking Occlumency seriously did not cause Sirius' fate. The Order knew that this could be an eventuality. I'm certain they had taken measures, which Harry and the reader do not know, if the Voldy attempt should occur. 3. Dumbledore is sure that Harry IS the person the prophecy talks about. Are you? Snow: Oh no, another absolutely! The prophecy fit Harry like a glove before Voldy may have even realized it. Why, check Tom Riddle's statements in the Chamber or Dumbledore's explanation as to why. 4. Harry complains to Dumbledore that Occlumency lessons were weakening him. Dumbledore replies with his usual vow of trust for Snape. Do you trust Snape? Snow: If I had to choose, I would trust Snape because he is more like the person that is "what you see is what you get". To me Snape lays more cards on the table than any other character. 5. Dumbledore blames himself for Sirius death. Do you? Snow: No! But I understand why Dumbledore feels that he is more than partly to blame. Dumbledore had been in secret communication with Sirius ever since he had to go back to prison oops go into hiding at the end of POA. Then the worst thing for Sirius and the most beneficial to the Order for Harry was the protection of Grimmald Place. Dumbledore caused Sirius's depression by accepting Grimmald Place as headquarters. It was another case of the worse of two evils for Dumbledore, the best place for headquarters worst place for Sirius. Sounds very similar to the dilemma with Harry at the very beginning, worst place for Harry emotionally but the best place for survival. 6. Voldemort did not choose the pureblood wizard like Neville "which, according to his creed, is the only kind of wizard worth being or knowing." Does this quote make a difference in your view on whether Voldemort himself is sufficiently interested in promoting "purebloodism" or just in grabbing power, no matter who helps him achieve it? Snow: Why would Voldemort seek what he already has? The majority of purebloods feel the same as he does and even if they don't back him physically they do psychologically. Look at Black's parents or Fudge or Crouch Sr. when he allowed the use of the unforgivables to be used in capturing deatheaters. They all claim themselves as prohibiting the ways of Voldemort but they are all purebloods with the same prejudice views as Voldemort, they only justify their actions as being for the good. 7. Do you agree with the possibility that Neville may turn out to be the real prophecy boy? Snow: No way! Neville will be important but if we were to go biblical here, Neville is to Harry as John the Baptist is to Christ. (John was perceived as a threat because they thought he might have been the prophet that was prophesied.) Everyone knows the ending to that story, right. 8. Do you think that there is a possibility that the prophecy does not speak about either Harry or Neville? Can you offer completely new and unexpected interpretation of it? Snow: History repeats itself what about Dumbledore and Grindlewald. 9. Dumbledore tells us that Sibyll is the great granddaughter of Cassandra Trelawney. As we know from mythology, nobody believed Cassandra's predictions which turned out to be true. Do you think that JKR is hinting that Sibyll is a more gifted seer that Dumbledore thinks? Do you think that there is more to Sibyll than meets the eye? Snow: Not enough time to answer this one as if I haven't already felt like the only passenger on that ship. But I will give you something to think about look up prophet or clairvoyant on Microsoft Word and see who's name appears 8-) 10. Who is the infamous eavesdropper? Snow: Mundungus! Who by the why told or rather sold it to Snape. 11. Dumbledore tells Harry, "In the end, it mattered not that you could not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you." Does this mean that occlumency lessons were unnecessary in the first place? Was Dumbledore aware that Harry has plenty of that power in that room BEFORE possession occurred? Snow: Yep! But those lessons reinforced the emotional response that Harry needed to succeed. It is only when you become so emotionally attached that you can be adequately defensive. 12. Do you think that this chapter was well done "plot wise"? I don't remember my complete reaction when I read it for the first time, but I remember that disappointment was definitely there. I was thinking something like "that is the big secret"? Do you think that it would have been more effective if Harry learns about the contents of the prophecy from somebody else? Yesterday for some reason I was imagining Voldemort explaining things to Harry instead of Dumbledore. "Potter, we have to kill one another or be killed. You better be prepared." :o) What do you think? Snow: In first reading this chapter, with so much to take in after the previous occurrences, I felt somewhat as numb as Harry. But rereading the chapter gave me a sense of revelation that Harry was stronger than even I had felt. I don't know if I could have been as `calm' as Harry. This told me a lot of what to expect from such a young boy that has been through so much and still 13. We see Dumbledore crying in this chapter for the first time in the books. Despite the fact that a similar question was already posted couple of days ago, I decided not to delete mine. What did you feel when you read about Dumbledore's tear? Snow: It wasn't Harry alone that brought Dumbledore to tears. It was all the worth that Harry is; what he had to go through and what he remains to go through; it was what Dumbledore feels guilty over even if it was the right thing to do for everyone involved; it was the entire wizarding world and the whole weight of it laid squarely on the shoulders of a fifteen year old boy. Good Job Alla! From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Sun Feb 6 07:12:23 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 07:12:23 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character Discussion: Sirius (2) Message-ID: <20050206071223.35771.qmail@web25102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124045 I want to start by referring you back to HPFGU message 123848 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/123848 I told you there about thought-forms. When we think, we form small astral clouds around our head, and these thought-forms drift around our body in an anticlockwise circulation, from the head down to the upper abdomen, through the spleen and liver, and out the other side, up again. This is the normal state of affairs in every human being. In addition to these thought-forms there is an influence in many people which turns them into a seeker. That is the thought-spark or seed of the original spirit. It is symbolised by Lily in Harry Potter. If the lily is closed up in its petals there's no influence to change our way of thinking. However through various causes, the lily in the heart can begin to open one petal, so to speak. Such a person begins to suspect that the purpose of life is not just eating, sleeping, sex and entertainment. He/she begins to search for the purpose of life. The seeker is born. Obviously this influences the seeker's thoughts. And equally obviously a new thought-form is produced that corresponds with the seeking pattern. In the beginning this thought-form is very vague and indistinct and hence powerless. But after a lot of experimentation the seeker will discover that liberation is the purpose of life, and that this can be achieved only by giving up the self-interest. The thought-form now begins to take on a clear shape and begins to radiate power. Sirius Black is born. This thought-form does not circulate, however! It stands still in front of the seeker, shining like a bright morning star. And, as I mentioned last time, there is a corresponding light in the sixth auric ring of the microcosm. Paul was aware of this and mentions it in the First Letter to the Corinthians. Chapter 15 verse 49: "Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven." Yes, that's what I'm saying. Sirius is the personification of the thought-image of the heavenly human being. I mentioned previously that a seed contains a germ, energy, and a plan. When the divine spark in the heart begins to vibrate, or catches fire as we say mystically, the "plan" which the Divine Spirit created all those millions of years ago begins to project itself in the aura of the human being. Initially it's lifeless, but as the new soul grows it begins to become conscious. It takes on its role of giving instructions to the new soul so that it knows what to do, how to grow up as intended by God. In my post "Peter Pettigrew" I explained that Peter alias Scabbers personifies the ego, situated in the upper abdomen, around the solar plexus, the spleen and the liver. The thought-forms circulate through the ego. The ego is behind all our thoughts and desires. In fact we could say it is the master of our desire body, our astral body. Our thoughts obviously stem from our desires. Our desires feed our thoughts and our thoughts feed our desires. Until Harry is born. Have a look at such a person's situation. The lily has begun to open. A bright silvery stag stands next to the lily and hopes fervently for a child. Sirius is in the seeker's firmament and gives bright solace and hope. The microcosmic self is the boss and Scabbers is his servant, though Lily and James don't know it. Then Lily gives birth to a beautiful baby. This is the baby that has been prophesied to kill the overlord, Voldemort. Sirius is immediately made God-Father because he is Harry's pattern, his example, his mentor and loving guide. Voldemort feels the pain of Harry's presence and tries to rid his world of the trouble makers. He kills James and Lily, but the love in Lily is so great that Harry is unharmed. However the microcosmic self is greatly reduced in power. Harry has to live in the cold, nonmagical world that does not recognise his greatness. The new soul has to learn to live in the every day world removed from God. As I explained in "Sirius (1)", the ego has deceived the seeker into imprisoning the thought-form of the heavenly man. Sirius is imprisoned in all sorts of egocentric spiritual and religious pursuits. He grows weaker and weaker. But the new soul grows and Sirius manages to escape. He is able to expel the ego which escapes to its creator, the microcosmic self. Just like a normal thought-form he circulates through the solar plexus, but instead of boosting the ego, which normal thoughts do, he drives it out. However dementors, or rulers of the eons as "Pistis Sophia" calls them, try to suck the life out of both the new soul and the thought-form. The new soul is able to drive them away because of the powerful longing he has for liberation. Forces all around Harry are trying to stop him growing to maturity and living with Sirius. Together Harry and Sirius are destined to become the new rulers of the microcosm. Such a new human being is extremely powerful in goodness, truth and justice, something which the established order doesn't want. Buckbeak, symbolising the liberating Christ radiations from the Brotherhood of the Masters of Compassion, is ready to be sacrificed. Sirius has been captured by Snape, the dark side of the personality. Things suddenly look very grim. However the new, divine soul, Harry, surrenders to the Christ radiations which immediately lift the soul up to great new spiritual heights. The mental image of the heavenly man is also lifted up by the redeeming Christ-rays and is set free to guide, inspire and encourage the new soul. In the next exciting episode I will deal with Sirius' passing through the Gate of Saturn. Hans ===== Hans Andra see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://www.harrypotterforseekers.com/ Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Sun Feb 6 07:24:43 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 02:24:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's Single Biggest Error In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200502060225819.SM02196@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 124046 > > Vivamus (snipped): > > All right, I'll bite, but my nomination is a group of errors. > > Ignorance of snakes. > > > > 1. No snake that has ever lived, AFAIK, could chomp on someone like > > the snake that bit Arthur Weasley. She describes the snake > > splintering bones with it's bite, which snakes' jaws are not > > physically capable of doing. > > Dungrollin: > I've been researching this, recently (it was me in post > 115333), and I think that Bushmasters can strike hard enough > to break bones, though I can't find a specific reference for > you to prove it. > Snakes generally leave half their length coiled on the ground > and strike with the other half of their length, a tube of > solid muscle 6ft long would, I think be able to provide > enough force to break a few ribs. Moreover, I found some > info on WebMed Health to suggest that a bite from a > non-poisonous snake can break bones, so I don't see why > poisonous snakes shouldn't be able to. > (Hope these links work - if not you should be able to cut and paste.) > > http://my.webmd.com/hw/health_guide_atoz/sig241206.asp > > Moreover, bushmasters are known to deliver more than one bite > in a single attack. I don't see the bite as such (i.e. the > pressure of the jaws being brought together and crushing the > ribs between them) splintering the bones, but the force of > the strike on a man's unprotected ribs could easily crack > them as a sledgehammer would. Vivamus: Yes, I'm quite sure that ANY 12-foot long snake, poisonous or otherwise, can break bones with the impact of their strike (with the exception of cobras, but see below.) I've been hit with a defensive strike from a roughly 4 foot boa, and that *hurt*, and it wasn't attacking, just saying, "get away from me." That's not the way the attack on Arthur was described, however. Here is the quote: "he reared high from the floor and struck once, twice, three times, plunging his fangs deeply into the man's flesh, feeling his ribs splinter beneath his jaws, feeling the warm gush of blood. The man was yelling in pain; then he fell silent; he slumped backwards against the wall; blood was splattering on to the floor." First of all, you are correct in pointing out that it was three strikes, not four. Second, though, note the "reared high from the floor". The only snakes that do that, AFAIK, are cobras. Cobra strikes are fairly slow and gentle compared to almost every other kind of snake. Most snakes don't actually coil to strike; they coil to sleep, to crush their victims (if constrictors,) or around tree limbs for support, etc. Before striking, most snakes make an "S" of their bodies, with larger and larger loops of the S farther back from the head. That lets the strike come very fast and with a great deal of power, as all the loops unbend towards the victim. A rattlesnake strike is not faster than the eye can follow, but it is *very* fast (around 8 feet per second), and many other snakes strike faster still. Cobra strikes, OTOH, involve the cobra rearing up several feet high, and basically falling forward onto the victim. No driven strike speed at all. By the time it gets to ground level, it's going pretty fast, but nothing like the speed of a rattlesnake strike. I would not want to try it, but a person with very fast reflexes can actually catch a cobra's hood (or even head) in mid strike. If you have seen Bruce Lee in Enter the Dragon, those are real cobras he grabs. I'm sure the fangs were pulled, but he did do that with real snakes. I saw Bill Haas at the Miami Serpentarium do the daily snake milking once, many years ago. The world record King Cobra was dead and stuffed by that time, but he still milked one that was over nine feet long. We were standing on the lawn, and the snake container (a flat, round thing several feet across) was set down in the grass about eight feet in front of us. No fences, walls, or glass. He lifted the lid off of the container, and a King Cobra rose out of that box high enough to look me straight in the eye. It happened to be looking at the crowd, not at Bill, so he tapped it with a stick to get it's attention. It hissed loudly and turned to him, and he started his lecture on it. When he was ready to milk this huge snake, he stuck one hand about two feet from its nose. The snake lunged at his hand, but before it had gotten halfway there, he had grabbed it by the hood with his other hand. The entire snake then wrapped up around his arm, with some getting around his neck (which he could easily pull off, since was just the tail.) The milking then proceeded quickly and easily. Getting it back in the box was more tricky, but as I recall, he just took the snake's head in his other hand, slowly unwound himself from the coils, let it get a couple of loops onto the bottom of the box, and then just lowered the box lid on it. As soon as he let go of the head, the snake dropped down until it could be in its defensive position (about five feet high, with full hood.) In that position, when he put the lid down, the snake couldn't do anything but coil back down into the box. Anyway, that is how a cobra attacks. I think there are some other hooded snakes (Australian Tiger Snake and another common Australian snake I can't recall, I think), but I don't know if they attack by rearing as a cobra does, but they might. The whole purpose of the hood is as a warning device, so that would be the way to display it. BTW, the cobras and other hooded snakes have among the deadliest venom of all snakes. King cobra venom isn't as deadly as some others, but it is injected in huge quantities, so it might as well be. So we have two kinds of snakes, the rearing cobra type and the "coiling" Bushmaster type. There are other kinds, but let's stick with these for a minute. As an interesting aside, Silvana just mentioned that Nagini is the name of a Snake Goddess. As Naga is the Sanskrit word for cobra, with the feminine form Nagini, I would be willing to bet that any Indian Snake Goddess is going to be a cobra. Indian mythology has a *lot* of snake beings -- so many and in so many variants that JKR could have pulled the name from almost anywhere, but it still almost certainly is either a cobra or cobra-like. (Note: many of the forms of Naginis are pythons [non-poisonous constrictors], but as Nagini is clearly venomous, they wouldn't likely apply.) So Nagini is *most* likely a cobra, hence the rearing. JKR did say the snake reared, so it could not possibly have hit Arthur hard enough to break bones, let alone splinter, crush, cause blood to spatter, etc. Let's assume, however, the "reared" part was the error, the cobra name is irrelevant, and it really is a Bushmaster type. Let's further assume that the snake, in biting three times, backed up, "coiled" up, and hit with full force, rather than just backing up a few inches for the second and third strikes, the way most snakes would do. Let's assume (very small assumption here) that a 12 foot snake can break a rib with a strike, maybe even crack multiple ribs with three strikes. Assuming all that, it is still a blunt trauma on the OUTSIDE of his body, and only two tiny punctures through the skin for each strike. So where does the gushing blood come from? Bones that splintered so badly from the three strikes that they pierced arteries AND cut the skin? While that is unlikely in the extreme, you still have the "warm gush of blood" flowing in the mouth of the snake. You also have the bones splintering "beneath his jaws", which really does not fit with the blunt trauma a straight-on strike would produce, no matter how much you stretch it. > Vivamus: > > 2. No matter how big Nagini is, there is no way a venomous snake is > > going to be big enough to eat a 14 year old boy. > > Dungrollin: > Agreed. However, in the graveyard Voldy doesn't specifically > say anything about feeding Harry to Nagini, he says rather > vaguely "Just a little longer, Nagini" which, to be honest, > could refer to anything at all. > > It's in chapter 29: The Dream where he says it explicitly: > "Nagini [...] you are out of luck. I will not be feeding > Wormtail to you, after all ..." - But it might be significant > that he's talking to Wormtail, and a rat *would* be just the > right sized snack. Vivamus: Y'know, I never thought about feeding Wormtail to Nagini as a rat, but of course that would fit Nagini's size. Since Wormtail is an animagus, however, I wonder whether even LV could force him into his animal form and keep him there. I think it would be very different from forcing Wormtail to change from rat back into human, as Remus and Sirius did. Your quote was also snipped a bit prematurely, I think. To extend your quote a bit: "Nagini," said the cold voice, "you are out of luck. I will not be feeding Wormtail to you, after all... but never mind, never mind . . . there is still Harry Potter. ..." The snake hissed. Harry could see its tongue fluttering. The full quote says to me that LV intends to feed Harry Potter to Nagini instead of PP. A little later, when Harry is describing the dream to DD, he says, "Voldemort got a letter from an owl. He said something like, Wormtail's blunder had been repaired. He said someone was dead. Then he said, Wormtail wouldn't be fed to the snake - there was a snake beside his chair. He said - he said he'd be feeding me to it, instead." So Harry also hears it as LV intending to feed HIM to the snake. In the graveyard scene of GoF, LV also tells Nagini to have patience, in a way that suggests that Nagini is waiting to claim the promise of being able to eat Harry. Nagini, which has been circling Harry continuously, goes back to wait until after LV kills Harry. All in all, it's pretty clear, I think, that JKR was thinking that Nagini was going to eat 14-year-old Harry. > Vivamus: > > 3. People don't, usually, bleed when bitten by a poisonous snake. > > In fact, they don't usually bleed when bitten by a non-poisonous > > snake, except for defensive bites, which the attack on Arthur > > certainly was not. > > > > I've heard someone say that Nagini must be a Bushmaster. It's > > possible, as Bushmasters get up to almost four meters in > length, and > > Nagini is described as being over twelve feet long. > > Dungrollin: > Yup, that was me (post 115333 again). And I'm going to > disagree again; L. muta venom has neurotoxic, cardiotoxic, > myotoxic, anticoagulant and haemorrhagic effects, here's a > list of symptoms: > > Edema (swelling) & Pain > Haemorrhage (gingival [gums], wound, rectal) Blister > formation around wound site Abdominal pain (intense colic) > Bloody diarrhea Hypotension (diastolic & systolic) > Bradycardia Diminished heart sounds Brief loss of > consciousness Blurry vision Dizziness Vomiting > > http://www-surgery.ucsd.edu/ent/DAVIDSON/Snake/Lachesis.htm > > Haemorrhaging from the site of envenomation (the bite) is > quite common with Crotaline snake bites (rattlesnakes, water > moccasins, Fer-de-Lance etc) though all these symptoms (from what I've > discovered) are very variable, and depend very much on how > much venom was injected. Vivamus: All you say there is true, however, it does not result in anything like the passage describes. The haemorrhagic effects would take a matter of minutes to appear, at the very least. The book clearly has the blood flowing in great quantities from the instant of the attack, as if the attack came from a lion instead of a snake. If you get bitten by a poisonous snake, you are going to have two tiny punctures, and that's it. Other effects, including death, would come later. I share the view that JKR is a genius of a writer, and I dearly love the books, and greatly enjoy all of them. No writer, however brilliant, can master all subjects. That's what the editorial process is for, to catch things like this. The passages with the snakes still make me wince, however, and there is no way I've seen yet in which they can be reconciled. The closest way around it is to write off Nagini as an entirely magical creature, with all kinds of hidden magical abilities. Then you can justify anything, because neither logic nor science applies. > Vivamus before: > But Bushmasters (Lachesis mutus) have > > extremely powerful hemotoxin in their venom, and the larger a snake > > is, the more venom it can inject. With all the time it took to get > > McGonagall and get to DD's office, Arthur would have been > long since > > dead by the time they got to DD. I'm not counting this one as an > > error, because we don't really know what kind of snake it was, but > > most venomous snakes of that size would have killed Arthur > too quickly > > for help to arrive. > > > > > Vivamus later: > > I think it still is a FLINT, though, and here is why. One would > > expect that the venom from a magical giant snake would be no less > > deadly than that of a non-magical snake. TR did tell Harry in CoS > > that he had about a minute to live after the Basilisk fang got > > him. Whatever Nagini is might not be as deadly as a Basilisk, but > > it must have been ten minutes at the very least after seeing the > > attack that Harry & co. could even have gotten to DD's office, and > > probably another ten before anyone could physically have gotten to > > Arthur to help him, and probably another ten minutes after that > > before he could get any kind of treatment. The snake bit him four > > times, so he probably got a full load of venom from a 12+ foot > > long snake. Arthur would be dead long before anyone could get > > there. > > > > (To put it in perspective, there are some snakes that can kill an > > adult in a matter of seconds.) > > Dungrollin: > I disagree (for a change...). Venomous snakes can very > finely judge the amount of venom they inject - we simply don't > know how much Arthur got (and by the way it was only three bites, > not four), and the Basilisk undoubtedly injected a hell of a lot > more venom than Nagini would be able to. I've seen some case studies > on the web where people were bitten by bushmasters and didn't > receive treatment for 2 hours, 5 hours and more, and they all > survived. > > "There are many factors that influence the seriousness of a bite, > including the individual's health, size, age, and psychological > state. The nature of the bite may also vary, like penetration of > one or both fangs, amount of venom injected, location of the bite, > and proximity to major blood vessels. The health of the snake and > the interval since it last used its venom mechanism is also > important. These multiple variables make every bite unique. > Depending on circumstances, the bite of a 'mildly' venomous snake > may be life-threatening and that of a 'strongly' venomous snake may > not." > > http://www.manbir-online.com/htm2/snake.22.htm > > I stick to my deduction that Nagini (on the basis of the information > we have) is a bushmaster. I don't think she's a magical snake > - what we've seen her do so far requires no magic at all. Vivamus: Bushmaster is as good a candidate as any, if we rule out cobra and ignore the rearing and the name. They do have diamond patterns on their tail, as JKR describes, they are the largest of all vipers, and they are unusually aggressive. They eat mammals, from mice and rats(!) to opossums. There is still a problem, though, with the examples you give. Their bites result in an over 80% mortality rate. That translates to a very deadly snake, as some bites are going to be made by sick individuals who can't produce as much or as deadly venom, some will have already spent their venom, some will make glancing bites that only partly penetrate the skin through the clothing and can't get enough venom in, and so on. Some bites will happen where people can get medical help right away. Overall, 80% of people bitten ending up dead is *very* high. Unlike a wild snake, Nagini is probably a very healthy animal, because she is an active snake in uncaged captivity, getting plenty of exercise, and probably all the food she wants. Assuming she is no longer being milked, because LV now has his body, we have a healthy animal, with a full load of fully deadly venom, over 12 feet long (close to or at world record size), of a species that averages 8 to 9 feet. True, snakes can control the amount of venom they can inject, but this snake is being controlled by LV, and really wants to kill Arthur before he can raise an alarm. With three bites, there is no reason to expect that Arthur would have gotten anything less than a record load of fully deadly venom -- probably enough to kill several healthy adults fairly quickly. > But you were originally criticising JKR for not having done enough > research... I'm trying to track down a paraphrased quote posted ages > ago: > > "JKR was asked if there was anything in PS/SS she wished she could > go back and change. She said that at the time it was published, she > thought boa constrictors were poisonous." > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/31778 > > Unfortunately I've had no luck so far - if anyone knows the quote > I'd be very very grateful for a reference (it's not on QQQ or Madame > Scoop). I think that JKR wanted the boa constrictor in PS/SS to be > Nagini, then realised her error and had to abandon it. But after > making an error like that, you'd be certain to do your research > properly the next time around, wouldn't you? Well, I would. So I > stick with my 'Nagini is a bushmaster' theory. (No, hang on, > that's not very catchy, how about N.O.B.B.Y - Nagini Obviously a > Bushmaster, Beware, Young'uns!) Vivamus: I remember that vaguely, and it bothered me that anyone would think that boa constrictors were poisonous, probably because I learned about snakes before I ever went to school. My grandfather was an avid (amateur) herpetologist, and my father was not, but grew up in an area in which he encountered poisonous snakes nearly every day, and taught his children to know about snakes before going into the woods. I'm no expert, but I might have overestimated common knowledge about snakes, or underestimated how much I've picked up about them over the years. All in all, I think you are still stuck with three theories for Nagini, and all of them involve FLINTs of some sort. She is either 1. a Bushmaster, in which the rearing to strike, the crushing of ribs, the flow of blood, and Arthur not being dead in about five minutes are all FLINTS. The name Nagini (Sanskrit for female cobra) also doesn't fit a Bushmaster (South American). 2. a King Cobra, in which the crushing of ribs, the flow of blood, and Arthur not being dead in about TWO minutes are all FLINTS. The rearing to strike and the name Nagini DO fit, however. 3. a completely magical snake creature, which uses its dragon like jaws to crush and kill its victims, and has secondary fangs that are venomous, but not terribly so -- enough to kill Arthur eventually, but not soon. The FLINT is, Nagini looks like a snake, and snakes have these thin, skinny lower jaws, with no jaw muscles to speak of. That's so they can get their mouths around their food by unhinging their jaws. If she had real jaws that could do those things, she would not look like a snake at all, but like some kind of dragon without wings and legs. In fact, she wouldn't BE a snake, either, because she wouldn't eat her food the way all snakes do. But it's time to stop beating around the bush and give JKR some kind of wiggle room, in the off-chance she reads this kind of thing and worries about it. Let's find a way around this that doesn't involve any FLINTs. Perhaps Nagini is, in fact, the REAL Nagini, an actual Indian magical being, not just a super-intelligent snake, or even a magically-enhanced snake creature. (As beautiful as they are, and as good as they are about escaping and getting through small spaces, snakes are really very stupid animals.) Nagini could then look like a huge, but ordinary cobra most of the time. When she bites, though, she chomps down like a dragon and NOT like a cobra, with venom that kills slowly instead of quickly. Hence the attack on Arthur, the poison not killing him quickly, the ease getting her in and out of the MoM, her intelligence in coming to Harry because she has been told she can eat him, her patience in waiting when she is told "not yet", etc. We don't know anything about her origins other than the hint from her name, but you can bet LV didn't find her in the forests of Albania. How he got her isn't relevant, probably, but what if she is one of those magical beings LV consorted with long ago? Maybe that is the only way Nagini can be explained. Well, if it is, then I don't see a FLINT at all (though it is awkward, to say the least.) Hmmmmmmmmm. Remember how much trouble they had staunching the blood flow? Perhaps she is more magical than she appears, after all. > Dungrollin > Apologising to Vivamus if he's(?) an expert on this, in which case > I'll defer to superior knowledge gracefully. Not an expert; just love snakes. And it's a good discussion. No apology necessary. > My pet gripe is the whole of GoF, and why Fake!Moody wasted a whole > year when he could have given Harry a portkey at any time. I don't think LV was ready. PP asked him a similar question, and he essentially said, I have to get stronger before doing that. Remember how the Dark Mark was getting steadily stronger all year? Thaat had to mean that LV was getting stronger, didn't it? I think LV wasn't ready until nearly the third task. Having Harry snatched at his moment of triumph was just LV's way of saying, "in your face" to DD, I think. Vivamus From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 07:53:10 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 07:53:10 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124047 Discussion questions: 1. Do you think we will ever meet Phineas again? What do you think about the possibility of the network of portraits playing even larger role in the later battles? Tonks: Yes. (2. and 5. were answered in a longer separate post.) 3. Dumbledore is sure that Harry IS the person the prophecy talks about. Are you? Tonks: Yes. But I think there is something about Neville. He will have some part in the finial outcome. 4. Harry complains to Dumbledore that Occlumency lessons were weakening him. Dumbledore replies with his usual vow of trust for Snape. Do you trust Snape? Tonks: Yes, if DD trust Snape than so do I. I trust DD's judgement. In CS Tom Riddle tells Harry that DD didn't seem to like him. I think DD can see a person heart and true nature. 6. Voldemort did not choose the pureblood wizard like Neville "which, according to his creed, is the only kind of wizard worth being or knowing." Does this quote make a difference in your view on whether Voldemort himself is sufficiently interested in promoting "purebloodism" or just in grabbing power, no matter who helps him achieve it? Tonks: I think that the person that can be LV equal has to have the same blood balance that he does. There is a reason for this. I think that Harry's upcoming death will redeem both the WW and the MW. 7. Do you agree with the possibility that Neville may turn out to be the real prophecy boy? Tonks: No. 8. Do you think that there is a possibility that the prophecy does not speak about either Harry or Neville? Can you offer completely new and unexpected interpretation of it? Tonks: I think that it is pretty clear that Harry is the one marked as his equal. 9. Do you think that JKR is hinting that Sibyll is a more gifted seer that Dumbledore thinks? Do you think that there is more to Sibyll than meets the eye? Tonks: For the most part I don't put must stock in that sort of thing. But she may be getting some of it correct without knowing it. 10. Who is the infamous eavesdropper? Tonks: I don't know. 11. Dumbledore tells Harry, "In the end, it mattered not that you could not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you." Does this mean that occlumency lessons were unnecessary in the first place? Was Dumbledore aware that Harry has plenty of that power in that room BEFORE possession occurred? Tonks: I think that DD knows that Harry has a lot of Love within him. DD says "In the end.." this doesn't mean that Occlumency was not necessary. It only mean that when all hope is gone Love will be your greatest strength. 12. Do you think that this chapter was well done "plot wise"? Tonks: I think it is good. 13. We see Dumbledore crying in this chapter for the first time in the books. What did you feel when you read about Dumbledore's tear? Tonks: I think that Betsy says it well in her post. DD know the burden that is being placed on Harry. DD feels Harry's pain at the lost of Sirius. DD is thinking of all of the people that Harry has lost, including Lily and James. DD realizes the burden on Harry is one that even an adult wizard like DD would find hard to shoulders. All of this just isn't fair to a young orphan boy without a chance of a normal future. And a boy that DD has grown to love. DD understand more that Harry does what is in store for Harry and DD's heart is breaking. He would take the burden himself if he could, but as Betsy said this time he can't. Tonks_op From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 08:12:53 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 08:12:53 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error - ie: Veritaserum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124048 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Bboyminn: > > I still maintain my position that people jump into the use of > Veritaserum a little too easily and a little too quickly. > > Ask yourself this, why, in this one instance (Sirius), would they > have been motivated to use Truth Serum? They caught Sirius at the > scene, they had eye/ear testimmony of witnesses. ... given what > seemed like overwhelming evidence, I can't imagine why the idea of > using Truth Serum would have occurred to anyone. > > Alla: > > What do you mean, a little bit too quickly? Veritaserum is a drug, > which makes you tell the truth - not from time time , but ALWAYS. > ...edited... > > It seems VERY inconsistent to me that veritaserum is not used in ALL > criminal investigations of WW. I mean, we don't know maybe it IS > used in some, but then again why wasn't it used in Sirius' hearing, > investigation, whatever occurred there? > > ...edited... > > I guess the answer I want to know is if veritaserum is not supposed > to be used in situation like Sirius' than when exactly it is > supposed to be used for? > > ...edited.. > > Definitely not, but don't you think that Veritaserum was created to > be answer to SOME? I want to know which ones JKR had in mind. > > Just my opinion of course, > > Alla bboyminn: Well, I can't speak to wizard law, but any country that has a basic Bill of Rights, and the wizard world does have the Wizangamont Charter of Rights, has a provision that says a defendant can't be compelled to testify against himself; it's basic human rights. If you want to forget about the muggle lie detector, fine, then let's consider the many muggle /truth/ serums. Why don't they force every person accused of a crime in the real world to take /truth serum/? Why? Because, it's against the law. It's a violation of basic human rights. I will agree that there may be some circumstances in which muggle lie detectors, hypnosis, and truth serum might be useful and legal tools in or out of the wizard world, but those situations are rare. That said, other than implying that Veritaserum should be used in every single criminal case, which it clearly is not, you haven't really addressed the logic of WHY it should have been used in Sirius's case. They have evidence that Sirius was the Potter's Secret Keeper. We know that was a mistake, but they don't know that yet. They found Sirius at the scene. They had eye witness accounts that Sirius and Peter had a confrontation. Eye/ear witnesses gave accounts of Peter accusing Sirius of killing the Potters. Sirius may have even admitted he killed the Potters, although we know he didn't mean that in the context of personally murdering them. However, witnesses and the Ministry do know or understand that alternate context. It is reasonably implied that Sirius was in a mental state caused by shock and grief, that left him unable or unwilling to defend himself. The are substantial indications that Sirius at the time was acting quite deranged. Further, interpretations of eye witness accounts, indeed indicated that Sirius murdered Peter and killed a pack of muggles in the process. -Sirius was known to be the Secret Keeper. -Sirius was captured at the scene. -Eye witnesses saw the confrontation between Sirius and Peter. -Eye witnesses heard Peter accuse Sirius of the murders. -Eye witnesses claimed they saw Sirius murder Peter and the muggles. -Sirius seemed reasonably mad and deranged. -Sirius may have implied a responsibility for the Potter's Deaths. -...and more. So where is the doubt? Many people have been convicted on a lot less evidence than that. So, given the overwhelming evidence and firm belief that Sirius commited the crime, why would it occur to anyone to use Veritaserum? Where is the element of doubt in all that overwhelming evidence that would have prompted anyone to use Truth Serum for confirmation? The answer is, given eye witnesses to the murder of Peter by Sirius, there wouldn't have been any doubt at all, and so, there would be no need for Truth Serum confirmation. Yes, I can see some situation in which truth serum might be used, but Sirius's situation clearly wasn't one of those. Just calling it like I see it. Steve/bboyminn From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sun Feb 6 12:52:06 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 12:52:06 -0000 Subject: Details, and the unreliable narrator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124049 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" > wrote: > Does anyone remember details from an > earlier book that seemed wrong at the time but suddenly made > sense when viewed in the context of later developments and > revelations? Contradictions resolved over the course of several > books? Apparent mistakes that turned out to be no such thing? > I'm not talking about details that stood out as strange or > inconsistent in retrospect, but about things that did so at first > sight. > > Pippin: > Oh yes. Scabbers suddenly falling asleep in PS/SS seemed > very contrived to me at the time but made sense once I found out > he's not only a phony rat but a "sleeper" servant of Voldemort. Renee: Ah, I like this kind of symbolism; thanks for pointing it out! But this is the same book, isn't it? I was rather looking for examples of peculiarities or seeming errors in earlier books that are explained in later books. > > Ginny's tearful collapse at the end of CoS was so overdone it > seemed phony. In the light of OOP, I now understand it was > intended that way. Not only is Ginny not the shy helpless damsel > she appeared to be for four books, she's crying to conceal her > guilt. > > Mr. Weasley lectures her about not showing the diary to him or > her mother, and Ginny sobs two answers in a row about how > she didn't know the diary was dangerous. Clearly a lie, if you > think about it. She *did* know it was dangerous by the time she > stole it back from Harry. > > Dumbledore interrupts "firmly" and sends her off to the hospital > wing. Legilimens that he is, he must know full well that she's > holding her guilty knowledge back, and *that's* why he > reassures her that there has been no lasting harm done. Renee: Yes, this is more or less what I was looking for. If the sobbing at the end of CoS is an act, the way Ginny appears in OotP makes a lot more sense. Helpless little Ginny as an act developed during years of having to endure a whole bunch of elder brothers, among them pranksters extraordiaire Fred & George. However, the best thing would be something looking like a real flint that turns out to be entirely correct. But I can't think of anything. I'll take the opportunity to reply to something in message 124019 as well: Pippin: The *narrator* says the moon was completely obscured by clouds. But if the moon is completely obscured he can't tell whether it's risen or not. It could be the narrator who makes the mistake, just as it(he?) says that Harry's parents died in a car crash. Renee: I've also been wondering if the error could be `blamed' on the unreliable narrator, but I don't think so. The problem is, that the scene took place too long after sunset for the moon to rise at that particular moment. The sun has set before Sirius drags Ron into the Whomping Willow. On full moon nights, the moon *does* rise shortly after sunset, even if it's perhaps not yet astronomically full but only full to the human eye. Harry & Co. spend a considerable time in the Shrieking Shack. There's no way the moon could have risen at the moment JKR says it did if it follows the normal pattern. Well, maybe things just work differently at Hogwarts. Electricity doesn't work there either; maybe the magic influences the sky, too... Actually, the movie-that-must-not-be-named seems to solve the problem by having a mountainside as the horizon and by shortening the Shrieking Shack scene just enough to make it plausible for the moon to rise at that moment. Renee From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sun Feb 6 13:31:49 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 13:31:49 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy . REPOST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124050 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > 2. Harry blames himself for Sirius's death. Do you? He deserves part of the blame, though it's a small part. It was his responsibility to try and learn Occlumency. Even though neither DD nor Snape managed to fully explain to him why it was necessary, he ought to have made more of an effort. He owed it to DD, who stood up for him at the hearing and who still remains an authority figure. Harry is not yet an adult, but he's no small child either, and old enough to be held at least partially responsible for his actions and decisions. Otherwise, we would be treating him like the small child he is not. And Harry can't grow if he is resolved of all blame. > 3. Dumbledore is sure that Harry IS the person the prophecy talks > about. Are you? Not quite. Why bring up Neville at this moment if it's only to say that it wasn't him, after all? > 4. Harry complains to Dumbledore that Occlumency lessons were > weakening him. Dumbledore replies with his usual vow of trust for > Snape. Do you trust Snape? Again, not quite. Though I'm disinclined to think he's still a Death Eater, he's got so many issues that he may very well cause a major disaster yet because of them. And while DD may trust him not to betray Harry to Voldemort, there's trust and trust. Snape is emotionally unreliable enough to be an uncertain factor. > 5. Dumbledore blames himself for Sirius death. Do you? I do, and more than I blame Harry. In his own way, DD is as overprotective as Molly is. He must have completely forgotten what it felt like to be a teenager, and I doubt he ever knew what it felt like to be a teenager in Harry's circumstances. > 8. Do you think that there is a possibility that the prophecy does > not speak about either Harry or Neville? Can you offer completely > new and unexpected interpretation of it? It seems highly unlikely to me that we'll suddenly be confronted with a third candidate; any surprises concerning the prophecy will probably have to do with its wording. > 11. Dumbledore tells Harry, "In the end, it mattered not that you > could not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you." Does > this mean that occlumency lessons were unnecessary in the first > place? Was Dumbledore aware that Harry has plenty of that power in > that room BEFORE possession occurred? I thought it was DD who saved Harry. And apparently it did matter that Harry couldn't clos his mind, because ultimately this caused Sirius to be killed. So I don't quite understand what DD is saying here. Is he dismissing Sirius's death? Or is he just trying to make Harry feel less guilty. > 12. Do you think that this chapter was well done "plot wise"? I > don't remember my complete reaction when I read it for the first > time, but I remember that disappointment was definitely there. I > was thinking something like "that is the big secret"? Do you think > that it would have been more effective if Harry learns about the > contents of the prophecy from somebody else? Yesterday for some > reason I was imagining Voldemort explaining things to Harry instead > of Dumbledore. "Potter, we have to kill one another or be killed. > You better be > prepared." :o) What do you think? No, it was very unsatisfactory to me, and the big secret struck me as rather lame. I didn't like DD's "blaming the victim act" (Sirius ought to have treated Kreacher better) either; it's inappropriate to say such things to the bereaved, and not at all in character for a loving and wise old man. As far as I'm concerned, this chapter is a piece of inadequate writing. > 13. We see Dumbledore crying in this chapter for the first time in > the books. Despite the fact that a similar question was already > posted couple of days ago, I decided not to delete mine. What did > you feel when you read about Dumbledore's tear? Embarrassed. Renee From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sun Feb 6 13:34:59 2005 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 13:34:59 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124051 > Discussion questions: > > 1. Do you think we will ever meet Phineas again? What do you think > about the possibility of the network of portraits playing even > larger role in the later battles? > Hannah: I hope so, and I think we probably will. He's like a pictorial Snape - he gets all the best lines! > 2. Harry blames himself for Sirius's death. Do you? > Hannah: No. Of course he will blame himself, but it's not his fault. He is only fifteen years old, was suffering from exam stress, lack of sleep, the after-effects of various traumas, and constant persecution. He acted bravely, if very unwisely, to try and protect someone he loved. He was trying to save Sirius, not kill him. Poor old Harry. > 3. Dumbledore is sure that Harry IS the person the prophecy talks > about. Are you? > Hannah: I think there's a lot more to the prophecy than even DD realises. I'm sure it must refer to Harry in some way, since these are the 'Harry Potter' books, but I wouldn't rule out Neville having a role as well. I hope he does - I love Neville. Knowing JKR, who can write tricks and twists into the very simplest of things, a vague and portentious prophecy has got to be full of unexpected factors. > 4. Harry complains to Dumbledore that Occlumency lessons were > weakening him. Dumbledore replies with his usual vow of trust for > Snape. Do you trust Snape? > Hannah: I would like to trust Snape, but I don't know if we can or not. I don't think that he was trying to weaken Harry through the Occlumency lessons, I believe he was genuinely doing his best to teach him, not that it was much good. The Occlumency failure I blame on DD for not informing Harry better about its purpose, and for setting up two old enemies in such an intimate task. Maybe it did weaken him accidentally, as the constant attempts and failures did seem to be worsening his symptoms, and that could be why it was decided Snape wouldn't continue the lessons after the Pensieve incident. But as for trusting Snape in general... well, I hope we can. JKR did wish him 'Happy Birthday.' Surely he can't be *that* evil... > 5. Dumbledore blames himself for Sirius death. Do you? > Hannah: Indirectly, yes. But I think Sherry had a good point when she said that ultimately, LV, the Malfoys, and Bella are the ones to blame. They're the ones who killed him. But DD made some huge mistakes, and if he'd handled things better, than the situation would never have arisen. I would say he's more to blame than anybody apart from the 'forces of evil'. Though one thing that Harry doesn't seem to have considered (yet) is why Lupin, Moody, Tonks and Kingsley didn't stop Sirius going with them. Not that I think they are to blame either, but it's something that Harry might lash out about in future. > 11. Dumbledore tells Harry, "In the end, it mattered not that you > could not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you." Does > this mean that occlumency lessons were unnecessary in the first > place? Was Dumbledore aware that Harry has plenty of that power in > that room BEFORE possession occurred? > Hannah: I think the Occlumency lessons were very necessary - if Harry had mastered it, he'd never have been in that desperate position in the first place. When LV possesses Harry at the end of the battle, it is thinking of dead Sirius that saves Harry. If Sirius hadn't died, would Harry have filled up with love (or whatever it was he did) in time to banish LV? I think DD has been well aware that Harry is full of the 'power of love' or whatever it is, but to rely on that alone is taking too much of a risk. I still think Harry will need to learn Occlumency as soon as possible. > 12. Do you think that this chapter was well done "plot wise"? Hannah: It is a good chapter, but I suppose I did feel a little bit disappointed that we never found out more. I'd read the 'I'm going to tell you everything' quote on the cover and the publicity, and was full of anticipation about it. I suppose I was expecting revelations about his parents/ what really happened at GH/ heir-of- Gryffindor type type things. But then again, it is only book 5 of 7, and if he'd really told us everything, there wouldn't be much to discuss! Well done on the discussion and questions, Alla! :-) Hannah From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sun Feb 6 13:51:42 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 13:51:42 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error In-Reply-To: <200502060225819.SM02196@devbox> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124052 Vivamus wrote: Second, though, note the "reared high from the floor". The only snakes that do that, AFAIK, are cobras So we have two kinds of snakes, the rearing cobra type and the "coiling" Bushmaster type. There are other kinds, but let's stick with these for a minute. As an interesting aside, Silvana just mentioned that Nagini is the name of a Snake Goddess. As Naga is the Sanskrit word for cobra, with the feminine form Nagini, I would be willing to bet that any Indian Snake Goddess is going to be a cobra. Indian mythology has a *lot* of snake beings -- so many and in so many variants that JKR could have pulled the name from almost anywhere, but it still almost certainly is either a cobra or cobra-like. (Note: many of the forms of Naginis are pythons [non-poisonous constrictors], but as Nagini is clearly venomous, they wouldn't likely apply.) So Nagini is *most* likely a cobra, hence the rearing. JKR did say the snake reared, so it could not possibly have hit Arthur hard enough to break bones, let alone splinter, crush, cause blood to spatter, etc. Dungrollin: No, sorry, she can't be a cobra. If we're working on the assumption that the snake that attacked Arthur was Nagini (which is not canonically clear, though most people do seem to assume that) then you have to explain how she can see infrared. "... it was dark, yet he could see objects around him shimmering in strange, vibrant colours [...] a man was sitting on the floor ahead, his chin drooping on to his chest, his outline gleaming in the dark ..." Cobras can't see infrared ? they're diurnal, if you want a poisonous snake that can see infrared you need a pit-viper (Crotalinae), the only one of which fits is the bushmaster. Asian pit-vipers don't have the right patterning and aren't big enough, Fer-de-Lance and rattlesnakes aren't big enough. If she's a real snake, then she's a bushmaster. The infrared thing also supports the idea that JKR wanted the boa constrictor to be Nagini, but had to change it, since boas can see infrared too. (Snipped and moved around a bit) Dungrollin, previously: > Haemorrhaging from the site of envenomation (the bite) is > quite common with Crotaline snake bites (rattlesnakes, water > moccasins, Fer-de-Lance etc) though all these symptoms (from what > I've discovered) are very variable, and depend very much on how > much venom was injected. Vivamus: All you say there is true, however, it does not result in anything like the passage describes. The haemorrhagic effects would take a matter of minutes to appear, at the very least. The book clearly has the blood flowing in great quantities from the instant of the attack, as if the attack came from a lion instead of a snake. If you get bitten by a poisonous snake, you are going to have two tiny punctures, and that's it. Other effects, including death, would come later. Assuming all that, it is still a blunt trauma on the OUTSIDE of his body, and only two tiny punctures through the skin for each strike. So where does the gushing blood come from? Bones that splintered so badly from the three strikes that they pierced arteries AND cut the skin? While that is unlikely in the extreme, you still have the "warm gush of blood" flowing in the mouth of the snake. Dungrollin: Okay, I'll back down on this one - I'm not saying that the snake passages are FLINT-free, though you left out the one that really annoys me... In PS/SS the boa constrictor *winks* at Harry, and snakes don't have eyelids. Vivamus: You also have the bones splintering "beneath his jaws", which really does not fit with the blunt trauma a straight-on strike would produce, no matter how much you stretch it. Dungrollin: You can stretch it a bit. It doesn't say that there wasn't skin and flesh between the ribs and the jaws. If Nagini's holding her jaws at 180? in order to bite (and the word 'bite' *is* confusing in this context, implying jaws coming together, which is not what venomous snakes do at all), then the ribs splintering beneath the jaws does just about work. Kind of. But it is a bit of a stretch. Your quote was also snipped a bit prematurely, I think. To extend your quote a bit: "Nagini," said the cold voice, "you are out of luck. I will not be feeding Wormtail to you, after all... but never mind, never mind . . . there is still Harry Potter. ..." The snake hissed. Harry could see its tongue fluttering. "Voldemort got a letter from an owl. He said something like, Wormtail's blunder had been repaired. He said someone was dead. Then he said, Wormtail wouldn't be fed to the snake - there was a snake beside his chair. He said - he said he'd be feeding me to it, instead." All in all, it's pretty clear, I think, that JKR was thinking that Nagini was going to eat 14-year-old Harry. Dungrollin: One can be a bit more picky than that, I think. the "never mind, never mind... there is still Harry Potter..." doesn't *necessarily* mean that Nagini's going to get to eat him. Although that is what Harry assumes, it's not necessarily what Voldy and Nagini have in mind (insert Nagini-is-witch-trapped-in-animagus-form-by-Lily-and- needing-blood-of-Harry-to-revert-to-human-form theory). Dungrollin previously: > I stick to my deduction that Nagini (on the basis of the > information we have) is a bushmaster. I don't think she's a > magical snake - what we've seen her do so far requires no magic at > all. Vivamus: Their bites result in an over 80% mortality rate. That translates to a very deadly snake, as some bites are going to be made by sick individuals who can't produce as much or as deadly venom, some will have already spent their venom, some will make glancing bites that only partly penetrate the skin through the clothing and can't get enough venom in, and so on. Some bites will happen where people can get medical help right away. Overall, 80% of people bitten ending up dead is *very* high. With three bites, there is no reason to expect that Arthur would have gotten anything less than a record load of fully deadly venom -- probably enough to kill several healthy adults fairly quickly. Dungrollin: But an 80% mortality rate (and that's the highest that I've seen estimated) doesn't equate to "dead before you hit the floor". The articles I've found all say that there is a very high mortality rate *even* with antivenin, i.e. not because the venom kills quickly and people don't get treatment in time, but because the treatments are not hugely effective. Which would explain why St. Mungo's had such a tough time saving him, even though they got there very quickly (compared, for example, to someone being bitten in the middle of the jungle). Vivamus: All in all, I think you are still stuck with three theories for Nagini, and all of them involve FLINTs of some sort. She is either 1. a Bushmaster, in which the rearing to strike, the crushing of ribs, the flow of blood, and Arthur not being dead in about five minutes are all FLINTS. The name Nagini (Sanskrit for female cobra) also doesn't fit a Bushmaster (South American). 2. a King Cobra, in which the crushing of ribs, the flow of blood, and Arthur not being dead in about TWO minutes are all FLINTS. The rearing to strike and the name Nagini DO fit, however. 3. a completely magical snake creature, Dungrollin: I stick by the Bushmaster, and agree that the rearing to strike and the flow of blood are ... not FLINTS as such, but an imaginative fiction due to limited research. King Cobra is completely out for me, no diamond-patterned tail (in fact the only patterning they have is on the back of the hood), a hood which is never mentioned (unlikely) and no infrared vision. If she's a magical species we've not yet been introduced to, I'll feel a little cheated, since we've seen her do no magic at all so far. And I'm not sure how much we can infer from the name Nagini ? it's clearly a reference to the Naga, but I don't think it needs to be a clue to Nagini's identity. So, in summary, I agree that the snake bits are a bit FLINTy, but not as much as you think. And I'm sticking with N.O.B.B.Y, too. Dung From catlady at wicca.net Sun Feb 6 14:41:52 2005 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 14:41:52 -0000 Subject: replies to altogether too many posts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124053 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/123248 << Vivamus['s] ca[t] Snickersqueak claims to have learned the cat-bogey hex from Ginny Weasley >> Well, we WERE told in CoS that Ginny is very fond of cats. Charme wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122140 : << It's that "staring at each other" and Snape's "curious, almost satisfied" expression that unnerves me. Especially what is Snape satisfied *with* exactly? That Harry knows? That Harry has a backbone? That Harry doesn't know he's a double agent? Hm? >> I tend to feel that Snape is satisfied because Harry is deceived about what Snape is doing. I don't know WHAT Snape is doing if he hasn't returned to Voldemort as DD's spy and I *like* the 'spy' plotline, but there are all those arguments on-list that Snape CAN'T return to V because V now knows of S's loyalty to DD, so S must be doing Something Else for the Order. If S *is* doing Something Else, he does not want blabbermouth Harry to know about it, so he would be glad that H believes he is "just" a double agent. On the other hand, since the 'satisfied expression' came AFTER the long exchange of stares, it may be that Snape was Legilimensing Harry (in the more subtle Dumbledorean style rather than the wand and incantation style he uses during the lessons) and was gratified by discovering that Harry was afraid of him. Betsy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122144 : << But I do think it was a moral epiphany that took Snape out of Voldemort's camp and into Dumbledore's. Moral epiphanies do not create perfect human beings, they set them on a better path. >> I agree; I think Snape had a moral epiphany that killing people just for kicks is wrong. He has not yet had a moral epiphany that non-physical hurting people just for kicks is wrong. I suspect he knows that being unfair is wrong, but doesn't realize that he is being unfair. I think his perceptions are sufficiently skewed by his curdled emotions that he doesn't notice that he is being unfair. Hey! Curlyhornedsnorkack agrees with me, in post #122342. Kethryn wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122145 : << in the beginning of GoF, Voldemort and the Rat are talking about murdering someone ...someone other than Harry from the way that the sentances are phrased. Now, my question is, who did Voldemort/Rat murder? Bertha was already dead at this point and the other murders (because they came out of the only wand Voldemort/Rat had available to them) were Cedric and Frank. >> Here are three options: 1) the proof-reader erroneously changed 'curse' to 'murder' (so what curse would 'one more curse' be?), 2) LV planned at that time to murder Real!Moody rather than keep him alive as a source of Polyjuice ingredient, 3) the author erroneously didn't change that statement when she changed from a hypothetical original plot in which they were going to murder Barty Sr and have Barty Jr impersonate him rather than Moody. Juli wrote of Snape teaching Occulmency to Death Eaters in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122153 : << But what purpose would it serve the Order other than the brief moments of Severus inside the DE's brains? Maybe some DEs are now in the good guys' side and just like Snape they need to lie to LV. >> Once a bad guy has Occlumency, someone can try to recruit him to the good side without LV finding out about it. But that is useful to the good guys only if those Death Eaters want to turn against LV. Otherwise they would refuse to be recruited and maybe even tell LV who tried to recruit them, despite him not being able to read it from their minds. I don't think we've seen any Death Eater who walked free or escaped from Azkaban who has had a change of heart, so they would turn against him only for self-interest. Such as if they expected LV to be defeated this time and they wanted to be on the winning side. Otoh what would be the effect of bad-guy Death Eaters with Occlumency? Would LV perceive the Occlumency, get paranoid that it meant they were plotting against him, and kill them all? If he killed all his own followers, that would reduce his power. Would Death Eaters with no interest in joining the good guy take advantage of this new privacy of their minds to plot against each other (for advancement in LV's esteem, for vengeance for imagined personal insults, whatever) to the extent that LV's commands were not properly carried out because of being sabotaged by other DEs to make the commandee looks like a failure? Tonks_op wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122174 : << the nasty man in the pensive (Snip) we do not know who that man was or his relationship to Snape. He sounds like his father or close male relative because of the description of his crooked nose >> If he wasn't Snape's father, he may have been Snape's mother's brother, bringing financial assistance to the sister who had disgraced the family by having a baby without being married. Eric Oppen wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122183 : << I'd like it if some of the characters she obviously likes were put into _some_ other house...Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, and, dare I mention, Slytherin, but that's another rant) >> Herself likes Luna, and Luna is a Ravenclaw. Tonks_op wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122199 : << First Harry is a child. Normally he would never have been told all of the things that he knows about because he is a child and has no business in adult affairs. >> I always hate that garbage about not letting children know about adult affairs. How are they going to grow up with your values if you conceal all examples from them? Sometimes I recall a story about a school where the teacher gently assigned the children to write an essay about what their parents said and did during El Presidente's speech on TV the night before, and the students understood that it was a trap and wrote incredibly boring accounts of how their parents watched the speech with a silent look of adoration on their faces. I always think that it would have served those parents Bloody Well Right if their chldren had written truthful essays about them saying "what a pack of lies". Then when the not-so-secret police took the parents away forever, the kids should have said: "Well, how were we supposed to know it was a trap, when you never tell us anything except that children have no business in adult affairs?" Betsy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122200 : << I think the deal breaker on both sides of the argument is, can you accept that a person can be good, can fight on the side of good, and still have some nasty habits and bad social skills? >> The adult Snape DOES NOT have bad social skills. He has excellent social skills. In the matter of no available Veritaserum, we saw himself sweet-talk Umbridge so well that she couldn't take her anger out at him even tho' he aimed a not-particularly-veiled insult at her about having so incompetently used up all the previous bottle. In the matter of Sirius Black, he knew exactly what to say to make Sirius lose his temper so much that Sirius would rush to duel him. The problem is that one of things that Snape chooses to do with his excellent social skills is to say the precise things to people he dislikes to cause them the most pain -- I'm sure he DOES enjoying causing that kind of emotional pain. I believe he doesn't even try to resist the temptation to that kind of pleasure. That's why I don't think the argument that "he's trying as hard as he can to be good, but it's very difficult for him" applies to Snape -- I don't think he's trying as hard as he can. Betsy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122316 : << I think, based on Neville's smile and Harry's confidence, that both boys ended up doing well on their Potion's exam in OotP. In which case, Snape is a good teacher. >> To me, being a good teacher is more than having students do well at exams. Just now I'm not making the point about exam-taking being a separate skill from whatever it is an exam in, nor the point of students (like Hermione! like what the DA started for!) who learn the material on their own, without a teacher, so why give the teacher credit. My point this time is that the good teacher teaches the student the material WITH NO MORE physical or psychological (or financial, for that matter) PERMANENT DAMAGE than necessary. Juli wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforG rownups/message/122343 : << So, my question is if Snape faced Quirell a few times and told him to stop chasing the Stone, to decide in whom is his loyalty, then why didn't Voldemort also know about it? He was already sharing Quirell's body and soul, so he must have known and heard all their onversations, right? So how come Snape does not know that Snape has changed sides? that he is actually working for the Order and Dumbledore? >> IIRC Snape didn't say anything about Voldemort to Quirrel. So I have no trouble thinking that V didn't know that S knew that Q wanted to steal the Stone for V, that V thought that s thought that Q wanted to steal the Stone for himself, and that S wanted to stop Q in order to impress DD because at that time, DD was in charge of S's career prospects. Chancie asked in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122348 : << I also asked why, if Voldemort is such a wonderful Legimins (sorry for spelling) does he not realize Snape's lying. >> Presumably Snape is *such* a superb Occlumens that he can not only conceal his thoughts from LV, but can do so without LV knowing that he's doing it -- that must mean putting up some kind of cover thoughts. Elizabeth summarized Chapter 36 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122444: << Witches and wizards emerge from the fireplaces, Cornelius Fudge among them, led by the house elf and goblin statues. >> Why did Fudge and other bureaucrats believe a pair of walking statues? (Did they talk as well as walk?) Hans wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforG rownups/message/122619 : << Buckbeak is a hippogriff, a creature that is half horse, half griffin. >> Yes, the name "hippogriff" is half horse (hippos) and half griffin (gryphos), but No, the creature is half horse (the back half) and half EAGLE (the front half). While griffins are (as you said) half lion (the back half) and half EAGLE (the front half). Btw griffins are nests of Oviraptor dinosaurs killed by sandstorms in the IIRC Altai Mountains of -- is it the Gobi desert? -- some red desert in what is now Chinese Mongolia. Nomads who hunted gold that had eroded out of those mountains traded it to Scythians to the west and other nomads to the east, who traded it further west and east, along with the stories about that griffins who guarded the gold in its original habitat. << It is, of course, the name of Harry's House: Griffin d'or - Golden Griffin. >> Yes, except my friend insists that Gryffindor is Griffin Finder, Griff-Finder. << On another note, please forgive if this has previously been discussed and/or explained, but what or who is "Fandon" and why would Ginny be called Mary Sue? >> "Fandon" was probably a typo for "fandom"; we are part of Harry Potter fandom. Another part of this fandom writes fanfic (fan fiction -- stories about the characters or settings) and it is a tradition in fanfic communities that "Mary Sue" means an original character who is the author's unabashed wish fulfillment fantasy self -- y'know, she is so clever that it was she who taught the Marauders how to become Animagi, so beautiful they're all in love with her, a better Seeker than Charlie Weasley or Harry Potter, a Metamorphamagus, her grandmum is the Minister of Magic, her other grandmum is Dumbledore's daughter, etc Geoff wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122645 : << Until a few years ago, it was even more vague because they would be summoned by a maroon - assuming they were within hearing range. >> To me, 'maroon' is a color, a purplish red. The American Heritage dictionary agrees with me: http://www.bartleby.com /61/80/M0118000.html . A certain amount of searching around in onelook found http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/maroon_1?view=uk "noun 1 a dark brownish-red colour. 2 chiefly Brit. a firework that makes a loud bang, used as a signal or warning. ? ORIGIN from French marron `chestnut'; sense 2 is so named because the firework makes the noise of a chestnut bursting in the fire." Chancie wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122659 : << How does Hedwig know to go to the Dursley's to get Harry's gift? Harry surly wouldn't send her. And why since Uncle Vernon hates Hedwig to begin with, would he atactch a present for Harry whom he also hates? Something just doesn't add up to me. >> Well, Hedwig knew to go to Hermione on holiday in France to pickup the broomstick maintenance kit she had bought for his birthday present. That seems *less* plausible than knowing to go to Privet Drive -- is it possible that post owl magic includes not only being able to find any addressee, but to know some distant person has mail for your person and no owl to carry it? As for why the Dursleys give Harry such absurdly unwanted presents instead of no present at all, it has been speculated that Dumbledore's instructions to them specified that they had to give him birthday and Christmas presents (but not that they had to be normal presents) as part of treating him like a member of the family in order to make the blood protection charm work. vmonte wrote http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGr ownups/message/122738 : << "Well, I always thought he was a bit of an idiot," he said, prodding his queen forward toward Harry's quivering castle. "Good for you. Just choose someone - better - next time." Did you notice what was going on during the chess game? Does the Queen chess piece symbolically represent Ginny? >> It sure sounds like it, even at first reading. << Is the quivering Castle Cho Chang? >> A chess Castle is just a Tower, and towers very much fit the category of things which are taller (longer) than they're wide. Magda wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122822 : << There are several instances throughout the books that Snape has only the most rudimentary concept of normal human relationships. His belief in POA that Lupin is still friends with Sirius Black despite Sirius' apparent betrayal of the Order and the Potters shows us that he doesn't have a clue what real friendship is about. >> To me, that shows, not Snape's incomprehension of friendship, but Snape's belief that Lupin was in cahoots with Black to betray the Potters to Voldemort -- perhaps Snape even believes that it was Lupin who recruited Black to work for Voldemort. First thing, even tho' it was Potter and Black who were inseparable at school, when they left school, James married Lily, so he would have been a little less close with Black, so by default Black and Lupin got closer after James and Lily married, so Snape could have used the argument: "Black and Lupin were always hanging out together, so how could one have turned spy without the other getting suspicious? So it must be that both turned spy." Second thing, Snape's famous line about "Don't ask me to fathom how a werewolf's mind works!" suggests that Snape can believe Lupin guilty of *any* wrongdoing, regardless of facts or circumstances. I wonder if Snape would be so anti-Lupin for being a werewolf if Lupin hadn't been friends with Snape's enemies Potter and Black? Peter Felix Schuster wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/123178 : << I was wondering how a wizard would marry a witch. We know that at least Harry's parents had a wedding (Sirius being best man at). I doubt they'd go to a church or a muggle office to do so. Since the MoM seems to be the only administration or office (magical) Britain's got, I presume, they'd go there. Perhaps to a Department of Registration or Department for Magical Families? Any ideas? >> Being as how Lily's parents and relatives were Muggles, I think it quite possible that James and Lily had a Muggle wedding at a Muggle church. I like to think that there is more religion in the wizarding world than is depicted in the books. Sure, just as among Muggles, some people aren't religious, but some people are. All the religions present in Britain can be brought into the wizarding world by Muggle-born wizards and witches, but I like to think that there are two religions which are particularly prominent due to having been the Established Religion among the Muggles at different times -- one is the Church of England and the other is some kind of specifically wizarding blend of Druidism and religio Roma. As Hogsmeade is the only all-wizarding village, it may have the only all-wizarding CoE congregation. I like to think of wizarding folk who live in other villages going to church with the Muggles, but they would have to be better at passing as Muggles than the Weasleys are. I'd love to know what kind of weddings, baby-naming/blessings, and funerals their older religion has, but JKR isn't going to tell us. Long ago I theorized that wizarding couples don't divorce because their wedding includes each casting a spell on themselves that they will die if the marriage breaks up ... I was thinking of TMR's poor mother dying because his father ditched her; I'm inclined to think they were never married in the first place, but if they did marry and she cast such a spell on herself (because of taking it for granted that that is part of any wedding), that would account for it. And the break-up wouldn't kill him because he didn't cast such a spell on himself because he can't cast a spell at all, even if he had wanted to. curlyhornedSnorky wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/123279 : << If a few people from ordinary families are born with magical abilities after the WW is stripped of magic, the internet could enable them to get a new WW society going pretty quickly. >> But they wouldn't know any spells; they wouldn't know any potion recipes; they wouldn't know how to make wands; they probably wouldn't even know that they need wands. LisaMarie wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/123329 : << Sirius -- We know they are dead, but how? Sirius is young; it seems his parents would be too young to die of natural causes. >> It seems to me that Sirius's parents waited very, very late to have children -- I have a complicated theory that both pairs of parents were living in that house with them, so they waited until their parents died so there would be *room* for children. (In my complicated theory, Sirius's parents were first cousins, both Blacks, explaining how Mrs Black could call the Black house the house of her fathers. In my universe, there were brothers Saturninus and Scorpius Black, who both brought their brides home to 12 Grimmauld Place. Over the course of time, Saturninus had sons Mimas (Sirius's father) and Enceladus (Bellatrix's father) and Scorpius had daughters Zubenalgenubi (Sirius's mother) and Zubeneschameli.) Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/123355 : << And if he knows, having lived so very long, that bribery and threats *always* make things worse eventually, and that's *why* they're considered illegal and immoral, then he shouldn't use them. Do you agree? >> Bribery and threats, far from being considered illegal and immoral, are the way the world works, except bribery is called by names like 'salary' and 'bonus' and the threats are threats of being fired or given a bad review. Dungrollin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/123762 : << No matter how I twist it, I can't see how Harry biting DD would help You-Know-Who. Harry is not, as far as we know, poisonous. >> I laugh every time I read that! Dungrollin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124010 : << "JKR was asked if there was anything in PS/SS she wished she could go back and change. She said that at the time it was published, she thought boa constrictors were poisonous." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/31778 Unfortunately I've had no luck so far ? if anyone knows the quote I'd be very very grateful for a reference (it's not on QQQ or Madame Scoop). I think that JKR wanted the boa constrictor in PS/SS to be Nagini, then realised her error and had to abandon it. >> *Why* would JKR want to make the friendly snake who was freed by Harry and grateful to him be the evil snake who fights him? I kind of hope the snake from the zoo will appear to save Harry from Nagini at some climactic moment... From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 15:41:12 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 07:41:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy . REPOST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050206154112.99569.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124054 >1. Do you think we will ever meet Phineas again? What do you think >about the possibility of the network of portraits playing even >larger role in the later battles? Since I believe the climax of Book 6 will be Voldemort's efforts to take over Hogwarts (we've heard too many times about how impregnable it is to not make it a good target for Voldemort), yes, the portraits will play a larger role. I believe we'll also find out that as an inner-school spy network, the portraits have been overlooked by a lot of readers. >2. Harry blames himself for Sirius's death. Do you? Hell, yes. Harry and Sirius both. Of course Voldemort et al deserve the blame for setting up the situation that led to Harry, the Hextet, the Order etc. being present at the MoM that night; that goes without saying. But Harry had enough reason to distrust that particular vision (Hermione's very reasonable and logical arguments, Snape told him in January that Voldemort was now aware of the mental connection and "might make me do things" as Harry himself put it). But he just blows a head pipe and insists on his own way and mows down everyone else with the force of his anger and emotional blackmail (telling Ron that he didn't have a problem when Harry saved Ginny). So 100 points from Gryffindor for excessive gullibility and emotionalism, Mr. Potter. But Sirius also deserves some of the blame too. First off, he shouldn't have wasted time duelling; just grabbed Harry and run as hard as he could for the exit. Saving Harry was of prime importance and nothing else mattered. Let the others hold off the DE's; get Harry out of there. But no, instead he yelled at Harry to get out (like Harry was so familiar with the place he could find the exit, right?) and to take Neville with him. Question: how did Sirius know Neville's name? But in a larger sense, Sirius bears some blame too. Sirius didn't try to cover up how unhappy he was at 12GP so that when Harry got his last vision he jumped to the natural conclusion that Sirius had snapped out of boredom and "gone for a walk or something". Had Sirius tried harder to suck it up, then Harry would have thought, "come on, Sirius isn't dumb enough to risk capture; what's going on here?" >3. Dumbledore is sure that Harry IS the person the prophecy talks >about. Are you? Yes. Seven book titles prove the point. Far too late now to change that. >4. Harry complains to Dumbledore that Occlumency lessons were >weakening him. Dumbledore replies with his usual vow of trust for >Snape. Do you trust Snape? Yes. >5. Dumbledore blames himself for Sirius death. Do you? No. >6. Voldemort did not choose the pureblood wizard like >Neville "which, according to his creed, is the only kind of wizard >worth being or knowing." Does this quote make a difference in your >view on whether Voldemort himself is sufficiently interested in >promoting "purebloodism" or just in grabbing power, no matter who >helps him achieve it? Voldemort identified with halfblood Harry because he felt that halfbloods like himself work harder for their goals. I think it's actually a pretty good indication that he really regards purebloods as being useless sit-on-their-ass types who have to be told what to do all the time. I think Voldemort is an equal-opportunity hater who's just very very astute at manipulating the more depraved Purebloods into doing what he wants in exchange for a chance to indulge in physical violence. >7. Do you agree with the possibility that Neville may turn out to >be the real prophecy boy? No. Impossible. See answer to question 3 above. >8. Do you think that there is a possibility that the prophecy does >not speak about either Harry or Neville? Can you offer completely >new and unexpected interpretation of it? No. Impossible. See answers to questions 3 and 8 above. >9. Dumbledore tells us that Sibyll is the great granddaughter of >Cassandra Trelawney. As we know from mythology, nobody believed >Cassandra's predictions which turned out to be true. Do you think >that JKR is hinting that Sibyll is a more gifted seer that >Dumbledore thinks? Do you think that there is more to Sibyll than >meets the eye? Well, she's a real Seer, and you can't control when or where she'll pop out with a prophecy so that's why she's more or less permanently incarcerated at Hogwarts. Beyond that she's a sad lonely woman who's very insecure and vulnerable. Reminds of Blanche Dubois in Streetcar Named Desire "depending on the kindness of strangers". >10. Who is the infamous eavesdropper? Don't know. Might just be an anonymous DE whose identity we'll never know and which doesn't matter. Not everything in the series has to be done by known major characters, after all. If I was betting in a pool, I'd say Pettigrew, because sneaking around and eavesdropping sounds like his kind of safe activity 16 years ago. >11. Dumbledore tells Harry, "In the end, it mattered not that you >could not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you." >Does this mean that occlumency lessons were unnecessary in the >first place? Seems like it. >Was Dumbledore aware that Harry has plenty of that >power in that room BEFORE possession occurred? Of course not. NO ONE understands this Voldemort-Harry connection thingie that's going on. For five books Dumbledore with help from Snape and possibly others has been trying to figure out what the deal is between Voldemort and Harry. What did Voldemort do all those years ago that resulted in the fiasco at GH and why didn't Harry and/or Voldemort die? Occlumency was a kind of "Let's try it. Might help. Can't hurt." sort of attempt to deal with the situation. >12. Do you think that this chapter was well done "plot wise"? I >don't remember my complete reaction when I read it for the first >time, but I remember that disappointment was definitely there. I >was thinking something like "that is the big secret"? Do you think >that it would have been more effective if Harry learns about the >contents of the prophecy from somebody else? Yesterday for some >reason I was imagining Voldemort explaining things to Harry instead >of Dumbledore. "Potter, we have to kill one another or be killed. >You better be prepared." :o) What do you think? Well, I had the big showdown thing figured out by the end of the first book but wizards do seem to take longer to pick up elementary things. Yes this chapter was a major disappointment for me; the first time I felt JKR let us down at the end of a book. >13. We see Dumbledore crying in this chapter for the first time in >the books. Despite the fact that a similar question was already >posted couple of days ago, I decided not to delete mine. What did >you feel when you read about Dumbledore's tear? I indulged in massive eye-rolling and thought "Oh COME ON!!!!". All this "I kept you safe" stuff? Where the hell did that come from? For four solid books he was practically encouraging Harry to go it alone without looking for more backup than Ron and Hermione, and rewarding him in the most public way possible for doing it, and now all of a sudden we're getting "I kept you too safe. My bad."? WTF????? I was very annoyed, let me tell you. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Feb 6 15:50:19 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 15:50:19 -0000 Subject: Details, and the unreliable narrator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124055 > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" > > wrote: > > Does anyone remember details from an > > earlier book that seemed wrong at the time but suddenly made sense when viewed in the context of later developments and revelations? Contradictions resolved over the course of several books? Apparent mistakes that turned out to be no such thing? > > Pippin: > > Oh yes. Scabbers suddenly falling asleep in PS/SS seemed > > very contrived to me at the time but made sense once I found out he's not only a phony rat but a "sleeper" servant of Voldemort. > > Renee: > Ah, I like this kind of symbolism; thanks for pointing it out! But this is the same book, isn't it?I was rather looking for examples of peculiarities or seeming errors in earlier books that are explained in later books. Pippin: Um, I think we have our wires crossed. I was referring to Book One ch 6 -- Goyle has just thrown Scabbers off, slamming him into the window and Ron picks up Scabbers by the tail. "I think he's been knocked out, " Ron said to Harry. He looked closer at Scabbers. "No --I don't believe it--he's gone back to sleep." That didn't make any sense to me at all at the time, and I remember thinking,'Huh? Oh well, I guess she didn't want Scabbers to be hurt, it's a children's book, but she still had to get him 'offstage' some how. ' Little did I know. It's not till Book Three that we find out Scabbers is a 'sleeper' and not a normal rat. Renee: > However, the best thing would be something looking like a real flint that turns out to be entirely correct. But I can't think of anything. < Pippin: People wondered before OOP how Dumbledore could have known so quickly to send Hagrid to Godric's Hollow (which would indicate he was in on the secret) without knowing who the real secret keeper was. That was explained in OOP when we learned the secret didn't have to be transmitted directly. People are still considering the 'toothbrush' problem, ie why did Crouch need to use the Tri-wizard cup instead of some more accessible object. But that too is explained in OOP, though not everyone is happy with the explanation. Voldemort at the beginning of GoF discussed two opportunities to abduct Harry. One was the QWC, the other, though we didn't know it yet, the TWT. What they have in common is that Harry can be made to put his hands on an authorized portkey. What we find out in OOP that makes all this clearer is that Voldemort planned to keep his return a secret, and that the ministry has ways of detecting unauthorized portkey spells. "It's more than our life's worth to set up an unauthorized Portkey." -Lupin, OOP ch 3 Pippin who will deal with the other half of Renee's post later From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 15:55:32 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 15:55:32 -0000 Subject: Patronus: Not Just for Dementors Anymore? In-Reply-To: <003b01c50bff$9b400fc0$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124056 "Charme": However, this > brings us full circle with the Patronus: what *exactly* was the spell for > before the first known record of its use against a Lethifold? What (or who) > else will it repel and how? Finwitch: Um - considering a Lethifold is what puts the lights off etc, that it's at least what the Dementors wear for cloaks... Don't know if there's any difference between a Dementor and a Lethifold but the name. About the Patronus Silver essence, as compared to others - such as Pensieve liquid, the ghosts... Well, a Patronus requires a happy memory/thought in order to come out. The pensieve contains memories. A ghost is, in a way, a memory of the person who was. Voldemort putting that silvery hand -- well, I think it was the ghost/memory of the sacrificed hand. (You know the expression of 'ghost limbs' - feeling pain in a lost limb etc.) Silvery essence presents a mind/memory etc. Things that have to do with our 'ghost' of being. Harry's Patronus takes the form of a stag - his dead father's animagus. It's Harry's dead *father* we're seeing here... It is possible, to me, that Harry has two of them with Sirius dead - the Stag(his father) and a dog (Sirius). About the spell - the tricky thing isn't about casting it (as most of the DA club could learn it in the Room of Requirement). The *advanced* thing in it is what is REQUIRED when you're facing a Dementor. You know, Harry *had* trouble with it, because he wasn't over Cedric's death - because he had trouble finding *happiness*. With Sirius dead, and Harry still wounded about it -- I think he would not be able to cast a Patronus now. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 16:13:42 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:13:42 -0000 Subject: Full Moon (was: Support for the ESE Lupin theory!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124057 > Pippin: > The *narrator* says the moon was completely obscured by > clouds. But if the moon is completely obscured he can't tell > whether it's risen or not. It could be the narrator who makes the > mistake, just as it(he?) says that Harry's parents died in a car > crash. -- > JKR's answer, even if it didn't further contradict the narrator, > would still have been completely useless for that purpose as it > doesn't explain why Lupin didn't transform until he came outside, > when Lupin states elsewhere that he was transformed inside > the shack. "Once a month, I was smuggled out of the castle, into > this place, to transform." -- PoA ch 18. > Finwitch: You know-- Moon's *phace* has to do with MOON's movement. Moon-rise and moon-set (just like the same for the Sun) - is Earth's movement. The thing- about Moon not being up yet- yes, well - Lupin wasn't *bitten* at Hogwarts or the Shrieking Shack. Moon wasn't up where he had been bitten until the very unconvenient moment. Finwitch From jkscherme at adelphia.net Sun Feb 6 16:34:25 2005 From: jkscherme at adelphia.net (Kristen) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:34:25 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error (GoF portkey) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124058 > I always thought it was obvious - The portkey was set up because then > after killing Harry, Voldemort and co. could then portkey right on > back to Hogwarts and then surprise and kill his biggest enemy, Albus > Dumbledore. With Dumbledore gone, Voldie would have little trouble > conquering the entire WW. > > The error with the whole GOF portkey thing, IMHO, is that in the > beginning of the book JKR makes a big deal of explaining that portkeys > work by setting them up to work at a specific time and then going and > making the triwizard cup portkey work simply by touching it. I know it > can be explained away, it's possible they can work both ways - but why > make a big deal of the whole teleporting at a prearranged time? Madeyesgal: I understood that the portkeys were set up at the pre-set times so the landing areas at the Tri-Wizard Tournament weren't bombarded with wizards & witches arriving at the same time and out of control. Wasn't there a complaint that the muggle working at the campground was constantly needing a memory adjustment because wizards were apparating willy-nilly? Anyway, JKR also explained that the portkeys were left in plain site so muggles wouldn't take notice of them. If a muggle were to inadevertently pick it up, he/she would be instantly transported, hence, the specific time for activation. There is no mention that a portkey couldn't be activated at non-specific times, nor that they only work one-way. Kristen From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Feb 6 16:51:19 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:51:19 -0000 Subject: Details, and the unreliable narrator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124059 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" > wrote: > Pippin: > The *narrator* says the moon was completely obscured by > clouds. But if the moon is completely obscured he can't tell > whether it's risen or not. It could be the narrator who makes the > mistake, just as it(he?) says that Harry's parents died in a car > crash. Geoff: I don't see how you can make the supposition that the death of Harry's parents in a car crash was due to an "unreliable narrator". Canon is quite specific: 'The only thing Harry liked about his own appearance was a very thin scar on his forehead which was shaped like a bolt of lightning. He had had it as long as he could remember and the first question he could ever remember asking his Aunt Petunia was how he had got it. "In the car crash when your parents died," she had said."And don't ask questions." Don't ask questions - that was the first rule for a quiet life with the Dursleys.' (PS "The Vanishing Glass" p.21 UK edition) 'He'd lived with the Dursleys almost ten years, ten miserable years, as long as he could remember, ever since he'd been a baby and his parents had died in that car crash. He couldn't remember being in the car when his parents had died. Sometimes, when he strained his memory during long hours in his cupboard, he came up with a strange vision; a blinding flash of green light and a burning pain on his forehead. This, he supposed, was the crash, though he couldn't imagine where all the green light came from.' (ibid. p.27) 'She stopped to draw a deep breath and then went ranting on. It seemed she had been wanting to say all this for years. "Then she met that Potter at school and they left and got married and had you and of course I knew that you'd be just the same, just as strange, just as - as - abnormal - and then, if you please, she went and got herself blown up and we got landed with you!" Harry had gone very white. As soon as he found his voice he said, "Blown up? You told me they died in a car crash!" (PS "The Keeper of the Keys" p.44 UK edition) This wasn't an "unreliable narrator", this was an "unreliable Petunia". Harry has been brought up on the fiction that his parents died in a crash - a fiction produced by Petunia - and presumably Vernon. It would satisfy Harry, for the time being at least, and also be a good back story to keep the neighbours from probing too much. But it certainly isn't the narrator's device. All the evidence comes from either what Harry has been told by Petunia or the moment when she inadvertently reveals the truth in front of Hagrid - and Harry. From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 03:40:23 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 19:40:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050206034023.51388.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124060 [huge snippage of summary] > > Discussion questions: > > 1. Do you think we will ever meet Phineas again? I hope we will. I love Phineas he is *cool*, he could be a potential source of information about Sirius when Harry decides to learn more about him. > What do you think > about the possibility of the network of portraits > playing even > larger role in the later battles? I think they act as spies for DD. We already know there are pictures of them at the MoM, at St Mungo, who knows where else they may be. > 2. Harry blames himself for Sirius's death. Do you? A little bit of me does. If Harry hadn't gone to the DoM Sirius wouldn't have to go to his rescue. Although I blame Kreacher for most of it. I don't really blame DD. > 3. Dumbledore is sure that Harry IS the person the > prophecy talks > about. Are you? Yep. I believe this is the core of the entire series, Harry as the only one who can *save* the WW. > 4. Harry complains to Dumbledore that Occlumency > lessons were > weakening him. Dumbledore replies with his usual vow > of trust for > Snape. Do you trust Snape? I do. DD is a smart guy, the epitome of goodness and if he trusts him there's got to be good reasons. Besides even if he acts in a mean manner, he's got Harry's best interests at heart. > 5. Dumbledore blames himself for Sirius death. Do > you? I don't. DD was doing what he thought was best. I don't think he was so wrong, he had reasons for not telling Harry everything and I bet we'll find out what they really were in HBP. > 6. Voldemort did not choose the pureblood wizard > like > Neville "which, according to his creed, is the only > kind of wizard > worth being or knowing." > Does this quote make a difference in your view on > whether Voldemort > himself is sufficiently interested in promoting > "purebloodism" or > just in grabbing power, no matter who helps him > achieve it? I think it's just a facade, this way, acting anti-muggles he gets many adepts and followers. In CoS Tom Riddle says "I don't care anymore about muggle-borns, all I care for is you [Harry]" (paraphrasing from memory). > 7. Do you agree with the possibility that Neville > may turn out to > be the real prophecy child? Nope. DD says it is Harry and I happen to believe him > 9. Dumbledore tells us that Sibyll is the great > granddaughter of > Cassandra Trelawney. As we know from mythology, > nobody believed > Cassandra's predictions which turned out to be true. > Do you think > that JKR is hinting that Sibyll is a more gifted > seer that > Dumbledore thinks? No, AFAIK she's only made 2 prophesies. > Do you think that there is more to Sibyll than > meets the eye? She has the power or the seeing eye, but she just doesn't know it, I believe she will make another prophesy about how the war will end. > 10. Who is the infamous eavesdropper? > > 11. Dumbledore tells Harry, "In the end, it mattered > not that you > could not close your mind. It was your heart that > saved you." Does > this mean that occlumency lessons were unnecessary > in the first > place? Was Dumbledore aware that Harry has plenty of > that power in > that room BEFORE possession occurred? Occlumency was necessary, if HArry had learned it he wouldn't have had any *vision* of Sirius in the DoM, and the whole trouble would have been spared. DD knows about this power, he kinda says so in PS/SS (Quirell couldn't touch him because the love on his skin). > 13. We see Dumbledore crying in this chapter for the > first time in > the books. Despite the fact that a similar question > was already > posted couple of days ago,(message 123486) I decided > not to delete > mine. What did you feel when you read about > Dumbledore's tear? It touched me. His tears show that even if he's a general at war he's still human, that he cares deeply for HArry as he did for Sirius. Juli~Congratulating Alla for the great Chapter Discussion __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 17:01:09 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 17:01:09 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy . REPOST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124061 Alla: 12. Do you think that this chapter was well done "plot wise"? I don't remember my complete reaction when I read it for the first time, but I remember that disappointment was definitely there. I was thinking something like "that is the big secret"? Do you think that it would have been more effective if Harry learns about the contents of the prophecy from somebody else? Yesterday for some reason I was imagining Voldemort explaining things to Harry instead of Dumbledore. "Potter, we have to kill one another or be killed. You better be prepared." :o) What do you think? Renee: No, it was very unsatisfactory to me, and the big secret struck me as rather lame. I didn't like DD's "blaming the victim act" (Sirius ought to have treated Kreacher better) either; it's inappropriate to say such things to the bereaved, and not at all in character for a loving and wise old man. As far as I'm concerned, this chapter is a piece of inadequate writing. Alla: Well, I keep changing my mind whether this chapter was adequately done in general or not, but I absolutely agree with you about "blaming the victim act". I was INCREDIBLY annoyed with Dumbledore, when he said it to Harry. Hmmm, Headmaster, how about extending some sympathy to Harry instead of lecturing him on the multiple flaws of his Godfather's character, who by the way just died. If Dumbledore wanted to give Harry a lecture about suitable treatment of houseelves, he could do it later. :) JMO of course, Alla From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Feb 6 17:06:45 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 17:06:45 -0000 Subject: replies to altogether too many posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124062 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > Geoff wrote in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122645 : > > << Until a few years ago, it was even more vague because they would be > summoned by a maroon - assuming they were within hearing range. >> > > To me, 'maroon' is a color, a purplish red. The American Heritage > dictionary agrees with me: http://www.bartleby.com > /61/80/M0118000.html . > > A certain amount of searching around in onelook found > http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/maroon_1?view=uk > "noun 1 a dark brownish-red colour. 2 chiefly Brit. a firework that > makes a loud bang, used as a signal or warning. ? ORIGIN from > French marron `chestnut'; sense 2 is so named because the > firework > makes the noise of a chestnut bursting in the fire." Geoff: I could have saved you the search if you'd posted the query... I'm surprised your American Heritage Dictionary didn't list it. I have very similar definitions in my Concise Oxford Dictionary and my Readers' Digest Word Power Dictionary. Our local lifeboat station still fires a maroon when the boat is about to launch so that visitors, tourists and general hangers-on can come and goggle at the spectacle. Since it is heard a mile or so away, it's a bit of a bigger bang than a bursting chestnut. :-) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 17:20:43 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 17:20:43 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124063 Alla: 3. Dumbledore is sure that Harry IS the person the prophecy talks about. Are you? Vmonte: Hmmm. I'm not sure, and I hate the idea of a prophecy. Alla: I WAS dissapointed when I learned about Prophecy, because just as you are, I have huge trouble connecting "predetermined future" and " free choice" together. I think Magda posted very interesting post some time ago about how "prophecy" and "free choice" can be connected ( self-fulfilling prohecy). Nevertheless, I am still dissapointed in the Prophecy as plot device. I thought that since theme of choices is basically the main one through the books, JKR will just not do it at all. :) That is why I am at least hoping that Dumbledore misinterepreted it in a major way, survives till the end and in for a big surprise. JMO, Alla Vivian: > Nice work Alla! I hope you do more of these!!! Alla: Thanks. From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 17:23:31 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 17:23:31 -0000 Subject: Severus and the DADA exam /James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124064 > Valky: > Sorry to say Finwitch, as much as I agree with the precept of James > yearning for a moral test, and most all else you have said on this > thread, I kinda really dislike this one. Finwitch: Yes well - James always wanted a challenge. A risk. He despises Dark Arts - but - he's never before been tempted to fall into their use. He hasn't truly have been *making a choice* - until he saves Severus. (Could as well have let him go in there and be rid of him, could he not?).. Look at his best friend Sirius, who defies his entire family because they support Dark Arts&Voldemort. Remus, who has the werewolf- problem. Peter who just can't learn enough... Where's the challenge for James? Anyway, I don't mind much how Severus got there. I think he had *at least* a Silencing Charm on him when James took him to Dumbledore. Or maybe a stunner and Mobilicorbus. (That's what Sirius was doing to him when they were leaving the Shack). Valky: > In my imaganation both Sevvie and James are injured by Remus and by > the end of the prank James is carrying Severus and not arresting > him. I imagine the scene in a far more *truly* heroic way, and that > James *really* coming out smelling roses, rather than with pretense > of it, is the reason Severus could never forgive. Soon, soon we will > know. Yes, well - I just thought James had the habit of *confessing*. (I seem to recall Severus saying he 'got away with it, being such a big Quidditch star'...) And like Fred&George, amount of detentions was credit for the art of defiance. (You need defiance to fight the imperius curse, you know, and James wanted every amount of practice he could get...). Now then... James tells Dumbledore the story - maybe he even *shows* it by a Pensieve (he was planning to give it to Lily Evans). Maybe he even told about the 'after DADA-OWL scene' - saying that it's entirely possible that Severus Snape *knew* all about Remus' transformations. And that he *admires* Lily precisely because she was er - evening the numbers. And Despises Snape because he so gravely insulted someone who stood up for him. All in all, as far as James is concerned -- Snape was either lacking of observation, resources, knowledge etc. if he didn't figure it out at least then (didn't take him and Sirius long, did it?) - OR he was suicidal for going to a full-grown werewolf... Imagine this sort of discussion: SS: 'I'll never forgive you for this, Potter!'. JP: 'For what, saving your life? Why would I ever need to be forgiven for it? Didn't think you'd have the grace to be greatful, for the worthless piece of lunacy you are, but hatred? You ARE suicidal..' > I don't think James did, nor ever could, get over his yen to be a > moral champion, hence the order and his battles with Voldemort. Finwitch: Probably not. Just the need to er - practice defiance. He may well have begun to court Lily. (Well, I think Lily would be impressed about the thing..) Valky: > Finally, (oops snipped it OK working from memory) I think we are in > agreement, that Young Sevvie while pondering question 10 on his DADA > OWl, if that is what he did, might not have fully realised that > Lupin was a Werewolf, or he might. But either way the fact that he > might be inclined to look so hard for ways to get others into > trouble *is* a type of bullying and the word "snivelling" *is* used > in close association to this behaviour. Finwitch: I think Snape indeed was so inclined - enough so to go into that place where he would be killed by a werewolf. And - unlike James and Sirius, who at least were open and honest about their 'bully-like' acts, Snape never grew out of it. He is still doing it in the shrieking shack. (blames Lupin about the Potion. AND then he says: Sirius Black was capable of murder at age sixteen... and Lupin says: 'oh, that trick'. Really, if Sirius HAD someway tricked Snape into the Shack to meet a full-grown werewolf - I doubt that adult Lupin (who's *finally* standing up to his friend, demanding they explain things to Harry, Ron & Hermione) would belittle that sort of act. But Snape's unfair and unbased accusation he indeed would call *that trick*. And also-- oh yes. Snape *has* expressed his disappointment that Potter 'got away with things' (something you'd expect the snivel to say, would you not?). And - I think that the way James & Sirius had to fight against that was that they well, did a little cursing here and there - and always confessed. (Really, Snape going out to tell teachers about James&Sirius doing things - well, it's not getting much response if James&Sirius told them first, is it? With some teachers they even might have earned points&praise for honesty!) Finwitch From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 17:29:00 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 17:29:00 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error - ie: Veritaserum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124065 Bboyminn: Well, I can't speak to wizard law, but any country that has a basic Bill of Rights, and the wizard world does have the Wizangamont Charterof Rights, has a provision that says a defendant can't be compelled to testify against himself; it's basic human rights. If you want to forget about the muggle lie detector, fine, then let's consider the many muggle /truth/ serums. Why don't they force every person accused of a crime in the real world to take /truth serum/? Why? Because, it's against the law. It's a violation of basic human rights. Alla: Yes, I know, I work in the legal system. :) I guess I was not clear again. I was and still am insisting that Veritaserum should be used in ALL cases where Defendant WANTS to testify, I am not saying that accused should be forced to take it, if he/she does not want to. But even if prosecution is 100% sure of somebody's guilt and accused screams of his/her innocence, I see absolutely no logic in not giving them drug, which makes them tell the truth. Steve: That said, other than implying that Veritaserum should be used in every single criminal case, which it clearly is not, you haven't really addressed the logic of WHY it should have been used in Sirius's case. ( snips Steve explanation) Alla: Please see what I wrote in the first part of my reply, but I guess I will concede that if Sirius admitted that he was guilty in betraying the Potters, they did not see the reasons for it. BUT if Sirius was saying that he is not guilty, I don't care if Prosecution saw no doubt whatsoever, I think it was their obligation to give Sirius a chance to tell a truth. :) Then of course no PoA would have happened, but we were talking about inconsistencies, right? So, this is my answer. JMO, Alla From a_b_desert_king at hotmail.com Sun Feb 6 18:07:15 2005 From: a_b_desert_king at hotmail.com (a_b_desert_king) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 18:07:15 -0000 Subject: Full Moon (was: Support for the ESE Lupin theory!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124066 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > > Q: Can you explain how Lupin turns into a werewolf, since he didn't > turn in the Shrieking Shack in Prisoner of Azkaban, but instead > he turned only when the full moonlight hit him outside the > tunnel? If he only turned into a wolf in the moonlight, why didn't > he just stay inside? Did it have to do with the potion? Or was the > moon not up yet? > > A: The moon wasn't up when he entered the Shrieking Shack. > > vmonte responds: > The real answer is because it made a much more dramatic impact for > him to change when he did. > > Vivian Heather here: I'm not really sure where to jump in with this, but I guess this is the place because ultimately I agree with Vivian; this is the time Lupin *needed* to change for the story to unfold as it did. As some have postulated, perhaps there is a specific *time* when the moon is considered 'full' and this is the time when Lupin transforms. By literary design, the moon just happened to become 'full' when Lupin leaves the tunnel (imagine if the moon had become 'full' while they were in the tunnel - end of story.). In the Shrieking Shack Lupin himself says he transforms every full moon, inside or outside: (p258, PoA, Am. Ed.) "The Potion that Professor Snape has been making for me is a very recent discovery. It makes me safe, you see. As long as I take it in the week preceding the full moon, I keep my mind when I transform... I am able to curl up in my office, a harmless wolf, and wait for the moon to wane again. Before the Wolfsbane Potion was discovered, however, I became a fully fledged monster once a month" When Lupin forgets to take his Potion even once through that week he becomes dangerous. As a student, the Wolfsbane Potion did not exist so he transformed every month - therefore he would have been a danger to SS during the prank (which I really think was just that - I've known many teenagers who don't think things through. I'd bet that Sirius told SS to go to the tunnel thinking that SS would be too chicken to do so - much like Malfoy did to Harry in PS/SS when he challenged him to a duel at midnight). Literary license allows JKR to make the 'full' moon begin just as the group exits the tunnel. Lupin would have transformed at just that moment whether he was inside or outside. The fact that he hadn't taken his last dose of Potion meant that he didn't just curl up and go to sleep on his comfy couch in his office this particular time. Heather - who gets a mental image of her pooch curled up on the couch with his tail over his nose whenever she reads Lupin's description of transforming while a teacher at Hogwarts From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sun Feb 6 18:31:42 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 18:31:42 -0000 Subject: Snape's cards on the table (was: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124067 Alla: > > 4. Harry complains to Dumbledore that Occlumency lessons were > > weakening him. Dumbledore replies with his usual vow of trust for > > Snape. Do you trust Snape? Snow: > If I had to choose, I would trust Snape because he is more like > the person that is "what you see is what you get". To me Snape > lays more cards on the table than any other character. SSSusan: This comment fascinates me, Snow. Do you really think Snape lays more cards on the table than ANY other character? Do you mean than any other *adult* character, or any character, period? My gut reaction to this comment was, more than Harry? more than RON?? even, more than Sirius? I need some convincing, Snow. :-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk Sun Feb 6 09:19:34 2005 From: sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk (sandra87b) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 09:19:34 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124068 vmonte: >> She was given permission to use it for her > classes but it gave her several months of training until she got to use it for Dumbledore's intended purpose.< > > Betsy: > How on earth did Dumbledore know that Hermione would need to use the Time Turner by the end of the year? Wouldn't that mean he would also know that Sirius was innocent and that Scabbers was Wormtail? It doesn't make sense to me, and frankly, the whole story falls apart if Dumbledore knew what was coming.<< Sandra: BINGO! An excellent point, Betsy, and I agree entirely. I hadn't even considered the "months of training" scenario, and it's rather wide of the mark. Dumbledore's role is vague enough (especially in OoTP where he witholds info from Harry all the way through) without him being elevated to a "He Who Knows All" status. vivian: > It seems to me that the events of PoA unfolded the way they did > because Dumbledore made a conscious choice to send Hermione and Harry > back to save lives. He planned the event, and then H&H followed > through with his plan. If he had never told H&H what he wanted them > to do, they would have never known to TT back. But how could he have sent them back AFTER Harry and Sirius would have been 'done' by the Dementors? There's a total conflict of tmelines here, and Harry could never have saved himself because he was already deceased (or seriously damagaed). I think we fall into the trap of turning Dumbledore into a God-like being who knows all and can judge everything. This is disproved by his abysmal performance in OoTP where his unwillingness to put Harry in the picture leads to death and mayhem. I wouldn't get too strung up on the Time Turner - it's a goof, a plot hole, a quirk on itself. I was confused by it for a while, but now I see it for what it is - a mistake. Vivian: > Let's face it --- I hate time travel! Unfortunately, it's definitely > coming back. > Sandra: Time travel is only infuriating when it's handled badly, as it was in PoA. When it's done with all the pitfalls and traps sorted out and addressed (The Guardian Of Time), it's huge fun. There's been lots of comments about the Time Turner, and it all boils down to one major flaw - how could a future version of yourself go back in time to save a terminal tragedy happening to yourself - all on the same night? It doesn't work, and also raises the point of what would have happened if the future-Harry had got lost in the woods, ie for whatever reason had not been able to be in the right place at the right time. It simply doesn't work, and I think people are beginning to see that. I'm surprised it took so long, because it had been driving me mad (kind of) for a while. I thought I was being dim, but having had some really bizarre theories suggested, I know it's just a plot-flaw. Sandra From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 21:26:59 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 21:26:59 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error - ie: Veritaserum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124069 >>Alla: > I guess I will concede that if Sirius admitted that he was guilty in betraying the Potters, they did not see the reasons for it. >BUT if Sirius was saying that he is not guilty, I don't care if Prosecution saw no doubt whatsoever, I think it was their obligation to give Sirius a chance to tell a truth. :) < Betsy: But, Alla, Sirius did not have a trial. He never had a chance to say guilty, not guilty, nothing. He went straight from the scene of the crime to Azkaban. That's what is so disturbing about Sirius's treatment. There was no Prosecutor, there was no Defense, because there was no trial. Sirius could have downed a whole gallon of Veritaserum and it wouldn't have mattered because there was no one around to listen. Betsy, who is completely chilled by how much power Crouch had and how he chose to use it. From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 21:42:31 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 21:42:31 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy . REPOST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124070 "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Harry blames himself for Sirius's death. Do you? No. > Do you trust Snape? No. > Dumbledore blames himself for Sirius death. > Do you? Yes. > Do you agree with the possibility that Neville > may turn out to be the real prophecy boy? I certainly hope not! After reading 7 books about Harry to learn at the end that he was just a spear carrier for Neville and of no importance would be a huge disappointment and make readers feel like suckers for spending all that time on Harry. JKR is smarter than that and there is a reason she didn't call the first book "Neville Longbottom and the Philosopher's Stone." > Dumbledore tells Harry, "In the end, it mattered > not that you could not close your mind. It was > your heart that saved you." Does this mean that > occlumency lessons were unnecessary in the first > place? Was Dumbledore aware that Harry has plenty > of that power in that room BEFORE possession occurred? That is an interesting point I had not considered before. I'd like to know what that power is, I hope it's more than just love. > Yesterday for some reason I was imagining > Voldemort explaining things to Harry > instead of Dumbledore. No! I hate it when the villain says "I could kill you this instant and win but instead I'm going to explain to you everything I did and give you time to overpower me." Eggplant From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 21:59:13 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 21:59:13 -0000 Subject: Pensive Peeking - & it's Dymanics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124072 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > If someone peeks in your pensive, how do you know how much the > pensive peeper saw? Does Snape assume that Harry saw more than he > did? > > Tonks_op > I hope someone here writes a poem about pensive peepers. bboyminn: Here's my take on the Pensieve and how it works. First, believe it or not, I don't think Harry really enters the Pensieve, at least not in the way that it appears to him. That is to say, I don't think Harry physically enters the memory as he preceives himself doing. In the memories in which Harry witnessed the various Wizangamont trials, Harry sees himself in the room, sitting on a bench next to Dumbledore. In the Pensieve we have a meeting of minds, of thoughts, not the meeting of a mind and body. So while Harry sees himself physically inside the memory, in reality, he is standing inside Dumbledore's office with his head/face stuck in the Pensieve, and that's how Dumbledore found him when he returned to his office. Now to the question of how Dumbledore or Snape know which memory Harry is viewing, and how they manifest their own presences in the memory in question. First, and easiest, is to simple look in the Pensieve as Harry did before he stuck his face in the 'bowl'. The top of the Pensieve is like a window; so you simply look through the 'window' and see the memory inside. Next, I speculate that by making physical contact with Harry out side the Pensieve, or by dipping a finger into the Pensieve /fluid/, their (Snape or Dumbledore) mind could join Harry's mind inside the memory. >From Harry's perspective the presence of this new external mind (Snape or Dumbledore's) would manifest itself as a preceived physical presence inside the memory. Consider when Dumbledore entered his office and discovered Harry in the Pensieve. If Harry was truly /in/ the Pensieve, Dumbledore would have found his office empty, and would have assumed that Harry left. The only, most likely, way he could know that Harry was there and know what Harry was doing, would be if Harry was standing there with his face in the Pensieve bowl. When Harry entered the Pensieve memory, he had the preception of falling through space until he found himself sitting of the bench. When he exits, he has the same preception of flying though space, turning a somersault in the air, and landing on his feet in Dumbledore's office. But that is his mind/consciousness, in a sense, returning to his body, not his body returning to the office. As far as what the owner of the Pensieve sees relative to what Harry saw, I think it happens in realtime. When Dumbledore join Harry in the courtroom memory, he only saw what Harry saw from the time Dumbledore joined him until the both existed the memory. In the case of both Snape and Dumbledore, they would have both recognised the memory and would have been able to fill in the blanks from their own knowledge. In Snape's case, he arrived just as he was dangling upside down with his underwear showing, if Harry saw that, then he probably saw the most humiliating part, and what else he saw was irrelavant to Snape. On the nature of Pensieve memories and memories in general. If you take a memory out of your mind, how would you ever know to view it, or retrieve it, or that the event/memory in question even exited? The answer is that not only do we have memories, but we have memories of memories. If you are over 30, then it's possible that some of your fondest memories are, to some degree, false. When you recall those fond memories, you aren't recalling the actual event, but are instead recalling the last time you recalled them. That's how memories get distorted over time. That's why the grand towering Elm tress of your youth, turn out to be scraggly box-elders when you go back to visit the place. This isn't really critical information, I'm just laying foundation for what I'm going to say next. So, how do you know a pensieve-stored memory even exists? Because, even absent that primary memory, you have peripheral and secondary memories the allow you to recall, at least, the fact the the memory itself exists. Final note; notice that in the times we have seen Dumbledore use the Pensieve, he does not dive in after the memories; he brings the memories out to him. If Harry's going to be mucking about in people's pensieves, they should at least teach him how to do it right. I'm sure that more than you wanted to hear. Steve/bboyminn From sunnylove0 at aol.com Sun Feb 6 22:01:56 2005 From: sunnylove0 at aol.com (sunnylove0 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 17:01:56 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Pensieve Scene was Re: Full Moon, Rant Message-ID: <1d9.35e07c5a.2f37edd4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124073 In a message dated 2/4/2005 8:42:14 PM Mountain Standard Time, nkafkafi at yahoo.com writes: Nope. This doesn't work either. Because in Snape's Pensieve memory in OotP, many years before the Wolfsbane Potion was even invented, young Remus is already looking "peaky", and Harry thinks the full moon might be approaching. In fact, pensieve!Remus looking ill during the days BEFORE his transformation is also suggested by pensieve!Sirius wishing it would be full moon already. And this of course is a glaring contradiction with the well-documented week-after-Halloween transformation above I get the idea that Lupin was *frightened* at his upcoming transformation. In the POA boggart scene, when he's 36, he can deal with it, even laugh at it (though it's important that the boggart still picks up on it) . But when he's still 15, an exceptionally emotional age, (as seen in OOP) after having lived with prejudice and terror that he's going to kill someone all through his childhood....of course he's pale and sick. And Sirius thinks nothing but: "We're going to have a good old time this weekend." It's just another illustration of his and James's insensitivity at this age, even towards their own friends. Amber [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 22:02:56 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 22:02:56 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124074 >>Sandra: >Time travel is only infuriating when it's handled badly, as it was in PoA. When it's done with all the pitfalls and traps sorted out and addressed (The Guardian Of Time), it's huge fun. There's been lots of comments about the Time Turner, and it all boils down to one major flaw - how could a future version of yourself go back in time to save a terminal tragedy happening to yourself - all on the same night? >It simply doesn't work, and I think people are beginning to see that. I'm surprised it took so long, because it had been driving me mad (kind of) for a while. I thought I was being dim, but having had some really bizarre theories suggested, I know it's just a plot-flaw.< Betsy: I don't think the Time-Turner is a plot-flaw. JKR just uses time travel in a different way from most other works of fiction. (Which, frankly, I think is a good thing.) Traveling back in time is itself a paradox. So fiction writers handle it in different ways. JKR is doing the, what happens, happens, and nothing is really changed, thing. Tammy, in the beginning of this thread, does a great job explaining this. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/123943 And Steve/bboyminn does also. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124004 I *have* seen something similar to this method in Diana Gabaldon's Outlander series - but her people travel so far back in time it's difficult to get the immediacy of the effect JKR shows us in PoA. (There's a part where a man tries to stop his many times great grandmother from doing something in the present that comes close, but not with the same effect as Harry and his Patronus.) The big question I've had was how Dumbledore was aware of the possibility that Buckbeak escaped through time manipulation. I wonder if one of his many office gadgets alerts him to Time-Turner use (handy to regulate a student's use of such a device) and that cued him in to keep an eye out for irregularities. Betsy, who tries not to think about the time travel and moonrise stuff too often, and prefers to just go with the flow. :) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 22:09:06 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 22:09:06 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error - ie: Veritaserum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124076 Alla: > > I guess I will concede that if Sirius admitted that he was guilty in betraying the Potters, they did not see the reasons for it. BUT if Sirius was saying that he is not guilty, I don't care if Prosecution saw no doubt whatsoever, I think it was their obligation to give Sirius a chance to tell a truth. :) < Betsy: But, Alla, Sirius did not have a trial. He never had a chance to say guilty, not guilty, nothing. He went straight from the scene of the crime to Azkaban. Alla: Ummm, Betsy, I said in my previuous posts that I know about Sirius having no trial :o). Nevertheless, I don't think that it is a given that no investigation whatsoever was conducted. I will grant you that it is a strong possibility that exactly that happened, but unless I forgot something vital ( and then I will eat my words :o)), I don't remember canon statting with absolute certainty that no investigation happened. In fact, I believe that Dumbledore giving evidence alludes to the opposite conclusion - that SOME kind of hearing occurred. Do I think that was sufficient investigation? NO, of course not. Let me repeat again - I don't like WW justice system at all. But with whatever investigation they had , even if Sirius only proclamation of innocence was when aurors were leading him away, I think that Veritaserum should have been used, Betsy: That's what is so disturbing about Sirius's treatment. There was no Prosecutor, there was no Defense, because there was no trial. Sirius could have downed a whole gallon of Veritaserum and it wouldn't have mattered because there was no one around to listen. Betsy, who is completely chilled by how much power Crouch had and how he chose to use it. Alla: I agree with you that Sirius' treatment WAS incredibly disturbing. I do disagree though that we know for a fact that nothing was investigated. JMO of course, Alla From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 22:09:54 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 22:09:54 -0000 Subject: Confusion about the TT. DD knows everything... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124077 >vmonte: She was given permission to use it for her classes but it gave her several months of training until she got to use it for Dumbledore's intended purpose. >Betsy responded: How on earth did Dumbledore know that Hermione would need to use the Time Turner by the end of the year? Wouldn't that mean he would also know that Sirius was innocent and that Scabbers was Wormtail? It doesn't make sense to me, and frankly, the whole story falls apart if Dumbledore knew what was coming.<< >then Sandra: BINGO! An excellent point, Betsy, and I agree entirely. I hadn't even considered the "months of training" scenario, and it's rather wide of the mark. Dumbledore's role is vague enough (especially in OoTP where he witholds info from Harry all the way through) without him being elevated to a "He Who Knows All" status. vmonte now: I understand what you are both saying but consider this: SS, "The Man With Two Faces", Page 302 "D'you think he meant for you to do it?" said Ron. "Sending you your father's cloak and everything?" "Well," Hermione exploded, "if he did--I mean to say--that's terrible- -you could have been killed." "No, it isn't," said Harry thoughtfully. "He's a funny man, Dumbledore. I think he sort of wanted to give me a chance. I think he knows more or less everything that goes on here, you know. I reckon he had a pretty good idea we were going to try, and instead of stopping us, he just taught us enough to help. I don't think it was an accident he let me find out how the mirror worked. It's almost like he thought I had the right to face Voldemort if I could..." "Yeah, Dumbledore's off his rocker, all right," said Ron proudly. This bit of information is in book 1. It implies pre-planning by Dumbledore as well as the possible training of students by Dumbledore. Dumbledore didn't really know Harry as yet since this is his first year of school. How did he guess/know that Harry would go after Voldemort? Why didn't he think to give Harry Chess lessons as well? What good would it do Harry to understand the mirror if he couldn't get past the chess game? Did he already know that Ron excelled in chess? How about Snape's Potion Riddle. Do you really think that Harry or Ron would have figured this one out? They would have been stuck there for years. How lucky for Harry that Hermione just happened to be with them... Vivian (SSSusan do you remember our theory now?) From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 22:18:29 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 14:18:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's Single Biggest Error In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050206221830.916.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124078 > > Vivamus (snipped): > > 1. No snake that has ever lived, AFAIK, could chomp on someone > > like the snake that bit Arthur Weasley. She describes the snake > > splintering bones with it's bite, which snakes' jaws are not > > physically capable of doing. Personally, the questions I want to know are: 1. Why was Nagini (assuming it was Nagini) in the MoM at all? and 2. Why did it bite Arthur at all? If Nagini was there to take Voldemort to get the prophecy then it was pretty darn stupid to bite a sleeping guard like that. Just glide past, get the darn globe and find out what it says, then on the way out take a bite out of Arthur. Yet another dumb-Voldemort moment in the series... If that's not the reason Nagini was there, then what was? Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 22:36:28 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 22:36:28 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error - ie: Veritaserum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124079 >>Alla: >Ummm, Betsy, I said in my previuous posts that I know about Sirius having no trial :o). >Nevertheless, I don't think that it is a given that no investigation whatsoever was conducted. I will grant you that it is a strong possibility that exactly that happened, but unless I forgot something vital ( and then I will eat my words :o)), I don't remember canon statting with absolute certainty that no investigation happened. >In fact, I believe that Dumbledore giving evidence alludes to the opposite conclusion - that SOME kind of hearing occurred. >Do I think that was sufficient investigation? NO, of course not. Let me repeat again - I don't like WW justice system at all. >But with whatever investigation they had , even if Sirius only proclamation of innocence was when aurors were leading him away, I think that Veritaserum should have been used,< Betsy: Okay - I think I see where the disagreement is happening. The way I see it, no investigation, hearing, discussion, nothing, occurred *after* Sirius was captured. I see it that Sirius was grabbed, thrown in Azkaban and the file was closed. An investigation occurred *before* the capture to determine who was responsible for the deaths, and that's when Dumbledore gave evidence that Sirius was their secret-keeper, and that's how the Aurors knew who to hunt down. I agree, if Sirius was protesting his innocence on his way to Azkaban (though his mad laughter suggests he was in no shape to say much of anything), then at the very least questioning him would have been wise. Using Veritaserum would have been wise as well. And a trial would have been both wise and fair. However, Sirius was not treated wisely or fairly. So while not using Veritaserum was a mistake on the part of the Ministry, it fits well with their behavior and so is not a mistake on the part of the author. At least in my opinion. :) Betsy From bbkkyy55 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 17:16:32 2005 From: bbkkyy55 at yahoo.com (bbkkyy55) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 17:16:32 -0000 Subject: the prophecy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124080 The evil in V is what makes the Prophecy true. DD didn't try to kill V in the Mom because DD knew he couldn't. Only Harry has the "power to vanquish the Dark Lord". Of course, V doesn't know this. Harry and V have to have this face off because "neither can live while the other survives", but they are both alive now. If V would just be a good boy and leave everyone alone we wouldn't need a book 6 and 7 and everyone would be alive and happy. From cleverestwitchofherage at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 18:16:36 2005 From: cleverestwitchofherage at yahoo.com (cleverestwitchofherage) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 18:16:36 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124081 Dumbledore 11214: > 2. Harry blames himself for Sirius's death. Do you? > 5. Dumbledore blames himself for Sirius death. Do you? Cleverwitch: Well, I blame Bellatrix and Voldemort for Sirius's death, although Harry, Dumbledore, and Sirius himself (and perhaps Snape, to some extent--more about this later) bear some of the responsibility. But most of all, I blame that little toe-rag Kreacher. I don't give a tinker's dam for how miserable his life has been. Tough nougies. He set Sirius up, and I hope he gets his wish and has his head hung up on the wall of Number 12 Grimauld Place, and that Harry uses it for a dart board. Yes, I know Dumbledore and Hermione make excuses for him, but I seriously doubt any show of kindness would have altered his allegiance or his behavior. Look at the way he responds to Hermione's words and acts of kindness. I really hope something horrible happens to him. That being ranted, now about Snape. Although Dumbledore tells Harry that Snape told Sirius to stay put, and although Sirius probably would have insisted on joining the other Order members in trying to save Harry anyway, I hold Snape at least partly responsible. He earlier called Sirius a coward and taunted him for "hiding in his mother's house" while others risked their lives. Telling Sirius to stay now, not to go to the ministry, would, in my humble (not!) opinion still have raised the echo of those unkind words uttered at Christmas, even if Snape were sincere and did not sneer or suggest this time that staying home was not being cowardly. And we have no "canon" (I hate that word!), no "textual evidence" (better) to indicate HOW he advised Sirius to stay. I can easily hear Snape continuing to taunt Sirius, albeit subtly, while advising him to wait for Dumbledore--something like, "Someone needs to stay here, to tell Dumbledore what has happened. Why don't YOU do that, Black? Since staying put seems to be what you do best, and I know you like to feel useful. Going to the ministry will be dangerous; someone might get...hurt. We wouldn't want that person to be...you, would we?" Cleverwitch From minervakab at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 22:16:57 2005 From: minervakab at yahoo.com (minervakab) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 22:16:57 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy . REPOST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124082 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Alla: > > > > 1. Do you think we will ever meet Phineas again? What do you think > about the possibility of the network of portraits playing even > larger role in the later battles? Wonderful idea now that you mention it. I hope so. > > 2. Harry blames himself for Sirius's death. Do you? No > > 3. Dumbledore is sure that Harry IS the person the prophecy talks > about. Are you? No, I think Harry is part of the prophecy, but Neville is in ther too. I just haven't worked out how yet. > > 4. Harry complains to Dumbledore that Occlumency lessons were > weakening him. Dumbledore replies with his usual vow of trust for > Snape. Do you trust Snape? I do, but again, I cannot give reasons why. I don't like Snape. Possibly I trust him just because I trust Dumbledore. > > 5. Dumbledore blames himself for Sirius death. Do you? No > > 6. Voldemort did not choose the pureblood wizard like > Neville "which, according to his creed, is the only kind of wizard > worth being or knowing." > Does this quote make a difference in your view on whether Voldemort > himself is sufficiently interested in promoting "purebloodism" or > just in grabbing power, no matter who helps him achieve it? It makes perfect sense to a Hitler type of mind to believe those most like you are the most dangerous. > > 7. Do you agree with the possibility that Neville may turn out to > be the real prophecy boy? Absolutely. Neville is somehow connected to the prophecy but I cannot work out how yet. > > 8. Do you think that there is a possibility that the prophecy does > not speak about either Harry or Neville? Can you offer completely > new and unexpected interpretation of it? That would be the best twist of all. I do not have a clue how it would work but have every confidence that JKR could make it work. > > 9. Dumbledore tells us that Sibyll is the great granddaughter of > Cassandra Trelawney. As we know from mythology, nobody believed > Cassandra's predictions which turned out to be true. Do you think > that JKR is hinting that Sibyll is a more gifted seer that > Dumbledore thinks? Do you think that there is more to Sibyll than > meets the eye? I love her. I hope she does turn out to be a great seer in the end. > > 10. Who is the infamous eavesdropper? No idea. > > 11. Dumbledore tells Harry, "In the end, it mattered not that you > could not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you." Does > this mean that occlumency lessons were unnecessary in the first > place? Was Dumbledore aware that Harry has plenty of that power in > that room BEFORE possession occurred? I think that the two are not really related. Harry needs the Occlumency to close his mind even though his "heart power" saved him this time. Voldemort knows he cannot possess Harry's body now but he still could possess his mind. So I think Occlumency is still necessary for future defence. Dumbledore obviously knows about the power since it worked on Quirrel in PS but I think he did not know how it would work in an actual possession until that possession occurred. > > 12. Do you think that this chapter was well done "plot wise"? I > don't remember my complete reaction when I read it for the first > time, but I remember that disappointment was definitely there. I > was thinking something like "that is the big secret"? Do you think > that it would have been more effective if Harry learns about the > contents of the prophecy from somebody else? Yesterday for some > reason I was imagining Voldemort explaining things to Harry instead > of Dumbledore. "Potter, we have to kill one another or be killed. > You better be > prepared." :o) What do you think? I was disappointed but I can't remember now why. I just re-read the chapter and I cannot feel the same way I did when I first read it. I think I was disappointed because I thought telling Harry everything would include telling about the night his parents died. I was probably also hoping for Dumbledore to say something like, "Do over! Serius isn't really dead. I can bring him back!" Voldemort could not explain the prophesy to Harry because Voldemort did not hear the whole prophecy. It had to be Dumbledore. Dumbeldore needed to know the prophecy so he could plan all these years. Voldemort had to not know the prophecy to try to kill Harry when he was a baby and to use Harry to hear the whole prophecy this time. The whole series falls apart if Voldemort knows all and Dumbledore does not. Dumbledore knowing the prophecy while Voldemort runs blind is the only hope for them now that Voldemort is back. IMHO > > 13. We see Dumbledore crying in this chapter for the first time in > the books. Despite the fact that a similar question was already > posted couple of days ago, I decided not to delete mine. What did > you feel when you read about Dumbledore's tear? Sadness for Dumbledore and Harry. Minervkab PS To the elves: I hope I did this right. Please let me know if I didn't. This is the first chapter discussion I have participated in. Thank you. Minervakab (Kyle) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 22:49:14 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 22:49:14 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error - ie: Veritaserum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124083 Betsy: Okay - I think I see where the disagreement is happening. The way I see it, no investigation, hearing, discussion, nothing, occurred *after* Sirius was captured. I see it that Sirius was grabbed, thrown in Azkaban and the file was closed. An investigation occurred *before* the capture to determine who was responsible for the deaths, and that's when Dumbledore gave evidence that Sirius was their secret-keeper, and that's how the Aurors knew who to hunt down. Alla: Yes, you are right on target about our disagreement. :) The way I see it we don't know when the investigation occurred, although it may very well be as you described it. Betsy: I agree, if Sirius was protesting his innocence on his way to Azkaban (though his mad laughter suggests he was in no shape to say much of anything), then at the very least questioning him would have been wise. Using Veritaserum would have been wise as well. And a trial would have been both wise and fair. However, Sirius was not treated wisely or fairly. So while not using Veritaserum was a mistake on the part of the Ministry, it fits well with their behavior and so is not a mistake on the part of the author. At least in my opinion. :) Alla: I think I know what I think JKR's mistake is. She did not describe WHEN exactly Veritaserum is supposed to be used. For example, it may very well be that in the case of war emergencies, acused goes straight to jail ( do you know how much I hate what I just typed? :)), but we don't know that and so far I am left with the impression that Veritaserum is a clumsy plot device, which JKR used because she needed Crouch Jr.'s confession and did not explain to us when Ministry uses and does not use Veritaserum. Just my opinion, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 22:53:52 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 22:53:52 -0000 Subject: Confusion about the TT. DD knows everything... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124084 >>vmonte now: >I understand what you are both saying but consider this: >SS, "The Man With Two Faces", Page 302 >"D'you think he meant for you to do it?" said Ron. "Sending you your father's cloak and everything?" >"Well," Hermione exploded, "if he did--I mean to say--that's terrible- -you could have been killed." >"No, it isn't," said Harry thoughtfully. "He's a funny man, Dumbledore. I think he sort of wanted to give me a chance. I think he knows more or less everything that goes on here, you know. I reckon he had a pretty good idea we were going to try, and instead of stopping us, he just taught us enough to help. I don't think it was an accident he let me find out how the mirror worked. It's almost like he thought I had the right to face Voldemort if I could..." >"Yeah, Dumbledore's off his rocker, all right," said Ron proudly. >This bit of information is in book 1. It implies pre-planning by Dumbledore as well as the possible training of students by Dumbledore. Dumbledore didn't really know Harry as yet since this is his first year of school. How did he guess/know that Harry would go after Voldemort? >Why didn't he think to give Harry Chess lessons as well? What good would it do Harry to understand the mirror if he couldn't get past the chess game? Did he already know that Ron excelled in chess? How about Snape's Potion Riddle. Do you really think that Harry or Ron would have figured this one out? They would have been stuck there for years. How lucky for Harry that Hermione just happened to be with them...< Betsy: The way I see it, Harry was completely wrong. Dumbledore did *not* want Harry to go after the Stone. He did *not* want Harry to have his chance to face Voldemort. Dumbledore's behavior in OotP makes that perfectly clear. He would do anything to *delay* the meeting of Harry and Voldemort for as many years as he could. Also, Harry going after the Stone very nearly screwed the entire WW. Only Harry could get the Stone from the mirror, and if Dumbledore hadn't shown up when he did, Quirrell would have killed Harry and run off with the Stone, and Voldemort would have been sitting pretty. (Harry was left in a three day coma, which is pretty serious in the RW, and is probably fairly serious in the WW where they throw off injuries relatively easily.) Actually, there's a bit of a parrallel between PS/SS and OotP in that Harry puts himself and his friends in danger in order to face what he sees as a threat, and the threat turns out to be not so much. And in both cases, Harry's very presence almost gives Voldemort exactly what he's seeking. (Hmmm. Should we be keeping an eye on Ginny in the next book?) Betsy From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 23:04:25 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 23:04:25 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124085 Cleverwitch wrote: That being ranted, now about Snape. Although Dumbledore tells Harry that Snape told Sirius to stay put, and although Sirius probably would have insisted on joining the other Order members in trying to save Harry anyway, I hold Snape at least partly responsible. He earlier called Sirius a coward and taunted him for "hiding in his mother's house" while others risked their lives. Telling Sirius to stay now, not to go to the ministry, would, in my humble (not!) opinion still have raised the echo of those unkind words uttered at Christmas, even if Snape were sincere and did not sneer or suggest this time that staying home was not being cowardly. And we have no "canon" (I hate that word!), no "textual evidence" (better) to indicate HOW he advised Sirius to stay. I can easily hear Snape continuing to taunt Sirius, albeit subtly, while advising him to wait for Dumbledore--something like, "Someone needs to stay here, to tell Dumbledore what has happened. Why don't YOU do that, Black? Since staying put seems to be what you do best, and I know you like to feel useful. Going to the ministry will be dangerous; someone might get...hurt. We wouldn't want that person to be...you, would we?" vmonte responds: That's exactly how Snape told Sirius I bet. Snape really reminds me of an Agatha Christie book called "The Curtain" (I think that is what it's called. I read it so long ago). The murderer in this book never killed anyone using physical force, poisoning, a candelstick, rope, etc. He just was a master at manipulating other people with his words. He would do things like sprinkle innuendo while giving advice, and he was able to make people murder other people all the while making them believe it was all their own idea. This particular book upset me because Hercule ends up committing his first murder in it. He kills the bad guy because he cannot put him in jail for what he has done. Iago from Othello is also like this. Vivian From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 23:13:09 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 23:13:09 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error - ie: Veritaserum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124086 >>Alla: >I think I know what I think JKR's mistake is. She did not describe WHEN exactly Veritaserum is supposed to be used. >For example, it may very well be that in the case of war emergencies, acused goes straight to jail ( do you know how much I hate what I just typed? :)), but we don't know that and so far I am left with the impression that Veritaserum is a clumsy plot device, which JKR used because she needed Crouch Jr.'s confession and did not explain to us when Ministry uses and does not use Veritaserum.< Betsy: I think JKR makes it fairly clear that the Ministry is not so much interested in truth as it is in power. Look at the treatment of Crouch Jr. When Fudge went to the office where McGonagall was guarding him, Crouch Jr. had recently been given Veritaserum, and yet, Fudge didn't ask any questions. He immediately had the Dementor give Crouch Jr. the Kiss. Fudge wasn't interested in what had happened, he was interested in keeping things quiet. So I think in the case of Sirius, the Ministry was not interested in hearing the truth (why didn't they ever question Sirius about his contacts, for example?), it was interested in vengeance. (I won't call what they did justice.) And again, I see JKR being consistent in this. The Ministry is corrupt and they have no interest in the truth. So it doesn't matter what the general rules are, the Ministry won't follow them. Betsy From kempermentor at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 23:25:05 2005 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 23:25:05 -0000 Subject: The Dark Lord and Snape's worst memory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124087 Snape's Worst Memory. The chapter is juicy, but maybe it's not important for us to derive from the events the specifics to what makes this memory Snape's worst. I'm assuming that it is Snape who identifies this memory as his worst. That assumed, I think we need to expand away from the juicy chapter and say hello to the Dementors of PoA, make faces at the Man with Two Faces, and touch upon on the first Occulemency lesson. Harry's Worst Memory. Harry's worst fear is a dementor. His worst memory in the presense of one, or facsimile of one, is the death of his mom. Legilimens. Snape says the Dark Lork is a highly skilled Legilimens to the point where he can nearly always tell when someone is lying to him. We first see evidence of this in PS/SS when Harry lies about the Stone in his pocket. "He lies... He lies..." The Dark Lord (who Quirrell calls Lord Voldemort...?) inbedded in the back of Q's head looks at Harry. "... Now... why don't you give me that Stone in your pocket?" Then, shortly, "...but your mother needn't have died... she was trying to protect you... Now give me the Stone, **unless you want her to have died in vain.**" (Emphasis mine) The Dark Lord uses Harry's worst memory in order to manipulate Harry into giving the Stone to him. Hating in Others What You Hate in Yourself. In Harry's first Occulemency lesson Snape tells Harry, "You allowing me access to memories you fear, handing me weapons." Continueing, "I told you to empty yourself of emotion!" Harry, "Yeah? Well, I'm finding that hard at the moment." Snape, "Then you will find yourself easy prey for the Dark Lord! 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! He will penetrate your mind with absurd ease, Potter!" Snape's Worst Memory. In this memory we see Snape apparently friendless (he doesn't discuss the test with any buddies he keeps to himself) and we see Snape is humiliated and the only one that comes to his defense is not from his house and a Mudblood to boot. These are weapons handed to the Dark Lord. I'm thinking that Snape's worst memory is the one the Dark Lord used to manipulate a young, emotional Snape into giving the Dark Lord what he wanted. Whatever it was, (loyalty, potions, something else) it eventually led Snape into the inner circle. Now... is it his worst memory because of the events that occured or because of the events that followed? Kemper From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 23:24:09 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 23:24:09 -0000 Subject: Confusion about the TT. DD knows everything... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124088 Betsy wrote: The way I see it, Harry was completely wrong. Dumbledore did *not* want Harry to go after the Stone. He did *not* want Harry to have his chance to face Voldemort. Dumbledore's behavior in OotP makes that perfectly clear. He would do anything to *delay* the meeting of Harry and Voldemort for as many years as he could. Also, Harry going after the Stone very nearly screwed the entire WW. Only Harry could get the Stone from the mirror, and if Dumbledore hadn't shown up when he did, Quirrell would have killed Harry and run off with the Stone, and Voldemort would have been sitting pretty. (Harry was left in a three day coma, which is pretty serious in the RW, and is probably fairly serious in the WW where they throw off injuries relatively easily.) Actually, there's a bit of a parrallel between PS/SS and OotP in that Harry puts himself and his friends in danger in order to face what he sees as a threat, and the threat turns out to be not so much. And in both cases, Harry's very presence almost gives Voldemort exactly what he's seeking. (Hmmm. Should we be keeping an eye on Ginny in the next book?) vmonte responds: I think that Harry did go against Dumbledore's wishes during OOTP, but I think that in books 1-4 Dumbledore was allowing Harry and gang to do a lot. Why didn't Dumbledore take care of Buckbeak and Sirius himself during PoA? He could have taken some polyjuice and TT himself don't you think? It's a pretty dangerous job he gave two thirteen- year-olds. He is definitely training them, IMO. Harry needs training in order to be able to defeat Voldemort. Dumbledore is also using Hermione and Ron's gifts to help Harry along as well. Vivian JKR: Dumbledore, um, I don't want to say too much on this because you may find that it gives too much away but Dumbledore is a very wise man who firstly knows that Harry is going to have to learn a few hard lessons to prepare him for what may be coming in his life so he allows Harry to do an awful lot of things he maybe wouldn't allow another pupil to do and he also unwillingly permits Harry to confront a lot of things rather than protect him from but as people who have finished Order of the Phoenix will know Dumbledore has had to step back a little bit from Harry in an effort to teach him some of life's harder lessons. http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2003/0626-alberthall-fry.htm SF: You have to push your beloved chickens out of the nest JKR: You do From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 23:31:27 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 23:31:27 -0000 Subject: Snape and Sirius (was: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124089 >>Cleverwitch: >That being ranted, now about Snape. Although Dumbledore tells Harry that Snape told Sirius to stay put, and although Sirius probably would have insisted on joining the other Order members in trying to save Harry anyway, I hold Snape at least partly responsible. He earlier called Sirius a coward and taunted him for "hiding in his mother's house" while others risked their lives. Telling Sirius to stay now, not to go to the ministry, would, in my humble (not!) opinion still have raised the echo of those unkind words uttered at Christmas, even if Snape were sincere and did not sneer or suggest this time that staying home was not being cowardly. And we have no "canon" (I hate that word!), no "textual evidence" (better) to indicate HOW he advised Sirius to stay. I can easily hear Snape continuing to taunt Sirius, albeit subtly, while advising him to wait for Dumbledore--something like, "Someone needs to stay here, to tell Dumbledore what has happened. Why don't YOU do that, Black? Since staying put seems to be what you do best, and I know you like to feel useful. Going to the ministry will be dangerous; someone might get...hurt. We wouldn't want that person to be...you, would we?"< Betsy: Doesn't give Sirius much credit though, does it? I don't know that Sirius is quite so easily manipulated. Though I also doubt much could keep him safely tucked away while Harry is in danger. I think that even if Lupin had been the one to tell Sirius to stay put, Sirius would have ignored him. Not that I doubt Snape wouldn't have rubbed Sirius the wrong way. I think with those two, the other man *breathing* would have rubbed the wrong way. I just don't think it was calculated on Snape's part. >>vmonte: >That's exactly how Snape told Sirius I bet. ) >Iago from Othello is also like this.< Betsy: I've seen this comparison made before - Snape = Iago, but it doesn't work for me. Wasn't Iago well liked by Othello and those he manipulated? Both Harry and Sirius dislike Snape and distrust him. (Of course, it's been a while since I've read Othello - so I could be wrong! ) Betsy From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 23:43:49 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 23:43:49 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussions: Chapter 37 - The lost prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124090 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Discussion questions: > > 1. Do you think we will ever meet Phineas again? What do you think > about the possibility of the network of portraits playing even > larger role in the later battles? > bboyminn: I'm sure we will meet Phineas again, I'm sure he is outraged that the last remaining Black was murdered, and worse than that he was murdered by a combination of another Black (Bellatrix) and Voldemort. I also feel, pure intuision, that Phineas will play a role in helping resolve the Black Family Estate in Harry's favor. As far as the Portrait Network playing a future role, I'm sure it will. Now that Harry knows the portraits can be used as a means of communication, it opens many possibilities. For example, consider when Crouch Sr was found on the grounds and Harry desperately needed to see the headmaster, instead of wasting his time with Snape, Harry could have sent one of the portraits to the headmaster's office to summon him. If he had known that in advance, he wouldn't have even had to run to the entrance to the headmasters office, he could have spoke to the first portrait he saw, sent him after the headmaster, and rushed back to Crouch. I know that's not how the story needed to go, but it's a good illustration of how the protraits can be used for communication. Another example, Harry needs to contact 12 Grimmauld Place, he could have any portrait he trusts, like the Fat Lady, run to Dumbledore's office and have Phineus relay a message to headquarters The portraits open tremendous opportunities not only for communication but for spying too. > 2. Harry blames himself for Sirius's death. Do you? > > 5. Dumbledore blames himself for Sirius death. Do you? > bboyminn: Harry may blame himself, and Dumbledore may blame himself, to some degree, and, feeling empathy for them, I too feel their pain. But as others have pointed out, Sirus was killed by Bellatrix LeStrange, and no blame falls anywhere but on her. We can all look at our lives and say '...what if...' '...if only...', but what's done is done. The what-if's and if-only's are infinite, you might as well be saying 'if only' I would win the lottery. > 3. Dumbledore is sure that Harry IS the person the prophecy talks > about. Are you? > > 7. Do you agree with the possibility that Neville may turn out to > be the real prophecy child? > bboyminn: I'm convinced there is room for Dumbledore to have misinterpreted the Prophecy; that's the very nature of Prophecy's, they are mysterious and unclear. It could very well be that, in the end, it will be something that Neville does that is the key to defeating Voldemort, or maybe a combination of Harry and Neville. We certainly know that Neville has a much bigger role in this story that was first implied, and I can't believe he is in this story for no good reason. Without a doubt, Harry is vitally important, but I don't believe /Harry/ is the whole story. > 4. Harry complains to Dumbledore that Occlumency lessons were > weakening him. Dumbledore replies with his usual vow of trust for > Snape. Do you trust Snape? > bboyminn: Trust is a funny word. Do I trust Snape in the grand broad arc of the story, yes. Would I trust him in the moment, no. I think Snape is truly on the good side, but I also believe that Snape will be force to do some bad things in order to protect himself and continue to hide his true allegiance. Hypothetical - Harry is captured by Voldemort while Snape is at Voldemort's headquaters spying. In order to prove his allegiance to Voldemort, Snape must torture Harry. Snape will certainly do that, and he will make Harry think he is taking great joy in it. In the end, Snape will redeem himself and show without question that he is aligned with Dumbledore. > 6. Voldemort did not choose the pureblood wizard like Neville > ...edited... Does this quote make a difference in your view on > whether Voldemort himself is sufficiently interested in promoting > "purebloodism" or just in grabbing power, no matter who helps him > achieve it? > bboyminn: All fanatical causes need an enemy; Hitler had the Jews, the Islamic extremists have the United States. But these people were not interesting in ideology; ideology is merely propaganda used to keep the masses in line. It's all about money and power. Remember, according to Voldemort there is no good and evil, which is like saying there is no difference between muggles and wizards, there is only power and those unafraid to seek it. > 8. Do you think that there is a possibility that the prophecy does > not speak about either Harry or Neville? Can you offer completely > new and unexpected interpretation of it? > bboyminn: People have speculated in the extreme on this point. Since by the ancient calendar, September (which is why it start with 'Sept') is the seventh month. So maybe that means Hermione is the Prophecy Child, but I serously doubt it. There is only so much JKR can hide in the subtext without muddying the whole story. I think it's very likely that we can expect a new and unforeseen interpretation, but I don't think it will stray far from Harry and Neville. > 9. Dumbledore tells us that Sibyll is the great granddaughter of > Cassandra Trelawney. As we know from mythology, nobody believed > Cassandra's predictions which turned out to be true. Do you think > that JKR is hinting that Sibyll is a more gifted seer that > Dumbledore thinks? ... > bboyminn: I'm curious why you say mythology indicates no one believes Casandra's predictions, what predictions you heard, and how you know whether or not they turned out to be true? I think Cassandra was well respected in the wizard world. So, reasonably, if she was respected, her predictions were respected. As far as Sibyll, I think we have ample evidence that she does have psychic powers. The problem is, she is a trance psychic, which means she has no way of know when or if she's made a predictions. Since she speds all her time alone, she could be making predictions all the time and no one would know. This type of psychic is actually very common. Some of the greatest psychics in the real world have been trance psychics. Note, there is an obvious difference between psychic who can put themselves in a trance, and those who spontaneously go into trances. Sibyll would be the second type. As far as her more general, psychic skill (note: skills more than abilities) like tea reading and crystal gazing, she seems reasonably functional, and more than able to teach others. Her problem is that she is not too good at interpreting what she sees. For example, she, on several occassions, saw portends of Sirius and mistook them for a Grim, which when you think about it, is a fair mistake. Conclusion, I don't Sibyll is a great psychic, but she is not without psychic ability. > 10. Who is the infamous eavesdropper? > bboyminn: I really don't have a clue. Pretty rare when I can't invent an answer. > 11. Dumbledore tells Harry, "In the end, it mattered not that you > could not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you." Does > this mean that occlumency lessons were unnecessary in the first > place? Was Dumbledore aware that Harry has plenty of that power in > that room BEFORE possession occurred? > bboyminn: No, the Occlumency lessons were not unnecessary. Harry at least learned that he has the power to close his mind. Troubled as the lessons were, that one bit of knowledge will be worth it's weight in gold (figuratively speaking). In addition, I think the introduction of Harry Occlumens ability, foreshadows his need for it at some critical point in the future. In other words, we haven't seen the last of it. Not sure what you mean by the second question. Are you referring to Harry ability to expell Voldemort? Actually, Harry didn't expell him, Voldemort left because he couldn't stand to face the emotions Harry was feeling. In addition, Harry was unafraid to die, and more so actually eager to die in that moment. I'm sure that was a very vulnerable feeling for Voldemort. Certainly, in that one particular moment, he possessed Harry assuming Harry would be desperate to stay alive. It's incomprehensible to him that someone would not fear death. I'm worried that Harry's lack of fear of death is some unwelcome foreshadowing. Are you saying that this event represents a small sample of Harry's secret power which the Dark Lord knows not? Perhaps, but I'm not sure JKR has drop the most critical hints to this 'secret unknown power'. As far as what Dumbledore knew, well he knew the Prophecy foretells that Harry will have some special power. But I think, for the most part, the full manifestation of that power is latent, unrealized, in Harry, so, No, I don't think Dumbledore was aware of its presence or its extent. > 12. Do you think that this chapter was well done "plot wise"? > bboyminn: To some extent, I am a 'stream of consciousness' reader. I just let it flow, and take it as it comes. As long as the writing is sufficiently well done that I am not drawn out of the book, I'm satisfied. So, when I read that, there was nothing that forced me out of the story or out of the moment to stop and think. I was completely absorbed and eager to find out where the story was going next. So, given that I remained absorbed, I would have to say it was well done. I did find this book a little more tedious and less captivating than the other books, but beyond that statement, I'm going to reserve judgement until I've read the next book(s). Later events may prove the depth and importance of things in OotP that seemed less interesting in the moment. > 13. We see Dumbledore crying in this chapter for the first time in > the books. ... What did you feel when you read about Dumbledore's >tear? > bboyminn: Dumbledore has just had to inform a sweet innocent boy of his dark, terrible, and sadly, inescapable destiny. This was the death of innocences. Harry can never be the same after this; the child in him is gone forever. From now on, until Voldemort is vanguished, Harry's life must be deadly serious. It's very easy to see the foundation of Dumbledore's sadness, and understand that tear. Unfortunately, the whole emotional impact of that sad moment was blunted by Sirius's unsatisfactory death. It was such an empty hollow death, that I couldn't bring myself to feel the sadness of his loss. I certainly understand that sadness, and intellectually, know the great sense of loss that Harry must feel. I too feel a great sense of loss, I would have thought that Sirius should have been the last person to die, since I believed Harry needed him so very very much. It's almost like Harry's parents dying again. Having Sirius in his life opened the door for Harry to, in a sense, have his own parent back again. Sirius was a foundtain of knowledge and memories about Harry's parents. Having Sirius was as close as he could get to having his parent back again. Sadly for all, Sirius was an untapped fountain; that great bank of knowledge lost forever. So, while I didn't feel the sadness, I did feel the emptiness and how unsatisfactory and unresolved that death was. Reading the back post in this group will clearly establish that we can't even really determine if Sirius is truly dead and gone, or just hiding behind curtain number two. Speaking of curtain number two, I can't believe we have seen the last of the Veiled Archway. An icon, a plot device, of that magnitude can't be mention only to never be seen again. Somehow, it will come into play again, and I believe in a very significant way. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 00:04:51 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 00:04:51 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussions: Chapter 37 - The lost prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124091 Alla: 9. Dumbledore tells us that Sibyll is the great granddaughter of Cassandra Trelawney. As we know from mythology, nobody believed Cassandra's predictions which turned out to be true. Do you think that JKR is hinting that Sibyll is a more gifted seer that Dumbledore thinks? ... Bboyminn: > > I'm curious why you say mythology indicates no one believes Casandra's > predictions, what predictions you heard, and how you know whether or > not they turned out to be true? I think Cassandra was well respected > in the wizard world. So, reasonably, if she was respected, her > predictions were respected. Alla: I was thinking that Cassandra was named same name as Cassandra from Troy for a reason ( Illiad). Since we indeed know that Cassandra from "potterverse" WAS very famous and very gifted seer, I was thinking that maybe her name is a hint that just as Cassandra from Troy ( nobody believed them), more Sybill's predictions may turn out to be true than we think. Alla: 11. Dumbledore tells Harry, "In the end, it mattered not that you could not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you." Does this mean that occlumency lessons were unnecessary in the first place? Was Dumbledore aware that Harry has plenty of that power in that room BEFORE possession occurred? Bboyminn: snip. Not sure what you mean by the second question. Are you referring to Harry ability to expell Voldemort? Actually, Harry didn't expell him, Voldemort left because he couldn't stand to face the emotions Harry was feeling. Alla: Yes, I was and I was wondering again if Dumbledore had an idea that since Harry has that power, Occlumency lessons were not necessary in the first place. I am not a big fan of it, just wondering. I disagree that Harry did not expel Voldie, by the way. Voldie left, because he was unable to stay ( and Dumbledore says that Harry has that power), so to me it counts as expulsion, albeit unvoluntary one. JMO, Alla From ms-tamany at rcn.com Mon Feb 7 00:30:54 2005 From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 19:30:54 -0500 Subject: Chapter Discussions: Chapter 37 - The lost prophecy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4206706E.22167.140B9486@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 124092 Steve wrote, in answer to the question below: > > 9. Dumbledore tells us that Sibyll is the great granddaughter of > > Cassandra Trelawney. As we know from mythology, nobody believed > > Cassandra's predictions which turned out to be true. Do you think > > that JKR is hinting that Sibyll is a more gifted seer that > > Dumbledore thinks? ... > > > > bboyminn: > > I'm curious why you say mythology indicates no one believes Casandra's > predictions, what predictions you heard, and how you know whether or > not they turned out to be true? I think Cassandra was well respected > in the wizard world. So, reasonably, if she was respected, her > predictions were respected. Now Tammy Rizzo says: Steve, Steve, Steve. I'm shocked. After all your wonderful, fascinating essays and other posts, and all your examples of wit and education, I am *shocked* and *amazed* that you made this mistake here! Sybyll's great grandmother, Cassandra Trelawney, while probably being highly respected in the wizard world, was named (by JK, of course) for the Cassandra of ancient Greek myth, who was doomed to be a true Seer and make all sorts of terrible prophecies, but was also doomed that no one would ever believe her, and all the terrible things she saw WOULD happen, because of their disbelief. THIS is the Cassandra of mythology that the question was referring to. *** Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at rcn.com Want to back-up your expensive DVDs? Check out DVD Wizard Pro: http://www.dvdwizardpro.com/idevaffiliate/idevaffiliate.php?id=398 Want to earn a Sony Vaio for only $5? Check out EZ Laptop: http://www.ezlaptop.com/index.php?ref=8574 From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Feb 7 00:39:54 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 00:39:54 -0000 Subject: Severus and the DADA exam /James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124093 > Finwitch: > And also-- oh yes. Snape *has* expressed his disappointment that > Potter 'got away with things' (something you'd expect the snivel to say, would you not?). And - I think that the way James & Sirius had to fight against that was that they well, did a little cursing here and there - and always confessed. Valky: hehe good one... and/or did it all in front of everyone. As in openess being another form of honesty. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 00:56:43 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 00:56:43 -0000 Subject: Pensive Peeking - & it's Dymanics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124094 As far as what the owner of the Pensieve sees relative to what Harry saw, I think it happens in realtime. When Dumbledore join Harry in the courtroom memory, he only saw what Harry saw from the time Dumbledore joined him until the both existed the memory. In the case of both Snape and Dumbledore, they would have both recognised the memory and would have been able to fill in the blanks from their own knowledge. In Snape's case, he arrived just as he was dangling upside down with his underwear showing, if Harry saw that, then he probably saw the most humiliating part, and what else he saw was irrelavant to Snape. Tonks: Sorry I don't have my book handy. Did Snape look into the pensive to see how far Harry had gotten into the memeory? If not and he just comes into the room and catches Harry with his head in the pensive and pulls Harry out, how would Snape know if Harry saw just the first few seconds or all say 10 minutes of it? What I am trying to say is that unless Snape looked, and I don't remember that he did, maybe he thinks Harry saw more than Harry actually did. Tonks_op From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 01:00:56 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 01:00:56 -0000 Subject: Snape and Sirius (was: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124095 >vmonte: That's exactly how Snape told Sirius I bet. snip of Agatha Christie example I *really* want to read now! ) Iago from Othello is also like this.< >Betsy: I've seen this comparison made before - Snape = Iago, but it doesn't work for me. Wasn't Iago well liked by Othello and those he manipulated? Both Harry and Sirius dislike Snape and distrust him. (Of course, it's been a while since I've read Othello - so I could be wrong! ) vmonte again: You are right, of course. What I was trying to say was how Iago and the character from "The Curtain" are able to manipulate others without these people ever realizing it. It doesn't matter so much that these characters were liked, but that other people put their trust in them. You are also right that Sirius was a grown man and he should know better than to let Snape manipulate him, but Snape does manipulate him several times in OOTP. Vivian From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 01:33:05 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 01:33:05 -0000 Subject: Pensive Peeking - & it's Dymanics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124096 >>Tonks: >Sorry I don't have my book handy. Did Snape look into the pensive to see how far Harry had gotten into the memeory? If not and he just comes into the room and catches Harry with his head in the pensive and pulls Harry out, how would Snape know if Harry saw just the first few seconds or all say 10 minutes of it? What I am trying to say is that unless Snape looked, and I don't remember that he did, maybe he thinks Harry saw more than Harry actually did.< Betsy: "Who wants to see me take off Snivelly's pants?" But whether James really did take Snape's pants, Harry never found out. A hand had closed tight over his upper arm, closed with a pincerlike grip. Wincing, Harry looked around to see who had hold of him, and saw, with a thrill of horror, a fully grown, adult-sized Snape standing right beside him, white with rage. "Having fun?" (OotP Scholastic hardback p. 649) As per Steve's theory (good one by the way, Steve!) Snape, by his presence in the memory by Harry's side, sees exactly what Harry sees at this point. And I'm quite sure Snape knows precisely what point of the memory this is. Also, I think folks generally start at a beginning of a memory and go through to the end (that's how it worked in Dumbledore's pensieve anyway), so Snape would have a fairly good idea of what all Harry has seen. Betsy From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 01:43:56 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 01:43:56 -0000 Subject: Confusion about the TT. DD knows everything... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124097 >>vmonte responds: >I think that Harry did go against Dumbledore's wishes during OOTP, but I think that in books 1-4 Dumbledore was allowing Harry and gang to do a lot. Why didn't Dumbledore take care of Buckbeak and Sirius himself during PoA? He could have taken some polyjuice and TT himself don't you think? It's a pretty dangerous job he gave two thirteen- year-olds. He is definitely training them, IMO. Harry needs training in order to be able to defeat Voldemort. Dumbledore is also using Hermione and Ron's gifts to help Harry along as well.< Betsy: I do agree that Dumbledore gave Harry a lot of leeway throughout the books. And I agree that Dumbledore having Hermione and Harry do the Time Turner stuff instead of himself (not sure why he'd need to polyjuice himself), and his actions in CoS with the whole loyalty line, are examples of Dumbledore giving Harry a chance to learn. However... :) I still don't think Dumbledore actually wanted or encouraged Harry to go after the Stone himself. It doesn't make any sense, and it put far too much at risk. I think the Norbert incident was Dumbledore giving Harry some space to take a little risk and do something a bit outside school rules (and I think it's mainly the Norbert points Dumbledore is replacing at the leaving feast), but taking on a fully trained and obviously formidable Death Eater is a bit much to expect of a first year. Betsy From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 01:57:23 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 01:57:23 -0000 Subject: Snape and Sirius (was: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124098 >>vmonte: >You are right, of course. What I was trying to say was how Iago and the character from "The Curtain" are able to manipulate others without these people ever realizing it. It doesn't matter so much that these characters were liked, but that other people put their trust in them. >You are also right that Sirius was a grown man and he should know better than to let Snape manipulate him, but Snape does manipulate him several times in OOTP.< Betsy: I don't know if Snape actually *manipulates* Sirius. He picks on him, sure, and I suppose you could say that getting under Sirius's skin is a form of manipulation. But I wonder if Sirius took a course of action that normally he wouldn't because of Snape's actions or words. I guess if you think Snape *wanted* Sirius dead and did his best to goad Sirius into taking an unacceptable risk (and, erm... you probably do ) than yeah, Snape was manipulative. If, however, you think like I do, that Snape didn't have an ulterior motive and was just getting a petty kick out of making Sirius squirm, then not so big with the manipulation is Snape. *Childish* but not manipulative. Betsy From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Mon Feb 7 02:38:47 2005 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 02:38:47 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124099 1. Do you think we will ever meet Phineas again? Yes. At least I hope so. I found him immensely funny. 2. Harry blames himself for Sirius's death. Do you? No. 3. Dumbledore is sure that Harry IS the person the prophecy talks about. Are you? Not sure. Not that it would matter. Harry will still be the hero after all is said and done. 4. Harry complains to Dumbledore that Occlumency lessons were weakening him. Dumbledore replies with his usual vow of trust for Snape. Do you trust Snape? I trust him to do what it takes to defeat Voldemort. 5. Dumbledore blames himself for Sirius death. Do you? Of course not. 7. Do you agree with the possibility that Neville may turn out to be the real prophecy child? Again, even if someone other than Harry is the prophecy child, Harry will still be the hero. 10. Who is the infamous eavesdropper? Not sure but I won't rule out Snape. 12. Do you think that this chapter was well done "plot wise"? Yes. 13. We see Dumbledore crying in this chapter for the first time in the books. Despite the fact that a similar question was already posted couple of days ago,(message 123486) I decided not to delete mine. What did you feel when you read about Dumbledore's tear? I love Dumbledore. He's a man full of wisdom, compassion and love. I believe he also has suffered great personal losses like so many other wizards. He's still a great man in my eyes. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 02:50:37 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 02:50:37 -0000 Subject: Pensive Peeking - & it's Dymanics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124100 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy: > "Who wants to see me take off Snivelly's pants?" > But whether James really did take Snape's pants, Harry never found > out. A hand had closed tight over his upper arm, closed with a > pincerlike grip. Wincing, Harry looked around to see who had hold of him, and saw, with a thrill of horror, a fully grown, adult-sized > Snape standing right beside him, white with rage. > "Having fun?" > (OotP Scholastic hardback p. 649) > > As per Steve's theory (good one by the way, Steve!) Snape, by his > presence in the memory by Harry's side, sees exactly what Harry sees at this point. And I'm quite sure Snape knows precisely what point of the memory this is. Also, I think folks generally start at a beginning of a memory and go through to the end (that's how it worked in Dumbledore's pensieve anyway), so Snape would have a fairly good idea of what all Harry has seen. Tonks: Ok, I dug out my book. It does not say that Snape was looking in the memory with Harry. I think you have to go into the memory to see where the peeper was. Snape grabs Harry and first says "So, been enjoying yourself Potter? and after Harry says "no" Snape says "Amusing man your father wasn't he?" So Snape assumes that Harry has seen at least the part that he did see. But what about the rest. We know there is more because it says that Harry never got to see what happened next. So again, I am not convinced that Snape really knows just how much Harry has seen. There are parts that Harry clearly did not see. We do not see them either. But does Snape *think* that Harry has seen more than he actually has? I think that Snape would have had to put his hand or something in the pensive too and he did not. Snape just came in and grabbed Harry. If Harry can't see into the pensive without putting his head in it and Snape did not touch the pensive how would Snape know if Harry saw all of the scene or only part of it. Tonks_op From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Feb 7 03:45:19 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 03:45:19 -0000 Subject: Confusion about the TT. DD knows everything... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124101 vmonte: > > She was given permission to use it for her classes but it gave her > several months of training until she got to use it for Dumbledore's > intended purpose. Betsy responded: > How on earth did Dumbledore know that Hermione would > need to use the Time Turner by the end of the year? Wouldn't > that mean he would also know that Sirius was innocent and that > Scabbers was Wormtail? It doesn't make sense to me, and > frankly, the whole story falls apart if Dumbledore knew what was > coming.<< then Sandra: > BINGO! An excellent point, Betsy, and I agree entirely. I hadn't > even considered the "months of training" scenario, and it's rather > wide of the mark. Dumbledore's role is vague enough > (especially in OoTP where he witholds info from Harry all the way > through) without him being elevated to a "He Who Knows All" > status. vmonte now: > I understand what you are both saying but consider this: > "No, it isn't," said Harry thoughtfully. "He's a funny man, > Dumbledore. I think he sort of wanted to give me a chance. I think > he knows more or less everything that goes on here, you know. I > reckon he had a pretty good idea we were going to try, and instead > of stopping us, he just taught us enough to help. I don't think it > was an accident he let me find out how the mirror worked. It's > almost like he thought I had the right to face Voldemort if I > could..." > > This bit of information is in book 1. It implies pre-planning by > Dumbledore as well as the possible training of students by > Dumbledore. Dumbledore didn't really know Harry as yet since this > is his first year of school. How did he guess/know that Harry > would go after Voldemort? > > Why didn't he think to give Harry Chess lessons as well? What good > would it do Harry to understand the mirror if he couldn't get past > the chess game? Did he already know that Ron excelled in chess? How > about Snape's Potion Riddle. Do you really think that Harry or Ron > would have figured this one out? They would have been stuck there > for years. How lucky for Harry that Hermione just happened to be > with them... > > Vivian > > (SSSusan do you remember our theory now?) SSSusan: Yup, I sure do. To start off with, Vmonte, I really don't know how much I think DD knew about Hermione & Ron and any role they might play, or whether that just turned out to be lucky for Harry. But my notion, in contrast to Betsy's, is that DD *did* set this whole "obstacle course" up for Harry [and let's say possibly for Hermione/Ron]. Why do I think this? First, I think the fact that the tasks were all solvable by three FIRST-YEAR Hogwarts students -- two of whom have just found out they're witch/wizard -- implies that they weren't all *that* difficult. I believe this was intentional on DD's part. [Wait-- stay with me here!] Second, the *reason* I think DD set up these tasks was to test Harry's mettle, to find out about Harry -- what kind of kid is he? how brave? how resourceful? how committed to helping others? He set up the obstacle course, knowing that Harry might do nothing. That would tell him something. But if he *did* go after the Stone, how Harry handled the challenges would answer a lot of questions for DD. I mean, lots of kids, even if they knew about the presence of something as valuable as the SS/PS and suspected that a bad guy was after it, would just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh, well. Too bad *I* can't do anything about it." I think DD wants to find out if Harry is one of those kids. I think DD wants to find out just how much Harry can handle. And I think he was THRILLED with what he discovered. Think about it. DD had a perfect set-up to do this. EVEN if the initial obstacles were "easy" to get past, there was that final obstacle DD set up -- the Mirror of Erised. DD knew Harry had encountered it, knew what it did & how it worked. He also knew that if a bad guy got to the mirror, he WOULDN'T be able to get past it. Why? Because that person would want to USE the stone for his own purposes. Whereas, assuming Harry got that far, DD was hoping that Harry *would* be able to get the stone precisely because he WOULDN'T want to use it [for himself]; he'd just want to stop the bad guy from getting it [which isn't "using" it in my book]. It's really a nifty little plan of DD's. Find out about Harry's nature, his inclinations, his skills & talents, his resourcefulness. But build in that ingenious protection at the end which would prevent the evil guy from getting the stone even if Harry doesn't get through it all. The only thing I truly believe DD didn't count on was being called away as part of a ruse. I do believe [well, I want to believe!] that DD wouldn't have left Harry so *totally* on his own on purpose. Rather, I think he planned to be handy, to help out if Harry needed it, and I do think he was truly shaken by how close he came to NOT being handy. But I think he was *very* pleased with what he found out about Harry! Did I do okay, Vmonte? :-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Feb 7 03:50:24 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 03:50:24 -0000 Subject: Confusion about the TT. DD knows everything... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124102 Betsy: > The way I see it, Harry was completely wrong. Dumbledore did > *not* want Harry to go after the Stone. He did *not* want Harry > to have his chance to face Voldemort. Dumbledore's behavior in > OotP makes that perfectly clear. He would do anything to *delay* > the meeting of Harry and Voldemort for as many years as he could. SSSusan: I just posted on this topic in 124101, but I neglected to point out that I don't think DD believed Harry would face VOLDEMORT if he went after the stone. I believe Snape told DD that Quirrell bore watching, but I don't believe anyone had any idea that Voldy was glommed onto Quirrell's head. So while I do think DD wanted to see what would happen if Harry went after the stone, I *don't* think he believed Harry would encounter Voldy himself there. Siriusly Snapey Susan From elfundeb at comcast.net Mon Feb 7 03:26:34 2005 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:26:34 -0500 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner Message-ID: <007701c50cc4$d32d93b0$3c02a8c0@TOSHIBALAPTOP> No: HPFGUIDX 124103 Ah, Time Turner inconsistencies -- many interesting posts, of which I'm replying to several. > Laurasia asked: > > Why is there no unanimous understanding > of Potterverse Time Travel? And answered: > The problem, I think, is choice. > > JKR has spent a good deal of time showing us the importance of > choices. And she gets the most credible, experienced and wise > character she has (Dumbledore) spout freewill/choice rhetoric at > regular intervals. I must confess that I wonder sometimes about our assumption that the books are full of freewill rhetoric. "It is our choices, Harry, that show who we truly are, far more than our abilities." He doesn't say that we become who we are through our choices, which is how I would phrase it for a non-predestined world. Laurasia: > But she doesn't. Instead JKR shows us Hermione hiding behind Hagrid's > Hut pleading with Harry that he *CANNOT* burst in and seize Pettigrew! > Why is Harry's freedom of choice so resolutely BLOCKED? Why not send > Harry and Hermione *4* *turns* back so they can nip down to Hagrid's > ahead of time and whisk Wormtail out of the jug? Harry is free to reject Hermione's advice but that something will prevent him from reaching Hagrid's hut. Yet, that choice might cause something else to happen that affected the future he has already seen, even though Harry was not aware of that effect (e.g., it might have affected another character). Laurasia: > The only way we can see effect *before* cause is if Time is > predefined. If Time is fixed then order isn't important. I envision Time as a fourth dimension that exists in the past, present and future. In other words, the future already exists even though we do not know what it is. Nevertheless, we humans always have free will because we are constrained by our limited viewpoints, but the omniscient God, or Time, knows what choices you will make and who you will become. Therefore (to be consistent with Dumbledore's statement quoted above), your choices show who you are. This perspective makes arguing about free will vs. predestination is about as fruitful as arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. SSSusan wrote: > JKR actually muddies the waters a bit when she "allows" Hermione to > say, "There must be something that happened around now that [DD] > wants us to change." Similarly, Hermione's comment about lots of > witches & wizards having killed their past AND FUTURE selves did a > disservice to people's understanding. Clearly these statements, and the one that "we're breaking one of the most important wizarding laws! Nobody's supposed to change time, nobody!" that cast so much doubt about what's really happening. It makes me wonder whether JKR fully understands the principles she uses. But assuming it's not an error, Hermione states that changing time is *prohibited*. H&H do not violate this law, because they don't change anything. Maybe a time-turner isn't effective to change events (although like prophecies, its use influences the past). But perhaps Hermione's statement means that there is something else in the WW that could change past events. Whatever it is, though, I really don't want to see it, which is why I tend to assume JKR made a mistake. But if you think about it, it's certainly possible to kill one's future self without *changing* anything. For example, assume that H&H1 killed H&H2 without realizing who the victims were. (I know that this is totally inconsistent with their characters, but this is just an illustration of the principle. Or maybe Werewolf!Lupin killed them on their way back to the castle.) H&H1, who were not killed, would have continued, and at midnight in the hospital wing they would have used the time-turner and disappeared. However, H&H2 would simply not return to the hospital wing at midnight; there's nothing inconsistent with what's gone before for H&H2 to simply be dead. There could be a temporal problem if the bodies are discovered before midnight while H&H1 are still around. That would require a little explanation (unless Dumbledore revealed that they had used the Time-Turner), but the result would not be inconsistent. H&H would be dead without having changed time. However, this *is* a problem if hypothetical H&H1 realized who they had killed, because absent a suicide wish, they would never choose to use the time-turner if they knew what would happen to H&H2. The way JKR seems to have presented the issue, it would also have been impossible for H&H2 to kill their past selves because H&H1 would not have been around at midnight to use the time-turner (not to mention that H&H2 knew H&H1 were out there so they would have been very unlikely to kill them). In fact, the guiding principle about not being seen doesn't have any application to the possibility of H&H2 killing H&H1, as Hermione's comments ("You wouldn't understand, you might even attack yourself") seem to illustrate. Sandra wrote: > >Time travel is only infuriating when it's handled badly, as it was > in PoA. When it's done with all the pitfalls and traps sorted out and > addressed (The Guardian Of Time), it's huge fun. There's been lots of > comments about the Time Turner, and it all boils down to one major > flaw - how could a future version of yourself go back in time to save > a terminal tragedy happening to yourself - all on the same night? > > >It simply doesn't work, and I think people are beginning to see > that. I wonder if my ease of mind about how JKR handled the time-turner (other than Hermione's inconsistent statements) arise from the fact that I've read little, if any, fantasy literature and therefore have not seen time-travel in fiction before (though I have seen movies with time-travel elements). (Though it's not relevant here, I think I have more issues with a time-travel universe in which events *can* be changed. ) Therefore, I had no preconceived notions of how it should work and looked primarily to whether JKR had handled it consistently. I actually went back on my first reading and checked to be sure we had not been shown Buckbeak's execution. Finally, Betsy wrote: > The big question I've had was how Dumbledore was aware of the > possibility that Buckbeak escaped through time manipulation. I > wonder if one of his many office gadgets alerts him to Time-Turner > use (handy to regulate a student's use of such a device) and that > cued him in to keep an eye out for irregularities. Dumbledore knew that Buckbeak had escaped because he had gone with Macnair to Hagrid's hut for the execution. He also knew that Sirius' only avenue of escape from the locked room was through the window, which meant he had to escape by air. And he knew Hermione had a time-turner. Dumbledore simply put two and two together and realized that H&H could be sent to free Buckbeak and rescue Sirius. I don't believe he was 100% certain that H&H2 had freed Buckbeak, but it was very likely -- and it was probably Sirius' only chance. My nagging question is one that's been asked many times: None of Hermione's classmates noticed that she was in two places at once? Debbie who could use a time-turner right now From alex51324 at hotmail.com Mon Feb 7 04:56:18 2005 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex boyd) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 04:56:18 +0000 Subject: RW Truth Sera (small point) In-Reply-To: <1107727427.12479.37650.m6@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124104 I don't think anyone has said this yet, but I'm skimming a lot, so I apologize if I'm repeating what somone already pointed out. There's been some comparison of Veritaserum to "real world" truth sera. In this context, it probably ought to be clarified that there *aren't* any real world truth sera, not in the sense that they exist in the Potterverse. Veritaserum, apparently, makes you tell the truth in response to questions asked. Real world truth sera just lower your inhibitions and make you more talkative than you'd ordinarilly be. They don't actually compell anyone to tell the truth, they just make it tricky to a) keep your mouth shut and b) remember what's supposed to be a secret and what's not. So that's why RW courts don't use them--they don't actually exist. That *doesn't* answer the question, however, of why WW courts don't. Alex From catlady at wicca.net Mon Feb 7 05:01:43 2005 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 05:01:43 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion questions, chapter 37 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124105 Alla summarized Chapter 37 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124028 : << Discussion questions: 1. Do you think we will ever meet Phineas again? What do you think about the possibility of the network of portraits playing even larger role in the later battles? >> I hope we meet Phineas again; like most listies, I like him. However, I'd like a bit more info on how evil he was when alive. Now that we know that the Headmasters' portraits work for Dumbledore, we'll see them do more for him. I was surprised that one of the portraits had deigned to gossip with Terry Boot (telling him that Harry had killed a basilisk with that sword on Dumbledore's wall) -- it struck me as the same kind of status violation as if a real Live Headmaster had deigned to gossip with a young student -- but now that we know that portraits gossip with students, will Harry ever think of *asking* them questions? I mean, even, "Did you know my parents?"! If all the animated paintings are portraits of wizards and witches, it would be mildly interesting to know how Sir Cadogan became a knight, and I seem to recall there being some animated cows in the painting where the Fat Lady was finally found hiding -- are they portraits of magic cows? << 2. Harry blames himself for Sirius's death. Do you? >> Yes. As long as Harry has energy to waste blaming *Snape* for Sirius's death, Harry is not blaming himself *enough*. Oh, sure, the main cause was Voldemort (remember in GoF, when Harry had learned about Neville's parents, and went to bed thinking of all those people killed and disabled and torn from their loved ones and all those families destroyed, and it was all Voldemort's doing?), second cause the Death Eaters who served Voldemort and went on the mission to the Ministry and actually shot him, third cause that disgusting toe-rag Kreachur, but fourth cause was Harry having recklessly rushed into danger, in disregard of Hermione's good logical advice, and thus made it necessary for Sirius to come to rescue *him* and thus be in danger. If Harry doesn't understand the cause and effect, how will he ever learn to stop being such a reckless, careless idiot? Well, one of my theories is he will learn when he puts himself into even more desperate, doomed danger and it is *Snape* who dies to save him -- because Snape will have some memorably hurtful remarks to say to him in the process. << 5. Dumbledore blames himself for Sirius death. Do you? >> Dumbledore doesn't blame himself *enough* for Sirius's death. Dumbledore knew perfectly well that he was making Sirius crazy by keeping him locked up in that *place* with that Kreachur and that Snape sniping at him (Dumbledore said as much in his 'confession'). If Dumbledore WASN'T setting the whole thing up so that Sirius would be killed so that Harry would grieve so that Harry would be a better weapon against LV, Dumbledore should have *ordered* Sirius back to his tropical island or some other overseas assignment for the Order. If the argument was that Kreachur wouldn't obey anyone else, then DD could have ordered Sirius to take Kreachur with him. The bright sunlight and change of scenery might have killed him right off :) If the argument was that Harry needed Sirius, the counter-argument is: not when DD had forbidden him to tell Harry anything. << 13. We see Dumbledore crying in this chapter for the first time in the books. Despite the fact that a similar question was already posted couple of days ago,(message 123486) I decided not to delete mine. What did you feel when you read about Dumbledore's tear? >> I wondered if he was faking it. Tammy in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124031 : << Actually I think that most of the evidence points to Dumbledore being at fault for Sirius' death. Had Dumbledore explained even a few small things to Harry, then Sirius needn't have died. For example, had Dumbledore been the one to explain to Harry why Occlumency was so necessary, then Harry may have taken the lessons more seriously. >> I believe that even if Harry had learned to be a superb Occlumens, that would not have made any difference, as the way that LV put things into Harry's mind (visions, ideas, feelings), and even the way that LV got information from Harry's mind, was something totally different from Legilimency. Occloumency blocks Legilimency, not scar-vision. Altho' perhaps next book Harry will be attacked by Legilimency and *wish* he had tried to learn those lessons. Tonks_op in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124043 << Harry ... had a choice to follow DD (an older, wiser person who Harry knew had his best interest at heart) >> According to me, Harry did not *know* that DD had his best interest at heart. We readers only know that from JKR interviews, not from the books. From the books, we are left in the same position as Harry: DD did X and did Y .. DD made me live with horrible Dursleys but then he brought me to Hogwarts, DD won't speak to me or make eye contact with me but then he saved me from the kangaroo court. Is he looking out for my best interests, with reasons that I don't understand for the unpleasant things he does to me, or is he a cold man planning to use me as a pawn in some scheme and the pleasant things he does are just to gain my trust? << 3. Dumbledore is sure that Harry IS the person the prophecy talks about. Are you? >> No. The purpose of Prophecies in literature is to be misinterpreted. << 7. Do you agree with the possibility that Neville may turn out to be the real prophecy child? 8. Do you think that there is a possibility that the prophecy does not speak about either Harry or Neville? Can you offer completely new and unexpected interpretation of it? >> I would like if it turned out to be Neville who vanquishes Voldemort -- Harry hasn't been an Ugly Duckling since his first Quidditch match. I also like the idea, suggested on this list, that the Prophecy was *already* fulfilled at Godric's Hollow on Halloween 1981, so now the characters are back in free will mode. << 4. Harry complains to Dumbledore that Occlumency lessons were weakening him. Dumbledore replies with his usual vow of trust for Snape. Do you trust Snape? >> Well, I don't think Snape is serving LV. I think he follows DD's direct orders. But he might do some very nasty and harmful things if DD didn't think in advance of ordering him not to do those specific things. In case of Occlumency, I believe he was following DD's orders to do his best to teach HP Occlumency without telling HP any more than he could avoid about what was going on. I don't know if DD was sincere or DD was intending to soften HP up for LV as part of a plot to use HP and the Prophecy to lure LV out of hiding into the headlines or DD was intending to soften HP up for LV as part of a plot to get Sirius killed (as per my answer to #5) << 6. Voldemort did not choose the pureblood wizard like Neville "which, according to his creed, is the only kind of wizard worth being or knowing." Does this quote make a difference in your view on whether Voldemort himself is sufficiently interested in promoting "purebloodism" or just in grabbing power, no matter who helps him achieve it? >> I never believed that Voldemort was interested in promoting purebloodism, and I have doubts that Voldemort ever *said* that pureblood wizards were automatically entitled to power and top positions. I suspect that Malfoys and Blacks assumed that was his belief because he did speak of polluting wizard blood by admitting Muggle-borns. It seems to me that Voldemort's hatred of Muggles (by extension from his Muggle father) for some reason includes Muggle-borns, but not mixed-blood (like allegedly most wizards) or even half-bloods (like himself). << 9. Dumbledore tells us that Sibyll is the great granddaughter of Cassandra Trelawney. As we know from mythology, nobody believed Cassandra's predictions which turned out to be true. Do you think that JKR is hinting that Sibyll is a more gifted seer that Dumbledore thinks? Do you think that there is more to Sibyll than meets the eye? 10. Who is the infamous eavesdropper? 11. Dumbledore tells Harry, "In the end, it mattered not that you could not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you." Does this mean that occlumency lessons were unnecessary in the first place? Was Dumbledore aware that Harry has plenty of that power in that room BEFORE possession occurred? >> Maybe Harry didn't have so much of that power in him before he saw Sirius killed, or maybe it was seeing Ginny, Neville, and Luna willing to give their lives fo him. << 12. Do you think that this chapter was well done "plot wise"? I don't remember my complete reaction when I read it for the first time, but I remember that disappointment was definitely there. I was thinking something like "that is the big secret"? Do you think that it would have been more effective if Harry learns about the contents of the prophecy from somebody else? Yesterday for some reason I was imagining Voldemort explaining things to Harry instead of Dumbledore. "Potter, we have to kill one another or be killed. You better be prepared." :o) What do you think? >> Renee in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124050 : << No, it was very unsatisfactory to me, and the big secret struck me as rather lame. >> I was irritated that it was the *wrong* Prophecy. The list had already had years to discuss H's question and DD's answer at the end of PS/SS (Why does LV want to me kill me? Alas, I cannot tell you now), and I had become convinced that DD and LV both believed a Prophecy that HP would kill LV (that answers H's question) and HP would die when LV did (that explains DD's answer). Just that DD didn't want to tell H that the wizarding world was depending on him is kind of feeble. << I didn't like DD's "blaming the victim act" (Sirius ought to have treated Kreacher better) either; it's inappropriate to say such things to the bereaved, and not at all in character for a loving and wise old man. >> Damn right. Not only inappropriate, but not true. Per Cleverwitch in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124081 : << I seriously doubt any show of kindness would have altered his allegiance or his behavior. Look at the way he responds to Hermione's words and acts of kindness.>> Sirius should have kept better track of Kreachur, especially since Harry specifically warned him, but that is not the same as treat him better. From casil30 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 02:10:16 2005 From: casil30 at yahoo.com (Lisa C.) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 02:10:16 -0000 Subject: Why a swan Patronus? In-Reply-To: <4204CE4B.15960.DAA1F9A@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124106 Tammy Rizzo: > Swans are MEAN beasts! It didn't surprise me at all to > find that Cho's Patronus was a swan. Or, well, that SOMEONE'S > Patronus was a swan, at least. Oh, wait. Were you asking why > ANYONE had a swan Patronus, or why CHO had one? I was wondering how a swan could be seen as anyone's protector. I had no idea that they were such mean creatures. I've only ever seen them as pretty birds. Casil From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 6 23:44:53 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 23:44:53 -0000 Subject: Chapter 37 Dumbledore Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124107 DD speaks no more than the truth when he states that he is the one responsible for Sirius's death. He is being however his usual evasive self, so that it is not entirely clear from his explanations why he takes the responsibility. At least, it was certainly not clear for Harry who was too hurt and shocked at the moment (only about an hour had passed from Sirius death after all) to think rationally. Which, a propos, was probably why DD chose this particular moment for his revelations. He says that he is going (finally!!) to explain everything. But does he? From where I'm staying it seems that he -- true to the form -- fills Harry in on some points but again it's "no more than he needs to know". Does he reveal his theory about Harry's scar and the nature of his connection to Voldemort? He certainly doesn't. He manages very skilfully to avoid the issue altogether manipulating Harry into discussing the events of previous five years instead. Oh, yes, he tells him about the prophesy. Again, only bare facts and the text verbatim. But he leaves it to Harry to draw the conclusions. As it might have been expected Harry comes up with a pretty straightforward interpretation which may be basically true, but it is certainly not all there is to it. Moreover, the whole structure of DD's narrative is no more than another trap. He deliberately keeps Harry in the dark until the end of their interview, but keeps asking "You do not see the flaw?" throughout it. Because Harry is still none the wiser he feels like an idiot and DD offers him a perfect excuse for his actions: "I care for you too much". Now, that may be true, but it certainly does not explain his actions in the OotP. Consider. 1) Why on earth guard the prophesy if the only thing Voldemort could have learned from it is that he acted much too rashly attacking the Potters and that now he must kill Harry if he wants to avoid being killed himself. Big deal! Killing Harry has topped Voldemort's to-do list for years. What difference does it make if learned that he's been right all along trying to do Potter in? 2) If (as I think we all suspect) there is more to the prophesy, that Harry realises, which is why DD wants to keep Voldemort in the dark about it, why not simply smash it? If 6 teenagers however magically gifted they might be could break into the Department of Mysteries, so could members of the Order. Or even DD himself. After all he has the "original" prophesy. Why leave a copy to lie around? The thing is ? in OotP DD clearly tries to recreate the situation of the first book Which is to say ? to lure Voldemort straight into the trap. Thus he is able to achieve two main goals 1) to keep him occupied and concentrated onto something other than killing Harry and generally wrecking havoc, and 2) to make wizarding community to acknowledge the fact of Voldemort's return. Now "do you see the flaw yet?". I personally could come up with a few. First, this plan places Harry into jeopardy, because sooner or later Voldemort realises that he could use him and so he does. DD sees this possibility before VOldemrt, but still goes for it. Yes, he arranges Occlumency lessons, but still too many things could go awry and so they do. Somehow I don't think that it has anything to do with "too much caring". Rather that DD has no better plan. Second, the plan is dangerous not only for Harry. There are innocent bystanders for one. Like Bode who's only fault was that he happened to work in the Department of Mysteries. DD knows that there are likely to be victims among the ministry employees, since at the beginning Voldemort didn't know that only he or Harry were able to touch the prophesy, but he prepares to pay this price in order to win more time for Harry and for the Order. And finally, there are members of the Order doing their guarding duty at the D of M's threshold. As far as we know the tall is one wounded, one killed and one in Azkaban. Not bad all things considered, it could easily have been more. But did all of them realise that the thing they guarded was nothing more than bait? I wonder. Sirius for one certainly got the picture and wasn't amused. He could cheerfully sacrifice the whole Ministry for Magic, and probably saw no ill in risking lives of his fellows from the Order, but he clearly didn't like the idea of using Harry. Still DD's plan worked. Sirius happened to be among the casualties that DD knew only too well were impossible to avoid. He is prepared to take the blame but still he had 15 years too brood over his options and saw no other choice. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 07:14:34 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 07:14:34 -0000 Subject: Pensive Peeking - & it's Dymanics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124108 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > As far as what the owner of the Pensieve sees relative to what Harry > saw, I think it happens in realtime. When Dumbledore join Harry in > the courtroom memory, he only saw what Harry saw from the time > Dumbledore joined him until the both existed the memory. > > Tonks: > > Sorry I don't have my book handy. Did Snape look into the pensive to > see how far Harry had gotten into the memeory? If not and he just > comes into the room and catches Harry with his head in the pensive > and pulls Harry out, how would Snape know if Harry saw just the > first few seconds or all say 10 minutes of it? What I am trying to > say is that unless Snape looked, and I don't remember that he did, > maybe he thinks Harry saw more than Harry actually did. > > Tonks_op bboyminn: I see by your other post that you did dig out your books and reread that scene. The thing to remember is that we see the scene from Harry's perspective. We see nothing of Snape until Harry also see him, so all Snape's actions are 'off-page'. Because of this, we can't say what Snape did or didn't do. Snape may have paused long enough to find out what Harry was looking at before he made physical contact, and by doing so, made his presence known to Harry. So, there is no accurate way to determine how long Snape watched or how much he saw; we are reduced to speculation. That said, it seems a reasonable speculation that Snape paused and looked long enough to determine what memory Harry was looking at. Further, it would be reasonable for Snape to assume that Harry had been wandering through his memories from the time Snape left the room. As to that one specific memory, all Snape needs to see is enough to determine which memory it is, and that would sufficient information for Snape's humiliation and anger. In addition to the anger and embarassment surrounding that one memory, Snape has plenty of reason to be furious at Harry. It is fairly unthinkable, unreasonable, and wholly inappropriate that a student would violate his privacy in such an egregious way. Of course, I understand why Harry did it, and I can't say I wouldn't have done the same, but Snape is fully justified in his anger at Harry in this incident. Short version- I say again that it all happens in realtime. Snape knows which memory Harry is viewing, and can reasonably assume Harry as been viewing for an extended period of time, and therefore, most likely saw the entire memory up to the point where it is interupted. As to how much Snape saw, he certainly only saw the end of that memory, but it's difficult to say how long he watched before he interupted Harry. I think it's pretty fair speculation to say that Snape didn't stand an observe for very long. He has ample reason to be angry, even furious, without knowing which memory Harry was viewing at the moment. That anger wouldn't have held him at bay very long. Finally, I stand by my statement, that it is the mind that enters the Pensieve and not the body. Harry's physical presents in the memory is his own consciousness and self-awareness that has joined with the memory. His self-awareness causes the preceived physical manifestation of his 'Self'. What Snape did see was obtained by more sophisticated use of the Pensieve than Harry's 'stick your face in it' method. First and most obvious would be to simply look into the Pensieve as if you were looking through a window. I also speculated the putting his wand or his finger into the Pensieve would give him a more complete experience than 'looking through the window'. ..rambled a bit, hope your answer is in here somewhere. Steve/bboyminn From kgpopp at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 04:22:30 2005 From: kgpopp at yahoo.com (kgpopp) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 04:22:30 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner (getting long here) In-Reply-To: <4204E7C1.24689.E0D977B@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124109 > > > Tammy Rizzo wrote: > > > HOW can anyone POSSIBLY be confused about the Time > > > Turner? It's so simple and straightforward, after > > > all. Everything happens as it happens, as it has > > > always happened, as it will always happen; nobody > > > changes anything, nobody *can* change anything-- > > > 'Time' only happens once, no matter how many > > > times a character travels through it. All a Time > > > Turning character can do is what he's already done, > > > so what *IS* the big confusion? There is no 'first > > > time/second time' of anything -- it's all THE ONLY > > > TIME. [snip further discussion between Tammy and Laurasia] > > Tammy R: > > As I've been saying, what has happened has already happened, > > thanks to the choices made *as* things happened, but it's only > > the past that is set and unchangeable. The future is > > undetermined and very, very plastic. Every character is still > > free to make their own choices, but the choices that they have > >*already* made, and what has *already* happened because > > of those choices, has already come to pass, and cannot be changed. ----------------------------------------------- Now Kristen, I have loved reading this thread and following the debate. And I tend to be inclinded to agree with Tammy's theory on time travel but I had a few questions I wanted to pose. Okay I know we've all ready the book so these event my be in our past but lets pretend that at the present time and Harry, Ron & Hermione are in Hagrid's cabin finding the rat. At this same time (in the present) TT!Harry and TT!Hermione are ouside the cabin arguing; and TT! Hermione convices TT!Harry not to burst in and grab scabbers/peter. So far so good everyone has a choice and events happen based on those choices. Now current!harry, current!Ron and current!Hermione head back to the castle and think that BB dies when they hear the swish. But what really happens at this same time (in the present) is TT!Hary and TT! Hermione untie bb and save BB from being killed and McNair swings his axe in anger. Again following the theory everyone has choice and events happen because of those choices. No Paradox, history is not changed. But now fast forward (w/o a time turner) to the hospital and current! DD says 3 turns ought to do the trick (or something close to that anyway). Now at this present time we have current!harry and current! Hermione in the hospital listening to current!DD. At the same time we also have TT!Harry & TT!Hermione heading back to the hospital. So here is my question, now in the present do current!Harry and current!Hermione have a choice about using the time turner? Can they choose not to go? Can they go back 4 hours? Can they go back 2? If they do use the time turner and only go back 3 hours everything works out as it did in the now past (e.g BB is saved). But if they don't choose to use the time turner then what happens? Do TT!Harry and TT!Hermione suddently disappear from the hallway? Does bb die in the now past? Up untill now everyone was making choices in "the present" and the consquense followed those choices; but now it seems that Harry & Hermione are predetermined to go back in time 3 hours because in the past they were already there. This is what I think is the paradox. And where the cause ? effect relationship get interesting. If everything tied-out with no questions what fun would that be. I think this is the magical part of time travel and the reason they study it in the MOM. And this is also why I think JK does a good job with the time turner because it fits in with the magical world she has created. She did not use the time turner to create a perfect "hollywod end" but rather left us with some questions. How much choice do we have? How much is pre-determined? How are these loops in time connected? If there was no mystery, if it all made perfect sense or followed some clever rules of physics then it would be sciFi (Which I love but is not what the WW is about). My other shorter question is what about using time turners to go forward in time? Does anyone think this is possible and if so how does that impact the question of what is the present, what happened is what happened? From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 08:57:51 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 08:57:51 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: <007701c50cc4$d32d93b0$3c02a8c0@TOSHIBALAPTOP> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124110 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "elfundeb" wrote: > > Laurasia asked: > > > > Why is there no unanimous understanding > > of Potterverse Time Travel? > bboyminn: Actually, there is, if you are willing to see it the way it was intended, or seems to have been intended. > And answered: > > The problem, I think, is choice. > > > > ...edited... > Debbie/elfundeb: > > I must confess that I wonder sometimes about our assumption > that the books are full of freewill rhetoric. "It is our choices, > Harry, that show who we truly are, far more than our abilities." He > doesn't say that we become who we are through our choices, ... > bboyminn: Notice that Dumbledore's quote doesn't say our choices DICTATE who we are, it simply says that the choices we make show more about our character than abilities that may or may not be used. Phrased alternately; it's how we choose to use our abilities far more than the mere existance of those abilities the INDICATES (not dictates) who we are. Let's not blow this up into more than it is. > Laurasia: > > But she doesn't. Instead JKR shows us Hermione hiding behind > > Hagrid's Hut pleading with Harry that he *CANNOT* burst in and > > seize Pettigrew! Why is Harry's freedom of choice so resolutely > > BLOCKED? > > Laurasia: > > The only way we can see effect *before* cause is if Time is > > predefined. If Time is fixed then order isn't important.... > Debbie/elfundeb: > > ...This perspective makes arguing about free will vs. > predestination is about as fruitful as arguing about how many angels > can dance on the head of a pin. > bboyminn: I'll tell you what block Harry from running into Hagrid's and it wasn't law, fate, or the Powers of the Universe. Simply, it was common sense. Hermione gave Harry a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why he couldn't go bursting into Hagrid's. Harry listened to it, and it logically made sense that the Harry currently inside Hagrid's would totally freak-out if another Harry came bursting in ranting and raving about Scabbers killing his parents. I might just as easily ask why I don't run out into the middle of traffic, or why I don't run into the kitchen and chop my hand off. Why? Well, you can be sure it's not the force of the Powers of the Universe or Fate; common sense tells me that neither one of those would be a very wise or fun things to do. It's not the law of time travel that stops Harry, it's the common sense and logic of Hermione's explanation. Using that common sense, Harry made a very definite choice. > > SSSusan wrote: > > JKR actually muddies the waters a bit when she "allows" Hermione > > to say, "There must be something that happened around now that > > [DD] wants us to change." Similarly, Hermione's comment about lots > > of witches & wizards having killed their past AND FUTURE selves > > did a disservice to people's understanding. > Debbie/elfundeb: > > Clearly these statements, and the one that "we're breaking one of > the most important wizarding laws! Nobody's supposed to change > time, nobody!" that cast so much doubt about what's really > happening. It makes me wonder whether JKR fully understands the > principles she uses. > bboyminn: This is a common fandom trap; one we all fall into. We are so desperate the make sense of things that we take general statements, and try to make them absolute. But people rarely if ever speak in absolute statements. Much of what we get from what people say to us, we draw from context. So, when Hermione wonders what they are suppose to 'change', she is simply choosing the simpliest and most direct way of making her meaning known within the context of the moment. She is simply wondering out loud what it is that Dumbledore wants them to DO, and 'change' is a simple, shorthand, in context way of saying it. Much easier to say 'change' in a general context, and get on with it, than to sit for half an hour trying to determine what would be the exactly correct and perfect word to use. There is no inconsistancy between Hermione's use of the word 'change' in 'what are we suppose to change', and her use of the word 'change' in 'we aren't suppose to change anything, it's against the law'. The context is very different in those two statements; one is general, the other is specific. > > Sandra wrote: > > There's been lots of comments about the Time Turner, and it all > > boils down to one major flaw - how could a future version of > > yourself go back in time to save a terminal tragedy happening to > > yourself - all on the same night? > > > > >It simply doesn't work, and I think people are beginning to see > > that. > Debbie/elfundeb: > > I wonder if my ease of mind about how JKR handled the time-turner > ... arise from the fact that I've read little, if any, fantasy > literature and therefore have not seen time-travel in fiction > before (though I have seen movies with time-travel elements). > ...edited... > bboyminn: Well, I've already said it repeatedly. You only run into problems resolving PoA time travel if you start at 9pm and let your analysis travel back in time. JKR dropped clues that indicate that TimeTraveling Harry arrived in the timeline at 6pm and was therefore there to save himself. Cause and effect; cause-Harry arrived at 6pm, effect-he was there to save himself at 8pm. If you must start at 9pm when Harry started time traveling, then you have two cause-and-effects; cause#1-Harry travels back in time at 9pm, effect#1-Harry arrives in the same timeline at 6pm; cause#2-Harry arrives at 6pm, effect#2-Harry is available to save himself. >From the hints and clues in the story, time only marches forward. Six o'clock in the afternoon only occurs once. It's Harry and Hermione that occur twice at 6pm. As long as you try to work two timelines, or try to work backwards, you are doomed. As soon as you accept one forward moving timeline, your headaches go away. PoA time travel can be resolved within the span of that one book. It's the larger implication of Time Turners that has me worried. > Finally, Betsy wrote: > > > The big question I've had was how Dumbledore was aware of the > > possibility that Buckbeak escaped through time manipulation. I > > wonder if one of his many office gadgets alerts him to Time-Turner > > use (handy to regulate a student's use of such a device) and that > > cued him in to keep an eye out for irregularities. > Debbie/elfundeb: > > Dumbledore knew that Buckbeak had escaped because he had gone with > Macnair to Hagrid's hut for the execution. He also knew that > Sirius' only avenue of escape from the locked room was through the > window, which meant he had to escape by air. And he knew Hermione > had a time-turner. Dumbledore simply put two and two together ... > > Debbie bboyminn: On this last point, I agree with Debbie/elfundeb. I really don't buy the idea that all-wise all-knowing Dumbledore had this planned from the very beginning. I think Dumbledore is very preceptive and very wise; enlightened, but not all-knowing. Point of illustration, there are hints that Dumbledore can see through invisibility cloaks, but I'm not sure that's true. I think, again, that he is extremely preceptive and sees tiny details that other overlook as being too mundane to notice. Like the sag of the floor boards, movement of grass, the presences of body heat, sound of breathing, the scuff of a shoe, perhaps minor visual aberrations cause by the Cloak, etc.... To those who minds are clouded by the mundane, these little clues would pass unnoticed, but someone who's mind is clear and aware, like Dumbledore's, would certainly pick them up. Regarding the events of PoA, I think Dumbledore is picking up bits & pieces of information, and clues as he goes. It is only in the last moment, when it all falls together, that he realizes what must be done. Just a few thoughts. bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 09:38:37 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 09:38:37 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner (getting long here) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124111 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kgpopp" wrote: > ----------------------------------------------- > Now Kristen, > > ...edited... > > Okay ... lets pretend that at the present time and Harry, Ron & > Hermione are in Hagrid's cabin finding the rat. At this same time > (in the present) TT!Harry and TT!Hermione are ouside the cabin > arguing; ... So far so good everyone has a choice and events > happen based on those choices. > > Now current!harry, current!Ron and current!Hermione head back to the > castle and think that BB dies when they hear the swish. ... TT!Hary > and TT!Hermione ... save BB from being killed ... Again following > the theory everyone has choice ... No Paradox, history is not > changed. > > But now fast forward (w/o a time turner) to the hospital and > current!DD says 3 turns ought to do the trick .... ... At the same > time we also have TT!Harry & TT!Hermione heading back to the > hospital. > > So here is my question, now in the present do current!Harry and > current!Hermione have a choice about using the time turner? > ...edited... > bboyminn: Instead of looking at the hypothetical range of choices available to Current!Harry, let's look at the motivation for the choice they are likely to make based on the information they have available to them. Dumbledore is offerring them a chance to save Sirus, that's all they know. So logically what is Harry going to say, 'sorry, I've had a long night, I'll just have a nap and let Sirius die'? It's not fate, destiny, or the fickle hands of time that are forcing Harry to make his choice. Given that Harry doesn't want his newly found known innocent Godfather to die or go back to prison, what logical choice can Harry make? Naturally, any application of common sense, would push Harry to attempt to save Sirius. Hypothetically, Harry stands on the threshold of infinite choices, and one of those infinite choices is to take a nap and let Sirius die. But considering Harry in that moment, one must ask what logical and reasonable choice is Harry likely to make given the information he has available to him. In that sense, Harry doesn't have a choice. It's unthinkable that he wouldn't do everything he can to save Sirius. But it's not TT!Harry running down the hall at that very moment that is forcing his hand; it's love and human compassion that will not allow him to let Sirius die if he/Harry has the power to stop it. If you remove all variables but time travel, then you can say Harry doesn't have a choice, or that fate, or destiny, or whatever you want to call it, is forcing his choice. However, when you allow all the information into the equation, despite infinite theoretical possibilities, Harry has only one logical choice. A choice he freely and easily makes. > Kristen: > > My other shorter question is what about using time turners to go > forward in time? Does anyone think this is possible and if so how > does that impact the question of what is the present, what happened > is what happened? bboyminn: Sorry I won't be much help here. We can reasonably speculate that you can go forward in time, but we have no foundation for that speculation. All references and examples, direct or implied, in the books are related to traveling back in time. Steve/bboyminn From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Feb 7 10:45:31 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:45:31 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy . REPOST In-Reply-To: <20050206154112.99569.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124112 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > > >2. Harry blames himself for Sirius's death. Do you? > > Hell, yes. Harry and Sirius both. Hickengruendler: I snipped all your reasons why exactly you blamed them for what happened. Of course you have good points and it's hardly to argue them. But I still think that Sirius' death was the end of a chain of unwise actions and wrong decisions in desperate circumstances. Therefore I won't really blame anybody, except of course Bellatrix and Voldemort. It's the same as in the end of PoA, had Harry not spared Wormtail, Voldemort would never have returned. But still Harry is not to blame for Voldemort's return, as Dumbledore rightly says. > > Question: how did Sirius know > Neville's name? Hickengruendler: Sirius and the Longbottoms were in the Order together, and when seeing Moody's photo, Harry noticed that Neville looked like Alice. Maybe Sirius recognized Alice's son, because he looked like her. > >3. Dumbledore is sure that Harry IS the person the prophecy talks > >about. Are you? > > Yes. Seven book titles prove the point. Far too late now to change > that. Hickengruendler: But wouldn't it be *the* plot-twist nobody expects, if Voldie is not defeated by Harry, but by Neville or even somebody else? I think JKR could do this and still make the books and even the climax about Harry, if she does it cleverly. > > >5. Dumbledore blames himself for Sirius death. Do you? > > No. Hickengruendler: Neither do I, for the reason I already mentioned. But I do think that he's at least as responsible as Harry, because he could have told him what is in the DoM much earlier. > >9. Dumbledore tells us that Sibyll is the great granddaughter of > >Cassandra Trelawney. As we know from mythology, nobody believed > >Cassandra's predictions which turned out to be true. Do you think > >that JKR is hinting that Sibyll is a more gifted seer that > >Dumbledore thinks? Do you think that there is more to Sibyll than > >meets the eye? > > Well, she's a real Seer, and you can't control when or where she'll > pop out with a prophecy so that's why she's more or less permanently > incarcerated at Hogwarts. Beyond that she's a sad lonely woman who's > very insecure and vulnerable. Reminds of Blanche Dubois in Streetcar > Named Desire "depending on the kindness of strangers". Hickengruendler: I agree. I feel sorry for her and I'm glad that she has found her niche in Hogwarts. I think tormenting her was one of the worst things Umbridge did, because Sybill is so obviously helpless. > > If I was betting in a pool, I'd say Pettigrew, because sneaking > around and eavesdropping sounds like his kind of safe activity 16 > years ago. Hickengruendler: But the eavesdropper was caught, and Dumbledore knew this. Therefore if it was Wormtail, the Order must have known about it, and the Potters wouldn't have made him secret keeper. Hickengruendler From naama_gat at hotmail.com Mon Feb 7 12:31:36 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:31:36 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy . REPOST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124113 > > 2. Harry blames himself for Sirius's death. Do you? The MoM plot was not intended to kill Sirius. Anything could have happened then - any and all could have been killed or injured, or everybody could have survived. Sirius' death was not intended. However, certainly Harry acted wrongly in not studying Occlumency properly. More generally, Harry was wrong in that he didn't take other people's advice (DD, Hermione, Sirius, Lupin...) seriously. (More generally still, Harry's attitude in OotP exemplifies the old "pride comes before fall" adage, which ties in with the Christian thematics of the series, but that's a subject that needs much more space to develop than here.) > > 3. Dumbledore is sure that Harry IS the person the prophecy talks > about. Are you? Good question. Voldemort certainly marked Harry, and we do know that Harry received at least one power from Voldemort. Meta speaking, it would be a big letdown if the real hero of the Harry Potter books turns out to be Neville Longbottom. So yes, I would cautiously agree with DD here. > 5. Dumbledore blames himself for Sirius death. Do you? No, I don't. DD, with all his wisdom, is human. He cannot be held responsible for every action taken by every single person around him. > > 6. Voldemort did not choose the pureblood wizard like > Neville "which, according to his creed, is the only kind of wizard > worth being or knowing." > Does this quote make a difference in your view on whether Voldemort > himself is sufficiently interested in promoting "purebloodism" or > just in grabbing power, no matter who helps him achieve it? I don't see it as hypocritical. The similarities to Hitler are too striking for me to think them coincidental. Like Hitler (whose father was half Jewish), Voldemort's hatred of Muggles/Mudbloods is fanatical *because* of his hatred towards his father (deeper still, towards himself). > > 9. Dumbledore tells us that Sibyll is the great granddaughter of > Cassandra Trelawney. As we know from mythology, nobody believed > Cassandra's predictions which turned out to be true. Do you think > that JKR is hinting that Sibyll is a more gifted seer that > Dumbledore thinks? Do you think that there is more to Sibyll than > meets the eye? I think that JKR was careful to make Sibyl as ridiculous as possible. She is, in effect, saying that divination in all its forms and methods has no truth in it. There may be rare moments of true prophecy, but they just happen, and have nothing to do with the various techniques (tea leaf reading, palmistry, astrology, etc.) and the mumbo jumbo that accompany them. > > 10. Who is the infamous eavesdropper? Snape, Aberforth or Mundungus Fletcher. > > 11. Dumbledore tells Harry, "In the end, it mattered not that you > could not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you." > Does this mean that occlumency lessons were unnecessary in the > first place? I don't think so. DD may have feared Voldemort taking over Harry, and in that sense "it mattered not that you could not close your mind". However, although Harry expelled Voldemort's possession, Voldemort had managed to plant the false vision in him and almost got Harry and all of his friends killed. Naama From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Feb 7 13:25:42 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:25:42 -0000 Subject: Chapter 37 Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124114 "a_svirn" wrote: > The thing is ? in OotP DD clearly tries to recreate the situation > of the first book Which is to say ? to lure Voldemort straight into > the trap. Thus he is able to achieve two main goals 1) to keep him > occupied and concentrated onto something other than killing Harry > and generally wrecking havoc, and 2) to make wizarding community to > acknowledge the fact of Voldemort's return. Now "do you see the > flaw yet?". I personally could come up with a few. > > First, this plan places Harry into jeopardy, because sooner or > later Voldemort realises that he could use him and so he does. DD > sees this possibility before VOldemrt, but still goes for it. Yes, > he arranges Occlumency lessons, but still too many things could go > awry and so they do. Somehow I don't think that it has anything to > do with "too much caring". Rather that DD has no better plan. > > Second, the plan is dangerous not only for Harry. There are > innocent bystanders for one. SSSusan: I agree that the plan wasn't perfect; however, where I fault DD isn't for his plan but in his not keeping tabs on things better. DD's not ensuring that Harry had a deeper, greater understanding of what that plan was & his role in it, and his not ascertaining how Occlumency was progressing, are the two biggest examples of this for me. I know, I know -- we've gone 'round & 'round on this issue on the list -- but it is where *I* fault DD. I've been much more willing than many others here to be forgiving of DD overall, as I do think he's the best the white hats have... but he's not Superman. But if DD doesn't start clueing Harry in *bigtime* from here on in, then I'll be much more critical of him. IOW, I want him to have learned from his mistakes as much as we expect Harry to learn from his. Siriusly Snapey Susan From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 13:41:49 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 05:41:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Sirius (was: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050207134149.9848.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124115 >vmonte: >You are also right that Sirius was a grown man and he should know > better than to let Snape manipulate him, but Snape does manipulate > him several times in OOTP.< > > Betsy: > I don't know if Snape actually *manipulates* Sirius. He picks on > him, sure, and I suppose you could say that getting under Sirius's > skin is a form of manipulation. But I wonder if Sirius took a > course > of action that normally he wouldn't because of Snape's actions or > words. I guess if you think Snape *wanted* Sirius dead and did his > best to goad Sirius into taking an unacceptable risk (and, erm... > you probably do ) than yeah, Snape was manipulative. I think you're both underestimating the intensity of their determination to defeat Voldemort. Both Snape and Sirius understand the stakes and they're not going to let some petty name calling get in the way of that. The outburst and near-duel at Christmas time was an aberration in the OOTP relationship, not the norm. When the Weasleys enter the room, Arthur's reaction is shock: "What's going on here?" Not "Are you two at it AGAIN?" which it would have been had this kind of squabble happened before. Snape and Sirius have kept their rivalry intensely under wraps throughout the year to date. They're not total idiots. Of course, Harry sees this one episode and assumes that this is the norm. Throughout OOTP Harry has a hard time seeing the big picture and still views the anti-VOldemort effort as something personal on his part. I doubt very much that Snape wasted time goading Sirius when he sent word to the Order that Harry and company might be on their way to the MoM. And I doubt very much that Sirius wasted time getting all hurt and offended and fired up about it. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Feb 7 13:44:06 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:44:06 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124116 SSSusan wrote: > > > JKR actually muddies the waters a bit when she "allows" Hermione > > > to say, "There must be something that happened around now that > > > [DD] wants us to change." Similarly, Hermione's comment about > > > lots of witches & wizards having killed their past AND FUTURE > > > selves did a disservice to people's understanding. Debbie/elfundeb: > > Clearly these statements, and the one that "we're breaking one of > > the most important wizarding laws! Nobody's supposed to change > > time, nobody!" that cast so much doubt about what's really > > happening. It makes me wonder whether JKR fully understands the > > principles she uses. bboyminn: > This is a common fandom trap; one we all fall into. We are so > desperate the make sense of things that we take general statements, > and try to make them absolute. But people rarely if ever speak in > absolute statements. Much of what we get from what people say to us, > we draw from context. > > So, when Hermione wonders what they are suppose to 'change', she is > simply choosing the simpliest and most direct way of making her > meaning known within the context of the moment. > > She is simply wondering out loud what it is that Dumbledore wants > them to DO, and 'change' is a simple, shorthand, in context way of > saying it. Much easier to say 'change' in a general context, and > get on with it, than to sit for half an hour trying to determine > what would be the exactly correct and perfect word to use. > > There is no inconsistancy between Hermione's use of the > word 'change' in 'what are we suppose to change', and her use of > the word 'change' in 'we aren't suppose to change anything, it's > against the law'. The context is very different in those two > statements; one is general, the other is specific. SSSusan: I agree. In the part of my post which was snipped, I went on to say this: >>Rather similarly to the recent discussion of "willingly" vs. "unwillingly" in regards to Petunia, and how she could have unwillingly [grudgingly] but still willingly [voluntarily] taken Harry in, I think JKR is letting Hermione use a more "vernacular" definition of "change" [meaning, to cause something to be different than it would have been IF no TTing had happened], as opposed to the more standard sense in which most people would think of it [to cause something which DID happen to be REDONE in a different way].<< What I was "complaining" about when I said it was unfortunate the JKR had "muddied the waters" was that it would've been *easier* for people who do struggle with TT if she had found a word or term other than "change" for Hermione to have used. I can speak from experience that I had a hard time getting my mind wrapped around TTing, and much of the "You can--" "No, you can't--" "But she said--" disagreements we've seen over this topic might've been easier to have worked through if Hermione [JKR] had chosen a different word. I agree with you, Steve, about one use being general and one being more specific; I'm just saying it would've made things *easier* for the reader trying to figure out JKR's version of TT if she'd not used "change" in both senses. Finally, Betsy wrote: > > > The big question I've had was how Dumbledore was aware of the > > > possibility that Buckbeak escaped through time manipulation. I > > > wonder if one of his many office gadgets alerts him to Time- > > > Turner use (handy to regulate a student's use of such a device) > > > and that cued him in to keep an eye out for irregularities. Debbie/elfundeb: > > Dumbledore knew that Buckbeak had escaped because he had gone > > with Macnair to Hagrid's hut for the execution. He also knew > > that Sirius' only avenue of escape from the locked room was > > through the window, which meant he had to escape by air. And he > > knew Hermione had a time-turner. Dumbledore simply put two and > > two together ... bboyminn: > On this last point, I agree with Debbie/elfundeb. I really don't buy > the idea that all-wise all-knowing Dumbledore had this planned from > the very beginning. I think Dumbledore is very preceptive and very > wise; enlightened, but not all-knowing. SSSusan: Moi, aussi. I know that I've argued that DD *did* plan the whole first year SS obstacle course, but I don't believe he had this kind of plan in effect during third year. I think Debbie's right that DD simply fit together the pieces he saw. Siriusly Snapey Susan From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 14:37:55 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 14:37:55 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner (getting long here) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124117 Kristen wrote (and I am snipping most to get to the point I want to address): > So here is my question, now in the present do current!Harry and > current!Hermione have a choice about using the time turner? Can > they choose not to go? Can they go back 4 hours? Can they go back > 2? > > If they do use the time turner and only go back 3 hours everything > works out as it did in the now past (e.g BB is saved). But if they > don't choose to use the time turner then what happens? Do TT! Harry > and TT!Hermione suddently disappear from the hallway? Does bb die in > the now past? Ginger: Let me use a simpler example and we'll see if I can make myself clear. (I doubt it, but it's worth a shot.) About 45 minutes ago, I went in the other room and got a strawberry soda. About a half an hour ago I was "in the office". (Read loo). The strawberry soda is now on my desk. If I were to time-turn, hide in the spare room until I heard my self head to the loo, and sneak an orange soda into the room, would the srtawberry one still be there? Yes, it would, but the previous paragraph would have read "About 45 minutes ago.....is now on my desk. There was also an orange soda on my desk when I returned from the loo, and I have no frggin idea where on earth it came from." Since there is no orange soda on my desk, I can safely assume that I did not time-travel in any way that I have yet noticed. Had there been a soda appearing out of nowhere (note that I obeyed the part about not seeing myself) then I could conclude that I had time- travelled or that I was bonkers. Or that someone had broken into my house and brought me a soda. Or that I was having an Intellectual Interlude (read senior moment), and that I'd gotten it myself. I think that's why they have to be so careful when time-turning. Someone might notice that sort of inconsistancy. Back to HP: I think that if Harry and Hermione hadn't time-turned that Beaky would have indeed died. They wouldn't have been there to save him, so he'd have been still tied up when McNair went out. Sirius would have been kissed because Beaky would have been dead rather than flying to his rescue. Now for the part where headaches come in: Harry didn't survive because he time-turned, he time-turned because he survived. Harry could never have chosen to time-turn, because had he not done it, the first writing of events from his POV would have ended with the word "SLURP" and that would have been the end of the series. In other words, as Steve (bboymn) oft aptly puts it, time only happens once. TT Harry arrived at 6 pm. Original time Harry uses the time-turner because of that event in the past. Reverse cause and effect, as I believe it was Steve who said recently. We usually make our decisions *thinking* about what may happen in the futute, but it is the circumstances of the past that put us in the situation where we have to make the decision. In Harry's case, the past (an hour previous when he was saved) made him decide to time- turn, he just didn't realize that it was part of his decision. He only thought of Sirius and Beaky. I wonder if that's why DD said "If all goes well, you will be able to save *more than one* innocent life tonight. (Emphasis mine). Harry actually saves several, if you count those whom he saved from dementors. Well, how was that? Clear as mud? *sigh* I thought so. Hope it helped someone, Ginger From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 08:14:46 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 00:14:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] AW: JKR's Single Biggest Error In-Reply-To: <200502050947226.SM01080@devbox> Message-ID: <20050207081446.76078.qmail@web31107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124118 >Vivamus: The snake bit him four times, so he probably got a full load of venom from a 12+ foot long snake. Arthur would be dead long before anyone could get there. (To put it in perspective, there are some snakes that can kill an adult in a matter of seconds.) Arynn: Or the bites were "dry bites", Since you know alot about snakes you know that there are is such a thing. And since Voldy wanted to draw as little attention as possible to the attack, he wouldn't have injected venom, (assuming, of course, that he was possesing the snake at the time). If they found a body at the MoM dead from snake venom, that would send up warning flags, since we know snakes are associated with "dark magic". If there was no venom, then the bite could be explained away as coming from some other animal. We all know Fudge would put that spin on it. How do you imageing Fudge would explain away this headline: Employee found dead at MoM Poisonous snake escapes capture --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) From cleverestwitchofherage at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 12:02:08 2005 From: cleverestwitchofherage at yahoo.com (cleverestwitchofherage) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:02:08 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124119 I'm jumping in here--not sure exactly what I'm responding to--but want to add my 2 knuts to the discussion of time travel. What interests me is the fact that DD wants Harry and Hermione to HURRY to time travel back. If events can _really_ be changed, if the past can truly be altered, then couldn't they could go back at any time and change them? I apologize if this subject has already been explored to death, but although I have tried to read as many posts as possible, I can't read them all. Cleverwitch From geekessgoddess at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 06:04:55 2005 From: geekessgoddess at yahoo.com (Freud) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:04:55 -0000 Subject: One heavy tear Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124120 Discussion questions: >1. Do you think we will ever meet Phineas again? Absoutely. Phineas also has great style. (I hope his brother Phallic is with him...) >2. Harry blames himself for Sirius's death. Do you? Of course not. The followers of Voldemort are to blame for his death. Nevertheless, JKR stated his death served a divine purpose. I'm hanging onto that. >3. Dumbledore is sure that Harry IS the person the prophecy talks >about. Are you? If there is a prophecy child. I can't help but wonder if the whole prophecy thing is a setup engineered by Dumbledore to distract Voldemort from what Dumbledore plans to do to destroy him. >4. Harry complains to Dumbledore that Occlumency lessons were >weakening him. Dumbledore replies with his usual vow of trust for >Snape. Do you trust Snape? Heck no! He is a self-centered jackass! And so much fun... But, back to the plot... I don't believe Dumbledore trusts Snape either. I believe he pretends to trust Snape. Especially to Snape. Just like he did Lockhart, and Quirrel, and Filch and Trelawney, and all the other questionable characters he keeps at Hogwartz. I don't believe Hogwarts is about school for Dumbeldore. I believe he is attempting to create powerful wizards, who can stand up to evil, and be his successor. I think he is willing to expose the students to some disturbing characters in order to give them life experience. Thats why he allows Slytherin to exist. He is setting up conflict on purpose. Dumbledore seems to be able to read minds. So of course he knows that Snape is Harrys enemy. He knows everything. In my opinion, Dumbledore was using Snape as a boggart - he forced Harry to take occlumency with Snape so that Harry had to keep in the constant practice of defying an enemy. But he sure doesn't want Harry to know that. He wants Harry to rely on himself and no one else. More and more Dumbledore resists the position of comforting Harry. I think Dumbledore is deliberately forcing Harry to stand alone. JKR stated that life is not going to get any better for Harry. Surely more betrayels are coming. Harry can trust no one. Only Dumbledore knows how bad it will get because he defeated a dark wizard once before. >5. Dumbledore blames himself for Sirius death. Do you? I believe Dumbledore said he blames himself in order to ease the guilt that Harry was burdoned with. A psychological gambit that won't work, alas. >7. Do you agree with the possibility that Neville may turn out to >be the real prophecy child? No - but I think the followers of Voldemort may think so. I think Neville will volunteer to be used to distract the deatheaters from going after Harry. >10. Who is the infamous eavesdropper? A new character we haven't been introduced to yet. Someone from the mysterious past. >12. Do you think that this chapter was well done "plot wise"? As well as any other. All chapters leave maddening questions that can't be answered yet. >13. We see Dumbledore crying in this chapter for the first time in >the books. Despite the fact that a similar question was already >posted couple of days ago,(message 123486) I decided not to delete >mine. What did you feel when you read about Dumbledore's tear? I felt terribly sad for him. I think his tear represented the loss of his close relationship with Harry. Harry cannot trust him anymore and he knows it. I believe it frustrates him terribly to have to keep Harry at a distance. I believe his tear was also sign that the war with Voldemort is now at a critical point and many good wizards will die or worse than death, join Voldemort. I think Dumbledore has seen more tragedy than most, and therefore it takes a great deal of sorrow and stress to make Dumbledore cry. --Freud From meltowne at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 16:08:50 2005 From: meltowne at yahoo.com (meltowne) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:08:50 -0000 Subject: What DD knows (was *MY* confusion about the Time Turner) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124121 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > bboyminn: > > On this last point, I agree with Debbie/elfundeb. I really don't buy > the idea that all-wise all-knowing Dumbledore had this planned from > the very beginning. I think Dumbledore is very preceptive and very > wise; enlightened, but not all-knowing. > > Point of illustration, there are hints that Dumbledore can see through > invisibility cloaks, but I'm not sure that's true. I think, again, > that he is extremely preceptive and sees tiny details that other > overlook as being too mundane to notice. Like the sag of the floor > boards, movement of grass, the presences of body heat, sound of > breathing, the scuff of a shoe, perhaps minor visual aberrations cause > by the Cloak, etc.... To those who minds are clouded by the mundane, > these little clues would pass unnoticed, but someone who's mind is > clear and aware, like Dumbledore's, would certainly pick them up. That's exactly it. We know that wizards live among the Muggles. We know from OotP that the back entrance to the ministry is through a telephone box, and the entrance to St Mungoes is through the picture window of a vacant store, and Muggles don't "notice" Grimauld Place, even though it sits directly between 2 muggle houses. Why don't they see these things? Because they don't make sense to them given the information they have, so their brains eliminate the "noise" in their vision, and they don't see that which doesn't make sense - much like we deal with optical illusions. Some devices, such as an invisibility cloak change what we see. Perhaps there is some risidual effect that wizards could see if they were expecting to see someone beneeth a cloak. In most cases, the brain rationalizes what the wizard sees, but Dumbledore knows they might be a cloak, so he doesn't rationalize. Is this really that different from what we see of the boggarts? They make us believe they are something scary, yet if we rationalize that they are not that same thing, and visualize something to make them less scary (Snape is still Snape, but wearing a dress he is not so scary). Maybe the same applies to Dementors as well. Muggles don't see them because the very sight is so horrible their brains won't allow them to register what they see. Wizards can see them because while they are horrible, they have ways to deal with them. While Dementors use strong ametion against you (they feed off it), strong positive emotion can be used as a weapon against them. Yet another clue that Love is so important. I'm wondering if we will eventually learn that LV's existence is very close to that of a dementor - Are they a race of beings decended from someone or something that wanted immotaility at all cost? From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 16:14:22 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:14:22 -0000 Subject: Chapter 37 Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124122 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > The thing is ? in OotP DD clearly tries to recreate the situation of the first book Which is to say ? to lure Voldemort straight into the trap. Thus he is able to achieve two main goals 1) to keep him > occupied and concentrated onto something other than killing Harry > and generally wrecking havoc, and 2) to make wizarding community to acknowledge the fact of Voldemort's return. Now "do you see the flaw yet?". I personally could come up with a few. Tonks: I am intrigued with your idea that DD is trying to set a trap for LV. If this is true, which I am not sure that it is, what is DD's goal? I don't think that the reasons you mention here are strong enough to risk lives. How would LV be defeated if a *trap* were set for him? Tonks_op From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Mon Feb 7 16:27:47 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:27:47 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] AW: JKR's Single Biggest Error In-Reply-To: <20050207081446.76078.qmail@web31107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200502071127734.SM02196@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 124123 > >Vivamus: > The snake bit him four times, so he > probably got a full load of venom from a 12+ foot long snake. > Arthur would be dead long before anyone could get there. > > (To put it in perspective, there are some snakes that can > kill an adult in a matter of seconds.) > > Arynn: > Or the bites were "dry bites", Since you know alot about > snakes you know that there are is such a thing. And since > Voldy wanted to draw as little attention as possible to the > attack, he wouldn't have injected venom, (assuming, of > course, that he was possesing the snake at the time). Vivamus: Y'know, Arynn, I didn't even think of dry bites as a possibility in this case, because of the references to the venom in St. Mungo's. Of course, I was also thinking Nagini was an ordinary snake, perhaps with familial powers, but I think that's now been disproven conclusively (although I think Dungrollin, for one, still disagrees.) If she is a magical being, or a fully magical creature of some kind, anything is possible. In the dream, the Harry!LV!snake saw the man stirring, knew he had been spotted, and had to silence him. The snake rose, I think, specifically to kill Arthur, and it did plunge its fangs into him. I don't know how that could be done without it being obvious the attack came from a snake (or something snake-like, but with very different jaws.) No matter what, the result of that attack would be extremely suspicious. If Arthur lived, though, he could definitely say it was a big snake, which really would point to LV, so LV wanted to kill him. > If they found a body at the MoM dead from snake venom, that > would send up warning flags, since we know snakes are > associated with "dark magic". If there was no venom, then the > bite could be explained away as coming from some other > animal. We all know Fudge would put that spin on it. How do > you imageing Fudge would explain away this headline: > > Employee found dead at MoM > Poisonous snake escapes capture Vivamus: It would be hard for Fudge to explain, all right, but maybe LV was more concerned about completing his reconnaissance without an alarm being raised than about what Fudge might have to hush up afterwards. >From LV's perspective, though, a mysterious attack (and a dead OOtP member) is much better than a living eyewitness to Nagini wandering about the Ministry and attacking people. I just can't see any reason why the snake would dry-bite. LV had every reason to kill Arthur, and none to keep him alive. Vivamus From meltowne at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 16:36:08 2005 From: meltowne at yahoo.com (meltowne) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:36:08 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124124 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cleverestwitchofherage" wrote: > > > I'm jumping in here--not sure exactly what I'm responding to--but > want to add my 2 knuts to the discussion of time travel. > > What interests me is the fact that DD wants Harry and Hermione to > HURRY to time travel back. If events can _really_ be changed, if the > past can truly be altered, then couldn't they could go back at any > time and change them? The longer they wait to go back, the longer they have to go back - an perhaps they longer they have to wait to return to their normal time. DD is fairly confident about their ability to stay hidden for those 3 hours, but he may not be sure they can successfuly hide much longer than that. They would also need an opportunity to slip away without being noticed and return - agian without being noticed. If they wait, they will also have to take Ron, and adding a third person to their TT group might make it even more problematic. Also, the longer they wait, the less they might remember of events that just happened, placing them more at risk of discovery. I think DD has plenty of personal experience with a timeturner - I suspect he used to to go back and send Hagrid to get Baby Harry. He had to have Hagrid lie low for almost 24 hours because Hagrid showing up with the baby before that would cause a paradox - he might bring the baby to the "wrong" Dumbledore. I do need to go back to see when Hagrid told McGonagle where DD would be and when. Did he tell her before he went back to Godric's Hollow? If so, why did she need to see Dumbledore. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 16:47:06 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:47:06 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion questions, chapter 37 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124125 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: Tonks_op in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124043 << Harry ... had a choice to follow DD (an older, wiser person who Harry knew had his best interest at heart) >> Catlady said: According to me, Harry did not *know* that DD had his best interest at heart. We readers only know that from JKR interviews, not from the books. From the books, we are left in the same position as Harry: DD did X and did Y .. DD made me live with horrible Dursleys but then he brought me to Hogwarts, DD won't speak to me or make eye contact with me but then he saved me from the kangaroo court. Is he looking out for my best interests, with reasons that I don't understand for the unpleasant things he does to me, or is he a cold man planning to use me as a pawn in some scheme and the pleasant things he does are just to gain my trust? Tonks now: I disagree with you. My opinion of DD is not from JKR's interviews. I think that it is *very* clear in the books that DD is a good, wise and loving man that wants the best for Harry. And I also think that Harry knows that. Tonks_op From meltowne at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 16:59:01 2005 From: meltowne at yahoo.com (meltowne) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:59:01 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error In-Reply-To: <200502071127734.SM02196@devbox> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124126 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Vivamus" wrote: > >From LV's perspective, though, a mysterious attack (and a dead OOtP member) > is much better than a living eyewitness to Nagini wandering about the > Ministry and attacking people. > > I just can't see any reason why the snake would dry-bite. LV had every > reason to kill Arthur, and none to keep him alive. Maybe it wasn't LV that cause the dry bite, but Harry. Maybe Harry sresence was just enough t keep the snake from killing Arthur. Maybe Harry saved Arthur not just by alerting Dumbledore, but also by preventing a venomous attack - maybe the little bit of venom they speak of at the hospital was residual. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Feb 7 17:03:09 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:03:09 -0000 Subject: JKR's Single Biggest Error In-Reply-To: <200502071127734.SM02196@devbox> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124127 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Vivamus" wrote: > I just can't see any reason why the snake would dry-bite. LV had every reason to kill Arthur, and none to keep him alive. > Pippin: I agree that LV could easily have killed Arthur if he'd wanted to. He had a very good reason to leave Arthur alive. He had just become aware of the Harry link and knew that Dumbledore would want to block it. He knew Harry would resist closing off the link if he thought it had saved Arthur. It doesn't matter who Athur tells about the snake, since the Ministry could claim that the snake was Imperius'd by Sirius. Pippin From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Mon Feb 7 17:24:21 2005 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:24:21 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussions: Chapter 37 - The lost prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124128 > bboyminn: > It could very well be that, in the end, it will be something that > Neville does that is the key to defeating Voldemort, or maybe a > combination of Harry and Neville. We certainly know that Neville has a > much bigger role in this story that was first implied, and I can't > believe he is in this story for no good reason. > > Without a doubt, Harry is vitally important, but I don't believe > /Harry/ is the whole story. Totally agree. Neville is too much of a sad sack to have no further purpose, especially since he's the other possible prophesy boy. I just keep remembering him saying "Why's it always me". I fear for Neville in the end. If anyone is sacrificed to kill Voldimort I have a sneaky suspicion it's going to be Neville. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 19:43:05 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:43:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050207194305.31484.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124129 --- horridporrid03 wrote: > And then JKR adds in the "mudblood" word. And, as you point out, > Nora, having Snape use that particular > word says something about his background and ideology, just as > James' dislike of that word says something about his. Magda: It also tells us something about Snape's tactics. He's not addressing Lily, he's talking to James: "...mudblood like *her*." He's trying to get James riled up so that he loses his temper (much like James successfully gets Snape to lose HIS temper) so that James will get careless and make mistakes. Doesn't work, but points for learning from his earlier mistakes and trying to use them against an opponent. > Betsy: > But is JKR really saying, "Don't worry about it folks. Snape's > still > a baddie, James is still good. Please ignore everything leading up > to this point!" ? It doesn't make sense. Not when she's worked so > hard to turn the readers *away* from James and Sirius in the scene > setup. There must be more to it than can simply be judged by who > will say "mudblood" and who won't. And I wonder if JKR is > suggesting that perhaps there is more to a person than their family > background. Magda: Or more to being a "good guy" than just hanging out with a particular set of friends. You've got to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. I think James learned this eventually; I doubt Sirius ever really did. You've got to act like a good guy even to people who aren't the ones you like; what's the point of just being a good guy to friends or strangers who don't bug you? Slightly off-topic: Those of you who like to quote multiple posters and insert your replies for hugely long posts might want to know that Yahoo truncates them after a certain point. So people like me (and increasing numbers of other readers on this list) can only respond to the first half of long posts. Just FYI. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 20:19:53 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:19:53 -0000 Subject: Chapter 37 Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124130 >>SSSusan: >I know, I know -- we've gone 'round & 'round on this issue on the list -- but it is where *I* fault DD. I've been much more willing than many others here to be forgiving of DD overall, as I do think he's the best the white hats have... but he's not Superman. But if DD doesn't start clueing Harry in *bigtime* from here on in, then I'll be much more critical of him. IOW, I want him to have learned from his mistakes as much as we expect Harry to learn from his.< Betsy: I agree with you SSSusan, and I also hope that there is a change in how Dumbledore treats Harry in the last two books. I strongly suspect there will be, and Harry will find himself much more included in various plans, and kept up with current information. I think that if this is the case, Harry will be fairly quick to forgive Dumbledore any perceived wrongs. I think if Dumbledore *doesn't* change his behavior (which will be a surprise, because he seemed to fully understand his errors) than Harry will still resent being kept in the dark and his relationship with Dumbledore will sour. But, I do think Dumbledore will change. Betsy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 20:28:19 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:28:19 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: <20050207194305.31484.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124131 Magda: Or more to being a "good guy" than just hanging out with a particular set of friends. You've got to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. I think James learned this eventually; I doubt Sirius ever really did. You've got to act like a good guy even to people who aren't the ones you like; what's the point of just being a good guy to friends or strangers who don't bug you? Alla: Very true in theory. What if whatever information we will learn in the future books will tell us that Snape was not just "bugging" Sirius, James, Remus, any one of them? What if he was actively trying to wrong them somehow? Just my speculation, but the more I think about Severus possibly staring at question 10 of the exam, the more it makes sense to me. Again, what I said many many times - what James and Sirius do in pensieve scene IS disgusting without any backstory, I just don't think that we have a complete picture yet. Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 21:20:59 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 21:20:59 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124132 >>Alla: >Very true in theory. What if whatever information we will learn in the future books will tell us that Snape was not just "bugging" Sirius, James, Remus, any one of them? What if he was actively trying to wrong them somehow? >Just my speculation, but the more I think about Severus possibly staring at question 10 of the exam, the more it makes sense to me. >Again, what I said many many times - what James and Sirius do in pensieve scene IS disgusting without any backstory, I just don't think that we have a complete picture yet.< Betsy: Even if Snape was studying the questions and putting two and two together regarding Lupin (which I honestly find highly doubtful - but it could be), there's nothing to the scene that suggests James and Sirius are doing a preemptive strike in an attempt to protect Lupin. In other words, the timing of the attack would be pure coincidence and the reason behind the attack still fairly disgusting. The reader can pick up from the scene that there is a history to the enmity, and the reader can also pick up that Snape is not an easy target. I got the impression that James and Sirius felt there was a *need* to have two sets of eyes on him. But the motive behind the attack still appears questionable (certainly unheroic) so even with a clearer understanding of the history, James and Sirius still come off fairly badly in this one instance. IMO at least. Betsy From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Mon Feb 7 21:22:13 2005 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 21:22:13 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy . REPOST In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124133 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" wrote: I agree that neither Harry not Voldemort are at fault for Sirius' death, but both would do well to try to learn from their mistakes which contributed (through no fault of their own) to what happened. > > Question: how did Sirius know > > Neville's name? I assume because he saw him at the train station with his grandmother when he accompanied them in his dog disguise. He would have recognized the grandmother. He may also have seen him at school when he hounded the grounds as a dog in PoA. > > >3. Dumbledore is sure that Harry IS the person the prophecy talks > > >about. Are you? > Hickengruendler: > > But wouldn't it be *the* plot-twist nobody expects, if Voldie is not > defeated by Harry, but by Neville or even somebody else? I think JKR > could do this and still make the books and even the climax about > Harry, if she does it cleverly. Well, obviously it would not be such a surprising plot twist since so many have suggested it. But in my opinion it would ruin the story and the main point that JKR is trying to convey - namely that people's choice determine their fate. Voldemort chose his opponent when he marked Harry. Whether that was preordained for other yet unknown reasons, or the result of his own prejudices, does not really matter. At that point Voldemort's adversary was decided, and since then has been primed for the final confrontation. Harry has faced challenges from early on (beginning with the Dursleys abuse), that no one else at Hogwarts has, certainly not Neville with his fairly sheltered childhood - not counting parent's disaster of course, but that happened when he was a baby, and relegated to annual or bi-annual visits. Neville has not had to face any of Harry's challenges up until the end of book 5. He proved himself level headed in battle and very loyal, but a classic number 2 - whereas Harry has certainly distinguished himself as a natural born leader in this book. I believe that Neville will play an important role in the fight against Voldemort and his DE's, but that his role will be in defeating Bellatrix - each will take on their own parents' attackers. Harry and Neville are the only two characters in the books who seem consumed by defeating evil. Hermione and Ron have other goals in mind (Hermione's pursuit of social justice to all and academic success, Ron's desire for personal fame, their developing romantic relationship, ...). Ginny is into dating, etc. Of the kids, only Harry and Neville feel the fight on a personal level. So Neville will be Harry's number 2 in the fight, in my opinion... Salit From cdayr at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 21:31:37 2005 From: cdayr at yahoo.com (cdayr) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 21:31:37 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124134 > wrote: > > > > > > What interests me is the fact that DD wants Harry and Hermione to > > HURRY to time travel back. If events can _really_ be changed, if > the > > past can truly be altered, then couldn't they could go back at any > > time and change them? wrote: > The longer they wait to go back, the longer they have to go back - an > perhaps they longer they have to wait to return to their normal > time. DD is fairly confident about their ability to stay hidden for > those 3 hours, but he may not be sure they can successfuly hide much > longer than that. They would also need an opportunity to slip away > without being noticed and return - agian without being noticed. If > they wait, they will also have to take Ron, and adding a third person > to their TT group might make it even more problematic. Also, the > longer they wait, the less they might remember of events that just > happened, placing them more at risk of discovery. > cdayr now: Howdy! I'm delurking to briefly add to this fascinating discussion-- I agree with you about all of these motivations for H/H to hurry and turn back in time. However, I've also always believed that they have to hurry because they have to save Sirius *before* he gets soul-sucked in current time. Once a definitive event like a death or a soul-sucking happens, it does not seem to be able to be changed in HP-brand time-travel. Since time only happens once, if you die, you are dead, no matter who has time-turned back and is living that time over again. So, if H/H sit around and chit-chat in current time for too long, the dementors will arrive, destroy Sirius, and he will be lost forever. Therefore, they must time-turn and get Sirius out before the dementors get to him, or there will be no saving him at all, no matter how many times they time-turn back. What do you think? -cdayr From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 21:42:34 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 21:42:34 -0000 Subject: Nagini at the Ministry (was: ...Biggest Error) In-Reply-To: <20050206221830.916.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124135 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > > > > Vivamus (snipped): > > > 1. No snake that has ever lived, AFAIK, could chomp on someone > > > like the snake that bit Arthur Weasley. She describes the snake > > > splintering bones with it's bite, which snakes' jaws are not > > > physically capable of doing. > bboyminn: Quick note to Vivamus; I think you meant to say, no snake currently living rather than no snake that has ever lived. Is it really true that there never was a pre-historic snake or pre-historic snake-like creature who ever lived that could break bones with a bite? Also, keep in mind that this takes place in a world where Dragons, Sphinx, and Hypogriffs are common. Can we firmly say the no mythological creature fits the bill for Nagini? Also note that there is a form of mythical legless dragon know as a wyrm. Could Nagini be this type of Dragon? Further, we are dealing with a magical world; a world in which hedges grow 30ft high in a month, where pumpkins grow to the size of garden sheds, where brooms fly, where people apparate, cloaks make you invisible. Can we really say that Voldemort hasn't taken a common bushmaster (or other snake), and charmed and enchanted it into a more formitable snake? Or that Voldemort didn't interbreed a muggle snake with a magical reptile (or two magical reptiles), to create his own super-snake? > Magda: > > Personally, the questions I want to know are: > > 1. Why was Nagini (assuming it was Nagini) in the MoM at all? > > and > > 2. Why did it bite Arthur at all? > > If Nagini was there to take Voldemort to get the prophecy then it > was pretty darn stupid to bite a sleeping guard like that. ... > > Magda bboyminn: I don't think Voldemort was there to steal the Prophecy in that moment; he was there to perform reconnaissance, to get a better look at what he was dealing with at the Ministy and in the Hall of Prophecies. Voldemort could not personally go to the Ministry with any reasonable degree of stealth, so he piggy-backed a ride inside Nagini. Certainly a snake in the night is far less noticable, more quiet, and can sneak through smaller spaces than a full grown wizard who is pale as a ghost and looks like a lizard-man. So Voldemort via Nagini was there for a first-hand look at what he was up against in getting his hands on the Prophecy. Voldemort would not likely risk reverting back to his (semi-) human form to take the Prophecy from the shelf and carry it out himself. So, unless Nagini was able to swallow the Prophecy and carry it out that way, Voldemort was just looking. Unfortunately, when Voldie!snake came slithering down the hallway, he encounted the unexpexted presence of a guard. Even more unfortunately, that guard woke up and saw Voldie!snake just as it was passing. Voldie!snake now had no choice but to either defend himself, or be cursed by the guard. Voldie!snake attacked the guard and left before it/he could complete his mission. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 21:53:14 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 21:53:14 -0000 Subject: Obstacle Course in PS/SS (was: Confusion about the TT. DD knows everything) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124136 >>SSSusan: >But my notion, in contrast to Betsy's, is that DD *did* set this whole "obstacle course" up for Harry [and let's say possibly for Hermione/Ron]. Why do I think this? >First, I think the fact that the tasks were all solvable by three FIRST-YEAR Hogwarts students -- two of whom have just found out they're witch/wizard -- implies that they weren't all *that* difficult. I believe this was intentional on DD's part. [Wait--stay with me here!] >Second, the *reason* I think DD set up these tasks was to test Harry's mettle, to find out about Harry -- what kind of kid is he? how brave? how resourceful? how committed to helping others? >I think DD wants to find out just how much Harry can handle. And I think he was THRILLED with what he discovered. >Think about it. DD had a perfect set-up to do this. EVEN if the initial obstacles were "easy" to get past, there was that final obstacle DD set up -- the Mirror of Erised. DD knew Harry had encountered it, knew what it did & how it worked. He also knew that if a bad guy got to the mirror, he WOULDN'T be able to get past it. >Why? Because that person would want to USE the stone for his own purposes. Whereas, assuming Harry got that far, DD was hoping that Harry *would* be able to get the stone precisely because he WOULDN'T want to use it [for himself]; he'd just want to stop the bad guy from getting it [which isn't "using" it in my book].< Betsy: But this is where the "Dumbledore set it up" theory starts to fall apart, IMO. Because without Harry being there, Quirrell had *no* chance at getting to the Stone. There was no way he could have pulled it from the mirror, so the Stone was never at risk of being stolen. HOWEVER, throw Harry into the mix, and suddenly Quirrell *can* get the Stone. By using Harry, the Stone is out of the mirror and in the pocket of a first year and well within Quirrell's grasp. Which, to my mind, is a serious hole in the plan. >>SSSusan: >It's really a nifty little plan of DD's. Find out about Harry's nature, his inclinations, his skills & talents, his resourcefulness. But build in that ingenious protection at the end which would prevent the evil guy from getting the stone even if Harry doesn't get through it all.< Betsy: But again, Harry's very presence does away with the protective measure of the mirror. The Stone is suddenly accessable where before it was impossible to reach. The risk is too great, IMO, to justify a simple test of character set-up. And two students very nearly died within the obstacle course. Ron was hit hard enough by the White Queen to get knocked out, and Harry was left in a three day coma. Compared to other adventures Dumbledore either sets in motion or winks at, this one seems awfully inexcusable. >>SSSusan: >The only thing I truly believe DD didn't count on was being called away as part of a ruse. I do believe [well, I want to believe!] that DD wouldn't have left Harry so *totally* on his own on purpose. Rather, I think he planned to be handy, to help out if Harry needed it, and I do think he was truly shaken by how close he came to NOT being handy.< Betsy: And this points to another hole, IMO, because *if* Dumbledore had set this up as a test for Harry and co., I can't imagine McGonagall not being informed, nor can I imagine Dumbledore leaving for an overnight trip with only a few days left to the term and Harry still not through the obstacle course. >>SSSusan: >But I think he was *very* pleased with what he found out about Harry! < Betsy: This part I do agree with, Dumbledore was quite pleased, but in an after the fact, cold sweats and nervous knees finally gone, kind of way. Harry nearly died. I can't see Dumbledore taking that big a risk. He's not that crazy. I think the test, or extra lesson thing that Dumbledore did in Harry's first year was Norbert. I cannot imagine that Dumbledore would have missed Hagrid having a baby dragon on premises. The book tells us that, "Hagrid hadn't been doing his gamekeeping duties because the dragon was keeping him so busy." (PS paperback p. 236) I doubt Dumbledore would have missed Hagrid not doing his job. I think he stepped back to allow Harry a chance to handle it, and did not step in when so many points were lost, because that was part of the learning experience. Was Harry willing to take a hit to help a friend? It's still a pretty big task for a first year to handle, but it doesn't risk anyone's life. In your other post, SSSusan, you pointed out that no one knew about Voldemort being attached to Quirrell's head, and you're right. To clarify what I meant, I'm sure that Dumbledore and co. suspected that whoever was after the Stone was an agent of Voldemort's. So if Dumbledore had set up the obstacle course with Harry in mind, he knew he'd be sending a first year in to take on a Death Eater strong enough to break into Gringotts. Again - the risk, even without Voldemort's direct involvment (which I agree was a surprise for everyone), would have been massive. Betsy, who hopes she didn't oversnip SSSusan's post! From manawydan at ntlworld.com Mon Feb 7 22:44:41 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 22:44:41 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's Worst Memory References: <1107743999.21896.64864.m23@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000a01c50d66$9e20c460$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 124137 Kemper wrote: > Snape's Worst Memory. > In this memory we see Snape apparently friendless (he doesn't discuss > the test with any buddies he keeps to himself) and we see Snape is > humiliated and the only one that comes to his defense is not from his > house and a Mudblood to boot. These are weapons handed to the Dark > Lord. I've wondered if it could actually be the other way round - that Lily's intervention at that point set the chain of events in motion that caused Snape to desert the Dark Lord for Dumbledore when he learned that Lily was to be betrayed and killed. But I also think you've put your finger very much on the spot with the word "humiliated". It seems as though dignity is the most important thing to the young Snape: losing it was insupportable. > I'm thinking that Snape's worst memory is the one the Dark Lord used > to manipulate a young, emotional Snape into giving the Dark Lord what > he wanted. Whatever it was, (loyalty, potions, something else) it > eventually led Snape into the inner circle. > Now... is it his worst memory because of the events that occured or > because of the events that followed? Was Snape ever emotional in that way I wonder? Possibly it was something which led him to control his emotions. Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Mon Feb 7 22:47:04 2005 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:47:04 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussions: Chapter 37 - The lost prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124138 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Casey" wrote: > Totally agree. Neville is too much of a sad sack to have no further > purpose, especially since he's the other possible prophesy boy. Well, obviously Neville being the backup will play a role in the plot (hopefully not as a real backup!). > I > just keep remembering him saying "Why's it always me". I fear for > Neville in the end. If anyone is sacrificed to kill Voldimort I have > a sneaky suspicion it's going to be Neville. The "Why is it always me" is movie contamination. In the books he never says it. The only ones who say/think something like that are Hagrid and Harry (in GoF after the goblet chooses Harry) - in relation to Harry, not Neville. In many ways Neville's life is a mirror of Harry's, but on a smaller scale - his parents attacked by a Voldemort follower, rather than Voldemort himself; mentally incapacitated rather than dead; raised by relatives who belittle him to some extent but love him - rather than completely despise and abuse; discovering late that he can do magic, rather than never even hearing that it exists; progressing from a clumsy scared boy to standing up to the trio in SS, rather than heading off to face Voldemort; despised by Snape, but never to the extent of Snape actually sabotaging him in his school work; I could go on. So I think this pattern will continue. In the end it will be Harry who somehow defeats Voldemort (with help of course). Neville will also score a major victory, but not against Voldemort. My bet is on Bellatrix. Salit From ms-tamany at rcn.com Mon Feb 7 23:34:13 2005 From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:34:13 -0500 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4207B4A5.24828.22F1053@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 124139 cdayr wrote: > Howdy! I'm delurking to briefly add to this fascinating > discussion-- > > I agree with you about all of these motivations for H/H to hurry > and turn back in time. > However, I've also always believed that they have to hurry > because they have to save Sirius *before* he gets soul-sucked > in current time. Once a definitive event like a death or a > soul-sucking happens, it does not seem to be able to be > changed in HP-brand time-travel. Since time only happens once, > if you die, you are dead, no matter who has time-turned back and > is living that time over again. So, if H/H sit around and chit-chat in > current time for too long, the dementors will arrive, destroy Sirius, > and he will be lost forever. Therefore, they must time-turn and get > Sirius out before the dementors get to him, or there will be no > saving him at all, no matter how many times they time-turn back. > > What do you think? > > -cdayr To which Tammy Rizzo says: Howdy, cdayr! Glad to have you on board. :-) I would say, "I think you're absolutely, one hundred percent, dead-on correct", but then the listelves would probably make me iron my ears for a one-liner post, which is not a pleasant experience. I do like the way you put it here, though -- the 'HP-brand time-travel'. That makes this way of looking at time travel very specific. This (however Jo meant it to work) is the way time travel works with a Time Turner in the Potterverse. It really doesn't matter whether or not Jo's time travel is consistant or inconsistant with how OTHER writers have presented the various and sundry uses, misuses, and abuses of time travel. I've read hundreds of time- travel books over the decades, many done very well, some simply awful, but most were at least adequate. There are so many ways of presenting time travel (you can change things, or you can't change things, or you can only change very small things; anything you change makes a whole new timeline, or the timeline is elastic and can handle any change, or each change splits off an alternate branch of the main timeline, etc), that, unless one learns to handle each version on its own, one can quickly develop an aversion to time travel stories. Anyway, the question here is, "Is Jo consistant with her time travel within her Potterverse (allowing for reasonable Flints since we know maths is not her strong point)?" I, for myself, think that she is (reasonably) internally consistant. Leaving aside the dire warnings from McGonnagle (which I'm sorry to say, I had forgotten came from McG, but then, it was a while since I'd even HAD my books -- they were on loan to a neighbor and I just got them back, so my apologies about that faulty remeniscence in my first post) about not changing anything (which I can easily believe were 'hyped up' to ensure that Hermione took them seriously -- after all, she's spent two years hanging around with a couple of blokes with a 'certain disregard for the rules'), I saw nothing in the course of Harry and Hermione's second trip through that evening that seemed at all out of place for a 'time only happens once' version of time travel. The TT seems quite straightforward -- while Time flows onward like a river, a Time Turner transports the user backwards to an earlier moment, from which he or she (or they) can observe (or participate in) events from a separate and different perspective. It does not 'reverse the flow of Time', which WOULD make all sorts of changes possible. However . . . I believe that the bell jar in the DoM *DOES* actually reverse Time. They seem to have captured Time in a bottle, there. At least, a small piece of Time. I'm wondering if they'd ever be able to enlarge the field or whatever that is holding that yo-yo- ing bit of Time, and with that tool, go back and change things. I doubt if Jo will go that route (she's gotta leave SOME mysteries in the Department of Mysteries, after all), but that's how I see the bell jar, as some isolated eddy in the flow of Time, where it seems to bounce back and forth, independent of the rest of Time around it. I see nothing wrong with that, either, though -- after all, it's *MAGIC*! OOooooooh. ;-) *** Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at rcn.com Want to back-up your expensive DVDs? Check out DVD Wizard Pro: http://www.dvdwizardpro.com/idevaffiliate/idevaffiliate.php?id=398 Want to earn a Sony Vaio for only $5? Check out EZ Laptop: http://www.ezlaptop.com/index.php?ref=8574 From jferer at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 00:19:17 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 00:19:17 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124140 Maddy:"If only we had had a chance to see Sirius's. Though, I highly doubt his Patronus would have been a great big dog. Why? Well, Harry's Patronus has to do with his father, and since a Patronus has to do with protection, something associated with his parents who died trying to protect him, it makes sense." But Harry didn't know that his father's Patronus was a stag; Harry didn't even yet know that "Prongs" was his father. Harry doesn't learn for certain that his father's Animagic form was a stag until after he's cast his stag Patronus. He only hears that his father was Prongs in the Shrieking Shack: Lupin:"... And that's how we came to write the Marauder's Map, and sign it with our nicknames. Sirius is Padfoot. Peter is Wormtail. James was Prongs." "What sort of animal --?" Harry began, but Hermione cut him off." Later, Harry learns for sure, as Lupin is packing his bags: "Harry told Lupin what had happened. When he'd finished, Lupin was smiling again... Lupin again: "Yes, your father was always a stag when he transformed," he said. "You guessed right... that's why we called him Prongs." So I think Harry's stag Patronus is part of his father's heritage, not a memory. Excellent. Maddy:"This brings me to another question, though. Do you think Patroni are always animals? Or can they be something else?" I bet they are animals, a reflection of yourself, like one of Pullman's daemons. Humankind has likened itself to other animals forever, and wizards are very human. It would seem a protector that wasn't a living thing wouldn't have the same punch. A magical creature, perhaps, or even a mythical one? Maybe, but whatever it is clearly comes from the person casting the spell, so it has to be something that's part of that person. Jim Ferer From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 00:35:30 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 00:35:30 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124141 cdayr wrote: "I agree with you about all of these motivations for H/H to hurry and turn back in time. However, I've also always believed that they have to hurry because they have to save Sirius *before* he gets soul-sucked in current time." Del replies: I thought so too, at first. But after reflection, I realise that it doesn't have to be that way. As long as Harry and Hermione end up Time-Turning, then their doubles *are* roaming around anyway. So even if they had Time-Turned a couple of hours later, they still could have saved Sirius. Let's say that they don't TT in the hospital wing, and after all the commotion about Sirius having disappeared, they head off to Gryffindor Tower, about a couple of hours later. But DD stops them on the way, and sends them back 5 hours. So they do everything they did in PoA, except that after saving Sirius, they hide and wait for two hours, and then discreetly head off to Gryffindor Tower. See, it still works! So I guess the reason for DD being in such a hurry is indeed security. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 00:48:59 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 00:48:59 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner (getting long here) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124142 Ginger wrote: "Now for the part where headaches come in: Harry didn't survive because he time-turned, he time-turned because he survived." Del adds: Even worse : Harry may have survived because he broke the main rule of Time-Turning : "Don't be seen". That Harry is something special indeed :-) On his first use of a TT, he demonstrates that the rule "Don't be seen" can actually be counter-productive :-D ! Del From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Tue Feb 8 01:26:11 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 20:26:11 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione's Patronus Message-ID: <198.38214ee9.2f396f33@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124143 In a message dated 2/7/2005 4:31:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, jferer at yahoo.com writes: Maddy:"This brings me to another question, though. Do you think Patroni are always animals? Or can they be something else?" ********************************** Chancie: I believe they are USUALLY animals, but the only exception I can recall is Rita Skeeter. A beetle isn't exactly an animal, but I suppose some could argue that it could still be considered one. Regardless, I don't see Partoni (is that the correct plural form?) as being human-like vampires, merpeople, centaurs, hags, werewolfs, well, you get the point. I also would include house elves, and gobblins in this eventhough they aren't exactly human-like. I see them more like "simple minded" creatures since that's basically what we've seen (I say simple minded meaning animals, bugs and the like). Does anyone else have any ideas? Chancie~who hopes her daughter gets over being sick soon because she hates to see her feeling badly! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kempermentor at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 01:49:34 2005 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 01:49:34 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Patronus In-Reply-To: <198.38214ee9.2f396f33@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124144 > Maddy: "This brings me to another question, though. Do you think > Patroni are always animals? Or can they be something else?" > > > > ********************************** > > Chancie: > > I believe they are USUALLY animals, but the only exception > I can recall is Rita Skeeter. A beetle isn't exactly an animal, > but I suppose some could argue that it could still be considered > one. >Regardless, I don't see Partoni (is that the correct plural form?) > as being human-like vampires, merpeople, centaurs, hags, werewolfs, > well, you get the point. I also would include house elves, and gobblins in > this eventhough they aren't exactly human-like. I see them more like > "simple minded" creatures since that's basically what we've seen (I say > simple minded meaning animals, bugs and the like). Does anyone > else have any ideas? Kemper now: I'm going to argue that a beetle is exactly an animal but not exactly a mammal or bird which is what we've seen in the books. JKR has said that DD's patronus is a phoenix... I would not call this form "simple minded". I can't see myself eating bar-b-que phoenix wing, but I could easily chow down on some elk jerky. Maybe Neville's patronus is Mimbulus mimbletonia, attacking incoming dementors with Stinksap. Other thoughts... I wonder if there's a marine time patronus or animagus. Maybe the forms of patroni and animagi are land-based like witches and wizards. And one more... I don't know if a witch/wizard's potential animagi 'form' is the same as their patronus 'form' but I suspect so. From sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk Mon Feb 7 19:51:47 2005 From: sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk (sandra87b) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 19:51:47 -0000 Subject: TT altering DD's memory. Ouch again! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124147 What just occurred to me about Dumbledore's role is "Would he remember advising H&H to alter the past, when he meets them AFTER they'd done it?" And if he doesn't, which in my view he shouldn't, then would he have any knowledge of the evening's events? In which case, he'd remember one series of events leading up to when Harry and Hermione went back and interfered, and then have to get his head around a different outcome as a result of their interference. I'd say he'd have a right headache. He'd remember WHAT, exactly? To spell it out: immediately after advising H&H to turn back time, he leaves the hospital wing. As far as he's concerned, he meets them again outside the door and apparently has no idea why he's meeting them again - yet he's prepared not to question what they've been up to. And following the thought through, wouldn't the altering of the past have a bearing on the injuries sustained by Ron? And while I'm on this subject, why don't Harry and Hermione go back to when they lost Pettigrew and trap him? Then Sirius would have his day in court, and all would be well with the world... I think? And don't forget folks, although we've all been focusing on Harry saving himself, there would also have been a timeline where Hermione wasn't there to throw stones at the window by the pumpkin patch. Then it all becomes different. This is entirely down to JKR only telling us the AFFECTED timeline, and ignoring the original one. It just doesn't work, and I feel disapponted at such an oversight/avoidance. Sandra From jmrazo at hotmail.com Mon Feb 7 20:58:42 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:58:42 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124148 There has been a lot of talk about Dumbledore and what he should/did do to interfere in Harry's life. But I was thinking the other day about his larger role as the leader of the Order of the Phoenix. And it struck me that the Order was losing the last war right up until Voldemort blasted himself into atoms by attacking the Potters. So my question is, is Dumbledore really the best person to be leading this war? The order of the Phoenix independant of the government and you would think that would give them a lot of leeway to act since they don't have to act within the law. But Dumbledore doesn't seem to be doing much in the way of fighting back. He seems to be running a very passive, reactive war. They know who a large number of death eaters are but don't seem to do anything to them. Why not? Even if no one but harry can kill Voldemort, the Order can still cut the legs out from his support to weaken him it make it easier for Harry. I realize that a large part of it is because if DD was winning the war Harry wouldn't be the hero of the story, but within the confines of the narrative, why is DD doing such a poor job of prosecuting the war? He is clearly personally powerful but tactics he uses seem to be lacking any sort of aggressive push towards the Death Eaters. Is it simply that he has more honor than his opponents and if so is that really the person who should be leading it? I'm anxious to hear your thoughts phoenixgod2000 From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Tue Feb 8 03:14:39 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 03:14:39 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124149 >1. Do you think we will ever meet Phineas again? What do you think >about the possibility of the network of portraits playing even >larger role in the later battles? Probably so. I think the portraits are already part of Dumbledore's information network, and also part of Hogwarts' defenses. Of course, there may be another side to such a network: Suppose other portraits, with different loyalties, have the same abilities and access, even to Hogwarts ... >2. Harry blames himself for Sirius's death. Do you? In common with several other people on this list, I blame only two people for Sirius's death: Bellatrix (directly) and Voldemort (indirectly). >3. Dumbledore is sure that Harry IS the person the prophecy talks >about. Are you? I think he probably is, but I suspect there will continue to be misdirection on that subject. And I wonder if Neville knows about the prophecy (or if his grandmother does). >4. Harry complains to Dumbledore that Occlumency lessons were >weakening him. Dumbledore replies with his usual vow of trust for >Snape. Do you trust Snape? I trust Dumbledore, and therefore I trust Snape to be loyal to Dumbledore and the Side of Good. >5. Dumbledore blames himself for Sirius death. Do you? See answer to question 2 above. >6. Voldemort did not choose the pureblood wizard like >Neville "which, according to his creed, is the only kind of wizard >worth being or knowing." >Does this quote make a difference in your view on whether Voldemort >himself is sufficiently interested in promoting "purebloodism" or >just in grabbing power, no matter who helps him achieve it? I think he definitely values and espouses the "pureblood" ideology, but I also think he'll grab power anywhere it is to be found -- after all, he'll work with giants, not to mention Dementors, and negotiate with goblins. >7. Do you agree with the possibility that Neville may turn out to >be the real prophecy child? I don't really think so, but I think that possibility will be very much on the table in future books. >8. Do you think that there is a possibility that the prophecy does >not speak about either Harry or Neville? Can you offer completely >new and unexpected interpretation of it? Using the information we have now, I can't think of anything. :) >9. Dumbledore tells us that Sibyll is the great granddaughter of >Cassandra Trelawney. As we know from mythology, nobody believed >Cassandra's predictions which turned out to be true. Do you think >that JKR is hinting that Sibyll is a more gifted seer that >Dumbledore thinks? Do you think that there is more to Sibyll than >meets the eye? Yes, although probably not much. I think Hermione is right and her Divination courses are a load of dingo's kidneys, but I also think one thing Sibyll says is true -- you can't learn or control the gift of prophecy. Dumbledore keeps her around not only to protect her from Voldemort et al, but in case, completely involuntarily and without conscious knowledge, she produces more true prophecies. >10. Who is the infamous eavesdropper? One can only guess: Mundungus Fletcher? A portrait on the wall of the Hog's Head? McGonagall in cat form? >11. Dumbledore tells Harry, "In the end, it mattered not that you >could not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you." Does >this mean that occlumency lessons were unnecessary in the first >place? Was Dumbledore aware that Harry has plenty of that power in >that room BEFORE possession occurred? I have no idea. >12. Do you think that this chapter was well done "plot wise"? I It was certainly powerfully written. As an expository "getting us all up to speed" chapter, it was pretty good. >13. We see Dumbledore crying in this chapter for the first time in >the books. Despite the fact that a similar question was already >posted couple of days ago,(message 123486) I decided not to delete >mine. What did you feel when you read about Dumbledore's tear? I was crying right along with him through most of the chapter. Janet Anderson From cyclone_61032 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 21:53:52 2005 From: cyclone_61032 at yahoo.com (David & Laura) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 21:53:52 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124150 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: David: snipping to the questions. > > Discussion questions: > > 1. Do you think we will ever meet Phineas again? What do you think > about the possibility of the network of portraits playing even > larger role in the later battles? > David: Phineas may make a cameo apprearance, but I can't see how they can play a larger role than a communucation tool. > 2. Harry blames himself for Sirius's death. Do you? David: To a certain extent. No event is solely caused by one person or action. Sirius died because of a number of factors, and Harry's actions were partly responsible. I think it's only natural to blame yourself somewhat after the unexpected death of a loved one. I certainly have. Maybe it's part of the grieving/rationalization phase. (sorry, not a psychology major...just a boring and coldly pragmatic engineer) > > 3. Dumbledore is sure that Harry IS the person the prophecy talks > about. Are you? > David: Well what other canon do we have? DD clearly answers Harry, when Harry asks the same question, that there can be no doubt since V'mort marked Harry as his equal. > 4. Harry complains to Dumbledore that Occlumency lessons were > weakening him. Dumbledore replies with his usual vow of trust for > Snape. Do you trust Snape? > David: I trust DD. If DD says Snape is ok, he's ok. He may be a jerk and a dill-weed, but he's on DD's side. I believe the Occlumency lessons failed because the emotions between Harry/Snape go in the way, just as DD explained. Side note: I relish the day that Harry graduates, meets Snape in Hogsmeade, and shoves his wand up Snape's..ummm..nose. Harry proceeds to warn Snape that if he hears even one story of Snape humiliating a kid again, he'll come back and finish the job! I just hope all survive for this to occur. > 5. Dumbledore blames himself for Sirius death. Do you? > David: As with my comment above, of couse DD is partly responsible, as are a number of factors. > 6. Voldemort did not choose the pureblood wizard like > Neville "which, according to his creed, is the only kind of wizard > worth being or knowing." > Does this quote make a difference in your view on whether Voldemort > himself is sufficiently interested in promoting "purebloodism" or > just in grabbing power, no matter who helps him achieve it? > David: V'mort seems to be the global domination Hitler type. First he would take over the WW and then the RW. Wiping out a few muggles on his way to conquering the WW would just be a precursor to the full out assault. > 7. Do you agree with the possibility that Neville may turn out to > be the real prophecy child? > David: No. DD clearly states in canon that Harry has been marked. He's the one with the power to vanquish V'mort. I believe Neville has a role, but the burden is on Harry. > 8. Do you think that there is a possibility that the prophecy does > not speak about either Harry or Neville? Can you offer completely > new and unexpected interpretation of it? > David: No. There is no canon for such a theory. That would be stuff for the fanfic authors. DD is very clear that there were only two candidates, and V'mort marked his equal. > 9. Dumbledore tells us that Sibyll is the great granddaughter of > Cassandra Trelawney. As we know from mythology, nobody believed > Cassandra's predictions which turned out to be true. Do you think > that JKR is hinting that Sibyll is a more gifted seer that > Dumbledore thinks? Do you think that there is more to Sibyll than > meets the eye? > David: No, I don't. DD didn't see much seer ability in Sibyll, except for her random and rare 'spells'. > 10. Who is the infamous eavesdropper? David: No idea at all. > > 11. Dumbledore tells Harry, "In the end, it mattered not that you > could not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you." Does > this mean that occlumency lessons were unnecessary in the first > place? Was Dumbledore aware that Harry has plenty of that power in > that room BEFORE possession occurred? David: Well, they were unnecessary from a possession standpoint, since Harry had an internal defense. I can see Harry continuing to practice in books 6-7, in order that V'mort can't 'read' him for information. I do believe this mental link between Harry and V'mort will play a large role in the finale. > > 12. Do you think that this chapter was well done "plot wise"? I > don't remember my complete reaction when I read it for the first > time, but I remember that disappointment was definitely there. I > was thinking something like "that is the big secret"? Do you think > that it would have been more effective if Harry learns about the > contents of the prophecy from somebody else? Yesterday for > some reason I was imagining Voldemort explaining things to Harry > instead of Dumbledore. "Potter, we have to kill one another or be > killed. You better be prepared." :o) > What do you think? > David: I thought the chapter was very well done. Harry's throwing of DD's trinkets was too childish and out of character for my image of Harry, but that would be my only criticism. I'm surprised you were let-down by the prophecy. I was shocked by it. To be told you either have to kill or be killed. To realize you alone are responsible for taking out V'mort, that you alone have the power. You can't run. You can't hide. V'mort will either hunt you down or continue his path to world domination, wiping out what few things in your life that you love. You parents are killed, you have to live with relatives that treat you worse than a dog, you have some jerk-wad maniac trying to kill you, your god-father gets killed, and then you find out you either have to kill or be killed. Geez...most people would go nuts or become drug-addicts. > 13. We see Dumbledore crying in this chapter for the first time in > the books. Despite the fact that a similar question was already > posted couple of days ago,(message 123486) I decided not to delete > mine. What did you feel when you read about Dumbledore's tear? > > David: In my mind, DD has shown himself a deeply caring, loving person. I see not one shed of an evil bone in him. He has tried so desperately to keep Harry alive and let him have a little happiness. He loves Harry like a father. He alone possibly totally understands the cards Harry has been dealt. The tear came from the emotions of the weight of it all and having to tell Harry. This scene gets my vote for being in the top 5 most poignant scenes in the books. Molly's hug at the end of GOF is #1, so far. > > NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/67817 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/85829 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/116919 > > "OotP Chapter Discussions" at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 23:07:53 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 15:07:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's Single Biggest Error In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050207230753.18445.qmail@web31105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124151 >Pippin: >It doesn't matter who Athur tells about the snake, since the >Ministry could claim that the snake was Imperius'd by Sirius. >Pippin Arynn: An interesting theory. It got me to thinking. How does Imperious work on animals? We know that it makes humans feel happier than they've ever felt, and thus suseptible to suggestion, but since animals don't feel happiness and sadness, but rather "I need something" and "I don't need anthing" how would it control them like that. I bet spiders' emotions are even more primitive than reptiles and mammals. --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 02:26:03 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 02:26:03 -0000 Subject: Chapter 37 Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124152 a_svirn wrote: > > The thing is ? in OotP DD clearly tries to recreate the situation > of the first book Which is to say ? to lure Voldemort straight into > the trap. Thus he is able to achieve two main goals 1) to keep him > > occupied and concentrated onto something other than killing Harry > > and generally wrecking havoc, and 2) to make wizarding community > to acknowledge the fact of Voldemort's return. Now "do you see the > flaw yet?". I personally could come up with a few. Tonks: > I am intrigued with your idea that DD is trying to set a trap for > LV. If this is true, which I am not sure that it is, what is DD's > goal? I don't think that the reasons you mention here are strong > enough to risk lives. How would LV be defeated if a *trap* were set > for him? DD does not seek to defeat LV. No did he try to do it in the first book. He knows that it is not in his power and states it quite clearly in the end of OotP. Obviously, this is something only Harry can do, but ONLY when he is ready. (Which is to say in the book 7). DD's tactics is to first, unmask LV, to lure him into the open, and second, to delay inevitable "offering" him something to concentrate upon instead of usual DE pastimes. And to dangle the prophesy before his nose is a singularly brilliant move because as long as LV is trying to get it, he wouldn't dare to attack Harry and would generally keep a low profile. As for risking lives, DD is quite prepared to do just that: "I cared more for your happiness than your knowing the truth, more for your peace of mind than my plan, more for your life than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed." But it would be an insult to DD's intelligence and integrity to suppose that he is ready to sacrifice lives only because he has such a soft spot for Harry. Rather, he has no other choice. Harry is indeed his secret weapon and in order to keep him safe he's come up with a shrewd "plan" ? to present "the prophesy" as a weapon. Of course, it was risky and could have backfired (as it did), but all in all he succeeded. He did lure LV into the open: "It was foolish to come here, Tom", and as "the prophesy" was smashed LV still does not realize the nature of his connection with Harry. (Was there only one sample of the philosopher stone, I wonder?) The Order did not even lose as many members as the DE did. From the strategic point of view the end of Harry's fifth year is a success. But this success turned into a personal tragedy for Harry, for which DD is prepared to take blame, quite correctly. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 03:40:09 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 03:40:09 -0000 Subject: Harry and prophecy Was:: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124153 Alla earlier: 12. Do you think that this chapter was well done "plot wise"? I don't remember my complete reaction when I read it for the first time, but I remember that disappointment was definitely there. I was thinking something like "that is the big secret"? snip David: I thought the chapter was very well done. Harry's throwing of DD's trinkets was too childish and out of character for my image of Harry, but that would be my only criticism. I'm surprised you were let-down by the prophecy. I was shocked by it. To be told you either have to kill or be killed. To realize you alone are responsible for taking out V'mort, that you alone have the power. You can't run. You can't hide. V'mort will either hunt you down or continue his path to world domination, wiping out what few things in your life that you love. You parents are killed, you have to live with relatives that treat you worse than a dog, you have some jerk-wad maniac trying to kill you, your god-father gets killed, and then you find out you either have to kill or be killed. Geez...most people would go nuts or >become drug-addicts. Alla: Hey, David. I think I should clarify. I was not let down by the burden Harry has to carry. I definitely felt and feel for him very much. I was feeling let down by the fact that it was revealed through the Prophecy. I was definitely dissapointed by the fact that Dumbledore considers Harry's future to be predetermined. But I come to think more and more that JKR's world is MUCH more predetermined that I used to think because our choices " show what we are", not "determine". I guess I would prefer that Harry would suspect, anticipate his showdown with Voldemort, but not know for sure. On the other hand, I guess at the end of book 5 JKR could not allow such uncertainty, herein the Prophecy. JMO, Alla From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Tue Feb 8 03:44:13 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 22:44:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Nagini at the Ministry (was: ...Biggest Error) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200502072244141.SM01556@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 124154 > > > > Vivamus (snipped): > > > > 1. No snake that has ever lived, AFAIK, could chomp on someone > > > > like the snake that bit Arthur Weasley. She describes > the snake > > > > splintering bones with it's bite, which snakes' jaws are not > > > > physically capable of doing. > > > > bboyminn: > > Quick note to Vivamus; I think you meant to say, no snake currently > living rather than no snake that has ever lived. Is it really true > that there never was a pre-historic snake or pre-historic snake-like > creature who ever lived that could break bones with a bite? Vivamus: I suppose it depends on what constitutes "snake-like." To me, a serpentine aquatic dinosaur -- a super eel -- might be like that, but it would not look like a snake to most people, and so I would not call it a snake. Snakes have very distinctive body motions and very distinctive head and body shapes. That's true of all snakes, everywhere in the world, in all of time, as far as I know (but I'm NOT an expert.) I suppose there are some who cannot tell the difference between a snake and an eel (or a porpoise and a shark, for that matter,) and so some confusion from the POV might be possible. Harry, however, is not ignorant of what snakes look like. He has a natural affinity for snakes, he had a conversation with a boa constrictor once, and probably saw a bunch of other snakes while at the zoo that same day. To him, Nagini is a snake. To me, that makes Nagini look, to all outward appearances, exactly (or almost exactly) like a snake. If Nagini is in fact a real snake, there are several FLINTs in the descriptions of her appearance and actions, regardless of whether she is a Bushmaster or a Cobra. If she is some kind of entirely magical creature, of course, JKR can make her up any way she (JKR) likes. > Also, keep in mind that this takes place in a world where Dragons, > Sphinx, and Hypogriffs are common. Can we firmly say the no > mythological creature fits the bill for Nagini? > > Also note that there is a form of mythical legless dragon know as a > wyrm. Could Nagini be this type of Dragon? > > Further, we are dealing with a magical world; a world in which hedges > grow 30ft high in a month, where pumpkins grow to the size of garden > sheds, where brooms fly, where people apparate, cloaks make you > invisible. Can we really say that Voldemort hasn't taken a common > bushmaster (or other snake), and charmed and enchanted it into a more > formitable snake? Or that Voldemort didn't interbreed a muggle snake > with a magical reptile (or two magical reptiles), to create his own > super-snake? Vivamus: It's possible only if you postulate that one of the magical properties of this non-snake magical creature is that it looks and acts exactly like a real snake, except when it is exhibiting its extraordinary powers. (Such as when biting Arthur.) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 03:06:33 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 03:06:33 -0000 Subject: Pensieve Peeking - & it's Dymanics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124155 > > Betsy: > > As per Steve's theory (good one by the way, Steve!) Snape, by > > his presence in the memory by Harry's side, sees exactly what > > Harry sees at this point. And I'm quite sure Snape knows > > precisely what point of the memory this is. > Tonks: > It does not say that Snape was looking in the memory with Harry. I > think you have to go into the memory to see where the peeper was. > Snape grabs Harry and first says "So, been enjoying yourself Potter? > and after Harry says "no" Snape says "Amusing man your father wasn't > he?" So Snape assumes that Harry has seen at least the part that he > did see. But what about the rest? We know there is more because it > says that Harry never got to see what happened next. . But does > Snape *think* that Harry has seen more than he actually has? I am fairly sure that Snape knew how much Harry had seen. He was standing at the same lawn after all: "Wincing, Harry looked round to see who had hold of him, and saw, with a thrill of horror, a fully grown, adult-sized Snape standing right beside him, white with rage". First he snarled "Having fun" and only then hurled Harry (and himself apparently) from the Pensieve. And only after that "Amusing man, your father etc.." In fact, I wouldn't be very much surprised if the whole thing was staged and he'd watched Harry for some time. After all even if for Harry this "old school grudge" business may seem a sufficient reason for Snape to sabotage Dumbledore's order such touchiness does not square up with someone who claims that "only fools wear their harts in their sleeves" and who is known to be a "superb Occlumence" (meaning he is skilled in suppressing his emotions among other things). Nor do I think that this episode, however humiliating it must have been for fifteen-year-old Snape, can qualify as the worst memory of a Death Eater. Even if James did take off his pants. I am not saying that his hatred is not genuine, mind. I just wouldn't put it past him to use it as an excuse to stop these lessons. After all if teaching Harry Occlumency was dangerous for DD, so it could be for Snape for some reason or other. "a_svirn" From cdayr at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 04:00:37 2005 From: cdayr at yahoo.com (cdayr) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 04:00:37 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124156 > > cdayr wrote: I've also always believed that they have > to hurry because they have to save Sirius *before* he gets soul-sucked > in current time." > > Del replies: > I thought so too, at first. But after reflection, I realise that it > doesn't have to be that way. > > As long as Harry and Hermione end up Time-Turning, then their doubles > *are* roaming around anyway. So even if they had Time-Turned a couple > of hours later, they still could have saved Sirius. > > Let's say that they don't TT in the hospital wing, and after all the > commotion about Sirius having disappeared, they head off to Gryffindor > Tower, about a couple of hours later. But DD stops them on the way, > and sends them back 5 hours. So they do everything they did in PoA, > except that after saving Sirius, they hide and wait for two hours, and > then discreetly head off to Gryffindor Tower. See, it still works! > > So I guess the reason for DD being in such a hurry is indeed security. > > Del cdayr responds: Oh yeah! That is entirely plausible (my mind is still getting around all the implications). Thanks for offering me a new and intriguing way to look at this situation. :-) Oddly enough, your timeline of a 5-hour time turn might have actually been a better choice, security-wise. There would be no chance of H/H being caught out of the hospital wing at the time of Sirius's escape, less chance of Mme Pomfrey seeing something odd, etc. especially if they had been released back to their dorms by that point. As an additional advantage to going later, H/H would then know ahead of time that they would be successful because they would know that Sirius had escaped, and Harry is very clear that it was an advantage to know he had already been successful with the Patronus. I'm trying to think of disadvantages besides the general increased risk of being seen because there are two of them around for longer, and right now I can't. Anyone else see any? I'm intrigued. Now the question of why DD was in such a hurry to get them going has me more curious. -cdayr, who doesn' think this has any major implications for anything, but loves thinking about it anyway... From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 04:07:02 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 04:07:02 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124157 Phoenixgod2000: There has been a lot of talk about Dumbledore and what he should/did do to interfere in Harry's life. But I was thinking the other day about his larger role as the leader of the Order of the Phoenix. And it struck me that the Order was losing the last war right up until Voldemort blasted himself into atoms by attacking the Potters. So my question is, is Dumbledore really the best person to be leading this war? The order of the Phoenix independant of the government and you would think that would give them a lot of leeway to act since they don't have to act within the law. But Dumbledore doesn't seem to be doing much in the way of fighting back. He seems to be running a very passive, reactive war. They know who a large number of death eaters are but don't seem to do anything to them. Why not? Even if no one but harry can kill Voldemort, the Order can still cut the legs out from his support to weaken him it make it easier for Harry. I realize that a large part of it is because if DD was winning the war Harry wouldn't be the hero of the story, but within the confines of the narrative, why is DD doing such a poor job of prosecuting the war? He is clearly personally powerful but tactics he uses seem to be lacking any sort of aggressive push towards the Death Eaters. Is it simply that he has more honor than his opponents and if so is that really the person who should be leading it? Alla: As you probably know, I am having A LOT of trouble answering your question from within the narrative. The fact that JKR needs kids to be the heroes unfortunately seems to be the most plausible answer. I suppose, my answer will be UNLESS Dumbledore knows something that we as readers don't know yet ( meaning that he has specific reasons for not doing anything or to be more precise not doing anything active), he is NOT the best person to lead the war. It is just what you said - Order should be more active and try to cut Voldemort's support, to make him weaker, NOT just sit around and wait till Harry will be strong enough to fight with him and hopefully kill him. I do NOT consider Dumbledore to be a good general at all with the facts we had been shown so far, but then again maybe Dumbledore knows something and unfortunately that something can only be connected to knowing the future , IMO. Maybe Dumbledore indeed travels backwards on the timeline or something like that and he knows that it is better not to interfere too much, if he wants to escape catastrophe in the future. And no at this point I don't consider "doing nothing" as being noble and having more honor than Voldie and Co. The war started and innocent people ARE getting killed. On the hand, JKR did say that Dumbledore had a reason not to try killing Voldie in the battle of MOM.... Just my opinion, Alla From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 05:09:29 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 05:09:29 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124158 > is Dumbledore really the best person to be > leading this war? Interesting question. If you wanted to give the top job to the person who has been most successful in fighting Voldemort, and that doesn't sound like a bad idea to me, then there is only one man who should be boss, Harry Potter. Yes, 16 is a little young for a General but it's not unprecedented, Alexander the Great was leading men into battle at that age and doing it brilliantly. Nobody else has had anywhere near the success that Harry had against Voldemort. I think something like that is actually going to happen because there will be a vacancy, Dumbledore is going to get killed in the next book. However Harry may have to wait until he reaches the advanced age of 17 before he is made Commander In Chief. Eggplant From collegegirl200521 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 20:54:05 2005 From: collegegirl200521 at yahoo.com (jina haymaker) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 12:54:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Prank / Worst Memory (was Re: Severus and the DADA exam /James) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050207205405.38926.qmail@web52607.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124159 > Finwitch: > Then, James starts talking about a confession - about being out of > bounds. > > 'Of course, I could have chosen not to break rules - but that would have been murder. Severus Snape was about to meet a Gryffindor > Prefect, who was, due to his disease, unable to choose anything > else but kill this intruder on his privacy. I, however, had the > option to take this student away, to make that choice so I did'. > > And all about saving Snape. "I'm not going to compete with Sirius. > We're the best students now, and nothing you do, Severus Snape, > will ever change that, because you owe your life to me". I think that you could be right, Finwitch. That does seem to fit the pattern that James basically told that now since he saved his (Snape's) life that he owes his life to James. But I still can not figure out for the life of me how that could have possibly been Snape's worst memory. He was a death eater for crying out loud. He must have had many worse memories than that. Or was that memory the worst for Harry? Then this brings up another question if that memory would have been worse for Harry why leave the Pensieve sitting alone in a room with a very curious young boy? "collegegirl200521" From angelicfront5 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 21:27:48 2005 From: angelicfront5 at yahoo.com (Lauren Thibeault) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 13:27:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Can Animagi become *magical* creatures? (was Re: Are Lily and Harry Animagi?) In-Reply-To: <20050204002501.52446.qmail@web52007.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050207212748.44368.qmail@web14929.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124160 > Tonks wrote: > > But I think that it would be possible for a witch > as talented as we assume Lily to be and with a > husband who was an animagus to be one herself. And > I think that she would be a Unicorn. It might > explain why LV didn't want to kill her if he knew > that she was also a Unicorn and the curse that would > befall him. > Luckdragon: > I think with Harry's connection to Dumbledore, his > affiliation with Fawkes, Hedwig, and Buckbeak and > his love of flying he would probably be a bird of > some kind and I'm leaning towards a Phoenix. I have a curious question in regards to this post. Can a Animagi turn into a magical creature, such as a unicorn or a phoenix. I have thought a lot about whether Dumbledore would be a phoenix but the thought always continues to whether or not that is possible, it would seem that it would not be, seeing as how magical creatures carry powers that nothing else has and it would be odd that just because you can take its form that you would possess those powers as well?? Any thoughts on this, I am very open to any suggestions out there. "angelicfront5" From collegegirl200521 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 7 21:55:15 2005 From: collegegirl200521 at yahoo.com (jina haymaker) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 13:55:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Vold defeated by someone other than Harry / 'Love' - blood protection (was Re: CHAP DISC: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy . REPOST) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050207215515.15208.qmail@web52604.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124161 "hickengruendler" wrote: > >3. Dumbledore is sure that Harry IS the person the prophecy talks > >about. Are you? > Hickengruendler: > > But wouldn't it be *the* plot-twist nobody expects, if Voldie is not > defeated by Harry, but by Neville or even somebody else? I think JKR > could do this and still make the books and even the climax about > Harry, if she does it cleverly. Hickengruendler, that would be a very interesting twist, but I don't know if I would like it more if Neville killed Voldy or Harry... And I had a question: when I was re-reading the books I realized that when Lily died it gave Harry that extra "love" protection, then Voldy came back and got a drop of Harry's blood. Now he doesn't have that protection anymore, but since Sirius basically died to save Harry again, would he have that "love" protection again? Because first it was love of a mother and now it is love of a godfather. These are 2 different types and since Voldy doesn't know what love is like.... "collegegirl200521" From swirskyr at rogers.com Tue Feb 8 05:34:03 2005 From: swirskyr at rogers.com (Rachel) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 05:34:03 -0000 Subject: Transforming in general (was re: Hermione's Patronus) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124162 Jim, quoting from PoA: > Later, Harry learns for sure, as Lupin is packing his bags: > > "Harry told Lupin what had happened. When he'd finished, Lupin > was smiling again... > > Lupin again: "Yes, your father was always a stag when he > transformed," he said. I never really noticed it before, but when I was reading through this thread that line strike me as odd. Why would Lupin need to say "was always"? Is it possible for people to have more than one animagus? Rachel (who wonders why this has never struck her as odd before). From witchypooh67 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 05:53:48 2005 From: witchypooh67 at yahoo.com (witchypooh67) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 05:53:48 -0000 Subject: crouch!moody potion Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124163 What type of "peppery" potion does Crouch!Moody give to Harry when C! M brings Harry into his office after the third task? I tried to search for previous posts on the subject, but couldn't find any. Kelly From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 06:13:27 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 06:13:27 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124164 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > Phoenixgods question: > > is Dumbledore really the best person to be > > leading this war? > Eggplant: > Interesting question. If you wanted to give the top job to the person who has been most successful in fighting Voldemort, and that doesn't sound like a bad idea to me, then there is only one man who should be boss, Harry Potter. (snip) Tonks: The most successful in fighting LV, Harry?! Are you forgetting all the times that he would have been killed if DD had not arrived on the scene?? Harry will be the weapon. DD is the general and a good one. There is no need for DD to use the same weapons that LV uses or to stoop to the same level. He uses methods that LV doesn't understand. DD is the one the LV *fears* not Harry Potter. DD does not return evil for evil, and Harry will not either. There is a far greater power that we have not yet seen in all its glory. Tonks_op From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Tue Feb 8 06:30:11 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 06:30:11 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character Discussion: Sirius (3) Message-ID: <20050208063011.46658.qmail@web25108.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124165 Before the big battle at the Ministry of Magic the state of play is as follows: Sirius is now the brightest star in Harry's sky - literally. Both the new soul and the mental conception of the heavenly man are filled with divine power, and the microcosm of the apprentice alchemist is rapidly becoming God's Only Begotten Son again. The former glory of God's only and dearly beloved child is rapidly returning. The time has come for Sirius to pass through the Gate of Saturn. Dear Friends, the spiritual concept behind this event is so utterly and totally rapturous and ecstatically beautiful that there are absolutely no words in any language on earth to convey this. As I've said a number of times, it was God's plan that the human being RESIDE in the Sixth Cosmic Plane, and WORK in the alchemical laboratory of the Seventh. Both these planes were divine, but it was not the intention that the human life-wave (as it's called) connected itself with the seventh. The Sixth Cosmic Plane is traditionally called the Kingdom of Heaven in Christian language, and the Seventh, in its original condition, Paradise. As you know from my posts, and, I hope from your own research, the human life-wave decided to live in Paradise and leave the Kingdom of Heaven behind. However when this happened Paradise was kindled in wrath. That's Jacob Boehme's way of saying that the whole universe of the Seventh Cosmic Plane changed in key vibration and started deviating from the Divine Plan. This took eons and eons of time, but here we are today with the mess we've made of it. Everything that happens on earth today is the direct result of our past actions as a collective group of entities. As you know, the human being consists of a lower self and a higher self. That's Theosophical terminology. I prefer to use my own term of microcosmic self and lower self. In post HPFS 120641 ("Voldemort") I described the microcosm in its original condition. I need to bring in another element I haven't discussed before otherwise I can't explain exactly what Sirius symbolises. When God created the human microcosm He projected His plan for the whole development of the human being from Adam to Life-giving Spirit into it. Such a plan is called an ARCHETYPE. Every microcosm originally had an archetype which supplied it with divine energy and enabled the growth of the microcosm according to the Plan. The archetype is connected to the Original Spirit and receives its energy from that. In other words, the microcosm and God are connected permanently via the archetype. The archetype is the Inner Christ! As I have repeatedly stated, there is a cosmic Christ, but at the same time Christ lives in every divine microcosm. The divine archetype, the Inner Christ, sends rays of energy into the microcosm and PROJECTS THE DIVINE PLAN for the perfect human being INTO the microcosm, i.e. into the aura of the human being in the microcosm. That projection is called, wait for it... Lucifer! Christ is the inner sun, and Lucifer is the bright morning star, the reflection of the Sun. Remember, we're talking about the original microcosm before the Fall. As I said in post 120641, this was the time "when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy". (Job 38:7) I know this is all very complicated and I may have lost some of you entirely, but I'm doing my best. Let's just go back and look at the original microcosm again. Firstly there's God Himself. Secondly there's the archetype, directly linked to God and supplying the microcosm with God's energy. The teachings of liberation calls this archetype Christ. This archetype, situated outside the microcosm, projects its plan and its energy INTO the microcosm. This projection is called Lucifer, the light-bearer. This light-bearer is the microcosmic self. And then there's the lower self with its four vehicles and three foci of consciousness. The lower self and the microcosmic self are united. The lower self has an immortal soul and the Spirit is "married" to the soul, i.e. united. They are the King and Queen in the "Alchemical Wedding", and the Spirit and the Bride in Revelation 22:17. I have also mentioned the twelve bright stars that shine in the microcosmic ring. These are twelve bright powers that bestow great faculties on the microcosm. But, as we know, a large group of microcosms deviated from the divine plan. This was very gradual, but the consequences were tremendous. The most important thing is that the spirit withdrew from its union with the soul, and the Christ was stopped from projecting himself into the microcosm. The microcosm started wandering in darkness. However, just because the archetype was no longer projecting the plan into the aura didn't mean Lucifer stopped living! This is where the legends of Lucifer being kicked out of heaven originate. The inner Christ, the divine archetype, stopped vibrating and became dormant while its PROJECTION, Lucifer, shone more brightly than ever! That is the Fall. That is how Voldemort was born. That is what Isaiah 14:12 refers to: "How are you fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!" Now today we see this sad state in the human microcosm: the twelve divine stars are latent; their place has been taken by twelve death eaters. Burning brightly in our microcosm is Lucimort. The inner Christ, the Divine archetype is latent. We are kept alive by a temporary archetype that stops vibrating after "threescore years and ten", and which is not linked to God but to Lucifer. But, as I have emphatically tried to make clear, Harry Potter is a handbook to bring fallen microcosms back to their original glory. The only thing is it's written in symbols, but if we know the key we can read it. These are its instructions in short: 1. In the heart is the focal point of the archetype. This focal point (Lily) must be opened so that the archetype, the inner Christ, can start to vibrate again. 2. One of the twelve original "stars" must let Divine Light into the microcosm. 3. This divine Light causes the birth of a new soul: Harry. 4. The archetype projects the original divine plan into the aura once again. This new projection Jo calls Sirius - the New Bright Morning Star. 5. The old morning star, Lucifer, surrounds the new soul and the projection of the inner Christ, and tries to kill them, but Lucifer is prevented by the soul's deep yearning, deep thirst, for the divine energy which will feed and sustain him - the stag. This energy is like fire to Voldemort and burns him. 6. The new soul must break the seven chains which tie it to the Luciferic universe. But now something absolutely astonishing has to happen! Sirius has to pass through the Gate of Saturn. Why? John 16:7 says: "It is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counsellor will not come to you. And when he comes, he will convince the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgement." As I said before, the human being was meant to live in the SIXTH field of manifestation of the microcosm and NOT the seventh. Passing through the Gate of Saturn doesn't mean death, dear friends, but simply going Home. Sirius isn't dead! He has risen up to the Sixth plane of the microcosm where he is the microcosmic self of the resurrected original microcosm. That is the true meaning of the resurrection. That is what Jo is telling us. Sirius is the projection of the inner Christ into the microcosm and one of the steps of the Path of Alchemical Liberation is that the new Morning Star moves out of the seventh field of the microcosm into the sixth. In other words Sirius has gone to the Kingdom of Heaven to await Harry. Why does Jo make all this sound so gut wrenching and tragic? I guess it's to carve the new version of the alchemical wedding deeply into millions of souls! No one can say she's failed! But I hope Jo doesn't mind me saying publicly that Sirius' passing is far from tragic but is in fact a most joyous and supernal step in the return of the reborn divine human being to Tao, to Nirvana. I strongly suspect that one reason for making Harry go through the trauma of bereavement is to provide a motivation later for following Sirius through the Gate of Saturn (in the company of Dobby?). The return of Sirius to the Kingdom of Heaven is an occasion of utter joy. This is what the New Testament calls "a new heaven and a new earth". This refers to both the cosmos AND the microcosm! The microcosmic or higher self is the new heaven and the lower self is the new earth. Sirius and Harry! The latent sun in the microcosmic self is rekindled and its reflection, its moon, the focal point in the heart of the lower self, takes up its position. That is the resurrection of the Original Divine Son of God! This is what Revelation 12:1 refers to: "A woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." The inner Christ has been resurrected. The lower self is its reflection, its mirror. And the twelve original stars of immeasurable glory radiate their songs of praise to the Father of all things once again. This resurrected human being will say: "I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star." Hans PS You may remember I pointed out long ago that I thought it was so funny that Jo said she named her son after nothing to do with Harry Potter. The name David in fact is the very Essence, the very end result of Harry Potter. ===== Hans Andra see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://www.harrypotterforseekers.com/ Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 06:43:27 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 06:43:27 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124166 "Tonks" wrote: > The most successful in fighting LV, Harry?! Yes, nobody else even comes close. > Are you forgetting all the times that he > would have been killed if DD had not > arrived on the scene?? In book 1 Harry defeated Voldemort twice, once with no help at all and the other time Queral was almost dead from fighting Harry by the time Dumbledore showed up. In book 2 Harry defeated Voldemort again with no help at all from Dumbledore. In book 4 Harry magically arm wrestled with Voldemort and won with no help from Dumbledore and in book 5 Voldemort had to retreat after just a few seconds when he tried to possess Harry. Dumbledore's record in these matters just can not compare with Harry's and Harry is only 15. Eggplant From kempermentor at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 06:54:55 2005 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 06:54:55 -0000 Subject: Snape's plant imagery Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124167 So I'm re-reading Snape's Worst Memory when I come to passage that happens immediately after Harry 'falls' into the memory. Harry is looking for Snape. "And there he is, at a table right behind Harry. Harry stared. Snape-the-teenager had a stringy, pallid look about him, like a plant left in the dark." (OoP, soft, 640) 'Plant' not 'weed'. Like a plant left in the dark. The plant, a symbol of life, is Snape. Left in the dark, left out of the light. Left to survive in the dark rather than thrive in the light. Snape-the-adult tells Umbridge he's worked at Hogwarts for 14 years. Assuming he got the job shortly after embrassing the light that means he has spent more of his life living in the dark (or with the dark) than he has in the light. Perhaps the plant is still adjusting to life with light. Just something that caught my eye. -Kemper From kempermentor at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 07:17:42 2005 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 07:17:42 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124168 Eggplant wrote: In book 1 Harry defeated Voldemort twice, once with no help at all and the other time Queral was almost dead from fighting Harry by the time Dumbledore showed up. In book 2 Harry defeated Voldemort again with no help at all from Dumbledore. In book 4 Harry magically arm wrestled with Voldemort and won with no help from Dumbledore and in book 5 Voldemort had to retreat after just a few seconds when he tried to possess Harry. Dumbledore's record in these matters just can not compare with Harry's and Harry is only 15. Kemper now: Harry first beat LV because of Lily's blood sacrifice. Harry beat Quirrel because he couldn't touch Harry because of Lily's blood sacrifice. Harry beat VoldeTom because DD's bird wept on Harry's mortal wound, saving him from death and giving him the opportunity to use Fang-on- Diary. Harry beat LV in the grave yard because LV was prideful enough to hand him back his wand. But granted, he won the prior incantantum. Harry did succeed in kicking LV out of his head (though through no conscious skill of his own), but LV left because the ministry was coming and of course DD was still around. LV and DD had quite a battle. I don't think DD tried to kill LV, not for any noble reason, but because DD knows LV can't die. Sure, he can get knocked-the-effed out by a rebounded killing curse, but you never know when he'll return. Maybe you'll be dead by then and then all the experience you had in dealing with him directly would be lost. But I'm starting to ramble onto a different post topic... so DD is good general for all his experience in dealing with LV from when he was a student through to when he is the foe. -Kemper From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Feb 8 07:49:43 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 07:49:43 -0000 Subject: TT altering DD's memory. Ouch again! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124169 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sandra87b" wrote: Sandra: > I'd say he'd have a right headache. He'd remember WHAT, exactly? > > To spell it out: immediately after advising H&H to turn back time, he leaves > the hospital wing. As far as he's concerned, he meets them again outside the > door and apparently has no idea why he's meeting them again - yet he's > prepared not to question what they've been up to. > > And following the thought through, wouldn't the altering of the past have a > bearing on the injuries sustained by Ron? > And while I'm on this subject, why don't Harry and Hermione go back to when > they lost Pettigrew and trap him? Then Sirius would have his day in court, and > all would be well with the world... I think? Geoff: If I might risk excommunication and refer to the "medium that dare not speak it's name", this is almost suggested at the end of HP:POA when Harry and Hermione return to the hospital wing and say to Dumbledore "We've done it" - or words to that effect and Dumbledore replies "Done what?" Following up your last comment, this has often occurred to me in other time-turning stores. For example,in "Star Trek: Generations" (if you know the story line), I've always wondered, why didn't Picard and Kirk return to a point where they could stop Soran before he left the "Enterprise"? And a disembodied voice says to me: "Because it ruins the story line, dear boy......" :-) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 08:01:49 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 08:01:49 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124170 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cdayr" wrote: > > > cdayr responds: > > .... > > Oddly enough, your timeline of a 5-hour time turn might have > actually been a better choice, security-wise. .... I'm trying to > think of disadvantages besides the general increased risk of being > seen because there are two of them around for longer, and right now > I can't. Anyone else see any? > > -cdayr, who doesn' think this has any major implications for > anything, but loves thinking about it anyway... bboyminn: In the hypothetical situation posed, Sirius escapes, and a couple hours after that Harry and Hermione time-turn back to facilitate that escape, all other events play out as the initially did in the book. Now, Cdayr asks if anyone can see a problem with that hypothetical. Well, I do see one small flaw in that alternate course of events. If Sirius has already escaped, there is really no need for anyone to go back in time. If Sirius has already gotten away, everybody's happy, and Harry and Hermione run off to bed. I mean, what's the point of going back in time and fixing something that isn't broken? In the orginal series of events, Harry and Hermione travel back in time to prevent something from being /broken/, to prevent Sirius from being sent back to prison, being killed, or being kissed by a Dementor. That represents a real urgency. In the hypothetical, which assumes universal timeline events still play out the same to an outside neutral observer (Ron, Fred, George, Dean, Seamus, etc...), once Sirius escapes, nothing needs to be done all urgency and motivation is gone. Like I said, time to call it a day and go to bed. While Dumbledore was certainly cheating a bit on his allowed use of the Time Turner, he is still mindful of the Law regarding wizards changing history. He already knows Buckbeak escaped, although, he is probably not certain how or why. He knows Harry, Hermione, and Sirius were saved from the Dementor. And he has the curious fact that, Harry seems to have been saved by his father. These and other preceptive clues (per my other posts), eventually lead to all the clues gelling into Dumbledore's realization of what happened and what must now be done. The sense of urgency is to resolve the events of the night before Sirius's fate becomes (generally) irrevocable history. If Sirius had been kissed, I think time travel could change that history, but I think that making such a substantial change to the timeline is an extremely unpredictable and dangerous thing to do. To substantially change history in a significant way could spawn a new alternate timeline in which extreme changes occur to the present and future that are seemingly unrelated to the changed event. Again, the recent movie "Butterfly Effect" is based on the concept that small changes in the past, create HUGE changes in the future. Just rambling a bit. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 08:23:58 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 08:23:58 -0000 Subject: crouch!moody potion -Pepperup Potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124171 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "witchypooh67" wrote: > > What type of "peppery" potion does Crouch!Moody give to Harry when > C!M brings Harry into his office after the third task? I tried to > search for previous posts on the subject, but couldn't find any. > > Kelly bboyminn: It's the 'Pepper-Upper' or Pepperup potion. It's a peppery potion that is used as a stimulant and general remedy. Madame Pomphrey dispenses a lot of it in the winter during cold and flu season. She also gives everyone a stiff dose of it when they come out of the lake after the second task in GoF. While it burns the throat, it does have the interesting feature of making steam come out of your ears. It's mentioned in Chamber of Secrets and Goblet of Fire, and may get a brief mention in other books. Hope that Helps. Steve/bboyminn From eloiseherisson at aol.com Tue Feb 8 08:52:10 2005 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloise_herisson) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 08:52:10 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124172 > cdayr wrote: > "I agree with you about all of these motivations for H/H to hurry and > turn back in time. However, I've also always believed that they have > to hurry because they have to save Sirius *before* he gets soul- sucked > in current time." > > Del replies: > I thought so too, at first. But after reflection, I realise that it > doesn't have to be that way. > > As long as Harry and Hermione end up Time-Turning, then their doubles > *are* roaming around anyway. So even if they had Time-Turned a couple > of hours later, they still could have saved Sirius. Eloise: This is probably true (time travel makes my head hurt, so I don't like to think about it too much). *I* think they have to hurry because otherwise it would make the story much difficult to tell. ;-) Potentially we'd end up with two narrative time lines going on, either explicitly or implicitly, one where Fudge sets the Dementors on Sirius and one where he doesn't and these would need somehow to be reconciled with each other or else they would bring even more to the fore all the questions we ask about time travel. If they didn't rescue Sirius *before* he was soul-sucked, then I think we'd end up in an uncomfortable situation where events which we knew to have happened had actually *changed* (or events which we had apparently witnessed were found not to have happened) and that's very difficult to get your head round. Well, my head anyway. I think JKR has been very clever in the way she has avoided these issues. I don't pretend to understand quantum mechanics, but it does seem to me that with Sirius locked away on his own, we have a situation similar to Schrodinger's cat. As Sirius, like the cat in the box, can't be seen, we can posit two possibilities: either he's there, waiting to be soul-sucked or he's been rescued. I believe that quantum law would say he was in a superposition of states, both there and not there (and I'm sure I'll be corrected). It's the same situation with Buckbeak. JKR avoids a situation whereby he *is* executed, but then isn't. Again, at the critical moment of rescue he can't be seen by anyone in the present time, only by TT! Harry and Hermione. Either he might be there, or he might have escaped. We can argue, I think, that Harry and Hermione didn't change anything, instead they controlled the outcomes of two situations where one of two variables was possible. ~Eloise From alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk Tue Feb 8 09:52:00 2005 From: alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk (alshainofthenorth) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 09:52:00 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124173 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > The sense of urgency is to resolve the events of the night before > Sirius's fate becomes (generally) irrevocable history. > > If Sirius had been kissed, I think time travel could change that > history, but I think that making such a substantial change to the > timeline is an extremely unpredictable and dangerous thing to do. > > To substantially change history in a significant way could spawn a new > alternate timeline in which extreme changes occur to the present and > future that are seemingly unrelated to the changed event. Again, the > recent movie "Butterfly Effect" is based on the concept that small > changes in the past, create HUGE changes in the future. > > Just rambling a bit. > > Steve/bboyminn Alshain: When it comes to Time-Turning, cause and effect, I think it's more important than ever to view all the differing concepts of time travel as separate and independent of each other. What happens in "Butterfly Effect", "Twelve Monkeys", "Back To the Future" etc. is essentially irrelevant to the end of POA, because it's a different part of the sub-created multiverse and obeys different rules. The HP-verse only follows its own set of parameters -- equally well one could ask why elves aren't tall, beautiful and immortal since they are in Middle- Earth, or why a wand is necessary for magic since Will Stanton doesn't need one in The Dark Is Rising, and so forth. And in this independent world, you don't mess with causality. Once a thing has happened, it stays that way. There are two classes of events in the end of POA: Certain and uncertain outcomes. Only the latter are affected by Time-Turning. Let's take Flitwick's class in Cheering Charms as an example of a certain outcome. Either Hermione knows that if she didn't attend it, she can't go back and change the past, or she Time-Turns back in order to try to attend it (and Hermione being Hermione, I'd be surprised if she didn't try. Okay, that's conjecture.) But even were she to Time-Turn back a hundred times, she wouldn't be able to attend the class. Once she didn't attend, she didn't attend. I don't think the rule of messing with causality applies only in cases of death, but in all cases. Buckbeak's "death" as perceived by HRH is an example of an uncertain outcome (though an imperfect example). HRH's perception of the event is a great example of building a theory on inadequate facts. Dumbledore, who was present, could theorise about what had happened from a somewhat better position and turned out to be correct. But it's important to note that Buckbeak wasn't the reason why HH Time- Turned -- they did it to affect something that was about to happen in the near future, the outcome still being uncertain. The thought that Buckbeak might not be dead doesn't strike them until later. At the point of Time-Turning, Sirius' fate is still an uncertain outcome, and at this point, Dumbledore isn't any wiser than HRH. Imagine Mr Black taking the position of Schroedinger's cat. Once a Dementor has kissed him, the wave function collapses, and his fate changes from "uncertain outcome" into "certain outcome". Irrevocable and beyond all help, just as the case with Hermione missing a class. I interpret Dumbledore's hurry (as you say, it'd have made much more sense to have Harry and Hermione do it later) as a sign that Sirius achtually is in mortal peril. Not a hundred Time-Turners could save him after the Kiss. Alshain, very happy that her dissertation doesn't deal with temporal physics From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Feb 8 10:27:16 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:27:16 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124174 > wrote: > > > What interests me is the fact that DD wants Harry and > Hermione to HURRY to time travel back. If events can _really_ be > changed, if the past can truly be altered, then couldn't they could go back at any time and change them? > > wrote: > > The longer they wait to go back, the longer they have to go back > - an perhaps they longer they have to wait to return to their normal time. DD is fairly confident about their ability to stay hidden for those 3 hours, but he may not be sure they can successfuly hide much longer than that. They would also need an opportunity to slip away without being noticed and return - agian without being noticed. > > cdyar: > Howdy! I'm delurking to briefly add to this fascinating > discussion-- > > I agree with you about all of these motivations for H/H to hurry > and turn back in time. > However, I've also always believed that they have to hurry > because they have to save Sirius *before* he gets soul-sucked > in current time. Valky now: There is a simple and logical reason for it. The children had to hurry so that they could run back to hospital wing afterward, while the rest of Hogwarts was distracted by Sirius and be locked in so they couldn't be accused of having something to do with it. Just working backwards for those who get a headache from timeturning. Lets say they *did* timeturn outside of the two minute time frame between DD walking out of the Hospital wing, and locking the door. When they returned to the Hospital wing there would be TWO H/H's in the same place. Cardinal TT rule has been broken, consequences unknown but rumoured to be pretty nasty. Ok lets remedy that by saying that they hid in the Forbidden Forest and waited until the time of their original Timeturning to return. With a WEREWOLF running loose. Very Very Bad IDEA. Besides this, after Sirius is found to have flown the coop and Snape comes barging into the hospital wing, if they weren't there because they timeturned a few minutes later, they have been caught. And even if they were still there, Snape KNEW they had something to do with Sirius escape, thats probably Legilimency at work and it might have told him that they *hadn't* actually done it yet. So, again, Really BAD Idea. Immediately after they were locked in Madam Pomfrey entered the room to tend to "her patients". They weren't going anywhere in the time in between. Dumbledore was right to tell them to hurry, a teensy tiny window of opportunity was opened and it was not long before it shut tight again, ability to go backwards in time was never going override that fact. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Feb 8 10:28:28 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:28:28 -0000 Subject: Vold defeated by someone other than Harry / 'Love' - blood protection (was Re: CHAP DISC: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy . REPOST) In-Reply-To: <20050207215515.15208.qmail@web52604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124175 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, jina haymaker wrote: > ... And I had a > question: when I was re-reading the books I realized that when Lily died it > gave Harry that extra "love" protection, then Voldy came back and got a drop > of Harry's blood. Now he doesn't have that protection anymore, but since > Sirius basically died to save Harry again, would he have that "love" > protection again? Because first it was love of a mother and now it is love > of a godfather. These are 2 different types and since Voldy doesn't know what > love is like.... > > "collegegirl200521" Hickengruendler: There's a difference. Lily literally sacrificed herself for Harry. She took the spell that was meant for Harry. And while Sirius obviously went to the DoM to save Harry, the way he died had nothing to do with Harry directly. He went out fighting with Bellatrix. Hickengruendler From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 11:43:01 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 11:43:01 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124176 Alshain wrote: "At the point of Time-Turning, Sirius' fate is still an uncertain outcome, and at this point, Dumbledore isn't any wiser than HRH. Imagine Mr Black taking the position of Schroedinger's cat. Once a Dementor has kissed him, the wave function collapses, and his fate changes from "uncertain outcome" into "certain outcome". Irrevocable and beyond all help, just as the case with Hermione missing a class. I interpret Dumbledore's hurry (as you say, it'd have made much more sense to have Harry and Hermione do it later) as a sign that Sirius actually is in mortal peril. Not a hundred Time-Turners could save him after the Kiss." Del replies: Yes, but... Let's position ourselves at that moment in the infirmary when DD is about to send the kids back in time. There's only one time-line, right? What has happened *has* happened, right? To me this means that : 1. Either Harry and Hermione are going to Time-Turn at some time. In this case, there are *right now* two pairs of them around. The TT!Pair is *right now* working on saving Sirius, and there's *nothing* Current!DD or Current!Pair can do to help them. So either they will succeed on their own, or they won't. Either way, Sirius's life is out of the hands of Current!People. Current!People can just watch and hope. If Sirius somehow escapes, that means the TT!Pair succeeded, if he doesn't, that means they failed. Sirius's fate is being sealed right now by the TT!Pair, *not* by the Current!People. So there's no hurry to Time-Turn Harry and Hermione. 2. Or Harry and Hermione are not going to Time-Turn. In this case, *nobody* is working *right now* on saving Sirius, and Sirius is doomed. So I really don't see why there would be any urgency in sending the Duo back in time, since it is not their current version that are saving Sirius (if anyone is), but their TT version. As long as they Time-Turn, *whenever that is*, Sirius can be saved. And if they wait, at least they will know what the outcome of their attempt was. Which is why I will side with Steve in saying that the main reason DD is sending them back at the time he does is mainly psychological. If they wait, they will *know* whether they succeed or not. If they know they do succeed, they might get a bit over-confident, which wouldn't alter the course of the events that they know have happened, but could put *them* into danger (in other words, they would still save everyone, but they could get hurt through carelessness). But worse, if they know they fail, they will be in shock, in grief, angry, discouraged and frustrated, which wouldn't be a good combination of feelings at all in kids about to Time-Turn. Hope it makes sense. Del From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Feb 8 11:58:44 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 11:58:44 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124178 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: > > > There has been a lot of talk about Dumbledore and what he should/did do to interfere in Harry's life. But I was thinking the other day about his larger role as the leader of the Order of the Phoenix. And it struck me that the Order was losing the last war right up until Voldemort blasted himself into atoms by attacking the Potters. > > So my question is, is Dumbledore really the best person to be leading this war? The order of the Phoenix independant of the government and you would think that would give them a lot of leeway to act since they don't have to act within the law.< Pippin: Um, are you forgetting that the Ministry was also losing VWI? They didn't seem to be hamstrung by their respect for civil liberties. No indeed, they were hamstrung by their respect for wealthy old bloodlines. Fudge probably isn't the only one with a lot of resistance to the idea that prominent purebloods could be Dark. After all, the old bloodlines are the survivors of the Muggle persecution--if they turned out to be wicked, wouldn't that mean the Muggles were right? Of course not, but the argument has a familiar ring to it...;-) In fact, I think Voldemort chose the purebloods for his core supporters because he knew they could get away with things. No one would suspect them. For this reason, I think it does more damage to Voldemort to expose his followers than to assassinate them in secret, but to do that Dumbledore needs proof. Pippin From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 12:08:53 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 12:08:53 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124180 Valky wrote: "There is a simple and logical reason for it. The children had to hurry so that they could run back to hospital wing afterward, while the rest of Hogwarts was distracted by Sirius and be locked in so they couldn't be accused of having something to do with it." Del replies: Let's say they Time-Turned a couple of hours later. DD locks them in the hospital wing, Sirius escapes, Snape and Fudge come rushing in, and the kids are found locked and innocent. Then they are sent to their dormitory, and they Time-Turn there. Nobody's the wiser, nobody can accuse them of anything. Valky wrote: "Ok lets remedy that by saying that they hid in the Forbidden Forest and waited until the time of their original Timeturning to return. With a WEREWOLF running loose. Very Very Bad IDEA. " Del replies: That's a good one! Though that flaw already existed in the original plan, as the-medium-that-must-not-be-named showed. But there was indeed no reason to expose the kids to the werewolf for longer than necessary. But this could have been solved in some other way, like having them hide in some place safe. Valky wrote: "Besides this, after Sirius is found to have flown the coop and Snape comes barging into the hospital wing, if they weren't there because they timeturned a few minutes later, they have been caught." Del replies: Time-Turning a few minutes later would have been stupid indeed. The original suggestion mentioned hours, not minutes, later. In that case, the kids are in the hospital wing when Snape comes looking for them. Valky wrote: "And even if they were still there, Snape KNEW they had something to do with Sirius escape, thats probably Legilimency at work and it might have told him that they *hadn't* actually done it yet. So, again, Really BAD Idea." Del replies: Huh? What would Legilimency reveal if they didn't know yet that they would later Time-Turn? Valky wrote: "Dumbledore was right to tell them to hurry, a teensy tiny window of opportunity was opened and it was not long before it shut tight again, ability to go backwards in time was never going override that fact." Del replies: There's no window of opportunity in Time-Turning. Either you Time-Turn or you don't. If you do, then two of you were there all along, no matter when you Time-Turn. If Harry and Hermione had Time-Turned 2 hours later (5 hours back of course), two pairs of them would have been there all along all the same. As I said in another post, I now believe that the main reason DD sent them back at that time is that he didn't want them to know whether they would succeed or not in saving Sirius. Del From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 12:12:27 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 12:12:27 -0000 Subject: *MY* Time Turner -- Make it short, quick, and to the point... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124181 Del replies: I thought so too, at first. But after reflection, I realise that it doesn't have to be that way. As long as Harry and Hermione end up Time-Turning, then their doubles *are* roaming around anyway. So even if they had Time-Turned a couple of hours later, they still could have saved Sirius. Let's say that they don't TT in the hospital wing, and after all the commotion about Sirius having disappeared, they head off to Gryffindor Tower, about a couple of hours later. But DD stops them on the way, and sends them back 5 hours. So they do everything they did in PoA, except that after saving Sirius, they hide and wait for two hours, and then discreetly head off to Gryffindor Tower. See, it still works! So I guess the reason for DD being in such a hurry is indeed security. vmonte responds: But, the reason why Dumbledore sends H&H back when he does is because he wants to make sure that it is done during a point in time that the children were supposed to be locked in at the hospital. Since the children are already separated from the rest of the school, and in an area in which they probably would have less contact with other people, they would have less chance of interfering with any other event/changing any other future event. Waiting until after everything played out before making a change causes the most TT interference IMO. Besides, I don't think that Dumbledore would wait till the events had completely played out before attempting to save Sirius. If he waits and Sirius is killed, then Dumbledore knows that his TT plan will fail. Do you see what I am saying? If Sirius dies, then Harry and Hermione obviously failed in saving him. (Trying to stop events before they happen seems a better and more hopeful idea IMO.) I also don't think that having Harry wait for two hours is a good idea. This gives him time to think about other things he might like to change...would he start looking for Peter first, etc. Making it short, quick, and to the point seems the best way to use a TT IMO. Vivian From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Tue Feb 8 12:44:45 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 07:44:45 -0500 Subject: Significance of Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200502080745644.SM01556@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 124182 Note: this was originally posted to OTChatter, but it is being reposted to the main list by Elf request > Jennifer: > > Sorry if this has already been discussed, I am newish to this group, > but does anyone think there is significance that will come into play > due to the fact that Ginny is the first female Weasley in many > generations? Vivamus: Hello Jennifer. I think there must be. There is a lot to Ginny still that we haven't seen -- and there has been a lot that we have seen, but Harry didn't notice it, so it just slides on by and gets forgotten in the text. I haven't pulled them together in my head yet, but I'm pretty sure there are two female archetypal trios for Harry. The older trio would be his mother, MM, and Molly Weasley. The younger trio would be Hermione, Ginny, and Luna. I recognize this pattern (the archetypal trio of women who make the hero complete) from the wonderful Childe Cycle of Gordon Dickson; but he may have gotten it from earlier literature. (He wrote the first book using it [Dorsai!] in 1960 or thereabouts.) In that series, the hero is a convergent result of three different kinds of man, emphasizing extremes in body, mind, and spirit: the ultimate warrior (Dorsai), the ultimate philosopher (Exotic), and the ultimate faith-holder (Friendly). In the Childe Cycle, each aspect of the masculine must be balanced and completed by the complementary feminine, different in each case. In Dickson's books, there are also two trios who perform this function; one trio is maternal, and one is of equal partners. There is a twist in Dickson's books, however, which may be relevant to who Ginny is as the first girl Weasley in several generations. Just as the man goes through three lifetimes and three personality developments to become the first truly complete man, there is a woman who is developing similarly through three lifetimes to become complete as well, and they ultimately find true completion only in each other. It's very well done, and I won't spoil it for those who haven't read it by saying more about it, but it is well worth reading. What is relevant to Ginny is that the woman who finally becomes the full complement of the hero, Amanda Morgan, is a chosen child who waited several generations to be born. There are three Amanda Morgans, each of whom is a great leader of a great people, but there is a strong sense that the child Amanda Morgan will be the child of destiny. The analogy goes deeper than that, but I would have to run on for pages to go farther. Suffice it to say that I think Ginny may have been born at this time because Harry will not win without her. (In fact, we may find that another prophecy points to that -- maybe even the "and none shall come after" one that broke.) Getting back to Potterverse, Harry as a young man is quite incomplete. He has some extraordinary abilities, but he is also lacking many of the things that would come with growing up in a loving home with one's parents. He needs to be raised up by that body/mind/spirit trio in maternal form. The first woman in the WW he meets is Molly Weasley, who is motherly to him from the moment they meet. Molly strengthens and comforts his spirit. The second woman he meets in the WW is Minerva McGonagall, who is smart, strict, and sharp -- the completer of his mind. His mother, of course, represents the third in that trio -- and she has protected his body with her own, and he carries the blood of her sacrifice for him within his own body. He also has her eyes, which JKR has said is important (but not why.) The second trio of women who complete Harry as equals are still developing into their roles, but Hermione as McGonagall's prot?g? has been obvious from the start. Luna, with her silvery eyes, name, personal grief, touching struggles with being picked on, and matter of fact compassion, seems to be stepping into the role of spiritual complement to Harry. That leaves Ginny to pick up the third area of body complement, or soul-mate. One thing I *don't* like about this analogy, strong as it is, is that it most likely means that the older trio will have to be put out of the story before the younger trio can grow into their full roles. That's bad news for both MM and Molly, and I would hate to see either of them go. I fear, however, that may have been JKR's plan from the beginning, and I have to admit that the plot development aspects of losing either of them are stunning. BTW, I don't agree at all with those who complain that Ginny changes from books 1-4 to book 5. She acts in book 5 exactly as I've been seeing her act all along, but behind the scenes, as it were. The clues are there all the way through, even though Harry doesn't notice them. She does mature a lot in her fourth year, but not by any sort of a stretch. In short, I think Ginny was chosen to be born just as Harry was, and two of them will defeat LV, not Harry alone. Without Ginny, Hermione, and Luna, Harry will never be complete enough to do it. Hermione and Luna will in turn be completed by Ron and possibly Viktor. Ginny, of course, will be completed by Harry. Vivamus From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Feb 8 13:15:29 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:15:29 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124183 > Del replies: > Let's say they Time-Turned a couple of hours later. DD locks them in the hospital wing, Sirius escapes, Snape and Fudge come rushing in, and the kids are found locked and innocent. Then they are sent to their dormitory, and they Time-Turn there. Nobody's the wiser, nobody can accuse them of anything. > and Valky earlier wrote: > "And even if they were still there, Snape KNEW they had something to do with Sirius escape, thats probably Legilimency at work and it might have told him that they *hadn't* actually done it yet. So, again, Really BAD Idea." > > Del replies: > Huh? What would Legilimency reveal if they didn't know yet that they would later Time-Turn? > Valky Now: In your above suggestion you have failed to mention *when* Dumbledore suggests that they timeturn. If he does so during the conversation in the Hospital wing, then what H/H are about to do would indeed be on their mind when Snape bursts in, hence legilimency by Snape *could* work against their success. If he later finds a moment, to let them know, which would be *very* difficult once Sirius had been found missing from detention in *his* school, but lets say he does, then the legilimency is bypassed, and they timeturn later by a few hours. The consequences of this: 1. the children need to timeturn up to six hours back, which is a very long time. 2. they cannot return to the Hospital wing after three hrs in the past because of the two H/H problem. 3. they cannot hide safely in the forbidden forest with any guarantee of safety because of the werewolf and the dementors patrolling for their missing prisoner, again. 4. there is an extra H/H hiding somewhere on Hogwarts grounds for some three extra hours with a very angry and supicious SS storming around. 5. If they do manage to bypass all these dangers and get back to their dormitories on time, who here would forgive DD for *not* telling them to hurry. ;D > Valky wrote: > "Dumbledore was right to tell them to hurry, a teensy tiny window of opportunity was opened and it was not long before it shut tight again, ability to go backwards in time was never going override that fact." > > Del replies: > There's no window of opportunity in Time-Turning. Either you Time- Turn or you don't. Valky: Yes but their was a window of opportunity in which they could safely be missing in the original timeline, and it was the two minutes before DD closed and locked the door. From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Feb 8 14:33:42 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 14:33:42 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124184 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "David & Laura" wrote: David: I thought the chapter was very well done. Harry's throwing of > DD's trinkets was too childish and out of character for my image of > Harry, but that would be my only criticism. Geoff: I wouldn't agree with you on this. I think JKR has got a great take on Harry's reaction; it encapsulates his feelings perfectly. 'Harry felt the white-hot anger lick his insides... Harry turned around, shaking with rage..... But words were no longer enough, smashing things was no more help; he wanted to keep running and never look back....' (OOTP "The Lost Prophecy" pp.726-27 UK edition) I can remember my elder son, when he was about Harry's age - something would go wrong and he would go ballistic with rage. He would tear up sheets of work he had done and storm out of the room. I can also remember one occasion, when I was with some friends while at school, absolutely seeing red and hurling books from a pile on the teacher's table at them. Nope, teens can live on very short fuses; recycled teens like me can also have buttons marked "Danger do not push" :-) From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 15:07:31 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:07:31 -0000 Subject: The Prank / Worst Memory (was Re: Severus and the DADA exam /James) In-Reply-To: <20050207205405.38926.qmail@web52607.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124185 collegegirl200521 wrote: > I think that you could be right, Finwitch. That does seem to fit > the pattern that James basically told that now since he saved his > (Snape's) life that he owes his life to James. But I still can not > figure out for the life of me how that could have possibly been > Snape's worst memory. He was a death eater for crying out loud. He > must have had many worse memories than that. Or was that memory the > worst for Harry? Then this brings up another question if that memory > would have been worse for Harry why leave the Pensieve sitting alone > in a room with a very curious young boy? > Finwitch: Well.. it's not about what James/Sirius did there to Snape. That was something Snape had no intention to keep secret. In fact, he keeps on telling that to Harry. What it was about, and what got Snape so angry -- In the memory, Moony and Padfoot - upon their discussion (which *was* overheard by Snape or it wouldn't have been in Snape's memory), it shows Snape reading the exam asking the question of werewolves, AND it shows Snape insulting the one who stands up for him. Actually, it shows what a Snivellus Snape truly was; the one who was after committing suicide by the Werewolf... Of course, all the background work made Harry think what Snape always intended him to think - that James Potter was a big bully, arrogant etc. Unfortunately for Snape, this memory also shows what ungrateful brat Severus Snape was, to Lily Evans in particular. Finwitch From meltowne at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 15:12:16 2005 From: meltowne at yahoo.com (meltowne) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:12:16 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124186 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: Steve: > In the hypothetical situation posed, Sirius escapes, and a couple > hours after that Harry and Hermione time-turn back to facilitate that > escape, all other events play out as the initially did in the book. > > Now, Cdayr asks if anyone can see a problem with that hypothetical. > Well, I do see one small flaw in that alternate course of events. > > If Sirius has already escaped, there is really no need for anyone to > go back in time. If Sirius has already gotten away, everybody's happy, > and Harry and Hermione run off to bed. I mean, what's the point of > going back in time and fixing something that isn't broken? > > In the orginal series of events, Harry and Hermione travel back in > time to prevent something from being /broken/, to prevent Sirius from > being sent back to prison, being killed, or being kissed by a > Dementor. That represents a real urgency. > > In the hypothetical, which assumes universal timeline events still > play out the same to an outside neutral observer (Ron, Fred, George, > Dean, Seamus, etc...), once Sirius escapes, nothing needs to be done > all urgency and motivation is gone. Like I said, time to call it a day > and go to bed. > > While Dumbledore was certainly cheating a bit on his allowed use of > the Time Turner, he is still mindful of the Law regarding wizards > changing history. He already knows Buckbeak escaped, although, he is > probably not certain how or why. He knows Harry, Hermione, and Sirius > were saved from the Dementor. And he has the curious fact that, Harry > seems to have been saved by his father. These and other preceptive > clues (per my other posts), eventually lead to all the clues gelling > into Dumbledore's realization of what happened and what must now be done. I agree with you here - but would take it a step further. I suspect two possibilities regarding the time turner. Obviously it is not something everybody has access to, for obvious reasons. I appears that using it to go back more than 2 or 3 hours may cause problems. Maybe there is a way to detect its use, maybe it causes a small rift in time - larger the farther back you go. Also as you suggest below, small changes can caus larger more significant changes farther in the future. I recall reading a book several years ago where someone tried to prevent Lincoln's assassination, only to have him die an hour later of something else. If the time turner could be used to go back many years, why didn't Dumbledore just go back and plant evidence implicating Tom Riddle as the heir of Slytherin? Maybe because he knows that such a change would have enormous implications. I'm reminded of a recent episode I saw of the Lilo and Stitch where they go back maybe an hour several time trying to set things right, and have to do it over and over to avoid different disasters. > The sense of urgency is to resolve the events of the night before > Sirius's fate becomes (generally) irrevocable history. > > If Sirius had been kissed, I think time travel could change that > history, but I think that making such a substantial change to the > timeline is an extremely unpredictable and dangerous thing to do. > > To substantially change history in a significant way could spawn a new > alternate timeline in which extreme changes occur to the present and > future that are seemingly unrelated to the changed event. Again, the > recent movie "Butterfly Effect" is based on the concept that small > changes in the past, create HUGE changes in the future. Yes - small changes in the Potterverse I can think of: If Harry had captured Scabbers in Hagrid's hut, Scabbers would not have escaped, and they would not have chased him. Thus Sirius would not have dragged Ron into the tunnel, and the main events of that evening would not have happened - thus Harry would have no reason to go back and capture Scabbers in the first place. JKR has dealt very well with the idea of perspective. From their original perspective, we think that Buckbeak has been killed, and so do we. I think there is but one timeline, but Dumbledore doesn't want the kids to know that quite yet. Notice he never told them Buckbeak was saved, but we are given plenty of clues that nothing really chnged, excpet their perspective - In some ways this reminds me of the penseive, except that they are able to interact with their surroundings. From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Tue Feb 8 15:16:03 2005 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:16:03 -0000 Subject: JKR's Time Turner (Was *MY* Time Turner) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124187 "K": I have no idea how JKR is going to use time-travel but I do believe we will see it again. Though I'm not a fan of time-travel at all I'm going to trust the author. If a person uses the time turner and he can't change/affect time, then surely that would mean the time turner will only be used to show us the past or future. Sort of like the Pensieve. It would serve no other purpose that I can think of. BUT, when JKR introduced time-travel in PoA, she made a point of pointing out that there are indeed problems with time traveling if one is not careful. In order to ignore those warnings, one has to excuse the word of McGonagall and Hermione in some way. McGonagall is exaggerating and Hermione is tired or some other excuse. I just don't buy into that line of thinking. Hermione is insistent that *they must not be seen* and they are not to *change anything*. If it won't matter, then why does the author have Hermione repeat those phrases numerous times? I'll just list some of the time traveling scenes and leave it at that. _____________________________________________________________________ QUESTION: Will Harry time-travel again? JKR: Not telling! America Online/October 19, 2000 http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/1000-aol-chat.htm _____________________________________________________________________ 'There must be something that happened around now he wants us to change,' he said slowly. poa/ch 21/pg 290/uk _____________________________________________________________________ 'Hermione,' said Harry suddenly, 'what if we-we just run in there, and grab Pettigrew-' 'No!' said Hermione in a terrified whisper. 'Don't you understand? We're breaking one of the most important wizarding laws! Nobody's supposed to change time, nobody! You heard Dumbledore, if we're seen- poa/ch 21/pg 291/uk ____________________________________________________________________ 'Exactly! You wouldn't understand, you might even attack yourself! Don't you see? Professor McGonagall told me what awful things have happened when wizards have meddled with time...loads of them ended up killing their past or future selves by mistake!' poa/ch 21/pg 292/uk _____________________________________________________________________ 'He won't be there for another couple of hours...oh, this is going to be difficult...' She looked nervously over her shoulder into the depths of the forest. poa/ch 21/pg 295/uk ____________________________________________________________________ 'OK,' said Hermione, getting a firmer grip on buckbeak's rope. 'But we've got to keep out of sight, Harry, remember...' poa/ch 21/pg 295/uk ____________________________________________________________________ 'Harry, *we mustn't be seen!*. poa/ch 21/pg 296/uk *'See'*, Hermione whispered. *'See what would have happened?* We've got to keep out of sight!' poa/ch 21/pg 296/uk _______________________________________________________________ '...There's nothing we can do! We came back to help Sirius. We're not supposed to be doing anything else!' poa/ch 21/pg 298/uk _____________________________________________________________________ 'Hermione!' said Harry suddenly. 'We've got to move!' 'We mustn't, I keep telling you-' 'Not to interfere! But Lupin's going to run into the Forest, right at us!' poa/ch 21/pg 299/uk _____________________________________________________________________ 'I think I'd better go outside again, you know,' said Harry slowly. 'I can't see what's going on - we won't know when it's time-' Hermione looked up. Her expression was suspicious. 'I'm not going to try and interfere,' said Harry quickly. poa/ch 21/pg 299/uk _____________________________________________________________________ For a fraction of a second he stood, irresolute, in front of Hagrid's door. *You must not be seen*. poa/ch 21/pg 300/uk _____________________________________________________________________ Hermione listened to what had just happened with her mouth open yet again. 'Did anyone see you?' poa/ch 21/pg 301/uk From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 15:20:56 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:20:56 -0000 Subject: Can Animagi become *magical* creatures? (was Re: Are Lily and Harry Animagi?) In-Reply-To: <20050207212748.44368.qmail@web14929.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124188 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lauren Thibeault wrote: >> I have a curious question in regards to this post. Can > a Animagi turn into a magical creature, such as a > unicorn or a phoenix. I have thought a lot about > whether Dumbledore would be a phoenix but the thought > always continues to whether or not that is possible, > it would seem that it would not be, seeing as how > magical creatures carry powers that nothing else has > and it would be odd that just because you can take > its form that you would possess those powers as > well?? Any thoughts on this, I am very open to any > suggestions out there. > > "angelicfront5" Finwitch: Hmm-- mm. Animagus: I think your animagi-form somehow represents your inner self. It might be possible to have several animagi-forms... Like anyone who has gone beyond in flesh (like Sirius, duh) and returned (I hope Sirius will) - gains, due to this progress, an ability to turn into phoenix. Particularly if loyalty and faithfulness were part of the original character. Finwitch From rachel.evans14 at btinternet.com Tue Feb 8 09:58:05 2005 From: rachel.evans14 at btinternet.com (rachel) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 09:58:05 -0000 Subject: A question about Fawkes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124189 Apologies if this has been discussed before (I searched the archive but no luck). Does anyone have any thoughts on the message / clues JKR is giving us regarding life cycles. Fawkes, for example, is a perfect representation of life from cradle to grave (or should that be egg to ashes) in a continuous circle. Then in the DoM in OOTP there is the strange bell jar with the egg and bird in a continuous flow of life to death (the one the DE falls into to become 'babyface'. There are also references to eggs throughout the books (dragons, chimeras). Any thoughts? Rachel From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 15:49:48 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:49:48 -0000 Subject: JKR's Time Turner (Was *MY* Time Turner) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124190 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "koinonia02" wrote: > > > > > "K": > > I have no idea how JKR is going to use time-travel but I do believe > we will see it again. Though I'm not a fan of time-travel at all I'm > going to trust the author. > > If a person uses the time turner and he can't change/affect time, > then surely that would mean the time turner will only be used to > show us the past or future. Sort of like the Pensieve. It would > serve no other purpose that I can think of. > > BUT, when JKR introduced time-travel in PoA, she made a point of > pointing out that there are indeed problems with time traveling if > one is not careful. In order to ignore those warnings, one has to > excuse the word of McGonagall and Hermione in some way. McGonagall > is exaggerating and Hermione is tired or some other excuse. I just > don't buy into that line of thinking. > > Hermione is insistent that *they must not be seen* and they are not > to *change anything*. If it won't matter, then why does the author > have Hermione repeat those phrases numerous times? Finwitch: I think that it's well possible that HARRY isn't going to go back in time. However, Sirius - who went beyond the Veil - where he must come to terms and learn the hard lessons - of his past life. After that, with greater understanding, he can return to past (because he took his body with him). He gets a new life as Stubby Boardman (Yes! The Quibbler was right. Remember the magazine was the one to publish the truth of Harry Potter, and what Luna tells us of her father's ideals...). Stubby is able to make certain preparations, however, since he *knows* what will happen. Number 1: No problems about the Firebolt, price taken from Sirius' personal vault number seven hundred and eleven. We might recall the band: Hob*goblins* - Stubby told the full story to a Goblin - a bandmate - and that Goblin is also his Secret Keeper, and currently working at Gringotts (ever since the band broke up...). So there, as this Goblin knows the full story, no problems... Stubby *mustn't* affect anything that will happen until after Sirius Black goes beyond the Veil. Anything - except to assist so that those things will happen. It's entirely possible that Stubby was the phoenix Harry heard, that Stubby - invisibly of course - helps Harry to complete the run. (Sure, Harry was shooting the Impedimenta-jinx at them, but I doubt he could keep eyecontact). And after Harry grasps the Goblet, why Stubby captures Pettigrew! (I mean really, *where* has that rat been? We never saw him again since that event at the graveyard, did we?). However, the rules of Time- travel mean he must WAIT until he turns him to the authorities... (I think he'll keep him as a rat...) Ministry will be more likely to announce Sirius Black innocent if they think he's DEAD (because then the Ministry won't get bankrubt due to having to pay some sort of compensation to Sirius Black). And er - you know, as something more pleasant than a court-case will get Harry out of the Dursleys-- how about SB being alive and doing just that? Finwitch From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 12:02:08 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 12:02:08 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124191 > Kemper wrote: > Harry beat LV in the grave yard because LV was prideful enough to > hand him back his wand. But granted, he won the prior incantantum. This is Harrys only real independent victory over LV, and the key here is that it's only Voldemort that he's fighting. We've heard a lot about a scramble by both sides for allies - giants, goblins, dementors, which suggests to me that before the big Harry-Voldemort duel, there's going to be a longish *war* too. I don't really see anyone other than DD who can command the whole Order aginst all the DE's, Dementors and whatever else Voldemort manages to recruit. Voldemort himself will probably eventually be Harry's problem, but I don't think Harry has the abilities now, nor will he by the end of Book 7, to be the best person to be the *general* for the whole order. I don't think DD is doing very well as a General though. Even last time round, Lupin mentions how disorganized and unprepared they were. And this time, DD seems to be focused on protecting Harry, quietly recruiting members, possibly nodding grimly now and then at whatever Snape tells him. OTOH, the only thing I can think of offhand that they could have done at this point was to go after known DE's, which would probably have just earned DD an annoying visit from Fudge, along with an order to release those upstanding members of the community right away. It might be very interesting to see who will come to lead the Order, if DD were to croak. Moody, possibly, though I would love to see Arthur or Lupin dealing with shouldering that sort of responisibility. Just so long as it isn't Harry or one of the kids (Unless, in some highly exceptional circumstances, it's Ron) because I think they need to stay at Hogwarts, and, well, honestly, how precocious can you get? (Alexander the great notwithstanding:-)) Northsouth From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 12:25:57 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 12:25:57 -0000 Subject: TT altering DD's memory. Ouch again! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124192 > Sandra: > > I'd say he'd have a right headache. He'd remember WHAT, exactly? > > > > To spell it out: immediately after advising H&H to turn back time, > he leaves > > the hospital wing. As far as he's concerned, he meets them again > outside the > > door and apparently has no idea why he's meeting them again - yet > he's > > prepared not to question what they've been up to. > Geoff: > If I might risk > excommunication and refer to the "medium that dare not speak it's > name", this is almost suggested at the end of HP:POA when Harry and > Hermione return to the hospital wing and say to Dumbledore "We've > done it" - or words to that effect and Dumbledore replies "Done what?" > DD knows he sent H&H back though. When they show up outside the door, he knows that 3 hours have passed for them from a moment ago when he saw them. He knows, or at least asusmes, that since they're alive and well, they acted according to the plan that he hinted at and that Sirius has escaped with Buckbeak. It annoys me that he was so cryptic though. Couldn't he have saved some, uh, more time and just said "Rescue Buckbeak, fly to the windows, rescue Sirius?" Northsouth From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 14:26:00 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 14:26:00 -0000 Subject: TT altering DD's memory. Ouch again! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124193 > > Geoff: > If I might risk > excommunication and refer to the "medium that dare not speak it's > name", this is almost suggested at the end of HP:POA when Harry and > Hermione return to the hospital wing and say to Dumbledore "We've > done it" - or words to that effect and Dumbledore replies "Done what?" > > And a disembodied voice says to me: "Because it ruins the story line, > dear boy......" > :-) Juli now: I believe Dumbledore knew all about it, about everything they had done while Time-Turning. Here's a quote from OoP: "`We entered your third year. I watched from afar as you struggled to repel Dementors, as you found Sirius, learned what he was and rescued him. Was I to tell you then, at the moment when you had triumphantly snatched your godfather from the jaws of the Ministry?" (OoP ch37) This means, at least to me, that DD was watching, he knew what the kids were doing. Juli From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 15:58:16 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:58:16 -0000 Subject: Why a swan Patronus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124194 Casil: > I was wondering how a swan could be seen as anyone's protector. I > had no idea that they were such mean creatures. I've only ever seen > them as pretty birds. Finwitch: Meaning you've never seen a live swan couple with (4-7) little ones. The stories/paintings/whatever give you that idea, but.. I have seen - up close - two adult swans with 6 babies. One of their kids was riding on an adult's back... They DO hiss. They chase out any other birds off their territory when their coming there to eat, and they're *definately* protecting their young. Finwitch From jmrazo at hotmail.com Tue Feb 8 08:22:18 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 08:22:18 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124195 > Tonks: > The most successful in fighting LV, Harry?! Are you forgetting all > the times that he would have been killed if DD had not arrived on > the scene?? Dumbledore was quite helpful in that graveyard. Oh, wait... You are right. Dumbledore has helped a lot on a personal level because of his level of magical strength. I am speaking on a large strategic level. The chessboard if you will. And Dumbledore is losing that battle because because he is playing a reactive war. He's letting Voldemort make the first move. Being on a defensive footing is a bad way to fight because it means you can never apply pressure to your opponent. Tonks: >Harry will be the weapon. DD is the general and a good one. DD is >the one the LV *fears* not Harry Potter. First of all, Voldemort clearly does fear Harry because he attempted to kill the lad while he was still in nappies. Thats a sign of fear if there ever was one. Secondly Voldemort does fear DD personal ability but Albus has so far proven he's a fairly bad strategist. Remember, Voldemort was *winning* the last war. The Potters were running scared. The longbottoms were running scared. Dumbledore's organization was compromised by at least one spy. The entire population was terrified to leave their homes. And that was all underneath the auspices of the Order of the Phoenix beneath DD leadership. Voldemort came within a scar's breath of total victory. I can think of a number of things right off the top of my head that a private group working outside the auspices of the ministry could do. 1. Potion Master working for enemy--Poison Voldemort. He may not be able to die but he could have some wicked cramps while Harry kicks his behind. Alternately, poison his followers, lethally or not to remove his support. 2. Metamorphmagus--Frame some of the more open death eaters for crimes in order to tarnish their good name and remove any credibility they might have. infiltrate the junior death eaters at school by posing as a student--perhaps turn one or more of the students against their parents or merely learn hom much of the infestation has taken root at hogwarts. Probably other idea's I can't think of at midnight. seems like an amazingly useful ability. 3. The Media. Get out Harry's Story! Don't let the Ministry have all the airspace to get out their version of the truth. Own the people and you will have half the battle won. Fight the daily prophet on their own ground. Fight Fudge in the media and get someone competent like Madam Bones to run the show. 4. Giant animagus dog. Potential tracker and spy. Trail Lucius to DE meetings and maybe learn where Voldemort is holding up at for a raid at a later time. Possible trainer for other potential animagi in the order. 5. Use outside the system nature of the OOTP to raise hell with the DE who like to work within the system. Raid their homes. Use psychological warfare to undermine their morale. Hell, kidnap them for interrogation purposes-see 6. for more details. 6. Use the lovely Fleur and her charm or perhaps the more intense charms of her full blooded relatives to turn the male death eaters into putty. You can't tell that five minutes with a beautiful veela isn't going to have them singing all they know. And look, no morally objectionable torture. Neat :) 7. Use the prophecy for your own purposes! The most important thing of all. Voldemort was lying low the whole year and plotting to get his hands on it. Why not let information slip about the prophecy being transported to a more secure location as the bait for a trap. Force Voldemort into acting openly and most likely lose a few servants. 8. Use cool banker Weasley to cut off the wealth of Death Eaters if possible through banking red tape. 9. Train Harry. Get him out of his grief by putting him through an exhausting magical boot camp along side his friends and start preparing him for what is going to come. 10. Start laying the ground work for all of the above *early*. DD knows that Voldemort is going to be back so he should have been plotting for the past decade and a half. Right now it looks like he's been flying by the seat of his pants. Is Dumbledore doing any of these things? No. Are they good ideas that would work? I think so. Thus my contention that he is a bad strategist. I thought of these things in about five minutes. He's had fifteen years. Tonks: >DD does not return evil for evil, and Harry will not either. There >is a far greater power that we have not yet seen in all its glory. It's not evil to bring guns to a gun fight. It's not evil to fight with intelligence, using feints, misdirection, and the power of your public persona. Its not evil to realize that hearts, flowers, and the song Imagine aren't going to save you from psychotic wizards bent on world domination and the purification of their race. because this is a fight between two guerilla groups it is actually easier to win than if DD was running the ministry JK is not writing a military story but she is writing a story about a war. I don't think that its too much to ask that her lightside leader acts like he's actually been in one before. All this is of course my opinion phoenixgod200, who has read the art of war about a thousand times, and learns something new each time. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 16:33:07 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 16:33:07 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124196 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: Eggplant: In book 1 Harry defeated Voldemort twice, once with no help at all and the other time Queral was almost dead from fighting Harry by the time Dumbledore showed up. Tonks: I assume that you are first referring to the time his mother's death saved him. And Harry passed out in the scene with Quirrell and DD came to his rescue. Page 295 " the pain in Harry's head was building?he couldn't see?he could only hear Quirrell's terrible shrieks and Voldemort's yells of "KILL HIM KILL HIM!" and other voices, maybe in Harry's own head, crying. "Harry, Harry". He felt Quirrell's arm wrenched from his grasp, knew all was lost, and fell into blackness, down down down Page 297: DD is talking "I arrived just in time to pull Quirrell off you.." Harry says "it was you?" DD said: "I feared I might be too late." DD then goes to say that the effort involved in Harry fighting Quirrell nearly killed him. I think that it is rather clear that it would have killed Harry if DD had not come and grabbed Quirrell off of him. Eggplant: In book 2 Harry defeated Voldemort again with no help at all from Dumbledore. Tonks: Ah Harry would be dead if it were not for DD. DD sent the Phoenix with the sorting hat and the sword and the Phoenix tear saved Harry from death. Eggplant: In book 4 Harry magically arm wrestled with Voldemort and won with no help from Dumbledore Tonks: Again, Harry had help. From the ghost of the people that came out of the wand. They circled LV and kept his busy long enough for Harry to get away. Eggplant: and in book 5 Voldemort had to retreat after just a few seconds when he tried to possess Harry. Tonks: This is true of the possession scene. LV possessed Harry because he wanted DD to kill Harry. But DD didn't. But before that when LV was trying to kill Harry, Harry was is some serious trouble and was no match for LV until DD came to the rescue. Eggplant: Dumbledore's record in these matters just can not compare with Harry's and Harry is only 15. Tonks: Are we both reading the same books????? The only thing Harry has going for him is his ability to ask for and accept help. On his own the only time that he was able to fight LV was the possession scene. And this only because of the Love that was in Harry. This Love which is in Harry's very blood is what saves him from total possession by LV. And that probably came from Lily. Tonks_op From ms-tamany at rcn.com Tue Feb 8 16:37:56 2005 From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 11:37:56 -0500 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4208A494.27312.539658@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 124197 > Alshain: > When it comes to Time-Turning, cause and effect, I think it's more > important than ever to view all the differing concepts of time travel > as separate and independent of each other. What happens in "Butterfly > Effect", "Twelve Monkeys", "Back To the Future" etc. is essentially > irrelevant to the end of POA, because it's a different part of the > sub-created multiverse and obeys different rules. The HP-verse only > follows its own set of parameters -- equally well one could ask why > elves aren't tall, beautiful and immortal since they are in Middle- > Earth, or why a wand is necessary for magic since Will Stanton > doesn't need one in The Dark Is Rising, and so forth. And in this > independent world, you don't mess with causality. Once a thing has > happened, it stays that way. Now Tammy Rizzo: Exactly! Those who wonder why Jo didn't do time-travel 'right' (meaning 'like so-and-so did in this other book I read/movie I saw, that was really great' instead of meaning 'internally consistant') are rather annoying, at least to me. Each story-universe where they use time- travel has to be evaluated on its own, not in relation to other time-travel stories. The key is, is time-travel used consistently within the story where it's used. I think that Jo was very consistent (allowing a few maths-related Flints, perhaps). Nothing in the way PoA was written indicates to me at all that she uses a 'changeable past' version of time-travel. I woudn't have any problem accepting a 'changeable past' version, if she'd decided to use that, of course, but she didn't. She uses 'what happened happened'. > Alshain: > There are two classes of events in the end of POA: Certain and > uncertain outcomes. Only the latter are affected by Time-Turning. > > Let's take Flitwick's class in Cheering Charms as an example of a > certain outcome. Either Hermione knows that if she didn't attend it, > she can't go back and change the past, or she Time-Turns back in > order to try to attend it (and Hermione being Hermione, I'd be > surprised if she didn't try. Okay, that's conjecture.) But even were > she to Time-Turn back a hundred times, she wouldn't be able to attend > the class. Once she didn't attend, she didn't attend. I don't think > the rule of messing with causality applies only in cases of death, > but in all cases. Now Tammy Rizzo: Exactly. You can't mess with causality, even in the little things. Of course, even the littlest things could turn out to be big things later, you never know. > Alshain: > Buckbeak's "death" as perceived by HRH is an example of an uncertain > outcome (though an imperfect example). HRH's perception of the event > is a great example of building a theory on inadequate facts. > Dumbledore, who was present, could theorise about what had happened > from a somewhat better position and turned out to be correct. But > it's important to note that Buckbeak wasn't the reason why HH Time- > Turned -- they did it to affect something that was about to happen in > the near future, the outcome still being uncertain. The thought that > Buckbeak might not be dead doesn't strike them until later. Now Tammy Rizzo: Precisely. The future, being still plastic and changeable, holding uncertain outcomes, is the only thing that can be affected by time-travel, as used in PoA. > Alshain: > At the point of Time-Turning, Sirius' fate is still an uncertain > outcome, and at this point, Dumbledore isn't any wiser than HRH. > Imagine Mr Black taking the position of Schroedinger's cat. Once a > Dementor has kissed him, the wave function collapses, and his fate > changes from "uncertain outcome" into "certain outcome". Irrevocable > and beyond all help, just as the case with Hermione missing a class. > I interpret Dumbledore's hurry (as you say, it'd have made much more > sense to have Harry and Hermione do it later) as a sign that Sirius > achtually is in mortal peril. Not a hundred Time-Turners could save > him after the Kiss. > > Alshain, very happy that her dissertation doesn't deal with temporal > physics Tammy, LIKEWISE very happy about not having to deal with temporal physics, as she never did well in gym. *** Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at rcn.com Want to back-up your expensive DVDs? Check out DVD Wizard Pro: http://www.dvdwizardpro.com/idevaffiliate/idevaffiliate.php?id=398 Want to earn a Sony Vaio for only $5? Check out EZ Laptop: http://www.ezlaptop.com/index.php?ref=8574 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mail at chartfield.net Tue Feb 8 17:02:35 2005 From: mail at chartfield.net (queen_astrofiammante) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:02:35 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124198 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "northsouth17" wrote: > > OTOH, the only thing I can think of offhand that they could have done at this point was to go after known DE's, which would probably have just earned DD an annoying visit from Fudge, along with an order to release those upstanding members of the community right away. Astrofiammante wrote: Just a thought. In VW1 Voldemort achieved results by being able to secretly manipulate people. It's Dumbledore's avowed strategy, and one that has cost him a lot personally in his clashes with the Ministry of Magic, to try to flush Voldemort and his supporters into the open. For which they need to be alive... AstroF From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 17:21:16 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:21:16 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124199 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "queen_astrofiammante" wrote: > > Astrofiammante wrote: > > Just a thought. In VW1 Voldemort achieved results by being able to > secretly manipulate people. It's Dumbledore's avowed strategy, and one that has cost him a lot personally in his clashes with the Ministry of Magic, to try to flush Voldemort and his supporters into the open. For which they need to be alive... > Tonks: I think that this is a lot like saying Voldemort's name aloud. Don't hide the evil, show it openly to be what it is. When you call a person on their game it loose power over you. By the way Phoenixgod should work for our government!! Some good ideas there in his post. But I don't think *The Art of War* is the book that JKR is following. ;-) Tonks_op From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 17:29:39 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:29:39 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124200 "Tonks" wrote: > I assume that you are first referring > to the time his mother's death > saved him. No, I'm referring to the time his mother's death gave Harry the power to defeat the most powerful dark wizard in a thousand years. > Harry passed out in the scene with Quirrell > and DD came to his rescue. Both Harry and Quirrell were nearly dead from their battle by the time Dumbledore showed up. And you supplied several quotes from Philosopher's Stone but one you did not was said by Dumbledore himself to Harry: "you were doing very well on your own, I must say." > Harry would be dead [in book 2] if it were not > for DD. DD sent the Phoenix Dumbledore didn't send the Phoenix and in fact he seemed rather surprised (and pleased) it had come. > Harry had help. From the ghost of the people > that came out of the wand. And Voldemort had help with his 50 Death Eaters. And the ghosts didn't help Harry push those beads of light into the Dark Lord's wand, that was nothing but pure raw power. > This Love which is in Harry's very blood is > what saves him from total possession by LV. > And that probably came from Lily. And so did half of Harry's genes, so what? It's weird, I've had this discussion before, Harry defeats Voldemort 5 times and each time the accomplishment is dismissed, they say he was just lucky (nobody is that lucky 5 times), or they say yes Harry was more powerful than Voldemort but that was only because of .., and then they supply a laundry list of reasons, as if explaining why a person is great means the person is no longer great. > Are we both reading the same books????? Apparently not. Eggplant From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 17:35:40 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:35:40 -0000 Subject: Significance of Ginny In-Reply-To: <200502080745644.SM01556@devbox> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124201 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Vivamus" wrote: > > In short, I think Ginny was chosen to be born just as Harry was, and two of them will defeat LV, not Harry alone. Without Ginny, Hermione, and Luna, Harry will never be complete enough to do it. Hermione and Luna will in turn be completed by Ron and possibly Viktor. Ginny, of course, will be completed by Harry. Tonks: I agree with your idea of Ginny being born for a purpose. It was only today rereading a post I made about Harry and thinking about Ginny in Book 2 that I realized that she will become a central character in the defeat of LV. I don't know why I didn't see it before! Plain as day once you start looking at all of the books together. That is all I am going to say here. Just wanted to dangle that thought out there. (so all you shipper-- it will be Harry and Ginny. Only girl for him!! Ah, very ancient magic indeed.) Tonks_op (was #1 in my Detective training class.) From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 17:40:42 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:40:42 -0000 Subject: Tom Riddle and the Time-Turning Traveler Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124202 Playing with the concept of Time-Turning, I came to wonder if there wasn't something in the WW's history that could be due to a TT traveler. And I chose... the death of Tom Riddle's mother! OK, it's just for fun, but it does illustrate the dangers of TT. So let's say someone (maybe one of those Order members who disappeared?) during VWI decides that everything would be so much better if LV was never born, or if he died young or something. So they enter the DoM and uses one of the Time Devices there to go back to the time of the birth of Tom Riddle (they could have learned LV's true identity from DD). But things go wrong, and instead of killing Baby Tom, they end up killing his mother, thus *creating* the conditions that will lead to his turning into LV! Or maybe they didn't know his personal history, and they didn't know that it was his being put into a Muggle orphanage that unhinged him initially, so they thought that getting rid of his mother would solve the problem. I have of course not a single piece of canon to support this idea, but I feel that it would create another fascinating parallel between Harry and LV, with both their mothers being killed because of who their babies are supposed to become, and two "self-fulfilling prophecies". Not to mention that if Tom's mother died to protect him and LV doesn't know it, it would be very interesting to see how he would react if he discovered it. Hmm... The more I think of it, the more I like this theory. It's so... twisted :-) Del From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Tue Feb 8 17:41:58 2005 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:41:58 -0000 Subject: Why a swan Patronus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124203 > Casil: > > > I was wondering how a swan could be seen as anyone's protector. I > > had no idea that they were such mean creatures. I've only ever seen > > them as pretty birds. Saw a swan attack a guy on a ski-doo one summer at the lake. He got too close to the nest/young and the thing kept attacking his head until the poor guy headed away from there. When I say attack, I mean attack. The guy had bruses and scratches on his face and neck when he got back to shore. Casey From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Tue Feb 8 17:45:13 2005 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:45:13 -0000 Subject: The Prank / Worst Memory (was Re: Severus and the DADA exam /James) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124204 > collegegirl200521 wrote: > > I think that you could be right, Finwitch. That does seem to fit > the pattern that James basically told that now since he saved his > (Snape's) life that he owes his life to James. But I still can not > figure out for the life of me how that could have possibly been > Snape's worst memory. He was a death eater for crying out loud. He > must have had many worse memories than that. Or was that memory the > worst for Harry? Then this brings up another question if that memory > would have been worse for Harry why leave the Pensieve sitting alone > in a room with a very curious young boy? Casey: I think they may have been some of Snapes worst memories, not counting DE memories. I don't think Snape would have hidden his DE memories, thinking that if Harry could get to them they would show him just what was at stake. That they would be a great incentive for Harry to take things seriously. From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Tue Feb 8 17:53:25 2005 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:53:25 -0000 Subject: Why a swan Patronus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124205 You know, I don't think it's what animal the Patronis is, or how big, but the fact it's made up from happy memories that gives it it's strength. I think a Snail Patronis would be just as strong as a Hart, it's the goodness that fights the Dementors not an actual physical battle. Casey From susanawhite123 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 18:04:51 2005 From: susanawhite123 at yahoo.com (Sue White) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:04:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Tom Riddle and the Time-Turning Traveler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050208180451.52132.qmail@web14126.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124206 Awesome theory. Perhaps it could be a well meaning Harry Potter who does this? --- delwynmarch wrote: > > > Playing with the concept of Time-Turning, I came to > wonder if there > wasn't something in the WW's history that could be > due to a TT > traveler. And I chose... the death of Tom Riddle's > mother! OK, it's > just for fun, but it does illustrate the dangers of > TT. > > So let's say someone (maybe one of those Order > members who > disappeared?) during VWI decides that everything > would be so much > better if LV was never born, or if he died young or > something. So they > enter the DoM and uses one of the Time Devices there > to go back to the > time of the birth of Tom Riddle (they could have > learned LV's true > identity from DD). > > But things go wrong, and instead of killing Baby > Tom, they end up > killing his mother, thus *creating* the conditions > that will lead to > his turning into LV! > > Or maybe they didn't know his personal history, and > they didn't know > that it was his being put into a Muggle orphanage > that unhinged him > initially, so they thought that getting rid of his > mother would solve > the problem. > > I have of course not a single piece of canon to > support this idea, but > I feel that it would create another fascinating > parallel between Harry > and LV, with both their mothers being killed because > of who their > babies are supposed to become, and two > "self-fulfilling prophecies". > > Not to mention that if Tom's mother died to protect > him and LV doesn't > know it, it would be very interesting to see how he > would react if he > discovered it. > > Hmm... The more I think of it, the more I like this > theory. It's so... > twisted :-) > > Del > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > --------------------~--> > Meet the McDonalds Lincoln Fry get free digital > souvenirs, > Web-only video and bid on the Lincoln Fry prop > charity auction. > http://us.click.yahoo.com/RUJaMB/fV0JAA/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/hbfile.html > > Please use accurate subject headings and snip > unnecessary material from posts to which you're > replying! > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com > > > > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Tue Feb 8 18:12:32 2005 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:12:32 -0000 Subject: Tom Riddle and the Time-Turning Traveler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124207 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Playing with the concept of Time-Turning, I came to wonder if there > wasn't something in the WW's history that could be due to a TT > traveler. And I chose... the death of Tom Riddle's mother! OK, it's > just for fun, but it does illustrate the dangers of TT. Just a question, has it said anywhere in the books that the TT goes back further than 24 hours? IIRC it's only been used in that time frame so I, who hates the TT, would love to believe that it has it's own built in time limit. Casey From sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk Tue Feb 8 17:33:08 2005 From: sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk (sandra87b) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:33:08 -0000 Subject: TT altering DD's memory. Ouch again! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124208 > Juli now: > I believe Dumbledore knew all about it, about everything they had > done while Time-Turning. Here's a quote from OoP: > This means, at least to me, that DD was watching, he knew what the > kids were doing. Oh no, now my brain is starting to make noises again. If someone else interferes with time, you would have no knowledge of them doing so because you would never have known any different - it's only the person doing the interfering who knows what originally happened, and can compare it to what has been altered. In other words, if I travelled back in time and killed someone famous before they became famous, nobody would have heard of them apart from me. I interfered, so I know what happened. So therefore I don't think Dumbledore would have any knowledge of what had originally happened that night, from the moment Harry and Hermione first started changing things. But what turns my head upside down is "wouldn't Dumbledore wonder why he was at the hospital wing?" because suddenly his reason for being there has gone, his knowledge of why he was there has gone, Sirius's evening has changed considerably, the Dementors are probably really miffed and don't know why, and Ron has seen H&H disappear and reappear for no good reason. And his injuries still hurt when they shouldn't even be there... I think. Can I apologise to everyone for starting this? I'm really sorry... Sandra From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 20:47:33 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:47:33 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion-Time Turner: Could vs Would In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124209 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > > > Del replies: > Yes, but... > > Let's position ourselves at that moment in the infirmary when DD is > about to send the kids back in time. There's only one time-line, > right? What has happened *has* happened, right? To me this means that : > > 1. Either Harry and Hermione are going to Time-Turn at some time. In > this case, there are *right now* two pairs of them around. The > TT!Pair is *right now* working on saving Sirius, and there's > *nothing* Current!DD or Current!Pair can do to help them. ... > > 2. Or Harry and Hermione are not going to Time-Turn. In this case, > *nobody* is working *right now* on saving Sirius, and Sirius is > doomed. > > So I really don't see why there would be any urgency in sending the > Duo back in time, since it is not their current version that are > saving Sirius (if anyone is), but their TT version. ... > > Which is why I will side with Steve in saying that the main reason > DD is sending them back at the time he does is mainly psychological. > ...edited... > > Hope it makes sense. > > Del bboyminn: Del, I do agree with the basic premise of this hypothetical. If we assume the univeral timeline plays out the same, then Harry and Hermione can go back at anytime, even the next day, and help save Sirius. If the events that happened truly happened, if TT!Harry saved Buckbeak, if TT!Harry saved himself, if TT!Harry saved Sirius, then within reason, it doesn't matter when they went back in time to aid in making that history. So, I agree that they COULD do it, the posed hypothetical is valid, but where I take acception, is in whether they WOULD do it. IF Sirius has already been saved, THEN all motivation and need to help him is lost. Again, why fix something that isn't broken? Why would you want to save someone who doesn't need saving? When Dumbledore sends them back, there is a great need and a great urgency. In this new hypothetical situation, there is no need, and therefore no urgency. Current!Harry and Current!Hemrione don't know how or why Sirius was saved, all they know is that he was saved, and that concludes the event for them. In a sense, that is 'end of story', 'game over'. So, I want to make sure you understand that I am not shooting down the basic premise of the hypothetical. Assuming that they do time travel, exactly when is not that critical (within reason). However, the motivation to time travel in the first place is tremendously different based on when they time travel. They NEEDED to do it when Dumbledore sent them, but in the hypothetical, the DON'T need to; all motivation is lost because the situation is already resolved. On a more general note; Dumbledore made sure that Harry and Hermione didn't change history. I think not changing history is critical. There has to be a reason for the natural or wizard's law against doing so, and the existance of the law implies that it can be done. Further, I stand firmly in my belief that changing history can be done but is a dangerous and unpredictable with potentially catstrophic results, which is exactly why it is against the law. Knowing this, Dumbledore tries to create a scenerio in which history is created rather than changed. Their time travel events didn't change the past, but molded what would become history. Buckbeak was saved; Dumbledore may not know how or why, but he witnesses that bit of history. Harry and Hermione are saved, Dumbledore doesn't understand how or why, but it's an established fact. I believe Dumbledore was also picking up a lot of clues that are 'off-page' for the reader; maybe unnaturally rustling of grass, sounds in the woods, and other assorted clues obtained by his keen preception and awareness of the world around him. By the time they are all in the hospital wing, Dumbledore has put it all together and knows what he must do. So, he sends Harry and Hermione back in time. He sends them when the need is greatest, and when history can be created rather than changed. Again, I do understand the posed hypothetical and agree with it's basic premise, but the flaw in the hypothetical is that while it COULD be done, the NEED to do so has been lost. Just ranting and raving as usual. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 21:20:04 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 21:20:04 -0000 Subject: TT altering DD's memory. Ouch again! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124210 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "northsouth17" wrote: > > DD knows he sent H&H back though. When they show up outside the > door, he knows that 3 hours have passed for them from a moment ago > when he saw them. He knows, or at least asusmes, that since they're > alive and well, they acted according to the plan that he hinted at > and that Sirius has escaped with Buckbeak. It annoys me that he was > so cryptic though. Couldn't he have saved some, uh, more time and > just said "Rescue Buckbeak, fly to the windows, rescue Sirius?" > > Northsouth bboyminn: What we have here is a case of 'plausible deniability'. In other words, if questioned after the fact, Dumbledore can deny that he told Harry and Hermione to do anything, and claim that he was completely unaware of their indended actions, and did nothing to encourage those action. For example, if questioned in court, Dumbledore can claim that his statement that 'what we need is more time' was just a general lament that there wasn't more time to investigate what happened. You heard it here first. Steve/bboyminn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 21:23:47 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 21:23:47 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124211 >>Phoenixgod: >And it struck me that the Order was losing the last war right up until Voldemort blasted himself into atoms by attacking the Potters. >So my question is, is Dumbledore really the best person to be leading this war? The order of the Phoenix independant of the government and you would think that would give them a lot of leeway to act since they don't have to act within the law.< Betsy: I agree with Pippin that it was the Ministry losing the first war. Has the Order ever been a legitimate branch of the government? It's certainly made up of folk of whom the Ministry disapproves, Muggleborns, half-breeds, at least one werewolf. I have my doubts that the Ministry was even aware of Dumbledore's merry band of brothers. And if they were aware, I'm sure any intelligence gathered, or advice given was ignored. I'm sure of that, because as Pippin also pointed out, all of the tactics you suggested, Pheonixgod, that Dumbledore frowns on, were actually used by the Ministry in the first war. And all those tactics did was push more and more folks to Voldemort's side. Of course, the reason the Ministry pushed folks to Voldemort's side is that they refused to correctly identify the enemy. As Pippin said, the Ministry was hung up (and is still, actually) in matters of blood and purity. Rather than go after true Death Eaters, they pushed down on werewolves and giants - giving Voldemort powerful allies, and room to manuever. Dumbledore has been long holding the tide. He has a trusted few (and the original Order was not that big as per Moody's picture) that he used to keep a fingernail's grip on keeping victory from Voldemort's grasp while trying to convince the Ministry to change it's tactics. As far as simply taking out known Death Eaters, I think it's important to remember that the Death Eaters are, for the most part, purebloods. The Order couldn't take them openly - the Ministry would have turned on the Order so fast, their heads would have spun. And I doubt the purebloods are easy to take out stealthly. Purebloods have survived in a hostile environment (surrounded by Muggles) for generations. I'm quite sure their ancestral homes (even the leaking, moth-eaten ones) are incredibly well warded. Plus, I don't think they were that easy to identify. The Dark Mark seems to come and go (Sirius didn't seem aware of it in GoF), and the Death Eaters seem to mask their identity even from each other. So I'm not sure that Snape would have had that large a list of names for Dumbledore. Also, when Voldemort was at his hight, I doubt the Death Eaters were all that important to him. I imagine they were fairly easily replaced. As far as the war today - I disagree that Dumbledore has been merely reacting, and I also disagree that he's been doing all that bad of a job in fighting Voldemort. For one, Harry is still alive, which is huge. For another, Voldemort is no longer operating in shadows, which is also huge. Voldemort is not immortal (no Stone), which is not a small thing. Voldemort doesn't know the extent of Harry's threat to him, again not a small thing. Plus, one of Voldemort's best placed operatives, Lucius, has been exposed and his influence at the Ministry nullified. Really, Voldemort's only victory has been gaining a body. And even in that I suspect the victory is incomplete. Dumbledore's gleam of triumph when Harry told him that Voldemort can now touch him at the end of GoF suggests that using Harry's blood may not have been a good move on Voldemort's part. No, I think Dumbledore is a fine general. I think the near loss in the first war had more to do with the Ministry not allowing Dumbledore to lead than any lack on Dumbledore's account. When Dumbledore is given his head, as he has been in the last fifteen years, he does alright. Betsy From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 21:24:21 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 21:24:21 -0000 Subject: Tom Riddle and the Time-Turning Traveler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124212 Caey asked: "Just a question, has it said anywhere in the books that the TT goes back further than 24 hours? IIRC it's only been used in that time frame so I, who hates the TT, would love to believe that it has it's own built in time limit." Del replies: I explained that the Traveler would use one of the Time Devices found in the Time Room in the DoM, because I assume that there might be some kind of Mega-Time-Turner in there, something that would go back years, decades, maybe even centuries. It's just an assumption of course. As I said, I don't have a shred of canon to back my theory :-) Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 21:37:39 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 21:37:39 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion-Time Turner: Could vs Would In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124213 Steve/bboyminn wrote: "IF Sirius has already been saved, THEN all motivation and need to help him is lost. Again, why fix something that isn't broken? Why would you want to save someone who doesn't need saving?" Del replies: :-) Well, we know that *something* would happen that would make them realise that they must Time-Turn because... they *have* Time-Turned! History can't be changed. History happened the way it did because Harry and Hermione Time-Turned. So no matter what, they *will* Time-Turn. Something, anything, will lead them to the conclusion that they must Time-Turn. And in fact, this is *exactly* what happened in PoA. Harry and Hermione Time-Turned, and by the end of their Time-Turning DD realised that their current version must Time-Turn, as you described. It would have happened just the same if they had Time-Turned a couple of hours later. What do you think? Del From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 22:04:27 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:04:27 -0000 Subject: prior incantantum... Mistake / Clue? I'm confused! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124214 I was just reading the thread about 'prior incantantum'. The thing I'm confused about (now that I've just thought of it), is what happened to the AK that LV aimed at Harry? It was a spell cast by LV's wand, why is there no prior incantantum of any sort for this spell? Everything else appears to be accounted for (even if JKR got the order wrong in the original book), but this one should be in the middle of it all, shouldn't it? I have no theories to offer, I'm just interested to hear what anyone else has to say, and apologies if I'm bringing up an old subject. If I am, can someone please direct me to the right place. Thank you Becky :) From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 22:12:47 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:12:47 -0000 Subject: Luck and Greatness (was Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124215 Eggplant wrote: "Harry defeats Voldemort 5 times and each time the accomplishment is dismissed, they say he was just lucky (nobody is that lucky 5 times), or they say yes Harry was more powerful than Voldemort but that was only because of .., and then they supply a laundry list of reasons, as if explaining why a person is great means the person is no longer great." Del replies: I think the problem is that a good part of Harry's greatness comes from pure luck, and many people don't like to consider luck as a quality and as an integral part of greatness. However, it is quite obvious *to me* that luck is indeed a necessary part of success and greatness. Harry is greater than most because on top of his courage and determination to fight LV (and those are great, but not necessarily greater than in many other people), he is also outrageously lucky in battle and he's got special circumstances that nobody else has access to (the Love Charm, the brother wand). Now, of course, he's been "paying" for those special circumstances ever since he was 15-month-old, and his luck doesn't work too well in normal life... Del From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 22:13:05 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:13:05 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124216 Betsy: As far as the war today - I disagree that Dumbledore has been merely reacting, and I also disagree that he's been doing all that bad of a job in fighting Voldemort. For one, Harry is still alive, which is huge. For another, Voldemort is no longer operating in shadows, which is also huge. Voldemort is not immortal (no Stone), which is not a small thing. Voldemort doesn't know the extent of Harry's threat to him, again not a small thing. Plus, one of Voldemort's best placed operatives, Lucius, has been exposed and his influence at the Ministry nullified. Alla : As I said in my previous post - I think there COULD be a reason which we are not exposed to yet as to why Dumbledore behaves as he is and I will even concede that this reason could be very good. Nevertheless I disagree with you, because as I see the facts right now, Dumbledore had been doing NO proactive movement whatsoever. Can you give me the examples of what Dumbledore had been doing which does not concern Harry, but concerns anti-Voldemort efforts? The fact that Voldemort is no longer operating in Shadows is not exactly thanks to Dumbledore, I think. Same thing with Lucius being exposed, IMO. By the way, how do we know that Voldemort is no longer immortal? He sure was conducting many experiments prior to trying to get a stone, who knows, maybe he already achieved immortality and just wanted Stone for extra security ( just speculating here). Harry is still alive? Let's just say that I think Dumbledore got very lucky that he did not create another Dark Lord in making by his "Keeping Harry alive". Regardless, I will grant you that . Betsy: No, I think Dumbledore is a fine general. I think the near loss in the first war had more to do with the Ministry not allowing Dumbledore to lead than any lack on Dumbledore's account. When Dumbledore is given his head, as he has been in the last fifteen years, he does alright. Alla: I WANT you to be right on this one, honestly. :) But I will wait and see. JMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 22:51:50 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:51:50 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124217 >>Pheonixgod: >1. Potion Master working for enemy--Poison Voldemort. He may not be able to die but he could have some wicked cramps while Harry kicks his behind. Alternately, poison his followers, lethally or not to remove his support.< Betsy: Not a bad plan. Though it couldn't be implimented until the end of GoF anyway. However, Voldemort doesn't strike me as the trusting sort. Would he drink something brewed by another? I don't think he's all that bad at potions himself - what with his immortality craving. Could a poison be slipped past him? But, Snape is sneaky, so maybe something could work. Though Harry hasn't reached behind kicking status yet - so we'll put this plan on the back burner. >>Pheonixgod: >2. Metamorphmagus--Frame some of the more open death eaters for crimes in order to tarnish their good name and remove any credibility they might have. infiltrate the junior death eaters at school by posing as a student--perhaps turn one or more of the students against their parents or merely learn hom much of the infestation has taken root at hogwarts. Probably other idea's I can't think of at midnight. seems like an amazingly useful ability.< Betsy: Only useful now that the Order actually *has* a Metamorphmagus. Tonks was a young girl during the first war. Haven't all the known Death Eaters already been swept up after the MoM battle, though? The infiltration wouldn't be a bad idea. I guess Slytherin would be the obvious house. Who would she stand in for, I wonder? And those kids have been togther for five years (if not longer - within pureblood circles) so it'd take some major acting. Would Tonks be able to pull something like that off? Personally, if the Order could win one of the Slytherins to their side, I think it would do more good. The Slytherin would be well aware of his/her peers strengths and weaknesses and might be able to sway a few more JDE's over. Dumbledore, through Snape, may already be attempting this. It's pretty delicate work though. You're trying to convince a kid to not only give up on his family, but also on centuries of tradition. >>Pheonixgod: >3. The Media. Get out Harry's Story! Don't let the Ministry have all the airspace to get out their version of the truth. Own the people and you will have half the battle won. Fight the daily prophet on their own ground. Fight Fudge in the media and get someone competent like Madam Bones to run the show.< Betsy: Done and done. Thanks to Hermione, Rita Skeeter put out the Order version of events. And after the scandle of Voldemort popping up right in the middle of the Ministry, I doubt Fudge has such a strangle hold on the Daily Prophet anymore. Also, don't underestimate the importance of knowing your true friends. The unpopularity of Dumbledore for the OotP year allowed him the opportunity to learn who he could truly count on. And it gave Fudge, and his people, enough rope to hang themselves. Fudge has been exposed as a fool, and the Daily Prophet as biased. Both lost a lot of power by the end of OotP that will take a long time to build back up. And Dumbledore is unshackled exactly when he needs to be. >>Pheonixgod: >4. Giant animagus dog. Potential tracker and spy. Trail Lucius to DE meetings and maybe learn where Voldemort is holding up at for a raid at a later time. Possible trainer for other potential animagi in the order.< Betsy: Can animagus apperate in animal form? Can an animal sniff out where a wizard has apperated to? Would a stray dog ever be allowed on Malfoy grounds? Would any living thing be able to penetrate the kind of wards most likely thrown up around super secret Death Eater meetings? Remember, this is wizards fighting wizards. Most tricks have been used before. And I'm sure the pure-bloods have histories of them all. "Ah, great, great Aunt Gertie. She once caught her second husband sneaking off in his earthworm form and..." >>Pheonixgod: >5. Use outside the system nature of the OOTP to raise hell with the DE who like to work within the system. Raid their homes. Use psychological warfare to undermine their morale. Hell, kidnap them for interrogation purposes-see 6. for more details.< Betsy: Again, the trouble is *finding* the Death Eaters. I think this is exactly the reason for the masks. Though Dumbledore did use this tactic on Lucius in the beginning of CoS. Arthur Weasley was involved in raids on Lucius's home (and probably the homes of his friends and fellow Death Eaters), and I'm sure Dumbledore was the force behind those decisions. Certainly wasn't Fudge. And the raids did rattle Lucius. He started selling things off and throwing money around. (That I'm not sure he could afford, for all the Malfoy talk of wealth - protesting too much perhaps?) It precipitated Lucius's attack on the Weasley family (Tom's diary), and ended in Lucius losing his house-elf. It may also have encouraged Lucius to show-out at the Quiddich games (letting off steam), which did not please Voldemort, which may have led to Lucius leading the attack at the Ministry. And that's a lot of maybe's, I know. But, it does go to show that there are behind-the-scenes things going on that Harry knows not of. >>Pheonixgod: >6. Use the lovely Fleur and her charm or perhaps the more intense charms of her full blooded relatives to turn the male death eaters into putty. You can't tell that five minutes with a beautiful veela isn't going to have them singing all they know. And look, no morally objectionable torture. Neat :) < Betsy: Again, good only if you know who the Death Eaters are and can lay hands on them. And again, Fleur was too young to use during the first year. Will she play a part in this war? Most definitely. She's not dating Bill for nothing. Though I also seem to recall that Arthur Weasley was not overly affected by the veela. There may be ways to protect yourself from their charms. I will say using magical beings is something Dumbledore is definitely for. He's tried time and again to get the Ministry to reach out to other magical folk, and the Ministry not only refused, but through their prejudice drove them to Voldemort's side. This time around, it looks like Dumbledore is going around the Ministry and trying to get to the various beings before Voldemort can. We'll only know how well he succeeded by the end of Book 7, I imagine. >>Pheonixgod: >7.Use the prophecy for your own purposes! The most important thing of all. Voldemort was lying low the whole year and plotting to get his hands on it. Why not let information slip about the prophecy being transported to a more secure location as the bait for a trap. Force Voldemort into acting openly and most likely lose a few servants.< Betsy: Two problems: Who do you slip that information to? And would Voldemort believe it if he heard it? I got the impression that the DoM is probably one of the more secure locations within the WW. (Voldemort certainly had to go to extremes to try and get his hands on the prophecy.) And Voldemort is, I believe, cunning enough to see through any obvious traps. He would certainly have had Lucius check with Fudge and I can't see Dumbledore allowing Fudge in on the ruse. And I can't see Fudge agreeing to anyone moving any prophecy, especially one concerning Voldemort. Actually, the plan of protecting the prophecy so well it forces Voldemort out into the open to steal it himself seemed to work pretty well. Voldemort's return got out and he lost quite a few Death Eaters, one of whom had been very well placed. Not that I think Dumbledore wanted Harry to get involved. But without Harry, Voldemort would have been forced to go himself, and he would have been trapped then. >>Pheonixgod: >8. Use cool banker Weasley to cut off the wealth of Death Eaters if possible through banking red tape.< Betsy: I'm pretty darn sure that no pure-blood banks with Muggles. And we do know that Dumbledore is working with Bill Weasley to get in with the goblins of Gringotts (with whom I'm sure the pure-bloods bank). Even if the goblins refuse to mess with the Death Eater money (I see them being more Swiss than the Swiss on this) they might give clues as to suspicious banking activity. >>Pheonixgod: >9. Train Harry. Get him out of his grief by putting him through an exhausting magical boot camp along side his friends and start preparing him for what is going to come.< Betsy: I think this has been ongoing from year one. Harry wasn't chosen as the DA's teacher for nothing. Harry is very good with his wand, he thinks well on his feet, and he's a good leader. That he was able to hold off so many Death Eaters for as long as he did during the battle of the DoM, and that he kept his friends alive, speaks well for the training he has already received. And I think it's incredibly important that he's got such a strong inter-house group at is back. Lessons will continue, I'm sure. And they may be more overt now, if Dumbledore has truly taken his gloves off (and I think he has). But Dumbledore has been training Harry since Hagrid first showed up on that little rain-swept island in PS/SS. >>Pheonixgod: >10. Start laying the ground work for all of the above *early*. DD knows that Voldemort is going to be back so he should have been plotting for the past decade and a half. Right now it looks like he's been flying by the seat of his pants.< Betsy: It looks like that to us, because we haven't been peering over his shoulder as Dumbledore spun out his plans and plots. But I don't think it's a coincidence that Moody recruited one of the only Metamorphmagus witches around for the Order. I don't think it's a coincidence that Dumbledore reached out to the other Wizarding schools when he did, gaining another half-giant, a part veela, and a well trained dark arts user (possibly) for his side. I don't think it's a coincidence that Voldemort was unable to keep his return a secret for less than a year (less than an hour, really). I don't think it's a coincidence that Voldemort *still* doesn't fully comprehend the threat Harry poses for him. I don't think it's a coincidence that most of Voldemort's Death Eaters were exposed and arrested early into his first defeat, and I don't think it's a coincidence that several more have been exposed now, including one so perfectly positioned at the Minister's ear. I also think it's a very big deal that for the first time in perhaps the history of Hogwarts (Hermione?) three out of the four houses are working so strongly together. That kind of shift in a place so soaked in tradition speaks to a very powerful and influential headmaster. Harry will defeat Voldemort, and Dumbledore will position him perfectly to do so. Betsy From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 23:23:07 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 23:23:07 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124218 >>Alla : >Can you give me the examples of what Dumbledore had been doing which does not concern Harry, but concerns anti-Voldemort efforts?< Betsy: See my answer to Pheonixgod's list of suggestions. I think I include some tangible non-Harry-centric action there. :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124217 >>Alla: >By the way, how do we know that Voldemort is no longer immortal? He sure was conducting many experiments prior to trying to get a stone, who knows, maybe he already achieved immortality and just wanted Stone for extra security ( just speculating here).< Betsy: "But my plan failed. I did not manage to steal the Sorcerer's Stone. I was not to be assured immortal life. I was thwarted..." (GoF Scholastic Hardback p. 654) "There was no hope of stealing the Sorcerer's Stone anymore, for I knew that Dumbledore would have seen to it that it was destroyed. But I was willing to embrace mortal life again, before chasing immortality. I set my sights lower... I would settle for my old body back again, and my old strength. "I knew that to achieve this -- it is an old piece of Dark Magic, the potion that revived me tonight..." (ibid p. 656) Betsy From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 00:09:36 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 00:09:36 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124219 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > Valky wrote: > > "Dumbledore was right to tell them to hurry, a teensy tiny window > of opportunity was opened and it was not long before it shut tight > again, ability to go backwards in time was never going override that > fact." > > Del replies: > > There's no window of opportunity in Time-Turning. Either you Time- > Turn or you don't. > Valky: > Yes but their was a window of opportunity in which they could safely > be missing in the original timeline, and it was the two minutes > before DD closed and locked the door. bboyminn: I'm pretty sure this is cleared up, but just in case, I'll take a shot at it anyway. It's not the window of opportunity to Time Turn that is narrow, it's the window of opportunity to NOT GET CAUGHT that is limited. Let's call the point in time when Harry and Hermione use the Time Turner the EXIT time. Let's call the point in time when H&H return to the location at which they Time Turned the RETURN time. For Harry and Hermione to have plausible deniability of guilt, the Exit and Return times can't overlap; Exit at 9pm, return at 8pm. Because under this circumstance both TT!Harry and RT!Harry (Realtime!Harry) can be see at the same place at the same time. That would certainly indicate that Harry was up to no good. If there is a gap between the Exit and Return time (Exit @ 9pm, Return @ 10pm) then there is an hour during which Harry can not account for his were-abouts. Again, a strong indicator that Harry is up to no good. So, the only safe gap of 'plausible deniability' is between the time when Madame Pomphrey is sent from the room and a minute or so after Harry and Hermione disappear. Returning too soon or too late would cast a great deal of suspiscion on both Harry and Hermione. So, tying in Del's theory, as long as the gap between Exit and Return remains small enough to maintain their alibis, the actual time of Exit and Return isn't important. However, if they time traveled from a later point in time, especially if it was after Sirius was saved, more story would have to be created to account for WHY they went back in time. (Del, see the email I sent to your Yahoo account.) Remember that no matter when they went back in time, as long as they arrive at 6pm, they are always there the entire time doing their job to save Sirius and Buckbeak. Because they (TT!Harry and TT!Hermione) are always there doing there job, we avoid the ever-so nasty dual timeline paradox in which Sirius is soul sucked in one and saved in another. TT!Harry is always there, so Sirius is always saved. Loving every headaching minute of this. Steve/bboyminn From cyclone_61032 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 19:49:13 2005 From: cyclone_61032 at yahoo.com (David & Laura) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 19:49:13 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124220 David: snipping to last paragraphs. > Eggplant: > Dumbledore's record in these matters just can not compare with > Harry's and Harry is only 15. > > Tonks: > The only thing Harry has going for him is his ability to ask for > and accept help. On his own the only time that he was able to > fight LV was the possession scene. And this only because of the > Love that was in Harry. This Love which is in Harry's very blood > is what saves him from total possession by LV. And that probably > came from Lily. David: Tonks, I have to disagree on this last point. I would argue that Harry didn't even fight LV in the possession scene in the OOTP. His natural defense or power just took over. There are two instances where I think Harry did surprisingly and successfully fight LV, both in the GOF graveyard scene. 1.When LV attempted to force him to say 'no' with the Imperius curse. Harry resisted the curse, shocking the DE's. It was probably the first time someone threw off an LV imperio. 2. When their wands joined, Harry was able to force the curse junction back into LV's wand with the force of his will alone. I don't know what Harry's power is (force of will, strength of mind, sickeningly sweet love), but he has definitely bested LV with it a couple of times. (I threw the sickeningly sweet love bit in just to get the blood pressure of a few members up...just kidding y'all). Egg, I have to disagree that DD stinks as a general, and Harry would be better. We really don't know who was winning the first war. We know the MOM and Order had killed or captured many of LV's followers. The books really don't give many facts to draw a conclusion. As to present day, I would argue things have gone fairly well. Harry is alive. The WW is alerted to LV's presence. A number of DE's have been captured or exposed. We can debate how vital DD's role to these successes. But my observation as to the best military leaders is not just how well they plan, but also how well they react to the inevitable surprises. Thus, so far I give DD good marks. I really don't see anyone else leading the good guys against LV. Having said that, I have a bad feeling DD's going to sacrifice himself for Harry or the cause. His sacrifice will somehow strenghten Harry even further. I just like the old coot so much, I hate to see him go. David From cyclone_61032 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 19:55:03 2005 From: cyclone_61032 at yahoo.com (David & Laura) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 19:55:03 -0000 Subject: A question about Fawkes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124221 Rachel wrote: > Does anyone have any thoughts on the message / clues JKR is > giving us regarding life cycles? Fawkes, for example, is a > perfect representation of life from cradle to grave in a > continuous circle. Then in the DoM in OOTP there is the > strange bell jar with the egg and bird in a continuous flow > of life to death (the one the DE falls into to become > 'babyface'). David: I don't know that they're so much clues Rachel. It could just be JK's feelings on the 'circle of life'. One other I can think of is how often we're reminded how Harry is the spitting image of his father. I surely hope Harry gets the chance to carry on the circle with his own children, but I have my doubts. If Harry does not have children, this then would be the end of the Potter line I guess. David From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 01:26:30 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 01:26:30 -0000 Subject: JKR's Time Turner (Was *MY* Time Turner) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124222 <"K" wrote: I have no idea how JKR is going to use time-travel but I do believe we will see it again. Though I'm not a fan of time-travel at all I'm going to trust the author. If a person uses the time turner and he can't change/affect time, then surely that would mean the time turner will only be used to show us the past or future. Sort of like the Pensieve. It would serve no other purpose that I can think of. BUT, when JKR introduced time-travel in PoA, she made a point of pointing out that there are indeed problems with time traveling if one is not careful. In order to ignore those warnings, one has to excuse the word of McGonagall and Hermione in some way. McGonagall is exaggerating and Hermione is tired or some other excuse. I just don't buy into that line of thinking. Hermione is insistent that *they must not be seen* and they are not to *change anything*. If it won't matter, then why does the author have Hermione repeat those phrases numerous times? I'll just list some of the time traveling scenes and leave it at that. vmonte responds: Hi K, great post. I agree with you; I think that Dumbledore can indeed change history via time travel. Thanks for posting all the great quotes. I'm going to print a copy of them for myself. (I'll also probably use them at another site.) ;0) I was wondering if perhaps Dumbledore was using the penseive not just as a recorder of day-to-day memories (that he then reviews to find links and patterns), but as a means of preserving memories before he decides to TT and perhaps make time-line changes. I mentioned the other day that I noticed that the penseive had rune symbols on it and wondered if it was some kind of divination gadget. I did some research on Runes and found out that: "Runic divination or "rune casting" is not "fortunetelling" in the sense that one actually sees the future. Instead, runes give one a means of analyzing the path that one is on and a likely outcome. The future is not fixed. It changes with everything one does. If one does not like the prediction, one can always change paths." This may suggest that Dumbledore may be using the penseive as a "strategist" would. He analyzes what he sees and only moves forward with a plan (or with TT) when he can predict a positive outcome. >Vivamus wrote: (In an unrelated post that was linked here.) The second trio of women who complete Harry as equals are still developing into their roles, but Hermione as McGonagall's prot?g? has been obvious from the start. Luna, with her silvery eyes, name, personal grief, touching struggles with being picked on, and matter of fact compassion, seems to be stepping into the role of spiritual complement to Harry. That leaves Ginny to pick up the third area of body complement, or soul-mate. vmonte responds: Vivamus also got me thinking about Hermione, Ginny, and Luna but in a different/unrelated way (great post by the way--I agree with your comments). Hermione has mentioned that she likes her Rune's classes. I also noticed that Luna was reading/working on a Rune puzzle on the train when she was introduced in OOTP. And at the end of OOTP Ginny is woking on a Rune puzzle from Luna's Quibbler paper. I'm not sure why this is relevant except that perhaps the penseive is specific to this field of magic. Will the girls learn about how penseives are used in school? Will someone other than Dumbledore begin to do Rune casting as a way to strategize against Voldemort? Who knows... OOTP Page 529, U.S. edition paperback: Occlumency Chapter "Harry's attention was drawn toward the desk, however, where a shallow stone basin engraved with runes and symbols lay in a pool of candlelight. Harry recognized it at once--Dumbledore's Penseive." Rune quote from: http://www.sunnyway.com/runes/ Vivian From cyclone_61032 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 20:03:14 2005 From: cyclone_61032 at yahoo.com (David & Laura) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:03:14 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124223 > David: > > Harry's throwing of DD's trinkets was too childish and out > > of character for my image of Harry, but that would be my > > only criticism. > > Geoff: > I wouldn't agree with you on this. I think JKR has got a great > take on Harry's reaction; it encapsulates his feelings perfectly. > > > > I can remember my elder son, when he was about Harry's age - > something would go wrong and he would go ballistic with rage. He > would tear up sheets of work he had done and storm out of the room. David: I certainly agree Geoff that throwing tantrums are fair teenager game. What I was trying to say, inefficiently probably, was that up to now Harry's been a yeller and occassionally physical with adversaries. It seemed out of character to me for Harry to pitch a throwing fit. I expected the yelling. I couldn't even see him picking up a chair to attempt to bust down DD's door, but just not pick up doodads and start busting them. I just thought it unusual for Harry. BTW, my teenagers were/are a sulker, a yeller, and a mix-breed of both. David From jmrazo at hotmail.com Tue Feb 8 20:53:23 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:53:23 -0000 Subject: Significance of Ginny In-Reply-To: <200502080745644.SM01556@devbox> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124224 > Vivamus: > I recognize this pattern (the archetypal trio of women who make > the hero complete) from the wonderful Childe Cycle of Gordon > Dickson; but he may have gotten it from earlier literature. (He > wrote the first book using it [Dorsai!] in 1960 or thereabouts.) That sounds like a fascinating story. I may have to track it down. Always looking for more reading material. > BTW, I don't agree at all with those who complain that Ginny > changes from books 1-4 to book 5. She acts in book 5 exactly as > I've been seeing her act all along, but behind the scenes, as it > were. I disagree, but it's been argued already and I doubt we'll convince each other. I thought Ginny was very poorly developed compared to characters like Neville and never became as interesting as some of the new characters like Luna. She was just badly done, IMO. > In short, I think Ginny was chosen to be born just as Harry was, > and two of them will defeat LV, not Harry alone. I actually find it kind of offensive that Harry is going to *need* a woman to defeat Voldemort. Why can't he do it by himself? I think whatever is going to allow Harry to find victory is going to be found from with Harry himself. It's Harry's name alone on the series and I think the final blow is going to come from Him alone. Perhaps with spirtual aid from his parents, but essentially alone. That having been said, I think that Ginny is going to serve some larger purpose. I personally think that a fragment of Voldemort's essence is lodged with Ginny and without it he is less than whole. It's my prediction Voldemort is going to kidnap Ginny at some point in the last book and spark off the final battle towards the end of the school year. So, indirectly Ginny is important, but only as a vehicle for Voldemort's power that he needs to reclaim. Her status as a female Weasley is incidental except for it led to her crush on Harry and the easy in that Tom Riddle exploited. As for them being soul mates? *shivers* God, I hope not. phoenixgod2000 From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 22:08:46 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:08:46 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124225 > Betsy: > As far as the war today - I disagree that Dumbledore has been > merely reacting, and I also disagree that he's been doing all that > bad of a job in fighting Voldemort. For one, Harry is still alive, > which is huge. For another, Voldemort is no longer operating in > shadows, which is also huge. Voldemort is not immortal (no Stone), > which is not a small thing. Voldemort doesn't know the extent of > Harry's threat to him, again not a small thing. Plus, one of > Voldemort's best placed operatives, Lucius, has been exposed and > his influence at the Ministry nullified. > > Really, Voldemort's only victory has been gaining a body. And even > in that I suspect the victory is incomplete. Dumbledore's gleam of > triumph when Harry told him that Voldemort can now touch him at the > end of GoF suggests that using Harry's blood may not have been a > good move on Voldemort's part. northsouth: All of this stuff is personal to Voldemort. Perhaps, like last time, defeating Voldemort himself would be enough to end the war (though considering the number of unrepentant DEs hanging around, it seems to have been ended far from effectively) but they still have to get to Voldemort. So far the only one who has managed to do that is Harry, and that's beacuse Voldemort is too much of MWAHAHA type villain. He's always doing stupid dangerous things so he can get a chance to face off Harry himself. Harry has yet to really take initiative and go after LV, and if he ever does, it will need a much better organized, better coordinated, possessing better intelligence and strategy Order than I've seen so far. Northsouth From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 22:21:06 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:21:06 -0000 Subject: TT altering DD's memory. Ouch again! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124226 > > Northsouth: > > It annoys me that he was so cryptic though. Couldn't he have > > saved some, uh, more time and just said "Rescue Buckbeak, fly > > to the windows, rescue Sirius?" > bboyminn: > What we have here is a case of 'plausible deniability'. > > In other words, if questioned after the fact, Dumbledore can deny > that he told Harry and Hermione to do anything, and claim that he > was completely unaware of their indended actions, and did nothing > to encourage those actions. > > For example, if questioned in court, Dumbledore can claim that his > statement that 'what we need is more time' was just a general lament > that there wasn't more time to investigate what happened. More of DD eternal-truthfullness-with-strategic-omissions I suppose? I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't some method to his particular brand of honesty. I'm thinking that picking up a lie via Legilemency or Veritaserum might be much easier than spottting a careful omission. Dumbledore always speaks so cryptically so that should he ever be questioned about anything, he can somehow twist his words in such a way that he never has to really *lie*? That puts DD in much better light, IMO, than refusing to speak lies, but instead speaking riddled and incomplete truth on grounds of pure ethics. That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it until...well, morning, anyway. Northsouth From kgpopp at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 22:59:08 2005 From: kgpopp at yahoo.com (kgpopp) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:59:08 -0000 Subject: Don't be seen? / Re: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner - small point on rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124227 > Del: > Even worse : Harry may have survived because he broke the main rule > of Time-Turning : "Don't be seen". That Harry is something special > indeed :-) On his first use of a TT, he demonstrates that the > rule "Don't be seen" can actually be counter-productive :-D ! Kristen responds: I don't think there is a rule that you should not be seen. I think the rule is that wizards are not suppose to time travel because they don't want them to change the course of events. i.e. Because H&H used the Time Turner, Buckbeak lives but per the MOM Buckbeak was not suppose to live. (I tried to word that so that I did not re-start the debate on if H&H did change things). So the do not be seen thing is really just common sense, or Hermione's own rule so that they don't get caught. From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 02:09:01 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 02:09:01 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124228 >meltowne wrote: snip I agree with you here - but would take it a step further. I suspect two possibilities regarding the time turner. Obviously it is not something everybody has access to, for obvious reasons. I appears that using it to go back more than 2 or 3 hours may cause problems. Maybe there is a way to detect its use, maybe it causes a small rift in time - larger the farther back you go. Also as you suggest below, small changes can caus larger more significant changes farther in the future. I recall reading a book several years ago where someone tried to prevent Lincoln's assassination, only to have him die an hour later of something else. If the time turner could be used to go back many years, why didn't Dumbledore just go back and plant evidence implicating Tom Riddle as the heir of Slytherin? Maybe because he knows that such a change would have enormous implications. vmonte responds: Your Lincoln comment reminds me of what happened to Sirius. He was saved in PoA but died a couple of years later in OOTP. Vivian From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Wed Feb 9 02:10:55 2005 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 02:10:55 -0000 Subject: Significance of Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124229 phoenixgod2000: > That having been said, I think that Ginny is going to serve some > larger purpose. I personally think that a fragment of Voldemort's > essence is lodged with Ginny and without it he is less than whole. > It's my prediction Voldemort is going to kidnap Ginny at some point > in the last book and spark off the final battle towards the end of > the school year. So, indirectly Ginny is important, but only as a > vehicle for Voldemort's power that he needs to reclaim. Her status > as a female Weasley is incidental except for it led to her crush on > Harry and the easy in that Tom Riddle exploited. > > As for them being soul mates? *shivers* God, I hope not. As much as I hate the term soul mate (so overused and trite) the idea of Ginny being kidnapped is even worse. It would be nothing more than her being tied to the railroad tracks with evil Voldemort twirling his mustache while, white hat wearing Harry, comes to the rescue. I would much rather Ginny were a regular soldier in D's A than another helpless damsel in distress, even if she's his girlfriend at the time. I think that's one reason I loved the fact that Ron was used during the challenges in GOF because it seemed those that needed to be rescued were overwhelmingly female. Casey From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 02:22:17 2005 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 02:22:17 -0000 Subject: Significance of Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124230 Phoenixgod: > I actually find it kind of offensive that Harry is going to *need* a > woman to defeat Voldemort. Why can't he do it by himself? I think > whatever is going to allow Harry to find victory is going to be > found from with Harry himself. It's Harry's name alone on the series > and I think the final blow is going to come from Him alone. Perhaps > with spirtual aid from his parents, but essentially alone. > > That having been said, I think that Ginny is going to serve some > larger purpose. I personally think that a fragment of Voldemort's > essence is lodged with Ginny and without it he is less than whole. > It's my prediction Voldemort is going to kidnap Ginny at some point > in the last book and spark off the final battle towards the end of > the school year. So, indirectly Ginny is important, but only as a > vehicle for Voldemort's power that he needs to reclaim. Her status > as a female Weasley is incidental except for it led to her crush on > Harry and the easy in that Tom Riddle exploited. > > As for them being soul mates? *shivers* God, I hope not. > > phoenixgod2000 Antosha: I will happily agree to disagree with you on the subject of Ginny in general and JKR's development of her character in particular. I can see where you're coming from though, of course, I disagree... As to why there _has_ to be a woman involved in Harry's defeat of LV... Well, I'm gonna try to avoid getting all Jungian here, but it's going to be tough. Let's call it symmetry, okay? Harry _exists_ because of his mother's love. We know his father died to save him too, but that's not the sacrifice that is stressed by DD or JKR: it's Lily's death that provided the protection that kept Harry alive (exactly how, we still don't know). Unfortunately, since her early exit, Harry has been completely cut off from the feminine principal for most of the rest of his life. Aunt Petunia? Aunt Marge? Please. Beginning with meeting the kindly Mrs. Weasley (and daughter and sons) on Platform 9 3/ 4 his first year, Harry has slowly been attempting to integrate girls into his life, not just because they're fascinating creatures to him--which they are--but because they represent a side of Harry _himself_ that he is just getting to know. A side, btw, that Tom Riddle _never_ came to know. His experiments have had mixed results. ONe of his best friends is a girl, and Harry has, in fact, been more at ease with Hermione's blossoming than Ron--and the shipping types can make hay with that on either side. His obsession with Cho, on the other hand, was an unmitigated disaster. Ginny and Luna (and possibly Susan Bones) are the girls who seem to have some sort of common language of experience with Harry. They are the ones I can actually see him getting close enough to so that he realizes more to himself than the limited stereotypical boy viewpoint... I think this is, in part, the power the Dark Lord knows not. As for your idea about LV kidnapping Ginny to retrieve the part of himself that was placed there by the diary.... That's a REALLY interesting idea! And not disconsonant with the one I've mentioned above.... Soul mates... Well, all literary couples are soul mates of a sort. But the most interesting (Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy or Benedick and Beatrice or even Romeo and Juliet) are as interesting for what separates them as what drives them together... And I can see that argument supporting any of the girls I mentioned above.... Though my money's still on Ginevra when all's said and done. Antosha, who's not a betting man. From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 02:27:36 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 02:27:36 -0000 Subject: Confusion about the TT. DD knows everything... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124231 >I vmonte wrote: >I think that Harry did go against Dumbledore's wishes during OOTP, but I think that in books 1-4 Dumbledore was allowing Harry and gang to do a lot. Why didn't Dumbledore take care of Buckbeak and Sirius himself during PoA? He could have taken some polyjuice and TT himself don't you think? It's a pretty dangerous job he gave two thirteen- year-olds. He is definitely training them, IMO. Harry needs training in order to be able to defeat Voldemort. Dumbledore is also using Hermione and Ron's gifts to help Harry along as well.< Betsy responds: I do agree that Dumbledore gave Harry a lot of leeway throughout the books. And I agree that Dumbledore having Hermione and Harry do the Time Turner stuff instead of himself (not sure why he'd need to polyjuice himself), and his actions in CoS with the whole loyalty line, are examples of Dumbledore giving Harry a chance to learn. vmonte responds: Sorry, my husband often tells me that I assume too often that people know what I am talking about. Anyway, the easiest way to fix the problem of worrying whether your past self or another person from the past would spot your TT self (or both versions of yourself) would be to polyjuice yourself and become an altogether different person. This way you can pretty much work undercover without anyone really knowing who you are, or becoming suspicious. I don't know why but Aberforth and Mundungus come to mind as possible candidates... Vivian From MadameSSnape at aol.com Wed Feb 9 03:00:38 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 22:00:38 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Significance of Ginny Message-ID: <1e6.34af3d67.2f3ad6d6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124232 In a message dated 2/8/2005 7:48:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, Vivamus at TaprootTech.com writes: I recognize this pattern (the archetypal trio of women who make the hero complete) from the wonderful Childe Cycle of Gordon Dickson; but he may have gotten it from earlier literature. (He wrote the first book using it [Dorsai!] in 1960 or thereabouts.) =========== Sherrie here: Indeed he did - from the Triple Goddess of ancient lore. The Fates, the Norns, the Erinyes - sets of trifold Goddesses, which many simply define as Maiden, Mother & Crone. (Lily/Molly/Minerva; I haven't quite defined the roles in the second triad, except that I rather think that Hermione is the Crone.) Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kgpopp at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 23:38:49 2005 From: kgpopp at yahoo.com (kgpopp) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 23:38:49 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124233 First I agree with Betsy on this, that DD is a good general and that he has been pro-active. > Betsy: > As far as the war today - I disagree that Dumbledore has been > merely reacting, and I also disagree that he's been doing all > that bad of a job in fighting Voldemort. > > Alla : > > As I said in my previous post - I think there COULD be a reason > which we are not exposed to yet as to why Dumbledore behaves as he > is and I will even concede that this reason could be very good. > > Nevertheless I disagree with you, because as I see the facts right > now, Dumbledore had been doing NO proactive movement whatsoever. > Can you give me the examples of what Dumbledore had been doing > which does not concern Harry, but concerns anti-Voldemort efforts? -- Kristen: 1) Yes, he sent Hagrid to get the Giants. 2) He is speaking out to the wizarding world that Voldemort has returned even though it is costing him political capital. 3) He has the order members tracking know death eaters. While I know it might be more active to "take them out". Remember that Azkaban may not be under MOM control much longer and they are trying to learn more of the enemies plans. 4) He has order members looking for international support and recruiting members 5) He may (or may not) have Snape out there spying on DEs. But either way he is up to something. 6) He has order members guarding the prophecy in an effort to keep that "weapon" out of Voldemort's hands. Last: This is all Harry knows of we don't know what. In a war that is not yet public, I'm not sure what else you expect the order to do right now. They cannot very well attack the DEs when the MOM does not acknowledge that Lucius and company are a threat. All that would do is land order members in Azkaban. > Alla: > The fact that Voldemort is no longer operating in Shadows is not > exactly thanks to Dumbledore, I think. Same thing with Lucius being > exposed, IMO. -- Kristen: I agree DD did not plan Lucius' exposure. > Alla: > Harry is still alive? Let's just say that I think Dumbledore got > very lucky that he did not create another Dark Lord in making by > his "Keeping Harry alive". Regardless, I will grant you that. -- Kristen: I agree DD could have done better by sharing more with Harry but he admits his mistake and even DD is allowed a few mistakes. > Betsy: > No, I think Dumbledore is a fine general. I think the near loss in > the first war had more to do with the Ministry not allowing > Dumbledore to lead than any lack on Dumbledore's account. When > Dumbledore is given his head, as he has been in the last fifteen > years, he does alright. > > Alla: > I WANT you to be right on this one, honestly. :) > But I will wait and see. -- Kristen: In terms of the 1st WW, I forget the exact reference but I think Sirius says that the first time around Voldemort built up power slowly; and at first had support from a lot of pureblood before people saw his "true colors." If this is true the order is not just fighting Voldemort & his DEs but public opinion. By the time the "war" started I think some said the order was out numbered 2:1, and the order was being picked off one by one. So I think we can assume that DD was very active then but also had to figure out a way to keep his "troops" from being destroyed. I see them at this point is more of a resistance group than the MOM army. Just a thought. - Kristen From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 03:19:00 2005 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 03:19:00 -0000 Subject: Significance of Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124234 Casey said: > As much as I hate the term soul mate (so overused and trite) the > idea of Ginny being kidnapped is even worse. It would be nothing > more than her being tied to the railroad tracks with evil Voldemort > twirling his mustache while, white hat wearing Harry, comes to the > rescue. I would much rather Ginny were a regular soldier in D's A > than another helpless damsel in distress, even if she's his > girlfriend at the time. I think that's one reason I loved the fact > that Ron was used during the challenges in GOF because it seemed > those that needed to be rescued were overwhelmingly female. > > Casey Well, if you put it that way... The best and worst thing about CoS--as a myth nut--was its archetypal ending. Damsel in distress/sleeping princess. Evil sorcerer. Deadly dragon-beast. Both defeated by the virtuous hero with the magical companion and the enchanted sword. Beautiful. I DO believe that LV will try to exploit Ginny again. It's just too obvious, since Lucius Malfoy KNOWS she was possessed by the diary... This is part of the Changeling!Harry discussion. And yet I think that what Ginny's development through the series (which phoenixgod finds unconvincing) is driving towards is precisely a situation where she ISN'T a damsel in distress. In OotP (and, to a more subtle extent before) she has shown herself to be brave, wily and--pardon the word--self-possessed. So I foresee some sort of situation where LV comes after her and Harry's saving-people-thing kicks in... But Ginny's the one who saves _Harry's_ bacon. And then we can have all sorts of shipping and life-debt debates from there. Whether that's in the sixth book or the seventh, I don't know, but I can see it happening. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Feb 9 03:26:23 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 03:26:23 -0000 Subject: *MY* confusion about the Time Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124235 Steve: > So, tying in Del's theory, as long as the gap between Exit and Return remains small enough to maintain their alibis, the actual time of Exit and Return isn't important. > Valky: But that will *only* work outside the context of the story. Put it in context and there is *no* gap between exit and return that can maintain their alibi's for the rest of the night. If they TT'ed any other time (which I give you could work) we'd be dealing with a different time device, methinks, so sticking with the time turner... look upthread at the argument that after Sirius escapes two lone kids in the FF and Hogwarts ground who *are not allowed to be seen* face double the danger and chance of being caught, and if H/H TT'ed later they would *have to hide* for many more hours before returning without being caught. Steve: > However, if they time traveled from a later point in time, especially if it was after Sirius was saved, more story would have to be created to account for WHY they went back in time. Valky; I agree, and I think that a long drawn out ending wouldn't have been quite so exciting as well. Steve > Remember that no matter when they went back in time, as long as they arrive at 6pm, they are always there the entire time doing their job to save Sirius and Buckbeak. Because they (TT!Harry and TT! Hermione) are always there doing there job, > Valky: I agree with this too, but there are canon reasons, as well, why the events *after* they saved Sirius closed the window when DD locked the door. From jmrazo at hotmail.com Tue Feb 8 23:30:25 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 23:30:25 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124236 > Betsy: > I agree with Pippin that it was the Ministry losing the first > war. Has the Order ever been a legitimate branch of the > government? It's certainly made up of folk of whom the Ministry > disapproves, Muggleborns, half-breeds, at least one werewolf. I > have my doubts that the Ministry was even aware of Dumbledore's > merry band of brothers. And if they were aware, I'm sure any > intelligence gathered, or advice given was ignored. You could be right that in the first war the Order was what was standing between Voldemort and total victory against the Ministry but in the current conflict he is doing very little IMO. The fact that he is not affiliated with the government gives them greater power to act, not less. > I'm sure of that, because as Pippin also pointed out, all of the > tactics you suggested, Phoenixgod, that Dumbledore frowns on, were > actually used by the Ministry in the first war. And all those > tactics did was push more and more folks to Voldemort's side. The Ministry was using Aurors like a club, breaking down doors like Nazi soldiers left and right. The US made the same mistake in Vietnam and we're making the same mistake in Iraq. You can't club your way through a cancerous tumor. Scalpels can be used quietly to cut it away. The order could have been that scalpel. They could have worked within the shadows like Intelligence services do every day throughout the real world. The wizarding population never need to know everything that went on. > As far as simply taking out known Death Eaters, I doubt the > purebloods are easy to take out stealthly. Purebloods have > survived in a hostile environment (surrounded by Muggles) for > generations. I'm quite sure their ancestral homes (even the > leaking, moth-eaten ones) are incredibly well warded. I put forth the tactics I thought would work best. I never said it would be a cake walk (although considering the storm trooper-like aim of the DEs it may well have been). But it certainly is doable, especially since the Death Eaters like Lucius were using the red tape of the Ministry to shield themselves and the Order works outside those lines. > Plus, I don't think they were that easy to identify. The Dark > Mark seems to come and go (Sirius didn't seem aware of it in GoF), > and the Death Eaters seem to mask their identity even from each > other. So I'm not sure that Snape would have had that large a list > of names for Dumbledore. If we are talking about the second Voldemort War then there certainly was a list of names that could have been spied upon or manipulated. All those DEs who were *imperio'ed* had their names in the court record. Dumbledore had fifteen years to prepare for his return and lay the foundation for a swift crack down against them. But he didn't. > As far as the war today - I disagree that Dumbledore has been > merely reacting, and I also disagree that he's been doing all that > bad of a job in fighting Voldemort. Name me a single thing that DD did that was proactive. Guarding Harry wasn't. It was a passive preparation against an assassination attempt. DD could have gone after the DEs or dark creatures most likely to go after Harry, but he didn't. He didn't do anything with his ace in the hole, the prophecy. There are so many ways to trick, manipulate, and force Voldemort's hand using that gem, my mind literally boggles. He just guarded it until Voldemort was able to trick Harry into going after it. Not the most proactive thing in the world. He didn't get Harry magical training to teach him how to use all that raw talent of his. Instead he left Harry to languish alone for two months. And Harry is the most important person on the side of light in this particlar war! He didn't use Sirius, a skilled animagus, to do anything for the order. Even if Sirius had to stay in #12, wouldn't a teacher skilled enough to teach Wormtail of all people, be good enough to teach Molly the she-bear how to become a she-bear in truth? Or to teach Tonks to become a tiny and stealthy chameleon? Or to teach Kingsley how to become the king of all cats, a lion? Wouldn't being animagi make every order member that much more valuable? Sirius was a wasted resource. He would never have gone stir crazy if he had some teachin' to do. Or anything else to do for that matter. Why didn't he do what Hermione thought of five months later and get some kind of interview with an alternative news outlet to counteract the daily prophet? Is Hermione really that much smarter than DD? What did DD do that was so proactive? Because I am just not seeing it. > Betsy: > Really, Voldemort's only victory has been gaining a body. Not so. Voldemort scored a victory in being able to lay low for a whole year. Who knows what sort of nefarious plan he was cooking up with all that down time and the nearly limitless wealth of a group of pureblooded servants. Was he just laying on a couch in Malfoy Manor eating grapes and sending visons to Harry, or was he out working dark magics and laying plans for his immortality and conquest? I know which one I think happened. Harry is the one that forced the issue. His actions, rash as they were, finally ended the cold war the Order and DEs were engaging in. He caused Voldemort to be revealed to the world which is going to force the ministry into action. It was also Harry's rash action which revealed Lucius Malfoy for what he was. Not Dumbledore's. The stalemate ended because of Harry and his actions, not Dumbledore's. The greatest trick the devil ever played was to convince the world he didn't exist. And for a whole year the devil didn't exist for the Wizarding World. Because Dumbledore let him. phoenixgod2000 *Admin Note: Just a reminder -- when replying to this post, please make sure to keep your comments to canon and not go off onto the right or wrong of US/world politics. Thanks! From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 03:34:54 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 03:34:54 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124237 >>northsouth: >All of this stuff is personal to Voldemort. Perhaps, like last time, defeating Voldemort himself would be enough to end the war (though considering the number of unrepentant DEs hanging around, it seems to have been ended far from effectively) but they still have to get to Voldemort. So far the only one who has managed to do that is Harry, and that's beacuse Voldemort is too much of MWAHAHA type villain. He's always doing stupid dangerous things so he can get a chance to face off Harry himself. Harry has yet to really take initiative and go after LV, and if he ever does, it will need a much better organized, better coordinated, possessing better intelligence and strategy Order than I've seen so far.< Betsy: Dumbledore almost had Voldemort trapped in PS/SS in front of the mirror. That had nothing to do with Harry. (Though I don't think Dumbledore was expecting to actually catch *Voldemort*.) Also, I think Dumbledore recognized that the last war was never really over. He knew that Voldemort had been weakened but not defeated. (I think that's why so many Death Eaters were still kicking around. They knew their boss wasn't fully gone.) Though Dumbledore is fully aware that only Harry will be able to take Voldemort down. You have to keep in mind, while judging his performance, that Dumbledore has been trying to *delay* the inevitable meeting between Harry and Voldemort. In Dumbledore's opinion, Harry was too young for the fight. So much of his strategy has been to keep Harry and Voldemort apart, and most importantly, keep Harry alive. But in the greater picture thing, I think Dumbledore is working very hard to unite the magical world. He's been working at it for a while as far as I can tell (his treatment of Hagrid and Lupin, for example) and I think he sees the seperation and distrust within the world as a large part of Voldemort's power. So I think this is where Dumbledore has been the most pro-active. He's reached out to the giants, the werewolves (I believe?), and to the other wizarding schools. He's also encouraged the four houses of Hogwarts to work together. As of right now, Dumbledore's efforts appear to be working. You're right, Northsouth, that Dumbledore has not gone after Voldemort. The Order has been playing a defensive game. Keep Harry safe, keep the prophecy away from Voldemort, keep Voldemort down for as long as possible. I think that changed at the end of OotP when Dumbledore recognized that Harry will no longer be kept locked away. And it will be interesting to watch the Order go on the offense. However, I think Dumbledore has been doing a lot of behind the scenes work gathering allies and resources. When the Order finally does step up, I think we, the readers, will be surprised at the assets Dumbledore will have. I also think Dumbledore has set some balls rolling that will have an interesting effect on the WW as a whole. I think some laws are going to be changed, and attitudes adjusted. It'll be interesting to see how far things will change, but JKR has set us up for at least a start. And I think Dumbledore's efforts will be recognized at least by the readers. All my opinion of course! :) Betsy From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 03:43:02 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 03:43:02 -0000 Subject: Significance of Ginny In-Reply-To: <1e6.34af3d67.2f3ad6d6@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124238 >>Sherrie here: >Indeed he did - from the Triple Goddess of ancient lore. The Fates, the Norns, the Erinyes - sets of trifold Goddesses, which many simply define as Maiden, Mother & Crone. (Lily/Molly/Minerva; I haven't quite defined the roles in the second triad, except that I rather think that Hermione is the Crone.)< Betsy: Hermione is definitely the Crone. I think Ginny might be the Mother? She's associated with eggs a lot, IIRC. Which defaults Luna to Maiden - though I don't have anything in mind as to *why* she's the Maiden. I'll leave that to cleverer posters. :) Betsy From elfundeb at comcast.net Wed Feb 9 03:57:18 2005 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (Debbie) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 03:57:18 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124239 Phoenixgod2000 wrote: > Dumbledore has helped a lot on a personal level > because of his level of magical strength. I am speaking on a large > strategic level. The chessboard if you will. And Dumbledore is losing > that battle because because he is playing a reactive war. He's > letting Voldemort make the first move. Being on a defensive footing > is a bad way to fight because it means you can never apply pressure > to your opponent. He's not being reactive. We know the Order has been actively recruiting supporters while Voldemort went after the prophecy. Charlie is working internationally. Bill is working on the goblins. Hagrid went (largely unsuccessfully) to the giants. However, he is fighting a defensive war rather than an offensive one. Phoenixgod2000: > Secondly Voldemort does fear DD personal ability but Albus has so far > proven he's a fairly bad strategist. Remember, Voldemort was > *winning* the last war. The Potters were running scared. The > longbottoms were running scared. Dumbledore's organization was > compromised by at least one spy. The entire population was terrified > to leave their homes. And that was all underneath the auspices of > the Order of the Phoenix beneath DD leadership. Voldemort came > within a scar's breath of total victory. > I see that Pippin's post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124178 (before phoenixgod2000 posted) succintly states my response to this point: > Um, are you forgetting that the Ministry was also losing VWI? > They didn't seem to be hamstrung by their respect for civil > liberties. No indeed, they were hamstrung by their respect for > wealthy old bloodlines. I would say, however, that it was the Ministry that was *primarily* fighting and losing VWI, despite the fact that a large part of the wizarding populace approved of Crouch Sr.'s tactics, to the point of clamoring for him to become Minister of Magic. We don't know exactly when the Order came into existence. Was it before or after Crouch Sr. started to fight fire with fire? Lupin's statement that the Order is better prepared this time and has a head start implies that the Order was not assembled until VWI was in full swing. In fact, I have wondered whether the Marauders were founding members. In any event, Dumbledore's failure to mount an offensive against Voldemort in OOP seems consistent with my view of the Order. I believe that Dumbledore's founding of the Order represents a rejection of traditional strategies, such as the ones you suggest. Rather than being a *bad* strategist, his approach is revolutionary. Dumbledore's objective is not to beat, or kill, the DEs and save the wizarding world from them, though at the DoM the Order members do fight to protect Harry & Co.; the goal must be to change their thinking *and* the thinking of the average witch or wizard, or else there will be endless waves of Grindelwalds and Voldemorts to fight against. And if he is to do that, he can't stoop to their level. Phoenixgod2000: > I can think of a number of things right off the top of my head that a > private group working outside the auspices of the ministry could do. [snip suggestions to poison Voldemort, frame the DEs, raid their homes, kidnap and interrogate them, and tie up their bank accounts] The difference between these suggestions (even the use of Fleur -- who is not, as far as we know, in the Order -- as a siren) and the actions the Order does take is that they make use of deception and underhanded tricks to hurt the DEs, either physically or financially or by wrongfully taking away their freedom. I believe the *Good* side cannot win this war if they engage the DEs on their own terms; they can only win by moral superiority. Thus, they cannot function by entrapping and killing DEs. Someone is certain to point out Moody to dispove the last sentence, though in his case, entrapping DEs in VWI was part of his Ministry job. Sirius says only that "he never killed if he could help it. Always brought people in alive where possible. He was tough, but he never descended to the level of the Death Eaters." We do have one example, the death of Rosier, which cost Moody a piece of his nose. Crouch Sr. said that Rosier "preferred to fight rather than come quietly and was killed in the struggle." On that basis, at least a reasonable case can be made that he killed only in self-defense, in the execution of his job responsibilities. He has enough scars and missing parts to support that theory. And we don't know the circumstances in which the Order members were being killed. Other than the Prewett brothers who, according to Moody, "fought like heroes" (which doesn't rule out self-defense) the others seem to have been attacked with their families, which definitely doesn't sound like they were killed in battle. I know that there is a large contingent on this list who believe Dumbledore *is* deceptive and no better than the DEs. Yes, he has lied on occasion. He lied to Fudge, taking the blame for the DA to protect Harry, his best weapon. He doesn't always tell Harry the whole truth. However, in PS/SS he told Harry he would withhold information that he didn't believe Harry should know. He said he would not lie. From PS/SS ch. 17: "'I shall answer your questions unless I have a very good reason not to, in which case I beg you'll forgive me. I shall not, of course, lie.'" Can anyone point to a lie of Dumbledore's that was intended to hurt someone? > 3. The Media. Get out Harry's Story! Don't let the Ministry have all > the airspace to get out their version of the truth. Own the people > and you will have half the battle won. Fight the daily prophet on > their own ground. Fight Fudge in the media and get someone competent > like Madam Bones to run the show. The Order was doing this, but apparently more quietly. (They didn't have access to the Daily Prophet.) From OOP ch. 5: "'But if none of you are putting the news out that Voldemort's back --' Harry began. 'Who said none of us are putting the news out?' said Sirius. 'Why d'you think Dumbledore's in so much trouble?'" Admittedly, Dumbledore erred by not using vehicles like the Quibbler to get the word out. Phoenixgod2000: > 4. Giant animagus dog. Potential tracker and spy. Trail Lucius to DE > meetings and maybe learn where Voldemort is holding up at for a raid > at a later time. Possible trainer for other potential animagi in the > order. Actually, I think this is Snape's job -- not to trail Lucius to DE meetings but to use his Legilimency skills to find out what was going on. How else did they learn so quickly that Voldemort was after the prophecy? And they do have spies in the Ministry, who do spread misinformation, such as rumors that Sirius is in Tibet. Phoenixgod2000: > 9. Train Harry. Get him out of his grief by putting him through an > exhausting magical boot camp along side his friends and start > preparing him for what is going to come. I am sure that Dumbledore would respond that Harry has been preparing himself for what is going to come. ;-) I also believe Dumbledore would respond that Harry must choose to prepare himself. He will be a much more effective weapon if he does not feel like he's being forced into the war against his will. Phoenixgod2000: > 10. Start laying the ground work for all of the above *early*. DD > knows that Voldemort is going to be back so he should have been > plotting for the past decade and a half. Right now it looks like he's > been flying by the seat of his pants. Well, once the battle begins doesn't every general have to resort to flying by the seat of his pants? I don't think Dumbledore believes in elaborate plans because it is unlikely they will be carried out as planned; instead, he waits for an opportunity and exploits it (as he did when he suggested Harry and Hermione use the time-turner to rescue Sirius). History is the result of the decisions of too many people for any individual's plan to control, and Dumbledore knows it. From POA ch. 22: "The consequences of our actions are always so complicated, so diverse, that predicting the future is a very difficult business indeed." Debbie a pacifist with an unexplainable interest in military history From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 04:21:57 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 04:21:57 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124240 Debbie: In any event, Dumbledore's failure to mount an offensive against Voldemort in OOP seems consistent with my view of the Order. I believe that Dumbledore's founding of the Order represents a rejection of traditional strategies, such as the ones you suggest. Rather than being a *bad* strategist, his approach is revolutionary. Dumbledore's objective is not to beat, or kill, the DEs and save the wizarding world from them, though at the DoM the Order members do fight to protect Harry & Co.; the goal must be to change their thinking *and* the thinking of the average witch or wizard, or else there will be endless waves of Grindelwalds and Voldemorts to fight against. And if he is to do that, he can't stoop to their level. Alla: I agree with you in general - such as I also believe that Dumbledore wants to change the "thinking" of WW as a whole, or at least I" want to believe that, because I think that I a whole lot of things need to be changed in WW. I don't think though that Dumbledore can afford to be on "defensive" any more. Moral superiority is great, but people are getting killed and Dumbledore's unwillingness to go after Voldie full stop does not look to me as " non stooping " to their levels, but more like foolishness. I also understand that Dumbledore is trying to recruit multiple allies ( as other people have suggested - Giants, etc), but again he is not moving nearly as fast as I think he should. Dumbledore does not have much time to waste, IMO, and even if he cannot recruit everybody he thinks he should ( representatives of all species, etc.), I think he should start moving with whatever allies he has and of course try to keep convincing others in the meanwhile. Debbie: I believe the *Good* side cannot win this war if they engage the DEs on their own terms; they can only win by moral superiority. Thus, they cannot function by entrapping and killing DEs. Alla: Again, it sounds great in theory. The only problem I see is that DE have no problem killing people, therefore if Dumbledore puts his principles over his soldiers' lives, I won't call him a good general. I have NO problem with Dumbledore trying to be morally superior if he can, UNLESS his "superiority" puts his people in unnecessary danger. Then it is hypocrisy, in my opinion only. -- Kristen: 1) Yes, he sent Hagrid to get the Giants. 2) He is speaking out to the wizarding world that Voldemort has returned even though it is costing him political capital. 3) He has the order members tracking know death eaters. While I know it might be more active to "take them out". Remember that Azkaban may not be under MOM control much longer and they are trying to learn more of the enemies plans. 4) He has order members looking for international support and recruiting members 5) He may (or may not) have Snape out there spying on DEs. But either way he is up to something. 6) He has order members guarding the prophecy in an effort to keep that "weapon" out of Voldemort's hands. Last: This is all Harry knows of we don't know what. Alla: But as I said above all those are negotiation efforts, not war tactics, at least it does not look like one to me yet. I agree with your last point though - Harry may not know all order did, considering he was kept in the Dark about his own destiny through OOP, so maybe he was kept in the Dark about Order's other missions. Kristen: In a war that is not yet public, I'm not sure what else you expect the order to do right now. They cannot very well attack the DEs when the MOM does not acknowledge that Lucius and company are a threat. All that would do is land order members in Azkaban. Alla: I believe they can attack DE quietly. Ministry and Fudge do not have to know about it, you know. :o) Just my opinion, of course Alla. From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 04:31:56 2005 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 04:31:56 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124241 Dumbledore's strategy is to get the Wizarding World to engage Voldemort and his allies in open war as soon as possible. He *does not* want the conflict to remain hidden and secret. He does not want acts of terror, he wants outright war. He informs students, the Ministry and the world as soon as Voldemort returns. He doesn't waste time with minor nuisances like blocking Death Eater's bank accounts because all that will do will buy the Dark Side more time. The longer it takes for open war to be declared, the more foolish Dumbledore appears. The longer it takes, the easier it is for the world to right him off as senile and ignore his 'warnings.' Dumbledore's tactics involve espionage and defence. His advice to befriend the Giants and Dementors is less about getting them to fight for him and more about stopping them from joining Voldemort. He guards the Prophecy instead of destroying it. He obviously doesn't believe the small Order of the Phoenix will be able to muster a strong enough offence on Voldemort. For that he needs the support of the entire Ministry of Magic and Wizarding World. Maybe his apparent lack of offensive strategy is just a strategic way of bringing the war out into the open sooner. His defence of the Department of Mysteries encourages the Dark Side to attack. And on Ministry soil at that. That's a good plan as any for starting an open war. The longer the war is secret, the more opportunities Voldemort has for planting spies, the more opportunities Voldemort has for putting the Imperius Curse on people in positions of power, the more willing support Voldemort can muster, the more people he can blackmail and bribe to help his. Dumbledore' objective tries to minimise all this. He wants open war so that the world is expecting Voldemort to do all these things. He wants open war so Voldemort can't sneak in slowly and steadily. Sure, speeding up open war doesn't assist the personal battle between Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort. It decreases Harry's chances. But Voldemort cares about more than just killing Harry. Although he spent OotP pursuing Harry as his main aim, world domination is still his ultimate goal. Dumbledore must realise that although it has been prophesised that Harry can defeat Voldemort, there is no prophecy that declares that Harry can single-handedly end the war. The longer the war remains secret, the stronger the allies of the Dark Side become and hence the harder to defeat. But, the stronger Harry becomes the greater his chance to defeat Voldemort one-on-one. The quicker war comes out into the open, the weaker the Dark Allies and hence the easier to defeat. But, the weaker HP is, the smaller his chance to defeat Voldemort. It's a tough choice. But, as we know from VWI, the war didn't end at Godric's Hollow. Bellatrix Lestrange and Co. were still at large doing their worst. Even if Voldemort is defeated properly this time, Bellatrix and the rest of the Dark Army will still be out there. So, Dumbledore wants war *now* but he also wants to put off the Harry-Voldemort confrontation until the last possible minute- the minute when the war is just about over, the Dark Allies are defeated and only the evil King Pin remains. I bet JKR wants the same thing for dramatic purposes. I'm not disappointed his Dumbledore's overall military strategy. He cannot defeat Voldemort's Armies by himself. He needs the Ministry of Magic on his side for that. But because the MoM is in denial, Dumbledore's only option is to make war come to them. And Harry was trained especially for his one-on-one battle with Voldemort in OotP (Occlumency). Besides, Dumbledore is trying to protect the boy and ensure that he can have a life after the war, not turn him into a purpose built assassin. ~<(Laurasia)>~ From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 04:38:05 2005 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 04:38:05 -0000 Subject: Significance of Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124242 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > >>Sherrie here: > >Indeed he did - from the Triple Goddess of ancient lore. The > Fates, the Norns, the Erinyes - sets of trifold Goddesses, which > many simply define as Maiden, Mother & Crone. (Lily/Molly/Minerva; > I haven't quite defined the roles in the second triad, except that I > rather think that Hermione is the Crone.)< > > Betsy: > Hermione is definitely the Crone. I think Ginny might be the > Mother? She's associated with eggs a lot, IIRC. Which defaults Luna > to Maiden - though I don't have anything in mind as to *why* she's > the Maiden. I'll leave that to cleverer posters. :) > > Betsy Antosha: Actually, I think a combination of the two three-goddess systems, the classical pagan triune Goddess (crone/mother/maiden) and the Aristotelian (body/mind/spirit) is possible here, because Hermione/Ginny/Luna as mind/body/spirit works quite well indeed. Of course, if one wished to look at it this way, both systems are symbolic embodiments of Past (Mind/Crone/Father/Thesis), Present (Body/Mother/Son/Antithesis) and Future (Spirit/Maiden/Holy Ghost/Synthesis). But now I'm getting all Joseph Campbell-y again... ;-) From jmrazo at hotmail.com Wed Feb 9 06:15:44 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 06:15:44 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124243 Debbie: > He's not being reactive. We know the Order has been actively > recruiting supporters while Voldemort went after the prophecy. > Charlie is working internationally. Bill is working on the > goblins. Hagrid went (largely unsuccessfully) to the giants. > However, he is fighting a defensive war rather than an offensive > one. Unless you happen to be Russia, defensive wars are generally a bad proposition. You need to put pressure on the enemy, not allow the enemy to pressure you, which was what he was allowing in OOTP. > In any event, Dumbledore's failure to mount an offensive against > Voldemort in OOP seems consistent with my view of the Order. I > believe that Dumbledore's founding of the Order represents a > rejection of traditional strategies, such as the ones you suggest. > Rather than being a *bad* strategist, his approach is > revolutionary. Dumbledore's objective is not to beat, or kill, the > DEs and save the wizarding world from them, though at the DoM the > Order members do fight to protect Harry & Co.; the goal must be to > change their thinking *and* the thinking of the average witch or > wizard, or else there will be endless waves of Grindelwalds and > Voldemorts to fight against. And if he is to do that, he can't > stoop to their level. The tactics I suggest are not 'stooping' to the enemies level. Stooping to their level would involve Crucio'ing children, killing kittens, raping helpless muggles, dark magic of all sorts, liberal use of the Imperious curse, I could go on. Smart tactics are not evil, they're smart. That is how you win wars. If I were a much darker Dumbledore, say more like Crouch Sr, I would start with all those lovely childern the death eaters send so lovingly into Dumbledore's care every year. But I don't. I don't think that any of my tactics are in the least morally objectionable. I admire DD, because for all his faults, he is a forward minded person when it comes social justice. But the middle of war is not the time to be engaging in it. He should wait till he's done and start spending all that political capital and good will he will have earned. The middle of a war is not the time or place for a social revolution, IMO. > The difference between these suggestions (even the use of Fleur -- > who is not, as far as we know, in the Order -- as a siren) So you would argue that female spies who sometimes used their wiles and bodies to gain valuable intelligence in WWII and many times before and after, were engaging in morally wrong acts even if they managed to save lives with the information gained? Am I reading you right? And Fleur isn't a siren. She's a veela. A way different beast ;) >and the > actions the Order does take is that they make use of deception and > underhanded tricks to hurt the DEs, either physically or financially > or by wrongfully taking away their freedom. I believe the *Good* > side cannot win this war if they engage the DEs on their own terms; > they can only win by moral superiority. With all due respect I think that is naive. Wars are won by many means, but superionr morals are never one of them. DD should win first and then engage in his social reforms. > I know that there is a large contingent on this list who believe > Dumbledore *is* deceptive and no better than the DEs. Yes, he has > lied on occasion. He lied to Fudge, taking the blame for the DA to > protect Harry, his best weapon. I'm sure that by now everyone on the list thinks I hate DD. I don't. Before OOTP I would have placed him as #2 on my list of favorite characters, but in Book five he fell in my estimation. I want to like him again. I really do. > The Order was doing this, but apparently more quietly. (They didn't > have access to the Daily Prophet.) From OOP ch. 5: "'But if none > of you are putting the news out that Voldemort's back --' Harry > began. 'Who said none of us are putting the news out?' said > Sirius. 'Why d'you think Dumbledore's in so much trouble?'" > Admittedly, Dumbledore erred by not using vehicles like the Quibbler > to get the word out. Once again bad tactics because they were failing tacitcs. If Hermione is more effective than the collective efforts of all of the adults then they need to rethink the age restriction on Order members. > Actually, I think this is Snape's job -- not to trail Lucius to DE > meetings but to use his Legilimency skills to find out what was > going on. How else did they learn so quickly that Voldemort was > after the prophecy? And they do have spies in the Ministry, who do > spread misinformation, such as rumors that Sirius is in Tibet. That is a good start, but tricking the ministry about Sirius should be a pretty low priority. Especially if it means Auror teams aren't focused on Voldemort. I personally think that Percy is an active Spy for DD in the ministry. If thats true then its quite possibly the smartest thing DD has done so far. Lets hope it's true. > I am sure that Dumbledore would respond that Harry has been > preparing himself for what is going to come. ;-) I also believe > Dumbledore would respond that Harry must choose to prepare himself. > He will be a much more effective weapon if he does not feel like > he's being forced into the war against his will. I'm not talking about taking the same spells 90% of the other students at Hogwarts also know and using them in more practical situations. I'm talking about full on boot camp. I'm talking about Moody screaming at Harry at five in the morning, "Get up you half blooded wand-stroker. Move that skinny a** of yours. you think you learned how to dodge with that fat cousin of yours? I got one leg and I can run circles around you lad!" (That was kinda fun to write) > Well, once the battle begins doesn't every general have to resort to > flying by the seat of his pants? I don't think Dumbledore believes > in elaborate plans because it is unlikely they will be carried out > as planned Thats true of battlefield tactics. The ebb and flow of a physical conflict defies the ability to plan perfectly. Strategy-the chessboard of war is a different animal. while individual battles can be won or lost based on a variety of factors, the overall map remains remarkably consistant from battle to battle and can be planned with a much greater level of certainty. >>History is the result of the decisions of too many >people for any individual's plan to control, and Dumbledore knows >it. From POA ch. 22: "The consequences of our actions are always >so complicated, so diverse, that predicting the future is a very >difficult business indeed." I would disagree. I think that there have been many people with the strength of will to direct the flow of history both in politics, war, and religion as a single individual. The right individual has much more power than you give them credit for in the sweep of history. Everyone from Alexander the Great down to Hitler and even President Bush have managed to change the world through nothing more than their will to do so. Harry, Dumbledore, and Voldemort are three such people and they are set against each other. phoenixgod2000 From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 06:40:37 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 06:40:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124244 phoenixgod2000: > > Why didn't he do what Hermione thought of five months later and get > some kind of interview with an alternative news outlet to counteract > the daily prophet? Is Hermione really that much smarter than DD? > Northsouth: Just one quibble (wow. unintended pun) with your post - WW press. I'm not sure just a how large the Wizarding population is, but I doubt it's larger than a middling city, a few tens of thousands. I don't think there's room there for more than one major daily newspaper, and a few specialized publications, like the Quibbler (and some Wizards at least read Muggle papers, and probably books too). And with Harry getting bad press and dropping in popularity, any small paper, like "Witches Weekly", or something else of the sort would be leary of publishing something goign against the general trend of things, not to mention presure from the Ministry. Maybe I'm horribly pessimistic, but when I first read Hermoine's whole plan I was absoloutely certain it was going to backfire terribly. Harry would become the laughing stock after being published in a wacky magazine, be accused of more anything-for-attention, no one would actually read it, etc. The only reason why it was so succesful, at Hogwarts at least, is beacuse Umbridge used the exactly wrong tactics and banned it, giving it legitimacy. It occurs to me on a related note that if Umbridge is anything to go by, the Ministry have no clue how to fight terrorist/guerrila groups. Her process of increasing abuses of power at Hogwarts is reminiscent of the authority given to Aurors in VW1. Northsouth From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 07:17:44 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 07:17:44 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124245 > -- Kristen: > By the time the "war" started I think some said the order was out > numbered 2:1, and the order was being picked off one by one. So I think > we can assume that DD was very active then but also had to figure out > a way to keep his "troops" from being destroyed. I see them at this > point is more of a resistance group than the MOM army. Just a > thought. Northsouth17: (Having read that through just now - Lupin says they were outnumbered 20:1. Oh, cheer!) DD troops get destroyed anyway. I went and counted for something else a few days back - of the 21 people in Moody's OoTP photo, 8 are dead in the war, 2 are tortured into insanity, one is traitor and one ends up framed and in prison. That's not a terribly good survival rate. Lupin tries to reassure Molly that they're better organized this time round, but honestly, am I alone in finding his comforting of Molly anything but reassuring? I've seen a lot of people saying that was really sweet..."We won't let them starve" is kind of nasty, IMO, and it's not like he reassures Molly that they'll be fine - just that her kids will outlive her - and Molly *dosen't argue*, she's not even expecting any further kind of assurance. I don't think the WW *has* an army, or even ever could. They have a police force, in Aurors, that maybe can function as a militia when they need to, but generally, considering that *every single memeber* of the WW is essentially *armed* and trained at least to some extent makes me think that any military action there would be rather fuedal - the entire population drafting up to the side of their choice, whether independently or following a leader (like DD or the Minister or LV). During VW1, it seems to have not gotten quite that far - there were no pitched battles, just terrorism from Voldemort, counter terrorism attempts from the Ministry and the Order doing...well, what was the Order doing? I imagine they were taking the fight to Voldemort, but rather poorly. DD would have set them up early, like now, but after the war broke out they would just be a mostly social group fumbling around for something to do, a home to misfits who wanted to fight but wouldn't be accepted into ministry ranks (Hagrid, Lupin, Fletcher). It looks to me like two guerrila groups battling eachother, with the Ministry probably not very tolerant of the Order anyhow. Right, done rambling. Northsouth From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 07:30:53 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 07:30:53 -0000 Subject: prior incantantum... Mistake / Clue? I'm confused! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124246 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bleckybecs" wrote: > > I was just reading the thread about 'prior incantantum'. > > The thing I'm confused about (now that I've just thought of it), is > what happened to the AK that LV aimed at Harry? It was a spell cast > by LV's wand, why is there no prior incantantum of any sort for this > spell? ...edited.. > > Thank you > > Becky :) bboyminn: Well, know one really knows the answer to that, but this is the way I've always explained it to myself. Not all spells have a visual representation when drawn back out of a wand using the 'reverse spell effect' (Prior Incantatum). For example, we don't see anything when the Cruciatus Pain Curse is expelled from the wand, we hear Harry scream. So, we can now extend that to other spells. For example, what would you expect to see from a Stunning Curse? What would you expect to see from a Reparo Mending Charm? What would you expect to see from Twitchy Ears or Jelly Legs? These aren't charms or spells that would necessarily produce obvious visual results. Now to the one specific AK curse you asked about. The AK Killing Curse that Voldemort cast against Harry, was a one of a kind in that it rebounded from the person upon whom it was cast (Harry) and bounced back and hit Voldemort. Voldemort was ripped from his body, but neither he nor Harry were killed. Under that unusual and unlikely first-time-ever in recorded history circumstance, it's entirely unpredicatable as to what we would expect to see. No one has ever survived that curse, equally likely, no one has ever had the curse rebound upon them and also not kill them. The Standard result of the Reverse Spell effect is to show the person who was killed. Since no one was killed, there was no one to show, and therefore nothing to see. That said, I think if someone other than Harry had witnessed the event in the graveyard, say an experienced wizard like Kingsley Shacklebolt (the Auror), they may have had sufficient knowledge and experience to interpret what they saw. But Harry can only interpret the most obvious signs. Again, an experience trained Auror can probably interpret what ever clues are given by spells that don't typically have an obvious form, and determine which spell they are seeing. Summary Point 1 - The AK against Harry that rebounded on Voldemort was a once in the entire history of the wizard world event. It would not act like a standard AK, and the results would not be predictable or obvious. So, it was probably there but Harry missed it. Point 2- There are probably lots of spells that don't give clearcut obvious unambiguous signs when they are drawn from a wand by the Reverse Spell effect, but an Auror and other experienced wizard, like Mr Diggory, are probably able to interpret the more subtle sign sthose spells would produce. Make it all up, but I think it's a good quess. Steve/bboyminn From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 08:02:15 2005 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 08:02:15 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General..gettin' long In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124247 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: Doddie here..I have some responses to what many have posted and then some.. > > Debbie: > > In any event, Dumbledore's failure to mount an offensive against > Voldemort in OOP seems consistent with my view of the Order. > stoop to their level. With Voldemort you cannot mount an immediate offensive..because DD cannot leguimens thousands of minds....as snape, if he actually is a spy cannot either... There is no cannon as to how a legumiens will read one who has been curioed...In an early offense you do not want to give away to the leader that you 1. know thier inner circle 2. If a certain few try to discredit you....you must offer more proof than he said or she said...(look at all the proof that war outbreak was imminent at the start of WWII...yet look how long it took anyone to respond...Despite the 100's of generals etc. on hand they refused to believe that Germany wanted to start another war...and even AFTER the war had been going on for a couple of years....the U.S. still refused to believed it involved them...up until the attack on Pearl Harbor..and even then the declaration of war took some time. > > Alla: > > I agree with you in general - such as I also believe that Dumbledore > wants to change the "thinking" of WW as a whole, or at least I" want > to believe that, because I think that I a whole lot of things need > to be changed in WW. > > I don't think though that Dumbledore can afford to be on "defensive" > any more. > Well continuing on from my response above...you cannot readily change thinking...thinking is the last thing to change. (hence how long it took countries outside of "occupied Germany" to realize genocide was happening...even in our present day/age...we still are not detecting(or accepting/realizing) genocide is actually happening until millions or hundreds of thousands or even thousands have died...all told...DD is proving to be an exceptional general on this account! > Debbie: > > I believe the *Good* side cannot win this war if they engage the DEs > on their own terms; they can only win by moral superiority. Thus, > they cannot function by entrapping and killing DEs. I don't believe this as if we want them to loose then most of us believe that we are already on the morally superior side...just as they do now...those who place themselves on moral hight grounds often are blind to the "moral high ground" there enemey supports... (for ex. during wwII, did Japan care anything about the Jews?(most likely not) Japan entered the war for completely different reasons than domination of europe... > -- Kristen: > > 1) Yes, he sent Hagrid to get the Giants. > 2) He is speaking out to the wizarding world that Voldemort has > returned even though it is costing him political capital. > 3) He has the order members tracking know death eaters. While I > know it might be more active to "take them out". Remember that > Azkaban may not be under MOM control much longer and they are trying > to learn more of the enemies plans. > 4) He has order members looking for international support and > recruiting members > 5) He may (or may not) have Snape out there spying on DEs. But > either way he is up to something. > 6) He has order members guarding the prophecy in an effort to keep > that "weapon" out of Voldemort's hands. > Last: This is all Harry knows of we don't know what. > This is more than any world leader did prior to or at the beginning of WWI OR WWII... > > Alla: > > But as I said above all those are negotiation efforts, not war > tactics, at least it does not look like one to me yet. > I agree with your last point though - Harry may not know all order > did, considering he was kept in the Dark about his own destiny > through OOP, so maybe he was kept in the Dark about Order's other > missions. > Given what any average citizen knew in most countries prior to a WW..I would state that most are clueless than any sort of negotiation is even necessary at this point.(even if they had believed DD and Harry).(look at the purposeful sinkings of civilian vessels at the beginning of WWII....how many countries/cities refused to help the Jews etc.. > > > Kristen: > In a war that is not yet public, I'm not sure what else you expect > the order to do right now. I would expect them to do what they are doing..the only reason why they failed is that they never spoke to Harry...if any of them had asked him what he thought--even those that gave him a limited knowledge...Harry would have told/asked them if he was the weapon!!!! This may have prevented Sirius' death..(personally I think this is why we are so upset at DD--seeing as even if Snape garnered this from Occlumency lessons Snape would have simply thought it was just "arrogant Harry placing himself in the middle of everything"!) > Alla: > > I believe they can attack DE quietly. Ministry and Fudge do not have to know about it, you know. :o) Alas the history of warfare has taught us that be sure who you are attacking first...best to try to pump them for info first..REMEMBER DELORES.....Not only does the OOP have to worry about DE's at this time...they have to worry about ministry loyalists(like marrietta's mother) AND DE's AND all those who are leaning towards supporting either one or the other. At this point in the game the only ones taking sides are DE's and OOP members...and you simply cannot sort the WW AT THIS TIME into these two categories. > I'm upset at DD too...He should have told Harry about the prophecy at the end of POA!!!(so at least Harry would have a little time to sort it out with his God Father...) The whole part of the prophecy that I don't know understand is why DD didn't tell Harry about it at the end of GOF...especially after he made such a fuss for Harry to listen to crouch jr.'s confession AND have Harry retell the grave yard scene.. Why not tell Harry about the prophecy when Harry had a little support???(I think this may have lead to more credence for Harry to have himself and Co. go to the DOM in book five.....not only does Voldy want prophecy but it torturing Sirius to see what he knows..) My only answer to this thus far is that YES..DD does trust Snape...he trusts snape to do the WRONG thing...OR..He trusts snape to look after Snape's own needs first. No matter what lense you view snape from...1. he loathes Harry and 2. He(snape) looks after his own interests first...the only time this changes is if he can hurt harry in some way.. Doddiemoemoe (who think that Fred and George will run more than a joke shop in the end...if they're this good at jokes..can you imagine their weaponry? What a wise investment for Harry!) From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 08:14:53 2005 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 08:14:53 -0000 Subject: prior incantantum... Mistake / Clue? I'm confused! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124248 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bleckybecs" > wrote: > > > > I was just reading the thread about 'prior incantantum'. > > > > The thing I'm confused about (now that I've just thought of it), is > > what happened to the AK that LV aimed at Harry? It was a spell cast > > by LV's wand, why is there no prior incantantum of any sort for this > > spell? ...edited.. > > > > Thank you > > > > Becky :) Doddiemoemoe now: Well, first off....there would be no prior incantantem spell as 15 mo.(or so) old Harry would have no wand! > > bboyminn: >> Summary > Point 1 - The AK against Harry that rebounded on Voldemort was a once > in the entire history of the wizard world event. It would not act like > a standard AK, and the results would not be predictable or obvious. > So, it was probably there but Harry missed it. > > Point 2- There are probably lots of spells that don't give clearcut > obvious unambiguous signs when they are drawn from a wand by the > Reverse Spell effect, but an Auror and other experienced wizard, like > Mr Diggory, are probably able to interpret the more subtle sign sthose > spells would produce. > > Make it all up, but I think it's a good quess. > > Steve/bboyminn Doddiemoe again: It is a good question, your point one holds no water as whether voldy knew it or not...the Godricks Hollow episode was to mark Harry as his equal!!! and point two: we still have no idea if Harry experiences/see's spells the same way the rest do! (Maybe Luna if we are lucky!) I hope these questions come up in class in the upcoming years. Doddiemoemoe (I'm not trying to be difficult...I've had the same questions floating around for years now!) From elfundeb at comcast.net Wed Feb 9 11:34:42 2005 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (Debbie) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:34:42 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124249 Just a quick response to a couple of points, as I have to leave for work -- phoenixgod2000 wrote: > I admire DD, because for all his faults, he is a forward minded > person when it comes social justice. But the middle of war is not the > time to be engaging in it. He should wait till he's done and start > spending all that political capital and good will he will have > earned. The middle of a war is not the time or place for a social > revolution, IMO. If you set aside your principles of justice for the purpose of conducting a war, then when the war is over, you won't have the moral capital to be pushing for social change. > So you would argue that female spies who sometimes used their wiles > and bodies to gain valuable intelligence in WWII and many times > before and after, were engaging in morally wrong acts even if they > managed to save lives with the information gained? Am I reading you > right? A good part of my objection had to do with the use of Fleur in particular, since she's not in the Order. > With all due respect I think that is naive. Wars are won by many > means, but superionr morals are never one of them. DD should win > first and then engage in his social reforms. I consider Dumbledore and the Order to be in a unique position. The primary responsibility for conducting the war rests with the Ministry, not the Order. Thus, at the end of GoF Dumbledore gave advice to Fudge as to what the Ministry should be doing. By denying that Voldemort was back, the Ministry abdicated its responsibility. So, in a way, the action in OOP was damage control while the Order worked to get the Ministry to understand the threat and take proper action. The Order's role should complement what the Ministry is doing. The Aurors and the rest of the Ministry's forces should be the ones primarily responsible for the war against Voldemort. (Moody, for example, fought the DEs in VWI in his capacity as an Auror, not as an Order member.) I think Dumbledore and the Order, however, have a different role, which includes the quiet pursuit of social change. And to champion that goal, they have to be a moral force, not simply a military force. Debbie aware that her views may be a bit radical From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Wed Feb 9 11:38:23 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:38:23 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character Discussion: Harry and Sirius Message-ID: <20050209113823.65014.qmail@web25104.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124250 Just a short post about Harry and Sirius together. The posts about Sirius have been very complicated, and it's possible for people to get lost amongst all the esoteric information, much of which is extremely abstract. I'm now going to try to show Harry and Sirius as powerful magic symbols that are as old as ancient Egypt but presented in a totally new way. Jo says no one has yet been able to pinpoint the essential message of Harry Potter; the hub on which it all turns. Here's what I think. The message is first of all that every seeker has the potential to become a divine human being, an eternal Son of God, imperishable and free of death, sorrow and suffering. The New Testament calls this Son of God Jesus; Jo calls him Harry. The second part of the message is that every Son of God is surrounded by a tremendous and unimaginably powerful energy field that is a conscious being, like a guardian angel. This God-like angel as bright as the sun leads the Son out of the House of Death (this universe) into the House of Life (the Kingdom of Heaven). What is this living energy field called in the New Testament? He is personified in the New Testament and has three best friends: James, John and Peter. In Harry Potter he is personified and has friends with the same names: James (Potter), (Remus) John (Lupin) and Peter (Pettigrew). This energy field, this guiding star as bright as the sun, is called Christ in the New Testament. Harry and Sirius together: Jesus Christ. Harry: the new earth. Sirius: the new heaven. "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth." That's what Harry Potter is really about. It's about the liberation of the Inner God which is potentially present in every seeker. I realise the momentum of what I'm saying - that every seeker has the potential to become Jesus Christ. That, dear friends, is our future, according to Harry Potter. This is what the Mystery Schools have been teaching for thousands of years, going back at least to ancient Egypt. We are privileged in our time that this great Mystery, in fact the greatest Mystery of all time, the Mystery of human liberation, is being revealed by a young woman in Scotland. We are living in tremendous times! But be warned, friends, the fact that this great Mystery is being revealed in such clear symbolism also means we as a human race are standing on the edge of the precipice. There is not much time left. Let's hope that many will wake up in time and listen to the call that comes through Harry Potter from the Masters of Compassion. Hans ===== Hans Andra see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://www.harrypotterforseekers.com/ Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From eloiseherisson at aol.com Wed Feb 9 12:18:36 2005 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloise_herisson) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 12:18:36 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatem/ Prior Incantato (was: Re: prior incantantum... ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124251 Becky: > > > I was just reading the thread about 'prior incantantum'. > > > > > > The thing I'm confused about (now that I've just thought of it), > is > > > what happened to the AK that LV aimed at Harry? It was a spell > cast > > > by LV's wand, why is there no prior incantantum of any sort for > this > > > spell? ... > Doddiemoemoe now: > > Well, first off....there would be no prior incantantem spell as 15 > mo.(or so) old Harry would have no wand! Eloise: I think here's a little confusion here: there's no such thing as 'Prior Incantantem'. The names of the two different phenomena are so close that they are frequently confused or conflated. 'Prior Incantato' is the name of the *spell* that makes a wand reveal the most recent spell it performed. It's what Amos Diggory does to Harry's wand at the QWC. Priori Incantatem ('the reverse spell effect')is a natural effect occuring when brother wands are forced to do battle and one forces the other 'to regurgitate spells it has performed - in reverse.' Whether Harry had a wand as an infant has no bearing. He wasn't even present when most of the other spells Voldemort's wand regurgitated were performed. If Harry had held on long enough, presumably Voldemort's wand could have carried on regurgitating spells from before Harry was even born. Actually, I noticed something in the wording as I was copying that quote from GoF. A wand is forced 'to regurgitate spells it has performed'. Not *all* the spells it has performed, or even *the* spells it has performed, but just 'spells'. JKR may have got the order wrong the first time, but perhaps she did realise that there were some spells that she couldn't describe and worded accordingly. ~Eloise From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Feb 9 13:03:17 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:03:17 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty seven - The lost prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124252 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "David & Laura" wrote: David: > > I certainly agree Geoff that throwing tantrums are fair teenager > game. What I was trying to say, inefficiently probably, was that up > to now Harry's been a yeller and occassionally physical with > adversaries. > > It seemed out of character to me for Harry to pitch a throwing fit. > I expected the yelling. I couldn't even see him picking up a chair > to attempt to bust down DD's door, but just not pick up doodads and > start busting them. I just thought it unusual for Harry. Geoff: Taking this a bit further, my own throwing incident only came back me when I read your post. I have admitted on the group previously that, as a redhead in my youth, I inherited a redhead's temper. With the passage of life and the fading of the colour, I take a slightly more contemplative view of life :-) I can so appreciate Harry's feelings because the incident I mentioned was the only time I have ever indulged in throwing and it was because I had been ratcheted up an extra gear to normal and I think that is what has happened to Harry. He has been pushed further than ever before and something has to blow to reduce the pressure. This chapter in OOTP outlines it all. His mind is a seething cauldron of mixed emotions. 'If his surroundings could have reflected the feelings inside him, the pictures would have been screaming in pain. He walked around the quiet, beautiful office, breathing quickly, trying not to think. But he had to think... there was no escape. It was his fault Sirius had died; it was all his fault... ...It was unbearable, he would not think about it, he could not stand it... there was a terrible hollow inside him he did not want to feel or examine, a dark hole where Sirius had been, where Sirius had vanished; he did not want to have to be alone with that great, silent space, he could not stand it -' (OOTP "The Lost Prophecy" p.723 UK edition) '"Dumbledore thinks very highly of you, as I am sure you know," he (Phineas Nigellus) said comfortably. "Oh yes. Holds you in great esteem." The guilt filling the whole of Harry's chest like some monstrous, weighty parasite, now writhed and squirmed. Harry could not stand this, he could not stand being himself any more... he had never felt more trapped inside his own head and body, never wished so intensely that he could be somebody, anybody, else...' (ibid. p.724) '"There is no shame in what you are feeling, Harry," said Dumbledore's voice. "On the contrary... the fact that you can feel pain like this is your greatest strength." Harry felt the white-hot anger lick his insides, blazing in the terrible emptiness, filling him with the desire to hurt Dumbledore for his calmness and his empty words.... "I DON'T CARE!" Harry yelled at them, snatching up a lunascope and throwing into the fireplace. "I'VE HAD ENOUGH, I WNAT OUT, I WANT IT TO END, I DON'T CARE ANYMORE -".... ..."You do care," said Dumbledore. He had not flinched or made a single move to stop Harry demolishing his office. His expression was calm, almost detached. "You care so much that you feel as though you will bleed to death with the pain of it." "I - DON'T!" Harry screamed, so loudly that he felt his throat might tear and for a second he wanted to rush at Dumbledore and break him, too; shatter that calm face, shake him, hurt him, make him feel some tiny part of the horror inside himself...... ..."YOU DON'T KNOW HOW I FEEL!" Harry roared. "YOU - STANDING THERE - YOU -" But words were no longer enough, smashing things was no more help; he wanted to run, he wanted to keep running and never look back... ' (ibid. pp.726-27) Jo Rowling has captured the build up in his feelings - being trapped, cornered, at bay - and here we see his feelings building to a climax. Soon, sheer emotional exhaustion begins to take over and we see a gradual diminuendo in the volume of his outbursts and his physical exertions. I wonder how many members of the group have ever experienced that sort of tension and needed to release it in some way? It is overwhelming and drives every sensible or calming thought from your mind like a violent hailstorm which you have to ride out and wait for its clearing. That is why, as I have said before in a different thread, that I like the closing lines of this book when a measure of calm and acceptance has returned to Harry: 'Instead, he smiled, raised a hand in farewell, turned around and led the way out of the station towards the sunlit street...' (OOTP "The Second War begins" p.766 UK edition) That image, for me, carries huge symbolism. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 13:10:21 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:10:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: James, a paragon of virtue? Snape, a paragon of virtue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050209131021.13037.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124253 > I'm not trying to argue that young Snape was pure innocence (JKR > carefully includes information to negate that view), nor am I > saying > that James and Sirius are absolute evil (future behavior negates > that). What I was pointing out was that JKR gives James and Sirius > *no* proper excuse for attacking Snape at that time. She didn't do > this lightly. There is an overall purpose for that scene and the > realization that some of Snape's accusations against James are true > (e.g. James most definitely strutted). Part of it, I'm sure, is > the > usual coming of age realization that parents are not perfect. But > I > also think there is something for us to learn about Snape, and > possibly about judging someone based soley on house affiliation and > family background. > > Betsy I think this scene is at risk of being over-analyzed, of not seeing the forest for the leaves, let alone the trees. I believe that one of the things we're supposed to learn from this scene is that Snape has been telling the truth about James - from his own perspective. And its just as valid a perspective as Remus' and Sirius': this is how we knew the guy, this is what he was like - to us. The other thing we're meant to realize is that Snape still views himself the way James Potter and Sirius Black viewed him all those years ago, and the way he assumes Harry views him now. Snape has learned to attack and wound first, because otherwise you are vulnerable and might not get a chance to pull your wand out. That's why, I'm sure, he called Lily "that word" - to attack James and get him to lose his temper and therefore be vulnerable. And I'm sure that was a major propellent for him to join the DE's: the chance to gain new powers and develop forms of magic that weaker, no-doubt-muggle-fearing wizards were too afraid to use. The so-called Dark Arts: really Dark, Voldemort might ask, or just too strong for feeble-minded people afraid of power to learn? Book!Geek Snape would go for that. Then like Regulus he found out what the whole deal was and unlike Regulus was smart enough - and daring enough - to get out alive. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 13:30:27 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:30:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050209133027.95161.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124254 >Betsy: >Erm. Yes. I'm not sure what the argument is here. James follows > the letter of his ideology while essentially breaking his ideology. > Wrong clothed in right. He's like the Spanish Inquisition (and > also unexpected).< > James didn't have an "ideology" that he was following in the Pensieve scene. He was hacking around with his buddies, harassing an anti-social geek with poor grooming skills who always rose to the attack so well that it never occurred to James that what he was doing was bullying. Yes, I'm sure James hated the Dark Arts at the age of 15 but I'm also sure that if you asked him what the Dark Arts were, he'd say something like "you know, what we study to prevent in DADA" or "you know, bad stuff like killing people or torturing them or, uh, something". I strongly doubt that he viewed bugging Snape as taking a principled stand against the Dark Arts. (It would also help if JKR told us what exactly the Dark Arts are, but that's a side issue.) And yes, I know Vold War I was going on but unless James' parents or family had been touched directly (and I don't think that happened until after he graduated, IF at all) then I think for most of the kids it was something outside of the school. Again, I think we're over-analyzing this scene. For me, the message is that up until the Prank, James viewed his relations (for want of a better word) with Snape as something not altogether serious (as opposed to Sirius). Not until the Prank happened and was barely stopped did it really register with James that things were getting badly out of hand. And from the time of the Prank, I'm willing to bet that there was no more two-on-one with Snape. Yet by this time, Snape was an enemy and hexing James. And I'm sure James fought back. But there was no more "I'm bored; let's amuse ourselves" stuff; it was one-on-one between James and Snape, and let's pray that Lily doesn't find out or James is really dead meat. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 13:34:00 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:34:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050209133401.85754.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124255 --- nrenka wrote: > On the existence, though...if your ideology is "Dark Arts suck" and > not a more nuanced/Dumbledorean approach to it, you have every > reason to be offended by the existence-and-therefore-presence of a > partisan of said Dark Arts. That's what I keep harping on with the > blah blah ontology blah blah--it can be read as not a small thing > at all. Yes, but what proof is there (aside from Sirius Black's statements - backed up by nobody else; according to Remus, Snape was jealous of James' quidditch skills) that Snape was a "partisan" of the Dark Arts? I think he became one - but what proof is there that he one at the age of 15? Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 13:55:10 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:55:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: James, a paragon of virtue? Snape, a paragon of virtue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050209135510.92988.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124256 --- vmonte wrote: > Maybe you're right. But I think that if what you are saying is > true, James only started thinking this way because of Lily. I just > don't see James, before Lily, as someone who thinks things through. > His best friends include: > > Wormtail - a kiss ass if ever there was one. > > Lupin - a teenager that needed friends and always kept his mouth > shut when his friends were doing wrong. > > and > > Sirius - a teenager with serious parental issues. A guy who is > definitely acting out on a lot of pent up frustration. Very true. James was basically a good kid who didn't realize the emotional dependency on him that his friends had. For very different reasons. Personally I think that it was the possibly ramifications of the Prank that brought home to James that Lily was right about him: he badly needed to get out of that Marauder circle where he was the centre and hub that the others revolved around. He needed to hear some other truths. And when he reacted well to learning them, then he started to grow up and deserved the Head Boy-ship (word?) in his last year. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 14:10:00 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:10:00 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: <20050209133401.85754.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124257 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > Magda: > > Yes, but what proof is there (aside from Sirius Black's statements - > backed up by nobody else; according to Remus, Snape was jealous of > James' quidditch skills) that Snape was a "partisan" of the Dark > Arts? > > I think he became one - but what proof is there that he one at the > age of 15? If we're going to toss out all statements backed up by nobody else, then we have to toss out a LOT of things. I prefer to let that one stand, but with an asterisk by it; could be true, could not... But what is almost more important if we're trying to get into James' psychology here is that it seems fairly clear that *James* thought of Snape as a Dark-Arts loving type of character. That's the thing that Sirius and Remus harp on when Harry comes to see them; that may be a retrospective emphasis, but it may be their expression of what they remember as having been deathly important at that place in time. [I suspect we will generally have to disagree about the climate at Hogwarts during their schooldays; I think those issues of pureblood ideology/etc. were more prominent, being discussed, and that there did not have to be a personal tragedy in James' history to provoke a concern and knowledge thereof.] There's no proof he was one at the age of 15. We have the also oblique (but not to be thrown out just because we don't like it) association of some sort with other Slytherins, notably such luminaries as Bellatrix. But playing in JKR's deeply essentialist universe, it's telling that he ended up as one--and telling that he left. Not enough information to really sort it out. -Nora stands firmly by the idea that everyone has their ideology, aware or not From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Feb 9 14:15:25 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:15:25 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatem/ Prior Incantato (was: Re: prior incantantum... ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124258 Becky: > I was just reading the thread about 'prior incantantum'. The > thing I'm confused about (now that I've just thought of it), is > what happened to the AK that LV aimed at Harry? It was a spell > cast by LV's wand, why is there no prior incantantum of any sort > for this spell? ... Eloise: > Actually, I noticed something in the wording as I was copying that > quote from GoF. A wand is forced 'to regurgitate spells it has > performed'. Not *all* the spells it has performed, or even *the* > spells it has performed, but just 'spells'. JKR may have got the > order wrong the first time, but perhaps she did realise that there > were some spells that she couldn't describe and worded accordingly. Jen: I like the theory that Voldemort's wand didn't regurgitate the AK meant for Harry because the spell was not completed. The spell bounces off Harry, hits Voldemort, but LV isn't killed; instead we see the very odd occurence of his essence being ripped from his body (I'm not going to say soul here, because JKR seems to be giving us clues he is souless). Presumably the wand could regurgitate Voldemort's screaming, but it doesn't. After all he felt "pain beyond pain" and we hear other screams emitting from the wand. Come to think of it, all those screams of pain are inconsistent. We hear one before Wormtail's hand appears, which is Wormtail at the moment his hand is severed. Then another scream before Cedric appears, but Cedric doesn't have time to react at all and certainly doesn't scream. Frank Bryce does scream and that's duly recorded... Anyway, back to the AK on Harry. It could merely be that the spell was incomplete, or that the wand can't record a spell done to its owner. Or it could be a clue to Voldemort's state at the time of the AK, meaning a wand can't record what it doesn't recognize. Jen From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Wed Feb 9 14:39:37 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:39:37 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Significance of Ginny In-Reply-To: <1e6.34af3d67.2f3ad6d6@aol.com> Message-ID: <200502090940276.SM01608@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 124259 > Vivamus: > I recognize this pattern (the archetypal trio of women who > make the hero > complete) from the wonderful Childe Cycle of Gordon Dickson; > but he may have gotten it from earlier literature. (He > wrote the first book using it [Dorsai!] in 1960 or thereabouts.) > > Sherrie here: > > Indeed he did - from the Triple Goddess of ancient lore. The > Fates, the Norns, the Erinyes - sets of trifold Goddesses, > which many simply define as Maiden, Mother & Crone. > (Lily/Molly/Minerva; I haven't quite defined the roles in > the second triad, except that I rather think that Hermione is > the Crone.) > > Sherrie Vivamus: You are right, of course, about the goddess trio application in ancient literature. The only problem with the Maiden/Mother/Crone model with respect to the trios in Potterverse, however, is that it doesn't seem to fit as well. Molly is so strongly a mother figure, it is hard to imagine her fitting any of the other roles -- yet Lily is Harry's mother. Minerva is certainly older, and her role is somewhat that of the crone, but she really *isn't* the crone. She doesn't provide him with the information or answers he needs to fulfill his quest, and she is not ancient. None of the three women fulfill the role of maiden -- unless Lily is the maiden, in an odd reversal. Instead of the goddess trio being the assistants of the hero on his journey, or the givers of gifts that make the journey possible, the trios in the Childe Cycle perform a quite different function. The trio as used by Gordon Dickson is that of body/mind/spirit. The two trios used are each centered around that pattern, but one trio is maternal and the other is complementary. The older trio nurtures or matures the body/mind/spirit. The younger trio completes the body/mind/spirit. It is this pattern I've not seen before Dickson's work, although I would not be surprised at all to find it in older literature. So the older trio of Lily/Molly/Minerva provide the nurturing/maturing/protection Harry needs to be ready for his journey, and the younger trio of Hermione/Ginny/Luna provide the missing elements Harry needs to not only accomplish his journey, but to be himself complete at the end of it. I'm afraid my classical education is fairly weak; is there an early example of the above pattern anyone can remember? Vivamus From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Feb 9 14:53:42 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:53:42 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatem/ Prior Incantato (was: Re: prior incantantum... ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124260 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eloise_herisson" wrote: Eloise: > I think here's a little confusion here: there's no such thing > as 'Prior Incantantem'. The names of the two different phenomena are > so close that they are frequently confused or conflated. > > 'Prior Incantato' is the name of the *spell* that makes a wand reveal > the most recent spell it performed. It's what Amos Diggory does to > Harry's wand at the QWC. > > Priori Incantatem ('the reverse spell effect')is a natural effect > occuring when brother wands are forced to do battle and one forces > the other 'to regurgitate spells it has performed - in reverse.' Geoff: This topic had quite an airing several months ago. In message 100201 (Re:Priori Incantatem ? further thoughts), I wrote: "My take on this is that there are two modes of operation for the Priori Incantatem spell - voluntary and involuntary. In the voluntary case, we see the wand being which is being "questioned" being placed point to point with an "interrogating" wand and just the last spell being shown. In the involuntary case, this would only seem to operate when, as Dumbledore remarks, they share cores. In this case, the results are different. It would appear that the command "Priori Incantatem" is not needed because neither Harry nor Voldemort used it. The wand then apparently goes on producing former spells in reverse order until the link is broken - although there does appear to be a time lag between the appearances, long enough to allow the emerging figures to say something to Harry. An interesting point here is that the figures seem to know what is going on and, even more curious, the fact that the "echo" of Bertha Jorkins knows Harry's name; is an appearing "echo" so aware of the surrounding as to perhaps see Harry's scar? It is also recorded that, in this instance, the wands became hot; is this perhaps related to the spells which were spoken when the connection occurred? Is the golden cage effect only because the shared cores are from a phoenix? Two other points. In both cases, the "echoes" produced are described as grey and smoky. The other is that slightly differing forms of the spell wording are mentioned. Amos Diggory uses "Prior Incantato" which sounds suspiciously like a genitive whereas "Priori Incantatem" - which is not actually heard being used in this book - looks like an accusative. I am trying to remember whether any of the spells used in the books appear in more than one version and, if so, if that affects the result." In message 124258, Jen wrote: "Anyway, back to the AK on Harry. It could merely be that the spell was incomplete, or that the wand can't record a spell done to its owner. Or it could be a clue to Voldemort's state at the time of the AK, meaning a wand can't record what it doesn't recognize." Geoff: Again, this was discussed around the time of the above message - it might be worthwhile following those threads up - and I think the point was put forward that since no one was actually killed by that Adavra Kedavra spell, there would be no "echo". Voldemort may have been disembodied but he was still around as a spirit. From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 15:53:26 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 15:53:26 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatem/ Prior Incantato (was: Re: prior incantantum... ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124261 > Geoff: > Again, this was discussed around the time of the above message - it > might be worthwhile following those threads up - and I think the > point was put forward that since no one was actually killed by that > Adavra Kedavra spell, there would be no "echo". Voldemort may have > been disembodied but he was still around as a spirit. Thanks for all the ideas, and thanks to Geoff for the previous thread. I can see what you're (mostly) saying. That it was incomplete, so we didn't see it. But in my own mind, while I agree that it didn't have the *desired* effect, it still had a fairly dramatic effect. Enough of an effect that the WW is *still* discussing that night more than a decade later! I know we don't really know *what* we should see, but if we can see an echo of wormtail's hand, we should at *least* see an echo of the scar. Of course, it is possible that the reason JKR got Harry's parents the wrong way round was because she was pre-occupied with keeping this out but I still don't know. I'm just suspicious that if we had seen the echo we would know too much about what originally happened. Again, just my opinion! Becky From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 16:22:38 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 16:22:38 -0000 Subject: Significance of Ginny In-Reply-To: <200502090940276.SM01608@devbox> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124262 Would you like to work as an Auror for a day? The Ministry of Magic has authorized me to give a few clues that I have discovered to the true symbolic identity of Ginny. The Muggles on this list might find this easier to guess than the Wizards since it is a part of Muggle culture. Go back to book 2. Think only of Ginny and what happens to her all the way to the end of the story. Think of symbols. XC symbols. Got it? Ok. Now go to the scene in the chamber. Ginny, Harry and the *rest*. What do you come up with? I think it should be really clear that Ginny has an important part in the rest of the story. Ask yourself this question: *Who is Ginny?* This is part of your Auror test. Tonks_op From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Feb 9 16:24:03 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 16:24:03 -0000 Subject: DD's ultimate goal (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124263 In 124239 Debbie [elfundeb] wrote: >> Rather than being a *bad* strategist, his [DD's] approach is revolutionary. Dumbledore's objective is not to beat, or kill, the DEs and save the wizarding world from them, though at the DoM the Order members do fight to protect Harry & Co.; the goal must be to change their thinking *and* the thinking of the average witch or wizard, or else there will be endless waves of Grindelwalds and Voldemorts to fight against. And if he is to do that, he can't stoop to their level. << SSSusan: This is a very interesting take on what DD might be thinking. I'm reminded how literary types sometimes point out that what we're presented with in the *very first* chapter of a book often gets forgotten but often is vitally important. Way back in PS/SS 1, McGonagall pointed out that there were powers DD possessed but was "too noble to use." I think this could be considered evidence that Deb's view of DD's tactics is right. In 124240, Alla offered: >> Moral superiority is great, but people are getting killed and Dumbledore's unwillingness to go after Voldie full stop does not look to me as "non stooping" to their levels, but more like foolishness. << SSSusan: I do have to wonder, by way of comparison, how foolish Martin Luther King, Jr., looked to people in the `50s & `60s who wanted change NOW, through force if necessary, as well as to his opponents? Yup, I can see opponents laughing at how "weak" a foe this made him, yet non- violence was MLK's *committed* strategy. And change did come eventually, perhaps, if I might be so bold as to suggest, in large part because of his commitment to non-violence and the trust that engendered in whites who weren't at first sure about change. Then again... Phoenixgod said in 124243: >> I admire DD, because for all his faults, he is a forward minded person when it comes social justice. But the middle of war is not the time to be engaging in it. He should wait till he's done and start spending all that political capital and good will he will have earned. The middle of a war is not the time or place for a social revolution, IMO. << To which Debbie replied in 124249: >> If you set aside your principles of justice for the purpose of conducting a war, then when the war is over, you won't have the moral capital to be pushing for social change. << SSSusan: This is the question which needs to be answered, I suppose. In time of WAR, *can* the principles be held onto, or must they be set aside for the sake of winning the war? I know that clinging to them goes against many people's notions of vengeance and what's necessary during war, but maybe it's just what JKR is going to hold up a necessary?? If Deb is right that DD is holding to principles of pushing for true social change, not just victory-whatever-it-takes, then here is where my concern comes in: To what degree do the other Order members buy into the need to do things this way? If DD kicks it in HBP, as many fans believe he will, who'll take over? Do the others believe in DD's vision as strongly? Do the younger folks even know it's the goal and buy into it at all? What then? Siriusly Snapey Susan From mail at chartfield.net Wed Feb 9 16:26:54 2005 From: mail at chartfield.net (queen_astrofiammante) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 16:26:54 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124264 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Debbie" wrote: > He's not being reactive. We know the Order has been actively > recruiting supporters. Now Astrofiammante: And it's not as if the Order is working without limitations, either. Scalpel poised for a surgical strike? Or a band of renegades that barely functions within society? From OotP ch5 p 89 Bloomsbury hbk: "'But you're telling people, aren't you?' said Harry, looking round at Mr Weasley, Sirius, Bill, Mundungus, Lupin and Tonks. 'You're letting people know he's back?' They all smiled humourlessly. 'Well, as everybody thinks I'm a mad mass-murderer, and the Ministry's put a ten thousand Galleon price on my head, I can hardly stroll up the street and start handing out leaflets, can I?' said Sirius restlessly. 'And I'm not a very popular dinner guest with most of the community,' said Lupin. 'It's an occupational hazard of being a werewolf.' 'Tonks and Arthur would lose their jobs at the Ministry if they started shooting their mouths off,' said Sirius, 'and it's very important for us to have spies inside the ministry, because you can bet Voldemort will have them.'" AstroF From sculver_27 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 17:12:55 2005 From: sculver_27 at yahoo.com (sculver_27) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:12:55 -0000 Subject: Pensieve thoughts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124265 Hey all, Been lurking for a while, and there's something that's been puzzling me but I haven't seen addressed specifically. Apologies if this has been covered before, but there really isn't a search-function to speak of around here. How exactly does the pensieve work? Or, more specifically, is the item placed in the pensieve a copy of the original memory, or is it the original memory itself? Here's what we're shown in the books: DD tells Harry that he uses the pensieve for two reasons (sorry for the lack of quotes): 1. When there are too many thoughts in his head, implying that removing some of them frees up more space for the others to wiggle around comfortably. 2. When he wants to examine a memory at his leisure. Reason number two could mean that the item that is pulled from the head and placed in the pensieve is a /copy/ of the memory, and DD then witnesses it from the third-person perspective via the pensieve. But reason number one suggests that the memory is not a copy, but actually the singular memory itself. Further, when Snape puts some memories in the pensieve the reader is led to believe that he is doing this so that Harry will not potentially have access to them during the occlumency lessons, which supports the singular memory theory. Of course, we're never told why Snape is using the pensieve. And if we think that sneaky Snape put the memories in the pensieve so that Harry /could/ view them, then we can't really use the evidence we have to determine copy vs. singular. I don't buy the sneaky-Snape theories, so I'm interpreting Snape's use of the pensieve as support for the singular memory theory. So how would a singular memory theory play out? Once the user puts a memory in the pensieve, that memory is then gone from the user's mind. Viewing it in the pensieve would be a revelation to the original owner of the memory, at least the first time it was viewed. After that, the user would have a third-person perspective of that memory, but presumably without the knowledge of emotions, physical senses, etc. that were contained in the first-person experience of the event being reflected upon. Were Snape to view the bullied-by-James memory through the pensieve, he would have no way of knowing how he felt during the experience. Was he scared? Surprised? Contemptuous? Mentally exhausted from exams? The reader can make a pretty good guess at these things, but it would seem that Snape could make no better guess were he to view the scene through the pensieve. And what happens when the memory is put back into the head? Are the two memories (the original, and the memory of viewing the original) somehow connected, so that Snape could pull the memory of being bullied by the lake back out of his head? Are they threaded like forum posts? I could go on and on, but this post is probably a bit long already. Perhaps I'm overthinking this, but it just doesn't seem to make logical sense. Thanks for letting me ramble. scott From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 18:36:01 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 18:36:01 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124266 Phoenixgod2000 writes: >You could be right that in the first war the Order was what was >standing between Voldemort and total victory against the Ministry >but in the current conflict he is doing very little IMO. The fact >that he is not affiliated with the government gives them greater >power to act, not less. Phoenix, I'm a Gemini and I'm beginning to think you're my long lost twin. Dumbledore lost all credibility in OoP for me with his mind- numbingly stupid decision not to tell Harry anything about the prophecy. (I didn't want you to be upset that you'd probably have to kill the evil-snakey beast creature that murdered your parents and tried to kill you four or five times already) AND to do nothing proactive to trap Voldemort, even though he knew LV was desperate to get his hands on the thing - when you have something the enemy wants, the ball is in your court. DD had Harry and the prophecy both and he did nothing. >Name me a single thing that DD did that was proactive. Guarding >Harry wasn't. It was a passive preparation against an assassination >attempt. DD could have gone after the DEs or dark creatures most >likely to go after Harry, but he didn't. And the "guarding Harry" thing worked out really well, didn't it? They even knew that Harry was dreaming of the Department of Mysteries because he asked Oh-So-Trustworthy-Snape what was there, but they had NO IDEA that Harry would show up there one day. Just tell the kid there is a prophecy there that concerns him and Voldemort. How difficult would that have been? >He didn't get Harry magical training to teach him how to use all >that raw talent of his. Instead he left Harry to languish alone for >two months. And Harry is the most important person on the side of >light in this particlar war! Well, they couldn't have taught him anything over the summer because they were already on the outs with the Ministry and Harry couldn't do any magic. I think they were hoping for that very thing and when it didn't happen, they sent the Dementors to force him to do magic. However, once he was back in school, they taught him NOTHING except some training with Snape that he was utterly adverse to. They had to teach themselves how to fight. How hard would it have been to smuggle in Moody to give them some real training? >He didn't use Sirius, a skilled animagus, to do anything for the >order. Even if Sirius had to stay in #12, wouldn't a teacher skilled >enough to teach Wormtail of all people, be good enough to teach >Molly the she-bear how to become a she-bear in truth? Incredibly good point. It only took the Marauders what... three months? to become Animagi? Sirius was twiddling his thumbs a lot longer than that. Keeping him locked up in 12GP was extremely stupid - they surely could have found something for him to do, even out of the country, I'm sure. DD's philosophy seems to be "let's keep everyone safe by locking them in little dark boxes and maybe LV will leave them alone". My chief irritation with DD is that he had FIFTEEN years to plan for LV's return. Couldn't he have spent a couple hours of that fifteen years making a few plans? Hmmm, let's say Voldemort returns to full strength one day. What shall we do? I know, let's wait around and hope that little Harry grows up to be a big strong wizard that can take him out - oh wait, we already know that happens because the prophecy says so. Great! We'll just sit here and eat some candies. In my opinion, DD likes nothing better than to be the headmaster of Hogwarts and he'd really rather not be bothered with anything else. DD spent the summer getting the Order of the Phoenix gathered up. Great job. Then school starts and it's all back to business as usual, except for the pesky Ministry getting involved. Was DD doing anything at all in the time leading up to his ousting? Didn't seem like it. Did they make any sort of plans for using the prophecy as a Voldemort trap? Didn't look like it. In fact, they all seemed pretty astonished when the DEs actually showed up at the Ministry to take it. And why in the name of Godric Gryffindor did he even keep the darned prophecy around? I would have smashed it to smithereens and let one of the DEs know it was smashed. DD had the prophecy the whole time, so it wasn't like he was keeping it safe for Harry. LV would have had to find something else to do. My second irritation was that as soon as Umbridge was made Headmistress, my first thought was, "Yay! Now DD is free to go out and make some plans without the school taking up all of his time." Did he go out and make any plans? Did he do anything at all? I hope so. I hope the next book unveils a huge lovely pile of DD plans all coming to fruition. But after the whole OoP fiasco, I'm thinking it's not going to happen. Debbie writes: >I think Dumbledore and the Order, however, have a >different role, which includes the quiet pursuit of social change. >And to champion that goal, they have to be a moral force, not simply >a military force. I think that's exactly what DD plans to do. Sit back with his high morals hoping for social change while coaching Harry and handing him the tools to get rid of the bad guys for him. Does the fact that he doesn't want to get his hands dirty make him a better person? The fact that the prophecy says Harry is the only one with the power to take out Voldemort doesn't mean that they should all just wait around for Harry to do it. They should at least be making some plans to take out the DEs, because there is no prophecy that says Bellatrix will not take out Harry five minutes before his final duel with Voldemort. Nicky Joe From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 19:55:24 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 19:55:24 -0000 Subject: Pensieve thoughts - More Dynamics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124267 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sculver_27" wrote: > > > Sculver/Scott says - Hey all, > > ...edited.. > > How exactly does the pensieve work? Or, more specifically, is the > item placed in the pensieve a copy of the original memory, or is it > the original memory itself? > > But reason ... suggests that the memory is not a copy, but actually > the singular memory itself. ...edited... > > So how would a singular memory theory play out? > Once the user puts a memory in the pensieve, that memory is then > gone from the user's mind. Viewing it in the pensieve would be a > revelation to the original owner of the memory, at least the first > time it was viewed. bboyminn: I touched on this in the recent thread... Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 3:59 pm Subject: Re: Pensive Peeking - & it's Dymanics http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124072 That and the comments of others should help you out. I won't go into detail (at least I'll try not to), but here is the gist of it. When I first considered the dynamics of the Pensieve, I thought as you did, that once a memory was out of your brain, you would have no idea that the memory even existed. Upon long and deep reflection it occured to me that surrounding every memory are peripheral and secondary memories. For this discussion, Peripheral will mean related memories chronologically before and after the /saved/ memory, and Secondary will mean memories of memories. Example- At an annual festival in my home town they had a car show (hotrods) last year. If I remove the memory of actually seeing the cars, I still remember finding out about the car show, stopping at my mother's and talking about the car show, and after the fact, talking to my brother about the car show. Even though I may remove the memory of actually viewing the cars at the show, I still have all these peripheral memories to remind me that a car show existed. Also, as I sit here writing this, I am remembering that car show, and that creates a new memory. I now have a memory of me remembering the car show; a memory of a memory. That secondary memory also helps me know that the car show existed, and at some point, if I'm interested car show memories, I can go to my Pensieve and retrieve them. In addition, I have the memory of having stored that car show memory in the Pensieve. So, memories will not get lost in the Pensieve. Now if you are using the Pensieve as Snape was to hide memories, it's possible that Harry in the Occlumency class, or perhaps Dumbledore or Voldemort probing Snape's mind, could come across secondary and peripheral memories related to the /hidden memory/, but these secondary memories are going to be more fragmented and less detailed, and therefore less likely to give a /mind prober/ useful or relevant information. > Scott: > > Were Snape to view the bullied-by-James memory through the pensieve, > he would have no way of knowing how he felt during the experience. > ....edited... > > Thanks for letting me ramble. > scott bboyminn: As can be divined from m explanation above, when Snape caught Harry in that one particular memory, he would have certainly had many secondary memories of having been humiliated, and enough peripheral memories to have indentified that particular event. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 20:30:03 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 20:30:03 -0000 Subject: Voldie Immortal?? -Speculation (was- Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124268 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>Alla: > >By the way, how do we know that Voldemort is no longer immortal? > ...< > Betsy: > "But my plan failed. I did not manage to steal the Sorcerer's > Stone. I was not to be assured immortal life. I was thwarted..." > (GoF Scholastic Hardback p. 654) > > "...I was willing to embrace mortal life again, before chasing > immortality. I set my sights lower... I would settle for my old > body back again, and my old strength. > (ibid p. 656) > > Betsy bboyminn: Filled with speculation, as I always am, this is my take on Voldemort's current status. I believe that Voldemort (generally speaking) can't be killed, but he is not immortal. That my seem like a contradiction, so let me explain. Voldemort has guarded himself against external death. That is, he can't be killed by an external causes like a Death Curse, or most accidents. However, he is not protected from internal causes of death. He has not stopped the ravages of time, as an example. At some point, his time will run out and he will die a natural death. So, while he is protected from being killed, he is not protected from death by natual causes. Restated, he can't be killed, but he can die, and therefore, he is not immortal. This does leave some gray area. If he is shot by a muggle bullet in the liver, kidney, or heart, is that death by external causes (a bullet) or is it death by internal cause (damaged organ), and further, would he actually die or just revert back to Vapormort? Anybody buying this? Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 20:30:47 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 20:30:47 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124269 Nicky Joe: My chief irritation with DD is that he had FIFTEEN years to plan for LV's return. Couldn't he have spent a couple hours of that fifteen years making a few plans? Hmmm, let's say Voldemort returns to full strength one day. What shall we do? I know, let's wait around and hope that little Harry grows up to be a big strong wizard that can take him out - oh wait, we already know that happens because the prophecy says so. Great! We'll just sit here and eat some candies. Alla: MAHAHAHA! Very good point,which I did not even consider properly. Dumbledore tells Harry himself that he did not believe that Voldie was gone forever fifteen years ago. So, all those negotiations with giants, etc. should have been started MUCH earlier than they did ( although maybe DD tried to do so and we are not aware of it yet) Debbie wrote early: I think Dumbledore and the Order, however, have a different role, which includes the quiet pursuit of social change. And to champion that goal, they have to be a moral force, not simply a military force. Nicky Joe: I think that's exactly what DD plans to do. Sit back with his high morals hoping for social change while coaching Harry and handing him the tools to get rid of the bad guys for him. Does the fact that he doesn't want to get his hands dirty make him a better person? The fact that the prophecy says Harry is the only one with the power to take out Voldemort doesn't mean that they should all just wait around for Harry to do it. They should at least be making some plans to take out the DEs, because there is no prophecy that says Bellatrix will not take out Harry five minutes before his final duel with Voldemort. Alla: I hope it is not that simple that Dumbledore does not want to get his hands dirty,while waiting till Harry grows up and does the dirty job for him, because otherwise Dumbledore will be on my list of "hated" characters and he is not there yet. I mean technically he really cannot kill Voldemort accroding to the Prophecy, but if you mean taking out DE by "getting his hands dirty", I agree with you. Astrofiammante: And it's not as if the Order is working without limitations, either. Scalpel poised for a surgical strike? Or a band of renegades that barely functions within society? From OotP ch5 p 89 Bloomsbury hbk: "'But you're telling people, aren't you?' said Harry, looking round at Mr Weasley, Sirius, Bill, Mundungus, Lupin and Tonks. 'You're letting people know he's back?' They all smiled humourlessly.'Well, as everybody thinks I'm a mad mass-murderer, and the Ministry's put a ten thousand Galleon price on my head, I can hardly stroll up the street and start handing out leaflets, can I?' said Sirius restlessly. 'And I'm not a very popular dinner guest with most of the community,'said Lupin. 'It's an occupational hazard of being a werewolf.''Tonks and Arthur would lose their jobs at the Ministry if theystarted shooting their mouths off,' said Sirius, 'and it's very important for us to have spies inside the ministry, because you can bet Voldemort will have them.'" Alla: Are you saying that this fact stops Order from doing what they must? because in my opinion it should help them in their operations. The fact that they are not very well accepted in the society could mean that nobody pays much attention to their actions. Did I misunderstand your point? SSSusan: This is the question which needs to be answered, I suppose. In time of WAR, *can* the principles be held onto, or must they be set aside for the sake of winning the war? I know that clinging to them goes against many people's notions of vengeance and what's necessary during war, but maybe it's just what JKR is going to hold up a necessary?? If Deb is right that DD is holding to principles of pushing for true social change, not just victory-whatever-it-takes, then here is where my concern comes in: To what degree do the other Order members buy into the need to do things this way? If DD kicks it in HBP, as many fans believe he will, who'll take over? Do the others believe in DD's vision as strongly? Do the younger folks even know it's the goal and buy into it at all? What then? Alla: My suspicion is that Dumbledore is not that pacifistic, or at least I hope not. Let me clarify though, I don't think that principles are needed to be set aside for the war. I also don't think though that general has a moral right to sit and watch his soldiers get killed simply for the sake of his principles. Let's wait till enemy wisens up and decides that fighting is bad, bad thing. I hope not. I don't believe in war, I think war should be avoided at any costs and negotiations are a wonderful thing, BUT I also don't believe that if someone launches a full blown offensive against you, on your territory, you have a right to sit and wait and watch what happens. I have no answer to your question Susan whether younger folks agree with Dumbledore's principles as to how to fight, because I am not sure WHAT Dumbledore's principles ARE at this point. That is another reason of why I think Dumbledore MAY survive till the end, because the reasons for his actions are still unclear to me and MAYBE JKR will want to keep them secret till the end. Lauraasia wrote: Dumbledore's strategy is to get the Wizarding World to engage Voldemort and his allies in open war as soon as possible. He *does not* want the conflict to remain hidden and secret. He does not want acts of terror, he wants outright war. He informs students, the Ministry and the world as soon as Voldemort returns. He doesn't waste time with minor nuisances like blocking Death Eater's bank accounts because all that will do will buy the Dark Side more time. The longer it takes for open war to be declared, the more foolish Dumbledore appears. The longer it takes, the easier it is for the world to right him off as senile and ignore his 'warnings.' snip. Maybe his apparent lack of offensive strategy is just a strategic way of bringing the war out into the open sooner. His defence of the Department of Mysteries encourages the Dark Side to attack. And on Ministry soil at that. That's a good plan as any for starting an open war. Alla: I am afraid I don't understand. I would love for your assumption to be correct - namely that Dumbledore indeed wants the war in the open ASAP, but I absolutely don't see how his way of doing things encourages DE to attack. His defence in the battle of MOM was a necessary measure,which they wanted to avoid at all costs. Do you mind explaining more what Dumbledore does to bring the war out in the open, please? Lauraasia: So, Dumbledore wants war *now* but he also wants to put off the Harry-Voldemort confrontation until the last possible minute- the minute when the war is just about over, the Dark Allies are defeated and only the evil King Pin remains. I bet JKR wants the same thing for dramatic purposes. Alla: I would agree with you, but as I said above, I don't see how Dumbledore's actions make the war out in the open faster. Through OOP all what I saw was avoiding the confrontation. Just my opinion, Alla From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Feb 9 20:33:33 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 20:33:33 -0000 Subject: Character Discussion: Harry and Sirius In-Reply-To: <20050209113823.65014.qmail@web25104.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124270 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Hans Andr?a wrote: Hans: > The message is first of all that every seeker has the > potential to become a divine human being, an eternal > Son of God, imperishable and free of death, sorrow and > suffering. The New Testament calls this Son of God > Jesus; Jo calls him Harry. Geoff: I had hoped to keep out of this discussion because I feared it is veering towards being off-topic but I cannot let this statement go unchallenged. In John 3:16, the Bible records Jasus as saying "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (New International Version) Note that Jesus is called the "one and only Son". Jesus was, to a believing Christian, God seen in human form. A seeker does not become an eternal Son of God - in other words a "Jesus". I have disagreed with Hans before when he has said that Harry is both everyman and Christ. According to Christian belief, we have the potential to become a child of God - which has a different connotation to the "one and only Son of God" - if we believe that Christ died on the Cross for us and rose again to give us the power to be free of death, sorrow and suffering. This is not the same as becoming a "Jesus". From a Christian perspective (the position from which I speak), this is heresy and is a distortion of what is recorded in the Bible. I stand by what I have previously said on various occasions that I see Harry as an everyman on his journey through life, a journey which we all must make on the strength of our own decisions and beliefs. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Feb 9 20:53:08 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 20:53:08 -0000 Subject: On negotiating with giants, etc. (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124271 Nicky Joe: > My chief irritation with DD is that he had FIFTEEN years to plan > for LV's return. Couldn't he have spent a couple hours of that > fifteen years making a few plans? Hmmm, let's say Voldemort > returns to full strength one day. What shall we do? I know, let's > wait around and hope that little Harry grows up to be a big strong > wizard that can take him out - oh wait, we already know that > happens because the prophecy says so. Great! We'll just sit here > and eat some candies. Alla: > MAHAHAHA! Very good point,which I did not even consider properly. > Dumbledore tells Harry himself that he did not believe that Voldie > was gone forever fifteen years ago. > > So, all those negotiations with giants, etc. should have been > started MUCH earlier than they did ( although maybe DD tried to do > so and we are not aware of it yet) SSSusan: I have a question for either of you (or anybody else for that matter). Do you think that entering into negotiations with giants or centaurs or goblins or any other group would have had a very high likelihood of success if everyone believed Voldy was gone for good? I really think that DD and Hagrid may have been in a very small minority of people who thought Voldy would manage to return someday [do we know about any others?]. What evidence was there for a potential return, given that he seemed to have been vaporized, and years began to pass by with no news of him? To me, if I were a member of one of the groups approached by DD, I'd be skeptical at best and would wonder why we even needed to talk about the matter. I think DD's hands were more tied on this issue than it might at first appear, until evidence of Voldy's return appeared. And note that, once it did, Hagrid was despatched immediately to the giants. Siriusly Snapey Susan From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Feb 9 21:18:14 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:18:14 -0000 Subject: Voldie Immortal?? -Speculation (was- Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124272 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: bboyminn: > Filled with speculation, as I always am, this is my take on > Voldemort's current status. > I believe that Voldemort (generally speaking) can't be killed, but > he is not immortal. > That my seem like a contradiction, so let me explain. > Voldemort has guarded himself against external death. That is, he > can't be killed by an external causes like a Death Curse, or most > accidents. Geoff: I'm not totally sure about this. Can I run some pieces of canon past you? Well, I'm going to anyway :-) Voldemort makes an interesting comment when he is telling the Death Eaters what had happened and he said: "But I was willing to embrace mortal life again, before chasing immortal. I set my sights lower... I would settle for my old body back again and my old strength." (GOF "The Death Eaters" p.569 UK edition) Hm. Sounds as if he thinks there might be something in this death business... But then, let's also consider Voldemort's reactions and comments in two situations where his power is being contested..... '"Do nothing!" Voldemort shrieked to the Death Eaters and Harry saw his red eyes wide with astonishment at what was happening, saw him fighting to break the thread of light still connecting his wand with Harry's......' (GOF "Priori Incantatem" p.576 UK edition) 'He concentrated every last particle of his mind upon forcing the bead backwards towards Voldemort, his ears full of phoenix song, his eyes furious, fixated... and slowly, very slowly, the beads quivered to a halt and then, just as slowly, they began to move the other way... and it was Voldemort's wand that was vibrating extra-hard now... Voldemort who looked astonished and almost fearful...' (ibid. p.577) 'She (Lily) walked close to Harry, looking down at him and she spoke in the same distant, echoing voice as the others, but quietly, so that Voldemort, his face now livid with fear as his victims prowled around him, could not hear...' (ibid. p.579) 'Dumbledore flicked his own wand: the force of the spell that emanated from it was such that Harry, though shielded by his golden guard, felt his hair stand on end as it passed and this time Voldemort was forced to conjure a shining silver shield out of thin air to deflect it. The spell, whatever it was, caused no visible damage to the shield though a deep, gong-like note reverberated form it - an oddly chilling sound. "You do not seek to kill me, Dumbledore?" called Voldemort, his scarlet eyes narrowed over the top of the shield. "Above such brutality are you?" "We both know that there are other ways of destroying a man, Tom," Dumbledore said calmly, continuing to walk towards Voldemort as though he had not a fear in the world, as though nothing had happened to interrupt his stroll up the hall. "Merely taking your life would not satisfy me, I admit -" "There is nothing worse than death, Dumbledore!" snarled Voldemort. "You are quite wrong," said Dumbledore, still closing in upon Voldemort and speaking as lightly as though they were discussing the matter over drinks. Harry felt scared to see him walking along, undefended, shieldless; he wanted to cry out a warning but his headless guard kept shunting him backwards towards the wall, blocking his every attempt to get out from behind it. "Indeed, your failure to understand that there are things much worse than death has always been your great weakness -" (OOTP "The Only One He ever feared" p.718 UK edition) 'Then Harry's scar burst open and he knew he was dead: it was pain beyond imagining, pain beyond endurance - He was gone from the hall, he was locked in the coils of a creature with red eyes, so tightly bound that Harry did not know where his body ended and the creature's began: they were fused together, bound by pain and there was no escape - And when the creature spoke, it used Harry's mouth so that in his agony he felt his jaw move... "Kill me now Dumbledore..." Blinded and dying, every part of him screaming for release, Harry felt the creature use him again... "If death is nothing, Dumbledore, kill the boy..."' (ibid. pp.719-20) If Voldemort is invincible, why is he definitely not a happy bunny in the graveyard? He is frightened; what does he fear? He considers himself the greatest sorcerer in the world so what's bugging him? And again, Dumbledore certainly seems to think that he can be killed and Voldemort, from some of his comments seems to think the same. I suppose his challenge to Dumbledore when he is possesing Harry is bravado; I doubt whether even he thinks that Harry will be killed and thus he is also safe, but I thibk there is enough evidence from Voldemort's own reactions and fear and his interchange with Dumbledore to suggest that he hasn't ruled out the possibility of suddenly "shuffling off this mortal coil". From meltowne at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 21:24:56 2005 From: meltowne at yahoo.com (meltowne) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:24:56 -0000 Subject: JKR's Time Turner (Was *MY* Time Turner) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124273 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "koinonia02" wrote: > "K": > BUT, when JKR introduced time-travel in PoA, she made a point of > pointing out that there are indeed problems with time traveling if > one is not careful. In order to ignore those warnings, one has to > excuse the word of McGonagall and Hermione in some way. McGonagall > is exaggerating and Hermione is tired or some other excuse. I just > don't buy into that line of thinking. > > Hermione is insistent that *they must not be seen* and they are not > to *change anything*. If it won't matter, then why does the author > have Hermione repeat those phrases numerous times? No, you don't have to ignore McGonagall's warnings, or Hermione's. McGonagall warns that terrible things have happened to wizards who encountered themselves. If you consider the possibilty of paradox, I would expect as much. If H&H see themselves on the way out to Hagrid's the first time, don't you think they would stop to ask what they were doing there? Hermione might understand what's going on, ut would Harry maybe think someone had Polyjuiced into him? Who would he suspect, and what would he think their purpose was? It could cause him to not go to Hagrid's in the first place, which would significantly change the past for their timeturning counterparts. If the keep themselves from going to Hagrids, none of the other events of the evening happen, and Sirius is not in the tower to be saved. The same applies later, if they are seen when the trio leaves Hagrid's hut. If they delay themselves, Peter gets away, and they don' find out about Sirius. Later, at the lake, Harry realized that he did, in fact see himself. But when he did, he was being attacked by the dementors, so he thought it was his father. He rationalized that his father had somehow come to save him. Would he have done the same if he had come face-to-face with himself? Hermione gives her warnings because she believes everything she has been told about the time-turner. Notice also that she is most concerned with not being seen. Changing time is a serious violation of the law, and she does not want to be caught. Truth be told, we don't know where the time-turner came from. Is it one of the devices Dumbledore has had in his office, or did they get it from the ministry - if they did, I would think the minister would have been aware that one of the students was using one all year. Remember, Dumbledore asks Snape if he knows of a way for the kids to be in 2 places at once - in front of the minister. If time travel is that highly regulated, I would expect the minister to know about it. I'm now beginning to suspect that Snape does know about it, but is sworn to secrecy. He knows Hermione has it, and has been using it all year, but can't say anything. If he does, he risks trouble for Dumbledore. From hhbarmaid at gmail.com Wed Feb 9 21:39:53 2005 From: hhbarmaid at gmail.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:39:53 -0000 Subject: On negotiating with giants, etc. (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124274 > Nicky Joe: > > My chief irritation with DD is that he had FIFTEEN years to plan > > for LV's return. Couldn't he have spent a couple hours of that > > fifteen years making a few plans? Hmmm, let's say Voldemort > > returns to full strength one day. What shall we do? I know, let's > > wait around and hope that little Harry grows up to be a big strong > > wizard that can take him out - oh wait, we already know that > > happens because the prophecy says so. Great! We'll just sit here > > and eat some candies. > > Alla: > > MAHAHAHA! Very good point,which I did not even consider properly. > > Dumbledore tells Harry himself that he did not believe that Voldie > > was gone forever fifteen years ago. > > > > So, all those negotiations with giants, etc. should have been > > started MUCH earlier than they did ( although maybe DD tried to do > > so and we are not aware of it yet) > > > SSSusan: > I have a question for either of you (or anybody else for that > matter). Do you think that entering into negotiations with giants or > centaurs or goblins or any other group would have had a very high > likelihood of success if everyone believed Voldy was gone for good? > > I really think that DD and Hagrid may have been in a very small > minority of people who thought Voldy would manage to return someday > [do we know about any others?]. What evidence was there for a > potential return, given that he seemed to have been vaporized, and > years began to pass by with no news of him? To me, if I were a > member of one of the groups approached by DD, I'd be skeptical at > best and would wonder why we even needed to talk about the matter. > > I think DD's hands were more tied on this issue than it might at > first appear, until evidence of Voldy's return appeared. And note > that, once it did, Hagrid was despatched immediately to the giants. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Barmaid now: I had not really thought much about this before, but what you say, SSSusan, makes a lot of sense. In fact, it has to be true that most people _really_ did not believe LV even could come back -- it had to be totally out of the realm of possibility for most people -- in order for them to so completely discount both DD and Harry's assertions that he _had_ in fact returned. I think I have been seeing it as more evenly split, and more about smart, aware people knowing he (LV) would return and stupid, self-absorbed people not seeing it. But really it makes much more sense that it would be held as _Common Knowledge_ that LV had been defeated once and for all. That said... there are still problems with DD. Sometimes he seems to have so much knowledge and so much power that he really could accomplish whatever he wanted to. Other times he seems to be easily thwarted. Bit of a puzzle. --Barmaid From gkmorales at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 08:11:13 2005 From: gkmorales at yahoo.com (gkmorales) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 08:11:13 -0000 Subject: Cover Artwork Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124275 Part of the fun for me is deciphering the cover artwork on the books while progressing through them. With that in mind, I have a quick question: On the back cover of GoF, there is something resembling an ant head. However, it doesn't match the description of anything in the book that I can recall. Is it supposed to be a blast-ended skrewt? This is the only thing on any of the books' covers that has escaped me. Thanks. "gkmorales" From skater314159 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Feb 9 21:04:02 2005 From: skater314159 at yahoo.co.uk (Megan) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:04:02 -0000 Subject: Significance of Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124276 > >>Sherrie here: > > Indeed he did - from the Triple Goddess of ancient lore. The > > Fates, the Norns, the Erinyes - sets of trifold Goddesses, > > which many simply define as Maiden, Mother & Crone. > > (Lily/Molly/Minerva) I haven't quite defined the roles in the > > second triad, except that I rather think that Hermione is the > > Crone.)< > > Betsy: > Hermione is definitely the Crone. I think Ginny might be the > Mother? She's associated with eggs a lot, IIRC. Which defaults > Luna to Maiden - though I don't have anything in mind as to *why* > she's the Maiden. Skater314159: I see Luna being the Maiden in a knowledge/experience sort of way, in that Luna is still naive about Voldie's power and many things in the world (look at how she believes in crumple-horned snorckacks...). I think Ginny is the Mother in a knowledge/experience sort of way in that since she was possessed by the diary, she now has experienced Voldie's power and understands what he is capable of. She is no longer naive, but is becoming "worldly". Finally, I see Hermione as being the crone in a knowledge/experience sort of way in that she has much knowledge/wisdom (a key trait of the crone) about Voldie - some of it gained from books, and some of it from her experiences with Ron and Harry. Skater314159 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 23:01:43 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 23:01:43 -0000 Subject: Voldie Immortal?? -Speculation (was- Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124277 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > bboyminn: > > > Filled with speculation, as I always am, this is my take on > > Voldemort's current status. > > > I believe that Voldemort (generally speaking) can't be killed, but > > he is not immortal. > > > That my seem like a contradiction, so let me explain. > > > Voldemort has guarded himself against external death. That is, he > > can't be killed by an external causes like a Death Curse, or most > > accidents. > > > > Geoff: > I'm not totally sure about this. Can I run some pieces of canon past > you? > > Well, I'm going to anyway :-) > > ...edited quotes form books... > > If Voldemort is invincible, why is he definitely not a happy bunny > in the graveyard? He is frightened; what does he fear? He considers > himself the greatest sorcerer in the world so what's bugging him? > > And again, Dumbledore certainly seems to think that he can be killed > and Voldemort, from some of his comments seems to think the same. I > suppose his challenge to Dumbledore when he is possesing Harry is > bravado; ....edited...but I think there is enough evidence from > Voldemort's own reactions and fear and his interchange with > Dumbledore to suggest that he hasn't ruled out the possibility of > suddenly "shuffling off this mortal coil". bboyminn: Well, first and foremost, getting killed hurts, and no one likes pain. "Aaah...pain beyond pain ...I was ripped from my body..." (pg 653) In addition, in the graveyard scene, Voldemort has just gotten his body back, he certainly wasn't eager to lose it again. Also, Voldemort had is 'old body' and his 'old strength' back. Many assume that means he has the same level of protection he had before his encounter with Harry at Godric's Hollow. In the same graveyard scene Voldemort says that the night of Godrics Hollow, one or more of his protections against death had worked, and that he/Voldie had gone father down the road to immortality than any other person. Although, he says he gone WAY down that road, it's clear he hasn't made it to his final destination yet. (GoF pg 653) "...I was ripped from my body... but still, I was alive. ...I, who have gone further than anybody along the path that leads to immortality. You know my goal -- to conquer death. ...it appeared that one or more of my experiments had worked ...for I had not been killed..." So, he can't be killed, but that doesn't mean attempts to kill him are not without danger and risk. As to Voldemort's reaction to the Brother Wand incident, clearly things are not going the way Voldemort planned. He certainly didn't expext the wands to join and create the golden cage. He certainly didn't think Harry could overpower him and force the 'light beads' back into his own wand, and was appropraitely shocked when the most recent people he had killed started coming back out of his wand. All in all, it was a bad day for the Dark Wizard; frustrating and frightening. In the scene with Dumbledore at the Ministry Atrium where they dueled, I see nothing to indicate the Voldemort is any more or less fearful of death in the moment than Dumbledore, and for the record, Dumbledore seems pretty bold and confident. I guess I base my premise on two things. First, by his own admission, Voldemort has done things to protect himself from death and they seem to be effective. (see quote above) Second clearly, he has not reach the state of immortality, he said that in unambiguous terms. (GoF Pg 656) "...I was willing to embrace mortal life again, before chasing immortality. ...I would settle for my old body back, and my old strength." -Voldemort has protected himself from death, and demonstrated the effectiveness. -Voldemort is mortal, he can die. -Voldemrot is not immortal, he can die. -Voldemort has is old body, and old strength, and we can reasonably assume his old protections. So how do we resolve the statement that he has protected himself from death and demonstrated that fact, with the statement that he is not immortal; he can't live forever. I condense that down into, can't be killed, but can die. Expanding to my original premise to explain this contradiction, I conclude that he can't be killed by external forces (generally speaking), but is still living and aging in a mortal life. That is, can't die from external causes, but can die from internal causes; an AK wouldn't kill him, but a heart attack might. I haven't heard a better explanation of 'being protected from death, while at the same time, not being immortal'. Hey, it's speculation, it's what I do best. Steve/bboyminn PS: Climactic final scene, Harry hits Voldemort with an Accelerated Aging Curse and Voldie ages 500 years in 5 seconds; the curse didn't kill him, time and age did, witness the pile of Voldie dust on the floor. Bada-Bing Bada-Boom. You heard it here first. From easimm at yahoo.com Wed Feb 9 22:05:15 2005 From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 22:05:15 -0000 Subject: Snape's lack of remorse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124278 I have seen loads of post about Snape's (sorry, Professor Snape's) turn of heart, but I just can't find a single line in the books to support the argument that Snape has any remorse for being a death eater (or for being nasty). In at least one scene, I notice the opposite. The Following is a quote from GOF, when Snape shows Fudge the death eater's mark: "Snape strode forward, past Dumbledore, pulling up the left sleeve of his robes as he went. He stuck out his forearm and showed it to Fudge, who recoiled." Snape's actions don't sound like those of a man who is at all ashamed or embarrassed about his past. In the scene with Karkarov in the classroom, he doesn't seem to have any empathy with his fellow ex-deatheaters. I'm not saying Snape is pathological in any way - he may have good reasons for lack of remorse. I would prefer if we could hold this discussion to what's in the books and whether the books relate in any way to real life, rather than a discussion of how wonderful or bad Snape is in your humble opinion. "curlyhornedsnorkack" From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Feb 10 00:37:15 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:37:15 -0000 Subject: Snape's lack of remorse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124279 "curlyhornedsnorkack" wrote: > > I have seen loads of post about Snape's (sorry, Professor Snape's) > turn of heart, but I just can't find a single line in the books to > support the argument that Snape has any remorse for being a death > eater (or for being nasty). In at least one scene, I notice the > opposite. > The Following is a quote from GOF, when Snape shows Fudge the death > eater's mark: > > "Snape strode forward, past Dumbledore, pulling up the left sleeve of > his robes as he went. He stuck out his forearm and showed it to Fudge, > who recoiled." > > Snape's actions don't sound like those of a man who is at all ashamed or embarrassed about his past. snip > > I would prefer if we could hold this discussion to what's in the books > and whether the books relate in any way to real life, rather than a > discussion of how wonderful or bad Snape is in your humble opinion. > Potioncat: What? Not wear our hearts on our sleeves? Well, I'll try. I'm only responding to one of your examples, because of a time constraint on my part. If we are only going by what is in the book we are told nothing about his emotions, except that he spoke harshly. He admits to being a Death Eater, says the mark was burned into each Death Eater. Says he could feel it grow stronger. Says he and Karkaroff knew LV was coming back. This is after DD has repeatedly tried to convince Fudge that LV is back. And it is to give hard evidence to Fudge of LV's current power. I don't see remorse nor do I see lack of remorse. But this doesn't seem to be the time to say, "I was a DE and I'm very sorry." So while I won't say, "Oh, but he must have felt badly about whatever he did," I will say, he has exposed his past to the Weasleys, MM, Poppy, and Harry. (I think Fudge already knew.) and in a moment he will leave to do something that deeply affects both himself and DD. I don't think we can say he does not feel remorse. For whatever reason, he seems to be going to great lengths to repair/repay(?) the things he did in the past. And that is better than sitting in shame and keeping it a secret. How'd I do? Potioncat From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 00:40:34 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:40:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050210004034.91646.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124280 > Alla: > What if whatever information we will > learn in the future books will tell us that Snape was not > just "bugging" Sirius, James, Remus, any one of them? What if he > was actively trying to wrong them somehow? > Lupin's comment to Sirius when Harry confronted them about the Pensieve Incident: "Did I ever tell you to lay off Snape?" And Sirius' response: "Well you made us feel guilty sometimes..." These do not sound like the comments of two guys who were being "actively wronged" by Snape. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 00:54:56 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:54:56 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: <20050210004034.91646.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124281 Alla: What if whatever information we will learn in the future books will tell us that Snape was not just "bugging" Sirius, James, Remus, any one of them? What if he was actively trying to wrong them somehow? Magda: Lupin's comment to Sirius when Harry confronted them about the Pensieve Incident: "Did I ever tell you to lay off Snape?" And Sirius' response: "Well you made us feel guilty sometimes..." These do not sound like the comments of two guys who were being "actively wronged" by Snape. Alla: Actually, I was thinking more about Remus being actively wronged by Snape. I should clarify though that I was operating under assumption that Prank indeed occurred shortly after Pensieve scene. And I disagree with you that we are overanalysing Pensieve scene. i think that some pieces ARE missing from that Puzzle and the idea that Snape may have figured out who Remus is after that exam could be one of them. Remus could still feel guilty in that scenario, couldn't he? Especially, if he still does not know that Snape knew who Remus was BEFORE he went in the Shack. Again, to be clear, I was talking more about Prank than pensieve scene itself. Just my opinion ( or more like my speculation), Alla From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 01:39:04 2005 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 01:39:04 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124282 Alla queried: I am afraid I don't understand. I would love for your assumption to be correct - namely that Dumbledore indeed wants the war in the openASAP, but I absolutely don't see how his way of doing things encourages DE to attack. His defence in the battle of MOM was a necessary measure, which they wanted to avoid at all costs. Do you mind explaining more what Dumbledore does to bring the war out in the open, please? Laurasia replies: Dumbledore knows that the longer the war remains secret, the more opportunities Voldemort has for planting spies, putting the Imperius Curse on people and finding supporters. In order to terminate this preparation, Dumbledore encourages open war. Dumbledore's objective is for Voldemort himself to come out of hiding. For this he needs a very specific task that requires the exclusive use of Voldemort's own hand. A task he can delegate to another is no good. The only option is the prophecy that only Voldemort and Harry can pick up. Dumbledore also needs this to happen in a place where it can be witnessed by as many people in positions of power as he can. Dumbledore chooses the battle field- The Ministry of Magic: a place that is centralised; a place where wizards can apparate to freely; a place where there are countless fireplaces for flooing; a place that is of political importance. This means that when an attack does occur there will be no doubt that Voldemort is making a direct threat on the Wizarding Government and means to overthrow it. It also means that many thousands of wizards will be able to arrive and see Voldemort in the act. Compare this battle field to Hogwarts: Hogwarts is impossible to apparate into. So if there was an attack, wizards would have to apparate to Hogsmeade and find another mode of transport to the castle, losing precious time. If Voldemort did arrive in Hogwarts, Fudge would never arrive in time to see him in the act. Hogwarts is not centralised, and most importantly, it is under the control of a wizard most people think is senile. An open attack on Hogwarts would not ensure that open war would break. Unlike the Philosopher's Stone, the prophecy is not moved to Hogwarts. It certainly *could* have been. Both Dumbledore and Harry were there, at the Dept. of Mysteries door, in August. And Voldemort *may* have planned to attack Hogwarts. Harry Potter does reside there for 10 months of the year, after all. Dumbledore must ensure that this does not happen because it would mean another year before open war breaks. It would mean another year for Voldemort to find support and infiltrate the Ministry of Magic. By putting a constant guard on the Department of Mysteries, Dumbledore is making sure Voldemort's attention is drawn to it. Dumbledore *knows* that no one can pick up the Prophecy besides Harry or Voldemort. Dumbledore *knows* that Voldemort is not stupid enough to waltz into the MoM if there is any other choice. Dumbledore also knows that the Ministry of Magic has thorough security measures which limit the chances Voldemort has for breaking into the Dept. Of Mysteries. IMO, Dumbledore knows that he doesn't have to guard the Dept. of Mysteries. He has portrait spies in the Atrium who could tell him instantly if Voldemort was on his way down in the lift. Why bother putting a time-consuming and energy wasting task like round-the-clock defence on an object (which has debateable use) unless he was trying to create a diversion? I don't think the defence on the Dept. of Mysteries was necessary. If keeping that prophecy away from Voldemort's ears was *absolutely* necessary, then Dumbledore should have cast a Stupefy in its general vicinity. But he doesn't. Dumbledore keeps that prophecy alive, even though he has perfect recollection of the damn thing. Why? Why risk another copy? IMO, it is obvious that Dumbledore is setting up a diversion. And by putting a lot of effort into guarding it, it only reaffirms, in Voldemort's eyes, that this is something he *needs*. Dumbledore arranges for Harry to learn Occlumency. He wants Harry to block out that corridor. Dumbledore wants Voldemort forced into going into the MoM himself, in *person.* Moreover, the last thing Dumbledore wants to do is for Voldemort to give up his pursuit of the Dept. of Mysteries. This could happen if Dumbledore went public with his knowledge. It could also occur if Voldemort realised he was being set up, so Dumbledore must ensure there is *some* resistance. I think this makes it clear that Dumbledore was setting up a situation that would lead to Voldemort appearing in person in front of several thousand witnesses who have political power. It would have been *very* easy to destroy or move the prophecy. Yet Dumbledore doesn't. He allows it to exist and he puts up an apparent defence of it because he is trying to force Voldemort into revealing himself. IMO, Dumbledore is trying to bring the war out into the open. And he succeeds. ~<(Laurasia)>~ Who didn't realise how PuppetMaster!Dumbledore this was going to turn out... It's almost as if he's done this all before... ;-) From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 01:52:54 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 01:52:54 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124283 Nicky Joe Dumbledore lost all credibility in OoP for me with his mind- numbingly stupid decision not to tell Harry anything about the prophecy. (snip) AND to do nothing proactive to trap Voldemort, even though he knew LV was desperate to get his hands on the thing - when you have something the enemy wants, the ball is in your court. DD had Harry and the prophecy both and he did nothing. phoenixgod2000 He didn't do anything with his ace in the hole, the prophecy. There are so many ways to trick, manipulate, and force Voldemort's hand using that gem, my mind literally boggles. He just guarded it until Voldemort was able to trick Harry into going after it. Not the most proactive thing in the world. Becky DD came over as more human and far more vulnerable than I had previously thought because of his `mind-numbingly stupid decision', which I do agree is what it was. However, why would you want DD to trap LV? It is *Harry* who has the power to `vanquish' LV, not DD. I don't see what that would achieve. I may be missing something, but it seems altogether pointless to me. As to DD doing nothing, I don't see it that way. He may have made defensive moves, but in relation to the prophecy, that seems to be the only reasonable thing to do. No member of OOTP would be able to retrieve, or even destroy the MoM's copy of the prophecy without going mad. Short of asking Harry to pop along to the MoM himself (when he's due in front of the court? in the middle of studies? while getting his yearly dose of protection from Petunia?), it was the *only* realistic thing to do. Nicky Joe: My chief irritation with DD is that he had FIFTEEN years to plan for LV's return. Couldn't he have spent a couple hours of that fifteen years making a few plans? Hmmm, let's say Voldemort returns to full strength one day. What shall we do? I know, let's wait around and hope that little Harry grows up to be a big strong wizard that can take him out - oh wait, we already know that happens because the prophecy says so. Great! We'll just sit here and eat some candies. Becky How do we know he hasn't been planning for the last 15 years? He apparently spends a lot of time pacing in his study, which sounds a lot like someone in thought to me. Unfortunately, a lot of my view is based on my feeling that an awful lot of what the order is doing is being done quietly, and we're not privy to it yet. That feeling comes from the discussion at the kitchen table in OOTP where Harry's questioning is cut off. I'm certain there's way way more than meets the eye. I'm sure those parchments of Bill's are hiding something important. It is just speculation and my personal feeling, but as DD appeared to leap into action at the end of GoF, I'm sure he won't have then immediately stopped being pro-active. phoenixgod2000 He didn't get Harry magical training to teach him how to use all that raw talent of his. Instead he left Harry to languish alone for two months. And Harry is the most important person on the side of light in this particular war! Becky I'm sure I've already read a similar answer to the one I'm going to give, forgive me if it's identical! Harry has been training, and training up others in the DA. The other person who gave this reason went into more detail. My point would be that DD saw no need to train Harry when he could see Harry was doing it himself. He offered help in the place he saw it was lacking (occlumency), however effective / well thought through / sensible the choice of teacher, etc, it was. I'm sure DD was well aware of the group (certainly Sirius knew about it without HRH telling him). Apologies now, this thread is so huge I'm having difficulty finding the things I want to answer, however, I'm going to do so without the original posting. Sorry! Someone suggested Harry would make a better leader than DD, but below I have listed one example of how DD's knowledge and understanding and even his ability to evaluate a situation is far better than Harry's. Harry makes a good fighter and even a good teacher / trainer. He would not make a good General. JMO! This whole business of `someone should have told Harry about how LV might try to manipulate his scar connection' is all very well, and yes, they should. But something appears to have been overlooked. This situation and particular scar appears to be unique, there is *no* previous example of it. Who explained to DD how it might be used? Where can he possibly have looked it up? No-one and nowhere. DD put two and two together himself. DD made an educated guess. Harry didn't. He may not have had quite as much information as DD, but he had enough to make the same educated guess and to have pretty much the same idea. Also, in another related thought, a General would know to go for their enemy's weakest point. This is not necessarily to go in and AK them all. DD evidently believes that there *is* something worse than death - Pg.718 OOTP `There is nothing worse than death, Dumbledore!' snarled Voldemort. `You are quite wrong,' said Dumbledore `Indeed, your failure to understand that there are things worse than death has always been your greatest weakness - ' So we know what LV's weakest point is. He has protected himself against *death*, not whatever it is that DD is referring to here. Which leads to the thought - What is DD thinking of in particular? What *is* worse than death? These thoughts then lead to - Who do we know in the story who would probably better off dead than as they are in LV's point of view? Lockhart, the Longbottoms and all Muggles. Wouldn't it be ultimate irony if LV ended up with all magic powers removed and effectively be only a muggle? However, I don't think that is what DD is thinking of, so I'm just going to have to keep thinking on that one! Just part of my long rambling thoughts which I have cut down. Anyone who wants to see the whole lot is more than welcome to ask for them! :) Becky - who has just realised how huge this post is time for bed I think! From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Thu Feb 10 02:46:31 2005 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 18:46:31 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Priori Incantatem/ Prior Incantato (was: Re: prior incantantum... ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1365939724.20050209184631@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124284 Wednesday, February 9, 2005, 6:15:25 AM, Jen Reese wrote: JR> Come to think of it, all those screams of pain are inconsistent. We JR> hear one before Wormtail's hand appears, which is Wormtail at the JR> moment his hand is severed. Then another scream before Cedric JR> appears, but Cedric doesn't have time to react at all and certainly JR> doesn't scream. Frank Bryce does scream and that's duly recorded... Actually, I think those screams are meant to correspond to instances of V casting Cruciatus: The two before and after the hand are the ones cast on Harry, and the one before Frank appears is the one cast on Wormtail that Harry "sees" while asleep in Divination. So it's all consistant. (Note that the narrative in Chapter 1 indicates that Frank starts to scream *before* V says, "Avada Kedavra", so it was out of fear, not caused by the AK.) But the one error I *do* see is that there should have been a scream corresponding to V's torturing of Bertha for information, in between her appearance and that of Harry's parents. -- Dave From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Thu Feb 10 03:24:12 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:24:12 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's lack of remorse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3BEBF6A0-7B13-11D9-BE90-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 124285 On Thursday, February 10, 2005, at 09:05 am, curlyhornedsnorkack wrote: > "Snape strode forward, past Dumbledore, pulling up the left sleeve of > his robes as he went. He stuck out his forearm and showed it to Fudge, > who recoiled." > > Snape's actions don't sound like those of a man who is at all ashamed > or embarrassed about his past. > > In the scene with Karkarov in the classroom, he doesn't seem to have > any empathy with his fellow ex-deatheaters. Hi! I see the quoted paragraph as a very aggressive thing to do, but not relevant to the question of remorse. Snape is effectively showing Fudge proof that he KNOWS what he is talking about it. He is no wooly-minded snorkackloving flake but an exDE and a SURVIVOR. I think he is very angry that a danger so strong and personal to him is being shuffled under the carpet. I am not a Snape-lover - the scene with Hermione's teeth ended any leaning I may have had in that direction - but I think that his defection from LV has cost him a lot. He DOESN'T have any empathy with the DEs because (a) he is not an empathic person in general (!) and (b) he knows what and who they are _from the inside_ - and has chosen to reject that. The others didn't, which to Snape's mind probably sets them up as either evil OR cowardly weakings. He made a hell of a choice, and I am not using those words lightly. Being Snape he isn't going to make nice about any of it, but he did choose the side of light. Remorse? He lives with the consequences in his head every day. He chooses to remain with the light every day. That's far more practical than wallowing in 'I'm -so-sorrys' which another more sympathetic character might feel and inflict on us. It just isn't in his character to do that. The proof of his remorse is in his actions. He changed sides. That truly is the best and only genuine proof anyone can give of remorse - deciding to and succeeding in NEVER LETTING IT HAPPEN AGAIN. The rest is just words. Jocelyn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 03:40:18 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:40:18 -0000 Subject: On negotiating with giants, etc. (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124286 Alla: Very good point,which I did not even consider properly. Dumbledore tells Harry himself that he did not believe that Voldie was gone forever fifteen years ago. So, all those negotiations with giants, etc. should have been started MUCH earlier than they did ( although maybe DD tried to do so and we are not aware of it yet) SSSusan: I have a question for either of you (or anybody else for that matter). Do you think that entering into negotiations with giants or centaurs or goblins or any other group would have had a very high likelihood of success if everyone believed Voldy was gone for good? I really think that DD and Hagrid may have been in a very small minority of people who thought Voldy would manage to return someday [do we know about any others?]. What evidence was there for a potential return, given that he seemed to have been vaporized, and years began to pass by with no news of him? To me, if I were a member of one of the groups approached by DD, I'd be skeptical at best and would wonder why we even needed to talk about the matter. I think DD's hands were more tied on this issue than it might at first appear, until evidence of Voldy's return appeared. And note that, once it did, Hagrid was despatched immediately to the giants. Alla: I don't know, Susan. Fifteen years is a really long time, IMO. Sure, Dumbledore was in the minority, sure the majority of WW did not want to believe that Voldemort will ever return. Nevertheless, Dumbledore could be very convincing, when he wants, IMO. And if he started really slowly, I think he could have find the way to make people believe that Voldie will be back and they should start preparing. Actually, he could even have the luxury of not starting with the general public, but with the necessary allies. I am not even talking about giants only, just laying out the groundwork, capitalising ,if you will, on people's belief in Dumbledore as someone who defeated Grindenwald ( I mean capitalising only in a sense of convincing people). JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 05:37:38 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 05:37:38 -0000 Subject: Snape's plant imagery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124287 kempermentor wrote: > > So I'm re-reading Snape's Worst Memory when I come to passage that > happens immediately after Harry 'falls' into the memory. Harry is > looking for Snape. > > "And there he is, at a table right behind Harry. Harry stared. > Snape-the-teenager had a stringy, pallid look about him, like a plant left in the dark." (OoP, soft, 640) > > 'Plant' not 'weed'. > > Like a plant left in the dark. > The plant, a symbol of life, is Snape. > Left in the dark, left out of the light. > Left to survive in the dark rather than thrive in the light. > > Snape-the-adult tells Umbridge he's worked at Hogwarts for 14 years. > Assuming he got the job shortly after embrassing the light that means he has spent more of his life living in the dark (or with the dark) than he has in the light. > > Perhaps the plant is still adjusting to life with light. > > Just something that caught my eye. > > -Kemper That image caught my eye, too, and it seemed to suggest neglect on the part of the adults in young Severus's life--his parents, his head of house, maybe even Dumbledore. I think the boy Severus had enormous potential, as indicated by the many hexes he knew before even coming to Hogwarts and by the detailed answers on his DADA exam. Yet apparently only the much older Lucius Malfoy saw the boy's potential, and, if I'm not mistaken, led Severus to believe that his abilities would be recognized and rewarded by Lord Voldemort. Of course this is just speculation, but that's what the image of the pallid, neglected plant suggests to me, and I find it very sad. Even now, though he's no longer round-shouldered and has learned to carry himself with dignity bordering on arrogance, he's still pallid, still craving recognition. At least now he seeks it from Dumbledore and not LV. But the absence of light may also, as you suggest, indicate that he was raised to believe in the values of the Dark side, which would explain his early interest in the Dark Arts and his belief (as a teenager) in the pureblood ideology. Maybe Dumbledore recognized both the talent and the neglect and tried, after the so-called Prank, to guide him belatedly toward the side of light. That would explain not only the adult Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore but DD's own statement that the young Snape (aged about 21) *returned* to our side. One more thing about the plant image. It seems to suggest compassion on Harry's part, a kind of empathy for another neglected boy. How sad, how ironic, that Snape himself misjudged Harry's reaction to his younger self. But maybe he'll see something similar in the "weedy" Theo Nott? Carol, who's pretty sure that JKR intended the reader as well as Harry to feel compassion for young Severus From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 00:21:36 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:21:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's lack of remorse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050210002136.19476.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124288 --- curlyhornedsnorkack wrote: > "Snape strode forward, past Dumbledore, pulling up > the left sleeve of > his robes as he went. He stuck out his forearm and > showed it to Fudge, > who recoiled." > > Snape's actions don't sound like those of a man who > is at all ashamed > or embarrassed about his past. Juli: Au Contraire. He just shows his Mark in one last desperate attempt to convince Fudge that LV is back, he left it for the very last minute. And funny how in the 4 previous years there was no mention of it (I know it was supposed to be clear but still). > In the scene with Karkarov in the classroom, he > doesn't seem to have > any empathy with his fellow ex-deatheaters. Juli: But why would he hang and be friends with guys who are evil (reformed or whatever but still evil)? And Karkarov was not only a DE but a traitor, he sent his friends to jail for life, not a liked fellow. Maybe Karkarov reminds him of the times when he was a killer and he just doesn't want to remember. > I'm not saying Snape is pathological in any way - he > may have good > reasons for lack of remorse. Juli: I do believe he has remorse of what he's done, he feels so bad about it that he's helping the other side and putting his life on the line. Admirable if you ask me. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 08:06:00 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:06:00 -0000 Subject: Snape's lack of remorse In-Reply-To: <3BEBF6A0-7B13-11D9-BE90-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124289 > > "Snape strode forward, past Dumbledore, pulling up the left sleeve of > > his robes as he went. He stuck out his forearm and showed it to Fudge, > > who recoiled." > > I agree generally with everything said by Potioncat and Jocelyn, especially about the above quoted scene - Snape isn't *proud* there, to the contrary, I read the harshness there as him overcoming his shame to do what needed to be done, and show Fudge the irrefutable proof that LV was back. I'd like to add though that if he shows any remorse, Harry is going to be the very last person who is going to see it. The most sympathetic human statement Harry has ever heard from Snape, IMO, are his anger at the Pensieve scene (and possibly "Don't strangle Longbottom, There'll be paperwork") - Snape has repeatedly failed to even attempt to connect with Harry or show him his side of things - and that, I think, *is* pride. I bet he feels some remorse, or regret, although to be honest, probably not all that much - his contempt for Karkaroffs snivelling makes me think he would very much take responsibility for his actions, and accept whatever drove him to them in the first place. "Well, I was young and stupid, and everyone else was doing it, and I really wish I hadn't." Strikes me as thoroughly Un-Snapeish - and much more so *telling* anyone. If Snape suffers from remorse, it's in wrathful, martyr-like, dignified silence. Letting it all out is for the *weak*. Northsouth From leslie41 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 05:20:16 2005 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41 at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 05:20:16 -0000 Subject: Snape's lack of remorse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124290 "curlyhornedsnorkack": > I'm not saying Snape is pathological in any way - he may have good > reasons for lack of remorse. Well, he has good reasons for not SHOWING his lack of remorse. Why should he, to Fudge, who's pretty much an idiot? Snape has no desire to show remorse in front of Harry either. "curlyhornedsnorkack": > I would prefer if we could hold this discussion to what's in the books > and whether the books relate in any way to real life, rather than a > discussion of how wonderful or bad Snape is in your humble opinion. We don't know whether or not Snape has shown remorse. We just know that he hasn't shown it in front of Harry, and the books are all from his perspective. But even if he never shows remorse, that's no indication that he doesn't feel it. And even if he never feels remorse at all, so what? >From Snape's perspective, remorse might be meaningless because it solves nothing and accomplishes nothing. Snape is honorable because he seeks absolution through his deeds, not a bunch of "mea culpas." Leslie From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 09:41:09 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:41:09 -0000 Subject: Snape's lack of remorse In-Reply-To: <20050210002136.19476.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124291 >Juli wrote: But why would he hang and be friends with guys who are evil (reformed or whatever but still evil)? And Karkarov was not only a DE but a traitor, he sent his friends to jail for life, not a liked fellow. Maybe Karkarov reminds him of the times when he was a killer and he just doesn't want to remember. I do believe he has remorse of what he's done, he feels so bad about it that he's helping the other side and putting his life on the line. Admirable if you ask me. >vmonte responds: If Snape is a spy then he is also a traitor. It's also hard for me to feel sympathy or admiration for an ex-killer--especially since he didn't do any time for his crimes, but that's just me. Then again teaching children may be, for Snape, worse than a dementors kiss. Vivian From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Feb 10 09:42:50 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:42:50 -0000 Subject: Snape's plant imagery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124292 > kempermentor wrote: So I'm re-reading Snape's Worst Memory when I come to passage that happens immediately after Harry 'falls' into the memory. Harry is looking for Snape. > > > > "And there he is, at a table right behind Harry. Harry stared. > > Snape-the-teenager had a stringy, pallid look about him, like a > plant left in the dark." (OoP, soft, 640) > > > > 'Plant' not 'weed'. > > > > Like a plant left in the dark. > > The plant, a symbol of life, is Snape. > > Left in the dark, left out of the light. > > Left to survive in the dark rather than thrive in the light. > Carol: > That image caught my eye, too, and it seemed to suggest neglect on the part of the adults in young Severus's life--his parents, his head of house, maybe even Dumbledore. I think the boy Severus had enormous potential,...edit... but that's what the image of the pallid, neglected plant suggests to me, and I find it very sad. > > But the absence of light may also, as you suggest, indicate that he > was raised to believe in the values of the Dark side,.... Valky: I agree with you Carol, and Kemper, I am sure the plant imagery is used by JKR in the same way done so many other characters throughout the books, to say samoething huge about it while only literally saying something apparently insigificant. I like the way that both of you have understood it and I agree. Just one thing I would like to add. Sirius' house of a dying person, Bodes sepulchral voice, I wonder if we might also think over how the plant left in the dark could have a more /literal/ meaning like these ones. I mean, is there an actual plant that might hae something to do with Snapes mystery, for example, the reason Dumbledore trusts him. Or could it be to do with Devils Snare? That's just and odd thought that came to mind while thinking about how right you both were. From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Thu Feb 10 11:30:54 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:30:54 -0000 Subject: Snape's plant imagery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124293 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > > kempermentor wrote: > So I'm re-reading Snape's Worst Memory when I come to passage that > happens immediately after Harry 'falls' into the memory. Harry is > looking for Snape. > > > > > > "And there he is, at a table right behind Harry. Harry stared. > > > Snape-the-teenager had a stringy, pallid look about him, like a > > plant left in the dark." (OoP, soft, 640) > > > > > > 'Plant' not 'weed'. > > > > > > Like a plant left in the dark. > > > The plant, a symbol of life, is Snape. > > > Left in the dark, left out of the light. > > > Left to survive in the dark rather than thrive in the light. > > > > Carol: > > That image caught my eye, too, and it seemed to suggest neglect on > the part of the adults in young Severus's life--his parents, his > head of house, maybe even Dumbledore. I think the boy Severus had > enormous potential,...edit... but that's what the image of the > pallid, neglected plant suggests to me, and I find it very sad. > > > > But the absence of light may also, as you suggest, indicate that he > > was raised to believe in the values of the Dark side,.... > > Valky: > I agree with you Carol, and Kemper, I am sure the plant imagery is > used by JKR in the same way done so many other characters throughout > the books, to say samoething huge about it while only literally > saying something apparently insigificant. I like the way that both > of you have understood it and I agree. > Just one thing I would like to add. > Sirius' house of a dying person, Bodes sepulchral voice, I wonder if > we might also think over how the plant left in the dark could have a > more /literal/ meaning like these ones. I mean, is there an actual > plant that might hae something to do with Snapes mystery, for > example, the reason Dumbledore trusts him. Or could it be to do with > Devils Snare? That's just and odd thought that came to mind while > thinking about how right you both were. I just wanted to add another possibility to this discussion. One of the definitions of 'plant' in the English Dictionary is; Plant; To station (a person) for the purpose of functioning in secret, as by observing, spying, or influencing behavior Obviously we know that Snape is a spy! What we don't know is who he is spying for. Everything tells me that he is helping DD with the fight against LV. However, if you look at this definition, the place where SS is stationed....Hogwarts!! Brothergib From mail at chartfield.net Thu Feb 10 11:46:20 2005 From: mail at chartfield.net (queen_astrofiammante) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:46:20 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General (Status of Order members) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124294 First Astrofiammante wrote : > And it's not as if the Order is working without limitations, either. > Scalpel poised for a surgical strike? Or a band of renegades that > barely functions within society? Then Alla wrote : > Are you saying that this fact stops Order from doing what they must? > because in my opinion it should help them in their operations. The > fact that they are not very well accepted in the society could mean > that nobody pays much attention to their actions. > > Did I misunderstand your point? Then Astrofiammante wrote: Hello Alla and thanks for your reply. I don't think it's a question of you misunderstanding my point, more a case of us having a difference of opinion on its effects. I think that the Order is handicapped by many of its members being impoverished/having low social status/being considered as criminals, while the Death Eaters count rich and influential Pureblood aristocrats among their numbers. I also think that some of the suggestions as to what the Order might have done proactively to counter Voldemort over the last 15 years do not take these things sufficiently into account. Just my humble opinion, and all. If I have read your response correctly you are suggesting that a certain anonymity and ability to run on the wrong side of the tracks without being noticed should help them. Both are perfectly valid viewpoints, IMO, I just personally prefer the first. This whole argument could be summarised in the question 'Does the end justify the means?' I would suggest that those who think it does probably find Dumbledore a poor general. Those that do not agree that it does are likely to find him a satisfactory leader AF From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 13:36:52 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:36:52 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General (Status of Order members) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124295 Astrofiammante wrote in response to Alla: > > If I have read your response correctly you are suggesting that a > certain anonymity and ability to run on the wrong side of the tracks > without being noticed should help them. Both are perfectly > valid viewpoints, IMO, I just personally prefer the first. > > This whole argument could be summarised in the question 'Does the end > justify the means?' I would suggest that those who think it does > probably find Dumbledore a poor general. Those that do not agree that > it does are likely to find him a satisfactory leader > There's a difference though between stooping to the DE's level and being willing to work somewhat on the edges of society. That DD won't do the former we know, and I agree with Alla and Pheonixgod that there are things, not terribly moral perhaps, that DD could and should be doing. However, DD is perfectly willing to consort with the edges of society, and not just Sirius, Lupin, Hagrid and others who are wrongfully accused, but Mundungus FLetcher, who is actively persuing various shady deals all throughout OoTP, some of the probably *for* the Order. DD, IMO, has already shown that stolen cauldrons, at least, are justified by the ends. It's a long way to murder and torture from there, but DD has taken that first step. OTOH, I'm not sure that the Order members status makes things easier for them. Lupin and Hagrid, for example, are generally considered dangerous and have to work under a cloud of prejudice and suspicion, and Sirius can't even leave the house. Their status does give them an immunity from blackmail or reduced standing, like Tonks and Kingsley, who can't do much beacuse of the possible repercussions on their jobs. northsouth From eloiseherisson at aol.com Thu Feb 10 15:24:48 2005 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloise_herisson) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:24:48 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatem/ Prior Incantato (was: Re: prior incantantum... ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124296 Geoff: >slightly differing forms of the > spell wording are mentioned. Amos Diggory uses "Prior Incantato" > which sounds suspiciously like a genitive whereas "Priori > Incantatem" - which is not actually heard being used in this book - > looks like an accusative. I am trying to remember whether any of > the spells used in the books appear in more than one version and, > if so, if that affects the result." I don't recall any other case where spells occur in more than one version. This is part of my argument (aside from Dumbledore's description) that Priori Incantatem isn't a spell as such, but an associated natural magical phenomenon (an "effect" as Dumbledore called it). I see a "spell" as something which is intentionally cast. Regarding the Latin, remember both that JKR has said she makes the spells up and that we know from previous analysis that she doesn't use classical Latin, but words that are derived from, or sound like they should be derived from, Latin. As far as I can ascertain, neither incantato nor incantatem are proper Latin words. Incantator is an enchanter or wizard and incantationem is an enchantment or spell. You're right that Incantatem sounds like it should be an accusative. Incantato sounds like the first person singular of a verb. JKR tends to use this form for spoken incantations (Accio, Crucio, Densaugeo, Diffindo, Engorgio, Evanesco, Expecto Patronum, etc. etc.) although then she goes and confuses things by also using incantations that sound like nominative or accusative nouns (Aparecium, Deletrius). What the difference between the use of prior and priori is, I have no idea. I think priori is a dative. ~Eloise From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 15:48:34 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:48:34 -0000 Subject: Aurors and Unforgiveable Curses Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124297 In the WW do Aurors have the ability to use the unforgivable curses or are they forbidden to everyone? In our world Police can kill to protect themselves and to protect others. Also we have the concept of self protection for ordinary persons. If you can prove that you were protecting yourself from death you can kill someone and get off legally. Do you get off morally, I don't know. I think DD follows a higher law, but what of the Aurors? And what about members of the Order? And if a member of the Order is an Auror, then what? Tonks_op From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Thu Feb 10 16:59:48 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:59:48 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character Discussion: Hagrid Message-ID: <20050210165948.67862.qmail@web25110.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124298 After Harry, Hagrid is my favourite character. What does he represent? It's fairly easy to see what Hagrid stands for. What are the clues? 1. He brings the letter of invitation to Harry. 2. He opens the door to the magical world for Harry. 3. He is the "ferryman" for the first-years. 4. He is the "Keeper of the Keys" at Hogwarts. 5. He loves dragons. 6. He is especially fond of a hippogriff. 7. He was given his position because of a "punishment". These things all point to one thing: Hagrid is a Master of Compassion! To understand what this means we should look at "The Alchemical Wedding of Christian Rosycross". Christian Rosycross on the second day of his adventure meets the gatekeeper to whom he shows his letter of invitation to the Alchemical Wedding. After the Alchemical Wedding Christian Rosycross meets the gatekeeper again on the seventh day. 'Now we arrived at the first gate where the guardian, in a blue habit, was waiting. He held a supplication in his hand. As soon as he saw me with the King, he delivered the supplication to me, with the humble request to mention his faithfulness to the King. Now I first asked the King what was the matter with this guardian, and he cordially answered me that this was a famous and excellent astrologer, who has always had the high esteem of his Lord and Father. But as he had at some time committed an error with regard to the Lady Venus, by looking at her when she was resting on her bed, he was punished by having to guard the first gate until someone should release him from it. Then I asked: "May he be released?" "Yes," the King said, "if anyone can be found who has as highly transgressed as he did, he must stand in his stead, and the other shall be free." These words went to my heart, for my conscience convinced me that I was the offender.' After that an enquiry is held, and Christian Rosycross confesses that he has seen the Lady Venus. Although the King is very fond of Christian Rosycross there is no way the King can transgress the ancient rule, and so Christian Rosycross is told he has to become gate keeper next day. There are people in this universe who have made great progress on the Path of Liberation, but who are so filled with compassion for humanity that they're willing to sacrifice their own immediate advancement on the Path and stay behind to help their wandering brothers and sisters find the Path. This is beautifully described in "The Voice of the Silence" by HP Blavatsky. Verse 145: To don Nirmanakaya's humble robe [the robe of compassion -HA] is to forego eternal bliss for Self, to help on man's salvation. To reach Nirvana's bliss, but to renounce it, is the supreme, the final step - the highest on Renunciation's Path. Verse 146: Know, O Disciple, this is the Secret Path, selected by the Buddhas of Perfection, who sacrificed The SELF to weaker Selves. Verse 300: [...] Compassion is no attribute. It is the Law of LAWS - eternal Harmony, Alaya's* SELF; a shoreless universal essence, the light of everlasting Right, and fitness of all things, the law of love eternal. Verse 301: The more thou dost become at one with it, thy being melted in its BEING, the more thy Soul unites with that which IS, the more thou wilt become COMPASSION ABSOLUTE. Verse 307: Now bend thy head and listen well, O Bodhisattva - Compassion speaks and saith: 'Can there be bliss when all that lives must suffer? Shalt thou be saved and hear the whole world cry?' *Alaya: the Universal Soul or Atman, each human being having a ray of it in him and being supposed to be able to identify himself with it and to merge himself in it. It may be difficult to see dear old Hagrid with his moleskin coat and boar hound as a Bodhisattva, but the symbolism in Harry Potter lies on a certain level beneath the surface. The ancient symbols of liberation are all dressed in twentieth century clothes and manners, but their essence is unchanged. 1. He brings the letter from Hogwarts to Harry. This action symbolises the call from the Masters of Compassion to go the Path of Liberation. 2. He opens the door to the magical world for Harry. The gate-keeper idea is very strong here. 3. He is the "ferryman" for the first-years. This symbolises the role of Charon, the ferryman on the Styx. The Styx symbolises the borderline between the world of the dead (earth) and real life (liberation). 4. He is the "Keeper of the Keys" at Hogwarts. Once again a pronounced reference to being gate-keeper. 5. He loves dragons. This may be a bit harder to understand. In the traditions of those learning to go the Path of Alchemy, there is the legend of the "six-winged dragon". This dragon symbolises the human serpent-fire. The serpent-fire is what they call the force that resides in the cerebro-spinal system of the human being. In the case of the fallen, earthly human being it's regarded as a dragon because of the unholiness of the fire that burns in our system. The six wings represent properties that emanate from the serpent-fire. The dragon: that's us!! To the pure and holy Masters of Compassion we are like dragons because of our selfishness, our base desires, the unholy fire we radiate. We have only to look at the world around us to see what we've done to Paradise. If you ever start to admire this human world please watch "Der Untergang", the new film about the last days of Hitler in his bunker in Berlin. Just think about the 50 million people killed in the war, and keep in mind things like Auschwitz and the Gulag Archipelago. And if that's too long ago look at Iraq today. If any of us think, "I would never participate in that", please read post 280 of HPfS. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/message/280 Everyone is responsible for the war crimes and atrocities that happen because all of us radiate an unholy fire which accumulates in the atmosphere and builds up to gigantic proportions. In this way we create the dragons that wreak havoc in the world and cause immeasurable suffering. See post 76704. Certain people are open to the accumulated forces which humanity radiates, and there you have your Stalins and Hitlers and Sadam Husseins. This is what's behind the Rwanda massacres, the holocaust and and every war that's ever been fought. And we're all responsible. But despite being dragons, the Masters of Compassion love us! That's why Hagrid loves dragons. 6. He is especially fond of a hippogriff. In my post on Harry (13) I explained what the hippogriff symbolises. The Masters of Compassion have a living body, i.e. an astral force-field that radiates an intensely spiritual power into the world. If we tune in to that power it will liberate us - it will raise us up and fly up to the highest regions. If we try to go the Path of Liberation but preserve the ego, it will harm us with its sharp claws. The gate-keeper can handle the hippogriff and he loves it because he is a member of the Brotherhood. 7. He was given his position because of a "punishment". The gate-keeper in "The Alchemical Wedding" was given his position as a "punishment". It may be hard to understand the joke, but this is humour. Well, I think it is. It may also be a veil to hide very holy things to the profane. When people behold "Lady Venus" it means they are beholding Divine Love! This Love is inside them, as I've tried to explain before. We all have a chamber in our heart that is magically sealed until Harry or Christian Rosycross open it. Once the door is opened and we behold what is within, we are seized by "a force that is at once more wonderful and more terrible than death, than human intelligence, than the forces of nature." This force, Love or Compassion, is what "punished" Hagrid by making him gate-keeper. And I believe it will seize Harry. Hans ===== Hans Andra see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://www.harrypotterforseekers.com/ ___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 17:29:58 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:29:58 -0000 Subject: Cover Artwork In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124299 "gkmorales" wrote: > On the back cover of GoF, there is > something resembling an ant head. > However, it doesn't match the description > of anything in the book that I can recall. > Is it supposed to be a blast-ended skrewt? I don't know, it might be a skrewt of maybe a water demon from the second task. > This is the only thing on any of the books' > covers that has escaped me. Then I have a question, who is that boy with glasses on the cover of GoF? Harry Potter is intelligent, Harry Potter is sensitive, Harry Potter is strong, Harry Potter has depth; I don't know who that effeminate shallow grinning moronic jerk on the cover is but it sure as hell isn't Harry Potter. Eggplant From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 17:39:05 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:39:05 -0000 Subject: Aurors and Unforgiveable Curses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124300 "Tonks" wrote: > In the WW do Aurors have the ability > to use the unforgivable curses When Crouch was the boss it was legal for Aurors to use unforgivable curses, I don't know if it still is and it doesn't really matter because legal or not I'm sure most of them do. The WW was never a stickler for the letter of the law, unless of course like Harry you had the Ministry's disfavor. Eggplant From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 18:02:35 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:02:35 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124301 SSSusan: >I have a question for either of you (or anybody else for that >matter). Do you think that entering into negotiations with giants >or centaurs or goblins or any other group would have had a very high >likelihood of success if everyone believed Voldy was gone for good? Probably not. I actually don't think trying to get the giants, centaurs, and goblins on the good side is going to work, anyway, and could be a somewhat wasted effort even now. However, there would have been people all along that believed LV was not gone forever (the same people that believed DD when he said LV was BACK with no proof) and they could have been working all along in preparation. Not to the extent of girding for war, perhaps, but I certainly would have been reviewing HOW LV got his power to begin with. Where did he learn to suspend death? How could he have survived? What would he most likely need to do in order to return? Where did he hang out during Voldy War I? Where would he hang out when he returned? (Do you think they could have kept an eye on the Riddle house?? Maybe??) It seems to me that DD should have spent the last 15 years looking for answers to these questions and maybe taking a few more precautions. Nicky Joe From scarah at gmail.com Thu Feb 10 19:08:01 2005 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:08:01 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Aurors and Unforgiveable Curses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <320259050210110816218300@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124302 Tonks_op: > In the WW do Aurors have the ability to use the unforgivable curses > or are they forbidden to everyone? Sarah: Sirius says in GoF: "The Aurors were given new powers - powers to kill rather than capture, for instance. And I wasn't the only one who was handed straight to the dementors without trial. Crouch fought violence with violence, and authorized the use of the Unforgivable Curses against suspects." So I think they used to be forbidden to Aurors too, until Crouch authorized their use. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 20:00:39 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:00:39 -0000 Subject: Jo's Squib error? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124303 Dungrollin wrote: > > I'm surprised you take it so seriously, Carol! She never said squibs *can't* see dementors, she just said the Figgy *didn't* on this occassion. > > > If you check out your OotP, the end of chapter 1: Dudley Demented, you'll see that Mrs. Figg doesn't even arrive until *well* after the Dementors have left, so she couldn't have seen them (even if she could see them, if you see what I mean...). Whether squibs can/can't see dementors is still an open question. > > > bboyminn added: > > Just read that last night, and I agree with you that Figg doesn't arrive 'on-page' until after the Dementors are gone, but clearly she arrived 'on-scene' before she arrived 'on-page'. > > It was Mrs Figg who brings up the subject of Dementors and mentions them several times. To my memory, in that scene, Harry never once mentions Dementors. > > So, even though we didn't see Figg, she certainly saw what was going on, and while JKR has ruled that Figg didn't see the Dementors, it's clear she felt them and knew what they were. In addtion, she witness the counter-attack by Harry's Patronus, and as I mentioned before, there would be no logical reason for a Patronus to attack once, much less twice, unless there were indeed Dementors to there to attack. > > On your main point, I agree; whether or not Mrs Figg, in that one > circumstance, saw Dementors, does not dictate whether Squibs in > general are able to see them. Actually, guys, your responses makes me happy. I felt that Mrs. Figg was telling the truth when Madam Bones asked her if Squibs can see Dementors and she replied, with injured dignity, "Yes, we can!" So JKR's comment stating that she didn't see the Dementors hit me rather harder than it should have (rather like a repetition of the Mark Evans debacle). I do hope that she actually *can* see Dementors, which would indicate that Squibs are different from Muggles and a step closer to the magical world for reasons other than their upbringing and heritage. It gives me hope that Mrs. Figg will be the one who manages to perform magic "at an advanced age." I've always thought she was a better candidate to be that person than Petunia, who is canonically a Muggle. (BTW, dungrollin, I'm sure that Figgy *did* see the Patronus, which is why she had no qualms about having Harry hold out his wand in case he needed to perform some minor spell--"May as well be hanged for a dragon as an egg," or whatever her exact words were--no time now to look them up.) Carol, who is using "guys" in the American colloquial sense without regard to the sex of the persons addressed From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 20:20:55 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:20:55 -0000 Subject: Aurors and Unforgiveable Curses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124304 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > In the WW do Aurors have the ability to use the unforgivable curses > or are they forbidden to everyone? ...edited- justifiable use of > force... I think DD follows a higher law, but what of the Aurors? > And what about members of the Order? And if a member of the Order > is an Auror, then what? > > Tonks_op bboyminn: During Voldemort's first reign of terror, Aurors were authorized by Crouch Sr to use any and all Unforgivable Curses, but I think that was an emergency authorization. When the immediate emergency ended, the authorization ended with it. Now, the wizard world and Aurors are operating under peace-time rules. Another important point that creates a substantial distinction between wizards and muggles. Guns and gunshot wounds are not very flexible or forgiving. When someone punches a hole in your body, that's trouble even under the best of circumstances. Wizard wands, however, are more like Star Trek Phasers, they have a range of settings from annoy to blunt-force stun to knock-out stun to kill. Wands also have this range of flexibility. Why kill a person when a well aimed Stunner can incapacitate them long enough to capture them and take them into custody? The wands flexibility gives you a range of defensive response from the annoying Tickle Charm to the incapacitating Stunner, all the way up to the, only when absolutely necessary, Kiling Curse. In addition, I'm an thoroughly convinced that you don't need a AK-Killing Curse to kill some one. Think about the Reductor Charm which can be used to /blast/ your way through solid objects. A person's skull or breastbone are pretty solid objects, and a well placed Reductor could certainly blast them apart. Nothing I hate worse than some wizard making my head explode. Also, we saw that a combination of Stunners came dangerously close to killing McGonagall. If someone place a wand against your forehead and cast a powerful Stunning Curse, that really couldn't be a good thing. While not absolutely lethal, there is certainly a chance you could be killed. Although there are few documented curses in the books so far that have the potential to kill a person, it's not hard to speculate on hypothetical common spells that could have that potential. Example, I speculated (in an FF sort of way) that in the next book, Harry or Hermione would create a charm that would cause a wand to shoot out an ink pellets, similar to 'paint-ball' guns. This would be very handy to train wizards, especially Neville, to cast their spells with greater aim and precision; ie: target practice. Now if you/I can reasonably speculate a spell that shoots paint or ink projectiles, then why not metal or stone projectiles; thereby, creating the wizrads version of a gun. Back to the main point, I think it is only in extreme wartime stituations, and only then with specific authorization, that Aurors or any other wizard can cast unforgivable curses. Side note: Q: Why wasn't fake!Moody at risk of going to prison for using the Imperius Curse against fellow human beings, the students? A: Because those against whom that curse was cast, the students, gave permission for fake!Moody to do it under strict guidelines and conditions. Although, one could argue that the permission was only implied, and equally, that the 'strict guidelines and conditions' were also only implied. Just looking for the big picture. Steve/bboyminn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 21:11:46 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:11:46 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124305 >>Nicky Joe: >...I actually don't think trying to get the giants, centaurs, and goblins on the good side is going to work, anyway, and could be a somewhat wasted effort even now.< Betsy: But this is just a guess on your part, right? Obviously, we don't know how well negotiations are going between the Order and the various magical folk, because Harry doesn't know. We do know, however, that the magical folk who worked for Voldemort were a great asset to him in the last war (as per Lupin IIRC). So I'm not sure why Dumbledore approaching them now can be defined as a waste of time. Even neutrality would be a gain. >>Nicky Joe: >However, there would have been people all along that believed LV was not gone forever (the same people that believed DD when he said LV was BACK with no proof) and they could have been working all along in preparation.< Betsy: Again, the idea that Dumbledore, et al have *not* been pro-actively working since Voldemort's first downfall is a mere guess on your part. And one not very well backed by canon. The prosectution of Death Eaters who walked free, the business with the Stone (Voldemort himself admits to falling into despair when Quirrell failed), the renewal of the Triwizard Tournament (which you *know* took more than two months worth of planning to get off the ground), the harassement of Lucius and friends by Authur Weasley and similarly minded Ministry fellows, the placement of Snape as head of Slytherin, the careful chipping away of old house rivalries, all speak to a careful laying of groundwork against Voldemort's return. >>Nicky Joe: >Not to the extent of girding for war, perhaps, but I certainly would have been reviewing HOW LV got his power to begin with. Where did he learn to suspend death? How could he have survived? What would he most likely need to do in order to return? Where did he hang out during Voldy War I? Where would he hang out when he returned? (Do you think they could have kept an eye on the Riddle house?? Maybe??) It seems to me that DD should have spent the last 15 years looking for answers to these questions and maybe taking a few more precautions.< Betsy: And again - how do you know none of this was done? Obviously no one was watching the old Riddle home (where Voldemort *never* lived by the way), but it's a little too easy to say with the benefit of hindsight - "oh, but you should have..." As to the rest, Dumbledore has obviously been doing some research because he seems to have some clue as to how Harry may defeat Voldemort, and some clue to Voldemort's weaknesses (the gleam in his eye at the end of GoF). Also, you once again completely over look the business with the Stone. Dumbledore *pro-actively* kept the Stone out of Voldemort's hands. It seems to me that in order to argue that Dumbledore has been doing nothing, you have to overlook some fairly stong hints in canon. No, nothing has been spelled out, but that's because Harry has not been included in the plans. As of the end of OotP that seems to have changed, so I do expect we'll get a clearer idea of what all has been prepared in the next book. If Dumbledore does say, "oh, allies. Right. We should get some," or something similar, then I'll agree that he did a poor job preparing. But as of right now, Voldemort's return has been indisputably revealed (very much against Voldemort's wishes), Voldemort is still in the dark as to Harry's role in the whole thing, and Voldemort lost a good handful of Death Eaters, and a powerful influence at the Ministry. Dumbledore lost one Order member. And though the death of Sirius hit everyone hard, he really was the least useful member at that time, and the most broken. At this point in time, Voldemort is dancing to Dumbledore's tune and timetable. And that points to Dumbledore doing *something* right. Betsy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 21:40:11 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:40:11 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124306 Betsy: Again, the idea that Dumbledore, et al have *not* been pro-actively working since Voldemort's first downfall is a mere guess on your part. And one not very well backed by canon. The prosectution of Death Eaters who walked free, the business with the Stone (Voldemort himself admits to falling into despair when Quirrell failed), the renewal of the Triwizard Tournament (which you *know* took more than two months worth of planning to get off the ground), the harassement of Lucius and friends by Authur Weasley and similarly minded Ministry fellows, the placement of Snape as head of Slytherin, the careful chipping away of old house rivalries, all speak to a careful laying >of groundwork against Voldemort's return. Alla: Nope, it does not speak of careful laying of groundwork against Voldemort return. Not necessarily at least and not to me. First - could you explain what renewal of Triwizard torunament has to do with preparing for Voldemort's return? Second - I am one of those who believes that Dumbledore wanted Harry to have a go at Voldemort with "stone business", so I am afraid I don't see this one as "purposefully keeping stone out of Voldemort's hands". Third - could you point out to "careful chipping away of House old rivalries"? I see Gryffindor/Slytherin house rivalry as strong as ever, unfortunately ( hopefully this will change). I mean, sure DA was formed, but three other houses never were exactly enemies anyway, except on Quiditch field. Betsy: > Also, you once again completely over look the business with the > Stone. Dumbledore *pro-actively* kept the Stone out of Voldemort's > hands. Alla: As I said above, I tend to believe Harry's words about Dumbledore giving him a chance for now, therefore I read "stone business" as completely opposite from yours. Betsy: It seems to me that in order to argue that Dumbledore has been doing nothing, you have to overlook some fairly stong hints in canon. No, nothing has been spelled out, but that's because Harry has not been included in the plans. As of the end of OotP that seems to have changed, so I do expect we'll get a clearer idea of what all has been prepared in the next book. If Dumbledore does say, "oh, allies. Right. We should get some," or something similar, then I'll agree that he did a poor job preparing. Alla: There are some hints in canon, but I don't find them to be very strong. Besides, isn't it exactly what Dumbledore did? He sent the missions to Giants not fifteen years ago, but only after the Graveyard disaster. Sounds to me exactly as you said "Oh, allies, right. We should get some now" :o) Betsy: But as of right now, Voldemort's return has been indisputably revealed (very much against Voldemort's wishes), Voldemort is still in the dark as to Harry's role in the whole thing, and Voldemort lost a good handful of Death Eaters, and a powerful influence at the Ministry. Dumbledore lost one Order member. And though the death of Sirius hit everyone hard, he really was the least useful member at that time, and the most broken. At this point in time, Voldemort is dancing to Dumbledore's tune and timetable. And that points to Dumbledore doing *something* right. Alla: I would like to know why Dumbledore should take the credit for the fact that Voldemort's return had been revealed? Lauraasia argued really well that Dumbledore wanted Voldemort to come to MoM and have a battle there , but I am afraid I just don't see it all. I see Dumbledore doing everything possible to avoid Harry going to MoM and that means to me avoiding Voldemort's going there. Laurasia replies: Alla snips explanation of WHY war needs to be brought in the open, because completely agrees with it. IMO, Dumbledore knows that he doesn't have to guard the Dept. of Mysteries. He has portrait spies in the Atrium who could tell him instantly if Voldemort was on his way down in the lift. Why bother putting a time-consuming and energy wasting task like round-the-clock defence on an object (which has debateable use) unless he was trying to create a diversion? I don't think the defence on the Dept. of Mysteries was necessary. If keeping that prophecy away from Voldemort's ears was *absolutely* necessary, then Dumbledore should have cast a Stupefy in its general vicinity. But he doesn't. Dumbledore keeps that prophecy alive, even though he has perfect recollection of the damn thing. Why? Why risk another copy? IMO, it is obvious that Dumbledore is setting up a diversion. And by putting a lot of effort into guarding it, it only reaffirms, in Voldemort's eyes, that this is something he *needs*. Dumbledore arranges for Harry to learn Occlumency. He wants Harry to block out that corridor. Dumbledore wants Voldemort forced into going into the MoM himself, in *person.* Alla: Ok, so basically you are saying that guarding the Prophecy was creating a diversion. I don't really see it, but I can entertain such reading. I have the most problem though with your last paragraph. You agree that Dumbledore wanted Harry to learn Occlumency, right? So, how is Harry learning Occlumency well will force Voldemort into coming to MoM in person? If Dumbledore really wanted that, wouldn't it be more logical for him to NOT insist that Harry learned Occlumency and just let him be and go to MoM? I am afraid I am still confused. Sorry! If Harry can close his mind to Voldemort, it means that He has no Voldie induced dreams and he is not going to MoM to save Sirius AND Voldemort is not going there to hunt Harry and prophecy. Am I missing something? Laurasia: IMO, Dumbledore is trying to bring the war out into the open. And he succeeds. Alla: To make a long story short, I agree that war needs to be brought in the open and I understand the "diversion" idea, but I still don't understand how insisting that Harry will learn Ocllumency will encourage Voldemort to come to MoM. Just my opinion, Alla From mail at chartfield.net Thu Feb 10 21:42:06 2005 From: mail at chartfield.net (queen_astrofiammante) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:42:06 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General (Status of Order members) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124307 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "northsouth17" wrote: > DD is perfectly willing to consort with the > edges of society, and not just Sirius, Lupin, Hagrid and others who > are wrongfully accused, but Mundungus FLetcher, who is actively > persuing various shady deals all throughout OoTP Now Astrofiammante replies: So here's another way of looking at it. From the point of view of plotting the books, of ratcheting up the narrative tension, of generating sympathy from us on behalf of gentle-giant Hagrid, and hard-done-by Lupin, and falsely-imprisoned Sirius and so on, doesn't it actually help no end that 'our' boys and girls (ie the Order) are the underdogs? From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 21:50:10 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:50:10 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124308 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Alla: > > To make a long story short, I agree that war needs to be brought in > the open and I understand the "diversion" idea, but I still don't > understand how insisting that Harry will learn Ocllumency will > encourage Voldemort to come to MoM. Because if Harry blocks off Voldemort, then eventually Voldemort's *own* curiosity will get the better of him--and he will have to show up himself. Voldemort gets one over on the White Hats by getting Harry to come and then showing up--with the possibility of two for the price of one, kill the pesky kid and find out how the novel ends after a 15+ year wait. [Wouldn't you be a little annoyed if it took 15 years to finish your book? I thought so.] I happen to think that Dumbledore *was* setting it up so that Voldemort coming to get the Prophecy would be the perfect instance of Voldemort showing himself to the world--the great eye-opener that the WW needs. What I have to partially disagree with is Betsy here in 124305: > At this point in time, Voldemort is dancing to Dumbledore's tune > and timetable. And that points to Dumbledore doing *something* > right. Voldemort has lost some significant advantages, and he still doesn't know the Prophecy, but it's pretty strongly hinted at that the DEs will not be out for long, and it seems to me to point somewhere different: the style of the war has changed, and now there is nothing to RESTRAIN Voldemort and cronies from being more violent and bloody. The delaying tactics of keeping Voldemort down in part so that Harry can develop are now no longer effective. Voldemort no longer has a reason to kill indirectly rather than directly and discriminately rather than indiscriminately. And Dumbledore's side has suffered only one major casualty, but one of the worst ones possible for when you're pretty, ummm, dependent upon one person. -Nora notes that Dumbledore's weakness is an underappreciation for the fragility and vulnerability of persons who are not himself, in both mental health and dealing with the difficult From kempermentor at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 22:04:54 2005 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:04:54 -0000 Subject: fake!moody Imperius Curse was Re: Aurors and Unforgiveable Curses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124309 bboyminn asked and answered: Q: Why wasn't fake!Moody at risk of going to prison for using the Imperius Curse against fellow human beings, the students? A: Because those against whom that curse was cast, the students, gave permission for fake!Moody to do it under strict guidelines and conditions. Although, one could argue that the permission was only implied, and equally, that the 'strict guidelines and conditions' were also only implied. Kemper now: As all of the students in Harry's DADA class are 5th year and probably considered minors under Wizard Law, wouldn't the parents/guardians of these minors need to have signed some sort of permission slip? Or is allowing your child to attend the school permission enough? Having a child placed under the Imperius Curse seems like it would be less permitted than being able to go to Hogsmead. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 22:03:50 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:03:50 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124310 Alla earlier: To make a long story short, I agree that war needs to be brought in the open and I understand the "diversion" idea, but I still don't understand how insisting that Harry will learn Ocllumency will encourage Voldemort to come to MoM. Nora: Because if Harry blocks off Voldemort, then eventually Voldemort's *own* curiosity will get the better of him--and he will have to show up himself. Voldemort gets one over on the White Hats by getting Harry to come and then showing up--with the possibility of two for the price of one, kill the pesky kid and find out how the novel ends after a 15+ year wait. [Wouldn't you be a little annoyed if it took 15 years to finish your book? I thought so.] Alla: Nora, I can always count on you to explain things to me. :o) Thank you, I get the argument now. Nevertheless, if Harry blocks Voldemort, it means that Voldemort is still not sure that Harry himself will come by, correct? So, Voldie cannot be sure that "kill the kid" objective will be achieved. I guess he still may want to come to find out how the novel ends, but he cannot be sure that Potter will be there to die. :) Nora: And Dumbledore's side has suffered only one major casualty, but one of the worst ones possible for when you're pretty, ummm, dependent upon one person. -Nora notes that Dumbledore's weakness is an underappreciation for the fragility and vulnerability of persons who are not himself, in both mental health and dealing with the difficult Alla: Oh, how I agree with you. Now, time which can be spent training Harry should be spent trying to dig him out of his grief. Just my opinion, Alla From KLMF at aol.com Thu Feb 10 22:43:14 2005 From: KLMF at aol.com (klmf1) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:43:14 -0000 Subject: The Weasley's clock Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124311 I've tried looking up any discussion in the archives but I've never been very successful accessing the archives.... Regarding the Weasley's clock. It was brought to my attention by the kid in my house that the description of the Weasley's clock in the COS (American paperback pg. 34) does not match the one in GOF (American first edition page 151). The former describes just a clock on the wall with one arm and written around it is stuff like "time to make tea" and "time to feed the chickens" but in the latter it is described as a grandfather clock in the corner with 9 arms, each with a family member's name, and pointing to where the person may be. It is interesting that it is this latter clock face that is used in the COS movie. Apparently the first version of the clock just evaporated. It was never referred to again. Was this a JK inconsistency or a different clock? Was there any previous discussion on this? Karen F From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Feb 10 23:40:00 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:40:00 -0000 Subject: Turning Point? (was Re: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124312 Nora Said: And Dumbledore's side > has suffered only one major casualty, but one of the worst ones > possible for when you're pretty, ummm, dependent upon one person. > > -Nora notes that Dumbledore's weakness is an underappreciation for > the fragility and vulnerability of persons who are not himself, in > both mental health and dealing with the difficult I agree, Nora. Unfortunately, I am rather torn as to what we should expect in HBP about these issues. While, as I have said in other posts, I would love for some time to be spent dealing with all the issues this raises, I'm not totally confident that will be the case. In HBP JKR has set herself a great challenge as a writer. That is, how will she deal with all of the ramifications of OOTP? Will this become an occasion of change and character development? Or will OOTP be more or less swept under the rug with a few vague references to "missing Sirius" and "wondering about Dumbledore" while the plot blazes forward toward whatever preordained end JKR has in mind? In other words, will OOTP be a true turning point in the series, or will it just be "the bad year that was once upon a time," with no real or lasting change coming from it? I would very much like for things to be the former. But I'm just not sure. I give each possibility (and I acknowledge there is a spectrum between them) about a 50% chance. Lupinlore From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 23:49:20 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:49:20 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124313 >>Alla: >First - could you explain what renewal of Triwizard torunament has to do with preparing for Voldemort's return?< Betsy: Unity. This has actually been an ongoing theme, socially and otherwise throughout the books. And it makes sense in a military way too. There ain't nothing wrong with bunches and bunches of allies, and by hosting the Triwizard Tournament Dumbledore gained the aid of another half-giant, the brightest and best of two other wizarding schools, and a possible inroad to the veelas. A very neat trick on Dumbledore's part. >>Alla: >Second - I am one of those who believes that Dumbledore wanted Harry to have a go at Voldemort with "stone business", so I am afraid I don't see this one as "purposefully keeping stone out of Voldemort's hands".< Betsy: But even if you take that tack (which I don't - it goes against Dumbledore's character and is rather high risk in too many ways, IMO) Dumbledore still expected the Death Eater to be defeated and the Stone to remain in his custody. So no matter who the foil was supposed to be, Harry or the Mirror itself, Voldemort is down a servant and doesn't get the Stone. This is pro-actively keeping Voldemort from returning when the means of his defeat is still rather young to face him. And it also points to Dumbledore keeping an ear to the ground with regards to Voldemort's activities. The Stone was removed from Gringotts *before* Quirrell made his attempt. I don't think that was a coincedence. >>Alla: >Third - could you point out to "careful chipping away of House old rivalries"? I see Gryffindor/Slytherin house rivalry as strong as ever, unfortunately ( hopefully this will change). I mean, sure DA was formed, but three other houses never were exactly enemies anyway, except on Quiditch field.< Betsy: Slytherin is still on the outs, yes. But the unity (there's that word again ) of the other three houses behind Harry within the DA is huge. And no, there's no canon that shows Dumbledore actively working on changing the status quo -- but at a school such as this, the headmaster sets the tone. Dumbledore cultivated an atmosphere that made the inter-house DA possible. (Perhaps the glee club, or gob-stone club that get brief mentions had something to do with this.) And the hat makes it rather clear in his OotP song that there was bad blood between all four houses. I'm sure there's been ebb and flow as to the strongest rivalries (probably having a lot to do with the strongest Quidditch teams) but there was definitely a distrust there. The DA is helping to end that distrust. >>Alla: >He sent the missions to Giants not fifteen years ago, but only after the Graveyard disaster. Sounds to me exactly as you said "Oh, allies, right. We should get some now" :o)< Betsy: Not to be mean to the Giants... but... They don't have the most stable of societies. An alliance made fifteen years ago may not have lasted into the present. I think the Giants will be up for grabs until the battle actually starts and they stop fighting amongst themselves and start fighting with whichever group they've decided to ally with. But Dumbledore has been chatting up the Centaurs and the Merfolk and the halfbreeds and international wizards... >>Alla: >I would like to know why Dumbledore should take the credit for the fact that Voldemort's return had been revealed?< Betsy: I agree completely with Laurasia. Dumbledore used the Prophecy to hold Voldemort's attention in a direction of his choosing and to force Voldemort to reveal himself. Dumbledore called attention to the Prophecy by setting out the guards. Voldemort knew of its existence, and this clued him in to its importance. We know, via Harry's scar, that Voldemort was fairly focused on getting that Prophecy. (Not a stupid thing on his part. Best to know your weaknesses before committing to battle.) So rather than working, as Pheonixgod suggested in another post, on shoring up his resources and laying down battle plans of his own, Voldemort concentrated all year on getting to that prophecy. Dumbledore knew that only two people could put hand on that prophecy: Harry and Voldemort. Harry was supposed to be kept well out of it. Through Occlumency and the protection of Hogwarts Voldemort was supposed to be denied access to Harry. And that would mean that Voldemort himself would have to go to the DoM to fetch the prophecy with his own hands. As Laurasia pointed out, this would be the prime place to show to the WW that Voldemort is indeed back. Just like with the Stone, Harry very nearly screws the entire plan by showing up at the MoM himself. But the end result is much as Dumbledore planned, Voldemort is seen by too many wizards to be denied now, and Dumbledore is proved correct while Fudge is proved wrong. Which has the added bonus of giving Dumbledore a bit more power now within the WW. Again, this points to Dumbledore having a strong, well thought out plan. The fact that it goes to pot for a while there and some fast work has to be done on Dumbledore's part to make sure it ends as well as it can, only goes to show that not only can Dumbledore lay out a good plan, he can react to unforseen problems quickly enough to still have a victory. Which is a sign of a good leader, IMHO. :) Betsy From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Thu Feb 10 23:49:34 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:49:34 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <6A8A5C89-7BBE-11D9-BE90-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 124314 On Friday, February 11, 2005, at 10:49 am, horridporrid03 wrote: >>> Alla: > >> He sent the missions to Giants not fifteen years ago, but only after > the Graveyard disaster. Sounds to me exactly as you said "Oh, allies, > right. We should get some now" :o)< > > Betsy: > Not to be mean to the Giants... but... They don't have the most > stable of societies. An alliance made fifteen years ago may not have > lasted into the present. I think the Giants will be up for grabs > until the battle actually starts and they stop fighting amongst > themselves and start fighting with whichever group they've decided to > ally with. > I agree with Betsy about this - this is exactly what I was thinking. In support of this theory, I find it noteworthy that Hagrid said Dumbledore gave them very precise directions on how to approach the Gurg. He had done this before. He also knew where the giants were now to be found, so he was keeping his ear to the ground. Jocelyn From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 00:03:53 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:03:53 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124315 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bleckybecs" wrote: > So we know what LV's weakest point is. He has protected himself > against *death*, not whatever it is that DD is referring to here. > Which leads to the thought - What is DD thinking of in particular? > What *is* worse than death? I think that DD might think that the thing that is worst than death is never having loved. Or following on that, never having been loved. One kind of goes with the other. We had a long discussion here once about that and LV. So I think the "power" and also the weakness of Harry is his ability to love. I say weakness in the eyes of LV, because Harry's love of Sirius let him right into LV trap. Tonks_op From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 00:25:18 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:25:18 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124316 >>Nora: >Voldemort has lost some significant advantages, and he still doesn't know the Prophecy, but it's pretty strongly hinted at that the DEs will not be out for long, and it seems to me to point somewhere different: the style of the war has changed, and now there is nothing to RESTRAIN Voldemort and cronies from being more violent and bloody.< Betsy: But this change has occured, more or less, on Dumbledore's time table. Not perfectly, mind you. I think Dumbledore would have honestly preferred to wait until Harry was a ripe old fifty-ish. But Voldemort regained a body earlier than Dumbledore had hoped and so what he's gained instead is Voldemort in open warfare without the strength of numbers on his side. At least, he doesn't have as many witches and wizards as before, and I think Dumbledore may prevent some of his former allies from joining with Voldemort again. That's why Voldemort was so keen on keeping his return a secret. He needed time to rebuild his base. But I don't think that's happened. At least, not as much as Voldemort would have hoped. We'll have to wait until the next two books to see if my theory is correct. But I really do think that some of the so-called dark creatures may well come down on the Order's side. >>Nora: >The delaying tactics of keeping Voldemort down in part so that Harry can develop are now no longer effective. Voldemort no longer has a reason to kill indirectly rather than directly and discriminately rather than indiscriminately.< Betsy: Again, Voldemort regained his body sooner than Dumbledore would have hoped. But Harry is *much* more prepared to face him now then back in his first year. And Harry has developed some strong allies of his own. I have a feeling that the DA will have a part to play in the next two books. (Maybe even the House Elves?) Dumbledore is not a puppetmaster. So the unexpected does happen. However, I do think Dumbledore reacts well to the unforseen, and I do think he's been planing for Voldemort's return for the past fifteen years. My tune and timetable remark was a bit of hyperbole, I'll admit. :) But Dumbledore has not been merely reacting. Voldemort has had to do some scambling on his part as well. >>Nora: >And Dumbledore's side has suffered only one major casualty, but one of the worst ones possible for when you're pretty, ummm, dependent upon one person. >Nora notes that Dumbledore's weakness is an underappreciation for the fragility and vulnerability of persons who are not himself, in both mental health and dealing with the difficult< Betsy: In a completely cold-blooded way of looking at things, Sirius's death may actually be a good thing. Sirius was coming apart in OotP and he wasn't being the best influence on Harry. His death takes him out of the way and makes for a nice rallying cry to help motivate Harry in taking down Voldemort. It's even more personal now. However, I'm in no way suggesting that Dumbledore was secretly hoping for this outcome. And I think he fully recognizes the pain Harry is going through. I actually disagree that Harry's grief is swept under the carpet, both in OotP and in GoF. I think Dumbledore does a good job of giving Harry a place and time to work through his shock and pain. (The presence of Fawkes in GoF was probably a big help, I think.) And he forces Harry to face his pain rather than push it down as Harry wanted to do at the end of OotP. I think this was a good thing. I also think that Harry's emotional well-being is a priority with Dumbledore. I just think he handles it differently than others on this list would want him to. But it does seem to work for Harry, and I doubt we'll see an emotional basket-case in the next book. Betsy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 00:42:31 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:42:31 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124317 Betsy: In a completely cold-blooded way of looking at things, Sirius's death may actually be a good thing. Sirius was coming apart in OotP and he wasn't being the best influence on Harry. His death takes him out of the way and makes for a nice rallying cry to help motivate Harry in taking down Voldemort. It's even more personal now. Alla: Ummm, don't you think that Sirius being ALIVE in ANY kind , shape or form is better for Harry than dead Sirius? Harry blames Dumbledore too for ignoring the basics of Sirius nature and keeping him locked up. So, it is possible that Sirius' death will make Harry more motivated to kill Voldemort OR ( which I see as equally likely scenario) Sirius' death may be just the thing Harry needs to tell Dumbledore to leave him alone. Betsy: However, I'm in no way suggesting that Dumbledore was secretly hoping for this outcome. And I think he fully recognizes the pain Harry is going through. I actually disagree that Harry's grief is swept under the carpet, both in OotP and in GoF. I think Dumbledore does a good job of giving Harry a place and time to work through his shock and pain. (The presence of Fawkes in GoF was probably a big help, I think.) And he forces Harry to face his pain rather than push it down as Harry wanted to do at the end of OotP. I think this was a good thing. Alla: Eh? Dumbledore left a traumatised boy alone during whole summer aftre GoF and completely closed any channels of information for him. At the end of OOP, Dumbledore pulled as Renee said "blame the victim act" and gave Harry a lecture about how badly Sirius treated Kreacher. ( Die, Kreacher, die now. :)) I call Dumbledore's handling of Harry's grief " in very poor taste" at best. Betsy: I also think that Harry's emotional well-being is a priority with Dumbledore. I just think he handles it differently than others on this list would want him to. Alla: I cannot disagree more about this statement. I think Dumbledore either does not care AT ALL about Harry's emotional well-being OR he has no clue whatsoever about how to improve Harry's emotional well- being. "For I see now that what I have done, and not done, with regards to you, bears all the hallmarks of the failings of agre. Youth cannot know how age thinks and feels. But old men are guilty if they forget what it was to be young... and I seem to have forgotten lately>" - OOP, p.826 He proved it quite nicely, IMO, by leaving him with Dursleys, by not giving him ANY support in summer after GoF and of course during the whole OOP and at the end of OOP. Just my opinion, Alla From dontask2much at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 01:08:14 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:08:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's plant imagery References: Message-ID: <00a401c50fd6$2a05d350$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 124318 > Carol: >> That image caught my eye, too, and it seemed to suggest neglect on > the part of the adults in young Severus's life--his parents, his > head of house, maybe even Dumbledore. I think the boy Severus had > enormous potential,...edit... but that's what the image of the > pallid, neglected plant suggests to me, and I find it very sad. >> >> But the absence of light may also, as you suggest, indicate that he >> was raised to believe in the values of the Dark side,.... > > Valky: > I agree with you Carol, and Kemper, I am sure the plant imagery is > used by JKR in the same way done so many other characters throughout > the books, to say samoething huge about it while only literally > saying something apparently insigificant. I like the way that both > of you have understood it and I agree. > Just one thing I would like to add. > Sirius' house of a dying person, Bodes sepulchral voice, I wonder if > we might also think over how the plant left in the dark could have a > more /literal/ meaning like these ones. I mean, is there an actual > plant that might hae something to do with Snapes mystery, for > example, the reason Dumbledore trusts him. Or could it be to do with > Devils Snare? That's just and odd thought that came to mind while > thinking about how right you both were. Charme: I have to thank you guys - I remember reading that reference and never put 2 and 2 together. It's still a double edged sword, though: the point Carol & Kemper makes WRT Snape neglected, raised to believe the values of the dark side and then Valky's conparison of the imagery associated with the Black "mansion" and Sirius. However corny it sounds, it ain't that far from "Snape" to "Snare" though, is it? ;) Charme From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 01:13:17 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:13:17 -0000 Subject: The Weasley's clock In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124319 >Karen wrote: I've tried looking up any discussion in the archives but I've never been very successful accessing the archives.... Regarding the Weasley's clock. It was brought to my attention by the kid in my house that the description of the Weasley's clock in the COS (American paperback pg. 34) does not match the one in GOF (American first edition page 151). The former describes just a clock on the wall with one arm and written around it is stuff like "time to make tea" and "time to feed the chickens" but in the latter it is described as a grandfather clock in the corner with 9 arms, each with a family member's name, and pointing to where the person may be. It is interesting that it is this latter clock face that is used in the COS movie. Apparently the first version of the clock just evaporated. It was never referred to again. Was this a JK inconsistency or a different clock? Was there any previous discussion on this? vmonte responds: According to the Lexicon the clock with only one hand and no numbers is located in the kitchen. The grandfather clock with nine hands is in the living room. http://www.hp-lexicon.org/magic/devices_s-z.html#timepieces Vivian From pegruppel at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 01:30:08 2005 From: pegruppel at yahoo.com (Peggy) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:30:08 -0000 Subject: Voldie Immortal?? -Speculation (rather long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124320 > > bboyminn: > > > > In the same graveyard scene Voldemort says that the night of Godrics > Hollow, one or more of his protections against death had worked, and > that he/Voldie had gone father down the road to immortality than any > other person. Although, he says he gone WAY down that road, it's clear > he hasn't made it to his final destination yet. > > > > So, he can't be killed, but that doesn't mean attempts to kill him are > not without danger and risk. Peg I agree with no reservations! I offered a possible mechanism for this state of affairs a couple of weeks ago: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121546. (I'm now celebrating my defeat of the evil Yahoomort!) As I suggested in that post, if LV isn't quite "all there," any attempts to destroy him that don't take account of that fact are bound to fail. bboymin: > As to Voldemort's reaction to the Brother Wand incident, clearly > things are not going the way Voldemort planned. He certainly didn't > expext the wands to join and create the golden cage. He certainly > didn't think Harry could overpower him and force the 'light beads' > back into his own wand, and was appropraitely shocked when the most > recent people he had killed started coming back out of his wand. All > in all, it was a bad day for the Dark Wizard; frustrating and > frightening. Peg: I think this is because LV doesn't know that his wand *is* a brother to Harry's. That's something that Harry hasn't told even Ron and Hermione (GoF, p. 310, American hardback edition). LV seems to go around acting on absolutely minimal information. What a lousy strategist. bboymin: > In the scene with Dumbledore at the Ministry Atrium where they dueled, > I see nothing to indicate the Voldemort is any more or less fearful of > death in the moment than Dumbledore, and for the record, Dumbledore > seems pretty bold and confident. Peg: Again, engaging in self-reference, my earlier post says it--LV doesn't know that he's not really all in one piece. He doesn't know that another attempt on his life would have pretty much the same effect as on the night at GH--he'd be a disembodied intellect in need of a body (and that misplaced soul). I believe that DD at least suspects the truth, even if he's not sure. DD has had fourteen years to work on the problem of what the heck happened in GH. LV still doesn't know, he's been at something of a disadvantage while living most of the last few years as a disembodied intellect possessing snakes, Quirrel, or whatever, while DD had all of his faculties and resources for research. bboyminn: > > PS: Climactic final scene, Harry hits Voldemort with an Accelerated > Aging Curse and Voldie ages 500 years in 5 seconds; the curse didn't > kill him, time and age did, witness the pile of Voldie dust on the > floor. Bada-Bing Bada-Boom. You heard it here first. Peg: Well, I'd offer a different take on the final battle: Harry, Ron, Hermione, Luna, Neville, and Ginny are all fighting their way through an invasion of DEs to the hiding place of LV's soul- container, intent on freeing the trapped soul and allowing Voldemort to die. Harry can only find it by looking into the Mirror of Erised again (now stored in the Chamber of Secrets), which has been bewitched to deliver the artifact to Harry by Dumbledore, just before his untimely death at the hands of Lucius Malfoy, who was then destroyed by Severus Snape. Harry and friends are covered by Mundungus Fletcher, who is pickpocketing DE's wands and exchanging them for Fred and George's trick wands. Fred and George themselves are setting off their fireworks that multiply with every attempt to destroy them, Arthur Weasley's car gives a ride to Aragog's children, who want to invite a few DEs to dinner. Peeves is dumping water balloons on everyone in sight, the paintings are all shouting conflicting directions to the combatants, and Hogwarts castle itself contributes by shifting a few staircases, moving some doors, and adding a couple of trick steps that result in mass pile-ups on the stairs. The suits of armor keep getting in the way of all the Dark spells and are being blown apart,leaving scattered pieces of sharp metal for the DEs to trip over. Bane and the other centaurs have finally realized that their readings of the stars have been wrong. They know now that it isn't Harry's destruction they've seen, but LV's. They come galloping into the entrance hall, and add a few arrows to the chaos. Grawp can't get inside, but the DEs don't dare retreat because he's out there, waiting for them with a dragon that Charlie Weasley has just thoughtfully shipped in from Romania. Oh, and the teachers and students? They and the house elves are safely tucked away in the Room of Requirement, which has turned into a big auditorium for the occasion. There's a big screen at one end that gives everyone a good view of the action. Snape, however, still bitching about how Harry is just like James, is paralyzing any DEs who *do* make it through the line of multiplying fireworks, exploding water balloons, centaur arrows, rubber chickens, annoyed tarantaculas, and bad directions. Harry finally finds the Mirror, stands in front of it and desires to find the soul artifact. A small statue of a snake drops into his pocket, as LV (wringing wet and carrying a toy parrot in one hand and his real wand in the other) finally makes it past Snape, who has just died to give Harry time to find the statue (finally redeeming himself to most members of the anti-Snape faction). One last time, LV has underestimated the competition, and finds that his soul is in the hands of his mortal enemy. Harry smashes the statue, releasing LV's soul. The soul then flees (who could blame it) and finishes the journey through the veil that it started sixteen years earlier. LV collapses into a heap of robes containing a bit of powdered bone, a few drops of blood, and Peter Pettigrew's right hand. OK, so it doesn't wrap up all the loose ends. But it was a lot of fun to write . . . Cheers! Peg From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 02:31:46 2005 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 02:31:46 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Voldemort as Generals in OotP (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124321 Alla wrote: Nevertheless, if Harry blocks Voldemort, it means that Voldemort is still not sure that Harry himself will come by, correct? So, Voldie cannot be sure that "kill the kid" objective will be achieved. I guess he still may want to come to find out how the novel ends, but he cannot be sure that Potter will be there to die. :) Laurasia: Was Voldemort planning on killing Harry then and there in the Department of Mysteries? Wasn't his objective to get a cryptic Prophecy, decipher its obtuse meaning and then form a way of killing Harry with this new information? Even Voldemort can't do all that in one night. I think he wanted to use the prophecy to make a very precise plan that *guaranteed* Harry's death. Voldemort is primarily trying to protect himself from another defeat, rather than launch another attack. Voldemort wants to listen to the prophecy because he believes it contains information on how to kill Harry. It's a strategic move. He is not underestimating Harry anymore. He is not going to try to kill Harry whilst there is a Prophecy that might tell him exactly how. Sure, Voldemort wants to kill Harry as soon as he can, but Voldemort is a schemer. He doesn't do things on the spur of the moment: he spends years persistently learning about the Chamber of Secrets before opening it; years learning the Dark Arts and years becoming immortal; he feeds Ginny information for months so he might become human; he uses Quirrell to gather knowledge about the Philosopher's Stone for months and waits until the precise moment before going down the trapdoor; he is happy to sit in a cold house for months while his Potion ingredients are acquired, etc. etc. etc. I don't think that the 'Kill Harry right there at the MoM' tactic was in his initial plan *at all.* Voldemort only appears at the MoM *after* the Prophecy is destroyed. IMO, it's a last resort. Voldemort would have preferred a bit of quality time with his prophecy, maybe he planned for his Death Eaters to tie up Potter and then move him to a cage where he can sit and starve while Voldemort figures out what to do with the Prophecy. He only starts firing AKs at Harry because the Prophecy was smashed. Voldemort lost his chance to form a planned, strategic method of killing Harry. He had to go back to his old faithful- the blast of green light. Also, Voldemort also only appears *after* Dumbledore has arrived. Voldemort's 'Kill Potter Plan B' tactic includes a few AKs in Harry's direction, however, he still reveals himself when he *knows* Dumbledore is downstairs. This suggests that the idea of getting Dumbledore to kill Harry is already in his head. He ignores Bella when she tries to get him to leave *because* Dumbledore is downstairs. Voldemort *needs* Dumbledore to be there for his plan to work. This is far more in keeping with Voldemort's scheming nature. Plan A is get the prophecy and put Potter in a cage for safe-keeping until death. Plan B is to cast a few AKs in his direction, but Dumbledore will most likely intervene. So Plan C is to use Dumbledore's presence to his advantage. If all fails he can always apparate. My point is that I don't think Voldemort planned on killing Harry in the Department of Mysteries. I don't even think he planned to go there that night. I think the only reason Voldemort actually felt it necessary to turn up was because all his plans went so badly: the prophecy was destroyed; Harry wasn't captured; Dumbledore arrived. The only advantages that Voldemort had were that he was standing on apparation-friendly soil and he could possess Potter. He also had a back-up plan which turns Dumbledore's presence to his own advantage. IMO, Voldemort was *not* planning on going to the MoM that night. It was the fortuitous circumstance that Neville kicked that Prophecy into the air that ended up bringing him there. Voldemort realises that so long as he has the Prophecy's knowledge, his next assault on Potter can be planned *FLAWLESSLY.* He thinks that the Prophecy contains the last tiny piece of unknown information about Potter. He missed the Blood Protection and Priori Incantatem but the Prophecy will ensure he has every last piece of knowledge. This gives him some time to strategise and plan, which he is very fond of doing. If all went as Voldemort planned, the Prophecy would not be destroyed and Voldemort would have month months to find a way to kill Harry. IMO, the only way for Dumbledore to ensure that Voldemort would personally come to the MoM and reveal himself was for Harry to learn Occlumency. Dumbledore needed Voldemort to have no other option but to pick up that Prophecy for himself. Dumbledore has known Voldemort for decades and has seen him spend months scheming things to the best of his ability. I think Dumbledore *knew* that if Voldemort got his hands on the Prophecy he would spend many months deciphering its exact meaning. Therefore, there is nothing to suggest that Voldemort was even going to kill Harry that night, *unless* *the* *Prophecy* *was* *broken.* The reason why Dumbledore *didn't* destroy the Prophecy like he destroyed the Philosopher's Stone (eventually) was because then Voldemort would be forced to kill Harry is a much more basic and impulsive way. There would be no scheme to spy on and thwart and no misinformation to plant. The comparisons between the Philosopher's Stone and the Prophecy are pretty apparent. Their physical similarity only draws attention to their similar roles. Both are small and glass-like. The Philosopher's Stone offers Voldemort immortality and the prophecy offers Voldemort the knowledge of his existing immortality with the exception of one boy. Dumbledore protects both, but in very different ways. When protecting the Prophecy, Dumbledore doesn't employ the tactics he used in defence of the Philosopher's Stone. That is, he doesn't take it to the safest place possible (Hogwarts) where he can personally watch it before destroying it. Dumbledore leaves the Prophecy in an unsafe place that is awkward and difficult to protect. He doesn't destroy it, even though that method proved to be the most efficient way of dealing with the Philosopher's Stone. These different methods demonstrate that Dumbledore has a different motive in regards to each defence. Dumbledore didn't want Voldemort to get that Philosopher's Stone and put up the best defence he could. His different (and weaker) defence of the Prophecy shows (to me) that he wanted to guarantee that Voldemort would *try* to take it. The existence of the Prophecy protected Harry's life for a little while by reassuring Voldemort that there is a prophetic solution out there. And the allure of this solution forced Voldemort to reveal himself. To me, the fact that Dumbledore didn't use his experience from his defence of the Philosopher's Stone (and therefore destroy the Prophecy ASAP) *proves* that protecting the Prophecy was a diversion. Harry's failure to learn Occlumency did more than lead to Sirius's death. It ruined Dumbledore's plan which involved trapping Voldemort into revealing himself. Harry's presence the MoM only allowed Voldemort to stay away longer. It was *NEVILLE* who ensured that Voldemort revealed himself. Neville and that tap-dancing spell and that broken Prophecy ensured that Voldemort abandoned his plan and started casting AKs left, right and centre. If Harry had not taken Neville with him to the Department of Mysteries then the Prophecy would not have smashed and Voldemort would never have to resort to Plan B and reveal himself. It is Neville who is *really* to thank for Voldemort being revealed to the Wizarding World. ~<(Laurasia)>~ From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 21:27:22 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:27:22 -0000 Subject: Snape's lack of remorse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124322 > >vmonte responded: If Snape is a spy then he is also a traitor. It's also hard for me to feel sympathy or admiration for an ex-killer--especially since he didn't do any time for his crimes, but that's just me. Then again teaching children may be, for Snape, worse than a dementors kiss. Juli: I partially agree with you, people should pay for their crimes, but there are other ways to pay back your debt to society, and that's what I believe Snape is doing, he's spying for the order, he's teaching the future generations, he's trying to keep Harry safe... This is to me a way for paying for his crimes whatever they may have been. Juli From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 21:42:58 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:42:58 -0000 Subject: Aurors and Unforgiveable Curses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124323 bboyminn: During Voldemort's first reign of terror, Aurors were authorized by Crouch Sr to use any and all Unforgivable Curses, but I think that was an emergency authorization. When the immediate emergency ended, the authorization ended with it. Now, the wizard world and Aurors are operating under peace-time rules. ...huge snip... Juli: I believe what makes an Unforgiveable curse unforgivable and completly illegal is that its use goes agains ethics, let me try to explain it a bit. The three priciples in ethics are: Automony (a person may do what he/she desires), Well-being (always seeking for the better way to do things), and justice (equal rights). Now, the Imperius curse, it makes someone do any number of things against their will (not autonomy). Crucio: you just can't do anyone any good by crucioing them (well- being) Avada Kevadra: the caster is chosing for the victim his choice of living or dying and he isn't seeking his well-fare. I know many other curses and jinxes and charms cause similar efects but it seems to be that they are limited, they act agains ethics but only for a short period of time. Back to Aurors, they are the policemen of the WW, their job is to keep the world safe, and like cops in a gun shot, wizards in a duel can be killed, but it all depends the way it is done, we know Moody has killed quite a number of DEs but I doubt he ever tried to AK them, they just got killed by any other means. It's the difference between man slaughter and homicide, completly different. so, I believe Aurors should not use the Unforgiveables, but they have the rhight to fight back and if the other wizard dies, well tom bad, that's it. Juli From easimm at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 22:27:45 2005 From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:27:45 -0000 Subject: Snape's lack of remorse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124324 Reply to Potioncat, message 124279 > > Potioncat: ...He admits to being > a Death Eater, says the mark was burned into each Death Eater.... Snorky: The word "admit" has a humble feel to it. I don't think Snape admits to much. He more likely "states". Remember, Snape is the sort who describes himself as "prowl"ing through the corridor (GOF). > Potioncat: ...I don't see remorse nor do I see lack of remorse. But this > doesn't seem to be the time to say, "I was a DE and I'm very sorry." > Snorky: If Snape had any embarrassment about his past, he would be embarrassed by the dark mark, like people who get stupid tatoos, and the scene would include a trace of hesitation, if Rowling's writing is worth all the effort we put into analyzing it. Instead of something like "Drawing near slowly, Snape fumbled with his gown to reveal the dark mark that burned on his trembling arm", we're given a scene of a man without a trace of hesitation. > Potioncat: > ...he has exposed his past.... I don't think we can say he does not feel remorse. > For whatever reason, he seems to be going to great lengths to > repair/repay(?) the things he did in the past.... Snorky: We don't know whether he really has anything to repay. As far as we know, no one has tried to hold him accountable for any murder or torture, or whatever deatheaters do. > Potioncat: > How'd I do? > Potioncat Snorky: Nice try, but sorry, Potioncat. Snorky is still hungry. From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 22:49:34 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:49:34 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General (Status of Order members) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124325 > northsouth17 wrote: > > DD is perfectly willing to consort with the > > edges of society, and not just Sirius, Lupin, Hagrid and others who > > are wrongfully accused, but Mundungus FLetcher, who is actively > > persuing various shady deals all throughout OoTP > > > Now Astrofiammante replies: > > So here's another way of looking at it. From the point of view of > plotting the books, of ratcheting up the narrative tension, of > generating sympathy from us on behalf of gentle-giant Hagrid, and > hard-done-by Lupin, and falsely-imprisoned Sirius and so on, doesn't > it actually help no end that 'our' boys and girls (ie the Order) are > the underdogs? Of course it does, and I love them for it. I'm rather nastily hoping that they'll stay the underdog too, simply beacause that's what I love to read. But Mundungus isn't an underdog as such. He's just a criminal, albeit one who is fighting Voldemort. I like Dung well enough, mind, but I don't think that it can be said that DD is putting the morality of means above the morality of ends for the good of the war, when he is willing to use the contacts of shady charecters like Dung, unless DD considers theft and fencing an ethical thing to do. I like the Order very much, individually and collectively, beacuse they're nice and funny and interesting and the underdogs, but it wouldn't be a horrible clash for me to see them do some thoroughly unpleasant things, though I might not be happy for them, because I believe that what they need to be doing, and because, *nice* as they are, they're not the most ethical of folks. Northsouth From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 00:07:59 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:07:59 -0000 Subject: The Weasley's clock In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124326 Karen Wrote: >>Regarding the Weasley's clock. It was brought to my attention by the kid in my house that the description of the Weasley's clock in the COS (American paperback pg. 34) does not match the one in GOF (American first edition page 151). The former describes just a clock on the wall with one arm and written around it is stuff like "time to make tea" and "time to feed the chickens" but in the latter it is described as a grandfather clock in the corner with 9 arms, each with a family member's name, and pointing to where the person may be. Apparently the first version of the clock just evaporated. It was never referred to again. Was this a JK inconsistency or a different clock? Was there any previous discussion on this? Hey Karen!!! I've wondered about these clocks before, while thinking about them I came to a simple conclusion: There are 2 clocks, one shows the wherabouts of every member of the Weasley family, the other just indicates Molly what to do: cook dinner, feed the chickens, make the beds, everyday household chores. Another item never gets mentioned again after CoS: the talking mirror, the one that told Harry to comb his hair and to tuck his shirt. I think JKR just don't want to describe the Burrow the same way every time Harry visits. JMO Juli From leslie.s.bennett at lmco.com Fri Feb 11 00:33:16 2005 From: leslie.s.bennett at lmco.com (moondance241) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:33:16 -0000 Subject: The Weasley's clock In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124327 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "klmf1" wrote: > > Regarding the Weasley's clock. It was brought to my attention by the kid in my house that the description of the Weasley's clock in the COS (American paperback pg. 34) does not match the one in GOF (American first edition page 151). The former describes just a clock on the wall with one arm and written around it is stuff like "time to make tea" and "time to feed the chickens" but in the latter it is described as a grandfather clock in the corner with 9 arms, each with a family member's name, and pointing to where the person may be. Moondance: I noticed the same thing. Though I figured they have more than one clock (I know we have many). Perhaps the Weasley family clock is more interesting to Harry than the "Time to..." clock. From jmrazo at hotmail.com Fri Feb 11 02:33:19 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 02:33:19 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124328 > > Alla: > > Ummm, don't you think that Sirius being ALIVE in ANY kind , shape or > form is better for Harry than dead Sirius? Harry blames Dumbledore > too for ignoring the basics of Sirius nature and keeping him locked > up. So, it is possible that Sirius' death will make Harry more > motivated to kill Voldemort OR ( which I see as equally likely > scenario) Sirius' death may be just the thing Harry needs to tell > Dumbledore to leave him alone. As much as I want to see the second one happen, I think Harry is going to end up sucking up his pain for the greater good, push it under the rug, probabbly apologize to Snape, to go after LV. And I have very little desire to see that happen. > Alla: > > Eh? Dumbledore left a traumatised boy alone during whole summer > aftre GoF and completely closed any channels of information for him. > > At the end of OOP, Dumbledore pulled as Renee said "blame the victim > act" and gave Harry a lecture about how badly Sirius treated > Kreacher. ( Die, Kreacher, die now. :)) I call Dumbledore's handling > of Harry's grief " in very poor taste" at best. All I can say to this is Amen, Alla. I can explain away a lot of things I don't like about DD as a result of the story JK is trying to write, but I can't do that about this. DD's indictment of Sirius literally moments after the man died was the most hideous thing I read in OOTP. I cannot fathom what the man was thinking. When that happened I dropped the book for five minutes to rant about what I would say to DD if he said that to me. Ugh! > Alla: > > I cannot disagree more about this statement. I think Dumbledore > either does not care AT ALL about Harry's emotional well-being OR he > has no clue whatsoever about how to improve Harry's emotional well- > being. I think DD did a good initial job of helping Harry at the end of GoF but he really dropped the ball afterwards, IMO. Leaving Harry by himself without any real contact with people was just stupid. But that's another thread that I've already talked about enough. On the larger topic of this thread, I really want to learn more about Grindlewald and how DD beat him. Have there been any interviews or chats where JK has mentioned if that's going to get talked about at all? I think learning how DD beat the last Dark Lord would be a good indicator of his battle strategy and mindset. And just for the record, I think that Voldemort was a pretty bad strategist on his own. Either DD or LV coming up against a competent war leader would get spanked, IMO. phoenixgod2000, who is far too sick to fully particpate in the thread he started, but is still present for every post in spirit. Stupid flu! From elvenlady0903 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 15:28:17 2005 From: elvenlady0903 at yahoo.com (Sandy) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 07:28:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's lack of remorse In-Reply-To: <3BEBF6A0-7B13-11D9-BE90-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> Message-ID: <20050210152817.72163.qmail@web53507.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124329 "curlyhornedsnorkack": >Snape's actions don't sound like those of a man who is at all ashamed > or embarrassed about his past. Sandy: We also have to remember that Snape is working undercover. If he shows any remorse, or that he is ashamed to his students, someone is going to catch on to something. He has Lucius Malfoy's son in his class and Draco seems to go to his father about everything. Now if Draco told is father (who is suppose to still believe that Snape is working for the DE's) that his Potions teacher was taking Harry's side in everything, or showing the smallest bit of like toward Harry then he will blow whatever cover he has. At the end of OOTP, DD is going over the events of the night and he says that Snape caught on to the hint Harry gave about "Padfoot being taken to the place where it was hidden." He then told Harry that Snape waited and when Harry never came back from the Forbidden Forest Snape got worried and went after him. To me that sounds as though he cares ultimately, about what happens to Harry, even though he can't show it. Sandy Jocelyn Grunow wrote: On Thursday, February 10, 2005, at 09:05 am, curlyhornedsnorkack wrote: > "Snape strode forward, past Dumbledore, pulling up the left sleeve of > his robes as he went. He stuck out his forearm and showed it to Fudge, > who recoiled." > > Snape's actions don't sound like those of a man who is at all ashamed > or embarrassed about his past. > > In the scene with Karkarov in the classroom, he doesn't seem to have > any empathy with his fellow ex-deatheaters. Hi! I see the quoted paragraph as a very aggressive thing to do, but not relevant to the question of remorse. Snape is effectively showing Fudge proof that he KNOWS what he is talking about it. He is no wooly-minded snorkackloving flake but an exDE and a SURVIVOR. I think he is very angry that a danger so strong and personal to him is being shuffled under the carpet. I am not a Snape-lover - the scene with Hermione's teeth ended any leaning I may have had in that direction - but I think that his defection from LV has cost him a lot. He DOESN'T have any empathy with the DEs because (a) he is not an empathic person in general (!) and (b) he knows what and who they are _from the inside_ - and has chosen to reject that. The others didn't, which to Snape's mind probably sets them up as either evil OR cowardly weakings. He made a hell of a choice, and I am not using those words lightly. Being Snape he isn't going to make nice about any of it, but he did choose the side of light. Remorse? He lives with the consequences in his head every day. He chooses to remain with the light every day. That's far more practical than wallowing in 'I'm -so-sorrys' which another more sympathetic character might feel and inflict on us. It just isn't in his character to do that. The proof of his remorse is in his actions. He changed sides. That truly is the best and only genuine proof anyone can give of remorse - deciding to and succeeding in NEVER LETTING IT HAPPEN AGAIN. The rest is just words. Jocelyn Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/hbfile.html Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT document.write(''); --------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 03:16:08 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 03:16:08 -0000 Subject: Harry's grief (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124330 >>Alla: >Eh? Dumbledore left a traumatised boy alone during whole summer aftre GoF and completely closed any channels of information for him.< Betsy: But Harry seemed more angry at being kept out of the loop than anything else. Yes, the events at the end of GoF still affected him, but especially if you compare Harry to say, Cho, Harry seems to be in a healthier mindset. Dumbledore does admit that he should have brought Harry on board, but Dumbledore's actions weren't a callous, "I don't care about you, Harry," they were the much more loving, "I don't want you to have to bear the burden of becoming a killer right now." Yes, it was a mistake to try and keep Harry safe, but the mistake was the result of a caring motive. >>Alla: >At the end of OOP, Dumbledore pulled as Renee said "blame the victim act" and gave Harry a lecture about how badly Sirius treated Kreacher. ( Die, Kreacher, die now. :)) I call Dumbledore's handling of Harry's grief " in very poor taste" at best.< Betsy: Really? At best? I was highly impressed at how well Dumbledore handled the whole thing. He admitted freely his part in the breakdown of communication, he kept absolutely no secrets from Harry, answered all of his questions, he made sure Harry was able to express his rage and grief fully - that nothing was kept bottled up inside. In allowing Harry to trash his office, Harry was able to get the very worst of his feelings out. It's huge that Dumbledore did this. It's not something everyone recognizes as necessary, but he made sure Harry knew he was completely free to fall apart. As to the Kreacher thing. Harry was looking around for a scapegoat. Dumbledore, I think, was making sure Harry could not put Kreacher in that role. That was incredibly important because Dumbledore was correct, Kreacher was what wizards had made him. Yes, the polite thing is to not speak ill of the dead, but Dumbledore had to make sure that Harry didn't take the easy way out and put all the blame on Kreacher. (Harry lets go of Kreacher fairly easily - so I think a part of him recognized the problem there.) Dumbledore tried to do the same with Snape - and I think (I hope) Harry did hear what Dumbledore was saying and that a peace will be made between Harry and Snape at some point. But it was imperative that Harry come out of that meeting with Dumbledore without the twisted sort of emotions that Voldemort could use to his advantage. I think Dumbledore did a good job (as he did in GoF) in draining out the bile, so to speak. Of course Harry is still grieving. But he's let out all his anger and he's starting to deal with his guilt. I think we should not underestimate Ron and Hermione and Hagrid, either. Hagrid especially gives Harry tons of support. I loved that bit in GoF when he asks Harry is he's alright, and Harry says yeah he is, and Hagrid says, "'Course you're not. But you will be." (paraphrased) Harry does have a strong support group. >>Betsy: >I also think that Harry's emotional well-being is a priority with Dumbledore. I just think he handles it differently than others on this list would want him to.< >>Alla: >I cannot disagree more about this statement. I think Dumbledore either does not care AT ALL about Harry's emotional well-being OR he has no clue whatsoever about how to improve Harry's emotional well- being.< Betsy: That is so weird to me. You don't think Dumbledore cares? Why did he put up with Harry's breakdown? Why did he force Harry to let his rage out instead of bottling it inside? Okay - so he's also trying to keep Harry alive and that does require Harry staying at the Dursleys. But again, Harry seemed more upset about being blocked off from Dumbledore. If Harry had been kept in the loop I think he'd have had little problems with his month at the Dursleys. I know you don't like the way Dumbledore operates. But to carry that through to the conclusion that Dumbledore is clueless or cold-hearted is a little extreme, IMO. Harry seems to be baring up rather well considering all he's going through, and I think Dumbledore has been a big support for him. Betsy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 03:37:20 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 03:37:20 -0000 Subject: Harry's grief (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124331 Alla: Eh? Dumbledore left a traumatised boy alone during whole summer after GoF and completely closed any channels of information for him.< Betsy: But Harry seemed more angry at being kept out of the loop than anything else. Yes, the events at the end of GoF still affected him, but especially if you compare Harry to say, Cho, Harry seems to be in a healthier mindset. Alla: NO, Harry was not in a healthy mindset at all. He is still having nightmares of the Graveyard during the summer and dealing with it all on his own. I am again thinking about no psychological help whatsoever in WW. "I heard you last night," said Dudley breathlessly. "Talking in your sleep. Moaning. What do you mean?" Harry said again, but there was a cold, plunging sensation in his stomach. He had revisited the graveyard last night in his dreams. Dudley gave a harsh bark of laughter then adopted a high - pitched,whimpering voice. "Don't kill Cedric! Don't kil Cedric!" Who is Cedric - your boyfriend?" - OOP, paperback, p.15. Alla: At the end of OOP, Dumbledore pulled as Renee said "blame the victim act" and gave Harry a lecture about how badly Sirius treated Kreacher. ( Die, Kreacher, die now. :)) I call Dumbledore's handling of Harry's grief " in very poor taste" at best. Betsy: snip. As to the Kreacher thing. Harry was looking around for a scapegoat. Dumbledore, I think, was making sure Harry could not put Kreacher in that role. That was incredibly important because Dumbledore was correct, Kreacher was what wizards had made him. Yes, the polite thing is to not speak ill of the dead, but Dumbledore had to make sure that Harry didn't take the easy way out and put all the blame on Kreacher. Alla: As far as I am concerned that was not the time and the place for the lecture. Simple "I am sorry for your loss" would have been in much better taste. Just my opinion, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 04:10:00 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 04:10:00 -0000 Subject: Harry's grief (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124332 >>Alla: >NO, Harry was not in a healthy mindset at all. He is still having nightmares of the Graveyard during the summer and dealing with it all on his own. I am again thinking about no psychological help whatsoever in WW.< Betsy: Of *course* Harry's having nightmares! He witnessed a schoolmate murdered in front of him and barely got away with his own life. Is there anything that could have kept Harry from having nightmares? Are there any psychologists on this list who think nightmares could have been prevented? Honestly, you're holding Dumbledore up to pretty impossible standards, IMO. Frankly, if Harry had been all sunshine happy I'd have worried about his mental health. I know folks would like to see Harry laying out on some couch, talking about his feelings and having a good cry, but seriously, who wants to read about that? Plus, the end of GoF, when Harry was in Dumbledore's office there was an interaction between him and Fawkes where Fawkes perches on Harry's knee and sings a single note that sends a comforting warmth through Harry. I think there was some healing in that song to help Harry get through his ordeal. And again, Dumbledore forces Harry in both GoF and OotP to face his emotions. I think it's fair to say that JKR is using a bit of shorthand here to show that Harry has been helped. >>Betsy: >As to the Kreacher thing. Harry was looking around for a scapegoat. Dumbledore, I think, was making sure Harry could not put Kreacher in that role.< >>Alla: >As far as I am concerned that was not the time and the place for the lecture. Simple "I am sorry for your loss" would have been in much better taste.< Betsy: In better taste, yes (or easier for Dumbledore anyway). Not very helpful though. Dumbledore is doing more for Harry than simply expressing Dumbledore's own sorrow for Harry's loss (wich would have been fairly selfish on Dumbledore's part, IMO). He's helping Harry work though what happened, who to blame, etc. Honesty is not always easy, but it is absolutely essential in this case. Harry must have a clear idea of what happened and what went wrong. Also, I wouldn't really catagorize what Dumbledore said about Kreacher as a "lecture." It was a statement of facts in response to Harry's questions and assumptions. Frankly, a simple "sorry for your loss," would have left Harry enraged and open to searching out scapegoats to take his anger out on. And it would have encouraged Harry to keep his emotions inside where they would have festered. And then you'd get Dark!Harry (a favorite of fanfics! ) rampaging his way to becoming the next darklord. "The house elves will pay!" Betsy From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 04:44:46 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 04:44:46 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124333 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy: > In a completely cold-blooded way of looking at things, Sirius's > death may actually be a good thing. Sirius was coming apart in > OotP and he wasn't being the best influence on Harry. His death > takes him out of the way and makes for a nice rallying cry to help > motivate Harry in taking down Voldemort. It's even more personal > now. You're not the first to raise the cold-blooded argument, but let me argue against it in a slightly more meta way (and out comes the fuzzy bunny). One of the few good things to come out of some struggling with some really nasty hard incomprehensible material (that I now have to try hard not to write like) lately was an appreciation for the idea of Stimmung--translate it as 'mood' or 'disposition'. With a little creativity and argument that I will spare you all, this can be played with in literary works as well; the author's (or the work's, but that's another argument) disposition-towards-being is manifested in a work. I'm going to venture the argument that the cold-blooded proposition is decidedly not in JKR's Stimmung. We have an endorsement from authority of the mercy given to Pettigrew, despite all the grief that has caused. [I'm leaving aside Agent!Peter here, of course, because I also think it doesn't fit. I think.] The cold-blooded perspective appears decidedly out of place if we want to try to generate readings which are coherent to the world of JKR's world. I'm going to fly with it for now being as I done think it makes for less backpedaling later, which is always a prime goal of mine. > I also think that Harry's emotional well-being is a priority with > Dumbledore. I just think he handles it differently than others on > this list would want him to. But it does seem to work for Harry, > and I doubt we'll see an emotional basket-case in the next book. Basket-case, I doubt, but fissures underneath the warmer front put up at the end of the book are certainly possible. And the unqualified faith in Dumbledore is gone; he is now more human but also more fallible, which makes the proposition that he is badly mistaken about a number of things even more thematically tempting. What I would argue is that Dumbledore has practically self-admitted (as I believe Alla has dragged up some of the canon for) that he has not always really *understood* what is/was really needed for emotional well-being. That's the problem with being a powerful old man. It is an entirely other thing to know in a theoretical sense what interactions are/should be like, and to experience them from an unempowered position. I could fill in the blanks there for the explicit examples, but I'll leave it for each to do with as he wishes. -Nora walks around and mumbles about the thingly nature of things From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 04:47:19 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 04:47:19 -0000 Subject: DD, LV, Chess and War Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124334 This is probably a crazy idea. But reading some of the post about DD as General and the *war* and all complaints that DD seems to playing a defensive game, and the all of planning that is going on on both sides made me think of a chess game. Now I know that chess is a game of war. It's late and my mind is no longer functioning, but has anyone ever considered the possibility that the series taken as a whole is a game of chess? I don't know. Does anyone see anything like that?? Just a thought. Would be a brilliant way to write a book series, but I don't know it that is what she is doing. Tonks_op From easimm at yahoo.com Thu Feb 10 23:33:10 2005 From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:33:10 -0000 Subject: Snape's lack of remorse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124335 Re: Snape's lack of remorse I'm responding to a bunch of posts. I have listed the message numbers before each of my responses. 124285, Jocelyn Grunow Good points. I agree that Snape's actions could be the result of anger, and I really like your reasons for Snape's lack of empathy. However, you haven't convinced me that remorse is hiding being Snape's cold exterior. His reasons for changing sides might have nothing to do with remorse. 124286, dumbledore11214 , 124290, It's true Snape might be hiding his remorse from Harry. If so, he does it very well! Perhaps it will show up in the future. But there is no proof yet that he has any. 124288, Juli Snape didn't have to be encouraged to show the dark mark. Dumbledore didn't do something like " step aside and stare at Snape meaningfully." I agree that Snape seems as willing to talk to Karkarov as use someone else's snotty handkerchief. But Snape seems to have a good memory for misery, especially when he has been on the receiving end. I can't picture that Snape, who is so wrapped up in what others did to him, would have brain power left to forget what he as done to others. I'm still looking for evidence of remorse. 124291, vmonte Hee,Hee, what a great picture. Snape's penance is putting up with brats. Thanks everyone! I'll keep looking - but I don't think I'll find remorse now or in future books. -Snorky From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Fri Feb 11 05:09:46 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 05:09:46 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore the General. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124336 northsouth17 at yahoo.com suggested: >It might be very interesting to see who will come to lead the Order, >if DD were to croak. Moody, possibly, though I would love to see >Arthur or Lupin dealing with shouldering that sort of >responisibility. Just so long as it isn't Harry or one of the kids >(Unless, in some highly exceptional circumstances, it's Ron) because >I think they need to stay at Hogwarts, and, well, honestly, how >precocious can you get? (Alexander the great notwithstanding:-)) I especially hope that Dumbledore has let the Order know *who* he wants to lead them if he is dead. Otherwise chaos will ensue. My preference, of the available members, would be either Arthur or Moody. Each of them has qualities that would make them a good successor to Dumbledore as leader of the Order. (I won't say "replacement," because no one could possibly *replace* Dumbledore.) McGonagall might also be a good choice, but if Dumbledore were dead she would be desperately needed as the new Headmistress of Hogwarts, and although Dumbledore could handle both jobs, McGonagall might need to give most of her attention to being Headmistress. Especially since the loss of Dumbledore would signify not only a grave setback in the War, but danger to Hogwarts as well. Lupin hasn't got the leadership potential that Arthur does or the combat experience that Moody does, and from a credibility standpoint his being a werewolf would be a drawback. (It would also be inconvenient, since Voldemort is unlikely to be considerate enough to avoid attacking during a full moon.) Snape is Right Out. I admire many qualities about Snape (while despising others), but no way could he lead the Order. Even if the others could deal with it (and I have my doubts about Lupin and Bill), Harry -- without which the whole endeavor is hopeless -- would probably go into a tailspin even worse than anything in OotP. It would be like a combination of Potions class and Occlumency class with Voldemort thrown in. Janet Anderson From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 05:10:59 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 05:10:59 -0000 Subject: Harry's grief (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124337 Betsy: Of *course* Harry's having nightmares! He witnessed a schoolmate murdered in front of him and barely got away with his own life. Is there anything that could have kept Harry from having nightmares? Alla: I interpreted your earlier argument as that Harry was only angry about being out of the loop about the news and in comparison to Cho he is in healthier mindset. I am arguing that Harry is in pretty bad mindset on his own and Graveyard and him being angry about not having any news from WW are pretty closely related. Betsy: Are there any psychologists on this list who think nightmares could have been prevented? Honestly, you're holding Dumbledore up to pretty impossible standards, IMO. Frankly, if Harry had been all sunshine happy I'd have worried about his mental health. Alla: I have an idea. How about... Sirius OR Remus or both of them dropping up for a visit or few and talking to Harry about what happened to him? Sure, it would have mean exposing who Mrs. Figg really is , but it seems like a very small price to pay to me. I don't think I am holding Dumbledore up to impossible standards by insisting that he should have made sure that Harry had his friends near by and available. Of course we are not talking about real psychologists. It seems like there are no mind healers in WW. But friends support network should work pretty well, IMO. So, yes, I do hold Dumbledore accountable for cutting Harry off one. And of course, how about letting Ron and Hermione answer Harry questions in hsi letters. I think that would have helped too. Betsy: snip. Honesty is not always easy, but it is absolutely essential in this case. Harry must have a clear idea of what happened and what went wrong. Also, I wouldn't really catagorize what Dumbledore said about Kreacher as a "lecture." It was a statement of facts in response to Harry's questions and assumptions. Alla: Sirius died what ten... fifteen minutes ago? An hour at best. And you think it is very helpful for Harry to hear that Sirius did not treat Kreacher well and that in essense Sirius is to blame for his own death? I am going to agree to disagree and leave it at that for now . Just my opinion, Alla From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Fri Feb 11 05:14:45 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 05:14:45 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124338 horridporrid03 asked: >Only useful now that the Order actually *has* a Metamorphmagus. >Tonks was a young girl during the first war. Haven't all the known >Death Eaters already been swept up after the MoM battle, though? The >infiltration wouldn't be a bad idea. I guess Slytherin would be the >obvious house. Who would she stand in for, I wonder? And those kids >have been togther for five years (if not longer - within pureblood >circles) so it'd take some major acting. Would Tonks be able to pull >something like that off? Harry and Ron pulled something like that off in CoS ... and Tonks a) doesn't need a potion and b) is a trained Auror with disguise as a specialty ... I could see this working really well at Hogwarts, and it might not be a bad idea at WW parties either. (Of course the wizard social season may be a little truncated, what with many of its leaders in Azkaban ...) Janet Anderson From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Fri Feb 11 05:20:50 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 05:20:50 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124339 phoenixgod2000 suggests: >He didn't use Sirius, a skilled animagus, to do anything for the >order. Even if Sirius had to stay in #12, wouldn't a teacher skilled >enough to teach Wormtail of all people, be good enough to teach >Molly the she-bear how to become a she-bear in truth? Or to teach >Tonks to become a tiny and stealthy chameleon? Or to teach Kingsley >how to become the king of all cats, a lion? Wouldn't being animagi >make every order member that much more valuable? Sirius was a >wasted resource. He would never have gone stir crazy if he had some >teachin' to do. Or anything else to do for that matter. I think this would have been a brilliant idea, except for the fact that learning to be an animagus apparently takes years of study, especially if you're doing it part-time as all of the people suggested would be. (Tonks and Kingsley have full-time jobs at the Ministry; Molly has a full-time job feeding the Order and making their headquarters habitable.) So it wouldn't have been very useful except perhaps as a long-term project. Janet Anderson (trying to catch up) From kempermentor at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 05:50:42 2005 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 05:50:42 -0000 Subject: DD, LV, Chess and War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124340 "Tonks" wrote: This is probably a crazy idea. But reading some of the post about DD as General and the *war* and all complaints that DD seems to playing a defensive game, and the all of planning that is going on on both sides made me think of a chess game. Now I know that chess is a game of war. It's late and my mind is no longer functioning, but has anyone ever considered the possibility that the series taken as a whole is a game of chess? I don't know. Does anyone see anything like that?? Just a thought. Would be a brilliant way to write a book series, but I don't know it that is what she is doing. Kemper now: Yes. The side of 'good' is black because white is the aggressor on the field when everything is balanced. The Black Side of the Board King - The Idea of the Light: love, pure, truth Queen - Dumbledore: the most powerful piece Rooks - SS and MM: used mostly in the end-game, quite powerful, especially together Knights - Black and Lupin: used early to develop the board Bishops - Molly and Arthur: see 'Knights' Pawns - Harry, who will reach the eigth square... Oops, I'm going to go on a tangent... "'The Eighth Square at last!' she cried. 'Oh, how glad I am to get here! And what is this on my head?' she exclaimed in a tone of dismay as she lifted it off, and set it on her lap to make out what it could possibly be. It was a golden crown." Through the Looking-Glass, Lewis Carroll.... Ok sorry about that, Ron, Hermione, Neville, Luna, Ginny, Fred and George round out the other 7 pawns. The White Side of the Board King - The Dark Order: fear, power, deceit Queen - Voldemort Rooks - Belatrix and Lucius Knights - Wormtail and ? Bishops - Crouch Jr. and ? Pawns - Draco? and 7 others As we approach the end-game, who will be sacrificed in order to capture the White Queen? And remember, the object of the game is to kill the King. -Kemper From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Feb 11 06:09:01 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 06:09:01 -0000 Subject: Harry's grief (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124341 > > Betsy: > > I know folks would like to see Harry laying out on some couch, > talking about his feelings and having a good cry, but seriously, who > wants to read about that? I would. It would make for a much better written, more interesting, and more satisfying novel than "I understand why everybody's done what they've done (I forgive you Professor Snape), now let's all get Voldemort!" Unfortunately, I think we are going to get some version of the latter. Lupinlore From snow15145 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 10:09:47 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:09:47 -0000 Subject: DD, LV, Chess and War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124342 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > This is probably a crazy idea. But reading some of the post about DD > as General and the *war* and all complaints that DD seems to playing > a defensive game, and the all of planning that is going on on both > sides made me think of a chess game. Now I know that chess is a game > of war. It's late and my mind is no longer functioning, but has > anyone ever considered the possibility that the series taken as a > whole is a game of chess? I don't know. Does anyone see anything > like that?? Just a thought. Would be a brilliant way to write a > book series, but I don't know it that is what she is doing. > > Tonks_op Snow: If you feel like a bit of light reading, Hermione style, there is a site that has a very interesting theory explaining the chess game pieces metaphorically to each of the characters along with the strategy of the game played by the trio and how it applies to the second Voldy war. http://www.knight2king.net Happy reading! Snow From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Feb 11 10:10:02 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:10:02 -0000 Subject: DD, LV, Chess and War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124343 Valky: Oh Good thoughts Tonks and Kemper.! > > "Tonks" wrote: > anyone ever considered the possibility that the series taken as a > whole is a game of chess? > Kemper now: > The White Side of the Board [Black Pieces] > King - The Dark Order: fear, power, deceit > Queen - Voldemort > Rooks - Belatrix and Lucius > Knights - Wormtail and ? > Bishops - Crouch Jr. and ? > Pawns - Draco? and 7 others > Valky: I'll just first fill in one of your blank spaces, Kemper. Bishops - Crouch Jr and Quirrel If the whole series is the game, then it follows that some chess pieces are probably taken from Voldemorts side already. Quirrel was definitely a bishop he was able to get *very* close to the Victory/King in one move, as was the case with Bart Jr, too. Kemper: > The Black Side of the Board > King - The Idea of the Light: love, pure, truth > Queen - Dumbledore: the most powerful piece > Rooks - SS and MM: used mostly in the end-game, quite powerful, > especially together > Knights - Black and Lupin: used early to develop the board > Bishops - Molly and Arthur: see 'Knights' > Pawns - Harry, who will reach the eighth square... > .... edited... Ron, Hermione, Neville, Luna, Ginny, Fred and George Valky: Hmmm, mostly I agree. Except I am not sure of all the pawns. I mostly agree with Harry, he is an unfortunately necessary inclusion, but in a way he is also the King, so therefore has a great deal of protection. Now lets look at the actual moves of the game to try and gain more perspective. PS/SS - pure and simple opening attack by the Black Side. LV simple moved a few of his pawns/pieces aside/around and sent his Bishop straight at the opponent. Dumbledore, didn't 'move' his Harry!Pawn though, he created a scenario around Harry!Pawn which set him up to be the eventual taker of the Black!Bishop. COS - hmmm a castling move perhaps? The Rook!Lucius doesn't literally come on the attack does he. He does, however, appear to have 'taken the position of the LV/King piece', I think this is a castling with some pawn/(knight?) attacks from the other side. Trying to go for the throat of DD's Bishops. (Retaliatory move after DD's pawn claims LV's Bishop?)In which case, Draco is most definitely a Black Pawn. POA - Far more interesting. It *appears* LV has made a big move of one of his Knights (Sirius), DD reacts with his best move, drawing out his own Knight (Remus) to patrol the squares in front of his Harry!Pawn. Both sides chase ghosts in POA, note carefully that Pawn! Draco and Rook!Lucius go after Hagrid, who isn't a fighting chess piece, (Pawn!Hagrid). BlackKnight!Wormtail is revealed, and WhiteKnight!Remus with WhiteKnight!Sirius go after him but he gives them the slip [Knight peice speciality] WK!Remus and WK!Sirius both end up in a pickle, where WK!Sirius looks to be immediately taken by BlackPieces... (Thats the third time Snape has shown up as a Black piece BTW, look it over) so Pawns!HRH are whirled in a cute little sleight of hand which allows WK!Sirius to also give the slip. GOF - OK from the start pieces are all over the board, Rook!Lucius left the cosy back squares sometime at the end of COS, and Bishop! Arthur soon after, so it follows that these two head on again at the beginning of the next set of moves. Rook!Lucius does a dance here, he's really not doing anything interesting, but in the background, of his dancing there is preparing of a new Blackpiece attack formation. The second Black!Bishop soon makes a very strong move straight at the Harry!Pawn, wiser now after the last Bishop was unpredictably removed by DD's little star pawn-piece, this Bishop goes straight at taking Harry !first! this time round. Ok so Harry must have been positioned so well defensively, that it wasn't actually obvious (speaking strictly chess there) because he manages to manouvre back out of the trap, and leave the Bishop unprotected for the Queenpower!DD to knock out of the game. OOtP - Again the pieces are scattered fairly much and some are obviously missing from each side. To start with there is an attack on Pawn!Harry but it's *not* a game ender (just looks that way. Good Chess strategy) so perhaps what we should be looking more closely at are the other pieces moving at that time. Lucius is up to no good circling some vulnerable white pieces such as Arthur, and some plotting goes on to corner Pawn!Harry. DD, OTOH, seems to be strategically setting up the board to draw out the LV!Queen. When Harry is cornered out comes the big guns, and the WK!s face off with the BB!s in an almighty battle shuffle, WK!Sirius is taken/sacrificed, and, as the other Knights and Bishops come to a draw in their ranks, the Queen Power Pieces face off for a while. Suddenly, and surprisingly LV!Queen sets *himself this time* straight at Pawn!Harry. By a miracle Pawn!Harry was able to do a *tiny* surprise move to save himself, or perhaps it could be that some piece was actually within striking distance because of the Knight!Sirius sacrifice... either way LV!Queen rushes straight back to his home squares, and the next war begins with the pieces this way. Kemper: > As we approach the end-game, who will be sacrificed in order to > capture the White Queen? And remember, the object of the game is to kill the King. Valky: And I want to know why Snape keeps turning up as a black piece. In PS/SS - Snape followed Quirrel around but DD was never reported to about it. In COS - The opening move to the Parseltongue Harry!SlytherinHeir Rumour. In POA - One of the pieces cornering the WhiteKnight!Sirius in his danger spot. In GOF - The first one where he appears to be *directed* by DD. In OOtP - There is now a big question mark over Snapes side. He moves around in the Whitepiece Home squares but is not *all that obviously* part of their strategy of attack. Any explanations? From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 11:40:27 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:40:27 -0000 Subject: DD, LV, Chess and War (SS/PS Chess and Quidditch) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124344 >Tonks wrote: This is probably a crazy idea. But reading some of the post about DD as General and the *war* and all complaints that DD seems to playing a defensive game, and the all of planning that is going on on both sides made me think of a chess game. Now I know that chess is a game of war. It's late and my mind is no longer functioning, but has anyone ever considered the possibility that the series taken as a whole is a game of chess? I don't know. Does anyone see anything like that?? Just a thought. Would be a brilliant way to write a book series, but I don't know it that is what she is doing. vmonte responds: JKR tells us this herself in the SS/PS. (I'm reposting a very old post of mine.) The Chess Game: The chess game represents the second war against Voldemort. (I'm not the only person who believes this theory, it's been mentioned by many fans and writers.) "I think," said Ron, "we're going to have to be chessmen." Page 281, SS, U.S. version Ron walks over to a black knight and asks if they have to join him to get across the board--the knight nods his head. Ron turns to Harry and Hermione: Page 282 "This needs thinking about ." He said. "I suppose we've got to take the place of three of the black pieces " "Harry and Hermione stayed quiet, watching Ron think. Finally he said, "Now, don't be offended or anything, but neither of you are good at chess?" Ron knows that he is the strategist (not Hermione or Harry). Harry has survived every book because he is quick on his feet and relies heavily on his natural talent and instincts. Hermione is very intelligent, but she is not a good strategist. (All you have to do is see how successful she is at liberating the house elves.) "We're not offended," said Harry quickly. "Just tell us what to do." "Well, Harry, you take the place of that bishop, and Hermione, you go next to him instead of that castle." "What about you?" "I'm going to be a knight," said Ron. Three chess pieces listen to Ron and walk off the board. Do these pieces represent characters from the first war? (Who were the knight, castle, and bishop then? We can probably guess.) Interesting that Hermione is a Castle and that Ron is a Knight. Isn't a Knight's job to protect his castle? Also, Ron's position in Quidditch is that of Keeper. The Keeper tries to prevent the other team from making any goals?he's the protector. The Knight in chess never moves in a direct manner but weaves back and forth between other pieces. Chess is a game of strategy that is usually won in small steps. I believe that Dumbledore is the strategist of the HP series and is manipulating events in the story but in small steps/ways. The Bishop has long-range ability (especially towards the end of a game when there are more open spaces), which enables it to make extended penetrating attacks which are impossible for the Knight. This gives the Bishop an end-game advantage. (Think of Harry's Seeker position in Quidditch. The other players can only score 10 points per goal, but if Harry catches the snitch he gets 150 points, and the game is over. The Seeker is key to winning the game.) We know that Dumbledore is already setting up Harry to take on Voldemort in the final confrontation. Harry as Bishop also makes sense since he often moves diagonally (remember in the CoS movie when Harry uses floo- powder and says diagonally instead of Diagon Ally?) not like the Castle/Rook, which only moves in straight lines (sounds like straight- laced Hermione to me). "White always plays first in chess," said Ron, peering across the board. "Yes...look " A white pawn had moved forward two squares. (Wormtail?) "Harry?move diagonally four squares to the right." "Their first real shock came when their other knight was taken. The white queen smashed him to the floor and dragged him off the board, where he lay quite still, facedown." This Knight represents Sirius Black who was killed by the Queen Bellatrix. Who is the Queen on the Order's side? Ginny? (I believe that Ginny is being set-up for something. She is the only child that has had direct contact with Tom Riddle/Voldemort, and like Harry, has also shared thoughts with the evil guy. Another interesting point is that Ginny also played Harry's position in Quidditch and may eventually take over Harry's position against Voldemort at some crucial moment. Will she step in to save Harry like he saved her? Actually, she played two roles while playing Quidditch!!! Interestingly, the Queen chess piece is also very versatile. It combines the powers of both the Rook and the Bishop. It can move horizontally, vertically, or on the diagonal! In a sense, it's like the king (silently represented by Dumbledore) in that it can move in any direction. "Had to let that happen," said Ron, looking shaken. "Leaves you free to take that bishop, Hermione, go on." Did Dumbledore know that Sirius was going to die? And who does Hermione take down? Malfoy? Page 283 The game continues with the white pieces showing no mercy every time a black piece is taken. Ron loses a lot of black chess pieces. "Twice, Ron only just noticed in time that Harry and Hermione were in danger. He himself darted around the board, taking almost as many white pieces as they had lost black ones." "We're nearly there," he muttered suddenly. "Let me think?let me think " 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 to checkmate the king, Harry!" "But?" "Do you want to stop Snape or not?" "Ron?" "Look, if you don't hurry up, he'll already have the stone!" There was no alternative. "Ready?" Ron called, his face pale but determined. "Here I go?now, don't hang around once you've won." He stepped forward and the white queen pounced. She struck Ron hard across the head with her stone arm, and he crashed to the floor?Hermione screamed but stayed on her square?the white queen dragged Ron to one side. He looked as if he'd been knocked out. Shaking, Harry moved three spaces to the left. (Seven spaces mentioned altogether--for the 7 school years?) Notice that Ron looked as though knocked out, not still and facedown like Sirius. I think this means that Ron will be taken out of the war, but not killed. We may think that Ron has died but he has not. Hermione and Harry will have to continue in the present war without Ron. It's interesting to note that the Castle and Bishop in chess are considered end game pieces. Vivian From alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk Fri Feb 11 12:37:29 2005 From: alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk (alshainofthenorth) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:37:29 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124345 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "xcpublishing" wrote: > > Incredibly good point. It only took the Marauders what... three > months? to become Animagi? Sirius was twiddling his thumbs a lot > longer than that. Keeping him locked up in 12GP was extremely > stupid - they surely could have found something for him to do, even > out of the country, I'm sure. DD's philosophy seems to be "let's > keep everyone safe by locking them in little dark boxes and maybe LV > will leave them alone". > > Nicky Joe Alshain *clears throat after putting back the snipping scissors, having pruned very thoughtful posts to a measly detail* The best part of three *years*. Britain would be overrun by Death Eaters if Dumbledore took his best fighters out of battle for that long and set them to learn the Animagus transformation. Setting Sirius to do something else would IMO be like having a war horse plowing fields. Yep, it's something to do, but he wouldn't necessarily be any good at it and it wouldn't necessarily relieve his frustration. (In particular, I think he'd have made an even worse teacher than Snape.) Look at all the well-educated engineers, doctors and teachers who arrive to the industrialised world as political refugees and drive taxis or fry burgers for a living. Alshain From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Feb 11 14:14:09 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:14:09 -0000 Subject: Snape's lack of remorse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124346 > Snorky: > Nice try, but sorry, Potioncat. Snorky is still hungry. Potioncat: I suspect we'll end up agreeing to disagree. And here's why: I don't think we'll ever see anything like, "Snape's voice trembled with remorse." And if we do, "I'll" be suspicious. Back to the scene in the hospital wing. Just because he didn't display a feeling of remorse then, doesn't mean he hasn't felt remorse. At that particular moment, he was more likely feeling anger or frustration at Fudge for not paying attention to Dumbledore. I suspect after 14 or more years, the feelings of remorse would appear at night, interrupting sleep, causing him to pace the floors or wander around well after midnight hmmm, maybe I'm on to something. But now that I think about it, what are you looking for? Is the issue that you don't think Snape regrets his past association with the Dark Lord? Or is it that you think he still works for LV? Potioncat From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Feb 11 15:34:16 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:34:16 -0000 Subject: Harry's grief (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124347 > Alla: > > I have an idea. How about... Sirius OR Remus or both of them > dropping up for a visit or few and talking to Harry about what > happened to him? Sure, it would have mean exposing who Mrs. Figg really is , but it seems like a very small price to pay to me.< Pippin: Um, Sirius is a wanted man. And Lupin is presumed guilty just by existing. Umbridge would have no problems at all getting permission to send Dementors to a Muggle area to deal with the WW's most wanted fugitive and/or his werewolf companion. As Lupin explains, Harry could not be moved to Grimmauld Place and the company of his friends until the Secret-Keeper spell was set up and that took time. Harry did suffer, but he would have suffered a lot more if Lupin and Sirius had been thrown into Azkaban, or if the DE's decided that Ron and Hermione had access to useful information and attacked them for it. At the end of OOP, Harry wouldn't have been able to grieve in peace without Dumbledore's explanation. Consider Sirius's last words to Harry, "Harry, take the prophecy, grab Neville and run!" If Harry hadn't been told what the prophecy was and why it was (and wasn't) important, he would have believed that Sirius had come to the MoM to safeguard the prophecy, and that he had failed Sirius by letting it be destroyed. The truth that Sirius came to save Harry is more painful, but in the end more rewarding, because Harry did survive, and he can honor Sirius by continuing to do so. Alla: > Sirius died what ten... fifteen minutes ago? An hour at best. And you think it is very helpful for Harry to hear that Sirius did not treat Kreacher well and that in essense Sirius is to blame for his own death? < Pippin: I think that Dumbledore's words to Harry about Sirius are being misunderstood. Dumbledore says that Sirius is dead because he was "brave, clever and energetic" and such men are not "content to sit at home in hiding while they believe others to be in danger." He does not raise the issue of how Kreacher was treated. It is Harry who does that. "And," whispered Harry, his hands curled in cold fists on his knees, "and Hermione kept telling us to be nice to him--" If Dumbledore had let that stand, he would have wronged Hermione as well as the House Elves. He would also have been a hypocrite, since he himself had given Sirius the same advice. Dumbledore is careful to say that he is not blaming Sirius for having a blind spot about Kreacher, certainly not when the WW at large has a much bigger one, and he makes it clear he does not think Sirius deserved to die. Harry finds that he can't stand to hear Sirius criticized and thinks that Dumbledore doesn't understand how brave Sirius was and how he had suffered, though this was the first thing Dumbledore said. But this is Harry's fear talking, IMO. Harry is trying to control his fear of death with a myth: nobody dies except when they deserve it or they are too good for this world. It is because Harry is still young enough for such childish thoughts that Dumbledore has been reluctant to inform him about the prophecy. But Dumbledore has no choice now--he has just had a brush with his own mortality,and been reminded that he, unlike Voldemort, does not have unlimited time at his disposal. And he must also be thinking that he can't let Harry's grief become another excuse for not telling him. Pippin From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 10:09:11 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:09:11 -0000 Subject: Leadership in the Order (WAS:Dumbledore the General.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124348 > northsouth17 at y... suggested: > > >It might be very interesting to see who will come to lead the Order, > >if DD were to croak. Moody, possibly, though I would love to see > >Arthur or Lupin dealing with shouldering that sort of > >responisibility. Just so long as it isn't Harry or one of the kids > >(Unless, in some highly exceptional circumstances, it's Ron) because > >I think they need to stay at Hogwarts, and, well, honestly, how > >precocious can you get? (Alexander the great notwithstanding:-)) > Janet Anderson: > I especially hope that Dumbledore has let the Order know *who* he wants to > lead them if he is dead. Otherwise chaos will ensue. > Ns: My, good point. The Order dosen't seem to have much in the way of a chain of command, does it? More of an adhocracy under DD, what with everyone being in the meetings. Even if DD hasn't, Moody, or Kingsley, or Arthur, who are used to functioning in a bureaucracy should have realised to set up a heirarchy of some sorts. (Although, I can see them avoiding it percisely beacuse any need for it would mean DD was gone.) Though Moody does mention that he'll be reporting Podmore to DD, so maybe there is some sort of system in place. Janet: > My preference, of the available members, would be either Arthur or Moody. > Each of them has qualities that would make them a good successor to > Dumbledore as leader of the Order. (I won't say "replacement," because no > one could possibly *replace* Dumbledore.) > Lupin hasn't got the leadership potential that Arthur does or the combat > experience that Moody does, and from a credibility standpoint his being a > werewolf would be a drawback. (It would also be inconvenient, since > Voldemort is unlikely to be considerate enough to avoid attacking during a > full moon.) NS: I'm not sure. Moody is a bit too out there, indulging is his own paranoid whims, and often talking about reporting back to DD. Lupin actually takes charge a bit, and rarely does that sort of shifting of authority to DD that the others do. (Although I may be biased. I desperately want Lupin to do something interesting). In the Advance Guard chapter, for example, Moody sends them zigzagging all over England, and he's the one giving Harry commands, but it's Lupin who gives the actual commands to the Order members - To mount their brooms, to take off, and descent. Later, when they're arguing about wheteher Harry should know what's going on, it's Lupin's say that settles the argument - did he really expect Harry not to say that he wanted to know? (Bloomsbury Hardback, pg 86) and again, it's Lupin who ends the debate when he backs Molly in saying that the kids have heard enough. Anyway, before I start going through Lupin's every appearance in the book, I think Lupin might surprise us yet, if saddled with the responsibility, but he wouldn't go out of his way looking for it, and much the same for Arthur, though for him it's complicated by being related to half the order. Janet: > Snape is Right Out. I admire many qualities about Snape (while despising > others), but no way could he lead the Order. Even if the others could deal > with it (and I have my doubts about Lupin and Bill), Harry -- without which > the whole endeavor is hopeless -- would probably go into a tailspin even > worse than anything in OotP. It would be like a combination of Potions > class and Occlumency class with Voldemort thrown in. NS: Besides all that, Snape hasn't really shown any leadership ability that I can recall either. Admittedly, he isn't really in a situation to do so at any point, but I think by charecter he's not really a very take charge sort of person. Impecabbly responsible about his own actions, but alien to the whole concept of taking responsibily for those of others. Northsouth From jmrazo at hotmail.com Fri Feb 11 06:25:17 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 06:25:17 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124349 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Janet Anderson" > > I think this would have been a brilliant idea, except for the fact that > learning to be an animagus apparently takes years of study, especially if > you're doing it part-time as all of the people suggested would be. (Tonks > and Kingsley have full-time jobs at the Ministry; Molly has a full- time job > feeding the Order and making their headquarters habitable.) So it wouldn't > have been very useful except perhaps as a long-term project. > > > Janet Anderson > (trying to catch up) Janet, you bring up a good point. Except that it took so long for the marauders to become animagi because they were all still students with an imperfect understanding of Transfiguration. The order are all skilled and powerful wizards, and with the aid of the Transfiguration professor (notes, tips, and such) I think it would have taken much less time. Even if it would have taken a lot of time, the illusion of helping would still have done Sirius a world of good. Teaching Harry how to be an animagi would have done him some good as well. Sirius really did just want to be useful. The cynic in me thinks that maybe DD didn't do the latter because becoming an animagi would have given Harry other options besides the ones DD normally allows him. phoenixgod2000 From ryokas at hotmail.com Fri Feb 11 17:00:24 2005 From: ryokas at hotmail.com (K. J. D. Moosedance) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:00:24 -0000 Subject: The Weasley's clock In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124350 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jlnbtr" wrote: > I've wondered about these clocks before, while thinking about them I > came to a simple conclusion: There are 2 clocks, one shows the > wherabouts of every member of the Weasley family, the other just > indicates Molly what to do: cook dinner, feed the chickens, make the > beds, everyday household chores. > Juli The Finnish versions have described both, so just to confirm - you're right. - Kizor From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 17:11:52 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:11:52 -0000 Subject: Aurors and Unforgiveable Curses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124351 > > Juli: --- > Back to Aurors, they are the policemen of the WW, their job is to > keep the world safe, and like cops in a gun shot, wizards in a duel > can be killed, but it all depends the way it is done, we know Moody > has killed quite a number of DEs but I doubt he ever tried to AK > them, they just got killed by any other means. It's the difference > between man slaughter and homicide, completly different. so, I > believe Aurors should not use the Unforgiveables, but they have the > rhight to fight back and if the other wizard dies, well tom bad, > that's it. Finwitch: I agree it's about ethics. Now, it is true that there are situations where one must kill in order to survive. Mind the law of nature: eat or be eaten. (I wonder if Dudley misunderstood this and keeps eating? :) There are even times when death is a relief and welcome. (Apparently many Azkaban prisoners think so... Better death than a date with a Dementor) And I do think that Moody didn't use AK to kill anyone - knife, poison, Mandrake, transfiguration into a fish on dry land, strangling... And - er - there are many ways to manipulate people without Imperio. They have Veritaserum for getting truth out unwillingly - You can use Stunning and Mobilicorpus or banishing to get people out of harm's way - or confundus charm if you need someone to lie... What I wonder is if Crouch Sr. authorized it just so he could do it to his son? As to why I think they're truly unforgivable as curses - I mean, if we *only* think of what it causes to the victim (loss off free will, torture, death) the charge is on those - like, you know, murder etc. Why ban the *method* totally, and in a worse way than the same effect by any other means? The clue to that, I believe, is in Bellatrix' taunt to Harry after the er - intent, choice and/or will of crucio. (Attempt would have been so that the curse didn't hit the target, and casting would have been successful). Righteous anger won't do that. You need to ENJOY doing these curses if you're to cast them. Taking pleasure on absolute control over someone, causing pain or killing? And that -- that's what makes them unforgivable - what they require to be cast: you can't cast them in self-defence, not even in righteous anger or in revenge. You can only cast them if you LIKE that sort of thing. And I suppose they're also quite addictive, like the Mirror of Erised... Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 17:49:04 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:49:04 -0000 Subject: fake!moody Imperius Curse was Re: Aurors and Unforgiveable Curses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124352 > > Kemper now: > As all of the students in Harry's DADA class are 5th year and > probably considered minors under Wizard Law, wouldn't the > parents/guardians of these minors need to have signed some sort of > permission slip? Or is allowing your child to attend the school > permission enough? Having a child placed under the Imperius Curse > seems like it would be less permitted than being able to go to > Hogsmead. Finwitch: The lesson was about a) How it feels (recognition) b) How it can be fought off. (defence: defiance) Since a) is actually very pleasant, well... no harm done. (sort of how the Ministry&most of the WW wanted to feel about the whole Voldemort thing... wasn't it?) The effect of Imperio is lack of autonomy, and total loss to your ability to make choices. Asking *anyone* but the student for permission is adding insult to injury. It *must* be their decision. A parent(or anyone else for that matter) has no right to make this kind of decision for another. And as b) is about defying *any* authority, a permissionslip from another authority-figure is just ridiculous. If you cannot so much as make the choice for yourself (as Hermione could of refused, but didn't in the end) it would be *impossible* for you to learn this trick. Finwitch From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Feb 11 18:06:48 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:06:48 -0000 Subject: Harry's grief (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124353 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > Pippin: > Um, Sirius is a wanted man. And Lupin is presumed guilty just > by existing. Umbridge would have no problems at all getting > permission to send Dementors to a Muggle area to deal with the > WW's most wanted fugitive and/or his werewolf companion. It seems to me that you are exaggerating the anti-werewolf legislation. The effects were "it makes it almost impossible for Remus to get a job." That is a far cry from "guilty by existing." We have no evidence whatsoever that Remus' presence at Privet Drive on a "safe" lunar phase would be legal grounds for intervention or even alarm. I think Alla raises a very good point that there seems no reason at all Remus, if not Sirius, could not have visited Harry at Mrs. Figg's. > > As Lupin explains, Harry could not be moved to Grimmauld > Place and the company of his friends until the Secret-Keeper > spell was set up and that took time. Harry did suffer, but he > would have suffered a lot more if Lupin and Sirius had been > thrown into Azkaban, or if the DE's decided that Ron and > Hermione had access to useful information and attacked them > for it. > Once again, I think you are exaggerating the danger to Remus quite a lot. There is no evidence he can be thrown into Azkaban merely for being a werewolf or for being in a muggle area when he is not under the effect of his curse. As for Ron and Hermione, I see no reason they could not have visited with Remus, Tonks, and/or Moody as chaperones/protectors. That would have satisfied the need for security while alleviating Harry's suffering. Yet, it seems to be one more bit of evidence that Dumbledore really is clueless when it comes to even the most basic aspects of caring for Harry emotionally. Lupinlore From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 18:10:40 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:10:40 -0000 Subject: Harry's grief (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124354 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > > > > > Betsy: > > > > I know folks would like to see Harry laying out on some couch, > > talking about his feelings and having a good cry, but seriously, who > > wants to read about that? Finwitch: Well, I got an idea: A desperate!Harry on a quest, sending every owl he can with letters telling Sirius' story, writing 'Sirius Black is innocent' on every Wall and Floor at Hogwarts... doing it with stubbornness without peer - and he'd say, if asked what he's doing: Cleaning. A mad grief, a desperate, taking all mesures to at least clear Sirius' name. A need as strong as when he wrote to Sirius about his scar - to write those lines. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 18:45:46 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:45:46 -0000 Subject: Harry's grief (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124355 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: Yet, it seems to be one > more bit of evidence that Dumbledore really is clueless when it comes > to even the most basic aspects of caring for Harry emotionally. Finwitch: I agree. And come to think of that... Dumbledore keeps talking about choices, and while still holding abilities in regard, scoffs at the idea of important blood - but 'I put my trust on your mother's blood'. Why blood? Why not her Choice, Sirius (after Sirius was shown innocent, of course). (as I recall, both chose Sirius to be Harry's guardian...) And indeed - it seems to me that Dumbledore, in attempt to protect Harry's life, is endangering his soul - killing it slowly as I see... (as the Dementor-attack should make clear to anyone). Trelawney - as much as Harry dislikes it - is giving Harry something that might even have been of help: You will die. This is what Harry realises (in part) behind a gravestone: He will kill me anyway. I think I want to die fighting. Dumbledore does same to Sirius. (for protection, he says). Did he finally figure it out, and goes on his way telling Tom Riddle: There are worse things than death. You never learned that. I wonder if Dumbledore has fully realised that... I just wish *someone* would start shooting his own words back to him! Maybe Sirius will return. Maybe the Quibbler was right and Sirius Black IS/WAS a singer named Stubby Boardman. Stubby being a version of Sirius who's been beyond, and returned - not only from beyond but in time as well - in flesh and with a Phoenix. Because of the VERY strict rules, (Which I believe are older than Wizards; you just DO NOT mess with time), he cannot alter anything we've read about. (But I like to think that Hobgoblins songs were about choosing right over easy, and these songs helped Sirius Black defy his family) OH yes... and Stubby will capture Pettigrew (I wondered where the rat was - I mean, after GoF, Pettigrew hasn't been SEEN anywhere...) The other hobgoblins - being goblins, went to Gringotts... If something *pleasant* will interrupt Harry's existing at Dursleys, how about getting Sirius *back* - if under another name. And then he goes to live with Sirius - who now is VERY concerned over Harry's soul and spirit rather than life - and if someone starts talking about 'protecting Harry's life' he'd say: "I certainly hope Harry won't seek immortality, and thus be doomed to a fate much worse than death". And teach Harry to answer those scared crys of "You'll die!" with a positive, accepting manner: "Good. I'll finally see my parents again", but most importantly - guard Harry's soul. (BTW, I think a Gringotts Goblin - who was also your friend - would make excellent Secret Keeper). Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 19:03:28 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:03:28 -0000 Subject: Snape's plant imagery In-Reply-To: <00a401c50fd6$2a05d350$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124356 > > Carol: > >> That image caught my eye, too, and it seemed to suggest neglect on > > the part of the adults in young Severus's life--his parents, his > > head of house, maybe even Dumbledore. I think the boy Severus had > > enormous potential,...edit... but that's what the image of the > > pallid, neglected plant suggests to me, and I find it very sad. > >> > >> But the absence of light may also, as you suggest, indicate that he > >> was raised to believe in the values of the Dark side,.... Finwitch: You know - neither did Sirius. Sirius' family was just as - er - filthy *Black* as the Snapes. Yet, Sirius chose Light. And I think *that* was why James Potter trusted him so. Sirius had the courage to defy his entire family for the side of Light. James Potter's family had the opposite idea - and James agreed with them. In that he was Snape's opposite. The one who wasn't challenged. Sirius, however, rose above family. (Bet James admired him for that. I know I do.) If Snape or a MAlfoy or another such ever said - ever tried to excuse his choices with that: "But my whole family..." James would say: "OH yeah? Look at Sirius! He is a Black, you know - but he chose my side. CHOSE to live decently. He's not hiding behind what his Daddy says...". Finwitch From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 19:18:49 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:18:49 -0000 Subject: Turning Point? (was Re: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124357 > Lupinlore: > I agree, Nora. Unfortunately, I am rather torn as to what we should > expect in HBP about these issues. While, as I have said in other > posts, I would love for some time to be spent dealing with all the > issues this raises, I'm not totally confident that will be the case. > > In HBP JKR has set herself a great challenge as a writer. That is, > how will she deal with all of the ramifications of OOTP? Will this > become an occasion of change and character development? Or will OOTP > be more or less swept under the rug with a few vague references to > "missing Sirius" and "wondering about Dumbledore" while the plot > blazes forward toward whatever preordained end JKR has in mind? In > other words, will OOTP be a true turning point in the series, or will > it just be "the bad year that was once upon a time," with no real or > lasting change coming from it? > > I would very much like for things to be the former. But I'm just not > sure. I give each possibility (and I acknowledge there is a spectrum > between them) about a 50% chance. Neri: I'm not afraid for a moment that OOTP will be swept under the rug. I think JKR set up things in OotP so Harry will find himself with no grownup he can really trust. He cannot even trust the memory of his parents anymore. He cannot trust even his own mind, or his "saving people" instinct, which until OotP had always led him to do the right thing. It seems obvious to me that JKR set things for HBP. My guess is that she will use all that happened in OotP in order to isolate Harry in HBP, just at the time the war really escalates. I also think that the mind link will be central to the plot at least in the first half of HBP. JKR will use it to isolate Harry from the students in Hogwarts too. They think he's a hero now, but they will always be afraid the Voldy is going to take control over him at any moment. And he himself might decide to disconnect himself from the Order and the war effort, in order not to betray critical information to Voldy through the link. In the climax of HBP, Harry will probably have to decide whether to act upon insufficient knowledge and go saving one of his dear ones (my bet: DD or Ron) despite what happened with Sirius. Neri From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 19:23:22 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:23:22 -0000 Subject: On negotiating with giants, etc. (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124358 > Alla: > > I don't know, Susan. Fifteen years is a really long time, IMO. Sure, > Dumbledore was in the minority, sure the majority of WW did not want > to believe that Voldemort will ever return. Finwitch: Yes, well, OOP showed us that. And as it was Trelawney giving the prophecy.. But, Dumbledore must have done something (because the Ministry had a recording). But all in all, I think he's LATE. He's the master of explaining, a good talker... but he's LATE in action. Something I imagine Sirius might say, looking at that time - from beyond - When Voldemort was first defeated, innocence was then imprisoned. Finwitch From jferer at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 20:23:26 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:23:26 -0000 Subject: Aurors and Unforgiveable Curses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124359 Finwitch:"And - er - there are many ways to manipulate people without Imperio. They have Veritaserum for getting truth out unwillingly - You can use Stunning and Mobilicorpus or banishing to get people out of harm's way - or confundus charm if you need someone to lie..." That's the only one I don't agree with. If an Auror can get a prisoner to `come along quietly' with Imperio, that's clearly a more ethical choice than many of the alternatives. The Auror ought to report when he used it, on who, why, and what the target person was made to do. I certainly also think that the use of Veritaserum has ethical pitfalls at least as serious as those surrounding Imperio. What makes Confundus better than Imperio? Why is Avada Kedavra a less "nice" way of killing someone than any other way? We never saw that *any* use of an "Unforgivable," ever, is an automatic life sentence with no excuses, although the word "Unforgivable" itself certainly seems it's that way. Crouch!Moody described it this way: ""Now. . . those three curses - Avada Kedavra, Imperius, and Cruciatus - are known as the Unforgivable Curses. The use of any one of them on a fellow human being is enough to earn a life sentence in Azkaban." Enough. Not automatic, invariable, use it and you're gone, but enough. We only have the word of a psycho, Bellatrix, that evil intent is necessary for the casting of Unforgivables, and that only for Crucio, in many ways the cruelest of all. Suppose Harry, instead of his half-hearted Crucio, had been able to use Imperio to get Bellatrix to walk back to the death room and join her fellow DE's in custody? What was wrong with Crouch!Moody using Imperio to teach students how to resist it? Black Magic is a matter of symbolism and intent, according to the Laws of Magic. No evil intent, no evil. From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 20:38:25 2005 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:38:25 -0000 Subject: Turning Point? (was Re: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124360 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > Neri: > I'm not afraid for a moment that OOTP will be swept under the rug. I > think JKR set up things in OotP so Harry will find himself with no > grownup he can really trust. He cannot even trust the memory of his > parents anymore. He cannot trust even his own mind, or his "saving > people" instinct, which until OotP had always led him to do the right > thing. > Neri I think you're right about Harry not having any adults to turn to. This is the last paragraph of OotP. "Harry nodded. He somehow could not find words to tell them what it meant to him, to see them all ranged there, on his side. Instead, he smiled, raised a hand in farewell, turned around and led the way out of the station towards the sunlit street, with Uncle Vernon, Aunt Petunia and Dudley hurrying along in his wake." What I see is Harry realizing that he has a great deal of support, and as he turns and leads the way, he shoulders the burden of leadership. It's at this point, that we see Harry take his place as the alpha male, leader of the band. And his friends are committed to supporting him. From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Feb 11 21:32:35 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:32:35 -0000 Subject: Turning Point? (was Re: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124361 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "whizbang" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > > > I think you're right about Harry not having any adults to turn to. > > This is the last paragraph of OotP. > > "Harry nodded. He somehow could not find words to tell them > what it meant to him, to see them all ranged there, on > his side. Instead, he smiled, raised a hand in farewell, > turned around and led the way out of the station towards > the sunlit street, with Uncle Vernon, Aunt Petunia and Dudley > hurrying along in his wake." > > What I see is Harry realizing that he has a great deal of support, and > as he turns and leads the way, he shoulders the burden of leadership. > It's at this point, that we see Harry take his place as the alpha > male, leader of the band. And his friends are committed to supporting > him. Errr, I'm sorry, but your theory about Harry not having any adults to turn to is totally contradicted by the quote and your explanation of it. If he has all these wonderful adults supporting him how can he not have an adult to turn to? Neri is implying that Harry will totally isolate himself. THAT would mean not having an adult to turn to. Assuming some sort of leadership role DOES NOT imply that Harry couldn't turn to one or the other of the adults. In fact, turning to them and accepting their support would be crucial for his leadership to be successful. Now, if you're saying he can't rely on the adults to fix his problems for him, that's true. But that isn't saying much. No teenager can rely on an adult to fix their problems. Most teenagers can turn to adults for support while dealing with their problems however. This is something that Harry has not really been able to do. If OOTP changes that, so much for the better. Lupinlore From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 21:44:44 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:44:44 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124362 >>Nora: >I'm going to venture the argument that the cold-blooded proposition is decidedly not in JKR's Stimmung.< Betsy: Oh, I completely agree. I don't think Dumbledore or JKR are going for the cold-blooded, "good, now that the unstable fool is out of the way..." I was just answering the rather cold-blooded, "the death of Sirius harms the weapon that is Harry," with a similarly cold-blooded answer. I don't think JKR wrote with either argument in mind. I think she's cares very much about Harry's emotional state - that it's important to the story and not to be brushed aside. And I also think Dumbledore reflects that care. >>Nora: >What I would argue is that Dumbledore has practically self-admitted (as I believe Alla has dragged up some of the canon for) that he has not always really *understood* what is/was really needed for emotional well-being.< Betsy: And this is where I disagree. The canon brought up by Alla speaks, IMO, to a completely different emotional worry. (One that strangely enough, tends to get poo-pooed by the very people who argue Dumbledore's deficiency of heart.) Dumbledore is reluctant to tell Harry that it looks like he'll need to become a killer. This is something that is definitely defined by both JKR, Dumbledore, and even Harry, as a very bad thing. Yes, Dumbledore's unwillingness to share the prophecy with Harry resulted in Sirius's death. Dumbledore admits this. And he admits that Harry may have been ready for this truth earlier than Dumbledore was willing to allow. But I think his reluctance is meant to be understood. Harry's desperate need for the prophecy to mean Neville, his horror at the idea he will have to kill, illustrates exactly how large a burden this is, how much Harry does not want it, and why Dumbledore delayed telling Harry about it. As to Harry's general emotional state, Dumbledore showed himself concerned with this in the very first chapter of the very first book when he explains why Harry needs to be left with the Dursleys. "Exactly," said Dumbledore, looking very seriously over the top of his half-moon glasses. "It would be enough to turn any boy's head. Famous before he can walk and talk! Famous for something he won't even remember! Can't you see how much better off he'll be, growing up away from all that until he's ready to take it?" (SS paperback p.13) Skip forward ten years and Harry is well grounded enough, sure enough of himself, to argue with the Sorting Hat and get himself into Gryffindor. Whether he would have wound up there without arguing or not, it shows a great strength of character, and a healthy sense of self-worth, to argue with a magical item you don't fully understand to make sure you're not stuck where you don't want to go. Harry's rejection of Malfoy and acceptence of Ron speaks to a similar strength of character. So though the Dursleys provided a less than ideal home, Dumbledore's instinct to keep Harry unspoiled seems to pay off. Later on in the book, Dumbldore again shows himself concerned with Harry's emotional well-being when he confronts him about the Mirror of Erised. By the end of the first book, Dumbledore has set himself up as Harry's guide and counslor. It becomes the custom for Harry to turn to Dumbledore when he is entirely overwhelmed, and it becomes the custom for Dumbledore to pick Harry up, brush him off and set him back on the correct path. So the pattern goes, and I think most of the readers are quite happy with it until we get to the end of GoF. Suddenly the story gets darker. Harry witnesses the murder of his schoolmate (someone older and stronger than him, as far as Harry is concerned), the return of a mortal enemy so powerful the entire WW refuses to say his name, and he barely escapes with his life. I'm new enough to this list to not know how Dumbledore's handling of Harry at the end of GoF went over with folks, but I know for myself, I thought Dumbledore stepped up and handled things rather well. (Prepare for some mighty canon!) ************** "We can leave that till morning, can't we Dumbledore?" said Sirius harshly. He had put a hand on Harry's shoulder. "Let him have a sleep. Let him rest." Harry felt a rush of gratitude toward Sirius, but Dumbledore took no notice of Sirius's words. He leaned forward towards Harry. Very unwillingly, Harry raised his head and looked into those blue eyes. "If I thought I could help you," Dumbledore said gently, "by putting you into an enchanted sleep and allowing you to postpone the moment when you would have to think about what has happened tonight, I would do it. But I know better. Numbing the pain for a while will make it worse when you finally feel it. You have shown bravery beyond anything I could have expected of you. I ask you to tell us what happened." The phoenix let out one soft, quavering note. It shivered in the air, and Harry felt as though a drop of hot liquid had slipped down his throat into his stomach, warming him, and strengthening him. [...] It was even a relief; he felt almost as though something poisonous were being extracted from him. It was costing him every bit of determination he had to keep talking, yet he sensed that once he had finished, he would feel better. (GoF Scholastic hardback pp. 694-695) **************** Betsy: Harry is emotionally cared for, once again, by Dumbledore. And it's interesting to me that Dumbledore chose the hard route of making Harry get through the difficult bit, when Sirius would have let him sleep. Dumbledore knew it was best to drain the wound, as it were, even though it might at first be painful. So far so good, but then we come to OotP. There's a problem right from the get go. It's not that Harry is still having nightmares. Perfectly understandable under the circumstances. Dumbledore set Harry on the path to healing; he didn't give him a miracle cure. It's not that Harry is cut off from his friends. He's getting plenty of letters from Ron, Hermione, and even Sirius. It's that Harry *knows* there's action going on and he wants to be a part of it. He is highly resentful at being cut off from the action. This is further illustrated by his returning frustration and unhappiness when he's brought to Grimmauld Place. Harry hoped he'd get in on the action. Instead he's set to cleaning. He's surrounded by his friends, his Godfather, Lupin and Molly, all of the most comforting people he knows in the WW (except Hagrid) and Harry is *still* having problems. This is where Dumbledore makes his mistake. I'm sure he recognized that Harry wanted in on the action. Harry has always been a doer. He's much more comfortable in the thick of it than waiting by the sidelines. But for Harry to get in on the action he'd need to know about the prophecy. And if Harry knew about the prophecy he wouldn't rest until he knew what it said. And Dumbledore just doesn't want Harry to bare this burden. Dumbledore is not clueless, nor is he uncaring, about Harry's emotional state. He's made Harry's emotional well-being his priority from the beginning. In a sense, Dumbledore cared too much. He's so worried about how the news of the prophecy will hit Harry (who'd just gone through a terrible ordeal barely two months ago) that he does everything he can to keep Harry out of the loop. So Harry, doing what he does best, bullies his way back into the loop, just as he did in PS/SS. Only this time, someone actually dies. Dumbledore knew better. His actions in CoS shows that. Instead of trying to keep Harry out of harms way, Dumbledore gave him a way to get help when he found himself in trouble. So yes, Dumbledore did make a mistake. But it wasn't over the supposedly weak state of Harry's emotional well-being. Really, it was underestimating Harry's emotional strength. Betsy, who blushes at the length of this post and wonders if anyone will actually read this far. From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Feb 11 21:53:37 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:53:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124363 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > > As to Harry's general emotional state, Dumbledore showed himself > concerned with this in the very first chapter of the very first book > when he explains why Harry needs to be left with the Dursleys. > > "Exactly," said Dumbledore, looking very seriously over the top of > his half-moon glasses. "It would be enough to turn any boy's head. > Famous before he can walk and talk! Famous for something he won't > even remember! Can't you see how much better off he'll be, growing > up away from all that until he's ready to take it?" (SS paperback > p.13) > > Skip forward ten years and Harry is well grounded enough, sure enough > of himself, to argue with the Sorting Hat and get himself into > Gryffindor. Whether he would have wound up there without arguing or > not, it shows a great strength of character, and a healthy sense of > self-worth, to argue with a magical item you don't fully understand > to make sure you're not stuck where you don't want to go. Harry's > rejection of Malfoy and acceptence of Ron speaks to a similar > strength of character. So though the Dursleys provided a less than > ideal home, Dumbledore's instinct to keep Harry unspoiled seems to > pay off. > If this was in ANY WAY a part of Dumbledore's reasoning in leaving Harry at the Dursleys and not intervening to make things better then Dumbledore is a cold-blooded accessory to child-abuse, nothing more and nothing less. The Dursleys were NOT "less than ideal," they were child abusers and nothing more than an unmitigated disaster. It's for that that Dumbledore badly deserves to suffer consequences. Lupinlore From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 22:02:49 2005 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:02:49 -0000 Subject: Turning Point? (was Re: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124364 > Errr, I'm sorry, but your theory about Harry not having any adults to > turn to is totally contradicted by the quote and your explanation of > it. If he has all these wonderful adults supporting him how can he > not have an adult to turn to? > > Lupinlore Harry has support among all ages, but now he understands that he is no longer responsible for just himself and his friends. He's shouldered the burden of leadership that being the subject of the prophesy has dealt to him. Whether or not he is Dumbledore's heir, it looks as though he will be Dumbledore's successor and the baton is passing. This doesn't mean that Harry may not try to isolate himself. He may. But he can't escape this burden. Dumbledore tried to protect him from it as long as possible, maybe too long. His friends, old and young, are his support, his advisors, his comrades. But only Harry can save them all. From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Feb 11 22:11:04 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:11:04 -0000 Subject: Turning Point? (was Re: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124365 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "whizbang" wrote: > > > > Harry has support among all ages, but now he understands that he is no > longer responsible for just himself and his friends. He's shouldered > the burden of leadership that being the subject of the prophesy has > dealt to him. Whether or not he is Dumbledore's heir, it looks as > though he will be Dumbledore's successor and the baton is passing. > > This doesn't mean that Harry may not try to isolate himself. He may. > But he can't escape this burden. Dumbledore tried to protect him > from it as long as possible, maybe too long. > > His friends, old and young, are his support, his advisors, his > comrades. But only Harry can save them all. Yes, I agree. But I repeat, how in the world (Wizarding and Muggle) does that translate into not having an adult to turn to? Once again, you have argued exactly the opposite. Lupinlore From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 22:28:42 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:28:42 -0000 Subject: Harry's grief (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124366 >>Alla: >Sirius died what ten... fifteen minutes ago? An hour at best. And you think it is very helpful for Harry to hear that Sirius did not treat Kreacher well and that in essense Sirius is to blame for his own death?< Betsy: I think Dumbledore is following the same pattern set forward in GoF: drain the poison quickly, before it has a chance to fester. As Pippin pointed out in message 124347, Harry is the one who brought Keacher up. And Harry was the one who started down the path of, "it's Kreacher's fault Sirius is dead." Dumbledore pulls Harry away from that path, explaining that Kreacher has been twisted by the wizards he served. And he reminds Harry that it is indeed him, Dumbledore, who is ultimately responsible for Sirius's death. By keeping the prophecy a secret, Dumbledore set in motion the events that culminated in Sirius falling through the veil in the DoM. Was what Dumbledore said polite? No, of course not. But it was loving -- just as a mother correcting her child is loving. Dumbledore takes on the ugly duty of making sure Harry does not place the blame for the debacle on the wrong person (or house elf). And Dumbledore was the only person able to have that emotionally draining, yet entirely necessary, conversation with Harry. McGonagall could not have done it; she's not close enough to either Harry or Sirius to have filled that role gracefully. Hermione could not have done it; she's too young for Harry to give her that kind of authority. Molly could not have done it; Harry holds her too far at arms length for that sort of conversation to even begin. Hagrid might have been able to do it. He's got the earthy wisdom and love for Harry to help Harry through this most difficult process. But Hagrid didn't have enough information to hand, and it wasn't Hagrid's mistake. But Dumbledore had the perspective to see what exactly went wrong. He has a genuine love for Harry, and he has Harry's trust. Harry needed to know the truth, and he needed to know it right then. Because Harry's anger at Kreacher would only have lasted so long before he turned all that bitter rage on himself. Harry needed to be reminded that Sirius was an adult, perfectly able to make decisions on his own. I don't think Harry is going to be all sunshine and happiness in the opening of HBP. He still has some major anger issues to work through, and I imagine he may still have some guilt. Not nearly as much, though, thanks to Dumbledore. I don't think it's a bad thing that Harry realizes that Dumbledore is not perfect. To defeat Voldemort Harry needs to become a man, emotionally. And I think Dumbledore has done the best he can to help Harry along that path, even when the conversations needed were not easy. Betsy From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 22:30:47 2005 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:30:47 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124367 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy, who blushes at the length of this post and wonders if anyone > will actually read this far. Are you kidding? That was brilliant. I'm not sure if I agree about Harry "bullying" his way back into the action, though. There seems to be a pattern of: 'keep Harry uninformed and out of the action' 'the action comes to Harry who seeks adult intervention but can't ever seem to get any help from a grownup when the feathers really hit the fan' in all the books, including OotP. How would telling Harry the prophesy sooner have helped keep Sirius alive? No matter what kind of confrontation with Voldemort Harry got into, Sirius would have run to save him and risked his life in the process. Even telling Harry his concern that Voldemort might try to spy on Dumbledore through the connection he shares with Harry would probably not have done much good. After the attack on Mr. Weasley, it's Ginny who reaches and reassures Harry in a way that I doubt Dumbledore could have done. So what am I saying. Hmmmm...... I'm not sure that telling Harry the prophesy sooner would have saved Sirius. And while Dumbledore admits to overprotecting, if not underestimating Harry, I'm not yet ready to concede that it was a mistake. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 22:42:50 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:42:50 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124368 >>Lupinlore: >If this was in ANY WAY a part of Dumbledore's reasoning in leaving Harry at the Dursleys and not intervening to make things better the Dumbledore is a cold-blooded accessory to child-abuse, nothing more and nothing less. >The Dursleys were NOT "less than ideal," they were child abusers and nothing more than an unmitigated disaster. It's for that that Dumbledore badly deserves to suffer consequences.< Betsy: Yeah. Folks keep saying that. Funny thing is - they're never able to quote much proof. And I'm not talking about Harry hating life at the Dursleys, and I'm not talking about their less than stellar behavior (cupboard, bars on window, excessive chores, etc.). Quote me something from canon that shows just how screwed up and damaged Harry is because of his life at the Dursleys. Because frankly, Harry has a core of strength that enables him to eschew the nasty popular kid (Malfoy), or the easy route (screw the Stone, I'm going to bed - and fine, stick me in Slytherin, 'cause Muggles suck!). And he's able to endure some fantastically horrible peer treatment (every single year when fellow students decide he's crazy and/or evil), and a totally scary teacher (his boggart was *not* Snape). I'm not saying he's this amazingly strong *because* of the Dursleys, but if you argue that Harry is a victim of child abuse, you really need to be able to point to some scars - physical or emotional, if you have any hope of making your case. Betsy, who admits to getting a little snarky about this particular subject From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 11 23:50:45 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:50:45 -0000 Subject: Snape's lack of remorse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124369 curlyhornedsnorkack wrote: > > I have seen loads of post about Snape's (sorry, Professor Snape's) turn of heart, but I just can't find a single line in the books to support the argument that Snape has any remorse for being a death eater (or for being nasty). In at least one scene, I notice the opposite. > The Following is a quote from GOF, when Snape shows Fudge the death eater's mark: > > "Snape strode forward, past Dumbledore, pulling up the left sleeve of his robes as he went. He stuck out his forearm and showed it to Fudge, who recoiled." > > Snape's actions don't sound like those of a man who is at all ashamed or embarrassed about his past. Carol responds: As other posters have pointed out, this is not a time for remorse. Fudge is being recalcitrant, stubbornly refusing to believe that Voldemort has returned, and Snape is presenting him with irrefutable evidence. It's a very deliberate act, and IMO, very courageous, especially if Fudge doesn't already know that Snape is a reformed Death Eater. Remorse is neither needed nor appropriate. curlyhornedsnorkack wrote: > In the scene with Karkarov in the classroom, he doesn't seem to have any empathy with his fellow ex-deatheaters. Carol responds: Karkaroff is behaving inappropriately and his timing is off. He should not have entered Snape's classroom to talk about the Dark Mark; he should have talked to Snape alone in his office or living quarters. Snape quite understandably doesn't want students, especially HRH, to know that he's a former Death Eater, but Karkaroff's selfish concern for his own safety makes him careless and inconsiderate of Snape's needs. Later Karkaroff reveals himself as a coward while Snape, in contrast, again shows his courage: "Flee, then, Flee!" Snape says. "I will remain at Hogwarts." Snape says he'll cover for Karkaroff, but that's the extent of his empathy; not being a coward himself, he has no patience with cowardice in others, regardless of their shared danger. Carol, wondering why Karkaroff, who betrayed his Death Eater friends (Snape included) and now wants to save his own skin, deserves empathy from anybody From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 00:21:13 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 00:21:13 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124371 >>Betsy, who blushes at the length of this post and wonders if anyone will actually read this far.< >>Whizbang: >Are you kidding? That was brilliant.< Betsy: *blushes even more* Thanks. :) >>Whizbang: >I'm not sure if I agree about Harry "bullying" his way back into the action, though. There seems to be a pattern of: 'keep Harry uninformed and out of the action' 'the action comes to Harry who seeks adult intervention but can't ever seem to get any help from a grownup when the feathers really hit the fan' in all the books, including OotP.< Betsy: I wasn't trying to imply intent. (So yeah, poor word choice on my part. ) I was trying to say that Harry always manages to find himself in the center of the action. Which, granted, is the purpose of the books, but Harry's character is not conducive to him just sitting by the sidelines. For example, he could have chosen to not go after the Stone in PS/SS. Or he could have left Ginny's rescue to Lockhart. Those were options. Of course, it was impossible for Harry to choose those options. He has to *do* something. Harry cannot merely sit by and observe the action, he has to get his hands dirty. And Dumbledore recognizes this about him. So does Hermione for that matter. In fact, it's actually *doing* something that seems to bring Harry peace. He's nervous or scared or anxious right up to the moment of action. But once he's in the action, a strange sort of calm generally seems to take over. (I haven't actually checked canon for this, but the first task in the Triwizard tournament springs to mind, and I think it's a fairly typical example of Harry's reactions.) >>Whizbang: >How would telling Harry the prophesy sooner have helped keep Sirius alive? No matter what kind of confrontation with Voldemort Harry got into, Sirius would have run to save him and risked his life in the process.< Betsy: I think the general assumption is that if Harry knew about the prophecy he wouldn't have been so curious about the DoM dream and he would have learned Occlumency or just ignored the dream. Plus, he would have been more alert to Voldemort's schemes. Of course, Voldemort may have chosen a different plan of attack to draw Harry to the DoM, so who knows? And I agree with you that Sirius would *never* sit safely at home if Harry is in danger. >>Whizbang: >So what am I saying. Hmmmm...... I'm not sure that telling Harry the prophesy sooner would have saved Sirius. And while Dumbledore admits to overprotecting, if not underestimating Harry, I'm not yet ready to concede that it was a mistake.< Betsy: I don't know either. Would knowledge of the prophecy at the beginning of OotP been too much pressure on Harry? I think that was Dumbledore's original worry. Dumbledore says he was mistaken to think that, but it's impossible to know what Harry's reaction would have been. I'm generally of the mind that knowledge is better than ignorance. But what if knowledge will sacrifice innocence? I think that was the line Dumbledore was walking, and I certainly don't envy him that particular decision. Betsy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 00:29:13 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 00:29:13 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124372 Lupinlore: If this was in ANY WAY a part of Dumbledore's reasoning in leaving Harry at the Dursleys and not intervening to make things better the Dumbledore is a cold-blooded accessory to child-abuse, nothing more and nothing less. The Dursleys were NOT "less than ideal," they were child abusers and nothing more than an unmitigated disaster. It's for that that Dumbledore badly deserves to suffer consequences.< Betsy: Yeah. Folks keep saying that. Funny thing is - they're never able to quote much proof. And I'm not talking about Harry hating life at the Dursleys, and I'm not talking about their less than stellar behavior (cupboard, bars on window, excessive chores, etc.). Quote me something from canon that shows just how screwed up and damaged Harry is because of his life at the Dursleys. snip. I'm not saying he's this amazingly strong *because* of the Dursleys, but if you argue that Harry is a victim of child abuse, you really need to be able to point to some scars - physical or emotional, if you have any hope of making your case. Alla: It appears though that no proof which I am able to quote will be convincing enough for you, Betsy. For the simple reason that you and me are judging abuse by completely different criteria. If for you Harry hating his life at Dursleys and what you called Dursleys "less than stellar behaviour" is not a proof of abuse, I am not sure what else to say. The fact that Harry survived life at Dursleys is thanks to Harry and to Harry only, IMO. Dursleys' intent matters, NOT whether Harry has scars from it ( and I will certainly not concede that he does not have scars - as I argued earlier his mistrust of adults is typical of the abuse victim, IMO) "She doesn't love me," said Harry at once. "She doesn't give a damn- " - OOP, p.836. If this is not a scar from abuse, I don't know what is. And I wanted to quote again Phoenixgod's analogy from his 123415 post: "Regardless of whether or not Harry has transcended the limitations of his upbringing, it does not excuse the actions that put him in the situation in the first place. If I throw you into a room with axe wielding maniac suspecting that you're a master martial artist and will survive the encounter, that doesn't mean that my actions were right. Dumbledore abandoned Harry to people that none of us would want to know or live with. That is wrong regardless of Harry's mental resilience." Just my opinion of course, Alla From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 00:40:02 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 00:40:02 -0000 Subject: DD, LV, Chess and War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124373 Valky: And I want to know why Snape keeps turning up as a black piece. In PS/SS - Snape followed Quirrel around but DD was never reported to about it. In COS - The opening move to the Parseltongue Harry!SlytherinHeir Rumour. In POA - One of the pieces cornering the WhiteKnight!Sirius in his danger spot. In GOF - The first one where he appears to be *directed* by DD. In OOtP - There is now a big question mark over Snapes side. He moves around in the Whitepiece Home squares but is not *all that obviously* part of their strategy of attack. Any explanations? Becky: Just to add my few thoughts to this. My chess playing experience is fairly limited due to the fact that my brother well and truly beats me every time we play (just to point out for my own reputation, my playing isn't all that bad, but his *is* all that good. He has an impressive record for 19 yrs old - Primary school champion 3 times, Island Junior Champion twice, high school champion more times than I care to count and he has beaten the Island Adult champion before he became too ill to play regularly. Highly depressing for me then ) however, I will try to say something helpful. According to my brother, the way I play is obvious and open. He is *not* obvious. He can clearly see which way I'm looking, where I'm expecting attack. He gives me good reasons to think those things, when all the time it is a completely different piece that is going to do the damage. It's very rarely, if ever, a pawn that does the final damage, but in the case of HP we are saying that he will reach the other side to become another queen. It is very often this piece that is my downfall. I don't realise it until I can't do anything about it. However, your question was about SS. Again, I go back to the idea that the final moves come from somewhere unexpected, a piece that either doesn't outwardly appear to be doing much or a piece that doesn't seem to have a place in the final moves at all. It is that piece that becomes the decider. That piece is the one that ruins any of my plans. It may look to me as though it has cornered something, but in actual fact it is there protecting something else, either by physically blocking the `something else' or by diverting attention from it. (I'm normally sat there saying 'what is the deal with that piece!!', much like the theories about whether SS is ESE! or not). My guess is that this is the role SS is playing. He turns up as a black piece because of this blocking idea, to `through you off the scent' sort of idea. Just as an example of this in action, in PS I don't understand what he was doing. His trailing of Quirrell doesn't appear to work for either side. From the light side point of view, he doesn't look to be reporting to DD and would appear to have blown any cover as Spy!Snape. From the dark side point of view, he gives the impression of working for DD. You (Vaulky) seem to be saying that he turns up here as a black piece, but I would say that, from canon, it would seem to render him useless to both sides! However, I do believe him to be working for DD and I do believe that in some way he *will* set the final moves up. He will be instrumental. He is clearly hiding something and I'm sure that he is working in a protective role (probably by spying or similar, judging by his reports in OOTP). I think he will be that deciding piece. He won't win it though, that has to be Pawn/Queen!Harry (well duh!). Becky who hopes this is useful and makes sense! From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 00:49:03 2005 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 00:49:03 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124374 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy: > Yeah. Folks keep saying that. Funny thing is - they're never able > to quote much proof. And I'm not talking about Harry hating life at > the Dursleys, and I'm not talking about their less than stellar > behavior (cupboard, bars on window, excessive chores, etc.). Quote > me something from canon that shows just how screwed up and damaged > Harry is because of his life at the Dursleys. snip I'm not saying he's this amazingly strong *because* of > the Dursleys, but if you argue that Harry is a victim of child abuse, > you really need to be able to point to some scars - physical or > emotional, if you have any hope of making your case. > > Betsy, who admits to getting a little snarky about this particular > subject Whiz: Perhaps it's not the subject, per se. We have no clue what was in the letter to the Dursleys. For all we know, Dumbledore may have told Petunia not to tell Harry about his parents and to do everything possible to prevent him from discovering his abilities. Worrying about the neighbors may well be a symptom of worrying about Death Eaters or Voldemort finding Harry under her roof. Whenever Harry shows signs of unusual behavior, he gets locked in a cupboard under the stairs and kept on a starvation diet. (BTW, think there's a connection from the cupboard to the London Underground? ;) ) Why does Petunia want to squash the magic out of Harry? Or is that just what she told Vernon? The pattern of keeping Harry uninformed, if not frankly lied to, continued at Hogwarts. It was not a Privet Dr. phenomenon. Was this part of Dumbledore's instructions? It does seem as though, for good or evil, keeping Harry uninformed and unaware of his own potential is part of Dumbledore's plan to protect him. Harry is not only hunted by DEs and Voldemort, he also has Voldemort's transferred powers. How does one protect a child from that double whammy? I'm sure Dumbledore would give anything for Harry's childhood to have been kinder, but circumstances being what they were....... Until we know what was in the letter, I think we have to wait on judging Petunia. Dudley's and Vernon's behavior is deplorable. I have no excuse for them. But, they may provide the smoke screen that helps to keep Harry unnoticed by DEs. The goal of all of this is to protect Harry. Petunia knows what happened to her sister. She may not love Harry, but we have no idea what impact Lily's place in the magical world had on her family. Why does Harry have no grandparents? Why does she so spoil Dudley? Petunia also seems to believe that Harry is capable of blowing up the house. She was alarmed to realize that whoever sent the Hogwarts letter knew where Harry slept and presumably, how he was being treated. What often surprises me is that Harry was allowed to go to school. As for Dumbledore, it wouldn't surprise me if he did leave instructions to that effect. For reasons I don't understand, Dumbledore also thinks it's good for students to have a psychopathic potions master who tortures Harry and Neville. ??? From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 00:50:32 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 00:50:32 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124375 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy: > Oh, I completely agree. I don't think Dumbledore or JKR are going > for the cold-blooded, "good, now that the unstable fool is out of > the way..." I was just answering the rather cold-blooded, "the > death of Sirius harms the weapon that is Harry," with a similarly > cold-blooded answer. That wasn't really the original proposition, though: it was "the death of Sirius badly hurts the person who is Harry who also is vitally important to the cause". At least onlist, Weapon!Harry has the connotations of deliberate choosing and shaping, which I'm not a proponent of. :) > As to Harry's general emotional state, Dumbledore showed himself > concerned with this in the very first chapter of the very first > book when he explains why Harry needs to be left with the Dursleys. > > "Exactly," said Dumbledore, looking very seriously over the top of > his half-moon glasses. "It would be enough to turn any boy's > head. Famous before he can walk and talk! Famous for something he > won't even remember! Can't you see how much better off he'll be, > growing up away from all that until he's ready to take it?" (SS > paperback p.13) But you have to admit that there is strong textual frisson with: "You had suffered...I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and difficult years", etc. And because it's useful, JKR's website comments point towards the sheer necessity of the blood-protection as being the overriding concern. I think it must be the sine qua non. Although I'm not going to state it as strongly with Lupinlore, the idea that Dumbledore left Harry there *with the primary goal* being to toughen him up really is rather repugnant, as Dumbledore knew what Harry would be deprived of. His comments to Minerva strike me as a rationalization, a side-effect that was positive only in a very deeply conflicted sort of way. [The cynic in me is pointing towards the possibility of things having changed somewhat in the writing. Not to be dismissed offhand, that idea.] What I was alluding to and no one took the bait on was Dumbledore's perception of Harry's (non)relationship with Snape. I've argued before that the mutual hostility there finally bore fruit, in Harry's not remembering/unwillingess to go to Snape as a member of the Order. [Enclosed in there is an argument I will defend if requested about trust and fear being mutually exclusive--and Harry does have some fear of Snape, because Snape is capricious in his exercise of power.] Dumbledore has forgotten what it is like to be the inferior in a power relationship. In fact, Snape makes that point oddly manifest, with his comments about how Dumbledore has the luxury to say Voldemort's name because Dumbledore is powerful--Dumbledore also continually has the upper hand in his relationships with all of his faculty, and does not have to work through the position of being subject to the whims of others. McGonagall brings up the same theme, with her "Yes, Potions"; she knows the trouble, but I don't think she takes it as seriously as it proves to be. And that relationship has been allowed to fester to the detriment of the emotional health of both parties. It's needed for the plot, but given What Dumbledore Knows, it strikes me more and more as potentially irresponsible. No, Dumbledore can't force rapport (hello, Pippin), but he could try to get some of it out in the open. That's one wound he's failed miserably at lancing. -Nora waves hello at Faith, who she hasn't seen in a while From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 01:24:25 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 01:24:25 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124376 Whizbang wrote: Perhaps it's not the subject, per se. We have no clue what was in the letter to the Dursleys. For all we know, Dumbledore may have told Petunia not to tell Harry about his parents and to do everything possible to prevent him from discovering his abilities. Worrying about the neighbors may well be a symptom of worrying about Death Eaters or Voldemort finding Harry under her roof. Whenever Harry shows signs of unusual behavior, he gets locked in a cupboard under the stairs and kept on a starvation diet. (BTW, think there's a connection from the cupboard to the London Underground? ;) ) vmonte responds: Hi Whizbang. Do you really think that the cupboard leads to the London Underground? Please tells us your thoughts about that. Whizbang: I'm sure Dumbledore would give anything for Harry's childhood to have been kinder, but circumstances being what they were....... vmonte: I do think that Harry's childhood was horrible and that Petunia's family are horrible people. I also think, however, that Dumbledore had no other choice. He knew that Harry could only survive if left at the Dursleys--JMO. Whizbang: ...For reasons I don't understand, Dumbledore also thinks it's good for students to have a psychopathic potions master who tortures Harry and Neville. ??? vmonte: http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/1000-yahooligans.html lhhicks99 asks: Why does Professor Dumbledore allow Professor Snape to be so nasty to the students (especially to Harry, Hermione, and Neville)? jkrowling_bn: Dumbledore believes there are all sorts of lessons in life... jkrowling_bn: horrible teachers like Snape are one of them! More of Dumbledore's strategy? Vivian From jmrazo at hotmail.com Fri Feb 11 20:28:36 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:28:36 -0000 Subject: Harry's grief (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124377 Betsy: > As to the Kreacher thing. Harry was looking around for a scapegoat. > Dumbledore, I think, was making sure Harry could not put Kreacher in > that role. That was incredibly important because Dumbledore was > correct, Kreacher was what wizards had made him. Yes, the polite > thing is to not speak ill of the dead, but Dumbledore had to make > sure that Harry didn't take the easy way out and put all the blame on > Kreacher. (Harry lets go of Kreacher fairly easily - so I think a > part of him recognized the problem there.) Phoenixgod2000: Besides finding the Kreacher talk in amazingly bad taste, I thought DD was wrong. He spoke about Kreacher being what other wizards *made him* but in other books he made sure Harry realized that it was the choices a person (or creature) makes which define them. He told that to Harry when in CoS Harry realized he and Tom Riddle had a lot of similarities. DD can't have it both ways. Either we have choices and Kreacher used his to help get Sirius killed (and therefore deserves Harry's blame) or we are what our environment shapes us to be. Which means DD did even an worse job with Harry by creating a similar living situation to what created LV. We can't be both what we are created to be and what we choose to be. phoenixgod2000 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 02:13:40 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 02:13:40 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124378 Nora: snip What I was alluding to and no one took the bait on was Dumbledore's perception of Harry's (non)relationship with Snape. I've argued before that the mutual hostility there finally bore fruit, in Harry's not remembering/unwillingess to go to Snape as a member of the Order. [Enclosed in there is an argument I will defend if requested about trust and fear being mutually exclusive--and Harry does have some fear of Snape, because Snape is capricious in his exercise of power.] Alla: Absolutely, Nora. Harry does fear Snape, not as strong as Neville does, but he is being afraid of Snape. "Wondering what on Earth it was doing here, he jumped when Snape's cold voice came out of the corner. "Shut the door behind you, Potter" Harry did as he was told with the horrible feeling that he was imprisoning himself as he did so" - OOP, p.529, paperback. "Harry threw him a filthy look before doing as he was told. He did not like the idea of standing there with his eyes shut while Snape faced him carrying a wand" - OOP, p.535, paperback. And since I did added some canon to illustrate your thought( hopefully), I think I can with clear conscience say " Amen" to fear and trust being mutually exclusive. Alla From lsanford at lnls.org Fri Feb 11 22:11:16 2005 From: lsanford at lnls.org (L Sanford) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:11:16 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's plant imagery Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124379 Carol: > That image caught my eye, too, and it seemed to suggest neglect on > the part of the adults in young Severus's life--his parents, his > head of house, maybe even Dumbledore. I think the boy Severus had > enormous potential,...edit... but that's what the image of the > pallid, neglected plant suggests to me, and I find it very sad. > > But the absence of light may also, as you suggest, indicate that he > was raised to believe in the values of the Dark side,.... Molley: I definitely believe that Snape's youth was filled with darkness. I also believe that *any* living thing (plant, animal or person) will languish over time in such an environment, regardless of whatever innate gifts or personality that individual was born with. It is also true though that if such an individual is brought out of the dark environment, the damage done will begin to reverse over time. Snape will never be a warm or fuzzy kind of guy, but he has made progress since his DE days As stated elsewhere,(Lexicon perhaps) he's had 15 years away from his primary tormenters the Mauraders. Who knows, perhaps in HBP in the aftermath of seeing from Harry's *worst memories* that they actually have some common ground and that Harry is in fact NOT the arrogant, swaggering, brat-faced little boy he has always believed him to be, Ole Severus may be in for a little internal growth spurt so to speak. As far as the plant imagery, the twisted side of me kind of see's Snape as a kind of "Charlie Brown's Christmas tree". As Linus says, "I never thought it was such a bad little tree, *wrapping his blankie around the base*. All it needs is a little love". (Of course, Snape's Christmas tree would probably spit needles at anyone trying to move it as opposed to the needles just falling off. **Sigh** Oh well, I guess Rome wasn't built in a day . . . ) From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sat Feb 12 00:00:02 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 00:00:02 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124380 > Betsy: > Because frankly, Harry has a core of strength that enables him to > eschew the nasty popular kid (Malfoy), or the easy route (screw the > Stone, I'm going to bed - and fine, stick me in Slytherin, 'cause > Muggles suck!). And he's able to endure some fantastically horrible > peer treatment (every single year when fellow students decide he's > crazy and/or evil), and a totally scary teacher (his boggart was > *not* Snape). I'm not saying he's this amazingly strong *because* of > the Dursleys, but if you argue that Harry is a victim of child abuse, > you really need to be able to point to some scars - physical or > emotional, if you have any hope of making your case. > > Betsy, who admits to getting a little snarky about this particular > subject Betsy, I have never made the argument that Harry is screwed up. Because he is amazingly well adjusted, considering and does have the core of strength that you talk about. Dumbledore is lucky that Harry has that core because he could have screwed the pooch over leaving Harry with the Dursleys. I argue that it doesn't matter that Harry isn't screwed up. DD made a mistake by leaving Harry with the Dursleys regardless of whether or not Harry had the strength to endure it. It is not a good act to put someone in danger just because you suspect that they can survive it. Morally wrong, no matter the outcome. And don't fool yourself into believing that the outcome couldn't have been bad. Harry could have ended up a sociopath. He could have ended up spineless and afraid. He could have ended up a manipulative dark lord in the making. He could have been so angry at DD that he might be willing to turn his back on the WW once he learned how important he was. The litany of bad ends that could have resulted from DD's interference are numerous. And all of them more likely than Harry ending up a basically good kid with strong morals. phoenixgod2000, who can be just as snarky as Betsy on this subject. From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 02:34:14 2005 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 02:34:14 -0000 Subject: Pureblood Supremacist Agenda (was: DD, LV, Chess and War) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124381 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bleckybecs" wrote: > Becky: > > Just to add my few thoughts to this. My chess playing experience is > fairly limited due to the fact that my brother well and truly beats > me every time we play (just to point out for my own reputation, my > playing isn't all that bad, but his *is* all that good. He has an > impressive record for 19 yrs old - Primary school champion 3 times, > Island Junior Champion twice, high school champion more times than > I care to count and he has beaten the Island Adult champion before > he became too ill to play regularly. Highly depressing for me > then ) > however, I will try to say something helpful. I'm sorry to hear about your brother, and I honestly know nearly nothing about chess. But your observations about how he uses diversionary tactics to draw your attention away from the real action is very much how I see Snape in HP. It seems to me that there are three agendas at work in the series, but our attention is constantly absorbed in two of them, Dumbledore and Co vs Voldemort and the DEs, so that we don't see the third agenda in the background. The purebloods, who believe that they should be in charge and muggleborns should not be educated in magic, have motives of the own. This is from OotP, ch 6: . "Come on, Harry, haven't you seen enough of this house to tell . what kind of wizards my family were?" said Sirius testily. . "Were - were your parents Death Eaters as well?" . "No, no, but believe me, they thought Voldemort had the right . idea, they were all for the purification of the wizarding race, . getting rid of Muggle-borns and having pure-bloods in charge. They . weren't alone, either, there were quite a few people, before . Voldemort showed his true colours, who thought he had the right . idea about things... they got cold feet when they saw what he was . prepared to do to get power, though. I call them Pureblood Supremacists. When Voldemort showed up spouting Salazar Slytherin's party line, many of the supremacists joined him, believing that he would promote their cause. But he doublecrossed them. By the time they realized that Voldemort had enslaved them to his own purposes, his own takeover of the magical world, it was too late. Regulus was killed and Snape had to play double agent to survive. And what of the Pureblood Supremacist Agenda? Snape is burning the candle at both ends. Voldemort thinks he's spying on Dumbledore for him. Dumbledore believes the opposite is true. But who exactly is Snape working for? I propose that Snape is masterminding a pureblood takeover of the magical world. To do this, the first thing he has to do it get rid of Voldemort. Snape knows that his only hope of freedom from his enslavement to the Dark Lord is the son of his archenemy, Harry Potter. He hates Harry, if possible, more than he ever hated James. But Harry is Snape's only hope of release. I believe that this is why Dumbledore trusts Snape. Pureblood Supremacists have come down on both sides of the fence. Fudge, for example was apparently never a DE, but he is a supremacist. This is from GoF, pg 708: . "You place too much importance, and you always have done, on . the so-called purity of blood! You fail to recognize that it . matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be!" On the Good Guys vs Megalomaniac front, Fudge comes down on the side that works against Voldemort, but he is a supremacist nevertheless. For what it's worth, I suspect Filch as well. These are two characters that are easy to overlook in the grand scheme of things. As for Snape, I think he's playing both sides against the middle and forwarding his own agenda. Why didn't he report Quirrell to Dumbledore? Why did Snape threaten Harry with Veritaserum if he's a legimens. Didn't he know that Harry wasn't lying? And, my favorite question, why did Molly Weasley harbor a common garden rat for 12 years? From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Feb 12 03:23:58 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 03:23:58 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124382 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: > I argue that it doesn't matter that Harry isn't screwed up. DD made a mistake by leaving Harry with the Dursleys regardless of whether or not Harry had the strength to endure it. It is not a good act to put someone in danger just because you suspect that they can survive it. Morally wrong, no matter the outcome. > Pippin: Then it would also have been morally wrong to leave Harry in the WW, where he would have been abused by fame and fortune. If you don't think so, consider the fate of so many child movie stars of the thirties and forties, compared to the way famous children are sheltered today. There's a reason that Chelsea Clinton and the English princes weren't in the news much when they were minors. But the WW has no idea that vultures like Rita Skeeter shouldn't be allowed access to children. Besides the fame, Harry would have grown up with money he didn't earn, and no one to restrict his use of it. The WW doesn't seem to know anything about trust funds either. There was nothing but Harry's good sense stopping him from blowing all his gold on a Firebolt. It wasn't a choice between the Dursleys and a normal wizard childhood, because no one in the WW would have had the faintest idea that Harry should have one. Dumbledore had a choice between an abusive family in a (relatively) enlightened culture and the blood protection, or a loving family in a much less liberal culture with no blood protection. He says the blood protection tipped the balance and I can understand that. Pippin From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 03:24:57 2005 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 03:24:57 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124383 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > vmonte responds: > Hi Whizbang. Do you really think that the cupboard leads to the > London Underground? Please tells us your thoughts about that. Whiz: ) Hi vmonte. On JKR's website last fall, a dartboart appeared behind the door to the Room of Requirement. The number 713 made the dartboard move to reveal a Gringotts safe. Gringotts is a hundred miles under London and 713 was the vault with the Philosopher's Stone in it. I searched high and low for a dartboard and didn't find it in any of the books. However, in the opening scene of the PoA film, when Harry is doing homework under the blankets, there is a dartboard over his bed. ??!! Part of Harry's "protection?" If that's the case, where might the cupboard under the stairs lead? Remember how horrified Petunia was when the first letter arrived and she realized that "they" knew where he slept? Is it allowed to post a link to "another board?" > vmonte: > http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/1000-yahooligans.html > > lhhicks99 asks: Why does Professor Dumbledore allow Professor Snape > to be so nasty to the students (especially to Harry, Hermione, and > Neville)? > jkrowling_bn: Dumbledore believes there are all sorts of lessons in > life... > jkrowling_bn: horrible teachers like Snape are one of them! > > More of Dumbledore's strategy? > > Vivian Thanks for posting the link. I'll remember to do that next time. :) From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 03:35:32 2005 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 03:35:32 -0000 Subject: Harry's grief (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124384 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: > Phoenixgod2000: > > Besides finding the Kreacher talk in amazingly bad taste, I thought > DD was wrong. He spoke about Kreacher being what other wizards *made > him* but in other books he made sure Harry realized that it was the > choices a person (or creature) makes which define them. > phoenixgod2000 Whiz: I'm not so sure that isn't apples and oranges. Did Kreacher have a choice? He was loyal to his family and his house and felt an obligation to his dead mistress. Whether he shared the views of the Blacks or not is beside the point. Kreacher is enslaved. Now Dobby is interesting in that context. I have to wonder if there is someone in the Malfoy household who sent Dobby without the knowledge of the others, thus his behavior is of being torn. He can say only so much, (what he's been told to say?) and punishes himself for being there at all because if the other members of the family ever knew ........ Yipes! House elves are what wizards have made them. From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 03:43:43 2005 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 03:43:43 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124385 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: > Betsy, I have never made the argument that Harry is screwed up. > Because he is amazingly well adjusted, considering and does have the > core of strength that you talk about. Dumbledore is lucky that > Harry has that core because he could have screwed the pooch over > leaving Harry with the Dursleys. > > I argue that it doesn't matter that Harry isn't screwed up. DD made > a mistake by leaving Harry with the Dursleys regardless of whether > or not Harry had the strength to endure it. It is not a good act to > put someone in danger just because you suspect that they can survive > it. Morally wrong, no matter the outcome. Whiz: Harry was being watched and guarded. I doubt he would ever have come to actual harm, (unless there was a big sale at Mundungus's favorite smoke shop) or left in the Dursley's custody if he was seen to be developing undesired characteristics. He wasn't abandoned there. He (and probably the Dursleys) just didn't know that he was being watched. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 03:43:38 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 03:43:38 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124386 > Pippin: > Then it would also have been morally wrong to leave Harry in the > WW, where he would have been abused by fame and fortune. If > you don't think so, consider the fate of so many child movie stars > of the thirties and forties, compared to the way famous children > are sheltered today. There's a reason that Chelsea Clinton and > the English princes weren't in the news much when they were > minors. > > But the WW has no idea that vultures like Rita Skeeter shouldn't > be allowed access to children. Besides the fame, Harry would > have grown up with money he didn't earn, and no one to restrict > his use of it. The WW doesn't seem to know anything about trust > funds either. There was nothing but Harry's good sense > stopping him from blowing all his gold on a Firebolt. Alla: That is a big IF, Pippin, IMO, especially in relation to money. Just as Dumbledore kept the key from Harry's vault, while Harry was at Dursleys, he could have done so if Harry was growing up in WW. You know, sort of bwing a trustee for Harry. What is the difference where Harry is growing up? Dumbledore still has a key to his vault, no need to give it to Harry. So, I think danger of being abused by fortune was relatively small. Fame, well since I think that Harry was strong despite what Dursleys threw at him, I think there could have been a very good chance that fame would not have gone to Harry's head either. So, I think that Harry was not in that big of a danger to be abused by fame and fortune and advantage of having a loving family is huge , IMO Pippin: Dumbledore had a choice between an abusive family in a (relatively) enlightened culture and the blood protection, or a loving family in a much less liberal culture with no blood protection. He says the blood protection tipped the balance and I can understand that. Alla: Yes, he says that. :) Alla From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 03:45:17 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 03:45:17 -0000 Subject: Turning Point? (was Re: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124387 > Lupinlore: > Yes, I agree. But I repeat, how in the world (Wizarding and Muggle) > does that translate into not having an adult to turn to? Once again, > you have argued exactly the opposite. Neri: It is not exactly that he won't have adults to turn to, but that he will not see the point of turning to them. It might be a situation somewhat similar (although for other reasons) to his situation in Christmas in OotP. He could have told any of the grownups in 12GP (Sirius, Lupin, Molly, Moody) about his fear that he is possessed, but he knew they wouldn't tell him the truth, the way Sirius didn't (although he wanted to). We can have a similar situation throughout HBP, because Harry wouldn't trust any of the grownups to do the right thing, and not to keep information from him. For example, consider a possible scenario: Harry sees something (perhaps through his link with Voldy) that makes him seriously suspect that Snape betrays the Order. So he goes to DD and tells him about it. DD tells Harry that he trusts Snape, but he cannot tell Harry why. This is something between DD and Snape, and besides it isn't possible to tell Harry because the information might leak from his mind to Voldy. So Harry is not satisfied with DD's decision, and he knows DD had already made mistakes that led to Sirius' death. And what other grownup can he turn to with his suspicions regarding DD? Then there will be some emergency situation, and Harry will have to decide if to act according to DD's opinion or according to his own knowledge, when he does not even trust his own judgment anymore. In fact, in OotP JKR may have set the stage for a grand tragedy of suspicion and mistrust within the triangle Harry-DD-Snape: Harry can't trust Snape because he's Snape, and he can't trust DD anymore because DD had already made critical mistakes of judgment in OotP. DD and Snape in turn can't trust Harry because information from Harry's head might leak to Voldy and because Voldy might affect Harry's mind. Snape might not trust DD to stay loyal to him. He might be afraid that DD will be affected by Harry's negative opinion on Snape (possibly based on some past situation between James-DD-Severus). DD seems to still trust Snape in general, but in the end of OotP he admitted that Snape cannot be trusted to do the right thing where Harry is concerned. Now we can have grand conflict of mistrust, enough to hold a whole book, and it's all based on the setup in OotP. Neri From juli17 at aol.com Sat Feb 12 04:03:32 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:03:32 EST Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) Message-ID: <127.55b8222f.2f3eda14@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124388 Alla wrote: > "She doesn't love me," said Harry at once. "She doesn't give a damn- > " - OOP, p.836. > > If this is not a scar from abuse, I don't know what is. > > Just my opinion of course, > > Alla > Julie replies: I agree knowing that someone who should love you does not love you leaves an emotional scar. It saddening and infuriating to see it happen to a child. It's also not uncommon, and often appears in blatant favoritism a parent, aunt, uncle, grandparent, etc, shows to one child over another. I can never understand how people can do that in good conscience. But, the problem is, denial of love is *not* abuse, plain and simple. You can't force someone to love another, even if that other is a dependent child. If the child is adequately fed and clothed, sheltered and educated, and not physically mistreated, then the child is not abused (note that children are regularly placed in foster homes with exactly this expectation, and with no requirement that they be loved by their foster parents). It's not fair, but life often isn't. Regarding Dumbledore, I think he was aware that the Dursleys weren't going to provide Harry with a loving home. They were going to provide him with adequate food and shelter, and an education. Whether DD knew about sleeping in closets and such, I don't know. But I do believe Dumbledore knew Harry would survive it all without serious emotional damage. After all, Harry was the progeny of two strong- willed, self-possessed parents and received 16 months of devotion from those loving parents. One could reasonably expect Harry to have received the benefit of both factors. And with the protection Harry needed, it was Dumbledore's best choice, IMO. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Sat Feb 12 04:50:15 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:50:15 EST Subject: HBP official page count (UK version) Message-ID: <66.50b15466.2f3ee507@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124389 Chancie: Hi all, I was at Muggle Net, and saw that they finally have an OFFICIAL page count for the UK version of HBP. I got this from Muggle Net. And the link for the Bloomsbury form is posted below. UK HBP: 608 pages _Potterish.com_ (http://www.potterish.com/) (Portuguese) scanned a _Bloomsbury form_ (http://www.mugglenet.com/viewer/?image_location=hbpukpages.jpg) letting UK booksellers know they are now able to order cartons of book 6 to be sold on July 16th. The scan lists the book's length as 608 pages. The US version of Half-Blood Prince is 672 pages, but both versions use a different font. http://www.mugglenet.com/viewer/?image_location=hbpukpages.jpg [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From snow15145 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 04:55:59 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 04:55:59 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124390 Snow: I don't want to sound like I am personally attacking you Alla only what you have said and I don't know any other way to put this. Alla: That is a big IF, Pippin, IMO, especially in relation to money. Just as Dumbledore kept the key from Harry's vault, while Harry was at Dursleys, he could have done so if Harry was growing up in WW. You know, sort of bwing a trustee for Harry. What is the difference where Harry is growing up? Dumbledore still has a key to his vault, no need to give it to Harry. So, I think danger of being abused by fortune was relatively small. Fame, well since I think that Harry was strong despite what Dursleys threw at him, I think there could have been a very good chance that fame would not have gone to Harry's head either. So, I think that Harry was not in that big of a danger to be abused by fame and fortune and advantage of having a loving family is huge , IMO Snow: You are acting as though Dumbledore had a choice, he didn't! Harry's protection was where his mother's blood protected him. If Dumbledore had put Harry in ANY other place than his mother's blood relative, he wouldn't have lived long enough to enjoy his healthy atmosphere. Dumbledore gave Harry the best protection he could under the circumstances that were laid down by his mother's sacrifice. Could Harry have thrived better or the same as is irrelevant if he is dead. Snow From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Feb 12 05:10:34 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:10:34 -0000 Subject: DD/LV Chess Snape matters, and Endgame scenarios. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124391 Valky said earlier: And I want to know why Snape keeps turning up as a black piece. Becky My guess is that this is the role SS is playing. He turns up as a black piece because of this blocking idea, to `through you off the scent' sort of idea. ...edit.... I would say that, from canon, it would seem to render him useless to both sides! Valky now: Hmmm but in the metaphorical sense of the game in all instances he is appearing to *move* as a Black piece . I'll try to demonstrate further: In PS/SS the move made on the King is represented by Quirrel advancing on the stone, He advances quickly, through diagon-alley to a dead end, a Bishop. He takes two more steps to get to the King, once on Halloween and then the under the trapdoor climax. (this could mean he has turned in to the middle then out towards the ends and the King/Stone has been castled early to defend it from him) Dumbledore tempted the Bishop closer by moving out of striking range and the Bishop takes the bait, "surprise" right into the path of Harry. He is then trapped, the Bishop is taken from the board in a surprise backwards jump by the DD piece.. Now as for Snape, the reason I see him as a Black Knight is because of the moves we see him make. The Halloween Troll for example: After the troll is released (Black move), the pieces moving are Harry, Ron, Quirrel and Snape. Harry and Ron are both WhitePieces moving once each to disarm the situation, which leaves *two black moves*. One is Quirrel, so Snapes move should logically therefore be a BlackPiece too. (and it certainly doesn't seem to be a move instigated by DD) Again in COS Lucius, Draco, Snape, Hagrid, Hermione, Ron, Harry we have an overload of white pieces here, Lucius moves twice, which leaves one more black move to even it out, unless we can imagine a ESE!HRH we have to assume that Snape did it, because Draco only moves once. In POA we have Remus, Sirius, Harry, Hermione, Ron, Snape in the climax. Remus is trapped in a bad spot, leaving another overload of white pieces moving to distract the attack on Sirius if Snape is a white piece. This one *is* the most obvious because Snape is the *only* possible visible black piece left moving in the end. I know I am intimating a fair bit of authority and I apologise for that. Breaking the stories up into chess moves is difficult, and despite my tone I would welcome corrections. Becky: However, I do believe him to be working for DD and I do believe that in some way he *will* set the final moves up. ...edit.... It's very rarely, if ever, a pawn that does the final damage, but in the case of HP we are saying that he will reach the other side to become another queen. Valky now: Well that is what we may *presume* will happen, yes. But maybe not all of us do. I don't think 'Harry' will be the pawn that reaches the other side. In my mental image of the metaphorical board it is not him who has made the most advances forward, but the one who has conquered and been bait for most of the Blackpieces attacking the WhiteKing, this I believe, might be an indication that Harry is not advancing forward as fast as perhaps *another* Pawn. As I said, I think that Harry is *also* the King, and towards the end of the game he (Harry) will realise *someone else* is standing right before the eighth square, so will jump in the path of LV!Queen thereby allowing the *other* pawn to be crowned. I have a theory who this pawn is, actually two of them but I'll get to that later. Harry returns from his "death" experience but when he does he is returned as the King Piece. LV!Queen is wiped from the board but LV!King piece hasn't been taken yet, so it isn't quite over. Whizbang: And what of the Pureblood Supremacist Agenda? Snape is burning the candle at both ends. Voldemort thinks he's spying on Dumbledore for him. Dumbledore believes the opposite is true. But who exactly is Snape working for? ...edit.... I think he's playing both sides against the middle and forwarding his own agenda. Why didn't he report Quirrell to Dumbledore? Why did Snape threaten Harry with Veritaserum if he's a legimens. Didn't he know that Harry wasn't lying? Valky: This is the only way I can figure to understand it, Snape is a piece on either side. He is a Black Knight *and* he is a White piece (not sure about Rook yet but it does seem possible considering he has a very 'straight' goal in being in the Whitepiece side, compare with the round about sort of reason for his Black piece position) Insofar as he is putting Harry against LV the WhitePiece!Snape will exist (I don't think hes moved all that much yet), insofar as pureblood agenda the Blackpiece!Snape will show up. Looking at the times when Snape was more obviously a BlackPiece, in COS and POA, there was definitely his own agendas behind them. And one of those times the agenda was fairly obviously Pureblood supremacy (COS) though his moves were quite shadowy. I propose HBP is going to reveal Snapes existence as a Blackpiece (Not Just a Spy) quite embarrassingly during a pureblood attack on the (BloodTraitor) Weasleys. Snape will be quietly standing in position to further his PB agenda through an attack on Molly when all of a sudden DD's chess gameplan will put Arthur in striking distance of the Purebloodism KingPiece (probably he will uncover a ministry secret I bet its Bodes killer but another place and time for that much speculation right ;D). Snape will be forced to retreat noisily from Molly and we will all be very dissappointed and surprised at the reveal of ESE!Snape. {I got this scenario by placing the real pieces on a chess-board as I see them at the end of OOtP. I, hypothetically, put Bishop!Molly on the right (reuniting with Percy) and the rest of the scenario just opened up, so I am going with it right now to get your comments.} About your Veritaserum question, because I have a mental block and can't remember where that is, can you point me in the right direction please? Whizbang: And, my favorite question, why did Molly Weasley harbor a common garden rat for 12 years? Valky: I like your question, but I am pretty sure it doesn't lead to ESE! Molly. She was a mother of six young boys with a pair of mischeivous twin babies to boot. Percy, Bill and Charlie would have been between 2 and 8 years old at the time, its fairly likely that one (or all) of the boys became rather personally attached to Scabbers. A group of kids so young can really wear a Mum down to giving in if they are determined enough, she might not have liked it at first but enough nagging from the boys and Scabbers would eventually become one of the family. Now why *he* chose the Weasley family I think was possibly for anonymity. He was afraid of the post war trials and angry DE's and needed to hide. This is all we have to go on. I consider the answer to that to be that the Weasleys were such a quietly close knit bunch, not a lot of room for visitors especially not DE types who would never visit the Blood Traitors anyway, and a nice overfilled house and overgrown garden with plenty of cosy hiding places. Not to mention the loud Ghost in the attic rattling the plumbing to create a distraction for him if he ever needed one. Compare and contrast with some options we have probably with neat lawns, minimalist decor, the pop fashion kind of things like the Dursleys have, a rat looks much less out of place at the Burrow. Valky, who has bitten off a lot more than she can chew today I think.. ;D From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 05:15:33 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:15:33 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124392 Snow: You are acting as though Dumbledore had a choice, he didn't! Harry's protection was where his mother's blood protected him. If Dumbledore had put Harry in ANY other place than his mother's blood relative, he wouldn't have lived long enough to enjoy his healthy atmosphere. Dumbledore gave Harry the best protection he could under the circumstances that were laid down by his mother's sacrifice. Could Harry have thrived better or the same as is irrelevant if he is dead. Alla: OK, please point me to canon where it says with absolute certainty (emphasis on these two words) that if Dumbledore had put Harry in a different home, he would have been killed. Dumbledore says: "My answer is that my priority was to keep you alive. You were in more danger than perhaps anyone but myself realised. Voldemort had been vanquished hours before, but his supporters - and many of them are almost as terrible as he - were still at large, angry, desperate and violent. And I had to make my decision too with regards to th years ahead. Did I believe that Voldemort was gone forever? no. I knew not whether it would be ten, twenty, or fifty years before he returned , but I was sure he would do so, and I was sure too, knowing him as I have done, that he would not rest until he killed you." - OOP, p.836. Dumbledore also says among other things : "While you can still call home the place where your mother's blood dwells, there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort" - p.837. So, Dumbledore was not even sure when Voldemort will return. he simply decided that Harry was in danger and made a choice as to how to protect him. I don't remember reference in canon that Harry's mother blood was the ONLY protection available, just the one Dumbledore put his trust in. Dumbledore made a CHOICE. I understand his INITIAL choice, sort of. I don't necessarily think that it was the only one option available, although it is of course possible. By the way, I suspect I am wrong on this one, so can somebody please refer me to the quote , which says that Harry cannot be touched by Voldemort's servants at Privet Drive? I must have been forgotten the part, because if blood protection is only against Voldemort, then Dumbledore's decision is even more shaky than I thought before. He could not be that stupid, right? To make Harry suffer at Dursleys and not protect him against Bella and Co. Please, tell me it is not so. :o) Just my opinion, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 05:32:12 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:32:12 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124393 >>Alla: >It appears though that no proof which I am able to quote will be convincing enough for you, Betsy.< Betsy: No, there isn't. Because there is nothing that casts guilt on Dumbledore to the extent that Lupinlore was demanding up thread. >>Alla >For the simple reason that you and me are judging abuse by completely different criteria.< Betsy: Not just abuse. We obviously disagree about what constitutes mortal danger. What folks who are so willing to lynch Dumbledore for leaving Harry with the Dursleys seem to be suggesting is the equivalent of a Jewish family in Germany in the 1930's deciding not to send their son to England to live on a farm, because the boy will be worked hard and the farmer and his wife don't seem to love him. Yes, the boy will be more loved and cherished in his familiar environment. Until the Nazis kick the door in. And suddenly the farm doesn't look so bad. What I find hard to understand is that the Dursleys become these psychotic monsters, and Voledmort and his Death Eaters become these slightly grumpy but otherwise quite fluffy folks. >>Alla; >If for you Harry hating his life at Dursleys and what you called Dursleys "less than stellar behaviour" is not a proof of abuse, I am not sure what else to say. >The fact that Harry survived life at Dursleys is thanks to Harry and to Harry only, IMO. Dursleys' intent matters, NOT whether Harry has scars from it ( and I will certainly not concede that he does not have scars - as I argued earlier his mistrust of adults is typical of the abuse victim, IMO)< Betsy: And yet, there *are* adults that Harry trusts. He's very independent minded, yes (and I see that as a strength). But Harry looks to McGonagall, Lupin, Sirius, Hagrid, and even Dumbledore for help and support throughout the series. And again, if Harry came out of his ordeal with the Dursleys with a stong sense of his own self worth, then Dumbledore chose wisely. For the choice to have been foolish or criminal, you have to be able to point to examples of how that choice begat failure. >>Alla: >"She doesn't love me," said Harry at once. "She doesn't give a damn- " - OOP, p.836. >If this is not a scar from abuse, I don't know what is.< Betsy: Maybe, "She doesn't love me. No one loves me. I'm worthless and stupid and I'll just go sit in the corner now and let the rest of the world got to pot." Recognizing that someone doesn't love you doesn't mean you're abused or scarred -- actually, I'd call that life. Thinking that their lack of love reflects on your own self-worth is an example of scarring, IMO. (A rather large point, that I think get's overlooked, is that Harry *never* confuses Aunt Petunia with his mother.) >>Alla: >And I wanted to quote again Phoenixgod's analogy from his 123415 post: >"Regardless of whether or not Harry has transcended the limitations of his upbringing, it does not excuse the actions that put him in the situation in the first place. >If I throw you into a room with axe wielding maniac suspecting that you're a master martial artist and will survive the encounter, that doesn't mean that my actions were right. >Dumbledore abandoned Harry to people that none of us would want to know or live with. That is wrong regardless of Harry's mental resilience."< Betsy: See, this is a perfect example of hysterical hyperbole that seems to be developing around Harry's life with the Dursleys. "Axe wielding maniac"?!?! Wha...? The Dursleys never even *struck* Harry for heavens sake. And "abandoned"? Harry wasn't doomed to live with the Dursleys forever. (And we'll just ignore Voldemort and his Death Eaters -- because they're really sort of fluffy if you squint.) Harry is alive. Harry is sane. Harry is remarkably self-confident. My goodness but Dumbledore let him down! Betsy From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 05:33:42 2005 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:33:42 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124394 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > By the way, I suspect I am wrong on this one, so can somebody please > refer me to the quote , which says that Harry cannot be touched by > Voldemort's servants at Privet Drive? I must have been forgotten the > part, because if blood protection is only against Voldemort, then > Dumbledore's decision is even more shaky than I thought before. > > He could not be that stupid, right? To make Harry suffer at Dursleys > and not protect him against Bella and Co. Please, tell me it is not > so. :o) > > > Just my opinion, > > Alla You're right. Dumbledore doesn't say that Harry can't be touched by anyone else. Only Voldemort. But the confusion for my lies in why Harry was sent to Privet Dr after GoF. If Voldemort could touch Harry and Dumbledore said . "Very well," he said, sitting down again. "Voldemort has overcome . that particular barrier. Harry, continue, please." - GoF, pg 696, sch what was the sense of sending him back to Privet Drive? And again at the end of OotP? If Lily's protection no longer keeps Voldemort from touching him, then why couldn't he spend the holidays with the Weasleys or with Hagrid or looking for Crumplehorned Snorkacks with the Lovegoods? And the only answer I can come up with, we don't know the whole story, yet. There's more protecting Harry at Privet Dr than we have been told about. From snow15145 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 05:46:11 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:46:11 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124395 Alla: OK, please point me to canon where it says with absolute certainty (emphasis on these two words) that if Dumbledore had put Harry in a different home, he would have been killed. Snow: Ask and ye shall receive. Cannons! Oh I would never have made such a blatant accusation without canon: "But I knew where Voldemort was weak. And so I made my decision. You would be protected by an ancient magic of which he knows, which he despises, and which he has always, therefore underestimated-to his cost. I am speaking, of course, of the fact that your mother died to save you. She gave you a lingering protection he never expected [ ] I put my trust, therefore, in your mother's blood. I delivered you to her sister, her only remaining relative." OOP pg. 836 U.S. version Alla: By the way, I suspect I am wrong on this one, so can somebody please refer me to the quote , which says that Harry cannot be touched by Voldemort's servants at Privet Drive? I must have been forgotten the part, because if blood protection is only against Voldemort, then Dumbledore's decision is even more shaky than I thought before. Snow: If Voldemort cannot touch him at the Dursley's neither can his followers. " 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 Not EVEN I can touch him there! Big one. Snow From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 06:08:24 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:08:24 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124396 Alla: And I wanted to quote again Phoenixgod's analogy from his 123415 post: "Regardless of whether or not Harry has transcended the limitations of his upbringing, it does not excuse the actions that put him in the situation in the first place.If I throw you into a room with axe wielding maniac suspecting that you're a master martial artist and will survive the encounter, that doesn't mean that my actions were right.Dumbledore abandoned Harry to people that none of us would want to know or live with. That is wrong regardless of Harry's mental resilience."< Betsy: See, this is a perfect example of hysterical hyperbole that seems to be developing around Harry's life with the Dursleys. "Axe wielding >maniac"?!?! Wha...? The Dursleys never even *struck* Harry for > heavens sake. Alla: Hysterical hyperbole? Petunia definitely tried to hit him with frying pan, but it is OK, right? Makes you stronger. Let me post you another hypo. Suppose Dursleys tried to hit Harry multiple times every day, BUT all of those hits magically rebounced and Harry did not feel anything at all. Do you think Harry is abused in such situation or not? Betsy: And "abandoned"? Harry wasn't doomed to live with the > Dursleys forever. (And we'll just ignore Voldemort and his Death > Eaters -- because they're really sort of fluffy if you squint.) Alla: No, just first ten years of his life, when child needs love the most. And I just had an interesting thought in my previous post. It seems that protection is not against DE, only Voldemort, unless I forgot something, in which case I will eat my words. Why exactly Harry was left there? Because if Bella wanted to stop by privet Drive, it seems to me that she could do so. Betsy: Harry is alive. Harry is sane. Harry is remarkably self- confident. My goodness but Dumbledore let him down! Alla: Yep, he is. No because of anything Dumbledore did though, IMO. By the way, I know you don't look in the interviews much, but JKR definitely considers Harry to be abused by Dursleys. Juli quoted this quote about Dursley being just as abused as Harry in her 123444: "On Dateline, 2000 she said: `I like torturing them,` said Rowling. `You should keep an eye on Dudley. It's probably too late for Aunt Petunia and Uncle Vernon. I feel sorry for Dudley. I might joke about him, but I feel truly sorry for him because I see him as just as ABUSED as Harry. " Alla earlier By the way, I suspect I am wrong on this one, so can somebody please refer me to the quote , which says that Harry cannot be touched by Voldemort's servants at Privet Drive? I must have been forgotten the part, because if blood protection is only against Voldemort, then Dumbledore's decision is even more shaky than I thought before. Snow: If Voldemort cannot touch him at the Dursley's neither can his followers. " 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 Not EVEN I can touch him there! Big one. Alla Thanks, but it does not exactly helps me. Voldemort confirms that he cannot touch Harry there. Nowhere does he say that my faithful DE could not touch him. Just my opinion, Alla From snow15145 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 06:22:15 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:22:15 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124397 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Alla: > And I wanted to quote again Phoenixgod's analogy from his 123415 > post: > "Regardless of whether or not Harry has transcended the limitations > of his upbringing, it does not excuse the actions that put him in > the situation in the first place.If I throw you into a room with axe > wielding maniac suspecting that you're a master martial artist and > will survive the encounter, that doesn't mean that my actions were > right.Dumbledore abandoned Harry to people that none of us would > want to know or live with. That is wrong regardless of Harry's > mental resilience."< > > Betsy: > > See, this is a perfect example of hysterical hyperbole that seems to > be developing around Harry's life with the Dursleys. "Axe wielding > >maniac"?!?! Wha...? The Dursleys never even *struck* Harry for > > heavens sake. > > Alla: > > Hysterical hyperbole? Petunia definitely tried to hit him with > frying pan, but it is OK, right? Makes you stronger. > > Let me post you another hypo. Suppose Dursleys tried to hit Harry > multiple times every day, BUT all of those hits magically rebounced > and Harry did not feel anything at all. Do you think Harry is abused > in such situation or not? > > > Betsy: > And "abandoned"? Harry wasn't doomed to live with the > > Dursleys forever. (And we'll just ignore Voldemort and his Death > > Eaters -- because they're really sort of fluffy if you squint.) > > Alla: > > No, just first ten years of his life, when child needs love the most. > > And I just had an interesting thought in my previous post. It seems > that protection is not against DE, only Voldemort, unless I forgot > something, in which case I will eat my words. > Why exactly Harry was left there? > Because if Bella wanted to stop by privet Drive, it seems to me that > she could do so. > > > Betsy: > Harry is alive. Harry is sane. Harry is remarkably self- > confident. My goodness but Dumbledore let him down! > > Alla: > > Yep, he is. No because of anything Dumbledore did though, IMO. > > By the way, I know you don't look in the interviews much, but JKR > definitely considers Harry to be abused by Dursleys. Juli quoted > this quote about Dursley being just as abused as Harry in her 123444: > > "On Dateline, 2000 she said: > `I like torturing them,` said Rowling. `You should > keep an eye on Dudley. It's probably too late for Aunt > Petunia and Uncle Vernon. I feel sorry for Dudley. I > might joke about him, but I feel truly sorry for him > because I see him as just as ABUSED as Harry. " > > > > Alla earlier > By the way, I suspect I am wrong on this one, so can somebody please > refer me to the quote , which says that Harry cannot be touched by > Voldemort's servants at Privet Drive? I must have been forgotten the > part, because if blood protection is only against Voldemort, then > Dumbledore's decision is even more shaky than I thought before. > > Snow: > > If Voldemort cannot touch him at the Dursley's neither can his > followers. > > " 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 > > Not EVEN I can touch him there! Big one. > > > > Alla > Thanks, but it does not exactly helps me. > Voldemort confirms that he cannot touch Harry there. Nowhere does he > say that my faithful DE could not touch him. > > > Just my opinion, > > Alla Snow: You asked for canon to support my views and I supplied it. Where is your canon that can support any evidence of a maladjusted child? From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Feb 12 06:22:36 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:22:36 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124398 > > Betsy: > See, this is a perfect example of hysterical hyperbole that seems to > be developing around Harry's life with the Dursleys. "Axe wielding > maniac"?!?! Wha...? The Dursleys never even *struck* Harry for > heavens sake. And "abandoned"? Harry wasn't doomed to live with the > Dursleys forever. (And we'll just ignore Voldemort and his Death > Eaters -- because they're really sort of fluffy if you squint.) > > Harry is alive. Harry is sane. Harry is remarkably self-confident. > My goodness but Dumbledore let him down! > > Betsy Oh please. There is no excuse for child abuse. PERIOD. There is no excuse for letting it go on. PERIOD. There is no excuse for using a child as a tool. PERIOD. There is no excuse for allowing Harry to grow up without dedicated and loving adult support. PERIOD. There is no excuse for Dumbledore's lack of care. PERIOD. Lupinlore From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 06:30:41 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:30:41 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124399 >>Phoenixgod: >Betsy, I have never made the argument that Harry is screwed up. Because he is amazingly well adjusted, considering and does have the core of strength that you talk about.< Betsy: You may not have made it, Phoenixgod, but others have. Like you, I just don't see it. >>Phoenixgod: >Dumbledore is lucky that Harry has that core because he could have screwed the pooch over leaving Harry with the Dursleys. I argue that it doesn't matter that Harry isn't screwed up. DD made a mistake by leaving Harry with the Dursleys regardless of whether or not Harry had the strength to endure it. It is not a good act to put someone in danger just because you suspect that they can survive it. Morally wrong, no matter the outcome.< Betsy: It's interesting to me that when Dumbledore's plan works, it's called luck. Maybe the bad behavior of the Dursleys should just be chalked up to *bad* luck? In an earlier post I used the analogy of a Jewish family living in Germany during the 1930's sending their child to live over in England. Now, ideally, the English family would treat the child as their own. What if they didn't? What if they gave the child a lot of chores, and favored their children over the foster child? And when the war forced a certain level of privation, what if the child was given the least amount of food? Take it a step further. What if they displayed a certain distaste for the child being Jewish and discouraged any practice of that faith? Would you seriously argue that the parents were morally wrong for shipping their child out of Nazi Germany? And if that child became the only survivor of that family, and left the farm in quite good emotional shape, would you still condemn his family for sending him to England? I'm not sure why folks think that Dumbledore and Harry were living in a rainbow colored, My Little Pony, world where Dumbledore had a choice between the Cleavers of Leave it to Beaver or which ever family had Lassy and Timmy, and this twisted Norman Bates type family. It was a bad situation all around and Dumbledore made the best choice he could. And hey! It all turned out okay. But, oh yeah. That was just luck. >>Phoenixgod: >And don't fool yourself into believing that the outcome couldn't have been bad. Harry could have ended up a sociopath. He could have ended up spineless and afraid. He could have ended up a manipulative dark lord in the making. He could have been so angry at DD that he might be willing to turn his back on the WW once he learned how important he was. >The litany of bad ends that could have resulted from DD's interference are numerous. And all of them more likely than Harry ending up a basically good kid with strong morals.< Betsy: Yeah. But it didn't. The White Queen could have struck Ron in the temple and killed him before he hit the ground. Grawp could have made contact with Hermione and squeezed her into an unrecognizable paste. Harry could have veered left instead of right and ended up as dragon kibble. Sirius could have failed to distract Lupin and three more werewolves could be roaming the Forbidden Forest. The books are filled with litanies of possible bad ends that *could* have happened. That's life in a war zone. And it's unfortunate that Harry is in this game, but he *is* alive, he *is* relatively stable, and I think it has more to do with Dumbledore's careful planning than mere luck. IMO, of course. Betsy. Let the snark games begin. (Except, of course, that I'm going to bed.) From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 06:53:56 2005 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:53:56 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124401 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > Oh please. There is no excuse for child abuse. PERIOD. There is no > excuse for letting it go on. PERIOD. There is no excuse for using a > child as a tool. PERIOD. There is no excuse for allowing Harry to > grow up without dedicated and loving adult support. PERIOD. There is > no excuse for Dumbledore's lack of care. PERIOD. > > > Lupinlore Whiz: But Harry is a tool, or maybe more specifically, a weapon. And there are those who would try to wrest control of this weapon from Dumbledore. We know that emotions are involved in some spells, happiness for the patronus, humor for the ridikulus and a certain sadism for the cruciatus. We also know that when Harry gets emotional, he sometimes makes stuff happen, so called wild magic. So controling Harry's emotional state is a means of controling the weapon that he is. This, I believe is Snape's goal. But Dumbledore has other goals. We see Dumbledore putting Harry in situations where he must control his emotions, he has to calm down and think, he has to evoke emotions that are not the ones that come naturally in given situations sometimes, just to survive. Controlling Harry's emotions is controlling a power tool or weapon. For Snape, wresting control of Harry from Dumbledore is very important, because Snape needs Harry to free him from Voldemort. He uses Harry for his purposes. For Dumbledore, helping Harry learn to feel and control his emotions is also empowering him to control the powerful forces at his disposal. Dumbledore knows what he's doing. From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Feb 12 07:00:42 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 07:00:42 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124402 > > >>Phoenixgod: > >And don't fool yourself into believing that the outcome couldn't > have been bad. Harry could have ended up a sociopath. He could have > ended up spineless and afraid. He could have ended up a manipulative > dark lord in the making. He could have been so angry at DD that he > might be willing to turn his back on the WW once he learned how > important he was. > >The litany of bad ends that could have resulted from DD's > interference are numerous. And all of them more likely than Harry > ending up a basically good kid with strong morals.< > > Betsy: > Yeah. But it didn't. The White Queen could have struck Ron in the > temple and killed him before he hit the ground. Grawp could have > made contact with Hermione and squeezed her into an unrecognizable > paste. Harry could have veered left instead of right and ended up as > dragon kibble. Sirius could have failed to distract Lupin and three > more werewolves could be roaming the Forbidden Forest. > > The books are filled with litanies of possible bad ends that *could* > have happened. That's life in a war zone. And it's unfortunate that > Harry is in this game, but he *is* alive, he *is* relatively stable, > and I think it has more to do with Dumbledore's careful planning than > mere luck. IMO, of course. > > Betsy. Let the snark games begin. (Except, of course, that I'm > going to bed.) EXTREMELY weak. As Phoenixgod says, any of the outcomes he outlines are much more realistic and predictable than Harry coming out all right - which he has not, by the way, his inability to trust adults proves that. The only things we can ascribe Harry's so-called "good emotional health" to are: 1) poor writing on JKR's part, 2) sheer luck shining of Dumbledore's decisions. Out of deference to the author, I think we prefer option #2 to option #1. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Feb 12 07:03:07 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 07:03:07 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124403 > > Whiz: > > But Harry is a tool, or maybe more specifically, a weapon. And there > are those who would try to wrest control of this weapon from Dumbledore. > > We know that emotions are involved in some spells, happiness for the > patronus, humor for the ridikulus and a certain sadism for the > cruciatus. We also know that when Harry gets emotional, he sometimes > makes stuff happen, so called wild magic. So controling Harry's > emotional state is a means of controling the weapon that he is. This, > I believe is Snape's goal. > > But Dumbledore has other goals. We see Dumbledore putting Harry in > situations where he must control his emotions, he has to calm down and > think, he has to evoke emotions that are not the ones that come > naturally in given situations sometimes, just to survive. Controlling > Harry's emotions is controlling a power tool or weapon. > > For Snape, wresting control of Harry from Dumbledore is very > important, because Snape needs Harry to free him from Voldemort. He > uses Harry for his purposes. > > For Dumbledore, helping Harry learn to feel and control his emotions > is also empowering him to control the powerful forces at his disposal. > Dumbledore knows what he's doing. If he does no what he is doing, under this scenario (which, incidentally, I think is very far from what JKR intends, for what that's worth) he is heartless and manipulative and deserves the severest consequences possible. Lupinlore From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 07:22:08 2005 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 07:22:08 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124404 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > > > > > Whiz: > > > > But Harry is a tool, or maybe more specifically, a weapon. And there > > are those who would try to wrest control of this weapon from Dumbledore. > > > > We know that emotions are involved in some spells, happiness for the > > patronus, humor for the ridikulus and a certain sadism for the > > cruciatus. We also know that when Harry gets emotional, he sometimes > > makes stuff happen, so called wild magic. So controling Harry's > > emotional state is a means of controling the weapon that he is. This, > > I believe is Snape's goal. > > > > But Dumbledore has other goals. We see Dumbledore putting Harry in > > situations where he must control his emotions, he has to calm down and > > think, he has to evoke emotions that are not the ones that come > > naturally in given situations sometimes, just to survive. Controlling > > Harry's emotions is controlling a power tool or weapon. > > > > For Snape, wresting control of Harry from Dumbledore is very > > important, because Snape needs Harry to free him from Voldemort. He > > uses Harry for his purposes. > > > > For Dumbledore, helping Harry learn to feel and control his emotions > > is also empowering him to control the powerful forces at his disposal. > > Dumbledore knows what he's doing. > > If he does no what he is doing, under this scenario (which, > incidentally, I think is very far from what JKR intends, for what > that's worth) he is heartless and manipulative and deserves the > severest consequences possible. > > Lupinlore It's not impossible that you know far more than I about JKR's intentions. Nevertheless. OotP, ch 37: . "Do you see, Harry? Do you see the flaw in my brilliant plan . now? I had fallen into the trap I had foreseen, that I had . told myself I could avoid, that I must avoid." . "I don't -" . "I cared about you too much," said Dumbledore simply. "I . cared more for your happiness than your knowing the truth, . more for your peace of mind than my plan, more for your life . than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed. In . other words, I acted exactly as Voldemort expects we fools . who love to act." . "Is there a defence? I defy anyone who has watched you as . I have - and I have watched you more closely than you can . have imagined - not to want to save you more pain than you . had already suffered. What did I care if numbers of nameless . and faceless people and creatures were slaughtered in the . vague future, if in the here and now you were alive, and . well, and happy? I never dreamed that I would have such a . person on my hands." If anything, Dumbledore admits that he erred on the side of being too concerned for Harry rather than heartless enough, and he knows that the consequences of his affection for this one child may well spell disaster for many others. I expect that like Harry's love for Sirius casting Voldemort out of his body, Dumbledore's affection for Harry will, in the end, prove to be important to Harry's ability to save them all. Our choices reveal us, and Dumbledore chose to love. :) From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Feb 12 07:27:57 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 07:27:57 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124405 > > Nevertheless. > OotP, ch 37: > > . "Do you see, Harry? Do you see the flaw in my brilliant plan > . now? I had fallen into the trap I had foreseen, that I had > . told myself I could avoid, that I must avoid." > > . "I don't -" > > . "I cared about you too much," said Dumbledore simply. "I > . cared more for your happiness than your knowing the truth, > . more for your peace of mind than my plan, more for your life > . than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed. In > . other words, I acted exactly as Voldemort expects we fools > . who love to act." > > . "Is there a defence? I defy anyone who has watched you as > . I have - and I have watched you more closely than you can > . have imagined - not to want to save you more pain than you > . had already suffered. What did I care if numbers of nameless > . and faceless people and creatures were slaughtered in the > . vague future, if in the here and now you were alive, and > . well, and happy? I never dreamed that I would have such a > . person on my hands." > > If anything, Dumbledore admits that he erred on the side of being too > concerned for Harry rather than heartless enough, and he knows that > the consequences of his affection for this one child may well spell > disaster for many others. > > I expect that like Harry's love for Sirius casting Voldemort out of > his body, Dumbledore's affection for Harry will, in the end, prove to > be important to Harry's ability to save them all. Our choices reveal > us, and Dumbledore chose to love. :) True. And that argues EXACTLY AGAINST the point you seemed to be making before. Is Dumbledore a heartless manipulator who sees Harry as a weapon or is he someone who loves Harry as a person? He can't be both. Either he sees Harry as a person OR he sees Harry as a tool. If he sees Harry as a tool he deserves the worst consequences imaginable. If he sees Harry as a person that that is a whole different story. I would argue, as you do here, that JKR would have DD see Harry as a person. That is not, however, what you implied in your previous post. Lupinlore From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sat Feb 12 05:03:33 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:03:33 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124406 > Pippin: > Then it would also have been morally wrong to leave Harry in the > WW, where he would have been abused by fame and fortune. If > you don't think so, consider the fate of so many child movie stars > of the thirties and forties, compared to the way famous children > are sheltered today. There's a reason that Chelsea Clinton and > the English princes weren't in the news much when they were > minors. Pippin, if Harry can survive his childhood with a strong moral background, then he could have survived fame and fortune with strong morals as well. I agree that there would have been a lot of pressure on him but I am sure that any parents that were selected by Harry would have shown some judgement, taught him restraint and kept a lid on his spending. That's what good parents do, even the parents of child stars. Do you really think that Harry would have grown up spoiled if he had been raised by a good pureblooded family like the Weasleys or the Boneses? I doubt it. Consider something else. What if Harry had decided to throw himself into his role as the Boy Who Lived and used his fame and fortune to bad ends once he discovered that he had both in the wizarding world? I can easily envision a scenario where Harry finds out he has wealth and fame from Hagrid and decides to go overboard with both as a reaction against his years of abuse. DD would have created the problem he was trying to stop. I personally think that the best thing DD could have done would have been to fake Harry's death and hide him somewhere else, like France or America, as just another war orphan. He could have played kindly old Grampy Albus until Harry was old enough to go to Hogwarts and be revealed to the world again. phoenixgod2000 From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Feb 12 12:22:01 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:22:01 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124408 Whiz quotes: > > OotP, ch 37: > > > > . "Do you see, Harry? Do you see the flaw in my brilliant plan > > > > ...... snip ...... > > . "I cared about you too much," said Dumbledore simply. "I > > . cared more for your happiness than your knowing the truth, > > . more for your peace of mind than my plan, more for your life > > . than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed. > > If anything, Dumbledore admits that he erred on the side of being too concerned for Harry rather than heartless enough, ... snip... > Lupinlore: > True. And that argues EXACTLY AGAINST the point you seemed to be > making before. Is Dumbledore a heartless manipulator who sees Harry as a weapon or is he someone who loves Harry as a person? Valky: Mind if I interject just a teensy bit? Just to give my opinion on this particular point, because I have one and last time I mentioned it was about August 2003. (lol I guess I have stayed out of the "bitter feelings for DD" since.) I think what DD is saying here is that he *knows* Harry is the only weapon that the WW has. And throughout Harry's young life DD ironed his hands regularly for the trials he had to inflict on this boy. He put Harry at the Dursley's, the only place where he could not die. This was his Dumbledores duty to all the *other* innocent boys in the WW, Ron, Neville, Lee, Dean..... Harry suffered for them, because if he died, their future was gone. At first out of his sober duty to the WW, and finally when he had crumbled emotionally to Harry and found himself deeply endeared, Dumbledore watched him and watched him. At first it was, "is he alive" "is he well" (duty), gradually it developed to "is he happy" (endearment). Piece by piece the endearment chipped away at the duty that DD had held fast to, and it was not a heartless duty, the alternative was frightful... Harry would be crucified and killed as a CHILD by an evil dark wizard! and *EVERY OTHER INNOCENT BOY IN THE WW WOULD SUFFER THE SAME*, its not heartless to stay fast to a duty like that. But eventually DD grew tired of promising himself he'd make it up to Harry, it was seeming to be getting too late for the chance ever to come anyway, so he went right ahead and hid the truth. DD thinks to himself "One more year of happiness a little more peace for the boy, I just can't make him suffer again" over and over until Harry's fifth year when DD finally realises that he's long overdue. Nothing can give Harry more peace now, than his truth. I have done my weeping for wise old Dumbledore, maybe some others might too now. Valky From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Feb 12 12:45:26 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:45:26 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: <127.55b8222f.2f3eda14@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124409 > Julie replies: > I agree knowing that someone who should love you does not love > you leaves an emotional scar. ... snip... > It's also not uncommon, and often appears in > blatant favoritism a parent, ... snip... I can never understand how people can do that in good conscience. > Valky: Nor I Julie. But my point is further on. Julie: > him with adequate food and shelter, and an education. Whether DD > knew about sleeping in closets and such, I don't know. But I do > believe Dumbledore knew Harry would survive it all without serious > emotional damage. Valky: He may have, but I would like to offer up that DD rested a good deal of faith in that Harry was the one with the power to defeat the Dark Lord.... In any case as long as he survuved there was a chance even if he was emotionally neglected for ten years, OTOH Harry's chance of survival came down to a very short list of choices. *One* choice long, I believe. Julie: > After all, Harry was the progeny of two strong- > willed, self-possessed parents and received 16 months of devotion > from those loving parents. One could reasonably expect Harry to > have received the benefit of both factors. Valky: Yes I am sure that this will be revealed as a crucial point, that the faint imprint, genetic & historical, of Lily and James that resided in Harry was more powerful than the Dursleys, and that DD knew that this would shield him emotionally for a while during his stay there. Heres a proposition..... Do you suppose a mother like Lily could leave her child bare to the world unarmed if she could magically endow him with some kind of lingering warmth from her and his father first? I'm thinking maybe a potion, maybe a Charm. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Feb 12 12:54:31 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:54:31 -0000 Subject: Harry's Head WAS (Turning Point? (was Re: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124410 > Neri: > In fact, in OotP JKR may have set the stage for a grand tragedy of > suspicion and mistrust within the triangle Harry-DD-Snape: Harry can't trust Snape because he's Snape, and he can't trust DD anymore because DD had already made critical mistakes of judgment in OotP. DD and Snape in turn can't trust Harry because information from Harry's head might leak to Voldy ..... Valky: Ahh but would it really be so bad for Snape if Voldy *did* see the pensieve memory from *Harry's* POV. That spark of human compassion in Lily, her ability to LOVE unconditionally, as a Mother does. This is exactly what defeated The Dark Lord the first time round.. Snape could not understand that part of the memory as Harry does, he is preoccupied with the James/Sirius circle of emotion. Perhaps, just perhaps... without realising it, it is Snape who has given Harry the weapons.. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 13:16:28 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:16:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050212131628.20793.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124411 --- nrenka wrote: > But what is almost more important if we're trying to get into > James' > psychology here is that it seems fairly clear that *James* thought > of > Snape as a Dark-Arts loving type of character. That's the thing > that > Sirius and Remus harp on when Harry comes to see them; that may be > a > retrospective emphasis, but it may be their expression of what they > remember as having been deathly important at that place in time. > Actually, Sirius and Remus don't "harp on" it: Sirius mentions it once, gets a sideways look from Remus and doesn't mention it again. Remus doesn't mention it at all, preferring to use the "school cool" inadvertantly arrogant defence. By the end of the conversation, after they're assured that Harry's chillled out a little, they're back in reminiscing mode. And if going up against Snape was an anti-DA statement, why bother hiding it from Lily? After all they were dating; why couldn't James have explained it to her: "See, it's my ideology, he's just into bad stuff that you really wouldn't approve of". Nope, I don't buy it. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 13:38:29 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:38:29 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (Making your own destiny) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124412 >Alla wrote: Dumbledore says: "My answer is that my priority was to keep you alive. You were in more danger than perhaps anyone but myself realised. Voldemort had been vanquished hours before, but his supporters - and many of them are almost as terrible as he - were still at large, angry, desperate and violent. And I had to make my decision too with regards to th years ahead. Did I believe that Voldemort was gone forever? no. I knew not whether it would be ten, twenty, or fifty years before he returned , but I was sure he would do so, and I was sure too, knowing him as I have done, that he would not rest until he killed you." - OOP, p.836. snip So, Dumbledore was not even sure when Voldemort will return. he simply decided that Harry was in danger and made a choice as to how to protect him. I don't remember reference in canon that Harry's mother blood was the ONLY protection available, just the one Dumbledore put his trust in. Dumbledore made a CHOICE. I understand his INITIAL choice, sort of. I don't necessarily think that it was the only one option available, although it is of course possible. snip vmonte responds: Hi Alla. I agree with your thoughts about the Dursleys. I have a four-year-old son and I cringe every time I reread the chapters with the Dursleys. I think that part of the appeal of the Harry Potter books is that children are being taught that they have a choice in their own destiny. That even if they come from a broken or abusive home they have a choice whether to move past it and accept love in their heart, or feel hatred and resentment for the rest of their lives. There are many characters in the HP books (good and bad) that have problems letting go of their past. Old hurts, resentments, bad families, etc., color the way they perceive everything else in their life. Harry, however, is able to overcome all of this. Not only that, he has the ability to feel compassion for people who really do not deserve it-- like Petunia and Snape. It's better to come out of a bad experience stronger and wiser, and seeing yourself as a survivor, than to become a hateful and deeply horrible person like Tom Riddle. The books tell children to be strong, be yourself, and do what is right. Not a bad thing in my opinion. JKR has written Dumbledore to be the "epitome of goodness." That's why when we read: "My answer is that my priority was to keep you alive," that this is the only thing Dumbledore could do to make sure that Harry survived. And Dumbledore, unlike the Dursleys, allows Harry to be himself. He doesn't stop Harry from facing danger, just teaches him enough so that he can overcome it. Dumbledore seems to interfere only when he knows that Harry's life is in eminent danger (not letting Harry leave the Dursleys home in OOTP, DD showing up at climactic moments, DD not looking Harry in the eye, etc). Harry loves his life at Hogwarts, and he likes the action hero part of his life, he just doesn't like all of the attention that gets focused on him. In the real world Harry would have been put into witness protection, given a new name, and placed with a family in Australia. But then there would be no Harry Potter. Harry has always confronted and faced the evil in his life. And he has always chosen his own path. In the end he may realize that his past is part of what made him strong enough. That's also why I hope that he will eventually disregard Trelawny's prophecy. There has been a lot of discussion lately regarding why Dumbledore never told Harry about the prophecy. I'm starting to think that he shouldn't have told him. I really hate the prophecy! If Voldemort hadn't listened to the prophecy in the first place he probably would have conquered the WW by now. The prophecy has actually stalled LV's plans. It reminds me of the Mirror of Erised. You become so fixated by the reflection you see that you forget to live. Harry really needs to reject it, IMO. Vivian From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Feb 12 13:40:43 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:40:43 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: <20050212131628.20793.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124413 > And if going up against Snape was an anti-DA statement, why bother > hiding it from Lily? After all they were dating; why couldn't James have explained it to her: "See, it's my ideology, he's just into bad stuff that you really wouldn't approve of". Nope, I don't buy it. > > Magda > Oh I bet he did tell her that actually. And she curtly replied: "Oh right, James. If that's what it is then you had better bear in mind that hypocrisy, *I* don't approve of." Followed by a long exhortation of reasoning why attacking Snape publicly simply wasn't going to serve the said ideology, with a fair slather of honest reprimand to balance it. James did stop humiliating Snape publicly, but the private battle between them continued, simply because they couldn't stand the sight of each other. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 13:58:39 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:58:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore the General (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050212135840.41169.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124414 --- sevenhundredandthirteen wrote: > IMO, it is obvious that Dumbledore is setting up a > diversion. And by putting a lot of effort into guarding it, it only > reaffirms, in Voldemort's eyes, that this is something he *needs*.. [SNIP] > Moreover, the last thing Dumbledore wants to do is for Voldemort to > give up his pursuit of the Dept. of Mysteries. This could happen if > Dumbledore went public with his knowledge. It could also occur if > Voldemort realised he was being set up, so Dumbledore must ensure > there is *some* resistance. > > ~<(Laurasia)>~ > > Who didn't realise how PuppetMaster!Dumbledore this was going to > turn out... It's almost as if he's done this all before... ;-) Yes, indeed, it's the Philosopher's-Stone-in-the-Mirror thing all over again. Excellent analysis, Laurasia. And Voldemort falls for it again too. But this time he makes sure that Harry has his own reasons for going to the DoM/MoM too; if its a trap, Voldemort wants a hostage to do the dirty work for him. And Dumbledore forgets that Harry also went charging in to save the stone four books ago. Dumbledore - who rewards Harry and group with enough points to win the House Cup that year - should have realized that perhaps he'd been a little too encouraging of Harry's going it alone tendencies. I still can't buy that "I tried to keep you safe" speech. Bollocks. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 14:00:57 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:00:57 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124415 >Alla wrote: Absolutely, Nora. Harry does fear Snape, not as strong as Neville does, but he is being afraid of Snape. "Wondering what on Earth it was doing here, he jumped when Snape's cold voice came out of the corner. "Shut the door behind you, Potter" Harry did as he was told with the horrible feeling that he was imprisoning himself as he did so" - OOP, p.529, paperback. "Harry threw him a filthy look before doing as he was told. He did not like the idea of standing there with his eyes shut while Snape faced him carrying a wand" - OOP, p.535, paperback. vmonte responds: These quotes are horrible aren't they? Dumbledore must know something about Snape that perhaps maybe even Snape is unaware of. I would never allow this kind of person to teach my child. I wonder if Dumbledore's trust in Snape is different from what we think it is. Vivian From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 14:11:08 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:11:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's plant imagery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050212141108.15493.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124416 > Carol: > That image caught my eye, too, and it seemed to suggest neglect on > the part of the adults in young Severus's life--his parents, his > head of house, maybe even Dumbledore. I think the boy Severus had > enormous potential,...edit... but that's what the image of the > pallid, neglected plant suggests to me, and I find it very sad. > It's an interesting image because of the value-neutral description. A plant doesn't do well in the shade because the shade hates it; it just lacks what it needs to grow and develop. Put it in the sun and it will flourish, not because the sun loves or approves of it, but because it will provide the necessary nutrients the plant needs. Had Snape had a few different or better breaks in his earlier life, he might have ended up a different organism. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sat Feb 12 14:49:18 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:49:18 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124417 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > Is Dumbledore a heartless manipulator who sees Harry > as a weapon or is he someone who loves Harry as a person? He can't be > both. Either he sees Harry as a person OR he sees Harry as a tool. > If he sees Harry as a tool he deserves the worst consequences > imaginable. If he sees Harry as a person that that is a whole > different story. I would argue, as you do here, that JKR would have > DD see Harry as a person. That is not, however, what you implied in > your previous post. > I don't agree with the either/or here. We all have layered feelings and thoughts about each other. On a romantic level, for instance, you can love someone and at the same time take into account his financial status when considering the relationship's future. Harry *is* the only one who can vanquish Voldemort. DD didn't do that and he can't fix it. There it is - a fact. All DD can do is make the best decisions while taking this critical fact into consideration. The fate of all humanity is on Harry's, and therefore DD's, shoulders. If Harry dies, Voldemort CANNOT be vanquished. I mean, this is fiction, so of course we don't really take it seriously, but think of it - Hitler, Nazism ruling the world for ever. In this fictional world, these are the stakes. DD would be an irresponsible fool if he didn't take Harry's destiny very, very seriously. From this perspective, it's his love for Harry that requires justification. DD himself thinks that it is morally suspect - that the issue at stake is too large for personal feelings to play any part in it. I agree that JKR would have DD see Harry as a person. In fact, going by DD's own words, he does. But I think that it's not a simple issue. Choosing between the well-being of a person you love and the life, liberty and happiness of billions? How can it ever be simple or straighforward? Naama From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 15:11:05 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:11:05 -0000 Subject: DD/LV Chess Snape matters, and Endgame scenarios. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124418 Vaulky earlier: And I want to know why Snape keeps turning up as a black piece. Vaulky (last post) (last post? - no no-one has died!): In PS/SS the move made on the King is represented by Quirrel advancing on the stone, He advances quickly, through diagon-alley to dead end, a Bishop. He takes two more steps to get to the King. (snip) Dumbledore tempted the Bishop closer by moving out of striking range and the Bishop takes the bait, "surprise" right into the path of Harry. He is then trapped, the Bishop is taken from the board in a surprise backwards jump by the DD piece.. Becky: So far, in total agreement Vaulky: Now as for Snape, the reason I see him as a Black Knight is because of the moves we see him make. The Halloween Troll for example: After the troll is released (Black move), the pieces moving are Harry, Ron, Quirrel and Snape. Harry and Ron are both WhitePieces moving once each to disarm the situation, which leaves *two black moves*. One is Quirrel, so Snapes move should logically therefore be a BlackPiece too. (and it certainly doesn't seem to be a move instigated by DD) Becky: Surprise, surprise, now I'm not! If we are looking at this whole thing as *purely* chess (which, if I read you correctly, you are), then this isn't necessarily the case. I have a couple of reasons. 1 - Black doesn't need to move twice at this point (even though I think he does). The moves may simply read white, black, white. 2 - If you assume that black needs to move twice, there is no reason at all why it can't be the same piece that moves twice (as you show in your next paragraph). After all, it seems that he does. We know Quirrell let the troll in, and we know he then moved again by using that as his cover for going to see what was guarding the stone (see PS `The Man With Two Faces` pg.210). However, I see Snape in a white move. I see Harry and Ron moving *together* as white move 1 and Snape moving to head Quirrell off as move 2. I know we nowhere see DD ask for this move, but can you possibly imagine LV asking for Quirrell to be stopped from working out how to get the stone? Again, I come back to that being totally ambiguous. I simply choose for SS to be white as I interpret it. Vaulky: Again in COS Lucius, Draco, Snape, Hagrid, Hermione, Ron, Harry we have an overload of white pieces here, Lucius moves twice, which leaves one more black move to even it out, unless we can imagine a ESE!HRH we have to assume that Snape did it, because Draco only moves once. Becky: Please tell me I'm missing something. As I line these players up (minus SS), that's 2 for black and 3 for white. You've said already that 1 black player moves twice, so by my maths, that evens it out. No need for any more black moves (although if you want more black moves, what about those of Tom Riddle egging the basilisk on.) There is no need for SS to be involved in this movement at all. So far as I can see, he isn't. You previously mentioned `The opening move to the Parseltongue Harry! SlytherinHeir Rumour.' (Message 124343). I don't see it this way at all. He was the one who allowed the snake to remain long enough for all those present (and there were a fair few) to see for themselves that Harry is a pareselmouth. He couldn't have possibly foreseen that. After, not even Harry was aware of it. Every school in the world has it's own network of gossipers. I'm sure there were plenty who saw what happened who spread that particular piece of gossip all by themselves. Plenty who could have made the snake connection with Slytherin (Hermione isn't the only one who reads!). Vaulky: In POA we have Remus, Sirius, Harry, Hermione, Ron, Snape in the climax. Remus is trapped in a bad spot, leaving another overload of white pieces moving to distract the attack on Sirius if Snape is a white piece. This one *is* the most obvious because Snape is the *only* possible visible black piece left moving in the end. Becky: Why? Where's Pettigrew in all this? He seemed to be moving pretty quickly to me! I do think that SS is not really acting on any orders from either side here (again!). He actually lets his past feelings get the better of him for once. He is trying to act out his own justice for the way he was treated when he was at school. No white side, black side thought process there. Vaulky: I know I am intimating a fair bit of authority and I apologise for that. Breaking the stories up into chess moves is difficult, and despite my tone I would welcome corrections. Becky: Apology accepted and totally understood. I'm kind of feeling good about the corrections thing, and I'm sure you're more than capable of correcting my corrections! To allow yet more snipping, I think we have to agree to disagree about Harry becoming a Queen. It is of course possible for more than just Harry to become another Queen. Vaulky: This is the only way I can figure to understand it, Snape is a piece on either side. He is a Black Knight *and* he is a White piece (not sure about Rook yet but it does seem possible considering he has a very 'straight' goal in being in the Whitepiece side, compare with the round about sort of reason for his Black piece position Becky: This idea of SS being a Rook is very interesting to me. It may just have been the way *I* play (and my old schools, etc), but when the pawn reached the other side to become a new Queen, we took one of the Rooks (which were already out of action) and replaced it on the board upside-down as the new queen. I think this plays along very well with my idea of SS being a major final player (as previously explained), whether as Harry!Queen, or someone else. Vaulky: I got this scenario by placing the real pieces on a chess-board as I see them at the end of OOtP Becky: I'm really beginning to wish I had one so I could do the same! Whizbang: And, my favorite question, why did Molly Weasley harbor a common garden rat for 12 years? Becky: Good question. I like Vaulky's answer, but I'd like to add that nobody seems to have noticed what a long life span the rat had. So for your 12 years part of the question, I think that's why. Nobody noticed it was strange, so nobody questioned it. (Plus, it's yet another one of JKR's `12' references which seem so odd and frequent). Why a rat (watch all the Manx people who won't say `rat', who prefer to call them `long tails', shiver at the mere mention!), I have no idea. But just because it doesn't appear on the school list of pets, doesn't mean some people don't keep them as pets at home. My school *never* had a list of pets, and we had 2 guinea pigs and 2 budgies. Why was Ron then allowed to take it to school? No idea! Doesn't make a lot of sense to me! Becky - waiting to see how many holes you can punch through that! (Putting a guess in the bookies for 12!) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 15:23:45 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:23:45 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Sympathetic. And Dead, Too. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124419 Elkins: huge snip What "Hurt-Comfort" comes down to is the fact that women are just plain Bent, and adolescent girls even more so. They *like* to see male characters suffer, so long as they do so with some degree of manly dignity, because it turns them on. Male vulnerability garners their sympathy, and it also kind of excites them. They like it. No one ever wants to 'fess up to this, but it's true. Just look at the characters most often fixated upon as drool-worthy by JKR's adult female readers, will you? Lupin. Sirius. Snape. We all know what's *really* going on there, don't we? Are we all grown-up enough to admit it? All three of those characters have erotic appeal primarily because they all *suffer* so much. Lupin's kindness wouldn't alone be sufficient to make him so sexy; it's all of that exhaustion and illness and emotional damage that really nets in the fans. Sirius without all those years spent in Azkaban wouldn't have nearly the following that he has. And Snape...well, it's all that angst that does it, right? Female readers are almost always attracted to male characters who get hurt a lot. They just are. And Draco does get smacked around a *lot* in these books. He gets ferret-bounced and hippogriff-slashed and pimp-slapped and seriously hexed. And that's just the sort of thing that female readers -- and particularly adolescent girls -- really go for. It's why they think Harry's so sexy too, I'd warrant. It's because they're twisted little FEATHERBOA wearers, each and every one of them. And JKR must know this. She *must.* I mean, even Draco himself -- who's really rather stupid, honestly -- is hip to this dynamic. Just look at how he responds to Pansy in _PoA,_ when she asks him if his arm hurts. Draco knows the score, all right. A macho "nah, not really, don't worry about it" just isn't going to win you any eros points from an adolescent girl, unless there's one heck of a wince accompanying it. And Draco knows that. To get the adolescent girls crushing on you, you have to be hurt...yet still doing okay with it. But not *too* okay. Not really okay down deep inside. Just marginally okay. Okay for now. Okay, but tottering dangerously on the cusp on not really okay at all. Yeah, I think that JKR knows what she's doing with that one. I think she knew full well that all the adolescent girls were just going to swoon in guilt-ridden sadistic crush-mode the second that she smacked poor Harry with all of that Cruciatus in the graveyard, and I think that she knew exactly what she was doing when she started beating out her tune on that "Harry can't cry" drum, too. I think that she knew what she was doing when she gave us poor pallid haggard prematurely-grey Lupin, and I think that she knew what she was doing when she told us all about Sirius' haunted Azkaban eyes, and I even think it possible that she might have had some inkling of what she was up to when she kicked Snape's emotional legs out from under him for just a second there in "The Egg and the Eye." So what gives with Draco, then? Why *does* the author seem to want to hurt him so much? Ostensibly, it's to give us all a bit of "Just Desserts" satisfaction, but is that really all that's going on? I don't know. But I do wonder about it sometimes. For one thing, if you want to make a male character suffer and yet be absolutely certain that no reader will be the slightest bit tempted to get any erotic charge out of it, then there are certainly ways to do that. The author can stave off "Hurt-Comfort," and JKR herself seems to know exactly how to do it. She does it all the time when she writes Pettigrew, who no matter how much pain he might be compelled to endure throughout _GoF,_ no matter how vulnerable he may be, nonetheless never *once* derives the slightest bit of erotic frisson from any of it. That's because the author goes to great lengths to describe his suffering as simply disgusting, and his vulnerabilities as just plain pathetic. She works really *hard* at that. Similarly, she knows exactly how to handle my boy Avery in the graveyard to make his own little bout of Cruciatus merely blackly humorous, rather than either sympathetic or at all appealing. So why can't she do the same for Draco? She doesn't even have him "scream" when he gets attacked by Buckbeak. He's certainly acting like a great big baby, but at the same time, the verb that she actually chooses to use for his line there is "yell," which is a lot more macho then her usual "shrieking," to be sure. And while Hermione may take a great deal of pleasure in mocking Draco for his fearfulness in the wake of the ferret-bouncing incident, the way that JKR actually chooses to describe his behavior in the immediate wake of the incident is really remarkably sedate, given that she's dealing with a character who is supposed to be such an absolute coward. He picks himself up off the floor, and he's flushed and dishevelled. But he doesn't even whimper. This is really *not* the way to go about writing a character whom you wish to discourage as an object of some erotic interest among your female readership. It really isn't. There are very simple ways to discourage such readings. But when it comes to Draco, JKR isn't using them. Alla: So, I was rereading some of the Elkins' posts ( the bit of reading which I strongly recommend to anyone) and decided to ask a question,which kind of bug me ever since I read "Draco Malfoy is Ever so Lame.Yet Sympathetic and Dead" ( message 39083)for the first time. I cannot help but nod my head in agreement as to general idea of hurt/comfort and why I love certain characters . :o) Absolutely, the more pain they endure the more I like them. Sirius is a very good example, Harry - definitely, Lupin, even Snape. But I cannot see any of it, or almost any of it in Malfoy character. I cannot see any "dignified' suffering after he has his encounter with Buckbeak - I only see pathetic lying in the Potions class to make Ron do his work for him. I just don't feel Draco's pain at all. For the most part all that I feel is disgust. I feel like he is pretending, but not really hurting I suppose. Harry's hurt from cruciatus is real, Sirius' pain from Azkaban is real, even Snape I can imagine carries some guilt, pain, whatever, not Draco, though , not to me. Is it because his ideology repulses me? Probably, but then again - " bad boys who could be redeemed" usually work quite well for me. Is it because I identify with Harry so strongly? But I like Snape ( honestly I do :o)), even though he , IMO, hurts Harry significantly more than Draco does. The only time in the books when I kind of felt Draco's pain, sort of was at the end of OOP, when he blames Harry for putting Lucius in prizon. I kind of sensed real feeling behind that, but it definitely not enough for me to expect Redeemable!Draco. Can somebody explain to me,why while I understand hurt/comfort phenomena quite well, it does not work for me on Draco? I snipped Elkins' work quite significantly, but definitely read the complete one. :o) Alla From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 15:43:25 2005 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:43:25 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124420 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > True. And that argues EXACTLY AGAINST the point you seemed to be > making before. Whiz: This seems to be your answer to everything. It is already old. lupinlore: Is Dumbledore a heartless manipulator who sees Harry > as a weapon or is he someone who loves Harry as a person? He can't be > both. Either he sees Harry as a person OR he sees Harry as a tool. > If he sees Harry as a tool he deserves the worst consequences > imaginable. If he sees Harry as a person that that is a whole > different story. I would argue, as you do here, that JKR would have > DD see Harry as a person. That is not, however, what you implied in > your previous post. Whiz: If you read the passage again, you will see that Dumbledore's plan required that he see Harry as a weapon, a tool. He admits that his failure, as far as his plan is concerned, was that instead, he saw Harry as a person, and a child for whom he had great affection. In terms of Dumbledore's plan, it looks like he would agree with you, he can't have it both ways. But even Dumbledore isn't fully aware of Harry's potential. We've seen Harry's love for Sirius save him from possession by Voldemort. How Dumbledore's affection for Harry will prove more important than his plan is something we haven't come to, yet. But I'm confident that we will. From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 15:52:03 2005 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:52:03 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124421 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: Phoenixgod2000: > Pippin, if Harry can survive his childhood with a strong moral > background, then he could have survived fame and fortune with strong > morals as well. I agree that there would have been a lot of pressure > on him but I am sure that any parents that were selected by Harry > would have shown some judgement, taught him restraint and kept a lid > on his spending. That's what good parents do, even the parents of > child stars. Do you really think that Harry would have grown up > spoiled if he had been raised by a good pureblooded family like the > Weasleys or the Boneses? I doubt it. Whiz: Great idea! Dumbledore could have left him with the Longbottoms. He and Neville could have been raised together in the safe home of talented aurors. phoenixgod2000: > Consider something else. What if Harry had decided to throw himself > into his role as the Boy Who Lived and used his fame and fortune to > bad ends once he discovered that he had both in the wizarding world? > I can easily envision a scenario where Harry finds out he has wealth > and fame from Hagrid and decides to go overboard with both as a > reaction against his years of abuse. DD would have created the > problem he was trying to stop. Whiz: This is just one in an endless number of possible scenarios. There always an endless supply of "what ifs." Phoenixgod2000: > I personally think that the best thing DD could have done would have > been to fake Harry's death and hide him somewhere else, like France > or America, as just another war orphan. He could have played kindly > old Grampy Albus until Harry was old enough to go to Hogwarts and be > revealed to the world again. Whiz: For that matter, Dumbledore could have just kept Harry with him anywhere. But I don't think it would have been helpful for Dumbledore to leave Hogwarts or the British wizarding world. Whatever would Fudge have done without him? From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 16:26:17 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:26:17 -0000 Subject: The Temptations of Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124422 The Temptations of Harry and how living with the Dursleys helped. Fame and Fortune Harry grows up with the Dursleys and sees what Dudley has become because he is pampered and given everything. I am pretty sure that once he gets to an age of reason that Harry thinks to himself that he doesn't want to be like Dudley. Also Harry at some point, because he is not give a lot of material goods, comes to realize that money has no control over him. He can make do. He could live on next to nothing if he had to. Later when Harry does discover that he has money (and it appears that no one watches how he uses it), once past the initial shock he does seem to use it wisely. This is really quite remarkable for a child of his age. Again the Sorting Hat tempts Harry as well with the "you could be great you know" suggestion of Slytherin House. Harry is already famous and is embarrassed about it. And he knows that he doesn't want to be in Slytherin House because he has met Draco, the WW equivalent of Dudley. Draco is not fat like Dudley, probably because his mother is very vane and good looks would be important to her. Otherwise Draco and Dudley are much the same. I am sure that there are many lesson that Harry has learned during his *exile* in the Muggle world and in the Dursleys home. And these lessons, harsh that they may have been, have made Harry a more powerful person. LV can tempt Harry with fame and fortune and Harry can calmly say "no thanks". I think that there are other temptations of Harry that match the Temptations of Christ as well. Tonks_op From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Sat Feb 12 14:46:48 2005 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Richard Jones) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:46:48 -0000 Subject: Problems at the end of GOF Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124423 When I was rereading GOF last weekend, I had some questions about the plot points: (1) How did the "shades" of Cedric and Frank Bryce and Lily and James know all they knew? How did the shades know what was going on or about the golden thread connection or what to do? How did they know there was a portkey there? What goes on inside the wands? (2) Inside the maze, Harry had his wand point north, but how did that help him find the trophy? If he was east or west of the trophy, it would just lead him right past it. It wouldn't be any help except at the very entrance. And by the way, why didn't Harry or Ron or some Gryffindor fly above the hedge earlier and make a map of the maze for Harry? It was just a normally growing maze and there is no mention that DD had enchanted it. (3) And how did LV have the wand he killed James and Lily with? At Godric's Hollow, he turned into vapor so he couldn't carry it. So it must have just fallen down and maybe picked up by someone else at Godric's Hollow, but the Death Eaters didn't know he was alive or where he was and if a member of the Ministry got it they would probably destroy it or keep it well protected (and even if Lucius Malfoy stole it from the Ministry how would he get it to LV since he didn't know LV was alive, let alone where he was?). LV spent 13 years as vapor and a snake and like that, and so he couldn't carry it in any of those states. Wormtail was a rat and couldn't carry it. LV had to have Wormtail use it in graveyard against Cedric because he couldn't. So how did he come to have his wand in the graveyard? Richard Jones From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Feb 12 17:23:00 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:23:00 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124424 > > Pippin: > > Then it would also have been morally wrong to leave Harry in the WW, where he would have been abused by fame and fortune. If you don't think so, consider the fate of so many child movie stars of the thirties and forties, compared to the way famous children are sheltered today. There's a reason that Chelsea Clinton and the English princes weren't in the news much when they were minors.<< Phoenixgod2000: > Pippin, if Harry can survive his childhood with a strong moral background, then he could have survived fame and fortune with strong morals as well. < Pippin: It seems a bit, well, arbitrary to me to state that Harry's great inner strength would have seen him through fame and fortune better than it would have seen him through the Dursleys. How on earth could Dumbledore, or any of us, know that? Then there's the admittedly vexed question of whether Harry only developed that inner strength because he knew he needed it to survive. Harry was exposed to Muggle culture which carries that message very strongly, but would he have learned that in the wizarding world? Or would he have thought that inner strength comes from having good bloodlines and doesn't require any effort on his part? Phoenixgod2000: I agree that there would have been a lot of pressure on him but I am sure that any parents that were selected by Harry would have shown some judgement, taught him restraint and kept a lid on his spending. That's what good parents do, even the parents of child stars. . Do you really think that Harry would have grown up > spoiled if he had been raised by a good pureblooded family like the Weasleys or the Boneses? I doubt it.< Pippin: Our culture knows that's what good parents should do. But that's a modern development, built on the tragedies of the past. Consider the Dionne quintuplets. Those children were so adored by the public that they became a freak show. No one realized the harm it would do, except for a few prescient people who weren't listened to. That's the position Dumbledore would have been in. Phoenixgod200: > I personally think that the best thing DD could have done would have been to fake Harry's death and hide him somewhere else, like France or America, as just another war orphan. < Pippin: And deprive Harry's survival of its meaning for the WW? "Harry Potter shone like a beacon of hope for those who thought the dark days would never end," -- Dobby CoS, ch 10. There might not have been a wizarding world for Harry to come back to, in that case. Pippin From ms-tamany at rcn.com Sat Feb 12 17:39:24 2005 From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:39:24 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Problems at the end of GOF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <420DF8FC.8011.698393@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 124425 > Richard Jones: > When I was rereading GOF last weekend, I had some questions about the > plot points: Tammy Rizzo: Well, let's see if maybe we can get some answers to these questions for you, shall we then? > Richard Jones: > (1) How did the "shades" of Cedric and Frank Bryce and Lily and James > know all they knew? How did the shades know what was going on or > about the golden thread connection or what to do? How did they know > there was a portkey there? What goes on inside the wands? Tammy Rizzo: Well, first off, they weren't 'shades', they were more like 'echoes', an image or copy, if you will, of the life-force stolen from them when they were AK'd. At least, that's how I see them. As a Xerox (TM) of the original people, they'd have much the same personality and knowledge as their originals, perhaps muddied a bit by being stored in the wand for so long, plus they'd have been able to absorb some information about what was going on around them, as, say, people in a stopped bus can see what's happening outside th bus, even if they can't leave the bus. At least, that's my take on the echoes of LV's AK victims. Does that help? And if that doesn't help, then here's my catch-all, last-resort answer: It's *magic*, ooooooh! 8-) Not stage-magic like my dad used to do when he was younger, but *REAL* magic, not necessarily obligated to follow the laws of physics or of logic as we know them. > Richard Jones: > (2) Inside the maze, Harry had his wand point north, but how did that > help him find the trophy? If he was east or west of the trophy, it > would just lead him right past it. It wouldn't be any help except at > the very entrance. Tammy Rizzo: Assuming you were lost in the forest, wouldn't it be nice and handy to have a compass so at least you'd know which direction you were facing? That's what Harry's wand did for him, and all it did for him, was act as a compass, to help him get his bearings. However, think back to just how much time Harry has spent over the Quidditch pitch, on his broom, overhead . . . I'm sure that, even with a hedgemaze tossed up right in the middle of it all, he'd still have some sort of feel for where he was on the pitch itself, just from all that time in the three years past, in practice and games. And if he could only know which direction he was facing, he could probably suss out which side of the centerline he was on, at least. Or take a good guess at the VERY least. > Richard Jones: > And by the way, why didn't Harry or Ron or some Gryffindor fly above > the hedge earlier and make a map of the maze for Harry? It was just > a normally growing maze and there is no mention that DD had enchanted > it. Tammy Rizzo: Well, now, Gryffs are supposed to be noble and chivalrous, right? I mean, basically. Making a map of a maze would be cheating, not a very chivalrous thing to do. > Richard Jones: > (3) And how did LV have the wand he killed James and Lily with? At > Godric's Hollow, he turned into vapor so he couldn't carry it. So it > must have just fallen down and maybe picked up by someone else at > Godric's Hollow, but the Death Eaters didn't know he was alive or > where he was and if a member of the Ministry got it they would > probably destroy it or keep it well protected (and even if Lucius > Malfoy stole it from the Ministry how would he get it to LV since he > didn't know LV was alive, let alone where he was?). LV spent 13 > years as vapor and a snake and like that, and so he couldn't carry it > in any of those states. Wormtail was a rat and couldn't carry it. > LV had to have Wormtail use it in graveyard against Cedric because he > couldn't. So how did he come to have his wand in the graveyard? Tammy Rizzo: Well, this wand question has come up over and over and over again, and I have a very simple explanation for it (that others have also brought up over and over and over again). Here it is again. First off, there had to have been someone else with LV at the Potters that fateful night. I believe Wormtail lead LV to the place, then hung around to watch, and when everything went *BANG*, he picked up LV's wand and ran away like the snivelling rat he is. So, that's how Voldy's wand was 'rescued'. As for how could a rat carry it . . . well, we've seen Sirius transform from his human form to his dog form and back again, and he wasn't naked when he regained his human form -- his clothes, and assumingly, all the stuff within his pockets, follow him into his Animagus form. Same with McG, at the Dursleys. She went from cat to *fully dressed* witch (or we'd have heard SOMETHING about her being undressed, I'm sure). So, when Pettigrew transformed into a rat and escaped down into the sewers in the middle of London, then everything in his pockets went with him, including LV's wand. Simple. *** Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at rcn.com Want to back-up your expensive DVDs? Check out DVD Wizard Pro: http://www.dvdwizardpro.com/idevaffiliate/idevaffiliate.php?id=398 Want to earn a Sony Vaio for only $5? Check out EZ Laptop: http://www.ezlaptop.com/index.php?ref=8574 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 17:39:13 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:39:13 -0000 Subject: Problems at the end of GOF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124426 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Richard Jones" wrote: > > > When I was rereading GOF last weekend, I had some questions about the > plot points: > > (1) How did the "shades" of Cedric and Frank Bryce and Lily and James > know all they knew? How did the shades know what was going on or > about the golden thread connection or what to do? How did they know > there was a portkey there? What goes on inside the wands? Finwitch: I think that beyond the Veil the dead watch first their own life like a movie. After they've done that they can watch others - to whose lives they have effected. (So they can learn from the consequences). So that er - parents/ancestors can watch what their descendants are doing. Or maybe Cedric *told* them about what had happened? (Don't forget, James WAS top of his class). Or maybe they, being dead and unable to influence things (except with things like Patronus and Priori Incantatem from the wand that killed them - and possibly dreams and Divination) just KNOW things. > (2) Inside the maze, Harry had his wand point north, but how did that > help him find the trophy? If he was east or west of the trophy, it > would just lead him right past it. It wouldn't be any help except at > the very entrance. > > And by the way, why didn't Harry or Ron or some Gryffindor fly above > the hedge earlier and make a map of the maze for Harry? It was just > a normally growing maze and there is no mention that DD had enchanted > it. Er - Point me - wizard's version of a compass... Well, you have to be aware of your directions in a maze! You know-- North's that way -- South's opposite... East is on the Right and West on the Left... Really, with so many turns you may need, well... Making a map... Well, it's not just a maze. They got the Blast-ended Skrewts there, and a sphinx, and a Boggart, and that upside-down- thingy... and Spider And... AND: 1)if you do it at night, you don't see it properly. 2) if you do it by day, you'll be seen-- and I guess a map would be considered as *cheating* (and both Cedric and Harry just WON'T do it). And it's entirely possible that the maze WAS unmappable or something... > (3) And how did LV have the wand he killed James and Lily with? At > Godric's Hollow, he turned into vapor so he couldn't carry it. So it > must have just fallen down and maybe picked up by someone else at > Godric's Hollow, but the Death Eaters didn't know he was alive or > where he was and if a member of the Ministry got it they would > probably destroy it or keep it well protected (and even if Lucius > Malfoy stole it from the Ministry how would he get it to LV since he > didn't know LV was alive, let alone where he was?). LV spent 13 > years as vapor and a snake and like that, and so he couldn't carry it > in any of those states. Wormtail was a rat and couldn't carry it. > LV had to have Wormtail use it in graveyard against Cedric because he > couldn't. So how did he come to have his wand in the graveyard? Finwitch: Apparently... OK, he used it in GH that night. The spell that bounced off Harry doesn't show (mainly because no one died). Then there's the Hagrid/Harry/Sirius - scene, Sirius heads off after Peter, catching up quite SOON. Running. On foot(Hagrid had the motorcycle), human form. Seems to me that Peter DID take Voldemort's wand that night - was quite close anyway. SO he had no real qualms in leaving his own behind (as he had to cut off his finger anyway). I doubt a wizard can fake his death and keep his wand. And NO spells are showing until after Pettigrew was in contact with Voldemort... and why did he keep the wand? WELL - I imagine he kept it as an insurance. ('look master, I brought your wand... you -- er -- you wouldn't kill me, would you...') Where ever it was kept hidden, Pettigrew knew where it was. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 18:00:19 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:00:19 -0000 Subject: Turning Point? (was Re: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124427 > > Neri: > It is not exactly that he won't have adults to turn to, but that he > will not see the point of turning to them. It might be a situation > somewhat similar (although for other reasons) to his situation in > Christmas in OotP. He could have told any of the grownups in 12GP > (Sirius, Lupin, Molly, Moody) about his fear that he is possessed, but > he knew they wouldn't tell him the truth, the way Sirius didn't > (although he wanted to). We can have a similar situation throughout > HBP, because Harry wouldn't trust any of the grownups to do the right > thing, and not to keep information from him. > > For example, consider a possible scenario: Harry sees something > (perhaps through his link with Voldy) that makes him seriously suspect > that Snape betrays the Order. So he goes to DD and tells him about it. > DD tells Harry that he trusts Snape, but he cannot tell Harry why. > This is something between DD and Snape, and besides it isn't possible > to tell Harry because the information might leak from his mind to > Voldy. So Harry is not satisfied with DD's decision, and he knows DD > had already made mistakes that led to Sirius' death. And what other > grownup can he turn to with his suspicions regarding DD--- Finwitch: I know - in a way, Harry's trust went beyond the Veil with Sirius. Yes, there are lots of adults who come up to intimidate the Dursleys in the end of OOP, but -- is Harry going to trust them with his emotions? With his questions? And er - only Tonks and Moody are actually *new* advisors here. Harry's already faced the problem considering his scar. He thought of Hermione (Books. No deal. No one's had this sort of scar before - and contact Dumbledore); Ron - (oh yeah, tell him and all Weasley clan knows... Molly will hustle and ...) Dursleys (ridiculous idea) - Dumbledore (how would I do that - no, not to bother him...) AND then, after realising what he needed - "someone like a parent, Someone who cares, someone to turn for advice without feeling embarrased-- Sirius". I know - and now Harry won't even trust himself! And what comes about Snape and Dumbledore... I don't know about you, but all this 'I trust Severus Snape'- mantra sets alarms on my head. It's almost like Dumbledore's convincing - wanting - *himself* to trust SS. He keeps saying that - or insisting on the *professor* - to reject nearly EVERY negative comment about SS. I'm not trusting SS, and I'm not so sure I trust DD's wisdom very much either. I trust DD be on the good side (and I believe he doesn't lie)... That phoenix keeps too *silent*. Has he ever sung when SS was there? I want to see SS facing the song of the Phoenix, and something to tell if he's encouraged or frightened by it. Finwitch From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 18:11:56 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:11:56 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124428 Alshain: >The best part of three *years*. Britain would be overrun by Death >Eaters if Dumbledore took his best fighters out of battle for that >long and set them to learn the Animagus transformation. My bad. For some reason, I thought it was months. phoenixgod2000: >On the larger topic of this thread, I really want to learn more >about Grindlewald and how DD beat him. Have there been any >interviews or chats where JK has mentioned if that's going to get >talked about at all? It would be nice to have some background on this entire incident. Who was Grindlewald? Why did Dumbledore have to defeat him? How did he defeat him? Was he killed? This would give us some more insight as to how DD operates. Betsy: >I know you >don't like the way Dumbledore operates. But to carry that through to >the conclusion that Dumbledore is clueless or cold-hearted is a >little extreme, IMO. Harry seems to be baring up rather well >considering all he's going through, and I think Dumbledore has been a >big support for him. I really don't see DD supporting Harry as much as I see the potential of DD USING Harry. The whole SS/PS scenario seemed like a big setup to find out how good Harry was. Probably a good idea, on DD's part, I admit, but not very sterling, character-wise. Alla: >I don't think I am holding Dumbledore up to impossible standards by >insisting that he should have made sure that Harry had his friends >near by and available. Of course we are not talking about real >psychologists. It seems like there are no mind healers in WW. But >friends support network should work pretty well, IMO. So, yes, I do >hold Dumbledore accountable for cutting Harry off one. And of >course, how about letting Ron and Hermione answer Harry questions in >hsi letters. I think that would have helped too. I agree with Alla wholeheartedly on this one. Harry's entire mindset through OoP was enraged - he's angry in nearly every single chapter and exploding with rage by the end. DD should have been wise enough to have seen how it would have affected Harry and at least made some small effort to ease him through some of his trauma. Instead, he decided to let Snape teach him Occlumency, which was rather like throwing gasoline on a bonfire. Betsy: >But this is just a guess on your part, right? Obviously, we don't >know how well negotiations are going between the Order and the >various magical folk, because Harry doesn't know. We do know, >however, that the magical folk who worked for Voldemort were a great >asset to him in the last war (as per Lupin IIRC). So I'm not sure >why Dumbledore approaching them now can be defined as a waste of >time. Even neutrality would be a gain. Okay, maybe it wouldn't be a complete waste of time, but he also should have started on the negotiation thing about fifteen years ago. When it was clear that Voldemort was gone (at least for awhile) he should have started campaigning. Now that LV is back, I don't see 13th hour scrambling having much effect. Betsy: >And again - how do you know none of this was done? Obviously no one >was watching the old Riddle home (where Voldemort *never* lived by >the way), but it's a little too easy to say with the benefit of >hindsight - "oh, but you should have..." Why wasn't he watching the Riddle home? Why didn't he take the time to find out everything possible about Tom Riddle? And where were LV's headquarters during the first war? Someone had to have known that. >It seems to me that in order to argue that Dumbledore has been doing >nothing, you have to overlook some fairly stong hints in canon. Frankly, I'm getting very dissatisfied with hints. I hope she spills something concrete in the next book, because after OoP, I'm rapidly losing faith in DD. >But as of right now, Voldemort's return has been indisputably >revealed (very much against Voldemort's wishes), Voldemort is still >in the dark as to Harry's role in the whole thing Unfortunately, so is Harry, except that he knows he might have to kill Voldemort, and frankly, is that really a surprise? Did he think LV was going to wake up one morning and realize he'd been a very bad boy and want to make friends? Mass murderers tend to require extermination because they just don't change. >and Voldemort lost >a good handful of Death Eaters, and a powerful influence at the >Ministry. Dumbledore lost one Order member. He didn't lose any Death Eaters. Who is going to keep them in Azkaban without the Dementors? Malfoy was right - I think they'll be free before the next book begins. >Again, the idea that Dumbledore, et al have *not* been pro-actively >working since Voldemort's first downfall is a mere guess on your >part. And one not very well backed by canon. Obviously, JKR doesn't come out and say, "DD hasn't been doing much in the past fifteen years to prepare for LV's possible return." Like everything else, we're just guessing (which is why we're on this list!). We're guessing that Snape is good (or evil), we're guessing that Percy will return to the fold (or not) and we're guessing that Harry will have to destroy LV (or be destroyed) and all of this is based on what we've read - everyone has a different interpretation. The fun part is waiting to see who was right and who was wrong. >The prosectution of >Death Eaters who walked free, the business with the Stone (Voldemort >himself admits to falling into despair when Quirrell failed) I just finished reading SS/PS again and it occurs to me that DD was purely lucky with this stone business. I was thinking it was mightily convenient that DD moved the stone on the very day that LV was going to try to steal it. When I first read the book, I assumed that DD was nearly omniscient and had moved it for that reason. After reading it again with my omniscient theory crushed by OoP, I'm thinking that he only moved the stone because Harry was coming to Hogwarts and he was setting up a test. Hagrid was already taking Harry to buy his things, so he picked up the stone. The moving of the stone had nothing to do with Voldemort at all. Just my "guess" of course! Nicky Joe From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 18:29:29 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:29:29 -0000 Subject: Harry's grief (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124429 > > Phoenixgod2000: > > > > Besides finding the Kreacher talk in amazingly bad taste, I thought > > DD was wrong. He spoke about Kreacher being what other wizards *made > > him* but in other books he made sure Harry realized that it was the > > choices a person (or creature) makes which define them. > > phoenixgod2000 > > Whiz: > > I'm not so sure that isn't apples and oranges. Did Kreacher have a > choice? He was loyal to his family and his house and felt an > obligation to his dead mistress. Whether he shared the views of the > Blacks or not is beside the point. Kreacher is enslaved. > > Now Dobby is interesting in that context. I have to wonder if there > is someone in the Malfoy household who sent Dobby without the > knowledge of the others, thus his behavior is of being torn. He can > say only so much, (what he's been told to say?) and punishes himself > for being there at all because if the other members of the family ever > knew ........ Yipes! > > House elves are what wizards have made them. Finwitch: And yet DOBBY managed to break it. I do believe Dobby made the choice all by himself. Kreacher- well, as Sirius said, Kreacher had 'been alone too long, taking mad orders from my mother's portrait'. AND I think Kreacher DID have choice. I doubt house-elves are bound to obey paintings... About kindness to him... hm-mm. Not so sure it would work. I think that - particularly considering the Black family tradition about house-elves being beheaded just because they got too old to carry a tea-tray (which Sirius didn't approve of, but Kreacher does - the old house-elf took the Black values to heart, remember). I think that was the REAL problem. 1) Kreacher wanted and desired to be behaded and kept as 'decoration' as his predecessors had. Or, alternatively, be set free (so he could go to a family member married off). 2) Sirius is no murderer. He can't set Kreacher free because he knows too much. (otherwise he would, I'm sure). 3) Kreacher does all he can to annoy Sirius in order to get 1). See the problem? Kreacher wants to die. As a result of something Sirius' aunt set up, but anyway. I guess he'd just snort at kindness. And I think Sirius sees house-elves (Kreacher, Dobby) as individuals. Sirius - having lived with Kreacher for 16 years, he does understand him - and probably would WANT to set him free - but can't, because it's too risky for all... Finwitch From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 18:50:47 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:50:47 -0000 Subject: Problems at the end of GOF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124430 Richard Jones wrote: (3) And how did LV have the wand he killed James and Lily with? At Godric's Hollow, he turned into vapor so he couldn't carry it. So it must have just fallen down and maybe picked up by someone else at Godric's Hollow, but the Death Eaters didn't know he was alive or where he was and if a member of the Ministry got it they would probably destroy it or keep it well protected (and even if Lucius Malfoy stole it from the Ministry how would he get it to LV since he didn't know LV was alive, let alone where he was?). LV spent 13 years as vapor and a snake and like that, and so he couldn't carry it in any of those states. Wormtail was a rat and couldn't carry it. LV had to have Wormtail use it in graveyard against Cedric because he couldn't. So how did he come to have his wand in the graveyard? vmonte responds: August 25, 2004 More Rowling tidbits from HP4U JKR Edinburgh Festival Report HP4U has posted a report from the Edinburgh Festival where JKR answered a few new questions from two lucky young fans. "...to where JK Rowling was, given our wristbands, then we went to meet her. We said hello and she told us 'she was really glad we could make it'. I told her I was really glad to be there and her books were the best, I said I wish I could have asked her a question and so she told me to 'go on then, ask away!'. I asked JK Rowling would Professor Lockhart get out of St Mungos, get his memory back and be in any of the next books?, she said no to all of these questions. I also asked when Harries [sic] parents were killed by Voldermort, Wormtail turned into a rat and pretended to be dead. How then did he give Voldermort his wand and robe back once he found him and helped give him back his body ?, she told me (after tapping her nose!) 'he hid them'. I wish I could have asked her lots of questions but these were the only ones I could think of at the time." http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/MTarchives/005013.html Vivian From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 19:37:50 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:37:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's plant imagery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050212193750.62369.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124431 > Finwitch: > > You know - neither did Sirius. Sirius' family was just as - er - > filthy *Black* as the Snapes. Yet, Sirius chose Light. And I think > *that* was why James Potter trusted him so. Sirius had the courage > to defy his entire family for the side of Light. > > James Potter's family had the opposite idea - and James agreed with > them. In that he was Snape's opposite. The one who wasn't > challenged. Sirius, however, rose above family. (Bet James admired > him for that. I know I do.) > > If Snape or a MAlfoy or another such ever said - ever tried to > excuse his choices with that: "But my whole family..." > James would say: "OH yeah? Look at Sirius! He is a Black, you know > - but he chose my side. CHOSE to live decently. He's not hiding > behind what his Daddy says...". Of all the descriptions of James Potter that I've read, I find the idea of him as a self-righteous prig the least satisfying or likely. Lily would not have liked him so much if he had been, and he wouldn't have been admired by his fellow students as the height of "school cool". And even Siris admits that his hated family pulled away from Voldemort when they realized what he really was all about - not in time for Regulus, of course. (I always get the feeling he really hates having to admit that.) And as other people have pointed out, we really don't know what Snape's family was like, whether they were Dark or not. Being Light or Dark is not the same thing as picking favourite Quidditch teams - you don't just pick one and cheer for it and that's that. You have to walk the walk, as it were. If Sirius and James really were concerned about fighting the Dark Side as 15-year-olds (I disagree but for the sake of argument I'll accept the assumption), then why didn't they act better? You know, set a good example? Actions speak louder than words and all that? Don't go around the school hexing people? Or holding them upside down? Personally I think that Sirius choice was simply to be against his family (he was a natural rebel) and in favour of James whose family he pretty adopted as his own. All the stuff that Sirius tells Harry about how a man treats his inferiors or not everyone is a good guy or a DE strike me as just so many memorized phrases that he picked up and feels the need to pass on in godfatherly fashion. He certainly had no problem chucking the platitudes aside when it came time for him to practice what he preached. Sirius rejected his family's beliefs but he held onto a lot of their attitudes. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 19:58:15 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:58:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050212195815.38829.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124432 > Betsy: > In fact, it's actually *doing* something that seems to bring Harry > peace. He's nervous or scared or anxious right up to the moment of > action. But once he's in the action, a strange sort of calm > generally seems to take over. Very true. Caps-lock!Harry almost vanishes when the DA lessons start, largely because he now has something to do, and is suprised at himself how much he's enjoying it. I think we're meant to compare Sirius and Harry in OOTP and see how they react to the same situation: being left out of things, feeling useless and frustrated, letting the angst build up inside. Hermoine found a solution for Harry, despite Harry's first opinion of the idea. Sirius's depression is what could have happened to Harry. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 20:29:40 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:29:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050212202941.38358.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124435 >> And if going up against Snape was an anti-DA statement, why >> bother hiding it from Lily? After all they were dating; why >>couldn't James have explained it to her: "See, it's my ideology, >>he's just into bad stuff that you really wouldn't approve of". >>Nope, I don't buy it. >> >> Magda > Valky (??? - I assume, as unsigned) > Oh I bet he did tell her that actually. And she curtly replied: > "Oh right, James. If that's what it is then you had better bear in > mind that hypocrisy, *I* don't approve of." Followed by a long > exhortation of reasoning why attacking Snape publicly simply wasn't > going to serve the said ideology, with a fair slather of honest > reprimand to balance it. > > James did stop humiliating Snape publicly, but the private battle > between them continued, simply because they couldn't stand the > sight of each other. I refer to OOTP, Chapter 29, pages 591-592, Cdn. paperback: "'Even Snape?' said Harry. "Well," said Lupin slowly, "Snape was a special case. I mean, he never lost an opportunity to curse James so you couldn't really expect James to take that lying down, could you?" "And my mum was OK with that?" "She didn't know too much about it, to tell you the truth," said Sirius. "I mean, James didn't take Snape on dates with her and jinx him in front of her, did he?'" So I would submit that Lily was not aware that James and Snape were continuing their relations in the normal manner (to use a value-neutral expression). Why hide it from her if there was principled reason for it, if it was an anti-DA activity? Answer: because it had nothing to do with Dark or Light or a philosophy of life, it had to do with teenage male logic and the results that followed from it. Magda ( who thought it was a rule that we signed our posts?) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 22:19:02 2005 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 22:19:02 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: <20050212202941.38358.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124436 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > > Valky (??? - I assume, as unsigned) > > Oh I bet he did tell her that actually. And she curtly replied: > > "Oh right, James. If that's what it is then you had better bear in > > mind that hypocrisy, *I* don't approve of." Followed by a long > > exhortation of reasoning why attacking Snape publicly simply wasn't > > going to serve the said ideology, with a fair slather of honest > > reprimand to balance it. Whiz: ??? Um... what page was that on? Valky?: > > > > James did stop humiliating Snape publicly, but the private battle > > between them continued, simply because they couldn't stand the > > sight of each other. Whiz: I think it was much deeper than that, but it does seem that Snape was the aggressor and James was put in the position of having to retaliate. Magda: > > I refer to OOTP, Chapter 29, pages 591-592, Cdn. paperback: > > "'Even Snape?' said Harry. > > "Well," said Lupin slowly, "Snape was a special case. I mean, he > never lost an opportunity to curse James so you couldn't really > expect James to take that lying down, could you?" > > "And my mum was OK with that?" > > "She didn't know too much about it, to tell you the truth," said > Sirius. "I mean, James didn't take Snape on dates with her and jinx > him in front of her, did he?'" > > So I would submit that Lily was not aware that James and Snape were > continuing their relations in the normal manner (to use a > value-neutral expression). Why hide it from her if there was > principled reason for it, if it was an anti-DA activity? > > Answer: because it had nothing to do with Dark or Light or a > philosophy of life, it had to do with teenage male logic and the > results that followed from it. > > Magda ( who thought it was a rule that we signed our posts?) Whiz: Oh right. Whizbang From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Feb 12 23:44:16 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:44:16 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Sympathetic. And Dead, Too. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124437 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > > Alla: > > So, I was rereading some of the Elkins' posts ( the bit of reading > which I strongly recommend to anyone) and decided to ask a > question,which kind of bug me ever since I read "Draco Malfoy is > Ever so Lame.Yet Sympathetic and Dead" ( message 39083)for the first > time. > > I cannot help but nod my head in agreement as to general idea of > hurt/comfort and why I love certain characters . :o) > > Absolutely, the more pain they endure the more I like them. Sirius > is a very good example, Harry - definitely, Lupin, even Snape. > > > But I cannot see any of it, or almost any of it in Malfoy > character. I cannot see any "dignified' suffering after he has his > encounter with Buckbeak - I only see pathetic lying in the Potions > class to make Ron do his work for him. > > I just don't feel Draco's pain at all. For the most part all that I > feel is disgust. I feel like he is pretending, but not really > hurting I suppose. Harry's hurt from cruciatus is real, Sirius' pain > from Azkaban is real, even Snape I can imagine carries some guilt, > pain, whatever, not Draco, though , not to me. > > Is it because his ideology repulses me? Probably, but then again - " > bad boys who could be redeemed" usually work quite well for me. > > Is it because I identify with Harry so strongly? But I like Snape ( > honestly I do :o)), even though he , IMO, hurts Harry significantly > more than Draco does. > > > The only time in the books when I kind of felt Draco's pain, sort of > was at the end of OOP, when he blames Harry for putting Lucius in > prizon. I kind of sensed real feeling behind that, but it definitely > not enough for me to expect Redeemable!Draco. > > > Can somebody explain to me,why while I understand hurt/comfort > phenomena quite well, it does not work for me on Draco? > > I snipped Elkins' work quite significantly, but definitely read the > complete one. :o) > > > Alla Well, I'll try, Alla. I think the root of the phenomenon that Elkins is getting at is a drive (I hesitate to use the loaded word "instinct") that many females have for care and development. That is, they are attracted to male characters that suffer because these males evince the need for their care. However, along with the need to care is the need to develop and change the person being cared for. I suppose it all goes along with the loaded word "nurturance." To nurture someone is to care for them and help them develop and change. Male characters who suffer need care. Male characters who suffer and deal with it to an extent show the strength to develop and change, i.e. to respond to nurturance. This gets the female drives going. Males who don't suffer have no need of care and thus don't evoke the drives. Males who suffer but collapse under don't show the strength to respond to nurture. Thus they evoke perhaps sympathy, but not the full reaction. I think the reason you don't respond to Draco, Alla, is that you don't see in him potential to change, i.e. to respond to nurturance. In this case not so much because of the way he responds to suffering, but because of the full presentation of the character. That is, you probably see nothing in Draco's actions, background, etc. that instinctively (that word) makes you think he would change under female nurturing, and therefore you don't feel those drives toward him. I'm hazarding a guess that JKR is puzzled by female reactions to Snape because she knows too much about him. Witness her statements that "he is a deeply horrible person," etc. She feels no female drives toward Snape, I'm guessing, because SHE knows he's incapable of change, i.e. that he won't respond to nuturing. However, that is not obvious (at least to most readers) from what she has written in her books. Hence female readers often think Snape CAN change, i.e. would respond to nuturing, and this they become attracted to him on a mistaken (albeit unconscious) premise. Anyway, my attempt to answer you. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Feb 13 00:23:39 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 00:23:39 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Sympathetic. And Dead, Too. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124438 > Well, I'll try, Alla. I think the root of the phenomenon that Elkins > is getting at is a drive (I hesitate to use the loaded word > "instinct") that many females have for care and development. That is, > they are attracted to male characters that suffer because these males > evince the need for their care. However, along with the need to care > is the need to develop and change the person being cared for. I > suppose it all goes along with the loaded word "nurturance." To > nurture someone is to care for them and help them develop and change. > > Male characters who suffer need care. Male characters who suffer and > deal with it to an extent show the strength to develop and change, > i.e. to respond to nurturance. This gets the female drives going. > > Males who don't suffer have no need of care and thus don't evoke the > drives. Males who suffer but collapse under don't show the strength > to respond to nurture. Thus they evoke perhaps sympathy, but not the > full reaction. > > I think the reason you don't respond to Draco, Alla, is that you don't > see in him potential to change, i.e. to respond to nurturance. In > this case not so much because of the way he responds to suffering, but > because of the full presentation of the character. That is, you > probably see nothing in Draco's actions, background, etc. that > instinctively (that word) makes you think he would change under female > nurturing, and therefore you don't feel those drives toward him. > > I'm hazarding a guess that JKR is puzzled by female reactions to Snape > because she knows too much about him. Witness her statements that "he > is a deeply horrible person," etc. She feels no female drives toward > Snape, I'm guessing, because SHE knows he's incapable of change, i.e. > that he won't respond to nuturing. However, that is not obvious (at > least to most readers) from what she has written in her books. Hence > female readers often think Snape CAN change, i.e. would respond to > nuturing, and this they become attracted to him on a mistaken (albeit > unconscious) premise. > > Anyway, my attempt to answer you. > > > Lupinlore To answer and expand on my own post (and to get myself into even deeper hot water with a lot of the women on the list) I just remembered JKR's interview where she warned her female readers to (paraphrase) "beware the Bad Boy." The instinct for nurture often leads women into disaster. I've seen it time and again among family and friends as women become involved with totally inappropriate men based on (I believe) the unconscious or semi-conscious belief that they can nurture and heal and change him in some important way. In other words they want to make the Bad Boy, if not a Good Boy, at least Their Bad Boy. The problem is most Bad Boys won't be anybody's boy but their own, and thus the relationship is doomed from the start. I'm guessing that JKR had some experience of this phenomenon in her first marriage, and that is what she is trying to warn her readers off of when she tells them it's a bad idea to be attracted to Draco or Snape or males like them. Essentially she's saying: "Look, these men (or this boy) aren't the kind of people you think they are. They won't respond to your nuturing as you, deep in your heart, believe they will. There isn't (oh am I going to get into trouble here) a little boy inside of them that needs you to take him by the hand and lead him out of darkness. These are human beings with deep character flaws that won't change because you love them, care for them, and try to nurture them. They are destructive personalities that will eventually probably destroy themselves, and they'll drag you down too if you persist in thinking you can make them be something they aren't." This I think is also the root of her comment about (paraphrase) "Why would anybody want to love/be loved by Snape?" She knows that he won't change, and that the deep and destructive tendancies of his character aren't because (here I go again) there is a scared little boy inside that needs to be loved and nurtured. Rather he is a deeply flawed man who persists in self-destructive behavior and who would almost surely drag any woman involved with him down with him. Lupinlore From catportkey at aol.com Sun Feb 13 00:26:56 2005 From: catportkey at aol.com (catportkey at aol.com) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 19:26:56 EST Subject: Hogwarts pollutes Message-ID: <102.5a991c78.2f3ff8d0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124439 In book four, while Harry is taking a bath to figure out what the golden egg is saying, Moaning Myrtle tells Harry that sometimes she is accidentally flushed down the toilet into the Lake. If that is so, then urine and fecal matter gets flushed into the Lake also. YUCK! I can only hope that there is an anti-pollution spell and all the human excrement turns into seaweed! The Merpeople would certainly make a stink about the stink of the Lake. Pook [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 02:01:06 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:01:06 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Sympathetic. And Dead, Too. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124440 >>Lupinlore: >To answer and expand on my own post (and to get myself into even deeper hot water with a lot of the women on the list) I just remembered JKR's interview where she warned her female readers to (paraphrase) "beware the Bad Boy." >I'm guessing that JKR had some experience of this phenomenon in her first marriage, and that is what she is trying to warn her readers off of when she tells them it's a bad idea to be attracted to Draco or Snape or males like them. Betsy: And yet, the entire point of Elkins' post is that JKR does an absolute superb job in making Draco attractive - through Hurt/Comfort and also "Sympathy for the Devil." And Elkins demonstrates that JKR knows exactly what she's doing when she writes Draco's scenes. So JKR is saying one thing in the books and a completely different thing in her interviews. (Prime reason I take her interviews with such a giant block of salt.) No, the intense attraction amongst the fans for "bad boys" like Snape and Draco and Sirius are totally the result of JKR's prose. Betsy, who actually found out about HP4GU by reading this very post of Elkins and joined soon after. (And who really, really hopes that Draco won't die.) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 02:49:36 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:49:36 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124441 >>Nicky Joe: >I really don't see DD supporting Harry as much as I see the potential of DD USING Harry. The whole SS/PS scenario seemed like a big setup to find out how good Harry was. Probably a good idea, on DD's part, I admit, but not very sterling, character-wise.< Betsy: Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Dumbledore realizes Harry is the only one who can take down Voldemort, so he (and the WW) will use Harry. Dumbledore loves Harry and wants him to get through this ordeal in one, stable, piece, so Dumbledore also supports Harry. And I, for one, think Dumbledore *never* intended for Harry to get involved in the Stone adventure, as I've explained in other posts, because I do not think Harry's involvment was a good idea. >>Betsy: >We do know, however, that the magical folk who worked for Voldemort were a great asset to him in the last war (as per Lupin IIRC). So I'm not sure why Dumbledore approaching them now can be defined as a waste of time. Even neutrality would be a gain.< >>Nicky Joe: >Okay, maybe it wouldn't be a complete waste of time, but he also should have started on the negotiation thing about fifteen years ago. When it was clear that Voldemort was gone (at least for awhile) he should have started campaigning. Now that LV is back, I don't see 13th hour scrambling having much effect.< Betsy: Erm... Dumbledore started his recruiting back in the days of Tom Riddle (witness his treatment of Hagrid - the half giant). He speaks the language of the Merfolk, he gets on as well as a wizard can with the Centaurs, and I dare say Hogwarts under his watch is one of the best places to be a House Elf. The first Order was made up of folk that he's using as outreach agents now, and he's involved in the international branch of the Ministry, IIRC. One of his former Head Boys works with Goblins, another loyal student works abroad with dragons. Dumbledore is rallying his troops, yes. But scrambling? Dumbledore's groundwork has been in the works for years. >>Nicky Joe: >Why wasn't he watching the Riddle home? Why didn't he take the time to find out everything possible about Tom Riddle? And where were LV's headquarters during the first war? Someone had to have known that.< Betsy: Why *would* anyone watch the Riddle home? Voldemort never lived there. Ever. I don't think he was even born there. And who says the Death Eaters ever had a steady headquarters? They were a terrorist orginization. I imagine their meeting places floated (part of the advantage of the Dark Mark). >>Betsy: >...Voldemort is still in the dark as to Harry's role in the whole thing...< >>Nicky Joe: >Unfortunately, so is Harry, except that he knows he might have to kill Voldemort, and frankly, is that really a surprise? Did he think LV was going to wake up one morning and realize he'd been a very bad boy and want to make friends? Mass murderers tend to require extermination because they just don't change.< Betsy: Huh? Harry knows exactly what the prophecy says and he knows exactly how Dumbledore interprets it. And I'm once again surprised at folks wondering why Harry is shocked he's supposed to become a killer. It's one thing to recognize that someone needs to be stopped. It's a completely different thing to be told that someone needs to be killed and you're the only one who can do it. Or you will die instead. Especially if you're a fifteen year old kid. >>Betsy: >...and Voldemort lost a good handful of Death Eaters, and a powerful influence at the Ministry.< >>Nicky Joe: >He didn't lose any Death Eaters. Who is going to keep them in Azkaban without the Dementors? Malfoy was right - I think they'll be free before the next book begins.< Betsy: And once again, you're assuming. And projecting. Right now, the board stands like this: Dumbledore - 11, Voldemort - 1. Yes, things will change (this is a war after all). But at the moment, Dumbledore is winning. And even if the Death Eaters do escape, I doubt Lucius will be as closely listened to at the Ministry. >>Nicky Joe: >Obviously, JKR doesn't come out and say, "DD hasn't been doing much in the past fifteen years to prepare for LV's possible return." Like everything else, we're just guessing (which is why we're on this list!). Betsy: Yes, we are just guessing. But I feel like there are plenty of examples of Dumbledore being prepared. We'll just have to wait 'til the next book! >>Nicky Joe: >When I first read the book, I assumed that DD was nearly omniscient and had moved it for that reason. After reading it again with my omniscient theory crushed by OoP, I'm thinking that he only moved the stone because Harry was coming to Hogwarts and he was setting up a test.< Betsy: After reading OotP I've come to the conclusion that Dumbledore *never* intended Harry to have any involvment with the Stone. I just don't see what it would have gained anyone, and I see far too much risk. I think it's a parrallel with Harry and the prophecy. Dumbledore sets up a trap, Harry walks into the middle of it and almost screws everything up, Dumbledore steps in and saves the day. That's my guess, anyway. :) Betsy From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 03:01:39 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 03:01:39 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124442 >>Lupinlore: >EXTREMELY weak. As Phoenixgod says, any of the outcomes he outlines are much more realistic and predictable than Harry coming out all right - which he has not, by the way, his inability to trust adults proves that. Betsy: Okay, when does Harry show an "inability to trust adults"? You can pull any kind of symptom out of the air you want - but to be taken seriously, you need to show that Harry actually *has* those symptoms. Harry puts a great deal of trust in Lupin in PoA, and he even shows a certain trust in Lockhart in CoS (he seemed quite surprised that Lockhart wasn't going to go after Ginny). >>Lupinlore: >The only things we can ascribe Harry's so-called "good emotional health" to are: >1) poor writing on JKR's part, >2) sheer luck shining of Dumbledore's decisions.< Betsy: How about, 3) A strange tendency on the part of some fans to grossly exaggerate Harry's treatment at the Dursleys. Betsy From tania_schr at hotmail.com Sun Feb 13 03:04:53 2005 From: tania_schr at hotmail.com (tania_schr) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 03:04:53 -0000 Subject: DD, LV, Chess and War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124443 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > This is probably a crazy idea. But reading some of the post about DD > as General and the *war* and all complaints that DD seems to playing > a defensive game, and the all of planning that is going on on both > sides made me think of a chess game. Now I know that chess is a game > of war. It's late and my mind is no longer functioning, but has > anyone ever considered the possibility that the series taken as a > whole is a game of chess? I don't know. Does anyone see anything > like that?? Just a thought. Would be a brilliant way to write a > book series, but I don't know it that is what she is doing. > > Tonks_op I read somewhere that JKR said a lot of clues about how the series ends is in SS. (Well, probably a lot of clues to how the series ends is in all the books.) But I was just wondering . . . I lent my SS book to a friend, so I don't have it with me. Does anyone remember the specifics of the chess game in SS? Where was Harry, Hermione, and Ron? And what exactly happened in that game? (Been a long time since I have read that book.) Tania_schr From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sun Feb 13 04:31:10 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 04:31:10 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?FILK:_When_I=92m_664?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124444 Nicholas Flamel in his first solo! When I'm 664 To the tune of the Beatles' When I'm 64 Dedicated to the memory of Dr. John Kusalavage aka Haggridd (1949- 2005) - Now embarked on his next great adventure..... NOTE: 664, for prosodic reasons, should be sung as "six-six-four," rather than "six-hundred and sixty-four." There have been many reports of the Sorcerer's Stone over the centuries, but the only Stone currently in existence belongs to Mr. Nicolas Flamel, the noted alchemist and opera lover. Mr. Flamel, who celebrated his six hundred and sixty-fifth birthday last year, enjoys a quiet life in Devon with his wife, Perenelle (six hundred and fifty- eight). -PS/SS, Chap. 13 THE SCENE: Flamel's Parisian Bookstore, circa 1391. He sings to his wife Perenelle of his breakthrough with the Philosopher's Stone FLAMEL: I'm making gold here, using the Stone, through my alchemy Will we be surviving past Medieval days, live till it's nearly Y2K? We will endure through six centuries, thanks to my bookstore. Will we produce a modern Methuselah When I'm 664? Hmm------mmm---mmmh. You're immortal, too. Aaah, and if you say the word, I'll get Stoned with you. It will be dandy, who could refuse, such delights will come We will dwell together through the Renaissance, and post-Napoleonic France The Eiffel Tower, Les Miserables, maybe two world wars Partake of the Rock `n' stop the clock tockin' till we're 664 We can use the Rock to live till they invent the opera. It won't take too long. Magic Elixir We'll let life insurance lapse, and become fixtures Name on a Frog card, get mentioned in The Da Vinci Code Wealth and fame and power and longevity, better living through chemistry And should we tire, minds organized, we'll ask Dumbledore To help us venture last great adventure when we're 664. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm (updated today with 71 new filks) From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 01:36:35 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 01:36:35 -0000 Subject: Aurors and Unforgiveable Curses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124445 Finwitch wrote: ... snip... > As to why I think they're truly unforgivable as curses (snip) > The clue to that, I believe, is in Bellatrix' taunt to Harry after > the er - intent, choice and/or will of crucio. (Attempt would have > been so that the curse didn't hit the target, and casting would > have been successful). > > Righteous anger won't do that. You need to ENJOY doing these curses > if you're to cast them. Taking pleasure on absolute control over > someone, causing pain or killing? Juli: I think you're on to something, it is the pleasure to do harm to kill necessary to cast any unforgiveable what makes it so unforgiveable. Harry wanted to hurt Bella, he wanted revenge for Sirius' death, but does he take any pleasure for it? Nope. From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 04:43:39 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 04:43:39 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Sympathetic. And Dead, Too. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124446 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy: > > And yet, the entire point of Elkins' post is that JKR does an > absolute superb job in making Draco attractive - through > Hurt/Comfort and also "Sympathy for the Devil." And Elkins > demonstrates that JKR knows exactly what she's doing when she > writes Draco's scenes. So JKR is saying one thing in the books and > a completely different thing in her interviews. (Prime reason I > take her interviews with such a giant block of salt.) No, the > intense attraction amongst the fans for "bad boys" like Snape and > Draco and Sirius are totally the result of JKR's prose. Perhaps I'm being uncharitable, but what one also really has to remember about that post is that it's pre-OotP. There was a lot of sympathetic posting about Draco then that fizzled up and died with New Canon, partially because so much of it was incumbent upon future revelations. Eight million fanfics with Draco becoming better inclined towards Harry et. al. died in a flaming can(n)on barrage. Most importantly, Draco as Harry's rival is something that has been pretty much demolished by OotP, particularly end revelations. *Ron* is more of Draco's foil than Harry is. The areas of competition between Harry and Draco were steadily removed or altered in OotP, and by the end, Harry has far more to deal with than the infuriated yet ineffectual Draco--who is in the shadow of Daddy yet again. (I now remember a friend's comment to the effect of "As soon as Lucius enters, Draco really pales in comparison". But even Lucius is highly overestimated, I think--oh, there was a lot of wailing at him doing minion duties. But I digress.) The Inquisitorial Squad and their powers seem to argue against Elkins' idea that Draco is not much of a House leader. There is, of course, no evidence that the House as a whole was completely behind him and his squad--but there's certainly absolutely no evidence to the negative. That means it's canonical that no Slytherins engaged in disruptive behavior large enough to reach the notice of our heroes, notably *unlike* those who honored everyone at the end of GoF. So OotP in many ways confirms a lot of Elkins' analysis: that Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. What is notably not confirmed in the book, and even hinted against, is the idea that Draco must change. I've argued before that it's eminently possible that a new face for Slytherin House comes into the notice of our hero, which makes good sense with the paradigm of 'what Harry notices' expanding (and she did tell us we'd finally get to see some of the enigmatic Blaise Zabini). But I don't buy the argument that "Since Draco has been static, he now has to change". Why no--he can stay what he really is, in essentialist terms. His choices and tendencies, even only partially realized, express quite clearly what he is, and hints of deviation have all been unrealized hints...in fact, downright frustrated hints. I personally find that to be far more believable than Redeemed!Draco, although that is nicely BANG-y. Being the Diana fan that I am, I'm not giving a privileged place to BANGiness when I guess. So much of reading Draco as genuinely sympathetic requires tacking things on to every situation. I get wary, myself, when one is continually saying "X really also means Y"; suppositions build into layers and take on a life of their own. They tend to be weak in hurricanes. The other part of reading him as genuinely sympathetic is generally an expectation that things will change. Possible, but hard to argue anything solid from. We'll all see in July, won't we? Anyone up for bets and keeping track? -Nora notes that she will have to remain in disagreement with Betsy over the interviews, but also notes that it is an eminently testable argument in the long run....hehehe... From juanitatighan at frontiernet.net Sat Feb 12 15:14:50 2005 From: juanitatighan at frontiernet.net (Jane Jordan) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:14:50 -0600 Subject: Privet Dr. protection (was Re: Dumbledore the Counselor) References: Message-ID: <00d401c51115$98f73390$0200a8c0@domain.invalid> No: HPFGUIDX 124447 Whizbang: > Dumbledore doesn't say that Harry can't be touched by anyone else. > Only Voldemort. But the confusion for my lies in why Harry was > sent to Privet Dr after GoF. If Voldemort could touch Harry and > Dumbledore said . "Very well," he said, sitting down again. "Voldemort has overcome . that particular barrier. Harry, continue, please." - GoF, pg 696, sch > what was the sense of sending him back to Privet Drive? If > Lily's protection no longer keeps Voldemort from touching him, then > why couldn't he spend the holidays with the Weasleys ? There's > more protecting Harry at Privet Dr than we have been told about. Do you remember the chapter in the second book where Harry gets an owl in his home for doing magic? Vernon wants to throw him out, but Petunia says he has to stay? There is still one protection left. By leaving Harry with the Dursleys, Dumbledore has managed to keep one protection in place. Petunia is Lily's blood relative. And she's non-magical, so however badly Harry's being treated, he is still better off there than in the wizarding world. Voldemort can't get to Harry *as easily* when he's in the Dursleys' home. JMO, Jane From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 04:49:44 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 04:49:44 -0000 Subject: DD, LV, Chess and War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124448 Tania_schr wrote: I read somewhere that JKR said a lot of clues about how the series ends is in SS. (Well, probably a lot of clues to how the series ends is in all the books.) But I was just wondering . . . I lent my SS book to a friend, so I don't have it with me. Does anyone remember the specifics of the chess game in SS? Where was Harry, Hermione, and Ron? And what exactly happened in that game? (Been a long time since I have read that book.) vmonte responds: Reprint from 2 days ago. The Chess Game The chess game represents the second war against Voldemort. (I'm not the only person who believes this theory, it's been mentioned by many fans and writers.) "I think," said Ron, "we're going to have to be chessmen." Page 281, SS, U.S. version Ron walks over to a black knight and asks if they have to join him to get across the board--the knight nods his head. Ron turns to Harry and Hermione: Page 282 "This needs thinking about ." He said. "I suppose we've got to take the place of three of the black pieces " "Harry and Hermione stayed quiet, watching Ron think. Finally he said, "Now, don't be offended or anything, but neither of you are good at chess?" Ron knows that he is the strategist (not Hermione or Harry). Harry has survived every book because he is quick on his feet and relies heavily on his natural talent and instincts. Hermione is very intelligent, but she is not a good strategist. (All you have to do is see how successful she is at liberating the house elves.) "We're not offended," said Harry quickly. "Just tell us what to do." "Well, Harry, you take the place of that bishop, and Hermione, you go next to him instead of that castle." "What about you?" "I'm going to be a knight," said Ron. Three chess pieces listen to Ron and walk off the board. Do these pieces represent characters from the first war? (Who were the knight, castle, and bishop then? We can probably guess.) Interesting that Hermione is a Castle and that Ron is a Knight. Isn't a Knight's job to protect his castle? Also, Ron's position in Quidditch is that of Keeper. The Keeper tries to prevent the other team from making any goals?he's the protector. The Knight in chess never moves in a direct manner but weaves back and forth between other pieces. Chess is a game of strategy that is usually won in small steps. I believe that Dumbledore is the strategist of the HP series and is manipulating events in the story but in small steps/ways. The Bishop has long-range ability (especially towards the end of a game when there are more open spaces), which enables it to make extended penetrating attacks which are impossible for the Knight. This gives the Bishop an end-game advantage. (Think of Harry's Seeker position in Quidditch. The other players can only score 10 points per goal, but if Harry catches the snitch he gets 150 points, and the game is over. The Seeker is key to winning the game.) We know that Dumbledore is already setting up Harry to take on Voldemort in the final confrontation. Harry as Bishop also makes sense since he often moves diagonally (remember in the CoS movie when Harry uses floo- powder and says diagonally instead of Diagon Ally?) not like the Castle/Rook, which only moves in straight lines (sounds like straight- laced Hermione to me). "White always plays first in chess," said Ron, peering across the board. "Yes...look " A white pawn had moved forward two squares. (Wormtail?) "Harry?move diagonally four squares to the right." "Their first real shock came when their other knight was taken. The white queen smashed him to the floor and dragged him off the board, where he lay quite still, facedown." This Knight represents Sirius Black who was killed by the Queen Bellatrix. Who is the Queen on the Order's side? Ginny? (I believe that Ginny is being set-up for something. She is the only child that has had direct contact with Tom Riddle/Voldemort, and like Harry, has also shared thoughts with the evil guy. Another interesting point is that Ginny also played Harry's position in Quidditch and may eventually take over Harry's position against Voldemort at some crucial moment. Will she step in to save Harry like he saved her? Actually, she played two roles while playing Quidditch!!! Interestingly, the Queen chess piece is also very versatile. It combines the powers of both the Rook and the Bishop. It can move horizontally, vertically, or on the diagonal! In a sense, it's like the king (silently represented by Dumbledore) in that it can move in any direction. "Had to let that happen," said Ron, looking shaken. "Leaves you free to take that bishop, Hermione, go on." Did Dumbledore know that Sirius was going to die? And who does Hermione take down? Malfoy? Page 283 The game continues with the white pieces showing no mercy every time a black piece is taken. Ron loses a lot of black chess pieces. "Twice, Ron only just noticed in time that Harry and Hermione were in danger. He himself darted around the board, taking almost as many white pieces as they had lost black ones." "We're nearly there," he muttered suddenly. "Let me think?let me think " 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 to checkmate the king, Harry!" "But?" "Do you want to stop Snape or not?" "Ron?" "Look, if you don't hurry up, he'll already have the stone!" There was no alternative. "Ready?" Ron called, his face pale but determined. "Here I go?now, don't hang around once you've won." He stepped forward and the white queen pounced. She struck Ron hard across the head with her stone arm, and he crashed to the floor?Hermione screamed but stayed on her square?the white queen dragged Ron to one side. He looked as if he'd been knocked out. Shaking, Harry moved three spaces to the left. (Seven spaces mentioned altogether--for the 7 school years?) Notice that Ron looked as though knocked out, not still and facedown like Sirius. I think this means that Ron will be taken out of the war, but not killed. We may think that Ron has died but he has not. Hermione and Harry will have to continue in the present war without Ron. It's interesting to note that the Castle and Bishop in chess are considered end game pieces. Vivian http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124344 From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Feb 13 05:58:17 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 05:58:17 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124449 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > Betsy: > Okay, when does Harry show an "inability to trust adults"? You can > pull any kind of symptom out of the air you want - but to be taken > seriously, you need to show that Harry actually *has* those > symptoms. Harry puts a great deal of trust in Lupin in PoA, and he > even shows a certain trust in Lockhart in CoS (he seemed quite > surprised that Lockhart wasn't going to go after Ginny). And what was the problem in OOTP except Harry's inability to trust adults? Why did he not go to an adult about Umbridge for example? Really Betsy, things stare you right in the face. > > >>Lupinlore: > >The only things we can ascribe Harry's so-called "good emotional > health" to are: > >1) poor writing on JKR's part, > >2) sheer luck shining of Dumbledore's decisions.< > > Betsy: > How about, 3) A strange tendency on the part of some fans to grossly > exaggerate Harry's treatment at the Dursleys. Let's see, locked in a closet, not fed appropriately, treated like dirt. Perhaps there is a strnge tendency on the part of one poster not to recognize child abuse when it is painted rasberry red and hitting her over the head with a sledgehammer. Lupinlore > > Betsy From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Feb 13 06:09:51 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 06:09:51 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124450 > > Whiz: > This seems to be your answer to everything. It is already old. Only when you write self-contradictory posts. Break that bad habit and I'll quit upbraiding you on it. > > lupinlore: > Is Dumbledore a heartless manipulator who sees Harry > > as a weapon or is he someone who loves Harry as a person? He can't be > > both. Either he sees Harry as a person OR he sees Harry as a tool. > > If he sees Harry as a tool he deserves the worst consequences > > imaginable. If he sees Harry as a person that that is a whole > > different story. I would argue, as you do here, that JKR would have > > DD see Harry as a person. That is not, however, what you implied in > > your previous post. > > Whiz: > If you read the passage again, you will see that Dumbledore's plan > required that he see Harry as a weapon, a tool. He admits that his > failure, as far as his plan is concerned, was that instead, he saw > Harry as a person, and a child for whom he had great affection. In > terms of Dumbledore's plan, it looks like he would agree with you, he > can't have it both ways. But even Dumbledore isn't fully aware of > Harry's potential. We've seen Harry's love for Sirius save him from > possession by Voldemort. How Dumbledore's affection for Harry will > prove more important than his plan is something we haven't come to, > yet. But I'm confident that we will. Very good. State yourself clearly the first time and we could avoid a lot of the back and forth you seem to find so annoying. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Feb 13 06:14:07 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 06:14:07 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124451 > > Betsy: > > How about, 3) A strange tendency on the part of some fans to grossly > > exaggerate Harry's treatment at the Dursleys. > > Let's see, locked in a closet, not fed appropriately, treated like > dirt. Perhaps there is a strnge tendency on the part of one poster > not to recognize child abuse when it is painted rasberry red and > hitting her over the head with a sledgehammer. > > Lupinlore > > > > Betsy P.S. Whether you like it or not, JKR has already ruled that Harry is an abused child, as Alla has quoted. "I feel sorry for Dudley, in a way the Dursleys have ABUSED him as badly as they have Harry." I know you don't like the interviews, but that's just too bad. JKR has ruled on the issue, Harry IS an abused child, end of story. Lupinlore From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 06:22:58 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 06:22:58 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Sympathetic. And Dead, Too. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124452 >>Alla: >I cannot help but nod my head in agreement as to general idea of hurt/comfort and why I love certain characters . :o) >But I cannot see any of it, or almost any of it in Malfoy character. I cannot see any "dignified' suffering after he has his encounter with Buckbeak - I only see pathetic lying in the Potions class to make Ron do his work for him. >I just don't feel Draco's pain at all.< Betsy: I was a little nervous about answering this post, because I could *so* blather on about Draco. But, what the heck. :) I started feeling sympathy for Draco as soon as PS/SS. He's so awkward and desperate. He's a lot like Hermione in his interest in becoming Harry's friend and his total cluelessness on how to go about doing it. And the poor boy doesn't get a helpful troll to interfere on his behalf. I got the impression from the Norbert incident that this was a prime opportunity for Draco to become friends with the Trio (Draco doesn't involve a professor, and he doesn't involve Crabbe or Goyle) but instead of jumping Harry and Hermione, he jumps McGonagall. (I wonder who was more surprised?) But I definitely agree with Elkins that Draco gets hurt. A lot. When he's slashed by the hippogriff, JKR describes the grass as "splattered with blood." Which sounds fairly serious to me. I know Harry and co. are certain Draco is faking - and I don't think Draco is above milking his injury for all it's worth (after all, he's a performer, and I get the sense he has to try for every bit of attention he gets at home), but I stopped trusting the Trio's decisions on Draco when Hermione accused him of buying his way onto the Slytherin Quidditch team. I also felt a great deal of sympathy for Draco during the Gryffindor/Slytherin Quidditch final in PoA. Even Harry notices that Draco is paler than usual at breakfast that morning. It's obvious Draco is as nervous as Harry is. And then, during the game itself, Draco so noticably gives the game his all. And when Harry inevitably wins, it's almost a cheat. Harry has screwed up; he abandons his post as Seeker to help Angelina score. Draco is the one to spot the Snitch, Draco is the one who first goes for it, and Harry beats him to it, not out of any flying skill but on sheer speed that has everything to do with his Firebolt. Draco is defeated because he doesn't have the top of the line broom. I love Harry, I do. But it was an empty win to me. I never like it when equipment beats skill. Not that Harry isn't an excellent Seeker, but that's not what won that match. There's also the scene in OotP when Harry gets thrown off the Quidditch team. He really beats the crap out of Draco -- with George Weasley's assistence. (And how heroic is it to go two on one? Especially when one of the two is a Beater, naturally more burley than a slim Seeker? And then there's the whole 17 year old beating up a 15 year old. Huge muscle mass difference with boys.) Draco is left bloody and curled up on the ground, Harry is untouched, George has a split lip (a hit from Draco or a wild elbow of Harry's?). Plus, Harry hits Draco with a Snitch in his fist, and that's fairly dirty fighting. I know it wasn't calculated on Harry's part, but still -- poor Draco. And the thing is, I don't think I'm reading into these scenes too deeply. JKR is the one providing the language, the set-up, the outcome. For someone who's always putting Draco down in her interviews, she really writes him awfully sympathetically. And I agree with Elkins that JKR knows what she's doing. It's for these reasons that I really hope Draco turns out to be the "good" Slytherin (I'm sure there has to be one for Voldemort to be defeated). He's always struck me as a lonely boy and he is such an underdog. It would be nice if he finally had his day. Betsy, who really hopes there's more of Draco in the next book. From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Feb 13 06:58:01 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 06:58:01 -0000 Subject: Olive Branch (was Re: Dumbledore the Counselor ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124453 Okay, I admit. I was over the top the last couple of posts. Sorry, but child abuse does that to me. Nevertheless, I think it's time for all of us to admit that none of us are going to change our positions. For those of us who see blatant child abuse in the case of Harry and the Dursleys, and who feel that Dumbledore must be held accountable for that, no argument or quotation will budge us. It's just that simple. We aren't going to back down because we feel it's too important and the case is far too clear, and furthermore has been verified by JKR herself. For those who see it another way, even though I am frankly mystified to the point of disbelief at how you come by your opinions, I suspect the same is true. Nothing we say or quote will budge you. Therefore, let's all agree to let the discussion drop yet again. None of us is going to change our minds and none of us will ever admit that the other side might be right. I'm not going to say let's respect each others opinions because it would be silly. When people feel as passionately about certain subjects as we do on either side you don't respect the opinion of someone who disagrees with you because it seems ludicrous at best and morally wrong at worst. Sorry, but that's just the fact of the matter. What we can do is agree to quit wasting electrons on the thousandth round of irresistable force and immovable object. I'm going to guess that if we were to look at the last two thousand posts we would find over a thousand of them are either about Harry at the Dursleys or Snape's behavior, which discussions tended to explode into bitter acrimony with almost no one changing their minds in the least. So, until the next explosion, which won't be very long because it never is, let's let it drop. Lupinlore From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 07:22:24 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 07:22:24 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Sympathetic. And Dead, Too. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124454 >>Nora: >Perhaps I'm being uncharitable, but what one also really has to remember about that post is that it's pre-OotP.< Betsy: But none of the language Elkins quotes, none of the examples she points out are negated by OotP. In fact, there are even more examples from OotP of the same hurt/comfort phenomena. In a previous post I spoke about the "Harry and George put a beating on Draco" scene. There's plenty of fodder right there. "Malfoy was curled up on the ground, whimpering and moaning, his nose bloody." (Scholastic hardback p. 413) JKR loves to hurt Draco, and while he suffers, he suffers in a manly or an attractive, way. She doesn't have him cry or puke or turn green or anything else to negate the hurt/comfort points Draco earns in this scene. Harry, on the other hand, walks away without a scratch. It's a strange choice -- especially if JKR is trying to put Draco in a thoroughly unsympathetic light. >>Nora: >Most importantly, Draco as Harry's rival is something that has been pretty much demolished by OotP, particularly end revelations. *Ron* is more of Draco's foil than Harry is. The areas of competition between Harry and Draco were steadily removed or altered in OotP...< Betsy: Oh, I think Draco as Harry's foil or rival was demolished much sooner than OotP. In GoF Draco's big hit on Harry is... badges. Oh yeah, Draco. Very scary. In PoA Draco is a mere tool used by his father to get at Dumbledore. And he gets pimp-slapped by a girl. Again, not a big threat to Harry. In CoS he's the red herring, and I think the readers figure that out way before the Trio does (Draco as the Heir? It just didn't fit, did it.) Even in PS/SS Draco doesn't do a good job fillng the role as Harry's foil. *Harry* defines him that way, but JKR never lets Draco win, so he's not a very satisfying rival for the reader. I think OotP is where Harry finally figures out what the readers have known for several books. I agree that the idea of Draco as *Ron's* shadow fits much more smoothly. Draco digs at Ron better than anyone, and even in OotP Draco makes Ron's life fairly hellish. And they're good opposites. Draco is all about words, Ron is much more physical. They're both pure-bloods but with different politics and vastly different families. Though I think they both have attention issues. (I read an essay somewhere where it was suggested that Draco would have been a happier Weasley than Ron. His love of performance would have helped him get past the "over-looked sixth son" thing Ron suffers from.) If Draco does turn out to be the "good" Slytherin, I think Ron will be the one to have to biggest problem with him. (But wouldn't that be a good symbol of the newly cleansed WW? A Weasley and a Malfoy working together.) >>Nora: >But I don't buy the argument that "Since Draco has been static, he now has to change". >Why no--he can stay what he really is, in essentialist terms. His choices and tendencies, even only partially realized, express quite clearly what he is, and hints of deviation have all been unrealized hints...in fact, downright frustrated hints. I personally find that to be far more believable than Redeemed!Draco, although that is nicely BANG-y. Being the Diana fan that I am, I'm not giving a privileged place to BANGiness when I guess.< Betsy: I could start an argument about what exactly has Draco done that he needs to be "redeemed" -- but that would be a digression. :) It's not that the static character must change. The static nature of Draco isn't what brings in the fans. Otherwise Dean or Lavender would get a similar amount of discussion time. And they don't even come close. There's a reason so much time has been spent pouring over Draco, and I can't think that JKR has written about him in the way she's written about him to just keep him in a perpetual state of stasis. So much of what she writes about Draco is contradictory. Draco is a spoiled little boy who bullies his family into getting him everything he wants, a wizard version of Dudley we're told. And then we're given a scene that makes it clear that Draco is *not* the cherished little apple of his father's eye we thought he was. He's a physical coward, and yet he handles the overly rough treatment at the hands of Crouch!Moody with surprising dignity. Draco is a bully who never fights fair, and yet it's always Draco getting jumped on by overwhelming numbers, some attacking from behind. Would the real Draco Malfoy please stand up? >>Nora: >So much of reading Draco as genuinely sympathetic requires tacking things on to every situation. I get wary, myself, when one is continually saying "X really also means Y"; suppositions build into layers and take on a life of their own. They tend to be weak in hurricanes. Betsy: But so much of the series demands going beyond the initial surface reading. It's set up in PS/SS when we realize that the real villian of the book isn't scary, swooping, Snape, it's poor, stuttering, Quirrell. And readers just don't have far to go to see that how Draco puts himself across and how the Trio see him is not the whole picture. If we don't pick that up from the contradictory scenes JKR gives us, she hits us over the head with the Heir of Slytherin red herring. JKR practically grabs us by the wrist and says, "see, he's not what you think he is." I think that passes the sturdiness inspection. >>Nora: >The other part of reading him as genuinely sympathetic is generally an expectation that things will change. Possible, but hard to argue anything solid from.< Betsy: I just don't think Draco has all that far to go. He doesn't have to change all that much. Heck, James and Sirius behaved worse than Draco ever has, and they turned out all right. (I know, I know. Language. So we'll give him a bar of soap.) But, as I said in an earlier post, I've had sympathy for Draco since PS/SS. He doesn't have to redeem himself, to my mind. He hasn't made a choice yet, so which way he'll go is still very much in the air. >>Nora: >We'll all see in July, won't we? Anyone up for bets and keeping track?< Betsy: I'm not willing to bet, because the interviews *do* make me nervous. I'd like to think JKR is a better writer than to give away all of her secrets at PR events. I think Draco will have a role. I just worry it will be as an object lesson. A pretty weak object lesson, IMO, but... Betsy From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Feb 13 07:40:59 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 07:40:59 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124455 > Valky then: > > > Oh I bet he did tell her that actually. And she curtly replied: > > Whiz: > > ??? Um... what page was that on? > Valky now: A future page most likely Whiz. It's pure speculation. But It's well supported in canon. The general gist of the whole thing is that, well from my personal POV anyway, James and Sirius pensieve bullying has an underlying ontological dynamic. In a WW where Dark Magic is at War with the Light (Marauders Era) a certain couple of too smart for their own good teenagers, with delusions of grandeur and probably some dreams of being brave heroes of battle in the future to boot (James and Sirius) actively sought out an element consistent with the antithesis of their ideology, one snarky unusual boy with a reknowned affinity for the Dark Arts (Snape). JP and SB, in their self-righteous dislike for what they perceived to be an element of the enemy, and also in their passion and craving for danger, deliberately provoked the said enemy(SS) to attack them quite regularly. All to frequently, possibly due to their numbers, and very likely due to JP's superior athleticism, they bested him before he could get a shot off. So then in further self righteous indignation they proceeded to make a mockery of the Boy and his "superior power of the Dark Side" with embarrasingly benevolent spells. They thought they were funny, righteous and brave. Lily thought that they were just plain nasty. And so do a lot of other people, which is perfectly fair to say. So in respect to what I said above about Lily answering James curtly, I was speculating what she might say if James *had* tried to explain to her that he attacked Snape because of a hatred for Black Arts Ideology. The rest is not directly addressed at you Whiz, but more generally for everyone as canon backup for all I have said here. I'd say they probably did discuss it while they were dating, and I go on to believe that Lily in return made a convincing argument to James as to why he wasn't really achieving *any* service to the side of "light" ideology via his actions. I kind of see that this is foreshadowed by an unspoken exchange between them in the pensieve scene. Lily says: What's he ever done to you. James says: Well it's because he exists.. If you know what I mean. Lily says: You think you're funny. You're just and arrogant bullying toerag Later... Snape says: ...filthy Mudbloods like her. Lily says: Fine.. I won't bother in the future. And I'd wash your pants if I were you *Snivellus* James says: Apologise to Evans. Lily says: I don't want *you* to make him apologise. you're just as bad as he is. James says: WHAT! I'd never call you a - you-know-what! Ok before we start arguing a retranslation let me pre-empt. Notice when James says I would never call you a you know what, There is NO emphasis on the word "you" and piles of emphasis on the "you- know-what". So anyone about to argue that that line is all about how he feels about Lily, and not how he feels about purebloodism, bad luck, you can't prove it. ;P If Lily doesn't understand what James means when he says, Well its because he exists if you know what I mean" then why doesn't she answer with, "No I don't know what you mean you bullying toerag!" She *knows* what he means, and he knows that it's something that matters to her because he coaxed it out of her. her reply was "You think you're funny. You're just..." Ahhh she did understand his point, she just didn't agree with it. Later she shows how she understands *why* James thinks he is funny. When Snape attacks James with the 'cutting curse' (probably not quite so innocuous as it was made out to be, It was pointed at James face and left a gash) When James retaliated against this not so innocuous curse with a relatively harmless spell that mocked Snape, Lily had to stifle a laugh. Not because she was a hard hearted person, but because it *is* funny to see a violent and angry engagement defused with a comical retaliation. Finally when Snape turned on her with the name-calling, what exactly did she use to reply? *Snivellus* and much emphasis on it! Lily understood perfectly well what *that* meant. It is *we* who do not. > Valky: > > > James did stop humiliating Snape publicly, but the private battle between them continued, simply because they couldn't stand the sight of each other. > > Whiz: > I think it was much deeper than that, but it does seem that Snape was the aggressor and James was put in the position of having to retaliate. > Valky now: I agree Whiz, I think Snape was fairly frequently the aggressor in these smaller private duels. > Magda: > > > > I refer to OOTP, Chapter 29, pages 591-592, Cdn. paperback: > > > > "'Even Snape?' said Harry. > > > > "Well," said Lupin slowly, "Snape was a special case. I mean, he > > never lost an opportunity to curse James so you couldn't really > > expect James to take that lying down, could you?" > > > > "And my mum was OK with that?" > > > > "She didn't know too much about it, to tell you the truth," said > > Sirius. "I mean, James didn't take Snape on dates with her and > > jinx him in front of her, did he?'" > > > > So I would submit that Lily was not aware that James and Snape > > were continuing their relations in the normal manner (to use a > > value-neutral expression). Why hide it from her if there was > > principled reason for it, if it was an anti-DA activity? > > Valky now: Because she didn't agree with it. She thought it crossed the line in to being "Just as bad as he.." (Snape) was. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 07:51:00 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 07:51:00 -0000 Subject: Aurors and Unforgiveable Curses - Helplessness In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124456 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jlnbtr" wrote: > > Finwitch wrote: > ... snip... > > > As to why I think they're truly unforgivable as curses (snip) > > The clue to that, I believe, is in Bellatrix' taunt ... > > > > Righteous anger won't do that. You need to ENJOY doing these > > curses if you're to cast them. Taking pleasure on absolute control > > over someone, causing pain or killing? > Juli: > > I think you're on to something, it is the pleasure to do harm to > kill necessary to cast any unforgiveable what makes it so > unforgiveable. Harry wanted to hurt Bella, he wanted revenge for > Sirius' death, but does he take any pleasure for it? Nope. bboyminn: Eeeww.... one small flaw in the theory to my way of thinking. If it take such sadistic desire to be able to cast them, doesn't that mean that very few people would be able to do so? I mean really, what percentage of the population is really able to muster the degree of sadistic pleasure? Very very few I think. And when you get right down to it, shouldn't it be the result, that is the crime rather the the method? Shouldn't it be the fact that you killed someone that gets you into trouble rather than the fact that you killed someone with one very specific curse? Isn't that about the same as saying, it's bad if you kill someone with a 38 caliber pistol, but it's a totally horrendous unforgivable crime if you kill them with a 9mm? The /crime/, I think, to some extent, is the loss of self-control and self-determination, for lack of a better way of saying it. For the victim, with all the curse, free will and the power of self-determination and self-protection is lost. With the Imperius Mind Control Curse, obviously all free will is lost, you can be forced to do thinks that are completely against your nature. More so, except for people of the absolute strongest character, it extremely difficult to resist. So, for the most part, a wizard is defenseless against it. Hold that thought. With the Cruciatus Pain Curse, again there is no way to resist or defend yourself. Against common forms of muggle torture, it's possible for someone of extremely strong character and an extremely high pain threshold to hold out against it. Of course, that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt. In addition, muggle torture is somewhat localized; it hurts where they hurt you. On the other hand, the Pain Curse it total and complete, every cubic inch of your body, inside and out, is searing and saturated with pain, and there is nothing you can do to resist it. You simply have to endure until it stops, no endorphines, no shock, no force of will or strength of character can blunt that pain. The Death Curse (Avada Kadavra), we have been told, can't be defended against. You can't shield youself from it, there is no way to block it, and it is absolute; if it touches you, you are dead. Again, no strength of character, physical power, or skill at magic can protect you. At least with a muggle gun, being shot isn't absolute; not all wounds are fatal. You can shield yourself with armor or a bullet-proof vest. No such luck with the Unforgivable Death Curse, no wounding, no glacing blows, no shield to defend against it, no magic to block it. It is because of this absolute nature of the Death Curse that it is unforgivable. If you are touched by the light, you die, and that death is also absolute; no point in rushing to the emergency room. Harry, however, has actually survived that curse twice. The first time was at Godric's Hollow when his mother gave him special protection. That's not a method most wizards can depend on for a defense. The second time was in the graveyard when he dueled with Voldemort. Voldemort cast the AK-Death Curse, and Harry cast the Expelliarmus Disarming Curse. Since there is no defense or (generally speaking) blocking a AK Curse, Harry should have died. But, by at twist of fate, they both cast their curses at the same time, and those curses collided head-to-head. It was that collision of curses that saved Harry in that one instant in time. Beyond that instant, it was the connected wands (Brother Effect/Reverse Spell Efect) that prevented Voldemort from casting any more curses. So, technically, a AK Curse can be block, but the timing of the counter curse, and the head-on angle at which the curses must meet is so precise that no wizard could plan for it or count on it. The only thing that save Harry, in that one instance, was luck, and way way way too many people have died who were counting on luck to save them. So, I think it is the total and absolute helplessness of the victims that make these curses so unforgivable. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 19:10:22 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 19:10:22 -0000 Subject: Problems at the end of GOF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124457 Richard Jones wrote: ...snip... > (3) And how did LV have the wand he killed James and Lily with? At > Godric's Hollow, he turned into vapor so he couldn't carry it. So > it must have just fallen down and maybe picked up by someone else > at Godric's Hollow, but the Death Eaters didn't know he was alive > or where he was and if a member of the Ministry got it they would > probably destroy it or keep it well protected . Wormtail was > a rat and couldn't carry it. So how did he come to have his > wand in the graveyard? Juli: This has been discussed over and over again. I believe the most popular conclussion is that Peter had the wand, how I have no idea, I guess is that he was at Godric's Hollow, after LV was turned into vapor he took the wand hid it somewhere for 12 years and then after PoA when he went looking for Voldemort again he retrieved it and voila, LV's got his wand back. From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Sat Feb 12 21:30:21 2005 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Richard Jones) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 21:30:21 -0000 Subject: Problems at the end of GOF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124458 I'm glad vmonte found that quotation from JKR and answered question (3). It's simple and plausible: Wormtail was at Godric's Hollow that night, picked up LV's wand, and hid it; and he then retrieved it years later after he found LV. But I don't think the answers to (1) and (2) from other posters were very illuminating. (1) The "shades" apparently learn things after their death, and so I still want to know what goes on inside the wands? (And saying "it's magic" doesn't really answer anything because we could say that about anything and not understand anything more.) (2) A wand that points north would help if you are totally disoriented, but it still won't help at all with regard to whether you should go east or west. As for Harry "cheating": well, he in effect cheated in the first two tasks, exchanging information with Cedric and having Dobby supply him with the gillyweed. And Bagman said that cheating was a traditional part of the triwizard tournament. So I don't think Harry would have any qualms about accepting help some other Gryffindors. Getting an accurate map at night would be difficult but not impossible. Obviously a map wouldn't solve everything (there would still be obstacles), but it certainly would help. Richard Jones From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 02:11:23 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:11:23 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts pollutes In-Reply-To: <102.5a991c78.2f3ff8d0@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124459 catportkey at a... wrote: > In book four, while Harry is taking a bath to figure out what > the golden egg is saying, Moaning Myrtle tells Harry that > sometimes she is accidentally flushed down the toilet into the > Lake. If that is so, then urine and fecal matter gets flushed > into the Lake also. > YUCK! > I can only hope that there is an anti-pollution spell and all > the human excrement turns into seaweed! Juli: I have thought about it before, I just imagine there is some sort of filter, a barrier, a spell or whatever in order to keep all the nasty flushables out of the lake. I doubt that Dumbledore as conscious as he is about all creatures he just could ignore the mere people like that. Besides I don't think it would be healthy to let the Champions and their *hostages* to stay in a lake full of fecal matter urine and who knows what else. So either it slipt by JKR or there's a filter, I hope it's the filter. Juli From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 08:38:40 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 08:38:40 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124460 > Valky now: > > I kind of see that this is foreshadowed by an unspoken exchange > between them in the pensieve scene. > > Lily says: What's he ever done to you. > James says: Well it's because he exists.. If you know what I mean. > Lily says: You think you're funny. You're just and arrogant bullying > toerag > Later... > Snape says: ...filthy Mudbloods like her. > Lily says: Fine.. I won't bother in the future. And I'd wash your > pants if I were you *Snivellus* > James says: Apologise to Evans. > Lily says: I don't want *you* to make him apologise. you're just as > bad as he is. > James says: WHAT! I'd never call you a - you-know-what! > > Ok before we start arguing a retranslation let me pre-empt. > Notice when James says I would never call you a you know what, There > is NO emphasis on the word "you" and piles of emphasis on the "you- > know-what". So anyone about to argue that that line is all about how > he feels about Lily, and not how he feels about purebloodism, bad > luck, you can't prove it. ;P > > If Lily doesn't understand what James means when he says, Well its > because he exists if you know what I mean" then why doesn't she > answer with, "No I don't know what you mean you bullying toerag!" > She *knows* what he means, and he knows that it's something that > matters to her because he coaxed it out of her. her reply was "You > think you're funny. You're just..." > Ahhh she did understand his point, she just didn't agree with it. > > Later she shows how she understands *why* James thinks he is funny. > When Snape attacks James with the 'cutting curse' (probably not > quite so innocuous as it was made out to be, It was pointed at James > face and left a gash) When James retaliated against this not so > innocuous curse with a relatively harmless spell that mocked Snape, > Lily had to stifle a laugh. Not because she was a hard hearted > person, but because it *is* funny to see a violent and angry > engagement defused with a comical retaliation. > > Finally when Snape turned on her with the name-calling, what exactly > did she use to reply? *Snivellus* and much emphasis on it! Lily > understood perfectly well what *that* meant. It is *we* who do not. Finwitch: I agree with this - completely. Sirius explained the times (in front of the Black Family Tree), with no need to explain bullying Severus Snape. "come on, Harry, you must have seen enough of this house to know what kind of people my family were -- not Death Eaters, no, but they thought that Voldemort had the right idea...". Sirius disagreed with them - despite of this opinion giving him the same sort of treatment Harry got from the Dursleys. Those days - it wasn't about DEs and good people. It was about blood (genes, more accurately) vs. choices. In addition, the extreme groups of these (or so it seemed): the Death Eaters - and Order of the Phoenix - were going into WAR. In a way, a civil war was there, within the wizard world. Being underage - and still in school - none of them was a member of the extremists. But everyone was *expected* and assumed to be of either ideology. (In truth, I guess most weren't supporting either) The bloodists use words like 'mudblood' and 'bloodtraitor' to descripe and insult the other side. I imagine we hear all other such words from the Portrait of Sirius' mother - and Kreacher. I suppose that 'Snivellus' - was what the pro-choice people used of the bloodists, or at least it's the only specific insult I know of that they used. Even that - just that he exists - if you see what I mean... Hmm-mm. You know - James DID battle the student-expert of the Dark Arts, with spells that were so - well, *harmless*. (and of course, that was part of the ideological war - at least to James). When James Potter (sometime after this scene, on a full moon) goes out and *saves* the life of Severus Snape - I think he considered that as the DEFEAT of Snape. And this time, his method was approved by Lily. All in all, I'd say that James & Lily did discuss comparative morals on their first date... you know, James didn't see anything WRONG in what he was doing. I think James admired Lily for standing up for her ideas - or Snape for that matter, even if they disagreed on whether it was right to humiliate Snape in the first place. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 08:56:44 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 08:56:44 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts pollutes In-Reply-To: <102.5a991c78.2f3ff8d0@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124461 Pook: > In book four, while Harry is taking a bath to figure out what the golden egg > is saying, Moaning Myrtle tells Harry that sometimes she is accidentally > flushed down the toilet into the Lake. > If that is so, then urine and fecal matter gets flushed into the Lake also. > YUCK! > I can only hope that there is an anti-pollution spell and all the human > excrement turns into seaweed! > The Merpeople would certainly make a stink about the stink of the Lake. Finwitch: Oh well... in the Middle Ages it was the custom - even though they didn't have the water closets - just a potty or a hole. And as much as we dislike the idea... I don't know if such *natural* things really are *polluting*. I think the merpeople use it to fertilize their lake... Sprout prefers Dragon Dung, but - well, I guess the merpeople make use for human dung... oh, and what about THEIR excrements? OR those of the fish?.. Plants eat that stuff. We (and vegetarian animals) eat the plants... Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 09:35:03 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:35:03 -0000 Subject: Olive Branch (was Re: Dumbledore the Counselor ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124462 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > Okay, I admit. I was over the top the last couple of posts. Sorry, > but child abuse does that to me. > > Nevertheless, I think it's time for all of us to admit that none of us > are going to change our positions. For those of us who see blatant > child abuse in the case of Harry and the Dursleys, and who feel that > Dumbledore must be held accountable for that, no argument or quotation > will budge us. It's just that simple. We aren't going to back down > because we feel it's too important and the case is far too clear, and > furthermore has been verified by JKR herself. Finwitch: Let me present the case of this Dursley abuse, and what I find of Dumbledore. For those who ask where it shows... well, you see - it's not so much in DOING things to Harry, but as in NOT doing. The *clearest* of where this comes out - showing the scars - is when Harry's learning his Patronus, searching for the happy thought. He immediately figures: "Nothing with the Dursleys". The first to get out SOMETHING - is: Hagrid giving him the letter. The first time someone stood up for Harry; Hagrid's the one taking care that Harry has something to keep him warm (Dursleys didn't give him so much as a blanket);.. and most importantly, *getting away from the Dursleys* at least partially. And the last non-corporeal Patronus he casts when attacked by Dementors- living with Sirius (AND being away from Dursleys for good). I tell you, if *being away* from these people is enough happiness to bring out the Patronus when faced with Dementing powers - well, I'd say he was abused, emotionally at least. They well - IGNORED him. As for Dumbledore... he tells Harry how the neglect and such is worse than open hostility 'as you yourself are well aware' (because that's what Dursleys did) - the 'silent treatment'. I hope my view becomes clearer if I make an analogy... You know, Harry - being exposed to 'silent treatment' from Dursleys since early life - gave Harry a sort of immunity to that, built up his defences against such thing... This is what happens when you have gone trough chicken pox as a child - you get a lifelong immunity. So when Snape gives Harry that 'silent treatment' after the Pensieve- thing... Harry finds it a *relief*. A relief, because this is something he's been immunized against... And as for Chicken Pox, and Dumbledore's - if not now, it'll be harder later - you know, someone who gets the disease as an adult is going to have much harder time with it than a child would have. So in effect... Dumbledore putting Harry to Dursleys was... well, more or less equivalent to deliberately having him infected with a pox as a child so he won't get it as an adult... Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 10:32:56 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 10:32:56 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (Making your own destiny) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124463 > vmonte responds: > I think that part of the appeal of the Harry Potter books is that > children are being taught that they have a choice in their own > destiny. That even if they come from a broken or abusive home they > have a choice whether to move past it and accept love in their heart, > or feel hatred and resentment for the rest of their lives. There are > many characters in the HP books (good and bad) that have problems > letting go of their past. Old hurts, resentments, bad families, etc., > color the way they perceive everything else in their life. Harry, > however, is able to overcome all of this. Not only that, he has the > ability to feel compassion for people who really do not deserve it-- > like Petunia and Snape. It's better to come out of a bad experience > stronger and wiser, and seeing yourself as a survivor, than to become > a hateful and deeply horrible person like Tom Riddle. The books tell > children to be strong, be yourself, and do what is right. Not a bad > thing in my opinion. > > JKR has written Dumbledore to be the "epitome of goodness." That's why > when we read: "My answer is that my priority was to keep you alive," > that this is the only thing Dumbledore could do to make sure that > Harry survived. > snip > > Harry has always confronted and faced the evil in his life. And he > has always chosen his own path. In the end he may realize that his > past is part of what made him strong enough. That's also why I hope > that he will eventually disregard Trelawny's prophecy. > > There has been a lot of discussion lately regarding why Dumbledore > never told Harry about the prophecy. I'm starting to think that he > shouldn't have told him. I really hate the prophecy! If Voldemort > hadn't listened to the prophecy in the first place he probably would > have conquered the WW by now. The prophecy has actually stalled LV's > plans. It reminds me of the Mirror of Erised. You become so fixated > by the reflection you see that you forget to live. > > Harry really needs to reject it, IMO. Finwitch: Yes, well -- now I agree that, so far as Dumbledore knew at the time, 4 Privet Drive *was* all he could do to keep Harry alive. However, I think that this was NOT true anymore in OOP. Not, because there was the 12 GP for Harry. In fact, Harry - unlike Sirius, Hermione, Ron etc. was the one attacked. By Dementors - who IMO would have done things worse than death to Harry. Harry was still recovering from Cedric's death - well, I guess battling the Dementors forced him to do it quickly - but he WAS in danger. And none at 12 GP was. Very humane, yes. And what exactly was wrong with placing Harry at Dursleys, where he was 'protected'? It undermined the Choice Harry made behind the gravestone. Harry figured he'll die anyway, and he'll do it fighting, not hiding. Dumbledore ignored Harry's acceptance of his mortality (interesting that Trelawney it NOW predicting he'll live long... of course, he'll die after that...) and his choice to fight and puts Harry into hiding... In a way, as much as Dementors tend to *cause* depression - well, Harry knows how to fight them, and he will. I think it possible that without Harry casting that Patronus - he would have fallen to depression, Dementors or no. Sirius compassion was Harry's sole comfort and probably saved his life. I doubt Dumbledore realised what Sirius knew all too well; when people are exposed to misery for too long they tend to kill themselves; they forget who they are; they go grazy. Finwitch From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 17:44:55 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:44:55 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Sympathetic. And Dead, Too. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124464 > Elkins: > huge snip > > I mean, even Draco himself is hip to this dynamic. > Just look at how he responds to Pansy in _PoA,_ when she asks him > if his arm hurts. A macho "nah, not really, don't worry > about it" just isn't going to win you any eros points from an > adolescent girl, unless there's one heck of a wince accompanying > it. And Draco knows that. To get the adolescent girls crushing > on you, you have to be hurt...yet still doing okay with it. > Alla: > So, I was rereading some of the Elkins' posts (the bit of reading > which I strongly recommend to anyone) and decided to ask a > question, which kind of bug me ever since I read "Draco Malfoy is > Ever so Lame.Yet Sympathetic and Dead" ( message 39083)for the > first time. Ns: I think I've read pretty much everything Elkins has written, it's what led me here in the first place, and quite changed the way I think about reading (and failed to make Lit class any more interesting, sadly). Just wanted to get that off my chest. :-) > Alla: > Can somebody explain to me,why while I understand hurt/comfort > phenomena quite well, it does not work for me on Draco? Ns: First I should say that I personally don't quite get hurt/comfort, at least, I don't find characters attractive beacuse of it - but I don't find characters attractive beacuse of anything else either, for the vast majority. (to be honest, the only one I find attractive is Lupin, and I don't think thats hurt/comfort, oh, and for a bit there, Barty Crouch Jr.) I *can* concieve of being attracted to Sirius, Snape, Harry, etc though - I can't Draco. He's just....yuck. What could anyone possibly see in him? I think it's that he's so completely immature. Even on my first reading, when I was probably younger than him, IIRC, he annoyed me immensely, especially things like the whining after the Buckbeak incident. I like stoicism and maturity in men, and Draco shows so little that even hurt/comfort won't make up for it. Even when picturing the characters, Draco always seems to me to be younger than his classmates which is a further turn off, beacuse while I'm all for feminism supposedly, I do know that I have a nasty little glitch when it comes to romance - ideally, the man should be older. But he's not only younger - he's downright childish, and silly, and transparent. The example Elkins uses from the book - when he's faking pain for Pansy - made me cringe. "What do you see in him? Can't you see he's just playing? Like a *baby*?!" His behaviour may be presented with dignity, but I still find it far too twat-like to be covered up. That's why I don't like Draco. I suspect it's related to why I don't see much in Sirius or Snape, or even Harry either - I don't like angst. It makes me either laugh or cringe - I like stoicism and humor after suffering, not brooding and self pity. Go Lupin. Northsouth (Who has never tried to explain what she finds sexually attractive in fictional characters before. Very interesting experience.) From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 13:40:53 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 08:40:53 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Olive Branch (was Re: Dumbledore the Counselor ) References: Message-ID: <008f01c511d1$a4139130$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 124465 From: "lupinlore" Nevertheless, I think it's time for all of us to admit that none of us are going to change our positions. For those of us who see blatant child abuse in the case of Harry and the Dursleys, and who feel that Dumbledore must be held accountable for that, no argument or quotation will budge us. It's just that simple. We aren't going to back down because we feel it's too important and the case is far too clear, and furthermore has been verified by JKR herself. For those who see it another way, even though I am frankly mystified to the point of disbelief at how you come by your opinions, I suspect the same is true. Nothing we say or quote will budge you. Charme: What an unusually worded "olive branch." :) I rather get the sense I'm being asked to close my eyes and grab the branch, only to find that I've got the thorny end of a rose instead. Before outright flaming Howlers come in response to my post, let me say this and be very clear: I am not emotionally invested in either side of the argument one way or the other. I'm more intrigued by what "weight" I should give the abuse factor when interpreting the books for my own edification and enjoyment. This "furthermore has been verified by JKR herself" in relation to your perception that DD must be held accountable for it is not exactly canon or JKR interview material, is it? The Dateline quote appears only to have mentioned a reference to the abuse received from the Dursleys indirectly by Dudley with your proper interpretation that Harry has been included in the "abuse," albeit in a different form. What's stiking though is this is the only quote I see used where she actually includes the word "abuse" in conjunction with Harry and/or Dudley in an interview setting. Has anyone seen it in another interview anywhere else? I find that compelling simply because when JKR appears to want to have fans "get the message," she repeats certain concepts over and over in seperate interviews and via her website to reinforce it. Add the other quote I've seen in this thread where DD admits what he had to do and why in placing Harry at the Durselys at the end of OoP, and I think you've got most of what's going to be said on the subject. I rather get the impression that those on the abuse and accountability issue want to "see some punishment" (I'm using Filch's words from CoS - it just seemed to fit) of DD about what Harry's gone through. Given what she's said about DD in the past, I don't believe that's going to happen (and maybe already did in a different fashion in OoP,) so maybe some fanfict will satisfy your need for justice after it's all over. Charme Charme From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 13:53:07 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 05:53:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Sympathetic. And Dead, Too. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050213135307.34065.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124466 > > Elkins: > > huge snip > > > > I mean, even Draco himself is hip to this dynamic. > > Just look at how he responds to Pansy in _PoA,_ when she asks him > > if his arm hurts. A macho "nah, not really, don't worry > > about it" just isn't going to win you any eros points from an > > adolescent girl, unless there's one heck of a wince accompanying > > it. And Draco knows that. To get the adolescent girls crushing > > on you, you have to be hurt...yet still doing okay with it. > For me, "Draco" is spelled W-U-S-S. And that's why I really don't like his character. I'm amazed at the posts I see from people on other sites who think he's funny and witty. He's a kid whose mental age is about 7 or 8, his method of getting what he wants is to moan and whimper, which probably still works with his mother but drives his father to distraction, wondering if the kid is ever going to grow up and why didn't we have a second child just for back-up? I prefer characters who have some backbone; I never liked hurt-males because even as a teenager I knew those guys were high maintenance. The world was all about THEM and their needs, and unless you had a full-blown crush on one of them, it was pretty easy to spot as an observer. (And frankly my junior high and high schools had the fewest attractive guys per square foot than any others in North America, so that helped too.) Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 14:03:05 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 06:03:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050213140305.33142.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124467 >>Lupinlore: >>The only things we can ascribe Harry's so-called "good emotional >> health" to are: >>1) poor writing on JKR's part, >>2) sheer luck shining of Dumbledore's decisions.< > > Betsy: > How about, 3) A strange tendency on the part of some fans to > grossly exaggerate Harry's treatment at the Dursleys. Yup, works for me. The Dursleys are jerks and were mean to Harry for over a decade. I'll take Vernon at his word when he says in PS/SS that they "swore when we took him in we'd stamp it [magic stuff] out of him." Like Neville's loopy relatives trying to get the magic out of him, Vernon and Petunia were trying to keep Harry's magic stuffed inside. Keeping him downtrodden was the strategy; if he was meek and humble, he wouldn't be magicking. When little incidents happened he got punished because they probably saw it as something he did on purpose. I really, really doubt that JKR wrote these books intending to gloss over the issue of child abuse or to imply that child abusers are simply comic relief. Because that's what some posters are very close to claiming. If someone wants to write JKR a letter on this issue and post it back to the list (and the entire HP fan world), that would probably be doing everyone a huge favour. Magda (member in good standing of the Dursleys-are-jerks-but-not-criminals club) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sun Feb 13 14:38:01 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:38:01 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Sympathetic. And Dead, Too. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124468 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy: > the thing is, I don't think I'm reading into these scenes too > deeply. JKR is the one providing the language, the set-up, the > outcome. For someone who's always putting Draco down in her > interviews, she really writes him awfully sympathetically. And I > agree with Elkins that JKR knows what she's doing. It's for these > reasons that I really hope Draco turns out to be the "good" Slytherin > (I'm sure there has to be one for Voldemort to be defeated). He's > always struck me as a lonely boy and he is such an underdog. It > would be nice if he finally had his day. > Renee: It seems to me that you're taking your personal reading for a quality of the narrative here. I, for one, don't see JKR writing Draco "awfully sympathetically" at all; to me he comes across as somewhat pitiable at best. The main reason for this is that Draco (unlike young Snape in the Pensieve Scene) never gets hurt without provocation. He's not treated shabbily by fate and he doesn't suffer because of one crucial character flaw or bad error of judgement - in fact, he's got everything going for him, being the only, spoiled child of a rich and influential pureblood wizard. It's his own bullying and his filthy mouth that do him in. Also, JKR depicts him as a a coward - and courage is the quality she values most in people. As far as I'm concerned, Draco doesn't qualify for Elkins's hurt- comfort scenario because of his utter lack of dignity, which can't be said of characters like Sirius, Lupin and Snape. OotP only reinforced this impression, which is why I'd be highly surprised to see him evolve into the "good" Slytherin so many people are clamouring for. Of course, he could change now that his father's in prison, but reading the end of OotP and seeing how Draco remains as twodimensional as ever, I won't get my hopes up. Renee From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 15:28:32 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:28:32 -0000 Subject: Aurors and Unforgiveable Curses - Helplessness In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124469 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > So, technically, a AK Curse can be block, but the timing of the > counter curse, and the head-on angle at which the curses must meet is so precise that no wizard could plan for it or count on it. The only thing that save Harry, in that one instance, was luck, and way way way too many people have died who were counting on luck to save them. Tonks: I think that in addition to luck, it was also the fact that their wands had the same core that saved Harry. If another wizard had the same luck but not the same core he would have been killed. I agree that it is not just the emotion behind the intent that makes it unforgivable. The intent of the desired result is necessary for the curse, or any curse, to work, not necessarily that you enjoy doing it. As someone has said Auror's at one point were allowed to use the AK. I am sure that they didn't like killing people, but were able to just the same. Now as to Harry and Bella. Harry was angry and did want to hurt her for the hurt he was feeling. But something deep in Harry, this special goodness that he has, prevented him from being able to do any real harm to her. Harry just doesn't have it in him to hurt others no matter how angry he is. So think about that all of you who are *sure* that he is going to kill LV. Harry is so full of Love that he will not destroy LV by a simple AK. Harry simply will not kill. It is against his very nature. He will be the victim, and willing. And this fact will be the force that destroys LV. It is the ancient magic. It is what Lily did for Harry. Harry will do the same to save the WW and Muggles too. Tonks_op From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 15:41:03 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:41:03 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124470 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" wrote: Super Multiple Post Combine Power--Activate! >> Betsy (124452): >> He's always struck me as a lonely boy and he is such an underdog. >> It would be nice if he finally had his day. One thing unaddressed here (and in the later post) is the point about the Inquisitorial Squad, where Draco is the leader and has goons; I suppose you could argue (as has) that poor sensitive Draco is only using them, and it's only because they're in his House, and he doesn't really like them... No, Draco seems to have a number of friendships within his House (Pansy looks like a girlfriend type, honestly), and is a prime instigator. Considering him 'lonely' isn't actually supported by the text, but is practically contradicted. He behaves like a convivial ruler, laughing and making jokes with his friends at the table. Funny how often they're jokes at the expense of others. > Renee: > The main reason for this is that Draco (unlike young Snape in the > Pensieve Scene) never gets hurt without provocation. He's not > treated shabbily by fate and he doesn't suffer because of one > crucial character flaw or bad error of judgement - in fact, he's > got everything going for him, being the only, spoiled child of a > rich and influential pureblood wizard. It's his own bullying and > his filthy mouth that do him in. Also, JKR depicts him as a a > coward - and courage is the quality she values most in people. Likewise, I don't see Draco's problems as coalescing around one particular thing that would impart some nobility to him. There's a little too much spite and arrogance combined with frustration. He sets out deliberately to be a little provocateur, and then it backfires upon him. Hmm, this is an interesting setup... > Betsy (124454): > The static nature of Draco isn't what brings in the fans. Otherwise > Dean or Lavender would get a similar amount of discussion time. And > they don't even come close. There's a reason so much time has been > spent pouring over Draco, and I can't think that JKR has written > about him in the way she's written about him to just keep him in a > perpetual state of stasis. Draco certainly is more important than Lavender or Dean. However, it's also eminently possible that he's so wildly popular because he's an easy object of projection--as soon as you pull out the "There's *so* much more here than we see" card, you can make him over into what you need him to be. We don't see him all the time--no. But we've seen him over the course of years one to five, which I think gives us a better claim of 'knowing' him than of the adults (with whom we often make the similar kinds of comments). I don't quite see being curled up whimpering and moaning after deliberately provoking a fight (even unknowingly), or shirking after getting hurt by Buckbeak partially out of his own arrogance, as terribly manly. But that's another point. No, I have an alternative proposal for what Draco does in the series: Draco is the deserved object of Schadenfreude. Draco Malfoy is a provocateur, and our narrative route into seeing what the child of a Death Eater behaves like. With some exceptions, he brings trouble upon himself, and is taken down in ways that many readers find distasteful, but many find rather gratifying. (Yes, I think there's a deliberate authorial tension between the two with scenes such as the ferret bouncing--but a lot of the time, not). After five years at Hogwarts, he seems not to have manifested any ability to say "Maybe this ain't right". In five years, what Draco *is* has been manifested repeatedly, and OotP is only really an intensification of it. *begin hypothetic* As such, he is likely to continue upon his path of father-worship, intensified by the removal of the actual object, and may even get dangerous. The 'good' face of Slytherin will be an as-of-yet unknown. Draco will even outright *refuse* to consider a change (which might do him good), because of his attachments. And then things will happen to him that he provoked. *end hypothetic* Heeeey, that's almost enough to make me into an honorary FEATHERBOA. And per giving away secrets in interviews; well, yeah but--she's *never* been covert about her opinions of some characters. She's very sneaky about Snape because he has a lot to do with The Plot, but she's very straightforward about a lot of things, such as his personality (which leads me to expect awesome plot twists but no fundamental reversal of character qualities). I don't think any of the pre-OotP comments were strongly contradicted if at all, either. She's far, far more mum about the sheer 'what is going to happen' than questions about personality or character. -Nora marks Betsy down for a 'Draco will end up on the good side', and Renee as a 'No he won't'; any other takers? From susanawhite123 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 16:03:44 2005 From: susanawhite123 at yahoo.com (Sue White) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 08:03:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050213160344.95663.qmail@web14123.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124471 much much snipping --- nrenka wrote: > Draco is the deserved object of Schadenfreude. > > Draco Malfoy is a provocateur, and our narrative > route into seeing > what the child of a Death Eater behaves like. With > some exceptions, > he brings trouble upon himself, and is taken down in > ways that many > readers find distasteful, but many find rather > gratifying. snip again > After five years at Hogwarts, he seems not to have > manifested any > ability to say "Maybe this ain't right". In five > years, what Draco > *is* has been manifested repeatedly, and OotP is > only really an > intensification of it. > Yes, this is all very true. However I firmly stand on the side that says, either way, Draco has potential to change. I see him as a contemporary foil for our friend the young Tom Riddle. Now the future potential Voldemorte must have had opportunities to be both good or evil. We know he chose evil, but we don't know what specific choice he made, in his young life that caused him to go that direction. Haggrid being an exception, becuase it can't be substantiated within the text as the thing which made Voldemort 100% evil. Similarly with Draco, we have seen him make choices, but juvenile ones. He hasn't yet committed any genuine evil, he's simply a pest. (not unlike a young James Potter...) I'm still waiting to see him make a decision with terrible consequence. I don't think Buckbeak counts, because Buckbeak's death sentence is not Draco's doing, but the doing of adults. Suffice it to say, I'm waiting for Draco to make a significant moral decision before I decide. Maybe I've overlooked something, but I just haven't seen it. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 18:08:09 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:08:09 -0000 Subject: Aurors and Unforgiveable Curses - Helplessness In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124472 Tonks: I think that in addition to luck, it was also the fact that their wands had the same core that saved Harry. If another wizard had the same luck but not the same core he would have been killed. Becky: I see Harry having the same wand core as luck. It just makes him a lot luckier than any other wizard would have been in this particular situation. bboyminn: And when you get right down to it, shouldn't it be the result, that is the crime rather the the method? Shouldn't it be the fact that you killed someone that gets you into trouble rather than the fact that you killed someone with one very specific curse? Isn't that about the same as saying, it's bad if you kill someone with a 38 caliber pistol, but it's a totally horrendous unforgivable crime if you kill them with a 9mm? Becky: I see what you're saying, but from the point of `unforgivable', which is worse? Attempted murder or manslaughter? Manslaughter clearly has worse results, but you may find it in yourself to forgive. Attempted murder implies that the person fled with their life, however I'm not sure I'd ever be capable of forgiving it, because murder is what was intended. Also, I feel that it is these particular curses which are unforgivable and not others because their purpose is so clear cut. Other curses given can be used to much lesser or equal effect, but the only purpose of the 'unforgivables' is horrendous. They are not designed with anything else in mind. Unfortunately you use the example of two sorts of gun. (I say unfortunate, I mean unfortunate for me as my gun knowledge is very limited.) I tend to view all gun crimes through the same lens. It makes no odds which sort of gun you use, you shouldn't have done it. I think the fact that these three curses are known as the `unforgivables' leads people to assume that the use of all others can be forgiven. Not always the case as I see it. If you use another curse to kill someone intentionally, then that is also unforgivable, but the curse itself is not. (e.g. you `wingardium leviosa' a brick over someone's head, where you allow it to drop. The resulting damage to that persons brain kills them. This is unforgivable, however, the spell used is not.) So, what I' trying to say is, I'm sure it is the intention behind the spell that makes it unforgivable. As to the Aurors, well I wouldn't want to be the only one in armed forces in Iraq without a gun of some description. In VW1, desperate measures were needed, so desperate measures were introduced. I don't see any canon that they were removed, so I'd assume those powers are still there. I doubt that an Auror would be in trouble for killing a DE in time of war, but I think that in peace times, an Auror would have more sense. Tonks (from 124297): I think DD follows a higher law, but what of the Aurors? And what about members of the Order? And if a member of the Order is an Auror, then what? Becky: I know we don't know whether or not DD killed Grindelwald, and I'd be inclined to suspect that the chocolate frog card would have said so if he had. I certainly don't think he's aiming to kill LV. I think DD would be `too noble' to do that. But as for order members, and certainly order members who are Aurors, I think you only need to look as far as Moody. He was there first time round, both in the order and as an Auror, so therein lies all your answers! Yes, he can, would and did use those powers, apparently to great effect. DD may not use such weapons, but he's happy to side with people who will. Becky From juli17 at aol.com Sun Feb 13 19:55:02 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:55:02 EST Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor Message-ID: <46.63060c5b.2f410a96@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124473 Lupinlore wrote: > And what was the problem in OOTP except Harry's inability to trust > adults? Why did he not go to an adult about Umbridge for example? > Really Betsy, things stare you right in the face. > Julie: Actually, if something is staring us in the face, it's that Harry doesn't want to *bother* the adults around him. Clearly he doesn't trust some of them, like Snape. But he specifically says he doesn't want to put any more burden on Sirius. He knows that Dumbledore, Lupin, Molly, etc have their hands full. He's also determined to handle it himself, not because he doesn't trust any adults, but because asking for help in the Umbridge situation would be tantamount to surrendering his will to her will. Harry's just stubborn that way. Another thing staring us in the face is that Harry anticpates their reactions in some cases, and rejects them. For instance, he's he's not about to tell Lupin or Sirius about his continued visions, or to tell them he's not practicing Occlumency so he can keep having them, etc. If he tells Molly anything she will get emotional and try to coddle him (something no teenager wants). In that way Harry is a very typical teenager. Few teenagers *trust* adults to give them the support they want, i.e., to tell them what they want to hear. I don't dispute that Harry tends to keep things inside and go it alone, and that it's certainly partly because he never had any reason to expect help or to depend on anyone but himself as he was growing up with the Dursleys. But I don't believe we've seen evidence that Harry is unable to trust adults in some pathological sense. He's trusted Sirius and Lupin fully, and when he has shown reservations trusting the adults around him, it has been with reason (knowing that they are keeping information from him). At least that is how I read Harry's attitude in OotP (and throughout the series). Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Sun Feb 13 20:22:46 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 20:22:46 +0000 Subject: No sympathy for Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124474 phoenixgod2000 points out: >Besides finding the Kreacher talk in amazingly bad taste, I thought >DD was wrong. He spoke about Kreacher being what other wizards *made >him* but in other books he made sure Harry realized that it was the >choices a person (or creature) makes which define them. I am a 100% Dumbledore fan, but I think you are right about this. Kreacher is no different than any other character in the book -- "It is our choices that show what we are." And Kreacher is, in my opinion, to quote someone else, "a revolting little toerag," and if Hagrid ever visits Grimmauld Place and accidentally steps on him, I will be delighted. Sirius Black was raised in the same hous. Dobby was a house-elf for Lucius Malfoy. Lupin has been dealing for most of his life with anti-werewolf prejudice. And none of them came within a mile of being anything like Kreacher. (I don't believe in the ESE!Lupin theory.) Firenze was taught to hate and despise humans. And what about Snape, former Death Eater? All these people made conscious decisions -- CHOICES -- to do some things and not to do others. If Dobby could make the choices he did, then Kreacher could also. (I think Kreacher is probably mentally unbalanced, but then I think Winky is too, so I don't excuse Kreacher on that account, because Winky's bad choices such as alcoholism and self-neglect didn't impact the lives of others, the way Kreacher's did.) And Kreacher *knew* what he was doing at the end. That seems clear by the way he manipulated Harry. Furthermore, if it were treatment that made the difference, then Kreacher would have responded positively to Molly's and Hermione's overtures of friendship. Also, I think that even Sirius's roughest treatment was probably pampering compared to what Kreacher got under the regime of his beloved Mrs. Black. In short, I put Kreacher on the same list as Voldemort, Lucius Malfoy, Fudge (yes, Fudge), and the Death Eaters -- I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. He has made his choices, and those choices have shown what he really is. Janet Anderson From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 20:22:39 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 20:22:39 -0000 Subject: Olive Branch (was Re: Dumbledore the Counselor ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124475 >>Lupinlore: >Okay, I admit. I was over the top the last couple of posts. Sorry, but child abuse does that to me.< Betsy: Thank you for the apology, Lupinlore. I admit that your last posts did raise an eyebrow. However, I do want to try and clearly state my take on Harry's place with the Durselys and Dumbledore's part in it. First of all, the Durselys are bad parents. I would not try and argue differently. Both Harry and to an almost greater extent, Dudley, bear that out. Personally, I wouldn't let the Dursely's board my dog for a day, all things being equal. However, and this is where I think the massive disagreements come in, I *don't* think Dumbledore was wrong to give Harry to them. Because things *aren't* equal. Harry *is* living under a death threat. A very real, very powerful death threat. Dumbledore makes it very clear that Voldemort is equal to him in magical knowledge and cunning. Any trick Dumbledore tries (fake death, new name or appearance, a move to the far side of the world) will be seen through. He even tells us that Voldemort is aware of the blood sacrifice Lily used. Dumbledore's *only* advantage is that Voldemort thinks so little of such magic (based as it is, on love) that he pretty much ignores it. So Voldemort has not figured out a way to break such a bond. For me, this is huge. This, more than anything, explains exactly why Dumbledore felt that he *must* build off the blood sacrifice. The *only* place where Harry is safe is at the Dursleys. I used an analogy (that was ignored, I notice) of a Jewish family sending their child out of harms way in the 1930's. Plenty of London families did similar things during the Blitz. Some of those children were, I'm sure, loved by the families that took them in. Some, I'm equally sure, where not. And I'm also sure that if one looked, there were probably some examples of children treated horribly. But I do not condemn the parents who sent their children to safety. And so I do not condemn Dumbledore for sending Harry to the Dursleys. >>Alla: >Petunia definitely tried to hit him with frying pan, but it is OK, right? Makes you stronger.< >Let me post you another hypo. Suppose Dursleys tried to hit Harry multiple times every day, BUT all of those hits magically rebounced and Harry did not feel anything at all. Do you think Harry is abused in such situation or not?< Betsy: The key word here is "tried." Aunt Petunia swings, Harry ducks, they go about their day. My point was, Harry has never been *struck.* He never acts like he's afraid of being struck. He gets in a wrestling match with Uncle Vernon in the very first book, for goodness sake. Honestly, I don't think he can be hit. When Uncle Vernon grabs him in OotP something shocks him enough that he has to let go. So I think Harry is magically protected. That's why I think the arguements that try and state that no matter the death threat hanging over Harry, Dumbledore should have brought him out, are not very convincing. Because the Dursley behavior tends to be exaggerated in those arguments. They are horrid people, and they do treat Harry badly, yes. But they don't go so far that the scale tips into the direction of, "must get Harry out, no matter who may get killed." (Especially since I agree with a previous poster that the Longbottoms would have been an obvious choice for fostering Harry, and we all know how safe they were.) And yes, this is my opinion, but it's not really something that's written in stone for me. If someone could seriously point to the Dursley's really giving Harry hell to the point they actually risked his life, or can point to a very obvious safe place where Harry could have lived, I would concede that Dumbledore chose badly. Betsy From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 21:13:39 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 21:13:39 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Sympathetic. And Dead, Too. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124476 >>Renee: >It seems to me that you're taking your personal reading for a quality of the narrative here. I, for one, don't see JKR writing Draco "awfully sympathetically" at all; to me he comes across as somewhat pitiable at best.< Betsy: I would worry that I had some personal kink for whiny blonds if there weren't so many others in the fandom who read the same things I do in Draco's scenes. (Plus, there's the fact that I don't really have a personal kink for whiny blonds .) And I've read essays that deal specifically with the language JKR uses to either set someone up as a hero, set someone up as disgusting, or set someone up sympathetically. JKR can write someone suffering pain and make it repulsive. When Wormtail cuts off his hand in GoF, he sobs and cries and pants and shivers. When Draco get slashed by the Hippogriff he lets out a shriek but then reverts to yelling. No tears, no sobbing. And in the ferret scene, Draco ends with his eyes "watering in pain" but again, no sobbing. In fact he's muttering and angry, almost Harry- like in his reactions. Then there's the fight scene in OotP. This would be a perfect time to show Draco in a repulsive light. Harry punches him in the stomach. A little retching, a little gagging, would have gone a long way to negate the hurt/comfort in this scene. But no, Draco is curled up and bloody, whimpering but not crying. Draco is not set up as a hero. He's a bit too feminine for that. His dress robes make him look like a Vicar. He attacks verbally rather than physically. There's the whole, "Ron is mutilating my roots," line in PoA. Even his role as Seeker is a more nimble and graceful athletic role. Harry is in no danger of being out-heroed by Draco. But JKR doesn't go so far that Draco is entirely unattractive. And she's consistent enough in this that I don't think she's writing him this way unconsciously. >>Renee: >The main reason for this is that Draco (unlike young Snape in the Pensieve Scene) never gets hurt without provocation.< Betsy: But he gets so *badly* hurt for so little provocation. He's jumped by George and Harry because he insults their mothers. Rude yes, deserving of an almight smack down? Not really. And see, that's another thing. Draco *never* gets a lick in. Never. There is not one time when he *really* puts the hurt on Harry. He tries, but he *always* fails. Always. >>Renee: >He's not treated shabbily by fate and he doesn't suffer because of one crucial character flaw or bad error of judgement - in fact, he's got everything going for him, being the only, spoiled child of a rich and influential pureblood wizard.< Betsy: Really? Couldn't you say that his fate has been predetermined by his parents? The hat barely touches Draco's head before he's whisked away to Slytherin. And I would say that there was a chance in the very beginning for him to gain Harry's friendship, but he blew it with his social awkwardness. And I would argue that Draco is not spoiled. He *says* he's spoiled. Harry assumes he is. But the times that we see him with his parents his wishes are second to theirs. (And isn't it strange that he's left alone in the dress shop? The Dursleys would have *never* left their ickle Dudley-kins on his own for his school shopping) He doesn't get the broom he was hoping for in PS/SS. He's beaten by a Firebolt in PoA, and I think by OotP, he's still flying the broom his dad bought him back in CoS. He does get sweets from home. That doesn't translate to spoiled though. Not when his family is (or claim to be) filthy rich. >>Renee: >It's his own bullying and his filthy mouth that do him in. Also, JKR depicts him as a a coward - and courage is the quality she values most in people.< Betsy: Draco doesn't give up, even when the odds are against him. That does do him in. Time and time again. But has he ever succeeded in harming Harry? I don't think JKR is setting him up to be the hero. But she's doing a really bad job of setting him up as a villian. Which is why I don't think we've seen the last of him, and why I hope his ultimate role has yet to be revealed. >>Renee: >As far as I'm concerned, Draco doesn't qualify for Elkins's hurt- comfort scenario because of his utter lack of dignity...< Betsy: And yet, Draco does handle his losses with dignity. He's dignified at the end of the ferret incident. He's dignified when he looses the big Quidditch final in PoA. He's dignified after being beaten by Harry and George in OotP. That's why I think Elkins is on to something here. Those were some prime opportunities for JKR to sabotage any hurt/comfort attractiveness. She could have had Draco whine, cry, froth at the mouth, swear mad-crazy revenge, but she doesn't. Instead he silently endures in way completely at odds with the way the Trio define Draco. Which leads me to belive there's a little bit more to Draco then first meets the eye. Betsy From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 21:35:22 2005 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 21:35:22 -0000 Subject: Privet Dr. protection (was Re: Dumbledore the Counselor) In-Reply-To: <00d401c51115$98f73390$0200a8c0@domain.invalid> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124477 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jane Jordan" wrote: > > Whizbang: > > Dumbledore does(I fixed the typo - WB) say that Harry can't be touched by anyone else. > > Only Voldemort. But the confusion for my lies in why Harry was > > sent to Privet Dr after GoF. If Voldemort could touch Harry and (snip) > > what was the sense of sending him back to Privet Drive? If > > Lily's protection no longer keeps Voldemort from touching him, . > >then why couldn't he spend the holidays with the Weasleys ? > >There's more protecting Harry at Privet Dr than we have been told > > >about. > > > Do you remember the chapter in the second book where Harry gets an owl in > his home for doing magic? Vernon wants to throw him out, but Petunia says > he has to stay? There is still one protection left. By leaving Harry with > the Dursleys, Dumbledore has managed to keep one protection in place. > Petunia is Lily's blood relative. And she's non-magical, so however badly > Harry's being treated, he is still better off there than in the wizarding > world. Voldemort can't get to Harry *as easily* when he's in the Dursleys' > home. > > JMO, > > Jane I have a feeling that Voldemort would have been able to touch Harry in the graveyard anyway. Harry cannot be touched by Voldemort under his aunt's roof and, apparently, at Hogwarts. Thus all the owls to "stay in the house" in OotP. Voldemort may have been snookered. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Feb 13 21:47:34 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 21:47:34 -0000 Subject: Long stuff about Namecalling WAS Re: James, a paragon of virtue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124478 Finwitch: > In a way, a civil war was there, within the wizard world. Being > underage - and still in school - none of them was a member of the > extremists. But everyone was *expected* and assumed to be of > either ideology. (In truth, I guess most weren't supporting either) > > The bloodists use words like 'mudblood' and 'bloodtraitor' >...edit.....> > I suppose that 'Snivellus' - was what the pro-choice people used > of the bloodists, or at least it's the only specific insult I know > of that they used. Even that - just that he exists - if you see > what I mean... > Valky now: Hey, I think you bring up an interesting consideration here. I personally, placed the name Snivellus (the word snivel/snivelling) as a canon support of James and Sirius collective Ideology anyway but the spin that you put on it reboots my POV. >From the veiw of a pro-choice(as in DD saying it is our choices that reveal who we are, and not RL pro-choice ideologies) I see a name like sniveller, as consistent with a distinction the pro-choicer would make between the ontologies of Dark and Light in the WW, not necessarily what one would call *all* DA beings, but certainly a characteristic that a pro-choicer would expect to call a bloodist on. Let me explain. As I go to understand the basis of calling Sevvie a sniveller, I relate to the use of the word in late 20th century english as I know it. To this end I find that one in the days of the Marauders would 'call someone on' snivelling when that person had demonstrated a virtueless underhanded method of self preservation or gain. For this reason the word sniveller was closely associated with cowardice and umm sucking up (manipulation). There are some examples in the books which I believe JKR might have used 'snivelling' to describe the behaviour, but considering that it has various nuances of implied meaning, and that she probably planned to use it in Book 5, it's understandable that she didn't. But there is evidence to support the connection between them and snivellus. Take for example Peter Pettigrew in the Shrieking Shack. When he is forced to transform, after he has tried to escape, has heard the whole discussion between Harry and Sirius, and is facing finally the consequences of his behaviour, he makes several appeals and attempts manipulations to save himself. First he says 'my old friends...' an emotional appeal to Remus and Sirius, which smacks distinctly of cowardice. Then he tries to manipulate Remus with his lie : "Remus," gasped Pettigrew, and Harry could see beads of sweat breaking out over his pasty face, "you don't believe him, do you...? He tried to kill me, Remus...." Then Sirius calls him on something which I'd like you to note: "When did I ever sneak around people who were stronger and more powerful than myself? But you, Peter -- I'll never understand why I didn't see you were the spy from the start. You always liked big friends who'd look after you, didn't you? " .... then later..... "It must have been the finest moment of your miserable life, telling Voldemort you could hand him the Potters." Then he begs at Sirius' knees for mercy. Note very well, that this is *really* repulsive to Sirius, *and* he associates Peter with filth in his response. Snivellus - Greasy ** Snivelling - Filthy Pettigrew appeals to Ron and Hermione. Note very well that he calls Hermione *clever* and tries to manipulate Ron with emotional tactics. And finally he appeals to Harry, with lip service to the father he took from him, which *really* gets *Sirius* riled. I think that *Sirius' opinions* of Snivelling, as interpreted this way, are perfectly obvious. Another example of Snivelling, in the books is evident in none other than Sevvie's tight buddy, Filch. This is a slightly different implied meaning of snivel, but valid AFAIK, nonetheless. During the DU dictatorship, Filch was most pleased at the prospect of being able to conduct whippings again. It is interesting to note how "hard he tries" to get this sanction throughout the series. Filch *uses and manipulates* the authority and power of others just like Pettigrew attempted to in the Shrieking Shack, but his purpose in doing so is not so much self preservation, but gain. It is this particular meaning that I believe most likely to be the eventual revealed implication of Snivellus Snape as per the Marauders (and Lily's) "accusation" in the pensieve scene. While DD is Headmaster of Hogwarts, Filch demonstrates a two-faced approach. In Dumbledores prescence he acts subserviant and agreeable, to his back he is most disagreeing of Dumbledore's rulings and liberal ideals concerning the students. While DU is Headmaster of Hogwarts he can't possibly speak more highly of her, because she is offering him what he wants. We'd probably all agree that a character like DU thrives on servility of those around her and Filch has plenty to offer. As long as he is continuing to press his own agenda he will bow and give graces *even those which aren't sincere* in order to *keep the power holder on his side*. This is snivelling, and, I think "the snivelling" to which Sirius and James refer when addressing Young! Snape in the SWM pensieve scene. There is some obvious affinity between Snape and Filch apparent in the books. And there is also an affinity between this 'snivelling" and bloodism. Genealogy is not a sincere judgment of a person, and WW graces paid on the basis of purebloodness *are not sincere*. Try Borgin in COS, paying flat out idolatry to super-pure-pureblood Lucius Malfoy in Knockturn Alley, right up until the point where Lucius walks out of the store, then the insincerity of the "Bloodism Graces" is revealed in all its ugliness. Borgin *despises* Malfoy as a person, just as Sirius despises Snape as a person. But, of the two, the one who is sincere and *would not* deny his position for any means, is Sirius. And, as shown in the Shrieking Shack, this is a value that Sirius holds and has long held in the highest regard. Many couldn't understand why Sirius, when arrested for Lily and James Deaths, acted so violently mad. But understanding the Sirius who *cannot* deny his position and will *always* be sincere goes a long way to rationalising the behaviour. Naturally, a WW full of pureblood insincerity wouldn't understand it at all. So rounding off to the point, I believe that Finwitch has called it rightly in saying that Snivellus could be a name that the pro- choicers (for want of a term that clashes less with RL scenarios) would call a bloodist. It is definitely an accusation of a behaviour consistent with purebloodism as an ideology. Finwitch: > Hmm-mm. You know - James DID battle the student-expert of the Dark > Arts, with spells that were so - well, *harmless*. (and of course, > that was part of the ideological war - at least to James). When James Potter (sometime after this scene, on a full moon) goes out and *saves* the life of Severus Snape - I think he considered that as the DEFEAT of Snape. And this time, his method was approved by Lily. > Valky: In a small way I differ in veiw of this particular point. I believe that James saw *every* fight he won with Snape as defeating Snape. And I believe his rescue of Snape from the werewolf was entirely sincere and not in any way at all contrived or self interested. *I* agree that this was a larger defeat of Snape (from an ideological veiwpoint) than any in their history. And I do agree that Lily saw it as a defeat of Snape also in a sense, I even think that Sevvie did and still does percieve it as his most embarrassing defeat at the hand of James, but I think that *James* himself would totally disagree. James would never see it that way if he is of any likeness to the James I have attempted to paint in ideological terms. Like Sirius, James Potter would *always* be sincere about his position. And if he sincerely thought that saving Snape was as a defeat of him in the minds of observers then Sirius would be calling *him* a sniveller. In the Sirius and James I have painted here, that is all they both could imagine it to mean. James would, I truly believe, be just like Harry in this matter. Saving a life is saving a life, he would not try to paint it any pretty colour for the benefit of others or attempt to contrive a deeper analogy for it. As far as a duty to someone in danger goes, there is nothing more needed to be said. This is the "Hero Complex". Hermione and Harry in OOtP ......... 'I'm trying to say - Voldemort knows you, Harry! He took Ginny down into the Chamber of Secrets to lure you there, it's the kind of thing he does, he knows you're the - the sort of person who'd go to Sirius's aid! What if he's just trying to get you into the Department of Myst??' 'Hermione, it doesn't matter if he's done it to get me there or not - they've taken McGonagall to St Mungo's, there isn't anyone from the Order left at Hogwarts who we can tell, and if we don't go, Sirius is dead!' ......... 'Harry, I'm begging you, please!' said Hermione desperately. 'Please let's just check that Sirius isn't at home before we go charging off to London. If we find out he's not there, then I swear I won't try to stop you. I'll come, I'll d - do whatever it takes to try and save him.' 'Sirius is being tortured NOW!' shouted Harry. 'We haven't got time to waste.' .......... To highlight the point.. Hermione says: You're the - the sort of person who would go.... Harry says : If we don't go Sirius is dead! and then later again Sirius is being tortured NOW, We haven't got time to waste. Add the two together and you have- The sort of person who would go doesn't hestitate to explain anything about going. They just go NOW. And of course don't forget that Harry takes the same attitude toward saving Ginny, and Fleur Delacour's sister, Dudley.... When Voldemort arrived at the doorstep of Godrics Hollow it was James who *ran ahead* and fought bravely and uprightly to save the lives of his family (Voldemort says so), just like Harry he didn't give thought to explaining what he wanted carved on his gravestone in honour of his greatness, he just did it, because if he didn't Harry was dead. If James Potter doesn't have a Hero Complex I will eat my keyboard. Valky (wondering if JKR laughs at the James and Snape pensieve debate and thinks to herself, the shoe is on the other foot after HBP.) From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 22:25:14 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:25:14 -0000 Subject: Olive Branch (was Re: Dumbledore the Counselor ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124479 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > Nevertheless, I think it's time for all of us to admit that none of us are going to change our positions. For those of us who see blatant child abuse in the case of Harry and the Dursleys, and who feel that Dumbledore must be held accountable for that, no argument or quotation will budge us. It's just that simple. We aren't going to back down because we feel it's too important and the case is far too clear, and furthermore has been verified by JKR herself. > Tonks here: I am willing to admit that Harry's treatment at the Dursley's was a form of abuse. Not as server as many kinds, but if JKR calls it that OK. I think that Harry survived it well and that it may even have helped him grow into a stronger person. But is it a grand leap to say that the blame is with DD. Yes, we can go round and round on this one. I will never say that DD is to blame. Period. My reasons are: DD is not responsible for the actions of others. None of us are. No one can force another to love. That is an important point in the books along with the power of choice. Each person has free will to do good or ill. Not even the great and powerful DD can take that away from a person. So all the ideas of bribery, threatening, etc. are not only against everything that DD stands for, they simply can not override basic free will. And it is clear to me at least that DD had no other choice. He did what he needed to do to keep Harry safe in the long run. Others here will disagree on that, but I think that we have canon to back it up. In any event, I agree that we can just drop this discussion because there is nothing one side can say to change the other and it just gets everyone's blood pressure up. Tonks_op Who will always defend DD. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 22:34:44 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:34:44 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124480 >>Nora: >One thing unaddressed here (and in the later post) is the point about the Inquisitorial Squad, where Draco is the leader and has goons;< Betsy: Ah yes, the Inquisitorial Squad. Classic example of those not excepted into the first treehouse building a bigger and better one of their own. Not one member of the DA considered including a Slytherin. Yes, I know. That house is evil, all future Death Eaters, should probably be clapped into Azkaban as soon as they graduate. (Lord, but I hope JKR isn't as black and white as that!) But when you exclude a group from your club, you shouldn't be surprised if they set up a rival club of their own. Also, I think the Squad membership may well have been influenced by Lucius et al. Umbridge refers to Lucius directly in OotP, which suggests that she's spoken directly to him, not just through Fudge. Not that I think Draco was dragged kicking and screaming to the Squad. He is a power loving boy, and he's always eager to give Harry a hard way to go. I'm not arguing for Saint!Draco here. I'm just saying that JKR has chosen to write him in an attractive way, and that means... something. :) >>Nora: >Draco seems to have a number of friendships within his House (Pansy looks like a girlfriend type, honestly), and is a prime instigator. Considering him 'lonely' isn't actually supported by the text, but is practically contradicted. He behaves like a convivial ruler, laughing and making jokes with his friends at the table.< Betsy: I won't bore you with the "loneliness of leadership" speech. I'm sure you're well aware of it. Yes, Draco is usually the center of attention. That's exactly where he likes to be. He's a talanted mimic, has a clever wit and he makes those around him laugh. (Which, actually puts him more in the role of court fool than convivial king.) But the only people who hang around him consistently are Crabbe and Goyle. When he's left at Hogwarts in CoS (another point against Spoiled!Draco) only Crabbe and Goyle stay to keep him company. I think the one time we see him in any meaningful conversation with someone is in OotP with Nott, after Harry has outed their fathers. >>Nora: >Funny how often they're jokes at the expense of others.< Betsy: Kinda like the Weasley twins? >>Nora: >Likewise, I don't see Draco's problems as coalescing around one particular thing that would impart some nobility to him. There's a little too much spite and arrogance combined with frustration. He sets out deliberately to be a little provocateur, and then it backfires upon him.< Betsy: Well, no, I don't think Draco has shown much nobility. That's not what I'm trying to say. He *is* a little provocateur (no matter how many times it hurts him) and he hasn't made any hard choices. In fact, I would say that Draco has yet to make a choice. So far he's spent most of his time reacting to Harry's choices and going with the flow set forth by this family. I believe the time of choice is coming up though. Will he follow his father's path and become a Death Eater? Will he go another way? [On a total aside, A.J.Hall's fanfic, "Lust over Pendle" has Draco choosing to defy his father not because of any inner nobility but because he's squeamish about killing. Which I could easily see happening.] >>Nora: >Draco certainly is more important than Lavender or Dean. However, it's also eminently possible that he's so wildly popular because he's an easy object of projection--as soon as you pull out the "There's *so* much more here than we see" card, you can make him over into what you need him to be.< Betsy: But that's the whole point of Elkins' post -- JKR deliberatly uses language to ratchet up the interest in Draco. She does it time and again when she *knows* how to kill the interest with a few well placed words. When JKR wants to repulse her audience, the audience is replused. For some reason, she wants us to keep an eye on Draco, and she wants him to be attractive. >>Nora: >I don't quite see being curled up whimpering and moaning after deliberately provoking a fight (even unknowingly) or shirking after getting hurt by Buckbeak partially out of his own arrogance, as terribly manly. But that's another point.< Betsy: It's not the getting hurt, it's the stoic behavior afterwords. He yells after the initial slash of Buckbeak. He doesn't shriek, or sniffle, or weep. (And I'm confused about the "arrogance." How was Draco arrogant there?) And after the fight (where the winning team can't seem to handle a few angry jeers from the loosing side) Draco, again, doesn't shriek or sniffle or weep. And you seriously thought George and Harry's behavior was somehow justified? Draco got turned into a ferret for similar behavior. >>Nora: >Draco Malfoy is a provocateur, and our narrative route into seeing what the child of a Death Eater behaves like. With some exceptions, he brings trouble upon himself, and is taken down in ways that many readers find distasteful, but many find rather gratifying.< Betsy: Yes, his take downs, on the surface, seem to be gratifying - Harry is gratified anyway. But Draco is *always* badly outgunned. I can't think of a time when he and Harry went at it on equal terms. And Harry is always the one with the overwhelming back up or equipment or authority figure. Every single time Draco seems to have the advantage, the rug is pulled from under his feet and he's the one suffering. Stoically. :) He does do a good job of illustrating the old blood-biases of the pure-bloods. I'm not sure if he's been brought up as a Death Eater though. He can't see a thestral, so I doubt he's been along to any annual Muggle torture parties fanfic loves to portray. But he definitely does a good job of being Ron's opposite. >>Nora: >After five years at Hogwarts, he seems not to have manifested any ability to say "Maybe this ain't right".< Betsy: I guess I haven't seen much opportunity for Draco to come to that conclusion. Everything has just sort of gone along for him. He did refuse to stand at the end of GoF when everyone stood up for Harry. But that's not really a surprise. Draco is not Harry's nemesis, but Harry is definitely Draco's. I think the time for choosing has arrived, though, so I do expect to have some rather revealing scenes in the next book. Betsy From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 22:54:58 2005 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:54:58 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124481 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > If Lily doesn't understand what James means when he says, Well its > because he exists if you know what I mean" then why doesn't she > answer with, "No I don't know what you mean you bullying toerag!" > She *knows* what he means, and he knows that it's something that > matters to her because he coaxed it out of her. her reply was "You > think you're funny. You're just..." Whiz: They're flirting. ;) Remember, Lily, like Lupin, is a Gryffindor prefect, a position she obviously takes Siriusly. This scene compares with the scene in the Gryffindor common room when Hermione intervenes in Fred and George's "testing" on first years while Ron slips under the table. I can't see why anyone would argue that James hated the DA. Sirius said it in so many words. > > Magda: > > > So I would submit that Lily was not aware that James and Snape > > > were continuing their relations in the normal manner (to use a > > > value-neutral expression). Why hide it from her if there was > > > principled reason for it, if it was an anti-DA activity? Whiz: How can any of us answer that question, (unless one of us is JKR). I can think of a number of reasons. He suspected that Snape joined the DEs and didn't want to endanger Lily further. Lily was planning a wedding/expecting a child. He could have been protecting her. I don't think it's safe to speculate too far. This is how I see this scene. OotP, ch 28: Harry turned to see what Sirius was looking at. Snape was on his feet again, and was stowing the OWL paper in his bag. As he left the shadows of the bushes and set off across the grass, Sirius and James stood up. Whiz: The marauders are watching attentively. Snape was likely moving toward them rather than away from the marauders as we don't see Harry preparing to move with him. While they had seen him, they didn't stand up until he began to move. OotP, ch 28: Lupin and Wormtail remained sitting: Lupin was still staring down at his book, though his eyes were not moving and a faint frown line had appeared between his eyebrows; Wormtail was looking from Sirius and James to Snape with a look of avid anticipation on his face. "All right, Snivellus?" said James loudly. Whiz: James alerts Snape to the marauders presence and let's him know that he's been seen. Very sporting. OotP, ch 28: Snape reacted so fast it was as though he had been expecting an attack: dropping his bag, he plunged his hand inside his robes and his wand was halfway into the air Whiz: Snape makes a clearly threatening move. OotP, ch 28: when James shouted, "Expelliarmus!" Whiz: James disarms him. OotP, ch 28: Snape's wand flew twelve feet into the air and fell with a little thud in the grass behind him. Sirius let out a bark of laughter. "Impedimenta!" he said, pointing his wand at Snape, who was knocked off his feet halfway through a dive towards his own fallen wand. Whiz: Snape makes a dive for his wand. Sirius stops him. OotP, ch 28: Students all around had turned to watch. Some of them had got to their feet and were edging nearer. Some looked apprehensive, others entertained. Snape lay panting on the ground. James and Sirius advanced on him, wands raised, James glancing over his shoulder at the girls at the water's edge as he went. Wormtail was on his feet now, watching hungrily, edging around Lupin to get a clearer view. Whiz: Wormtail shows a sadistic side. We know he can do the death curse and perhaps one heck of a Cruciatus. This may be our first clue to his future. OotP, ch 28: "How'd the exam go, Snivelly?" said James. Whiz: James taunts Snape. OotP, ch 28: "I was watching him, his nose was touching the parchment," said Sirius viciously. "There'll be great grease marks all over it, they won't be able to read a word." Whiz: Sirius does the same. Dumbledore seems to think this is good for them. I don't know why. OotP, ch 28: Several people watching laughed; Snape was clearly unpopular. Wormtail sniggered shrilly. Snape was trying to get up, but the jinx was still operating on him; he was struggling, as though bound by invisible ropes. "You - wait," he panted, staring up at James with an expression of purest loathing, "you - wait!" Whiz: Snape is not frightened, he's furious, apparently because James and Sirius got the jump on him. OotP, ch 28: "Wait for what?" said Sirius coolly. "What're you going to do, Snivelly, wipe your nose on us?" Snape let out a stream of mixed swear words and hexes, but with his wand ten feet away nothing happened. Whiz: Snape uses profanity and attempts, apparently vainly, to hex the marauders without his wand. OotP, ch 28: "Wash out your mouth," said James coldly. "Scourgify!" Whiz: James responds to the profanity and the threat of being hexed. OotP, ch 28: Pink soap bubbles streamed from Snape's mouth at once; the froth was covering his lips, making him gag, choking him - "Leave him ALONE!" James and Sirius looked round. James's free hand immediately jumped to his hair. It was one of the girls from the lake edge. She had thick, dark red hair that fell to her shoulders, and startlingly green almond-shaped eyes - Harry's eyes. Harry's mother. "All right, Evans?" said James, and the tone of his voice was suddenly pleasant, deeper, more mature. "Leave him alone," Lily repeated. She was looking at James with every sign of great dislike. "What's he done to you?" "Well," said James, appearing to deliberate the point, "it's more the fact that he exists, if you know what I mean..." Whiz: Snape is always following them around. OotP, ch 28: Many of the surrounding students laughed, Sirius and Wormtail included, but Lupin, still apparently intent on his book, didn't, and nor did Lily. Whiz: Lily and Lupin are the Gryffindor prefects. This is reminiscent of the scene in the Gryffindor common room when Hermione confronts the twins while Ron hides under a table. Hermione had better ammo. OotP, ch 28: "You think you're funny," she said coldly. "But you're just an arrogant, bullying toerag, Potter. Leave him alone." "I will if you go out with me, Evans," said James quickly. "Go on... go out with me and I'll never lay a wand on old Snivelly again." Behind him, the Impediment Jinx was wearing off. Snape was beginning to inch towards his fallen wand, spitting out soapsuds as he crawled. "I wouldn't go out with you if it was a choice between you and the giant squid," said Lily. Whiz: James and Lily flirt. OotP, ch 28: "Bad luck, Prongs," said Sirius briskly, and turned back to Snape. "OI!" 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. Whiz: Snape attacks James drawing blood. I believe this fact is significant. OotP, ch 28: James whirled about: a second flash of light later, Snape was hanging upside-down in the air, his robes falling over his head to reveal skinny, pallid legs and a pair of greying underpants. Whiz: James retalliates with a method we later see DEs use on muggles. He does not draw blood, nor does he torture Snape by spinning him. He does however, humiliate the Slytherin. OotP, ch 28: Many people in the small crowd cheered; Sirius, James and Wormtail roared with laughter. Lily, whose furious expression had twitched for an instant as though she was going to smile, said, "Let him down!" Whiz: Lily sees humor in this situation, but she is, after all, a prefect. And she takes her position and responsibility seriously. OotP, ch 28: "Certainly," said James and he jerked his wand upwards; Snape fell into a crumpled heap on the ground. Whiz: James accedes to Lily's request, putting himself in more danger from Snape. OotP, ch 28: Disentangling himself from his robes he got quickly to his feet, wand up, Whiz: Snape just won't quit, and again, threatens with his wand. OotP, ch 28: But Sirius said, "Petrificus Totalus!" and Snape keeled over again, rigid as a board. Whiz: Sirius again responds to Snape's threat. OotP, ch 28: "LEAVE HIM ALONE!" Lily shouted. She had her own wand out now. James and Sirius eyed it warily. "Ah, Evans, don't make me hex you," said James earnestly. "Take the curse off him, then!" James sighed deeply, then turned to Snape and muttered the counter-curse. Whiz: James again accedes to Lily's wishes. OotP, ch 28: "There you go," he said, as Snape struggled to his feet. "You're lucky Evans was here, Snivellus -" "I don't need help from filthy little Mudbloods like her!" Whiz: Snape hurls the ultimate insult at Lily. Any doubt he's DE material and a pureblood supremacist? OotP, ch 28: Lily blinked. "Fine," she said coolly. "I won't bother in future. And I'd wash your pants if I were you, Snivellus." Whiz: Lily, deeply offended, returns Snape's insults. OotP, ch 28: "Apologise to Evans!" James roared at Snape, his wand pointed threateningly at him. Whiz: James responds, but does not use magic. OotP, ch 28: "I don't want you to make him apologise," Lily shouted, rounding on James. Whiz: Lily doesn't want James to force an apology out of Snape. OotP, ch 28: "You're as bad as he is." "What?" yelped James. I'd NEVER call you a - you-know-what!" "Messing up your hair because you think it looks cool to look like you've just got off your broomstick, showing off with that stupid Snitch, walking down corridors and hexing anyone who annoys you just because you can - I'm surprised your broomstick can get off the ground with that fat head on it. You make me SICK." She turned on her heel and hurried away. Whiz: More flirting. Besides, Lily had to get out of there in a dignified manner before she lost her composure and burst out laughing. OotP, ch 28: "Evans!" James shouted after her. "Hey, EVANS!" But she didn't look back. "What is it with her?" said James, trying and failing to look as though this was a throwaway question of no real importance to him. "Reading between the lines, I'd say she thinks you're a bit conceited, mate," said Sirius. "Right," said James, who looked furious now, "right -" There was another flash of light, and Snape was once again hanging upside-down in the air. "Who wants to see me take off Snivelly's pants?" Whiz: Now that Lily has gone, James responds to Snape's insult to Lily and puts him back in the air. OotP, ch 28: But whether James really did take off Snapes pants, Harry never found out. Whiz: Darn it all. It's interesting to note that while both Sirius and James speak to Snape, he never addresses Sirius, nor does he attempt to hex him. Snape's attention is totally concentrated on James. Why? sigh... Yipes, this is long.... :/ From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 22:56:29 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:56:29 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the incompetent councilor Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124482 I'm sure Serious Black had his faults, but for Dumbledore to enumerate every one of them to Harry just minutes after the poor man was murdered does not seen very sensitive to me. And statements like "I know how you feel Harry" seem almost calculated to enrage Harry to the maximum degree possible, it would certainly make me want to smack Dumbledore right in his smug little face. But Harry just destroyed Dumbledore's office; I think he showed amazing restraint. But Dumbledore was right about one thing when he said "You are not nearly as angry at me as you should be ." Eggplant From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 22:59:42 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:59:42 -0000 Subject: No sympathy for Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124483 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Janet Anderson" wrote: > phoenixgod2000 points out: > Kreacher is no different than any other character in the book -- "It is our choices that show what we are." And Kreacher is, in my opinion, to quote someone else, "a revolting little toerag," (snip) > Dobby was a house-elf for Lucius Malfoy. If Dobby could make the choices he did, then Kreacher could also. Tonks: Well I suspect that DD is looking at the fact that Kreacher is not a free agent. True, at one time Dobby was not either. Dobby had to *betray* his Master to do what he did. Kreacher on the other hand was true to the family that he served and was raised to have the same values as they did. I am not standing up for him mind you. I am just saying that I can understand why DD would say that Kreacher is what others have made him. Tonks_op From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 23:04:51 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:04:51 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124484 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy: > Ah yes, the Inquisitorial Squad. Classic example of those not > excepted into the first treehouse building a bigger and better one > of their own. Not one member of the DA considered including a > Slytherin. Yes, I know. That house is evil, all future Death > Eaters, should probably be clapped into Azkaban as soon as they > graduate. (Lord, but I hope JKR isn't as black and white as that!) > But when you exclude a group from your club, you shouldn't be > surprised if they set up a rival club of their own. It's, ummm, a rather nasty 'rival club'. It's not that they went off on their own to work on things, it's that they decided the best way to treat their fellow students was to suck up to an overtly odious administrator. They seem to patently enjoy the domination of the other students. What's notable is that *not all the Slytherins joined it*. But they also did nothing against it. We've been around this bend before so I won't repeat myself, but I think there is a world of difference between the nature of the DA and the IS, and to collapse them together is a slippery slope argument. > I'm not arguing for Saint!Draco here. I'm just saying that JKR has > chosen to write him in an attractive way, and that means... > something. :) What's attractive about the IS? What's attractive about "Malfoy was watching her with a hungry expression on his face. 'The Cruciatus Curse ought to loosen your tongue', said Umbridge quietly." ... "Malfoy, who was too slow to disguise the look of eagerness and greed that had appeared on his face". (Both from the scene with the IS and Umbridge near the end of OotP). I pick those out because they are, in a sense, some of the 'most recent' things we've seen from Draco. > Betsy: > > [On a total aside, A.J.Hall's fanfic, "Lust over Pendle" has Draco > choosing to defy his father not because of any inner nobility but > because he's squeamish about killing. Which I could easily see > happening.] It also features a very tangential relationship to any canon personalities, but that's another point, ain't it? :) > >>Nora: > >I don't quite see being curled up whimpering and moaning after > deliberately provoking a fight (even unknowingly) or shirking after > getting hurt by Buckbeak partially out of his own arrogance, as > terribly manly. But that's another point.< > > Betsy: > It's not the getting hurt, it's the stoic behavior afterwords. He > yells after the initial slash of Buckbeak. He doesn't shriek, or > sniffle, or weep. (And I'm confused about the "arrogance." How > was Draco arrogant there?) Draco's shirking in class is certainly not stoic; it's manipulative and Snape indulges it because he's a favoritist. "Easily offended, hippogriffs are. Don't never insult one, 'cause it might be the last thing yeh do." Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle weren't listening; they were talking in an undertone and Harry had a nasty feeling they were plotting how best to disrupt the lesson. ... "...I bet you're not dangerous at all, are you?" he [Draco] said to the hippogriff. "Are you, you great ugly brute?" Not paying attention in class when you've been warned the stuff you're dealing with is dangerous is arrogant. Insulting a hippogriff is pure idiocy. It's laid out in ways that are very, very hard to argue around that Draco was not paying attention, and that's what got him hurt. [If something like that happened in chem lab, the teacher would make sure the student got aid, and then give them the chewing out of the ages.] He then compounds the original offense by shirking. > Betsy: > I guess I haven't seen much opportunity for Draco to come to that > conclusion. Everything has just sort of gone along for him. He > did refuse to stand at the end of GoF when everyone stood up for > Harry. But that's not really a surprise. Draco is not Harry's > nemesis, but Harry is definitely Draco's. I think the time for > choosing has arrived, though, so I do expect to have some rather > revealing scenes in the next book. Path of least resistance is, in the Potterverse, still a path. Draco *could* wake up, but I rather think that the pattern that has been established is the one that will hold. Draco's malice has generally intensified throughout the books. Harry initially rejected him in part because of what he was parroting and probably learned at home (some kinds better than others, etc.); Draco has let hatred build and curdle from that initial rejection. That's my prediction, after all. I like that it's going to get a more or less yes or no answer. So infrequent, that. -Nora gets back to fun with Kyriales From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 23:07:49 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:07:49 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the incompetent councilor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124485 Eggplant wrote: " statements like "I know how you feel Harry" seem almost calculated to enrage Harry to the maximum degree possible" Del replies: Maybe this IS what DD wanted : for Harry to throw a hopefully-cathartic fit of anger? DD knows very well how Harry tends to keep everything inside, and how this isn't necessarily a good thing. He knows that Harry has been boiling with anger and resentment for the whole school year, and that this made him resist some good pieces of advice. So maybe DD was indeed trying to get Harry to blow up, before he broke the news about the Prophecy to him? Del From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Feb 13 23:26:06 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:26:06 -0000 Subject: No sympathy for Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124486 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Janet Anderson" wrote: All these people made conscious decisions -- CHOICES -- to do some things and not to do others. If Dobby could make the choices he did, then Kreacher could also. (I think Kreacher is probably mentally unbalanced, but then I think Winky is too, so I don't excuse Kreacher on that account, because Winky's bad choices such as alcoholism and self-neglect didn't impact the lives of others, the way Kreacher's did.) Pippin: Oh, I think they do. Other House Elves have to do the work that Winky is supposed to be doing. Or that Dobby is supposed to be doing when he is taking care of her. I think Dumbledore's point is that among the choices people can make is robbing other people of their freedom. If you steal someone else's freedom, then you have some responsibilty for the choices they make. Dumbledore allowed Harry to choose which House to belong to, even though he might well have chosen Slytherin; he returned Harry's cloak and the key to his Gringotts vault though Harry might well have used them unwisely, and in this he behaves very differently from Sirius, who will not free Kreacher or even treat him with respect. Pippin From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Sun Feb 13 23:24:57 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:24:57 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: No sympathy for Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <791AB020-7E16-11D9-8888-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 124487 > phoenixgod2000 said > Kreacher is no different than any other character in the book -- "It > is our choices that show what we are." And Kreacher is, in my > opinion, to quote someone else, "a revolting little toerag," Having watched an appropriate episode of NCIS last night *G* it occurred to me that Kreacher might have something like Stockholm Syndrome. I believe this is a kind of 'brainwashing' which occurs where someone abused and imprisoned begins to identify with their persecutor. Patty Hearst was a high-profile example, but it seems to be well-known in cases of long-term kidnap victims. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the phenomenon could comment? Kreacher never had the option Sirius did of just walking out. And he seemed much older than Dobby. How long do house-elves live anyway? How long had he lived as a slave to the revolting Blacks? What horrors had he seen over this time? How long had his sanity lasted? (Possibly until the heads of his mother and siblings decorated the walls...) I don't really think Kreacher was sane by the time we met him, which is why I do not blame him for Sirius' death. Not guilty by reason of unsound mind. Jocelyn From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 23:36:46 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:36:46 -0000 Subject: No sympathy for Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124488 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > Dumbledore allowed Harry to choose which House to belong to, > even though he might well have chosen Slytherin; he returned > Harry's cloak and the key to his Gringotts vault though Harry > might well have used them unwisely, and in this he behaves very > differently from Sirius, who will not free Kreacher or even treat > him with respect. I always got the impression from the text that Sirius would have *liked* to free Kreacher and thus be rid of him, but could not because of security constraints. "We can't set him free, he knows too much about the Order," said Sirius curtly. (OotP, American ed., p. 110) I haven't hunted it down the recurrences of that class of modifiers in conjunction with Sirius, but that 'curtly' gives me the impression that there was a discussion and argument had about such, and Sirius lost to Dumbledore. Not quite fair to completely fault him for not freeing Kreacher in that case, is it? Sirius' fault is more in not treating Kreacher with more *suspicion* rather than respect. Respecting people is not generally how you avoid being fooled by them, after all. -Nora notes that fear and trust are mutually exclusive, as are fear and genuine respect From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Feb 14 00:18:12 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:18:12 -0000 Subject: No sympathy for Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124489 Nora: > > I always got the impression from the text that Sirius would have > *liked* to free Kreacher and thus be rid of him, but could not > because of security constraints. > > "We can't set him free, he knows too much about the Order," said Sirius curtly. (OotP, American ed., p. 110) > > I haven't hunted it down the recurrences of that class of modifiers in conjunction with Sirius, but that 'curtly' gives me the impression that there was a discussion and argument had about such, and Sirius lost to Dumbledore.< Pippin: Sirius never hesitates to invoke Dumbledore as the reason something can't be done. Why be secretive about it? I took the 'curtly' as an admission that it was Sirius's fault that Kreacher learned so much in the first place. "I warned Sirius when we adopted twelve Grimmauld Place as our headquarters that Kreacher must be treated with kindness and respect. I also told him that Kreacher could be dangerous to us. I do not think that Sirius took me very seriously, or that he ever saw Kreacher as a being with feelings as acute as a human's--" --Dumbledore, OOP ch 37. I don't think Sirius had that conversation with Dumbledore or realized that Kreacher might be dangerous until after he'd carelessly allowed the House Elf to learn Order secrets. > -Nora notes that fear and trust are mutually exclusive, as are fear and genuine respect< Pippin quotes: Fear the Lord, that your days may be long upon the earth. There is a kind of fear that is not mutually exclusive with trust or respect. I think Dumbledore is saying that if Sirius had had more respect for Kreacher, he would not have discounted his intelligence or his will to do damage. Pippin From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Feb 14 00:23:56 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:23:56 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General) In-Reply-To: <20050213140305.33142.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124490 > > I really, really doubt that JKR wrote these books intending to gloss > over the issue of child abuse or to imply that child abusers are > simply comic relief. Because that's what some posters are very close > to claiming. I don't think she intended to do that, either. However, what she intended and what she has actually done are two different matters. And yes, I do think that the books come very close to doing exactly what you mention. > > If someone wants to write JKR a letter on this issue and post it back > to the list (and the entire HP fan world), that would probably be > doing everyone a huge favour. > Well, I think that is a marvelous idea. If I thought for a split second she would answer (or even read it) I would do so. But I don't believe she would read it (it would doubtless be intercepted by her agent's secretary's assistant) or answer, so it would be a fruitless exercise. The best we can hope is that she addresses this issue more meaningfully in the next two books. Lupinlore > Magda (member in good standing of the > Dursleys-are-jerks-but-not-criminals club) > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Feb 14 00:38:54 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:38:54 -0000 Subject: Olive Branch (was Re: Dumbledore the Counselor ) In-Reply-To: <008f01c511d1$a4139130$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124491 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Charme" wrote: > > > I rather get the impression that those on the abuse and accountability issue > want to "see some punishment" (I'm using Filch's words from CoS - it just > seemed to fit) of DD about what Harry's gone through. Given what she's said > about DD in the past, I don't believe that's going to happen (and maybe > already did in a different fashion in OoP,) so maybe some fanfict will > satisfy your need for justice after it's all over. > > Charme > > Charme There are certainly plenty of fanfics that do that. Actually, I don't think most of us want to see Dumbledore punished as in going to jail or being physically harmed, rather we would like to see a form of accountability that comprises Dumbledore expressing more sorrow and remorse for what Harry went through. He did that to an extent in OOTP, but then his rather cold, cut-and-dried explanation about why he left Harry with the Dursleys pretty much ruined it. He seemed to be saying "This is why I did it, that's all I'm going to say, and you don't have any right to complain." Had he evinced more remorse and emotion during his explanation, I daresay 90% of the anger toward Dumbledore in many quarters would never have arisen. Lupinlore From sherriola at earthlink.net Mon Feb 14 01:23:21 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:23:21 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Sympathetic. And Dead, Too. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <008001c51233$c603b150$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 124492 Hi, There were so many interesting posts on this subject, that I couldn't even begin to try to figure out how and who to snip! So, I'll just try to express how I see and react to the character of Draco Malfoy. I find him completely unsympathetic. It isn't his hurt/comfort possibilities for me, but his actions from the beginning. I don't care either way if he's whiny when hurt, or if he's quiet and strong. He's still a miserable creature. He is hurt by Buckbeak because of his attitude and dislike of Hagrid and Harry. Hagrid makes it very clear how to approach the hippogriffs, but Malfoy in his desire to outdo Harry and be contemptuous of Hagrid doesn't listen and gets wounded. The only person to blame is Draco. His attitude from the first meeting with Harry was arrogant and insulting. if he'd ever had a chance to change that first impression, he blew it by insulting Ron before the sorting. Ron was the first friend Harry ever had and I don't see how he could befriend anyone who insulted him. As far as the fight in the Quidditch match in OOTP is concerned, well, I believe Harry and George were wrong for attacking him, but a part of me doesn't blame them either. This was hardly the first time Draco had insulted their families, especially the mothers. He had repeatedly insulted the Weasleys and made cracks about Molly. What boys are going to listen to that for years and not blow up someday? He wasn't very hero possible to me by insulting Molly and Lily. And he picks on Hagrid. He's got rich powerful parents, and he uses his influence with his father to try to hurt an innocent person. He constantly insults anyone who is different, not pure blood. Hagrid, Lupin, Hermione. And about Hermione and others like her, muggle born witches and wizards. Draco repeatedly calls her a name that we are led to believe is absolutely filthy and disgusting. In my upbringing, it would have been comparable to something like "nigger". I wasn't raised to use words like that about anyone. I grew up in California with many Hispanic classmates, and I'd have had my butt beaten if I had ever called them or African American classmates any derogatory names. However, my siblings who were raised by my mother and stepfather--I was raised by my dad--were raised in a very bigoted environment, hearing nasty disgusting comments about people of other races all their lives. Yet they still managed not to grow up as bigots. They chose not to think like their father, and they chose it before they were adults. So, I don't excuse Draco because of his upbringing. I know that counts for some things in our attitudes and behavior, but we still make our choices. Draco seems hardly to have matured in five years, still the annoying, arrogant, prejudiced git he was in year one. I am usually the one who reaches out to the underdog, and my circle of friends has always included people that others might consider not quite normal or acceptable in some ways. But I can't find a bit of sympathy in me for Draco. Well, except that I am sorry he was raised to hate as he was, but he is nearly an adult now and could have chosen differently. At this point, I see nothing in canon to show me that Draco might end up a good guy someday. I actually believe JKR when she says Draco is just evil. I know I don't have the exact quote right, but she says people are confusing Draco with the actor who plays him, and that Draco is not going to be a good guy. I'll take her word for it, because she hasn't shown me any tiny glimpse of a possible change in Draco Malfoy. Sherry From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Feb 14 01:26:56 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 01:26:56 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys as Icons (not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124493 The Dursleys are so grotesque and Harry's circumstances are so bizarre that in the first books the abuse has a surreal quality. The tendency is to see it as a metaphor, in which the Dursleys' mistreatment is not as bad as it can be, but is as bad as can be depicted in a childrens' book. But this illusion is shattered from Book Four on, with the re-introduction of villains who actually draw blood. Post GoF, the Dursleys can no longer be seen as iconic child abusers without discounting the actions of Voldemort and Umbridge. JKR has once again given the readers an object lesson in the dangers of seeing people as symbols. The realization is forced on us that in the context of this universe the Dursleys could behave much worse than they do, and that leaves us with a conundrum: why don't they? I believe we will get an answer to this question--obviously Dumbledore "remember my last" and Petunia have some kind of agreement that's going to be explained. Shouldn't there be some middle ground between glossing over child abuse and treating it as a fate worse than death? It's one thing to acknowledge that abuse victims may suffer a lifetime of emotional hardship from the abuse and another to insist that they *must* suffer it, that they have no right to be healthy after what they've been through. If the Dursleys are comic relief, they're a very noir sort of comedy, considering that the child they adore was, after eleven years of their TLC, in much worse shape both physically and mentally than Harry was. Pippin From scarah at gmail.com Mon Feb 14 01:35:25 2005 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:35:25 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's plant imagery In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <320259050213173511910780@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124494 > Valky: > I am sure the plant imagery is > used by JKR in the same way done so many other characters throughout > the books, to say samoething huge about it while only literally > saying something apparently insigificant. Sarah: Also in OotP, Harry learns about plants for use in draughts for causing hotheadedness and recklessness. He himself makes the connection that Sirius acts this way. True or not, I think possibly we're meant to *suspect* that Sirius is being drugged, and who better to blame than a master at potions. The "plant... dark" reference could be tying Snape back to this suspicion. Maybe Harry has at least subconsciously made this same connection, and that's why he so readily blames Snape at the end of the book. Sarah From dontask2much at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 02:02:22 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 21:02:22 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Olive Branch (was Re: Dumbledore the Counselor ) References: Message-ID: <006901c51239$3974a9f0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 124495 >Lupinlore uttered: > There are certainly plenty of fanfics that do that. Actually, I don't > think most of us want to see Dumbledore punished as in going to jail > or being physically harmed, rather we would like to see a form of > accountability that comprises Dumbledore expressing more sorrow and > remorse for what Harry went through. He did that to an extent in > OOTP, but then his rather cold, cut-and-dried explanation about why he > left Harry with the Dursleys pretty much ruined it. He seemed to be > saying "This is why I did it, that's all I'm going to say, and you > don't have any right to complain." Had he evinced more remorse and > emotion during his explanation, I daresay 90% of the anger toward > Dumbledore in many quarters would never have arisen. > Charme: I don't know that he didn't express enough sorrow about the situation per canon. I'm referring to that single tear, and DD's admittance that Harry wasn't as nearly angry with him as he ought to be, and asked to be heard out fully before Harry attacked him as he would like to have fully "earned it." At least he had the, well...said nicely, intestinal fortitude to get it all out in the open. I also refer to this: "'It is time,' he said, `for me to tell you what I should have told you five years ago, Harry. Please sit down. I am going to tell you everything. I ask only a little patience. You will have your chance to rage at me - to do whatever you like - when I have finished. I will not stop you.'" (OoP) Please, if you could be so kind, help me understand where that statement infers or alludes to the cut and dried explanation interpretation in your post above given that statement by DD. I'm really curious because I don't see it the way you do, and that's why I'm asking. I'd also like to know what form of accountability would satisfy those who believe as you do, as I'm not sure what else DD could have said other than the truth. The truth is a wonderful, terrible thing and often it's not embellished - people who need the truth need to hear it (especially when anger is involved) without much emotional fanfare. Interestingly, the one time DD shows emotion by closing his eyes and burying his face in his hands (before the truth and the tear at the end), Harry as the narrator's point of view perceives this as a weakness, which funny enough, rather reminded me of Snape's statement to him earlier in the book during Occulmency where he compares people who wear their hearts on their sleeves to being weak. Not sure why it did, but there you have it. Charme From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Feb 14 02:05:23 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:05:23 -0000 Subject: Olive Branch (was Re: Dumbledore the Counselor ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124496 Lupinlore: > Actually, I don't think most of us want to see Dumbledore > punished as in going to jail or being physically harmed, rather we > would like to see a form of accountability that comprises > Dumbledore expressing more sorrow and remorse for what Harry went > through. He did that to an extent in OOTP, but then his rather > cold, cut-and-dried explanation about why he left Harry with the > Dursleys pretty much ruined it. He seemed to be saying "This is > why I did it, that's all I'm going to say, and you > don't have any right to complain." Valky: I am not quite sure that DD actually was denying Harry's his right to complain, and he definitely felt real remorse and sorrow for the pain he caused him. He cried and I don't doubt for a second that he did so with genuine sorrow, he offered Harry his humility and I have no doubt he did so with genuine remorse. I recall that you also said you might be inclined to ask JKR personally to address her own accountability on the matter of painting abuse as comic relief, so I got some quotes for you that might alleviate the burning in you that JKR might be compoundly sending this message to her fans. World Bookday Chat 2004: *LRGS School: Which character do you most dislike ? JK Rowling replies -> Probably Uncle Vernon. Leanne from Eastbrook Primary School - Hemel Hempstead: If you could spend a day in real life with one of your fictional characters, who would it be and what would you do? ****SCHOOLS COMPETITION WINNER**** JK Rowling replies -> I think I'd most like to spend a day with Harry. I'd take him out for a meal and apologise for everything I've put him through. Valky again: Now, might we consider DD's position in the light painted by these quotes. Perhaps the answers you really need to hear (or not hear) Lupinlore are coming in Harry's frightful future. World Book Day again: dsm: Are Harry's powers going to get even greater? JK Rowling replies -> Yes, he's really progressing as a wizard now (which is lucky, because I know what's in store for him). bubbles: if you were Harry Potter for a day what would you do? JK Rowling replies -> If I, personally, were Harry Potter I think I would go and hide somewhere, but that's because I know what's coming! >From Valky Hoping this can help to alleviate (at least temporarily) some of the woes of those whom DD has angered. From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Mon Feb 14 02:30:21 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:30:21 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: No sympathy for Kreacher In-Reply-To: <791AB020-7E16-11D9-8888-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124497 Jocelyn Grunow said: >I don't really think Kreacher was sane by the time we met him, which is >why I do not blame him for Sirius' death. Not guilty by reason of >unsound mind. But you could make a good case that Crouch Jr. and Bellatrix are not sane either. Is that a reason not to blame them for the deaths, bereavements, insanity, etc. they've been responsible for? And if so, then why is Kreacher exempt? Janet Anderson From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Feb 14 02:36:19 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:36:19 -0000 Subject: Olive Branch (was Re: Dumbledore the Counselor ) In-Reply-To: <006901c51239$3974a9f0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124498 > > Charme: > > I don't know that he didn't express enough sorrow about the situation per > canon. I'm referring to that single tear, and DD's admittance that Harry > wasn't as nearly angry with him as he ought to be, and asked to be heard out > fully before Harry attacked him as he would like to have fully "earned it." > At least he had the, well...said nicely, intestinal fortitude to get it all > out in the open. I also refer to this: True. But it seems to me that DD is referring to his decisions about Sirius and Harry's fifth year, NOT about the full scope of Harry's suffering. I readily acknowledge the DD shows remorse for his decisions and their effects during OOTP. But I don't take his remorse as extending beyond that. > > "'It is time,' he said, `for me to tell you what I should have told you five > years ago, Harry. Please sit down. I am going to tell you everything. I ask > only a little patience. You will have your chance to rage at me - to do > whatever you like - when I have finished. I will not stop you.'" (OoP) > > Please, if you could be so kind, help me understand where that statement > infers or alludes to the cut and dried explanation interpretation in your > post above given that statement by DD. I am referring to the section the begins "You had suffered..." It reads, at least to me, as being quite brisk and businesslike, with little expression of remorse. In fact, when Harry attempts to protest the Petunia doesn't love him, Dumbledore cuts him off and says "But she took you." One way to read that is "You stayed alive kid and you don't have a right to complain. So suck it up and quit being a crybaby." I'm really curious because I don't > see it the way you do, and that's why I'm asking. I'd also like to know what > form of accountability would satisfy those who believe as you do, as I'm not > sure what else DD could have said other than the truth. The truth is a > wonderful, terrible thing and often it's not embellished - people who need > the truth need to hear it (especially when anger is involved) without much > emotional fanfare. Well, I think what we want is something to the effect of "I'm horribly sorry you've suffered so badly, Harry, and I want you to know that if I could have spared you any of it I would have done so. I would give anything to have been able to put you in a place where you would have been happy and loved, but I honestly believe you would have died had I done that. If there had been any other option, I would have taken it." Dumbledore MIGHT be saying that, but to get it you have to squint a little and read between the lines. It is certainly implied in his statement about "I defy anyone who ... to save you more pain than you had already suffered." Implied but not stated, and mixed in with all sorts of references to a "plan" that undercuts many people's faith that he really cared whether Harry suffered or not, at least during Harry's early life at the Dursleys. The speech he makes in SS/PS about not wanting Harry's head to be turned muddies the waters badly as well, as does his reference in OOTP about Harry not being a pampered prince. There is simply far too much fodder there for Puppetmaster!Dumbledore speculation. I don't want to believe in that interpretation of DD, but JKR did little in that speech to dispel my disquiet. There is also the issue of why, having once placed Harry at the Dursleys, he did nothing to intervene to stop the Dursleys abuse. That is not even hinted at in his speech in OOTP. > > Interestingly, the one time DD shows emotion by closing his eyes and > burying his face in his hands (before the truth and the tear at the end), > Harry as the narrator's point of view perceives this as a weakness, which > funny enough, rather reminded me of Snape's statement to him earlier in the > book during Occulmency where he compares people who wear their hearts on > their sleeves to being weak. Not sure why it did, but there you have it. > > Charme True, which I take as another piece of evidence that Harry is an emotionally wounded dude. But that is a live wire. Lupinlore From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 03:40:56 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 03:40:56 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the incompetent councilor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124499 >>Eggplant: >I'm sure Serious Black had his faults, but for Dumbledore to enumerate every one of them to Harry...< Betsy: Erm... huh? You'll have to quote canon for me here Eggplant. I just reread that scene and there's no part where Dumbledore enumerate's every one of Sirius's faults to Harry. He did say that Sirius was brave and clever. Do you consider those faults? Is that what you're talking about? >>Eggplant: >...it would certainly make me want to smack Dumbledore right in his smug little face.< Betsy: Smug? Again, you've lost me. When, exactly, did Dumbledore express smugness? Betsy From dontask2much at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 03:49:36 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:49:36 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Olive Branch (was Re: Dumbledore the Counselor ) References: Message-ID: <008d01c51248$3452e400$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 124500 From: "lupinlore" > True. But it seems to me that DD is referring to his decisions about > Sirius and Harry's fifth year, NOT about the full scope of Harry's > suffering. I readily acknowledge the DD shows remorse for his > decisions and their effects during OOTP. But I don't take his remorse > as extending beyond that. Charme: I'm not as sure as you are about the flow of conversation - I think he is referring to both past and present events. Interesting the differences in interpretation, but I'm cool with you having yours and me having mine. :) > > I am referring to the section the begins "You had suffered..." It > reads, at least to me, as being quite brisk and businesslike, with > little expression of remorse. In fact, when Harry attempts to protest > the Petunia doesn't love him, Dumbledore cuts him off and says "But > she took you." One way to read that is "You stayed alive kid and you > don't have a right to complain. So suck it up and quit being a crybaby." > Implied but not stated, and mixed in > with all sorts of references to a "plan" that undercuts many people's > faith that he really cared whether Harry suffered or not, at least > during Harry's early life at the Dursleys. The speech he makes in > SS/PS about not wanting Harry's head to be turned muddies the waters > badly as well, as does his reference in OOTP about Harry not being a > pampered prince. There is simply far too much fodder there for > Puppetmaster!Dumbledore speculation. I don't want to believe in that > interpretation of DD, but JKR did little in that speech to dispel my > disquiet. > > There is also the issue of why, having once placed Harry at the > Dursleys, he did nothing to intervene to stop the Dursleys abuse. > That is not even hinted at in his speech in OOTP. Charme: Again, while I see how you could interpret it that way, I'm not sure I agree completely. I refer to telling the wonderful, terrible truth in a fashion where Harry would listen while he's obviously (and rightly in some respects) in a rage. I could make another observation that DD's way of communication in that portion of OoP is direct and honest, which is far more important in my mind: he treats Harry with the respect due him by telling him the truth. Maybe that's why I place less importance on how he did it, and more value to the fact he did. I believe he cared more about keeping Harry alive (DD does admit that he felt Harry was in far more danger than anyone realized - a priority to mitigate in his mind) than if he suffered and I can see why you fault him for that. However, if he died I guess we wouldn't be having this conversation, now would we? ;) Glad JKR didn't get all hung up on that one..... Please don't be offended, but I find Puppetmaster!DD amusing. Of *course* he's a puppetmaster, he's JKR's voice and she's the author! :) Charme, who appreciates you took the time to discuss this! From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 04:12:30 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 20:12:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Sympathetic. And Dead, Too. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050214041230.87418.qmail@web31104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124501 Elkins: What "Hurt-Comfort" comes down to is the fact that women are just plain Bent, and adolescent girls even more so. They *like* to see male characters suffer, so long as they do so with some degree of manly dignity, because it turns them on. Male vulnerability garners their sympathy, and it also kind of excites them. Arynn: I am a female, and I LOVE the character of Lupin because his suffering closely parallels my suffering. He reminds me of me. I love Ron (who hasn't had any more suffering than the average teenager) because of his sence of humour. These are my two favourite characters. I don't find either of them "sexy". I am not attracted to men at all, in fact. So I would have to disagree with your post. Although I can't speak for hetersexual women, I think that they would disagree with your post as well. I have problems thinking that women are that sadistic, to actually enjoy someone else's suffering (however fictional that person be). But I guess my favourite bumper sicker sums it up best: "All generalizations are false, including this one" --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! ? Try it today! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 04:16:42 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 04:16:42 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124502 >>Nora: >It's, ummm, a rather nasty 'rival club'. >They seem to patently enjoy the domination of the other students.< Betsy: Hell, yeah they enjoyed lording over the other students! That's why I included a comment about Draco being rather power-hungry (which I think goes hand in hand with his love of attention). I'm not saying Draco's a saint. If some mad bitch is going to give him power, he won't look a gift horse in the mouth. >>Nora: >What's attractive about the IS? What's attractive about "Malfoy was watching her with a hungry expression on his face.< Betsy: Nothing. But those weren't hurt/comfort scenes, and that was the whole point of the Elkins post. Which is a reason I didn't talk about the IS in my original post. Draco is most definitely a dark character, and he behaves as such, especially in the IS scenes. >>Betsy: >[On a total aside, A.J.Hall's fanfic, "Lust over Pendle" has Draco choosing to defy his father not because of any inner nobility but because he's squeamish about killing. Which I could easily see happening.]< >>Nora: >It also features a very tangential relationship to any canon personalities, but that's another point, ain't it? :)< Betsy: Draco/Neville is *so* the new Draco/Harry. >>Nora: >Draco's shirking in class is certainly not stoic; it's manipulative and Snape indulges it because he's a favoritist.< Betsy: No, but Draco's already done his stoic bit. Now we have the interesting twist of feminine manipulation. But these scenes are too far away from the original moment of injury to fall under the hurt/comfort heading. (And you do get some wonderful moments of Draco's wit. ) Also, we never actually get it confirmed from anyone who would know that Draco wasn't still injured. I suspect he's probably milking it, but why doesn't JKR make it indisputably clear that Draco is perfectly fine? >>Nora: >Not paying attention in class when you've been warned the stuff you're dealing with is dangerous is arrogant.< Betsy: So if the teacher is Hagrid and the student is Draco, not paying attention and the resulting disaster is the fault of arrogance on the part of the student. But, if the teacher is Snape and the student is Neville, then not paying attention and the resulting disaster is the fault of arrogance on the part of... the teacher? (Maybe it's the old, Slytherin = evil default? ) >>Nora: >[If something like that happened in chem lab, the teacher would make sure the student got aid, and then give them the chewing out of the ages.]< Betsy: But then scores of fans would read the following chew out and decide that the chem teacher gets off on another's pain. :) >>Nora: >Path of least resistance is, in the Potterverse, still a path. Draco *could* wake up, but I rather think that the pattern that has been established is the one that will hold. Draco's malice has generally intensified throughout the books.< Betsy: Has it? Is there a pattern of Draco getting crueler and crueler in his treatment of Harry or any of the Trio? I can't recall one, but I could very well be wrong. And yes, not choosing is indeed a choice. Draco is definitely taking the easy path towards Death Eaterdom. At the moment. I just wonder if JKR is setting him up for a shake up. We still don't know what the full impact of having his father in Azkaban will be on Draco. It will be interesting to see where he goes in the next book. Betsy From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 04:22:52 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 04:22:52 -0000 Subject: Olive Branch (was Re: Dumbledore the Counselor ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124503 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > (snip) > Well, I think what we want is something to the effect of "I'm horribly sorry you've suffered so badly, Harry, and I want you to know that if I could have spared you any of it I would have done so. I would give anything to have been able to put you in a place where you would have been happy and loved, but I honestly believe you would have died had I done that. If there had been any other option, I would have taken it." Dumbledore MIGHT be saying that, but to get it you have to squint a little and read between the lines. It is certainly implied in his statement about "I defy anyone who ... to save you more pain than you had already suffered." Implied but not stated, (Snip) Tonks here: hum.. hum..(clearing throat) ah.. I thought we were dropping this for awhile. Ok, one *final word* on the subject. The day will come when you will wish that Harry was back, safe and sound and a little hungry, in his cupboard. Just wait. And I suppose you will *blame* DD for *that* too! Give the poor man a break. Mark my words, that day will come and when it does you will think that the Dursleys were damn near saints!! As to having to read between the lines and not have everything spelled out in black and white, JKR is writing that way for a purpose. Part of what she writes speaks directly to your subconscious mind and you are not suppose to *see it* plainly spelled out. You are suppose to have to read between the lines. IMO. Peace, Tonks_op From catlady at wicca.net Mon Feb 14 04:38:40 2005 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 04:38:40 -0000 Subject: Y!mort/stag/theOrder/Karkaroff/pet rat/H's mental health/Firebolt/hipppogriff Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124504 Magda wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124129 : << Those of you who like to quote multiple posters and insert your replies for hugely long posts might want to know that Yahoo truncates them after a certain point. So people like me (and increasing numbers of other readers on this list) can only respond to the first half of long posts. >> Ouch! I had no idea; Y!mort isn't truncating my posts on the website. Thank you for warning me. How long of a post will Y!mort allow? Jim Ferer wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124140 : << Harry doesn't learn for certain that his father's Animagic form was a stag until after he's cast his stag Patronus. >> Yes, but he probably had forgotten baby memories of his daddy turning into a stag to amuse him. Northsouth wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124245 : << During VW1, it seems to have not gotten quite that far - there were no pitched battles, just terrorism from Voldemort, counter terrorism attempts from the Ministry and the Order doing...well, what was the Order doing? I imagine they were taking the fight to Voldemort, but rather poorly. DD would have set them up early, like now, but after the war broke out they would just be a mostly social group fumbling around for something to do, a home to misfits who wanted to fight but wouldn't be accepted into ministry ranks (Hagrid, Lupin, Fletcher). It looks to me like two guerrila groups battling each other, with the Ministry probably not very tolerant of the Order anyhow. >> For my fanfic, I've tried to think what the Order did to comin VW1. I have trouble thinking of anything they could do that the Ministry couldn't (surely the Ministry could even run spies -- it is a normal exercise of state power), but the point of the Order doing it instead is that the Ministry was throughly infiltrated by DE spies: if a tip-off led to Dept of Magical Law Enforcement planning a raid on a Death Eater meeting, the Death Eaters would be warned and either move the meeting or turn it into an ambush. But if non-Auror Order members conducted the raid, how could they avoid being arrested as the criminals who had attacked a gathering of respectable pure-blood citizens? I imagine that they found out who was serving LV under the Imperius Curse and captured them to lift the curse from them, but am not sure how that syncs with Sirius's statement about no one who knew whom they could trust, anyone could have been on any side. Carol wondered in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124369 : << why Karkaroff, who betrayed his Death Eater friends (Snape included) and now wants to save his own skin, deserves empathy from anybody >> Karkaroff is a slimy toe-rag, but he seems to be the only person whom Snape first-names. Karkaroff betrayed his Death Eater friends to GET OUT OF AZKABAN. Snape never had to go into Azkaban because *he* betrayed his Death Eater friends voluntarily. I like to think that Karkaroff, unbeknownst to himself, was in Azkaban only because Snape put him there. And that Snape might feel guilty about that betrayal. Whizbang wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124381 : << And, my favorite question, why did Molly Weasley harbor a common garden rat for 12 years? >> It was her child's (inexpensive) pet. (Aquisition was free and feed was table scraps.) And she had no idea how long natural rats are supposed to live. Lupinlore wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124402 : << The only things we can ascribe Harry's so-called "good emotional health" to are: 1) poor writing on JKR's part, 2) sheer luck shining of Dumbledore's decisions. Out of deference to the author, I think we prefer option #2 to option #1. >> Or 3) The magical protection that Lily put on her baby also protected his mental health. (I prefer to believe that it did so by putting a little model of Lily into baby Harry's mind, like the cliched imaginary friend, to tell him he's a good kid who doesn't deserve all this Dursley abuse, and to remind him how good people behave.) If Dumbledore didn't know that Lily's magic protected Harry's mental health, that is option 2: Dumbledore was lucky that Lily had done that spell. But if Dumbledore DID know about it, then what? Betsey wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124452 : << I also felt a great deal of sympathy for Draco during the Gryffindor/Slytherin Quidditch final in PoA. (snip) Draco is the one to spot the Snitch, Draco is the one who first goes for it, and Harry beats him to it, not out of any flying skill but on sheer speed that has everything to do with his Firebolt. Draco is defeated because he doesn't have the top of the line broom. >> This is a forbidden "I agree!!!" post. Nora wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforG rownups/message/124484 : << Not paying attention in class when you've been warned the stuff you're dealing with is dangerous is arrogant. Insulting a hippogriff is pure idiocy. It's laid out in ways that are very, very hard to argue around that Draco was not paying attention, and that's what got him hurt. >> It occurred to me a couple of months ago that Draco surely should have known how to behave around hippogriffs before he even started Hogwarts; as there is evidence that they are common in wizarding society. IIRC the into to FB says that Newt Scamander's mother's hobby was breeding fancy hippogriffs, and in OoP poor Bode's Christmas present was a calendar with a picture of a different fancy hippogriff for each month. So why doesn't he know any better? From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 04:40:36 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 04:40:36 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Sympathetic. And Dead, Too. In-Reply-To: <20050214041230.87418.qmail@web31104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124505 >>Arynn: >I have problems thinking that women are that sadistic, to actually enjoy someone else's suffering (however fictional that person be).< Betsy: The entire point of the hurt/comfort phenomenon is that after the male is hurt, the female will comfort him. It is not sadism. It's not the actual pain that gets the ladies off, it's the chance to soothe the troubled brow. The entire Romance genre bares this out. It is an essential part of the Romance formula that the male lead gets hurt, generally fairly badly. And then the female lead swoops in to care for him. (It's usually around this time that the hero, who's publically sworn off women because he's been so badly hurt before, suddenly realizes the intoxicating beauty of the heroine that he cannot live without, and the purple prose commences.) The amount of money pulled in by this particular industry suggests that they know what they're doing. And it's fairly timeless too. Look at the old fairytales and folktales. The prince usually has to go through some serious pain to get to his lady love. Betsy From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 04:42:43 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 20:42:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hogwarts pollutes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050214044243.15472.qmail@web31105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124506 Finwitch: Oh well... in the Middle Ages it was the custom - even though they didn't have the water closets - just a potty or a hole. And as much as we dislike the idea... I don't know if such *natural* things really are *polluting*. I think the merpeople use it to fertilize their lake... Sprout prefers Dragon Dung, but - well, I guess the merpeople make use for human dung... oh, and what about THEIR excrements? OR those of the fish?.. Arynn: Anyone who knows about gardening knows you shouldn't use meat eater's dung as fertalizer. That's what's always bugged me about the dragon dung thing. (Just like you shouldn't put meat in a compost pile) Not to mention the fact that in the middle ages the average life expectancy was like 20 years, and the epidemics that sweapt Europe were more often than not caused by the fact that when people were done "going" in their buckets, they would just throw them out into the street. Human excrement is LOADED with harmful bacteria, horse and cow dung not so much, but we still wash our veggies before eating them. I have wondered about the merepeople's excrement though. But as thier lower halves are fish I imagine they would have more fishlike poo than humanlike. Anyone who has fishtanks knows that fish poo mostly dissolves on it's own, it does build up, but not as much as human's does. --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 04:58:24 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 20:58:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Sympathetic. And Dead, Too. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050214045824.30702.qmail@web31110.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124507 Betsy: The entire point of the hurt/comfort phenomenon is that after the male is hurt, the female will comfort him. It is not sadism. It's not the actual pain that gets the ladies off, it's the chance to soothe the troubled brow. Arynn: Okay, you make it a little more understandible. Elkin's quote sounded a little insulting towards women. But I don't get one more thing. The original quote said women like to see the man put on a brave face dispite his suffering. Draco does suffer (not more than any typical teen IMHO) and his suffering is usually casued by himself. But he never puts on a brave face when he is actually suffering, just when he's faking it. When he's actually hurt he whines and cries about it. So explain to me women, why is Draco sexy? Harry sufferes more than Draco, and never whines EVER. Yet Draco has the devoted following. I suspect it has to do more with Tom Felton that Draco Malfoy, though honestly if I were into males (and about ten years younger) I would be more into Harry. About Draco, someone has mentioned that he showed interest in being Harry's friend, but if you notice, he practically ignores him in the robe shop, and only seems interested when he learns Harry's name. Seems more of a Peter/James friendship he wants than a true friendship. (id est: he wants powerful friends, not companionship) Just to clarify I do not mean Peter/James in the slashy way. --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From siskiou at vcem.com Mon Feb 14 05:16:35 2005 From: siskiou at vcem.com (Susanne) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 21:16:35 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1271259152.20050213211635@vcem.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124509 Hi, Sunday, February 13, 2005, 8:16:42 PM, horridporrid03 wrote: > Betsy: > So if the teacher is Hagrid and the student is Draco, not paying > attention and the resulting disaster is the fault of arrogance on the > part of the student. But, if the teacher is Snape and the student is > Neville, then not paying attention and the resulting disaster is the > fault of arrogance on the part of... the teacher? (Maybe it's the > old, Slytherin = evil default? ) Hm, wait a second... Is Hagrid known to scare students to the point where they can't concentrate for fear of making a mistake? Does he treat certain ones with constant disdain, take points for various made up reasons etc.? This comparison doesn't work. Neville makes mistakes out of a justified fear of his teacher. Draco is just being an arrogant git who thinks he doesn't need to pay attention when "someone like Hagrid" dares to try and teach him anything. And I'll have to go back and read up on the h/c angle presented. I suspect it doesn't work that way for many women (I'm referring to the romance thing: Man gets hurt, woman falls all over herself to comfort him). I love certain h/c scenarios, but I actually have to like the guy, and usually prefer a friend to provide the comfort (and not in a romantic way, either). Draco as a candidate for h/c? Not for me! I actually have to like the guy in general and that's not an option with Draco. I also don't remember him being brave and stoic when being hurt, and usually he brought whatever hurt he suffered onto himself by being nasty to someone else. That's not the way to garner much sympathy from most people, especially if he is only hurt a little, and embarrasses himself by pretending it's something major. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at vcem.com From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 05:21:13 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:21:13 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Sympathetic. And Dead, Too. In-Reply-To: <20050214045824.30702.qmail@web31110.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124510 >>Arynn: >Draco does suffer (not more than any typical teen IMHO) and his suffering is usually casued by himself. But he never puts on a brave face when he is actually suffering, just when he's faking it.< Betsy: Read Elkins' post. She shows tons of examples where Draco stoically bears up under fire. There's the ferret scene in GoF, the fight in OotP, the hippogriff attack in PoA, to rattle off a few. Draco most definitely does *not* whine and cry. He may milk the injury later, but when he's suffering, he does so in way that tends to evoke the hurt/comfort reaction. >>Arynn: I suspect it has to do more with Tom Felton that Draco Malfoy, though honestly if I were into males (and about ten years younger) I would be more into Harry.< Betsy: Believe me, it's not Tom Felton. Maybe for the tweenie set, but not for the Draco fans I've read. :) >>Arynn: >About Draco, someone has mentioned that he showed interest in being Harry's friend, but if you notice, he practically ignores him in the robe shop, and only seems interested when he learns Harry's name.< Betsy: Actually, Draco blathers on and on to Harry without once getting his name in the dress shop. And it's interesting to me, because in comes this boy, dressed in ill-fitting Muggle clothes, and Draco practically does a soft-shoe routine to capture Harry's interest. Of course, Draco goes about it in entirely the wrong way, (my guess is he's emulating his father at dinner parties with no clue that it is absolutely the *wrong thing*.) and he fails miserably. But he did try. And quite hard really. Ron, in fact, is the one who shows interest in Harry because of his name. I think the first thing he asks Harry is if he can see his scar. Also socially awkward, but Harry doesn't fully realize his fame yet, so Ron's goof goes right over his head. Betsy From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 07:27:02 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 07:27:02 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the incompetent councilor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124511 "horridporrid03" wrote: > When, exactly, did Dumbledore > express smugness? [ ] You'll have > to quote canon for me here Eggplant 'I know how you're feeling, Harry,' said Dumbledore very quietly. "The fact that you can feel pain like this is your greatest strength." 'What don't I know?' asked Dumbledore calmly. 'Let me out,' he said. He was shaking from head to foot. 'No,' said Dumbledore simply. 'Let me out,' Harry said yet again, in a voice that was cold and almost as calm as Dumbledore's. 'Not until I have had my say,' said Dumbledore. 'Yeah, Snape told me,' Harry muttered. 'Professor Snape, Harry' Dumbledore corrected him quietly. "Sirius did nothing to make Kreacher's lot easier" 'Sirius did not hate Kreacher,' said Dumbledore. 'He regarded him as a servant unworthy of much interest or notice. Indifference and neglect often do much more damage than outright dislike the fountain we destroyed tonight told a lie. We wizards have mistreated and abused our fellows for too long, and we are now reaping our reward.' I don't think any of the above would be in a handbook on the best way to handle a boy who has just lost someone he loved very much. Reading that part of the book again really makes me want to punch Dumbledore right in his stupid smug calm face; but Dumbledore was right about one thing: "you are not nearly as angry with me as you ought to be." Eggplant From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Mon Feb 14 07:56:43 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:56:43 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: No sympathy for Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124512 On Monday, February 14, 2005, at 01:30 pm, Janet Anderson wrote: > > Jocelyn Grunow said: > >> I don't really think Kreacher was sane by the time we met him, which >> is >> why I do not blame him for Sirius' death. Not guilty by reason of >> unsound mind. > > But you could make a good case that Crouch Jr. and Bellatrix are not > sane > either. Is that a reason not to blame them for the deaths, > bereavements, > insanity, etc. they've been responsible for? And if so, then why is > Kreacher exempt? > Kreacher was a slave. Not merely a slave in physical chains, either, but enslaved by the nature of his species. He had no power to leave his enslavement. People compare him to Dobby, but Dobby strikes me as both young and - as Hagrid says - a weirdo for his own species. Even so, how long could he have remained rational, ironing his own hands, if Harry had not provided him with hope for the future and then freedom? Crouch Jr and Bellatrix turned to the Dark of their own volition. They suffered the penalties they endured as the results of those choices (which were available to them as humans). I do not doubt that a case can be made for Crouch at least to have been warped by his upbringing, but he did have choices, and he made bad ones. Kreacher never had a choice not to serve the dark. Can house elves even commit suicide without permission from their masters? (I doubt it.) Kreacher was enslaved to the Dark for numberless years. Who knows what he has seen and done at his masters' orders. The situations seem significantly different to me. Jocelyn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 08:56:29 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 08:56:29 -0000 Subject: Aurors and Unforgiveable Curses - Helplessness In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124513 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bleckybecs" wrote: > Tonks: > I think that in addition to luck, it was also the fact that their > wands had the same core that saved Harry. If another wizard had the > same luck but not the same core he would have been killed. > Becky: > I see Harry having the same wand core as luck. It just makes him a > lot luckier than any other wizard would have been in this particular > situation. bboyminn: Note that I said in my original post that the curses colliding, which is techically speaking a potential shield against the AK curse, only protected Harry for one instant. Beyond that point, it was the connected wands and Brother Wand Effect that continued to /save/ him. So, yes, any other wizard would have, by a stroke of luck, saved himself from one curse, only to be killed by the next. In a sense, it was all luck that saved Harry, it's just that we can point to very specific lucky /things/ like common cores that represent that luck. Among other things, one of the key points I was making with that reference was that Harry had indeed discover that there is a way of blocking an AK curse. Something that the books have been telling us all along can't be done. Indeed this collision of curses was demonstrated by the author earlier in the book when Harry and Draco dueled outside potions class. So, the effect is not unique to the curses that were used in the graveyard scene. I extended my point by saying that even though there is this newly discovered /block/ for the AK, the odds of it working are astronomically against any wizard trying to use it. So, huge gap between what is technically possible and what is realistically possible. > bboyminn: > And when you get right down to it, shouldn't it be the result, that > is the crime rather the the method? ...Isn't that about the same as > saying, it's bad if you kill someone with a 38 caliber pistol, but > it's a totally horrendous unforgivable crime if you kill them with > a 9mm? > Becky: > ... from the point of `unforgivable', which is worse? Attempted > murder or manslaughter? Manslaughter ...you may ... forgive. > Attempted murder ... I'm not sure ... of forgiving ..., > because murder is what was intended. > > ..., I feel that ... these particular curses ... are unforgivable > and ... their purpose is so clear cut. Other curses given can be > used to much lesser or equal effect, but ... 'unforgivables' is > horrendous. They are not designed with anything else in mind. > bbboyminn: On your point of the /Unforgivables/ have one and only one very negative purpose, I whole heartedly agree, but I'm not with you 100% on /intent/. More on that later. You are right, other curses have a range of intent and a range of results. In my other post, I used the example of a Star Trek Phazer, it can mildly stun, knock unconscious, lightly wound, severly wound, or kill. Common curses have a similar range of potential. But, as you have pointed out, the three Unforgivables have one and only one very negative and destructive purpose. There is no way to dress them up nice and pretty and say otherwise; it absolute murder, absolute pain, and absolute control. > Becky continues: > > So, what I'm trying to say is, I'm sure it is the intention behind > the spell that makes it unforgivable. bboyminn: Here is where we differ, and I've pointed this out in other posts. All magic had intention behind it, so attention alone can't be the key. It is a pleasurably sadistic intent that is required, but that can't be the complete key, because not that may people can really muster that level of pleasurably sadistic desire to make the curses happen. That would lend a very limiting aspect to the Curses. Personally, and I have said so on many occassions before, I don't think the standard interpretation of Harry trying to Crucio Bellatrix, or of her response to Harry's attempt, really reflect the true nature of that Pain Curse. For the most part, the curse didn't work because Harry did it wrong. The Pain Curse is a /sustained/ curse, for as long as you want the pain to continue, the caster has to sustain his intent. Note that in every example of the Pain Curse, the pain continues until the casting wizard withdraws his wand and his intent. Only then does the curse stop. Harry cast the curse like he was shooting a gun; BANG!, short blast of intent, hence Bellatrix only got one short sharp blast of pain. Harry failed to sustain intent, therefore, the pain itself failed to sustain. So, I don't put a lot of stock in Bellatrix explanation of how the Unforgivable Curses work. It's true, you do have to be ruthless, uncaring, heartless, and cruel to us them, but you don't necessarily always need those characteristics to make them work. My conclusion is not that Harry lacked an special sadistics nature, which of course is incidentally true, but simply that he did not cast the curse correctly. Certainly, a selfserving sadistic desire, makes it easier to cast a Pain Curse, it makes it easier to harm people, but I just can't see that as being the soul cause for them being unforgivable. I stand by my believe that part of the reason is that the victim are so helpless and defenseless in the face of those Unforgivable Curses, but I will also add to that your point about the Curses being single use, single intent, single result curses. > Becky continues: > > As to the Aurors, ... In VW1, desperate measures were needed, so > desperate measures were introduced. I don't see any canon that they > were removed, so I'd assume those powers are still there. I doubt > that an Auror would be in trouble for killing a DE in time of war, > but I think that in peace times, an Auror would have more sense. > > ...edited... > > Becky bboyminn: Well, we can argue whether the allowed use of Unforgivables was withdrawn at the end of the conflict or not. You say there is no canon saying those permissions were removed, equally, I say there is no canon that they were not removed. I think that's called a stalemate. However, from my point of view, it's reasonable logic with reasonable real-world precedents that emergency measures are removed at the end of the emergency. The measures were instituted to solve a problem, once solved, the emergency measure were no longer needed. While that's not absolute, it is common. Also, we have both acknowledged that there are other means of accomplishing the same tasks, given the availability of other less harsh means, why continue to support the use of unforgivable means? Good point on the single purpose nature of the Unforgivables. Steve/bboyminn. From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 16:44:09 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 16:44:09 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124514 > > Renee: > > > The main reason for this is that Draco (unlike young Snape in the > > Pensieve Scene) never gets hurt without provocation. > It's his own bullying and his filthy mouth that do him in. nrenka: There's a > little too much spite and arrogance combined with frustration. He > sets out deliberately to be a little provocateur, and then it > backfires upon him. Hmm, this is an interesting setup... NS: Reading through Betsy's post on Draco, it was enough to make me a bit sympathetic towards him. (Not enough to find him attractive though, just pathetic). Yes, on the one hand he gets what he deserves - he brings it upon himself, he has no mitigating circumstances like Snape. But on the other hand, he always gets a bit too much of what he had coming. I'm never left with any satisfaction at Draco's defeats, beacuse they're not ever fair fights. This is especially true where there isn't much humor covering it up - the ferret bounce was funny, so I didn't notice it, but Draco's fight with Harry and George left me wishing that Harry had gotten a few bruises there. Draco is a twerp, but the punishments he gets aren't equal to his crimes, and that makes me sympathetic. I'd be happier to just see him get detention a time or ten, not all these exotic injuries and humiliations - Slap, Ferret, cursed into oblivion twice on the train, etc. > > -Nora marks Betsy down for a 'Draco will end up on the good side', > and Renee as a 'No he won't'; any other takers? I think I'm supporting "no, he won't", despite finding Draco sympathetic. It's because at this point I don't think he really has room to grow into anything in the series, and other characters, like Theodore Nott, seem to have been set up as the "good Slytherins". Ok, my theory: Draco isn't about Draco at all, that's why he's such a shallow, yet sympathetic charecter - he's about Lucius. Draco is going to die in some spectacular, and rather pathetic fashion, and I'm going to feel really sorry for him. And then Lucius will either be unaffected (or he will have been the cause of it) or he will have some change of heart...possibly towards the side of good. I don't think the DE's so far have been portrayed greyly enough, and Draco is a dismal failure at showcasing that greyness, so it's going to have to be some other character - and yet Draco has been set up as sympathetic for some reason, so he is going to involved somehow - and so I'm guessing that at a critical moment Lucius will either be redeemed by his love for his son - or betray it. Or maybe he'll even be on the way to betraying Voldemort for his own nefarious purposes, when Draco will be killed by the good guys (possibly even by Harry) thus flinging him firmly back to LV. Draco is a sympathetic charActer beacuse then both Lucius's decision and Harry's killing are made greyer. Northsouth Who had nothing at all to say about Lucius, when she started the post! From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 22:16:11 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:16:11 -0000 Subject: No sympathy for Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124515 Janet Anderson wrote: ... huge huge snippage... >>> In short, I put Kreacher on the same list as Voldemort, Lucius Malfoy, Fudge (yes, Fudge), and the Death Eaters -- I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. He has made his choices, and those choices have shown what he really is. Thank you!!! Finally someone says Kreacher is completly nasty and he does not deserve any sympathy. Kreacher acted willingly against the Order, against Sirius his master. And it is someone else's fault? No way. He chose to betray Sirius, he chose to send Harry over to the DoM where the DEs were waiting and he knew Sirius would go after Harry. Lovely little guy. I blame Kreacher for a big amount of all the guilt over Sirius' death, of course most of the blame goes to Voldemort and his DE (specially Bella). But no amount of it goes to Dumbledore or even to HArry, Sirius or Snape. Juli~ enjoying Janet's idea of Hagrid stepping over Kreacher. From easimm at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 22:19:12 2005 From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:19:12 -0000 Subject: Snape's plant imagery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124516 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor" wrote: > ...Snape-the-teenager had a stringy, pallid look about him, like a > plant left in the dark." (OoP, soft, 640) > > 'Plant' not 'weed'. ... > Left to survive in the dark rather than thrive in the light. > Snorky wrote : A potted plant is more likely to be left in the dark than a weed, unless the dark is the result of being in the compost pile or bin. Perhaps Rowling should have written "potted plant". The interesting thing about a potted plant is that it can usually be moved, so there is something hopeful about it. From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sun Feb 13 22:35:07 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:35:07 -0000 Subject: Olive Branch (was Re: Dumbledore the Counselor ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124517 > Betsy: > > Dumbledore makes it very clear that Voldemort is equal to him in > magical knowledge and cunning. Any trick Dumbledore tries (fake > death, new name or appearance, a move to the far side of the world) > will be seen through. He even tells us that Voldemort is aware of > the blood sacrifice Lily used. Dumbledore's *only* advantage is that > Voldemort thinks so little of such magic (based as it is, on love) > that he pretty much ignores it. So Voldemort has not figured out a > way to break such a bond. I will concede that there may have been a *short term* initial need to keep Harry beneath the Blood protection whille remaining Death Eaters like the Lestranges are being rounded up. Say six months or so. But ten years? After most the DE's are either in prison or playing the imperio victim and therefore unable to retaliate against the most beloved baby in the world? There had to be a better long term solution than the Dursley's. People have criticized me over the What if's that I bring to table because there were so many bad ones that could have occured to Harry. After all, the world is full of what ifs. I could die on my way to my weekly D&D game today. It's unlikely, but it's a possibility. The differnce is that I can minimize the possibilty of the negative what ifs. I can wear a seat belt and drive the speed limit, which will minimze my personal danger. My criticism of DD is that I have not seen any indication that he tried to minimize all the bad What Ifs that could have happened to Harry while at the Dursleys. Knowing what he knows about Tom Riddles life and experiences, that smacks of stupidity and short sightedness. And no, being watched by Mrs. Figg doesn't count. > I used an analogy (that was ignored, I notice) of a Jewish family > sending their child out of harms way in the 1930's. Plenty of London > families did similar things during the Blitz. Some of those children > were, I'm sure, loved by the families that took them in. Some, I'm > equally sure, where not. And I'm also sure that if one looked, there > were probably some examples of children treated horribly. But I do > not condemn the parents who sent their children to safety. And so I > do not condemn Dumbledore for sending Harry to the Dursleys. That is an interesting analogy. First of all, I doubt there were many that who were abused. Wars have a way of bringing out the best in people as well as the worst. Secondly, I would assume that the parents would have sent their children to people they suspected of being good and kind hearted. I doubt they would have sent their childrent to someone they knew were a bad seed, or would try to use abuse to stamp out their jewishness. If there were bad guardians the parents wouldn't have known. DD knew what he was getting with the Dursleys. That is the difference between him and your WW2 parents. > Betsy: > The key word here is "tried." Aunt Petunia swings, Harry ducks, they > go about their day. My point was, Harry has never been *struck.* How do you think he got into the cupboard? Do you think he ever protested being put inside while Duddly got a real bed? What do you think would have happened had Harry complained about his conditions, as a small child would do before he learned it wouldn't do any good? Do you think Vernon kindly told him to get in the cupboard in a reasoned tone of voice or was he cuffed about the ear until he did what he was told? Harry wasn't always fast enough. Don't fool yourself and think otherwise. phoenixgod2000 From geekessgoddess at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 05:45:02 2005 From: geekessgoddess at yahoo.com (Freud) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:45:02 -0000 Subject: Many sleepless nights Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124518 I've been reading some commentary by others who speculate that Dumbledore should not have left Harry in Petunias' care. I have a totally different take on it. I don't believe Dumbledore had a choice. I believe he acted as he did in order to save Harry - and also to save the world from what Harry might have become. Dumbledore is extremely compassionate and wise. I'm sure he would not want anyone to suffer unless there was a good reason for it. In Harrys' case I think he was left with an impossible situation where his back was against the wall. Dumbledore had just been through a horrible time where many good wizards had been brutally murdered and even he couldn't prevent it from happening. Now a miracle had occurred but at a terrible cost. And Voldemort STILL wasn't dead. Dumbledore was one of the few people with the power to even defy Voldemort, and a heavy weight was on his shoulders. He was one of the people responsible for SAVING the world from Voldemort. Now here was a little babe who had just defeated Voldemort, but also inherited a large assortment of alarming powers, many of them duplicates of Voldemorts. Not a good sign. And Dumbledore knew Voldemort would one day return. He had to weigh the good of the world against the life of a child. How awful it must have been for him. I would not have wanted to be in his pointy shoes. I'm sure he had a nightmare vision of TWO Voldemorts in his head. He desperately wanted to save Harry, but he didn't want him to turn into a 2nd Voldemort. What could he do? There was no time. In hours the entire Wizarding world would know what Harry had done. Everyone would want to use him. Especially people like Lucius. Harry was just a small child but he would be worshipped by the wizards who despised Voldemort, he would be hunted by the deatheaters seeking revenge, he would be hunted by Voldemort himself, and there was no way to protect him except one. Dumbledore had to act quickly. So he made a difficult choice. Probably one of the most difficult things he had ever had to do. But he did it to save the world. And Harry too. He put Harry into a situation where he would have no status at all. Where his powers would not be discovered or developed. Where Harry would be forced to experience what life is like without kindness or compassion. Where he would be forced to work for his supper. Why? Why would Dumbledore do this? For humility! More than anything else Harry needed humility - a quality that Voldemort sorely lacks. Now it is entirely possible that Harry might have had this quality anyway - but could Dumbledore take that chance? He had just spent years and years tormented by his failure with Tom Riddle. In his heart of hearts I think Dumbledore feels responsible for being unable to prevent what Voldemort became. Dumbledore did not wish to leave Harry but he couldn't risk the alternative. I believe it was a choice that weighed most heavily on his soul. But something needed to be done to counter Harry's powers, and the possibility Harry might use those powers for evil. So he gave the baby up to a situation where he knew the boy would not be coddled. And I'm sure there were many sleepless nights over his decision. And Vernon and Petunia did their job. They kept the boy alive. But didn't do much more than that. And Harry learned humility. And he dreamed of being saved from his fate. And learned compassion for others because he was a boy who needed compassion. And Dumbledore watched and waited to see what kind of boy Harry would turn out to be. And I'm sure he longed to interfere a million times. But he knew Harry had to learn it for himself. And finally when Dumbledore was convinced Harry had learned humility he brought him back into the Wizarding World. Can you imagine Harry raised without a conscience? I love Dumbledore. He sees the whole chess board - not just one piece. From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 09:12:19 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:12:19 -0000 Subject: No sympathy for Kreacher In-Reply-To: <791AB020-7E16-11D9-8888-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124519 Now that Harry is popular again the Ministry will probably do something to try to get back on Harry's good side, like giving a posthumous pardon to Sirius Black. That will probably just increase Harry's bitterness but it would make Sirius's Will a legal document again. I'll bet he gave everything he had to Harry, and that includes Number Twelve, Grimmauld Place. If so Harry would be Kreacher's new master; but Kreacher was an accomplice in Sirius's murder. What should Harry do to Kreacher? He can't send him to Azkaban, the jail has no guards; he can't set him free, he knows too much. I think we all know what Harry would be strongly tempted to do to Kreacher, and he may even do it too. By the way, I wonder if Kreacher mortally wounded Buckbeak, the book doesn't say. Eggplant From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Feb 14 11:56:14 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:56:14 -0000 Subject: Many sleepless nights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124520 > > He put Harry into a situation where he would have no status at all. > Where his powers would not be discovered or developed. Where Harry > would be forced to experience what life is like without kindness or > compassion. Where he would be forced to work for his supper. > > Why? Why would Dumbledore do this? For humility! More than > anything else Harry needed humility - a quality that Voldemort > sorely lacks. > > > So he gave the baby up to a situation where he knew the boy would > not be coddled. And I'm sure there were many sleepless nights over > his decision. And Vernon and Petunia did their job. They kept the > boy alive. But didn't do much more than that. And Harry learned > humility. And he dreamed of being saved from his fate. And > learned compassion for others because he was a boy who needed > compassion. > If this is indeed the case (and I don't believe it is), DD is a truly reprehensible person, on par with Voldemort. And yes, I mean that quite literally. The ONLY possible moral reason for leaving Harry with the Dursleys is to save his life, PERIOD. Trying to create a certain kind of person through child abuse, or abuse of any kind, is utterly, totally, unforgivable vile. Lupinlore From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Mon Feb 14 12:10:11 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:10:11 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character Discussion: Ron Message-ID: <20050214121011.91297.qmail@web25110.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124521 In my theory that Harry Potter is a road map to total human liberation, I equate Ron to John the Baptist. Harry equates to Jesus; Ron to John. It's a very radical proposition to interpret the Bible, as I do, as a set of instructions for liberation rather than a historical record for events that happened 2000 years ago. I'm not saying they didn't happen! What I am saying is that what happened 2000 years ago is of little relevance to us today. The most it can do is inspire us to realise that Jesus was a man who showed that it is possible to vanquish death. He was a wonderful example that can give us great faith, but that means we see the Christ epic as an event OUTSIDE of us rather than as a process that should happen WITHIN us. I quote again, as I have several times: "Though Christ a thousand times in Bethlehem be born, but not in thee, thou shalt be yet forlorn." (Angelus Silesius) These same words are quoted by Tom Harpur (www.tomharpur.com), author of "The Pagan Christ". Tom is a Canadian theologian and professor of New Testament who has risen up from within the Anglican Church to admit to the world that the whole story of the New Testament was already known in Egypt thousands of years before a 1 A.D. He is of the opinion that God has planted in the human unconscious the story of the birth, the life, the self-sacrifice and the resurrection of the Inner Christ and that people who raise themselves to great spiritual heights can tune in to this archetype and tell the story to the world. This is what has happened in all ages in all civilisations. This is what is happening now to JK Rowling. If we see the New Testament and all the other wonderful myths, metaphors and allegories as a set of instructions for an alchemical transformation that enables us to vanquish death, the whole thing takes on a very powerful meaning for us personally. Jesus and Harry personify a new, immortal soul that is born in a seeker whose Lily has opened in God's hollow place. This is not something that just happens by chance. There is quite some preparation needed. The story begins with a microcosm that is completely shut off to the calling Light of the Christ. The Light is calling, but the auric ring (Voldemort) of the microcosm shuts it out. However there is also a latent ring that eons ago shone in refulgent glory in God's Immovable Kingdom. When eventually a person begins to realise that life is an endless repetition of things without any real progress, one of the twelve original lights in the latent ring, the sixth ring, gradually begins to resume its work of letting in the Divine Light. Such a person realises that "what has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun." (Eccl. 1:9) A new sun is born in the firmament of the person. This new sun is only a small star at first, but a tiny ray of light falls on the divine spark of the spirit in the heart of the person. The seeker has been born! He has become a seeker because the divine spark has begun thirsting for the Living Water. As I have explained earlier in this series, that new sun we call Sirius, and the force causing the thirst for God we call James. Ron/John is the earthly seeker who is reacting to the calling power of the Brotherhood of the Masters of Compassion, the Body of Christ. This is the person who has found the Path of Liberation and is willing to dedicate his whole life to it. He realises that the only way he can reach liberation is to give up the earthly self. Very soon after John the Baptist is born, Jesus is born. In Harry Potter, Ron and Harry are best friends, and Ron tacitly accepts Harry as his leader. One of Ron's greatest talents is chess. Chess is mentioned in "The Alchemical Wedding" and I see it as the symbol of right versus wrong, or "virtue against vice" as "The Alchemical Wedding" puts it. In other words, the apprentice alchemist has to have a very clear perception of right and wrong. He has to know what is the right thing to do under all circumstances. In this series I have explained the seven trials described in Book 1. In the fifth trial Ron conducts a chess game of gigantic and dangerous chess pieces in which the three children take the place of certain chess pieces. 'Their first real shock came when their other knight was taken. The white queen smashed him to the floor and dragged him off the board, where he lay quite still, face down. "Had to let that happen," said Ron, looking shaken. "Leaves you free to take that bishop, Hermione, go on." Every time one of their men was lost, the white pieces showed no mercy. Soon there was a huddle of limp black players slumped along the wall. Twice, Ron only just noticed in time that Harry and Hermione were in danger. He himself darted around the board, taking almost as many white pieces as they had lost black ones. "We're nearly there," he muttered suddenly. "Let me think, let me think..." 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!" "But --" "Do you want to stop Snape or not?" "Ron --" "Look, if you don't hurry up, he'll already have the Stone!" There was no alternative. "Ready?" Ron called, his face pale but determined. "Here I go - now, don't hang around once you've won." He stepped forward, and the white queen pounced. She struck Ron hard across the head with her stone arm, and he crashed to the floor - Hermione screamed but stayed on her square - the white queen dragged Ron to one side. He looked as if he'd been knocked out. Shaking, Harry moved three spaces to the left. The white king took off his crown and threw it at Harry's feet. They had won.' (I must say, on a personal note, that there are very few scenes where the film excels over the book, but this is certainly one (No offence, Jo). And John Williams' music is so powerful here!) Ron's willingness to sacrifice himself teaches us that liberation requires the giving up of self. "He who loses his life for my sake will find it" (Matt. 10:39). In "The Alchemical Wedding" six kings and queens are beheaded in self sacrifice, and in the New Testament John the Baptist is beheaded. I'm sure Ron will sacrifice himself for Harry. The earthly personality, no matter how pure, how noble, cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. He is the product of an error, the Fall from the Divine Life. However if he can give up his life for the new soul, he will dissolve into the original human being who is the Only Begotten Son of the Father. I used to think (as some of you may remember) that Ron would face decapitation. I'm beginning to think this is unlikely because I know Ron will survive. However I do think Ron will make a tremendous act of self sacrifice which will make the alchemical wedding possible. Why is decapitation used as a symbol of sacrifice in both the New Testament and the Alchemical Wedding? Because the old consciousness, situated in the head, is gone. It has merged into the new consciousness as a candle flame merges into the sun. It no longer exists as an individualised self-consciousness but has become part of the universal, omnipresent consciousness. This particular decapitation is not gruesome or bloody, but extremely serene and means that the apprentice has completed his training and is now an Alchemist by the Grace of God. That's one aspect of Ron's future. We will come back to Ron again later as he plays another role in the alchemical process as well. In that role he survives! Just as Ron is willing to sacrifice himself in book 1 and survives, so I think he will do in book 7. I don't know how Auntie Jo is going to put this into the story but I'm sure she can do it in such a way that tears will flow by the bucketful. Good on yer, Jo! We all loves yah! Your world No. 1 fan, Hans ===== Hans Andra see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://www.harrypotterforseekers.com/ Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Feb 14 12:19:19 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:19:19 -0000 Subject: Many sleepless nights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124522 > > And finally when Dumbledore was convinced Harry had learned humility > he brought him back into the Wizarding World. > > Can you imagine Harry raised without a conscience? > > I love Dumbledore. He sees the whole chess board - not just one > piece. Oh, I would also point out, along with nrenka, that JKR's website comments weigh very heavily against this one. To wit: Q. Is Harry related to Dumbledore? A. If Harry and Dumbledore were related Harry would never have had to live with the Dursleys. Which strongly implies that Dumbledore left Harry at Privet Drive because of the blood protection, not because he felt that the experience would be "good" for Harry. Now, I guess you can say, "Well, he would have raised him himself to be humble." Which I'm sure is true. But, once again, humility does not seem to be the factor DD is going for here. The blood protection seems to be the all in all. After all, there are many other situations in which Harry could have been raised with humility that don't involve the kind of treatment dished out by the Dursleys. If one wants to predicate a "likeable" Dumbledore, much less a good Dumbledore, then I think nrenka is right when she says all DD's comments about Harry not being spoiled have to be taken as a kind of desperate justification -- i.e. a deeply conflicted statement about something positive that comes out of a horrible situation. Lupinlore From jferer at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 12:28:23 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:28:23 -0000 Subject: No sympathy for Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124523 Eggplant:"Now that Harry is popular again the Ministry will probably do something to try to get back on Harry's good side, like giving a posthumous pardon to Sirius Black. That will probably just increase Harry's bitterness but it would make Sirius's Will a legal document again. I'll bet he gave everything he had to Harry, and that includes Number Twelve, Grimmauld Place. If so Harry would be Kreacher's new master; but Kreacher was an accomplice in Sirius's murder. What should Harry do to Kreacher? He can't send him to Azkaban, the jail has no guards; he can't set him free, he knows too much. I think we all know what Harry would be strongly tempted to do to Kreacher, and he may even do it too." You're probably right. I think the end of OoP was an epiphany for Harry. He'll be much smarter now, and he's likely to use Kreacher to feed disinformation to the DE's - with Dumbledore's advice, of course. Nobody said Azkaban has no guards; they have no Dementors. It may be impossible to hold a house elf in there anyway, since their powers of teleportation aren't affected by Apparition barriers. Harry won't kill Kreacher. Eggplant: "By the way, I wonder if Kreacher mortally wounded Buckbeak, the book doesn't say." I think we would have heard that. It would have been more effective to give Buckbeack a painful injury requiring a lot of tending anyway. Jim Ferer P.S. Someone *has* to write a filk on this "No Sympathy for Kreacher" thread to the tune of the Rolling Stones classic. "Please allow me to introduce myself..." From jferer at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 12:47:08 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:47:08 -0000 Subject: Many sleepless nights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124524 Freud:"He put Harry into a situation where he would have no status at all. Where his powers would not be discovered or developed. Where Harry would be forced to experience what life is like without kindness or compassion. Where he would be forced to work for his supper. Why? Why would Dumbledore do this? For humility! More than anything else Harry needed humility - a quality that Voldemort sorely lacks." Lupinlore:" If this is indeed the case (and I don't believe it is), DD is a truly reprehensible person, on par with Voldemort. And yes, I mean that quite literally. The ONLY possible moral reason for leaving Harry with the Dursleys is to save his life, PERIOD. Trying to create a certain kind of person through child abuse, or abuse of any kind, is utterly, totally, unforgivable vile." Vile indeed, and illogical. There's no way to put a child through that kind of experience and expect a boy with the humility and the capacity to love at the other end. Quite the opposite, actually. Children of abuse are often abusers themselves, at least horribly mangled souls. Only Harry's special qualities enabled him to survive at all. Of course, part of the reason is that the Dursley's abuse was relatively mild, sad to say. Many homes are cold, unloving, bullying, and rejecting. It doesn't sound like the Dursleys did anything that would be actionable by the authorities.(Perhaps the cupboard) ("Sad to say" in terms of how nauseating abuse can be.) I think the Dursleys abused Dudley worse than they did Harry. They've created a bad person who can never be happy the way he is, as well as failing in their duty to make him a responsible citizen. Jim Ferer From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 12:57:57 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 04:57:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] re:Y!mort/stag/theOrder/Karkaroff/pet rat/H's mental health/Firebolt/hipppogriff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050214125757.77924.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124525 --- "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > Magda wrote in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124129 : > > << Those of you who like to quote multiple posters and insert your > replies for hugely long posts might want to know that Yahoo > truncates > them after a certain point. So people like me (and increasing > numbers of other readers on this list) can only respond to the > first half of long posts. >> > > Ouch! I had no idea; Y!mort isn't truncating my posts on the > website. > Thank you for warning me. How long of a post will Y!mort allow? I wasn't referring to you, CatLady. In fact, I wish more posters would take up your example of selecting that portion of a post that they're actually responding to instead of going back a few threads and quoting large chunks of previous posts. I often find that it's not necessary to keep that much text; just a small bit as a reminder of the topic under discussion. And this post wasn't too long; it would have to be another 50% longer I think. Magda (stepping on List Elf toes and hoping they don't mind) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 13:08:25 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:08:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore the incompetent councilor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050214130826.40029.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124526 > "The fact that you can feel pain like this is your greatest > strength." > FWIW, I really think this line from Dumbledore to Harry in OOTP is a big clue to what's happening between Harry and Voldemort. Harry has not been taken over by Voldemort's remnant inside him; he is still human, still feels grief and pain and love. The internal battle for Harry is not over. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Feb 14 13:38:50 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 13:38:50 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the incompetent councilor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124527 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > > "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > When, exactly, did Dumbledore > > express smugness? [ ] You'll have > > to quote canon for me here Eggplant Eggplant: > I don't think any of the above would be in a handbook on the best way > to handle a boy who has just lost someone he loved very much. Reading > that part of the book again really makes me want to punch Dumbledore > right in his stupid smug calm face; but Dumbledore was right about one > thing: > > "you are not nearly as angry with me as you ought to be." Geoff: I would agree with you that some of the quotes you gave were perhaps not the best way to react in the circumstances but often, in this sort of situation, the people trying to help are thinking on their feet and a possible better response to the one they offered will occur to them two hours later... That apart, one of my dictionaries defines smug as "irritatingly pleased with oneself, self-satisfied". Whatever Dumbledore may be doing, right or wrong, I don't think that definition fits the manner in which he was attempting to deal with Harry's immediate need. From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Mon Feb 14 13:39:46 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 13:39:46 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Sympathetic. And Dead, Too. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124528 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > Betsy: > I would worry that I had some personal kink for whiny blonds if there > weren't so many others in the fandom who read the same things I do in > Draco's scenes. (Plus, there's the fact that I don't really have a > personal kink for whiny blonds .) Renee: But how many of those others have a Tom Felton induced crush on Draco and are reading things into the text? Betsy: > And I've read essays that deal > specifically with the language JKR uses to either set someone up > as a hero, set someone up as disgusting, or set someone up > sympathetically. Renee: Now this is interesting, regardless of the Draco question. Could you give me some links? Betsy: > JKR can write someone suffering pain and make it repulsive. When > Wormtail cuts off his hand in GoF, he sobs and cries and pants and > shivers. When Draco get slashed by the Hippogriff he lets out a > shriek but then reverts to yelling. No tears, no sobbing. And in > the ferret scene, Draco ends with his eyes "watering in pain" but > again, no sobbing. In fact he's muttering and angry, almost Harry- > like in his reactions. Then there's the fight scene in OotP. This > would be a perfect time to show Draco in a repulsive light. Harry > punches him in the stomach. A little retching, a little gagging, > would have gone a long way to negate the hurt/comfort in this scene. > But no, Draco is curled up and bloody, whimpering but not crying. Renee: That a character isn't set up as disgusting doesn't automatically mean (s)he's set up sympathetically. There's a wide range of possibilities in between. I don't think any of the kids in the HP series are described in ways that qualify as disgusting; that seems to be a prerogative of adults like Wormtail. And nothing about Draco's lack of repulsiveness takes away the fact that ultimately, he's the cause of his own distress. This fact effectively suppresses any tendencies I might have to comfort him. Also, if I were Draco, I wouldn't throw tantrums after just having been defeated by hippogriffs, fellow students or DADA-teachers. I'd try not to draw further attention and keep quiet for a while. That would be in my best interest, and a very Slytherin thing to do. > >>Renee: > >He's not treated shabbily by fate and he doesn't suffer because of > one crucial character flaw or bad error of judgement - in fact, he's > got everything going for him, being the only, spoiled child of a rich > and influential pureblood wizard.< > > Betsy: > Really? Couldn't you say that his fate has been predetermined by his > parents? The hat barely touches Draco's head before he's whisked > away to Slytherin. Renee: Well, I recall a scion from a family of Dark Wizards whose fate was not preterdetermined by his parents and who did not end up in Slytherin House. I don't think I need to mention his name. Betsy: > And I would say that there was a chance in the > very beginning for him to gain Harry's friendship, but he blew it > with his social awkwardness. Renee: I'd say he blew it by behaving like Dudley Dursley and trying to put down a boy he considered inferior. That's not social awkwardness. > >>Renee, previously: > >It's his own bullying and his filthy mouth that do him in. Also, JKR > depicts him as a a coward - and courage is the quality she values > most in people.< > > Betsy: > Draco doesn't give up, even when the odds are against him. That does > do him in. Time and time again. But has he ever succeeded in > harming Harry? I don't think JKR is setting him up to be the hero. > But she's doing a really bad job of setting him up as a villian. > Which is why I don't think we've seen the last of him, and why I hope > his ultimate role has yet to be revealed. Renee: As far as I'm concerned, she hasn't done that bad a job setting him up as a (future) villain in OotP. By becoming a member of the Inquisitorial Squad Draco joins the one who is in power and loves to show it: Dolores Umbridge. Remember who said "There is no good and evil, only power and those to weak to wield it"? I'd say that in OotP Draco Malfoy makes a choice according to precisely this maxim. He seems well on his way towards villainy, and basing myself on this I don't even need JKR's interviews to believe a change of heart is very unlikely. > >>Renee, previously: > >As far as I'm concerned, Draco doesn't qualify for Elkins's hurt- > comfort scenario because of his utter lack of dignity...< > > > Betsy: > And yet, Draco does handle his losses with dignity. He's dignified > at the end of the ferret incident. He's dignified when he looses the > big Quidditch final in PoA. He's dignified after being beaten by > Harry and George in OotP. Renee, now: Sorry, but I really don't see his reaction as dignified. It can't be, because he's already lost his dignity beforehand by starting the quarrel. I think the word that applies here would be subdued, not dignified. Again, it's a matter of interpretation, not something that immediately jumps out at everyone who reads the text. Renee From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 15:16:17 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:16:17 -0000 Subject: Aurors and Unforgiveable Curses - Helplessness In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124529 Becky (124472): So, what I'm trying to say is, I'm sure it is the intention behind the spell that makes it unforgivable. bboyminn: Here is where we differ, and I've pointed this out in other posts. All magic had intention behind it, so attention alone can't be the key. It is a pleasurably sadistic intent that is required, but that can't be the complete key, because not that may people can really muster that level of pleasurably sadistic desire to make the curses happen. That would lend a very limiting aspect to the Curses. Becky now: Apologies, I didn't make myself clear enough. I was talking about the original intention of whoever created those spells in the first place. I wasn't talking about the intentions of the person casting the spell in the here and now. (Although of course you may well still disagree!) I totally agree with you that the person casting the spell needs to put more hatred / sadistic desire or whatever behind it for it to work properly. Bboyminn: Good point on the single purpose nature of the Unforgivables. Becky: Thanks! :) Becky From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 17:13:07 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:13:07 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Sympathetic. And Dead, Too. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124530 Renee: It's his own bullying and his filthy mouth that do him in. Also, JKR depicts him as a a coward - and courage is the quality she values most in people.< Betsy: Draco doesn't give up, even when the odds are against him. That does do him in. Time and time again. But has he ever succeeded in harming Harry? I don't think JKR is setting him up to be the hero. But she's doing a really bad job of setting him up as a villian. Which is why I don't think we've seen the last of him, and why I hope his ultimate role has yet to be revealed. Alla: Big YES to Renee. All beating up of Draco nicely falls under categroy of "just desserts" for me. I still cannot figure out why the same does not work with Snape though. I mean I was just as repulsed when he called Lily a "mudblood" in Pensieve scene and still the sympathy for him did not dissappear completely. Whether Draco is a weak villain? Certainly he is not a match for Harry in general, but I thought that for example "dressing up as Dementor" was pretty bad - because he knew how badly Harry reacted to Dementors. I thought that methodical campaign to get rid of Buckbeak and Hagrid was also pretty bad. Renee: As far as I'm concerned, Draco doesn't qualify for Elkins's hurt- comfort scenario because of his utter lack of dignity...< Alla: True, I just don't see it at all. Susanne: Draco as a candidate for h/c? Not for me! I actually have to like the guy in general and that's not an option with Draco. I also don't remember him being brave and stoic when being hurt, and usually he brought whatever hurt he suffered onto himself by being nasty to someone else. That's not the way to garner much sympathy from most people, especially if he is only hurt a little, and embarrasses himself by pretending it's something major. Alla: As I said in my earlier post, hurt/comfort ( fictional, fo course :o)) does tend to work on me in general, but it absolutely does not work for me on Draco. I mean,it can be easily explained that I have no love for Draco in general, but then again here I have Snape, whose behaviour to Harry and Neville I passionately despise and nevertheless cannot bring myself to hate this character as a whole, because of some pain and guilt I can suspect buried deep inside. :) Magda: For me, "Draco" is spelled W-U-S-S. And that's why I really don't like his character. I'm amazed at the posts I see from people on other sites who think he's funny and witty. He's a kid whose mental age is about 7 or 8, his method of getting what he wants is to moan and whimper, which probably still works with his mother but drives his father to distraction, wondering if the kid is ever going to grow up and why didn't we have a second child just for back-up? I prefer characters who have some backbone; I never liked hurt-males because even as a teenager I knew those guys were high maintenance. The world was all about THEM and their needs, and unless you had a full-blown crush on one of them, it was pretty easy to spot as an observer. (And frankly my junior high and high schools had the fewest attractive guys per square foot than any others in North America, so that helped too.) Alla: OK, too funny. I have a linguistic question. What does "wuss" mean? I suspect that it is something not very kind to call dear Draco, but can you tell me what exactly does it mean? Thanks! I don't know if I would like hurt/comfort male in RL. My suspicion is that I would be a bit scared to get involved because of many potential implications, but in fiction - sure, why not? :) I am thinking now that maybe Lupinlore is right :o) I don't see any potential for change in Draco's character and that is why he evokes no response from me on the emotional level at all. Just my opinion, Alla From lebiles at charter.net Mon Feb 14 17:35:42 2005 From: lebiles at charter.net (leb2323) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:35:42 -0000 Subject: No sympathy for Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124531 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > If so Harry would be Kreacher's new > master; but Kreacher was an accomplice in Sirius's murder. What should > Harry do to Kreacher? He can't send him to Azkaban, the jail has no > guards; he can't set him free, he knows too much. I think we all know > what Harry would be > strongly tempted to do to Kreacher, and he may even do it too. I always thought that when Harry next returned to Grimauld Place he would find Kreacher's head up on the mantel next to all the others. Without any indication from canon whatsoever my brain just naturally assumed that would be the end result of Kreacher's tangling with Dumbledore. Dumbledore couldn't let Kreacher return to the Malfoys (or Bellatrix for that matter)and having "taken care of the problem" he at least would have had the generosity to give Kreacher the dignity of being stuffed and mounted like his forebears. Silly and completely not supported by canon I know but it was the first thing my brain came up with. leb From stbjohn2 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 17:41:51 2005 From: stbjohn2 at yahoo.com (stbjohn2) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:41:51 -0000 Subject: mixed marriages Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124532 I'd like to start a discussion about one idea that fascinates me: mixed marriages (as in wizard marries muggle. Those of you with, er, more active imaginations can think about wizard-giant or other combinations.) I've checked the Lexicon and Fantastic Posts and can't find anything obvious about this, so I thought I'd throw out a few knuts worth of thoughts and questions and see what anyone else has to say. In CoS, Ron says, "most wizards are half bloods these days anyway. If we hadn't married muggles, we'd've died out." While one of Ron's functions is to give us insight into the opinions of ordinary wizards, I wonder if Ron is somewhat overstating the case. Or is he talking about some vague time in the past, when wizards had almost died out and had to marry muggles; or more recently, say his grandparent's generation, in the pre-rise-of-Voldy days (perhaps that's what gave Tom Riddle his idea on how to ride the wave of purebloodism to power). It's true that we have very little information on marriage in the WW in general, and are as clueless as Harry about the wizard or muggle heritage of most of his classmates, but as far as I know, there are only three instances of muggle/wizard unions in canon, and one of those comes not from the books, but JKR's website. The three mixed marriages that we know about are Tom Riddle's mother (witch) to Tom Riddle Sr. (muggle); Seamus Finnegan's mother (witch) and father (muggle), and Dean Thomas mother (muggle) and father (wizard) -- the last from JKR's website. She writes (It's in the Extra section, under Edits) "Dean is from what he always thought was a pure Muggle background. He has been raised by his mother and his stepfather; his father walked out on the family when Dean was very young. He has a very happy home life, with a number of half-brothers and sisters. Naturally when the letter came from Hogwarts Dean's mother wondered whether his father might have been a wizard, but nobody has ever discovered the truth: that Dean's father, who had never told his wife what he was because he wanted to protect her, got himself killed by Death Eaters when he refused to join them. The projected story had Dean discovering all this during his school career." We don't know if Seamus has any siblings, but TR was apparently an only child, and while Dean has several half-siblings, he was the only child of his parents' marriage. Canon records far more instances of muggleborns -- including Hermione, Dennis and Colin Creevey, Justin Finch-Fletchley, Lily Evans, and Ted Tonks (father of the young auror.) The first four represent four born within just a 3- or 4-year span. So, Ron's comments aside, it would seem common wisdom should be that "if it weren't for muggles giving birth to magical children, we'd've died out." One interesting thing about these mixed marriages is they all have an element of secrecy to them. Two of the wizards apparently didn't tell their spouse their true identity until after they were married: "I'm half-and-half," said Seamus. "Me Dad's a Muggle. Mom didn't tell him she was a witch until after they were married. Bit of a nasty shock for him." (SS/PS) Tom Riddle says, "I, keep the name of a foul common muggle who abandoned me even before I as born, just because he found out his wife was a witch?" (CoS) The third Wizard, Dean's father, never revealed his identity as a wizard. Could this secrecy be required by the International Statue on Secrecy? Could it be the law that a wizard can't reveal his/her magical secret until after the wedding ceremony, or perhaps until there's a child involved (since we don't know at what point in the marriage these witches revealed their secret)? And is this secrecy really a good idea in a relationship, especially considering that wizards seem to view their magical ability as a core part of their being? (The "nasty shock" comment and TR Sr. leaving his wife certainly seem to point out that people don't like being lied to by their spouses.) Moving on to the more speculative How do you suppose these witches/wizards met their muggle mates? It seems to me that a wizard would have to make a concerted effort to seek out a muggle to date and marry, because normally, their paths just don't cross. Most people I know met their mate at school, work, church, or through friends, but none of those ways would likely result in a wizard meeting a muggle: School -- All British wizards attend Hogwarts. (So, if you expect to follow convention and marry someone who is close in age to you, all you have to do is sit in the Great Hall during dinner in your fourth year and look around -- here is the entire pool of potential mates, unless you plan to look overseas.) No muggles attend Hogwarts, of course, so school is obviously out as a place for muggles and wizards to meet. Work: Wizards seem to have magical jobs that don't put them in contact with muggles, so no mixing here. Church: Wizards seem largely unchurched from what we've seen, and if they do attend church, I'd bet a few knuts they are not sharing the pews with muggles. Friends: Well, if all your friends are wizards, they aren't much likelier to know muggles than you. About the only place wizards and muggles seem to rub shoulders is on public transport, and they only use public transport because they are with kids who can't apparate, so even tho there's a sweet song about them, bus stop relationships seem unlikely as well. Once you started dating a muggle, how would you hide your "magical me"? Again, it seems a wizard would have do put a lot of effort into fitting in as a muggle. Just putting on jeans and a sweatshirt won't do it -- think of the Quidditch World Cup, when the MOM was urging people to act like muggles and they really didn't have a clue how. Imagine Ron on a date with a muggle; any muggle girl with brains would hear alarm bells going off within a few minutes. Here's a guy who doesn't have a phone number, can't even pronounce the word telephone, doesn't know what football is, lives way out in the country and his family doesn't even own a car, has the vaguest notion of doctors and muggle medicine, and doesn't know anything about popular music, movies, TV or current events. ("Gee, Mum, I can't quite put my finger on it, but Ron's just really *different* from other boys I've dated.") Marriage would be even more difficult, it seems to me, even if the revelation of magical status was completely accepted by the muggle. I think muggles would have a very difficult time living in the WW, even if they didn't have to face the kind of muggle prejudice that even the most well-meaning of wizards displays. A muggle would be totally handicapped living in the magical world, because he or she would need help doing even the most mundane task -- it appears you need a wand simply to turn on the stove to make tea, for example. Wizards, on the other hand, would have to give up a lot of basic magic to live in a muggle house, or they'd interfere with the electricity we muggles so depend on. I'm kind of curious how Mr. and Mrs. Finnegan have managed for so long. (OK, this is several knuts worth of thoughts, a little more than I promised. But Snape, Dumbledore and Sirius never got mentioned once in this post, and isn't that refreshing?) Sandy From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 18:53:55 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:53:55 -0000 Subject: No sympathy for Kreacher Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124533 Jocelyn: >Having watched an appropriate episode of NCIS last night *G* it >occurred to me that Kreacher might have something like Stockholm >Syndrome. I believe this is a kind of 'brainwashing' which occurs >where someone abused and imprisoned begins to identify with their >persecutor. Patty Hearst was a high-profile example, but it seems to >be well-known in cases of long-term kidnap victims. Perhaps someone >with more knowledge of the phenomenon could comment? I don't have any knowledge of the phenomenon, but it sounds dead on to me. The house elves actually seem to have this "brainwashing" ingrained into their culture. Even at Hogwarts, where they are not abused, they are still horrified at the idea of being freed. And Winky, though it seems she was treated more decently with Crouch than Dobby was with Malfoy, is absolutely hysterical by her freedom. Dobby actually seems to have a genetic disorder - why is he the ONLY house-elf that ever wanted his freedom? I'm sure Paragon!Dumbledore would have freed them all long ago, except that the result would be sheer pandemonium. >Kreacher never had the option Sirius did of just walking out. And he >seemed much older than Dobby. How long do house-elves live anyway? >How long had he lived as a slave to the revolting Blacks? What horrors >had he seen over this time? How long had his sanity lasted? (Possibly >until the heads of his mother and siblings decorated the walls...) I >don't really think Kreacher was sane by the time we met him, which is >why I do not blame him for Sirius' death. Not guilty by reason of >unsound mind. I don't blame Kreacher, either. There were plenty of signs pointing to what Kreacher was, what he believed, and who he served. It was the wizardly blindness to house-elves that let them all dismiss him as a threat. Even Hermione, who usually can spot danger, was blind to the creature because she let her sympathy override her common sense. Sirius was raised around Kreacher's madness and completely disregarded him. The other wizards, even the Weasleys, Lupin, and the OoP members, didn't take Kreacher seriously. Apparently, only Dumbledore thought Kreachur was a threat, but not a serious one or he would have had the order members keeping an eye on him, instead of just "mentioning" it to Sirius - a statement that he had to have known would go over like a lead balloon. Nicky Joe From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 18:54:27 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:54:27 -0000 Subject: What did DD intend to say to Harry? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124534 Lupinlore: >In a recent conversation with Charme, we found that we had an >interesting difference of opinion with regard to the confrontation >between DD and Harry at the end of OOTP. I read DD's early statements >about "you are not as mad at me as you should be," etc., to be purely >in regard to the failures of OOTP. I think that DD only decided to >come clean about "everything" after Harry's "People don't like to be >locked up!" outburst. >Charme, however, reads the "mad" statement as saying Harry isn't as >mad as he should be about everything DD has done to/for/about him. >Thus, DD intended from the beginning to "come clean." >I just wondered how other people out there read this scene. Did DD go >into the confrontation intending to tell Harry everything, which >implies a broader meaning to "not as mad..." or did he only decide to >do so midway through the conversation? I think he went into the conversation still committed to telling Harry as little as possible. He had kept him in the dark for months, in a misguided attempt to "protect" him and that would be a very difficult habit to break. Obviously, he had to spill the beans about the prophecy, since that little cat was out of the bag, but I don't think he wanted to get into the rest of it at all. There are still plenty of questions DD hasn't answered for Harry, chiefly, why Snape should be trusted. I think he gave Harry enough to satisfy him at that moment, but not enough to give him any peace of mind. Harry is still in the dark about too many things and I think the time is long past for Dumbledore to start treating him like an adult. He might still be a child, but many people don't realize that children can handle the truth a lot better than they can handle secrets and misdirection. Nicky Joe From tonisan9 at hotmail.com Mon Feb 14 19:06:52 2005 From: tonisan9 at hotmail.com (tonihollifield) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:06:52 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Boggart (PoA, U.S. Paperback, Pgs. 138-139.) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124535 Hi everyone, I'm re-reading PoA, and I came across something that I'm hoping someone has a theory about. In the scene where Harry's class is dealing with the boggart in the wardrobe, the following occurs... "'Here!' shouted Professor Lupin suddenly, hurrying forward. _Crack!_ The legless spider had vanished. For a second, everyone looked wildly around to see where it was. Then they saw a silvery-white orb, hanging in the air in front of Lupin, who said '_Riddikulus!_' almost lazily. _Crack!_ 'Forward Neville, and finish him off!' said Lupin as the boggart landed on the floor as a cockroach..." Now, I had always assummed that the boggart turned into the moon for Lupin, although I have read some of your posts which suggest that Lavender was correct when she wondered why he was frightened of crystal balls. Either way, for the life of me I have not been able to figure out why turning either the moon (or a crystal ball for that matter) into a cockroach would make it funny. Can the boggart be something else entirely? If so, what? Toni (who is sorry if this has been discussed in the past, but can't figure out how to look anything up!) From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Mon Feb 14 19:24:12 2005 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (imamommy at sbcglobal.net) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:24:12 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Sympathetic. And Dead, Too. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124536 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: Snip > Alla: > > OK, too funny. I have a linguistic question. What does "wuss" mean? I > suspect that it is something not very kind to call dear Draco, but > can you tell me what exactly does it mean? Thanks! >Snip imamommy (Hem, hem) wuss n 1. wimp, sissy. ("Why won't you fight me? Are you a wuss?") (Copied from the Online Slang Dictionary) From leslie.s.bennett at lmco.com Mon Feb 14 17:01:02 2005 From: leslie.s.bennett at lmco.com (moondance241) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:01:02 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the incompetent councilor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124537 Geoff wrote: > That apart, one of my dictionaries defines smug as "irritatingly > pleased with oneself, self-satisfied". > > Whatever Dumbledore may be doing, right or wrong, I don't think that > definition fits the manner in which he was attempting to deal with > Harry's immediate need. I would agree. DD has had plenty of experience dealing with adolescents (sp?). He knows that yelling back at Harry will not help the situation. He is remaining calm while Harry "rages" around DD's office, destroying things. I also sense a bit of sadness behind his words, knowing why Harry should be so much more angrier at him than he is and that DD's the cause of it. I believe DD knows full well how his decisions/advice/strategy have affected/caused the current situation. Moondance From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 19:30:46 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:30:46 -0000 Subject: Subject: Re: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Sympathetic. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124538 Northsouth: >First I should say that I personally don't quite get hurt/comfort, at >least, I don't find characters attractive beacuse of it - but I don't >find characters attractive beacuse of anything else either, for the >vast majority. I don't really buy the hurt/comfort theory in relation to the "bad boy" characters that readers love to love. For the most part, I blame romance novels for the entire bad boy syndrome that affects far too many women. In the vast majority of romance novels, the hero is a bad boy - sleeps around, loves no one, is sometimes a victim of tragedy, is usually hard-headed and hard-hearted. Now, while this does provoke some sympathetic feelings in the female (she wants to ease his pain, fix his problems, and soften him up) it does nothing to explain the sexual attraction. The hurt/comfort theory is more of a maternal feeling - we feel that way toward Harry because he's had a difficult life and we want to fix him up. But we don't feel any attraction for him, we simply want to mother him. However, Sirius Black, Lucius Malfoy, and possibly Snape are far more attractive. Yes, they are broken and need fixing. But the prize at the end of that fixing is not a happy little boy, it is a virile beast that will worship the ground you walk on (at least, that's how it happens in romance novels). These characters are very strong, powerful, and impressive. The "hurt child" in them is just spice on the attraction, and gives us sympathy for them. If we can just make them see that they are evil and turn them to the good side, they will still be strong, powerful, and impressive. It's not a matter of "healing" them, it's a matter of "changing" them. We want them to be who they are, just better. Unfortunately, this only works in romance novels, not at all in real life, but we females keep trying, and hoping, and reading those Johanna Lindsay books the instant they hit the shelves. Ah, if only the Mallory men were real... BTW, Draco had exposed too many cowardly tendencies to be taken seriously as a possible hero. Maybe he'll toughen up a bit. Nicky Joe From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 19:31:34 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:31:34 -0000 Subject: Problems at the end of GOF Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124539 Richard Jones: >(1) How did the "shades" of Cedric and Frank Bryce and Lily and James >know all they knew? How did the shades know what was going on or >about the golden thread connection or what to do? How did they know >there was a portkey there? What goes on inside the wands? I really did not like the handling of this scene AT ALL so I never spent much time speculating on it. I just had to accept that it happened with a grain of salt and move on. >(2) Inside the maze, Harry had his wand point north, but how did that >help him find the trophy? If he was east or west of the trophy, it >would just lead him right past it. It wouldn't be any help except at >the very entrance. I just took his compass wand to be an assist that made sure he wasn't going in circles. It's very easy to get completely lost in a maze, and this way he could make sure he was at least going in a direction and not spinning around. As long as he tried to make sure he was going "south and west", for example, he would at least be able to maintain that heading through all the twists and turns. >And by the way, why didn't Harry or Ron or some Gryffindor fly above >the hedge earlier and make a map of the maze for Harry? It was just >a normally growing maze and there is no mention that DD had enchanted >it. I'm sure they would have discouraged that sort of thing! For the same reason Harry didn't just "Accio Broom" again and fly straight to the Goblet, dispensing with the maze entirely. >(3) And how did LV have the wand he killed James and Lily with? At >Godric's Hollow, he turned into vapor so he couldn't carry it. So it >must have just fallen down and maybe picked up by someone else at >Godric's Hollow, but the Death Eaters didn't know he was alive or >where he was and if a member of the Ministry got it they would >probably destroy it or keep it well protected (and even if Lucius >Malfoy stole it from the Ministry how would he get it to LV since he >didn't know LV was alive, let alone where he was?). LV spent 13 >years as vapor and a snake and like that, and so he couldn't carry it >in any of those states. Wormtail was a rat and couldn't carry it. >LV had to have Wormtail use it in graveyard against Cedric because he >couldn't. So how did he come to have his wand in the graveyard? This one I've speculated about quite a lot. I had no problem thinking that Peter was WITH LV the whole time, and so snatched up his wand and transformed. I did have a few other questions, though. Did Peter also snatch up James and Lilys' wands? I was wondering why Harry hadn't inherited his father's old wand, then I read SS/PS again and it stated that the Potter house had been destroyed - which led me to another question. How did the Potter house get destroyed? The curse that did in LV could possibly have destroyed the house (maybe?) but it seems farfetched, especially in light of the fact that Peter managed to get LV's wand out. I find it more likely that Peter torched the house, hoping to kill Harry and cover his tracks. He would be too scared to attempt to kill Harry after LV's failure, but I wouldn't put it past him to go the arson route, thinking that by the time the rubble was sorted, Peter would be long gone. Nicky Joe From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Mon Feb 14 19:34:42 2005 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (imamommy at sbcglobal.net) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:34:42 -0000 Subject: mixed marriages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124540 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "stbjohn2" wrote: snip. > > In CoS, Ron says, "most wizards are half bloods these days anyway. > If we hadn't married muggles, we'd've died out." While one of Ron's > functions is to give us insight into the opinions of ordinary > wizards, I wonder if Ron is somewhat overstating the case. Or is he > talking about some vague time in the past, when wizards had almost > died out and had to marry muggles; or more recently, say his > grandparent's generation, in the pre-rise-of-Voldy days (perhaps > that's what gave Tom Riddle his idea on how to ride the wave of > purebloodism to power). > > It's true that we have very little information on marriage in the WW > in general, and are as clueless as Harry about the wizard or muggle > heritage of most of his classmates, but as far as I know, there are > only three instances of muggle/wizard unions in canon, and one of > those comes not from the books, but JKR's website. > > The three mixed marriages that we know about are Tom Riddle's mother > (witch) to Tom Riddle Sr. (muggle); Seamus Finnegan's mother (witch) > and father (muggle), and Dean Thomas mother (muggle) and father > (wizard) -- the last from JKR's website. >snip > Sandy I think we also have to take into account that the pureblood aristocracy does not view muggleborn wizards and witches (ie Tonks' father or Hermione) as counting as pureblood. Ron may be including them when he says this. imamommy From kellalor at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 22:33:56 2005 From: kellalor at yahoo.com (Lori K) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:33:56 -0000 Subject: Privet Dr. protection (was Re: Dumbledore the Counselor) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124541 Whizbang: > >There's more protecting Harry at Privet Dr than we have been > >told about. I'm not sure if this means anything, but an anagram of Privet Drive = Divert Viper. Viper = Voldemort? Divert Voldemort? "Lori K" From tonisan9 at hotmail.com Mon Feb 14 19:29:29 2005 From: tonisan9 at hotmail.com (tonihollifield) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:29:29 -0000 Subject: Validity of Sirius' Will (was: Re: No sympathy for Kreacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124542 eggplant9998 wrote: > > Now that Harry is popular again the Ministry will probably do > something to try to get back on Harry's good side, like giving a > posthumous pardon to Sirius Black. That will probably just increase > Harry's bitterness but it would make Sirius's Will a legal document > again. --Snipped-- Toni: I've seen several people post the idea that Sirius' will (assuming, of course, that he had one) would become a legal document should he be pardoned posthumously. Is there a provision in British law that voids the wills of convicted murderers? At least under American law (and I should qualify that to be just New York State law, because that's the only state where I'm admitted to practice), I can't see any legal reason (under the circumstances presented by JKR) why the will of a convicted murderer would be void. Assuming all requirements of executing a will were followed, and Sirius had the capacity to make his own decisions, his will should be valid regardless of his status as a convicted murderer. That being said, it occurred to me that if Sirius did have a will, at the time he executed it, he probably left everything to James. I assume that between the time of James and Lily's deaths and Sirius being hauled off the Azkaban that he didn't have time to run to his wizard attorney (or whoever drafts wizard wills) and change his will to leave everything to Harry. That being said, unless Sirius made sure that his estate would go to "James and his heirs" (or some such designation), then there may be someone else who he designated to inherit if James predeceased him (Tonks, maybe or her mother if she's still alive.) Toni (who apologizes...one hazard of being an attorney is that you see everything as a law school hypothetical!) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 20:15:06 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 20:15:06 -0000 Subject: No sympathy for Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124543 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jlnbtr" wrote: > > > Janet Anderson wrote: > ... huge huge snippage... > > >>> In short, I put Kreacher on the same list as Voldemort, Lucius > Malfoy, Fudge (yes, Fudge), and the Death Eaters -- I have no > sympathy for him whatsoever. He has made his choices, and those > choices have shown what he really is. > Juli: > > Thank you!!! Finally someone says Kreacher is completly nasty and he > does not deserve any sympathy. Kreacher acted willingly against the > Order, against Sirius his master. And it is someone else's fault? No > way. ...edited... > > Juli~ enjoying Janet's idea of Hagrid stepping over Kreacher. bboyminn: I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts (doughnuts) that the next time we see Kreacher, his head will be hanging on the wall next to his ancestors. Upon Sirius's death, Kreacher has no clear allegiance any more. True there are still members of the peripheral Black family living, but Kreachers truest allegiance and the bond of his enslavement was to the direct lineage to which Sirius Black belonged. In a sense, the death of Sirius made Kreacher an unattached elf; a free elf. Logically, he would first seek further employments/enslavement within the peripheral Black Family, and most likely with the like-minded Narcissa Malfoy or Bellatrix LeStrange. Unfortunately for the Order, this nasty little elf knows way too much, and has already demonstrated a willingness to betray the Order through technical loopholes in Sirius's orders not to tell anyone anything. Kreacher is now a treacherous, dangerous, and uncontrollable liability to the Order, and I think Dumbledore will feel that he had no choice but to put Kreacher out of /their/ misery. Hermione will not be pleased, but such are the fortunes of war. You heard it here first. Steve/bboyminn PS: Dollars to Donuts used to be pretty good odds; about 10 to 1. But with todays inflated prices, there is not much difference in value between a dollar and a Donut. From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 20:18:10 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 20:18:10 -0000 Subject: Validity of Sirius' Will (was: Re: No sympathy for Kreacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124544 > I've seen several people post the idea that Sirius' will (assuming, > of course, that he had one) would become a legal document should he > be pardoned posthumously. Is there a provision in British law that > voids the wills of convicted murderers? At least under American law > (and I should qualify that to be just New York State law, because > that's the only state where I'm admitted to practice), I can't see > any legal reason (under the circumstances presented by JKR) why the > will of a convicted murderer would be void. --loads of snipping-- Toni (who apologizes...one hazard of being an attorney is that you > see everything as a law school hypothetical!) Becky: I don't claim to know much about English law (especially as English law is quite often different in detail to the laws back home on the Isle Of Man), and I'm certainly not an attorney. However, the instant that springs to mind is that of Mira Hindley (infamous 'moors murderer', or, at the very least, assistant to the 'moors murderer'). Dispite all that she had done, her wish to have her ashes scattered on the moors, where she had done awful things to young children before helping murder them, was done. I distinctly remember the photos in the paper and the outrage it caused among the victims families. So it would seem that your will and wishes are respected, whatever you are convicted of having done. Of course, like I said, I don't know for certain, but certainly in this instance, that's how it would appear. Becky From geekessgoddess at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 19:44:00 2005 From: geekessgoddess at yahoo.com (Freud) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:44:00 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore has plenty of heart (was; Re: Dumbledore the Counselor) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124545 Lupinlore: > Is Dumbledore a heartless manipulator who sees Harry > > as a weapon or is he someone who loves Harry as a person? He can't be > > both. It can be both. He can recognize that Harry has the powers to be a weapon, but still love Harry as a person. I see no evidance that Dumbledore is heartless. Just the opposite. Can you love someone and still manipulate them if you think it is for their own good? Parents do it every day. Can you love someone completely and still be wary of their powers? Of course you can. I think that Dumbledore loves Harry completely - but he is also wary of his powers and conflicted about his future. Time and again Dumbledore is the one person who stands up for the people who have been damaged, who have serious problems, who don't look attractive, who have crazy ideas, personality disorders, handicaps etc. etc. etc. If he was heartless would he have kept Hagrid at Hogwartz? Would he keep Trelawney at the school even if she couldn't teach? He even hired a werewolf! My heck, Dumbledore even stood up for Kreacher - who is repugnant. On the few occassions when Dumbledore has been confronted by others wishing to cause him harm he never even did anything awful to them. I would have liked to see Fudge or Umbridge turned into a gopher or something...but he didn't. He showed restraint. Of course Dumbledore loves Harry as a person. He has said so. "I cared about you too much," said Dumbledore simply. "I cared more for your happiness than your knowing the truth, more for your peace of mind than my plan, more for your life than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed. In other words, I acted exactly as Voldemort expects we fools who love to act." "Is there a defense? I defy anyone who has watched you as I have ? and I have watched you more closely than you can have imagined ? not to want to save you more pain than you had already suffered." Here is the part that makes me believe that Dumbledore feared for the future: "What did I care if numbers of nameless and faceless people and creatures were slaughtered in the vague future, if in the here and now you were alive, and well, and happy? I never dreamed that I would have such a person on my hands." (OP37) "such a person" - that is an odd way of defining Harry - he certainly doesn't call Harry a helpless little baby. Someone with the power the slaughter people in the future? That sounds like a weapon to me. Tabekat From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 21:08:13 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:08:13 -0000 Subject: Privet Drive alternatives - any ideas? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124546 Reading up the list, there is a lot of back and forth of the same arguments about the Dursleys under various threads. I agree that the Dursleys are far from ideal, and I agree that Harry has been abused (as has Dudley, just in a much less obvious way). I further agree with arguments from the other side regarding the fact he was put there due to the blood protection. What I want to know though is related to alternatives. Those who see an alternative, what is it? I just don't see it. Here is my list of alternatives, and the reasons I don't think they work in any way. The Weasleys? (who I assume are most people's first choice. After all, what's another plate on the table to them?) - I don't think that when Harry was aged one, they knew DD. I don't think they knew him personally until Bill first started school, and I feel that they didn't get to know him this well until it became clear that one of their sons would be one of Harry's two best friends. They certainly weren't order members first time round. So that idea doesn't appear to have been an option at the time. Next James's friends Pettigrew? - erm may have seemed ok the night that Harry was nearly killed, but we now know different don't we? Plus there is the tiny problem that he was pretending to be dead. Lupin? - Hardly a good choice to bring up a tiny child when he becomes a werewolf once a month. I can't exactly visualise him being capable of feeding Harry in that condition. Sirius? - the only real option on the night as he wasn't considered a murderer at the time and he was Harry's godfather after all. However, as soon as he was considered a murderer, that option would also have flown out of the window. So Dumbledore maybe? - No. He is headmaster of a school. I can't see a Hogwarts being a good place to bring up a one year old. Plus, as headmaster (and someone very high up in other wizard institutions) he would have far too many other pressures on his time to give a one year old the attention needed. Not realistic. (Pretty much the same goes for MM. What would she do with him when she was teaching classes?) Hagrid? - With the creatures he keeps as pets?! He might be kind and DD may trust him with his life, but he just doesn't have a normal sense of danger. Not a good idea with a young child around. Moody? - I don't think I even need to explain how absurd that idea is. Can you visualise Moody as a single father? I can't. He'd think he was being attacked by DE's each time Harry cried for a feed or nappy change in the night! Tonks / Kinglsey? - Too new on the scene. Mundungus Fletcher? - What a fantastic role model, plus the amount of time he'd leave Harry on his own (like when the dementors paid him a visit). Mrs. Figg? - The most probable. But she not only doesn't have magic to help protect Harry, she doesn't have the blood protection either. I know we don't see who Lily's friends are (yet), so we don't see who might have helped in that respected, but from those we do know, I don't see anyone capable. For all their masses and masses of faults, the Dursleys have (mostly) fed and clothed him. They have (apparently) agreed to offer this blood protection to Harry. (They didn't leave him to be adopted. They did take him in.) I really do think that this is a case of the lesser of evils. I'm not excusing their treatment, but I see it more as that of someone who is scared. Sort of `push him down, that way he can't harm us`. They're frightened. Just look at their reactions when Harry does odd things. They may appear to Harry to be in control and punishing him, but that is just because he doesn't know the truth of the situation. *They* know full well why these things have happened, and it scares them. I think that's why the starvation rather than having physically hit him. If Harry can re-grow his hair overnight, and apparate onto the school roof, then what might he do if they were in close range when they angered him? They don't know. They don't understand him. Anyway, I've gone off on a tangent. I just wanted to show the lack of alternative, and ask what other people thought. Where would you have him grow up instead? Becky (Sorry that list is so long. It took much more space than I first thought.) From stbjohn2 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 21:08:51 2005 From: stbjohn2 at yahoo.com (stbjohn2) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:08:51 -0000 Subject: mixed marriages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124547 Sandy wrote: > > > In CoS, Ron says, "most wizards are half bloods these days anyway. > > If we hadn't married muggles, we'd've died out." While one of Ron's > > functions is to give us insight into the opinions of ordinary > > wizards, I wonder if Ron is somewhat overstating the case. Or is he > > talking about some vague time in the past, when wizards had almost > > died out and had to marry muggles; or more recently, say his > > grandparent's generation, in the pre-rise-of-Voldy days (perhaps > > that's what gave Tom Riddle his idea on how to ride the wave of > > purebloodism to power). > > > > It's true that we have very little information on marriage in the > WW > > in general, and are as clueless as Harry about the wizard or muggle > > heritage of most of his classmates, but as far as I know, there > are > > only three instances of muggle/wizard unions in canon, and one of > > those comes not from the books, but JKR's website. > > > > The three mixed marriages that we know about are Tom Riddle's > mother > > (witch) to Tom Riddle Sr. (muggle); Seamus Finnegan's mother > (witch) > > and father (muggle), and Dean Thomas mother (muggle) and father > > (wizard) -- the last from JKR's website. >snip > Imamommy replied: > > I think we also have to take into account that the pureblood > aristocracy does not view muggleborn wizards and witches (ie Tonks' > father or Hermione) as counting as pureblood. Ron may be including > them when he says this. > Sandy says Possibly, but Ron specifically says "muggles" not "muggles, half- bloods and muggleborns". From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 21:16:55 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:16:55 -0000 Subject: mixed marriages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124548 Imamommy wrote: "I think we also have to take into account that the pureblood aristocracy does not view muggleborn wizards and witches (ie Tonks' father or Hermione) as counting as pureblood. Ron may be including them when he says this. " Del replies: It's not just Ron either. Harry, the son of a Muggleborn and a pureblood, is counted as a halfblood by the purebloodists and by apparently the rest of the WW. That would make Nymphadora Tonks a halfblood too, for example, as well as all the kids of all the Muggleborns. Oh, and we know of another halfblood, though we don't know if his non-pureblood parent was Muggle or Muggleborn : Remus Lupin. Del From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 21:18:33 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:18:33 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore has plenty of heart (was; Re: Dumbledore the Counselor) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124549 Tabekat: "What did I care if numbers of nameless and faceless people and creatures were slaughtered in the vague future, if in the here and now you were alive, and well, and happy? I never dreamed that I would have such a person on my hands." (OP37) "such a person" - that is an odd way of defining Harry Becky: Funny. That's not who I ever thought he was referring to. I'd always thought he was talking about Sirius when he talked about `such a person'. I thought he was talking about the fact that those nameless and faceless people were nameless and faceless no longer. They were now real people. I thought he meant Sirius, and that he was possibly giving a nod in the direction of Cedric as well. He did fear for the future, and he did care. About Harry. Now he is seeing a larger picture. Just the way I read it. Becky From technomad at intergate.com Mon Feb 14 21:40:57 2005 From: technomad at intergate.com (ravenclaw001) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:40:57 -0000 Subject: HP at the Dursleys'---what if? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124550 I agree completely that Harry was badly treated by the Dursleys, even though they strike me as cartoonish and caricatured. However, things could have been a _lot_ worse. Imagine if Patooty Dursley had bonded with Harry instantly, and treated him identically to Dudley. Then imagine "Dudley Dursley, Mark II" going to Hogwarts. Or being trusted with a wand, and that huge Gringotts' account. The mind boggles. I think that the teachers would be making that nice Mr. Ogden (of Ogden's Firewhiskey) VERY rich. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 21:52:15 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:52:15 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the incompetent councilor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124551 >> Geoff: >I would agree with you that some of the quotes you gave were perhaps not the best way to react in the circumstances but often, in this sort of situation, the people trying to help are thinking on their feet and a possible better response to the one they offered will occur to them two hours later...< Betsy: I agree, Geoff. I would add to that, Dumbledore is grieving too. I imagine the loss of Sirius (especially after such a recent return) is hard on Dumbledore. Not that I think Dumbledore is horribly handicapped by that while talking to Harry in his office. I think Dumbledore is mature enough to compartmentalize; take care of the living and then grieve for the dead. But I can imagine that he would feel it a mistake to get pulled into Harry's emotions, in case his own emotions let loose. His displayed exhaustion and the tear at the end suggest that those emotions are there and fairly close to the surface. Betsy, who is absolutely horrid in these types of situations and has great admiration for those who can handle them with grace. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 21:55:23 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:55:23 -0000 Subject: Privet Drive alternatives - any ideas? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124552 Becky: Reading up the list, there is a lot of back and forth of the same arguments about the Dursleys under various threads. I agree that the Dursleys are far from ideal, and I agree that Harry has been abused (as has Dudley, just in a much less obvious way). I further agree with arguments from the other side regarding the fact he was put there due to the blood protection. What I want to know though is related to alternatives. Those who see an alternative, what is it? I just don't see it. Here is my list of alternatives, and the reasons I don't think they work in any way. snip. So Dumbledore maybe? - No. He is headmaster of a school. I can't see a Hogwarts being a good place to bring up a one year old. Plus, as headmaster (and someone very high up in other wizard institutions) he would have far too many other pressures on his time to give a one year old the attention needed. Not realistic. (Pretty much the same goes for MM. What would she do with him when she was teaching classes?) snip. I really do think that this is a case of the lesser of evils. I'm not excusing their treatment, but I see it more as that of someone who is scared. Sort of `push him down, that way he can't harm us`. snip Anyway, I've gone off on a tangent. I just wanted to show the lack of alternative, and ask what other people thought. Where would you have him grow up instead? Alla: Hi, Becky! I agree that most likely JKR wanted to portray placing Harry with Dursleys as the case of lesser evils. I am very glad though that JKR thinks about Harry as "abused" child, because regardless whether it is lesser evil or not, I still view it as abuse. If we are to play alternatives list, I LOVE the option of sweeping Harry away to another country. Surely, Dumbledore has plenty of acquiantances around the world, who could take Harry in. I agree that most of the people you named do not sound as plausible alternatives, except I would disagree about Dumbledore himself. He IS after all the only one whom Voldie fears. I think it is possible that he could have protected Harry just as strongly as blood protection does. See, I cannot stop thinking that nowhere in the books Dumbledore says that blood protection was THE ONLY option available to him, just the one "he put his trust in". Who knows, maybe it would have been wiser to put Dumbledore trust in himself? It is especially wierd if you consider the hint that Dumbledore and Potters were quite close ( James did leave his invisibility cloak with Dumbledore) It seems to me that they had closer relationship with Dumbledore that simply former students with their Headmaster, therefore it does not look to me as that much of a stretch to ask Dumbledore to care for Harry. I also loved Finwitch' question as to why Dumbledore put his trust in Harry's parents blood, but not their choice. There was that moment, when Hagrid sees Sirius . Why exactly Dumbledore won't let Sirius to take Harry right away? Who knows, maybe that would forced him out of his grief and made him not go after Peter? Endless what ifs and speculations and yes, I realise that we woudn't have the same story, had different choice been made by JKR. JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Feb 14 21:55:23 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:55:23 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Boggart (PoA, U.S. Paperback, Pgs. 138-139.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124553 Toni: > Now, I had always assummed that the boggart turned into the moon for Lupin, although I have read some of your posts which suggest that Lavender was correct when she wondered why he was frightened of crystal balls. Either way, for the life of me I have not been able to figure out why turning either the moon (or a crystal ball for that matter) into a cockroach would make it funny.< > Pippin: Hi, Toni! It's my highly unpopular theory that the boggart was the prophecy orb, and it turned into a cockroach because the spell failed. Lupin couldn't think of a way to make the prophecy funny. If you page through canon you'll find that Lupin, though he makes a boggart vanish several times, never seems to perform riddikulus with clearcut success. When he does it in OOP, for example, the boggart turns into the silvery orb. But the most popular theory is that the boggart is indeed the full moon, and it turned into a cockroach because a harmless but disgusting creature is funnier than a werewolf. Pippin From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Mon Feb 14 22:03:15 2005 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:03:15 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore has plenty of heart (was; Re: Dumbledore the Counselor) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124554 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com: Tabekat - Message 124545 > "What did I care if numbers of nameless and faceless people and > creatures were slaughtered in the vague future, if in the here and > now you were alive, and well, and happy? I never dreamed that I > would have such a person on my hands." (OP37) > "such a person" - that is an odd way of defining Harry Becky - Message 124549: > Funny. That's not who I ever thought he was referring to. I'd >always thought he was talking about Sirius when he talked about >`such a person'. I thought he was talking about the fact that those >nameless and faceless people were nameless and faceless no longer. >They were now real people. I thought he meant Sirius, and that he >was possibly giving a nod in the direction of Cedric as well. > He did fear for the future, and he did care. About Harry. Now he >is seeing a larger picture. "K": I have to agree with Tabekat. Dumbledore has been and is still talking about Harry at this point, IMO. Dumbledore has been telling Harry how special he is. ~"I cared about *you* too much," said Dumbledore simply. "I cared more for your happiness than our knowing the truth, more for your peace of mind than my plan, more for your life than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed. In other words, I acted exactly as Voldemort expects we fools who love to act." "Is there a defense? I defy anyone who has watched *you* as I have -- and I have watched you more closely than you can have imagined -- not to want to save you more pain than you had alread suffered. What did I care if numbers of nameless and faceless people and creatures were slaughtered in the vague future, if in the here and now *you* were alive, and well, and happy? I never dreamed that I would have such a person on my hands." pp0-ch 37-pgs 838-839-us *my emphasis The *such a person* on Dumbledore's hands is the one (Harry) he cared about too much, the one who cared about Harry's happiness, the one who cared about Harry's peace of mind, the one who cared more for Harry's life than other lives that might be lost, the who watched closely over Harry, the one who wanted to save Harry from pain, the one who acted as Voldemort expects fools to act...with love. "I never dreamed that I would have such a person on my hands." (Dumbledore) Dumbledore loves Harry in a very special way. Just how I've always read this part. :-) "K" From stbjohn2 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 22:04:04 2005 From: stbjohn2 at yahoo.com (stbjohn2) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:04:04 -0000 Subject: mixed marriages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124555 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Imamommy wrote: > "I think we also have to take into account that the pureblood > aristocracy does not view muggleborn wizards and witches (ie Tonks' > father or Hermione) as counting as pureblood. Ron may be including > them when he says this. " > > Del replies: > It's not just Ron either. Harry, the son of a Muggleborn and a > pureblood, is counted as a halfblood by the purebloodists and by > apparently the rest of the WW. That would make Nymphadora Tonks a > halfblood too, for example, as well as all the kids of all the > Muggleborns. > > Oh, and we know of another halfblood, though we don't know if his > non-pureblood parent was Muggle or Muggleborn : Remus Lupin. > > Del Sandy, Yes, but what Ron says is "if we [wizards] hadn't married muggles we'd have died out." Ron is dividing the world into 2 camps -- muggles and wizards. In Ron's world view, muggleborns and halfbloods like Hermione and Harry fall into the "wizards" camp. Therefore, I have to believe he's talking about totally non-magic folk when he says muggles in this context (or any context, really; Ron does not see Hermione or Harry as "muggles," ever). Even Malfoy, for all his prejudice, does differentiate between someone with magical ability, no matter their background, and a muggle. Also this comment comes right after Malfoy calls Hermione a mudblood (in COS). This is the first time Hermione or Harry have run into this prejudice against people who have a muggle background and Ron's pointing out what a senseless prejudice it is. I read it as Ron saying that, at least at some point in the history of wizardry, marriage between magical and non-magical people was quite common/ From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 22:09:12 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:09:12 -0000 Subject: Snape/Neville vs Hagrid/Draco(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame...) In-Reply-To: <1271259152.20050213211635@vcem.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124556 >>Betsy: >So if the teacher is Hagrid and the student is Draco, not paying attention and the resulting disaster is the fault of arrogance on the part of the student. But, if the teacher is Snape and the student is Neville, then not paying attention and the resulting disaster is the fault of arrogance on the part of... the teacher? (Maybe it's the old, Slytherin = evil default? )< >>Susanne: >This comparison doesn't work. >Neville makes mistakes out of a justified fear of his teacher. Draco is just being an arrogant git who thinks he doesn't need to pay attention when "someone like Hagrid" dares to try and teach him anything.< Betsy: Later on in the classes, yes, I agree, you can't really make a comparison. But I was refering to first day disasters. Neville melts Seamus's cauldron and ends up in the hospital wing, covered in boils. And it's because he "added the porcupine quills before taking the cauldron off the fire." (SS paperback p. 139) It's only the first day, so Neville hasn't reached total terror yet (though I imagine this incident helped). The disaster occured because he didn't follow directions. You know when Hagrid says something to the effect of, "they reckoned I should have started you out on flobberworms,"? I always liked the idea of that recommendation coming from Snape. I can totally see all the teachers comforting Hagrid in the Staff room, and Snape making a snarky remark about general student abilities and how they could probably barely handle flobberworms. It makes me laugh. :) Betsy, who *always* paid attention in class From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Feb 14 22:29:48 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:29:48 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Boggart (PoA, U.S. Paperback, Pgs. 138-139.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124557 > Pippin: > Hi, Toni! It's my highly unpopular theory that the boggart was the > prophecy orb, and it turned into a cockroach because the spell > failed. Potioncat: Pippin, Pippin, was it you who came up with the idea that the boggart is a prophecy orb? I've asked around, but haven't gotten an answer. I argued against it very strongly once upon a time, but now, I'm a believer... I'm not sure what it is about a propecy that frightens Lupin, but I agree. I'm not so sure how the cockroach fits in, but I have some ideas. 1.Trelawney is described in insect-like ways all through PoA. Not always the same insect, either. I think Lupin considers her a pest and also somewhat humorous and so changes the orb into a cockroach (letting the cockroach represent her, so to speak.) BTW, I don't think he's afraid of her finding out he's a werewolf in the crystal ball, the staff were all told that when Lupin was hired. 2. The cockroach has something to do with Snape. It would be just Snape's luck to work at being an animagus and have it be a cockroach. (I don't like this one, but it was fired from a can(n)on at me.) I can go into how I think canon fits if anyone is interested. So far, few have been ;-) 3.The cockroach has to do with Wolfbane potion. This one works better if the boggart is a moon. I'm for the orb being an orb if only because it isn't called a moon in OoP either. Potioncat From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 22:31:36 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:31:36 -0000 Subject: Validity of Sirius' Will In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124558 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tonihollifield" wrote: > > > eggplant9998 wrote: > > > > Now that Harry is popular again the Ministry will probably do > > something to try to get back on Harry's good side, like giving a > > posthumous pardon to Sirius Black. ... but it would make Sirius's > Will a legal document again. > > --Snipped-- > Toni: > > I've seen ... the idea that Sirius' will ... would become a legal > document should he be pardoned posthumously. Is there a provision > in British law that voids the wills of convicted murderers? ..., I > can't see any legal reason ... why the will of a convicted murderer > would be void. Assuming all requirements of executing a will were > followed, ... > bboyminn: Ah yes, a topic to which I've wasted ...er...ahem... /dedicated/ many a waking hour as I pondered the possibilities. First, I think the really key is not legality of a murder's will, but in the case of Sirius Black, the credibility of any will that might be found. Remember, there are still living members of the Black family. They are not direct descendants, but they are very closely related, and would therefore have a valid right to make a claims against the Estate, and to challenge a claim by anyone outside the family. In Europe, especially among the wealthy and the aristocrats, the standard method of inheritance is that the oldest and nearest male relative inherits the entire estate. Although, frequently through a Will, various other family members can receive something, the bulk and most significant aspects of the Family Estate are passed to the oldest and nearest MALE relative. Of course, the purpose of this 'oldest male gets it all' method is to prevent the family fortune from being diluted down to nothing as it is spead thinner and thinner through each subsequent generation of inheritors. So, who in this group of surviving cousins has a male child? You win! It's Draco, son of Narcissa Black-Malfoy. That sets up a pretty nice subplot for a conflict over the Black Family Estate between Harry, via a contested Will, and Draco, by right of entailed inheritance. Harry would not want the money but even more than that, he could not stand that Draco would get Sirius's money. So, undesireable as the fight might be, he would certainly fight to keep it out of Malfoy's hands. > Toni continues: > > That being said, it occurred to me that if Sirius did have a will, > at the time he executed it, he probably left everything to James. > ... unless Sirius made sure that his estate would go to "James and > his heirs" ...edited... > > Toni bboyminn: First, a point I always like to bring up. There are really TWO Estates in question. The first is the probably substantial Black Family Estate, the disposition of which is probably controlled by entailments. The Second, would be Sirius's Personal Estate which, since he inherited money from his Uncle, is probably significant in size, but not nearly as substantial or as legally complex as the Black Family Estate. Now to the point of Sirius's will. He may or may not have had a Will prior to his imprisonment, although he could have created one out of spite just to make sure his family never got any of his money. But, that Will would not cover the Black Family Estate, at least not at the time it was executed. Now, I would like to remind everyone that young men, brave and foolish as they often are, are not so inclined to create Wills. But older and wiser men, trapped in their family home with nothing but endless long hours in which to wonder, worry, and fret, especially those prone to melancholy moods, might be inclined to do so. I can see Sirius sitting around Grimmauld Place worrying about himself and his own fate in these dark and dangerous times. Further worrying greatly about Harry, the young boy for whom Sirius is suppost to be responsible. A boy whose future Sirius is suppost to guard and insure. In those dark melancholy times, I can very easily see Sirius hand writing a Will naming Harry as the beneficiary of both the Black Family Estate and of Sirius's personal estate. Unfortunatly, Sirius is not really in a position where he can call in a lawyer and make sure the Will is properly documented and placed on file. So, the best he could do is hand write it and have some of the other Order members witness his signature by adding their own. Sticky business that. Order members, by signing, would be admitting that they were consorting with the most wanted criminal in the wizard world. Oh yes, very sticky indeed. Therefore, that handwritten will could never be presented until Sirius's name was cleared. Even then, it would not look good for those who witnessed the Will. Although, I think the witnesses would escape any prosecution, it just generally wouldn't look too good, once it was known that they we actively engaged in hiding a wanted man from the Ministry. So, first and foremost, the Order must hide Sirius's death until they can gather all the resouces necessary to make revealing his death work to their advantage. The first thing necessary would be to clear his name. Once his name is clear, the handwritten Will can be revealed. That then opens the door for people like the Malfoys to contest the handwritten will. I think, there will be one surprise witness that will swing the resolution in favor of Harry, and I think that witness will be none other than ....sound the trumpets.... Phineas Nigellus, or at least the portrait of Phineas. I suspect that he and Sirius had many conversation while Black was hiding out at Grimmauld Place, and Phineas may have even witnesses the Order members co-signing the handwritten Will. Score one for Harry. Although, I think Harry may inherit Sirius's personal estate with relative ease, it will be the Black Family Estate that causes the big stink. So, in conclusion, it is not so much the legality of a murder's Will, as it is establishing Sirius's credibility before his Will can be presented. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Mon Feb 14 22:43:39 2005 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:43:39 -0000 Subject: Privet Drive alternatives - any ideas? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124559 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com: Alla - Message 124552 > If we are to play alternatives list, I LOVE the option of sweeping > Harry away to another country. Surely, Dumbledore has plenty of > acquiantances around the world, who could take Harry in. ~snip~ > He IS after all the only one whom Voldie fears. I think it is > possible that he could have protected Harry just as strongly as >blood protection does. "K": But other aquaintances and Dumbledore don't offer the best protection for Harry. Both of these issues are addressed by Dumbledore. _____________________________________________________________________ ~You had suffered. I knew you would when I left you on your aunt and uncle's doortstep. I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and difficult years." He paused. Harry said nothing. "You might ask -- and with good reason -- why it had to be so. ***Why could some Wizarding family not have taken you in?*** Many would have done so more than gladly, would have been honored and delighted to raise you as a son. "My answer is that ***my priority was to keep you alive.*** You were in more danger than perhaps anyone but myself realized. Voldemort had been vanquished hours before, but his supporters -- and many of them are almost as terrible as he -- were still at large, angry, desperate, and violent. And I had to make my decision too ***with regard to the years ahead.*** Did I believe that Voldemort was gone forever? No. I knew not whether it would be ten, twenty, or fifty years before he returned, but I was sure he would do so, and I was sure too, knowing him as I have done, that ***he would not rest until he killed you.*** "I knew that ***Voldemort's knowledge of magic is perhaps more extensive than any wizard alive.*** I knew that ***even my most complex and powerful protective spells and charms were unlikly to be invincible if he ever returned to full power.*** "But I knew too ***where Voldemort was weak.*** And so I made my decision. You would be protected by an ancient magic of which he knows, which he despises, and which ***he has always, therefore, underestimated*** -- to his cost. I am speaking, of course, of the fact that your mother died to save you. She gave you a ***lingering protection he never expected,*** a protection that flows in your veins to this day. I put my trust, therefore, in your mother's blood. I delivered you to her sister, her only remaining relative." ~snip~ "Your mother's sacrifice made the bond of blood ***the strongest shield I could give you."*** "I still don't --" "While you can still call home the place where your mother's blood dwells, ***there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort.*** He shed her blood, but it lives on in your and her sisters. Her blood became ***your refuge.*** You need return there only once a year, but as long as you can still call it home, ***there he cannot hurt you.*** oop-ch 37-pgs 835-836-us ***my emphasis*** _____________________________________________________________________ Does JKR not answer this question? ~"You might ask -- and with good reason -- why it had to be so." It's all in the book. The problem isn't that she didn't answer it but that it's not the answer some people want. Well, let me also say we don't know all there is to know just yet but for now we are told why Harry had to be left with Petunia. Alla: > See, I cannot stop thinking that nowhere in the books Dumbledore >says that blood protection was THE ONLY option available to him, >just the one "he put his trust in". "K": It wasn't the only option but according to Dumbledore it was the best. Isn't that what we all want for Harry? The best? You know, I believe we are just suppose to know that Harry was left with an abusive family but yet because of the special person he is (his love, not being the prophecy boy) he has survived. He has made better choices than Tom Riddle ever did. He has made better choices than Petunia and Vernon. He is a great kid. IMO, to dwell constantly on how terrible Dumbledore is takes our eyes off of the true evil in the books, which is Voldemort and his DE's and what they stand for. "K" From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 22:54:14 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:54:14 -0000 Subject: Privet Drive alternatives - any ideas? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124560 Koinonia: You know, I believe we are just suppose to know that Harry was left with an abusive family but yet because of the special person he is (his love, not being the prophecy boy) he has survived. He has made better choices than Tom Riddle ever did. He has made better choices than Petunia and Vernon. He is a great kid. IMO, to dwell constantly on how terrible Dumbledore is takes our eyes off of the true evil in the books, which is Voldemort and his DE's and what they stand for. Alla: Of course Voldemort and his DE are true evil and no, Dumbledore is not an evil in my book, he just exhibited a lot of completely idotic behaviour ( that is just my opinion of course) AND ( even if this was the only option) he left Harry with people who in their own right are also evil ( with Voldemort surely being more grand evil and Dursleys being more everyday evil so to speak). So, to make a long story short, I don't think that by considering Dursleys being evil, I will forget about evil deeds of Voldie and Co. :o) Oh, and believe it or not, I truly hope that Dumbledore learned from his mistakes and his behaviour towards Harry will change. The only problem is that I sort of agree with Neri - JKR set up the stage for Harry not trusting ANY adult in HBP ( it may very well change at the end of the book or not) so, Dumbledore's change of behaviour could be too late to stop another disaster ( which one, I have no clue) I am just speculating of course. Alla From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 22:59:59 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:59:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Aurors and Unforgiveable Curses - Helplessness In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050214225959.34502.qmail@web31111.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124561 Why is AK so unforgivable? We know that four stunners nearly killed McG. And I'm sure that a simple well placed severing charm on the neck would kill in under a minute. Personally I would rather go with a nice quick AK than any other "purely magical" way of death, and most muggle ways too. And is there anyone here who would rather go to Azkaban, than have a nice quick painless death and then move on to whatever he/she believes happens after death? --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 23:21:55 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 23:21:55 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Sympathetic. And Dead, Too. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124562 >>Renee: >But how many of those others have a Tom Felton induced crush on Draco and are reading things into the text?< Betsy: None of the folk I've read. They generally don't refer to the movies at all (and usually not favorably when they do). I'm sure Tom Felton has his screaming hoards, but I imagine (hope?) they belong to a much younger set. :) >>Betsy: >And I've read essays that deal specifically with the language JKR uses to either set someone up as a hero, set someone up as disgusting, or set someone up sympathetically.< >>Renee: >Now this is interesting, regardless of the Draco question. Could you give me some links?< Betsy: Ooh. I um, flit about the internet like a madwoman, and I can't remember where exactly I read those particular essays. I can give you some links... http://elkins.theennead.com/hp/ This is a receptacle of many of Elkins' posts - much easier to navigate than yahoo!mort. http://www.livejournal.com/community/hp_essays/ Has tons of stuff - some of it pure meta. http://www.livejournal.com/community/daily_snitch/ Gives a daily digest of various HP related posts. Sometimes they link to some really interesting analytical essays. Also, seeing that statement all alone like that... I fear it looks like I'm saying I'm this big expert and none should dare question me, and I really, really didn't mean it that way. I was just trying to say that there are others who've dug into the text and come to similar conclusions. >>Renee: >That a character isn't set up as disgusting doesn't automatically mean (s)he's set up sympathetically. There's a wide range of possibilities in between. I don't think any of the kids in the HP series are described in ways that qualify as disgusting...< Betsy: Actually, that mystery essay I refered to (I really need to try and find that thing) talked a lot about Ron and how JKR worked to make sure he didn't come across heroically. e.g. After the spider fun, Ron pukes in the pumpkin patch, and after trying to defend Hermione's honor by cursing Draco, he ends up puking slugs (all in CoS). I think they also mentioned some scenes where others get to be pale with fear or horror, but Ron is described as green. I think the essay was dated a while ago, so Ron's treatment may well have changed. But it does point to JKR using her language in a specific manner. I believe that same essay pointed to how Draco flushes pink, and that there are other generally feminine descriptors used for him. Which adds an interesting element to the Draco character analysis. >>Renee: >And nothing about Draco's lack of repulsiveness takes away the fact that ultimately, he's the cause of his own distress. This fact effectively suppresses any tendencies I might have to comfort him.< Betsy: I think Northandsouth pointed out that Draco's paybacks always seem to go *way* above and beyond any wrong he has done. And I do mean *always*. Draco doesn't just lose - he gets smashed. Which is what kicks in my sympathy drive. >>Renee: >Also, if I were Draco, I wouldn't throw tantrums after just having been defeated by hippogriffs, fellow students or DADA-teachers. I'd try not to draw further attention and keep quiet for a while. That would be in my best interest, and a very Slytherin thing to do.< Betsy: Yes, but I don't see Draco as being that calculating. Draco is such an emotional character, and I'm talking about his *immediate* reactions, so I think it'd almost be more in his nature to naturally show-out. And when the offense is relatively small, Draco does usually whine and complain. It's when he really gets a smackdown (which happens oh so often) that he tends to suck it up. >>Betsy: >Couldn't you say that his fate has been predetermined by his parents? The hat barely touches Draco's head before he's whisked away to Slytherin.< >>Renee: >Well, I recall a scion from a family of Dark Wizards whose fate was not preterdetermined by his parents and who did not end up in Slytherin House. I don't think I need to mention his name.< Betsy: Draco is not Sirius. And as I said, the hat barely touched his head, so there was no discussion of various choices. I imagine Sirius sat with the hat on for a while, unless of course he was such a rebellious little eleven year old he was thinking, anywhere but Slytherin - which we don't know. Draco has definitely been taking the easy path, but I wonder, if Draco had been born a Weasley, do you think he'd have gone to Gryffindor like all his brothers? Or would he have argued for Slytherin? I tend to think his decisions are strongly based on family loyalty, which means he'd do as Weasley's do, just as he's doing as Malfoy's do now. >> Renee: >I'd say he blew it by behaving like Dudley Dursley and trying to put down a boy he considered inferior. That's not social awkwardness.< Betsy: When did he behave like Dudley? I don't remember seeing that. And putting down a boy... Are you talking about Ron on the train to Hogwarts, when Draco struck out at a boy who laughed at his name? And Draco, after slamming Ron, still thought he'd have a chance at Harry, which to my mind shows a lack of social astuteness. Which makes sense, as I imagine he was home schooled, and probably only played with children indebted to his father. I doubt he'd ever had to attract a friend before. >>Renee: >As far as I'm concerned, she hasn't done that bad a job setting him up as a (future) villain in OotP. By becoming a member of the Inquisitorial Squad Draco joins the one who is in power and loves to show it: Dolores Umbridge.< Betsy: Yes, but he was so pathetic in this role. Once again he barely touches Harry. He takes away point for silly reasons, but by this time the point system has been so knocked out of wack, no one cares. He helps catch Harry and other members of the DA, but Dumbledore totally undercuts that effort (handled by Umbridge and Fudge, Draco's a mere goon). And even in the final IS - DA show down, Draco can't keep it together enough to hold his leader's trust. Even if Draco does become a Death Eater, I think he'll be a rather pathetic one and will die fairly quick into it. Which doesn't make for a bang out villian. It makes for a rather pathetic (or tragic, if your sympathies lie in that direction) fool. >>Renee: >Sorry, but I really don't see his reaction as dignified. It can't be, because he's already lost his dignity beforehand by starting the quarrel. I think the word that applies here would be subdued, not dignified. Again, it's a matter of interpretation, not something that immediately jumps out at everyone who reads the text.< Betsy: I agree that not everyone sees Draco in a similar light. But the fact that there is such contention (not on this list perhaps, but within the fandom ) over his character suggests that JKR is writing some contradictory messages into the text. No one feels much sympathy for Umbridge. Very few cry out that Peter Pettigrew isn't that bad, really. But Draco has his supporters, or at least his sympathizers. And there are textual examples they (or we) can point to and say, "See? See how he's badly treated here? See how he handles it well there?" If JKR really wanted Draco to be an out and out baddy, she could have him win a few so that we really hiss when he walks on stage. She could have *Draco* do the unfair take down, instead of it being Harry and his masses *always* piling on Draco. She can do smooth tongued villiany. Lucius is a prime example of attractive yet unabashed evil. Draco does not come across in a similar manner. I honestly don't know why JKR is writing him in this way. I don't know how Draco's story will end. But I'm sure there'll be a twist. Betsy From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Tue Feb 15 00:08:24 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:08:24 +1100 Subject: Stockholm Syndrome - was No sympathy for Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124563 Further to my post of yesterday where I suggested Kreacher might have something like Stockholm Syndrome, here are two excerpts from info I found at: http://web2.iadfw.net/ktrig246/out_of_cave/sss.html and http://www.geocities.com/kidhistory/trauma/stockhol.htm ********* beginning of excerpt #1 ********** The term, Stockholm Syndrome, was coined in the early 70's to describe the puzzling reactions of four bank employees to their captor. On August 23, 1973, three women and one man were taken hostage in one of the largest banks in Stockholm. They were held for six days by two ex-convicts who threatened their lives but also showed them kindness. To the world's surprise, all of the hostages strongly resisted the government's efforts to rescue them and were quite eager to defend their captors. Indeed, several months after the hostages were saved by the police, they still had warm feelings for the men who threatened their lives. Two of the women eventually got engaged to the captors. The Stockholm incident compelled journalists and social scientists to research whether the emotional bonding between captors and captives was a "freak" incident or a common occurrence in oppressive situations. They discovered that it's such a common phenomenon that it deserves a name. Thus the label, Stockholm Syndrome, was born. It has happened to concentration camp prisoners, cult members, civilians in Chinese Communist prisons, pimp-procured prostitutes, incest victims, physically and/or emotionally abused children, battered women, prisoners of war, victims of hijackings, and of course, hostages. Virtually anyone can get Stockholm Syndrome if the following conditions are met: - Perceived threat to survival and the belief that one's captor is willing to act on that threat - The captive's perception of small kindnesses from the captor within a context of terror - Isolation from perspectives other than those of the captor - Perceived inability to escape. Stockholm Syndrome is a survival mechanism. The men and women who get it are not lunatics. They are fighting for their lives. They deserve compassion, not ridicule. ********* end of excerpt #1 ********** ********* beginning of excerpt #2 ********** Psychodynamics' Underlying Stockholm Syndrome An abuser traumatizes a victim (who does not believe they can escape, or truly can not) with a threat to the victim's survival. The traumatized victim, who perceives isolation from outsiders; who could provide nurturance and protection, must look to the abuser to meet those needs. If the abuser shows the victim some small kindness, the victim then must bond to the perceived positive side of the abuser, denying (or dissociating) the side of the abuser that produced the terror. The victim begins to work to see the world from the abuser's perspective so that they may know what keeps the abuser happy, thus helping to insure the victim's survival. As a result the victim becomes hypervigilant to the abuser's needs and unaware of their own. The victim comes to see the world from the perspective of the abuser, losing touch with their own perspective, which is unimportant or even counter-productive to their survival. With the denial of the violent side of the abuser, comes denial of the danger. It becomes progressively harder to separate from the abuser due to the fear of losing the only positive relationship identity that remains -- her/ himself as seen through the abuser's eyes (which in the case of the adult victim has replaced any previous sense of self, for a child this may be, and often is, the only sense of self known). ********* end of excerpt #2 ********** I hope you find this as interesting and relevant to Kreacher's enslavement as I did! Jocelyn From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Feb 15 00:32:20 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 00:32:20 -0000 Subject: mixed marriages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124564 > Sandy, > Yes, but what Ron says is "if we [wizards] hadn't married muggles > we'd have died out." Ron is dividing the world into 2 camps -- > muggles and wizards. snip > I read it as Ron saying that, at least at some point in the history of wizardry, marriage between magical and non-magical people was quite common. Potioncat: In SS/PS (I think) JKR has Neville saying that his family thought he was all Muggle. Even if he had been a Squib, he wouldn't have been a Muggle. My guess is that it was the clearest way to handle it at the time. I think JKR has Ron saying Muggle here, to mean Muggles, Part- Muggles and Muggleborn. Keep in mind, a few things, it is the first time she's introduced the bigotry of the WW (except for the question Draco asks in Madam Malkins). And it would be difficult to go into a lecture about Pureblood, Halfblood, etc. Ron expresses an acceptance of mixed marriages, yet his parents are Purebloods. If the Weasley/Prewets have married Muggles or Muggle-born, it was a long time ago. Now, how do the partners in these mixed marriages meet? I would think the most likely way is that a Muggleborn wizard/witch marries someone from the old hometown. The wizard is familiar with the Muggle world and has been "covering" for years. Or, a Muggleborn wizard has more reason to frequent Muggle locations and may meet a Muggle that way. Why anyone would wait until after marriage to reveal certain facts is beyond me. JKR said, although I'm not sure I understood her, that Magic children might attend Muggle schools before coming to Hogwarts. That would mean in some cases, Magic families have contact with Muggle neighbors. It also fits one of the advertisements on her site, a warning system that "hides" magic items when the Muggles pay a call. (I haven't been on the site for a while, does anyone else remember this?) I also recall something about a department that goes into magic homes when they revert to muggle status. That must mean that some magic families live in Muggle neighborhoods and have some interaction. While other families never see a muggle. As for Tom Riddle and his witch wife, I always thought she was a girl from the villiage who had kept her magical abilities a secret. I know, it doesn't fit with the idea of her being Pureblood, but it's also hard to know what a Pureblood witch would "see" in Tom Riddle, Sr. Potioncat From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 01:01:23 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:01:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Validity of Sirius' Will In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050215010123.15527.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124565 --- Steve wrote: > So, in conclusion, it is not so much the legality of a murder's > Will,as it is establishing Sirius's credibility before his Will > can be presented. Actually, before anyone can claim the property, they'd have to prove that Sirius was dead. No body, no evidence of death. One of the things I'm interested in seeing in HBP is how Dumbledore handles this issue: does keeping the myth of fugitive-Sirius-on-the-run allow them to continue using 12GP as an HQ? Or would there be some reason why Sirius' death should be acknowledged publicly? Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 01:41:28 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:41:28 -0000 Subject: Stockholm Syndrome - was No sympathy for Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124566 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jocelyn Grunow wrote: > Further to my post of yesterday where I suggested Kreacher might have something like Stockholm Syndrome, here are two excerpts from info I found at: > http://web2.iadfw.net/ktrig246/out_of_cave/sss.html and > http://www.geocities.com/kidhistory/trauma/stockhol.htm Tonks now: Thank you Jocelyn for the post on the Stockholm Syndrome. If anyone want to study this more, the idea is based on something called "object relations theory". It is a theory about personality development. When an abused child is developing an internalized sense of self they take a representation of the abuser into themselves. It helps them to survive. This is why a child in an abusive home often grows up to be an abuser themselves, because the abuser that abused them is now inside of them and continuing to abuse. This, by the way, is one of the reasons that I have compassion on Snape. In a loving home with what is called "good enough mothering", the child takes a representation of their good parent into themselves and grows up to be a relatively health person. Harry would have done this to some extent while living with his parents before they were killed. This is why he can *self nurture* in the environment of the Dursleys. The time frame for his personality to develop would have extended to the time that he was at the Dursleys, but he does not appear to have been damaged by his contact with them. This has lead many of us to wonder how it is that Harry is so good. That he had his parents for 15 months was an important start. But still, his deep *goodness* it is quite remarkable given the rest of his early childhood experience. There is just *something about Harry* that defies the know theories on early childhood development. Harry must have been very, very special from the beginning of his life. I think that Harry is Love incarnate and that is why he has survived so very well in an otherwise unloving environment. Of course, one could make a case for his *saving people thing* to be the result of the early trauma of loosing his parents and an attempt to undo this loss, but I am not going to go there. As to Kreacher, he is the result of his environment and upbringing in addition to the fact (as I have said before) that he is not free. He is bound to serve the Black family. And to survive in that family he must share their values. He is not *free* to do anything else. He is a slave, born to slaves. I don't blame him for Sirius's death. I don't hold him to the same standard that I do a human being with free will. Tonks From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 02:18:48 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 02:18:48 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124567 >>Nora: >-Nora marks Betsy down for a 'Draco will end up on the good side', and Renee as a 'No he won't'; any other takers?< Betsy: I had a problem being marked down as this when you first put it up, Nora, but I couldn't figure out why. Then Northsouth (who I referred to as Northandsouth in another post, my apologies) wrote this: >Ok, my theory: Draco isn't about Draco at all, that's why he's such a shallow, yet sympathetic charecter - he's about Lucius. >Draco is a dismal failure at showcasing that greyness, so it's going to have to be some other character - and yet Draco has been set up as sympathetic for some reason, so he is going to involved somehow...< Betsy: And that helped me formulate some ideas. I don't think Draco will affect his father. I think Lucius has been so perverted through his association with (or worship of) Voldemort, that he'd cut out Draco's heart and eat it if Voldemort asked him to. I also don't think Draco's fall into Death Eaterdom would really affect the Trio. They think he's a nasty, evil, little thing, so they would not be surprised by his joining the Death Eaters, and I doubt they'd be much moved at his death. (And I do think that Draco would be a dismal failure as a Death Eater. He can't even be a proper school bully.) However, perhaps Draco's fall and/or death would affect the much discussed, "good Slytherin." Maybe Blaise Zabini will be so horrified by what happens to Draco (because he was an alright guy to his housemates, good for a few laughs, decent Seeker, shared out his sweets from home, etc., etc., etc.,) that he comes over to Harry's side. (Or it could be Pansy - JKR could throw in another girl.) So you've got Draco in a new light for the Trio (maybe some hints of "we could have behaved better towards him" guilt), and he serves as an object lesson for the other Slytherins. It's a rather pathetic end for Draco, and I *hope* nothing like that will come to pass. I'd like to see him grow up and out from his father's shadow. But I agree that there's not much forshadowing for that particular scenario. Which makes me sad. I hope to be pleasantly surprised, but if wishes were horses... So I think you'll have to move me over, with great reluctance, to the Draco comes to a sticky end, column. Betsy, who would totally sign a "save Draco!" petition if there was one and it would do any good. From catportkey at aol.com Tue Feb 15 02:42:04 2005 From: catportkey at aol.com (catportkey at aol.com) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:42:04 EST Subject: Sirius clueless? Message-ID: <80.216481a0.2f42bb7c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124568 In GoF, I don't understand how Sirius would not know what Karkaroof was showing Snape (pages 531-532). If Sirius was battling Death Eaters, surely he or his other fighters would have noticed the mark on the Death Eaters' arms, OR when the Death Eaters were put in Azkaban, the authorities must write down more than name and address. Any place of incarceration writes down all body making for possible identification. V was not vaporized when some of his followers were arrested. Didn't anyone notice the arm markings? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catportkey at aol.com Tue Feb 15 02:57:17 2005 From: catportkey at aol.com (catportkey at aol.com) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:57:17 EST Subject: Stockholm Syndrome - was No sympathy for Kreacher Message-ID: <46.631e3f23.2f42bf0d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124569 I have met several people who were abused and refused to follow the abusive pattern to such as extent that they devoted their lives to helping the helpless. In cases of children from alcoholic parents (whether abused or not), many have said to themselves that the only way out of this "hell hole" is to be smart. They would obtain excellent grades (for possible education grants) and/or work to earn money for college so that "I will never have to see my parents again and can live my own life." At age 18, they drop their family and create a new life. Harry can have the same kind of determination to simply survive. He was lucky that Hogwarts became his new family, otherwise he would have had to survive the best he could with the Dursleys until age 18 --- then he would fly the coop and create a new life for himself. Pook [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From darkthirty at shaw.ca Tue Feb 15 03:00:12 2005 From: darkthirty at shaw.ca (Dan Feeney) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 03:00:12 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty-Eight - The Second War Begins Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124570 This chapter opens up with all 6 DA veterans of the Battle of the DoM in the hospital wing. Hermione, occasionally wincing in pain from Dolohov's silent curse, reads aloud a front page article about the return of Voldemort from the Sunday Prophet. In the article, Cornelius Fudge admits that "Lord - Thingy" has returned to the country and is once more active. There has been a mass revolt of Azkaban Dementors, who are apparently under the control of Thingy. Dumbledore has been reinstated as Headmaster of Hogwarts, and the Boy Who Lived is referred to as "a lone voice of truth." There are a number of other articles in the paper about Voldemort (still usually referred to as You-Know- Who) in the past, the Ministry, Albus Dumbledore, and a reprint of The Quibbler article, which Luna's father sold to the Prophet for a sum that will allow them to go to Sweden to seek a Crumple-Horned Snorkack. Ron is recovering from the attack in the Brain Room (Madame Pomfrey: "thoughts could leave deeper scarring than almost anything else") with the help of Dr Ubbly's Oblivious Unction. Neville's nose and Ginny's ankle have been fixed. Hermione, however, has to take 10 different potions. We learn that Fred and George's joke shop must be doing well (they sent a pile of chocolate frogs), and that Flitwick left a tiny patch of their swamp under the window and roped it off ("it was a really good bit of magic"). Umbridge is in the bed across from Hermione. Dumbledore apparently rescued her from the centaurs "without so much as a scratch." Ron makes a clip-clopping noise and startles her. From this the conversation turns to Firenze (who is staying on, apparently, with Trewlawney as well) and Divination. Hermione challenges Ron regarding "real prophecies", and when the subject turns to the broken orb, Harry, not ready to tell anyone about the prophecy as related to him in Dumbledore's pensieve, decides it's time to visit Hagrid. On his way to the cabin, Potter runs into Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle. While Draco threatens, angry at the imprisonment of his father, Harry taunts them. When wands are drawn, Snape accosts Potter and wants to deduct 10 points from Gryffindor, but there are no points left to deduct, until McGonagall arrives from St. Mungo's, and awards 50 points to the 6 veterans of the Battle of the DoM, "for alerting the world to the return of You-Know-Who." Harry leaves the school, again noticing the students out enjoying the end of their exams, and as some call out hello to him, he can't decide whether or not he wants to be around people. Hagrid, picking runner beans, spots Harry and almost immediately mentions Sirius ("Bin hidin' out in the mountains,' said Hagrid. `Up in a cave, like Sirius did when he...") Hagrid wants to find a lady friend for Grawp, and Harry can't get up the energy to argue the point. When Hagrid tries to console Harry, Harry tells him he's got to go see Ron and Hermione. Harry sits by the lake, reflecting on his status as a marked man, his grief over Sirius' death, and his separation from the rest of the students. ("An invisible barrier separated him from the rest of the world.") Ron and Hermione leave the infirmary, completely cured. Harry still avoids any talk about Sirius. Professor Umbridge is detected trying to sneak out of the school, and Peeves chases her out with a walking stick (McGonagall's) and a bag of chalk. Avoiding the Leaving Feast, worried Dumbledore would mention him, Harry finds the square mirror Sirius gave him at twelve Grimmauld Place in his trunk. He says Sirius' name into the mirror twice, but sees only himself reflected back. The mirror breaks when he tosses it back into the trunk. The idea strikes him to talk to a familiar ghost, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, who is on his way to the feast, and has apparently been expecting Harry to accost him. "He won't come back," says Nick. "He will have... gone on." Nick tells Harry ghosts are neither here nor there, have only a feeble imitation of life, walking palely where their living selves once trod. Nick says learned wizards study the matter in the Department of Mysteries. In the corridor by the Gryffindor rooms Harry comes across Luna Lovegood posting pleas on the wall for the return of her possessions that people have hidden. He feels pity for her and offers to help her find them. "They'll come back, they always do in the end," she says. Harry finds he can talk to Luna about Sirius, and we learn that Luna's mother died when she was nine. Luna believes people will see their loved ones again even if they have died, and reminds Harry of the voices behind the veil in the room with the archway. This encounter seems to lessen the terrible weight in Harry's stomach slightly. On the Hogwarts Express Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle are mutli-cursed by DA members when they ambush Harry. Neville's Mimbulus Mimbletonia is much bigger. Harry plays wizard chess and Hermione reads bits of the Prophet. There are articles about how to repel dementors, sightings of Voldemort and so forth. "It hasn't really started yet. But it won't be long now..." says Hermione. They spot Cho and Harry confesses he feels nothing - that was another universe ("the one with Sirius in it"). Cho is dating Michael Corner, Ginny's former boyfriend. Ginny has chosen Dean Thomas as her new boyfriend, and Ron, who had "cast a furtive glance" at Harry when telling Ginny she should choose better boyfriends, reacts demonstratively. At the station, along with Hermione's parents, a group of Order members are awaiting their arrival, and Fred and George are there too, wearing dragonskin jackets. Mr. Weasley and Mrs. Weasley, Tonks, Lupin and Moody greet the Dursleys when they come to pick up Harry, and tell them they'll "have us to answer to" if they learn Harry is mistreated in any way. Ron and Hermione promise to see Harry soon, and Harry, who "could not find words to tell them what it meant to him, to see them all ranged there, on his side..." leads the Dursleys out of the station. Discussion Questions for OotP Chapter 38 - The Second War Begins 1 - This denouement has some extravagance - the idea of a partner for Grawp, the departure of Umbridge, the attack on the Hogwarts express, the encounter with the Dursleys at the station. Did any of these events bother you, or pose questions for you, make you think of related incidents or have ethical concerns? 2 - There are a couple versions of "afterlife" presented here - Nick's and Luna's. What is the difference - or rather, if one version is consternating and the other comforting, what is Rowling getting at? 3 - In this chapter, the inner isolation of Harry is emphasized, even with the DA helping Harry, the public acknowledgement of Voldemort's return, and peer recognition at school. Is this development integral to Harry as hero, as the one who must defeat Voldemort? Other Notes for Discussion 1 - Luna doesn't appear on the Hogwarts Express. 2 - Weasley's Wizarding Wheezes seems to be doing well. 3 - Ron offers chocolate frogs to Neville, Ginny and Harry, not Hermione or Luna. 4 - The dementors are now under Voldemort's control. 5 - How will divination class be structured, with Firenze and Trewlawney both instructing? 6 - Is there a downside to the Prophet being 180 degrees from it's previous position regarding Harry's mental state and the presence of Lord Voldemort? Dan NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/67817 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/85829 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/116919 "OotP Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Tue Feb 15 03:01:12 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 03:01:12 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What did DD intend to say to Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124571 xcpublishing at yahoo.com suggests: *large snip* >There are still >plenty of questions DD hasn't answered for Harry, chiefly, why Snape >should be trusted. Although I completely agree that Harry should now be in the Order's information loop (and possibly so should Ron and Hermione, who are the most likely to take collateral damage if and when Harry is attacked at Hogwarts), I also think that sometimes Harry will have to learn the meaning of the phrase "None of your business." The origin of the trust between Dumbledore and Snape is clearly something very private and confidential. It's also clearly mutual; Snape trusts Dumbledore, and I think there is some other reason besides the fact that Dumbledore vouched for him and kept him out of Azkaban although he was a known Death Eater. Whatever the reason is, I believe Dumbledore won't tell Harry (or anyone else). Even before the Pensieve fiasco, such a violation of Snape's privacy and trust would have lessened any hope of Snape and Harry working together in any capacity, and might also have damaged the trust relationship between him and Snape. I don't even want to think about what it would do at this post-Pensieve point. :( (I suspect Harry will find it out at some point, and therefore so will we the readers, but it won't be from Dumbledore.) Janet Anderson From witchypooh67 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 03:06:00 2005 From: witchypooh67 at yahoo.com (witchypooh67) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 03:06:00 -0000 Subject: Sirius clueless? In-Reply-To: <80.216481a0.2f42bb7c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124572 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, catportkey at a... wrote: > In GoF, I don't understand how Sirius would not know what Karkaroof was showing Snape (pages 531-532). Now Kelly: I assumed that as a member of the original OOtP, that Sirius would be aware of the mark and Snape's work as a spy. It wouldn't take much to put two and two together to guess what Karkaroff was showing Snape. JMO Kelly From snow15145 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 03:29:31 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 03:29:31 -0000 Subject: The Dark Mark Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124573 I've been thinking lately of what experiments Voldemort could have used that saved his sorry self. I'm thinking the dark mark could be a fine possibility. Voldemort is connected with every deatheater through the dark mark, when he touches any mark all the deatheaters are summoned, physically feeling scorching pain. The deatheaters acknowledged his bodily existence through the dark marks change in color and appearance before they were ever aware that he was back. "There. The Dark Mark. It is not as clear as it was an hour or so ago, when it burned black [ ] It was a means of distinguishing one another, and his means of summoning us to him. [ ] This mark has been growing clearer all year." GOF pg. 710 (all canon is U.S. version) Could Voldemort be aware of his deatheaters non-allegiance to him via the dark mark and the reason as to why, even though they are not physically present? "And here we have six missing Death Eaters [ ] One, too cowardly to return [ ] One, who I believe has left me forever [ ] and one, who remains my most faithful servant " GOF pg. 651 I suppose you could argue that Voldemort had been informed of these particular deatheaters but what about Regulus or Karkaroff? "Well, you don't just hand in your resignation to Voldemort. It's a lifetime of service or death." OOP pg. 112 Why cant you just hand in resignation or run like the dickens to a far off place the U.S. perhaps. Could it be that Voldemort had a more physical attachment to his deatheaters through the dark mark? Voldemort wouldn't have gone to all the trouble of burning an insignia just for a summoning tool. I like to think of Hermione here when she said she used the same type of charm (Protean Charm OOP pg. 398) on the galleons as Voldemort did with the dark mark but also the contract that unbeknownst to all parties who signed it had an attachment of loyalty. Sounds quite familiar. (That little bitch oops I mean witch what all Does she know about Voldemort's magic and the dark mark) If you think about Hermione's DA contract as a physically binding agreement (i.e. if you don't abide by the contract there are physical consequences) and then apply it to the dark mark I think you'll see my connection. Hermione used a piece of paper with a binding signature as the connection but what if Voldemort used himself as the connection in a way that he is informed through the dark mark of non-allegiance. If you take that connection one step further, could it be possible that it was through this dark mark on his followers that may have kept him alive? Voldemort himself tests the dark mark in the graveyard immediately to make sure it is still activated after his rebirth. "It is back," he said softly. "they will all have noticed it " GOF pg. 645 Ahuh! What comes next is quite interesting: He pressed his long white forefinger to the brand on Wormtail's arm. The scar on Harry's forehead seared with a sharp pain pg. 645 Voldemort was not touching Harry he was touching the scar on Wormtail, so why does Harry's scar sear with pain? At the same time deatheaters everywhere also felt a searing pain in their scar connection? Is the dark mark a scar? I never really thought of the dark mark as a scar but Harry in OOP refers to it as such: "You know what these remind me of?" "No, what's that?" "The Death Eaters' scars. Voldemort touches one of them, and all their scars burn " OOP pg. 399 What do we know about scars? Dumbledore tells McGonagall in the first book "Scars can come in handy." Fudge in GOF claims that he has "never heard of a curse scar acting as an alarm bell before" But we have heard of a scar that acts like an alarm bell before, the dark mark with its searing pain ding-a-ling Voldy calling this is not a test you must apparate instantly or else. Could it be possible that Voldemort was kept alive by the physical bond he shares with his deatheaters through the dark mark? If Voldemort's `being' can be looked at like Hermione's contract, when each deatheater signed the contract by accepting the dark mark they unknowingly accepted all conditions to it. The deatheaters became physically bound to the contract, which in this case is Voldemort. I think this may be why it is a life sentence to be a deatheater; you can never just turn in your resignation. Each deatheater is bonded for life to the contract, which is Voldemort. Voldemort owns their very lives, literally. The only escape for a deatheater is to break the bond when that deatheater dies or is killed. But Voldemort is the opposite of this; he could not die completely as long as he had his follower's lives indebted to him. Voldemort speaks to his deatheaters about this bond. " We are still united under the Dark Mark, then! Or are we?" GOF pg. 647 (The definitions of unite as a transitive verb means to combine qualities or traits and the "Latin past participle stem of unire, literally "to make one," according to the Encarta Dictionary.) To make it a bit clearer, the deatheaters have a bit of Voldy. We do know that Tom Riddle had already used this same type of preservation before by leaving a memory of him in a diary. Voldy again may have used some essence of himself with each deatheater through the insignia of the dark mark. How did Dumbledore know that Voldemort was not completely gone? My answer is Snape's insignia. (Remember Snape traded sides before the downfall of Voldemort) Why did Voldemort expect one of his faithful deatheaters to try and find him, how would any of the deatheaters be expected to know that he was not vanquished? Again the dark mark was an indicator to the deatheater. The scar grew clearer as Voldemort became more corporeal, so when Voldemort became babymort they would have had some indication of this through the dark marks appearance. Snape and Karkaroff were both aware via the dark mark that Voldemort was growing in strength. This to me is an indication that the dark mark is more than just a summoning tool but a clear connection to Voldemort. There could be a definite drawback to this proposal; Voldemort could never be killed as long as any deatheater remains alive. Then again there is always the Harry factor. No one is absolutely certain what part or parts of Voldy were transferred to Harry at Godric's Hollow but there appears to be some connection between Voldemort touching Pettigrew's scar and Harry feeling pain in his at the same time in the graveyard. There is also a hopeful statement from Voldemort to his deatheaters that can be construed as Voldemort being mortal after his rebirth. "But I was willing to embrace mortal life again, before chasing immortality." GOF pg. 656 Voldemort may have lost that particular portion of the dark mark's original connection. The reason he may still be alive is more Harry now than the deatheaters. Voldemort is still alive so why would he have reason to question it beyond that point. I can feel myself heading back to the Satellite!Harry theory so I think I'll stop for now. Snow From MadameSSnape at aol.com Tue Feb 15 03:40:51 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:40:51 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius clueless? Message-ID: <96.210ecdac.2f42c943@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124574 In a message dated 2/14/2005 10:08:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, witchypooh67 at yahoo.com writes: I assumed that as a member of the original OOtP, that Sirius would be aware of the mark and Snape's work as a spy. It wouldn't take much to put two and two together to guess what Karkaroff was showing Snape. ============ Sherrie here: That's assuming that the whole Order knew what Severus was up to. IMHO, they didn't - I am of the school that believes that Severus reported ONLY to Dumbledore, answered only to Dumbledore - and that Dumbledore alone knew his identity as a spy. (IIRC, Sirius didn't even know Snape had been a DE.) Sherrie "Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history." - Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural, 20 March 1861 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Feb 15 03:41:03 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 03:41:03 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124575 Betsy: > It's (Good Slytherin making HRH feel guilty for hating him) a rather pathetic end for Draco, and I *hope* nothing like that will come to pass. I'd like to see him grow up and out from his father's shadow. But I agree that there's not much forshadowing for that particular scenario. Which makes me sad. I hope to be > pleasantly surprised, but if wishes were horses... So I think you'll have to move me over, with great reluctance, to the Draco comes to a sticky end, column. > > Betsy, who would totally sign a "save Draco!" petition if there was one and it would do any good. Valky: Well actually Betsy I hope Nora put it in pencil for you because there just *might* be a foreshadowing of *Draco* as the good slytherin. First, I'll say that I think Draco's family loyalty makes a good statement about his character. I don't consider it an excuse for him, in the bad choices he's made at all. He's judgemental, greedy and bratty. But in those traits is reflected something that undercuts it all. He adores his parents. There is nothing poor or innately evil about loving the people that raised you. Dracos loyalty to them finally forcibly revealed at the end of OOtP is a quality that may have made him a Hufflepuff. So tragic *fool*, too says a little more than it first seems, doesn't it. He really values his loyalty, but it is to Slytherin people. A conflict in him a hurt/comfort scenario, no? Blind loyalty is not exclusively Draco territory either. There is another.... (lol) Another character for whom this *good* quality is of high regard. The one I think will truly, eventually be Draco's opposite number. In PS/SS Harry and Draco are pitted against each other. It works as a book scenario but in the scope of the series *who* is the "biggest"(lol) issue between Harry and Draco? If you haven't guessed Hagrid yet then I don't know what books you've been reading ;D. Hagrid is the one the one character that has conclusively chosen to believe that there are NO *good* slytherins. And Draco, has been the one who consistently, through his only *good* trait, (loyalty to his father) been a thorn in Hagrids side. Ohh beautiful Irony... :D I never thought I'd be writing a redeemed Draco post.. So how do I think Draco will be redeemed then? Gosh I don't know, I just thought I'd bring the foreshadowing to the table. :-\ What I can say is that I think it will be Hagrid who finally recognises Draco as the *good* slytherin, or that he will *have to* at some point because it is Hagrids failing working innately in Harry that prevents Draco from being saved instead of smashed down all the time. Perhaps it's got to do with Grawp. Anyone else got an Idea? Valky From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 04:01:24 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 04:01:24 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124576 >Valky wrote: Well actually Betsy I hope Nora put it in pencil for you because there just *might* be a foreshadowing of *Draco* as the good slytherin. First, I'll say that I think Draco's family loyalty makes a good statement about his character. I don't consider it an excuse for him, in the bad choices he's made at all. He's judgemental, greedy and bratty. But in those traits is reflected something that undercuts it all. He adores his parents. There is nothing poor or innately evil about loving the people that raised you. Dracos loyalty to them finally forcibly revealed at the end of OOtP is a quality that may have made him a Hufflepuff. So tragic *fool*, too says a little more than it first seems, doesn't it. vmonte responds: You think he'll turn out good in the end? I don't. In fact, I see his fate more along the lines of Regulus Black. If he lives at the end of the series it's going to be because Harry will have to save him. Vivian From juli17 at aol.com Tue Feb 15 04:02:53 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 23:02:53 EST Subject: Privet Drive alternatives - any ideas? Message-ID: <27.6bdd88fb.2f42ce6d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124577 Becky wrote: > Anyway, I've gone off on a tangent. I just wanted to show the lack > of alternative, and ask what other people thought. Where would you > have him grow up instead? > > Becky (Sorry that list is so long. It took much more space than I > first thought.) > But...but...but...You forgot about Snape! Oh, right, he's teaching at Hogwarts, so despite his obvious if well-disguised fondness for Harry, he's probably not a viable option. Oh, well... Seriously, I don't see a good alternative, if Harry's life depends on the blood protection provided by his mother. Even if DD had hidden Harry away somewhere, who's to say Voldy or one of his DE cronies couldn't have found him? DD would have always had to worry about Harry's safety, wonder if Voldy (whoever or whatever he'd become) would find some way to get to Harry. Harry's safety is a certainty at Privet Drive, nowhere else. I don't think DD had much of a choice. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Feb 15 04:15:57 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 04:15:57 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124578 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > > >Valky wrote: > Well actually Betsy I hope Nora put it in pencil for you because > there just *might* be a foreshadowing of *Draco* as the good > slytherin. > > First, I'll say that I think Draco's family loyalty makes a good > statement about his character. I don't consider it an excuse for > him, in the bad choices he's made at all. He's judgemental, greedy > and bratty. But in those traits is reflected something that > undercuts it all. He adores his parents. > > There is nothing poor or innately evil about loving the people that > raised you. Dracos loyalty to them finally forcibly revealed at the > end of OOtP is a quality that may have made him a Hufflepuff. So > tragic *fool*, too says a little more than it first seems, doesn't > it. > > vmonte responds: > You think he'll turn out good in the end? I don't. In fact, I see his fate more along the lines of Regulus Black. If he lives at the end of the series it's going to be because Harry will have to save him. > > Vivian Valky: Well yeah actually, I do believe in the end he will probably not be *good* so much but actually balanced. It will involve him accepting the inner Hufflepuff of Draco Malfoy, which would be a natural consequence of maturity. It will involve Hagrid showing *loyalty* in a way that makes Draco somewhere deeply question his fear of being a "Hufflepuff-like idiot" - A Neville. It will involve Harry leading Ron (especially), Hermione and the DA into forgiving Draco's past and accepting his alliance in the future. It may or may not involve his death, but in any case he *will* be redeemed before he dies, and not after. So yeah, things have changed here in my head, and I really do think that Draco will be redeemed. Valky (who is not sure how Betsy managed to make her see it this way.) From bob.oliver at cox.net Tue Feb 15 05:37:24 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:37:24 -0000 Subject: Privet Drive alternatives - any ideas? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124579 > > > Alla: > > Of course Voldemort and his DE are true evil and no, Dumbledore is > not an evil in my book, he just exhibited a lot of completely idotic > behaviour ( that is just my opinion of course) AND ( even if this was > the only option) he left Harry with people who in their own right are > also evil ( with Voldemort surely being more grand evil and Dursleys > being more everyday evil so to speak). > > So, to make a long story short, I don't think that by considering > Dursleys being evil, I will forget about evil deeds of Voldie and > Co. :o) > > Oh, and believe it or not, I truly hope that Dumbledore learned from > his mistakes and his behaviour towards Harry will change. The only > problem is that I sort of agree with Neri - JKR set up the stage for > Harry not trusting ANY adult in HBP ( it may very well change at the > end of the book or not) so, Dumbledore's change of behaviour could be > too late to stop another disaster ( which one, I have no clue) > > I am just speculating of course. > > Alla And very importantly, Dumbledore has come nowhere near expressing appropriate sorrow and remorse for what Harry had to go through at the Dursleys. Instead he coldly cuts Harry off when Harry tries to protest that Petunia doesn't love him and generally acts in his explanation as if he has nothing whatsoever to express sorrow about. That is what is truly reprehensible about DD's explanation, IMO. Lupinlore From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Tue Feb 15 06:16:51 2005 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:16:51 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore has plenty of heart (was; Re: Dumbledore the Counselor) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <07823732.20050214221651@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124580 Monday, February 14, 2005, 2:03:15 PM, koinonia02 wrote: k> "I never dreamed that I would have such a person on my hands." k> (Dumbledore) k> Dumbledore loves Harry in a very special way. Just how I've always k> read this part. :-) This is how I've interpreted it too -- Indeed, I've wondered if we can infer from it that Dumbledore has no family (i.e. wife, kids) of his own, no one that he would love more than the "greater good". I'm bothered by the fact that he seems to be giving Harry mixed messages -- Telling him that love is the power that is providing him with defense against Voldemort, minutes after implying that "fools who love" are putty in the Dark Lord's hands... Or is my interpretation wide of the mark?? -- Dave From paul_terzis at yahoo.gr Tue Feb 15 07:17:20 2005 From: paul_terzis at yahoo.gr (paul_terzis) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 07:17:20 -0000 Subject: Many sleepless nights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124581 > Freud wrote: >"He put Harry into a situation where he would have no status at > all. Where his powers would not be discovered or developed. Where > Harry would be forced to experience what life is like without > kindness or compassion. Where he would be forced to work for his supper. > > Why? Why would Dumbledore do this? For humility! More than anything > else Harry needed humility - a quality that Voldemort sorely lacks." > > Lupinlore wrote: >" If this is indeed the case (and I don't believe it is), DD > is a truly reprehensible person, on par with Voldemort. And yes, I > mean that quite literally. The ONLY possible moral reason for leaving > Harry with the Dursleys is to save his life, PERIOD. Trying to create > a certain kind of person through child abuse, or abuse of any kind, is > utterly, totally, unforgivable vile." > > Jim Ferer wrote: > Vile indeed, and illogical. There's no way to put a child through > that kind of experience and expect a boy with the humility and the > capacity to love at the other end. Quite the opposite, actually. > Children of abuse are often abusers themselves, at least horribly > mangled souls. Only Harry's special qualities enabled him to survive > at all. > I think that AD is either the greatest fool or the greatest manipulator ever. I don't believe for a second that he didn't know what kind of people are the Dursleys. And that leads us to the following options: a) He trully didn't know and that makes him at least incompetent. b) He knew but he believed that the Dursleys may behave themselves and that makes him at least naive and finally, c) He knew but he didn't care. Everything and anything in order to protect his "asset" or "weapon" you name it for future use. In that case he is a s*n of a b***h. In any case AD took a big risk because he recreate the very same conditions that made Tom Riddle to become Lord Voldermort and that is an abusive, uncaring muggle foster family for little Harry. Cheers, Paul From Bazile2OO3 at hotmail.com Mon Feb 14 21:23:46 2005 From: Bazile2OO3 at hotmail.com (Elizabeth G) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:23:46 -0500 Subject: Many sleepless nights In-Reply-To: <1108389426.36430.44854.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124582 Lupinlore: >Which strongly implies that Dumbledore left Harry at Privet Drive >because of the blood protection, not because he felt that the >experience would be "good" for Harry. SNIP >If one wants to predicate a "likeable" Dumbledore, much less a good >Dumbledore, then I think nrenka is right when she says all DD's >comments about Harry not being spoiled have to be taken as a kind of >desperate justification -- i.e. a deeply conflicted statement about >something positive that comes out of a horrible situation. > I recently joined this group and I have been following this discussion. I don't think that on November 1, 1981 that Dumbledore actually knew how bad the Dursley's were. Other than the Potter's being members of the Order, we have no canon basis as to how close James and Lily actually were to Dumbledore. If Petunia and Dudley were Harry's only relatives,especially with the blood protection that was available for him On Privet Drive, the logical solution was to place him in the custudy of Petunia and Vernon. And while I personally believe that James and Lily meant for him to live with Sirius in the event that anything happened to them, Sirius was arrested shortly after their deaths. With that in mind, the Dursley's would have been at the top of the list for custody. As the reader, we have the opportunity to see that Petunia and Lily are estranged from one another, and appear to have been for some time. But McGonagall's comments on the Dursley's being the worst sort of Muggles, appears to not give any valid, legal reasons why they should not assume custody of Harry. Dudley begging for sweets is being a normal toddler. To all outside observers, they are a "perfectly normal" family who both love and care for their son, and Dumbledore, as far as we know from canon, would have had no reason to believe that Harry would not be treated, raised, and loved as Dudley was. With that in mind, I do think that Dumbledore should have arranged to have Harry removed from there custudy as soon as he knew how they were actually treating him, blood protection or not. And according to my mother the social worker who used to work Child Protective Service, she would have removed both Harry and Dudley from the home if this had been an actual situation. According to the US 1974 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act child abuse is "physical and mental injury, sexual abuse, or negligent treatment of a child under the age of 18 by a person who is responsible for the child's welfare under circumstances that indicate that the child's health or welfare is harmed or threatenend." Neglect is abuse by omission. According to my sociology text, "Physically neglected children often show signs of malnutrition, lack immunization against childhood disease, lack proper clothing, attend school irregularly, and need medical attention for such conditions as poor eyesight or bad teeth. Often these conditions are grounded in parents' or guardians' economic problems, but child neglect can also be willful neglect. Emotional abuse or neglect involves a parent's often being overly harsh and critical, failing to provide guidance, or being uninterested in a child's needs." (Marriages and Families: Making Choices in a Diverse Society. Lamana and Riedman. 8th edition. copyright 2003. pp357 - 358) I'm sure that I'm not the only one who sees Harry in this definition, and even Dudley to some extent. Bazile From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 22:40:02 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:40:02 -0000 Subject: Subject: Re: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Sympathetic. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124583 Nicky Joe: > I don't really buy the hurt/comfort theory in relation to the "bad > boy" characters that readers love to love. The hurt/comfort theory is more of > a maternal feeling - we feel that way toward Harry because he's had a > difficult life and we want to fix him up. But we don't feel any > attraction for him, we simply want to mother him. However, Sirius > Black, Lucius Malfoy, and possibly Snape are far more attractive. > Yes, they are broken and need fixing. But the prize at the end of > that fixing is not a happy little boy, it is a virile beast that will > worship the ground you walk on It's not a matter > of "healing" them, it's a matter of "changing" them. We want them to > be who they are, just better. BTW, > Draco had exposed too many cowardly tendencies to be taken seriously > as a possible hero. Maybe he'll toughen up a bit. > Just to make sure I've gotten it straight - hurt/comfort is not the reason we find bad boys attractive, thats a kind of determined DIYism. All h/c does is give us maternal, non sexual feelings. (Which does not require that we get off on sadism. Oh well, it was a spicy thought...) My problem is that Draco is not only sympathized with, he is also often found to be sexually attractive. Whether or not he gets h/c is irrelevant in this case, beacause that's not what does it. Unfortunately, canon Draco has nothing in the way of Bad Boy-DIY- Makeover-Guy going for him either. (You just don't end up with anything worthwhile even once he's been fixed up). All this sexual attraction it seems is not for canon Draco, but rather for the badboy! Draco constructed by Fanon. The question though, is why? Why is there so much sexually attractive Draco in fanon, when there isn't so much of Ron or Harry, for example, or Neville or Percy. Why are they not twisted into, say, sexilysensitive!Neville or cool,dangerous!Percy or something, while Draco is. (or StrongandSilent!Goyle. Adorablyloyal!Crabbe. OldFashoinedGentleman!Flint. Wickedlyseductive!Peter.) Northsouth Worldweary!Crouch, OverworkedLeaderwithVision!Voldemort, DashingWittyEccentic!Phineas, outofmalecharacters!northsouth From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 02:46:53 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 02:46:53 -0000 Subject: Sirius clueless? In-Reply-To: <80.216481a0.2f42bb7c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124584 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, catportkey at a... wrote: > In GoF, I don't understand how Sirius would not know what Karkaroof was showing Snape (pages 531-532).If Sirius was battling Death Eaters, surely he or his other fighters would have noticed the mark on the Death Eaters' arms, OR when the Death Eaters were put in Azkaban, the authorities must write down more than name and address. Any place of incarceration writes down all body making for possible identification. V was not vaporized when some of his followers were arrested. Didn't anyone notice the arm markings? Juli: It doesn't seem a very known fact that Voldemort marked his DE with the dark mark, remember in GoF when they are trying to convice Fudge that LV is back? Snape rolls up his sleeve and says "look, it's the dark mark, LV used to mark all his DE with it, when he touched someone's mark we had to disappear from wherever we were and go to him, Mine has been getting lighter this whole year, so has Karkarov's, that's why he left today" (quoting from memory). If the MoM does NOT know about the dark mark, why should Sirius know about it? Juli From sreep_rules at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 04:30:47 2005 From: sreep_rules at yahoo.com (sreep_rules) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 04:30:47 -0000 Subject: mixed marriages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124585 Sandy wrote: > > Moving on to the more speculative > How do you suppose these witches/wizards met their muggle mates? It > seems to me that a wizard would have to make a concerted effort to > seek out a muggle to date and marry, because normally, their paths > just don't cross. This being my first post here, forgive me if I do something wrong. :) Anyway, here goes. This has always been a topic of interest to me, and I think I may have a few answers. Firstly, I've always been under the impression that most wizards/witches that marry Muggles were themselves Muggle-born, or at the very least, had one parent who was a Muggle. For obvious reasons, I think pure-bloods would find it rather difficult to find a Muggle mate (and most don't seem to have the desire for such a union anyway). I don't think there are too many instances of pure-bloods marrying Muggles in the books. Muggle borns can talk, act and dress like Muggles with ease and would probably have no trouble finding a partner. I'm sure that these Muggleborns, whenever they went home for the summer from school, did a lot of 'Muggly' things with their Muggle family like go to church, play Muggle sports (like Dean plays soccer) etc. I'm sure they also have Muggle friends that they might occasionally "hang-out" with from time to time, who might, but not necessarily, know that they're different. Maybe they just accept the wierd stuff that happens around them, or maybe the wizard/witch is able to effectively control the freak magic so it's not visible to a Muggle (and this might be easy, since the books often say that Muggles don't see very much). It's not difficult to see such a friendship turning into something more as they get older. Sreep From jmrazo at hotmail.com Tue Feb 15 01:59:15 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:59:15 -0000 Subject: Stockholm Syndrome - was No sympathy for Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124586 Jocelyn Grunow wrote: > > Further to my post of yesterday where I suggested Kreacher might > have something like Stockholm Syndrome, here are two excerpts from > info I found at: > > http://web2.iadfw.net/ktrig246/out_of_cave/sss.html and > > http://www.geocities.com/kidhistory/trauma/stockhol.htm Tonks now: But still, his deep *goodness* it is quite > remarkable given the rest of his early childhood experience. There > is just *something about Harry* that defies the know theories on > early childhood development. phoenixgod2000: That very special thing about Harry is called Writers Fiat. The author needs Harry to not be a complete basketcase so he is not. A real child growing up in his surroundings would be a sociopath. That's why I have a problem with DD leaving him with the Dursleys. Because in a situation controlled by real world consquences instead of writers fiat Harry would be so messed up it wouldn't even be funny. Tonks: > As to Kreacher, he is the result of his environment and upbringing > in addition to the fact (as I have said before) that he is not free. > He is bound to serve the Black family. And to survive in that family > he must share their values. He is not *free* to do anything else. > He is a slave, born to slaves. I don't blame him for Sirius's > death. I don't hold him to the same standard that I do a human > being with free will. phoenixgod2000: So Dobby is just an odd ball? No other House elf in the history of House elves has free will aside from the lone elf of the Malfoy's? No, Kreacher is just as responsible for his actions as everyone else. phoenixgod2000 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 08:06:53 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:06:53 -0000 Subject: mixed marriages- Many Opportunities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124587 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "stbjohn2" wrote: > > Sandy, > Yes, but what Ron says is "if we [wizards] hadn't married muggles > we'd have died out." Ron is dividing the world into 2 camps -- > muggles and wizards. In Ron's world view, muggleborns and halfbloods > like Hermione and Harry fall into the "wizards" camp. Therefore, I > have to believe he's talking about totally non-magic folk when he > says muggles in this context ...edited.... bboyminn: I think the key to understanding what Ron was saying is to look at it from the perspective of /bloodlines/. Hermione has magical blood but she does not have a magical bloodline. That is, her parents and ancestors are muggles, that gives Hermione a muggle bloodline or muggle ancestry. When Hermione and Ron marry (for illustration), they will be mixing a pure magical bloodline with a muggle bloodline, which as a general conversational statement is pretty much the same as 'marrying a muggle'. The overal conversation that Ron is in is about pureblood marrying pureblood (pure bloodlines). Ron is professing pureblood marrying not pureblood (not pure magical bloodlines). Or for simplicity, and viewed as the merging of histories; a magic marrying a muggle. Not technically a muggle, but generally and conversationally a muggle. Also, muggle-borns do bring muggles into the magical world. Illustration, Petunia, Vernon, and Dudley know about the magical world, have met wizards, and witnessed magic. That creates the hypothetical, although extremely unlikely, possibility that Dudley could meet a nice witch and fall in love. Afterall, love is blind. Result; Dudley marries a witch. Now, it's unlikely for Dudley, but that's the only family I have available for my illustration. It could be anyone in the immediate family of a witch or wizard. Mr. & Mrs. Muggle Smith could have a two sons, one of whom is a wizard, and who exposes the other son to the wizard world. Result; the second son could meet and marry a witch. Or, Hermione's father could die, and her mother could re-marry a wizard. Hermione's younger sister (illustration) could end up marrying Dennis Creevey. Really, there are lots of possibilities. Also, muggle-born witches and wizards ARE familiar with the muggle world, and most likely went to a muggle primary school, and therefore know many muggles, and certainly know how to function in the muggle world. It wouldn't be impossible for a muggle-born wizard boy, to meet his grade school crush later in life and marry her. Further, wizards seem to live among muggles. Moody lives in London. Grimmauld Place is in a muggle neighborhood in London. Mrs Figg, although only a Squib, knows about the wizard world, and lives near the Dursleys. The Weasleys on two occassion we have seen, have gone to the nearby muggle village. All a wizard or witch would have to do is look out the window at the pretty, attractive neighbor muggle boy/girl and become infatuated. That could lead to the magical person mustering the courage to brave the neighborhood to talk to the muggle. Next thing you know, they are naked, hot and sweaty, followed by wedding bells. Following my lead, surely if you put your mind to it, you can fantasize many many ways in which muggles and magic could get together. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From caesian at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 08:33:37 2005 From: caesian at yahoo.com (caesian) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 00:33:37 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What did DD intend to say to Harry? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <498FF7B6-7F2C-11D9-A8D6-000A95C61C7C@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124588 On Feb 13, 2005, at 9:11 PM, lupinlore wrote: I just wondered how other people out there read this scene.? Did DD go into the confrontation intending to tell Harry everything, which implies a broader meaning to "not as mad..." or did he only decide to do so midway through the conversation? Caesian now: My impression was that DD began the conversation (including his choice to have Harry wait unattended in his office), with the primary intention of helping Harry to deal immediately with the death of Sirius. He evidently decided to lay the blame firmly on himself and Sirius in a serious talk with Harry. Whether this was a valid assessment of the situation has very much to do with your opinion of whether Harry is competent (as a young person / minor, etc) to be responsible for his own errors. DD makes the argument that information he withheld would have helped Harry - which is probably true (although the consequences of him telling Harry sooner are somewhat unclear - e.g., what would have happened if Voldemort had access to these ideas via Harry?). He does not point out that Harry did, in fact, have information and resources that were ignored. I believe this final conversation was intended to help Harry to cope with the loss, and that Harry was told just enough to enable his rational mind to wrap around and embrace his own lack of culpability in Sirius' death. In the RW, this is probably a good way of dealing with grief - guilt is a paralyzing and often inappropriate response to the loss of a loved one. I think DD went into the conversation intending to tell Harry whatever he had to in order to to get him to agree that it wasn't all his fault. He needed to fess up about the prophesy in order for this to make sense, and like he said, he'd been meaning to mention it. Why did he choose to absent Harry from his own guilt in this way? To honestly help the boy? To mold him into a weapon? To make himself feel better? I dunno. I'd guess the first. Caesian [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Feb 15 09:38:56 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:38:56 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty-Eight - The Second War Begins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124589 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dan Feeney" wrote: Hickengruendler: Great summary. > Discussion Questions for OotP Chapter 38 - The Second War Begins > > 1 - This denouement has some extravagance - the idea of a partner for > Grawp, the departure of Umbridge, the attack on the Hogwarts express, > the encounter with the Dursleys at the station. Did any of these > events bother you, or pose questions for you, make you think of > related incidents or have ethical concerns? Yes, the idea of a female Grawp bothers me very much. As if the spiders weren't enough in the forest. I mean, once there is a she Grawp, there surely will be babys soon. And one Grawp is annoying enough. The rest I found pretty funny and lively, and I can't get enough of Malfoy being hexed. > > 2 - There are a couple versions of "afterlife" presented here - > Nick's and Luna's. What is the difference - or rather, if one version > is consternating and the other comforting, what is Rowling getting at? JKR is a Christian who believes in Christian Afterlife, and that's what IMO becomes clear during Harry's conversation with Luna. It's a reference to a heaven like place, where we'll see our lost ones again. Both the mirror and Harry's conversation with Nick helped Harry dealing with the fact that Sirius won't return to this world. All of his hopes for this to happen were smashed. Although I wish Nick would have said a bit more about why some people become ghosts and others don't. Is it fear? Or is it a personal decision? > > Other Notes for Discussion > > 1 - Luna doesn't appear on the Hogwarts Express. At first I was annoyed by this, but now I think it was because JKR wanted the conversation between Harry and Luna about Death to be Luna's last appereance in the book. > 5 - How will divination class be structured, with Firenze and > Trewlawney both instructing? I'm actually annoyed that Harry doesn't take Divination anymore. This could be comedy gold and we don't get to see it. Hickengruendler From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 11:08:32 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:08:32 -0000 Subject: Subject: Re: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Sympathetic. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124590 Northsouth wrote: My problem is that Draco is not only sympathized with, he is also often found to be sexually attractive. Whether or not he gets h/c is irrelevant in this case, beacause that's not what does it. Unfortunately, canon Draco has nothing in the way of Bad Boy-DIY- Makeover-Guy going for him either. (You just don't end up with anything worthwhile even once he's been fixed up). All this sexual attraction it seems is not for canon Draco, but rather for the badboy! Draco constructed by Fanon. The question though, is why? Why is there so much sexually attractive Draco in fanon, when there isn't so much of Ron or Harry, for example, or Neville or Percy. Why are they not twisted into, say, sexilysensitive!Neville or cool,dangerous!Percy or something, while Draco is. (or StrongandSilent!Goyle. Adorablyloyal!Crabbe. OldFashoinedGentleman!Flint. Wickedlyseductive!Peter.) vmonte responds: There must be something wrong with me because I just don't find Draco to be sexy or attractive. In fact, I think that JKR paints him to be very cowardly. He also has a big mouth that is definitely going to get him into trouble with his father or Voldemort. He's so stupid that he even warns Harry and gang about impending danger. I love the scene in GoF, after the World Cup, when he basically warns Harry and Co. that Hermione is in danger. I just don't read Draco as being cool or dangerous, just a fool. Vivian From jferer at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 11:26:52 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:26:52 -0000 Subject: Hard Choices, was Many sleepless nights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124591 Paul:"I think that AD is either the greatest fool or the greatest manipulator ever. I don't believe for a second that he didn't know what kind of people are the Dursleys. And that leads us to the following options: a) He truly didn't know and that makes him at least incompetent. b) He knew but he believed that the Dursleys may behave themselves and that makes him at least naive and finally, c) He knew but he didn't care. Everything and anything in order to protect his "asset" or "weapon" you name it for future use. In that case he is a s*n of a b***h. In any case AD took a big risk because he recreated the very same conditions that made Tom Riddle to become Lord Voldermort and that is an abusive, uncaring muggle foster family for little Harry." Dumbledore had no way of knowing, actually, how the Dursleys are. How would he? Lily Evans might have told him about her straitlaced prig sister, maybe, but how, otherwise? It's one of the burdens of a leader that a leader has to make large, important, often painful decisions with sometimes shockingly inadequate information. Dumbledore did know Harry would have ten "dark and difficult years," but he consciously decided it was the only way. Dumbledore knows, because of the Prophecy, that Harry is the only one that can defeat Voldemort. Preserving that asset, or weapon, is completely legitimate. Thousands of lives and the survival of a society are at stake. Again, somebody has to make the call. Harry had a miserable time at the Dursleys, but he wasn't frankly starved, beaten, put in ice cold baths, or had his hand stuck on a hot stove element. It could have been far worse than I want to imagine. I see stories in the newspapers that make me nauseous. What I don't understand is why Dumbledore didn't keep a closer eye on him. All he did was have Arabella Figg keep an eye out, perhaps to look for signs of gross abuse. Why didn't Harry get taken off to "summer camp" each year for a respite? Why didn't a new "Muggle" family with children move into the neighborhood and befriend Harry? [I had written `why didn't a "relative" from the Potter side of the family turn up?' when I realized the Dursleys would have chucked Harry over to them immediately] We don't know. The Dursleys probably wouldn't have allowed Harry to be taken off anywhere, given their desire to stamp the magic out of him, and they might well have disallowed a friendship for Harry out of pure cussedness. Clearly Dumbledore cares about Harry, loves him, and is troubled by his own mistakes and what Harry went through. Dumbledore met the goal of keeping Harry alive long enough to come to Hogwarts. There's no way that Dumbledore is bad because of that. Could he have done better? In hindsight, it's likely he could have, by looking for ways to insinuate a little more observation and some relief into Harry's life. Harry's biographer (Hermione, probably) will write that history someday.(1) Jim Ferer (1) Rowling, J.K., and Granger, H.J., /Harry's War: The Life of the Wizard World's Savior/ Royal Thaumaturgical Society Press, 2008. From drliss at comcast.net Tue Feb 15 13:07:26 2005 From: drliss at comcast.net (drliss at comcast.net) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:07:26 +0000 Subject: Sirius Clueless? Message-ID: <021520051307.29733.4211F40E0005F4120000742522007623029C9C07049D0B@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 124592 Catportkey: In GoF, I don't understand how Sirius would not know what Karkaroof was showing Snape (pages 531-532). If Sirius was battling Death Eaters, surely he or his other fighters would have noticed the mark on the Death Eaters' arms, OR when the Death Eaters were put in Azkaban, the authorities must write down more than name and address. Any place of incarceration writes down all body making for possible identification. V was not vaporized when some of his followers were arrested. Didn't anyone notice the arm markings? Lissa: The impression I have is that the Dark Mark tattoo is not always visible. Karakoff says that the mark is "coming back" when he's talking to Snape, indicating that you can only see the mark when Voldemort's around. What's more, the mark burns black when the Death Eaters are summoned. I've seen countless fanfics where Sirius checks Remus for the Dark Mark, but I really don't think a.) he'd be able to see it because it's not always obvious, and b.) that it was all that widespread. The only thing that throws a kink into that theory is that someone (Snape, I think) says that the dark mark was used as a means for Death Eaters to distinguish each other as well, since (in theory) no one is sure who all is a Death Eater. The easy answer is that the mark is a darker shade of flesh when it's not "in use". If that's the case, it would be hard to spot. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to give your minions really obvious tattooes- not only could they be faked easily, but it makes them very identifiable. I suspect most of the information about Dark Marks came out after the war, once Sirius was imprisoned. It's a relatively small detail, and probably not one that Dumbledore or Remus would think to tell him, and not one that appears in the papers. And if he heard ravings about the Dark Mark in prison, well, the Mark itself refers to the shape of the skull with the snake coming out of its mouth, not the actual physical brand/tattoo. I agree that Sirius never knew for sure that Snape was a reformed Death Eater until the end of GoF. Snape's trial sounds like it came after the war ended (after Sirius was already imprisoned), and if Dumbledore had half a brain in his head he wasn't advertising that Snape was a double agent by the end. And given Sirius and Snape's mutual loathing, I can see where neither Dumbledore nor Remus would tell Sirius about Snape's past until it became absolutely necessary- which was probably during the lie low at Lupin's period. It might possibly have been big news at the time- it was at least known among the Wizengmot (or however you spell it)- but 12 years later it was a dead issue. Remember that Sirius had very little access to information once he escaped prison: he could steal newspapers, he had letters from Dumbledore, and he (I assume) had some sort of contact with Remus. The newspapers mainly report what's current, with some reference to the past, and Dumbledore and Remus have been going on for 12 years- it's hard to catch someone up on that amount of time. So, I don't think it's too odd he doesn't know about the Dark Mark tattoos. Lissa [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From timregan at microsoft.com Tue Feb 15 14:12:05 2005 From: timregan at microsoft.com (Tim Regan) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:12:05 -0000 Subject: John the Baptist again (was RE: Character Discussion: Ron) Message-ID: <47DA59BF3D32334DAF6A67C7508991AB01396559@EUR-MSG-20.europe.corp.microsoft.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124593 Hi All, Hans wrote: >>> I equate Ron to John the Baptist. Harry equates to Jesus; Ron to John <<< But surely Dumbledore is John? Here's a quote from John the Baptist: "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." (Matthew 3:11-12). Now, although Dumbledore is a really powerful wizard ("But you're different. Everyone knows you're the only one You-Know- oh, all right, Voldemort, was frightened of." McGonagall PS/SS Chapter 1) he realises after the prophesy ("The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches" OotP Chapter 37) that he cannot vanquish Voldemort, only Harry can. It is this powerful person awaiting the chosen one that we see in John the Baptist and in Dumbledore (and in Yoda and in Morpheus etc) but not in Ron. Hans also wrote: >>> Ron's willingness to sacrifice himself teaches us that liberation requires the giving up of self. "He who loses his life for my sake will find it" (Matt. 10:39) <<< And this is the implication of John the Baptist analogies. If a character does turn out to be analogous to John the Baptist, and that analogy is played out in full, then that character will die, and die a pretty senseless death at the hands of a mother and her beautiful daughter: "But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod. Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask. And she, being before instructed of her mother, said, Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger. And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath's sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her. And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison." (Matthew 14:6-10) But hope is at hand. Clearly there are aspects of John the Baptist that rule out both Dumbledore and Ron. For example compare these three quotes which show us our suspects eating habits: "Would you care for a lemon drop?" (Dumbledore PS/SS Chapter 1) "Oh, of course, you wouldn't know -- Chocolate Frogs have cards, inside them, you know, to collect -- famous witches and wizards. I've got about five hundred, but I haven't got Agrippa or Ptolemy." (Ron PS/SS Chapter 6) "His food was locusts and wild honey." (Matthew 3:4) Wild honey? Yes. Locusts? I don't think Dumbledore or Ron will be ordering locusts anytime soon. Cheers, Dumbledad. PS I'm sure this has been done to death before, but Yahoomort's search feature failed me. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Feb 15 15:18:23 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:18:23 -0000 Subject: Many sleepless nights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124594 Paul: > I think that AD is either the greatest fool or the greatest > manipulator ever. I don't believe for a second that he didn't know what kind of people are the Dursleys. And that leads us to thefollowing options: > a) He trully didn't know and that makes him at least incompetent. > b) He knew but he believed that the Dursleys may behave themselves and that makes him at least naive and finally, > c) He knew but he didn't care. Everything and anything in order to protect his "asset" or "weapon" you name it for future use. In that case he is a s*n of a b***h. > > In any case AD took a big risk because he recreate the very same conditions that made Tom Riddle to become Lord Voldermort and that is an abusive, uncaring muggle foster family for little Harry. Pippin: Or d) he could not intervene without making things worse. Remember that there is a twisted logic behind the Dursleys cruelty; they did not set out to make Harry unhappy because they are sadists, but because they thought it would crush the magic out of him. Where they got that idea, canon does not say. Maybe it was a combination of Peter Pan "`You just think lovely wonderful thoughts" and Petunia's garbled information about dementors: "Get too near a dementor and every good feeling, every cheerful thought, will be sucked out of you [...]Dementors are supposed to drain a wizard of his powers if he is left with them too long..." --PoA ch 10. Dumbledore seems to have known they had this idea, but what could he do about it? They certainly wouldn't believe anything he had to say! So, as Mrs. Figg says in OOP, "I'm sorry I gave you such a miserable time, but the Dursleys would never have let you come if they'd thought you enjoyed it." Any attempts to make Harry visibly happier would have been squashed by the Dursleys, regardless of whether they seemed to emanate from the WW or not. Further, the Dursleys hate Harry because they're afraid of magic, so using magic against them would only make them hate Harry more. Not until Harry has the means to escape their hatred is it wise to exacerbate it. Most abused children do *not* become psychopaths. If Harry had those tendencies (and he does not, because despite the likenesses between them, he is a very different person from Tom Riddle) they might just as easily have developed in the wizarding world. It would certainly not discourage paranoia and selfishness if: a)if you knew the most powerful dark wizard ever was trying to kill you b) you had enough wealth to indulge your every whim, c) people liked you because you were rich and famous. We may yet discover that Dumbledore was intervening in subtle ways, though he was unable to keep Harry either as happy or as well-fed as he would have liked. Does he need to apologize for that? Does the surgeon apologize to the patient for the scarring and the pain? Yes, he should be sympathetic about them, if that's what the patient needs. But Harry has never *wanted* sympathy. Far from being alienated by the lack of it, I'd say nothing would turn him against Dumbledore more than the thought of DD feeling sorry for him. Pippin From naama_gat at hotmail.com Tue Feb 15 15:39:25 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:39:25 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124595 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "northsouth17" wrote: > Ok, my theory: Draco isn't about Draco at all, that's why he's such > a > shallow, yet sympathetic charecter - he's about Lucius. Draco is > going to die in some spectacular, and rather pathetic fashion, and > I'm going to feel really sorry for him. And then Lucius will either > be unaffected (or he will have been the cause of it) or he will >have some change of heart...possibly towards the side of good. > > I don't think the DE's so far have been portrayed greyly enough, and Draco is a dismal failure at showcasing that greyness, so it's going to have to be some other character - and yet Draco has been set up as sympathetic for some reason, so he is going to involved somehow - and so I'm guessing that at a critical moment Lucius will >either be redeemed by his love for his son - or betray it. Seeing as the DEs are the equivalent of the Nazi SS or Gestapo, I don't see how they could be depicted as other than totally black. Unlike Slytherin house (to which children are sorted), these are adults who deliberately embrace an ideology of hatred, racism and cruelty, and who carry out this ideology at every opportunity they can. As for Lucius, far from needing an opportunity for redemption, he functions in the story as the paradigmatic DE. Through encounters with him, the reader gets a sense of DE-ism even before we are made familiar with the term - cold, cruel, corrupt and corrupting; he is THE proponent of the pure-blood ideology. Via this and his immediate abuse of Dobby JKR makes the point that ideology is not seperate from action. Draco's roll is exactly the same, on the level of Hogwarts - he is the paradigmatic Slytherin, embodying all of its worst qualities - ruthlessness, cold heartness (snakiness?), ambition untempered with compassion. And the pure-blood ideology. Which is why Draco won't, can't be redeemed. A character who personifies evil (of some sort) can't be redeemed without the story losing ... structural integrity? balance? something important, anyway. You can reasonably redeem a character who teeters, who is betwixt and between the poles of Good and Evil - not the poles themselves. (Which is another reason why DD will never be revealed as puppet master or otherwise "gray".) Naama From stbjohn2 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 16:09:47 2005 From: stbjohn2 at yahoo.com (stbjohn2) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:09:47 -0000 Subject: mixed marriages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124596 --- > > Sandy wrote: > > How do you suppose these witches/wizards met their muggle mates? It > > seems to me that a wizard would have to make a concerted effort to > > seek out a muggle to date and marry, because normally, their paths > > just don't cross. > > Sreep says Muggle borns can talk, act and dress like Muggles with ease and would probably have no trouble finding a partner. I'm sure that these Muggleborns, whenever they went home for the summer from school, did a lot of 'Muggly' things with their Muggle family like go to church, play Muggle sports (like Dean plays soccer) etc. I'm sure they also have Muggle friends that they might occasionally "hang-out" with from time to time, who might, but not necessarily, know that they're different. Sandy says Thanks for reminding me about Dean (who's a half-blood by the way, not a muggleborn) still having ties to the muggle world. I'm beginning to have newfound respect for the Finnegans (who I've never given much thought before) because they seem to have found a way to bring their child up to respect and appreciate the cultures/heritages from both sides of his family. But the picture we're painted with Hermione is of a muggleborn who seems to be moving ever closer to the WW, and apparently leaving the muggle world almost entirely -- she spends her holidays in the WW, and has spent the last two summers largely in the company of the Weasleys. She's an example of that old saying about "converts make the best [insert name of religion of your choice here]". It's hard to imagine her venturing back into the muggle world to look for a mate. Our other info about muggleborns or their children is pretty scanty. I take Tonks' general lack of knowledge about muggles -- "Very clean, aren't they, these muggles," said Tonks, looking around the kitchen with great interest. "My dad's muggle-born and he's a right old slob. I suppose it varies, just like with wizards?" -- as an indication she's had very little contact with muggles over her lifetime. Aside from a few dinners with Grandma Tonks, doesn't sound like she's even met enough muggles to know they come in all shapes, sizes and stripes of personality, just like wizards. Steve/bboyminn: Further, wizards seem to live among muggles. Moody lives in London. Grimmauld Place is in a muggle neighborhood in London. Mrs Figg, although only a Squib, knows about the wizard world, and lives near the Dursleys. The Weasleys on two occasions we have seen, have gone to the nearby muggle village. Sandy; Yes, they live around muggles, but they seem to go out of their way to avoid them. Sirius grew up at #12 Grimmauld, with muggles on either side, but Mr. Black had put every muggle-repelling spell up, so there was no mixing with the neighbors. Little Sirius and Reggie never got to play hide-and-seek with the muggle kids next door. Same with the Weasleys. They may walk the streets of a muggle village, but they don't mix with the villagers unless it's unavoidable, like when they need a muggle taxi to get to the train station. I don't think any of the Weasley kids ever had a muggle friend. (If Ron had, I'd think he'd know a little about muggle sports.) From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 16:25:38 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:25:38 -0000 Subject: Invisibility cloak Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124597 Alla writes: >James did leave his invisibility cloak with Dumbledore... When I was wondering if James's wand was destroyed, I was also wondering why James had left his cloak with Dumbledore. In OoP, the cloaks seem to get passed around a lot depending on who needs them and for what purpose, so I was wondering who was using James's cloak and what they were doing with it. Secret mission? I don't think James handed it over to Dumbledore with the idea that he was going to be killed and wanted it to be kept safe. Maybe James was using it himself and left it at the OoP headquarters prior to the incident at GH... Just speculating... Nicky Joe From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 16:26:12 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:26:12 -0000 Subject: mixed marriages Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124598 >In SS/PS (I think) JKR has Neville saying that his family thought he >was all Muggle. Even if he had been a Squib, he wouldn't have been a >Muggle. My guess is that it was the clearest way to handle it at the >time. I see "all Muggle" as more of a slang phrase than a phrase with any actual meaning. If Neville shows inept magical ability, I think it would be a bit harsh to say, "You're practically a Squib, Neville." Fear of being a Squib could have crushed what talent Neville did have, because he would have been very aware of Squibs. Instead, they would say, "You're all Muggle, Neville." This is a nonsense phrase because everyone knows that Neville was a pureblood, but it was more of a cute dig at his lack of talent. Neville could grin and say, "Yeah, I'm a Muggle." To even suggest he was a Squib would give voice to a very real possibility, and I think even his brutally honest grandmother wouldn't be that mean. Nicky Joe From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 17:19:33 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:19:33 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124599 Northsouth: >The question though, is why? Why is there so much sexually attractive >Draco in fanon, when there isn't so much of Ron or Harry, for >example, or Neville or Percy. Why are they not twisted into, say, >sexilysensitive!Neville or cool,dangerous!Percy or something, while >Draco is. (or StrongandSilent!Goyle. Adorablyloyal!Crabbe. >OldFashoinedGentleman!Flint. Wickedlyseductive!Peter.) Just guessing here, because I've stayed far, far away from fanfic, but I have a feeling most of the Draco-love fanfics were written after the movies came out. Tom Felton is quite the little hottie and the younger crowd could be quite desperate to make him into a hero. Draco in the books is rather a nasty little cockroach, but Draco in the movies can make girls' hearts go pitter-patter. When I was a teeny-bopper, I fell madly in love with Damien from the Omen movies. Now, the son of Satan has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, but I thought that actor was just so lovely... I'm sure I wrote plenty of little fantasies about turning him from the dark side. Attraction and good sense can be on very opposite sides of the spectrum. Also, when you mentioned sadism, it's very true that danger can be very stimulating, which is part of the attraction of the bad boy. Good guys are so predictible - they buy you flowers, they say nice things, they'll wait until you're ready, they rarely surprise you... But the bad boy might grab you, press you up against a wall and plant one on you at an inappropriate time... very exciting. BTW, "Wickedlyseductive!Peter"? EWWWWWWW!!!! Bad boy, yes. Attractive, no!! Nicky Joe From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 17:48:22 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:48:22 -0000 Subject: Stockholm Syndrome - was No sympathy for Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124600 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: > phoenixgod2000: > That very special thing about Harry is called Writers Fiat. The > author needs Harry to not be a complete basketcase so he is not. A > real child growing up in his surroundings would be a sociopath. > That's why I have a problem with DD leaving him with the Dursleys. > Because in a situation controlled by real world consquences instead of writers fiat Harry would be so messed up it wouldn't even be funny. > Tonks now: Well we are back to the fact that Harry's *abuse* was not that severe or that unusual. Many children in his situation, especially when placed with relatives after the death of a good parent would not be *sociopaths*. A child has to have an early life like that of Tom Riddle for that to happen. If a child were given love are good care from birth to age 2 they could be messed up later, but not become a true *sociopath* in the strict sense. They could be anti- social personalities... the criminal type personality. But not all anti-social personalities are *sociopath or psychopath*. Harry is a strong person. Someone like Neville is raised in the same sort of home, I think. Neville is very sensitive and his Grands is a bit like Snape, so he is very unsure of himself. But other children like him have overcome that type of upbringing and we see in Book 5 where he is doing so as well. Physical abuse is another story. Children can over come that, but they are at some level, as you say, *messed up* for life. Tonks_op From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 18:18:12 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:18:12 -0000 Subject: Many sleepless nights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124601 Paul I think that AD is either the greatest fool or the greatest manipulator ever. I don't believe for a second that he didn't know what kind of people are the Dursleys. And that leads us to the following options: a) He trully didn't know and that makes him at least incompetent. b) He knew but he believed that the Dursleys may behave themselves and that makes him at least naive and finally, c) He knew but he didn't care. Everything and anything in order to protect his "asset" or "weapon" you name it for future use. In that case he is a s*n of a b***h. In any case AD took a big risk because he recreate the very same conditions that made Tom Riddle to become Lord Voldermort and that is an abusive, uncaring muggle foster family for little Harry. Alla: Well, I think your (a) is not really valid after OOP anymore, because Dumbledore tells Harry "I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and difficult years" at the end of OOP. I would love it to be (a) though. I am not so sure about (b) either because even though Dumbledore is into giving all people second chances, we hear Minerva warnings right on the spot and he does not really say anything to contradict them. I believe it is a combination of (c) and what Pippin said Pippin: Or d) he could not intervene without making things worse. Most abused children do *not* become psychopaths. If Harry had those tendencies (and he does not, because despite the likenesses between them, he is a very different person from Tom Riddle) they might just as easily have developed in the wizarding world. Alla: Dumbledore had the example of Tom Riddle right in front of him. He knew what lack of love did to Riddle and still let the story repeat itself ( sort of) I think he took awfully big risk while doing it. That is even if Dumbledore only uses Harry ( thinks of him as a weapon), which I hope he is not. I think that it is a valid hypo ESPECIALLY because Dumbledore knows more than we do about connection between Riddle and Harry ( in many ways they are similar). I think that Dumbledore should count his blessings that Harry IS so different from Voldie in many other ways. JMO, Alla From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 18:32:42 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:32:42 -0000 Subject: An Odd Ghostly Question. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124602 Not sure this is such a critical thing, but recently while pondering the Veiled Archway in the Dept of Mysteries, I couldn't help wondering if a ghost could enter the Archway and return? Why would that matter? Well, it would allow a ghost to carry messages 'beyond the grave'. That is, take messages to dead people and return with responses. I could speculate on various reason why this might happen, the most obvious is that it would give Harry a way to communicate with Sirius and perhaps even his parents. Since a ghost is dead, they wouldn't die upon entering The Veil, and since they are not bound by the physical world, I speculate they could return. The counterpoint, of course, is that ghosts, while dead, have not 'gone on', and the 'ON' to which they have not /gone/ is on the other side of The Veil. Also, a nice counter-counter point might be that while ghost are not bound BY the physical world, in a sense, they are bound TO the physical world. Not sure how that would come into play. Which brings up an additional point. Could a ghost like Sir Nick, who clearly seems to regret choosing his 'pale imitation of life', now choose to walk into The Veil and fully accept death, thereby moving from a shadow of himself walking the earth to his eternal rest? This is a very minor point, and it does border slightly on the 'fan ficcy', but I can't help but wonder. Given what a substantial plot element The Veiled Archway is, I can't help but believe that it is going to somehow play a major role somewhere in the next two books. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 18:39:05 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:39:05 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty-Eight - The Second War Begins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124603 Dan: 1 - This denouement has some extravagance - the idea of a partner for Grawp, the departure of Umbridge, the attack on the Hogwarts express, the encounter with the Dursleys at the station. Did any of these events bother you, or pose questions for you, make you think of related incidents or have ethical concerns? Hickengruendler: > Yes, the idea of a female Grawp bothers me very much. As if the > spiders weren't enough in the forest. I mean, once there is a she > Grawp, there surely will be babys soon. And one Grawp is annoying > enough. The rest I found pretty funny and lively, and I can't get > enough of Malfoy being hexed. Alla: LOL, I am one of those who also want Grawp to go away and never come back, therefore idea of the partner for him did bother me a great deal. :o) How would you call their babies? Grawpsies? Grawps Jr.? No, I don't want to see that to happen. I'd love to see Hagrld and Madame Maxine together though. Encounter with Dursleys bothered me a great deal. I wanted to scream something like "where have you been all those years, idiots"? :) Departure of Umbridge - nope, was not bothered at all, in fact was incredibly happy. Dan: 2 - There are a couple versions of "afterlife" presented here - Nick's and Luna's. What is the difference - or rather, if one version is consternating and the other comforting, what is Rowling getting at? Alla: I believe that with Luna's ideas she foreshadowed that at one point Harry will definitely talk to Sirius either by going through the Veil or some form of Sirius will come back to help Harry. Dan: 3 - In this chapter, the inner isolation of Harry is emphasized, even with the DA helping Harry, the public acknowledgement of Voldemort's return, and peer recognition at school. Is this development integral to Harry as hero, as the one who must defeat Voldemort? Alla: I think that Harry will be isolated for a while, but isolation from his friends will end pretty fast. Isolation from the adults is a totally different story. Great questions, Dan. Alla From meltowne at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 18:40:20 2005 From: meltowne at yahoo.com (meltowne) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:40:20 -0000 Subject: Who, exactly, is Petunia Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124605 With all the discussions about why Dumbledore left Harry with the Dursleys, I've been thinking about Aunt Petunia. I think there's much more to Petunia than we are led to believe. Remember, what we know about her is all from Harry's perspective. I think she is a witch hiding in deep cover. Vernon is as much a muggle as Harry believes, and she uses that to her advantage as part of her disguise. Looking at the beginning of Book 1, we are introduced to Vernon, and follow him through his day. We are only introduced to Petunia by him - when he asks if she's heard from her sister, and tells her strange things have been happening. She acts upset, but she should have known about some of the happenigs outside. We know from Prof. McGonagall that she went out with Dudley during the day - he kicked her all the way down the street, asking for sweets. She has more information that we would expect about the Wizard world - why would she know so much about the dementors? I can't imagine James mentioning them in front of her, for any reason. Now, why would she be in hiding? Perhaps because she is one of only 3 living members of an important line of wizards (herself, Dudley and Harry). Perhaps her mother was a witch who was forced into hiding because of some other prophesy predating Voldemort. This would explain why Harry's grandparents are no longer around - they were discovered. Perhaps there was a prophesy about her importance, and she too was kept in hiding. Lily, being the younger child was allowed to attend Hogwarts as long as Petunia was kept in hiding, because she presumable wasn't important. Or perhaps Petunia wasn't as strong a witch. Not all wizard children are invited to attend Hogwarts. I think Petunia tries extermely hard make sure nobody has reason to suspect anything about her. She is hiding something important, even from Vernon. The cryptic howler makes this clear - Dumbledore told her something that makes her want Harry under her care, even after his presence has brought the demntors to her neighborhood, even though Dudley's life was put at risk. As much as she knows about dementors, she must know that Harry was telling the truth about them, and probably is amazed that he and Dudley survived. The stakes are much higher than they've ever been. Maybe the protection that Harry gets by being in her home also protects her - If Dumbledore is Harry's secret keeper, keeping others from attacking him in her home, perhaps it keeps her home safe for her as well. Why don't we know she's a witch? Because Harry doesn't know - he didn't know Mrs Figg was a muggle either. Dumbledore might have known from the beginning, but wouldn't say anything to anyone. Prof. McGonagall might not have known - was she head of house when Lily was a t Hogwarts? would she have been given this information about Lily's sister? I doubt it - she and Dumbledore don't seem to know each other all that well yet. Remember she was surprised that Dumbledore recognized her is her cat form; if they were well acquainted, there would be no question of him recognizing her. Petunia is never the one who says bad things about her Sister - those words always come from Vernon, she just seems to go along. I think she's more afraid of being exposed to the wizarding world than to the muggles. I hope we learn more about Petunia in the next book, and about why Harry sends the entire summer there, when clearly he only neds to stay a couple of days for the protection charms to stay in effect. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 18:54:38 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:54:38 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys (was many other subjects) long Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124607 I am really getting tired of all of these discussions about the Dursleys, but since it is never going to die, I would like to suggest that we try a new approach. Not please understand me I am not arguing in their defense, but let's put ourselves in their shoes and try to understand them. When I was a little girl my mother told me to imagine how the other person would feel and I think that this ability has helped me understand some otherwise nasty people. So let's have a go at this: You are a Muggle woman with a husband that hates magic and is afraid of magic. Maybe you have seen terrible things and you husband has heard the stories. He wants to protect you and his son. As a husband and father it is his duty to protect you both and he takes this very seriously. Your sister and her husband die young, a terrible death at the hands of the most evil person known. LV is not your usual criminal, he is a a you can't even say the word it is sooooo scary he is a Wizzz wizzz wizard. Magic is scary and dangerous and now your only sister has been murdered by magic. Some of *her kind* bring your nephew to your home and place him on your doorstep. You find him in the morning with a note. The note tell you that little Harry is in danger and he must stay with you to be safe. (Perhaps it even says how important he is to the world, or at least that the wizards want him to grow up in a humble environment.) You are scared for yourself and your own child and for your husband too. If the really bad wizards are looking for Harry, they will find you too. And a bad wizard is worse than a vengeful god. Very, very scary indeed!! But being a moral woman you accept your duty to your sister and take Harry in. Your husband wants to put him out, but you insist that you can't do that. You can't let a child, your own flesh and blood die. Maybe the wizard that left the note promised some kind of protection for you and your family for taking Harry in. Anyway, here you have this child. A magical child. You must hide his magic to keep him safe and help him to live like something other that a freak in the Muggle world. Where is the safest place to hide him? Humm the cupboard under the stairs. If they come for him they will not think to look there. No one would put anything *special* and valuable there. And as a little kid he would have his bed and a quite place to play. (Cupboards under the stairs are rather large, really folks, and fun for little kids.) The boy grows up a bit. Maybe when he is really happy he does some sort of involuntary magic so you try to keep that from happening. You and your husband, especially your husband, try to keep the magic in him from coming out. You do not want to draw attention. You do not want the neighbors to start talking about the *usual* Potter boy. The wrong (dangerous) people might find out where he was. If you keep him quiet, low key, almost invisible you will keep him and your family safe. Also the boy must grow up to live as a Muggle. You have to stamp the magic out of him so he can fit into the world in which he will now have to live. You are doing what you believe to be the right thing. You think that sometimes your husband is a bit hard on the boy, but he is just doing his best under the cirmstances so you say nothing. Nothing that is until something happens to put the boy's live in danger again. Then you tell your husband *the boy must stay*. You are very, very afraid for your own family as well. That wizard that wrote the Holler is scary too, so you do what you are told. Magic is a very, very dangerous thing. What is a poor, simple, defenseless Muggle woman to do?? Now really I don't want an answer to that. Just look at it through Petunia's eyes. Think of your own family. Think of scary people that are like the Nazis, and then add the element of magic to that. Who among you would risk your own family to take little Harry in? It is easy to criticize the Dursleys when you are not in their shoes. But what if you *really* were?? Again I don't want an answer here. I just want people to really, really think about this. Put yourself in Petunia or Vernon's place for a day. ;-) Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 19:08:28 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:08:28 -0000 Subject: An Odd Ghostly Question. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124608 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > Could a ghost like Sir Nick, who > clearly seems to regret choosing his 'pale imitation of life', now > choose to walk into The Veil and fully accept death, thereby moving > from a shadow of himself walking the earth to his eternal rest? > Tonks now: I like that idea. That good ol' Nick could help the Order and have his eternal rest. I don't think that he can go over and then come back. Having said that, I think that there is a form of communication that can take place but it does not involve walking through the *veil*. In the Shamanism tradition, and I am not an expert, the Shaman go through a veil (in their mind while in a trance) to communicate and ask for help on the other side. I am not sure if the veil is the same one that JKR is using. Wizard too can use the souls of the dead to do their bidding. JKR hints at this a bit with DD and the portraits. But I don't think that we what to follow that line, as I am sure she doesn't. That would really get the religious right after us all! Ya, teach the children necromancy... no I think not. Tonks_op From prongs at marauders-map.net Tue Feb 15 19:14:51 2005 From: prongs at marauders-map.net (Silver Stag) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:14:51 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Dursleys (was many other subjects) long References: Message-ID: <00b401c51392$a2200e90$0201a8c0@bettysue> No: HPFGUIDX 124609 Nice try, Tonks, but that doesn't get Petunia off. There's no cause for her to hate Harry. None of this was his fault and she doesn't need to take things out on him and make him miserable. Betty From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 19:32:16 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:32:16 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys (was many other subjects) long In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124610 Tonks: You are scared for yourself and your own child and for your husband too. If the really bad wizards are looking for Harry, they will find you too. And a bad wizard is worse than a vengeful god. Very, very scary indeed!! But being a moral woman you accept your duty to your sister and take Harry in. Alla: I understand Petunia being scared, really, I do, but I also think that once she made a decision of taking Harry in ( and yep, I happen to think it IS her moral duty to take in her orphan nephew, but I realise that many will disagree). Nevertheless, I understand her initial unwillingless. But when she took Harry in, she is responsible for mistreatment he suffered from her and Vernon, IMO Tonks: Where is the safest place to hide him? Humm the cupboard under the stairs. If they come for him they will not think to look there. No one would put anything *special* and valuable there. And as a little kid he would have his bed and a quite place to play. (Cupboards under the stairs are rather large, really folks, and fun for little kids.) Alla: Fun for little kids? Could you tell me why she did not put Dudley there too? Tonks: It is easy to criticize the Dursleys when you are not in their shoes. But what if you *really* were. Alla: I can tell you with ABSOLUTE certainty that if a child of my recently dead sister would came to live with me, this child will NOT be treated like Harry was, no matter what the surrounding circumstances were. Silver Stag: Nice try, Tonks, but that doesn't get Petunia off. There's no cause for her to hate Harry. None of this was his fault and she doesn't need to take things out on him and make him miserable. Alla: Yes, I agree with this statement absolutely. I want to add though - I believe that JKR may plan Petunia's redemption. She has a long way to go though, IMO. Just my opinion, of course. Alla From pegruppel at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 20:20:39 2005 From: pegruppel at yahoo.com (Peggy) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:20:39 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys (was many other subjects) long In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124611 Tonks, that's a very kind and compassionate evaluation of Petunia's position and you've clearly thought very hard about what finding Harry on the doorstep might be like for Petunia. I, myself, have pointed out to other people who aren't as Potter- obsessed as I am, that the Dursleys, especially Petunia, appear to be very, very frightened. I've also told these same people that there's no conscionsable reason for the Dursley's to be so vile to the poor kid. There's no excuse for depriving a child of food, for physically attacking him (Petunia swings a skillet at him, Vernon grabs him by the neck and threatens to punch him several times), or for allowing other people (Marge) to insult a child and allow a dog to attack him without interfering. Harry's upbringing was brutal. I will not excuse the sort of behavior demonstrated by the Dursley's as "poor things, they're so frightened, they don't know what they're doing." Garbage. They're adults, and subject to the same standards of behavior as any other adults. DD is just as responsible. If he can address an envelope to "Harry Potter, The Cupboard Under the Stairs, 4 Privet Drive" he can sure as h@@@ keep track of how Harry's being treated and use the odd Howler to ensure that certain minimum standards are being met. Peg--for whom the whole subject of Harry's life with the Dursley's hits some very raw nerves. Which is why this is my first and last post on the subject. From rbrown at cp.tamu-commerce.edu Tue Feb 15 13:30:37 2005 From: rbrown at cp.tamu-commerce.edu (rbrown at cp.tamu-commerce.edu) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:30:37 GMT Subject: Dumbledore Message-ID: <4211f97d.34.164.21287@cp.tamu-commerce.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 124612 The debate on AD is most interesting. IMHO the risk of leaving Harry in the wizarding world far outweighed the risk of leaving him with muggles. The key is in the blood bond with Lily's sister to protect him. Under the circumstances AD was perhaps overly optimistic about the Dursleys. However, not all facts regarding Voldy were known and it appeared that Harry was in serious danger and would be safe in muggleland with the special old magic of the blood spell Lily performed on Harry before she died. AD regretted seeing a malnourished Harry arrive at Hogwarts but he was alive and was kept safe. Surely he knew that Voldy or DEs would try to find and kill Harry given the chance. Though he wasn't loved like Dudley, he was kept and protected and the only really serious child abuse he received is mostly in fanfics on the subject. The worse he received was unfair treatment, neglect, and a lack of a loving home toward him, BUT he was kept safe and alive. JK Rowling had to build a foundation for the story and wisely developed sympathy for the main character in the muggle environment. Give AD a break, ...it was a hard call to make. ~bob From rbrown at cp.tamu-commerce.edu Tue Feb 15 13:31:18 2005 From: rbrown at cp.tamu-commerce.edu (rbrown at cp.tamu-commerce.edu) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:31:18 GMT Subject: The Dursleys Message-ID: <4211f9a6.3af.164.3220@cp.tamu-commerce.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 124613 God we could whip a dead horse back to life in this chat room! lol JK Rowling is a genius. Putting Harry with those horrible muggles created for the reader an emotional bond with the main character from the very beginning of the story and a half a billion "flys" buying the book shows just how brilliant the Dursleys' importance to the story was. Literature is loaded with the theme of creating an emotional bond for the reader early in the story and successful works and most classics bear this truth. Take "Moby Dick" for example. In the beginning of the story the main character has to spend the night in bed with a harpooner who appears to be a cannibal thus leading to the conclusion: "Better to sleep with a sober cannibal than a drunk Christian." It created sympathy and an emotional bond for the protaganist from the start and so goes the canon of great fiction. A hundred years from now, JK Rowling will be a classic author in her own right just as she is a billionaire today because of her genius. Without the horrible Dursleys, I dare say that would not have happened. Analyze all you wish, but to quote Steven Hawking... "I don't just want to know what God did, I want to know what he was thinking." Am I the only one who stops and thinks why did Rowling do it this way and how bloody brilliant it was? ~bob From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 21:16:07 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:16:07 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124614 >>Naama: > Draco's roll is exactly the same, on the level of Hogwarts - he is the paradigmatic Slytherin, embodying all of its worst qualities - ruthlessness, cold heartness (snakiness?), ambition untempered with compassion. And the pure-blood ideology.< Betsy: Except that he's not. Ruthlessness and cold heartedness? Draco is anything but. Both qualities demand a certain cutting off of emotion and Draco is almost pure emotion. Why else has he refused to let go of his ongoing vendetta against Harry, a vendetta that has only brought him pain and humiliation, a vendetta that his father has specifically frowned upon, except that he cannot temper his emotion? And ambition? When has Draco ever expressed ambition, beyond the childish wish to bring a broom first year (failed) and perhaps to beat Harry at Quidditch (failed again, because of lower quality broom)? We haven't seen him express much compassion, but then we've never been witness to an opportunity for Draco to do so. Draco does express the pure-blood ideology, but he's a child parroting his parents' politics. He does hate Hermione (and I can understand why) and he uses his ideology to attack her, but it's a mere tool in his arsenal. He doesn't hate Hermione *because* she's Muggle born. Her blood just gives him a stone to throw. Harry et al think Draco is pure evil, but JKR shows us again and again that they are wrong. Just as Hagrid contention that all bad wizards are Slytherin has been shown, time and again, to be wrong. Betsy From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 14:19:25 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:19:25 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Career - Politics (was: Hard Choices) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124615 In Message #124591, Jim Ferer wrote: > Harry's biographer (Hermione, probably) will write that history > someday.(1) > > Jim Ferer > > (1) Rowling, J.K., and Granger, H.J., /Harry's War: The Life of the > Wizard World's Savior/ Royal Thaumaturgical Society Press, 2008. This is something that tends to come up pretty often. Hermione is a scholar, a historian, a professor, a librarian. Sometimes, and this is me ranting a bit, it's almost taken as a given. Easy enough to see where it comes from - Hermione is bookish, bright, likes facts and has a passion for knowledge. That's all true, but Hermione has a very certain type of love of knowledge, and it's this, along with her other traits, that makes me think that it's Hermione, not Harry, who's going to be the next Minister for Magic. Well, a politician or activism of some kind anyway. SPEW makes it clear enough that not only does she have strong opinions, she's willing to act according to them. More than that - she's willing to be the one to start it, she takes the initiative, she does the organizing. It's a significant difference between signing a petition, going to a rally, and being the one circulating the petition and organizing the rally. She not only cares about stuff though - she also the ability to plan and organize, to think ahead, to see the big picture. It was Hermione who came up with and executed the whole Polyjuice caper. It was Hermione who invented and organized the DA. Now the DA. She handles all the logistics of it, and she's also one of those recruiting for it. She manages to get a large, complicated, forbidden plot off the ground, and keeps it effective. The DA also proves...well...she's not above subterfuge, is she? The meeting at the Hog's Head (good, sneaky thinking), the member list, the coins, the enchanted cursed member list, using the shock tactic of saying "Voldemort", and the list and it's consequences one more time. Hermione's mind works in sneaky ways. She's a competent and effective liar. (She lies during the troll incident, to Lockhart, to Umbridge in massive way, with fake crying and trip to forest, to her parents, and probably more I've forgotten) and rather cleverly manipulates and sets up Umbridge. That, like the list, like what she did to Rita Skeeter, shows an ability to be really, really nasty when she needs to. Hermione manages to make use of Rita, with the Quibbler article, (She's not above blackmail either) and this article shows a certain political astuteness. She pays attention during Umbridge's speech, she figures out what it means. Dumbledore realises it's Hermione who's been paying attention, not Harry. She fires back in the field of public opinion with the article. She's generally pretty good at analysing people. (Not great, not infallible, her Ron, and later Cho analyses are probably not spot on. But it's more than Harry sees. Whether she gets it right or not, Hermione tries to analyse people.) Back to her thirst for knowledge - I'm sure Hermione reads plenty of fiction too, but mostly we see her reading what looks like history books. And what she learns, she remembers, and uses. I think her choice of reading materials reflect a knowledge=power sort of mentality. And it works too - how many times has Hermione's knowledge on some esoteric subject saved the day? She even says it herself, in her Troll lie - She says she thought she could handle it, because she's *read* all about them. And she shows an interest, thinking about becoming a muggle Liaison at least, which she does not in becoming a historian or a librarian. To summarize: Bright, knowledgeable, astute, motivated, activistic, takes initiative, capable organizer, ruthless, manipulative. In short, a politician. And I for one, love her for it. Northsouth From scarah at gmail.com Tue Feb 15 21:50:44 2005 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:50:44 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] John the Baptist again (was RE: Character Discussion: Ron) In-Reply-To: <47DA59BF3D32334DAF6A67C7508991AB01396559@EUR-MSG-20.europe.corp.microsoft.com> References: <47DA59BF3D32334DAF6A67C7508991AB01396559@EUR-MSG-20.europe.corp.microsoft.com> Message-ID: <32025905021513505e6ec651@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124617 Dumbledad: > Locusts? Sarah: But he did make his password Cockroach Clusters! ;) Sarah From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 21:53:47 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:53:47 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124618 Betsy: Draco does express the pure-blood ideology, but he's a child parroting his parents' politics. He does hate Hermione (and I can understand why) and he uses his ideology to attack her, but it's a mere tool in his arsenal. He doesn't hate Hermione *because* she's Muggle born. Her blood just gives him a stone to throw. Alla: I will give a bit more credit to fifteen year old that being a mere parrot of his parents ideology. Twelve year old Ron articulates quite well what "mudblood" means , I think Draco knows what he stands for. And I think the fact that Hermione is muggle born is a very important reason of why Draco hates her ( although could be not the only one) Betsy: Harry et al think Draco is pure evil, but JKR shows us again and again that they are wrong. Just as Hagrid contention that all bad wizards are Slytherin has been shown, time and again, to be wrong. Alla: Where did JKR show us that Harry was wrong about Draco? (Except Draco being a Slytherin heir of course - sorry) I think she is showing us over again and again that Harry is 100% correct in his assesment of Draco and even though I think that Hagrid contention will definitely be proven wrong, it should by the logic of the story, it was not so far. JMO, Alla From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 16:01:10 2005 From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:01:10 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty-Eight - The Second War Begins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124619 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dan Feeney" wrote: > > 2 - There are a couple versions of "afterlife" presented here - > > Nick's and Luna's. What is the difference - or rather, if one > version > > is consternating and the other comforting, what is Rowling getting > at? > Lyra: It's a message about faith. Luna has faith that she'll see her loved ones after she dies. Nick, on the other hand, didn't have the faith needed to make that journey. He chose to stay on Earth as a pale version of himself, and I think he now regrets that decision. Lyra From jferer at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 22:02:55 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:02:55 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Career - Politics (was: Hard Choices) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124620 Jim Ferer: (me)" Harry's biographer (Hermione, probably) will write that history someday.(1) (1) Rowling, J.K., and Granger, H.J., /Harry's War: The Life of the Wizard World's Savior/ Royal Thaumaturgical Society Press, 2008." Northsouth:"That's all true, but Hermione has a very certain type of love of knowledge, and it's this, along with her other traits, that makes me think that it's Hermione, not Harry, who's going to be the next Minister for Magic." Oh, I don't disagree at all. She'll do both, a la Winston Churchill. The factors you cite are all right on the money. I never thought Harry would be MoM. Headmaster, maybe (although I believe JKR scotched that idea), or even DADA teacher (who better?) with some *very* interesting summer vacations. It's hard to come up with a plausible future for Harry. Let's just worry about him *having* a future. Jim Ferer From jmrazo at hotmail.com Tue Feb 15 21:51:45 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:51:45 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Career - Politics (was: Hard Choices) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124621 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "northsouth17" wrote: > That's all true, but Hermione has a very certain type of love of > knowledge, and it's this, along with her other traits, that makes me > think that it's Hermione, not Harry, who's going to be the next > Minister for Magic. Except for Hermione lacks this thing called Charisma. Social grace. Likeability. Leadership quality. Stuff like that Hermione is gifted in many ways but being a politican fits none of her skill sets. She would make a good political operative or advisor, at least to a reformer politician, but she could never be the face of a political team. She's just not leadership material. > > Now the DA. She handles all the logistics of it, and she's also one > of those recruiting for it. She manages to get a large, complicated, > forbidden plot off the ground, and keeps it effective. The DA also > proves...well...she's not above subterfuge, is she? But no one would have stayed to listen to her because she isn't a particularly nice or pleasant person to be around. I also can't see her being able to convey information in an effective manner. I am a teacher and I can tell you right now that I don't think she would be a very good teacher. Bad personal touch with the students. > The meeting at the Hog's Head (good, sneaky thinking), Actually the meeting in the Hogshead was a pretty stupid idea (as Sirius points out). > To summarize: Bright, knowledgeable, astute, motivated, activistic, > takes initiative, capable organizer, ruthless, manipulative. You make an arguement for Hermione making a good Slytherin. But a politician, no. She just doesn't have the personal touch that truly great politicians need. Hermione would make a good policy wonk. Someone like Karl Rove, the chief advisor to President Bush. phoenixgod2000 From bethanymil79 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 17:09:32 2005 From: bethanymil79 at yahoo.com (Bethany) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:09:32 -0000 Subject: The Dark Mark In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124622 Snow wrote: > > There could be a definite drawback to this proposal; Voldemort could > never be killed as long as any deatheater remains alive. Then again > there is always the Harry factor. No one is absolutely certain what > part or parts of Voldy were transferred to Harry at Godric's Hollow > but there appears to be some connection between Voldemort touching > Pettigrew's scar and Harry feeling pain in his at the same time in > the graveyard. There is also a hopeful statement from Voldemort to > his deatheaters that can be construed as Voldemort being mortal after > his rebirth. > > "But I was willing to embrace mortal life again, before chasing > immortality." GOF pg. 656 > > Voldemort may have lost that particular portion of the dark mark's > original connection. The reason he may still be alive is more Harry > now than the deatheaters. Voldemort is still alive so why would he > have reason to question it beyond that point. Bethany asks: So are you saying that Harry's scar is the same as the Dark Mark? I think that makes sense - but I also think they differ in the fact that the Death Eaters signed up for the mark. They took it willingly. Harry on the other hand did not. It was sort of forced upon him by Lily's act of protective Love. In this way I think the "scars" differ and so I don't know that they necessarily carry the same weight. I think Harry probably has a much bigger portion of LV's powers in that they were sort of sucked out of him without his consent. I doubt he would want anyone to have even close to the amount of power that he did and so the DE's would only get a tiny bit if that actually is what the Dark Mark represents. What I'm trying to say is.... If it's true - the Dark Mark and Harry's scar are the same sort of thing, I don't think they would have equal power. I think Harry's would be much more substantial - enough that he took enough power from LV to paralyze him for quite some time. Does that make sense? Perhaps as Harry grew and his powers strengthened, LV powers grew accordingly??? That's a whole new topic though... From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Tue Feb 15 21:58:57 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:58:57 +1100 Subject: combined response to posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124623 Tonks and Steve - thankyou very much for your recent thoughtprovoking posts! Lovely to see something different! Steve - I loved the idea that Sir Nick could find peace by going through the veil. Tonks - I think you are onto something there! Petunia does not see herself as a bad person. It is worth examining why. Sometimes I wonder if when we discuss the Dursleys we should put our own qualifications as parents/guardians on the table. I know that the view pre-parenthood can be startlingly different from the view post-parenthood. I am reminded of an article I read once about a room that was divided into parents and non-parents. They were asked whether parenthood changed who you were. The non-parents replied "Of course not" while the parents laughed and were equally emphatic that it did. The writer said that many of the non-parents were not only uncomprehending but deeply offended by the response of the parents. I learned to drive well into adulthood, and I can perhaps compare it to the difference between being a pedestrian and a driver. Before I was a driver I never understood so many things about the awful driving I saw. NOW I know that when the light still looks clear at the end of the day, it can be surprisingly concealing of a person wearing dark clothing. NOW I know that when I am backing between two posts I am concentrating on those posts and may not immediately see someone who steps behind the car. Similarly as a parent I understand the impulses that drive abuse of children much better! I am a very good parent, honestly, but I doubt that anyone who has had children has failed to have the odd dark thought, and our stance against the evil contains a tinge of "there but for the grace of God go I" (or possibly for the less philosophically inclined "If I can keep from slapping the little b** sideways then so can s/he!"). Jocelyn From bethanymil79 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 15:47:08 2005 From: bethanymil79 at yahoo.com (Bethany) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:47:08 -0000 Subject: Many sleepless nights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124624 > Paul: > > I think that AD is either the greatest fool or the greatest > > manipulator ever. I don't believe for a second that he didn't > know what kind of people are the Dursleys. And that leads us to > thefollowing options: > > a) He trully didn't know and that makes him at least > incompetent. > > b) He knew but he believed that the Dursleys may behave > themselves and that makes him at least naive and finally, > > c) He knew but he didn't care. Everything and anything in order > to protect his "asset" or "weapon" you name it for future use. In > that case he is a s*n of a b***h. > > > > In any case AD took a big risk because he recreate the very > same conditions that made Tom Riddle to become Lord > Voldermort and that is an abusive, uncaring muggle foster family > for little Harry. > Bethany here: I think that Dumbledore probably did know what Harry would be going through "somewhat". But, Harry also grew up to be a very humble and kind person. Humbled by what his own life was like growing up, he doesn't have the inflated "Savior" complex he very well could have gotten from getting rid of Voldemort - even though in reality he had very little to do with it. I think Dumbledore was taking a chance, but an educated one, in thinking that James and Lily's personalities would be innate in Harry. He was right by the way. Harry is exactly as he should be - teen angst and all. My thoughts... From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 17:31:38 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:31:38 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124625 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" wrote: > Seeing as the DEs are the equivalent of the Nazi SS or Gestapo, I > don't see how they could be depicted as other than totally black. Well, the Nazi's were human too. Hitler was nice to his dog. (Though I think he might have poisoned it eventually.) Right from book 1 we had some grey charecters, like Quirrel (evil through weakness) and Snape (nasty *and* good) This continues on, both with more characters that are neither here nor there, and with our side growing progressively murkier. If Voldemort is total darkness, than I suppose Harry or DD must be all light - but they're not. Harry is a teenage kid, with anger and hormones and ocassional nastiness. He's not saint. Niether is DD, who does make mistakes. (oh, and "Merely taking your life would not satisfy me, I admit"(OotP, Bloomsbury, 719) what's *that* about?), and things continue to get greyer - the Marauders not so pleasant teenage incarnations are revealed, Snape is working for the Good Guys in official capacity, people like Mundungus Fletcher join the ranks. The series has been getting greyer, and will continue - and there's still two books to go. So if our side is allowed that much complexity, the DE's should be too. They're bad and racist and violent and shold be locked up - but they are *human*. And humans are pretty mindboggling in their ability to love their kids or spouses for example, and be homicidal nutcases all in the same evening. It's just more interesting that way, IMO. (Fun fact: the Goebbels killed their six children when they commited suicide with Hitler in 1945. Not that it does much for my argument, it's jut a fun fact.:-\) > As for Lucius, far from needing an opportunity for redemption, he > functions in the story as the paradigmatic DE. he is > THE proponent of the pure-blood ideology. Pure blood ideology though is all about "family" in some odd twisted way. Preserving society, preserving the bloodlines, etc. It does not in any way clash to me that Lucius is a right bastard, who absoloutely believes his stuff, and has no need for redemption of any kind, and really, genuinely, loves his son. And I think it would be fun if these two things were to clash for Lucius. > Draco's roll is exactly the same, on the level of Hogwarts - he is > the paradigmatic Slytherin, embodying all of its worst qualities can't be redeemed without the story > losing ... structural integrity? balance? something important, > anyway. You can reasonably redeem a character who teeters, who is > betwixt and between the poles of Good and Evil - not the poles > themselves. The poles, if such exist, are defnitely Voldemort and DD/Harry. If all of LV's followers were as evil as he was, he wouldn't be that dramatic. I don't know about Lucius, but Draco is very much betwixt poles. *He hasn't ever done anything evil!* how could he possibly be the paradigm of evil, even in a Hogwarts context? It's a bit harsh calling that a boy who has so far done little more than to display a dirty mouth and suck up to nasty authority figures. Voldemort can't be redeemed. That would mess things up. (Though I can wish...) Anyone short of Voldemort however is fair game as potential redemption material, as far as i'm concerned. > (Which is another reason why DD will never be revealed as puppet > master or otherwise "gray".) Well, I don't think he will either. (Though I can wish...:-) It's just that he's not *perfect*. OoTP DD is, IMO, far more interesting than PS DD, and he was redeemed by the socks and Underground map scar, not by his shining goodness. Northsouth From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 21:42:41 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:42:41 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys In-Reply-To: <4211f9a6.3af.164.3220@cp.tamu-commerce.edu> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124626 bob: > > God we could whip a dead horse back to life in this chat > room! lol > > JK Rowling is a genius. Putting Harry with those horrible > muggles created for the reader an emotional bond with the > main character from the very beginning of the story and a > half a billion "flys" buying the book shows just how > brilliant the Dursleys' importance to the story was. Personally, I don't think it is so well done of JKR. I think she made it much too easy for us to despise the Dursleys. Honestly they are boring, stupid, narrow-minded, abusive, ugly etc. They just kind of deserve what they are getting, don't they? But such setting only drives our attention from much more serious problem of the Muggle- Wizard relationships. Namely from the fact that wizards both "good" and "bad" regard themselves as a superior race. Bad ones kill and torture Muggles just for the fun of it. Good ones presume to mess with Muggles's minds and memories (doubtless, they are doing it for Muggles' own good, but would you like to have your memory altered?). The sad truth is that while in our world racism is just a failed ideology and races are no more than an ideological construct in the HP universe they actually do exist. Kind of uncomfortable knowledge, isn't it? But as long as we are busy despising the Dursleys we won't look at the problem from their perspective. "a_svirn" From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 20:37:26 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:37:26 -0000 Subject: Sirius clueless? In-Reply-To: <80.216481a0.2f42bb7c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124627 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, catportkey at a... wrote: > In GoF, I don't understand how Sirius would not know what Karkaroof was > showing Snape (pages 531-532). > If Sirius was battling Death Eaters, surely he or his other fighters would > have noticed the mark on the Death Eaters' arms, > OR > when the Death Eaters were put in Azkaban, the authorities must write down > more than name and address. Any place of incarceration writes down all body > making for possible identification. > V was not vaporized when some of his followers were arrested. Didn't anyone > notice the arm markings? We've no evidence so far that the members of the first Order of the Ph. actually did any battling unless they were Ministry Aurors like Moody and it was in their job description. (And I don't think that Sirius was an Auror). And anyway from what I remember from GoF most battling took place after Voldemort's downfall, and we know that all Dark Marks vanished as soon as the Dark Lord vanished. All those prisoners in Azkaban had their forearms unblemished. As for Sirius being clueless about Snape it is hardly surprising. Dumbledore is obviously a great believer in not telling people anything "more than they need to know". --a_svirn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 22:17:34 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:17:34 -0000 Subject: Writers Fiat (was: Stockholm Syndrome - was No sympathy for Kreacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124628 >>phoenixgod2000: >That very special thing about Harry is called Writers Fiat.< Betsy: You've hit the nail on the head, Phoenixgod. Though I'm going to twist your original post around a little bit. Something we have to keep in mind is that Harry Potter is a certain genre. Kind of a mish-mash of many, actually, but I'm going to keep it simple for this post and use the one I think applies. I, erm, can't think of the exact *name* for this genre (Hero's Journey, Magical/Special Child, Fairy Tale?) but I definitely know it when I see it. It's about a child, with a special and amazing gift that s/he (usually he) knows nothing about. The gift is usually very powerful and quite possibly dangerous if used incorrectly, and generally the only thing that can save the world from certain and horrible doom. Ignorance of the gift is one of the rules of the genre. Strange things may happen around the child, but he's got no idea why, and probably worries that he's a freak. Which leads to another rule: The child is usually fairly friendless. He may have one friend (often in a weaker position than the child), but on the whole, the child is fairly lonely in the beginning of the tale. Here's another important rule: The child must be an orphan - maybe discovered floating down a river, or crying on a hillside as an infant, maybe with a special object or strange birth-mark the only clue as to his birthright. And the most important rule for the purpose of this discussion: The child is badly treated by those who take him in to raise him. He's usually given the crappiest jobs in the village or on the farm, the rudest place to sleep, the least amount of food, and generally gets the tar beaten out of him for the smallest of reasons. He's mistrusted by the other villagers (though there may be a few folks who sympathize and do what little they can to make his life a bit easier) and picked on by his peers. Harry Potter's life with the Dursleys perfectly fits those rules. Of course, he's being raised in a suburbs rather than a farm, and his chores are relatively simple compared to a pre-industrial farm boy's, but JKR still follows those rules. The interesting thing to me (as I've discussed in earlier posts) is per the rules of this genre, Harry actually has it fairly good. He doesn't subsist off of the pigs' leavings. He doesn't get strapped for breathing too loudly. He doesn't have a back-breaking amount of labor to accomplish before the sun rises. He sleeps inside. I think there are two reasons for this -- first of all JKR chose to set her story in the modern era, and you just can't beat a pre- industrial farm for horrible conditions (just think of the bed bugs!). And second, I'm sure she knew that she'd be pulling her fairy tale closer to real life as the books progressed. Behavior that we can let slide in a fairy tale setting becomes unacceptable in real life. (Not, of course, that JKR is going for straight realism - it's still a fairy tale.) But she still needed to put Harry through the opening gambit of the fairy tale. Enter the Dursleys. However, the Dursleys, for this kind of tale are not that bad. Compare their behavior towards Harry, with Aunt Marge's. In the fairy tale, Harry should have lived with Aunt Marge (or Aunt Marge should have been living with the Dursleys). Because Aunt Marge is the best character to really make Harry's life a hell and fulfill the rules of the genre. But JKR chooses to keep Aunt Marge away. Petunia even nixes the idea of Marge as babysitter in PS/SS, chapter 18. Through Aunt Marge, JKR is letting us, the readers, know that she's fully aware of the rules, can write them if she chose to, but has decided to go easy on young Harry. Maybe because she knew that Dumbledore had to choose this life for Harry (usually in the fairy tale the child has been lost and/or thought killed). Maybe JKR realized that eventually Dumbledore would have some explaining to do, and so, though she *had* to follow the rules as much as possible, she made sure Dumbledore didn't come across as completely heartless. It worked for me anyway. :) Betsy From jmrazo at hotmail.com Tue Feb 15 21:23:01 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:23:01 -0000 Subject: Stockholm Syndrome - was No sympathy for Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124629 > Tonks now: > Well we are back to the fact that Harry's *abuse* was not that > severe or that unusual. Many children in his situation, especially > when placed with relatives after the death of a good parent would > not be *sociopaths*. A child has to have an early life like that of > Tom Riddle for that to happen. If a child were given love are good > care from birth to age 2 they could be messed up later, but not > become a true *sociopath* in the strict sense. They could be anti- > social personalities... the criminal type personality. But not all > anti-social personalities are *sociopath or psychopath*. Sociopath is a movie term because it is more well known than the correct terminology of Antisocial personality disorder. That was why I framed it the way I did. The more important part of my argument is that the emotional consequences that DD barely touches on in that second to last chapter would be far more dire than acknowledged. And can you imagine what a Harry with a criminal personality would do to the wizarding world, and what needing to rely on him would do to the prophecy. I stand by my assertion that DD is a very lucky man. --phoenix god From jmrazo at hotmail.com Tue Feb 15 21:31:35 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:31:35 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124630 > >>Naama: > > > Draco's roll is exactly the same, on the level of Hogwarts - he is > the paradigmatic Slytherin, > > Betsy: > Except that he's not. Ruthlessness and cold heartedness? Draco is > anything but. > And ambition? When has Draco ever expressed ambition, Phoenix God: Draco must have fairly strong Slytherin qualities because the sorting hat took so little time to put him in Slytherin. I doubt the hat would place him in a house solely based his acceptence of pureblooded ideology. > Betsy: >he does hate Hermione (and I can understand why) Phoenix God: I've read a number of your posts on Draco and so far this line is the only one I can agree with you on. Mostly because I don't like Hermione either :) phoenixgod2000, who despite hating Draco Malfoy with a passion, still finds him less annoying than Ginny From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 22:21:23 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:21:23 -0000 Subject: Invisibility cloak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124631 > Alla writes: > >James did leave his invisibility cloak with Dumbledore... Nicky Joe: > When I was wondering if James's wand was destroyed, I was also > wondering why James had left his cloak with Dumbledore. How about this scenario: some prank gone badly (maybe even the Shrieking Shack episode), the culprits (Sirius and James) got caught and the Cloak was confiscated by the Headmaster and ever since been locked in his office? "a_svirn" From easimm at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 22:27:14 2005 From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:27:14 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys (was many other subjects) long In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124632 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > Tonks wrote: > I am really getting tired of all of these discussions about the > Dursleys, but since it is never going to die, I would like to > suggest that we try a new approach. Not please understand me I am > not arguing in their defense, but let's put ourselves in their shoes > and try to understand them. > Snorky's response to Tonk's message http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124607 Brave, brave Tonk! I salute you! I thought you bent a little too far backwards regarding the cupboard under the stairs, but I agree with you and would like to add to your point. The Dursley's have reason to hate everything about the Wizarding World, not just the psycho killer who is after Harry. Having a little child who can perform magic would be terrifying. I remember watching either a television show in which a little child with magical abilities becomes a terrifying absolute dictator. If you knew you had no magic and that the baby did, the best way to solve this would be to repress magic as early as possible. I also wonder what it would be like to be burdened suddenly with a toddler who is probably still in diapers, who is just about to go through the terrible two's, and who can have magical accidents that could kill your own toddler or blow up your house. Eek! I think the Dursleys could have done a lot worse. They were not nice, but they did succeed in protecting themselves and their property without evicting Harry. -Snorky From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 22:36:16 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:36:16 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Career - Politics (was: Hard Choices) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124633 phoenixgod2000 wrote: > > > > You make an arguement for Hermione making a good Slytherin. But a > politician, no. She just doesn't have the personal touch that truly > great politicians need. > > Hermione would make a good policy wonk. Someone like Karl Rove, the > chief advisor to President Bush. > All right, I see your point. And I definitely agree that she wouldn't be a very good teacher. Nor does she have very much charisma - OTOH, charisma seems slightly overrated, to be honest. It's tossed about like a magic word, and yet it's tricky to define. Nonetheless, Hermione is not a charismatic leader - that's Harry, who through no effort of his own is elected head of the DA. But I do believe Hermione can grow - I think she has the composure to develop into a good public speaker, for example, and with the years to become a bit less shrill and perfectionistic. Or she could just get worse in those regards. It's hard to say, because she's 16 at the moment, and probably looking at a very trying few years. I think how she weathers them will be critical to the woman that she ends up. If things go right though (or, um, wrong, in a sense, if she faces challenges that help her grow and overcome her insecurities)...well, I think she could be a leader, not an overwhelmignly charismatic one like Harry, but a well respected and highly effective one anyway. Northsouth Who may be naive, but does believe that what's being done is at least equal in importance to who's doing it. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 22:49:01 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:49:01 -0000 Subject: Draco - Saved or Not? (was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124634 >>Valky: >Well actually Betsy I hope Nora put it in pencil for you because there just *might* be a foreshadowing of *Draco* as the good slytherin.< Betsy: Ooh, I hope you're right, Valky! I just want the guy to catch a break. Just once. And I agree that Draco's love for his family might be seen as that "noble core," Nora (I think?) brought up. Maybe, if Voldemort decides Lucius will be the scapegoat for the MoM failure, Draco will step up to the plate. Could be interesting if his stated ideology and the welfare of his family come into conflict. >>Valky: >He really values his loyalty, but it is to Slytherin people. A conflict in him a hurt/comfort scenario, no?< Betsy: Oh yeah, big time angst. I wonder what Draco's loyalty *is* to Slytherin? I also wonder about Snape's influence in his life. Which makes me wonder, what would happen if the welfare of his family and the welfare of his house came into conflict? >>Valky: >Hagrid is the one the one character that has conclusively chosen to believe that there are NO *good* slytherins. And Draco, has been the one who consistently, through his only *good* trait, (loyalty to his father) been a thorn in Hagrids side.< >What I can say is that I think it will be Hagrid who finally recognises Draco as the *good* slytherin, or that he will *have to* at some point because it is Hagrids failing working innately in Harry that prevents Draco from being saved instead of smashed down all the time.< Betsy: Interesting... I've never linked Hagrid and Draco before. Trusting Hagrid, or needing Hagrid's help would be a huge shake-up for Draco, because of his blood bias. I think he'd rate Hagrid as lower than Hermione or even Lupin, because of Hagrid's non-human mother. If Hagrid did help Draco (thereby healing his own bias against Slytherin) it might certainly force Draco to reconsider some things. I don't know if there's anything in the books that strongly point to that particular scenario... but when has that stopped any theorizing before? It will be interesting to see what happens! Betsy, who's thrilled with Valky and hopes, hopes, hopes, she's right! From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 00:07:25 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:07:25 -0000 Subject: Sexy Draco(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Sympathetic.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124635 >>Northsouth: >Just to make sure I've gotten it straight - hurt/comfort is not the reason we find bad boys attractive, thats a kind of determined DIYism. All h/c does is give us maternal, non sexual feelings. (Which does not require that we get off on sadism. Oh well, it was a spicy thought...)< Betsy: Oh no, hurt/comfort is all about the Sexy. It's not linked to bad boys though. I mean, it can be a bad boy going *through* the hurt/comfort, but it can be the hero as well. Actually, the hero *has* to go through the hurt/comfort to *be* the hero. (Pick an action film, any action film.) It's not sadism though -- that would be, erm, just plain hurt. :) I don't know why h/c does it for us womens (proof of virility, physical endurance?), but it does. That's why every romance, every fairy tale, has the hero go through some kind of physical challenge that he doesn't get through *too* easily. That's why so many young girl fanfic keep throwing more and more outlandish dangers at their hero. >>Northsouth: >My problem is that Draco is not only sympathized with, he is also often found to be sexually attractive. Whether or not he gets h/c is irrelevant in this case, beacause that's not what does it.< Betsy: Don't throw the h/c out too quickly. It seriously helps. Because by having Draco endure his physical trials (of which he has many) with the stoicism girls demand of their hero's, he starts to come across as, well, slightly heroic. Throw in some bad boy vibes and some underdog sympathy and you've suddenly got some seriously sighing fans. >>Northsouth >Unfortunately, canon Draco has nothing in the way of Bad Boy-DIY- Makeover-Guy going for him either. (You just don't end up with anything worthwhile even once he's been fixed up). All this sexual attraction it seems is not for canon Draco, but rather for the badboy Draco constructed by Fanon.< Betsy: But fanon is not created in a vaccum. True, most Sexy!Draco fanfic has to fastfoward a few years down the line, to a place where Draco has been redeemed (and is old enough to be defined as sexy without breaking some serious moral codes). But it's building off of a foundation given to us by JKR. (And no - it is NOT Tom Felton.) Draco is loyal, intelligent, witty, pretty, and tenacious. And that's all from canon. So you *do* end up with something worthwhile at the end, *if* you take Draco in the proper direction. >>Northsouth: >Why is there so much sexually attractive Draco in fanon, when there isn't so much of Ron or Harry, for example, or Neville or Percy.< Betsy: I'd say Harry and Draco run about even, though the badboy or DIY stuff may push Draco up a little. For some reason JKR has held back in portraying Ron heroically. He goes through most of his h/c scenes off stage. And when they do occur on stage (like the Aragog scene) Ron pukes. As for Neville, his stock might have started rising since his part in the battle at the DoM. (Though he's hampered by the almost... clownish quality of his injuries - so maybe not.) Betsy, who snipped Northsouth's post up, and can't remember where the snips all occured. Sorry! From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 01:10:37 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:10:37 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124636 Betsy: Except that he's not. Ruthlessness and cold heartedness? Draco is anything but. Both qualities demand a certain cutting off of emotion and Draco is almost pure emotion. Why else has he refused to let go of his ongoing vendetta against Harry, a vendetta that has only brought him pain and humiliation, a vendetta that his father has specifically frowned upon, except that he cannot temper his emotion? And ambition? When has Draco ever expressed ambition, beyond the childish wish to bring a broom first year (failed) and perhaps to beat Harry at Quidditch (failed again, because of lower quality broom)? We haven't seen him express much compassion, but then we've never been witness to an opportunity for Draco to do so. Draco does express the pure-blood ideology, but he's a child parroting his parents' politics. He does hate Hermione (and I can understand why) and he uses his ideology to attack her, but it's a mere tool in his arsenal. He doesn't hate Hermione *because* she's Muggle born. Her blood just gives him a stone to throw. Harry et al think Draco is pure evil, but JKR shows us again and again that they are wrong. Just as Hagrid contention that all bad wizards are Slytherin has been shown, time and again, to be wrong. vmonte responds: You can understand why he hates Hermione? And he's not a racist; he is just "parroting" his parent's politics? This reminds me of all the Snape threads that claimed that Snape didn't really hate Lily and only called her mud**ood because he was embarrassed in front of her. Draco is not a mysterious or multi-layered character. What you see is what you get, IMO. His hatred of Hermione is pretty extreme for it to just be him parroting his parents. Draco is not a nice kid! In fact, if Harry were to eventually save Draco's life we would probably see the same relationship dynamic there was between James and Snape. I think it's pretty obvious that Snape hated James. And we know that Snape turned into a DE right after he left Hogwarts. So, why didn't Snape target James after graduation? Do you really believe that Snape couldn't get back at James because of his life debt? A resourceful Slytherin would realize that he should go after Lily instead. This would be even worse than going after James because he would hurt James where it counted most. I'm starting to think that Snape told Voldemort not to kill Lily because he was somehow aware that Lily did some kind of protection charm. Maybe Snape wasn't able to tell Voldemort exactly what Lily did, but he knew enough to warn Voldemort that killing Lily would be a big mistake. Voldemort being the idiot he is doesn't take Snape's warning seriously enough. Draco in my opinion comes from the same mold. Vivian From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 02:15:47 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 02:15:47 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124637 >>Alla: > I will give a bit more credit to fifteen year old that being a mere parrot of his parents ideology.< Betsy: Why? What's so magic about the age fifteen that Draco should suddenly start questioning his parent's beliefs? In the real world most kids don't question until they're thrown into a completely new world - like college. Ron doesn't question his parent's belief system, why should Draco? >>Alla: >And I think the fact that Hermione is muggle born is a very important reason of why Draco hates her.< Betsy: No, Draco doesn't hate her 'cause she's muggle born. He pretty much ignores her through out PS/SS, IIRC. In CoS, Lucius tells Draco, in front of a stranger, no less, that he's too stupid to get better grades than Hermione, a Muggle born. The scene leaves the impression that Draco has heard this before. So a resentment starts to build. Then there's the scene where Draco is introduced as the new Slytherin Seeker. The two Quidditch teams are faced off against each other, the usual insults are exchanged. Then suddenly Hermoine sticks her nose in (you *know* she dragged Ron into it) where it doesn't belong. She's not on the team; this is not her battle. But Hermione has a hard time staying out of things and so she accuses Draco of buying his way onto the team. That's a pretty damn personal insult. Before, the insults where fairly generic - my broom's better than yours, etc. Hermione though, takes the insults to a whole new level and attacks Draco directly. It's after this that Draco really starts going after Hermione personally. She's a girl, so he's not going to physically attack her. He doesn't know much about her background like he does Ron's, so he can't go after her family. What he does have is the bigotry his parent's have taught him. So that's the direction he takes. I'm not saying Draco is right to call Hermione the names he does. He's being incredibly rude, and frankly a bit dull witted for him. (I wonder why he doesn't come up with better attacks?) But it is a *personal* dislike brought on by his father and Hermione herself. >>Alla: >Where did JKR show us that Harry was wrong about Draco? (Except Draco being a Slytherin heir of course - sorry)< Betsy: Well, Harry thinks Draco is the big evil and that he deserves all the hits he gets. JKR, by way over doing the pay-back Draco suffers, seems to suggest that he doesn't. Harry also saw Draco as a big threat (until the end of OotP), but every single effort Draco makes against him fails spectacularly. And Harry thinks that Draco is a wizard version of Dudley. JKR shows us that Draco most certainly is not. (Draco not being the Slytherin heir *is* a big hint that the Trio do not have a clear view of him.) Betsy From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 02:22:18 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 02:22:18 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys (was many other subjects) long In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124638 Snorky: The Dursley's have reason to hate everything about the Wizarding World, not just the psycho killer who is after Harry. Having a little child who can perform magic would be terrifying. (snip) If you knew you had no magic and that the baby did, the best way to solve this would be to repress magic as early as possible. I also wonder what it would be like to be burdened suddenly with a toddler who is probably still in diapers, who is just about to go through the terrible two's, and who can have magical accidents that could kill your own toddler or blow up your house. Eek! I think the Dursleys could have done a lot worse. They were not nice, but they did succeed in protecting themselves and their property without evicting Harry. Becky: I agree that they were scared, panicked even. I can understand the fear of other people discovering who Harry really was (even Harry himself). So, while I'm inclined to just agree, can't the same argument be applied to the parents of Lily and Hermione, in fact any muggle parent of any witch or wizard (and there appear to be a fair number around)? Their parents seem to have done ok by them without treating them the way the Dursley's treated Harry. In relation to the psycho killer, I think that DD must have done something to help them overcome their fear of attack, or else I don`t think they would have agreed to take him in the first place. It's clear from the couple of revelations from Petunia (I'm talking about the ones in PS and OotP) that she knows a lot more about the WW than she is letting on. (And wouldn`t we all love to *know* why?!) It seems clear that she at least has an idea of the threat the dementors were to Dudley, and I'm sure that she's aware of what LV being back means. I think the protection offered to *her* is one of the reasons she didn't allow Harry to be kicked out. I think that she and her family are offered protection for as long as they keep Harry. They don't have to stop him leaving of his own free will, as they are not actually removing the offer of housing (like in PoA). But they can't actually evict him, or their protection is just as removed as Harry's would be. I think when that howler came, Petunia was more aware than ever just how much she would be needing that. After all, she does know (I'm sure it was explained in that often wondered about letter left with Harry) what Harry may mean not just to the WW, but the muggle world too. I'm firmly of the opinion that there was no other option and that their treatment, which I do partly understand because they were scared, is not excusable. However, because I believe there was no other option, it has to simply be accepted. And yes, I do agree that they could have done worse. I would love to join the ranks of people who say DD was wrong, but as yet I haven't been convinced by anyone that there was a better alternative. They were the best going, reluctant as they were, so that's what Harry got. And I have to agree with Snorky - you were brave to post that Tonks! Becky (I would love to have seen the discussion between Petunia and Vernon when they found him on that door step. It`d make a change to see one of them arguing *for* Harry for a change!) From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 02:44:24 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 02:44:24 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124639 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy: > Well, Harry thinks Draco is the big evil and that he deserves all > the hits he gets. JKR, by way over doing the pay-back Draco > suffers, seems to suggest that he doesn't. Or, by overdoing it, JKR makes it ever-so-slightly comic, in the fine tradition of blending deserved punishment with a somewhat nasty twist. I stand by the deserved Schadenfreude ideal; there's something rather nice about seeing self-initiated bratty behavior receive comeuppance. > Harry also saw Draco as a big threat (until the end of OotP), but > every single effort Draco makes against him fails spectacularly. > And Harry thinks that Draco is a wizard version of Dudley. JKR > shows us that Draco most certainly is not. Really? I think the meeting scene shows us more about what Draco really is than that. Draco is not continually spoiled in the sense to which some fans exaggerate it, but he does get the goodies from home and the nice fast brooms for everyone on the team--he's not wearing crappy dress robes, either. But I think the Dudley comparison *does* have legs in OotP. OotP opens with Harry's commentary on Dudley and his gang bashing on Mark Evans, basically because they can but also out of a nasty sense of aggression on Dudley's part. Draco joins the IS and gets his jollies out of bossing around the other students to whatever degree he can, and is "watching hungrily" when Umbridge is about to cast Crucio on Harry. Dudley is made at least moderately sympathetic, but it requires making him a complete fish out of water, trying to deal with things from a world he is not a part of, things he can't possibly really understand. I don't see any analogous project with Draco. > (Draco not being the Slytherin heir *is* a big hint that the Trio > do not have a clear view of him.) He would totally *like* to be, though. And he puts his full support behind said Heir--"Mudbloods, you're next!" -Nora notes it's how long until we get this somewhat settled? From rbrown at cp.tamu-commerce.edu Wed Feb 16 00:37:43 2005 From: rbrown at cp.tamu-commerce.edu (rbrown at cp.tamu-commerce.edu) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:37:43 GMT Subject: Draco the Dragon Message-ID: <421295d7.3e1.1c8.25929@cp.tamu-commerce.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 124640 There are some interesting things in the canon of Draco. Like Harry, he is an only child. Like Harry, he is well off. Like Harry, he is powerful. Like Harry, he is an alpha male. Like Harry, he is well known due to a powerful family. So why did JKR include Draco into the story? I agree with the comment that much to do with the sex appeal of Draco has to do with the movies, and Tom Felton who is really attractive and charming in reality. In the books he is the one you hate (like Snape) without question for being pure evil and because of how he treats Harry and company. JKR said herself that Draco is pure evil. She did this on purpose. Draco is Harry's first arch-nemesis: his opposite and his enemy Peer that developed due to Harry's rejection of Draco in the beginning and it was magnified in the movies with the staircase scene (that isn't in the book). Draco brings to the story complexity of ethics, angst, and drama. He is the symbol of pureblood vs. muggleblood racism, a central theme in JKRs storyline. Who better to give us the perspective of the dark side of the wizard world but an anti-matter Harry opposite the same age and social equal status? This is Light vs. Dark, and all that. What child or adult cannot relate to a bully to deal with? The secret to successful fiction to me includes making a story believable, even in a make believe wizard world-we still need cornerstones of reality to make it seem real enough to stay interested and involved. Harry is perceived as a hero character without question BECAUSE Draco is (by reflection) a villain. You can't have one without the other thus character development in a delicate, sharp and raw ongoing balance between the two. This is just one more example of the genius of JK Rowling in action. Yes, Harry has to deal with evil adults from the start; however, he learns how to deal with evil from his peers-i.e. "Draco and company". This theme is so central to the storyline, and the amount of Harry/Draco shippers there are in fan fiction slash written by mostly 99.9% teenage girls out there is my final example of the inspiration and imagination Rowling's character calculus created. Way to go Jo! ~bob From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 00:50:30 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:50:30 -0000 Subject: the DE are Nazi?Re: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124641 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" > wrote: > > Seeing as the DEs are the equivalent of the Nazi SS or Gestapo, I > > don't see how they could be depicted as other than totally black. > > > Are they though? Don't you think it is a bit too much of a generalisation perhaps? I mean, yes there are obvious similarities between whole this "pureblood"-"mudblood" thing and racist ideology of the Third Reich (mainly because of the word `blood'). Perhaps, even too obvious for us not to treat it with some suspicion. But is this DE movement really about superior race hegemony? Somehow it doesn't sound right. As I said in some of my earlier posts, while in our world racism is a dangerous and faulty ideology, in the Wizarding World it is a fact of life. Like it or not, but Muggles ARE inferior simply because they cannot do magic. They even inferior to house-elves in this respect, which is probably why wizards didn't bother to enslave them. And let's face it, they easily could, should they chose to. So why on earth would members of the most influential wizarding families form this kind of a secret society just to prove something that doesn't need proving? As Harry quite reasonably asked after witnessing Muggle-torture at the World's Cup "what is point?" One needs more powerful motivation to go to such lengths, I think. The real reason is that they feel threatened by the rise of what Malfoy- fils termed as "riff-raff", that is muggle-borns and half-bloods. And this points to a different ideological framework. The pure-blood families like the Malfoys or the Blacks clearly see themselves as NOBILITY. Remember NOBLE house of Black complete with the coats of arms and the motto, a book about nobility, etc. Remember how in CoS Borgin muttered "Mr. Malfoy" (emphasis on `Mr'), and Draco referred to his house as to a `manor'? (And the owner of the manor would be a lord, not just a plain mister, would it?) And their leader is not called a `F?rer', or a `great Magister', etc, no it is called Dark LORD. And the correct form of address is "My Lord" or "Your Lordship" (there is always much more servile Master of course). This is something quite different from Nazism, I would even say opposite, since Nazism was a populist movement, while the DE is in a way an elitist club. Far from being populist the DE are clearly trying to reclaim their exclusive privileges. The kind of privileges their families have probably lost in the course of last hundred years or so, gradually loosing dome of their political influence to muggle-borns and half-bloods. And while I am ready to admit that radical aristocratic ideology of the DE may find a realisation just as ugly as radical populist ideology I would ague that they are hardly equivalent. From rbrown at cp.tamu-commerce.edu Wed Feb 16 00:51:57 2005 From: rbrown at cp.tamu-commerce.edu (rbrown at cp.tamu-commerce.edu) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:51:57 GMT Subject: Harry the Savior REvised! Message-ID: <4212992d.251.644.30028@cp.tamu-commerce.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 124642 Boy would Pat Robinson and the 700 Club have a field day book burning with this one! Well they condemned Galileo works too didn't they..hold it Pat, don?t put me in the oven just yet (gulp/again). Jesus is the greatest story ever told. Harry Potter will become the 2nd. How? Certainly not by insulting or mocking Jesus, but by compliment, and literary example. JKR did say that Harry would be like Jesus by the end of the story. Mmnnn..... Without quoting scripture verse for verse, and for the sake of simple Dom, here is my take on the possibilities. Good vs. Evil Harry vs. Voldemort (and Draco first for practice) Jesus vs. Satan Light overcomes darkness. Jesus overcomes death. Harry defeats Voltemort. Jesus dies. Harry dies? Jesus rises again reborn. Harry rises from death (or a death curse again)? (I have a better understanding of A Brief History of Time then that theory) I and about 600 million others have such an emotional relationship with Harry that the thought of him dying to defeat finally Voltemort is beyond my scope of vision. I just can't see him dying. This isn't the making of a classic tragedy IMHO. Harry will have supernatural powers that no other wizard has any knowledge of which will be the way he wins in the end. This is how Harry is like Jesus, and does not require him to die to do it. Jo isn't rewriting the New Testament but she is creating a literature masterpiece that will insure her place in the history of the worlds greatest writers. Of this I have no doubt. I can't think of a classic that kills the hero and becomes a classic in history. Short of a ?He is risen ? final chapter of course. I just don?t believe she will go there. I do believe in the imagination of Jo Rowling to probably come up with an ending that will knock our socks off, and how it parallels with the life (and death) of Jesus is to be seen. I am certain, that just as she has placed a new light in the struggle between good and evil, she will cast a new light of understanding of the significance of Jesus to the world by metaphor of events in her story. Canon supports that. By prognostication Harry is the Wizard world's Messiah but does not have to atone for the sins of that world. No where in the canon does it state or hint to this. He just has to channel his power when the time comes to defeat their greatest enemy and win the war. JkRowling did say last year at the Edinburgh Book Festival that she could kill Harry in the end (indirectly 'You assume he is going to live..."). IMO he will live, just like Tom Sawyer lived, and Mark Twain became a legend, and so shall Jo Rowling. Check back with me in 150 years if I'm wrong and tell me I was full of it. ~bob From ladyneptune6627 at sbcglobal.net Wed Feb 16 01:31:21 2005 From: ladyneptune6627 at sbcglobal.net (mnemosyne337) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:31:21 -0000 Subject: Parseltongue--other languages Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124643 Hi everyone! I've been pondering this for a while, and sorry if this has already been discussed and dissected. :) Harry can talk to snakes. He is a Parselmouth, and so is Voldemort. We know this is supposed to be an extremely rare ability, and is also associated with dark wizards. But the fact is, other wizards besides Harry and Voldemort have/had the ability to speak to snakes (like Salazar, for instance). My question is: Is it only snakes? I don't believe there are any other references to wizards being able to communicate with other animals (point me in the right direction if I'm wrong!). In COS, Harry says, upon Ron's incredulous reaction to Harry freely admiting his ability to speak to snakes, "So? I Bet loads of people here can do it." Ron replies with, "Oh, no they can't. It's not a very common gift. Harry, this is bad." They only mention the ability to talk to snakes, no other creature. Is it possible there are wizards with the ability to talk to, say, birds? cats? mice? If so, is it commonplace but not associated with dark magic? Or is it rare like parseltongue, perhaps even more rare, but seen as so unharmful that it isn't a big deal? I thought, if such abilities exist, Ron might have replied with something along of the lines of "If you could talk to mice, it'd be rare no big deal. But snakes..." If some wizards can talk to snakes, why shouldn't some be able to talk to other animals as well? What would be so special about snakes that would limit the communication link to them? Also, you'd think if some wizards could talk to cows and chickens, there'd be more vegetarianism in the WW. Hmm, this turned out longer than I'd expected. And more rambly. ;) ~mnemosyne From bob.oliver at cox.net Wed Feb 16 02:59:24 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 02:59:24 -0000 Subject: Writers Fiat (was: Stockholm Syndrome - was No sympathy for Kreacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124644 Maybe JKR realized that eventually > Dumbledore would have some explaining to do, and so, though she *had* > to follow the rules as much as possible, she made sure Dumbledore > didn't come across as completely heartless. It worked for me > anyway. :) > > Betsy Very good genre discussion. I think that the problem for most of us on this side of the fence is *as the series has evolved including OOTP* it just DOESN'T work for us. In fact many of us find it... well... at least repugnant if not downright reprehensible. If the series had REMAINED in the kind of fairy tale mode established by the early books, things might well be different. But with the turn in OOTP... it just sets DD up as at best a severely flawed figure, and at worst, a downright vile one. I think JKR probably intended to set DD up as a human (i.e. somewhat flawed) but extremely good figure. For most of us on this side, I think, she has failed rather badly in that attempt to this point. It is possible that further reservations will improve matters. But at the moment I feel safe in saying that quite a lot of readers aren't all that impressed with her portrayal of DD as it stands at the moment. Lupinlore From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 03:00:44 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 03:00:44 -0000 Subject: Stockholm Syndrome - was No sympathy for Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124645 phoenixgod2000 wrote: "The author needs Harry to not be a complete basketcase so he is not. A real child growing up in his surroundings would be a sociopath." Del replies: Except that Harry is not a normal child : no normal child has a Love Charm of some kind in his skin. phoenixgod2000 wrote: "So Dobby is just an odd ball? No other House elf in the history of House elves has free will aside from the lone elf of the Malfoy's?" Del replies: Well, Dobby *is* an odd ball, that much is clearly said in the books. He is widely different from the vast majority of House Elves, in that he enjoys and desires freedom. House Elves, as a rule, want and need to be enslaved. They don't want to live for themselves, they value themselves only insofar as they are good servants to their masters. They actively look to surrender their free will to their masters. They are the ultimate kind of slaves : slaves who want to be slaves. They don't want free will, which is what Hermione fails to understand. Del From snow15145 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 03:01:57 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 03:01:57 -0000 Subject: The Dark Mark In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124646 Bethany asks: So are you saying that Harry's scar is the same as the Dark Mark? I think that makes sense - but I also think they differ in the fact that the Death Eaters signed up for the mark. They took it willingly. Harry on the other hand did not. It was sort of forced upon him by Lily's act of protective Love. In this way I think the "scars" differ and so I don't know that they necessarily carry the same weight. I think Harry probably has a much bigger portion of LV's powers in that they were sort of sucked out of him without his consent. I doubt he would want anyone to have even close to the amount of power that he did and so the DE's would only get a tiny bit if that actually is what the Dark Mark represents. Snow: The relationship between Harry's scar and the deatheaters scars are that they were both made with a connection to Voldemort. Harry's scar hurts when he is in close proximity to Voldemort or when Voldemort "is feeling a particularly strong surge of hatred" GOF pg. 600 The deatheaters are summoned by feeling pain in their scar. We have not been told yet what caused Harry's scar, most feel it was as a result of the failed AK or the protection from Lily but there could be other reasons for it. We also have been led to believe that Voldemort came after Harry to kill him because he was the prophecy child but like I have stated in the not so recent past I feel that Voldemort came to Godric's Hollow to find what power this child had because he is a power hungry mongrel. What might Voldemort have been doing to or with Harry before he decided that the child had no apparent power over him and just attempted to dispose of him? This leads to another idea I had a while back that Voldemort was attempting to legilemence Harry to find what power this child may have that could be used against himself which backfired to a degree, this is somewhat like Harry viewing Snape's memories, which was not completely disconnected when Voldemort attempted the AK that caused Harry to receive part and parcel Voldy's powers and some of Voldemort himself. I don't want to even say some of Voldemort because I have always thought that Harry was the reason Voldemort was still living, until now. I think that Harry has, for the sake of confusion, the Tom Riddle portion of Voldemort and the deatheaters having an unknowing pact with the Voldemort portion through the dark mark gave Voldemort semi-immortality at Godric's Hollow. The problem lies with what Voldemort was left with after that point. It all comes back to what Voldemort was left with after Godric's Hollow. He says that he is content to just have a new body and will seek immortality later. From that I would take it that he no longer has his original protections that were dissolved along with his body at Godric's Hollow. Voldemort claims that he was left with only one power, that may or not be because he had no body, which was possession. I tend to lean towards Voldemort being unaware of what he is now or what powers he actually possesses. His body is made up of a muggle, a coward and a foe, not your best attributes. Voldemort's powers may not be his own anymore but accessible, which I have most recently written about in Satellite!Harry. Voldemort had been through so many transformations "that when he resurfaced as Lord Voldemort, he was barely recognizable". Was Voldemort with or without his followers and their death marks before he reappeared after his many transformations? There are so many possibilities of what Voldemort could have done to assure himself immortality but there are two real connections; one is with Harry and the other is with the dark mark. Bethany: What I'm trying to say is.... If it's true - the Dark Mark and Harry's scar are the same sort of thing, I don't think they would have equal power. I think Harry's would be much more substantial - enough that he took enough power from LV to paralyze him for quite some time. Does that make sense? Snow: Yes, exactly! And yes you make sense to me. Bethany: Perhaps as Harry grew and his powers strengthened, LV powers grew accordingly??? That's a whole new topic though... Snow: Almost like an unwanted parasite. Maybe some of the theories out there are not that far off base when they say that Harry will lose his powers. Difference being that Harry will, in the end, have `his' original powers and the power that Voldemort did unwillingly give to Harry will dissolve along with Voldemort. I like it! From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 03:03:11 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 03:03:11 -0000 Subject: Harry the Savior REvised! In-Reply-To: <4212992d.251.644.30028@cp.tamu-commerce.edu> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124647 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rbrown at c..." wrote: > > JKR did say that Harry would be like Jesus by the end of the > story. Mmnnn..... > Tonks: When and where did she say that? I think that Harry is a Christ like figure, but I do not know of any place where JKR actually says that. Can you tell me where to find that quoit? Tonks_op From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 03:03:15 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 03:03:15 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty-Eight - The Second War Begins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124648 Discussion Questions for OotP Chapter 38 - The Second War Begins 1 - This denouement has some extravagance - the idea of a partner for Grawp, the departure of Umbridge, the attack on the Hogwarts express, the encounter with the Dursleys at the station. Did any of these events bother you, or pose questions for you, make you think of related incidents or have ethical concerns? The idea of a partner for Grawp is immensely scary. Double the destruction. The creatures living in the forest are already displeased by the introduction of Grawp. Another one would really stop them coming on side with the good guys. All the trust Hagrid has built up with them over the years, out the window in one easy (or not so easy as the case may be!) step. Umbridge - thank goodness! But now she's unleashed on the rest of the world. Doesn't really bear thinking about. Her and Rita would make a dreadful team. Although we really did get to see another side to MM thanks to her didn't we (encouraging Peeves!)? I agree with Hickengruendler that I can't get enough of people hexing Draco and the encounter with the Dursleys gave me hope for Harry over the summer. 1 - Luna doesn't appear on the Hogwarts Express. Oh no no no no that's just not fair. Apparently my attention wasn't up to much by that point because I hadn't noticed. But thanks to you, it will bug me now! 4 - The dementors are now under Voldemort's control. I would have said that was pretty awful, but I think it will force some DA members into attempting a patronus under the conditions it is intended for. Could be interesting to see whether or not they can do it. I certainly hope that they can, or else we may have found some contenders in the `who will be lost in book 6' ratings. 6 - Is there a downside to the Prophet being 180 degrees from it's previous position regarding Harry's mental state and the presence of Lord Voldemort? Yes. More people than before will be aware of how untrustworthy it is that it can change it's mind that fast. Clearly not everyone as it is blaming the stories of the previous year on MoM (understandably), but many people will be forced to re-consider it's reliability. If it is now telling the truth, that's not clever or helpful. Of those who don't now mistrust it, a lot will distrust the MoM as a result. An atmosphere of mistrust is not healthy, but I guess that may help people stay on guard against LV's underhand tactics. Becky From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 03:15:36 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 03:15:36 -0000 Subject: the DE are Nazi?Re: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124649 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: First, let me plug my very own analysis at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/108762, comparing the DEs as we see them to fascism... > As I said in some of my earlier posts, while in our world racism is > a dangerous and faulty ideology, in the Wizarding World it is a > fact of life. Like it or not, but Muggles ARE inferior simply > because they cannot do magic. But does this make them less human? To some bents of wizards they are on the level of beasts, but humans still meet all requirements for sentience. Is it right to maltreat someone merely because they are weaker? Where the racism argument usually gets pulled out (and has legs) is with the half-bloods and Muggleborns--so we'll get to that. > As Harry quite reasonably asked after witnessing Muggle-torture at > the World's Cup "what is the point?" One needs more powerful > motivation to go to such lengths, I think. The real reason is that > they feel threatened by the rise of what Malfoy-fils termed > as "riff-raff", that is muggle-borns and half-bloods. And this > points to a different ideological framework. I don't think these things are in any way mutually exclusive. It's the *combination* of racist essentialism and cultural anxiety that gives the DE movement real teeth. The threat posed by the Muggleborn is not only that they bring in culture from the outside, but that they genuinely *are* perceived as being dirty and contaminated by those who adhere to the pureblood ideology. Draco, in GoF, makes a crack about not touching Hermione--he just washed his hands and wants to keep them clean. Ouch. > The pure-blood families like the Malfoys or the Blacks clearly see > themselves as NOBILITY. Remember NOBLE house of Black complete with > the coats of arms and the motto, a book about nobility, etc. > Remember how in CoS Borgin muttered "Mr. Malfoy" (emphasis on > `Mr'), and Draco referred to his house as to a `manor'? (And the > owner of the manor would be a lord, not just a plain mister, would > it?) Then why isn't Lucius Malfoy 'Lord Malfoy'--'cause if he were, I am totally sure that Draco would have been blabbing about that by now. You'll also note that Borgin's tone of voice can be read as extremely, ummm, uncomplimentary. > And their leader is not called a `F?rer', or a `great Magister', > etc, no it is called Dark LORD. And the correct form of address > is "My Lord" or "Your Lordship" (there is always much more servile > Master of course). Being as they speak English in the HP books, as they are set in Great Britain, the lack of Fuehrer is not surprising. What's most interesting about the 'Lord' part of Voldemort is how totally nouveau riche it is. Airs of aristocracy, and he describes his enemy Dumbledore as a 'champion of commoners'. And you know what they say about guys with inadequacy problems... > This is something quite different from Nazism, I would even say > opposite, since Nazism was a populist movement, while the DE is > in a way an elitist club. Far from being populist the DE are > clearly trying to reclaim their exclusive privileges. The kind of > privileges their families have probably lost in the course of last > hundred years or so, gradually loosing dome of their political > influence to muggle-borns and half-bloods. And while I am ready to > admit that radical aristocratic ideology of the DE may find a > realisation just as ugly as radical populist ideology I would ague > that they are hardly equivalent. I answer most all of your objections in my post. :) What it seems to me is that first of all, while Nazism was broadly popular, it also had a decided appeal to the innate *qualities* of the people: in that case, for example, the German people are the aristocrats of the earth, as compared to all the other degenerates out there. That's the kind of essentialist language that 'Mudblood' and the language of contamination and filth used to describe Muggles and Muggleborns speaks to. Second, we have hints that while a lot of the power of the DEs is/was in this nasty nexus of wealth/entitlement/the Dark Arts, we also have unknown factors like Young!Snape. Not wealthy. Most likely pureblooded. Likely to benefit from a reorganization of society on blood basis, where that status will pull him up. (It's a hypothetic, but I think it works.) So while Nazism is not a perfect comparison, I humbly ask all takers to go look at what I wrote, and see if in some ways fascism doesn't fit. After all, remember that "lots of people thought Voldemort had the right idea" and that the DEs outnumbered the Order considerably last time around; purely elitist they were not. -Nora embraces her political theory side From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Feb 16 03:32:47 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 03:32:47 -0000 Subject: Draco the Dragon In-Reply-To: <421295d7.3e1.1c8.25929@cp.tamu-commerce.edu> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124650 bob: > So why did JKR include Draco into the story? > JKR said herself that Draco is pure evil. She did this on > purpose. SSSusan: Can you provide a link to a place where JKR described Draco thusly? I don't recall her using that term, though I could certainly have forgotten. bob: > Draco is Harry's first arch-nemesis: his opposite and his > enemy SSSusan: True bob: > Draco brings to the story complexity of ethics, angst, and > drama. He is the symbol of pureblood vs. muggleblood racism, > a central theme in JKRs storyline. Who better to give us the > perspective of the dark side of the wizard world but an > anti-matter Harry opposite the same age and social equal > status? SSSusan: I think I might posit Tom Riddle here. Draco is so 2-D, so wholly UNfleshed-out, that I can't see him as bringing the complexity of anything to the stor, let alone heavy-weight issues like ethics, angst & drama. bob: > Harry is perceived as a hero character without question > BECAUSE Draco is (by reflection) a villain. SSSusan: Again, while I don't argue that Draco is a bully and Harry's chief schoolboy rival/nemesis, I don't think Draco is what causes us to perceive Harry as a hero character. At all. I think we think of Harry as being a hero for having survived 10 years w/ the Dursleys [and for setting that snake on Dudley!]. I think we might even see Harry as being a hero for noticing Ron's poorness and buying all that candy to share with him. Certainly we see him as a hero [perhaps a very rash one] for going after the stone & for not giving into "there is no right or wrong -- only power", for going after Ginny, for going after the person he thought killed his parents & then rescuing him once he realized he hadn't. We think of him as a hero for standing up to Voldemort and fighting in the graveyard and for bringing Cedric's body back. These are the kinds of things I think which bring us to class Harry as a hero. I don't think of his just being Draco's rival as putting him there. Siriusly Snapey Susan From dontask2much at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 03:44:00 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:44:00 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Writers Fiat (was: Stockholm Syndrome - was No sympathy for Kreacher) References: Message-ID: <02d701c513d9$c0f91ef0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 124651 "lupinlore" uttered: > > Very good genre discussion. I think that the problem for most of us > on this side of the fence is *as the series has evolved including > OOTP* it just DOESN'T work for us. In fact many of us find it... > well... at least repugnant if not downright reprehensible. > > If the series had REMAINED in the kind of fairy tale mode established > by the early books, things might well be different. But with the turn > in OOTP... it just sets DD up as at best a severely flawed figure, and > at worst, a downright vile one. > > I think JKR probably intended to set DD up as a human (i.e. somewhat > flawed) but extremely good figure. For most of us on this side, I > think, she has failed rather badly in that attempt to this point. It > is possible that further reservations will improve matters. But at > the moment I feel safe in saying that quite a lot of readers aren't > all that impressed with her portrayal of DD as it stands at the > moment. Charme: No, it doesn't work for you, this much I can sense :) However, I must say I really do wish (and maybe someone can suggest this to one of the many HP fan sites we all visit) would actually poll fans to see who believes what one way or the other on this issue. If I base this just on what my other obsessed HP friends and family locally told me since we last responded to each other, I get more adults than kids who believe as you do, Lupinlore. (Insert poll disclaimer here - and the focus group is now at 21 responses) None of the kids (8 kids, ages 7-14, a nice healthy mix) thought DD was being "bad" or nasty WRT to putting Harry with the Dursleys; in fact, they all asked what else he could have done to protect Harry since he thought the DE's were "out to get him" after LV's demise. When I tried to play devil's advocate with them, they reminded me that Petunia's "Harry's" mother's sister - his only family and his protection from the DE's and LV. No prompting from yours truly either - I'd never asked them what they thought like this and I was surprised at the responses. Interesting, since most of the time the dangerous DE's are sometimes shunted aside by fans in these "grownup" discussions as one of the reasons why DD had to make the decisions he did. I also asked the kids if they thought DD should have said something more apologetic like you stated earlier and my 10 year old nephew (God bless'im) emailed me back with the exclamation that DD "cried didn't he? He kept Harry alive. Dumbledore was really really sad." OTOH, with adults it's a different story. You get a 50 - 50 split in my world. You use words, Lupinlore, like "vile" and "flawed" in your observations. While you're wholeheartedly entitled to that, I think it's rather too soon to come to that conclusion - the series isn't complete yet. As for me, the jury's out either way, but I certainly did enjoy having the opportunity to pepper my friends and family about it :) Charme From dontask2much at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 03:52:35 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:52:35 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco the Dragon References: Message-ID: <031901c513da$f3df1990$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 124653 > bob: >> So why did JKR include Draco into the story? >> JKR said herself that Draco is pure evil. She did this on >> purpose. > > Tonks: > > When and where did she say that? I think that Harry is a Christ > like figure, but I do not know of any place where JKR actually says > that. Can you tell me where to find that quoit? > > Tonks_op > SSSusan: > Can you provide a link to a place where JKR described Draco thusly? > I don't recall her using that term, though I could certainly have > forgotten. Charme: I actually think the "evil" quote was about Lucius Malfoy, not Draco. I'll see if I can dig it up. Charme From alex51324 at hotmail.com Wed Feb 16 03:43:08 2005 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex boyd) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 03:43:08 +0000 Subject: possible Draco clue In-Reply-To: <1108504488.59616.99200.m18@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124654 I've been following with interest the discussion on whether or not Draco is Lame, Sympathetic, and/or Doomed. I'm not totally sure which are my choices from the menu....although I've comimitted fanfic in which he is Sympathtic, not Lame, and Almost Dead (I'm CousinAlexei at schnoogle.com).... However, *if* he does turn out to be neither ESE nor a total zero (and it's a big *if*, I'm not ruling out either), I think he's going to turn out to have been Hiding Something Important all along. Like a Secret Identity of some sort. Why? Because a significant percentage of the times we see him, he's disguised as or impersonating someone else. In CoS he does a "cruel but accurate" impression of Colin Creevy (when Ron and Harry are in the Slytherin common room, also diguised, as Crabbe and Goyle). In PoA he dresses up as a Dementor, and he also does (obviously cruel and perhaps also accurate) impersonations of Harry fainting. I think he also imitates Harry crying over his dead mum. I think there are others, but I can't remember them at the moment. Now, this pattern of Draco pretending to be something he's not *might* be completely insignificant. But if he turns out to have some sort of Secret Identity (like, maybe he's really a sweet, sensitive boy....President of the Slytherin House Muggle Appreciation Society....), then it'll be forehead-slappingly obvious that all of his disguises and impersonating stuff is foreshadowing. I'm not saying he *will* turn out to have hidden depths, but if he *does* I bet it's not going to be a Sudden Change of Heart, but rather a revelation that there's been More To Him All Along. I also can't quite take my mind off the school motto....the thingy about not tickling a sleeping dragon....but I think that's fairly likely to be an Evans. Alex From juli17 at aol.com Wed Feb 16 04:01:26 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:01:26 EST Subject: Draco the Dragon Message-ID: <66.50fa2f82.2f441f96@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124655 bob writes: > JKR said herself that Draco is pure evil. She did this on > purpose. Julie: Out of curiosity, when did JKR say Draco is pure evil? I thought she once said no one is pure evil. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From alex51324 at hotmail.com Wed Feb 16 04:20:50 2005 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:20:50 -0000 Subject: Draco the Dragon In-Reply-To: <031901c513da$f3df1990$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124657 > > bob wrote: > >> So why did JKR include Draco into the story? > >> JKR said herself that Draco is pure evil. She did this on > >> purpose. > > SSSusan asked: > > Can you provide a link to a place where JKR described Draco thusly? > > I don't recall her using that term, though I could certainly have > > forgotten. I don't think she did either. She said something about how fangirls with Draco-crushes should attempt to get over their attraction to bad boys, because it could be harmful in later life. (I'm paraphrasing, obviously.) Is that the quote you mean, Bob? I *do* recall that JKR said that Dudley has no hidden depths of any kind--which is another reason I suspect Draco may. If he didn't, she might have said so, in the spirit of Public Service. Loads and loads of girls (not all, but lots) think that Bad Boys really ought to have hidden depths--saying, "No, he's really just an obnoxious little shit, just like the boy in your class at school who picks on other kids really is an obnoxious little shit, not a Sensitive Soul who is Hiding Deep Inner Torment by acting like an Obnoxious Little Shit," might do more to warn her young readers away from the seductive allure of the Bad Boy than just saying, "You really can't trust those bad boys," or whatever exact words she actually said. (only JKR, since she would be addressing children, would probably choose not to use foul language.) Alex From bob.oliver at cox.net Wed Feb 16 04:25:37 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:25:37 -0000 Subject: Writers Fiat (was: Stockholm Syndrome - was No sympathy for Kreacher) In-Reply-To: <02d701c513d9$c0f91ef0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124659 > > Charme: > > No, it doesn't work for you, this much I can sense :) However, I must say I > really do wish (and maybe someone can suggest this to one of the many HP fan > sites we all visit) would actually poll fans to see who believes what one > way or the other on this issue. > > If I base this just on what my other obsessed HP friends and family locally > told me since we last responded to each other, I get more adults than kids > who believe as you do, Lupinlore. (Insert poll disclaimer here - and the > focus group is now at 21 responses) None of the kids (8 kids, ages 7-14, a > nice healthy mix) thought DD was being "bad" or nasty WRT to putting Harry > with the Dursleys; in fact, they all asked what else he could have done to > protect Harry since he thought the DE's were "out to get him" after LV's > demise. When I tried to play devil's advocate with them, they reminded me > that Petunia's "Harry's" mother's sister - his only family and his > protection from the DE's and LV. No prompting from yours truly either - I'd > never asked them what they thought like this and I was surprised at the > responses. Interesting, since most of the time the dangerous DE's are > sometimes shunted aside by fans in these "grownup" discussions as one of the > reasons why DD had to make the decisions he did. I also asked the kids if > they thought DD should have said something more apologetic like you stated > earlier and my 10 year old nephew (God bless'im) emailed me back with the > exclamation that DD "cried didn't he? He kept Harry alive. Dumbledore was > really really sad." OTOH, with adults it's a different story. You get a > 50 - 50 split in my world. > > You use words, Lupinlore, like "vile" and "flawed" in your observations. > While you're wholeheartedly entitled to that, I think it's rather too soon > to come to that conclusion - the series isn't complete yet. As for me, the > jury's out either way, but I certainly did enjoy having the opportunity to > pepper my friends and family about it :) > > Charme I think you are absolutely right that kids and adults view events in the series very differently. I think there are many complex reasons for that. Thinking back to when I was ten or twelve, I probably wouldn't have had a negative reaction to DD, either. I think we get much harsher on adults as we grow up and learn more about them, mainly through becoming one ourselves. I've seen this basic difference in approach about OOTP in general. Kids have tended to like it, or at least find it OK. Adults often have trashed it. Once again, I think its because adults are much harder on the adults in the book than kids are. But that could be a totally mistaken impression. The poll idea is interesting. In the two Yahoo groups where I have seen it done (both fanfic groups)the membership is primarily adult and the largest single opinion seemed to be that Dumbledore is well-meaning but out of touch with people who aren't as wise/powerful/old as him and this has led him to making several bad decisions starting back in 1981. The second largest opinion was that he's a manipulative and ruthless SOB who really doesn't care much who he damages as long as he attains his goals (which may be in themselves desirable). As you say, very unscientific polling. Lupinlore From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Feb 16 04:32:20 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:32:20 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124660 > Betsy: > Draco does express the pure-blood ideology, but he's a child > parroting his parents' politics. He does hate Hermione (and I can > understand why) and he uses his ideology to attack her, but it's a > mere tool in his arsenal. He doesn't hate Hermione *because* > she's Muggle born. Her blood just gives him a stone to throw. > > Alla: > Twelve year old Ron articulates quite well what "mudblood" means , > I think Draco knows what he stands for. > And I think the fact that Hermione is muggle born is a very > important reason of why Draco hates her ( although could be not > the only one) > Valky: I read the down threads and I do lean again to agreeing with Betsy that Dracos main hatred for Hermione is circumstantial, and not ideological. It can be argued that Draco not mentioning any prejudice against Hermione's blood status before COS is merely a plot point in relation to the subject not being broached before then, but if that's the case I find it awkward to understand why Draco would drag Hermione Granger up in Borgin and Burkes as a defense of his failing grades. If he *did* have a personal alignment with the ideology then why would he think that his father would excuse him for being weaker at magic than Hermione. A child with a strong alignment to pureblood supremacy probably wouldn't dream of mentioning it for the pure shame of the fact. Lucius forces the shame on Draco after he mentions that Hermione is doing better and is the *favourite*. He didn't presuppose his superiority to Hermione before that, Lucius instructed him to afterward. Circumstantially Draco follows the prejudice ideology, he fell out of favour with his father for not embracing it before, so he does it now, and acts as though he has always done. The later circumstance in Hogwarts is the first time Hermione gets actively involved in the Harry v Draco battle IIRC, so again Draco throws the slander circumstantially, much rather than with ideological purpose. He doesn't seek out Muggleborns in order to do it. Draco brings the "mudblood" to a fight, not the fight to the mudblood. > Betsy: > Harry et al think Draco is pure evil, but JKR shows us again and > again that they are wrong. Just as Hagrid contention that all bad > wizards are Slytherin has been shown, time and again, to be wrong. > > Alla: > > Where did JKR show us that Harry was wrong about Draco? > (Except Draco being a Slytherin heir of course - sorry) > > > I think she is showing us over again and again that Harry is 100% > correct in his assesment of Draco and even though I think that > Hagrid contention will definitely be proven wrong, it should by > the logic of the story, it was not so far. > Valky: hmmm... I think.... that JKR is showing us that Harry is 100% right about Draco too, but also at the same time we are shown that Harry is 100% wrong about what that means. There are a couple of canons that come to mind here. The first is Dumbledore at the end of PS/SS when he relates to Harry that his Fathers feud with Snape was *like Harry and Draco*. This has been brought up in relation to the pensieve debate, a powerful argument against the contention that Severus just minded his own business, something from James mad Valky's personal box of favourites.... Well it goes both ways. If Snape wasn't minding his own business and James wasn't minding his either, then we are probably going to find that what Dumbledore meant there was always going to take a profound twist. What I mean is that James was "at best", in the pensieve, imposing the will of his ideology onto Snape. He was painting Snape "All Slytherin" when since then we have all discovered "he's a little teensie bit Gryff and quite a bit Ravenclaw", Too Actually. Snape had other good qualities, and in time he managed to place a higher value on them than he once had. Snape's wit and his courage are what gets him through these days, though he still regards pure ambition highmost, Dumbledore has managed to see him through choosing some of his other less favoured qualities in defining himself. Like with James and Snape, possibly Dumbledore has seen that Harry is *missing* something with Draco, although he's quite right that Draco is not such a top bloke, neither Harry nor Draco can see past the big waving Green and Silver Banner to what else Draco is. Hagrid, too, was 100% right, but 100% wrong about what that means. Slytherin House fosters comfortless shallow existence and wizard children who stay their are nurtured in that mould, but that doesn't mean that the Slytherin children are necessarily all bad to begin with. If choices define what we truly are then good wizards should come out of Slytherin house, but it would be extremely rare because they would be against the odds of the choice to be there in the first place. If Slytherin nurtures and produces wizards with alignment to a Dark ontology then choosing it hence is choosing the path to darkness. And there is the problem with the House division. OTOH if that Slytherin then afterward chooses to back out of their first choice then they need to recognise the qualities in themselves that counterbalance the darkness of Slytherin House. Those qualities are defined by the other houses. Loyalty, Intelligence and Bravery. Intelligence is rather neutral so a Slytherin Ravenclaw type probably would have much hope unless they could drag some latent *other* quality out of the depths and work with it, which would be very difficult and painful. Hence we have Severus Snape, who finds the courage inside him though it's painful to value that when he *really* prefers intellect and ambition. Nonetheless he becomes a *good* Slytherin, through his once latent alignment with courage and loyalty (just in little bits). Now, it's starting to become fairly obvious, to me anyway, that Draco chose Slytherin for wrong reasons and might find he would rather back out eventually. The first reason he gives in Madam Malkins, is that he *expects* to be put there. What he is really saying, though, is that his Father expects him to be put their and through some large amount of loyalty to, and admiration of, his father, rather than Slytherin itself, he agrees. Further through the series we see Draco floating between a love of power and a dedication to impressing and pleasing his father. So in total we see Draco as more of a Slytherin-Hufflepuff type. *Pure* evil, probably not, but Slytherin Bad definitely yes. The difference between Harry and Draco v James and Snape, is Lily. Harry, like Lily, will eventually wonder why he sees Draco the same way James saw Snape, and because he exists just won't fix it for him. Harry will decide that it's not *funny* that Draco is a hopeless lost cause steeped in black ideology. He'll probably see the damage that it's done (Hagrid, Slytherin Heir, I.S. etc) for what it is, a gross exaggeration of the significance of two *childrens* first impressions. The prank, I think, could be a similar foreshadowing of things to come between Harry and Draco. If only we knew what really happened .... Valky From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 04:33:53 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:33:53 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy...Who the heck is Elkin? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124661 Betsy wrote: Then there's the scene where Draco is introduced as the new Slytherin Seeker. The two Quidditch teams are faced off against each other, the usual insults are exchanged. Then suddenly Hermoine sticks her nose in (you *know* she dragged Ron into it) where it doesn't belong. She's not on the team; this is not her battle. But Hermione has a hard time staying out of things and so she accuses Draco of buying his way onto the team. That's a pretty damn personal insult. Before, the insults where fairly generic - my broom's better than yours, etc. Hermione though, takes the insults to a whole new level and attacks Draco directly. vmonte responds: Draco did buy his way onto the team. He is a loser! This is the reason that Draco is justified in hating Hermione and calling her a mud**ood? What strange reasoning? No wonder JKR is shocked by the many fans of Snape and Draco. Role models should be people you look up to. People who have the courage to stand up against what is wrong in this world. If Draco and Snape are now what people put up on a pedestal, what does that say about our society? My grandmother once told me to never associate with or venerate people that could bring me down. She said to always admire and become friends with people that had the ability to make me a better person; people I could learn from--via their example. She also said that garbage always surrounds itself with garbage. And that I could always judge people by those they called friend. Draco hangs out with Crab and Goyle, and Harry hangs out with Hermione and Ron. I think you get my point. Oh yeah, she also said that if you admire crap, then you're crap too. The reason why Draco hates Hermione is because he will never be as good a wizard as Hermione is a witch. It's called jealousy. Hermione is also a constant reminder of how illogical racism is. You cannot really justify pureblood ideology when your enemy is a better witch/wizard then you will ever be. Hermione is a constant reminder of how the DE mentality/agenda fails. Hilter couldn't stand to be reminded of his own failure as a human being either. That's why he murdered millions of people in order to put forward his false ideology. Vivian From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 04:40:11 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:40:11 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124662 >>Nora: >Or, by overdoing it, JKR makes it ever-so-slightly comic, in the fine tradition of blending deserved punishment with a somewhat nasty twist. I stand by the deserved Schadenfreude ideal; there's something rather nice about seeing self-initiated bratty behavior receive comeuppance.< Betsy: I would write this off as a personal taste thing, but I still get the feeling that JKR *purposefully* makes it too much. *********************** "Professor Moody was limping down the marble staircase. His wand was out and it was pointing right at a pure white ferret, which was shivering on the stone-flagged floor, exactly where Malfoy had been standing." [...] "...it flew ten feet into the air, fell with a smack to the floor, and then bounced upward once more." [...] "...as the ferret bounced higher and higher, squealing in pain." [...] "Moody, *is that a student*?" shrieked Professor McGonagall, the books spilling out of her arms. "Yep" said Moody. "No!" cried Professor McGonagall... (GoF Scholastic hardback pp. 204-206) "It was as though someone had exploded a box of fireworks within the compartment. Blinded by the blaze of the spells that had blasted from every direction, deafened by a series of bangs, Harry blinked and looked down at the floor. "Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle were all lying unconscious in the doorway." [...] "Thought we'd see what those three were up to," said Fred matter-of- factly, stepping onto Goyle and into the compartment. He had his wand out, and so did George, who was careful to tread on Malfoy as he followed Fred inside." [...] "Ron, Harry, and George kicked, rolled, and pushed the unconscious Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle... out into the corridor, then came back into the compartment and rolled the door shut. "Exploding Snap, anyone?" said Fred," (ibid pp. 729-730) **************************** And then there's the "fight" in OotP where Harry and George beat on Draco and walk away with one split lip between the two of them. And the Quidditch Final in PoA where Draco plays better than Harry but looses because Harry had the better broom. I don't read any of those scenes as humorous. Actually, they're a little distubing in how much they end up detracting from Harry. >>Nora: >Draco is not continually spoiled in the sense to which some fans exaggerate it, but he does get the goodies from home and the nice fast brooms for everyone on the team--he's not wearing crappy dress robes, either. Betsy: Well, of course Draco is dressed well. He is a Malfoy, he does represent the family at Hogwarts. And Lucius is intent on impressing the Ministry with his wealth (starting in CoS) so of course he supplies his son's team with brooms. But Draco's broom is never updated. That's four years without a new broom (after a match is lost on broom speed in Draco's second year on the team). Would the Dursleys *ever* make Dudley wait that long between important toy updates? Are sweets from home a sign of spoilage? Maybe Draco's mom loves him. He is her only child, away at boarding school, and it does add the "mother's boy" element to the feminization of Draco. But I don't think it compares with Dudley. >>Nora: >But I think the Dudley comparison *does* have legs in OotP. OotP opens with Harry's commentary on Dudley and his gang bashing on Mark Evans, basically because they can but also out of a nasty sense of aggression on Dudley's part. Draco joins the IS and gets his jollies out of bossing around the other students to whatever degree he can, and is "watching hungrily" when Umbridge is about to cast Crucio on Harry.< Betsy: I don't see a real comparison here at all. Dudley is a street punk, breaking laws and picking on small children. Draco's authority is given to him by the school authorities, and while he does take away house points for no reason at all, he doesn't really squash anyone. None of the students care about house points anymore because of Umbridge's foolish management style, and I'm sure Draco is aware of that. And yes, Draco is eager to see Harry slapped down (I doubt he's ever seen someone under Crucio before, so I'm not sure he's aware of its full horror). He's been waiting *five years* for this moment. Harry has seen Draco writhing in pain enough times (and seems to have gotten enjoyment out of it) so I can understand Draco's eagerness. >>Betsy: >(Draco not being the Slytherin heir *is* a big hint that the Trio do not have a clear view of him.)< >>Nora: >He would totally *like* to be, though.< Betsy: Of course he would. I bet Harry would love to be the Heir of Gryffindor. It's a cool title, seems to embody everything his folks hold dear, there's the possiblity of a swanky secret lair, and maybe a kick-ass monster at your beck and call. What twelve year old boy would say no to that? But does Draco understand exactly what being Slytherin's Heir (as defined by Voldemort, anyway) really means? Hell, no. Draco is a child. He didn't get the full implications in CoS and I don't think he gets it yet in OotP. The interesting moment will be when Draco finally *does* understand. >-Nora notes it's how long until we get this somewhat settled?< Betsy, totally counting the days. Umm... in that way where you're not really sure exactly how many days are left. :) From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 05:07:08 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 05:07:08 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124663 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy: > > I don't read any of those scenes as humorous. Actually, they're a > little disturbing in how much they end up detracting from Harry. I don't think they're quite the same thing. Crouch!Moody *is* disturbing--but much more on a second re-read, when we realize that it's really not about Draco, it's about Barty's hatred for Lucius. (And Draco did attack someone with his back turned; bad form, that). The second one is also perhaps over the top, but also noted as being initiated by Draco and Company. We shall agree to disagree about the particular role that instigation plays, but I think it's a major one. It's extra time in the penalty box, after all. However, the one is not quite like the other. > Betsy: > I don't see a real comparison here at all. Dudley is a street > punk, breaking laws and picking on small children. Draco's > authority is given to him by the school authorities, and while he > does take away house points for no reason at all, he doesn't really > squash anyone. None of the students care about house points anymore > because of Umbridge's foolish management style, and I'm sure Draco > is aware of that. It's the psychological similarities. Both of them seem to get off on the exercise of power. In fact, if the house points don't matter any more, why does Draco keep doing it? Because he wants to try to exercise power in any way that he can, any kind of domination that can be exerted over the other students. Dudley and Draco both do it because they can--both are basically playing by the same "will to power of the stronger" principle. Both end up with the realization (or not quite, on Draco's part) that most people who subscribe to that philosophy have the delusion that they are solidly in the category of the stronger. Dudley discovers there are things much bigger than himself, Draco is disenfranchised by the return to the normative non-Umbridge ruled school system. (I have to admit I don't quite understand the continual apologetics for the IS as a product of legitimate school authority, given how patently immoral Umbridge's behavior is, and the massive ethical questions of the attempted domination of the student body by a small band of what is set up to be like a mini-Stasi.) > And yes, Draco is eager to see Harry slapped down (I doubt he's > ever seen someone under Crucio before, so I'm not sure he's aware > of its full horror). He's been waiting *five years* for this > moment. Harry has seen Draco writhing in pain enough times (and > seems to have gotten enjoyment out of it) so I can understand > Draco's eagerness. There's a difference, though, in really enjoying seeing someone suffer and enjoying the suffering itself (which is what's being hinted at by the language of hunger and eagerness), and enjoying reversals because someone has brought that reversal upon himself by unethical behavior. I wonder if Crouch!Moody showed the Slytherin kids the Unforgivables? That would be interesting to know, n'est pas? > Betsy: > > The interesting moment will be when Draco finally *does* > understand. Sure will. But unlike you, I'm not so sure that end-of-OotP Draco is the sweet and naive boy who doesn't understand the bigger implications of any of this. And my money is on Draco understanding, and going "Sign me up". -Nora is, as always, professional agnostic on principle, however From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 05:23:26 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 05:23:26 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy...Who the heck is Elkin? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124664 >>vmonte: >Draco did buy his way onto the team. He is a loser! Betsy: Massive assumption there. His father told Draco he would buy him a racing broom (no plural). Draco was asking about presents at that time. Why didn't his father say, "Ooh, just wait my sweet little Draco-kins. I've got a huge surprise in store for you!" Instead of course, he calls his son an idiot in front of a stranger. Plus, why on earth would Draco *need* his father to buy him a place on the team. He's the second best Seeker at Hogwarts. Harry is one of the few Seekers he looses to. (Does Slytherin ever loose except to Gryffindor? I seem to recall that they don't.) And one of the times Draco looses it's because *Harry* is the one with the flashy broom. (So I guess you think Harry is a spoiled loser?) >>vmont: >This is the reason that Draco is justified in hating Hermione and calling her a mud**ood?< Betsy: Eh, I'd recommend better language, Draco looses points he may have gained because of it. But yes, Draco is perfectly justified in his anger. Hermione was acting like an insufferable twit in that scene; she attacked without provocation. >>vmonte: >If Draco and Snape are now what people put up on a pedestal, what does that say about our society?< Betsy: Oh, folks aren't putting Snape and Draco up on a pedestal. They just want to shag them. >>vmonte: >Draco hangs out with Crab and Goyle, and Harry hangs out with Hermione and Ron. I think you get my point.< Betsy: I don't know that Crabbe and Goyle are what you'd call bosom buddys for Draco. I imagine that Draco is rather lonely at times. Part of the reason I have sympathy for him. >>vmonte: >The reason why Draco hates Hermione is because he will never be as good a wizard as Hermione is a witch. It's called jealousy.< Betsy: I agree that this is one of the reasons Draco (hate is a strong word, I think) dislikes Hermione. His father uses her as a weapon against him. Of course Draco starts to resent the cause of his pain. (Though if Draco really is second only to Hermione in the school standings it does stand to reason that he'd be better than her at *some* subjects. He's better at flying than she is for example.) >>vmonte: >Hermione is also a constant reminder of how illogical racism is. >Hermione is a constant reminder of how the DE mentality/agenda fails.< Betsy: She is, yes. JKR does a good job with that. Though Hermione can also showcase how different the WW can appear to outsiders. Her horror over the house-elves and Ron's surprise at her horror are good examples of that. I think, as Hermione calms down her tendency towards self-righteousness (which I think she's doing) she could become a good force for change within the WW. Betsy, who is little surprised at the anger her post seems to have raised. From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Wed Feb 16 05:45:40 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 05:45:40 +0000 Subject: Are we abusing the concept of "abuse?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124665 "Elizabeth G" suggests: >And according to my mother the social >worker who used to work Child Protective Service, she would have removed >both Harry and Dudley from the home if this had been an actual situation. See, this is why I think people have no sympathy for various posters' incessant cries of "abuse" -- the fact that apparently it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. There is some justification for claiming abuse in Harry's case, but DUDLEY? *snips extensive description of abuse* Yes, he was spoiled. But he certainly was nither physically or emotionally abused. His parents gave him every luxury, took him to London for medical needs (remember the pig's tail?), and, when the school nurse finally got their attention, they reluctantly took steps to correct his weight problem (and succeeded). And heaven knows, they do love him; they appreciate him; they give him emotional support and they definitely take an interest in his needs. I think there is a considerable difference between bad parenting (which the Dursleys definitely do) and abuse. By the sweeping descriptions we've been reading, almost every adult character in the books is abusive in some way -- Hagrid exposes his students to dangerous wildlife, Molly yells at her children, makes them do chores and wear second-hand clothes, McGonagall tells off Neville for irresponsible behavior. Madam Hooch lets them fly on brooms! Professor Sprout makes them pot mandrakes and squeeze bubotubers! Lockhart makes Harry stay up past his bedtime! ... Sheesh. Janet Anderson From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 05:47:39 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 05:47:39 -0000 Subject: LV's and Wormtail's wands (Was: Problems at the end of GOF) In-Reply-To: <420DF8FC.8011.698393@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124666 Richard Jones asked: > > And how did LV have the wand he killed James and Lily with? At Godric's Hollow, he turned into vapor so he couldn't carry it. So it must have just fallen down and maybe picked up by someone else at Godric's Hollow, but the Death Eaters didn't know he was alive or where he was and if a member of the Ministry got it they would probably destroy it or keep it well protected Wormtail was a rat and couldn't carry it. LV had to have Wormtail use it in graveyard against Cedric because he couldn't. So how did he come to have his wand in the graveyard? > Tammy Rizzo answered: I believe Wormtail lead LV to the place, then hung around to watch, and when everything went *BANG*, he picked up LV's wand and ran away like the snivelling rat he is. > So, that's how Voldy's wand was 'rescued'. As for how could a rat carry it . . . well, we've seen Sirius transform from his human form to his dog form and back again, and he wasn't naked when he regained his human form -- his clothes, and assumingly, all the stuff within > his pockets, follow him into his Animagus form. So, when Pettigrew transformed into a rat and escaped down into the > sewers in the middle of London, then everything in his pockets went with him, including LV's wand. Simple. Carol responds: If that were the case, wouldn't he have had a wand with him when he was forced to transform into a rat in the Shrieking Shack? I think he found LV's wand and hid it while he was still in human form. Then, after accusing Sirius of betraying the Potters, he dropped his own wand, along with a bloody robe and his own finger, before transforming into a rat and escaping into the sewers. (Transforming into your animagus form doesn't require a wand or Sirius couldn't have done it in Azkaban and while he was on the run in PoA and GoF.) When Peter escaped from the Shrieking Shack, he still didn't have his own wand (maybe it was returned to his mother along with his finger?), but after he'd discovered LV's whereabouts, he found the wand that he'd hidden years before and returned it to LV, who used it to kill Frank Bryce but returned it to PP for the restoration ceremony. So now, I suppose, PP is again without a wand of his own. Which raises the question of where the DEs who escaped from Azkaban got the wands *they* were using during the MoM raid. Maybe their general ineptitude arises in part from having the wrong wands, not to mention being out of practice and having their mental powers somewhat dimmed from all those years in Azkaban. Perhaps we shouldn't ask too many questions? JKR may not have thought out all those details. Carol From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Wed Feb 16 06:06:03 2005 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (imamommy at sbcglobal.net) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 06:06:03 -0000 Subject: possible Draco clue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124667 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Alex boyd" wrote: > I've been following with interest the discussion on whether or not Draco is > Lame, Sympathetic, and/or Doomed. imamommy: Me, too :) Alex: . I'm not saying he *will* turn out to > have hidden depths, but if he *does* I bet it's not going to be a Sudden > Change of Heart, but rather a revelation that there's been More To Him All > Along. > > I also can't quite take my mind off the school motto....the thingy about not > tickling a sleeping dragon....but I think that's fairly likely to be an > Evans. > > Alex I had kind of an epipahany about Draco today. Whatever else he might be, I think he's kind of an antithesis to Ron, not to Harry. Here are my comparisons, and contrasts, that lead me to think the two correspond to one another in the context of the plot: 1. Draco and Ron are both pureblood. 2. Ron has a warm, loving, large, family on a tight budget. Draco has a cold, distanced, small family on the wizarding equivalent of JKR's stock portfolio. 3. Both boys tried to befriend Harry. Draco even set himself up as a sort of rival to Ron. Harry chose to be Ron's friend; he became his best friend. Draco became his personal school bully. 4. Ron crushes on Hermione; Draco despises her. 5. Ron and Draco's fathers also have a history of being pitted against one another. 6. Ron reacts more strongly to Draco's bullying than Harry or Hermione (IMO). Then Draco launches a massive bully campaign against Ron in OOP. Ron overcomes it to become a brilliant goalkeeper in the last quidditch match in the book. 7. Ron is depicted as brave and willing to sacrifice himself; Draco is depicted as somewhat cowardly and self-preserving. What's my point? Well, I'm not sure. I was hoping maybe you all could help me connect the dots. I suspect either an alliance between them, or a showdown, or both. One other thing, about what Ron saw in the Mirror of Erised: pure speculation, but I think that Draco might have seen something similar, finally rising above everyone to impress his father. Quidditch Captain and Head Boy to boot. So why is Draco not a worthy match for Harry? Because he only needs to be a match for Ron. imamommy From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 06:12:58 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 06:12:58 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124668 >>Nora: >We shall agree to disagree about the particular role that instigation plays, but I think it's a major one.< Betsy: I think we will. I'm still confused though by folks (not you I think) who get enraged at Snape for *daring* to take points from Harry when he admits to trying to curse Draco, but think it's perfectly justified for one boy to get either beaten up by a teacher, beaten up in two to one odds, or five to three odds, because after all, he was asking for it. It smacks of mob rule to me, might makes right. Which I've always detested. Which is probably why I fail to see the humor and have such sympathy for Draco. >>Nora: >It's the psychological similarities. Both of them seem to get off on the exercise of power. In fact, if the house points don't matter any more, why does Draco keep doing it?< Betsy: Because it's funny to him? His power as a member of IS is ridiculous, and I think Draco sees that it's ridiculous, hence the obviously non-reason reasons he gave for taking points. He doesn't act like Percy would have and actually *try* to be an authority figure. Draco is enjoying a situation where finally he has one up on Harry, but he's not using the opportunity to consolidate power. He's playing with it. I just don't see the similarities, psychological or otherwise between Draco and Dudley. Draco does bully, but he bullies his peers. He picks on Harry (or tries to anyway, he usually fails spectacularly). Dudley picks on small children who cannot fight back. Who actually, can't fight back because his gang is right there with him holding them down. Whenever mob rule comes into play in Draco vs. Harry scenes, Draco is the one being held down by the gang. Which negates the power or fear gained by being a bully figure. IMO, anyway. >>Nora: >(I have to admit I don't quite understand the continual apologetics for the IS as a product of legitimate school authority, given how patently immoral Umbridge's behavior is, and the massive ethical questions of the attempted domination of the student body by a small band of what is set up to be like a mini-Stasi.)< Betsy: Maybe because they were such a dismal failure? Were any of the student body actually *afraid* of the IS? I got the sense that the IS was more keystone cops than secret police. I don't recall that the IS had the right to be violent with fellow students. And as I've said before, their control over house points quickly became a non- issue. >>Nora: >There's a difference, though, in really enjoying seeing someone suffer and enjoying the suffering itself (which is what's being hinted at by the language of hunger and eagerness), and enjoying reversals because someone has brought that reversal upon himself by unethical behavior.< Betsy: We never get a chance to see if Draco would have enjoyed the actual act of Harry suffering. We do know that Harry has found Draco's suffering amusing. Though I don't want to go to far and say that Harry really *enjoys* seeing others suffer, even if he thinks they deserve it. (His mercy towards Pettigrew suggests otherwise.) And I agree that the word choices JKR uses hint to something darker in Draco, and perhaps future books will bear that out. But it's not enough, yet, for me to give up on Draco. JKR has hinted in so many different directions for this character, I just want to see how his story finally ends. >>Nora: >I wonder if Crouch!Moody showed the Slytherin kids the Unforgivables? < Betsy: Oh I'm sure he did. (Miss out on the chance to put Lucius's son under Imperius? Never!) And I'm sure the Slytherins reacted much as the Gryffindors did. "Wasn't that cool? Did you see how the spider twitched?" >>Betsy: >The interesting moment will be when Draco finally *does* understand.< >>Nora: >Sure will. But unlike you, I'm not so sure that end-of-OotP Draco is the sweet and naive boy who doesn't understand the bigger implications of any of this.< Betsy: Why, when I point out the shades of grey in characters others paint as full on black, and I make sure to state that I *don't* think they're saints, does everyone insist on implying that I think they're... saints? Just a question. I don't think Draco is sweet. I do think he's naive. Draco, unlike Harry, did not have a dog in this race. His family's bias (as far as he's seen) was more about who got invited to their dinner parties than who was most likely to kill you tomorrow. That changed at the very end of OotP and the immediate response from Draco is that those responsible for hurting his family will pay. The obvious culprit is Harry (who he conveniently hates anyway) and that's who he threatens. But I don't see anything in his behavior that suggests that he sees what being a Death Eater is all about, and golly but it's for him. Actually, his family loyalty (as Valky has pointed out) is a *good* thing. Draco could go either way. And he could go either way for noble, trite, horrifying or tragic reasons. I'm still not sure which way he'll go. (Valky pulled me from the edge!) But I hope that when he makes a choice, it's with eyes wide open. At the moment, they're mostly closed. Betsy From paul_terzis at yahoo.gr Wed Feb 16 06:55:00 2005 From: paul_terzis at yahoo.gr (paul_terzis) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 06:55:00 -0000 Subject: Many sleepless nights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124669 Dear friends Jim Ferer, Dumbledore11214 and Bethany I see your points. But consider this. Suppose you are Dumbledore the most powerful wizard and the most well connected one I will add. You have someone of great value to protect. First of all don't tell me that you don't check what kind of people will take care your protege or how they treated him after they had taken him. I accept your points that AD doesn't want to make things worst. Now tell me honestly. Couldn't AD at least "force" them to act more mildly, not in an active way but with a subtle one like I don't know a Dursley-specific-to-act-in-a-human-way ward or at least a not-abuse-Harry ward. I am not saying to make them act as Harry's parents but at least not as his jailers. Secondly about the risk that took AD to raise Harry in a similar environment to Tom Riddle's I have only two adages to say. "Don't play with the fire If you don't want to be burned" and "The road to hell is made on good intentions". Cheers, Paul From naama_gat at hotmail.com Wed Feb 16 08:43:44 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:43:44 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124670 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > >>Naama: > > > Draco's roll is exactly the same, on the level of Hogwarts - he is > the paradigmatic Slytherin, embodying all of its worst qualities - > ruthlessness, cold heartness (snakiness?), ambition untempered with > compassion. And the pure-blood ideology.< > > Betsy: > Except that he's not. Ruthlessness and cold heartedness? Draco is > anything but. Both qualities demand a certain cutting off of emotion > and Draco is almost pure emotion. I don't agree that these qualities have much to do with cutting off emotion. And I definitely don't agree that Draco is almost pure emotion. > > And ambition? When has Draco ever expressed ambition, beyond the > childish wish to bring a broom first year (failed) and perhaps to > beat Harry at Quidditch (failed again, because of lower quality > broom)? We haven't seen him express much compassion, but then we've > never been witness to an opportunity for Draco to do so. Ambition: we see his ambition in the two major areas of accomplishment available for him - studies and sports. He is jealous of Hermione getting better grades than him, and he bribes his way into the Quidditch team. Compassion: "Never been witness to an opportunity for Draco to do so?!" How about when Harry told him his parents were dead and JKR went to the trouble of telling us that he *didn't* sound sorry? How about gloating at the possibility that Hermione might be killed, instead of being concerened? How about tormenting Neville - instead of feeling sorry for him? How about *not* feeling compassion for Hagrid when he was so upset and miserable? How about sniggering at Lupin's shabby robes rather than feeling sorry for him for being so poor? ETC. ETC. ETC. > > Draco does express the pure-blood ideology, but he's a child > parroting his parents' politics. He does hate Hermione (and I can > understand why) and he uses his ideology to attack her, but it's a > mere tool in his arsenal. He doesn't hate Hermione *because* she's > Muggle born. Her blood just gives him a stone to throw. Parroting: As has been said by others, we have the example of Sirius - born to a pure-blood ideologues, yet rejecting that ideology at a young age. Therefore, *according to JKR*, there is free choice, and Draco is accountable for not making the right one. Hermione: Is there any canon to support your claim that Draco hates Hermione for any other reason? Because I can't think of any. It also matters a great deal the kind of stone a person chooses to throw - it matters not so much for the victim, maybe (in some circumstances), but it shows a great deal about the attacker. > > Harry et al think Draco is pure evil, but JKR shows us again and > again that they are wrong. Just as Hagrid contention that all bad > wizards are Slytherin has been shown, time and again, to be wrong. > When has JKR shown us that Draco is anything but evil?! He starts out as a snobbish, spoilt, spiteful brat and ends up an eager collaborator of an evil regime - lapping up the opportunity to step on and terrorize his fellow students. He is completely consistent from start to finish - no doubts, no falterings, no softer moments, not the slightest hint of crisis of conscience. Nothing. Therefore... there isn't a chance in hell that JKR has any plan for him to be redeemed. Naama, excessively certain From naama_gat at hotmail.com Wed Feb 16 09:14:33 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:14:33 -0000 Subject: the DE are Nazi?Re: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124671 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" > > > wrote: > > > Seeing as the DEs are the equivalent of the Nazi SS or Gestapo, > I > > > don't see how they could be depicted as other than totally > black. > > > > > > > > Are they though? Don't you think it is a bit too much of a > generalisation perhaps? I mean, yes there are obvious similarities > between whole this "pureblood"-"mudblood" thing and racist ideology > of the Third Reich (mainly because of the word `blood'). Perhaps, > even too obvious for us not to treat it with some suspicion. But is > this DE movement really about superior race hegemony? Somehow it > doesn't sound right. > > As I said in some of my earlier posts, while in our world racism is > a dangerous and faulty ideology, in the Wizarding World it is a fact > of life. Like it or not, but Muggles ARE inferior simply because > they cannot do magic. They even inferior to house-elves in this > respect, which is probably why wizards didn't bother to enslave > them. You have a misconception here. The racism of the WW isn't about Muggles, it's about *Muggle borns*. The parallel to the real world is in the arbitrariness of the social categories - Jews, Slavs, Blacks, etc., are as fully human as the Germans, yet racist ideology marked them as inferior, less human. This is mirrored in the arbitrary marking of Muggle borns as inferior. JKR underlines the arbitrariness by making it clear that there is no difference in magical ability between pure bloods and Muggle borns. If you're magic, you're magic. > > The pure-blood families like the Malfoys or the Blacks clearly see > themselves as NOBILITY. Remember NOBLE house of Black complete with > the coats of arms and the motto, a book about nobility, etc. > Remember how in CoS Borgin muttered "Mr. Malfoy" (emphasis on `Mr'), > and Draco referred to his house as to a `manor'? (And the owner of > the manor would be a lord, not just a plain mister, would it?) And > their leader is not called a `F?rer', or a `great Magister', etc, no > it is called Dark LORD. And the correct form of address is "My Lord" > or "Your Lordship" (there is always much more servile Master of > course). This is something quite different from Nazism, I would even > say opposite, since Nazism was a populist movement, while the DE is > in a way an elitist club. This parallels the way the Junker class in Germany, the aristocracy, joined forces with Nazism, at least at first. The Black family demonstrate this relationship perfectly. The fear of communism and/or liberalism was so great then, that the Nazis seemed the better option. Naama From susanawhite123 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 09:27:06 2005 From: susanawhite123 at yahoo.com (Sue White) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:27:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco the Dragon In-Reply-To: <421295d7.3e1.1c8.25929@cp.tamu-commerce.edu> Message-ID: <20050216092706.35101.qmail@web14125.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124672 I think Draco's name is a clue to his character, but not the dragon part at all. See below. Draco = Constellation (like his lineage) Malfoy = Bad Faith This constellation is associated with the dragon slain by Cadmus, the brother of Europa. The father sent Cadmus to find Europa who was kidnapped by Zeus. But though he searched for his sister everywhere he could not find her. Because his father has threatened him not to come back if he failed, he left the country and search for help at the oracle of phoebus. The spell of the oracle send him to a far away place where a terrible monster, a dragon, lived, who killed all the men Cadmus had with him. After he successfully killed that dragon, the goddess Athena instructed him to plant some of the teeth of the dragon. Surpised Cadmus obeyed the goddess and the miracle happened: Armed men grew from the soil; Cadmus, afraid of the new enemy, started to lift his armes, when these people told him not to interfere their internal fights. Immediately they start to fight each other. All but five died and ***these five helped Cadmus to build a new city. This city was the famous city called Thebes.*** (This story can be found in "Metamorphoses, III" by the latin poet Publius Ovidius Naso (43 BC - 17 AC).) from http://www.seds.org/Maps/Stars_en/Fig/draco.html --- "rbrown at cp.tamu-commerce.edu" wrote: > > > There are some interesting things in the canon of > Draco. > Like Harry, he is an only child. > Like Harry, he is well off. > Like Harry, he is powerful. > Like Harry, he is an alpha male. > Like Harry, he is well known due to a powerful > family. > > So why did JKR include Draco into the story? > > > I agree with the comment that much to do with the > sex appeal > of Draco has to do with the movies, and Tom Felton > who is > really attractive and charming in reality. In the > books he > is the one you hate (like Snape) without question > for being > pure evil and because of how he treats Harry and > company. > > JKR said herself that Draco is pure evil. She did > this on > purpose. > > Draco is Harry's first arch-nemesis: his opposite > and his > enemy > Peer that developed due to Harry's rejection of > Draco in > the beginning and it was magnified in the movies > with the > staircase scene (that isn't in the book). > > Draco brings to the story complexity of ethics, > angst, and > drama. He is the symbol of pureblood vs. muggleblood > racism, > a central theme in JKRs storyline. Who better to > give us the > perspective of the dark side of the wizard world but > an > anti-matter Harry opposite the same age and social > equal > status? This is Light vs. Dark, and all that. > > What child or adult cannot relate to a bully to deal > with? > The secret to successful fiction to me includes > making a > story believable, even in a make believe wizard > world-we > still need cornerstones of reality to make it seem > real > enough to stay interested and involved. > > Harry is perceived as a hero character without > question > BECAUSE Draco is (by reflection) > a villain. You can't have one without the other thus > character development in a delicate, sharp and raw > ongoing balance between the two. > > This is just one more example of the genius of JK > Rowling in > action. > Yes, Harry has to deal with evil adults from the > start; > however, he learns how to deal with evil from his > peers-i.e. > "Draco and company". > This theme is so central to the storyline, and the > amount of > Harry/Draco shippers there are in fan fiction slash > written > by > mostly 99.9% teenage girls out there is my final > example of > the inspiration and imagination Rowling's character > calculus > created. > > Way to go Jo! > ~bob > > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > --------------------~--> > Has someone you know been affected by illness or > disease? > Network for Good is THE place to support health > awareness efforts! > http://us.click.yahoo.com/rkgkPB/UOnJAA/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/hbfile.html > > Please use accurate subject headings and snip > unnecessary material from posts to which you're > replying! > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com > > > > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 09:28:02 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:28:02 -0000 Subject: Are we abusing the concept of "abuse?" Perspective Please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124673 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Janet Anderson" wrote: > "Elizabeth G" suggests: > > >And according to my mother the social worker who used to work Child > > Protective Service, she would have removed both Harry and Dudley > > from the home if this had been an actual situation. > See, this is why I think people have no sympathy for various > posters' incessant cries of "abuse" -- the fact that apparently it > can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. There is some > justification for claiming abuse in Harry's case, but DUDLEY? > > *snips extensive description of abuse* > > Yes, he was spoiled. But he certainly was niether physically or > emotionally abused. > > I think there is a considerable difference between bad parenting >(which the Dursleys definitely do) and abuse. By the sweeping > descriptions we've been reading, almost every adult character in > the books is abusive in some way -- > ...edited... ... Sheesh. > > Janet Anderson bboyminn: I've really tried to hold my tongue on the issue of Harry's abuse because it is really a hot button for a lot of people as can be witnessed by the heated discussion that's been going on for a few weeks. I did voice my opinion on this issue on Jan 25, 2005 Subject: Dursley's and Harry (was: Innocent Alby?) (LONG) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/123018 which should give you some idea of how long we have been debating. I don't take exception to the idea that the Dursleys were mean nasty people, but I do take exception to the people who vehemently shout ABUSE! with near fanatic forcefullness. There are children in this world who are horrendously, brutally, sadistically, and inhumanly abuse, and to shout of Harry's abuse with such zealous forcefullness does an injustice to these truly abuse kids. The problem with /abuse/ is that we have abuse (note, all small letters), Abuse, ABUSE, and ABUSE!!!!!!!!! What constitues abuse is subject to the social and political climate of the times. As I have already pointed out in my other post, it wasn't that long ago that British schools used the Cane to discipline students. With /wacks/ of the Cane frequently reaching substantial numbers and force. Our good friend in this group, Shaun H., has had personal experience with the Cane. This physical punishement is a legendary aspect of British Boys Schools. In addition, here in the USA, corporal punishemnt has it's own legendary aspect in Catholic Schools; those nuns can be brutal. Further, I suspect corporal punishment while greatly curtailed, is still allowed in USA Catholic Schools today. By today's 'touchy feely' standard, those actions are considered barbaric, but those /barbaric/ times were only a decade or so ago. Specifically to Harry's case, while I wouldn't have any trouble saying that the Dursleys were /abusive/ by today's standards, and I would say with enthusiasm that they are mean nasty people. I would not, however, go about feverently proclaiming how horribly Harry was abused, not when they are so many kids in the world who are abused far worse. In other words, let's try and keep our enthusiasm in perspective with what actually happened, and in proportion to the full range of abuse that occurs in the world. I'm not say that the Dursleys aren't bad, in fact, I AM saying that they ARE bad, just trying to get that /bad/ properly placed in the spectrum of /bad/ in this world. I would speculate to those who are forcefully proclaiming abuse, that those who are opposing your views in discussions are not so much trying to counter the idea of abuse, but instead are trying to counter your level of enthusiasm. Again, they and I are making a plea for proportion and perspective. The Dursley's actions were abusive in nature; I think those on either side of the issue would allow that statement to stand. I think by today's standards, the Dursleys would be in trouble if the authorities found out about it. I think we can all agree on that. /Can/ we all agree on this much? So, if the Dursleys are so /bad/ then why was Harry placed with them, and why did he remain with them? First, Harry is at the Dursley's for LEGAL reasons. They are his only and CLOSE relatives, very close relatives, consequently, in the absents of Sirius, any court in the land would surely and without hesitation give the Dursleys legal custody of Harry. They are his immediate family, they are legally and morally responsible for taking care of him. They did a crappy job of it, but for the moment, we are concentrating on the legal aspect. I'm sure some will argue that the Dursleys could turn Harry over to an orphanage, and they certainly could. They could because, by having legal authority over Harry, they have the legal authority to make that decision. Second, Dumbledore explained very clearly, that if the Dursleys took Harry in, Harry would have very special very strong magical protection while under their care. Further, in explaning to Harry why he must live at the Dursley's, Dumbledore specifically mentions the dangers of the Death Eaters who remained after Voldemort was vaporized. So, at the Dursley is where Harry is safest. Harry was, by reasonable conclusion, protected from anyone wishing to do him harm. Note I'm sure some will say that Harry was harmed by the Dursleys, but not in the truest sense. He was /hurt/ by them, that is, they caused him pain, but he was never harmed by them, that is, he was never physically damaged by the Dursleys. So, why did he remain with the /nasty/ Dursleys? Well, I think we have already agreed that if the muggle authorities found out, they would have done something. Conclusion, the muggle authorities didn't find out. The Dursleys went out of their way to give the neighbors the impression that Harry was an extreme disciplinary problem, a trouble maker, and it seems that the neighbors have full bought this idea. Consequently, everyone in the neighborhood gives Harry a wide berth. Teachers and the school seem to have taken the same attitude. So, the general concensus is that Harry is a wild boy who needs a firm hand. So, that takes care of any problems with muggles and muggle authorities. So, now what about Dumbledore? The muggles couldn't/didn't do anything to intervene for Harry, but why didn't Dumbledore. Well, from his distant outpost, given his limited information which certainly included knowledge that the Dursley were not treating Harry nicely, Dumbledore had to set his priorities. His absolute number one priority was keeping Harry alive; he said so. The most likely place for Harry to stay alive is under the Protection of Blood at the home of the Dursleys. Something very big would have to occur to cause Dumbledore's 'Keep Harry Alive' priority to shift. OK, Harry life at the Dursley's sucks big time, but he is alive and well. His basic needs are being taken care of. It will be hell, but he won't die. I think now in hindsight, Dumbledore sees that he could have done better; he could have done more. In fact, I think as each year goes by and he gets to know Harry better, he regrets more and more the decisions he made. But what's done is done, Harry is here now, health, alive, strong, courageous, and as much as possible, happy. So, what's done is done. Dumbledore, in this new moment of crisis, doesn't have the luxury of sitting back and lamenting the past for hours on end. A war is beginning, and the demands of the future have never been greater. So, he sucks it up, as does Harry, and they move forward from there. For better or worse, that's how I see it. Steve/bboyminn From naama_gat at hotmail.com Wed Feb 16 09:36:07 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:36:07 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124674 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "northsouth17" wrote: > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" > wrote: > > Seeing as the DEs are the equivalent of the Nazi SS or Gestapo, I > > don't see how they could be depicted as other than totally black. > > > Well, the Nazi's were human too. Hitler was nice to his dog. (Though > I think he might have poisoned it eventually.) Right from book 1 we > had some grey charecters, like Quirrel (evil through weakness) and > Snape (nasty *and* good) This continues on, both with more characters > that are neither here nor there, and with our side growing > progressively murkier. In these books, Evil is not a priciple or power that is external to humans (compare to Tolkien, for instance). In these books, Evil is a quality of humans, a potentiality of human beings. It is internal. So, saying that the Nazis were human, means nothing. Humans can be good, humans can be bad, humans can be some of both. In this scheme, the poles - utter Good, utter Evil - can be demonstrated only as concrete human beings. The DEs are a group *dedicated*, deliberately and consciously, to the doing and spreading of evil: they advocate and carry out murder, torture, violence, subjugation, discrimination, ... are they nice to their dogs? to their wives and children? If they are, it makes them - as it does Hitler - more horrific, because it doesn't allow us to demonize them, to see them as other than human. They are human AND evil - thus demonstrating every human being's capacity for evil. > > If Voldemort is total darkness, than I suppose Harry or DD must be > all light - but they're not. Harry is a teenage kid, with anger and > hormones and ocassional nastiness. He's not saint. Niether is DD, who > does make mistakes. The story structures DD as the Light pole, not Harry. And not being infallible has nothing to do with moral goodness. DD's mistakes arise from natural, unavoidable limitations - he is neither omniscient nor omnispotent. He is, however, pure of intent and utterly benevolent. > > > As for Lucius, far from needing an opportunity for redemption, he > > functions in the story as the paradigmatic DE. he is > > THE proponent of the pure-blood ideology. > > > > > > Draco's roll is exactly the same, on the level of Hogwarts - he is > > the paradigmatic Slytherin, embodying all of its worst qualities > can't be redeemed without the story > > losing ... structural integrity? balance? something important, > > anyway. You can reasonably redeem a character who teeters, who is > > betwixt and between the poles of Good and Evil - not the poles > > themselves. > > The poles, if such exist, are defnitely Voldemort and DD/Harry. If > all of LV's followers were as evil as he was, he wouldn't be that > dramatic. I don't know about Lucius, but Draco is very much betwixt > poles. *He hasn't ever done anything evil!* how could he possibly be > the paradigm of evil, even in a Hogwarts context? He has done plenty of evil - in the context of Hogwarts: bullying, cheating, bribing, lying. Is it really insignificant that almost every time we see him, he is trying or succeeding in hurting somebody? Naama From caesian at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 09:48:16 2005 From: caesian at yahoo.com (caesian) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:48:16 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Writers Fiat (was: Stockholm Syndrome - was No sympathy for Kreacher) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124675 On Feb 15, 2005, at 8:25 PM, lupinlore wrote: > I think you are absolutely right that kids and adults view events in > the series very differently.? I think there are many complex reasons > for that.? Thinking back to when I was ten or twelve, I probably > wouldn't have had a negative reaction to DD, either.? I think we get > much harsher on adults as we grow up and learn more about them, mainly > through becoming one ourselves. > > I've seen this basic difference in approach about OOTP in general. > Kids have tended to like it, or at least find it OK.? Adults often > have trashed it.? Once again, I think its because adults are much > harder on the adults in the book than kids are.? But that could be a > totally mistaken impression. > > Caesian now: I think the difference is a fundamental - adults tend to give preference to logical reasoning when interpreting the world, whereas children give greater credence to how they feel. (Neither approach is necessarily superior, IMO.) Adult readers often try to figure out the logic of the WW, sometimes with fabulously clever insight (witness all posts here) and sometimes via hilarious obsession with arcane minutia (present company excluded, of course!). On the other hand, children remember how the books made them feel. They pay greater attention to the emotional presentation of the story. Emotional cues trump logical chains. Of course Dumbledore is good and cares for Harry, because he cried didn't he? He tried, didn't he? It matters not that there were holes in his plan, it matters that he wanted the plan to work and for Harry to be safe and happy. In these hyper-logical discussions, it is almost impossible to articulate the power of the overall emotional tone of a scene, or of a character's presentation throughout the series. The logic of Dumbledore's decisions may seem odd (given what we now know, which may well be incomplete - another problem with relying to heavily on logic). But it is clear that the author has presented Dumbledore in an overwhelmingly positive emotional tone. And that does indeed count for something. Cheers, Caesian [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Feb 16 10:57:08 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:57:08 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124676 > >>Nora: > >Draco is not continually spoiled in the sense to which some fans > exaggerate it, but he does get the goodies from home and the nice > fast brooms for everyone on the team--he's not wearing crappy > dress robes, either. > > Betsy: > Well, of course Draco is dressed well. He is a Malfoy, he does > represent the family at Hogwarts. And Lucius is intent on > impressing the Ministry with his wealth (starting in CoS) so of > course he supplies his son's team with brooms. But Draco's broom > is never updated. Valky: Has anyone wondered yet, well actually I am pretty sure this would be a rare thing to say, have you wondered wethere the brooms *weren't* bought to win Draco a place on the team? Lucius Malfoy had an agenda of his own in COS. Against Dumbledore, and Arthur Weasley, didn't he... ? Have you perhaps wondered that Lucius may have bought the team the brooms in order to butter up the parents of the Slytherin House kids? It would help get his incompetency bill signed and get DD thrown out, right? Hurt/comfort hurt/comfort, Draco's Daddy doesn't Loooove him..... Valky From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 11:50:21 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 11:50:21 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy...Who the heck is Elkin? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124677 >I vmonte wrote: >Draco hangs out with Crab and Goyle, and Harry hangs out with Hermione and Ron. I think you get my point.< >Betsy wrote: I don't know that Crabbe and Goyle are what you'd call bosom buddys for Draco. I imagine that Draco is rather lonely at times. Part of the reason I have sympathy for him. vmonte responds: Can you quote any canon to prove that Draco is lonely? And that Crab and Goyle are not his friends/goonies. >Betsy wrote: snip of what I hope was not a personal attack, because that would lessen your arguments just as much as Draco's own language issues lessen his. vmonte responds: This comment was not directed to you at all. Sorry, I can see why you would think so. >I vmonte wrote: The reason why Draco hates Hermione is because he will never be as good a wizard as Hermione is a witch. It's called jealousy.< >Betsy wrote: I agree that this is one of the reasons Draco (hate is a strong word, I think) dislikes Hermione. His father uses her as a weapon against him. Of course Draco starts to resent the cause of his pain. (Though if Draco really is second only to Hermione in the school standings it does stand to reason that he'd be better than her at *some* subjects. He's better at flying than she is for example.) vmonte responds: Ok, he dislikes Hermione because she is a better witch. I still say he hates her because she is a mudblood too. Draco quotes - "You'll soon find out some some wizarding families are much better than others, Potter. You don't want to go making friends with the wrong sort. I can help you there."- to Harry, Book 1 "No one asked your opinion, you filthy little Mudblood"- to Hermione, Book 2 "Saint Potter, the Mudbloods' friend. He's another one with no proper wizard feeling, or he wouldn't go around with that jumped up Granger Mudblood. And people think he's Slytherin's heir! I wish I knew who it is. I could help them." "Father won't tell me anything about the last time the Chamber was opened, either. Of course, it was fifty years ago, so it was before his time, but he knows all about it, and he says that it was all kept quiet and it'll look suspicious if I know too much about it. But I know on thing: last time the Chamber of Secrets opened, a Mudblood died. So I bet it's a matter of time before one of them's killed this time... I hope it's Granger." "Enemies of the Heir, beware! You'll be next, Mudbloods!" "Well, go up to the hospital wing and give all those Mudbloods a kick from me. You know, I'm surprised the Daily Prophet hasn't reported all these attacks yet. I suppose Dumbledore's trying to hush it all up. He'll be sacked if it doesn't stop soon. Father's always said Dumbledore's the worst thing that's ever happened to this place. He loves Muggle-borns. A decent headmaster would never've let slime like that Creevey in. Potter, can I have your picture, Potter? Can I have your autograph? Can I lick your shoes, please, Potter?" "Father says to keep my head down and let the hair of Slytherin get on with it. He says the school needs ridding of all the Mudblood filth, but not to get mixed up in it. Of course, he's got a lot on his plate at the moment. You know the Ministry of Magic raided our Manor last week? Luckily, they didn't find much. Father's got some very valuable Dark Arts stuff. But luckily, we've got our own secret chamber under the drawing room floor-" "I always thought Father might be the one who got rid of Dumbledore. I told you he thinks Dumbledore's the worst Headmaster the school's ever had. Maybe we'll get a decent Headmaster now. Someone who won't want the Chamber of Secrets closed. McGonagall won't last long, she'd only filling in... Sir, why don't you apply for the Headmaster's job?" The ending statement was towards Snape. 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... I'm quite surprised the Mudbloods haven't all packed their bags by now. Bet you five galleons the next one dies. Pity it wasn't Granger." Other Draco quotes: "Sure you can manage that broom, Potter?" said a cold, drawling voice. Draco Malfoy had arrived for a closer look, Crabbe and Goyle right behind him. "Yeah, reckon so," said Harry casually. "Got plenty of special features, hasn't it? said Malfoy, eyes glittering maliciously. "Shame it doesn't come with a parachute--in case you get too near a Dementor." Crabbe and Goyle sniggered. "Pity you can't attach an extra arm to yours, Malfoy," said Harry. "Then it could catch the Snitch for you."- Book 3 "Longbottom, if brains were gold then you'd be poorer than Weasley, and that's saying something."- Draco to Neville. "Not as surprised as I am to see you in a shop, Weasley," retorted Malfoy. "I suppose your parents will go hungry for a month to pay for all those [books]." --Draco (CoS) "And there's a picture, Weasley!" said Malfoy, flipping the paper over and holding it up. "A picture of your parents outside their house - if you can call it a house! Your mother could do with losing a bit of weight, couldn't she?" --Draco (GoF) "My father's next door buying my books and mother's up the street looking at wands. Then I'm going to drag them off to look at racing brooms. I don't see why first-years can't have their own. I think I'll bully father into getting me one and I'll smuggle it in somehow." "I play Quidditch. Father says it's a crime if I'm not picked to play for my house, and I must say, I agree. Know what house you'll be in yet?" "I know I'll be in Slytherin, all my family have been- imagine being in Hufflepuff, I think I'd leave, wouldn't you?" "Oh, I've heard of him. He's sort of a servant, isn't he?" Referring to Hagrid. "Yes, exactly. I heard he's a sort of savage- lives in a hut in the school grounds and every now and then he gets drunk, tries to do magic and ends up setting fire to his bed." Referring to Hargrid again. "I'd take you on any time on my own. Tonight, if you want. Wizard's duel. Wands only- no contact. What's the matter? Never heard of a wizard's duel before, I suppose?" To Potter. "What would you know about my comet, Weasley, you couldn't afford half the handle. I suppose you and your brothers have to save up, twig by twig." "I do feel so sorry for all those people who have to stay at Hogwarts for Christmas because they're not wanted at home." "Would you mind moving out of the way? Are you trying to earn some extra money, Weasley? Hoping to be a gamekeeper yourself when you leave Hogwarts, I suppose- that hut of Hagrid's must seem like a palace compared to what your family's used to." "You know how I think they choose people for the Gryffindor team? It's people they feel sorry for. See, there's Potter, who's got no parents, then there;s the Weasley's, who've got no money- you should be on the team, Longbottom, you've got no brains." "You're in luck, Weasley, Potter's obviously spotted some money on the ground!" "What's the good of a racing broom if I'm not on the house team? Harry Potter got a Nimbus Two Thousand last year. Special permission from Dumbledore so he could play for Gryffindor. He's not even that good, it's just because he's famous... famous for having a stupid scar on his forehead... everyone thinks he's so smart, wonderful Potter with his scar and his broomstick..." "Weasley would like a signed photo, Potter. It'd be worth more than his family's whole house." "I'm the new Slytherin seeker, Weasley. Everyone's just been admiring the brooms my father's bought our team." "Good, aren't they? But perhaps the Gryffindor team will be able to raise some gold and get new brooms too. You could raggle off those Cleansweep Fives, I expect a museum would bid for them. "Arthur Weasley loves Muggles so much he should snap his wand in half and go and join them. You'd never know the Weasleys were pure-bloods, the way they behave." The Lexicon has a great write up on Draco. http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/draco.html Who is Elkin's anyway? Vivian From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 12:08:55 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:08:55 -0000 Subject: possible Draco clue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124678 >imamommy wrote: I had kind of an epiphany about Draco today. Whatever else he might be, I think he's kind of an antithesis to Ron, not to Harry. Here are my comparisons, and contrasts, that lead me to think the two correspond to one another in the context of the plot: 1. Draco and Ron are both pureblood. 2. Ron has a warm, loving, large, family on a tight budget. Draco has a cold, distanced, small family on the wizarding equivalent of JKR's stock portfolio. 3. Both boys tried to befriend Harry. Draco even set himself up as a sort of rival to Ron. Harry chose to be Ron's friend; he became his best friend. Draco became his personal school bully. 4. Ron crushes on Hermione; Draco despises her. 5. Ron and Draco's fathers also have a history of being pitted against one another. 6. Ron reacts more strongly to Draco's bullying than Harry or Hermione (IMO). Then Draco launches a massive bully campaign against Ron in OOP. Ron overcomes it to become a brilliant goalkeeper in the last quidditch match in the book. 7. Ron is depicted as brave and willing to sacrifice himself; Draco is depicted as somewhat cowardly and self-preserving. What's my point? Well, I'm not sure. I was hoping maybe you all could help me connect the dots. I suspect either an alliance between them, or a showdown, or both. One other thing, about what Ron saw in the Mirror of Erised: pure speculation, but I think that Draco might have seen something similar, finally rising above everyone to impress his father. Quidditch Captain and Head Boy to boot. So why is Draco not a worthy match for Harry? Because he only needs to be a match for Ron. vmonte responds: I agree with you completely. If Ron is noble and brave, Draco is definitely common and cowardly. Their rivalry seems more like the rivalry that was between James and Snape. (I wonder why Snape was called "Snivelus" in school?) I suspect that Draco will eventually try to hurt Ron by going after Hermione. Vivian From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Wed Feb 16 13:14:01 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:14:01 -0500 Subject: Looking back to OOtP Predictions (before looking ahead) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200502160814677.SM01516@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 124679 Just before OotP came out, this list was inundated with some fascinating predictions about what would be in the book. I'm assuming the same sort of feeding frenzy is going to happen concerning HBP now that it is completed, but before it does, I thought it would be interesting to revisit old predictions of OotP, and see how accurate/wild they were. I remember that I had made a lot of predictions, but I had not gone back and looked at them since OotP came out, to find out how off the mark I was. Rather than pick apart someone else's theories, here is the source for my OotP predictions. Some of them were my originals, and some were echoing what others had said, but I didn't take the time to pick out which is which in separating them out. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/59814 In that post (June, 2003), I predicted 1. Arabella Figg would be the DADA instructor (buzz!) 2. Arabella would be Harry's Secret Keeper for Privet Drive (half-buzz; = it's still possible, but pretty unlikely now) 3. Ron will be the Gryffindor Keeper (ding!) 4. Hagrid will be the emissary to the Giants (ding!) 5. We will see St. Mungo's (ding!) 6. We will see Lockhart there (ding!), and (7) learn more about why he was a nasty climber (buzz), but (8) he's coming out as a better person this time (half-buzz) 9. We will see Neville going to visit his parents there (ding!) 10. We will find out that Neville's memory is bad because of memory charms placed on him to keep him from suffering (buzz!) 11. The memory charms break, or stop working, and Neville returns to school knowing for the first time what happened to his parents (buzz!) 12. Neville and Ginny go on a quest to (successfully) help Neville's parents (half-buzz; it could still happen) 13. Neville's success will open up a whole new world of happiness and ability for him. (half-ding; it happened, but not because of success) 14. Neville will die saving either his parents or Harry or Ginny (half-buzz! He came pretty close, though.) 15. Ginny will have been dating Neville through most of OotP (buzz!) 16. Ginny's little-girl crush on Harry will finally be gone for good (ding!) 17. Ginny and Harry will *not* get together in OotP (ding!), but (18) the way will be paved for them in a future book (ding!) Let's see, that's eight and a half dings out of eighteen, or 47%, if no credit is given for the half-buzzes. If you count the half-buzzes as being half-right as well as half-wrong, it comes to 58%. Not as accurate on this side as I thought they were on the other side, but there it is. Anyone else care to dust off their old predictions and see how you did? Vivamus From quigonginger at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 14:16:01 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:16:01 -0000 Subject: Problems at the end of GOF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124680 Richard Jones asked: (snip first 2 questions) > (3) And how did LV have the wand he killed James and Lily with? At > Godric's Hollow, he turned into vapor so he couldn't carry it. So it > must have just fallen down and maybe picked up by someone else at > Godric's Hollow, but the Death Eaters didn't know he was alive or > where he was and if a member of the Ministry got it they would > probably destroy it or keep it well protected (and even if Lucius > Malfoy stole it from the Ministry how would he get it to LV since he > didn't know LV was alive, let alone where he was?). LV spent 13 > years as vapor and a snake and like that, and so he couldn't carry it > in any of those states. Wormtail was a rat and couldn't carry it. > LV had to have Wormtail use it in graveyard against Cedric because he > couldn't. So how did he come to have his wand in the graveyard? Ginger: Good questions, all, Richard. May I point you to a post from the distant past? The ever-insightful Elkins posted a theory in message #39785 which speculates that Hagrid picked up the wand, not knowing whose it was, and Peter went to hide out in his hut in PoA and found it there. Her post is much better than my clumsy summary. It is in the middle of a thread called "the Spying Game" in which the MAGIC DISHWASHER was founded and christened. Practically impossible to follow due to all the offshoot threads, but if you ever have a few months of free time, do read it. It's a gem of a thread. I think it started in #39662. Ginger, missing Elkins, muses: Where have you gone, folks of long ago? Us oldies turn our longing eyes to you, woo woo woo. From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 14:23:41 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:23:41 -0000 Subject: Invisibility cloak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124681 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > How about this scenario: some prank gone badly (maybe even the > Shrieking Shack episode), the culprits (Sirius and James) got caught > and the Cloak was confiscated by the Headmaster and ever since been > locked in his office? > > "a_svirn" Finwitch: Wouldn't James have got it back after taking his NEWTs? Filch is one thing, but Dumbledore... Particularly when James joined the Order. I think that when James and Lily were about to be under Fidelius Charm, Sirius&Pettigrew going into hiding the Order obviously had more need for it so James gave it to Dumbledore - so it would be in good use. Finwitch From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Feb 16 14:24:51 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:24:51 -0000 Subject: A Question for Dumbledore's critics Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124682 I think there's general agreement that Dumbledore should be treating Harry like an adult and a potential leader of the Order. Okay. But adults can't let their responsibilities go because they are grieving and generals can't let their admiration for their men blind them to their weaknesses. In fact these are the mistakes Dumbledore says he made: trying too hard to spare Harry's feelings, and overestimating Snape. So it seems to me in that last speech he was doing what his critics want to see him do: treating Harry as an adult by making him shoulder the knowledge of the prophecy, and preparing Harry to be a general by trying to make him see that Sirius had some weaknesses which should be acknowledged. It might be argued that Sirius's weakness don't matter if he is dead. But Sirius is not the only person in canon who has a tendency to spout off about the rights of others while ignoring them in practice (cough*Hermione*cough). Pippin From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 14:45:35 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:45:35 -0000 Subject: Parseltongue--other languages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124683 Mnemosyne: > > If some wizards can talk to snakes, why shouldn't some be able to > talk to other animals as well? What would be so special about > snakes that would limit the communication link to them? Also, you'd > think if some wizards could talk to cows and chickens, there'd be > more vegetarianism in the WW. Finwitch: Well... 1) Snakes are poisonous or able to strangle a person. They're very deadly to humans. Basilisks in particular... 2) Association comes from the fact that all known parseltongues (with the exception of Harry, of course) *have* the reputation of being dark wizards- Slytherin (well, dunno how bad he *really* was, but...) Apart from that... well, I wonder how many wizards can speak Gibbledegook or Mermish. And do house-elves perhaps have their own language? I think that wizards CAN create an understanding with Owls (well, Harry IS talking to Hedwig, and Hedwig manages to express herself understandably). Phoenix appears to be very much able to communicate as well. And I suppose the expression 'little bird told me' has to do with some, if not most wizards being able to communicate with some birds. Also, I suppose that animagi CAN communicate with animals (Sirius did with Crookshanks); Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 15:13:24 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:13:24 -0000 Subject: Stockholm Syndrome - was No sympathy for Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124684 > Del replies: > Well, Dobby *is* an odd ball, that much is clearly said in the books. > He is widely different from the vast majority of House Elves, in that > he enjoys and desires freedom. House Elves, as a rule, want and need > to be enslaved. They don't want to live for themselves, they value > themselves only insofar as they are good servants to their masters. > They actively look to surrender their free will to their masters. They > are the ultimate kind of slaves : slaves who want to be slaves. They > don't want free will, which is what Hermione fails to understand. Finwitch: And even Dobby chooses to use his freedom to serve HARRY. He takes salary from Dumbledore (less than Dumbledore was ready to pay, by his own choice - because he LIKES Dumbledore)- and uses it to buy thread to knit socks for Harry. Dobby likes to be free (because as such he can serve Harry), but what he loves, is serving Harry Potter. He's completely willing to do anything for Harry. As for the elves - Dumbledore says that 'they are what wizards make them to be' - I think he's underestimating the elves' ability to make choices. And he's seeing them as a mass of enslaved beings. And thinks that kindness is in order no matter what the elves do or say, just because they are house-elves. (Something Hermione agrees with) Sirius - 'is kind to house-elves in general - and makes exception to Kreacher (but he wasn't really being UNKIND either...)'. Sirius, what he thinks of Kreacher: 'he was always a foul little...' - I think he's seeing the elves as individuals. Sirius also underestimates house-elf abilities to make choices (can't leave house). Harry - well, he doesn't underestimate them. He questions Sirius' underestimating with a counter example: 'Dobby could'. (and he was right about where Kreacher was, as we later find out). Logic dictates one counterexample is enough to foul a rule. He also sees *how* Kreacher left. 'Interpreted OUT as an order to leave the house'. Harry sees the elves as individual beings, and has a much clearer insight, mainly because he asked a house-elf what house-elves are. Oh, I'd say the elves are perfectly able to make choices. They may not be able to disobey direct orders from a family member, but they're perfectly capable to deliberately misunderstand them. Kreacher could leave the house (and visit Narcissa Black-Malfoy) each time Sirius said: 'Go away' or 'OUT'. Dobby could interpret that sock- cover thrown out (not even directly at Dobby) as 'clothes'. Winky, well, since Barty Crouch a) directly TOLD her he was giving clothes and b) gave actual *dress* he threw to Winky, there was no room for misinterpretation. Finwitch From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 15:35:21 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:35:21 -0000 Subject: Many sleepless nights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124685 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth G" wrote: > And according to my mother the social worker who used to work Child Protective Service, she would have removed both Harry and Dudley from the home if this had been an actual situation. Tonks here: I worked as a psychotherapist in the Children and Family section of a Community Mental Health agency and I was required by law to report any case of suspected abuse or neglect. I reported many cases and I can tell you that no one would have taken Dudley out of this home (or even reported him as abused for that matter). In fact I don't know what part of the country your mother works in, but where I worked they would not have taken Harry out either. They would have investigated and talked with the Dursleys. They would have told them to move Harry's bedroom to the upstairs. They would have looked Harry over, talked to him and decided that things were not that bad and closed the case. If he came to their attention a second time and even if he had been put back in the cupboard, all PS would have done would be to require the Dursleys to go to a parenting class. The third time they would be sent to family counseling. That would be it. And I hear you all screaming NO. Well, YES. And do you know why??? Because there are too many seriously *abused* children in this country (U.S.), and PS can not help them all. They have to investigate every report with 24 hours, but only the worst cases get any serious intervention. There are cases where the child is physically abused, even sexually abused and depending on the age of the child and the chances of it happening again they may or may not take the child out of the home. Sometimes the foster homes are just as bad as the home the child came out of. Some foster families take kids in just for the money. Even in some of the most serious cases of abuse the child is not removed from the home, or if they are it is temporary. The goal of the PS system is to protect the child while keeping families together as much as possible. In the very worst cases they send a team of therapist out to the home. The team is a short term treatment. The therapists are on call 24 hours a day and see the family at least 3 times a week for maybe 6 weeks. And we are talking *very severe* abuse cases here. So I do get very up set with people on this list that equate the treatment of Harry with the type of abuse that some of these children receive at the hands of their own biological parents. Most of these kids would thing Harry had it really good and would willing trade places with him!! Tonks_op From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 15:43:03 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:43:03 -0000 Subject: Are we abusing the concept of "abuse?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124686 Janet: See, this is why I think people have no sympathy for various posters' incessant cries of "abuse" -- the fact that apparently it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. There is some justification for claiming abuse in Harry's case, but DUDLEY? *snips extensive description of abuse* Yes, he was spoiled. But he certainly was nither physically or emotionally abused. His parents gave him every luxury, took him to London for medical needs (remember the pig's tail?), and, when the school nurse finally got their attention, they reluctantly took steps to correct his weight problem (and succeeded). And heaven knows, they do love him; they appreciate him; they give him emotional support and they definitely take an interest in his needs. Alla: I don't know. JKR does think that Dudley is abused. Why do you think she says that? I thought that was primarily of Dursleys disregarding his weight problem for years and years. I agree with you though that it seems that Dudley is getting a lot of emotional support from his parents. JMO, Alla From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 15:53:27 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:53:27 -0000 Subject: An Odd Ghostly Question. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124687 Steve: > Given what a substantial plot element The Veiled Archway is, I can't > help but believe that it is going to somehow play a major role > somewhere in the next two books. Finwitch: Yes, well... A phoenix; it dies and is reborn. Few wizards are able to tame one... Could it be possible that, for example, one could, if gone trough in flesh, be 'reborn' (and moved back in time). For example, Sirius could have his next life as Stubby Boardman. Of course, he'd have to accept the very strict rule about not changing the past. However, after the moment Sirius Black went trough the Veil, Stubby Boardman is a free agent. He could, therefore, go and help Harry... AND, someone who returns may not discuss what's going on in the beyond. And er -- one could gain the phoenix in the beyond... I think Padfoot would be gone, though... maybe switched for a Unicorn (the soul being purified in the beyond)? Finwitch From legacylady at prodigy.net Wed Feb 16 15:15:08 2005 From: legacylady at prodigy.net (LegacyLady) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:15:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Invisibility cloak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050216151508.35084.qmail@web80213.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124688 Finwinch wrote: I think that when James and Lily were about to be under Fidelius Charm, Sirius&Pettigrew going into hiding the Order obviously had more need for it so James gave it to Dumbledore - so it would be in good use. Legacy: Interesting point! I hadn't thought about James giving it to Dumbledore for use by other Order members while he and Lily were in hiding. I always mentally imagined it much more emotional. Like just before James and Lily were to go into hiding, James going to Dumbledore, giving him the cloak and stating that "if anything happens to me, please give this to Harry". But, as these kinds of cloaks are stated as being "very rare", then perhaps it was left with Dumbledore for use by the Order and then Dumbledore just (rightfully) passed it down to Harry at the appropriate time. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jhloux at att.net Wed Feb 16 16:24:02 2005 From: jhloux at att.net (Jon Loux) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:24:02 -0000 Subject: Writers Fiat (was: Stockholm Syndrome - was No sympathy for Kreacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124689 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > >>phoenixgod2000: > >That very special thing about Harry is called Writers Fiat.< > > > Betsy: > You've hit the nail on the head, Phoenixgod. Though I'm going to > twist your original post around a little bit. Something we have > to keep in mind is that Harry Potter is a certain genre. Kind of a > mish-mash of many, actually, but I'm going to keep it simple for this > post and use the one I think applies. I, erm, can't think of the > exact *name* for this genre (Hero's Journey, Magical/Special Child, > (Edit) > Betsy Very good analysis. As anyone who has read "Hero of a Thousand Faces" by Joseph Campbell knows, the hero/heroin must pass through involuntary, and painful, phases, culminating in the revelation of his or her own greatness and destiny. If he's lucky, he lives to ponder it later. The hero is not a victim of his upbringing, he is the result of his upbringing because of his response to and triumph over it. It makes him what he is in a way that any other upbringing would not. Harry, like all heroes, has a choice. He chose to go to Gryffindor house, even though he would have made a perfectly good Slytherin. Quite possibly he would have made a better Slytherin than Gryffindor. Why couldn't he have lived in the lap of luxury in the Wizarding World and still chosen to take the hard and humble road? Good question and it's been done before. Siddhartha grew up as a prince and, due to a prophecy concerning his two possible destinies, was sheltered and coddled in exactly the way that Harry was not. At the right moment, he chose to become the Buddha. Harry could have been propelled along this literary pathway, too, but, well he wasn't. Authors' choice. Rowling shows us enough background in the forms of Riddle's, Snape's and Harry's childhood to make emotional suffering a common denominator, and, therefore, factor it out, since each participant made a different choice. Voldemort chose evil. Harry chose good. Snape? We're not sure which one he chose. Do their past experiences influence who they become? Yes. Are they predestined to a particular role? Not so sure. The hero is formed and shaped by his adversarial relationships more often than by eleventh hour choice, as in Siddhartha's life. This makes him the underdog overcoming adversary instead of being rescued from it or obsessing on it. As a literary element, it makes for a better story. Jon. From legacylady at prodigy.net Wed Feb 16 15:02:07 2005 From: legacylady at prodigy.net (LegacyLady) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:02:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Nagini and Snake Venom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050216150207.73842.qmail@web80212.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124690 Legacy: In Chapter 1 of GoF, Voldemort and Wormtail discuss "milking" Nagini. My question here is, would they be referring to milking the venom in the fangs of the snake? So, my thoughts/questions are: (a) IF Wormtail is "milking" venom from Nagini's fangs to sustain Voldemort's life, doesn't that indicate that snake venom might have been ONE of the ways Voldemort managed to survive the rebounded AK curse? Perhaps there was some potion or precautions he took using snake venom that helped him to survive. And ..... (b) Because Voldemort is surviving on snake venom prior to regaining a body, is THAT why he appears to be so "snake-like" once he is "reborn"? Is it the lasting venom running through his veins that continue to make him so serpentine and, if so - and the snake venom IS the reason he survived the AK the first time around (as asked in my [a] question above) - then wouldn't AK not completely kill him THIS time around either?? Sorry if these thoughts/questions are too confusing as it is hard to write precisely what I'm trying to say/ask. Thanks (in advance) to any who can offer their opinions on this. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Feb 16 17:02:05 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:02:05 -0000 Subject: Naive Draco (was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124691 Betsy: > I don't think Draco is sweet. I do think he's naive. Draco, > unlike Harry, did not have a dog in this race. His family's bias > (as far as he's seen) was more about who got invited to their > dinner parties than who was most likely to kill you tomorrow. That > changed at the very end of OotP and the immediate response from > Draco is that those responsible for hurting his family will pay. > But I don't see anything in his behavior that suggests that > he sees what being a Death Eater is all about, and golly but it's > for him. > > Draco could go either way. And he could go either way for noble, > trite, horrifying or tragic reasons. I'm still not sure which way > he'll go. But I hope that when he makes a choice, it's with eyes > wide open. At the moment, they're mostly closed. SSSusan: Betsy, could you elaborate a bit on the naive part? I'd like to hear in what way(s) you believe Draco to be naive. Are you saying that you think Lucius has NOT shared much of his DE past with Draco? I've always gotten rather the opposite impression. That is, that Lucius shares a LOT of information with Draco. Consider how Draco is the one who tells Harry that he ought to want to kill Sirius Black for what he did. Consider how Draco drops that word "dogging" after Sirius accompanied Harry to Platform 9 3/4. Consider that Lucius didn't do his Borgin & Burkes business away from Draco's wondering eyes. I see all this as evidence that Lucius keeps little Draco quite informed indeed. Like you, I'm not 100% positive I could call Draco's position at the end of the series, but mostly that's because I find him so shallow as a character [perhaps JKR's intention? perhaps the limitation of the narration coming from Harry's POV?] to be able to read much about his inner workings or motivations. But naivete? Not a word I'd have thought to use for Draco. Would love to hear more canon on that one. Siriusly Snapey Susan From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 17:55:17 2005 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:55:17 -0000 Subject: An Odd Ghostly Question. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124692 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > Steve: > > > Given what a substantial plot element The Veiled Archway is, I can't > > help but believe that it is going to somehow play a major role > > somewhere in the next two books. > > Finwitch: > > Yes, well... > > A phoenix; it dies and is reborn. > Few wizards are able to tame one... > > Could it be possible that, for example, one could, if gone trough in > flesh, be 'reborn' (and moved back in time). For example, Sirius > could have his next life as Stubby Boardman. Of course, he'd have to > accept the very strict rule about not changing the past. However, > after the moment Sirius Black went trough the Veil, Stubby Boardman > is a free agent. He could, therefore, go and help Harry... > > AND, someone who returns may not discuss what's going on in the > beyond. > > And er -- one could gain the phoenix in the beyond... > > I think Padfoot would be gone, though... maybe switched for a Unicorn > (the soul being purified in the beyond)? > > Finwitch Whiz: Oooooo....... I really like your Stubby Boardman idea! Could a timeturner also be useful? If a wizard dies in one timeline, what happens to the one in the other? Whizbang, who's wheels are turning. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 18:18:55 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:18:55 -0000 Subject: Parseltongue--other languages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124693 mnemosyne337 wrote: > Harry can talk to snakes. He is a Parselmouth, and so is > Voldemort. We know this is supposed to be an extremely rare > ability, and is also associated with dark wizards. But the fact is, > other wizards besides Harry and Voldemort have/had the ability to > speak to snakes (like Salazar, for instance). > > My question is: Is it only snakes? > > I don't believe there are any other references to wizards being able > to communicate with other animals (point me in the right direction > if I'm wrong!). Finwitch replied: > I think that wizards CAN create an understanding with Owls (well, Harry IS talking to Hedwig, and Hedwig manages to express herself understandably). > > Also, I suppose that animagi CAN communicate with animals (Sirius did with Crookshanks) Carol adds: I think that magical creatures, including magical owls, cats, rats, and possibly toads, can understand human speech and communicate with Wizards and even Squibs through looks and actions. (Owls can even, apparently, *read* the name or address on a letter, or at least magically understand where and to whom the letter is supposed to be delivered.) Presumably they can communicate with other animals in an animal language as well. But there's no indication that humans can understand or speak an animal language, with two notable exceptions: Parselmouths can speak with and understand snakes (and basilisks), and animagi can speak with and understand various animals. Sirius in dog form can speak with Crookshanks, a cat/kneazle; Peter Pettigrew in rat form spoke with rats and (I think) other small animals while he was searching for Voldemort. And I'm guessing that WPP in their animal forms could communicate with Moony the werewolf, and he with them. Otherwise they wouldn't have been able to roam around with him; he'd simply have attacked them. Carol, who is behind on posting again and having to skip lots of posts :-( From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 19:26:06 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:26:06 -0000 Subject: Naive Draco (was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124694 >>SSSusan: >Betsy, could you elaborate a bit on the naive part? I'd like to hear in what way(s) you believe Draco to be naive. >Are you saying that you think Lucius has NOT shared much of his DE past with Draco?< Betsy: Sure! (Always love to elaborate. ) I don't think that Lucius sat around and waxed nostalgic about being a Death Eater. For one thing, he'd had to convince the WW that he'd been under Imperio; for another, Death Eaters are still in danger of being locked up in Azkaban. There's no canon that supports this either way, but Lucius is at least a little bit cunning, so I don't think I'm going out on a limb on that. BUT... I do agree that Lucius waxes nostalgic about the good old days when blood meant something, and about how wonderful the dark arts are, and maybe a little wink, wink, nudge, nudge with his old Death Eater buddies about good times they'd had. I don't think he sat down with Draco to talk about all this (the Borgin & Burkes scene suggests a certain coldness there), but I'm sure Draco heard plenty at the dinner table, etc. So Draco is influenced by his father's politics, but is not made aware of the full extent of the ugliness of his father's past and his beliefs. >>SSSusan: >I've always gotten rather the opposite impression. That is, that Lucius shares a LOT of information with Draco. Consider how Draco is the one who tells Harry that he ought to want to kill Sirius Black for what he did. Consider how Draco drops that word "dogging" after Sirius accompanied Harry to Platform 9 3/4. Consider that Lucius didn't do his Borgin & Burkes business away from Draco's wondering eyes. I see all this as evidence that Lucius keeps little Draco quite informed indeed.< Betsy: I read it more as Lucius forgets about Draco's presence, or maybe underestimates how much Draco takes in and retains (a common mistake amongst adults). Because Draco is *very* careless about sharing information he gains with others. I cannot see how telling Harry that the Malfoys' know Sirius is an animagus can help the Death Eater cause at all. If Lucius shared this information with his son, rather than being careless about speaking in front of him, I'm sure he'd have told Draco to keep quiet about it. When Lucius has information he *really* doesn't want to share (e.g. who is Slytherin's Heir) he does make sure to keep Draco out of the loop. Which makes me suspect that some of the conversations overheard by Draco may have occured without Lucius's knowledge. Again, no canon support, but I can well imagine Draco lingering outside doorways or at the top of staircases at Malfoy manor. >>SSSusan: >Like you, I'm not 100% positive I could call Draco's position at the end of the series, but mostly that's because I find him so shallow as a character [perhaps JKR's intention? perhaps the limitation of the narration coming from Harry's POV?] to be able to read much about his inner workings or motivations. >But naivete? Not a word I'd have thought to use for Draco. Would love to hear more canon on that one.< Betsy: Mainly I think Draco is naive because of how forthrightly he states his opinion. The entire school knows he hates Potter and friends. The entire school knows he hates Muggle borns. When Mrs. Norris is petrified, Draco, rather foolishly, yells out his support for the crime. And in joining the IS, Draco, again rather foolishly, pits himself against the entire student body. IIRC the IS was formed *after* the Hogwarts body (including teachers) began to rebel. Draco is on enemy territory (Dumbledore's turf) and every single year he pits himself openly and aggressively against everything Dumbledore stands for. Even his father suggests that he's being less than wise. Draco has shown himself to be a physical coward, and he's got some intelligence, so I can only reconcile his open aggression with a naive view on whether a war is coming and what it will look like. I kind of compare him to a child being raised by Klan parents. He learns who to hate, he learns the vocabulary and the skewed views. But he doesn't really know what it means to be a Klan member until he's taken on his first lynching. Everything else has just been words and racial "pride." But suddenly what his parents stand for are right there in front of him in all its barbaric ugliness. Draco can't see thestrels, so he's not being brought along on Muggle lynching parties. I also doubt his father is busily teaching him the Unforgivables over summer break. (Wouldn't Draco love to brag about it if he was?) When his father (and mother?) do go on a Muggle baiting trip in GoF, Draco is sent off into the woods. (By himself, stangely enough. I wonder why his parents didn't think he might be in danger if the mob got too far out of control?) You're right SSSusan, JKR really doesn't give us much insight into Draco's motivation and character. So we have to take what hints we can and build on them. And I may have built in a wrong direction. But from what I've read, I just don't think Draco really *knows* what's at stake. Probably most of the students at Hogwarts are in similar situations. I'm quite sure that will not last into the next books. For one thing, Lucius is in jail, and that has to have brought it home for Draco just a little bit. It will be interesting to see which way he goes. Betsy From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 19:36:37 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:36:37 -0000 Subject: Are we abusing the concept of "abuse?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124695 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Janet: > > See, this is why I think people have no sympathy for various > posters' incessant cries of "abuse" -- the fact that apparently it > can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. There is some > justification for claiming abuse in Harry's case, but DUDLEY? > > *snips extensive description of abuse* > Alla: > > I don't know. JKR does think that Dudley is abused. Why do you think > she says that? > > I thought that was primarily of Dursleys disregarding his weight > problem for years and years. I agree with you though that it seems > that Dudley is getting a lot of emotional support from his parents. > > JMO, > > Alla bboyminn: When JKR says 'abused', and she used that actual word, she meant it in a broad general sense; in other words, she meant 'abuse' not 'ABUSE!!!!'. Dudley is overindulged. He is sheltered from every responsibility whether that means acting responsibly or being responsible for is actions. He has a excessive sense of priviledge, he has been taught by his parent that a tantrum will get him anything he wants. What do you think will happen to Dudley when he goes out into the real world as an adult? Do you think self-indulgence, lack of responsibility, tantrums, and bullying are going to take him very far? Dudley is completely unprepared for the real world. He is very likely to become a very disfunctional adult who is convinced that he is OK and it is the rest of the world that is screwed up. Not to mention the fact that he will probably be dead of heart disease and/or diabetes before he's 40. When Harry was hurt at the Dursely's, it was in the here and now; 'WHACK!', take that. But Harry, with strength of character, stubborn determination, and sense of independance, is able to get beyond the moment. Dudley is indulged in the moment but hurt by the Durselys in a way that will follow him physically, emotionally, and functionally for his entire life. I'm not trying to minimize in any way what happened to Harry. I'm simply pointing out, as JKR tried to do, that the Durselys are harming Dudley by the way they treat him. They aren't /abusing/ him in the strictest sense, but they are harming him. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 19:59:42 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:59:42 -0000 Subject: Dudley. Was Re: Are we abusing the concept of "abuse?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124696 Steve: Dudley is overindulged. He is sheltered from every responsibility whether that means acting responsibly or being responsible for is actions. He has a excessive sense of priviledge, he has been taught by his parent that a tantrum will get him anything he wants. snip. Dudley is completely unprepared for the real world. He is very likely to become a very disfunctional adult who is convinced that he is OK and it is the rest of the world that is screwed up. Not to mention the fact that he will probably be dead of heart disease and/or diabetes before he's 40. snip. I'm not trying to minimize in any way what happened to Harry. I'm simply pointing out, as JKR tried to do, that the Durselys are harming Dudley by the way they treat him. They aren't /abusing/ him in the strictest sense, but they are harming him. Alla: I agree with you absolutely that Dudley is overindulged and unprepared for the real world . I also absolutely agree with you that Dursleys are harming their son. I am just not sure if I can call what they do " abuse" even in a very general sense of the world. Maybe because to me is the intention is what counts the most and no matter how hard I try I cannot find anywhere in the books that Dursleys intend to harm Dudley. I mean, harm can come even from the best intentions, but I cannot call such person an abuser. That is why I can only attribute the disregard of weight problem to the abuse, sort of. I suppose I can call Dudley spoiled in a very worst sense of this word, but I am not sure about "abused" JMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 20:40:28 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:40:28 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124697 >>Naama: >I don't agree that [ruthlessness and cold heartedness] qualities have much to do with cutting off emotion. And I definitely don't agree that Draco is almost pure emotion. Betsy: Well, I've always thought of folks who were ruthless and cold-hearted as having to push down their emotional reaction to things. Cutting off their hearts, so to speak. But no biggy. As to Draco though: has there ever been a scene with Draco in it where you're left wondering, "Gosh, I wonder how Draco really feels about that?" If so, could you cite it, please? I mean the boy wears his heart on his sleeve! Harry can *always* identify what emotion Draco is feeling, whether it's frustration, exultation, amusement, fear, anger. We, the readers, are never left in the dark, because Harry is never left in the dark. Even at times when it would have been wiser, more calculating for Draco to give the appearence of feeling one way, Draco lets his true emotions out. He's *overjoyed* at Mrs. Norris being petrified in CoS. He *loves* the idea of the return of the Heir. Incredibly foolish on Draco's part, but he can't seem to control himself. At the end of OotP when Umbridge is questioning Hermione and Hermione starts to hint that perhaps Draco can't be trusted, Draco falls right into Hermione's trap. Because he's just not very good at hiding his feelings. >>Naama: >Ambition: we see his ambition in the two major areas of accomplishment available for him - studies and sports. He is jealous of Hermione getting better grades than him, and he bribes his way into the Quidditch team.< Betsy: Good lord, a student interested in his studies and his sport! Lock up the women and children; another Dark Lord is being formed! And yes, dear, sweet Hermione, quite compassionately and with only the best intentions, I'm sure, accused Draco of buying his way onto the Slytherin Quidditch team. The fact that he's the second best Seeker at Hogwarts makes her accusations ring a little empty, don't you think? >>Naama: >Compassion: "Never been witness to an opportunity for Draco to do so?!" How about when Harry told him his parents were dead and JKR went to the trouble of telling us that he *didn't* sound sorry?< Betsy: JKR went to the trouble to tell us *Harry* didn't think he sounded sorry. Harry had already made up his mind that he disliked Draco at this point. Plus, the two boys were starting to argue about Hagrid. So no, I don't really see this as prime opportunity for an eleven year old child to express compassion. >>Naama: >How about gloating at the possibility that Hermione might be killed, instead of being concerened?< Betsy: Hermione is an enemy and the threat to her life was a distint possibility. Again, not a great opportunity. >>Naama: >How about tormenting Neville - instead of feeling sorry for him?< Betsy: This is a better example (though I don't think pity from a peer is all that compassionate myself) because Neville isn't a direct enemy of Draco's. He's a Gryffindor though, so it's not quite perfect. Plus, fellow Gryffindors torment Neville quite often as well. >>Naama: >How about *not* feeling compassion for Hagrid when he was so upset and miserable?< Betsy: The same Hagrid that very nearly got Draco killed (from Draco's POV at least)? Again, not a good example. >>Naama: >How about sniggering at Lupin's shabby robes rather than feeling sorry for him for being so poor?< Betsy: The same Lupin who took the job most desired by Draco's favorite professor? The tension between Lupin and Snape was apparent from the get go. Draco siding with Lupin would be just as realistic as Harry siding with Snape. Not that I think Draco wouldn't snicker at someone just for being poor. His family is rather money obsessed (part of the reason many feel they don't actually have that much themselves, or that Lucius is newly wealthy), so I think he'd snicker at patched robes anyway. So here's a question for you, Naama. Could you give me an example of Harry, Ron or Hermione showing compassion towards Draco, or any one of the Slytherins? I don't think there is such a scene, but I could well be wrong. >>Naama: >Parroting: As has been said by others, we have the example of Sirius - born to a pure-blood ideologues, yet rejecting that ideology at a young age. Therefore, *according to JKR*, there is free choice, and Draco is accountable for not making the right one.< Betsy: Sirius left his family when he was sixteen. Therefore, *according to JKR*, Draco still has one year left to make up his own mind. Though Sirius was also lucky enough to have friends like James and especially Remus (I doubt Peter did much ideological swayings). I'm sure the discovery that Remus was a werewolf (something Sirius would have been raised to despise) was a good shock to his ideological foundation. >>Naama: >Hermione: Is there any canon to support your claim that Draco hates Hermione for any other reason? Because I can't think of any.< Betsy: Check out this post of mine. I blather on about Draco and Hermione for a little bit there. Plus, there's canon. :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124637 >>Naama: >It also matters a great deal the kind of stone a person chooses to throw - it matters not so much for the victim, maybe (in some circumstances), but it shows a great deal about the attacker.< Betsy: I agree with you here. It's interesting that Draco *only* goes on about Hermione being a Muggle born. I've read some folks who think he might have a crush on her, so her blood is the only objectionable thing about her as far as Draco is concerned. I don't know if I agree with that or not. It *sounds* kind of neat, but you have to stretch the canon and sort of squint at it a little. But we know that Hermione is bushy haired and a little bossy, why doesn't Draco go after her on that, like Pansy does? Maybe because his mudblood comments get such a rise out of Ron, so he gets two birds with one stone? >>Naama: >When has JKR shown us that Draco is anything but evil?! He starts out as a snobbish, spoilt, spiteful brat and ends up an eager collaborator of an evil regime - lapping up the opportunity to step on and terrorize his fellow students.< Betsy: I think you and I have a different definition of evil. Draco is a snob, (I don't think he's spoiled, though he is protected), and he can be quite spiteful. (He sounds like a fashion designer, actually. ) But not evil. I use evil for people who kill for pleasure, have an almost clinical disregard for others, maybe want to take over the world or achieve immortality. Sound a bit familiar? After giving us Voldemort in all his glory, it really is stretching canon (and squinting at it a little) to say that JKR is writing Draco as *evil*. Ditto with Umbridge's reign. She's horrid and tryannical, but compare her with the Death Eaters and again, not so much the evil. >>Naama: >Therefore... there isn't a chance in hell that JKR has any plan for him to be redeemed.< Betsy: You could be right. Wait... What does Draco need to be redeemed for again? >>Naama in message # 124674: >Is it really insignificant that almost every time we see [Draco], he is trying or succeeding in hurting somebody?< Betsy: The extreme level of pay-back Draco *always* suffers makes what Draco had been doing insignificant, IMO. (Plus, when has Draco *succeeded* in hurting anybody?) If JKR really meant for us to see Draco as "Evil Personified: the junior edition" she would a) have at least one, *one* of Draco's plots come to fruition, and b) have Draco get away with a few of his crimes. Evil must be scary. Draco is many things, but scary he is not. Betsy, sitting president of Draco Defenders Unite! From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Feb 16 20:41:58 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:41:58 -0000 Subject: Naive Draco (was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124698 SSSusan earlier: > > I've always gotten rather the opposite impression. That is, that > > Lucius shares a LOT of information with Draco. Betsy replied: > I read it more as Lucius forgets about Draco's presence, or maybe > underestimates how much Draco takes in and retains (a common > mistake amongst adults). Because Draco is *very* careless about > sharing information he gains with others. I cannot see how telling > Harry that the Malfoys' know Sirius is an animagus can help the > Death Eater cause at all. ... I'm sure he'd have told Draco to > keep quiet about it. > > When Lucius has information he *really* doesn't want to share (e.g. > who is Slytherin's Heir) he does make sure to keep Draco out of the > loop. SSSusan: I took it a bit differently. That is, because Lucius knows that Draco has loose lips, he *plans* these conversations with Draco. That he didn't tell Draco about the Heir of Slytherin/Chamber of Secrets speaks to just how much he didn't want that one to get out to anyone while it was still in the works, methinks. OTOH, the Sirius as animagus "slip" of Draco's was, I believe, Lucius' way, via Draco, of issuing a threat. An "Oh, you Order of the Phoenix people. You think you're SO smart and sneaky. Well, we know ALL about you" kind of thing. SSSusan previously: > > But naivete? Not a word I'd have thought to use for Draco. > > Would love to hear more canon on that one. Betsy: > Mainly I think Draco is naive because of how forthrightly he states > his opinion. The entire school knows he hates Potter and friends. > The entire school knows he hates Muggle borns. When Mrs. Norris is > petrified, Draco, rather foolishly, yells out his support for the > crime. SSSusan: When I taught high school social studies [oh no! there she goes again!], I worked in an area of my state which has a rather nasty reputation as being a hotbed for KKK and/or racist activity & indoctrination. Not that there were necessarily any *more* people with that mentality there than one would find in any other small town in Indiana, I'm afraid, but simply that by virtue of its real history and its reputation, people who held those views were much more comfortable openly espousing them. Do you know what I mean? There was a cockiness & a confidence in making snide or threatening remarks, whereas in other small towns I'd been in, people who felt that way at least knew enough to be *quiet* about those beliefs. I see Draco as the same way. He's in (or believes he's in) his element in Slytherin House. He's got those other DE kids to hang with. He's got Snape as HoH, who I'm sure he assumes shares his worldview. I think it's comfort level a little more than naivete. Betsy: > Draco has shown himself to be a physical coward, and he's got > some intelligence, so I can only reconcile his open aggression with > a naive view on whether a war is coming and what it will look like. SSSusan: This much I can agree with, Betsy. I see what you mean about its not being *real* to him yet. At least, WASN'T 'til Daddy was thrown in Azkaban. Betsy: > I also doubt his father is busily teaching him the > Unforgivables over summer break. SSSusan: Now, actually, I think I might wager the opposite on this one. :-) Siriusly Snapey Susan, not a Draco fan From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 21:33:09 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:33:09 -0000 Subject: Naive Draco (was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124699 >>SSSusan: >I took it a bit differently. That is, because Lucius knows that Draco has loose lips, he *plans* these conversations with Draco.< Betsy: I can see that too. Either way, Draco isn't *in* on the actual planning. He either hears more than he should, or information is slipped to him for a purpose he doesn't realize. But, I think in Draco's mind, he is *in* he does know what all is going on, and it's that sort of thinking that I find a bit niave. >>SSSusan: >When I taught high school social studies [oh no! there she goes again!], I worked in an area of my state which has a rather nasty reputation as being a hotbed for KKK and/or racist activity & indoctrination. >...people who held those views were much more comfortable openly espousing them.< >I see Draco as the same way. He's in (or believes he's in) his element in Slytherin House. He's got those other DE kids to hang with. He's got Snape as HoH, who I'm sure he assumes shares his worldview. I think it's comfort level a little more than naivete.< Betsy: I think that does play a large part in Draco opening sharing his views. But the very fact that he's comfortable, that he doesn't see the power Dumbledore has over the school, points to a certain ignorance. (Is that maybe a better word?) It is (or was) more of a game, a social set-up, rather than a war with real casualties. Of course, with his father one of the first victims, I think that's starting to change. (And I really don't know which way Draco will jump now that he's more aware.) >>Betsy: >I also doubt his father is busily teaching him the Unforgivables over summer break.< >>SSSusan: >Now, actually, I think I might wager the opposite on this one. :-)< Betsy: Really? Don't you think he'd brag a little if he was? Maybe drop a few hints? I see Draco having a really hard time keeping a secret. Of course, I could well be wrong! Betsy From ryokas at hotmail.com Wed Feb 16 21:38:18 2005 From: ryokas at hotmail.com (Miikka R.) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:38:18 -0000 Subject: Dementors and the MoM Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124700 Having thought intensely about the subject, I feel that I can sum up the most important reason behind the Ministry of Magic's employment of the Dementors in one sentence. *Ahem* It's a considerable improvement over having Dementors outside the Ministry's control, isn't it? Discuss. - Kizor From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 21:50:40 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:50:40 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy...Who the heck is Elkin? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124701 >>vmonte: >Can you quote any canon to prove that Draco is lonely? And that Crab and Goyle are not his friends/goonies.< Betsy: On Draco being lonely - no nothing specific. It's just a feeling I get reading him. But Crabbe and Goyle are followers of Draco, not friends like Ron and Hermione are for Harry. They rarely stick up for Draco when he gets pounded on, neither of them came with him to the World Quidditch Cup in GoF, etc. I think they are loyal in their way (maybe?) but they certainly don't come across as Draco's equals. >>vmonte: >This comment was not directed to you at all. Sorry, I can see why you would think so.< Betsy: Yay! Good, I was wondering what I'd done wrong. :) >>vmonte: >Ok, he dislikes Hermione because she is a better witch. I still say he hates her because she is a mudblood too.< Betsy: Oh, I think her being Muggle born is a part of it, definitely. But she didn't stand out to him for that reason, originally. (And actually, I've got the sneaking suspicion that Draco would make a *scorching* witch. And that was a joke.) >>vmonte: >Who is Elkin's anyway?< Betsy: Someone who used to post here. I think Alla originated this thread and she pulled up an old post of Elkin's. Betsy From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Wed Feb 16 21:54:11 2005 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:54:11 -0000 Subject: Many sleepless nights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124702 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth G" wrote: > As the reader, we have the opportunity > to see that Petunia and Lily are estranged from one another, and appear to > have been for some time. I am not sure they did not have contact. In SS chapter 1 there is an interchange between Petunia and Vernon where Vernon asks Petunia what was Lily's son name and she immediately answers. Petnuia did not like her sister but I think she had more contact than we know with her. > With that in mind, I do think that Dumbledore should have arranged to have > Harry removed from there custudy as soon as he knew how they were actually > treating him, blood protection or not. Not if removing him was placing him in mortal danger. According to his comments at the end of OoP that was the case. > And according to my mother the social > worker who used to work Child Protective Service, she would have removed > both Harry and Dudley from the home if this had been an actual situation. Then she would have overstepped her boundaries. Harry is certainly abused there, but Dudley? As others said, he is indulged, but mostly as a result of ignorance and stupidity and the Dursleys, when presented with a treatment plan do follow it (as in making Dudley diet and enrolling him in sports, i.e. boxing or wrestling). They do have the best intentions for their son, at least, but they are stupid and ignorant. Mandated family councelling would have been more helpfull than outright removal. As for Harry, they clearly do not love it, are scared to death that his true heritage and abilities will come to the surface and believe that keeping him downtrodden will snuff his magical ability. So from their perspective they are doing it for his own good. I believe their attitude towards him is abusive but keeping him with them is the lesser of two evils (the other being the risk to his life). Salit From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Wed Feb 16 22:42:39 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 09:42:39 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dudley. Was Re: Are we abusing the concept of "abuse?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0FA84CE0-806C-11D9-8097-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 124703 On Thursday, February 17, 2005, at 06:59 am, dumbledore11214 wrote: > Maybe because to me is the intention is what counts the most and no > matter how hard I try I cannot find anywhere in the books that > Dursleys intend to harm Dudley. I mean, harm can come even from the > best intentions, but I cannot call such person an abuser. > I am told that a lot of paedophiles believe that the child wanted it, and will come to no harm. This is not an opinion shared by the rest of the western world, so we call it child abuse. However, broadly I agree with you that the Dursleys love Dudley and their completely wrong-headed treatment of him should not be called 'abuse' as we generally define the word. I think he is most likely to end up in jail. His complete lack of life-skills and sense of entitlement will surely land him in the courts sooner or later. Jocelyn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 23:01:57 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:01:57 -0000 Subject: Dudley's fate. Was Re: Are we abusing the concept of "abuse?" In-Reply-To: <0FA84CE0-806C-11D9-8097-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124704 Alla earlier: Maybe because to me is the intention is what counts the most and no matter how hard I try I cannot find anywhere in the books that Dursleys intend to harm Dudley. I mean, harm can come even from the best intentions, but I cannot call such person an abuser. JOcelyn: I am told that a lot of paedophiles believe that the child wanted it, and will come to no harm. This is not an opinion shared by the rest of the western world, so we call it child abuse. Alla: Eh? That is definitely not what I meant under "best intentions" part. I think I meant something more objective - like Dursleys feeding Dudley because they think he is hungry, or something like that. Jocelyn: However, broadly I agree with you that the Dursleys love Dudley and their completely wrong-headed treatment of him should not be called 'abuse' as we generally define the word. I think he is most likely to end up in jail. His complete lack of life-skills and sense of entitlement will surely land him in the courts sooner or later. Alla: What will happen , in your opinion, if there is indeed Petunia's redemption to occur( If you think of course that she needs redemption.) ? Do you think Dudley will be redeemed by extension or he will side with his father? If indeed we will see conflict between Petunia and Vernon, I wonder what Dudley will do. Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 23:11:16 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:11:16 -0000 Subject: Dementors and the MoM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124705 Kizor: Having thought intensely about the subject, I feel that I can sum up the most important reason behind the Ministry of Magic's employment of the Dementors in one sentence. *Ahem* It's a considerable improvement over having Dementors outside the Ministry's control, isn't it? Discuss. Alla: Well, sure it is, since out of control Dementor is clearly not a good thing. :o) We discussed in the past as to Dementors posible siding with Voldemort. We also discussed many possible candidates for dementor Kiss starting with Voldie himself ( was Harry among candidates also? ). I am wondering now though whether Cornelius desire to keep Dementors close will not come back to hunt him directly? Do you think it is possible that Kissing of Barty foreshadowed the kissing of dear Cornelius? Or maybe Dolores Umbridge? JMO, Alla From dontask2much at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 00:23:44 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:23:44 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Many sleepless nights References: Message-ID: <005701c51486$f3481d90$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 124706 >Paul said: > Now tell me honestly. Couldn't AD at least "force" > them to act more mildly, not in an active way but with a subtle one > like I don't know a Dursley-specific-to-act-in-a-human-way ward or at > least a not-abuse-Harry ward. I am not saying to make them act as > Harry's parents but at least not as his jailers. Secondly about the > risk that took AD to raise Harry in a similar environment to Tom > Riddle's I have only two adages to say. "Don't play with the fire If > you don't want to be burned" and "The road to hell is made on good > intentions". > Charme: Yes indeedy, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...now if only there were traffic signs and a road map :) While DD might have been able to "make" the Dursleys behave better, wouldn't that just have set a bad example for the rest of the WW society? Here DD is this great respected wizard who makes a pair of Muggles play nice...it's more to my way of thinking a "damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario" for DD to do anything under those circumstances. Charme From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Feb 17 00:28:10 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:28:10 -0000 Subject: Dementor's Nature (Re: Dementors and the MoM) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124707 > Kizor: > Having thought intensely about the subject, I feel that I can sum > up the most important reason behind the Ministry of Magic's > employment of the Dementors in one sentence: > It's a considerable improvement over having Dementors outside the > Ministry's control, isn't it? > Alla: > I am wondering now though whether Cornelius desire to keep > Dementors close will not come back to hunt him directly? > Do you think it is possible that Kissing of Barty foreshadowed the > kissing of dear Cornelius? Or maybe Dolores Umbridge? Jen: I'm torn about the future use of Dementors for plot purposes. On one hand, JKR makes it clear we are going to see Dementors outside Ministry control in the next book. What exactly that means, whether Voldemort is capable of controlling them any better than Fudge remains to be seen. Or perhaps Voldemort doesn't try to control them at all, merely tells the Dementors the parameters of who they can and cannot Kiss, then lets them loose. But on the other hand, we will get somewhat desensitized to their grotesqueness and fearsome power if the Dementors are seen Kissing too many people or are at the forefront of the War. POA was perfect-- we got a taste of their power, but not too much. Then there's the piece about the morality of the Kiss. Lupin asks Harry to consider whether anyone deserves to have their soul sucked out, and Herry responds some people do deserve it. Obviously Lupin doesn't feel the same way. JKR could be making a moral point there, or merely revealing more about Dementors. But I felt like she was saying that a soul is more important than a physical life, at least in Potterverse. That people will die in the coming war, as they did in the previous war, but the sucking of one's soul is 'much worse than that' as Lupin says in The Patronus chapter of POA. I can't imagine their future role, although it does seem at least part of Voldemort's power is the fact he has no soul. As Lupin tells Harry, in POA: "If it can, the dementor will feed on you long enough to reduce you to something like itself....souless and evil." (US, The Patronus chapter, p. 187). So what happens when a Dementor Kisses someone like Tom Riddle, who has no "peace, hope and hapiness" to be sucked out? Does he gain in power rather than being reduced to the worst experiences of his life? Canon indicates that you can block a Dementor's power drain in certain ways, like Sirius did, but it might also be indicating that an evil person can actually *feed* off the Dementor rather than vice versa. Jen From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Feb 17 00:39:10 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:39:10 -0000 Subject: Many sleepless nights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124708 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "paul_terzis" wrote: > In any case AD took a big risk because he recreate the very same conditions that made Tom Riddle to become Lord Voldermort and that is an abusive, uncaring muggle foster family for little Harry.< Pippin: Just a little canon correction point. As far as we know, Tom Riddle never lived with any Muggle foster family, abusive and uncaring or otherwise. We only know he was living in an orphanage at the age of 15 and didn't want to go back there. What his life was like compared to Harry's, we don't know. But wouldn't it be just like JKR to surprise us. Pippin From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 00:53:27 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:53:27 -0000 Subject: The WW is fascist? (was the DE are Nazi?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124709 Nora wrote: "First, let me plug my very own analysis at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/108762, comparing the DEs as we see them to fascism..." Del replies: I went to see it. Very interesting. Let me paste here the list you gave there: "Common Characteristics of Fascism: 1) Authoritarianism and the absolutist tradition: power must lie in the hands of one ruler of the state. 2) A founding mythology associated with this leader: what makes him special and uniquely suited to the preeminent position. Combine this with a sense of the destiny of a particular people. 3) Organicism: a system in which everyone's place is precisely defined and fixed. 4) Obedience to the leader and system are of primary importance. 5) Disruption of traditional or previous class distinctions, which are redefined by new criteria distinctive to each incarnation of the fascist system. 6) Essentialism: people are defined by innate and inalterable qualities. You were born what you are. 7) A particular mixture of racial and cultural anxiety, generated by the confluence of conditions listed above. 8) The generation and definition of a distinct underclass, often with the element of fear of retribution from this underclass. 9) Enforcers of the regime loyal to the dictator." Del now comments: How interesting! Let's see. 1) Authoritarianism and the absolutist tradition: power must lie in the hands of one ruler of the state. As you yourself pointed, Nora, this is something quite common in the WW. Even right now, three people are "competing" for the title of absolute ruler: LV, Fudge, and DD. All three of them have loyal followers that think that everything would be perfect if their own champion was the only ruler. 2) A founding mythology associated with this leader: what makes him special and uniquely suited to the preeminent position. Combine this with a sense of the destiny of a particular people. You already expanded on LV. Let's see the other two. DD: well, he is the great hero that defeated Grindelwald. He is the only one LV was ever afraid of. He is the greatest wizard alive. And so on. Fudge: not really any mythology... yet. Give him another decade or two (which he won't have), and I'm sure we'd see some tall stories surfacing. I also feel that the mythology about the Founders is related to that point. After several hundreds years, the sytem the Founders imagined is still in place at Hogwarts, it hasn't been replaced. Kids are still proud to be from this or that House, to be connected with this or that great Founder. It's a big deal that Harry is a true Gryffindor, for example, and it was ominously meaningful that young Snape was a Slytherin. "A sense of the destiny of a particular people", indeed. 3) Organicism: a system in which everyone's place is precisely defined and fixed. The WW in its entirety is very much such a system. We even know that the wizards spent an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out a system that could categorise every single magical and non-magical creature... with the wizards on top, of course. And once again, we have the House system in Hogwarts, where students are *literally* sleeping and eating and living in fixed places depending on which House they belong to. Not to mention the unspoken but very important rules of preeminence between the different Houses. 4) Obedience to the leader and system are of primary importance. We've seen that again and again. For example, there are laws to prevent wizards from doing magic in front of Muggles, complete with punishment for doing so, and special forces to enforce that law. There's also a law preventing underage wizard from doing any magic during the holidays, and Harry suffered at their hands even before the MoM got on his case. At Hogwarts too, obedience to the system and to the leaders is a big deal. There's no rebelling against authority, there's no argumentating. The students won't even denounce an incompetent or a sadistic teacher to the administration. The teachers rule supreme in their class, no matter how unfairly they abuse their power. 5) Disruption of traditional or previous class distinctions, which are redefined by new criteria distinctive to each incarnation of the fascist system. This is exactly what happens to Muggleborns when they enter the WW. Suddenly, things such as race, religion, money, position of parents in society, schools they went to, ancestry, intelligence, talents, previous accomplishments, or whatever, become of no importance. But on the other hand, something that had never mattered before, the fact that their parents are not magical, becomes quite an issue. The WW makes no effort to respect the particularities of the Muggleborns. It is expectd of the Muggleborns that they turn into perfect copies of the wizard-borns, period. What they might bring to the WW is deemed of no importance, they must now make their life rotate around this one particular attribute : magic. Nothing else matters. 6) Essentialism: people are defined by innate and inalterable qualities. You were born what you are. That pretty much summarises the WW. Wizards are wizards before they are anything else. Muggles are underclass people because they are not magical. Magical creatures are underclass creatures because they are not humans. Morality, hard work, intelligence, courage, whatever, those things matter inside of your own sphere, but they will never take you out of that sphere. 7) A particular mixture of racial and cultural anxiety, generated by the confluence of conditions listed above. This is obvious in the WW, at least in my idea. 8) The generation and definition of a distinct underclass, often with the element of fear of retribution from this underclass. Obvious where the Muggles are concerned. Wizards must not mix with Muggles, because Muggles are inherently inferior since they are not magical, and so they could either abuse the wizards to get them to work for them (Hagrid says something in PS/SS about this, something about "they would ask us to solve all their problems"), or they could hurt them like they did during the Middle-Ages. Same with some magical creatures. The giants, for example, were exiled, for fear of what they might do to the humans. The Merpeople and the Centaurs have to live in tiny places, and we saw Umbridge be quite afraid of the Centaurs in OoP. 9) Enforcers of the regime loyal to the dictator. Umbridge was very loyal to Fudge, and she wasn't the only one. Even the Daily Prophet people were loyal to the Ministry. The Order members seem to be quite blindly loyal to DD too. We don't know how much DD let them in on his plans, but we do know how much he let Harry in on his plan, and that was almost not at all. DD expected blind faith from Harry, and this seems to be his usual modus operandi. In conclusion: the WW in itself is a fascist world. So it's really no surprise that ultra-fascists like LV should crop up regularly. More than ever, I argue that only a total transformation of the WW could bring a real sense of hope for better days. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 01:26:36 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 01:26:36 -0000 Subject: Dudley's fate. Was Re: Are we abusing the concept of "abuse?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124710 Alla earlier: "Maybe because to me is the intention is what counts the most and no matter how hard I try I cannot find anywhere in the books that Dursleys intend to harm Dudley. I mean, harm can come even from the best intentions, but I cannot call such person an abuser." Jocelyn answered: "I am told that a lot of paedophiles believe that the child wanted it, and will come to no harm. This is not an opinion shared by the rest of the western world, so we call it child abuse." Alla replied: "Eh? That is definitely not what I meant under "best intentions" part. I think I meant something more objective - like Dursleys feeding Dudley because they think he is hungry, or something like that. " Del comments: I think what Jocelyn was trying to explain is that the intentions are not the only thing that matter when determining abuse. Some people can do some very bad things with the best intentions. To go back to Jocelyn's examples, there are children who enjoy being sexually touched (believe me, I know what I'm talking about), and the adult touching them can truly be convinced that they are doing something nice to them. But that doesn't mean that they are not in fact abusing them. To use your own example now, Alla, feeding inordinate amounts of sugar to a toddler can make both he and you very happy right now, but it is not good for him, neither now nor in the future. It makes him happy *now*, but it will make him very unhappy in the short term (after the sugar high), in the middle term (when he has cavities in every single one of his teeth) and in the long term (when he gets diabetes, or any other such nicety). Technically, I would indeed call it abuse. Inversely, there are parents who are convinced that beating up a child is the best thing they can do for them when the child does something wrong. There are parents who don't enjoy beating their children at all, but who do it anyway because they feel they have to do it if they want their children to grow up well. On a lesser degree, I suffered some verbal abuse from one of my aunts, who would often criticise me whenever she saw me (not often, thankfully :-) in the hope to force me to act and do and be "better". I think she really thought she was doing a good thing, even if in fact she made me feel horrible and made my already fragile self-esteem even more fragile. So abuse cannot be determined simply on the intentions. It's a subtle mixture of intentions and actions. This is why legally Dudley wasn't abused, even though his parents turned him into a total freak, which is abuse in my opinion. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 01:52:32 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 01:52:32 -0000 Subject: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124711 Naamagatus wrote: "Seeing as the DEs are the equivalent of the Nazi SS or Gestapo, I don't see how they could be depicted as other than totally black. Unlike Slytherin house (to which children are sorted), these are adults who deliberately embrace an ideology of hatred, racism and cruelty, and who carry out this ideology at every opportunity they can. " Del replies: First I don't think that all the Nazi SS or Gestapo were totally black, so I don't see how fictional characters loosely based on them could be totally black either. Second, the ideology of hatred, racism and cruelty exists in the WW at large. Racism towards the non-magical Muggles, and towards the non-human and yet sentient Merpeople, Centaurs, House-Elves, and so on. Hatred against the werewolves (who are still humans most of the time), or the Giants, and so on. And cruelty against the House-Elves, the Merpeople, the Centaurs, the Giants, and even the Muggles (Muggle-baiting is not something that only the DEs do, and I don't think there were only DEs in that crowd misbehaving at the Quidditch Cup). Hatred, racism and cruelty are integral parts of the WW. The DEs just take them further than most wizards, they take it to some interestingly logical conclusions: if being non-magical makes you inferior, then being the child of non-magical people should also make you inferior. After all, the wizards don't care about what the Muggles can achieve, they only care about which people they don't belong to. So similarly, the DEs don't care about what the Muggleborns can do, they only care about which people they belong to. And the Muggleborns do not entirely belong to the WW: by birth, they also belong to the Muggle world. Once the WW stops thinking that being a Muggle makes you inferior, the DEs will stop thinking that being Muggleborn also makes you inferior. Del From jferer at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 02:12:08 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 02:12:08 -0000 Subject: Many sleepless nights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124712 -Paul:"Suppose you are Dumbledore the most powerful wizard and the most well connected one I will add. You have someone of great value to protect. First of all don't tell me that you don't check what kind of people will take care your protege or how they treated him after they had taken him." How do you check them out? Petunia's nosy and Vernon is a tight-wrapped narrow-minded man, but they have one son they indulge constantly. You couldn't predict their behavior towards Harry. Where do you go (in the hours after the death of Harry's parents) to "check out" the Dursleys? Paul"Couldn't AD at least "force" them to act more mildly, not in an active way but with a subtle one like I don't know a Dursley-specific-to-act-in-a-human-way ward or at least a not-abuse-Harry ward. I am not saying to make them act as Harry's parents but at least not as his jailers." No, he can't. People who try to be puppeteers find out the puppets don't cooperate, and forcing people to do something they don't want to do usually fails. Listen, I know. I'm in a job where I'm trying to get people to do things they don't want to do, and it's much harder than anyone thinks. Paul:"Secondly about the risk that took AD to raise Harry in a similar environment to Tom Riddle's I have only two adages to say. "Don't play with the fire If you don't want to be burned" and "The road to hell is made on good intentions"." Harry is very different than Tom. He had a year with his natural parents that Riddle didn't have, an important year. The Dursleys are detestable people and Harry had very rough time with them, but when we say "abuse," we're using the same word we use for daily beatings, broken bones, and 14 year olds who weigh 70 pounds. We have no idea what the orphanage experience Tom had was like, but we do know he was the Heir of Slytherin and had a despicable father It's the nature of things that people who make decisions, who actually have to get things done, have to make hard choices and usually don't have ideal options (there's a term, "AOS," All Options S**k). These leaders often don't have the luxury of time to make these decisions in, either. They accept risks for themselves and others. Accepting risks for others is always much harder than accepting them for yourself, and it's so often absolutely necessary. Dumbledore has made the tought calls. It's no surprise many of them weren't ideal Jim Ferer From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 02:18:23 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 02:18:23 -0000 Subject: The WW is fascist? (was the DE are Nazi?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124713 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > In conclusion: the WW in itself is a fascist world. So it's really > no surprise that ultra-fascists like LV should crop up regularly. > More than ever, I argue that only a total transformation of the WW > could bring a real sense of hope for better days. Actually, I myself wouldn't go that far. Perhaps what stops me is something that popped up in a JKR comment someone brought up about wizards being misfits and individuals. Despite the attempts of the Ministry to enforce orthodoxy in some things, there are no attempts made in other areas, it seems, given the rather wacky and disparate group of characters who parade across our screen. There's the question of method as well; the Order may all trust Dumbledore implicitly, but he doesn't command them by fear or threats as a fascist state does but rather by what seem to be bonds of genuine trust and amity. It's a rather motley crew collected around him, and I think it's telling that he attracts all kinds. (The opposition of DEs masked and uniform to Order non-regimented and taking all kinds is a rather deliberate one). While one can trace things that pop up in the DEs back into larger WW society, please don't fall down the slippery slope. Distinctions in degree can very readily trip across the line into distinctions in kind, and those are important. While the House system may impose some degree of uniformity onto students, there is a lot of evidence to the freedom to develop differently within a House. Why else have both Luna and Cho in Ravenclaw? But I'm flattered you liked it. Maybe it will hold up. :) -Nora plays in the political theory sandbox From apollovibes at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 19:45:18 2005 From: apollovibes at yahoo.com (apollovibes) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:45:18 -0000 Subject: An Odd Ghostly Question. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124714 Finwitch: > > Could it be possible that, for example, one could, if gone trough in > flesh, be 'reborn' (and moved back in time). For example, Sirius > could have his next life as Stubby Boardman. Of course, he'd have to > accept the very strict rule about not changing the past. However, > after the moment Sirius Black went trough the Veil, Stubby Boardman > is a free agent. He could, therefore, go and help Harry... > > AND, someone who returns may not discuss what's going on in the > beyond. > > And er -- one could gain the phoenix in the beyond... Steve/bboyminn: Well, it would allow a ghost to carry messages 'beyond the grave'. That is, take messages to dead people and return with responses. apollo: This may have been discussed here already, but I'm relatively new and don't get to follow as often as I'd like. We'll definitely see the veil again, but perhaps in what context? Will it be in the DoM again or something similar some place else? Will Harry try and sneak in there to examine it or will Dumbledore explain? The OP about ghosts carrying messages to/from the world of the dead is pretty interesting considering it coincides with the Celtic myths which are becoming more into focus as a 'idea base' for JKR. It kind of fits with the idea of Samhain when the world of the dead and living are at their closest point. Junxtapose that with Nick's Deathday Party in Chamber of Secrets - does anyone else think like me and think it is possible Harry and Co. have travelled into the world of the dead? They pass through a Curtain or Drape (not sure which term is used) and descend down, getting colder until they get to the party. 2 differences in passing through the veil / curtain / drape. 1 - Sirius didn't pass through on Halloween, the trio did. 2 - Sirius wasn't invited. The Trio was. From easimm at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 22:19:17 2005 From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:19:17 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys (was many other subjects) long In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124715 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bleckybecs" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124638 wrote: ...So, can't the same > argument be applied to the parents of Lily and Hermione, in fact > any muggle parent of any witch or wizard (and there appear to be a > fair number around)? Their parents seem to have done ok by them > without treating them the way the Dursley's treated Harry. > Snorky wrote: Some people are not nice. Some people are. The Dursley's aren't. As far as I can tell, I'm not excusing the Dursley's. Nor am I ignoring their concerns. > Blecky wrote: > In relation to the psycho killer, I think that DD must have done > something to help them overcome their fear of attack... I think > that she and her family are offered protection for as long as they > keep Harry. ... > Snorky wrote: Let's see: get killed by psycho killer versus killed by a magical toddler in a tantrum. I think I would worry more about the magical toddler. > Blecky wrote: > I'm firmly of the opinion that there was no other option and that > their treatment, which I do partly understand because they were > scared, is not excusable. However, because I believe there was no > other option, it has to simply be accepted. ... > Snorky wrote: I think the Dursley's could have been stern about the non-existence of magic, while still managing to be kind. From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Feb 17 03:51:44 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 03:51:44 -0000 Subject: Writers Fiat (was: Stockholm Syndrome - was No sympathy for Kreacher) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124716 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, caesian wrote: > > > > > > > Caesian now: > I think the difference is a fundamental - adults tend to give > preference to logical reasoning when interpreting the world, whereas > children give greater credence to how they feel. (Neither approach is > necessarily superior, IMO.) > > Adult readers often try to figure out the logic of the WW, sometimes > with fabulously clever insight (witness all posts here) and sometimes > via hilarious obsession with arcane minutia (present company excluded, > of course!). > > On the other hand, children remember how the books made them feel. > They pay greater attention to the emotional presentation of the story. > Emotional cues trump logical chains. Of course Dumbledore is good and > cares for Harry, because he cried didn't he? He tried, didn't he? It > matters not that there were holes in his plan, it matters that he > wanted the plan to work and for Harry to be safe and happy. > > In these hyper-logical discussions, it is almost impossible to > articulate the power of the overall emotional tone of a scene, or of a > character's presentation throughout the series. The logic of > Dumbledore's decisions may seem odd (given what we now know, which may > well be incomplete - another problem with relying to heavily on logic). > But it is clear that the author has presented Dumbledore in an > overwhelmingly positive emotional tone. And that does indeed count for > something. > > Cheers, > Caesian I think you are definitely onto an important point, Caesian. Although, I think (just speaking of adults because I don't remember enough about being a child) that logic chains often get tangled with emotions in the case of adults. And I don't mean that as a bad thing. I'm just saying that logic and perceived emotional tone are related for adults in a way they probably aren't for kids. Thus, we have more of a tendancy to expect characters to act according to their emotional presentation, and thus are more puzzled by things such as why DD tolerates Snape, etc. When logic and emotional tone don't match, we tend to think that something is wrong. That is, characters are lying, the emotional tone is false and misleading, or any number of other things. Thus one of the most common criticisms of OOTP among adults is that many of the characters do not act in consonance with the emotional tones associated with them so far. Thus Molly suddenly seems shrill, Dumbledore bumbling, Sirius hapless, Lupin passive, McGonagall harsh to the point of cruelty, and Hermione a harping, unsympathetic scold. Everyone seems "off" (even after the explanations at the end). I think that is very upsetting to many adults because it rends the previously established seams between logic and emotional tone. Lupinlore > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Feb 17 04:22:57 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 04:22:57 -0000 Subject: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124717 We have been having a very long discussion about Draco and the possibility of his redemption. We have had many similar discussions in the past. Let me put forth a theory about Draco and Snape (and Lupin and Neville and Petunia and other characters we like to argue about). And the theory is this: by and large they are pretty much what they appear to be. The complexities we like to read into their characters are largely castles we build in the air. It is true that JKR likes to pull plot twists. However, by and large, I would be willing to bet that in the end we will find most of her characterizations to have been very straightforward. Snape is presented from the beginning as a bitter, hateful, petty man who hates Harry. I suspect that in the end we will discover he was a bitter, hateful, petty man who hated Harry. Draco is presented from the beginning as a shallow, spoiled, vicious little junior Death Eater. I suspect in the end he will turn out to have been a shallow, spoiled, vicious little junior Death Eater. JKR has certainly presented some interesting reversals (Quirrel, fake Moody). However, mostly they have been purely within the confines of a particular book. We have yet to really see fundamental reversals of characterization (although I suppose a case could be made for James). And something tells me we probably won't. As nrenka likes to point out, JKR is very essentialist. You are what you are and you pretty much are what you appear to be, certainly over the long run. As I've said before, I think in the end a lot of our speculations are going to be confounded and disappointed by a rather clear ending and rather unshocking revelations (can we say prophecy, anyone?). Snape will turn out to be not nearly so complicated as we like to believe. Neville's role will stay confined to supporting cast. Draco will take the road he has been treading for five books. Dumbledore will not turn out to be an evil manipulator. Lupin will remain the honorable werewolf he appears to be. Will the secrets of Snape be revealed? Sure. And many of us are likely to say, as nrenka predicts, "That's it?" Will Draco's future be revealed? Sure. And I predict most of us won't be very surprised at all. Because you see it all comes down to Harry's story. That is what JKR is really interested in. Complicated explorations of the pasts and motivations of supporting characters will most likely have to go by the wayside unless they have a very direct impact on Harry and his journey to confront Voldemort. And I doubt JKR is really interested in exploring all sorts of byzantine character reversals, purely because they would take the focus away from Harry, where she most firmly believes our attention belongs. Snape and Draco and Remus and Neville and all the others will be important to one degree or another. But I seriously doubt they're going to be THAT important that large sections of the narrative are going to be diverted to get deeply into the structures of their characters and to describe any kind of fundamental evolution of their personality. Only Harry (not even Ron and Hermione) merits that kind of attention in this tale. Lupinlore From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 05:17:41 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:17:41 -0000 Subject: Dementor's Nature (Re: Dementors and the MoM) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124718 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: I can't imagine their future role, although it does seem at least part of Voldemort's power is the fact he has no soul. As Lupin tells Harry, in POA: "If it can, the Dementor will feed on you long enough to reduce you to something like itself....soulless and evil." (US, The Patronus chapter, p. 187). Tonks here: I think of the Dementor as a Demon Tormentor hence: Dementor Now in magic a demon is something different than what it means in Christianity. I think that it is more likely that JKR is using the term in the Christian sense rather than the magical sense. If LV is Tom Riddle's past, present, future, I would have to guess that LV is not human but an evil entity of some sort. This entity is something that has existed before the lifetime of Tom Riddle and continues on after Tom is gone. I think that perhaps LV is no longer Tom and what happened at GH was that Tom was destroyed but the essence of the evil that bonded with him did not. Now LV can takes human form when invited into the body of the human host. Perhaps he can not take over someone that has not asked him to enter. LV tried to possess Harry without permission and could not. LV possessed Tom Riddle with permission. (This would be consistant with XC theology of possession.) The Dementors are the servants of this evil entity. Just as the angels are the servants of God. There is no mention of God in the series, but He is quietly there in the background. The existence of God is evident in the fact that both Christmas and Easter are observed at Hogwarts. There is no mention of pagan holidays or even the holidays of other religions for that matter. Only Christian Holidays are observed. (Halloween is not entirely pagan- it ties into All Saints Day on Nov.1.) No one really even thinks about it but the concept of a Christian God is just quietly, almost invisibly in the background of the story. The closest thing we come to seeing God is in the person of DD. DD knows about the ancient magic. I think that within the ancient magic is where the XC God resides in this story. LV knows about ancient magic too and he discounts an important part of it as DD tells us "to his determent". I am not sure of the role that the Dementors will take in the upcoming war. Perhaps the war is the final war. Armageddon. I have often wondered about the books numbering 7. Yes I know 7 years of school. But could they mean something else too? In the book of Revelation the number 7 is repeated many times and when the seventh angel sounds the trumpet the 7th scroll is opened. And this is the beginning of the end. In the war that follows there is an Eagle, a Serpent, a Lion, a Dragon and the Lamb of God. (No mention of a Badger.) Tonks_op From meriaugust at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 05:44:57 2005 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:44:57 -0000 Subject: Questions about a Dementor's Nature (Re: Dementors and the MoM) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124719 Jen wrote: snipping I'm torn about the future use of Dementors for plot purposes. > On one hand, JKR makes it clear we are going to see Dementors > outside Ministry control in the next book. What exactly that means, > whether Voldemort is capable of controlling them any better than > Fudge remains to be seen. Meri now, popping up from lurkdom: Excellent points, even those I had to snip. Who is to say that LV can actually control the Dementors? We know they followed MoM orders for a while, and we also know that they took orders from DU (in OOP when she tried to have them dement Harry and Dudley). But we also know (or are led to assume, via DD) that LV and his Death Eaters, and I am paraphrasing now, can provide better sport for the Dementors and their pleasures and powers than the MoM, and IIRC at the end of OOP they had abandoned Azkaban. Which all leads up to a few questions that have been stewing in my mind since I first read PoA: 1) What exactly is a Dementor? I know that we know from JKR that they represent depression (and chillingly well, might I add), but where in the WW do they come from? They don't seem equipped for procreation, and unlike many of the other beasts and beings in the WW they didn't, IIRC, make an appearance in FB. Are they born? Were they created by some horrid experiment gone awry? Or are they manifested by negative human feeling (ala the slime in Ghostbusters II)? 2) Do Dementors have free will? We can assume that, because they follow directions, they have some rudimentary understanding of the world around them, but can they choose to do things on their own? Are they creatures that are slaves like the house elves? Now, IMHO the things the MoM has asked them to do (namely guard Azkaban and suck out people's souls) have probably been things that the Dementors would enjoy in some sick, twisted way anyway. But what about now that they've abandoned Azkaban? Did they choose to do this or were they forced or coerced? 3) Are the Azkaban Dementors the only ones in Britian? In the WW? In the world in general? Where do the other Dementors live? Are there other wizard's prisons that have Dementor guards? When did Dementors first appear? Do they predate LV? Did he create them? And how did he get them to be his allies in the first LV War? 4) And lastly, but probably most importantly, how does one kill a Dementor? We know that the Patronus charm can drive them back and protect a person from being kissed, but how does one actually destroy a Dementor? If enough wizards got together and produced Patronuses at the same time would this kill a dementor? Or would it just take an enormous amount of positive energy? And what would have happened if Harry had been kissed by the Dementors? He's had "horrors in his life" that are incomprehensible but he's also filled with some mysterious power and has a great heart. Are these enough to protect Harry's soul from being sucked? Anyway. Just had to get those off my chest. Meri - back to lurking and stressing about school and wondering if a rousing chorus of "Kumbayah" by the Azkaban detainees might have driven a few Dementywhatsits away From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 05:45:58 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:45:58 -0000 Subject: Stockholm Syndrome - was No sympathy for Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124720 > phoenixgod2000: > That very special thing about Harry is called Writers Fiat. The > author needs Harry to not be a complete basketcase so he is not. A > real child growing up in his surroundings would be a sociopath. Carol responds: I strongly disagree with this statement. Children are different from birth, with innate tendencies toward timidity or aggression or cheerfulness that shape them just as much as their environment does. Also, many children are much more resilient than postmodern victimization theories concede them to be. And the abuse by the Dursleys is moderate by comparison with much real-life abuse. In fact, their child-rearing theories, at least with regard to Harry, resemble the *normal* view (spare the rod, spoil the child) that prevailed from biblical times to the first half of the twentieth century. Even after Dr. Spock started writing child-rearing manuals that encouraged everything from breast-feeding to playing with your child, spanking was still common and accepted, as was sending a child to bed without supper. Yelling at your children was also common (as I remember all too well). Children were expected to do chores (as Harry is expected to cook breakfast, a skill more boys should learn). I'm not advocating Dursley-style child-rearing, particularly not forcing children to sleep in closets (or cupboards, to use the British term). But such an upbringing does not necessarily or even normally produce sociopaths (or anti-social children). If it did, most of the children born in the U.S. and Britain before, say, 1970 would be sociopaths. Carol From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 05:56:27 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:56:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050217055627.84981.qmail@web31109.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124721 Betsy: I don't see a real comparison here at all. Dudley is a street punk, breaking laws and picking on small children. Draco's authority is given to him by the school authorities, and while he does take away house points for no reason at all, he doesn't really squash anyone. Arynn: Draco never gets physical in the books without his bodyguards (crabbe and Goyle) there to protect him. He never even gets physical, he just lets them be the muscle, he consideres himself the brain. The only physical situations he finds himself in are when his attitude causes other people to attack him. Remember the scene in PS when Harry jumps on his broom to get the rememberall back, when he reminds Draco that Crabbe and Goyle aren't up there to protect him, Draco ends the confrontation quickly. Draco is afraid to be hurt. When he gets attacked by the hippogriff, he screams and then yells, "I'm dying!" and "It's killed me". This is a major over reaction to a cut on the arm, especally in the wizarding world, where cuts can be healed instantly. I've had cuts on the arm that were deep enough to be showing the layer of fat underneath, and required 24 stiches, and I never reacted that melodramatically, (and I'm a girl). It seems Draco's a little drama queen. --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 06:06:00 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:06:00 -0000 Subject: Readers POV/ was Writers Fiat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124722 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, caesian wrote: > > I think the difference is a fundamental - adults tend to give > preference to logical reasoning when interpreting the world, whereas children give greater credence to how they feel. (Neither approach is necessarily superior, IMO.) > (snip) > On the other hand, children remember how the books made them feel. They pay greater attention to the emotional presentation of the story. Emotional cues trump logical chains. Of course Dumbledore is good and cares for Harry, because he cried didn't he? He tried, didn't he? It matters not that there were holes in his plan, it matters that he wanted the plan to work and for Harry to be safe and happy. > > In these hyper-logical discussions, it is almost impossible to > articulate the power of the overall emotional tone of a scene, or of a character's presentation throughout the series. The logic of > Dumbledore's decisions may seem odd (given what we now know, which may well be incomplete - another problem with relying to heavily on logic). But it is clear that the author has presented Dumbledore in an overwhelmingly positive emotional tone. And that does indeed count for something. > Tonks here: I am beginning to think that the difference in the personality type of the adult reader makes a difference in how the books are interpreted. I am an Intuitive Feeling type, so I guess one would say that I read the books like a child would. For example, I experienced OP as an emotional roller coaster. Others who are more Thinking types or Sensing types might use more logic when reading and would tend IMO to be more critical of some of the events and of the decisions of the characters. Also I have been thinking about the way that a person reads the book. By this I mean that I think some people identify with a specific character and when something happens to that character it is as if it is happening to that reader as well. In thinking about this I realized that when I read the books it is like jumping into a pensive. I am fully in the story, but as myself not as one of the characters. (No not even Tonks.) And as the invisible visitor I have bonded with many of the people that I see. I love DD, Molly, Arthur, Hagrid, and Lupin. I would like to be good friends with McGonagall and Snape, have tea with Mrs. Figg and a butterbeer (tea not safe) with Trelawney. I would enjoy discussing the old days with Nick. I care very deeply for poor little Winky, but I know she would never allow me to treat her as an equal. I like the kids, Ron, Hermione, Harry, Neville, the twins and Luna. DD is my mentor and role model. Heck I might even sit down with Petunia and Vernon and try to straighten them out. ;-) I love the WW and would live there if I could. So what I am saying is that not all adults read the books the same way. Some of us are still kids at heart. Tonks_op From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 06:22:28 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:22:28 -0000 Subject: Sirius Clueless? In-Reply-To: <021520051307.29733.4211F40E0005F4120000742522007623029C9C07049D0B@comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124723 Lissa wrote: > > The impression I have is that the Dark Mark tattoo is not always visible. Karakoff says that the mark is "coming back" when he's talking to Snape, indicating that you can only see the mark when Voldemort's around. What's more, the mark burns black when the Death Eaters are summoned. Carol responds: I snipped your post, most of which I agree with, because I want to nitpick a little. The Dark Mark is not a tattoo, a Muggle skin decoration made with ink and a needle. It's a brand burned onto the DE's skin, presumably using the Morsmordre spell. I agree that it was probably barely visible after Voldemort was vaporized, but I don't think it went away completely, which would have indicated that Voldemort was dead. As I've said before and someone else recently stated, DD probably knew that Voldemort was defeated but not permanently destroyed because Snape (who I think was already at Hogwarts) showed him the faded Dark Mark. To return to my point, a tattoo wouldn't fade or darken. The ink would remain the same color permanently. But the Dark Mark is not a tattoo; it's a magical symbol burned into the skin. In a sense, it's a curse scar--the mark of a powerful, evil curse that responds to the mental state and desires of its maker. (And Snape's mark, I believe, senses his disloyalty to Voldemort, which is why it burns him when Voldemort's name is spoken, maybe because, as Snow suggests, part of Voldemort himself is in the Dark Mark. A foolish move on Voldy's part, if that's the case. Look what happened to Sauron.) Carol, with apologies for combining Snape theories with a nitpick on word choice From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 06:23:38 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:23:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Are we abusing the concept of "abuse?" Perspective Please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050217062338.38846.qmail@web31110.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124724 bboyminn: This physical punishement is a legendary aspect of British Boys Schools. In addition, here in the USA, corporal punishemnt has it's own legendary aspect in Catholic Schools; those nuns can be brutal. Further, I suspect corporal punishment while greatly curtailed, is still allowed in USA Catholic Schools today. Arynn: My dad was in the Air Force, and when I was in first grade we were stationed in Mississippi. I went to the PUBLIC schools and they did allow corporal punishment. (That would have been the 87-88 school year) We were sationed there again three years ago and one of the little boys in my parents church was in first grade and had my old teacher, I was talking to the boy's mother and she mentioned that they still hit kids with rulers. (not hands-it could be considered sexual). As far as I know Harry never got hit, but was he abused? YES! But it is true that the abuse wasn't bad enough for CPS to get involved (in the USA at least), there are many kids here living under worse conditions right now as you read this. Dudley is also abused, he is esentailly the power of the house. He won't grow to be a well adjusted adult. --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From whizbang121 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 06:25:32 2005 From: whizbang121 at yahoo.com (whizbang) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:25:32 -0000 Subject: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124725 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > However, by and large, > I would be willing to bet that in the end we will find most of her > characterizations to have been very straightforward. Snape is > presented from the beginning as a bitter, hateful, petty man who > hates Harry. I suspect that in the end we will discover he was a > bitter, hateful, petty man who hated Harry. Draco is presented from > the beginning as a shallow, spoiled, vicious little junior Death > Eater. I suspect in the end he will turn out to have been a > shallow, spoiled, vicious little junior Death Eater. (snip) > Because you see it all comes down to Harry's story. That is what > JKR is really interested in. Complicated explorations of the pasts > and motivations of supporting characters will most likely have to go > by the wayside unless they have a very direct impact on Harry and > his journey to confront Voldemort. And I doubt JKR is really > interested in exploring all sorts of byzantine character reversals, > purely because they would take the focus away from Harry, where she > most firmly believes our attention belongs. Snape and Draco and > Remus and Neville and all the others will be important to one degree > or another. > But I seriously doubt they're going to be THAT important that large > sections of the narrative are going to be diverted to get deeply > into the structures of their characters and to describe any kind of > fundamental evolution of their personality. Only Harry (not even > Ron and Hermione) merits that kind of attention in this tale. > > > Lupinlore Whiz:I tend to agree with you with one small exception. JKR's appreciation of Jane Austen's work suggests that there are gothic elements in the stories. Snape seems to be a shoo-in for Dark Character who turns out to be a good guy, but I have my doubts. Like you, I think he will turn out to be exactly what he looks like. But I do wonder about Dobby. My thought is that one of the Malfoys sent Dobby to Harry without the knowledge of the others. We know Kreacher went to Narcissa who apparently made good use of him. We also know that Lucius didn't want his son in Hogwarts, but rather out of the way, in Durmstrang. So will Lucius Malfoy be the gothic dark character who will surprise us in the end? Or will it turn out to be Draco. Either way, it helps explain Dobby's behaviour. From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 06:47:05 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:47:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dudley. Was Re: Are we abusing the concept of "abuse?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050217064705.96719.qmail@web31102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124726 Alla: I am just not sure if I can call what they do " abuse" even in a very general sense of the world. Maybe because to me is the intention is what counts the most and no matter how hard I try I cannot find anywhere in the books that Dursleys intend to harm Dudley. I mean, harm can come even from the best intentions, but I cannot call such person an abuser. Arynn: A few years ago there was a mother who drowned her children. She was killing them so that the devil wouln't take them (according to her psychotic logic). This was done under the best intentions (to save their souls) but was it not abusive? According to your deffinition it wasn't but I disagree. Just because they think they are helping Dudley, dosn't mean it's not abuse. (If you've seen/read Steven King's Carrie, you can't deny that Carrie is abused by her mother, who thinks she is doing Carrie good.) --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Thu Feb 17 07:23:46 2005 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (imamommy at sbcglobal.net) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:23:46 -0000 Subject: Dudley. Was Re: Are we abusing the concept of "abuse?" In-Reply-To: <20050217064705.96719.qmail@web31102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124727 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Arynn Octavia wrote: > Alla: > I am just not sure if I can call what they do " abuse" even in a very general sense of the world. snip> > Arynn: snip> > Just because they think they are helping Dudley, dosn't mean it's not abuse. (If you've seen/read Steven King's Carrie, you can't deny that Carrie is abused by her mother, who thinks she is doing Carrie good.) imamommy: Welcome to the real world. Has anyone really ever heard of a case of child abuse, where the authorities were involved, that concerned a child who's parent's gave him too much and fed him too much and pacified him too much? I'm asking honestly: in real life, not hypothetical situations, has this happened? The Dursley's have parenting issues, yes. They are raising a son who will be quite useless in the adult world. In RL they would probably sue McDonald's for their son's obesity, if they ever acknowledged the problem at all. I am sure Dr. Phil would have a field day with them, but CPS is not going to swoop in and take their son away because they feed him, cloth him, and buy him presents. I don't think they would bother with Harry, either. He's fed, he has a bed in a space that has provided him at least with an escape from them (I had a friend when I was growing up who shared a room with her sister, and moved her bed into the closet; it was kind of cool, actually,) and he is clothed. CPS isn't concerned with a kid having trendy clothes, and even Dudley's cast-offs are likely to be good quality. Again, the Dursley's are bad parents, I don't think anyone is arguing that point. But what they do does not cross the line into criminal activity. Sheesh! I'm glad nobody is analyzing my parenting this closely! imamommy From zanelupin at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 09:18:40 2005 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 09:18:40 -0000 Subject: Questions about a Dementor's Nature (Re: Dementors and the MoM) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124729 Hi Everyone! Great Questions, Meri! I wish I had the answers. Meri wrote: > 3) Are the Azkaban Dementors the only ones in Britian? In the WW? In the world in general? Where do the other Dementors live? Are there other wizard's prisons that have Dementor guards? When did Dementors first appear? Do they predate LV? Did he create them? And how did he get them to be his allies in the first LV War?< KathyK, also delurking, replies: Whether or not the dementors were involved in the first LV war is something I have actually put a considerable amount of thought into. It is my belief that the dementors have been working with the Ministry at least since the GoF Pensieve trials. Adding to that, there is evidence, scant as it may be, that dementors were in cahoots with the Ministry during the first LV war. The Lestranges & Crouch Jr had a nice dementory escort. The dark creatures even put in a guest appearance at Karkaroff's trial. Bagman had no such escort, apparently. At least none that Harry cared to take note of but given the other two scenes made special mention of dementors and the general feel of Bagman's trial, there probably weren't any there (GoF, Chapter 30, The Pensieve). Even before that, we have Sirius' statement that Crouch handed him straight over to the dementors without trial. Dementors have been working with the Ministry since LV's fall (GoF, Chapter 27, Padfoot Returns. Finally, the evidence I believe leads to the conclusion that dementors aligned themselves with the Ministry earlier (during or before the first war). There are two little bits. The first is Dumbledore in the Pensieve. He says to Moody something to the effect of, "I have long felt it was a mistake for the Ministry to ally itself with such creatures." Bah, I can't recall the exact quote at the moment but I know it's in Chapter 30. Bad, bad, Kathy. The second bit is more ambiguous. I hesitate to even use it. Okay, the moment of hesitation has ended. It requires you to beleive Petunia when she says in OoP, (Chapter 2?) that she heard, "that boy" telling "her" about it "years ago." It also requires those folks she's referencing to be Lily and James. If the above is true, then the dementors were indeed guarding Azkaban during, if not, before the first war as The Potters' demise marks the end of that conflict. Take or leave this bit but I think the other canon points in the direction of dementors siding with the Ministry for at least part of Voldemort War I. It used to bother me that they remained with the Ministry, stationed at Azkaban. What more could the Ministry offer that LV could not? Then it occurred to me. At Azkaban, they're getting a steady diet of human emotion. And with a war going on, it's likely they were getting a fair bit of fresh blood, so to speak, perhaps even a whole soul or two. Why make a change if they're getting exactly what they needed with minimal effort? Now, though. There's no war. Perhaps their well as dried up a bit. Not as many prisoners as there once was. Maybe the new ones aren't staying as long in Azkaban. People just aren't getting caught doing a whole lotta prison-worthy crimes. The Death Eaters residing there have been in Azkaban so long, there's little left for the dementors to feed on. It's time for the dementors to look elsewhere for their tasty treats. And they find Lord Voldemort, very interested in getting his followers released and offering the dementors the promise of greater pleasure than they're getting from the Ministry. Yeah, one guy got to soul suck Barty Jr, but what about the rest of them? Umbridge teased them when she had them go after Harry on Privet Drive. No fair sending them after a kid who can actually produce a Patronus. Couldn't even get a Sirius Black or a stray student the previous year. Defintely time to move on. >If enough wizards got together and produced Patronuses at the same time would this kill a dementor?< Like a Care Bear Stare? :-P KathyK, apologizing for a lack of page numbers but thinking it's pretty sad she could remember chapter numbers and names off the top of her head From technomad at intergate.com Thu Feb 17 09:31:49 2005 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 03:31:49 -0600 Subject: Draco Malfoy as Evil Child Message-ID: <001a01c514d3$82cdaf60$58570043@technomad> No: HPFGUIDX 124730 I've been following the debates about Draco on here, and it strikes me that, frankly, if JKR was intending him as a portrait of an evil child, he looks very lame indeed compared to some of the real masterpiece characters in this genre. Next to Rhoda Penmark, the (anti!)heroine of _The Bad Seed,_ Rynn Jacobs of _The Little Girl Who Lives Down The Lane,_ or Henry Evans, the character Macaulay Culkin played in _The Good Son,_ Draco looks pretty pathetic and not at all menacing. He's more of the "nasty rich kid who bullies others" than anything else. I rather imagine that if Rhoda Penmark (one of the earliest "truly evil child" characters) were at Hogwarts, she'd regard Draco and his antics with contempt. In the book (which I am following, being quite familiar with it, although I have also read the stage play), Rhoda made a point, at least around most adults, of being a perfectly angelic little girl, extremely polite, demure and well-mannered. And most adults were fooled by her act. Other children could sense something wrong, but not the extent of how wrong Rhoda was down deep. At the end of _GoF,_ Rhoda would have been first on her feet (at the Hufflepuff table; she's described as not being a natural-born brain, but getting good grades through sheer tenacity and application, so I think she'd sort Hufflepuff) to toast Harry Potter, all the while thinking through her next five moves with icy clarity. When Mrs. Norris was Petrified, Rhoda would have been all sympathy and concern for poor Mr. Filch, and kept her thoughts about things firmly to herself. Nobody, and I mean _nobody,_ would be getting confidences from her. She was all about control---every minute of every day. As a matter of fact, I wonder whether Tom Riddle, in his time at Hogwarts, wasn't a lot more like Rhoda Penmark than Draco Malfoy. I'd bet that nobody grieved more (on the surface) at Moaning Myrtle's death than Tom did (he was older, of course, than Rhoda; one of Rhoda's few mistakes was not acting grieved at the death of one of her victims). If Young Tom Riddle were to show up at Privet Drive, I could easily see him winding Petunia and Vernon Dursley right around his finger. He says it himself---"I've always been able to charm the people I need." --Eric Oppen, list-iconoclast, envisioning the movie version of Rhoda Penmark cooing "What'll you give me for a basket of kisses?" to Lucius Malfoy, to lure him into range of the poisoned _gom jabbar_ needle she's got hidden in her robes. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Feb 17 10:11:39 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:11:39 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124731 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > As to Draco though: has there ever been a scene with Draco in it > where you're left wondering, "Gosh, I wonder how Draco really feels > about that?" If so, could you cite it, please? I mean the boy wears > his heart on his sleeve! Harry can *always* identify what emotion > Draco is feeling, whether it's frustration, exultation, amusement, > fear, anger. We, the readers, are never left in the dark, because > Harry is never left in the dark. Even at times when it would have > been wiser, more calculating for Draco to give the appearence of > feeling one way, Draco lets his true emotions out. He's *overjoyed* > at Mrs. Norris being petrified in CoS. He *loves* the idea of the > return of the Heir. Incredibly foolish on Draco's part, but he can't > seem to control himself. Not being clever enough to hide your emotions, doesn't mean you are "pure emotion" - but maybe this is merely a difference in semantics. Draco is motivated by his feelings (but who isn't?) - it's just that these feelings are so nasty. > > >>Naama: > >Ambition: we see his ambition in the two major areas of > accomplishment available for him - studies and sports. He is jealous > of Hermione getting better grades than him, and he bribes his way > into the Quidditch team.< > > Betsy: > Good lord, a student interested in his studies and his sport! Lock > up the women and children; another Dark Lord is being formed! Well, you said he wasn't ambitious - I showed that he was. What other ambitions could he have - other than excelling in studies and sports? And really, you know, bribing your way into the team shows more intense ambition than being "interested", you know. > And yes, dear, sweet Hermione, quite compassionately and with only > the best intentions, I'm sure, accused Draco of buying his way onto > the Slytherin Quidditch team. The fact that he's the second best > Seeker at Hogwarts makes her accusations ring a little empty, don't > you think? Where, oh where, does it say that he is the second best seeker?! And Hermione expressed what was already clear to the reader - that the new brooms bought Draco his position. And why on earth should anyone feel compassion for him at that moment?! I don't get it - he's gloating and very, very happy. However, when he was being bounced and hurting, Hermione *was* concerned for him - although he deserved it. > > >>Naama: > >Compassion: "Never been witness to an opportunity for Draco to do > so?!" How about when Harry told him his parents were dead and JKR > went to the trouble of telling us that he *didn't* sound sorry?< > > Betsy: > JKR went to the trouble to tell us *Harry* didn't think he sounded > sorry. I am sick and tired of this "Harry's POV" argument. *Unless* there is text to prove otherwise, we have to take the information we are given as given. We have a report that Draco didn't sound sorry - we nothing in the text to suggest that this Harry's impressions are wrong or warped. > > >>Naama: > >How about gloating at the possibility that Hermione might be killed, > instead of being concerened?< > > Betsy: > Hermione is an enemy and the threat to her life was a distint > possibility. Again, not a great opportunity. Did you mean "distant" or "distinct"? Because it was "distinct", you know. Muggle borns were being attacked and she is a Muggle born. > > >>Naama: > >How about sniggering at Lupin's shabby robes rather than feeling > sorry for him for being so poor?< > > Betsy: > The same Lupin who took the job most desired by Draco's favorite > professor? Nothing, nothing, nothing in the text even hints at Draco having any concerns or grievances about Snape not getting the job. None. We also don't see Draco displaying animosity to other DADA teachers. So, what are you basing this on? The text is *clear* - Draco feels contempt for Lupin because of his shabbiness. Period. > > So here's a question for you, Naama. Could you give me an example of > Harry, Ron or Hermione showing compassion towards Draco, or any one > of the Slytherins? I don't think there is such a scene, but I could > well be wrong. Draco or any of the other Slytherins are never presented in situations that call for compassion. Even so (as I said above), when Draco was being bounced - which he richly deserved - Hermione felt concern for him. Let me call you attention, however, to the following: Harry feeling sorry for Filch, even though Filch was accusing him of petrifying Mrs. Norris. Harry saving Dudley from the Dementor, even though Dudley tormented him for years. Harry *identifying* with Snape and feeling horrified at what his father did to him, although Snape has always been horrible to him. > > >>Naama: > >It also matters a great deal the kind of stone a person chooses to > throw - it matters not so much for the victim, maybe (in some > circumstances), but it shows a great deal about the attacker.< > > Betsy: > I agree with you here. It's interesting that Draco *only* goes on > about Hermione being a Muggle born. I've read some folks who think > he might have a crush on her, so her blood is the only objectionable > thing about her as far as Draco is concerned. I don't know if I > agree with that or not. It *sounds* kind of neat, but you have to > stretch the canon and sort of squint at it a little. But we know > that Hermione is bushy haired and a little bossy, why doesn't Draco > go after her on that, like Pansy does? Maybe because his mudblood > comments get such a rise out of Ron, so he gets two birds with one > stone? So, he finds her attractive and that excuses ... what exactly? > > >>Naama: > >When has JKR shown us that Draco is anything but evil?! He starts > out as a snobbish, spoilt, spiteful brat and ends up an eager > collaborator of an evil regime - lapping up the opportunity to step > on and terrorize his fellow students.< > > Betsy: > I think you and I have a different definition of evil. Context, context, context. We see Draco in a certain environment. School. He is just about the worst fellow student one can have - in this sense he embodies something. Don't call it evil if you don't want to. It doesn't matter. The thing is, everything he does arises from mean, petty, vicious, sadistic motives and impulses. As a young boy, it expresses itself in relatively minor things. By having him part of the IS (mini-Stasi, as Nora aptly called it), JKR shows us a consistent development - from mean, vicious boy to dangerous, sadistic bully and terrorizer. > > Betsy: > The extreme level of pay-back Draco *always* suffers makes what Draco > had been doing insignificant, IMO. (Plus, when has Draco *succeeded* > in hurting anybody?) All the time - he hurts Ron with his jabs at his family, he makes Harry feel like shit, he hurts Neville, he shames Ginny in public, he offends Hermione, he sabotages Hagrid's lessons... >If JKR really meant for us to see Draco > as "Evil Personified: the junior edition" she would a) have at least > one, *one* of Draco's plots come to fruition, and b) have Draco get > away with a few of his crimes. Evil must be scary. Draco is many > things, but scary he is not. See Nora's posts on Draco's role in the books. I fully concur. Naama From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 17 10:58:28 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:58:28 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dudley. Was Re: Are we abusing the concept of "abuse?" Message-ID: <20050217105828.3375.qmail@web86206.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124732 Jocelyn wrote: > > However, broadly I agree with you that the Dursleys love Dudley and > their completely wrong-headed treatment of him should not be called > 'abuse' as we generally define the word. I think he is most likely to > end up in jail. His complete lack of life-skills and sense of > entitlement will surely land him in the courts sooner or later. Why people are so sure that Dudley is doomed? I don't get it. He goes to a boarding school now, so he only sees his parents during holidays and maybe weekends. And it seems to be a good school: they forced him on a diet, and they found an area of competence (boxing) and encourage him to excell in it. I think he'll turn out to be quite an average person. Irene ___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Feb 17 11:06:29 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:06:29 -0000 Subject: Dementor's Nature (Re: Dementors and the MoM) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124733 Geoff: A couple of thoughts crossed my mind while reading this thread. Jen wrote: "Then there's the piece about the morality of the Kiss. Lupin asks Harry to consider whether anyone deserves to have their soul sucked out, and Harry responds some people do deserve it. Obviously Lupin doesn't feel the same way." I wonder whether Harry has revised his views a bit. When he said this, he was still under the impression that Sirius had betrayed his parents to Voldemort. He later found that this was not true and, as a result, was involved in the rescue. Dumbledore remarks to him when he feels that nothing has changed: "It made all the difference in the world, Harry. You helped uncover the truth. You saved an innocent man from a terrible fate." (POA "Owl Post Again" p.310, UK edition) Also, he also experiences the fear of being kissed when the Dementor seizes him just before the Patronus appears. I feel those two events would make Harry change his views. Again, Tonks wrote: "I think of the Dementor as a Demon Tormentor hence: Dementor" Interestingly, I've always associated it with "demented", which my dictionary defines as "wild and irrational" from the Latin "demens" (= insane). The "-or" ending of the word suggests that they are the producers of this, i.e. contact with Dementors - short of being kissed - might affect you in this way. In other words, "Warning. Dementors can seriously damage your health" and "Every Dementor carries a Government health warning." :-) From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 11:18:28 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:18:28 -0000 Subject: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124734 Whiz:I tend to agree with you with one small exception. JKR's appreciation of Jane Austen's work suggests that there are gothic elements in the stories. Snape seems to be a shoo-in for Dark Character who turns out to be a good guy, but I have my doubts. Like you, I think he will turn out to be exactly what he looks like. But I do wonder about Dobby. My thought is that one of the Malfoys sent Dobby to Harry without the knowledge of the others. We know Kreacher went to Narcissa who apparently made good use of him. We also know that Lucius didn't want his son in Hogwarts, but rather out of the way, in Durmstrang. So will Lucius Malfoy be the gothic dark character who will surprise us in the end? Or will it turn out to be Draco. Either way, it helps explain Dobby's behaviour. vmonte responds: Interesting. I don't think that Dobby was sent by one of the Malfoys though. Dobby does seem to treat Harry as though he were his master, which may mean that Dobby was once a servant in James Potter's family. I also think that Dobby might be the one who heard the prophecy and without realizing what it was about told his new master, Lucius, about it. Vivian From minervakab at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 04:38:15 2005 From: minervakab at yahoo.com (minervakab) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 04:38:15 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys (was many other subjects) long In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124735 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > I am really getting tired of all of these discussions about the > Dursleys, but since it is never going to die, I would like to > suggest that we try a new approach. Not please understand me I am > not arguing in their defense, but let's put ourselves in their shoes > and try to understand them. When I was a little girl my mother told > me to imagine how the other person would feel and I think that this > ability has helped me understand some otherwise nasty people. So > let's have a go at this: Huge snip Minervakab: I think this is an excellent idea. So many posters seem willing to tar and feather them without a trial. Some other posters say that it is only something wonderful in Harry that makes it possible for him to overcome his horrible childhood. But what about Petunia's and Vernon's upbringing? Obviously, they do not have the special something Harry has and are unable to overcome family tradition. Look at Petunia. She tells us in SS chapter four: "But for my mother and father, oh no, it was Lily this and Lily that, they were so proud of having a witch in the family!" She stopped to draw a deep breath and then went ranting on. It seemed she had been waiting to say this for years." "Ranting" "Waiting for years" There seems to be a deep resentment for Lily in Petunia. It appears to me that their parents favored Lily at the expense of Petunia. "Lily this and Lily that." Lilly is described as pretty with thick red hair. Petunia is described as blond, long neck, horsey. No words like pretty or thick hair are used to describe Petunia. The pretty daughter got the preferential treatment in my opinion. Petunia also tells us that Lily "disappeared off" to Hogwarts and only came home over vacation. This, to me, implies that Lily must have been home going to the local school while Lily got to go away to boarding school. Another indication of favoritism. It would not at all seem wrong to Petunia to pay for boarding school for Dudley while making Harry go to the local school. Even the names of the girls give a clue to the favoritism. Petunia means resentment in flower language. Lily means various things depending on the color - beauty, purity, majesty, mother to name a few - almost all lovely meanings. How would it feel to be the one named "resentment" with a sister named "beauty"? Then, before Petunia has matured enough to put all this resentment for Lily's preferential treatment aside, Lily is killed and her son is left on her doorstep. Petunia had to look at her "dratted" sister's eyes every time she looked at Harry. It took remarkable self control for Petunia not to tell Harry how much she resented his mother until he was eleven years old. She at least kept her tongue even if her resentment came out in other ways. Just as Snape can never pay back the life debt he owes James and mistreats Harry for it, Petunia can never make up with her sister and resents Harry for it. Not the right thing to do but understandable. Vernon sends his son, Dudley, to Smeltings because he himself went to Smeltings school. This is a school that issues "knobby sticks, used for hitting each other while the teachers weren't looking. This was suppose to be good training for later life." (SS chapter three) Aunt Marge, Vernon's sister, thinks beatings are good for people who deserve them. Clearly Vernon was brought up to think that hitting and bullying people was perfectly normal behavior. Vernon is happy with his life and wishes nothing to interfere with it. In his mind, the training he got while growing up gave him what he desired as an adult so why would he think he should do anything different when raising Dudley and Harry? Aunt Marge believes that men should be large. Petunia probably thinks this as well since she married Vernon who is a large man. Over-feeding Dudley would seem perfectly normal in a household that thought large men were attractive. People put their children on weight reducing diets all the time to make them more attractive. Why wouldn't a family that likes large men give their son more food? Lets put ourselves into the Dursleys shoes for a moment. To Petunia, if there are two children, one gets special treatment while the other is forgotten. It would seem logical that the one to get the preferential treatment would be her own son and not the one that has the eyes of the sister she resents. To Vernon, hitting and bullying are good for your character. Both of them believe over-feeding is good for Dudley. This is how they were raised. If Harry only overcame his childhood because he was special, then that implies that most ordinary people do not overcome the way they were raised. The Dursleys are the most ordinary of people and like it that way. Why do we expect the Dursleys to have the same specialness that allows Harry to overcome all odds? Why will we give Serius slack for treating Kreacher so badly because of his awful childhood but we won't allow the Dursleys the same slack? Why can we forgive Snape for hating Harry because he looks like James but not Petunia for resenting Harry who has Lily's eyes? Why is it poor Draco can't help being the way he is because of his father but no one says poor Dudley because of his? Do we only forgive magical people for not knowing better? Minervakab From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Feb 17 11:58:11 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:58:11 -0000 Subject: Readers POV/ was Writers Fiat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124736 > > Tonks here: > > I am beginning to think that the difference in the personality type > of the adult reader makes a difference in how the books are > interpreted. I am an Intuitive Feeling type, so I guess one would > say that I read the books like a child would. For example, I > experienced OP as an emotional roller coaster. Others who are more > Thinking types or Sensing types might use more logic when reading > and would tend IMO to be more critical of some of the events and of > the decisions of the characters. That is a very interesting theory, Tonks. However, I also test reliably as Intuitive (INFP of all things) and yet our approach differs vastly. Of course, that may speak more to the limitations of type testing methods than anything else. > > Also I have been thinking about the way that a person reads the > book. By this I mean that I think some people identify with a > specific character and when something happens to that character it > is as if it is happening to that reader as well. > Good point. I think that may be why some readers identify with Harry while others are so strongly interested in one or the other of the adults. Lupinlore From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Thu Feb 17 12:11:24 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:11:24 +0000 (GMT) Subject: John the Baptist again Message-ID: <20050217121124.60104.qmail@web25105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124737 From: "Tim Regan" Hans wrote: >>> I equate Ron to John the Baptist. Harry equates to Jesus; Ron to John <<< Tim: But surely Dumbledore is John? Here's a quote from John the Baptist: "I indeed baptise you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: [...](Matthew 3:11-12). Hans: Thanks for your comments, Tim. To be able to explain what I mean I'm going to have to bring up some basic points. I'm not saying Harry Potter is based on the Bible. I'm saying Harry Potter and the Bible are both based on the Path of Alchemical Liberation. Let me emphasise that I'm not asking anyone to believe the Path of Alchemical Liberation is true. I'm saying Jo is writing a book which is a symbolic representation of that process, and it so happens that the writers of the Bible did the same thing. My series of posts is meant to show everyone that. I want to remind you of what I said earlier, namely that the theologian and professor Ton Harpur, author of "The Pagan Christ" proves that the whole testament story was in circulation in Egypt for thousands of years before Jesus was born. Tom says that the story of the Inner Christ was planted in the human subconscious by God, and anyone who raises himself up to the high spiritual level required will attune to that archetype and bring it into the consciousness. Tom also says that the same story has been told in every civilisation in every age. He gives a long list of Christ-like figures. If you can accept this premise as a working hypothesis, the next step is to tell you that every time the story is told it uses different symbolism and adds in different details to suit the culture and the zeitgeist. Basically the story is very simple in outline: (1) a person becomes a seeker for liberation (2) the seeker longs for God and so is given the alchemical force of liberation (3) a new soul-force is born (4) the seeker realises he must give up his existence for the new soul (5) the seeker surrenders himself and offers his life to the new soul (6) the new soul reunites with God and becomes God's Son (7) in some cases this new Son does not go back to God yet but stays behind to help others. To help people understand this process, the technique of PERSONIFICATION is used. This means that forces and processes within the seeker are given human names and characters and a fairly logical story is made for them so they seem like real people. But please remember they're not people but forces operating WITHIN a person who is going the Path. I know a lot of members are having trouble understanding this, but this is what both Harry Potter and the Bible are doing. Harry Potter is not a human being but a force WITHIN a person who goes the Path. Jesus is not a real person, but a force within a person who goes the Path. Geoff has stated that I'm contradicting myself when I say that Harry symbolises both everyman and the Christ. Well I hope now everyone will see that if we regard Harry as personifying a force that is born in a seeker for liberation, and NOT as a human being, Harry can be both everyman and Christ. Harry PERSONIFIES a divine force that can turn everyman into a Son of God. It's exactly the same with John the Baptist. John personifies that aspect of the human being which makes him long for liberation. He realises that he has to give up his life for the force which will lead the person to liberation. Tim: Now, although Dumbledore is a really powerful wizard ("But you're different. Everyone knows you're the only one You-Know- oh, all right, Voldemort, was frightened of." McGonagall PS/SS Chapter 1) he realises after the prophesy ("The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches" OotP Chapter 37) that he cannot vanquish Voldemort, only Harry can. It is this powerful person awaiting the chosen one that we see in John the Baptist and in Dumbledore (and in Yoda and in Morpheus etc) but not in Ron. Hans: I see what you're saying. John says "He who comes after me is greater than I", and as Dumbledore says Harry must defeat Voldemort you're saying he's John. Dumbledore makes it quite clear however in the battle with Voldemort in book 5 that he doesn't want to kill Voldemort. It's not that he can't. "'You do not seek to kill me, Dumbledore?' called Voldemort, his scarlet eyes narrowed over the top of the shield. 'Above such brutality, are you?' 'We both know that there are other ways of destroying a man, Tom,' Dumbledore said calmly, continuing to walk towards Voldemort as though he had not a fear in the world, as though nothing had happened to interrupt his stroll up the hall. 'Merely taking your life would not satisfy me, I admit '" In addition it is obvious from comparing Dumbledore with the Alchemical Wedding and Revelation that Dumbledore personifies the Holy Sanctifying Spirit which carries out the process of liberation. This will be explained in my post on Dumbledore. The real points which identify Ron as the old human personality that needs to give up itself for the new soul-force are (1) Ron's self sacrifice in the chess game (2) Ron's possession of Scabbers, who clearly personifies the old ego situated in the solar plexus (3) Ron's willingness to accept Harry as his leader (with a notable exception in book 4) (4) other points raised in my second post on Ron, coming later. Hans also wrote: >>> Ron's willingness to sacrifice himself teaches us that liberation requires the giving up of self. "He who loses his life for my sake will find it" (Matt. 10:39) <<< Tim: And this is the implication of John the Baptist analogies. If a character does turn out to be analogous to John the Baptist, and that analogy is played out in full, then that character will die, and die a pretty senseless death at the hands of a mother and her beautiful daughter. Hans: The Bible and Harry Potter tell the story in a different way. The point of John's decapitation is that the old consciousness is replaced by a new one -symbolically called the Christ consciousness. The stuff about Salome etc. is, as far as I know, just a bit of decoration, just as many things in Harry Potter are just for fun. I feel sure Ron will sacrifice himself at the end, but I also think he'll survive. There are many ways to symbolise the alchemical processes and I feel sure I'll be able to tell you what it all means when book 7 has been published. Tim: "His food was locusts and wild honey." (Matthew 3:4) Wild honey? Yes. Locusts? I don't think Dumbledore or Ron will be ordering locusts anytime soon. Hans: They're symbols, Tim, symbols. You're welcome to see John as a historical figure, but then I can't communicate my ideas to you. You'll only be able to understand what I'm saying if you can see the eternal story of liberation as a symbolical Path for every seeker. Wild honey symbolises the divine alchemical force which the seeker absorbs into his fourfold system of vehicles. It's like manna, the spiritual food which transforms the mortal human being into a child of God. Locusts are an alternative symbol for serpents. If a person eats serpents it symbolises him "eating", i.e. absorbing divine wisdom. Such a person is known in Alchemy as a "son of the serpents". In Harry Potter this is symbolised by Harry knowing parseltongue. I know Harry isn't the same as Ron, but does it matter here? The point is that if we go the Path of liberation we begin to absorb divine wisdom by our surrender to the new soul-force. When it comes to myths, metaphors and allegories, nothing can be taken at face value. Everything is symbolic. I hope that's explained a bit more about the way I see the intention and meaning behind Harry Potter. Keep asking, and thanks again for your post. Hans ===== Hans Andra see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://www.harrypotterforseekers.com/ Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Feb 17 12:18:16 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:18:16 -0000 Subject: Does Dumbledore love Harry? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124738 On another group there has recently been a slight flurry of disagreement with regard to how DD feels about Harry. Particularly, what are we to make of statements in OOTP like: "I acted just as Voldemort expects we fools who love to act." And "I never dreamed I would have such a person on my hands!" The opinion seems to have come down to several options: 1) Dumbledore loves Harry in a fatherly/grandfatherly manner. This was clearly the most popular option. 2) Dumbledore is a manipulator and nothing he said is to be trusted. This was the least popular option. 3) DD is fond of Harry but no more fond than he is of any of his other students. 4) Harry is DD's favorite but it isn't appropriate to use the word "love" to describe his feelings. The difference between the first option and the last is very interesting. I personally think it is clear that DD has very strong feelings about Harry. But is it appropriate to call them "love?" I think it is, because of the statements like those above and because of the emphasis on love JKR is building into the series. But of course that begs the question of how you define love. When does fondness slip over into love? One respondant says that "DD cares really, really deeply about Harry but doesn't love him." Well, what exactly is the difference? Another way to put it is: What would DD give up for Harry? Would he give up his life? Would he give up the future of the WW (as he implies he was in effect doing, in my opinion)? Would he give up another student? Would he give up the Order? Would he give up Hogwarts? Anyway, what do you think? Lupinlore From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Thu Feb 17 12:09:25 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:09:25 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dudley's fate. Was Re: Are we abusing the concept of "abuse?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124739 On Thursday, February 17, 2005, at 10:01 am, dumbledore11214 wrote: > What will happen , in your opinion, if there is indeed Petunia's > redemption to occur( If you think of course that she needs > redemption.) ? Do you think Dudley will be redeemed by extension or > he will side with his father? > > If indeed we will see conflict between Petunia and Vernon, I wonder > what Dudley will do. > Interesting question. I am not sure about the whole 'redemption' thing, but have some thoughts about changing attitudes and beliefs. I actually think that Dudley could be the hardest of the three to change. Vernon would presumably know nothing about the WW without Petunia, so he is in a sense dependent upon her opinion of such matters. If she changes her mind and sets her foot upon a different path, I think his family loyalty will carry him grumbling along with her. I see her as the engine in that partnership. Dudley, OTOH, has been brought up from his earliest days listening to 'Harry is worthless/WW is horrific and perverted blah blah'. His childhood experiences with the WW HAVE actually been pretty bad (pig tail/blownup aunt/dementors) and I really don't know if he could change his attitude. On Thursday, February 17, 2005, at 09:58 pm, Irene Mikhlin wrote: > > Why people are so sure that Dudley is doomed? I don't > get it. He goes to a boarding school now, so he only > sees his parents during holidays and maybe weekends. > And it seems to be a good school: they forced him on a > diet, and they found an area of competence (boxing) > and encourage him to excell in it. > I think he'll turn out to be quite an average person. What an encouraging point of view! I hope you're right. It would be lovely to think that Dudley could rise above his upbringing and leave behind his nasty habits. Jocelyn From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 12:58:18 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:58:18 -0000 Subject: Dudley. Was Re: Are we abusing the concept of "abuse?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124740 imamommy wrote: "Welcome to the real world. Has anyone really ever heard of a case of child abuse, where the authorities were involved, that concerned a child who's parent's gave him too much and fed him too much and pacified him too much? I'm asking honestly: in real life, not hypothetical situations, has this happened?" Del replies: Actually... A few years ago, a mother went on trial after her 13-year-old daughter died of heart attack due to her massive obesity. Add to that the fact that doctors are seeing the first cases of what might become an epidemic of children, even toddlers, dying of causes directly related to their obesity (heart attack, sleep apnea), and we might someday have an addition to the list of parental behaviours considered abusive. But as others have pointed out, in the case of the Dursleys, it was more a matter of ignorance and blindness. When forced to put Dudley on a diet, they did so. So I guess that even if the CPS had taken an interest in Dudley, all they would have had to do would be inform his parents, and things would have gotten significantly better right away. No need to take Dudley away. Imamommy wrote: "Sheesh! I'm glad nobody is analyzing my parenting this closely! " Del replies: So am I... Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 13:28:29 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:28:29 -0000 Subject: Readers POV/ was Writers Fiat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124741 Tonks wrote: "I am beginning to think that the difference in the personality type of the adult reader makes a difference in how the books are interpreted. I am an Intuitive Feeling type, so I guess one would say that I read the books like a child would." Lupinlore answered: "That is a very interesting theory, Tonks. However, I also test reliably as Intuitive (INFP of all things) and yet our approach differs vastly. " Del replies: Another INFP here. And yet I seem to remember that I have both agreed and differed with both of you on occasions. However, I did notice something. When I read the books, I am very much like a child. I don't think, I just feel. This is one reason OoP was such a bad read for me, because I strongly dislike feeling anger, so Harry's anger was very hard on my nerves. But once I get on the forum, I start thinking, and this gets me into troubles, because my reason and my feelings don't necessarily agree. One big example is Harry himself. As long as I read about him, I like him very much. I suffer with him, I rejoice with him. I don't necessarily get angry along with him, but that's still OK. However, once I start thinking, analizing Harry, then I start disliking him. I start disagreeing with things he said and did, I start finding faults with him where I didn't see any when reading. Weird. Tonks wrote: "Also I have been thinking about the way that a person reads the book. By this I mean that I think some people identify with a specific character and when something happens to that character it is as if it is happening to that reader as well." Lupinlore commented: "Good point. I think that may be why some readers identify with Harry while others are so strongly interested in one or the other of the adults." Del replies: Or one of the other kids! I personally identify most with Hermione and Ron. Hermione is the brainy kid, the know-it-all that I tried so hard not to be when I was a kid (hum, I still try, as a matter of fact). And Ron is the sidekick, the faithful friend to whom nothing exceptional ever happens, but who is always there to help those to whom things do happen, and the socially awkward who is not even aware of their own feelings. Hermione and Ron combine most of my major traits, while Harry has none. So while I can follow Harry, I can't identify with him, but I identify very much with his friends (which also explains why I resent Harry so much for shouting at them unfairly in OoP: because I feel he is shouting *at me*, even though I am totally supportive of him when I read). My head hurts :-) Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 13:36:23 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:36:23 -0000 Subject: Dudley. Was Re: Are we abusing the concept of "abuse?" In-Reply-To: <20050217105828.3375.qmail@web86206.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124742 Irene wrote: "Why people are so sure that Dudley is doomed? I don't get it. He goes to a boarding school now, so he only sees his parents during holidays and maybe weekends. And it seems to be a good school: they forced him on a diet, and they found an area of competence (boxing) and encourage him to excell in it. I think he'll turn out to be quite an average person." Del replies: Dudley is a bully and a vandal. Remember that he spent his whole OoP summer evenings with his gang "vandalising the play park, smoking on street corners and throwing stones at passing cars and children". He also ganged up on a 10-year-old kid. Those are not the actions of a normal kid. Dudley is very much on the path to delinquency. He might not be doomed, but he is in dire need of some strong counseling. Del From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Feb 17 15:16:14 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:16:14 -0000 Subject: The WW is fascist? (was the DE are Nazi?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124743 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > 1) Authoritarianism and the absolutist tradition: power must lie in > the hands of one ruler of the state. > > As you yourself pointed, Nora, this is something quite common in the > WW. Even right now, three people are "competing" for the title of > absolute ruler: LV, Fudge, and DD. All three of them have loyal > followers that think that everything would be perfect if their own > champion was the only ruler. LV and his aspirations are far different from the definition and expectations of the Minister of Magic position. First of all, the authority lies not in the person, but in the position. That's a huge distinction. Compare to the cult of Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin, for instance, and you'll see the difference. Secondly, conflating the hem- kissing DEs with the free speaking, if loyal, followers of DD is to ignore precisely what makes the one group fascist-like and the other not. Further more, DD is the leader for practical reasons (he is the wisest, the most experienced and the most powerful wizard) and in order to serve an external cause, not as a cause in itself. > > Fudge: not really any mythology... yet. Give him another decade or two (which he won't have), and I'm sure we'd see some tall stories >surfacing. Fudge has been Minister for quite some time, and he remains a gray, uninspiring figure. The whole MoM has a very bureaucratic flavor, in fact. It is against this grayness that DD (and Voldemort) stand out as charismatic leaders. > > I also feel that the mythology about the Founders is related to that > point. After several hundreds years, the sytem the Founders imagined > is still in place at Hogwarts, it hasn't been replaced. Kids are still > proud to be from this or that House, to be connected with this or that > great Founder. It's a big deal that Harry is a true Gryffindor, for > example, and it was ominously meaningful that young Snape was a > Slytherin. "A sense of the destiny of a particular people", indeed. But it's not carried outside, to the adult world. It remains very much a school thing. The loyalties generated are personal (like the friendship between the Marauders continued after their school years), they don't divide the society into warring or conflicting sub- cultures or groups. Other than that, there is certainly no sense of a common or special destiny that the wizarding society feels. The OoP conflict with Fudge rests on the disinclination of Fudge and most of the WW to continue their routine, comfortable lives. This seems to be the general desire of this society. > > 3) Organicism: a system in which everyone's place is precisely > defined and fixed. > > The WW in its entirety is very much such a system. We even know that > the wizards spent an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out a > system that could categorise every single magical and non-magical > creature... with the wizards on top, of course. Nora pointed out the anarchism and lack of order of the WW. While the MoM attempts, with its laws and regulations, to bring order, this most resembles a parody of modern Britain (or any Western state, really). > > And once again, we have the House system in Hogwarts, where students > are *literally* sleeping and eating and living in fixed places > depending on which House they belong to. Not to mention the unspoken > but very important rules of preeminence between the different >Houses. The boarding schools of Britain had all these features, and more (for instance, the institute of fagging), but that doesn't make and didn't make Britain a fascist society. Organicism is where the entire society is thus organised (think Sparta). > > 4) Obedience to the leader and system are of primary importance. > > We've seen that again and again. For example, there are laws to > prevent wizards from doing magic in front of Muggles, complete with > punishment for doing so, and special forces to enforce that law. > There's also a law preventing underage wizard from doing any magic > during the holidays, and Harry suffered at their hands even before the > MoM got on his case. Every democratic state has laws and a police and justice system. Obedience to the law and obedience to a person are very, very different. See above. > > > 5) Disruption of traditional or previous class distinctions, which > are redefined by new criteria distinctive to each incarnation of the > fascist system. > > This is exactly what happens to Muggleborns when they enter the WW. > Suddenly, things such as race, religion, money, position of parents in > society, schools they went to, ancestry, intelligence, talents, > previous accomplishments, or whatever, become of no importance. But on > the other hand, something that had never mattered before, the fact > that their parents are not magical, becomes quite an issue. The WW > makes no effort to respect the particularities of the Muggleborns. The WW is as old a society as the Muggle society. What Nora means here (as I understand it), is the way that fascist regimes disrupted, redefined existing class distinctions that preceded the regime. This we do not see at all. Fudge is certainly all for maintaining the status quo - in fact, that's his sole agenda. Voldemort and the DEs disrupt the existing distinctions by radicalizing them, whereas DD is the progressive who wants to eradicate them. >It > is expectd of the Muggleborns that they turn into perfect copies of > the wizard-borns, period. What they might bring to the WW is deemed of > no importance, they must now make their life rotate around this one > particular attribute : magic. Nothing else matters. I understand your point of view, but it is entirely personal. There isn't the slightest hint in canon that JKR views this in the same way. Unlike non-human species oppression, for instance, this is just not a concern for her. > > > 9) Enforcers of the regime loyal to the dictator. > > Umbridge was very loyal to Fudge, and she wasn't the only one. Even > the Daily Prophet people were loyal to the Ministry. But Umbridge wasn't typical, as I see it. Fudge wields a lot of power as Minister for Magic, but the type of pressure he put on the Daily Prophet isn't much different from the pressure exerted on the media in democratic countries, particularly when some national threat is perceived (or imagined). Naama From meltowne at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 15:26:51 2005 From: meltowne at yahoo.com (meltowne) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:26:51 -0000 Subject: Dementor's Nature (Re: Dementors and the MoM) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124744 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > Tonks here: > > If LV is Tom Riddle's past, present, future, I would have to guess > that LV is not human but an evil entity of some sort. This entity is > something that has existed before the lifetime of Tom Riddle and > continues on after Tom is gone. I think that perhaps LV is no longer > Tom and what happened at GH was that Tom was destroyed but the > essence of the evil that bonded with him did not. Now LV can takes > human form when invited into the body of the human host. Perhaps he > can not take over someone that has not asked him to enter. LV tried > to possess Harry without permission and could not. LV possessed Tom > Riddle with permission. (This would be consistant with XC theology > of possession.) I like this theory, and it works well with what I thin as well. Dumbledore defeated Grindewald, who was considered the last Dark Lord, but perhaps Dumbledore just defeated that manifestation - the last person this entity took over. We know LV tried to possess Quirrel in book 1, but he was not adequate for what LV wanted to do - I don't think Quirrel was truly evil, and did not allow LV complete control. Given that some have innate magical ability and othes do not, I would assume he needs a body with innate magical ability, so must take over such a person. The stronger the magic, the better, but a stronger witch or wizard would also be more capable of resisting. The reason Tom Riddle worked was that Tom wanted what LV wanted, so would not fight in any way. We see a limited form of this possession in Book 2, when Tom Riddle's spirit (or part of it) possesses Ginny. I believe Harry's destiny is to battle the current Dark Lord in th form of Voldemort. I also believe that he is supposed to do so as an adult. LV tried to force the issue and bring about the battle when Harry was a baby, that he might gain an advantage. It failed, but only the body was destroyed. I do believe he is far more like the Dementors than human. We all know of people who are so deranged they get pleasure out of harming other people or animals, which is what the Dementors appear to be - they are just so far down that path they are no longer human at all. At the end of OoTP, Dumbledore reiterates to LV that there is something far worse than death - and I suspect it is something along the lines of the kiss. I suspect further that maybe the dementors are sould similar in some ways to ghosts, except that they ended up in that situation due to no choice of their own - perhaps that is how they "breed" - the newly sucked souls become new dementors. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 15:29:47 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:29:47 -0000 Subject: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124745 >>Lupinlore: >Let me put forth a theory about Draco and Snape (and Lupin and Neville and Petunia and other characters we like to argue about). And the theory is this: by and large they are pretty much what they appear to be. The complexities we like to read into their characters are largely castles we build in the air.< >Because you see it all comes down to Harry's story. That is what JKR is really interested in.< Betsy: I agree that we won't get tons of insight into how the supporting characters think, etc. But I don't think it's going to be quite as straight forward as you suggest, Lupinlore. Because, yes, it is Harry's story. But how Harry *sees* the supporting characters, and how his view of them changes tell a great deal about his personal character development. His view of Neville is a good example. In the beginning Harry thought Neville was rather pathetic, and so that's how we, the readers, saw Neville. There were hints that there was more to Neville than Harry realized (his courage in attacking Crabbe and Goyle in PS/SS at the Quidditch match for example). And as the books went on both we and Harry were exposed to more about what made Neville tick. And now we see Neville in a completely different way. It wasn't a total shock. OotP's Neville didn't come out of nowhere, but it *was* character development. Of course it also served the purpose of developing Harry's character. So, I agree that we won't get complex back stories on the other characters, but there will be revelations, and our views on them will change, for good or bad. And that's because *Harry* will have changed and grown and maybe learned a thing or two. >>Lupinlore in message # 124716: >Thus one of the most common criticisms of OOTP among adults is that many of the characters do not act in consonance with the emotional tones associated with them so far. Thus Molly suddenly seems shrill, Dumbledore bumbling, Sirius hapless, Lupin passive, McGonagall harsh to the point of cruelty, and Hermione a harping, unsympathetic scold. Everyone seems "off" (even after the explanations at the end).< Betsy: I disagree that the characters seemed "off". And I think it goes to the point I was making earlier. Harry is growing up, and part of growing up is realizing that the adults around you *aren't* perfect and don't know everything, and may actually be feeling their way blindly through. It's not a pleasant discovery, but it's a necessary one. So Molly, source of all comfort, is suddenly in need of comfort herself. Sirius, rebellious and free, is suddenly trapped and confined. Dumbledore actually admits to mistakes and a lack of total knowlege. It's hard to take, especially when you're in a bit of a panic yourself. But that's life. I think JKR did a good job capturing some of the frustrations of the teenage years. I disagree about McGonagall and Hermione though. I'd say that McGonagall has always seemed strict and distant. That she gets flustered and actually yells at Umbridge at one point is more jarring to Harry than any cross words could be, IMO. And I thought Hermione was *less* bossy than usual. She seemed almost afraid of Harry at some points, and backed down more easily than in past books. The more adult view, of the different characters was one of the things I *enjoyed* about OotP. Because it meant that Harry was growing up. But of course, we all read the books differently. This is just how I saw it. Betsy From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Feb 17 15:41:08 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:41:08 -0000 Subject: John the Baptist again In-Reply-To: <20050217121124.60104.qmail@web25105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124746 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Hans Andr?a wrote: > Hans: > Let me emphasise that I'm not asking anyone to believe the Path of > Alchemical Liberation is true. I'm saying Jo is writing a book > which is a symbolic representation of that process, and it so > happens that the writers of the Bible did the same thing. My series > of posts is meant to show everyone that. > I know a lot of members are having trouble understanding this, but > this is what both Harry Potter and the Bible are doing. Harry > Potter is not a human being but a force WITHIN a person who goes > the Path. Jesus is not a real person, but a force within a person > who goes the Path. > Geoff has stated that I'm contradicting myself when I say that Harry > symbolises both everyman and the Christ. Well I hope now everyone > will see that if we regard Harry as personifying a force that is > born in a seeker for liberation, and NOT as a human being, Harry > can be both everyman and Christ. Harry PERSONIFIES a divine force > that can turn everyman into a Son of God. Geoff: You have on a number of occasions referred to "my theory of liberation". Now you are saying that the path of liberation is not true. That seems to be a paradoxical statement. A theory remains a theory until it is proved to be correct; first you aroused this and now you are saying that the path of liberation is not true. This is questioning the faith of millions of folk worldwide who, like myself, believe that Jesus took human form, died as a human for our salvation and is now back in heaven. I may not agree with people who are adherents of Islam, Buddhism etc. but I would not question the fact that Mohammed and Buddha and the other founders of faiths actually existed. It has been said that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there was for Julius Caesar. If you are not a Christian, you may say that Harry can be both everyman and Christ; if you are a Christian, having experienced a meeting with God through Jesus and are being supported in your daily life by the presence of the Holy Spirit, this is just not on. Jesus, to a Christian is our link to God, is God. We can only be followers of Christ, attempting to seek the will of God and to do it. Unlike the people of the Bible, Harry Potter is not a real person but someone created for the story with whom we can identify strongly and in whom we can see ourselves; with the same sweep of mixed emotions which we have to deal with our life here on earth, wherever we may have found ourselves. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 16:03:55 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:03:55 -0000 Subject: Does Dumbledore love Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124747 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > > Another way to put it is: What would DD give up for Harry? Would he give up his life? Would he give up the future of the WW (as he > implies he was in effect doing, in my opinion)? Would he give up > another student? Would he give up the Order? Would he give up Hogwarts? > Tonks: I think we have already seen DD being willing to give up a lot including taking the blame for the DA classes. This might be more to save Harry for his later date with LV, but I think that DD would give his life for Harry if need be. In fact he would probably do that for any student. DD would not stand by and let a student die if he could prevent it. Well now I realize that what I just said shows that DD has limited powers because of Cedric. OK, ok, I concede that DD is not God. ;-( But he is still the closest thing the WW has. And I think it is important to make a distinction between *love* the feeling of affection which DD has for Harry, and *Love* the highest power which is different. Love the power is a choice as Scott Peck said in his book "The Road Less Traveled". It can also include affection but does not have to. It is the type of love one can have for one's enemy. Tonks_op From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 16:48:11 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:48:11 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124748 >>Naama: >Not being clever enough to hide your emotions, doesn't mean you are "pure emotion" - but maybe this is merely a difference in semantics. Draco is motivated by his feelings (but who isn't?) - it's just that these feelings are so nasty.< Betsy: I think we are arguing semantics. My main point was that Draco is too emotional, too motivated by his feelings (nasty or not) to be as coldly calculating as you suggested earlier. >>Betsy: >Good lord, a student interested in his studies and his sport! Lock up the women and children; another Dark Lord is being formed! < >>Naama: >Well, you said he wasn't ambitious - I showed that he was. What other ambitions could he have - other than excelling in studies and sports? Betsy: I was trying to say that other than normal ambitions (like studies and sports) Draco didn't appear to have much of any. Certainly not of the "evil Dark Lord I will rule the world!" kind, anyway. >>Naama: >And really, you know, bribing your way into the team shows more intense ambition than being "interested", you know. > Where, oh where, does it say that he is the second best seeker?! And Hermione expressed what was already clear to the reader - that the new brooms bought Draco his position.< Betsy: Has Slytherin lost to anyone, other than Gryffindor, since Draco's been Seeker? I don't recall that they ever have - though I'll admit I don't have the stats down pat. But Harry does take him seriously as an opponent. And I believe that Slytherin has won the Quidditch cup every year except when Gryffindor won in PoA. (Which, funnily enough, was won not because Harry was the better player, but because he had the better broom.) I also have stong doubts that Lucius bought his son a place on the team because it seems wildly out of character for the man we meet at the beginning of CoS. He wasn't interested in buying his son anything. (But, I can see him showing off his wealth and power by supplying his son's team with state of the art brooms.) >>Naama: > I am sick and tired of this "Harry's POV" argument. *Unless* there is text to prove otherwise, we have to take the information we are given as given. We have a report that Draco didn't sound sorry - we nothing in the text to suggest that this Harry's impressions are wrong or warped.< Betsy: Except that Harry has already expressed his dislike for this boy. (Though because they'd started to argue, and because Draco was an eleven year old boy, I imagine he didn't sound all that sorry.) But I'm sorry, Naama, the "Harry's POV" argument will be used again and again. Because the story *is* told from his POV, and he's been proven wrong in the past. Sirius looked evil and crazy to Harry at first. When Harry learned more about him, Sirius looked haunted and pained. A great deal depends on POV. >>Betsy: >Hermione is an enemy and the threat to her life was a distant [oops! fixed spelling] possibility. Again, not a great opportunity.< >>Naama: > Did you mean "distant" or "distinct"? Because it was "distinct", you know. Muggle borns were being attacked and she is a Muggle born.< Betsy: And Hogwarts is full of Muggle borns. I put this wish of Draco's on par with Harry's wish to smash Snape's head in with a cauldron. Not a nice wish, no. But until either boy is gloating over a dead body, I tend to give them a pass. >>Naama: >Nothing, nothing, nothing in the text even hints at Draco having any concerns or grievances about Snape not getting the job. None. We also don't see Draco displaying animosity to other DADA teachers. So, what are you basing this on? The text is *clear* - Draco feels contempt for Lupin because of his shabbiness. Period.< Betsy: I don't have my books with me, but I believe in PoA, Draco goes on and on to Snape about what a great Headmaster he'd make. And there are the interactions between Snape and Draco in Potions class. These are two people who like each other. And since we've established that Draco isn't all that good at hiding how he feels about people, I feel pretty safe in assuming that he likes and admires Snape. And we learn in PS/SS that everyone knows Snape's been after the DADA job for years. So I'm sure the Slytherins have heard that rumor too. As to Draco's reactions to all the other DADA profs, well, we know he didn't like Moody , but as Harry doesn't have DADA with Slytherin, everything else is just guess work. (Once again, limited by Harry's POV. ) Plus, Harry easily picked up on the fact that there was tension between Snape and Lupin. Why is it such a stretch to think that Draco picked up on it as well? And again, I do agree that Draco does judge people on appearances. I just think there's a bit more behind his sneering. >>Naama: >Draco or any of the other Slytherins are never presented in situations that call for compassion. Even so (as I said above), when Draco was being bounced - which he richly deserved - Hermione felt concern for him.< Betsy: Did she? Well good for her. I'm glad *someone* can tell the difference between proper student discipline and out and out abuse. (You seriously think Draco *deserved* that treatment? I'm guessing you think the twins should have been whipped at the end of OotP, then? Or do only Slytherins deserve corporal punishment? Sorry, I got a bit ranty, but this is one of the things that really gets me going, and gets me so sympathetic towards Draco. I didn't see anything in that scene that made me think Draco deserved the treatment he recieved. Do you think Harry deserved to be thrown to the floor and have a jar thrown at him after he peeked into Snape's pensieve? I'm curious.) As to times to show compassion: There's the ferret bounce, the time Draco lost the big Quidditch match, when his father got thrown in jail, after he was wounded by the hippogriff. Not that I really would expect any of the Gryffindor kids to show compassion at those times (except maybe the ferret bounce - good on Hermoine). These kids are enemies after all. And I wasn't suggesting that Harry and co. never show compassion. I *was* pointing out the limitations of Harry's POV. Maybe Draco helps first year Slytherins with their Potions homework. Maybe he's the only thing helping Crabbe and Goyle get through their classes. We don't know. Because we rarely see the Slytherins in their natural environment and not confronting their Gryffindor counterparts. >>Naama: >So, he finds [Hermione] attractive and that excuses ... what exactly?< Betsy: Erm... what was I trying to excuse? And we don't *know* if Draco is secretly crushing on Hermione. That's just a theory. Not one I'm sure is true or not. It *sounds* cool, but there's not much canon and a whole lot of guessing. :) >>Betsy: >I think you and I have a different definition of evil.< >>Naama: > Context, context, context. We see Draco in a certain environment. School. He is just about the worst fellow student one can have - in this sense he embodies something. Don't call it evil if you don't want to.< Betsy: Yes, context. In a world with Voldemort you'll have a hard time convincing me that silly, petty, Draco is supposed to be *evil*. And *worst* fellow student? Please. He's barely a blip on Harry and co.'s radar. Why else did we hear so little of himn OotP. His digs are tired, and his songs, while hurtful to Ron, won't cause a bunch of dead bodies. And won't get a fellow student expelled. (Hello, Tom Riddle!) So no, I won't call Draco evil. I won't call him purple either. How do you define evil that you think Draco fits that definition? >>Naama: >It doesn't matter. The thing is, everything he does arises from mean, petty, vicious, sadistic motives and impulses. As a young boy, it expresses itself in relatively minor things. By having him part of the IS (mini-Stasi, as Nora aptly called it), JKR shows us a consistent development - from mean, vicious boy to dangerous, sadistic bully and terrorizer.< Betsy: But see, it does matter, because you are trying to say Draco is evil. And yet, he doesn't fit the discription. He doesn't actually *terrorize* the other students. No one is afraid to see him coming. Not even when he was a member of Umbridge's IS. (Which, as I told Nora, is not all that close to a mini-Stasi really - far too imcompetent.) We have Tom Riddle as an excellent example of an evil student. Draco doesn't even come close. >>Betsy: >The extreme level of pay-back Draco *always* suffers makes what Draco had been doing insignificant, IMO. (Plus, when has Draco *succeeded* in hurting anybody?)< >>Naama: >All the time - he hurts Ron with his jabs at his family, he makes Harry feel like shit, he hurts Neville, he shames Ginny in public, he offends Hermione, he sabotages Hagrid's lessons...< Betsy: He embarrassed Ginny her first year. He picked on Neville (I think only in their first year). He picks on Hermione (though I don't think he actually hurts her - she's too smart for that). He does get in jabs at Ron. Harry... He really makes Harry feel bad? I don't recall that. Not since first year anyway. I've rather thought Harry had outgrown Draco. As to Hagrid - when did he sabotage one of Hagrid's classes? So, in sum, he pokes fun at people. By all means, he totally deserves to have the crap beaten out of him! By golly, he made up a silly song about Ron - lets hex him so badly his physical structure actually changes! Or, I know! Lets get a couple of guys and pound him into the ground! I mean, gosh, he *is* horribly petty. >>Naama: >See Nora's posts on Draco's role in the books. I fully concur.< Betsy: Seen them, answered them. I don't concur. But since we're recommending posts, see Eric Oppen's post on what an evil child *really* looks like. I totally agree with him: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124730 Betsy, who's not sure Draco will end up good, but doesn't think he'll end up full out evil. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Feb 17 16:53:12 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:53:12 -0000 Subject: sandcastles (was Re: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124749 > >>Lupinlore: > >Because you see it all comes down to Harry's story. That is what > JKR is really interested in.< > Potioncat: Well, there's no doubt, if JKR ever wanted to raise a ton of money for charity, she could come out with a book about the adults in HP. No, we couldn't possibly get enough "Snape" in the remainder of HP, but I for one, know not to expect it. I'm expecting little things about the different characters, hoping that we'll get enough to understand some of them better. To me the fun has been that I could discuss scenes from the books with others who either had the same opinion (Yes, that's genius!) or who had a completely different opinion (Let's debate!) The anticipation while we wait to see who was closest to the truth is a wonderful agony. Will I throw the book against the wall if Snape turns out to be bad to the core? No. Well, maybe, but I'd pick it back up. I'll be flabbergasted if MAGIC DISHWASHER is validated. That's such a fun theory to read, but hard to imagine it working out. So I'll cheer for its developers if it bears out and sigh for them if it doesn't. It'll be like building sandcastles at the beach. Lots of fun to do, even if you do watch them wash away. > > Betsy: >snip > Because, yes, it is Harry's story. But how Harry *sees* the > supporting characters, and how his view of them changes tell a great deal about his personal character development. Potioncat: I agree with Betsy. This has been the fun part too, viewpoint changes as Harry changes. That in itself may impact how we see certain characters when it's all over. It's supposed to be fun. And it's all make believe. It's when we get a little too wrapped up in it all that we risk being disappointed. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 17:19:56 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:19:56 -0000 Subject: John the Baptist again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124750 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > > Hans: > > > Let me emphasise that I'm not asking anyone to believe the Path of Alchemical Liberation is true. I'm saying Jo is writing a book > > which is a symbolic representation of that process, and it so > > happens that the writers of the Bible did the same thing. My series of posts is meant to show everyone that. > > > I know a lot of members are having trouble understanding this, but this is what both Harry Potter and the Bible are doing. Harry > > Potter is not a human being but a force WITHIN a person who goes > > the Path. Jesus is not a real person, but a force within a person who goes the Path. > (Snip) > Geoff: (Snip) It has been said that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there was for Julius Caesar. > > If you are not a Christian, you may say that Harry can be both > everyman and Christ; if you are a Christian, having experienced a > meeting with God through Jesus and are being supported in your daily life by the presence of the Holy Spirit, this is just not on. Jesus, to a Christian is our link to God, is God. We can only be followers of Christ, attempting to seek the will of God and to do it. Tonks now: In all respect to Hans, I have to say that the concept that he calls *the path to Liberation* is, from a Christian perspective, heresy. Also the bible is not being written to show the path of the Alchemical Liberation. Jesus was an historical figure. Some can and do argue as to whether he was the Christ, but most all agree that he was a real human being in real human history. (for those here who may not be Christian let me briefly explain that the teaching of the Church is that Jesus was both truly human and truly God. Both in one person. When a Christian speaks of Jesus we are saying that he was fully human and he was *the Christ* meaning God in human form. Christ is the the Messiah of the Jewish prophesy, the one who was to come to.) As to Harry Potter and Everyman or Christ. He can actually be both. It is very confusing the way that JKR has written this. I see all of the signs that point to Harry being the Christ, but there are serious problems with that also. They celebrate Christmas and Easter at Hogwarts, so the Jesus event has already happened in human history. And Harry has show himself to be all too human in OP. Harry show that he is not God, Harry is not only capable of sin, but has sinned. So he can not be *the* Christ. This leaves the confusing symbols. When I see Harry what am I seeing when I see a *saving people person*, the one that is to fulfill the prophesy? What I am seeing in Harry is the Christ in him. Harry is not Christ himself, but the Christ is in him. This for a Christian happens at baptism. (We are baptized into the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ and He lives within us. Some like Geoff would say it happen when one is *born again*.) The point being that there is *something* in Harry and that *something* is the Risen Christ that lives in each Christian. And we have a choice day by day to grow more and more into that. A person who molds their will to His eventually becomes what we call a Saint. A Saint is one who is so totally one with God that they are Christ to the World. This, however, is not the same as the concept of the Rosicrucian's and the Alchemical Wedding. The Rosicrucian ideology is considered by the Christian church to be a heresy. (Sorry Hans.) Tonks_op From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 18:16:25 2005 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:16:25 -0000 Subject: John the Baptist again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124751 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Hans Andr?a > wrote: > > Hans: > > > > > Let me emphasise that I'm not asking anyone to believe the Path of > > Alchemical Liberation is true. I'm saying Jo is writing a book > > which is a symbolic representation of that process, and it so > > happens that the writers of the Bible did the same thing. My series > > of posts is meant to show everyone that. > > > I know a lot of members are having trouble understanding this, but > > this is what both Harry Potter and the Bible are doing. Harry > > Potter is not a human being but a force WITHIN a person who goes > > the Path. Jesus is not a real person, but a force within a person > > who goes the Path. > > > Geoff has stated that I'm contradicting myself when I say that Harry > > symbolises both everyman and the Christ. Well I hope now everyone > > will see that if we regard Harry as personifying a force that is > > born in a seeker for liberation, and NOT as a human being, Harry > > can be both everyman and Christ. Harry PERSONIFIES a divine force > > that can turn everyman into a Son of God. > > Geoff: > You have on a number of occasions referred to "my theory of > liberation". Now you are saying that the path of liberation is not > true. That seems to be a paradoxical statement. A theory remains a > theory until it is proved to be correct; first you aroused this and > now you are saying that the path of liberation is not true. This is > questioning the faith of millions of folk worldwide who, like myself, > believe that Jesus took human form, died as a human for our salvation > and is now back in heaven. > > I may not agree with people who are adherents of Islam, Buddhism etc. > but I would not question the fact that Mohammed and Buddha and the > other founders of faiths actually existed. It has been said that > there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there was for > Julius Caesar. > > If you are not a Christian, you may say that Harry can be both > everyman and Christ; if you are a Christian, having experienced a > meeting with God through Jesus and are being supported in your daily > life by the presence of the Holy Spirit, this is just not on. Jesus, > to a Christian is our link to God, is God. We can only be followers > of Christ, attempting to seek the will of God and to do it. Unlike > the people of the Bible, Harry Potter is not a real person but > someone created for the story with whom we can identify strongly and > in whom we can see ourselves; with the same sweep of mixed emotions > which we have to deal with our life here on earth, wherever we may > have found ourselves. I'm going to jump in here quickly, and not snip, because it seems clear to me that you are speaking entirely different languages. The truth/myth dichotomy is one of those things that gets people tied up in knots all of the time. I think the point that Hans is trying to make, Geoff, is not that Jesus didn't exist, or the Buddha or Mohammed or Mahavira any of the other teachers whose adherents have found higher consciousness and better life through the study of their precepts (we can talk about Judaism and Hinduism another day). Hans's point--as I understand it--is that the historical, literal, Mel-Gibson fact of Jesus and death on the cross and the rest of it isn't the point; it's the birth of Christ's spirit within the individual that matters. That's a rebirth on a MYTHIC level--which isn't to say that it's false, but that it's a metaphor for an experience for which the image of physical birth is, at best, a gross representation (I mean gross in the denotative sense, not the "Ew, ICK" sense). I think Hans meant that he doesn't think of his interpretation of the 'Path to Liberation' as 'true' in the same sense: it's not a literal description of a historical occurrence, or a newspaper how-to column. It's a myth: an attempt to describe in images and stories an experience that is, finally, ineffable. And I believe that he's saying (correct me if I'm wrong, Hans) that JKR is getting at the same thing in her books, whether by design or by a confluence of inspiration. Now, if I'm totally off-base here, I'll take my autographed Joseph Campbell ball and bat and go home.... Antosha From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 19:46:05 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:46:05 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124753 Betsy: He embarrassed Ginny her first year. He picked on Neville (I think only in their first year). He picks on Hermione (though I don't think he actually hurts her - she's too smart for that). He does get in jabs at Ron. Harry... He really makes Harry feel bad? I don't recall that. Not since first year anyway. I've rather thought Harry had outgrown Draco. As to Hagrid - when did he sabotage one of Hagrid's classes? So, in sum, he pokes fun at people. By all means, he totally deserves to have the crap beaten out of him! By golly, he made up a silly song about Ron - lets hex him so badly his physical structure actually changes! Or, I know! Lets get a couple of guys and pound him into the ground! I mean, gosh, he *is* horribly petty. Alla: Draco makes "hate speech like" remarks . To me it goes way more beyond " making fun" at people. Hermione does not deserves to be made fun of because her blood is different than Draco. Period. Does he deserve to have the crap beaten out of him for THAT? Yes, you bet, he absolutely does to me. At the end of GoF Draco absolutely got what he deserved as far as I was concerned. I could do without people stepping over Draco when he was on the floor, but besides that... You see, in my huge personal experience in this area, people who make fun of you because your blood is different than theirs usually mean it and when they say ... " jews ( oops muggleborns) have to be killed and everything in our country will be better then", they usually mean that too. Somebody like Draco CAN outgrow his hatefullness in RL, IF he meets someone decent on his life path to help him do it, so if JKR did not show so clearly ( only in my opinion of course) that she is giving up on this character, I would wait too because he is still fifteen, but in any event, I would not be underestimating who Draco is at this point in his life. Naama: See Nora's posts on Draco's role in the books. I fully concur Alla: Yes, definitely. Betsy, who's not sure Draco will end up good, but doesn't think he'll end up full out evil. Alla: Please put me down for "evil and dead" Draco bet. Just my opinion, Alla From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 20:40:25 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:40:25 -0000 Subject: Draco and the Case of the Boy Evil Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124754 Draco and the Case of the Boy Evil You'll notice that I titled this post 'Case of the Boy Evil' and not 'Case of the Evil Boy'. That is because I don't think Draco, so far, is an 'evil boy'; although, he certainly is a nasty boy. So far, Draco is not evil, he is merely playing a boy's game version of evil. He has grown up hearing the Pureblood-Superiority ideology, but he has always been sheltered from the Pureblood-Racist reality. So, he plays the game, he knows the right words to say and the right attitude to take, and struts around convinced that he is superior to all around him including other purebloods and other Slytherins. Here is my take on Draco's underlying psychology. Draco has led a sheltered life of wealth, priviledge, and entitlement. In a sense, everything, including the spotlight, belongs to him by virtue of the fact that he is who he is. I think subconsciously Draco viewed himself as not only King of the Slytherins, but King of Hogwarts. He expected to come to Hogwarts and be love, admired, and feared by everyone including teachers. I'm quite sure Draco imagined that during his entire career as a Hogwart's student, he would be surrounded by fawning admirers, and quite convinced that the teachers who didn't love him, would at least fear him as an extention of is father's power. In his mind, everywhere he went he woud be the best and the brightest, the most popular socially, and the best in sports. He had visions of himself walking down the halls of Hogwarts and every head admiringly turning in his direction. All the girls would crush on him, and all the boys would envy him. Everywhere he went a halo-like spotlight would shine down on him; he would stand out even in a crowd. Then fate threw a spanner (wrench) into the works; that spanner - Harry Potter. How could Draco live up to his dream of being Hogwarts student /royalty/ when Harry Potter was grabbing the spotlight all the time? I mean, what's so great about that Harry Potter? Famous because of some foul scar on his forehead. In Draco's view, that worthless muggle loving Potter has robbed him of his rightful, fully deserved, full entitled position of 'center of attention'. To make it worse, despite his best efforts to show everyone what a worthless wizard Potter is, Potter has bested him at every turn. Consequently, Draco becomes more obssessed with Potter at each encounter, more convinced that all his problems and failures are all Harry's fault, and absolutely more determend to undermine that worthless Potter and prove that Draco's wealth, rank, and pureblood make him truly the superior one. Unfortunatly the more obssessed he becomes, the less rational and therefore less effective his attempt to show Harry up become. So, he is now trapped in an every downward spiral of degridation and humiliation which he causes himself, but of course, blames on Harry. This obssessed ever-more irrational psychology is classic behavior for Junior and Senior 'evil overlords'. If Draco would forget about Harry, he would stop making a fool of himself, and earn his own place in the world of Hogwards. Similarly Voldemort; if every one of Voldemort's plans to conquer the world didn't start with conquering Harry Potter, he probably could have taken over the world several times. So far, Draco has merely been playing a schoolboy's slightly obssessed version of light-weight bad-boy bully and archrival. So far, it has been childish pranks and schoolboy rivalries. But where does it go next? Given Draco's frustration at Harry having a hand at sending his father to prison, the father who is the base/foundation of Draco's preceived power, priviledge, and indentity, and Harry's continued defiance of Draco's rightful position of crowned prince of all he surveys, I see the potential for things taking a turn for the worse. 'Order of the Phoenix' is not only a turning point in the story, it is a turning point for Draco. I don't have any trouble seeing Draco's antics turning from schoolboy teasing and bullying, to a real and genuine intent to do harm. What was annoying, now has the potential to turn vicious. Even though I see the story taking that turn, I don't think it would mean that Draco has quite crossed the border into 'evil' yet. From schoolboy bad to just plain bad, yes, but not quite to truly evil. Whether Draco will cross the threshold and do something so vicious as to be irredeemable, or whether he will see the 'light', I'm not sure. I am sure that Draco has been sheltered from what it truly means to be a Death Eater. So far, it is just a lot of rhetoric, ideology, and pureblood catchphrases. I think if there will be a turn around for Draco, it will occur when he has to face the realities of the Dark Side. I think Draco sees himself and his father as lording over everyone with their wealth and power. Draco is bowed TO, he does not bow to any man (at least not in his own mind). When he sees his father bowing, crawling on the ground-kissing Voldemort robes, when he see the price that is paid for even the slightest failure, when he is asked to betray or kill other purebloods because it serves the Dark Lord's needs or whims, when he see just how perveted, twisted, and self(dark lord)serving the current version of ideology is, I can see Draco changing his mind. HOWEVER, and this is a big 'however', just because Draco becomes 'good' doesn't mean he will become 'nice'. It appears that Snape is on the good side, but by no stretch is Snape even remotely nice. Even if Draco ultimatly chooses to work against Voldemort, he will not be handing out flowers and kisses, and spouting poetry. Draco will always be Draco, he will always be at odds with Harry, he will always despise and torment Harry even if they develop a begruding admiration for each other. That's just the dynamic of their relationship. Even a good-Draco will not be a nice-Draco, he will always have a sense of priviledge and superiority, that's just who he is. Finally, people like Draco are very self-seving. Draco may work for or against the Dark Lord, but he will never work for the good side. That is, he will realize that working /for/ Voldemort is not in his best interest, so he will work against him. It has nothing to do with right and wrong, or good and bad; it's merely a matter of economics. If Voldemort losing serves Draco's economic interests best, then he will work against him. The same applies to Draco's father, if Lucius decides that it's not in his best interest to work for Voldemort, then he will join the side working against him, but he will never be anything more that he has always been, an opportunist. "There is no good and evil, only money, and those unafraid to take it." Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Feb 17 20:58:36 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:58:36 -0000 Subject: John the Baptist again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124755 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "antoshachekhonte" wrote: > Antosha: > I think the point that Hans is trying to make, Geoff, is not that > Jesus didn't exist, Geoff: Then how does Hans explain his remark... "Jesus is not a real person, but a force within a person who goes the Path." I think that Tonks has got much nearer to what is true. "What I am seeing in Harry is the Christ in him. Harry is not Christ himself, but the Christ is in him. This for a Christian happens at baptism. (We are baptized into the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ and He lives within us. Some like Geoff would say it happen when one is *born again*.) The point being that there is *something* in Harry and that *something* is the Risen Christ that lives in each Christian." This /does not/, as Tonks underlines, make us Christ. It means that, as I said in my last post, the Holy Spirit lives in us. John puts it another way in his gospel: "Yet to all who received him,to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become the children of God" (John 1:12 New International Version)... ...for example, myself, Tonks, several other members of the group who have exchanged views off-line with me and also Harry et al. (if they want that right in the Wizarding World). From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 21:07:17 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:07:17 -0000 Subject: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124756 > Lupinlore wrote: > Let me put forth a theory about Draco and Snape (and > Lupin and Neville and Petunia and other characters we like to argue > about). And the theory is this: by and large they are pretty much > what they appear to be. The complexities we like to read into their > characters are largely castles we build in the air. > > As I've said before, I think in the end a lot of our speculations are > going to be confounded and disappointed by a rather clear ending and > rather unshocking revelations (can we say prophecy, anyone?). Snape > will turn out to be not nearly so complicated as we like to believe. > Neville's role will stay confined to supporting cast. Neri: I tend to agree, in general, and I wrote similar things in the past. And yet, if Snape and Neville are that simple, why don't we have even a single theory that explains all their mysteries in a simple way? You might say that we lack the information to decide which theory is true, but you would expect that at least we'd have several candidate theories that offer satisfying explanations to all the different mysteries. And yet, none of the Snape theories or Neville theories that I know actually rings true. Some sound like they might be approximations, but none that actually supplies explanations to all the questions and makes you feel that "this just night be it". So why is that, if Snape and Neville are indeed so simple and predictable? Neri From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 21:22:53 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:22:53 -0000 Subject: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124757 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > Neri: > I tend to agree, in general, and I wrote similar things in the > past. And yet, if Snape and Neville are that simple, why don't we > have even a single theory that explains all their mysteries in a > simple way? You might say that we lack the information to decide > which theory is true, but you would expect that at least we'd have > several candidate theories that offer satisfying explanations to > all the different mysteries. And yet, none of the Snape theories or > Neville theories that I know actually rings true. Some sound like > they might be approximations, but none that actually supplies > explanations to all the questions and makes you feel that "this > just night be it". So why is that, if Snape and Neville are indeed > so simple and predictable? Because there are still missing pieces. :) I can imagine any number of the Snapetheories suddenly clicking very, very nicely into place, with certain holes being filled. But as there are things that we know we don't know, there are also things that we don't know that we don't know, and those often exert a surprising amount of influence on the story and can only be bagged and tagged in the retrospective. To be honest, I don't think Neville's past is a mystery requiring theory to the degree that Snape's is. OotP just might have given it to us rather straightforwardly--it's Neville's psychological growth over the burden of legacy, rather than convoluted memory charms or the like. -Nora ain't going to say it, but the convoluted passage written above was inspired by the events of the current day From alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk Thu Feb 17 21:37:27 2005 From: alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk (alshainofthenorth) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:37:27 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124758 Apologies for jumping into your argument like this, but I wanted to make a few points since there was a good while since HPFGU had a good Draco discussion. Snipping off points I'm not replying to. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > >>Betsy: > >Good lord, a student interested in his studies and his sport! Lock > up the women and children; another Dark Lord is being formed! < > > >>Naama: > >Well, you said he wasn't ambitious - I showed that he was. What > other ambitions could he have - other than excelling in studies and > sports? > > Betsy: > I was trying to say that other than normal ambitions (like studies > and sports) Draco didn't appear to have much of any. Certainly not > of the "evil Dark Lord I will rule the world!" kind, anyway. > > >>Naama: > >And really, you know, bribing your way into the team shows more > intense ambition than being "interested", you know. > > Where, oh where, does it say that he is the second best seeker?! > And Hermione expressed what was already clear to the reader - that > the new brooms bought Draco his position.< > > Betsy: > Has Slytherin lost to anyone, other than Gryffindor, since Draco's > been Seeker? I don't recall that they ever have - though I'll admit > I don't have the stats down pat. But Harry does take him seriously > as an opponent. And I believe that Slytherin has won the Quidditch > cup every year except when Gryffindor won in PoA. (Which, funnily > enough, was won not because Harry was the better player, but because > he had the better broom.) Alshain: Somehow the arguments about players and brooms aren't always consistent: Slytherin played Ravenclaw in POA and won. Draco had a Nimbus 2001, Cho had a Comet Two Sixty (the broomstick Draco had as an eleven-year-old, which looked even more like a joke against the Firebolt). Why is the Slytherin-Ravenclaw and the Ravenclaw- Gryffindor games fair, but the Quidditch final isn't? I'd also like to point out that Draco doesn't seem to be all that good at Quidditch. We've seen him play all of three times: first time he botched it by losing focus and taunting and laughing at Harry instead of looking for the Snitch, which was hovering by his ear. In the second game, he's falling for an easy feint of Harry's. Also commits one of the most common fouls of Quodditch (blagging), when Harry is about to go for the Snitch the first time. And in the third game, he seems to have learnt some on the job, but he's still more interested in intimidating Ron. He flies well, I'll grant him that, but he can't play a fair game to save his life. Also, the only other Slytherin Seeker we've seen so far was Terence Higgs -- presumably he was a seventh-year and had contributed a lot to the long winning streak of the Slytherin team. We don't know which kind of competition Draco was facing in the tryouts second year, but surely there were third-, fourth-, fifth- and sixth-years who were both talented as well as interested in trying to fill Higgs's shoes? What made Flint pick an unseasoned second-year? Was it Lucius Malfoy putting his thumb on the scales? Since the Malfoys are a powerful family, disgruntled people will be very circumspect. > Betsy: > And Hogwarts is full of Muggle borns. I put this wish of Draco's on > par with Harry's wish to smash Snape's head in with a cauldron. Not > a nice wish, no. But until either boy is gloating over a dead body, > I tend to give them a pass. Alshain again: "Too late now, Potter! They'll [Ron & Hermione] be the first to go, now the Dark Lord's back! Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers first! Well - second - Diggory was the f-" Also, Hogwarts may be full of Muggle-borns, but he isn't taking them as an example, is he? He's consciously singling out Hermione instead of som Ravenclaw Muggle-born he sees each week in Herbology. > Betsy: > I don't have my books with me, but I believe in PoA, Draco goes on > and on to Snape about what a great Headmaster he'd make. Sorry, that's in CoS. Yes, Draco might genuinely like Snape, but he might also have selfish reasons for supporting him. > Betsy: > > As to times to show compassion: There's the ferret bounce, the time > Draco lost the big Quidditch match, when his father got thrown in > jail, after he was wounded by the hippogriff. A: Hermione does, at least I'm reading it that way: "Do you think he'll be all right?" Hermione asked nervously. That was immediately after Buckbeak had mauled him. Harry, who had had 27 bones regrown by Madam Pomfrey in the past year, immediately reassured her. > Betsy: > Yes, context. In a world with Voldemort you'll have a hard time > convincing me that silly, petty, Draco is supposed to be *evil*. > And *worst* fellow student? Please. He's barely a blip on Harry > and co.'s radar. Why else did we hear so little of himn OotP. His > digs are tired, and his songs, while hurtful to Ron, won't cause a > bunch of dead bodies. And won't get a fellow student expelled. > (Hello, Tom Riddle!) > > So no, I won't call Draco evil. I won't call him purple either. > How do you define evil that you think Draco fits that definition? Alshain: Betsy, I agree that Draco isn't anywhere close to Tom Riddle. But not for want of trying. They're quite different in their ambitions and their abilities. Tom's hatred for Muggles was personal and much more ardent; Draco is more generalised. Tom had much more ambition, but consider that he started from an interwar Muggle orphanage. He had heaps of motivation for wanting to becone something else. Draco doesn't. But he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth - he has nothing more to strive for in terms of personal comfort. He's already a member of one of the richest and most aristocratic members. He doesn't have to fight for anything other than to preserve the status quo. Tom also had far more charisma and magical talent, while Draco is an inept in comparison. But taking away their different environment and their different levels of personal talent, their mindsets are fairly similar. As to Hagrid - when did he > sabotage one of Hagrid's classes? One word: Buckbeak. As to Draco, yes, I find him evil. Not in the least comparable to Lord Voldemort, no, but on a more human, selfish and petty level. I don't even think he's able to think in terms of right and wrong on a deeper level. It's rather telling that the first thing we see him do as a Hogwarts prefect in OOTP is rudely pushing aside a couple of first-years to get a carriage for himself and his cronies. Other people may see his antics as witty or funny - in any situation his immediate reaction is to go for the Achilles' heel in other people, in order to make himself look better. His evil manifests in a complete lack of conscience or empathy with other people, and there, I think he's very similar to Riddle. I can't just see his hexing Neville with embarrassing hexes, disrupting Hagrid's classes, sneering at Lupin's shabbiness or taunting Ron as anywhere close to wit and humour. Alshain From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 21:54:18 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:54:18 -0000 Subject: Questions about a Dementor's Nature (Re: Dementors and the MoM) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124759 Meri now, popping up from lurkdom: 1) What exactly is a Dementor? I know that we know from JKR that they represent depression (and chillingly well, might I add), but where in the WW do they come from? They don't seem equipped for procreation, and unlike many of the other beasts and beings in the WW they didn't, IIRC, make an appearance in FB. Are they born? Were they created by some horrid experiment gone awry? Or are they manifested by negative human feeling (ala the slime in Ghostbusters II)? Alla: Great questions, Meri. For some reason I find the idea of Dementors bein the result of awful experiment gone wary to be very agreeable. Could it be the experiment in MoM? I just cannot imagine natural borne beings to be able to experience happiness for only one reason - sucking happiness from others. Could you clarify please what do you mean by " manifested by negative human feeling"? Are you suggesting that they appear on Earth when somebody is hurting, feeling negative, destructive emotion? Interesting. Meri: 2) Do Dementors have free will? We can assume that, because they follow directions, they have some rudimentary understanding of the world around them, but can they choose to do things on their own? Are they creatures that are slaves like the house elves? Now, IMHO the things the MoM has asked them to do (namely guard Azkaban and suck out people's souls) have probably been things that the Dementors would enjoy in some sick, twisted way anyway. But what about now that they've abandoned Azkaban? Did they choose to do this or were they forced or coerced? Alla: I think they do have free will ( in PoA they did come to the stadium even though they were specifically told not to come on the school grounds), or maybe they were just sort of forced to, because they literally cannot live without other's happiness. JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 22:13:00 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:13:00 -0000 Subject: Dudley's fate and Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124760 Del comments: I think what Jocelyn was trying to explain is that the intentions are not the only thing that matter when determining abuse. Some people can do some very bad things with the best intentions. snip. So abuse cannot be determined simply on the intentions. It's a subtle mixture of intentions and actions. This is why legally Dudley wasn't abused, even though his parents turned him into a total freak, which is abuse in my opinion. Alla: Del, I think I agree with everything you wrote, so now I am trying to figure out how to revise my point in that light. Let me try it this way, while I will concede that abuse is a mixture of intentions and actions, I will still say that if something is done with worst intentions ( here we go Dursleys and Harry again), but child is not harmed - I will still consider it abuse. Alla earlier: What will happen , in your opinion, if there is indeed Petunia's redemption to occur( If you think of course that she needs redemption.) ? Do you think Dudley will be redeemed by extension or he will side with his father? If indeed we will see conflict between Petunia and Vernon, I wonder what Dudley will do. Jocelyn: Interesting question. I am not sure about the whole 'redemption' thing, but have some thoughts about changing attitudes and beliefs. I actually think that Dudley could be the hardest of the three to change. Vernon would presumably know nothing about the WW without Petunia, so he is in a sense dependent upon her opinion of such matters. If she changes her mind and sets her foot upon a different path, I think his family loyalty will carry him grumbling along with her. I see her as the engine in that partnership. Dudley, OTOH, has been brought up from his earliest days listening to 'Harry is worthless/WW is horrific and perverted blah blah'. His childhood experiences with the WW HAVE actually been pretty bad (pig tail/blownup aunt/dementors) and I really don't know if he could change his attitude. Alla: Oh, interesting. I am not sure I agree that Vernon will follow Petunia in case she decides to change her attitudes towards WW in general and Harry in particular. I think he will be very stuck on the normalcy and such and will leave. Mind you, I am not sure if Petunia will ever change, I just suspect that JKR may go this way simply because she started portray Petunia in a less caricature and more... I don't know, I guess , desperate will be the right word. You are absolutely correct though that Dudley's experience with WW had been pretty bad, so maybe he will follow his father ( just my suspicions) Minervakab: Why do we expect the Dursleys to have the same specialness that allows Harry to overcome all odds? Why will we give Serius slack for treating Kreacher so badly because of his awful childhood but we won't allow the Dursleys the same slack? Why can we forgive Snape for hating Harry because he looks like James but not Petunia for resenting Harry who has Lily's eyes? Why is it poor Draco can't help being the way he is because of his father but no one says poor Dudley because of his? Do we only forgive magical people for not knowing better? Alla: I am only replying to your last paragraph, because I am very curious where do you see such pattern, because none of it is true for me. :o) I have been known to take Snape to task for hating Harry because Harry reminds him of James G-d knows how many times. I have very little sympathy for "poor Draco" who can't help being the way he is, because I think he can if he really wants to and for many other reasons. I like Sirius very much, but no, I don't think that his treatment of Kreacher was right, even though I dislike Kreacher as traitor to the Order. So, to answer your question, I don't hold Dursleys to higher standards than magical folks. :o) Just my opinion of course, Alla From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Feb 17 23:37:48 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:37:48 -0000 Subject: Does Dumbledore love Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124761 > > > > > And I think it is important to make a distinction between *love* the > feeling of affection which DD has for Harry, and *Love* the highest > power which is different. Love the power is a choice as Scott Peck > said in his book "The Road Less Traveled". It can also include > affection but does not have to. It is the type of love one can have > for one's enemy. > > Tonks_op I agree, Tonks, that their is a distinction between "love" in the ordinary human sense and "Love" in the divine or spiritual sense. For the sake of clarification, let me see that I intended my questions to deal only with love in the human sense. Does DD love Harry in a human (fatherly/grandfatherly) sense? The question of spiritual/religious love or Agape is important but a different thing than what I'm trying to get at here. Lupinlore From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 23:47:29 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:47:29 -0000 Subject: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124762 > > Neri (previously): > > I tend to agree, in general, and I wrote similar things in the > > past. And yet, if Snape and Neville are that simple, why don't we > > have even a single theory that explains all their mysteries in a > > simple way? You might say that we lack the information to decide > > which theory is true, but you would expect that at least we'd have > > several candidate theories that offer satisfying explanations to > > all the different mysteries. And yet, none of the Snape theories or > > Neville theories that I know actually rings true. Some sound like > > they might be approximations, but none that actually supplies > > explanations to all the questions and makes you feel that "this > > just night be it". So why is that, if Snape and Neville are indeed > > so simple and predictable? > Nora: > Because there are still missing pieces. :) > Neri: As I wrote above, this doesn't seem like a very satisfactory explanation. Suppose you have a puzzle picture with half the pieces missing. Say they are even missing from the edges so you can't estimate how many pieces you're still missing. But still, if the picture is simple, say a smiley face, you'd have a very good idea of what it is. There might be an argument if it is a smiley like this :-) or like this ;-) but, well, you get the picture. If we still see very different possibilities with the pieces we already have, it suggests that either the picture is NOT that simple, or JKR is going to dump a whole bucket of new pieces on us in only two books, which would be kind of cheating, no? > Nora: > I can imagine any number of the Snapetheories suddenly clicking very, > very nicely into place, with certain holes being filled. But as > there are things that we know we don't know, there are also things > that we don't know that we don't know, and those often exert a > surprising amount of influence on the story and can only be bagged > and tagged in the retrospective. > Neri: I'm not that sure. Can you point out a single Snapetheory that would "click into place" with three more hypothetical pieces X, Y and Z (substitute whatever you want)? There are some theories that sound like they might be close, but in order to "click" they have to account not only for the big mysteries, like how does Snape spies on Voldy, but also for all kinds of small things, like the DADA story, the "sudden movement", the "lapdog" mention and the "people who carry their heart on their sleeves" speech. If Snape was that simple, you'd perhaps think that we would've already had a theory that accounts for many of those small things when not too many hypothetical puzzle pieces are added. > Nora: > To be honest, I don't think Neville's past is a mystery requiring > theory to the degree that Snape's is. OotP just might have given it > to us rather straightforwardly--it's Neville's psychological growth > over the burden of legacy, rather than convoluted memory charms or > the like. > Neri: So, will you be satisfied if all the foreshadowing about memory charms (from which we had more in OotP) will simply come to naught? And Uncle Algie who gave Neville both the Mimbulus mimbeltonia and Trevor (who is still around after five years, and toads don't generally live longer than rats do). And Neville can't sleep at night after that tea with Crouch!Moody, and someone sent the Lestranges after the Longbottoms, and Neville could have been The One (at least we might get some information about this soon). I mean, wouldn't it feel like cheating if JKR will just supply standard boring explanations to all these things? Neri obviously has read too much Elkins lately. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 00:01:25 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:01:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050218000125.78834.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124763 > Alla: > > Please put me down for "evil and dead" Draco bet. > Draco's not substantial enough to be evil; he's the diet Pepsi of evil, a pale shadow of the real thing (ie, his father). Draco would wet himself if he ever came into real contact with Voldemort, without his father or mother there to protect him. I read on an HP site somewhere that someone called Draco, Crabbe and Goyle (and friends) the "Death Snackers", because they weren't tough enough to be Death Eaters. I rather liked that description. Draco's malevelence is usually too petty, too personal, too immediate to really qualify as evil or dangerous. He's a cypher, representing narrow-minded purebloodism at its most pathetic. I doubt if he'll get killed, except perhaps by accident or by "friendly fire" from his own DE side. He doesn't strike me as the type to get in harm's way if he can avoid it. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Feb 18 00:36:36 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 00:36:36 -0000 Subject: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124764 > > > > Neri: > So, will you be satisfied if all the foreshadowing about memory charms > (from which we had more in OotP) will simply come to naught? I'm not at all sure we've had any foreshadowing at all about memory charms with regard to Neville. That may well be a situation where castles have been built in the air. What are you referring to in OOTP? And Uncle > Algie who gave Neville both the Mimbulus mimbeltonia and Trevor (who > is still around after five years, and toads don't generally live > longer than rats do). The boy has an uncle who likes to give him things. A toad is one of the standard pets at Hogwarts, if not popular these days, so it's a reasonable going to school gift, and what better present for Neville than a magical plant? As to Trevor's age, maybe JKR just doesn't know the life-span of a toad (or doesn't care if she does). And Neville can't sleep at night after that tea > with Crouch!Moody, Neville is a bundle of nerves, and tea does have caffeine in it. and someone sent the Lestranges after the > Longbottoms, Who were Aurors and longstanding enemies of Voldemort. Maybe the LeStranges took that personally. and Neville could have been The One (at least we might > get some information about this soon). The prophecy pretty much determined that. It's arbitrary, but prophecies tend to be. I mean, wouldn't it feel like > cheating if JKR will just supply standard boring explanations to all > these things? Well, I don't know that most of them need to BE explained. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Feb 18 01:05:09 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 01:05:09 -0000 Subject: Voldemort the Cartoon (was Re: Draco = Evil?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124765 > Betsy: > Yes, context. In a world with Voldemort you'll have a hard time > convincing me that silly, petty, Draco is supposed to be *evil*. > And *worst* fellow student? Please. He's barely a blip on Harry > and co.'s radar. Why else did we hear so little of himn OotP. His > digs are tired, and his songs, while hurtful to Ron, won't cause a > bunch of dead bodies. And won't get a fellow student expelled. > (Hello, Tom Riddle!) You know, this is very interesting, and I think at the heart of a lot of arguments we have over the Dursleys, Snape, and Draco. That is that people often point out that the Dursleys/Snape/Draco aren't *really* evil, because Voldemort represents the *real* evil in the books. And there I think is the problem for a lot of adult readers, including myself and others in my circle. We just can't take Voldy seriously. The man is *such* a cartoon! I mean, who can read a Voldemort scene and not laugh? And therein lies the problem. We can take the Dursleys seriously, particularly after OOTP, because we have all known people who make or would make abusive parents. We can take Snape seriously because we all know the kind of pain his hatefulness can bring. We can take Draco seriously because we have all known bullies and know what can happen to them in adult life. We can take Dudley seriously for the same reason. But Voldemort? The man is an over-the-top cliche straight out of a comic opera or a comic book. We (my circle and I) just can't see him as a very real threat. I mean, his best Death Eaters and he couldn't best a bunch of fourteen and fifteen year-olds when they (the DEs) had the advantage of springing a well-laid trap! And his dialogue -- good Lord! Is he quoting "Bartlett's Book of Villainous Vacuity?" To top it all off, he dresses in black and looks like a snake part of the time! He even roars, hisses, and growls like some kind of escapee from the Island of Doctor Moreau. Yes, of course intellectually the books present him as a threat. Of course intellectually we know he killed the Potters and is the cause of Cedric and Sirius' deaths and so forth. But emotionally we just can't believe in him as a character or really feel, deep in our hearts, that he is the real threat to Harry that many of the other hurtful figures seem to be. We see him, laugh, and say "standard evil super villain, makes needlessly complicated plans that explode in his face, kills a few of the heroes or their loved ones, chews the scenery, totally defeated and killed in the end as a matter of course, but now Snape/Vernon/Draco (DD if you're so inclined), THERE'S a detestable and dangerous figure!" JKR hasn't helped matters by her interviews, either. Voldemort has NEVER felt love for ANYONE? How over-the-top (and emotionally unbelievable) can you get? Even Satan, we are told, once had his good points. So perhaps, just perhaps, how seriously you take the behavior of the Dursleys/Snape/Draco depends largely on how much you can believe in Voldemort. Lupinlore From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 01:32:25 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 01:32:25 -0000 Subject: Draco is Evil and Lame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124766 >Betsy wrote: Yes, context. In a world with Voldemort you'll have a hard time convincing me that silly, petty, Draco is supposed to be *evil*. And *worst* fellow student? Please. He's barely a blip on Harry and co.'s radar. Why else did we hear so little of himn OotP. His digs are tired, and his songs, while hurtful to Ron, won't cause a bunch of dead bodies. And won't get a fellow student expelled. (Hello, Tom Riddle!) So no, I won't call Draco evil. I won't call him purple either. How do you define evil that you think Draco fits that definition? >>Naama wrote: >It doesn't matter. The thing is, everything he does arises from mean, petty, vicious, sadistic motives and impulses. As a young boy, it expresses itself in relatively minor things. By having him part of the IS (mini-Stasi, as Nora aptly called it), JKR shows us a consistent development - from mean, vicious boy to dangerous, sadistic bully and terrorizer.< >Betsy wrote: But see, it does matter, because you are trying to say Draco is evil. And yet, he doesn't fit the discription. He doesn't actually *terrorize* the other students. No one is afraid to see him coming. Not even when he was a member of Umbridge's IS. (Which, as I told Nora, is not all that close to a mini-Stasi really - far too imcompetent.) We have Tom Riddle as an excellent example of an evil student. Draco doesn't even come close. vmonte responds: Are you saying that Draco cannot be evil because he is an idiot and not as capable a wizard as Tom Riddle? Because throughout history there have been stupid yet evil people. Draco is a bad seed, and I cannot for the life of me believe that he is a good guy underneath it all. He is sadistic, cruel, a racist, and he basically enjoys "terrorizing" people too much. I know you don't think that he terrorizes people, but I do. He may be no match for Harry but he does terrorize other people like Neville. And just because he fails at his attempts with Harry and gang, does not mean that his attempts should not be considered. Draco's other problem, aside from being a blabber mouth, is that he also happens to be a coward, which means that he is probably another Regulus Black in the making. I think this is the reason why Draco surrounds himself with Crab and Goyle, because in reality he is a big sissy. Vivian From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 02:19:40 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 02:19:40 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys (was many other subjects) long In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124767 Peg wrote: > DD is just as responsible. If he can address an envelope to "Harry > Potter, The Cupboard Under the Stairs, 4 Privet Drive" he can sure as > h@@@ keep track of how Harry's being treated and use the odd Howler > to ensure that certain minimum standards are being met. Carol responds: IIRc, it's McGonagall who sends out the letters to soon-to-be Hogwarts students. Also, I'm wondering about the address on the letters. Does McGonagall actually know that Harry's "room" is the cupboard under the stairs (and that it's later changed to the smallest bedroom, then a cheap motel, and then the hut on the rock)? Or do the lstters magically address themselves? Remember, Harry sends a letter addressed to Padfoot (no address) and tells Hedwig that Padfoot is Sirius, trusting her to find him without knowing even which country Sirius is hiding in. Carol, who is not at all sure that DD (or McGonagall) actually knew about the cupboard under the stairs From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 02:46:26 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 02:46:26 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Chapter Thirty-Eight - The Second War Begins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124768 Dan Feeney wrote: > > > 2 - There are a couple versions of "afterlife" presented here - Nick's and Luna's. What is the difference - or rather, if one version is consternating and the other comforting, what is Rowling getting at? > > Lyra responded: > It's a message about faith. Luna has faith that she'll see her loved ones after she dies. Nick, on the other hand, didn't have the faith needed to make that journey. He chose to stay on Earth as a pale version of himself, and I think he now regrets that decision. Carol adds: The passage also quite clearly shows that death, in contrast to having your soul sucked out by a Dementor, is not the end of all things in JKR's Potterverse. I think *that's* what JKR is getting at. The dead can't come back to life, but they do exist on another plane (beyond the Veil). In a sense, Nick is confirming DD's statement that death is the next great journey even though he himself did not make that journey. Also the mere fact that a dead witch or wizard (or departed soul, if that doesn't sound too hokey) has a decision to make (to stay on earth as a ghost or go on to the great unknown) is important. (I agree that Nick regrets his decision, which unfortunately seems to be irrevocable.) Odd that Muggles aren't allowed the same choice. BTW, I think that Lyra's post implies most of what I've said here (except the bit about Muggles), but I wanted to state the points explicitly. Carol, who is leaving for Costa Rica in four days! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 04:05:07 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 04:05:07 -0000 Subject: the DE are Nazi?Re: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124769 Naama wrote:> > You have a misconception here. The racism of the WW isn't about > Muggles, it's about *Muggle borns*. The parallel to the real world is in the arbitrariness of the social categories - Jews, Slavs, Blacks, etc., are as fully human as the Germans, yet racist ideology marked them as inferior, less human. This is mirrored in the arbitrary marking of Muggle borns as inferior. JKR underlines the arbitrariness by making it clear that there is no difference in magical ability between pure bloods and Muggle borns. If you're magic, you're magic. > Carol responds: There is, nonetheless, an undeniable prejudice throughout the WW against Muggles, ranging from contempt to amiable condescension like Mr. Weasley's. And the prejudice against Muggleborns stems from the prejudice against Muggles. I've always found it confusing that the purebloods would regard the *absence* of a trait (magical "blood") as somehow contaminating or fouling the blood (muggleborn + "mudblood"). Be that as it may, I think they fear that their bloodline will be polluted if they marry a Muggleborn because a witch or wizard born of Muggle parents is more likely (in their view) to produce a Squib child. (Whether that "logic" is borne out in reality, we don't know, as we have no idea of Filch's or Mrs. Fogg's parentage.) At any rate, I don't think that the prejudice against Muggleborns is "arbitrary." It stems from fear and mistrust of Muggles (who have historically hanged, burned, and otherwise harassed and injured wizards) and a sense that Muggles are innately inferior. The magical children of Muggles have no wizard blood (I'm not talking about genetic mutations here--that's a Muggle concept unknown in the WW--but the WW concept of bloodlines) and they've been brought up until age eleven in an alien environment with Muggle values and no knowledge of what Draco (IIRC) calls "our ways." While I understand why a number of posters find such "racism" revolting, from a pureblood perspective it would make perfect sense. Carol, who notes once again that there is no true racism in the WW, as evidenced (e.g.) by the Weasleys and their choice of dates and boyfriends From catportkey at aol.com Fri Feb 18 04:30:38 2005 From: catportkey at aol.com (catportkey at aol.com) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:30:38 EST Subject: Hermione's Career - Politics (was: Hard Choices) Message-ID: <87.2195657c.2f46c96e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124770 phoenixgod2000 wrote: > > > > You make an argument for Hermione making a good Slytherin. But a > politician, no. She just doesn't have the personal touch that truly > great politicians need. from northsouth17 (snip) But I do believe Hermione can grow - I think she has the composure to develop into a good public speaker, for example, and with the years to become a bit less shrill and perfectionistic. Or she could just get worse in those regards. It's hard to say, because she's 16 at the moment, and probably looking at a very trying few years. I think how she weathers them will be critical to the woman that she ends up. >From Pook JKR said she fashioned Hermione after herself . . a young "know-it-all". look what JKR became --- a writer, and she learned not to be shy as publicity about her and speaking engagements increased. So I do see Hermione maturing into a great lobbyist, politician or humanitarian speaker, she just needs some growing to do. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Feb 18 04:30:52 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 04:30:52 -0000 Subject: the DE are Nazi?Re: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124771 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Naama wrote:> > > You have a misconception here. The racism of the WW isn't about > > Muggles, it's about *Muggle borns*. The parallel to the real world is in the arbitrariness of the social categories - Jews, Slavs, > Blacks, etc., are as fully human as the Germans, yet racist ideology marked them as inferior, less human. > > Carol responds: > There is, nonetheless, an undeniable prejudice throughout the WW > against Muggles, ranging from contempt to amiable condescension like Mr. Weasley's. Valky: Hate to bicker, Carol but I really disagree that Arthurs fascination with Muggle ways equates to amiable condescension. I see Arthur as a sincere admirer of Muggle ways, from his veiwpoint magical means are not arbitrarily superior, but rather arbitrarily *his* only means. I seriously doubt that Arthur Weasley supposes even *amiable* superiority of the magical life in light of his sense of wonder about eckeltricity, and interest in being healed by stitches at St Mungos. I'd say these things point rather to an belief that he considers Muggles as equal man wise about things that the magical world has no knowledge of. Just adding my point of view. Valky From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 04:35:56 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 04:35:56 -0000 Subject: Naive Draco (was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124772 Betsy: > >I also doubt his father is busily teaching him the Unforgivables > over summer break.< > > >>SSSusan: > >Now, actually, I think I might wager the opposite on this one. :-)< > > Betsy: > Really? Don't you think he'd brag a little if he was? Maybe drop a > few hints? I see Draco having a really hard time keeping a secret. > Of course, I could well be wrong! Carol adds: I'm with Betsy on this one. Lucius, for all his faults as a man and a father, has a good estimate of Draco's abilities and shortcomings. He's probably aware that Draco doesn't yet have the power or strength of will to cast an Unforgiveable, but even if he did, he doesn't have the sense not to brag about his ability to cast an illegal curse or, worse still, to cast the illegal spell in such a way that his doing it won't be found out. You don't hand an arrogant, bragging puppy a weapon that he might publicly use. To put it more concretely, Lucius doesn't want his family disgraced because his son has been caught stupidly performing an Unforgiveable Curse. And you also don't want to give your spoiled child a weapon that he can use against *you* if he doesn't get his way. It would be utterly stupid for Lucius to teach his son the Unforgiveable Curses, and Lucius isn't stupid. Of course, circumstances will have changed greatly when HBP opens, and Draco's Detour could lead him to Azkaban to visit Daddy or help set him free, in which case, as a reward, Lucius might start teaching Draco the Imperius or Cruciatus Curse. I imagine, however, that it takes awhile to learn them, especially since you can't practice on other human beings without the potential for serious trouble. Carol, imagining Draco Imperioing Crabbe and Goyle From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 04:44:42 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:44:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050218044442.77989.qmail@web31102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124773 Betsy: Has Slytherin lost to anyone, other than Gryffindor, since Draco's been Seeker? I don't recall that they ever have - though I'll admit I don't have the stats down pat. But Harry does take him seriously as an opponent. And I believe that Slytherin has won the Quidditch cup every year except when Gryffindor won in PoA. (Which, funnily enough, was won not because Harry was the better player, but because he had the better broom.) Arynn: I'm re reading PoA and in it there is this line: "Ravenclaw played Slytherin a week after start of term. Slytherin won, though narrowly." I also remeber reading somewhere that Slytherin did loose to Ravenclaw once, but I don't recall where. So either Ravenclaw was about 140 pts. ahead when Draco caught the snitch, or Slytherin was 160 pts. ahead and Cho caught the snitch. Assuming "narrowly" means that one goal either way would have changed it. I find it funny though, that you claim that Gryffindor's defeats over Slytherin are (sometimes) due to Harry's superior broom, but you never claim that Slytherin's defeat of Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff are due to Draco's superior broom. And, not only is Draco's broom better than the rest of the school's (except Harry's) but the whole slytherin team has better brooms. So it would seem logical that they would be expected to win more often. That seems more unfair than having one player on a team with a better broom. Also remember that one player does not a team make, a seeker can only win the team 150 pts or 0. A chaser can win her team anywhere from 0 to a googleplex, so if you are your teams seeker you either caught the snitch, or had no effect on the outcome of the game whatsoever. more one draco: He and Pansy P. did sabotage Hagird's class when Umbridge was present, starting on page 446 in OotP. --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From meriaugust at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 04:45:54 2005 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 04:45:54 -0000 Subject: Questions about a Dementor's Nature (Re: Dementors and the MoM) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124774 Alla: > Could you clarify please what do you mean by " manifested by negative > human feeling"? Are you suggesting that they appear on Earth when > somebody is hurting, feeling negative, destructive emotion? > Interesting. Meri now: What I was getting at was, what if all the negative human emotions over time, like hatred, anger, violence, etc. built up over history and manifested itself in the form of dementors. Wizards have powers that they sometimes can't control when they are upset, scared or angry. What if when wizards feel these things *something* gets produced and what if that something is a dementor. Or what if (the thoughts are flowing freely now at 11:40 pm) a particularly powerful wizard got so angry or upset at something that in his or her anger created them. Could the feud between Gryffindor and Slytherin have created enough anger to make the dementors? Nah. That's too crazy. Meri - wondering why she is doing her best HP thinking at night... From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 04:47:59 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 04:47:59 -0000 Subject: Many sleepless nights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124775 Salit wrote: > As for Harry, they [the Dursleys] clearly do not love it, are scared to death that his true heritage and abilities will come to the surface and believe that keeping him downtrodden will snuff his magical ability. So from their perspective they are doing it for his own good. I believe their attitude towards him is abusive but keeping him with them is the lesser of two evils (the other being the risk to his life). Carol adds: Notice that they're afraid to leave Harry alone in the car or the house. Petunia (IIRC) actually says, "And have him blow up the house?" She, at least, is aware that the house at Godric's Hollow blew up, and I think she's aware (through DD) that baby Harry somehow defeated Voldemort at the age of fifteen months. They're quite literally terrified of his power, afraid that they'll meet the same fate as Harry's parents if Harry's magic is allowed to develop. No wonder they want to squash it out of him. Carol, not defending the Dursleys' treatment of Harry but trying to get people to see him from their perspective From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 04:53:56 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 04:53:56 -0000 Subject: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124776 > > Neri (previously): > > So, will you be satisfied if all the foreshadowing about memory charms > > (from which we had more in OotP) will simply come to naught? > Lupinlore: > I'm not at all sure we've had any foreshadowing at all about memory > charms with regard to Neville. That may well be a situation where > castles have been built in the air. What are you referring to in OOTP? > Neri: Of course, it might not be Neville. It might someone else. Like his parents, for example, and he only gets a whiff of it through the bubblegum wrappers. But fact is: in each and every book until now we were reminded about memory charms. In OotP we've met Lockhart again and were shown that the effect might be very strong and long-lasting. > > Neri (previously): > And Uncle > > Algie who gave Neville both the Mimbulus mimbeltonia and Trevor (who > > is still around after five years, and toads don't generally live > > longer than rats do). > Lupinlore: > The boy has an uncle who likes to give him things. A toad is one of > the standard pets at Hogwarts, if not popular these days, so it's a > reasonable going to school gift, and what better present for Neville > than a magical plant? As to Trevor's age, maybe JKR just doesn't know > the life-span of a toad (or doesn't care if she does). > Neri: I'd believe that had she not used the same clue about Scabbers. She can't have forgotten about that. And if Neville gets another present from his uncle all my alarms would go off: in stories you don't get three presents from a wizard for no reason. > > Neri (previously): > And Neville can't sleep at night after that tea > > with Crouch!Moody, > Lupinlore: > Neville is a bundle of nerves, and tea does have caffeine in it. Neri: The question is not only why Neville can't sleep, but why JKR bothers to tell us about it, while Harry doesn't notice it. > > Neri (previously): > and someone sent the Lestranges after the > > Longbottoms, > Lupinlore: > Who were Aurors and longstanding enemies of Voldemort. Maybe the > LeStranges took that personally. Neri: It's practically obvious that the Longbottoms were attacked for some important reason. The question is: is Neville only an ordinary boy wizard whom his parents were attacked, or is there also something special about Neville himself? > > Neri (previously): > and Neville could have been The One (at least we might > > get some information about this soon). > Lupinlore: > The prophecy pretty much determined that. It's arbitrary, but > prophecies tend to be. > Neri: The question is: why had JKR ever made Neville an option at all? What does the story gains from it? It's either a red herring or it's something important, but it is not arbitrary and not a coincidence. > > Neri (previously): > I mean, wouldn't it feel like > > cheating if JKR will just supply standard boring explanations to all > > these things? > Lupinlore: > Well, I don't know that most of them need to BE explained. Neri: Heh. This is JKR we are talking about. Each of these clues alone could have been explained away, but taken together (and there's more I didn't mention) it's like Neville has a big sign on his back saying "Very Suspicious Wizard!". There's no way JKR didn't notice she's implicating Neville in so many ways. It could be a red herring, but not something she has done without thought. The thing is: red herrings exist for a reason, to draw our attention from something else. For example, Bagman was created to draw our attention away from Crouch!Moody, and in the end of GoF he was exposed as a red herring. But if Neville has been a red herring for five books now, then for what cause? Also, I noticed you didn't try to deny the Snape mystery. So why is it so important to deny the Neville mystery? The fact is, we DO seem to have mysteries about characters other than Harry, and why are these mysteries so complicated if the characters are simple? Neri From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 05:30:03 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 05:30:03 -0000 Subject: An Odd Ghostly Question. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124777 apollo wrote: > We'll definitely see the veil again, but perhaps in what context? > Will it be in the DoM again or something similar some place else? > Carol responds: As I understand it, it isn't the veil itself but the archway it covers that leads to the "beyond." The archway is ancient and built on a dais with an amphitheater around it. It's clearly a portal to the Underworld or Otherworld, the world of the dead, and I very much doubt that it can be moved. I've suggested in other posts that the amphitheater was constructed for public executions or ritual sacrifices in ancient times, perhaps by the Druids. (I don't think the portal was built by the earlier Neolithic people who built Stonehenge, as someone else suggested, because the arch was not invented, at least by Muggles, until Roman times.) Carol From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 05:33:02 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:33:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco is Evil and Lame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050218053302.55458.qmail@web31107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124778 >Betsy wrote: But see, it does matter, because you are trying to say Draco is evil. And yet, he doesn't fit the discription. He doesn't actually *terrorize* the other students.< Arynn: There have been kids here in America that have killed them selves and fellow students (e.g. Columbine) who were never physically attacked, but never the less vebally tortured. The schools could do something about fighting, but name calling falls under free speach (unless it's sexually or racially motivated.) Most kids can (and do) take some teasing, but if you are subject to it too often for too long, people can snap. "Terror" doesn't always mean "physical attack". But no, I do not think Draco is evil. I don't think humans can be evil. Some people make bad choices based on bad exprirences, but no one is inherintly evil. Some examples of "evil people" Hitler's mother (speculated to be part Jewish) was abusive toward him. Once he was grown he wanted to be an artist and was kicked out of art school. After serving in WW1 he spent time in jail where he was first introduced (by a fellow inmate) to the "arian" mentality. There was no evidence before this time that he had any problem with Jews. (he was even staying in a Jewish run shelter for a while.) Jeff Dhamer was repeatedly sexually abused as a boy. Tom Riddle's father leaft his mother before Tom Jr was born because of his own prjudices. Jr's mother died when he was young and he spent his young life as an unwanted orphan. His whole existance has been built on hate. No one is born bad. These previous men were put into bad situations and choose too be cruel later in life, but there are many people (myself included) that had it just as bad, and have never hurt anyone. I, luckily had some things in my life that I was able to depend on (my parents and my Buddhist faith) Alla: Does he deserve to have the crap beaten out of him for THAT? Yes, you bet, he absolutely does to me. At the end of GoF Draco absolutely got what he deserved as far as I was concerned. I could do without people stepping over Draco when he was on the floor, but besides that...< Even if someone makes bad choices, they deserve the compassion that all living things are entitled to. No one (Draco included) deserve physical or verbal attack. Even if Draco is an instigator, he should not have been beaten up by Harry and George(or was it Fred?), nor was it okay for Harry and the other DA members to shower them with curses at the end of OotP. It is okay to defend yourself and others, but that went way overboard. As adults it is our job to teach kids that physical attack is NEVER okay. If everyone followed the old saying "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" the whole planet would be blind and toothless. --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Feb 18 05:35:51 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 05:35:51 -0000 Subject: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124779 > Neri: > Heh. This is JKR we are talking about. Each of these clues alone could > have been explained away, but taken together (and there's more I > didn't mention) it's like Neville has a big sign on his back saying > "Very Suspicious Wizard!". There's no way JKR didn't notice she's > implicating Neville in so many ways. It could be a red herring, but > not something she has done without thought. The thing is: red herrings > exist for a reason, to draw our attention from something else. For > example, Bagman was created to draw our attention away from > Crouch!Moody, and in the end of GoF he was exposed as a red herring. > But if Neville has been a red herring for five books now, then for > what cause? > > Also, I noticed you didn't try to deny the Snape mystery. So why is it > so important to deny the Neville mystery? The fact is, we DO seem to > have mysteries about characters other than Harry, and why are these > mysteries so complicated if the characters are simple? > > Neri I agree that Snape is more mysterious than Neville. But I agree with Nora on this one, it is because of missing pieces, not because of inherent byzantine reversals of character we are going to discover. I'm not at all sure I'd agree with you that we are missing all that much or that most of what we have is a puzzle. We know pretty well that: 1) Snape is a nasty, bitter man 2) Snape hated Harry's father 3) Snape hates Harry at least in large part BECAUSE he hated Harry's father and James humiliated/tormented him 4) Snape was a DE 5) Snape left the DEs and is working with Dumbledore 6) He told DD his story and DD believes him and trusts him 7) Snape saved Harry's life, after which Quirrel told Harry that "Oh my yes, he hates you, but not enough to want you dead" 8) Snape has "latent good qualities" but he is also a deeply horrible man who bears watching We're missing the story Snape told DD, which should explain why he left the DEs and why DD trusts him. We are also missing Snape's present intentions (i.e. how loyal he is to DD and how much his view is skewed by his hatred of James/Harry). Those two pieces of info and we've pretty much got Severus down pat. Lupinlore From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 05:39:46 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:39:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Naive Draco (was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050218053946.29462.qmail@web31101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124780 Carol adds: Of course, circumstances will have changed greatly when HBP opens, andDraco's Detour could lead him to Azkaban to visit Daddy or help set him free, in which case, as a reward, Lucius might start teaching Draco the Imperius or Cruciatus Curse. I imagine, however, that it takes awhile to learn them, especially since you can't practice on other human beings without the potential for serious trouble. Arynn: I agree. Now that the war has officially started I bet Draco will have become better equiped with self defence, and can't you just see the Malfoys ordering their new house elves to let Draco use them as target practice? --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Fri Feb 18 05:41:28 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 05:41:28 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Dursleys (was many other subjects) long In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124781 Tonks_op, in a brilliant post, suggests: *snips sympathetic Dursley post* I enjoyed this very much. Especially since I happen to have pleasant childhood memories of hiding in a storage closet under the stairs, in the nicest of the houses we lived in (my family has a military background, so we lived in a lot of different houses during my childhood). However, I don't believe it. It's actually not impossible that a family who'd taken in a child whose parents had been murdered, and who had reason to suspect that the murderers might want to Complete The Whole Set, would devise some way of protecting the child during vulnerable times such s night. Hiding him in a broom closet might well work -- "If they come at night when we're all asleep, they'll look in the bedrooms, not under the staircase, and that'll give us the chance to hear them, or him the chance to get away." But if that were the case, that broom closet wouldn't be dark and full of spiders. It would be clean, there would be a futon on the floor, and a Coleman lantern next to the futon, and a poster or two on the ceiling. Lots of things would be different. Harry would have clothes that fit, he'd get to join in the family's activities such as watching TV, taking trips, etc. He wouldn't be belittled and treated like dirt. And even if they kept his real background from him, they wouldn't have insulted his parents. And when Dumbledore told him about Petunia's choice to take him in, Harry wouldn't have said "She doesn't love me --" because he would have known that she did. It wasn't the broom closet that was the determining factor. It was the motive behind it that made the difference. And I think you're absolutely right that it was all based on fear -- definitely not on love. Janet Anderson From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Feb 18 05:41:29 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 05:41:29 -0000 Subject: Draco is Evil and Lame In-Reply-To: <20050218053302.55458.qmail@web31107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124782 > Even if someone makes bad choices, they deserve the compassion that all living things are entitled to. No one (Draco included) deserve physical or verbal attack. Even if Draco is an instigator, he should not have been beaten up by Harry and George(or was it Fred?), nor was it okay for Harry and the other DA members to shower them with curses at the end of OotP. It is okay to defend yourself and others, but that went way overboard. As adults it is our job to teach kids that physical attack is NEVER okay. > > If everyone followed the old saying "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" the whole planet would be blind and toothless. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] That's a wonderful sentiment, and I mean it sincerely. However, within the context of HP, and of Harry's life and relationships to his enemies, there are problems with it. For instance, if someone (Lupin for instance) were to try to impress this lesson on Harry, he would be fully justified in answering, "Oh, really? And yet I sense you don't object to ridding the world of Voldemort. How do you expect me to accomplish that, debate with him strenuously and have him leave the country in fear of my eloquence?" Lupinlore From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 06:01:03 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:01:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco is Evil and Lame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050218060103.96294.qmail@web31102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124783 >>Lupinlore quoting Arynn: >>If everyone followed the old saying "an eye for an eye, and a >>tooth for a tooth" the whole planet would be blind and toothless. >Lupinlore: >That's a wonderful sentiment, and I mean it sincerely. However, >within the context of HP, and of Harry's life and relationships to >his enemies, there are problems with it. For instance, if someone >(Lupin for instance) were to try to impress this lesson on Harry, >he would befully justified in answering, "Oh, really? And yet I >sense you don'tobject to ridding the world of Voldemort. How do >you expect me to accomplish that, debate with him strenuously and >have him leave the country in fear of my eloquence?" Arynn: True, very true. If you can find no other way to restrain someone, than death is the only way. I would have no problem doing anything in my power (from using non lethal attacks I've learned in Karate, to actually killing someone) to protect my family if someone broke into our house and was threatening them. But you should always use the most minimal amount of force possible. In Voldie's case this might end up being murder, but in Draco's case no physicality was needed. Draco has shown a tendancy to avoid physical skirmishes. In the few instances when he was the attacker he has either missed or been beaten to the punch (as it were) by Harry. Why use any of the spells the DA used on Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle when 3 simple stunners (or even better Portego) could have sufficed? And Harry and Gred/Feorge's punching attacks did no good whatsoever. --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 07:32:12 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 07:32:12 -0000 Subject: Neville's nerves (Was: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124784 Neri: >> And Neville can't sleep at night after that tea with Crouch!Moody, Lupinlore: > Neville is a bundle of nerves, and tea does have caffeine in it. Carol notes: I don't think Neville's inability to sleep had anything to do with the tea Crouch!Moody gave him. It had to do with the class session, the heartless, prolonged Crucioing of the spider in front of a boy whose parents had been Crucio'd into insanity (in part by the very person torturing the spider,though Neville didn't know that). JKR's narrator steps outside Harry's POV for a moment to pass on the seeming tidbit about Neville's inability to sleep. It was, in fact, a very important bit of foreshadowing, not only of the scene with Neville's mother in St. Mungo's in OoP but of the evil nature of the man who was pretending to be Professor Moody. BTW, I agree with Neri that more is required to complete Neville's and (especially) Snape's stories than a few puzzle pieces, but I see no need for a memory charm to explain Neville's forgetfulness and general inability to concentrate. If he witnessed the Crucioing of his parents, even as a very small child less than two years old, his memory lapses could be completely explained as the result of postraumatic stress syndrome. Carol, who thinks that even when the stories are complete we will still differ in our interpretations of the evidence because our differences in age, education, experience, and personality type inevitably influence the way we perceive the events and characters From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 07:35:03 2005 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 07:35:03 -0000 Subject: Draco is Evil and Lame In-Reply-To: <20050218053302.55458.qmail@web31107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124785 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Arynn Octavia wrote: > >Betsy wrote: > But see, it does matter, because you are trying to say Draco is > evil. And yet, he doesn't fit the discription. He doesn't actually > *terrorize* the other students.< > > Arynn: > There have been kids here in America that have killed them selves and fellow students (e.g. Columbine) who were never physically attacked, but never the less vebally tortured. The schools could do something about fighting, but name calling falls under free speach (unless it's sexually or racially motivated.) > > Most kids can (and do) take some teasing, but if you are subject to it too often for too long, people can snap. "Terror" doesn't always mean "physical attack". > > But no, I do not think Draco is evil. I don't think humans can be evil. Some people make bad choices based on bad exprirences, but no one is inherintly evil. Some examples of "evil people" > > Hitler's mother (speculated to be part Jewish) was abusive toward him. Once he was grown he wanted to be an artist and was kicked out of art school. After serving in WW1 he spent time in jail where he was first introduced (by a fellow inmate) to the "arian" mentality. There was no evidence before this time that he had any problem with Jews. (he was even staying in a Jewish run shelter for a while.) > > Jeff Dhamer was repeatedly sexually abused as a boy. > > Tom Riddle's father leaft his mother before Tom Jr was born because of his own prjudices. Jr's mother died when he was young and he spent his young life as an unwanted orphan. His whole existance has been built on hate. > > No one is born bad. These previous men were put into bad situations and choose too be cruel later in life, but there are many people (myself included) that had it just as bad, and have never hurt anyone. I, luckily had some things in my life that I was able to depend on (my parents and my Buddhist faith) > > Alla: > > Does he deserve to have the crap beaten out of him for THAT? Yes, you bet, he absolutely does to me. At the end of GoF Draco absolutely got what he deserved as far as I was concerned. I could do without people stepping over Draco when he was on the floor, but besides that...< > > > Even if someone makes bad choices, they deserve the compassion that all living things are entitled to. No one (Draco included) deserve physical or verbal attack. Even if Draco is an instigator, he should not have been beaten up by Harry and George(or was it Fred?), nor was it okay for Harry and the other DA members to shower them with curses at the end of OotP. It is okay to defend yourself and others, but that went way overboard. As adults it is our job to teach kids that physical attack is NEVER okay. > > If everyone followed the old saying "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" the whole planet would be blind and toothless. > > > > > --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) Antosh: I'm a little perplexed by this whole conversation--and I say this as a life-long believer in the peaceful path and as a parent. Here is the description of the actual dastardly attack on poor Draco, Crabbe and Goyle in the chapter, "The Second War Begins" in OotP: The journey home on the Hogwarts Express next day was eventful in several ways. Firstly Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle, who had clearly been waiting all week for the opportunity to strike without teacher witnesses, attempted to ambush Harry halfway down the train as he made his way back from the toilet. The attack might have succeeded had it not been for the fact that they unwittingly chose to stage the attack right outside a compartment full of DA members, who saw what was happening through the glass and rose as one to rush to Harry's aid. Now, there are a couple of things to remember here. First of all, Draco and friends have attacked Harry before, without provocation. Draco has just THREATENED Harry with harm for his part in Lucius Malfoy's imprisonment. The Malfoys, Crabbes and Goyles are all families that support LV and practice Dark Arts--the Prophet (and Harry himself) have been telling everyone how dangerous these people are. And it doesn't say they're threatening him here--they are seizing the "opportunity to strike." Wands are lethal weapons. This is not a slap fight on the playground. Should the Junior DEs care to use them as such, this is a three-on-one attack with Uzis. So it seems to me that not only is Harry justified in defending himself, but his friends are right to come to his defense. Imagine a black student at a newly integrated high school in the sixties being threatened by three sons of prominent KKK members swinging chains and baseball bats. Are the threatened student and his friends wrong to treat the attackers with a certain level of emphasis and force? In this case (and in the previous year's train attack), I think the response is justified. Now, mind, I don't think any of the DA members were aware what was going to happen to the three Slytherins when they all came out, wands blazing. It's the mix of jinxes and hexes that has such a... deleterious effect on Draco and Co. I think JKRs point in this episode is three-fold: first, it's a reminder to Harry that he's not alone; second, it's evidence of cross-house cooperation, even if the Gryffindors, Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs happen to be countering a Slytherin attack; and third, it's a reminder of just what Harry was able to accomplish with the DA. Which I think will become an issue in HBP. Antosha, who has taught his daughters never to use force to solve their problems but has enrolled them in Tai Kwan Do classes, so that they will be able to protect themselves if the necessity demands From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Fri Feb 18 07:36:05 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 07:36:05 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Theory of Liberation (was: John the Baptist again) Message-ID: <20050218073605.49415.qmail@web25108.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124786 Antosha post 124751: The truth/myth dichotomy is one of those things that gets people tied up in knots all of the time. I think the point that Hans is trying to make, Geoff, is not that Jesus didn't exist, or the Buddha or Mohammed or Mahavira any of the other teachers whose adherents have found higher consciousness and better life through the study of their precepts. Hans now: YES YES YES! This is exactly what I mean! I think something absolutely wonderful happened in the world 2000 years ago, but it has no point or relevance to us today if we see it as a historical event. (I dont know exactly what happened 2000 years ago, but I dont believe it involved anyone literally walking on water or literally turning water into wine etc.) Antosha: Hans's point--as I understand it--is that the historical, literal, Mel-Gibson fact of Jesus and death on the cross and the rest of it isn't the point; it's the birth of Christ's spirit within the individual that matters. That's a rebirth on a MYTHIC level--which isn't to say that it's false, but that it's a metaphor for an experience for which the image of physical birth is, at best, a gross representation. Hans now: Here is someone who understand the real meaning of the word myth. Antosha: I think Hans meant that he doesn't think of his interpretation of the 'Path to Liberation' as 'true' in the same sense: it's not a literal description of a historical occurrence, or a newspaper how-to column. It's a myth: an attempt to describe in images and stories an experience that is, finally, ineffable. And I believe that he's saying (correct me if I'm wrong, Hans) that JKR is getting at the same thing in her books, whether by design or by a confluence of inspiration. Hans now: This is exactly what Im saying! Antosha, you are amazing! A big electronic hug for you! I know we SEEM to be wondering off topic here, but in actual fact this area of discussion is extremely relevant to Harry Potter because were talking about the very foundation of Harry Potter now. Im asserting that Harry Potter and the New Testament have been inspired in the same way by the same archetypal Path. It doesnt matter HOW Jo is getting the story, the point is its the same universal, timeless message as the New Testament, the story of the Buddha, Lao Tzu, Zoroaster, the Alchemical Wedding, and dozens of others. The whole point of my posts is to show you how similar Harry Potter is to that universal timeless message, which in my words I call Liberation. I like to add the word alchemical because that is a new concept added in by the Rosicrucians a few centuries ago and obviously being used by Jo herself. Now Im only human and, like many others in this group, I sit here typing late at night after a hard days work. I do read my posts through 2 or 3 times before sending them, but theyre obviously in the nature of thinking aloud to some extent. When I read some posts reacting to mine I realise I have failed totally to explain to many people what Im on about. Antosha understands so my attempts are not totally hopeless. Please allow me to explain what I mean by my theory. Ive been guilty of using shorthand without explaining it fully. My theory, which Ive been propounding for nearly two years, is that Harry Potter is a new version of the timeless message of human liberation. My whole purpose is proving to you all that my theory is correct. Im not asserting the Path of Liberation is true. Im also not asserting its not true. Im leaving that out of the question. What I AM saying is that Jo is basing Harry Potter on that Path. *** Just to emphatically clarify this once and for all: my theory is not that the Path of Liberation is true, but that Harry Potter is a revelation OF the Path, irrespective of whether the Path actually does what it claims.*** Now obviously I believe in the Path, otherwise I wouldnt be talking about it, but thats NOT what Im discussing. Obviously Jo believes in the Path, but thats NOT what Im discussing. Im only discussing the matrix on which the story and characters in Harry Potter are based, and showing you how similar Harry Potter is to it. Geoff post 124746: You have on a number of occasions referred to "my theory of liberation". Now you are saying that the path of liberation is not true. Hans: I had to pinch myself when I read that. When have I said the Path of Liberation isnt true? I quote from my post 124737: I'm not saying Harry Potter is based on the Bible. I'm saying Harry Potter and the Bible are both based on the Path of Alchemical Liberation. Let me emphasise that I'm not asking anyone to believe the Path of Alchemical Liberation is true. How can you interpret that as me saying the Path of liberation is not true? What I am saying here is that Im not ASKING you to believe its true. In other words it isnt relevant to this discussion whether any of you believe it is true or not. Obviously the majority (I would guess) would NOT accept it, as its totally against the prevailing beliefs of 99.999.. of the worlds people. What the members of this group ARE capable of believing, is that Harry Potter and my presentation of the Path of Liberation are extremely similar, leading to the conclusion that Jo is basing Harry Potter on that Path. Dear Friends, one and all, I know how radical my claim is. But I have emphatically asserted many times that my discovery has WORLD-SHATTERING consequences. Yes it is a highly controversial and, at first, apparently extremely unlikely theory. But as time goes on and Im making more and more startling discoveries, I just HAVE to tell you all: Harry Potter is the latest version of the Path of Liberation. Thats the theory Im trying to prove. Antosha: Now, if I'm totally off-base here, I'll take my autographed Joseph Campbell ball and bat and go home.... Hans now: No, you just stay there and keep batting. You can have my autograph as well. Or even better, give me yours. And thanks, Antosha. ===== Hans Andra see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://www.harrypotterforseekers.com/ Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Feb 18 07:49:41 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 07:49:41 -0000 Subject: Does Dumbledore love Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124787 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: Tonks_op: > > And I think it is important to make a distinction between *love* > > the feeling of affection which DD has for Harry, and *Love* the > > highest power which is different. Love the power is a choice as > > Scott Peck said in his book "The Road Less Traveled". It can > > also include affection but does not have to. It is the type of > > love one can have for one's enemy. Lupinlore: > I agree, Tonks, that their is a distinction between "love" in the > ordinary human sense and "Love" in the divine or spiritual sense. > For the sake of clarification, let me see that I intended my > questions to deal only with love in the human sense. Does DD love > Harry in a human(fatherly/grandfatherly) sense? The question of > spiritual/religious love or Agape is important but a different > thing than what I'm trying to get at here. Geoff: We've discussed this before and I think there is more than the twofold distinction you make. I pulled this piece out of a posting I sent in message 110643: "C.S.Lewis attempted to tackle this in his book "The Four Loves" when he went back to the four Greek words: eros, philos, agape and storge and shows that each reveals a different facet of the idea." Eros is sexual attraction, agape is the love which you designate as spiritual love, philos is brotherly love (CDL dubbed it also as the love between friends - comradeship maybe) and (I think) storge is a family love. So Dumbledore's feelings could fit into the last named (or even possibly philos). Geoff Visit my website at http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com and enjoy views of the Exmoor National Park and the locomotives of the heritage West Somerset Railway From josturgess at eircom.net Fri Feb 18 09:28:13 2005 From: josturgess at eircom.net (mooseming) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 09:28:13 -0000 Subject: The Dark Mark In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124788 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: > >snip> > Hermione used a piece of paper with a binding signature as the > connection but what if Voldemort used himself as the connection in a > way that he is informed through the dark mark of non-allegiance. If > you take that connection one step further, could it be possible that > it was through this dark mark on his followers that may have kept him > alive? I think this is entirely possible. I believe they are called Death *Eaters* for a good reason. Note Voldy styles himself as the Dark Lord, his mark is the Dark Mark, so why aren't his followers Dark Servants. Now, one eats to feed a need but what if that need is not ones own, could their role be to 'eat' on behalf of their master? If so what exactly are they supposed to eat in order to feed him? > > There could be a definite drawback to this proposal; Voldemort could > never be killed as long as any deatheater remains alive. If his servants are feeding him, rather than being fragmented embodiments, then yes, he could be killed independently as it were. Then again > there is always the Harry factor. No one is absolutely certain what > part or parts of Voldy were transferred to Harry at Godric's Hollow > but there appears to be some connection between Voldemort touching > Pettigrew's scar and Harry feeling pain in his at the same time in > the graveyard. There is also a hopeful statement from Voldemort to > his deatheaters that can be construed as Voldemort being mortal after > his rebirth. > > "But I was willing to embrace mortal life again, before chasing > immortality." GOF pg. 656 > > Voldemort may have lost that particular portion of the dark mark's > original connection. The reason he may still be alive is more Harry > now than the deatheaters. Ah but what of 'neither can live while the other survives'? Which is where I leap from informed supposition to 'making it up' and believe the Dark Lord is an inherited title for the person hosting another (Slytherin being my choice, although he could have been the first known carrier) who is now suffering from severe split personality and residing in both Voldy and Harry. This entity has an overwhelming desire to be whole and requires Harry and Voldy to resolve the problem, one must be vanquished for the entity to regroup. Then again the entity is now weak and can also be vanquished at the point of resolution. As an exercise in `doing your head in' try reading the prophecy as referring to three souls, where the `Dark Lord' can be either Voldy, or his (and now Harry's) inner bad, or both. `Other', 'he' and 'him' can be either of the other two members of the trio with no consistency between or even within sentences. Regards Jo From naama_gat at hotmail.com Fri Feb 18 10:24:28 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:24:28 -0000 Subject: the DE are Nazi?Re: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124789 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > >I've always found it confusing that the purebloods would regard the > *absence* of a trait (magical "blood") as somehow contaminating or > fouling the blood (muggleborn + "mudblood"). Be that as it may, I > think they fear that their bloodline will be polluted if they marry a > Muggleborn because a witch or wizard born of Muggle parents is more > likely (in their view) to produce a Squib child. If JKR wanted that to be the reason or mindset, she would have had Ron mention it when he defined what a squib is. Since he didn't, since it hasn't been so much as hinted at in the text, I don't think it's tenable. > > At any rate, I don't think that the prejudice against Muggleborns is > "arbitrary." It stems from fear and mistrust of Muggles (who have > historically hanged, burned, and otherwise harassed and injured > wizards) and a sense that Muggles are innately inferior. For anti-semites, their hatred of Jews is also not arbitrary - the Jews, after all, are (choose all or some of) money grabbing, greedy, mean, sickly, cowardly, Christian babies ritual killers, vicious, calculating, cold hearted, licentious, disease carriers, malformed, ugly, unnatural... . Most insidious of all, perhaps, certainly in the modern context, is the myth of a grand Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world. I've just googled for "protocols of learned elders of Zion", and found the site "www.biblebelievers.org.au". The introduction, attempting to prove the authenticity of this preposterous document, ends with: "It also demonstrates that the Jews are now a world menace, and that the Aryan races will have to domicile them permanently out of Europe.." In the same way, racism against blacks also rests on a conviction regarding the inferioriy of people of colour, and at times, on various fears, all of which are either factually wrong or have to do with socially produced traits. Naama From geekessgoddess at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 21:27:25 2005 From: geekessgoddess at yahoo.com (Freud) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:27:25 -0000 Subject: Even powerful wizards get the blues (was: Many sleepless nights) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124790 Paul: > Suppose you are Dumbledore the most powerful wizard and the most > well connected one I will add. You have someone of great value to > protect. First of all don't tell me that you don't check what kind > of people will take care your protege or how they treated him after > they had taken him. The most powerful and well connected wizard is still a human being who still has many vulnerabilities. Things had not been going well for the Order of the Phoenix at that time. How do I know this? Because DD wasn't able to stop Voldemort or the death-eaters - they were winning. >From http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/voldemort.html : > During this time the only safe place was Hogwarts School and many > speculated that though the Dark Lord called Headmaster Albus > Dumbledore, "that champion of commoners, of Mudbloods and Muggles," > he feared to confront him and knew Dumbledore was working tirelessly > against him. Dumbledore formed the Order of the Phoenix at that > time, a group of witches and wizards who fought hard against > Voldemort's Death Eaters. They were frightfully outnumbered, > however, and the Death Eaters were killing the members of the Order > off, many times filling their entire families along with them But I believe DD would have stopped Voldemort if he could have. Of course Dumbledore knew about the Dursleys. But compare the psychological profile of the Dursleys to the Deatheaters... Compare Harry's life to Dobby's for example. The Dursleys weren't kind and they weren't nice - but they weren't forcing him to iron his own hands. Do we even know the definition of abuse in the Wizarding world? I suspect it is very different from our standards. Think of Sirius, growing up in a household where murder and mayhem are family values, racism is applauded, and the heads of dead house elves decorate the walls. Think of Winky and what her horrible employer demanded her to be responsible for. Harry's life with the Dursleys, while difficult, was a piece of cake compared to the lot of many a house elf. AD was watching Harry. Remember how Harry had a feeling of being watched all the time? And how about those circumstances when something truly physically harmful was going to happen to Harry yet somehow it was mysteriously prevented? Could AD have done more? We don't really have the information required to judge AD fairly. What the heck was in his letters to Petunia? How do we know AD didn't try to intercede? Paul: > I accept your points that AD doesn't want to > make things worst. Now tell me honestly. Couldn't AD at least "force" > them to act more mildly, not in an active way but with a subtle one > like I don't know a Dursley-specific-to-act-in-a-human-way ward or at > least a not-abuse-Harry ward. We don't know that he didn't. Perhaps Vernon and Petunia threatened to throw Harry out on a weekly basis. Perhaps Dumbledore intervened time and time again. We do know that more than one letter was sent between Petunia and Dumbledore. Paul: > I am not saying to make them act as > Harry's parents but at least not as his jailers. Secondly about the > risk that took AD to raise Harry in a similar environment to Tom > Riddle's I have only two adages to say. "Don't play with the fire If > you don't want to be burned" and "The road to hell is made on good > intentions". I really doubt AD was consciously thinking - "hey, I want Harry raised in an environment similar to Tom Riddle's." I think it was more like this: "This remarkable baby that just absorbed Voldemort's powers could be our redemption or another Voldemort. Everyone will want to venerate him, many will want to destroy him. How can I keep him alive? I have no blood tie to the boy. He needs magical protection. Perhaps if the mother's sister will raise the boy?" And just because Tom Riddle hated his childhood, that doesn't mean that Harry and Tom are EXACTLY alike. >From http://www.hp-lexicon.org/muggle/muggle_places.html : > Tom Riddle was raised in a Muggle orphanage. > The Stockwell Orphanage might have been the place where Tom Riddle > grew up in misery, although by all accounts it was not a repressive > place of the type we imagine from Oliver Twist. Do we really know if the orphanage was responsible for Tom Riddle choosing to become a psychopathic killer? I think the reasoning is far fetched. While Harry hates the Dursleys, he doesn't use them as a reason to embrace evil. In conclusion, I still believe that Dumbledore did the best he could under extremely difficult circumstances. I do believe he loves Harry and that we will learn more information in the following two books that will clear up suspicions of wrong- doing on his part. tabekat From potionmistress60 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 04:27:31 2005 From: potionmistress60 at yahoo.com (potionmistress60) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 04:27:31 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Boggart (PoA, U.S. Paperback, Pgs. 138-139.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124791 Potioncat: > I'm not sure what it is about a propecy that frightens Lupin, but I > agree. I'm not so sure how the cockroach fits in, but I have some > ideas. > 2. The cockroach has something to do with Snape. It would be just > Snape's luck to work at being an animagus and have it be a > cockroach. (I don't like this one, but it was fired from a can(n)on > at me.) I can go into how I think canon fits if anyone is > interested. So far, few have been ;-) Hi, I'm a newbie and have been lurking for a few days. I was interested in this orb/cockroach thought and found myself discussing this with a friend tonight. We both found it very interesting if the silver orb, that Lupin saw during the boggart scene, was indeed something to do with the prophecy or something to do with the Hall of Prophecies, at MOM, with all the orbs. I still hedge towards it really being a description of the moon (without the story blatently giving it away that Lupin was a werewolf). But, I guess there would be a real fear for Lupin, if he knew what the full prophecy was (fear for Harry/wizarding world?) or perhaps another prophecy regarding his own fate. Moving along to the reason the cockroach is suppose to be funny...one way it would make sense is if it is Snape's Patronus. Why would that be funny? Because Lupin had Neville "finish it off." Neville fearing Snape and (as an inside or personal joke to Lupin) is given the opportunity to zap the feared Potions Master. I also seem to remember reading an interview with J.K. Rowling in which a fan asked her what Snape's Patronus was and she wouldn't reveal the answer as she said it would give too much away. Could this "cockroach" be a clue? Snape being tied to the silver "prophecy" orb might be about the old theory that Snape was the one who "heard" part of the prophecy the night it was made. Cockroach clusters anyone? Deb (aka potionmistress60) From snow15145 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 12:46:27 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:46:27 -0000 Subject: The Dark Mark In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124792 Snow previous: snip> > Hermione used a piece of paper with a binding signature as the > connection but what if Voldemort used himself as the connection in a > way that he is informed through the dark mark of non-allegiance. If > you take that connection one step further, could it be possible that > it was through this dark mark on his followers that may have kept him > alive? Jo I think this is entirely possible. I believe they are called Death *Eaters* for a good reason. Note Voldy styles himself as the Dark Lord, his mark is the Dark Mark, so why aren't his followers Dark Servants. Now, one eats to feed a need but what if that need is not ones own, could their role be to 'eat' on behalf of their master? If so what exactly are they supposed to eat in order to feed him? Snow: Or Voldemort's death eaters are a way of symbolizing his immortality factor; they can eat his death therefore preventing him to ever die. Snow previous: snip> > > There could be a definite drawback to this proposal; Voldemort could > never be killed as long as any deatheater remains alive. If his servants are feeding him, rather than being fragmented embodiments, then yes, he could be killed independently as it were. Then again > there is always the Harry factor. No one is absolutely certain what > part or parts of Voldy were transferred to Harry at Godric's Hollow > but there appears to be some connection between Voldemort touching > Pettigrew's scar and Harry feeling pain in his at the same time in > the graveyard. There is also a hopeful statement from Voldemort to > his deatheaters that can be construed as Voldemort being mortal after > his rebirth. > > "But I was willing to embrace mortal life again, before chasing > immortality." GOF pg. 656 > > Voldemort may have lost that particular portion of the dark mark's > original connection. The reason he may still be alive is more Harry > now than the deatheaters. Jo: Ah but what of 'neither can live while the other survives'? Which is where I leap from informed supposition to 'making it up' and believe the Dark Lord is an inherited title for the person hosting another (Slytherin being my choice, although he could have been the first known carrier) who is now suffering from severe split personality and residing in both Voldy and Harry. This entity has an overwhelming desire to be whole and requires Harry and Voldy to resolve the problem, one must be vanquished for the entity to regroup. Then again the entity is now weak and can also be vanquished at the point of resolution. Snow: Possession is defiantly part of the equation, imo. When Voldemort became Vapor he was left with only one power and that was possession. Now why would he be left with any power unless the Vapor that he became was already a possessed portion of Tom Riddle? Jo: As an exercise in `doing your head in' try reading the prophecy as referring to three souls, where the `Dark Lord' can be either Voldy, or his (and now Harry's) inner bad, or both. `Other', 'he' and 'him' can be either of the other two members of the trio with no consistency between or even within sentences. Snow: Been there, did that (108688)! Although I don't believe it is three more like 1 ? and 1 ?, Voldemort and Harry each have a bit of the *other* which is the original possession of Tom Riddle. I always liked Kneasy's proposal that the possessor was Salazar. It makes perfect sense when coupled with the fact that the dark mark insignia is very representative of the statue of Salazar in the Chamber when the basilisk protrudes from the skull of the statue to come after Harry. From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Feb 18 14:33:58 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:33:58 -0000 Subject: Trevor and theories Re: Neville's nerves (Was: Draco, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124794 Lupinlore wrote: As to Trevor's age, maybe JKR just doesn't know the life-span of a toad (or doesn't care if she does). Potioncat: According to Encarta, toads can live nearly 40 years. So there's nothing suspicious about Trevor still being around, although, I wonder how LONG he's been around? >Carol wrote: (that she)thinks that even when the stories are complete we will still differ in our interpretations of the evidence because our differences in age, education, experience, and personality type inevitably influence the way we perceive the events and characters Potioncat: I don't expect JKR will resolve all the little mysteries...and why should she? And I expect some of us will be wrong in our theories of the ones she does resolve. But I suspect many of these little questions will come together and be resolved in a simple way. For example: Neville saw his parents being crucioed and Snape was there therefore Neville was so upset after the DADA class, and fears Snape. (Trevor was there too and Snape hoped to poison him so he wouldn't tell...(Snape Hates 'Ittle Trevor...no that acronym won't do) From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Feb 18 15:24:14 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:24:14 -0000 Subject: Theory of Liberation (was: John the Baptist again) In-Reply-To: <20050218073605.49415.qmail@web25108.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124795 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Hans Andr?a wrote: > Geoff post 124746: > You have on a number of occasions referred to "my theory of liberation". > Now you are saying that the path of liberation is not true. > Hans: > I had to pinch myself when I read that. When have I said the Path > of Liberation isn't true? I quote from my post 124737: "I'm not > saying Harry Potter is based on the Bible. I'm saying Harry Potter > and the Bible are both based on the Path of Alchemical Liberation. > Let me emphasise that I'm not asking anyone to believe the Path of > Alchemical Liberation is true." > How can you interpret that as me saying "the Path of liberation > is not true"? What I am saying here is that I'm not ASKING you to > believe that it's true. Geoff: My apologies. Looking back, I can see that I misinterpreted what you were saying. That was because my mind was focussed very much on something that was said later in the same post: "Jesus is not a real person, but a force within a person who goes the Path." That was /far more/ significant to me; the emails I received yesterday off-group from various other Christians who regularly post was that they also felt that the remark was out of order. Going back to the former quote, I misinterpreted it because I found it most surprising that, if someone believes that a particular view of what life (and death) is all about is true, then I would have thought that they would certainly be trying to persuade others to believe also. As a Christian I believe that I should try to show others that what I believe is worth having for themselves because of its eternal importance. I also become concerned when I see passages from the Bible ? especially the New Testament which is of great relevance to Christians ? hacked out of context and made to fit a different set of ideas. I wondered whether this is because the Christian faith may be seen as a soft touch. I have a suspicion that, if passages which are sacred to Muslims, Jews or other faiths were handled this way, there might well be a much sharper reaction from members of the group who hold to those beliefs. Sadly, Christianity is viewed rather by the failures or disagreements of its adherents rather than by the teaching of its founder Jesus, whom we believe is God in human form and as (I think) Tonks pointed out yesterday is seen to be fully God and fully human. This week has seen the General Synod of the Church of England meeting together and the media have been far more interested in the debates about women bishops and homosexuality than in the question of addressing spiritual issues in the prevailing climate of materialism and apathy. The Greek word "gnosis" means "knowledge" as in agnostic = without knowledge (of God). In the 2nd century, Gnosticism was a heresy which taught that only people with "special knowledge" who had gone through initiation into the cult could approach God and they were considered to be special ? a cut above the hoi polloi. This is still present in some places today in the real world, where people with special knowledge are superior and in the Wizarding World where I suspect that this is the way Voldemort operates with his Death Eaters. The Dark Mark and their pure blood theories are part of this. Christianity at base is a very simple faith but a difficult one also. One day, Jesus was asked which commandment was the greatest. His reply was to love God with all your soul strength and mind and added that the second was to love your neighbour (any person who needs your support or help) as you would love yourself. In John 3:16 he also said the God so loved the world that he sent his only son so that whoever believed in him would not perish but have everlasting life. Very simple but difficult because it demands /real/ belief. Special knowledge and rituals are not needed for a person to be a believer; they may help. Christianity comes with different "flavours", ranging from the ultra-traditional Orthodox and Catholic approach to that of, say, the Baptist church; my own church in West Somerset has a relaxed, free structure but still is able to meet the needs of worship and Bible teaching in a simple and straightforward way. This simplicity is reflected in the Wizarding World where one or two of Dumbledore's more frequently quoted remarks certainly carry undertones which have been picked up by Christian believers. "Death is but the next great adventure" (PS "The Man with Two Faces" p.215 UK edition) "If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn't realise that love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark." (ibid, p.216) "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities" COS "Dobby's Reward" p.245 UK edition) Harry may not be a believer but things that are said to him carry with them the idea of Christian living and choice ? as do remarks made to Frodo by Gandalf in LOTR. These are authors who have a belief and allow it to slip into their books as a backdrop to the unfolding story. Geoff: Who is going away early tomorrow UK time for a week in Cornwall anticipating that on his return he will have to excavate in several hundred posts to find what others have made of this. From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Fri Feb 18 16:11:20 2005 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:11:20 -0000 Subject: FILK: Cap Awry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124796 The final installment (and capstone piece!) of Cap Awry. In this episode, we learn how our Hat came to be where he is! Backstory: The end of the year at Hogwarts and everything has changed. The war is beginning and nobody will ever be the same again. Not even the Sorting Hat. At the Three Broomsticks, the light comes up on the Hat who is alone in a spotlight. The band starts up a bluesy intro (to the tune of Cabaret): Cap Awry http://www.hamienet.com/6871.mid HAT: Pity the topper that's magic'ly blessed After the sorting's down "Just put the cap away," old chum. "Just put the cap away." That was the stopper that left me depressed No way to get around "Just put the cap away," old chum. "Just put the cap away." Can't taste the wine. Can't hear the band. I'm out of sorts, it's lonely, trust me No one even comes to dust me. One day an opportune wind from the west Shook me from brim to crown. I had to get away, old chum. Just had to get away. A witch I knew once rode a Kansas twister That dropped a house upon her only sister. She couldn't find a sympathetic look there. As a matter of fact, they nicked her sister's footwear. Faced with overwhelming acrimony She moved to Broadway where she won a Tony. The moral of this charming fable is ... Everything looks better - in - Show Biz! A friendly phoenix flew and set me free. No longer S.O.L., I'm an M.C.! Now I'm a properly made up and pressed Derby that once was brown I bid Hogwarts goodbye, old chum. Meet the new Cap Awry! I'm dressed in tails! I'm wearing rouge! There's a real Hat Band a-playin' Come what may, it's - here - I'm - stayin'! Toss me a copper and I will attest This topper's gone to town. Pour me a whiskey dry, old chum. Lead me to Kappa Chi, old chum. I'm born to be Cap Awry! The music comes to a conclusion and the house lights come up at the Broomsticks. Over the sound of applause, the Hat blows kisses to the crowd. HAT: Thank you ladies and gentlemen, ghosts and guests. Thank you for your patience and appreciation. There are still some tickets available for the visiting touring company of "Hats" - be sure and pick some up at our box office. And an especial thank-you to Haggridd who is watching from the best seat in the house! ~ Constance Vigilance From cat_kind at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 16:58:32 2005 From: cat_kind at yahoo.com (cat_kind) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:58:32 -0000 Subject: Theory of Liberation, heading OT In-Reply-To: <20050218073605.49415.qmail@web25108.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124797 Hans Andrea: > I know we SEEM to be wondering off topic here, but in actual fact this area > of discussion is extremely relevant to Harry Potter because we?re talking > about the very foundation of Harry Potter now. I?m asserting that Harry > Potter and the New Testament have been inspired in the same way by the same > archetypal Path. It doesn?t matter HOW Jo is getting the story, the point is > it?s the same universal, timeless message as the New Testament, the story of > the Buddha, Lao Tzu, Zoroaster, the Alchemical Wedding, and dozens of > others. The whole point of my posts is to show you how similar Harry Potter > is to that universal timeless message, which in my words I call Liberation. > I like to add the word ?alchemical? because that is a new concept added in > by the Rosicrucians a few centuries ago and obviously being used by Jo > herself. > *** > Just to emphatically clarify this once and for all: my theory is not that > the Path of Liberation is true, but that Harry Potter is a revelation OF the > Path, irrespective of whether the Path actually does what it claims.*** > > Now obviously I believe in the Path, otherwise I wouldn?t be talking about > it, but that?s NOT what I?m discussing. Obviously Jo believes in the Path, > but that?s NOT what I?m discussing. I?m only discussing the matrix on which > the story and characters in Harry Potter are based, and showing you how > similar Harry Potter is to it. > catkind: Okay, now we're getting somewhere. So Hans believes that lots of different myths/religions contain analogies to a "Path of Liberation", and that the HP books do too. Possibly even that said myths/ religions/ HP books are inspired by this Path, whether at a subconscious level, or deliberately by the authors, or by divine inspiration. Maybe I, for one, am getting confused because Hans is at the same time explaining this Path with reference to the other mythic/religious analogies and with respect to the Harry Potter story. Hans - is there somewhere I can look up a description of this Path without all the similes? It'd be particularly helpful to have a glossary of what if anything you mean by things like alchemical, etheric, astral, microcosmic etc., which you don't seem to be using in the traditional sense. Or is this Path something that is only defined as an accumulation of all these myths? I'd have thought it's not much use to have a John the Baptist-parallel in HP if you don't already have a JtB-parallel in the Path of Liberation. It would probably offend the Christians present less if we skip the Christianity/Path analogies and go straight to the Path/HP ones. In any case, if you want to show that HP is inspired by the Path and not by, say, Christianity, you'd have to find places where the the Path matches Harry Potter /better/ than it matches Christianity or other traditions. This is never going to work if the parallels are drawn through Christianity. Then another question: Why get so excited about it all? If as Hans says the Path has analogies in all these many myths/religions, and then presumably in all the other stories which are inspired by said myths/religions, then yet another series with the same analogies is hardly something to write home about. New religions get started when there is a new message, not when the same old message is repeated in a new medium. catkind From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 17:51:55 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:51:55 -0000 Subject: Theory of Liberation (was: John the Baptist again) In-Reply-To: <20050218073605.49415.qmail@web25108.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124798 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Hans Andr?a wrote: I'm asserting that Harry Potter and the New Testament have been inspired in the same way by the same archetypal Path. It doesn't matter HOW Jo is getting the story, the point is it's the same universal, timeless message as the New Testament, the story of the Buddha, Lao Tzu, Zoroaster, the Alchemical Wedding, and dozens of others. The whole point of my posts is to show you how similar Harry Potter is to that universal timeless message, which in my words I call Liberation. I like to add the word "alchemical" because that is a new concept added in by the Rosicrucians a few centuries ago and obviously being used by Jo herself. (snip) "I'm not saying Harry Potter is based on the Bible. I'm saying Harry Potter and the Bible are both based on the Path of Alchemical Liberation. Let me emphasise that I'm not asking anyone to believe the Path of Alchemical Liberation is true." (Snip) it isn't relevant to this discussion whether any of you believe it is true or not. Obviously the majority (I would guess) would NOT accept it, as it's totally against the prevailing beliefs of 99.999.. of the world's people. What the members of this group ARE capable of believing, is that Harry Potter and my presentation of the Path of Liberation are extremely similar, leading to the conclusion that Jo is basing Harry Potter on that Path --- Tonks here: Sorry Hans, but I must disagree. Point 1: You would not find one Biblical scholar in the world that would agree with the statement that the Bible points to the same path as your theory of liberation. It points to a path of liberation, yes. But the path is not the same as you have suggested. The New Testament is the Good News that the path is open to all who follow Jesus. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life" (John 14:6.) He did not say that we can do it on our own without him. So I don't think that you can use the New Testament as proof for a process that does not involve Jesus, since He is what the New Testament is about. Point 2: JKR uses the concept of the Alchemist because it fits with magic and wizards. And it has the added benefit of having a secret message or clue buried in it to the nature of the books. As you know, the Alchemist of the middle ages sought not only to turn mental into gold in a literal sense but to turn the base nature of their human soul into the gold of perfection. That perfection is of the human soul in total union with God. Now this is not the same as *becoming God* which is what I think your theory is about. The concept that we do not need a savior but can become a soul of the highest order by ourselves is seen by the Christian Church as a heresy. The Rosicrucian Religion is a heresy to the Christian Church. The teaching of the Church is that we do need a savior to show us the path and to assist us on the path. And the *path* is not a path to becoming God ourselves. There is only one God, the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions all share this belief. Human beings can not by their own effort or even with God's help become another God. What the Christian believes is that, as the Orthodox say, the highest state of the human being is to become *as* God. That is a major difference. We become *as* God by and through God in the person (real and historical. The same yesterday, today and tomorrow) of Jesus who was the Christ. Point 3: You say that 99.9% of the people of the world would not agree with your theory of liberation. I would have to guess that JKR is part of that percentage. She is a Christian. Yes she mentions Alchemy, but not because she holds to the Rosicrucian believes. She even said in an interview that she was a Christian and if people knew what she believed they could figure out what the books were about. So in conclusion, both The New Testament and Harry Potter are based on the same thing and that is the salvation of the world in, by and through the Christ. Harry has the Christ within him. Harry is not going to save the WW or the MW just because he is some superhuman being who drinks a potion. He will save the world because of the indwelling of the spirit of God in the presence of Jesus. Tonks_op From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 18:40:14 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:40:14 -0000 Subject: An Odd Ghostly Question. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124799 Carol responds: >As I understand it, it isn't the veil itself but the archway it covers >that leads to the "beyond." The archway is ancient and built on a dais >with an amphitheater around it. It's clearly a portal to the >Underworld or Otherworld, the world of the dead, and I very much doubt >that it can be moved. I've suggested in other posts that the >amphitheater was constructed for public executions or ritual >sacrifices in ancient times, perhaps by the Druids. (I don't think the >portal was built by the earlier Neolithic people who built Stonehenge, >as someone else suggested, because the arch was not invented, at least >by Muggles, until Roman times.) I was very curious about not only the veil, but the whole room. They refer to it in OoP as the "Death Chamber" and it made me think of executions. Is this what the WW used in ancient times for capital punishment? With the rows of seats, I can fully picture them escorting a bound figure to the archway and gently pushing them through while a crowd watches. No fuss, no muss. It was also fairly close to the chamber where Harry's hearing was held. Did they dispense with the Death Chamber in favor of Azkaban? And could this be Voldemort's final fate? Nice, clean way for Harry to kill him, and a fitting tribute to Sirius, also. Nicky Joe From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 19:04:53 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 19:04:53 -0000 Subject: Voldemort the Cartoon (was Re: Draco = Evil?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124800 Betsy: Yes, context. In a world with Voldemort you'll have a hard time convincing me that silly, petty, Draco is supposed to be *evil*. And *worst* fellow student? Please. He's barely a blip on Harry and co.'s radar. Why else did we hear so little of himn OotP. His digs are tired, and his songs, while hurtful to Ron, won't cause a bunch of dead bodies. And won't get a fellow student expelled. (Hello, Tom Riddle!) Lupinlore: You know, this is very interesting, and I think at the heart of a lot of arguments we have over the Dursleys, Snape, and Draco. That is that people often point out that the Dursleys/Snape/Draco aren't *really* evil, because Voldemort represents the *real* evil in the books. And there I think is the problem for a lot of adult readers, including myself and others in my circle. We just can't take Voldy seriously. The man is *such* a cartoon! I mean, who can read a Voldemort scene and not laugh? And therein lies the problem. We can take the Dursleys seriously, particularly after OOTP, because we have all known people who make or would make abusive parents. We can take Snape seriously because we all know the kind of pain his hatefulness can bring. We can take Draco seriously because we have all known bullies and know what can happen to them in adult life. We can take Dudley seriously for the same reason. But Voldemort? The man is an over-the-top cliche straight out of a comic opera or a comic book. We (my circle and I) just can't see him as a very real threat. I mean, his best Death Eaters and he couldn't best a bunch of fourteen and fifteen year-olds when they (the DEs) had the advantage of springing a well-laid trap! Yes, of course intellectually the books present him as a threat. Of course intellectually we know he killed the Potters and is the cause of Cedric and Sirius' deaths and so forth. But emotionally we just can't believe in him as a character or really feel, deep in our hearts, that he is the real threat to Harry that many of the other hurtful figures seem to be. JKR hasn't helped matters by her interviews, either. Voldemort has NEVER felt love for ANYONE? How over-the-top (and emotionally unbelievable) can you get? Even Satan, we are told, once had his good points. So perhaps, just perhaps, how seriously you take the behavior of the Dursleys/Snape/Draco depends largely on how much you can believe in Voldemort. Alla: LOL, Lupinlore! Too funny "your circle and you" :o) But since I usually agree with at least 90% of what you write about it, I don't mind. :) I absolutely agree with what you wrote in this post as well. I once posted about "villains in potterverse", (post 116071). The gist of my post was that I don't find Voldemort to be very scary at all. Since then I got convinced that some of his DE are quite scary, but I still hold the same opinion of the Voldemort. I think that JKR does NOT portray him well. Even in the Graveyard scene, which I consider to be quite chilling as a whole ( I'd say Voldemor at its best), at some moments when Voldie opened his mouth, I wanted to laugh. But even if I WERE to take Voldemort seriously ( and again you are absolutely correct - intellectually I definitely do, but not on the emotional level), it still does not mean that I cannot think of Voldemort as primary Evil and Draco, Snape, etc as everyday secondary evil. After all, Voldemort and what he stands for is supposed to be an ultimate threat, right? But even during the time of peace evil things keep happening and I am not going to stop calling them evil, just because much bigger Evil is lurking in the shadows ( well, he is not lurking anymore, but you get what I mean). Just my opinion, Alla From hubbada at unisa.ac.za Thu Feb 17 12:21:57 2005 From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:21:57 -0000 Subject: Dementor's Nature (Re: Dementors and the MoM) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124801 > Tonks wrote: > "I think of the Dementor as a Demon Tormentor hence: Dementor" Geoff: > Interestingly, I've always associated it with "demented", which my > dictionary defines as "wild and irrational" from the Latin "demens" > (= insane). The "-or" ending of the word suggests that they are the > producers of this, i.e. contact with Dementors - short of being > kissed - might affect you in this way. > > In other words, "Warning. Dementors can seriously damage your health" > and "Every Dementor carries a Government health warning." :-) If you look at the Latin more closely, you get De = away from + mens = mind + -or = the agent or person performing the action. So, Dementors take your mind away, whether directly with a kiss or more slowly by negating your ability to be psychologically positive. The idea that breath and life are linked is old and obvious; the habit of blessing people who sneeze started as an attempt to prevent an evil spirit from moving in when the person's own spirit had been sneezed out! So, the kiss would be a semisurgical removal of the mental life of the victim. "deborahhbbrd" From bethanymil79 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 14:20:31 2005 From: bethanymil79 at yahoo.com (Bethany) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:20:31 -0000 Subject: Does Dumbledore love Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124802 Lupinlore: snip > Another way to put it is: What would DD give up for Harry? Would > he give up his life? Would he give up the future of the WW (as he > implies he was in effect doing, in my opinion)? Would he give up > another student? Would he give up the Order? Would he give up > Hogwarts? I think Dumbledore most definitely loves Harry far above the rest of the students... in a grandfather/father sort of way. I think so many times that Harry is going to end up staying with Dumbledore in the end should he survive. (Which I would love.) As far as what Dumbledore would give up for Harry... that's kind of tricky. I mean, to what extent do we sacrifice for the greater good? Who wants to think about giving up their child to save the world? It's almost a Christ comparison... comparing Dumbledore to God who gave up his son Jesus (Harry) to save the human race. Also, what does Harry bring to the table? We don't know exactly yet. If in fact he is the one to save the WW, then I'm sure Dumbledore would sacrifice whatever to get Harry to the point he needs to get to - meaning other individual lives. At that point however, if it took Harry's life to save the rest of the WW I think Dumbledore would have to let him go no matter how much he hated it. I don't think that sacrifice and love can be compared though. God loved Jesus far more than we can comprehend, but He let Him die to save the world... I think Dumbledore would have to do the same. (Hope I'm not stretching too far here.) -Bethany From bethanymil79 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 15:13:58 2005 From: bethanymil79 at yahoo.com (Bethany) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:13:58 -0000 Subject: Dementor's Nature (Re: Dementors and the MoM) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124803 > Jen wrote: > Then there's the piece about the morality of the Kiss. Lupin asks > Harry to consider whether anyone deserves to have their soul sucked > out, and Harry responds some people do deserve it. Obviously Lupin > doesn't feel the same way. Geoff: > I wonder whether Harry has revised his views a bit. When he said > this, he was still under the impression that Sirius had betrayed > his parents to Voldemort. He later found that this was not true and, > as a result, was involved in the rescue. > > Also, he also experiences the fear of being kissed when the Dementor > seizes him just before the Patronus appears. I feel those two events > would make Harry change his views. Bethany (the 3rd delurker): I don't think Harry did change his views. He was willing to take Peter to the dementors when he found out it was him instead of Sirius that turned over his parents (Chapter 19 - POA). And as far as experiencing the dementors afterward, he had already done that on the Hogwarts Express (Chapter 5 - POA). I think Harry has a side we don't like to look at sometimes. He is not one to prevent revenge when he sees fit. Also as far as the control of the dementors being turned over from the MOM, I do think that goes back to Voldemort offering up much sweeter souls for them to snack on. The people being brought into the prison were much darker souls and not so much fun to suck the soul out of. What Voldemort offers is much nicer, if you will, witches and wizards to snack on. Remember they feed on happiness, not evil. Just my two cents : ) From jmrazo at hotmail.com Thu Feb 17 19:40:33 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:40:33 -0000 Subject: Readers POV/ was Writers Fiat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124804 > Del replies: > I personally identify most with Hermione and Ron...Hermione and > Ron combine most of my major traits, while Harry has none. So > while I can follow Harry, I can't identify with him, but I > identify very much with his friends (which also explains why I > resent Harry so much for shouting at them unfairly in OoP: > because I feel he is shouting *at me*, even though I am totally > supportive of him when I read). I personally identify most with Harry. In fact, I still can't understand why people didn't like Capslock!Harry in OOTP. Because I completely bought into his frustration and felt it alongside him. When I got online to see what other people thought about the book, I was shocked to see so many people who didn't like Harry in that book. I honestly thought he didn't go far enough in his anger. Never once in the book was I ever angry at him. I was only ever angry on *behalf* of Harry. I feel such strong emotions that I have only ever read OOTP one time. I just get too angry over all of the adult characters letting Harry down to reread the book. I can see all the mistakes coming and it just kills me. There is nothing in this world that gets to me more than helplessness and when I read Order of the Phoenix, I just feel Harry's helplessness too much to enjoy it. I hope HBP has a more in the loop!Harry because I can't handle another book of DD talking down to him. phoenixgod2000, who if he ever had to take a class with Snape, would break his nose after five years of his c**p From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Feb 18 19:55:04 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 19:55:04 -0000 Subject: Voldemort the Cartoon (was Re: Draco = Evil?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124805 > > LOL, Lupinlore! Too funny "your circle and you" :o) But since I > usually agree with at least 90% of what you write about it, I don't > mind. :) > Chuckle. Actually, I meant my social circle of people I talk to face-to-face. They tend to be Sci-Fi/Fantasy/HP type people. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Feb 18 20:05:12 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:05:12 -0000 Subject: Does Dumbledore love Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124806 > > As far as what Dumbledore would give up for Harry... that's kind of > tricky. I mean, to what extent do we sacrifice for the greater > good? Who wants to think about giving up their child to save the > world? It's almost a Christ comparison... comparing Dumbledore to > God who gave up his son Jesus (Harry) to save the human race. Also, > what does Harry bring to the table? We don't know exactly yet. If > in fact he is the one to save the WW, then I'm sure Dumbledore would > sacrifice whatever to get Harry to the point he needs to get to - > meaning other individual lives. At that point however, if it took > Harry's life to save the rest of the WW I think Dumbledore would > have to let him go no matter how much he hated it. > Yes, that would be a terrible situation, wouldn't it? However, DD isn't God and Harry isn't Christ, so I think that's one horrible scenario we are likely to be spared. If nothing else, I think the way JKR has set up the story kind of obviates it, since she implies that there isn't any way for the Wizarding World to be destroyed (i.e. Voldy to win) without Harry going along with it. That is, it isn't a choice of Harry or the WW, since the story implies that Harry can only survive by saving the WW. That means, though, that DD could be faced with a truly hellish fate if he really loves Harry. Lose Harry and save the WW, or lose Harry and keep the WW. Either way he loses Harry. Lupinlore From easimm at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 21:54:44 2005 From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:54:44 -0000 Subject: Snape's lack of remorse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124807 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote in message http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124346?threaded=1: potioncat wrote: > But now that I think about it, what are you looking for? Is the > issue that you don't think Snape regrets his past association with > the Dark Lord? Or is it that you think he still works for LV? snorky wrote: Ah, there's the rub. Yes, I'm trying to build up my theory that Snape doesn't feel embarrassment for being a death eater because he entered LV's service with noble intentions (although at the time he was being a stupid young man.) I don't think he works for LV, but I wouldn't be too surprised if he changed his allegiance to him someday. No one has been able to give me a single line for why I should think Snape took death eating seriously and has real remorse, but so many people just assume that he does. I did like your suggestion that his inability to sleep and his habit of "prowling" around at night might hint at a troubled mind. I'm actually working up to posting something about Snape's death eater days someday soon. I hope you don't mind my ulterior motives. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 20:11:18 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:11:18 -0000 Subject: Readers POV/ was Writers Fiat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124808 Phoenixgod: I personally identify most with Harry. In fact, I still can't understand why people didn't like Capslock!Harry in OOTP. Because I completely bought into his frustration and felt it alongside him. When I got online to see what other people thought about the book, I was shocked to see so many people who didn't like Harry in that book. I honestly thought he didn't go far enough in his anger. Never once in the book was I ever angry at him. I was only ever angry on *behalf* of Harry. I feel such strong emotions that I have only ever read OOTP one time. I just get too angry over all of the adult characters letting Harry down to reread the book. I can see all the mistakes coming and it just kills me. There is nothing in this world that gets to me more than helplessness and when I read Order of the Phoenix, I just feel Harry's helplessness too much to enjoy it. I hope HBP has a more in the loop!Harry because I can't handle another book of DD talking down to him. Alla: Definitely. I was not angry at Harry either and I was also thinking that he was not angry nearly as much as he should be. I mean, sure, him getting into Snape Pensieve was very wrong, BUT I also honestly thought that Harry was pushed to such point of despair by Dumbledore keeping him "out" that all disasters in that book could have been avoided , had they behaved differently. I am NOT absolving Harry of responsibility, nevertheless, I honestly think that he WAS wronged badly througout the book and there is only so much one sixteen year old can handle. I also thought that Angry!Harry was very much needed for his character development, because I thought that he should have been much angrier at the earlier age because of his upbringing. I have to say though - I perfectly understand Del's being annoyed at Harry for being angry with Ron and Hermione, because they did not hurt him at all and did not deserve it, Nevertheless, I also think that if Harry had it in himself to forgive Ron after GoF, I see nothing horrible in Ron and Hermione patiently enduring Harry's temper, because that is what true friends do. Phoenixgod2000, who if he ever had to take a class with Snape, would break his nose after five years of his c**p Alla: THAT I would love to see. :o) Just my opinion, Alla From ladyneptune6627 at sbcglobal.net Fri Feb 18 00:02:30 2005 From: ladyneptune6627 at sbcglobal.net (mnemosyne337) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 00:02:30 -0000 Subject: Does Dumbledore love Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124809 Lupinlore said: (snip) > Another way to put it is: What would DD give up for Harry? Would > he give up his life? Would he give up the future of the WW (as he > implies he was in effect doing, in my opinion)? Would he give up > another student? Would he give up the Order? Would he give up Hogwarts? mnemosyne: I think DD has a strong attachment to Harry. He knows how difficult Harry's life has been--what he's had to go through and how's he's survived it. I don't think he could watch a young boy going through these things without feeling compassion and empathy, unless he's playing the manipulator. Now, for what DD would actually give up for Harry. DD, IMHO, would give up his life for Harry because he would want to do whatever he can to save the WW from Voldemort, not specifically because of an attachment to Harry. I think he'd also be willing to give up another student to acheive the same cause. Then, he'd seem to be taking on an "ends justify the means" opinion, ruthlessly doing whatever he needs to--giving up his life or another student's--for the sake of the WW. He knows Harry is essentail to this, and would thus want to protect him. He'd give up Hogwarts or even the Order (although I can't quite fathom why) for the same cause. I wouldn't go so far as to saw DD loves Harry, because I think if the situation called for it, he would sacrifice Harry to defeat Voldemort. I don't like to think of DD being able to this if he loves Harry; yes, he's attached, but is trying not to let himself become too involved should something happen. He definately wouldn't value Harry's life over the fate of the entire WW (ends justify the means, yet again). So, I don't think he's manipulative, and he is attached to Harry, but he'd sacrifice for the sake of the WW and not only for Harry. Just my tiny opinion... -mnemosyne From jmrazo at hotmail.com Fri Feb 18 06:31:50 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 06:31:50 -0000 Subject: Voldemort the Cartoon (was Re: Draco = Evil?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124810 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > And there I think is the problem for a lot of adult readers, including > myself and others in my circle. We just can't take Voldy seriously. > The man is *such* a cartoon! I mean, who can read a Voldemort scene > and not laugh? I cannot agree with this statement more. Voldemort is a walking ad for the Evil Overlord list (do a search for it if you don't know what it is). I think that I have such a strong reaction to the other supposedly less evil characters because they are evil in a realistic way. they are evil that I have encountered and battled in my own life, just like all of us have. Voldemort is a caricature of evil, and evil in a way that doesn't exist in RL phoenixgod2000 From jmrazo at hotmail.com Fri Feb 18 07:17:53 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 07:17:53 -0000 Subject: Draco is Evil and Lame In-Reply-To: <20050218053302.55458.qmail@web31107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124811 > Arynn: > But no, I do not think Draco is evil. I don't think humans can be > evil. Some people make bad choices based on bad exprirences, but > no one is inherintly evil. Some examples of "evil people" I think that you minimize their actions when you say that they've made bad choices. It's more than that. A bad choice is deciding to do Heroin or run away from home to live with your boyfriend. Deciding to kill a race of people whether Jews or Muggleborn is evil. People like the real individuals that you've mentioned and HP characters like LV, Draco, and maybe Snape are indeed evil. What else can you call those who do evil other than evil? > No one is born bad. These previous men were put into bad situations > and choose too be cruel later in life, but there are many people > (myself included) that had it just as bad, and have never hurt > anyone. I, luckily had some things in my life that I was able to > depend on (my parents and my Buddhist faith) Ahhh, you're a Buddhist. That explains the pov. While I was raised Catholic, I fell into Daoism so I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree. I agree that no one is born evil but you can be lost to evil. And when you do, you relinquish your membership in humanity. LV clearly has been lost to evil and no longer deserves to be measured against the standards you would use against other people. Draco is a bit of a different case. I am a teacher and in real life I would not consider a student like Draco to be a lost case. A difficult pain in the rear, but someone I would at least attempt to turn into a person worth knowing. I don't think that's going to happen in series, though. I think Draco serves to bring the war into Hogwarts instead of leaving it to the outside world and so, for literal reasons I don't think Draco is going to be redeemed. Plus he's a hateful little weasel who's a a whole lot of fun to hate. At least for me. ;) > Even if someone makes bad choices, they deserve the compassion that > all living things are entitled to. No one (Draco included) deserve > physical or verbal attack. Even if Draco is an instigator, he should > not have been beaten up by Harry and George(or was it Fred?), nor was > it okay for Harry and the other DA members to shower them with curses > at the end of OotP. It is okay to defend yourself and others, but > that went way overboard. As adults it is our job to teach kids that > physical attack is NEVER okay. I don't think that Draco was showered with curses purposefully in the end of OOTP. I think he just shot his mouth off and the DA acted as one, but independently of each other. I don't believe it was actually planned in any way. His mouth simply wrote a check his body couldn't cash. Maybe he'll learn a lesson out of it. As for physical attack, I think students should learn when to use it and not that it is wrong to use it at all. And using it to protect a classmate too emotionally distraught to protect himself seems like a good time to use some violence. phoenixgod2000 From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 08:38:04 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 08:38:04 -0000 Subject: Draco is Evil and Lame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124812 > Antosha: > Imagine a black student at a newly integrated high school in the > sixties being threatened by three sons of prominent KKK members > swinging chains and baseball bats. Are the threatened student and > his friends wrong to treat the attackers with a certain level of > emphasis and force? In this case (and in the previous year's train > attack), I think the response is justified. > Now that's very serious, but that's not the way Draco and Co's attack on Harry is described. Objectively, we could view it this way, but Harry, and after him the text, aren't objective. This event is so insignificant to Harry that it dosen't even warrant a description, it's just mentioned in passing, and D&C&G don't seem dangerous at any time during it, they're silly and pathetic. Maybe, objectively, they deserved it, but the way it's written makes me, as a reader, think they didn't, since Harry didn't feel threatened by them at all. The way Harry treats it, it's not so much the local KKK thugs with bats getting hexed into pulp, as their 8 year old brothers with water pistols. Northsouth From hhbarmaid at gmail.com Fri Feb 18 20:23:58 2005 From: hhbarmaid at gmail.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:23:58 -0000 Subject: John the Baptist again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124813 Snip snip... snipping loads of interesting stuff from many interesting people and keeping only these two statements from Antosha: I'm going to jump in here quickly, and not snip, because it seems clear to me that you are speaking entirely different languages. And later: I think the point that Hans is trying to make, Geoff, is not that Jesus didn't exist, End of Antosha quotes The Barmaid, who knows better, and has more pressing things to do this day nonetheless, wades in to the sticky swamp of Truth, Myth, Liberation, Christianity and Harry Potter: Quite the little drama we have going here. The Players: Hans ? the mystic scholar ? the alchemist if you will. Geoff ? the Christian apologist ? hpfgu's own Lewis perhaps. Tonks ? loyal Christian ? defender of the faith ? perhaps a bit of St. Joan to be found there. The brave Antosha ? some sort of cosmic translator ? perhaps a knight in ink stained armor ? attempting a mythic linguistic metaphoric solution. And off in the corner ? little Harry Potter, scar on his forehead, bemused look on his face, in each hand he holds a book. In the one on the left we see the title, The Half-Blood Prince, but nothing else ? on the right ? all we can see clearly is that it is a book ? and this it contains the word _fin_. The first thing The Barmaid does, of course, is offer a round of drinks ? on the house ? and proposes a toast. "Here's to Jo Rowling! The woman that has given us material rich enough to inspire our imaginations and emotions and deep enough to touch the nerves of our deepest held convictions. Three cheers for Jo. Hip hip hurray, hip hip hurray, hip hip hurray!" Then she holds forth: "OK . Here is the thing I want to throw into the mix. While I agree with Antosha that our players are speaking different languages I do not think any attempt at translation is the solution ? or is really even possible. The languages being spoken are not the languages of the mind, but of the heart and of faith. To tell an Evangelical Christian that the historical reality of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is not the point of the _story_ of Jesus means that nothing else you say will be heard. This is the crux of their world view. For the Evangelical Christian to give proof of the historical reality of _their_ claims to those speaking of universal myth found in both Christianity and Harry Potter is equally futile as the focus these folks have on the _metaphor_ is the crux of their world view. Does this mean there is no hope of meaningful, civil communication between these two groups? Of course not! It seems that the key is for each group to avoid telling the other that their most deeply held convictions are irrelevant. Taking care to use phrases like "Harry could be seen as a Christ figure" as opposed to "Harry is Christ" or "I see many parallels to the Pathway to Liberation" as opposed to "This is the Pathway to Liberation and that supercedes any parallels you will find to Christianity." I mean, you can say it the other way, if your goal is to be "right" and to quiet those that disagree. And frankly a knock-down-drag-out bar fight can be _highly_ entertaining. And it can feel good to lay out your argument in absolute terms and let the chips fall where they may! But having a _conversation_ does require leaving some space open for the views of the others _in_ the conversation." Off at the end of the bar Harry nods and raises his glass for a refill, The Barmaid fills his glass; he drinks it down, and speaks. "I find it all really interesting and everything that you people find so much meaning in my story. And I am as anxious to figure out how it all will turn out as anyone is but ummm I am just a kid ya know. Actually, just a fictional kid at that. I'd sorta like to be able to just get through all these adventures I keep finding myself in ? maybe get a good job after school ? settle down ? raise some kids, you know, fictional kids But I love to hear all these theories and ideas, so carry on." The Barmaid fills his glass again and looks at the others with raised eyebrows. ;-) --Barmaid From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Feb 18 20:31:32 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:31:32 -0000 Subject: Does Dumbledore love Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124814 > > That means, though, that DD could be faced with a truly hellish fate > if he really loves Harry. Lose Harry and save the WW, or lose Harry > and keep the WW. Either way he loses Harry. > > Lupinlore I meant, of course, to say, "Lose Harry and lose the Wizarding World, or lose Harry and keep the Wizarding World." Lupinlore From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Feb 18 21:49:30 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:49:30 -0000 Subject: Dementor's Nature (Re: Dementors and the MoM) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124815 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bethany" wrote: Bethany: > And as far > as experiencing the dementors afterward, he had already done that on > the Hogwarts Express (Chapter 5 - POA). Geoff: Yes, but not in the same way. 'An intense cold swept over them all. HArry felt his own breath catch in his chest. The cold went deeper than his skin. It was inside his chest, it was inside his very heart... Harry's eyes rolled up into his head. He couldn't see.He was drowning in cold. There was a rushing in his ears as though of water. He was baing dragged down, the roaring growing louder... And then, from far away, he heard screaming, terrible, terrified, pleading screams. He wanted to help whoever it was, he tried to move his arms, but couldn't.. a thick white fog was swirling around him, inside him - ' (POA "The Dementor" p.66 UK edition) Nasty. But compare with... 'The nearest Dementor seemed to be considering him. Then it raised both its rotting hands - and lowered its hood. Where there should have been eyes, there was only thin, grey, scabbed skin, stretched blankly over empty sockets. But there was a mouth... a gaping, shapeless hole, sucking the air with thesound of a death- rattle. A paralysing terror filled Harry so that he couldn't move or speak. His Patronus flickered and died. White fog was blinding him. He had to fight... expecto patronum... he couldn't see... and in the distance he heard the familiar screaming... expecto patronum... he groped in the mist for Sirius and found hisarm... they weren't going to take him... But a pair of strong, clammy hands suddenly wrapped themselves around Harry's neck. They were forcing his face upwards... he could feel its breath... it was going to get rid of him first... he could feel its putrid breath... his mother was screaming in his ears... she was going to be the last thing he ever heard...' (POA "The Dementor's Kiss" p,281 UK edition) By now, Harry knows about the Kiss. He knows that he is facing the loss of his soul. this is a different ball game to the earlier one. He is not just going to faint... This is going to be the end of young Harry Potter - he is about to become a living cabbage until the mystery Patronus appears. This experience is one which Harry isn't going to wish on anybody. Not only is he the only one to escape an Avadra Kedavra spell but possibly one of the few to have a face to face contfrontation with a Dementor and come out in one piece. No. That is one earth-shattering experience for our friend. From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Fri Feb 18 22:05:02 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 22:05:02 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character Discussion: Hermione (1) Message-ID: <20050218220502.59676.qmail@web25109.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124816 Hermione's name is the female form of Hermes, the messenger of the gods in Greek mythology. The Roman equivalent was Mercury. It's fascinating to think that this same word is used for a metal as well as a planet. This is not a coincidence I'm sure, but my esoteric knowledge does not extend far enough to explain this. As I've explained in my essay, Mercury is the stage in alchemical self-initiation where the candidate for liberation opens the door to a new mental faculty. It means he/she gains direct knowledge of the Divine Plan. If you have a messenger of the gods in your mind, this means you can see what God wants you to do. Jupiter - Jove - Jehovah. Jo constantly refers to Hermione as knowing everything. It also amuses me to see that Jo said somewhere that if she wants to say something to the reader, she either speaks through Dumbledore or Hermione. Very interesting! Another aspect of Hermione is that she symbolises mercury as one of the ingredients in traditional alchemy. This is an area I don't know much about, but John Granger has explained this in his book, "The Hidden Key to Harry Potter". This aspect of alchemy fuses together sulphur (Ron) and mercury (Hermione) to make gold (Harry). The point is that when the apprentice alchemist surrenders his desires, his feelings, his thoughts, his actions and his will to the new, divine soul, Harry, this will allow it to grow quickly and become a powerful force in the blood, the endocrine system and the nervous system. In the beginning the new soul is present in the heart region only, but as it grows this new force enters the head, and the alchemist begins to KNOW with more and more certainty what he has to do. A new consciousness begins to dawn. In the beginning of the Path of Liberation, there is faith. This is an emotional certainty that the apprentice alchemist is on the right track. But when Hermione becomes Harry's friend, there is also the mental certainty, the hope, that he will reach his goal. The aspirant on the path feels the hand of God leading him, giving him the experience that is described so well in Psalm 23: "The Lord is our shepherd. We shall not want. He makes us lie down in green pastures. (green: hope) He leads us beside still waters (the tranquil astral body). He restores our soul (Harry). He guides us in the paths of righteousness for His name's sake (Hermione guides him!). Yes, though we walk in the valley in the shadow of death (Voldemort), [mort = death - Latin] we will fear no evil, for You are with us. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow us all the days of our lives, and we shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever." Yes, that's the purpose of Harry Potter and all the other road maps to Liberation: to return to the Kingdom of Heaven, to live in union with the original spirit, proceeding from a living soul to a life-giving Spirit. That's Harry Potter. Hans PS Thanks to all those people who've reacted to my Liberation Theory post. I'll do my best to react in a relevant and concise way as soon as possible. ===== "if I talk too freely about [if I believe in God] I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what's coming in the books." JK Rowling _____________________________________ Hans Andra see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://www.harrypotterforseekers.com Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From manawydan at ntlworld.com Fri Feb 18 22:54:46 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 22:54:46 -0000 Subject: Some Sybil questions (or questions on the Sybil...) References: <1108693239.39160.82049.m21@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000801c5160c$d9a4c500$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 124817 Just to try to spark some discussion in a new direction, here's some ponderings on Sybil T. 1. Canon is silent on how old she is. Let's say she was born round about 1950. Positing (as well we might) that wizarding lifespans and generations are around 3 times those of muggles, that would place Dad Trelawny's birth round about 1860, Granddad Trelawny round about 1770, Great Grandma Trelawny round about 1680. So Cassandra T would have seen the most significant political events in the history of wizardry taking place during her formative years. Just what did she prophesy about that made her so famous? 2. Was there no psychic ability in the two intervening generations? Does that mean that Seers have to be female? 3. What precisely made Sybil decide to apply for the Hogwarts post? Canon suggests that she didn't have anything to recommend her at the time. Is that correct? Might she have shown some abilities before applying? Otherwise why submit herself to Dumbledore (who let's face it is a powerful wizard) for scrutiny if she was just putting it on? 4. Given that Hogsmeade is walking distance of Hogwarts, why did Dumbledore go to interview her rather than asking her to go to the castle? 5. The question about who the eavesdropper was has been frequently discussed, so I won't pose it again, just to point out that it couldn't have been Peter (who after all was a trusted member of the Order at this point and, if Aberforth had found him in the upstairs corridor, wouldn't have given him the bum's rush, just said something like "Albie's interviewing at the moment, Pete, candidate for the Div post, div's about the right word, if you take my meaning, do you want another beer while you're waiting?" Also to point out that if Snape was the eavesdropper, he wasn't Dumbledore's spy at this point. 6. But what prompted an eavesdropper to be present at that precise time? Who knew that the interview was going to take place? Why might they have believed they were going to hear something important? 7. Having taken Sybil on, Dumbledore seems to have left her to her own devices. But while she's prophesying, she seems unaware that she's doing it. Wouldn't it have made some sense to have put some sort of monitoring spell on her lodgings to make sure that if she did it again, it would be recorded? Or did he put the monitoring spell on? If so, he doesn't seem to have registered the PoA prophecy. 8. What exactly brings a prophecy on? Is it spontaneous, or does something spark it off? If so, what? Or whom? And who's to say that a prophecy is about anything important or relevant? Does the something that sparks it off also guide what it's about? 9 Is Sybil ESE? I'm sure that most of these questions will never be officially answered, but I'd be fascinated by what people think. Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 22:02:55 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 22:02:55 -0000 Subject: Voldemort the Cartoon (was Re: Draco = Evil?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124818 lupinlore wrote: > We just can't take Voldy > seriously. > > The man is *such* a cartoon! I mean, who can read a Voldemort scene > > and not laugh? > > phoenixgod2000: > I cannot agree with this statement more. Voldemort is a walking ad > for the Evil Overlord list (do a search for it if you don't know what > it is). I couldn't resist looking up the Evil Overlord list. And then I could resist quoting it. (http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html) It includes the following, IMO, particularly pertinent points: #6. I will not gloat over my enemies' predicament before killing them. #20. Despite its proven stress-relieving effect, I will not indulge in maniacal laughter. When so occupied, it's too easy to miss unexpected developments that a more attentive individual could adjust to accordingly. #34. I will not turn into a snake. It never helps. Ok, that was just for fun. I don't find Voldemort scary, but I can't dismiss him either. He is redeemed, for me, from total cartoondom by his back story. As a villain, he is silly and daft (See maniacal laughter and the snake thing. He just so perfectly fits all those cliches.) but as a person, he is quite scary. Theres this whole *road* there, his entire, not- yet-fully-revealed past and descent into evil, that happened for some reason. Voldemort is cheesy, Tom Riddle is scary and intriguing. (and I hope coming back, is some sense or another. DD callin LV "Tom" was one of my favorite moments of the book. ) Northsouth Who realises it is her sneaking desire to see Voldemort redeemed. Draco can stay a nasty prat. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Feb 19 00:01:17 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 00:01:17 -0000 Subject: Snape's lack of remorse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124819 > snorky wrote: > Ah, there's the rub. Yes, I'm trying to build up my theory that Snape doesn't feel embarrassment for being a death eater because he entered LV's service with noble intentions (although at the time he was being a stupid young man.) Potioncat: So you think he joined for noble reasons, was disappointed and changed sides? Snorky: I don't think he works for LV, but I wouldn't be too surprised if he changed his allegiance to him someday. Potioncat: Erm, I don't think LV allows that. Snorky: No one has been able to give me a single line for why I should think Snape took death eating seriously and has real remorse, but so many people just assume that he does. I did like your suggestion that his inability to sleep and his habit of "prowling" around at night might hint at a troubled mind. Potionat: Well, a troubled mind, or maybe twins in the house... That's just it. We don't know why he joined or why he left. We know Tom Riddle said he could charm those he needed. We know Barty said it's easy to manipultate good people (sorry...don't have the quote available.) We know DD believes his story. And there are tons of theories from good!Snape to Evil!Snape. But I'm confused, do you think he doesn't have remorse because he had noble reasons for joining and still has those noble motives? Why would he be on DD's side now? Snorky:> > I'm actually working up to posting something about Snape's death eater days someday soon. > I hope you don't mind my ulterior motives. Potioncat: Hmmm...a very Slytherin approach! From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Feb 19 00:21:27 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 00:21:27 -0000 Subject: Some Sybil questions (or questions on the Sybil...) In-Reply-To: <000801c5160c$d9a4c500$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124820 Ffred wrote: > Just to try to spark some discussion in a new direction, here's some > ponderings on Sybil T. Potioncat: Great idea! > > 1. Canon is silent on how old she is. Let's say she was born round about 1950. Positing (as well we might) that wizarding lifespans and generations are around 3 times those of muggles, that would place Dad Trelawny's birth round about 1860,...>snip Potioncat: Well, the life spans are very long, but so far it appears that couples have babies around the same age as Muggles do. So I'm not sure these dates are correct. Does the Chocolate Frog cards give Cassandra's dates? > 3. What precisely made Sybil decide to apply for the Hogwarts post? Canon suggests that she didn't have anything to recommend her at the time. Is that correct? Might she have shown some abilities before applying? Otherwise why submit herself to Dumbledore (who let's face it is a powerful wizard) for scrutiny if she was just putting it on? Potioncat: It sounded as if DD didn't plan to fill a vacancy. Although he does seem to value prophecies. Perhaps he doesn't think it is an easily taught magic. She may have felt she had the sight even if no one else thought she had it. I'd like to know how old she is too. Was she at Hogwarts with the Marauders and Snape? or is she older? > >> > 5. The question about who the eavesdropper was has been frequently > discussed, so I won't pose it again, just to point out that it couldn't have been Peter (who after all was a trusted member of the Order snip Potioncat: But, if a rat was found dozing in the hallway, it would be chased out pretty quickly. We don't know when DD found out about an eavesdropper, or if the person who expelled the eavesdropper even knew that eavesdropping was happening. Can I make that more clear? Someone sees a rat and tries to catch it, but it escapes. In conversation to DD something is said about needing an exterminator because of the rat. Some time later, DD discovers part of his conversation had been overheard and even later puts it all together. I'm not saying it was Peter, but it could have been. Potioncat...great questions, wish I had more answers. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Feb 19 00:24:57 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 00:24:57 -0000 Subject: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124821 > Lupinlore: > I agree that Snape is more mysterious than Neville. But I agree with > Nora on this one, it is because of missing pieces, not because of > inherent byzantine reversals of character we are going to discover. > I'm not at all sure I'd agree with you that we are missing all that > much or that most of what we have is a puzzle. We know pretty well that: > > 1) Snape is a nasty, bitter man > 2) Snape hated Harry's father > 3) Snape hates Harry at least in large part BECAUSE he hated Harry's > father and James humiliated/tormented him > 4) Snape was a DE > 5) Snape left the DEs and is working with Dumbledore > 6) He told DD his story and DD believes him and trusts him > 7) Snape saved Harry's life, after which Quirrel told Harry that "Oh > my yes, he hates you, but not enough to want you dead" > 8) Snape has "latent good qualities" but he is also a deeply horrible > man who bears watching > > We're missing the story Snape told DD, which should explain why he > left the DEs and why DD trusts him. We are also missing Snape's > present intentions (i.e. how loyal he is to DD and how much his view > is skewed by his hatred of James/Harry). Those two pieces of info and > we've pretty much got Severus down pat. > Neri: OK, lets call this theory of yours simple!Snape (unless you have a more cool name, an acronym or so. It is the right of the originator to choose the name for his theory). You say this theory misses only two puzzle pieces. Now lets have a tiny hypothetical exercise: I let you choose these two missing pieces any way you want to. Just invent whatever you think would work. Put your two pieces of puzzle into place and answer these questions: 1. Why DID Snape desert Voldy? 2. Why does DD trust Snape to teach Potions but not DADA? 3. Why does Snape show his Dark Mark to Fudge in the end of GoF? 4. Why is he ready to take a mission that, from his and DD's manner, is extremely dangerous? We are talking about a very nasty and bitter man, remember? And DD gives him a choice in the matter. 5. Why does Snape make "a sudden movement" when Harry tells Fudge that Lucius Malfoy is a DE? 6. In OotP both Sirius and Umbridge hint that Snape is in good terms with Lucius. Why does Lucius like Snape when Voldy seems to have made Snape a persona non grata? 7. Did Voldy agree to take Snape back? Why? 8. Why does DD pick Snape, of all people, to teach Harry Occlumency when he knows about Snape hatred to James and Harry, and he still doesn't trust Snape to teach DADA? 9. Why is Snape so emotional when he tells Harry in Occlumency that "those who carry their hearts on their sleeves stand no chance against the Dark Lord"? 10. Why is Snape, after 20 years, still so emotional about some school grudges? 11. JKR promised us a big revelation about Snape in Book 7. What would it be? If simple!Snape misses only two puzzle pieces, surely you can suggest two pieces that explain all the above. I don't require them to be the TRUE pieces, only that they'll answer the questions reasonably well. If you can't find such two pieces, why is it so difficult? Neri From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sat Feb 19 00:31:42 2005 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:31:42 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort the Cartoon (was Re: Draco = Evil?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <122965580.20050218163142@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124822 Friday, February 18, 2005, 2:02:55 PM, northsouth17 wrote: n> Voldemort is cheesy, Tom Riddle is scary and intriguing... It seems to me that in disfiguring himself in pursuit of immortality and total evil-overlordiness, Tom Riddle robbed himself of his most powerful weapon. In the Chamber he tells Harry, "I've always been able to charm the people I needed." It's hard to be charming when you have a snake-like face, big red eyes, and spidery fingers. Or does it not matter than much when you've got the three Unforgivables and a team of DE's at your disposal? Or maybe he opted just to look as evil as he was in order to save himself from receiving a zillion love letters from eye-fluttering teenie-bobbers who can't see past the good looks? (See Paul Newman's and Nigel Havers' documented distress at receiving such unwarrented amorousness for their roles as "Hud" and "The Charmer", respectively.) -- Dave From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Sat Feb 19 01:39:39 2005 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 01:39:39 -0000 Subject: Draco is Evil and Lame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124823 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "northsouth17" wrote: > > > Antosha: > > > Imagine a black student at a newly integrated high school in the > > sixties being threatened by three sons of prominent KKK members > > swinging chains and baseball bats. Are the threatened student and > > his friends wrong to treat the attackers with a certain level of > > emphasis and force? In this case (and in the previous year's train > > attack), I think the response is justified. > > > > Now that's very serious, but that's not the way Draco and Co's attack > on Harry is described. Objectively, we could view it this way, but > Harry, and after him the text, aren't objective. This event is so > insignificant to Harry that it dosen't even warrant a description, > it's just mentioned in passing, and D&C&G don't seem dangerous at any > time during it, they're silly and pathetic. Maybe, objectively, they > deserved it, but the way it's written makes me, as a reader, think > they didn't, since Harry didn't feel threatened by them at all. The > way Harry treats it, it's not so much the local KKK thugs with bats > getting hexed into pulp, as their 8 year old brothers with water > pistols. > > Northsouth Well, they're silly and pathetic because all we see of them is the messy aftermath. But the words JKR uses to describe their approach to Harry on his way back from the WC are "ambush" and "attack." Draco, at the very least, is a capable wizard, one we know to have been exposed to Dark Arts, above and beyond the training that the rest of the Hogwarts kids get. So I have a hard time dismissing him and his cohorts as an non- credible threat. It seems to me that you can't claim moral outrage at the DA kids' actions at the same time as you apologize for Malfoy and his gang. The previous year--immediately after Harry has just witnessed Cedric's murder--Draco accosts Harry and his friends in their compartment, telling them that as Mudbloods and Muggle-Lovers (his actual words) they'll "be next." That is a death threat, no two ways about it. Mind, he's threatening Harry with pain and death all of the time, so perhaps it is unwise to take him seriously after a while; if I were Harry, though, I'd have a hard time discounting the constant threats entirely. Draco has attempted attacks on Harry before--once the curse hit Hermione instead and the other time, Moody!Crouch turned him into a ferret for pulling his wand on Harry while his back was turned. He's shown a propensity for racist rhetoric and violence, his father (and those of his cronies) have very recently attempted to KILL Harry... So I'm not sure that I see why the "ambush" should be viewed as anything less than a serious attack. When I first read it, I understood it as such, and figured that JKR was simply placing more emphasis on the fact that Harry's friends were there to watch his back. And that the DA students are more advanced than their classmates when it comes to combat skills. Which we knew. Now, the previous year (I've just reread it--GoF, Ch. 37 "The Beginning") shows a slightly extreme reaction by Harry, Hermione and the Weasleys. All Draco was doing was spewing his standard brand of hatred and vitriol. The trio, Fred and George all explode... with curses that cause boils and rubbery legs. No stunners, no Unforgivables. That the cumulative effect is rather stronger than what was originally intended is cause for some rather macabre humor. They would have been better off turning the other cheek, clearly. But again, I think it is a bit much to condemn the Gryffindors overmuch. How many fourteen, fifteen or sixteen year olds could be provoked to such an extent and NOT react? Hogwarts shows more in common with Elizabethan Eton than it does with the modern-day equivalent. All of the students are armed and have demonstrated a willingness to use those arms from time to time. That Harry's friends and erstwhile Defense students took the sight of three known enemies approaching Harry--presumably from behind, since it is described as an ambush--with raised wands as a serious attack strikes me as reasonable. Antosha From Zarleycat at aol.com Sat Feb 19 05:16:02 2005 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 05:16:02 -0000 Subject: Voldemort the Cartoon (was Re: Draco = Evil?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124825 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > You know, this is very interesting, and I think at the heart of a lot > of arguments we have over the Dursleys, Snape, and Draco. That is > that people often point out that the Dursleys/Snape/Draco aren't > *really* evil, because Voldemort represents the *real* evil in the books. > > And there I think is the problem for a lot of adult readers, including > myself and others in my circle. We just can't take Voldy seriously. > The man is *such* a cartoon! I mean, who can read a Voldemort scene > and not laugh? Marianne: It's only when he has an audience that he gets ridiculous. I found him horrifying in the first scene of GoF, and somewhat scary in the graveyard scene, too. Of course, then he makes the mistake of pontificating in true Evil Overlord fashion, and <> he slips back into ridiculous mode. For that matter, most of the DEs can fall prey to the same thing. What really gave me the heebie-jeebies in the graveyard scene was the thought of this one poor kid facing down all these adults hidden behind their masks and having to listen to their mocking laughter while their Master toyed with Harry. That whole bit was entirely revolting. But, in OoP, the DEs, too, slip into too-much-talk-not-enough-action mode. I found myself muttering an "Oh, please..." as Lucius Malfoy acted the part of Evil Overlord in training, rabbiting on to Harry while not one of these deadly henchmen saw Harry muttering instructions over his shoulder to Hermione. Yeah, right. Lupinlore: > And therein lies the problem. We can take the Dursleys seriously, > particularly after OOTP, because we have all known people who make or > would make abusive parents. We can take Snape seriously because we > all know the kind of pain his hatefulness can bring. We can take > Draco seriously because we have all known bullies and know what can > happen to them in adult life. We can take Dudley seriously for the > same reason. But Voldemort? The man is an over-the-top cliche > straight out of a comic opera or a comic book. > So perhaps, just perhaps, how seriously you take the behavior of the > Dursleys/Snape/Draco depends largely on how much you can believe in > Voldemort. Marianne: Spot on. It rather mirrors my thoughts about the Devil/Satan or whatever. Devil/Satan=Bad, but, really, in my day-to-day life, when I hear about atrocities on a large (genocide) or small (an abused child) scale, I don't associate those actions with the Devil or some eptiome of evil. I associate them with specific people. I can't say to myself, "Yeah those people are nasty, but, hey, at least they're not the Devil." Marianne From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Sat Feb 19 06:01:54 2005 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (imamommy at sbcglobal.net) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 06:01:54 -0000 Subject: Voldemort the Cartoon (was Re: Draco = Evil?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124826 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Betsy: > Yes, context. In a world with Voldemort you'll have a hard time > convincing me that silly, petty, Draco is supposed to be *evil*. > And *worst* fellow student? Please. He's barely a blip on Harry > and co.'s radar. Why else did we hear so little of himn OotP. His > digs are tired, and his songs, while hurtful to Ron, won't cause a > bunch of dead bodies. And won't get a fellow student expelled. > (Hello, Tom Riddle!) > > > Lupinlore: > You know, this is very interesting, and I think at the heart of a lot > of arguments we have over the Dursleys, Snape, and Draco. That is > that people often point out that the Dursleys/Snape/Draco aren't > *really* evil, because Voldemort represents the *real* evil in the > books. > > And there I think is the problem for a lot of adult readers, including > myself and others in my circle. We just can't take Voldy seriously. > The man is *such* a cartoon! I mean, who can read a Voldemort scene > and not laugh? > > And therein lies the problem. We can take the Dursleys seriously, > particularly after OOTP, because we have all known people who make or > would make abusive parents. We can take Snape seriously because we > all know the kind of pain his hatefulness can bring. We can take > Draco seriously because we have all known bullies and know what can > happen to them in adult life. We can take Dudley seriously for the > same reason. But Voldemort? The man is an over-the-top cliche > straight out of a comic opera or a comic book. We (my circle and I) > just can't see him as a very real threat. I mean, his best Death > Eaters and he couldn't best a bunch of fourteen and fifteen year- olds > when they (the DEs) had the advantage of springing a well-laid trap! > > Yes, of course intellectually the books present him as a threat. Of > course intellectually we know he killed the Potters and is the cause > of Cedric and Sirius' deaths and so forth. But emotionally we just > can't believe in him as a character or really feel, deep in our > hearts, that he is the real threat to Harry that many of the other > hurtful figures seem to be. > > JKR hasn't helped matters by her interviews, either. Voldemort has > NEVER felt love for ANYONE? How over-the-top (and emotionally > unbelievable) can you get? Even Satan, we are told, once had his good > points. > > So perhaps, just perhaps, how seriously you take the behavior of the > Dursleys/Snape/Draco depends largely on how much you can believe in > Voldemort. > > > Alla: > > LOL, Lupinlore! Too funny "your circle and you" :o) But since I > usually agree with at least 90% of what you write about it, I don't > mind. :) > > I absolutely agree with what you wrote in this post as well. I once > posted about "villains in potterverse", (post 116071). The gist of my > post was that I don't find Voldemort to be very scary at all. Since > then I got convinced that some of his DE are quite scary, but I still > hold the same opinion of the Voldemort. > > I think that JKR does NOT portray him well. Even in the Graveyard > scene, which I consider to be quite chilling as a whole ( I'd say > Voldemor at its best), at some moments when Voldie opened his mouth, > I wanted to laugh. > > But even if I WERE to take Voldemort seriously ( and again you are > absolutely correct - intellectually I definitely do, but not on the > emotional level), it still does not mean that I cannot think of > Voldemort as primary Evil and Draco, Snape, etc as everyday secondary > evil. > > After all, Voldemort and what he stands for is supposed to be an > ultimate threat, right? But even during the time of peace evil things > keep happening and I am not going to stop calling them evil, just > because much bigger Evil is lurking in the shadows ( well, he is not > lurking anymore, but you get what I mean). > > Just my opinion, > > Alla From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Feb 19 07:40:28 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 07:40:28 -0000 Subject: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124827 > > Neri: > OK, lets call this theory of yours simple!Snape (unless you have a > more cool name, an acronym or so. It is the right of the originator to > choose the name for his theory). You say this theory misses only two > puzzle pieces. Now lets have a tiny hypothetical exercise: I let you > choose these two missing pieces any way you want to. Just invent > whatever you think would work. Put your two pieces of puzzle into > place and answer these questions: Okay, here goes. STORY TO DUMBLEDORE: He found a lot of Voldemort's policies attractive initially, and was deeply fascinated by the Dark Arts, but has come to realize the man is insane and his policies will lead to the destruction of the WW, including Snape and all the purebloods. He will work for DD as a spy in the pureblood ranks to keep this from happening. PRESENT POLICIES: Is committed to bringing Voldemort down, but is primarily concerned, deep down, with his own self-preservation. Is loyal to DD because he honestly thinks working for DD is the best way to destroy Voldy and preserve self. His hatred of James and the Marauders, and Harry by extension, do have a very bad way of clouding his judgment, however. > > 1. Why DID Snape desert Voldy? As said above, because he thinks the man is insane and will destroy the WW, the purebloods, and one Severus Snape. > > 2. Why does DD trust Snape to teach Potions but not DADA? Because Snape was fascinated with the Dark Arts, which DD believes to be inherently destructive. DD didn't want to put to much temptation is Snape's path. > > 3. Why does Snape show his Dark Mark to Fudge in the end of GoF? Because he felt it imperative that Fudge understand the danger and realize Voldy had returned. He felt that if Fudge continued to be obstinate the chances of Voldy getting away with something insane and destructive were greatly increased. > > 4. Why is he ready to take a mission that, from his and DD's manner, > is extremely dangerous? We are talking about a very nasty and bitter > man, remember? And DD gives him a choice in the matter. > Certainly he is nasty and bitter. But he is also very intelligent and brave (the latent good qualities coming to the fore). He wants Voldy stopped and feels this is the best way to do it. Better a level of risk than a near certainty of destruction. > 5. Why does Snape make "a sudden movement" when Harry tells Fudge that > Lucius Malfoy is a DE? Several possibilities. He was startled that Lucius was stupid enough to reveal himself to the boy. Alternatively he starts to express agreement with Harry but his hatred of the boy overrides the instinct. > > 6. In OotP both Sirius and Umbridge hint that Snape is in good terms > with Lucius. Why does Lucius like Snape when Voldy seems to have made > Snape a persona non grata? I don't believe Voldy necessarily has done any such thing. That is the interpretation of one of JKR's remarks by a lot of fans. However, I tend to think that Snape is still in Voldy's good graces. > > 7. Did Voldy agree to take Snape back? Why? No, because I don't really think Snape ever left. > > 8. Why does DD pick Snape, of all people, to teach Harry Occlumency > when he knows about Snape hatred to James and Harry, and he still > doesn't trust Snape to teach DADA? Because DD sincerely wants to give Snape a second chance. Because DD is afraid to teach Harry himself and Snape is the only Master Occlumens available. Because DD tends to see people through rose colored glasses and, knowing that Snape is intelligent and loyal, thinks he can overcome his feelings enough to teach Harry. Because getting to near the Dark Arts would be destructive to Severus personally, but Occlumency poses no danger. > > 9. Why is Snape so emotional when he tells Harry in Occlumency that > "those who carry their hearts on their sleeves stand no chance against > the Dark Lord"? Simple human psychology. As Snape says, he has seen the way Voldy manipulates such situations. His contempt for Harry convinces him the boy will fall prey to such manipulation, and leads him into anger and fear. He is being self-contradictory, of course, but humans often are and Snape is not a very unusual example of that tendency. > > 10. Why is Snape, after 20 years, still so emotional about some school > grudges? Because he's a petty, bitter man. Petty people, by their very nature, hold grudges and get very emotional about them. Besides, it's a pretty big grudge. I don't like Severus but if somebody tried to kill me I'd still be very angry about it twenty years later, particularly if the culprits got off more or less scott free. > > 11. JKR promised us a big revelation about Snape in Book 7. What would > it be? Has she promised this in so many words? The only allusion to this I've seen was when her interviewer talked about an "important redemptive pattern to Snape" and she said, basically, "talk to me after Book VII." If there is such a revelation under this scenario it could be several things. It could by his story to Dumbledore. It would also likely be his present policies. Personally I rather suspect Snape's hatred of Harry will cloud his judgment again at a crucial moment. > > > If simple!Snape misses only two puzzle pieces, surely you can suggest > two pieces that explain all the above. I don't require them to be the > TRUE pieces, only that they'll answer the questions reasonably well. > If you can't find such two pieces, why is it so difficult? > > Neri Well, there you are. No trouble at all. Two pieces of info and Snape is pretty well wrapped up in quite a consistent and understandable package. Lupinlore From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Feb 19 09:52:37 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 09:52:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the polyjuice/transfiguration dream... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124828 vmonte: I was thinking recently that chances are (as most people think) that the war will eventually infiltrate into Hogwarts itself. This would make sense as to why JKR would create Harry's DADA club (Dumbledore's Army) in book 5. With out serious training the children would most likely get massacred within the walls of the school. But now (especially if training continues in the next book) they will have a fighting chance. Anyway, I was thinking about what Dumbledore would do if he suspected that this was something imminent during the early part of book 7. Two nights ago I had a dream that Dumbledore decided to strategically place himself by Harry's side, by playing the part of one of his friends: young Ron. Dumbledore polyjuiced/transfigured himself into Ron and was able to move about the school without drawing any attention to himself. He also had a lot of freedom to roam about the school because Ron is a Prefect. In my dream only a few people knew what Dumbledore was up to. Snape wasn't one of those people. Funny, I wonder how Dumbledore would react to Snape if he happened to sit in during one of his classes? Vivian From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 22:03:17 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 22:03:17 -0000 Subject: Neville's nerves (Was: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124829 > Carol notes: > > BTW, I agree with Neri that more is required to complete Neville's and > (especially) Snape's stories than a few puzzle pieces, but I see no > need for a memory charm to explain Neville's forgetfulness and general > inability to concentrate. If he witnessed the Crucioing of his > parents, even as a very small child less than two years old, his > memory lapses could be completely explained as the result of > postraumatic stress syndrome. > I think we've got plenty of clues by now to assume that Neville's shockingly bad memory is likely to be the side-effect of a much too strong Memory charm. After all he displays all the symptoms poor Bertha Jorkins did. And if we are right in assuming that his nervousness and his memory lapses somehow connected this brings us to another question: why he is so terrified of Snape? I mean, yes, he's a nasty piece of work and never passes an opportunity to humiliate Neville but to be his worst fear? I wouldn't be surprised if Snape was somehow involved into Longbottom's affair after all. a_svirn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 22:36:21 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 22:36:21 -0000 Subject: Red Herrings? Re: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124830 Neri: > The thing is: red herrings > exist for a reason, to draw our attention from something else. For > example, Bagman was created to draw our attention away from > Crouch!Moody, and in the end of GoF he was exposed as a red herring. > But if Neville has been a red herring for five books now, then for > what cause? > > Also, I noticed you didn't try to deny the Snape mystery. So why is it > so important to deny the Neville mystery? The fact is, we DO seem to > have mysteries about characters other than Harry, and why are these > mysteries so complicated if the characters are simple? > > I wouldn't be too hasty in writing Ludo Bagman off as a red herring. I mean his role in GoF might be described as such, but who says that he wouldn't resurface in the Book 6 or 7 as a "bad wizard"? After GoF it was sort of an accepted assumption among fans that it was Snape and Krkaroff LV had mentioned in his greeting address as one who would be killed and one who would be punished. But after OotP it is just as likely that it was Karkaroff and Bagman. After all Snape as we can see not only alive but also quite thriving. a_svirn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 22:58:09 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 22:58:09 -0000 Subject: Snape's insomnia? (was: Snape's lack of remorse) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124831 > > snorky wrote: > No one has > been able to give me a single line for why I should think Snape took > death eating seriously and has real remorse, but so many people just > assume that he does. I did like your suggestion that his inability to > sleep and his habit of "prowling" around at night might hint at a > troubled mind. > > I'm actually working up to posting something about Snape's death eater > days someday soon. > > I hope you don't mind my ulterior motives. Don't we all assume a bit too much when we are talking about Snape's insomnia? We see him "prowling" corridors in PS, but then he has an excellent reason to do so ? to keep an eye on Quirrel and effectively to lure him into the trap. Then the only time we see him after curfew is in the episode with Moody/Crouch but honestly his office has just been broken and entered! And seeing as he wore a grey nightshirt he might well be asleep at the time and got up upon being alerted. a_svirn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 23:36:26 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:36:26 -0000 Subject: the DE are Nazi?Re: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124832 > > Carol responds: > There is, nonetheless, an undeniable prejudice throughout the WW > against Muggles, ranging from contempt to amiable condescension like > Mr. Weasley's. And the prejudice against Muggleborns stems from the > prejudice against Muggles. > > I've always found it confusing that the purebloods would regard the > *absence* of a trait (magical "blood") as somehow contaminating or > fouling the blood (muggleborn + "mudblood"). Be that as it may, I > think they fear that their bloodline will be polluted if they marry a > Muggleborn because a witch or wizard born of Muggle parents is more > likely (in their view) to produce a Squib child. (Whether that "logic" > is borne out in reality, we don't know, as we have no idea of Filch's > or Mrs. Fogg's parentage.) a_svirn: Do you have ANY evidence in canon to support this? If anything, we know that pure-blood wizards are dangerously close to being inbred (at least, according to Sirius). Inbreeding is far more dangerous than "blood polluting" (I think we can state that certain mental problems run in the Black family ? just look at Bellatrix and Sirius' mother). And we know that Squibs are opposites of Muggleborns ? that is non-magical children born to magical parents. They can just as likely be the result of inbreeding, then of "polluting". > > At any rate, I don't think that the prejudice against Muggleborns is > "arbitrary." It stems from fear and mistrust of Muggles (who have > historically hanged, burned, and otherwise harassed and injured > wizards) and a sense that Muggles are innately inferior. a_svirn: And what about Wendoline the Weird? If burnings were "completely pointless", so were hanging etc. There was no reason for wizards to be afraid of Muggles, while Muggles were certainly right in fearing wizards. Still are in fact, just look at Dudley and he met only "good" wizards so far. From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 19 08:25:43 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 08:25:43 -0000 Subject: Voldemort the Cartoon and Cliches? (was Re: Draco = Evil?) In-Reply-To: <122965580.20050218163142@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124833 Dave Hardenbrook > It seems to me that in disfiguring himself in pursuit of immortality > and total evil-overlordiness, Tom Riddle robbed himself of his most > powerful weapon. In the Chamber he tells Harry, "I've always been > able to charm the people I needed." It's hard to be charming when > you have a snake-like face, big red eyes, and spidery fingers. > There you go. What kind of person do you have to be to do that to yourself? What *did* he do to himself, exactly? That kind of self mutilation, for whatever purpose, is scary. (Why does he want immortality so badly?) Voldie is a cheesy villain, but he's a cheesy villain with back story, and I put my trust in JKR that he will manage to break out of the cliched evil overlord mould, if only because she dosen't have many other cliche's. Hagrid is the somewhat-simple-but-good-savage, and Hermione has a little bit of the know-it-all, even after five books. I can't offhand think of any other easily sorted characters. DD has gained a lot of depth over the books, Harry never quite fit the orphan-boy (too outgoing, too confident), Lupin and Sirius are both fairly original, I think. I've got a feeling I'm missing something though. Are the charachters cliched and my reading experience is not letting me see it? Northsouth From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Feb 19 14:05:38 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 14:05:38 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124834 Naama: > > Draco or any of the other Slytherins are never presented in > > situations that call for compassion. Even so (as I said above), > > when Draco was being bounced - which he richly deserved - > > Hermione felt concern for him.< > Betsy: > Did she? Well good for her. I'm glad *someone* can tell the > difference between proper student discipline and out and out > abuse. (You seriously think Draco *deserved* that treatment? > As to times to show compassion: There's the ferret bounce, the > time Draco lost the big Quidditch match, when his father got > thrown in jail, after he was wounded by the hippogriff. SSSusan: Butting in a bit late here, but.... Betsy, you clearly believe Draco's punishment was inappropriate, and thus Hermione (and many others) *should* have shown compassion for Draco. Do you also think that Lucius Malfoy's punishment was inappropriate, and that thus many students should have shown compassion for Draco? Is this really a situation in which someone would show *compassion*? Draco's father had just attacked, *repeatedly*, six Hogwarts teenagers in an effort to assist his (evil) Lord Voldemort to regaining control of the WW. I think most people see this behavior as reprehensible, illegal, and certainly worthy of punishment. Just what kind of compassion is owed to Draco for this? The "loss" of his father, justifiably, to prison? While I could see other DE kids showing understanding or compassion, why in the world should the kids who could've gotten killed at the hands (wands) of Lucius Malfoy or those he clearly commanded at the DoM feel compassion for the son who supports him? I mean, you did go on to say this: > Not that I really would expect any of the Gryffindor kids to show > compassion at those times (except maybe the ferret bounce - good > on Hermoine). These kids are enemies after all. And I wasn't > suggesting that Harry and co. never show compassion. I *was* > pointing out the limitations of Harry's POV. SSSusan again: But I don't see how this helps your case. These are the examples you gave for places where compassion could have been shown, but then you say you wouldn't really expect compassion to be shown then. It just seems pretty circular. MAYBE Draco does some good things offscreen, but it's a big maybe, isn't it? We've got no evidence that he doesn't; we've also got no evidence that he does. Betsy: > But see, it does matter, because you are trying to say Draco is > evil. And yet, he doesn't fit the discription. He doesn't > actually *terrorize* the other students. No one is afraid to see > him coming. > So, in sum, he pokes fun at people.... I mean, gosh, he *is* > horribly petty. SSSusan: I think there is evidence that he does terrorize other students. What he does is worse than poking fun, which sounds gentle to me. IMO he is a bully who hopes to evoke terror. They may not be *afraid* to see him coming any more, but that is likely because they feel they can handle what he puts out now. But the crap he dishes to Ron, the insults he hurls at Hermione & Neville, the challenges he issues Harry... I think they DO dread seeing him coming, even if they don't fear him any more. Maybe that's your point. He's pathetic enough to be pitied? If it is, I just don't pity people like that, I guess. Siriusly Snapey Susan From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Feb 19 16:34:05 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:34:05 -0000 Subject: Voldemort the Cartoon and Cliches? (was Re: Draco = Evil?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124836 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "northsouth17" wrote: > I've got a feeling I'm missing something though. Are the charachters cliched and my reading experience is not letting me see it? < IMO, they all start out as cliches because that's the way Harry sees people. He didn't have much direct contact with the adult world before Hogwarts. I suppose he was a bit like Plato's cave-dweller except that instead of watching shadows on the wall, he was watching Dudley's cartoon shows. He sees people as cartoons because, well, that's been his experience. Harry pigeonholes relentlessly, and then is startled when his pigeons fly the coop. Rowling encourages the reader to do the same. For instance in CoS, Harry thinks Lockhart is a vain and pompous hero, the reader thinks he's a harmless fraud and it turns out that everyone's wrong. The Dursleys are just as cartoonish as Voldemort for the first four books. You could say that Rowling changed her style or you could say that Harry finally got far enough away from them to develop some perspective. But I can see why, if the Dursleys scare you, and Voldemort does not, then Dumbledore's decision to leave Harry with them to protect him would ring false. You could make an evil parent list (When I am an evil parent, I will not lean over to check the oven) and just like the evil overlord list, it would be a caricature of a caricature of a real, serious problem. There are no real evil overlords, but there are real paranoid bloodthirsty dictators, and guess what...they gloat, they get sidetracked by their obsessions, and they're totally without pity, love or remorse. That part of their brain is broken, just like some people can't see or speak. Voldemort is hard to take seriously, and that's one of the scary things about him. People couldn't take Hitler seriously either, once. Why, they said, that rabble rouser and his beer hall buddies couldn't possibly take over a modern state, and if they did, does anyone really think they're going to go to war with all Europe and kill every single Jew? It was laughable right up until it happened. Voldemort's monstrous appearance may reveal what he is to human beings. But does he look like a monster to goblins or giants? His non human appearance might be a plus with them. I wouldn't be so quick to say that he'd sacrificed his ability to charm. Pippin From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Feb 19 16:41:41 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:41:41 -0000 Subject: Neville's nerves (Castles in the air?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124837 >a_svirn wrote: I think we've got plenty of clues by now to assume that Neville's shockingly bad memory is likely to be the side-effect of a much too strong Memory charm. After all he displays all the symptoms poor Bertha Jorkins did. And if we are right in assuming that his nervousness and his memory lapses somehow connected this brings us to another question: why he is so terrified of Snape? I mean, yes, he's a nasty piece of work and never passes an opportunity to humiliate Neville but to be his worst fear? I wouldn't be surprised if Snape was somehow involved into Longbottom's affair after all. vmonte responds: Yep, I agree. I've said this here myself. I wouldn't be surprised if Snape was there with Lucius. This event happened after GH, and Lucius would have told Voldemort about it. Snape being there would be enough proof to Voldemort that Snape was still on his side and working from within Hogwarts. I also see Snape as having a personal vendetta against Neville (much along the lines of Harry) that reflects perhaps an equal dislike of his parents. Perhaps, Neville will begin to remember some of the events regarding his parents attack. I also feel that the reason why Neville wasn't killed during that encounter was because Snape and gang were afraid to curse him in case his mother also put the protective charm on him that Lily used. Dumbledore stated to Harry in OOTP that the prophecy could have been about him or Neville. It wasn't until Voldemort attacked Harry that everyone realized who he had chosen. I could see Lily and Neville's mother both protecting their children with the same charm. It's even possible that they were both friends. (They were after all both in the Order, and both expecting children at the same time.) I will laugh out loud if Voldemort ends up using the killing curse on Neville only to find out that he still has the charm in place. This may be the "power the Dark Lord knows not" (which technically is the power of a parent's love for their child. Something that Voldemort has never known)." If Voldemort becomes Vapormort again it may give Harry enough time to finally vanquish Voldemort for good. Vivian From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 19 17:16:30 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:16:30 -0000 Subject: Draco is evil. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124838 I'm a little surprised that there is still debate about Draco being evil or not, if there was any lingering doubt I would have thought the last book would have cleared that up. Consider the confrontation in Umbridge's office just before Hermione thought of a way to save Harry; if one of your fellow classmates, even one you didn't like much, was about to be tortured in a manner so painful it was known to drive people permanently insane, would you be looking forward to the coming show "with a hungry expression on your face"? Draco did. Eggplant From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Feb 19 18:28:43 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 11:28:43 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco is evil. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005001c516b0$d8a36810$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 124839 I'm a little surprised that there is still debate about Draco being evil or not, if there was any lingering doubt I would have thought the last book would have cleared that up. Consider the confrontation in Umbridge's office just before Hermione thought of a way to save Harry; if one of your fellow classmates, even one you didn't like much, was about to be tortured in a manner so painful it was known to drive people permanently insane, would you be looking forward to the coming show "with a hungry expression on your face"? Draco did. Eggplant Sherry now: And here we have what I think is one of the defining differences between Draco and Harry. Draco was looking forward to seeing that crucio done to Harry. Harry couldn't even let Dudley get attacked by dementors. It didn't occur to him to let it happen, because to him it was so terrible nobody deserved it. Let's not forget Draco and the dementor disguise at the quidditch match either. That was something that could have killed Harry or at least seriously injured him. Draco was certainly old enough to have known what he was doing and the potential dangers. The fact that Dumbledore was there to keep Harry from splattering to pieces doesn't negate what Draco tried to do. Sherry From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sat Feb 19 18:27:51 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:27:51 -0000 Subject: Filk: Healings Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124840 A solo for Augustus Pye, Trainee Healer. "Healings" to the tune of "Feelings" words and music by Morris Albert. Darned if I can remember who sang it. This is a milestone for me: my 50th filk. Today is also an occasion. Today would have been Haggridd's birthday. He always got a kick out of filks I had written to songs that were, well, sappy. I think he would have enjoyed this one, him having been a doctor and all, so I dedicate it to his memory, which lives on in our hearts. Augustus Pye sings: Healings, trying Muggle healings, Trying to connect these healings of old. Stitches, binding up incisions, Trying to connect both sides of the wound. Healings, my call in life's to heal things. Tradition's never stopped me, though, I'll try and try again. Healings, wo, wo, wo, Healings, wo, wo, wo, Heal you, with stitches or charms. Healings, Muggle remedies are frowned on, But Muggle remedies are sound un- Til magic's involved. Healings, my call in life's to heal things. Tradition's never stopped me, though, I'll try and try again. Healings, wo, wo, wo, Healings, wo, wo, wo Healings...... (repeat and fade) Ginger, moving on to the next 50, but missing the feedback from John. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Feb 19 19:09:35 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:09:35 -0000 Subject: FILK: The Clunk! Clunk! Song (He's in his Trunk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124841 FILK: The Clunk! Clunk! Song (He's in his trunk) A filk by Pippin to the tune of The Shoop Shoop Song (It's in his Kiss) by Betty Everett For Hagridd -- the beat goes on ENTER Wormtail and Barty Crouch Where is Mad eye Where did he go What should I say, Master wants to know (Have you got the leg?) Oh yeah, it's just a peg (Have you got the eye?) Oh yeah, it's just my size If you wanna know [Clunk! Clunk! Clunk! Clunk!] Where did Moody go [Clunk! Clunk! Clunk! Clunk!] It's in his trunk (That's where he is!) How bout the shrieking Shack Oh no that's a disgrace How bout the dungeon black Oh no that's Snapey's place If you wanna know [Clunk! Clunk! Clunk! Clunk!] Where did Moody go [Clunk! Clunk! Clunk!Clunk!] He's in his trunk (That's where he is!) Oh, oh oh Wormtail He's locked up tight And Dumbo doesn't even know I promise this and it aint no lie He's there in his trunk (How bout the way he acts) Oh just you wait and see If wizards had Oscars I'd be a nominee If you wanna know [Clunk! Clunk! Clunk! Clunk!] Where did Moody go [Clunk! Clunk! Clunk! Clunk!] It's in his trunk (That's where he is!) If you want to know Where did Moody go He's in his trunk (That's where he is) He's in his trunk (That's where he is) From bethanymil79 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 21:39:30 2005 From: bethanymil79 at yahoo.com (Bethany) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:39:30 -0000 Subject: Does Dumbledore love Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124842 Lupinlore: > If nothing else, I think the way JKR has set up the story kind of > obviates it, since she implies that there isn't any way for the > Wizarding World to be destroyed (i.e. Voldy to win) without Harry > going along with it. That is, it isn't a choice of Harry or the > WW, since the story implies that Harry can only survive by saving > the WW. > > That means, though, that DD could be faced with a truly hellish > fate if he really loves Harry. Lose Harry and save the WW, or > lose Harry and keep the WW. Either way he loses Harry. Bethany again: I guess I don't know what you mean by "Either way he loses Harry". I mean, couldn't Harry defeat Voldemort without losing his life? There's nothing in the prophecy that we know of "for sure" that says if one dies the other has to as well. I'm more of the belief that when/if Harry defeats Voldemort, he will lose the powers that he shares with him. I don't think Harry has to necessarily turn to the dark side to stay alive. But, if it is fated that way, then Dumbledore will definitely be losing someone very dear to him, and yes, someone he loves. No one can convince me that Dumbledore does not love that kid. Harry's strength, his sheer will to survive through all the heartache he's been through - we all love him, how could Dumbledore not? I especially see it in the end of book five when he speaks with Harry so patiently after Harry is raging and throwing things in his office. It's very apparent to me. But, as I said before, love and sacrifice go hand in hand. In the end, love won't matter as much as duty and the greater good... From catportkey at aol.com Sat Feb 19 20:57:12 2005 From: catportkey at aol.com (catportkey at aol.com) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 15:57:12 EST Subject: who said "stupefy!" Message-ID: <1db.36136dcf.2f490228@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124843 Who said stupefy against Moody (page 679)? was it Harry or D? I believe it was D. But I would be interested in what others think. Pook [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 19 17:09:38 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:09:38 -0000 Subject: Voldemort the Cartoon and Cliches? (was Re: Draco = Evil?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124844 Pippin: > There are no real evil overlords, but there > are real paranoid bloodthirsty dictators, and guess what...they > gloat, they get sidetracked by their obsessions, and they're totally > without pity, love or remorse. That part of their brain is broken, > just like some people can't see or speak. > > Voldemort is hard to take seriously, and that's one of the scary > things about him. People couldn't take Hitler seriously either, > once. > Voldemort's monstrous appearance may reveal what he is to > human beings. But does he look like a monster to goblins or > giants? His non human appearance might be a plus with them. I > wouldn't be so quick to say that he'd sacrificed his ability to > charm. Voldemort is human though. I just typed and deleted "or was", because IMO he is human, whether he, and Hagrid and Harry and us, for that matter, like it or not. It's disturbing, to me, that he chose to disfigure himself, whether as a sacrifice to his quest for immortality, an attempt to erase his own humanity, or something else. But if all we knew about LV was his present incarnation, he'd be laughable, because he so neatly fits the typical Evil Overlord of Bond Movies and such - snakes, laughter, pointification at inopportune moments, etc. But that's us. Wizards apparently don't watch Bond Movies. They take Voldemort perfectly seriously, on every level - they have cause to, they've already been through one war with him. For all we know, when he first surfaced he was derided as weird looking extremist who gave weird speeches and no one took seriously. Much like Hitler, except that the WW Hitler has been ressurected, and they know he's dangerous. Making Voldemort silly looking isn't going to help in drawing any parallels with silly looking 1920's Hitler. And for what it's worth, I disagree that dictators and their ilk are in some way "broken". All attempts to diagnose Hitler (or Stalin or whoever) with this or other psychological or physiological illness aside, I believe for the most part you can be a perfectly healthy human being, and still do unspeakable, terrible things. Northsouth From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Feb 19 21:11:13 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 21:11:13 -0000 Subject: Does Dumbledore love Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124845 > > Bethany again: > > I guess I don't know what you mean by "Either way he loses Harry". > I mean, couldn't Harry defeat Voldemort without losing his life? > There's nothing in the prophecy that we know of "for sure" that says > if one dies the other has to as well. I'm more of the belief that > when/if Harry defeats Voldemort, he will lose the powers that he > shares with him. I don't think Harry has to necessarily turn to the > dark side to stay alive. But, if it is fated that way, then > Dumbledore will definitely be losing someone very dear to him, and > yes, someone he loves. Okay, what I meant was this: On a surface reading of the prophecy "Either must kill the other because neither can live while the other survives" there are three possibilities: 1) Harry kills Voldy. Harry survives. WW survives. 2) Harry kills Voldy. Voldy kills Harry. WW survives. 3) Voldy kills Harry. Voldy survives. WW destroyed. There IS no option "Harry survives. WW destroyed." Therefore the choice posited for Dumbledore "Saving Harry at the expense of the WW" is obviated. In order for Harry to survive the WW must be saved. JKR has constructed the prophecy in such a way that we need not have much fear that DD's love for Harry and his love for the WW will come into direct conflict. If Harry is to survive he HAS to save the WW. There is no way DD can decide to value Harry's life over the WW, because that just isn't an option. If the WW goes down, so does Harry. > > No one can convince me that Dumbledore does not love that kid. > Harry's strength, his sheer will to survive through all the > heartache he's been through - we all love him, how could Dumbledore > not? I especially see it in the end of book five when he speaks > with Harry so patiently after Harry is raging and throwing things in > his office. It's very apparent to me. But, as I said before, love > and sacrifice go hand in hand. In the end, love won't matter as > much as duty and the greater good... But that flies DIRECTLY in the face of the end of OOTP where LOVE is what is emphasized, NOT duty. Now, you might posit that sacrificial love is what will be seen (i.e. Harry decides to give up his life to save the WW). But I don't see any indication at all that JKR sees that as DUTY. As you said in your penultimate sentence, sometimes love and sacrifice go hand in hand. I think she would say that she is interested in love, and not very interested in duty. Furthermore, I strongly, STRONGLY, suspect that any sacrifice will be portrayed as Harry's choice, not DD's. JKR just doesn't seem AT ALL interested in exploring that kind of theme. Lupinlore From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Sat Feb 19 22:08:19 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 22:08:19 -0000 Subject: Voldemort the Cartoon (was Re: Draco = Evil?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124846 Just to say, that for me LV's realistic evilness mostly doesn't come from what we see of him in person. Apart from anything else, we actually see fairly little of him percentage wise in the books. I'm coming from the `actions speak louder than words' idea here. What made him scary, real and less of a cartoon from the start was first what MM says and then Hagrid's description of life when he was in control. MM says that there is only one person he is afraid of (DD), (although it seems like an obvious flaw to not be scared of Harry, but that's another topic.) MM says `After all he's done all the people he's killed he couldn't kill a little boy? It's just astounding of all the things to stop him ' This sets the stage of someone ruthless. He will kill a one year old child. A baby no less. (Personally, I tend to think of the problems caused when baby Oedipus`s parents tried to have him killed. Look how well that turned out for all concerned). This is even before we get to Hagrid's description of life under LV's control. `Dark days Harry. Didn't know who ter trust Terrible things happened. He was takin' over. `Course, some stood up to him - an' he killed `em.' and `he was gettin' more an' more powerful - why'd he go? Dunno if he had enough human left in him to die.' This shows how much day to day life was affected, and also how much of an unknown quantity LV is. The quotes I have given are just from the first 4 chapters of PS (Bloomsbury version). There's been plenty more since. The description from Moody of the old OotP photo and why so many were not in the new order springs instantly to mind. Whole families murdered. The Longbottoms tortured into insanity by some of his followers (and if that's his followers attitude, what is his own attitude like?!). These descriptions are scattered through all of the books. People recount personal experiences to Harry fairly often and we also get an explanation of some of those experiences in DD's pensive. We are told constantly of the things LV has done, and therefore, what he may very likely do again. This is what makes him *realistically* evil to me. The effect he has had on every day life and the possibility of it happening all over again. The fear and intimidation that the ordinary witch or wizard must have felt. I agree, he is very much a `caricature of evil' (phoenixgod2000 description) in person, but because of what we`ve seen of his previous capabilities, I feel he is much less of cartoon. I know people are probably sick of Nazi comparisons, so please forgive me, but the fear and intimidation LV created is a lot like that created by the SS. Some brave Germans hid people in false walls / cupboards / etc to help them escape execution, much like the idea of a secret keeper for the Potters. So it *is* realistic. Things like this really *have* happened,. Until we get the explanation of GH, I will be scared of his possibilities (as explained by characters other than Harry in relation to how life was pre - GH). Depending on the explanation, I may still be. If I may quote Pippin's post People couldn't take Hitler seriously either, once. (snip) It was laughable right up until it happened. And it's not like the WW hasn't been there before with LV. Previous experience demands that he be taken as a serious threat. I can go along with clich?d to a certain extent, but just because something is clich?d does not mean it isn't scary or realistic. (Tony Blair's pre-election promises are extremely clich?d, but that doesn't mean the idea of him being around for another term doesn't scare me (look at the state of Afghanistan and Iraq). Although, the idea of the opposition parties scares me as well if the truth be told. ) So, when LV appears in a book, in person, you may choose to read him as a cartoon and laughable (`I mean, who can read a Voldemort scene and not laugh?' - Lupinlore). I will read him with all his previous deeds in mind. After all, I've heard Hitler was a fairly runtish, family orientated man. Perhaps not charming, but ordinary enough in the flesh. It's what lay behind that exterior that caused so much hatred and death. Becky (who has just realised how long her `just to say' has become!) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Feb 19 22:16:02 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 22:16:02 -0000 Subject: Some Sybil questions (or questions on the Sybil...) In-Reply-To: <000801c5160c$d9a4c500$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124847 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "manawydan" wrote: > Just to try to spark some discussion in a new direction, here's some > ponderings on Sybil T. > > 1. Canon is silent on how old she is. bboyminn: Well, I'll take ahot at your questions and see if I can add anything to the mix. I speculate that Sybil is older than Snape (35) and younger than McGonagall (70), so that places her in the 50 to 60 range. Which in turn implies that she got her job at Hogwarts at the age of 35 to 45 (in round numbers). One thing to be cautious of when calculating /generations/ is that generation, in a manner of speaking, aren't stacked end-to-end; they overlap. Right now, four generations of my family exist at once; mother, children(me), grandchildren, and great grandchildren. And, of course, we are just ordinary muggles. In addition, one generation of wizards, because of their extended lifespan, are capable of producing multiple generations. Illustration, a wizard+witch at age 20 have kids. Those kids growup and, at age 20, have their own kids. Now the original parents (now grandparents) are 40, they could have kids again at 40 and again at 60. Now the original parents are not only great grandparents, but parents of children of equal age to thier grandchildren and great grandchildren. Did that make sense? Parents(age 20-Gen1) have kids(Gen2) --> Parents(age 40) have kids(Gen3) --> Parents(age 60) have kids(Gen4) Parents(age 20-Gen1) have kids(Gen2) --> Kids(Gen2) have kids(Gen3) --> next Gen kids(Gen3) have kids(Gen4) Given this overlap, and given that common muggles can have four generations living at once(my family), easily, wizards could have 6 to 8 generations of a given family living at any one time. A fact that seems rather odd, when you consider the lack of extended families in the books. > Ffred continues: > > Just what did she prophesy about that made her so famous? > bboyminn rambles on: Sybil in primarily an involuntary trance psychic, which means her greatest level of psychic abilit occurs when she is unaware of it. I suspect the Cassandra had a more active psychic ability, and that she was able to use it more readily, and therefore was able to demonstrate her abilities in easier, more obvious, and more frequent ways. Thus, her ability was easily demonstrated to the world around her. Therefore, She wouldn't necessarily have needed any great historically significant prophecy to solidify her reputation. > Ffred: #2. Was there no psychic ability in the two intervening > generations? Does that mean that Seers have to be female? > bboyminn: Oddly, if we look at the real world, most psychics do seem to be female. Can we assume that translates as well into the wizard world? I don't think we can say NO psychic ability in the intervening generations, only that there was no significant ability, and/or that none in those generations were interested in pursuing that ability. >Ffred: #3. What precisely made Sybil decide to apply for the Hogwarts > post? Canon suggests that she didn't have anything to recommend her > at the time. Is that correct? Might she have shown some abilities > before applying? > bboyminn: Sybil DOES have psychic ability beyond her 'involuntary trance' abilities. She saw the Grim repeatedly when giving Harry /readings/. Of course, she had know way of knowing the Grim was really Sirius in anamagus form. She also seems well versed in teaching the various methods of Divination like crystal gazing and tea reading. Sybil also accurately saw other things (Binky-the dead rabbit, Hermione leaving the class, etc...). Although, she is not always very good at interpreting what she sees. As to why Sybil applied for the Divinations job, well, everybody has to eat. I'm sure she is just 'dotty' enough that other jobs were difficult for her to get and keep, so when Divinations Professor opened up, that was like a gift from heaven to her; the perfect job. I'm not sure if she demonstrated abilities before applying, but I'm sure she certainly claimed abilities. > Ffred: #4. Given that Hogsmeade is walking distance of Hogwarts, why > did Dumbledore go to interview her rather than asking her to go to > the castle? > bboyminn: Well, this pretty unfounded, just an intuitive guess on my part, but I think Dumbledore went to meet Sybil rather than having Sybil come to him, because he had already (almost) made up his mind, and didn't even consider it a true interview worthy of taking place at Hogwarts. Dumbledore probably thought he would just run down to the Inn, have a polite cup of tea, tell her 'no thanks', and be done with it. > Ffred: #5. The question about who the eavesdropper was has been > frequently discussed, so I won't pose it again, just to point out > that it couldn't have been Peter ...edited... > > Ffred: #6. But what prompted an eavesdropper to be present at that > precise time? Who knew that the interview was going to take place? > Why might they have believed they were going to hear something > important? > bboyminn: Peter could have been the eavesdropper, I don't have a problem with that and even find the idea somewhat appealing. We know that Voldemort had spies, and we know that Dumbledore was certainly being watched, and we know that the Hog's Head is a slighltly (understatment) dodgy place. It's not unreasonable for some random dodgy character in the bar to see Dumbledore come in and wonder that he's up to. So, they simply followed him to find out. This /dodgy character/ could be a random opportunist, a Voldemort sympathizer, a Voldemort supporter, or one of Voldie's henchmen/spy. Even a random opportunist might realize that what he overheard could be useful to Voldemort, and more important, realize that doing Voldie a favor might just save you life someday. So, they sent word to Voldie that they had useful information. It's kind of a flip of a coin, but in the moment, I am leaning toward the eavesdropper being a random insignificant character. Although, tomorrow, my opinion might be exactly the opposite. > Ffred: #7. Having taken Sybil on, Dumbledore seems to have left her > to her own devices. But while she's prophesying, she seems unaware > that she's doing it. Wouldn't it have made some sense to have put > some sort of monitoring spellon her lodgings ... > > Ffred: #8. What exactly brings a prophecy on? Is it spontaneous, or > does something spark it off? bboyminn: Well, would you want to live somewhere where your every movement and thought was being monitored (can you spell 'Big Brother 1984'?). I don't think so (the living, not the spelling). Sybil, like anyone else, deserves a fair and reasonable amount of privacy. I do however believe that Dumbledore hired her both because she might be IN danger as well as A danger, but also because he wanted to keep he close by. She seemed to be intune to the events surrounding Harry's life and fate, and it would be good to keep her close in case of new information via prophecy arose. While Sybil could be making 10 prophecies a day when no one is looking, I suspect what triggers her trance is the proximity of someone for whom there are siginificant prophetic events; someone with a strong aura of Destiny. While Sybil's prophecies relate to Dumbledore and Harry, their fruition will have massive impact on the entire wizard and muggle world. So, as the Centaurs might put it, Sybil's prophecies are not about single events or individuals, but about 'great tides'. > > Ffred: #9 Is Sybil ESE? > > ... > Cheers > > Ffred bboyminn: ESE...? NO. Steve/bboyminn From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat Feb 19 22:55:42 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 22:55:42 -0000 Subject: Some Sybil questions (or questions on the Sybil...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124848 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > > 1. Canon is silent on how old she is. > > bboyminn: > > Well, I'll take ahot at your questions and see if I can add anything > to the mix. > > I speculate that Sybil is older than Snape (35) and younger than > McGonagall (70), so that places her in the 50 to 60 range. Which in > turn implies that she got her job at Hogwarts at the age of 35 to 45 > (in round numbers). Hickengruendler: Maybe I am influenced by the movie, but I think even before seeing it I imagined her to be in her fourties, maybe even early fourties. I suppose it's because I have the impression that she spendt most of her life in Hogwarts and was in her twenties when she was hired. But it's just speculation anyway. > > > > Ffred: #2. Was there no psychic ability in the two intervening > > generations? Does that mean that Seers have to be female? > > > > bboyminn: > > Oddly, if we look at the real world, most psychics do seem to be > female. Can we assume that translates as well into the wizard world? Hickengruendler: No. One of the prophecies the sextett destroyed in the DoM was one from a man. > > > > Ffred: #4. Given that Hogsmeade is walking distance of Hogwarts, why > > did Dumbledore go to interview her rather than asking her to go to > > the castle? > > > Hickengruendler: It was necessariy for the plot. ;-) > > > Ffred: #5. The question about who the eavesdropper was has been > > frequently discussed, so I won't pose it again, just to point out > > that it couldn't have been Peter ...edited... > bboyminn: > > Peter could have been the eavesdropper, I don't have a problem with > that and even find the idea somewhat appealing. Hickengruendler: I agree with Ffred on that point. The eavesdropper was caught, after all. If it were Peter, then Dumbledore and the Potters would have known it and never made him secret-keeper. Hickengruendler From tim at marvinhold.com Sat Feb 19 23:03:07 2005 From: tim at marvinhold.com (Tim) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 23:03:07 -0000 Subject: who said "stupefy!" In-Reply-To: <1db.36136dcf.2f490228@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124849 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, catportkey at a... wrote: > Who said stupefy against Moody (page 679)? > was it Harry or D? I believe it was D. > But I would be interested in what others think. > Pook > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Are you speaking of the scene in GOF where Dumbledore Stuplifies Fake Moody through the door or the scene in OOP where Moody hits the floor and his eye goes a rolling? Also page 679 in the US or UK edition? Tim From manawydan at ntlworld.com Sat Feb 19 23:17:25 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 23:17:25 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Some Sybil questions (or questions on the Sybil...) References: <1108819741.10242.8414.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <002e01c516d9$2dac2d60$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 124850 Potioncat wrote: >Well, the life spans are very long, but so far it appears that >couples have babies around the same age as Muggles do. So I'm not >sure these dates are correct. Does the Chocolate Frog cards give >Cassandra's dates? Some do (Harry's parents certainly do) but others possibly don't (Harry's grandparents are deceased, as are Sirius's parents, which might suggest that they had their children late in life) >It sounded as if DD didn't plan to fill a vacancy. Although he does >seem to value prophecies. Perhaps he doesn't think it is an easily >taught magic. She may have felt she had the sight even if no one else >thought she had it. I'd like to know how old she is too. Was she at >Hogwarts with the Marauders and Snape? or is she older? She seems to be of an indeterminate age. Could be of the Marauders generation (though she seems to have an older "feel" about her, maybe of the Weasleys' generation). If so, it could put her ancestry back even further. I remember a post (can't remember by whom) which suggested that in fact divination is far easier to teach (eg in terms of the techniques) than to prove that you can do. If Dumbledore didn't have a vacancy to fill, then what prompted Sybil to turn up in the first place? It would have taken considerable chutzpah on her part as an unproven Seer to turn up on spec and try to persuade him to create a post. Though if the post was already there, here's another question: what happened to Sybil's predecessor? >But, if a rat was found dozing in the hallway, it would be chased out >pretty quickly. We don't know when DD found out about an >eavesdropper, or if the person who expelled the eavesdropper >even knew that eavesdropping was happening. > >Can I make that more clear? Someone sees a rat and tries to catch it, >but it escapes. In conversation to DD something is said about >needing an exterminator because of the rat. Some time later, DD >discovers part of his conversation had been overheard and even later >puts it all together. I'm not saying it was Peter, but it could have >been. Still more questions would come up if this were so, though. Why would Peter have been there in the first place (unless he was in league with an ESE!Trelawny)? How would DD have discovered part of the conversation had been overheard without knowing the identity of the person who overheard it - it'd seem a pretty important question of DD's spy. The plot thickens still further.. Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Feb 19 23:45:19 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 23:45:19 -0000 Subject: Did JKR cheat with the prophecy? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124851 It seems to me that a strong case can be made that JKR has cheated rather badly by introducing the prophecy as worded in OOTP. I don't mean that she has done something immoral or even something uninteresting from a literary point of view. However, she has tried to emphasize, time and again, the power of personal choice. Then she introduces a prophecy that, by its very nature, so strongly restricts the scope of personal choice as to make it meaningless, or nearly so, in some contexts. Let us look at how this plays out with Dumbledore, a character we have been discussing a great deal lately. I don't mean to imply that the prophecy ONLY affects DD, but lets use him as an example. Particularly, lets see how the prophecy plays out in the questions of 1) Harry and the Dursleys, 2) DD's love for Harry vs. his love for the Wizarding World. 1) Those who defend DD's actions with regard to Harry and the Dursleys (I'm not going to replay all that, read the last month's worth of posts if you need a refresher) tend to do so on the basis of the prophecy. I.E. given the prophecy as it is worded, DD had no choice. In effect, what JKR has done is to create a story based on choice then attempt to protect DD from the implications of his choices by introducing a prophecy that, in effect, gives him a free pass by TAKING AWAY his power of choice. That way she can have DD make a decision that causes huge amounts of misery for Harry and still have him be "the epitome of goodness" because he had no choice in the matter. So we have a story that emphasizes choice yet at the very beginning choice is taken away. Now, I happen to believe JKR fails miserably in this stratagem, largely because I don't find such a radical restriction of DD's choices believable given the fact that he is "the most powerful wizard in the world," yada, yada, yada. And I think a lot of other people find it a failing stratagem as well, given the "DD should have interfered" school, the "Dursleys were a wrong choice" school, the "DD is toughening Harry up" school, etc. Of course you could argue that one is often faced with restricted choices in life. But rarely choices THAT restricted, and NEVER restricted by prophecy. Thus the prophecy becomes a rather clumsy, and badly failing, slight of hand to get DD off the hook. 2) The DD's love for Harry situation. The most wrenching conflict DD could face, and the one most fraught with moral problems for readers, would be one that required him to choose between Harry or the Wizarding World. Imagine the firestorm of argument that would bring on, igniting the whole "greater good" and "ends vs. means" arguments that would have people frothing at the mouth with rage on one side or the other. But note how neatly the prophecy closes off that possibility. As I've said in another post, on a surface reading of "either must kill the other for neither can live while the other survives," we have three scenarios: A) Harry kills Voldy and survives, saving the WW B) Harry kills Voldy and Voldy kills Harry, the WW survives C) Voldy kills Harry and survives, the WW is destroyed Note, there IS no scenario by which the WW can be destroyed and Harry survives. Given this, the prophecy neatly closes off the most problematic choice DD could make. It's simply not a possible choice. Once again, the prophecy is a device to safeguard him from possible moral ambiguity. In contrast to the above situation, I think this largely succeeds. I still feel it is a form of cheating, however. Rather than have Albus face this wrenching decision, and suffer the consequences, if only in readers' minds, JKR neatly rescues him by once again taking away his power of choice. Lupinlore From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 19 23:59:13 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 23:59:13 -0000 Subject: Does Dumbledore love Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124852 "lupinlore" wrote: > there are three possibilities: >1) Harry kills Voldy. Harry survives. WW survives. >2) Harry kills Voldy. Voldy kills Harry. WW survives. >3) Voldy kills Harry. Voldy survives. WW destroyed. There is another posibility and the one I think will happen: 4) Harry kills Voldy. Voldy kills Harry. WW survives. Eggplant From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sun Feb 20 00:10:06 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 00:10:06 -0000 Subject: Simple!Snape? (was: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124853 Neri tosses the gauntlet: > > I let you choose these two missing pieces any way you want to. > > Just invent whatever you think would work. Put your two pieces > > of puzzle into place and answer these questions: Lupinlore took the challenge: > Okay, here goes. > > STORY TO DUMBLEDORE: He found a lot of Voldemort's policies > attractive initially, and was deeply fascinated by the Dark Arts, > but has come to realize the man is insane and his policies will > lead to the destruction of the WW, including Snape and all the > purebloods. He will work for DD as a spy in the pureblood ranks > to keep this from happening. > > PRESENT POLICIES: Is committed to bringing Voldemort down, but is > primarily concerned, deep down, with his own self-preservation. Is > loyal to DD because he honestly thinks working for DD is the best > way to destroy Voldy and preserve self. His hatred of James and > the Marauders, and Harry by extension, do have a very bad way of > clouding his judgment, however. SSSusan: If these are the two missing pieces which explain everything, then I have another question to add to those of Neri's (to which you already responded). It's a very old question, one which has been asked here by me and others many times, but I'm not positive your two missing pieces quite explain it. Why does Snape, especially after he *knows* Voldy has indeed returned, NOT do everything in his power to ensure that Harry is learning everything he can about how to defeat Voldemort? You said that: 1) Snape believes Voldy's insane & bent on destroying the WW; and 2) Snape is committed to bringing down Voldy while preserving his own life. Unless you believe that Snape does NOT know Harry is *the* key, *the* one person who is capable of bringing Voldy down and saving the WW (and, hence, Snape), then why does Snape not go out of his way to teach Harry EVERYTHING he can -- about Potions, about Occlumency, about what he knows of Voldemort's characture, nature, tactics, goals, etc.?? Because I don't see that he's done this. In fact, his teaching style and interaction style with Harry have, in fact, contributed to Harry's shutting down, acting surly, not trying, and not trusting *Professor* Snape. If Snape was hell-bent on getting Harry ready to bring down Voldy, wouldn't he ask himself, "Is what I'm doing working? Is it enough?" Siriusly Snapey Susan From elanorpam at yahoo.com.br Mon Feb 21 01:22:43 2005 From: elanorpam at yahoo.com.br (Paula "Elanor Pam") Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:22:43 -0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Does Dumbledore love Harry? References: Message-ID: <001801c517b3$d9fa46d0$0601010a@harrypotter> No: HPFGUIDX 124854 From: "eggplant9998" > "lupinlore" wrote: > > > there are three possibilities: > > >1) Harry kills Voldy. Harry survives. WW survives. > >2) Harry kills Voldy. Voldy kills Harry. WW survives. > >3) Voldy kills Harry. Voldy survives. WW destroyed. > > There is another posibility and the one I think will happen: > > 4) Harry kills Voldy. Voldy kills Harry. WW survives. > > Eggplant I assume you mean "Harry kills Voldy. Voldy kills Harry. WW destroyed". (Not because I really think that'll happen... it's a possibility but it's conflicting with whatever children book mood is left in the series.) Afterall, what you wrote is the same as Lupinlore's option 2. Elanor Pam From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 00:38:15 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 00:38:15 -0000 Subject: Some Sybil questions (or questions on the Sybil...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124855 Hickengruendler: Maybe I am influenced by the movie, but I think even before seeing it I imagined her to be in her fourties, maybe even early fourties. I suppose it's because I have the impression that she spent most of her life in Hogwarts and was in her twenties when she was hired. But it's just speculation anyway. vmonte responds: I agree with you. I also imagined Trelawny being in her early twenties when hired. She came accross as someone young, poor (she chose the Inn for its cheapness), and desperate for a job. I also agree that divination is not exclusive to women. As Hickengruendler mentioned, one of the prophecy orbs that shattered during the fight at the DoM belong to an old man. Vivian From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 00:58:32 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:58:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Some Sybil questions (or questions on the Sybil...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050220005832.71277.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124856 > "manawydan" > Just to try to spark some discussion in a new direction, here's > some ponderings on Sybil T. > > 1. Canon is silent on how old she is. Yes, but we do get some hints in POA. She gets dressed up and comes down to the Christmas dinner in the Great Hall and one of the first things she says is "Where's Lupin?" Later she tells how she offered to crystal-ball gaze for him and he ran away. I think it's clear that she's making a play for him and he ran - not because of fear of the moon-orb - but because of her obvious intentions. So I think she's close to the Snape-Lupin-Sirius age group with maybe a few years ahead of them that she believes are not visible to the naked eye. Let's say she's 35-38ish in POA where we get our first good look at her. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Feb 20 01:40:36 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 01:40:36 -0000 Subject: Did JKR cheat with the prophecy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124857 Lupinlore: As I've said in another post, on a surface reading of "either must kill the other for neither can live while the other survives," we have three scenarios: > > A) Harry kills Voldy and survives, saving the WW > B) Harry kills Voldy and Voldy kills Harry, the WW survives > C) Voldy kills Harry and survives, the WW is destroyed > > Note, there IS no scenario by which the WW can be destroyed and Harry survives. Pippin: Sure there is: Harry survives and destroys the wizarding world. In fact, I suspect he will be offered just this choice, and it's foreclosed to Dumbledore so that Harry will have to decide it. Pippin From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 02:21:23 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 02:21:23 -0000 Subject: Simple!Snape? (was: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124858 > Neri tosses the gauntlet: > > > I let you choose these two missing pieces any way you want to. > > > Just invent whatever you think would work. Put your two pieces > > > of puzzle into place and answer these questions: > > > Lupinlore took the challenge: > > Okay, here goes. > > > > STORY TO DUMBLEDORE: He found a lot of Voldemort's policies > > attractive initially, and was deeply fascinated by the Dark Arts, > > but has come to realize the man is insane and his policies will > > lead to the destruction of the WW, including Snape and all the > > purebloods. He will work for DD as a spy in the pureblood ranks > > to keep this from happening. > > > > PRESENT POLICIES: Is committed to bringing Voldemort down, but is > > primarily concerned, deep down, with his own self-preservation. Is > > loyal to DD because he honestly thinks working for DD is the best > > way to destroy Voldy and preserve self. His hatred of James and > > the Marauders, and Harry by extension, do have a very bad way of > > clouding his judgment, however. > > > SSSusan: > > Why does Snape, especially after he *knows* Voldy has indeed > returned, NOT do everything in his power to ensure that Harry is > learning everything he can about how to defeat Voldemort? Neri again: First of all, IMO simple!Snape performs quite well relative to several snapetheories that I've read before. One major disadvantage of it is that it's really lacking in the BANG department, but of course Lupinlore told us before that the Snape story holds much less bang than we expect. Still, considering JKR's quite impressive history of bangs, it seems a serious mistake of her to build so many expectations and allusions regarding Snape only to later resolve them in such a boring way. She had told us (more than once, I think) that we should "keep our eyes on Snape". Keep our eyes waiting for what? To find out that he's a nasty and bitter man? That he realized Voldy is dangerous? This is not a promise that JKR should have made unless she thinks she can deliver. Another problem with this version of simple!Snape is that it doesn't, in Nora's words, "click nicely into place". You would expect that once we know the truth, small mysterious things like the sudden movement in the end of GoF would be clarified automatically, without need for Snape saying in the end of Book 7: "remember that sudden movement I did in the infirmary then? It was because I was startled that Lucius was stupid enough to reveal himself" or the like. The same way that, once we find out who Crouch!Moody really is, small things like his note to Snape about "spots that never come off" or his interest in Neville click into place without having to be explained. Also, if Snape has never left Voldy, why doesn't Voldy care that Snape tried to stop Quirrell, and who was "the one who left me forever"? The more fundamental problem with simple!Snape is that it does nothing to resolve the apparent contradictions in Snape's character: 1. He is mainly interested in his own survival, yet he's ready to risk his life instead of simply running away and leave the others to take the risks. 2. He's so fascinated with the Dark Arts that he can't be trusted to teach DADA without loosing control, yet he had enough control to desert Voldemort, the greatest Dark Arts expert of them all. 3. He has the courage to risk his life for a big cause, yet he doesn't have the courage to let go his grudge to a man that is now dead for 14 years. 4. He wants Voldemort destroyed enough to change sides and risk his own life, yet he can't bring himself to help the only person who has the power to destroy Voldemort. 5. He is cool and calculated enough to be a double agent, yet not enough to keep his temper when teaching Harry Occlumency. So if simple!Snape is correct, it mainly means that JKR is lousy with her characterizing as she is lousy with delivering long-promised bangs. And if you believe she is indeed all that, then why would you be HP fans at all? In my personal rating of Snape theories, simple!Snape is somewhere in the middle with LOLLIPOPS. It's certainly more probable than LOLLIPOPS and answers more questions, but it also has less bang, and LOLLIPOPS at least offers a real attempt to resolve the contradictions in Snape's character. Personally, I'll keep looking for a better theory than both. Neri From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Feb 19 22:38:15 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 22:38:15 -0000 Subject: Neville's nerves (Castles in the air?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124859 > vmonte responds: > Yep, I agree. I've said this here myself. I wouldn't be surprised > if Snape was there with Lucius. This event happened after GH, and > Lucius would have told Voldemort about it. Snape being there would > be enough proof to Voldemort that Snape was still on his side and > working from within Hogwarts. > > I also see Snape as having a personal vendetta against Neville (much > along the lines of Harry) that reflects perhaps an equal dislike of > his parents. Perhaps, Neville will begin to remember some of the > events regarding his parents attack. a_svirn: Well, I am not sure. I mean, yes SOMEHOW Snape is definitely involved, but, why would HE torture the Longbottoms? He IS rather bitter and vindictive, but there has been not a single hint in canon so far that Snape and the Longbottoms were at outs. He does not make a secret of his hatred towards Potter Sr. but he has never ever mentioned Frank Longbottom. Also Snape certainly doesn't strike me as a type to risk everything in order to bring LV back. And neither does Lucius for that matter. He was faring just fine without his Lord and Master after all. And in his Welcome Speech LV did make his displeasure of Lucius known. He said something about being constantly on the alert, but I don't think LV was fooled. And take Crouch Jr. ? he positively loathes Snape and the Malfoys! On the other hand JRK stated in one of interviews that Bellatrix didn't know about the prophecy and anyway she's somewhat crazy at best of times. She must have been confused and dangerous after her Lord's downfall. She could have become as much of a liability for those who were willing to adjust to the Brave New World as Crouch Sr. I can see how accomplished manipulators like Snape and Malfoy could use her to their own ends. Suppose Bellatrix and Co were fed some kind of a false story concerning the Longbottoms (a popular pure-blood family) and then Aurors were tipped just in time to find her AND a son of the most relentless anti-DE in the whole Ministry red-handed? That would have taken care of several problems simultaneously. To hatch and execute such a scheme would be more like Snape that trying to bring LV back in which case he could be the one who obliviated the Longbottoms. a_svirn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 00:07:26 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 00:07:26 -0000 Subject: Voldemort the Cartoon (was Re: Draco = Evil?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124860 Northsouth wrote: > Voldemort is human though. I just typed and deleted "or was", > because IMO he is human, whether he, and Hagrid and Harry and us, > for that matter, like it or not. It's disturbing, to me, that he > chose to disfigure himself, whether as a sacrifice to his quest > for immortality, an attempt to erase his own humanity, or something > else. a_svirn: And where is the proof of that? He certainly doesn't look human; he wasn't born like any human being but MADE artificially. He is rather like Frankenstein and his monster in one. And besides we know on the authority of Dumbledore that his is not human enough to die and on his own authority that he's "much more than a man". And these two are the best informed persons in the whole WW after all. > Northsouth: > But if all we knew about LV was his present incarnation, he'd be > laughable, because he so neatly fits the typical Evil Overlord > They [wizards] take Voldemort perfectly seriously, on every level - > they have cause to, they've already been through one war with him. > Much like Hitler, except that the WW Hitler has been resurrected, and > they know he's dangerous. Making Voldemort silly looking isn't going > to help in drawing any parallels with silly looking 1920's Hitler. a_svirn: Well there is a certain cardboard quality in Voldemort although I fail to see how it makes him look like Hitler or Stalin. THEY were unfortunately very much flesh and blood. As for wizards taking him seriously, well he did have a knack to make his point perfectly clear after all look at Mrs Weasley's boggart. Dave: > It seems to me that in disfiguring himself in pursuit of > immortality and total evil-overlordiness, Tom Riddle robbed > himself of his most powerful weapon. In the Chamber he tells > Harry, "I've always been able to charm the people I needed." > It's hard to be charming when you have a snake-like face, big > red eyes, and spidery fingers. a_svirn: I suppose he needed his charm to get where he is, but having established himself as a Dark Lord he could well afford to dispense with such foolishness. Besides, we don't know whether he was such a snake-like monster before GH. He did use snake venom while creating an "embryo" that would account for his present looks. And that wasn't his fist choice either I suspect should he get hold of the Philosopher Stone he could have looked differently. Alla: > The gist of my post was that I don't find Voldemort to be very > scary at all. I think that JKR does NOT portray him well. > > > After all, Voldemort and what he stands for is supposed to be an > ultimate threat, right? But even during the time of peace, evil > things keep happening and I am not going to stop calling them evil, > just because much bigger Evil is lurking in the shadows (well, he > is not lurking anymore, but you get what I mean). a_svirn: I think we are all being a bit hard on JKR. I am quite sure that the lack of the "third dimension" in how she's portraying LV is quite deliberate on her part. This is her admittedly not-too-subtle way of showing that the worst evil is always of our own making. While Tom Riddle is certainly a talented wizard and worthy opponent he is not scary enough to make the whole WW tremble. Now, Voldemort is something altogether different. He is not so much a wizard (even a dark one), but the personification of the worst fears of the wizardkind. His very name is taboo, for God's sake! His power is akin to that of the Dementors, because he feeds on fears and discordance that exists in the WW. And really why should she even try to make someone who denies his own humanity appear less carton- like. a_svirn From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 02:50:40 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 02:50:40 -0000 Subject: Readers POV/ was Writers Fiat Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124861 phoenixgod2000: >In fact, I still can't >understand why people didn't like Capslock!Harry in OOTP. Because I >completely bought into his frustration and felt it alongside him. >When I got online to see what other people thought about the book, I >was shocked to see so many people who didn't like Harry in that >book. I honestly thought he didn't go far enough in his anger. Never >once in the book was I ever angry at him. I was only ever angry on >*behalf* of Harry. I feel such strong emotions that I have only >ever read OOTP one time. I just get too angry over all of the adult >characters letting Harry down to reread the book. I can see all the >mistakes coming and it just kills me. As usual, I agree with you completely. I totally sympathized with Harry's rage - he actually runs the gamut of emotion in this book: frustration (kept in the dark all summer), depression (his friends making no attempt to fill him in), horror (dementor attack), fear (possible expulsion), jealousy (Ron and Hermione made prefects), confusion (Dumbledore's behavior), and all of that is merely at the beginning of the book. Fill in any of the parens with Umbridge, Snape, Cho, Hagrid, and so on. Harry's emotions build to the breaking point and the last straw is the death of Sirius, for which he also adds a massive amount of guilt to his load. I found his anger to be perfectly justified - what was out of character for me is Dumbledore's refusal to give Harry information - he should have explained WHY he was avoiding Harry and he should have let Harry know WHY the lessons with Snape were important. Very frustrating. What surprised me when I read it the second time was when Harry was trying to find someone to warn about Sirius being "captured" and he later berated himself for not even thinking about Snape... well, I never thought about Snape, either! Nicky Joe From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Feb 20 02:54:28 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 02:54:28 -0000 Subject: Simple!Snape? (was: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124862 > > > SSSusan: > If these are the two missing pieces which explain everything, then I > have another question to add to those of Neri's (to which you > already responded). It's a very old question, one which has been > asked here by me and others many times, but I'm not positive your > two missing pieces quite explain it. > > Why does Snape, especially after he *knows* Voldy has indeed > returned, NOT do everything in his power to ensure that Harry is > learning everything he can about how to defeat Voldemort? > > You said that: 1) Snape believes Voldy's insane & bent on > destroying the WW; and 2) Snape is committed to bringing down Voldy > while preserving his own life. > > Unless you believe that Snape does NOT know Harry is *the* key, > *the* one person who is capable of bringing Voldy down and saving > the WW (and, hence, Snape), then why does Snape not go out of his > way to teach Harry EVERYTHING he can -- about Potions, about > Occlumency, about what he knows of Voldemort's characture, nature, > tactics, goals, etc.?? > > Because I don't see that he's done this. In fact, his teaching > style and interaction style with Harry have, in fact, contributed to > Harry's shutting down, acting surly, not trying, and not trusting > *Professor* Snape. If Snape was hell-bent on getting Harry ready to > bring down Voldy, wouldn't he ask himself, "Is what I'm doing > working? Is it enough?" > > Siriusly Snapey Susan I don't think he has done this, either, Susan. I tend to think that Snape DOESN'T know all the prophecy, or maybe anything except that their IS a prophecy. Perhaps the apparent contradiction in Snape's behavior could be explained as follows: 1) Snape is primarily interested in self-preservation, and believes that bringing down Voldemort is a must for that; 2) He knows that their is a prophecy about Harry and Voldy; 3) He does not know the contents of said prophecy. Voldy might very well feel it too dangerous to let his DEs know that Harry is the one with the power to defeat him, and Dumbledore might treat this information as privileged just as he treats as privileged the reason he trusts Snape, so... 4) Snape probably assumes the prophecy is about something that Harry will or that Voldy will do to Harry. He probably thinks, however, that this is only a piece of the puzzle leading to the defeat of Voldemort. Indeed, his contempt for James and Harry probably makes it VERY difficult for him to believe that the boy could have anything crucial to do with the defeat of the Dark Lord, which he believes will be accomplished by the Order, and preferably by one Severus Snape; 5) So, he is contemptuous of Harry and doesn't want to have anything to do with him, and resents having to teach him. If, deep down, he suspects that Harry MIGHT be important to the defeat of the Dark Lord, this only fuels his anger. How DARE that impudent boy be crucial to the defeat of Voldemort?! That honor belongs to more worthy people than the son of James Potter! 6) I suspect that the conversations between Snape and DD about Harry are somewhat similar to the conversations Harry and DD have about Snape. To wit: "That arrogant boy wouldn't practice! He violated my pensieve...." Snape snarled angrily. "I am aware of it, Severus," Dumbledore answered tiredly. " I have already said it was a mistake not to teach Harry myself." "He was ready to hex Malfoy in the entranceway!" "Now, Severus," Dumbledore said mildly, "you know very well that Harry has no reason to love Draco Malfoy. And Mr. Malfoy is enraged at the revelations about his father. Harry was, after all, defending himself." "Potter...." "MISTER Potter, Severus," Dumbledore corrected. "He is going to be the death of us all! Why do you insist..." "I have every faith in Harry," Dumbledore replied quietly. "But I forgot, an old man's mistake, what it is to be young and frustrated." 7) Given that scenario, which I think is a rather probable one, wouldn't Snape constantly feel angry, confused, and resentful? Lupinlore From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 00:47:46 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 00:47:46 -0000 Subject: Did JKR cheat with the prophecy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124863 > Lupinlore: > It seems to me that a strong case can be made that JKR has cheated > rather badly by introducing the prophecy as worded in OOTP. I > don't mean that she has done something immoral or even something > uninteresting from a literary point of view. However, she has > tried to emphasize, time and again, the power of personal choice. > Then she introduces a prophecy that, by its very nature, so strongly > restricts the scope of personal choice as to make it meaningless, or > nearly so, in some contexts. a_svirn: I disagree. LV CHOSE to strike thereby making prophesy real. Also. Wouldn't it a bit too na?ve for us to take DD "prophecy speech" at its face value? The very fact that we are being given an "ultimate explanation" at the end of the Book 5 instead of the Book 7 is a warning enough IMHO. Why should we believe that he finally tells everything and leaves nothing out now, when we have seen him giving out perfectly plausible explanations for his actions which just didn't happen to be the real reasons behind them before? Like telling McGonagall in the first chapter of the first book that fame can be distractive for any boy's character and Harry therefore would be far better off with the Muggles. Valid reason, isn't it? And McGonagall is as trustworthy and loyal as one can get. Still, he clearly does not choose to burden her with too much knowledge. As for the "prophecy speech" each of his arguments makes sense in itself but when put together they just don't fall into a clear picture, which Harry would have seen had he not been so shocked and upset at the moment. DD doesn't explain what he was trying to achieve during OotP, he doesn't explain the nature of the connection between Harry and LV. This is something he doesn't want Harry to ponder, and he skilfully distracts him throwing at him the Prophecy. And when Harry interprets it ? rather simplistically IMHO ? that he obviously would end up either as a killer or as a victim, DD just agrees and does not choose to elaborate. I think it is safe to assume, however, that there is more to the prophecy than just simple matter of who kills whom. DD however "will have his reasons" to keep his guesses to himself. Obviously he succeeded in taking Harry in once again but we ought to be more suspicious by now. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 01:11:37 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 01:11:37 -0000 Subject: Simple!Snape? / Occlumency, Legilimency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124864 > SSSusan: > If these are the two missing pieces which explain everything, then > I have another question to add to those of Neri's (to which you > already responded). It's a very old question, one which has been > asked here by me and others many times, but I'm not positive your > two missing pieces quite explain it. > > Why does Snape, especially after he *knows* Voldy has indeed > returned, NOT do everything in his power to ensure that Harry is > learning everything he can about how to defeat Voldemort? a_svirn: Even if Snape IS committed to the DD's side (which we by no means know for sure) he still hates Harry. It would be too much I'm afraid to expect him to pull Lupin during their Occlumency lessons just so Harry would feel more at ease. Besides Harry himself wasn't helping, was he? He WANTED to be able to "read You-Know-Who's mind", as Ron phrased it. He simply did not want to sever this connection, because he believed it to be rather useful one. And even so they did some kind of progress, didn't they? The thing is, at some point a strange thing happened ? the Door opened right during their Legillimency session. And it clearly frightened Snape. Might he have been afraid that LV (who was obviously invading Harry's mind at the moment) noticed his own presence there? I mean, if DD didn't feel like exposing himself to LV via Legillimency why Snape couldn't think along the same lines? For him it could have been just as dangerous if not more. Personally, I think that "his worst memory" episode was staged, so he could get himself out of this predicament. a_svirn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 01:16:45 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 01:16:45 -0000 Subject: Some Sybil questions (or questions on the Sybil...) In-Reply-To: <20050220005832.71277.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124865 > Magda: > I think it's clear that she's making a play for him and he ran - > not because of fear of the moon-orb - but because of her obvious > intentions. > > So I think she's close to the Snape-Lupin-Sirius age group with > maybe a few years ahead of them that she believes are not visible > to the naked eye. Let's say she's 35-38ish in POA where we get > our first good look at her. a_svirn: Her making a play for Lupin does not necessarily mean that they are the same age IMHO. If anything the fact that he fled the scene makes us suspect that there might have been a significant age gap there. a_svirn From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Feb 20 03:18:48 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:18:48 -0000 Subject: Simple!Snape? (was: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124866 > > The more fundamental problem with simple!Snape is that it does nothing > to resolve the apparent contradictions in Snape's character: That is a good point. However, I'm not sure that Snape's character really IS all THAT contradictory. What I mean by that is that human beings are very complex creatures, given to all kinds of self-contradiction, foolishness, and illogical behavior. George Patton was a great general and a brave man sincerely dedicated to bringing about the Allied Victory in WW II. He was also arrogant, petty, vain, ambitious, capable of feuds extending over years with some of his most important allies (particularly Montgormery),given to almost breathtaking viciousness and cruelty toward subordinates he perceived as having crossed him or having failed him, and not above using the lives of American soldiers as chips in the high stakes game of building his own reputation. Pappy Boyington was one of the greatest American aces of WWII, a pilot whose men (the famous Black Sheep Squadron) admired him greatly for his bravery and leadership skills. He was also a drunk and a gambling addict who had been sentenced to join the Army by a court as punishment for welching on debts and getting into drunken fights, and whose own men (the same ones who admired him a squadron commander) often expressed contempt for the way he handled his personal life and treated the people close to him. Which is just to say I'm not really sure that Snape's contradictions are all that extraordinary. > > 1. He is mainly interested in his own survival, yet he's ready to risk > his life instead of simply running away and leave the others to take > the risks. > Interested in his own survival in the long run. However, he is possessed of bravery and willing to fight for that survival. He may well believe that fighting is the ONLY way to win through to survival, and that running away would merely ensure his eventual demise. I'm not sure that is really much of a contradiction. After all, most soldiers in combat units (particularly soldiers who have been drafted into major wars) say they are fighting for their survival and the survival of their comrades, but they don't run away. > 2. He's so fascinated with the Dark Arts that he can't be trusted to > teach DADA without loosing control, yet he had enough control to > desert Voldemort, the greatest Dark Arts expert of them all. > Yes. However, Voldemort is also, under this scenario, someone he has come to realize is insane and whose policies will eventually lead to the death of one Severus Snape, either on the end of an Aurors spell or during a purge by Voldy. His interest in staying alive over rides his fascination with the Dark Arts. If he was made DADA teacher, however, the exposure might simply be too much. Many alcoholics will give up alcohol when their bodies start to fail. Their desire to live overrides their need to drink. That doesn't mean it would be a good idea to hire them as bartenders, however. > 3. He has the courage to risk his life for a big cause, yet he doesn't > have the courage to let go his grudge to a man that is now dead for 14 > years. Once again, think of Patton. He had the courage to risk his own safety on a regular basis, but didn't have the courage to bury the hatchet with Montgomery, his most important ally who he HAD to work with in order to win the war. That is silly, but it is very standard human behavior and I don't think it requires any special explanation in Severus' case. Or think of it another way within the context of HP. Sirius had the courage to stand 12 years in Azkaban but not the courage to trust DD when DD said Snape was to be trusted with Harry's Occlumency lessons. Does that mean there is something bizarre about Sirius we haven't heard? > > 4. He wants Voldemort destroyed enough to change sides and risk his > own life, yet he can't bring himself to help the only person who has > the power to destroy Voldemort. Once again, I'm not sure he knows what the prophecy said. > > 5. He is cool and calculated enough to be a double agent, yet not > enough to keep his temper when teaching Harry Occlumency. Pappy Boyington was one of the coolest aces of the war under enemy fire. But he regularly got into screaming matches and out and out brawls over a game of poker. Patton once stood immobile directly in the path of a Luftwaffe strafing plane, trusting his air defenses to bring it down before the bullets reached him. Yet he couldn't have a simple conversation with another general officer (British OR American) without screaming profanity at the top of his lungs (at least until Eisenhower out screamed him). > > > So if simple!Snape is correct, it mainly means that JKR is lousy with > her characterizing as she is lousy with delivering long-promised > bangs I don't think it would make her lousy with characterization at all. It would simply mean she has painted Snape as a very believable human being who is full of contradictions, but no more so than most people and a lot less than some. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Feb 20 03:24:33 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:24:33 -0000 Subject: Does Dumbledore love Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124867 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > > "lupinlore" wrote: > > > there are three possibilities: > > >1) Harry kills Voldy. Harry survives. WW survives. > >2) Harry kills Voldy. Voldy kills Harry. WW survives. > >3) Voldy kills Harry. Voldy survives. WW destroyed. > > There is another posibility and the one I think will happen: > > 4) Harry kills Voldy. Voldy kills Harry. WW survives. > > Eggplant Err, your number 4 is word for word the same as my number 2. Did you mean something different? I agree that it's a possibility. I would find it unbelievably insipid, but a possibility. Lupinlore From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 04:02:12 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 23:02:12 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Did JKR cheat with the prophecy? References: Message-ID: <005701c51700$f5b054e0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 124868 > Lupinlore: > As I've said in another post, on a surface reading of > "either must kill the other for neither can live while the other > survives," we have three scenarios: >> >> A) Harry kills Voldy and survives, saving the WW >> B) Harry kills Voldy and Voldy kills Harry, the WW survives >> C) Voldy kills Harry and survives, the WW is destroyed >> >> Note, there IS no scenario by which the WW can be destroyed > and Harry survives. > Charme: Weird, but I don't think option C is the one, if you take JKR's comments into account (and I know some people don't.) She's already given away in some of her chat/interviews: JKR on the last chapter of book 7: "this is really where I wrap everything up, it's the epilogue. And I, I basically say what happens to everyone after they leave school - those who survive - because there are deaths - more deaths coming." (BBC Christmas Special 12/28/01) If we take that quote at face value, it does appear the WW will go on - "those that survive" can be interpreted to infer after whatever happens between Harry and LV has occurred. Charme From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 05:04:28 2005 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 05:04:28 -0000 Subject: Did JKR cheat with the prophecy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124869 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > It seems to me that a strong case can be made that JKR has cheated > rather badly by introducing the prophecy as worded in OOTP. Doddiemoemoe here: I agree with you on this point..The prophecy is/was carefully worded because nothing can tie up a loose end like a prophecy..hence we as readers are irritated and preturbed by it. It also opens up doors to hundreds, if not thousands of interpretations. We now know that JKR can end her novels as she chooses and she is under no scrutiny due to her prophecy..**heavy sigh**. If any of us has heard or read or seen a play about Oedipus or Olecranon..etc..then we all know however our own interpretations of any prophecy were..none of us ever predicted quite correctly... So YES!! OF COURSE!!! JK cheated horribly with the prophecy...The only way in that JK wouldn't cheat with the prophecy is if she wouldn't have left it until the fifth book... IMHO if there was anything that needed telling in the fifth book was that in the COS Tom Riddle would have at least told Harry about it then..at least part of it...TR's questions/suppositions lead us NOW to question this.. Atter considering this I don't wondner if it is Lucious that was thrown out of the hogshead that day...(unless it was wormtail and he heard/knew something we don't....) For me personally...The way the prophecies read...we cannot know if the "dark lord"...is Voldemort...or Pettigrew...or Lupin(if we choose to believe eseLupin theories)... A dark lord during the dark ages is quite a great deal different from a dark lord we would consider today.... Hence, YES!!! JKR did cheat with the prophecy... If we question whether or not Harry is "the one with the power"....then we must question if Voldemort is the dark lord...or if someone else is... (what if Harry has to vanquish DD?) Doddiemoemoe From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Feb 20 07:01:14 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 07:01:14 -0000 Subject: Did JKR cheat with the prophecy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124870 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > > Lupinlore: > > It seems to me that a strong case can be made that JKR has cheated > > rather badly by introducing the prophecy as worded in OOTP. I > > don't mean that she has done something immoral or even something > > uninteresting from a literary point of view. However, she has > > tried to emphasize, time and again, the power of personal choice. > > Then she introduces a prophecy that, by its very nature, so strongly > > restricts the scope of personal choice as to make it meaningless, or > > nearly so, in some contexts. > > a_svirn: > > I disagree. LV CHOSE to strike thereby making prophesy real. we ought to be more suspicious by now. Well, the prophecy does say "The Dark Lord WILL mark him as his own." If the prophecy is true and therefore unavoidable, Voldy really DIDN'T have a choice in striking, as it was already foreordained. His only choice was in striking Harry rather than Neville. And even there he was sharply restricted, as the prophecy foreordains it will be one of those two out of all the wizard children born that year. So you see, ultimately you can't have a true prophecy and freedom of choice at the same time. If the prophecy is true, it means the prophet has seen what will happen in the future. That in turn means the future is fixed and freedom of choice is an illusion, since choices have already been determined before they are made -- indeed before the people involved even realize their IS an (apparent) choice. Now, you can try to put a subtle spin on it by saying that true prophecies don't DETERMINE choice, they only PREDICT choice with 100% precision. But once again, when you analyze that carefully it boils down to the future being fixed, and freedom of choice being an illusion. The arguments (which have been exhaustively explored in the religious context of divine predestination) boil down to the fact that a choice that can be predicted with 100% precision cannot, under any reasonable or logical understanding of the term, be a FREE choice.* Lupinlore * Providing the prophecy is made from within the boundaries of time, which is not necessarily the case when dealing with divine prophecy but certainly is in the case of magical prophecies, and DEFINITELY is in the case of HP. As Sybil Trelawney is not a divine being, she must stand within the flow of time to make her prophecy and therefore the negation of free will clicks into place. As a divine being can, in theory, stand outside of time to utter a prophecy, there are still ways a true prophecy can be made and preserve free will, providing that said divine being DOES NOT utter the prophecy within time (for instance there are ways God could make a true prophecy to an angel concerning something occuring on Earth and still preserve free will). However, if the divine being utters the prophecy WITHIN time, for instance through a prophet or a seer, all of the advantages fall away and free will is negated once again (so if God communicated the same prophecy through a prophet on Earth, the negation of free will takes hold). This also assumes there is only one timeline that only flows one way. If there are multiple timelines that can flow both ways once again you can have true prophecies that allow for free will. Under this scenario Voldy's choice to strike in the present CREATES the prophecy in the past (you seem to be hinting at this in the statement about Voldy's choice making the prophecy real). However under this scenario no one can ever be sure of anything, as the timeline is constantly shifting (or we are shifting among timelines, it sort of amounts to the same thing) but we don't ever know it since our memories are constantly changing to accomodate whatever form the timeline takes (or whatever timeline we land in, if you prefer to look at it that way). Understandably, as this theory could never really be tested by logical analysis (only by empirical analysis of someone standing outside the timelines, a divine being or an angel), this isn't a very popular position among people who argue about such things. From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Feb 20 07:26:36 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 07:26:36 -0000 Subject: Did JKR cheat with the prophecy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124871 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > > > * Providing the prophecy is made from within the boundaries of time, > which is not necessarily the case when dealing with divine prophecy > but certainly is in the case of magical prophecies, and DEFINITELY is > in the case of HP. As Sybil Trelawney is not a divine being, she must > stand within the flow of time to make her prophecy and therefore the > negation of free will clicks into place. As a divine being can, in > theory, stand outside of time to utter a prophecy, there are still > ways a true prophecy can be made and preserve free will, providing > that said divine being DOES NOT utter the prophecy within time (for > instance there are ways God could make a true prophecy to an angel > concerning something occuring on Earth and still preserve free will). > However, if the divine being utters the prophecy WITHIN time, for > instance through a prophet or a seer, all of the advantages fall away > and free will is negated once again (so if God communicated the same > prophecy through a prophet on Earth, the negation of free will takes > hold). > > This also assumes there is only one timeline that only flows one way. > If there are multiple timelines that can flow both ways once again > you can have true prophecies that allow for free will. Under this > scenario Voldy's choice to strike in the present CREATES the prophecy > in the past (you seem to be hinting at this in the statement about > Voldy's choice making the prophecy real). However under this scenario > no one can ever be sure of anything, as the timeline is constantly > shifting (or we are shifting among timelines, it sort of amounts to > the same thing) but we don't ever know it since our memories are > constantly changing to accomodate whatever form the timeline takes (or > whatever timeline we land in, if you prefer to look at it that way). > Understandably, as this theory could never really be tested by logical > analysis (only by empirical analysis of someone standing outside the > timelines, a divine being or an angel), this isn't a very popular > position among people who argue about such things. Oh, by the way, logically speaking Time Turners can't negate any of this. (Believe it or not people were arguing about theoretical travel in the time lines during the Middle Ages and the arguments got extremely sophisticated during the Reformation). It is clear from how JKR has described it that people traveling by Time Turner take their own personal pasts with them and their own personal time still flows only in one direction as far as they can determine through their experiences (as evidenced by they remember FIRST I did this THEN later I took a TT back into time and saw it again.) This ultimately means they remain WITHIN time. They don't step OUT of time, as a divine being or angel in theory could (which means a divine being or angel doesn't HAVE a memory in the sense we use the word as a divine being would exist in an eternal present that encompasses everything we experience as being divided into past, present, and future). Thus the same factors apply. Any change in their personal timelines would result in changes in their memories, yielding a situation untestable and, indeed, unnoticeable from a mortal perspective. In any case, JKR seems to use the "easy" form of literary time travel which states that the universe is buffered against time paradoxes (i.e. you can't change the past, at least in any way that would result in a damage to the integrity of the timeline or in you percieving the change). Lupinlore From amy79a at gmail.com Sun Feb 20 04:00:29 2005 From: amy79a at gmail.com (Amy) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 22:00:29 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Did JKR cheat with the prophecy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124872 Forgive me if this reply is slightly hurried but this is not my first attempt to reply to this email. It appears I may have been stumbling across too much, for my attempts to come out of the shadows landed my whole house in darkness in the form of a power outage. Thus I lost the well thought out 30 minutes post I was working on. *smile* However, I will try my best to recreate it. LupinLore States: However, she has tried to emphasize, time and again, the power of personal choice. Then she introduces a prophecy that, by its very nature, so strongly restricts the scope of personal choice as to make it meaningless, or nearly so,in some contexts. In effect, what JKR has done is to create a story based on choice then attempt to protect DD from the implications of his choices by introducing a prophecy that, in effect, gives him a free pass by TAKING AWAY his power of choice. That way she can have DD make a decision that causes huge amounts of misery for Harry and still have him be "the epitome of goodness" because he had no choice in the matter. So we have a story that emphasizes choice yet at the very beginning choice is taken away. End Snip I wish to agree to disagree on this statement. Yes I believe that Dumbledore's choices were limited but NOT by the prophecy. No where in the prophecy does it state that the "One" needs protection. Therefore, even if it was in the back of his mind, this must not be the full reason for his decision. Let's look at the thought process, taking any knowledge of the prophecy completely out of the equation: SS page 12 he states: "Exactly... It would be enough to turn any boy's head. Famous before he can walk and talk! Famous for something he won't even remember! Can't you see how much better off he'll be, growing up away from all that until he's ready to take it?" This child just survived a remarkable encounter. He, without his knowledge, just saved a group of people from further destruction. The "whole" is going to know his story even before he is old enough to comprehend it. How might this affect the very nature of this child? Essentially, had Harry been left with a wizarding family he would be Dudley on a much larger scale. Don't believe me, look at where so many "spotlight" kids end up. They come by the mentality that they are "above the law" and many end up in trouble. (Dudley turns to lying, beating up kids, and smoking) Putting him in a situation out of the spotlight prevents this first possibility. So, yes, his decision was limited but in order to protect Harry's mentality not because the prophecy said so. Ok, this child just turned a terrible "gang" into a flailing group. Would you leave him where he would be seen on every corner thus giving this group the opportunity for revenge? No. You put him in a place to protect him. It's a witness protection relocation of sorts. Again, Dumbledore's choices are limited but not because of the prophecy. Therefore, even if there was no knowledge of the prophecy and this child's destiny, this decision could still be made and for very different reasons. Lupinlore states: As I've said in another post, on a surface reading of "either must kill the other for neither can live while the other survives," we have three scenarios: A) Harry kills Voldy and survives, saving the WW B) Harry kills Voldy and Voldy kills Harry, the WW survives C) Voldy kills Harry and survives, the WW is destroyed Note, there IS no scenario by which the WW can be destroyed and Harry survives. Given this, the prophecy neatly closes off the most problematic choice DD could make. It's simply not a possible choice. Once again, the prophecy is a device to safeguard him from possible moral ambiguity. In contrast to the above situation, I think this largely succeeds. I still feel it is a form of cheating, however. Rather than have Albus face this wrenching decision, and suffer the consequences, if only in readers' minds, JKR neatly rescues him by once again taking away his power of choice. End Snip Again, I agree with your three scenarios, but I believe there is a fourth scenario as well as a decision that can be made in the short term that greatly affects those possible scenarios. D) Harry kills Voldy and survives, the WW is "destroyed" Ok, I know, I know, first question... How can this be? It's all in how your read what destroyed can mean. In the case of the WW it can be physically destroyed as in scenario C or it can be idealistically destroyed as in scenario D. Still don't see how... what if in the process of killing Voldy, the WW is revealed to the Muggle World? Would this not in essence "destroy" the WW? There would not be two separate "worlds", thus the WW would not be of existence and "destroyed". Now, decision time. As the "final battle" unveils itself it reveals two possible choices to defeat Voldy. The first courageous concept that requires the ultimate sacrifice from Harry thus taking both of their lives and saving the WW. (Scenario B) The second is a concept not yet revealed by JK that will defeat Voldy but is so powerful that it will reveal itself to all of the WW and Muggle World. It is not feasible to be able to hide this from the muggles and thus the WW will no longer be hidden and thus... destroyed. (Scenario D) This could very well be the decision that Dumbledore faces. Would it truly be utter destruction for the WW to be revealed and thus worth the sacrifice of Harry? You be the judge. For the WW it could be a lose-lose situation. Farfetched, I am sure but truly another possibility simply by looking at it on a different light. The choice is still out there, will Dumbledore be up to the challenge? Amy (stargazer) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 05:24:20 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 05:24:20 -0000 Subject: Voldemort the Cartoon (was Re: Draco = Evil?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124873 > Northsouth wrote: > > Voldemort is human though.> > a_svirn: > And where is the proof of that? > NS again: Well, uh, in philosophical sort of sense. He was born human, he retains the same mind and memories and twisted and warped and defiled (or, depnding on your point of view, improved) though it might be, the same personality. This is Tom Riddle, name (I find it interesting that "Lord Voldemort" didn't come out of whole cloth either.) appearance, powers and all changed, but still him. So much better, IMO, than "great evil possibly disembodied powerful thingymabobjig living under mountain since the dawn of time" that's a staple of fanatsy. > a_svirn: > > Well there is a certain cardboard quality in Voldemort although I > fail to see how it makes him look like Hitler or Stalin. THEY were > unfortunately very much flesh and blood. Ns: The discussion was sort of going that nevermind that LV is a tad goofy, people thought Hitler was goofy too, back in the day. Northsouth From bbkkyy55 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 06:06:55 2005 From: bbkkyy55 at yahoo.com (bbkkyy55) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 06:06:55 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Plan? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124874 I'm new so pardon me if this has been spotted. I've just finished reading Book 1 again. In DD's talk with Harry at the end he responds in answer to H asking "Voldemort's going to try other ways of coming back, isn't he?" DD says "....not being truly alive, he cannot be killed." One of the problems seems to be, if DD set up this whole adventure as a training for Harry or as a test, DD seems very unconcerned about the possibiliy of V getting the Stone as well as unconcerned about Harry. Maybe he was not concerned because DD knew from the prophecy that: 1. Only Harry could defeat V. 2. V could only be killed if he regained his life. 3. Sooner or later V had to regain life in order to be defeated by Harry. In OOTP I note in chapter 37, DD remembers the first year and says, "much sooner - than I had anticipated, you found yourself face-to-face with Voldemort". So, if this was a plan/test for Harry, V was not part of the plan. Maybe DD felt, this will be a good test/trial for him. If the Stone gets lost (he didn't anticipate V taking it himself), it was well guarded, but if it finally winds up with V, so be it. He'll regain life eventually somehow, indeed he must for Harry to finally kill him. But, he assumed the stone if taken, would only be taken by Harry, and then only for unselfish reasons, since it could only be taken by someone who didn't want to use it. Do we know DD knew a bad guy (Quirrel) was in their midst? I suppose Snape would have told DD about his suspicions. Maybe DD felt H was up to dealing with Q, and didn't think V was a possibilty at all. Just wondering, Jean B. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Feb 20 08:07:14 2005 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 08:07:14 -0000 Subject: MuggleSpouses/QuibblerCopyrights/Locusts/Hermione/Dursleys/Draco Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124875 Sandy asked in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124532 : << How do you suppose these witches/wizards met their muggle mates? It seems to me that a wizard would have to make a concerted effort to seek out a muggle to date and marry, because normally, their paths just don't cross. >> It seems to me that the most likely way for a pureblood wizard/witch to meet a Muggle future spouse is by visiting a Muggle-born school friend, thus meeting the family and maybe some of the neighbors and pre-Hogwarts friends of the Muggle-born friend. However, that seems unlikely to apply to Dean Thomas: if his parents met because his father was a Muggle-born wizard who brought home a school friend who fell in love with the Muggle sister, the Muggle sister would have known that her brother was a wizard and went to a wizarding school, so she would have known that his school friend was a wizard. In addition, if her brother out-lived her husband, her brother would have known about him being killed by Death Eaters, and told her. << Wizards, on the other hand, would have to give up a lot of basic magic to live in a muggle house, or they'd interfere with the electricity we muggles so depend on. >> I'm not sure. The vast amount of magic at Hogwarts prevents electrical devices from working, but one wizard's magic, a couple of wizards' magic, in a Muggle house might not be enough to interfere with electricity. Darkthiry summarized Chapter 38 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124570 : << a reprint of The Quibbler article, which Luna's father sold to the Prophet for a sum that will allow them to go to Sweden to seek a Crumple-Horned Snorkack. >> Being as how people write for the Quibbler for free, I imagine that the usual contract (perhaps only printed on the address page with the statement that sending in an article constitutes giving permission to print it) is that the writer is giving the Quibbler first publication right only, and all other rights (reprint rights, movie rights, etc) revert to the writer. So if Hermione forced Skeeter to sign a special contract giving Mr Lovegood all rights, that was extra nasty of Hermione. Dumbledad wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124593 : << "His food was locusts and wild honey." (Matthew 3:4) Wild honey? Yes. Locusts? I don't think Dumbledore or Ron will be ordering locusts anytime soon. >> I thought those "locusts" were not insects, but rather carob tree pods. After all, another name for carob pods is "St. John's bread". Y'know, carob pods, what they make bad fake chocolate out of? They're street trees around here. Northsouth wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124615 : << it's Hermione, not Harry, who's going to be the next Minister for Magic. >> This is a forbidden "I agree" post. << shows an ability to be really, really nasty when she needs to. >> I've never wondered why Hermione isn't in Ravenclaw, but ever since drugging Crabbengoyle in Book 2, I've wondered why the Sorting Hat didn't put her in Slytherin. Phoenixgod wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124621 : << Except for Hermione lacks this thing called Charisma. Social grace. Likeability. Leadership quality. Stuff like that Hermione is gifted in many ways but being a politican fits none of her skill sets. She would make a good political operative or advisor, at least to a reformer politician, but she could never be the face of a political team. She's just not leadership material. >> That's why she should marry Ginny so Ginny can supply the charisma part of the team. Becky wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124546 : << Those who see an alternative [home for orphan baby Harry], what is it? (Snip) Dumbledore maybe? - No. He is headmaster of a school. I can't see a Hogwarts being a good place to bring up a one year old. Plus, as headmaster (and someone very high up in other wizard institutions) he would have far too many other pressures on his time to give a one year old the attention needed. Not realistic. (Pretty much the same goes for MM. What would she do with him when she was teaching classes?) >> I don't agree that a school is a bad place to bring up a baby; if I recall A.A.Milne's autobiography correctly, his father was a headmaster and he loved his childhood. In addition, Hogwarts is a very well protected place. I agree that Dumbledore is a very busy man, but so are most parents. That's what nannies are for. I nominate Madam Pomfrey. (It's funny that I'm saying this, because I accept DD's explanation of Harry having been in so much danger that he had to be put in the MOST PROTECTION place.) Lupinlore wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124402 : << The only things we can ascribe Harry's so-called "good emotional health" to are: 1) poor writing on JKR's part, 2) sheer luck shining of Dumbledore's decisions. Out of deference to the author, I think we prefer option #2 to option #1. >> Or 3) The magical protection that Lily put on her baby also protected his mental health. (I prefer to believe that it did so by putting a little model of Lily into baby Harry's mind, like the cliched imaginary friend, to tell him he's a good kid who doesn't deserve all this Dursley abuse, and to remind him how good people behave.) If Dumbledore didn't know that Lily's magic protected Harry's mental health, that is option 2: Dumbledore was lucky that Lily had done that spell. But if Dumbledore DID know about it, then what? Arynn Octavia wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124507 : << Harry sufferes more than Draco, and never whines EVER. Yet Draco has the devoted following. I suspect it has to do more with Tom Felton that Draco Malfoy >> Draco had a devoted following before the first movie was ever cast (as did Snape), so those crushes cannot simply be blamed on the actors. *Perhaps* Draco's attraction can be blamed on the fanfic trilogy by Cassandra Claire (Draco Dormiens, Draco Sinister, Draco Veritas), which began when a friend asked her to write a story that turned Draco good, and she also turned him intelligent and gave him a bit of backbone while she was at it. The added intelligence plus canonical sarcasm = snarky wit. Wealth, posh accent ("drawl') and being a good broom-flyer are canonical. Alas, part of the attraction of Fanon!Draco is the attractee's unconsciously buying into the class system. Some of us are a little bit House Elf inside.... Betsey wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124452 : << I also felt a great deal of sympathy for Draco during the Gryffindor/Slytherin Quidditch final in PoA. (snip) Draco is the one to spot the Snitch, Draco is the one who first goes for it, and Harry beats him to it, not out of any flying skill but on sheer speed that has everything to do with his Firebolt. Draco is defeated because he doesn't have the top of the line broom. >> This is a forbidden "I agree!!!" post. From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Feb 20 08:36:06 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 08:36:06 -0000 Subject: Did JKR cheat with the prophecy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124876 > > > > Again, I agree with your three scenarios, but I believe there is a fourth > scenario as well as a decision that can be made in the short term that > greatly affects those possible scenarios. > > D) Harry kills Voldy and survives, the WW is "destroyed" > > Ok, I know, I know, first question... How can this be? It's all in how your > read what destroyed can mean. In the case of the WW it can be physically > destroyed as in scenario C or it can be idealistically destroyed as in > scenario D. Still don't see how... what if in the process of killing Voldy, > the WW is revealed to the Muggle World? Would this not in essence "destroy" > the WW? There would not be two separate "worlds", thus the WW would not be > of existence and "destroyed". > > Now, decision time. As the "final battle" unveils itself it reveals two > possible choices to defeat Voldy. The first courageous concept that > requires the ultimate sacrifice from Harry thus taking both of their lives > and saving the WW. (Scenario B) The second is a concept not yet revealed > by JK that will defeat Voldy but is so powerful that it will reveal itself > to all of the WW and Muggle World. It is not feasible to be able to hide > this from the muggles and thus the WW will no longer be hidden and thus... > destroyed. (Scenario D) This could very well be the decision that > Dumbledore faces. Would it truly be utter destruction for the WW to be > revealed and thus worth the sacrifice of Harry? You be the judge. For the > WW it could be a lose-lose situation. > > Farfetched, I am sure but truly another possibility simply by looking at it > on a different light. The choice is still out there, will Dumbledore be up > to the challenge? > > Amy (stargazer) > Good point. However, I think JKR has pretty much ruled this out. In an interview she was asked (paraphrase) "Will the Wizarding World and the Muggle world come together?" Her answer was "No, the breach was permanent." Like I say, good point though. Lupinlore From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 08:37:23 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 08:37:23 -0000 Subject: Did JKR cheat with the prophecy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124877 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > It seems to me that a strong case can be made that JKR has cheated > rather badly by introducing the prophecy as worded in OOTP. > ...edited... However, she has tried to emphasize, time and again, > the power of personal choice. Then she introduces a prophecy that, > by its very nature, so strongly restricts the scope of personal > choice as to make it meaningless, or nearly so, in some contexts. > bboyminn: Sorry, I don't buy it. At least not beyond the fact that everyday in every muggle way we are faced with restricted choices. Locally, a great and reliable Prophet has made a prophecy that effects me, a prophecy that resticts my logical choices, but doesn't prevent me from choosing less logical options. The Prophet is the weatherman and the prophecy is 'freezing rain tomorrow'. Yes, that prophecy effect my life, it effects the choices I am going to make, it dictates some of the choice I should make, but I would never go so far as to say that it has restricted my free will. I can choose to ignore it, people do that all the time. I can choose to stay home, I can choose to proceed with caution, I can choose to wait until mid-day before going out, I can choose to drive slower, or I can choose to drive faster and take my chances. The existance of that prophecy is effecting my choices, but it isn't dictating them, or limiting my free will. The same is true of Dumbledore and Harry. First, Dumbledore's actions aren't dictated by the prophecy with regard to Harry being placed at the Dursleys. There is ample logic for him being there, and first and foremost is, they are his only living relatives and his very close relatives; his mother's sister. In any real-life situation, that automatically makes them the first choice. Dumbledore enhanced the quality of that first choice by placing the 'Blood Protection' on Harry to keep him safe from existing Death Eaters, and safe in the event of Voldemort's early return. Next, Prophecies are vague and mysterious. The Prophecy in question says that a boy born as the seventh month dies with have the power to defeat the Dark Lord. Dumbledore has many many choices here. First, is to choose to assume that the Prophecy means the seventh month of THIS year; maybe it's not this year. Given the vague nature of prophecies, it could mean in a 100 years. It mentions the Dark Lord, but never mentions Voldemort by name. I'm sure there are dozens of Dark Lords in the world. The most ambiguous and unclear part of the Prophecy is that neither can live while the other survives; except that they are both living and surviving right now. How much weight can you give to a prophecy that seems to be self-contradictory? Even Voldemort had choices and free will. He could have waited to see how big a threat the 'Prophecy Boys' were, and waited to see which one was the greatest threat. But he didn't, he made a free-will choice to act immediately, and by doing so actually seal part of the Prophecy, or at least, it has been /interpreted/ that he seal the Prophecy. It's still possible that Voldemort has or will mark Neville by some less obvious and less dramatic means. Harry also has plenty of choices. He can move to Australia (Shaun would like that), and just ignore the problem. That's not a likely choice, but is still a very reasonable choice, and one that a certain percentage of people would make under the same circumstances. Assuming he chooses to stay, Harry has hundreds of choices. He can join Voldemort. He can force an immediate confrontation. He can avoid an immediate confrontation. He can sneak off to fight alone, or he can gather a large army to fight by his side. Perhaps, he will choose to avoid a fight, and defeat Voldemort by stealth, wits, and trickery. Perhaps the Prophecy can be fullfilled as easily by non-action as by direct action. The first time Harry defeated Voldemort was by non-action on Harry's part. The Bible says the God created the world (let's not get off on that tangent), but it doesn't say HOW. To me, Evolution explains how God did it. Prophecies are like the Bible, they are about 'what', but they don't dictate how. Just because Harry has a destination, that doesn't mean he has no choice on how, if, and when he gets there. Just as the prophecy of 'freezing rain' represents the 'What' in my future reality; it doesn't effect the 'how' with respect to my reaction to it or the logical choice I will make. I haven't lost free will just because it's going to rain. > Lupinlore concludes: > > Once again, the prophecy is a device to safeguard him from possible > moral ambiguity. In contrast to the above situation, I think this > largely succeeds. I still feel it is a form of cheating, however. > Rather than have Albus face this wrenching decision, and suffer the > consequences, if only in readers' minds, JKR neatly rescues him by > once again taking away his power of choice. > > Lupinlore bboyminn: In your list of three scenerios, you are concentrating on 'what', when the freewill and choices in this situation, and in every single day of our lives, are in the 'how' we deal with the many 'whats' that effect our lives. Remember, there is no guarantee that Harry will win or live. There is no guarantee that Voldemort will be killed. There is no quarantee that Dumbledore has interpreted the Prophecy correctly. In fact, I will be greatly surprise if JKR doesn't have some unforeseen twist in store for us. Harry could die and Neville could finish off Voldemort. Voldemort might be vanquished but not killed. With so many variables and so many possible outcomes, I don't see the Prophecy dictating anything to anyone. It forewarns, it foreshadows, it forebodes, but it doesn't dictate. Harry and Dumbledore have plenty of choices, and those choices will indeed tell us far more about them than their skill or ability. Their free will is no more limited by their prophecy than I am by my prophecy of 'freezing rain'. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Steve/bboyminn From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Feb 20 09:00:29 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 09:00:29 -0000 Subject: Did JKR cheat with the prophecy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124878 Steve said: > > Locally, a great and reliable Prophet has made a prophecy that effects > me, a prophecy that resticts my logical choices, but doesn't prevent > me from choosing less logical options. The Prophet is the weatherman > and the prophecy is 'freezing rain tomorrow'. Yes, that prophecy > effect my life, it effects the choices I am going to make, it dictates > some of the choice I should make, but I would never go so far as to > say that it has restricted my free will. Because that isn't a prophecy. It's a prediction based on certain methods that are not 100% accurate. A true prediction is one that happens to be right. A true prophecy, on the other hand, is an actual glimpse of the future, which is something else entirely. A prediction is made from the point of view of probability of error and is a piece of advice saying "I think this will happen." A prophecy is a completely accurate LOOK at the future that says "This WILL happen." The two things are totally different, and so, IMO, the analogy of a weather prediction and Sybil's prophecy is totally false. It is true that the weather prediction does not absolutely restrict your choice because it is a calculation that does not depend for its validity on the future being fixed. The prophecy, however, DOES depend on the future being fixed. The first, you are right, does not deny Free Choice. The second is pretty much incompatible with it unless you are a divine being or else you predicate some VERY strange things going on with the timeline. Sorry, but IMO, and it IS of course my opinion, your argument is based on a false premise and simply does not stand up to the test of analysis. Lupinlore From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 11:41:11 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 11:41:11 -0000 Subject: Simple!Snape? (Castles in the air?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124879 >LupinLore wrote: That is a good point. However, I'm not sure that Snape's character really IS all THAT contradictory. What I mean by that is that human beings are very complex creatures, given to all kinds of self-contradiction, foolishness, and illogical behavior. Snip Snape comparisons to Patton and Boyington. vmonte responds: Ahhh, but Patton was the leader of his men, Snape only works for the leader. It's interesting that you think of Snape as a leader instead of a follower. In a way I agree that Snape seems to be running his own separate agenda--and it's counterproductive to the Order. If Snape were really interested in Dumbledore's cause he would swallow some of his ridiculous hatred/petty childhood grudge aside. Unfortunately, Snape behaves as though the world revolves around him. When he tells Harry that he is "neither special nor important" he is really just reflecting his own bitterness at how he is perceived in the grand scheme of things. I however, do think that he is important, but only to showcase the difference in character between he and Harry. >LupinLore wrote: snip Interested in his own survival in the long run. However, he is possessed of bravery and willing to fight for that survival. He may well believe that fighting is the ONLY way to win through to survival, and that running away would merely ensure his eventual demise. I'm not sure that is really much of a contradiction. After all, most soldiers in combat units (particularly soldiers who have been drafted into major wars) say they are fighting for their survival and the survival of their comrades, but they don't run away. vmonte responds: I really cannot comment on how Snape is actually working (outside of Hogwarts) for the Order. And I wonder why was called "Snivelus" in school? He also reminds me of Draco, who (so far) appears to be a big coward. Vivian Top 100 Military Leaders in History-- http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/intro.html From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 12:05:43 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 12:05:43 -0000 Subject: Neville's nerves (Castles in the air?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124880 I "vmonte" wrote: > Yep, I agree. I've said this here myself. I wouldn't be surprised > if Snape was there with Lucius. This event happened after GH, and > Lucius would have told Voldemort about it. Snape being there would > be enough proof to Voldemort that Snape was still on his side and > working from within Hogwarts. > > I also see Snape as having a personal vendetta against Neville (much > along the lines of Harry) that reflects perhaps an equal dislike of > his parents. Perhaps, Neville will begin to remember some of the > events regarding his parents attack. >a_svirn responded: Well, I am not sure. I mean, yes SOMEHOW Snape is definitely involved, but, why would HE torture the Longbottoms? He IS rather bitter and vindictive, but there has been not a single hint in canon so far that Snape and the Longbottoms were at outs. He does not make a secret of his hatred towards Potter Sr. but he has never ever mentioned Frank Longbottom. vmonte now: Well, he can't if he doesn't want to look suspicious does he? Dumbledore makes a point of telling Harry in GoF that no one really knows who was at the Longbottoms that night. He also says that it was the testimony of Frank and Alice (which he states wasn't very reliable) that caught the culprits. Besides, why would the Longbottoms know what happened to Voldemort? Is that really the reason why they were attacked? There is more to this story than we have been told. >a_svirn: Also Snape certainly doesn't strike me as a type to risk everything in order to bring LV back. And neither does Lucius for that matter. He was faring just fine without his Lord and Master after all. And in his Welcome Speech LV did make his displeasure of Lucius known. He said something about being constantly on the alert, but I don't think LV was fooled. And take Crouch Jr. ? he positively loathes Snape and the Malfoys! vmonte responds: Really? Why did Lucius give Ginny the diary then? >a_svirn: On the other hand JRK stated in one of interviews that Bellatrix didn't know about the prophecy and anyway she's somewhat crazy at best of times. She must have been confused and dangerous after her Lord's downfall. She could have become as much of a liability for those who were willing to adjust to the Brave New World as Crouch Sr. I can see how accomplished manipulators like Snape and Malfoy could use her to their own ends. Suppose Bellatrix and Co were fed some kind of a false story concerning the Longbottoms (a popular pure-blood family) and then Aurors were tipped just in time to find her AND a son of the most relentless anti-DE in the whole Ministry red-handed? That would have taken care of several problems simultaneously. To hatch and execute such a scheme would be more like Snape that trying to bring LV back in which case he could be the one who obliviated the Longbottoms. vmonte responds: Yes, I could see this scenario too. From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 12:22:38 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 12:22:38 -0000 Subject: Did JKR cheat with the prophecy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124881 Doddiemoemoe wrote: snip So YES!! OF COURSE!!! JK cheated horribly with the prophecy...The only way in that JK wouldn't cheat with the prophecy is if she wouldn't have left it until the fifth book... IMHO if there was anything that needed telling in the fifth book was that in the COS Tom Riddle would have at least told Harry about it then..at least part of it...TR's questions/suppositions lead us NOW to question this.. vmonte responds: The Tom Riddle preserved in the diary was only a teenager. This diary was made by Tom while he was at Hogwarts. And it did not contain any future memories of the prophecy. Vivian From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Feb 20 12:31:38 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 12:31:38 -0000 Subject: SWAN, was Re: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124882 > Neri: > OK, lets call this theory of yours simple!Snape (unless you have a more cool name, an acronym or so. It is the right of the originator tochoose the name for his theory). You say this theory misses only two puzzle pieces. Now lets have a tiny hypothetical exercise: I let you choose these two missing pieces any way you want to. Just inventwhatever you think would work. Put your two pieces of puzzle into place and answer these questions: Pippin: Oh, I can't resist. Besides, I've got a new theory. Snape was half-vampire, (okay that's not new) and he loves (wait for it)....Narcissa! The *other* flower of Hogwarts. Let's call it SWAN (Snape's Wild About Narcissa). This explains not only Neri's questions but darn near everything we don't know. 0. Why did Snape join Bella's gang when in the pensieve scene he was a loner? A. He was crazy about her sister, Cissy... 1. Why DID Snape desert Voldy? ...but he knew she could only marry a pure blood wizard. Snape looked up to and idolized the purebloods. He was easily recruited to the Dark Lord's camp. Voldemort discovered Snape's vampire heritage and his dreams of wedding Narcissa. He persuaded Snape to participate in a switching spell. Voldemort took another step on the road to immortality, Snape became fully human and (as he thought) fully pureblood. He went to the Black family and asked for Narcissa's hand. They laughed in his face, of course. Snape realized it wasn't about blood at all, it was about money and power and the old boy network, and it always had been. Thoroughly disillusioned, Snape defected. He swore vengeance on Voldemort who had cynically used him (and whom he now learned wasn't even a pureblood blood) and on all the Blacks but one. Narcissa was packed off to marry Lucius. Snape resolved to wear his heart on his sleeve no more. He pretended he was all over Cissy, and with his knowledge of poisons, ingratiated himself with Lucius, who has an interest in them. > 2. Why does DD trust Snape to teach Potions but not DADA? A. Snape still has some vampish habits. DD knows that if Snape is teaching about vampires, somebody will put two and two together. > 3. Why does Snape show his Dark Mark to Fudge in the end of GoF? A. When Harry announces that Lucius is a DE, Snape is for a moment hopeful that Lucius will be sent to Azkaban and Narcissa will be free. Showing the mark was a last desperate attempt to convince Fudge. > 4. Why is he ready to take a mission that, from his and DD's manner, is extremely dangerous? We are talking about a very nasty and bitter man, remember? And DD gives him a choice in the matter. A. Revenge is very sweet. > 5. Why does Snape make "a sudden movement" when Harry tells Fudge that Lucius Malfoy is a DE? see 3 above. > 6. In OotP both Sirius and Umbridge hint that Snape is in good terms with Lucius. Why does Lucius like Snape when Voldy seems to have made Snape a persona non grata? See 1 above > 7. Did Voldy agree to take Snape back? Why? A. Voldemort thinks anyone who hates Lucius and has an in with Dumbledore is still useful > 8. Why does DD pick Snape, of all people, to teach Harry Occlumency when he knows about Snape hatred to James and Harry, and he still doesn't trust Snape to teach DADA? A. See 1 and 2 above > > 9. Why is Snape so emotional when he tells Harry in Occlumency that "those who carry their hearts on their sleeves stand no chance against the Dark Lord"? A. See 0 and 1 above > 10. Why is Snape, after 20 years, still so emotional about some school grudges? A. See above. He really hates the Blacks. Won't eat in their house. He *told* James not to trust Sirius. James didn't listen, just like Harry doesn't listen now... > 11. JKR promised us a big revelation about Snape in Book 7. What would it be? A. Being half vampire and the key to Voldemort's immortality. The switching spell will have to be reversed before Voldie can die. 12. Why does Snape like Draco? A. He thinks of him as the son who should have been his. 13. How did Voldemort survive Godric's Hollow, and how did Dumbledore *know* he would survive? A. When he defected, Snape told Dumbledore about the switching spell, and Dumbledore, with his knowledge of transfiguration, realized that Voldemort would be able to survive an AK. (The Ministry has specially trained vampire slayers, which suggests that an ordinary AK won't do it.) Neri: > two pieces that explain all the above. I don't require them to be the TRUE pieces, only that they'll answer the questions reasonably well. If you can't find such two pieces, why is it so difficult? < Pippin Not difficult at all::SWAN dives into the Bay:: From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 13:34:19 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 13:34:19 -0000 Subject: Did JKR cheat with the prophecy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124883 bboyminn wrote: Next, Prophecies are vague and mysterious. The Prophecy in question says that a boy born as the seventh month dies with have the power to defeat the Dark Lord. Dumbledore has many many choices here. First, is to choose to assume that the Prophecy means the seventh month of THIS year; maybe it's not this year. Given the vague nature of prophecies, it could mean in a 100 years. It mentions the Dark Lord, but never mentions Voldemort by name. I'm sure there are dozens of Dark Lords in the world. The most ambiguous and unclear part of the Prophecy is that neither can live while the other survives; except that they are both living and surviving right now. How much weight can you give to a prophecy that seems to be self-contradictory? Even Voldemort had choices and free will. He could have waited to see how big a threat the 'Prophecy Boys' were, and waited to see which one was the greatest threat. But he didn't, he made a free-will choice to act immediately, and by doing so actually seal part of the Prophecy, or at least, it has been /interpreted/ that he seal the Prophecy. It's still possible that Voldemort has or will mark Neville by some less obvious and less dramatic means. vmonte responds: "Neither can live while the other survives:" Someone on another site mentioned the fact that JKR mentioned that she and Trelawny worded the prophecy carefully for a reason. This poster mentioned that if this line had a comma after the word live, then we the readers would realize that the prophecy was about three people. "Neither can live, while the other survives." The poster stated that by leaving the comma out, Trelawny's prophecy becomes more ambiguous. And she believes that the prophecy is about 3 people. Vivian, who unrealistically wishes that the present day Voldemort will time-travel to the past (in book 7) and be killed by his past self who does not recognize or believe that that "thing" is his future self. And that the "hand of glory" belongs to what is left of Time Traveling Voldemort. (It would give new meaning as to why Harry wretched his hand away from the hand, and why Draco wanted his father to buy it for him.) BWAHAHAHA From cmjohnstone at hotmail.com Sun Feb 20 14:36:57 2005 From: cmjohnstone at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:36:57 -0000 Subject: -Did JKR cheat with the Prophesy? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124886 Lupinlore wrote: >Well, the prophecy does say "The Dark Lord WILL mark him as his own." >If the prophecy is true and therefore unavoidable, Voldy really >DIDN'T have a choice in striking, as it was already foreordained. His >only choice was in striking Harry rather than Neville. And even there >he was sharply restricted, as the prophecy foreordains it will be one >of those two out of all the wizard children born that year. Leah: Except that the prophesy didn't say 'will mark him as his equal at Godric's Hollow on 31 October'. It says that at some future undefined point, 'the one' will be marked. It didn't say that the marking had to take place by Voldemort striking at 'the one'. As far as the prophesy goes, he could have marked with a kiss. To get to that incident of marking at Godric's Hollow, the following choices/decisions were made: DD (and we assume Voldemort) decide that the prophesy probably refers to Harry or to Neville Voldemort chooses the 'half-blood'. The Potters choose to go into hiding James chooses Peter as secret keeper Peter chooses to betray the Potters Voldemort chooses to go to GH and kill the infant Harry Lily chooses to protect her baby with old magic and to die rather than run. Voldemort chooses to kill Lily A different choice made at any of those points would have altered the outcome of Godric's Hollow. I can not see why the prophesy could not have been fluid up until the crystalliation of that particular part of it at Godric's Hollow, and the parallel possibility of the marking of Neville exist up to that point. Leah From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 14:46:21 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:46:21 -0000 Subject: SWAN, was Re: Draco, Snape, and Voldemort, oh my... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124887 >Neri's excellent questions: >Q. Why did Snape join Bella's gang when in the pensieve scene he was a loner? >Pippin: He was crazy about her sister, Cissy... vmonte now: "What better way to get some practice using those Dark Arts skills I have. Besides, no better career offers came along." >Q. Why DID Snape desert Voldy? >Pippin: ...but he knew she could only marry a pure blood wizard. Snape looked up to and idolized the purebloods. He was easily recruited to the Dark Lord's camp....He went to the Black family and asked for Narcissa's hand. They laughed in his face, of course. Snape realized it wasn't about blood at all, it was about money and power and the old boy network, and it always had been. Thoroughly disillusioned, Snape defected. He swore vengeance on Voldemort who had cynically used him (and whom he now learned wasn't even a pureblood blood) and on all the Blacks but one. vmonte: "He called me a greasy gitt once and laughed at my flying skills so I have made it my mission to destroy him." >Q. Why does DD trust Snape to teach Potions but not DADA? Pippin: Snape still has some vampish habits. DD knows that if Snape is teaching about vampires, somebody will put two and two together. vmonte: "I have an affinity for the game Russian Roulette, but with wands." >Q. Why does Snape show his Dark Mark to Fudge in the end of GoF? >Pippin: When Harry announces that Lucius is a DE, Snape is for a moment hopeful that Lucius will be sent to Azkaban and Narcissa will be free. Showing the mark was a last desperate attempt to convince Fudge. vmonte: "Anything to get that annoying man away from me. Besides, he kept spitting in my face." >Q. Why is he ready to take a mission that, from his and DD's manner, is extremely dangerous? We are talking about a very nasty and bitter man, remember? And DD gives him a choice in the matter. >Pippin: Revenge is very sweet. vmonte: "I loathe dressing up like that insufferable Longbottom grandmother just so that I can spy on uncle Algie." >Q. Why does Snape make "a sudden movement" when Harry tells Fudge that Lucius Malfoy is a DE? >Pippin: see 3 above. vmonte: "What?! I had to go to the bathroom! Go ahead, kill me for almost walking away from that insufferable chat." >Q. In OotP both Sirius and Umbridge hint that Snape is in good terms with Lucius. Why does Lucius like Snape when Voldy seems to have made Snape a persona non grata? >Pippin: See 1 above vmonte: "He has a thing for old ladies that wear vultures on their heads." >Q. Did Voldy agree to take Snape back? Why? >Pippin: Voldemort thinks anyone who hates Lucius and has an in with Dumbledore is still useful vmonte: "He has a thing for old ladies that wear vultures on their heads." >Q. Why does DD pick Snape, of all people, to teach Harry Occlumency when he knows about Snape hatred to James and Harry, and he still doesn't trust Snape to teach DADA? >Pippin. See 1 and 2 above vmonte: "He made me promise not to play Russian Roulette. Besides, Dumbledore is still embarassed about being caught with Minerva in the girls bathroom at the Christmas party 5 years ago." >Q. Why is Snape so emotional when he tells Harry in Occlumency that "those who carry their hearts on their sleeves stand no chance against the Dark Lord"? >Pippin: See 0 and 1 above vmonte: "How would you feel if you told someone your darkest fears and desires and they completely dismissed you by saying: 'You think you had it bad...' I mean come on, could he be more self-centered?!" >Q. Why is Snape, after 20 years, still so emotional about some school grudges? >Pippin: See above. He really hates the Blacks. Won't eat in their house. He *told* James not to trust Sirius. James didn't listen, just like Harry doesn't listen now... vmonte: "What grudge?" >Q. JKR promised us a big revelation about Snape in Book 7. What would it be? >Pippin: Being half vampire and the key to Voldemort's immortality. The switching spell will have to be reversed before Voldie can die. vmonte: "I wear queensize pantyhose." >Q. Why does Snape like Draco? >Pippin: He thinks of him as the son who should have been his. vmonte: "He makes a great Earl Grey/Rosehips blended tea." >Q. How did Voldemort survive Godric's Hollow, and how did Dumbledore *know* he would survive? >Pippin: When he defected, Snape told Dumbledore about the switching spell, and Dumbledore, with his knowledge of transfiguration, realized that Voldemort would be able to survive an AK. (The Ministry has specially trained vampire slayers, which suggests that an ordinary AK won't do it.) vmonte: "I put a stopper on his death, silly." Vivian, who really loved Pippin's SWAN theory! From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 17:04:53 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:04:53 -0000 Subject: Does Dumbledore love Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124888 "lupinlore" wrote: > your number 4 is word for word the > same as my number 2. Did you > mean something different? No, my error, I misread your post, sorry. > I agree that it's a possibility. > I would find it unbelievably > insipid, but a possibility. If it's insipid for the hero of a story not to live happily ever after is Hamlet insipid? I tend to think it rather saccharin if nothing but good things happen to the characters we like but that's just me, your mileage may vary. Eggplant From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 17:04:36 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 09:04:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco is Evil and Lame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050220170436.26405.qmail@web31106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124889 Antosh: Wands are lethal weapons. This is not a slap fight on the playground. Should the Junior DEs care to use them as such, this is a three-on-one attack with Uzis. Arynn: Wands are not only lethal wepons. They are also used for healing, housework, and manipulating the environment. They are no more or less lethal weapons than hands are. (sure they can kill, but they heal/clean too). We do not know that DM/VC/GG were going to kill Harry. What they were going to do to him could have been anything from the wand equivilant of a slap in the face to actual murder. And we've seen no evidence that Draco has the power to kill (although he may wish he did). There's only once that I can recall that Draco used his wand to (attempt to) attack Harry and Harry's back was turned at the time and Draco still missed. HE may think that he's a tough kid to be feared, but he's not really even a blip on Harry's radar, more of a annoyance [much like that Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail ("What are you going to do, bleed on me?")] --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 17:54:12 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:54:12 -0000 Subject: Draco is Evil and Lame In-Reply-To: <20050220170436.26405.qmail@web31106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124890 Arynn: Wands are not only lethal wepons. They are also used for healing, housework, and manipulating the environment. They are no more or less lethal weapons than hands are. (sure they can kill, but they heal/clean too). We do not know that DM/VC/GG were going to kill Harry. What they were going to do to him could have been anything from the wand equivilant of a slap in the face to actual murder. And we've seen no evidence that Draco has the power to kill (although he may wish he did). There's only once that I can recall that Draco used his wand to (attempt to) attack Harry and Harry's back was turned at the time and Draco still missed. HE may think that he's a tough kid to be feared, but he's not really even a blip on Harry's radar, more of a annoyance [much like that Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail ("What are you going to do, bleed on me?")] vmonte responds: I'm not sure what your argument is. A surgeon's knife can heal as well as kill if used as a weapon. I'm pretty sure Draco was wielding his wand as a weapon, and not baking Harry a cake. The intent may not have been to kill, but at least to wound Harry. Besides, I'm pretty sure that Draco does have the power to kill; anyone can if they have the desire, and know the spell. Whether you believe that he is competent or not is not the point. His intent is what's important. Vivian From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 18:48:43 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:48:43 -0000 Subject: -Did JKR cheat with the Prophesy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124891 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "littleleahstill" wrote: > > > Lupinlore wrote: > >Well, the prophecy does say "The Dark Lord WILL mark him as his own." > >If the prophecy is true and therefore unavoidable, Voldy really > >DIDN'T have a choice in striking, as it was already foreordained. His > >only choice was in striking Harry rather than Neville. And even there > >he was sharply restricted, as the prophecy foreordains it will be one > >of those two out of all the wizard children born that year. > > > Leah: > > Except that the prophesy didn't say 'will mark him as his equal at > Godric's Hollow on 31 October'. It says that at some future undefined > point, 'the one' will be marked. It didn't say that the marking had > to take place by Voldemort striking at 'the one'. As far as the > prophesy goes, he could have marked with a kiss. Finwitch: I'd say it counts for what Dumbledore tells Harry in CoS: It's our choices, far more than our abilities that show what we truly are. And yes, Voldemort DID make a free choice. He did NOT know about anything - except that 1)there was a true prophecy made. 2)It predicts that someone with ability to vanquish him would be born at the end of July - to those who had defied him thrice. In other words, the prophecy told Voldemort enough to identify 'the one'. (Frank&Alice may have defied him four times, but Dumbledore didn't know that...) Voldemort chooses to kill this child (because he's the Dark Lord and that's what Dark Lords do!) and this shows he indeed IS the Dark Lord. He attacks the one he considers will grow to be his equal. Now then, after the 'marking as his equal' is done, Dumbledore knows that Harry is the one. Harry has the power to vanquish the Dark Lord, and marked as his equal now (meaning Voldemort transferred some of his powers to Harry). As for the rest of it - ', but he has a Power the Dark Lord knows not'. Well, let's see: Godric's Hollow & Hogwarts, 1st year: The love of the Mother who sacrificed her life for Harry. Quite apparently, Voldemort did not know of this. 2nd year: Tom Riddle/Voldemort apparently doesn't realise the power of the Phoenix-tears... (called to Harry for his loyalty to Dumbledore) 3rd year - the rat escapes. I think he must of heard at some point what power defeated Voldemort previously, and now he tells the master that. However, there IS that life-debt business (what ever that means), and Harry learns his patronus (you know - if he had let the rat die, I think he'd have lost his soul there!)... 4th time: the graveyard. Voldemort manages to overcome 'that particular barrier' - by taking *Harry's* blood. (Harry's marked *Twice* now! He's got another scar in his arm...) Harry still has, despite of being *equal* - a power Voldemort knows not - the *brother* wand. 5th: Apparently, pain over losing Sirius (Harry's Heart) was the power Dark Lord knows not *this* time... But, of course, Harry doesn't know of the power either... in fact, no one really does until he uses it to defeat Voldemort. What his true power is, the one that was always there - it's more the way he *acts* - the power of improvisation. Plans can be spied out, but an act that's acted out without a plan - well, it's the surprise that works. Finwitch From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 20:02:53 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:02:53 -0000 Subject: Did JKR cheat with the prophecy? No Cigar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124892 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > Steve said: > > > > > Locally, a great and reliable Prophet has made a prophecy that effects > > me, ..., but doesn't prevent me from choosing.... The Prophet is the > > weatherman and the prophecy is 'freezing rain tomorrow'. > > ... that prophecy ... effects the choices I ... make, ... but > > ...it has (not) restricted my free will. > Lupinlore responds: > > Because that isn't a prophecy. It's a prediction based on certain > methods that are not 100% accurate. A true prediction is one that > happens to be right. A true prophecy, on the other hand, is an actual > glimpse of the future, which is something else entirely. bboyminn: Ooowww....close ...very close ...but no cigar. You see, you might have a point if the item under discussion was 'prophecies' but it's not, it's 'choices' and how they are or aren't resticted by prophecy. The question at hand isn't do or don't prophecies exist or the nature of prophecies, it's do or don't choices and freewill exist in the face of a prophecy. My 'Freezing Rain Prophecy' was an illustration. It serves as a model, an analogous parallel, used to make a point. And that point is, that everyday in everyway in real life our choices are limted and restricted by foreknowledge of the future. So, does the Prophecy effect the choices of characters in the book? Does it restrict their choices? Yes, but so does the weather, so does the climate, so does geography, so does having kids, so does being married, so does the kind of car your drive, so does the physical body fate has cursed or blessed you with, so does the talent that fate has curse or blessed you with. BUT in no way does any of this, including the prophecy, alter freewill. Your view that somehow life/fate/destiny restricts or limits Harry or Dumbledore's choices isn't some highly unusual occurance, but the normal course of everyday life. Life always restricts our choices, but rarely does it dictate them. By the way, I'll pit my weatherman, who /does/ predict the future, against Sibyll** Trelawney any day. At least my weatherman, flat out says 'rain tomorrow'(who, what, where, when, and why), he doesn't couch his predictions in vague, esoteric, ambiguous words that are highly subject to interpretation. (** Oops, we've been spelling her name wrong; it's Sibyll not Sybil.) > Lupinlore continues: > > It is true that the weather prediction does not absolutely restrict > your choice because it is a calculation that does not depend for its > validity on the future being fixed. The prophecy, however, DOES > depend on the future being fixed. The first, you are right, does > not deny Free Choice. ... > bboyminn: 'Rain tommorrow' does not depend on the validity of the future being fixed? Rain tommorrow means rain tommorrow, how much more fixed can you get than that? What does 'neither can live while the other survives' mean? How fixed is that? You say, "The prophecy ... does depend on the future being fixed", but how is the future fixed? That Prophecy is filled with vague indirect language that is highly subject to interpretation. It doesn't flat out say who, what, when, were, and why; it says sort of who, kind of what, presumably when, vaguely where, and we can only guess as to why. That's not a very fixed future. All we can /assume/ is that Harry and Voldemort's futures are intertwined. Harry, if we /assume/ it's about Harry, CAN defeat the Dark Lord, /assuming/ that means Voldemort, but it doesn't say he will. More importantly, it doesn't say how or when he will; assuming all the assumptions we've already assumed. The prophecy is vague and indirect enough that it is highly subject to interpretation, interpretation that starts with a long list of assumptions. Final choices made are based on assumption (which are choices), which lead to interpretation (which are intellectual choices), which in turn lead strategic analysis (the weighing and discarding of choices), which in turn leads to decision (which are choices), which in turn leads to actions (which are based on narrowing a long list of choices). By your own statement, "you are right, (it) does not deny Free Choice". Well, if free choice and freewill are not denied, then what is it we are discussing? If freewill and free choice are allowed, then haven't we resolved our debate? > Lupinlore concludes: > > Sorry, but IMO, ..., your argument is based on a false premise and > simply does not stand up to the test of analysis. > > Lupinlore bboyminn: Well, I might be persuade to yield if this were a discussion about Prophecies vs Predictions, or example vs illustration, but it's not. It's about choices vs no choices, freewill vs no freewill, fixed destiny vs malleable destiny. Exactly what is the /fixed/ destiny stated by The Prophecy? Everything about it is based on assumptions and interpretations which are all a form of choices. So, back to the basic premise, how is the future fixed, and how are our choices limited beyond the way that they are always normally limited? Choices ...effected-yes; dictated-no. Steve/bboyminn Who think Prophecies are almost as much work as time-turners. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 20:59:41 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:59:41 -0000 Subject: Simple!Snape? (was: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124893 > Lupinlore wrote: > > > > That is a good point. However, I'm not sure that Snape's character > really IS all THAT contradictory. What I mean by that is that human > beings are very complex creatures, given to all kinds of > self-contradiction, foolishness, and illogical behavior. George > Patton was a great general and a brave man sincerely dedicated to > bringing about the Allied Victory in WW II. He was also arrogant, > petty, vain, ambitious, capable of feuds extending over years with > some of his most important allies (particularly Montgormery),given to > almost breathtaking viciousness and cruelty toward subordinates he > perceived as having crossed him or having failed him, and not above > using the lives of American soldiers as chips in the high stakes game > of building his own reputation. Pappy Boyington was one of the > greatest American aces of WWII, a pilot whose men (the famous Black > Sheep Squadron) admired him greatly for his bravery and leadership > skills. He was also a drunk and a gambling addict who had been > sentenced to join the Army by a court as punishment for welching on > debts and getting into drunken fights, and whose own men (the same > ones who admired him a squadron commander) often expressed contempt > for the way he handled his personal life and treated the people close > to him. > > Which is just to say I'm not really sure that Snape's contradictions > are all that extraordinary. Neri: Is it my imagination, or is your simple Snape becoming more and more complex as you try to explain him? And likable besides... People like Patton or Boyington certainly exist in RL. Painting their characters as unresolved contradictions, however, is perhaps the prerogative of a biography, but not of a novel. From a novel, especially a mystery or an adventure story (which are not usually about very complex characterizations) we usually expect to give some clear meaning to a character, to reveal his innermost secrets that led him to be what he is. Another possibility is to leave the contradictions unresolved and unexplained but teach us to like the character. This, however, requires a long familiarity with this character. For example, DD dies in the end of Book 6, and Harry has to cooperate with Snape in fighting Voldemort throughout Book 7, in which we get a very detailed account of Snape, much longer and deeper than we had in the last five books together. In the end none of the contradictions is resolved or explained, but Harry and us learn to accept these contradictions and like Snape nevertheless. This scenario may happen, of course, but I very much doubt it. JKR is not that type of author, she won't have time for such leisurely character portraits in Book 7, and as you rightly pointed out this IS the story of Harry Potter, not the biography of Severus Snape. So JKR will probably reveal one or more BIG secrets of Snape that are the key to understanding his contradictions. If she will just leave him unexplained it would be rightly considered a big failure of her, and she most certainly knows that. Neri From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Feb 20 22:19:24 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:19:24 -0000 Subject: Simple!Snape? (Castles in the air?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124894 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > > >LupinLore wrote: > That is a good point. However, I'm not sure that Snape's character > really IS all THAT contradictory. What I mean by that is that human > beings are very complex creatures, given to all kinds of > self-contradiction, foolishness, and illogical behavior. Snip Snape > comparisons to Patton and Boyington. > > vmonte responds: > > Ahhh, but Patton was the leader of his men, Snape only works for the > leader. It's interesting that you think of Snape as a leader instead > of a follower. In a way I agree that Snape seems to be running his > own separate agenda--and it's counterproductive to the Order. > Good point, but I'm not arguing that Snape is a leader in the same sense as Patton. I'm just using Patton as an example of a reak historical personage with contradictions as intense as Snape's. That's the point, not that Snape's position in War against Voldemort is analagous to Patton's position in WWII. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Feb 20 22:26:05 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:26:05 -0000 Subject: Simple!Snape? (was: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124895 > > Neri: > Is it my imagination, or is your simple Snape becoming more and more > complex as you try to explain him? And likable besides... Chuckle. Well, three points. First, simple!Snape is your terminology, NOT mine. I'd probably call him realistic!Snape. Secondly, he is complex (under this scenario) but in a very ORDINARY way. That is, people are JUST complex. So is Snape, being a human (all the vampire stuff is fun but I think JKR has pretty much shot it down, including half-vampire, in roaring flames). But he isn't complex in some kind of spectacular, byzantine way that is different than most of humanity. Thirdly, I wouldn't call him likeable. More understandable, yes. But in some ways even less likeable than ever before. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Feb 20 22:45:42 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:45:42 -0000 Subject: Did JKR cheat with the prophecy? No Cigar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124896 > > Well, I might be persuade to yield if this were a discussion about > Prophecies vs Predictions, or example vs illustration, but it's not. > It's about choices vs no choices, freewill vs no freewill, fixed > destiny vs malleable destiny. Exactly what is the /fixed/ destiny > stated by The Prophecy? Everything about it is based on assumptions > and interpretations which are all a form of choices. > > So, back to the basic premise, how is the future fixed, and how are > our choices limited beyond the way that they are always normally limited? > > Choices ...effected-yes; dictated-no. > Because you simply can't have a prophecy if the future ISN'T fixed into a particular pattern (which may include branch points, however as the branch points are themselves fixed it does, by certain of the rules of formal and symbolic logic, boil down to the same thing. Even quantum indeterminacy is actually more formally known as quantum determinacy in certain kinds of discussions). I'm afraid a discussion about prophecies vs. predictions IS a discussion about fixed future vs. free will. Predictions are based on calculation made from a certain point in time given certain assumptions that have to be worked into your equations. Prophecies are based on direct perceptions of a future that is fixed and will come to be (or more formally a certain pattern of branchpoints which is fixed, with certain branches disappearing as further perceptions of the future reveal which branches will become actual) - that is the very definition of a prophecy (or of a true prophecy, anyway, which is what DD, anyway, thinks he's dealing with). Another way of putting it is that if true prophecies exist the branches that become actual don't depend on free choices made at those branches. Rather the pattern of branches itself arises due to the fact that the prophet doesn't have a clear enough vision to percieve which branches WILL become actual. Actually, we are steering VERY close to Frank Herbert here, as the entire metaphysics of the DUNE series is based on the difference between calculation of the future (i.e. prediction) and direct perception of the future (i.e. prophecy) and what that means for choice and free will. Herbert, in turn, based a lot of his metaphysics on the discussions of predestination found in in the writings of formal theologians such as Augustine, Aquinas, and Edwards. But, at his point, I think the discussion is exhausted. This is the type of thing that ends up going round and round in arguments of ever greater complexity until everybody ends up with a migraine. You think she hasn't cheated because free will and prophecy can exist together (prophecy and prediction are rather similar). I think there is no way she can't have cheated very badly because prophecy and prediction are qualitatively different things and true prophecy by definition rules out the existance of free will as it is commonly understood. Fair enough. Let's shake hands and move along. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Feb 20 23:10:17 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:10:17 -0000 Subject: Does Dumbledore love Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124897 Eggplant wrote: > > If it's insipid for the hero of a story not to live happily ever after > is Hamlet insipid? Well, Hamlet is a different thing than HP. Hamlet is more in line with Greek Tragedy whereas HP seems to be more in line with Christian allegory. I wouldn't call Hamlet insipid. Rather I would say the final act is melodramatic and over the top to the point of losing emotional impact for many modern people, me included (and I acknowledge reactions were almost certainly different among the audiences for which these plays were first written). I just can't watch Hamlet or one of the Greek Tragedies without rolling my eyes and breaking into occasional guffaws. I tend to think it rather saccharin if nothing but > good things happen to the characters we like but that's just me, your > mileage may vary. And how in the world does the avoidance of the Death scenario equate to "nothing but good things happening?" I think the whole "noble hero gives his life for the world" (different from Hamlet, but more in line with a possibility for HP) is a hackneyed quasi-religious theme that has no real place in good writing outside of sermons and Sunday School literature. Now, if Harry were to, for instance, win and live but be permanently scarred in some way, THAT would be both more realistic and more emotionally evocative. Providing it is handled well of course. If Harry were to slide into permanent bitterness and becomes another Snape, for instance, we are into the over the top, eye-rolling territory again.* Lupinlore * P.S. I don't think this scenario is likely from JKR, by the way. The only example we have in her writing of someone who battled and killed a Dark Lord is Dumbledore, and he seems to have come through the experience rather well. From manawydan at ntlworld.com Sun Feb 20 23:12:03 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:12:03 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Some Sybil questions (or questions on the Sybil...) References: <1108866094.6339.77123.m5@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000401c517a1$982d3440$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 124898 First Steve, who wrote: >I suspect the Cassandra had a more active psychic ability, and that >she was able to use it more readily, and therefore was able to >demonstrate her abilities in easier, more obvious, and more frequent >ways. Thus, her ability was easily demonstrated to the world around >her. Therefore, She wouldn't necessarily have needed any great >historically significant prophecy to solidify her reputation. Would that work, though? Do prophecies have to have a capital S Significance to be remembered? After all, if Cassandra is just prophesying things like "Henry's dog is going to pee against that lamppost", would anyone care! Ridiculous example, I know, but there's a world of difference between that and the kind of stuff that's preserved in the Ministry. Just by the bye, who used to preserve prophecies _before_ the Ministry was formed? >Oddly, if we look at the real world, most psychics do seem to be >female. Can we assume that translates as well into the wizard world? > >I don't think we can say NO psychic ability in the intervening >generations, only that there was no significant ability, and/or that >none in those generations were interested in pursuing that ability. For Sybil to be a Trelawny, then the two intervening generations have to pass through the male line. _Do_ most psychics in our world tend to be female? A quick tour round the best known mediums (John Edward, James van Praagh, Colin Fry, Derek Acorah) suggests that there's a good number of men up there, at least among the more upfront media ones. >Sybil DOES have psychic ability beyond her 'involuntary trance' >abilities. She saw the Grim repeatedly when giving Harry /readings/. >the class, etc...). Although, she is not always very good at >interpreting what she sees. This is actually a very important observation. I wonder if other Seers are better at remembering what they've said. Maybe (and this could speak to the problem of the intervening generations) Sybil just didn't have anyone in the family to give her the practical instruction to get the right sort of focus. Another question: did Sybil go to Hogwarts, and did she study Divination there? If so, why doesn't she have better control of her powers? Is there a tradition of scatterbrained Div teachers? >It's kind of a flip of a coin, but in the moment, I am leaning toward >the eavesdropper being a random insignificant character. Although, >tomorrow, my opinion might be exactly the opposite. I'd lean towards that one too. >I do however believe that Dumbledore hired her both because she might >be IN danger as well as A danger, but also because he wanted to keep >he close by. She seemed to be intune to the events surrounding Harry's >life and fate, and it would be good to keep her close in case of new >information via prophecy arose. Something which is very much in DD's character. However, following on from what I suggested above, do other Seers have better recollection? Might DD have _expected_ that if Sybil had another episode of prophesying, that she'd have the skills to recollect and record it? His comments in PoA about the second prophecy don't really answer that. >While Sybil could be making 10 prophecies a day when no one is >looking, I suspect what triggers her trance is the proximity of >someone for whom there are siginificant prophetic events; someone with >a strong aura of Destiny. While Sybil's prophecies relate to >Dumbledore and Harry, their fruition will have massive impact on the >entire wizard and muggle world. So, as the Centaurs might put it, >Sybil's prophecies are not about single events or individuals, but >about 'great tides'. Do you want to develop that idea as it would relate back to Cassandra? It's an interesting one... Meanwhile Hickengruendler wrote: >I agree with Ffred on that point. The eavesdropper was caught, after >all. If it were Peter, then Dumbledore and the Potters would have >known it and never made him secret-keeper. It's worth remembering that if Peter was the eavesdropper, he would have been able to do it most effectively in his human form. As a trusted insider, he'd have been far less suspicious in the corridor as himself than as a rat. Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 23:37:53 2005 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:37:53 -0000 Subject: Whither the Wand Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124899 Some wand-related questions: 1) How and when did Voldy get his wand back? He was "less than spirit" after the AK against Harry failed, which means he couldn't have carried it with him. We also know he didn't have it because he said in GOF that any spell that would have helped him would have required use of a wand. Yet, it was undoubtedly Voldy's original wand that locked with Harry's brother wand in GOF. 2) Relately, where did Wormtail get a wand after he ran off in the forest in POA? Perhaps he stole Bertha Jorkins's wand? 3) Where did Sirius get the wand he used in OOP? And why did't he have one in POA? Maybe a member of the Order? Or a member of the Black family's wand? 4) Does the MOM monitor wand usage by wizards who have achieved majority? I tend to think not, because if so, how could they deny that Voldy is back? Also, wouldn't they have been able to track down Wormtail if he was using Bertha's wand? Not to mention, wouldn't Hagrid's wand usage would have been discovered long ago (wonder if he used his before he reached majority -- shoudn't that have been noticed?)? Angie From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 23:48:37 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:48:37 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124900 >>SSSusan: >Butting in a bit late here, but.... Betsy, you clearly believe Draco's punishment was inappropriate, and thus Hermione (and many others) *should* have shown compassion for Draco.< Betsy: Yes, I do think the ferret bounce went *far* across the line of normal student discipline. I also think JKR wrote it in a way to show Draco in a different sort of light - one in which the reader is meant to feel a certain amount of sympathy for him. I don't know that I would have expected sympathy from the Gryffindor students, though. The WW is a blood and guts kind of place, vengence is pretty okay (e.g. first years know the proper forms of wizard dueling), so I expect Gryffindors would get a certain amount of pleasure in seeing an enemy of their house taken down in such a humiliating fashion. >>SSSusan: >Do you also think that Lucius Malfoy's punishment was inappropriate, and that thus many students should have shown compassion for Draco? >Is this really a situation in which someone would show *compassion*?< Betsy: Lucius Malfoy's punishment was *not* inappropriate. However, Draco has lost his father; his family name has been besmirched. The mature response is to seperate Draco from his father's sins and feel compassion for the boy who is suffering. Again, not something I expect the Gryffindors to do, for the above stated reasons. Which brings us to... >>Betsy: >Not that I really would expect any of the Gryffindor kids to show compassion at those times...< >>SSSusan again: >But I don't see how this helps your case. These are the examples you gave for places where compassion could have been shown, but then you say you wouldn't really expect compassion to be shown then. It just seems pretty circular.< Betsy: I wasn't arguing for the Gryffindors to show compassion towards Draco. *Way* back (and it was several jumps up-thread) I had stated that there weren't many opportunities in the books for Draco to show compassion (trying to make the point that we don't know if he's got any). Naama responded with a long list of examples where Draco could have shown compassion, but they all involved Gryffindors. As our argument progressed I tried to show places where the Trio could have shown compassion towards Draco and didn't, for the same reason Draco didn't show compassion during the examples she listed: They all involved the downfall of an enemy. So my argument was *meant* to be circular. It wasn't, however, meant to be unclear. Which it obviously was. :) I think I was so involved in the discussion I didn't realize how long ago Naama's examples were, and it all made *so* much sense in my head, so... I'm not trying to say that the Trio and Draco are on equal footing when it comes to compassion, either. Harry, for one, is quite able to sympathize with others. Hermione can as well. Ron... I'm not as sure of. He's a little more rough and tough than the other two, but I think he is a good kid at heart. Draco is more self-involved than they are. But to say he has no compassion at all... There isn't enough canon to say yay or nay here, that I've seen. >>SSSusan: >MAYBE Draco does some good things offscreen, but it's a big maybe, isn't it? We've got no evidence that he doesn't; we've also got no evidence that he does.< Betsy: Exactly. :) >>SSSusan: >I think there is evidence that he does terrorize other students. What he does is worse than poking fun, which sounds gentle to me. IMO he is a bully who hopes to evoke terror. They may not be *afraid* to see him coming any more, but that is likely because they feel they can handle what he puts out now. But the crap he dishes to Ron, the insults he hurls at Hermione & Neville, the challenges he issues Harry... I think they DO dread seeing him coming, even if they don't fear him any more.< >Maybe that's your point. He's pathetic enough to be pitied? If it is, I just don't pity people like that, I guess.< Betsy: I agree that Draco *wants* to be taken seriously, especially by Harry. And as he has been presented so far, he's a nasty, petty little child who could well be seduced by the Death Eaters into their cause. (Where I think Draco would fair rather poorly.) But, JKR drops enough textual contradictions regarding Draco that I wonder if there isn't more to him than currently meets the eye. I do like his character, and hope that a better fate than 'Death Eater failure' awaits him. I feel sympathy towards Draco because he always loses so spectaculary, and sometimes quite unfairly. And he's been set upon by a mob, which is repulsive to me. I despise mob justice. In the Harry Potter books, Draco is the underdog. Harry hates him from the outset and sets Draco up as his opposite. I'd like to see Draco break out of that role and become his own man. Just as I'd like for him to break away from his father. Who knows if it will happen? My fingers are crossed. Betsy From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 23:49:22 2005 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:49:22 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Plan? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124901 bbkkyy55 wrote: > > In DD's talk with Harry at the end he responds > in answer to H asking "Voldemort's going to try other ways of coming > back, isn't he?" DD says "....not being truly alive, he cannot be > killed." He'll regain life eventually somehow, indeed he must for Harry to finally kill him. Angie responds: Wow! I hadn't thought of this before I saw this post, that Voldy would have to be made "killable" again. Perhaps taking Harry's blood in GOF is what will do it. I had always thought the reason DD looked triumphant in GOF when Harry told him Voldy could touch him was that would somehow make Voldy more vulnerable, or would allow Harry to "siphon" some of Voldy's powers or something like that. But maybe that is what will ultimately allow Harry to kill him. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 00:15:08 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:15:08 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124902 Betsy: I do like his character, and hope that a better fate than 'Death Eater failure' awaits him. I feel sympathy towards Draco because he always loses so spectaculary, and sometimes quite unfairly. And he's been set upon by a mob, which is repulsive to me. I despise mob justice. In the Harry Potter books, Draco is the underdog. Harry hates him from the outset and sets Draco up as his opposite. I'd like to see Draco break out of that role and become his own man. Just as I'd like for him to break away from his father. Who knows if it will happen? My fingers are crossed. Alla: I am assuming that when you say "mob justice" you mean fight at the end of GoF. It is funny that usually I also despise mob justice, but I as I said before I absolutely don't mind what Draco got from Gryffindors. I guess it is because I think that Draco brought it upon himself and therefore richly deserved it. NOBODY invited him to Gryffs appartment and especially nobody was interested in listening to his threats to Hermione. Could Gryffs handled it better? Sure, I guess. But I firmly believe that they were provoked by death threats to Hermione, therefore again hurt/comfort fails spectacularly in my eyes. "Just deserts", definitely. So, yes, even if Draco loses spectacularly. I cannot remember single occasion where he loses UNFAIRLY. Even when he was turned into ferret, he started a fight, remeber? :o) So,punishment can be very over the top, but since I don't think that general idea of the punishment was unfair at all, I cannot sympathise with Draco much. I mean, it is a cruel punishment for sure, but the initial offense was bad enough. I also don't see Draco as underdog. I see Snape favouring him over and over again during his lessons. Would I want a different fate for Draco than the one I believe was set up for him? NO, I don't think that fifteen year old is irredimable, BUT at this point in series I think that the ONLY mitigating factor Draco got is his age, otherwise he is quite despicable already. I only have to remember his campaign for Buckbeack executiona nd Hagrid firing by exaggerating his injuries and that would be enough for me . Just my opinion, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 01:06:12 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 01:06:12 -0000 Subject: Simple!Snape? (was: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124903 SSSusan: If these are the two missing pieces which explain everything, then I have another question to add to those of Neri's (to which you already responded). Why does Snape, especially after he *knows* Voldy has indeed returned, NOT do everything in his power to ensure that Harry is learning everything he can about how to defeat Voldemort? Unless you believe that Snape does NOT know Harry is *the* key, *the* one person who is capable of bringing Voldy down and saving the WW (and, hence, Snape), then why does Snape not go out of his way to teach Harry EVERYTHING he can -- about Potions, about Occlumency, about what he knows of Voldemort's characture, nature, tactics, goals, etc.?? Lupinlore: I don't think he has done this, either, Susan. I tend to think that Snape DOESN'T know all the prophecy, or maybe anything except that their IS a prophecy. Alla: Lupinlore, I was ready to embrace your Simple!Snape wholeheartedly, till Susan's question stopped me. :o) It is quite reasonable to believe that Snape does NOT know about the prophecy, but I happen to think that Snape is a pretty good candidate for the identity of the eavesdropper. I mean who else do we have? It could not be Peter because then ( as other poster argued) Dumbledore would have made sure that he was not made SK. I can think of Mundungus, I suppose, but that is about it. Do you have any other good candidates? I guess my question is why are you so sure that Snape did not overhear the Prophecy? Thanks, Alla From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 01:44:04 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 01:44:04 -0000 Subject: Whither the Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124904 >Angie wrote: Some wand-related questions: 1) How and when did Voldy get his wand back? He was "less than spirit" after the AK against Harry failed, which means he couldn't have carried it with him. We also know he didn't have it because he said in GOF that any spell that would have helped him would have required use of a wand. Yet, it was undoubtedly Voldy's original wand that locked with Harry's brother wand in GOF. vmonte responds: See message from 2/12/05 - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124430 >Angie: 2) Relately, where did Wormtail get a wand after he ran off in the forest in POA? Perhaps he stole Bertha Jorkins's wand? vmonte: It was probably his own wand. >Angie: 3) Where did Sirius get the wand he used in OOP? And why did't he have one in POA? Maybe a member of the Order? Or a member of the Black family's wand? vmonte: An escaped convict wouldn't be carrying a wand and wouldn't have money to buy one. (During OOTP he probably had someone buy him one or had one lying around his house.) 4) Does the MOM monitor wand usage by wizards who have achieved majority? vmonte: (Maturity?) I doubt it. Vivian From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Feb 21 02:29:04 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 02:29:04 -0000 Subject: Simple!Snape? (was: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124905 > SSSusan: > If these are the two missing pieces which explain everything, then > Why does Snape, especially after he *knows* Voldy has indeed > returned, NOT do everything in his power to ensure that Harry is > learning everything he can about how to defeat Voldemort? > > Lupinlore: > I tend to think that > Snape DOESN'T know all the prophecy, or maybe anything except that > their IS a prophecy. > > > Alla: > > It is quite reasonable to believe that Snape does NOT know about > the prophecy, but I happen to think that Snape is a pretty good > candidate for the identity of the eavesdropper. I mean who else do > we have? It could not be Peter because then ( as other poster > argued) Dumbledore would have made sure that he was not made SK. > Valky: I have another opinion entirely. I quite firmly support the bulk of Lupinlore's simple Snape hypothesis. Frankly, I think he is almost as simple as all that. Nasty, petty interested in Dark Arts, Self preservation and thinks Voldemorts insane.... yep I agree. But Lupinlore there is one important peice of the Simple Snape puzzle, that I believe needs more emphasis. Snape is a pureblood supremist. He might think Voldie has lost it in the old rationale department, but he kind of thinks that of DD as well. It has neither to do with their alignment in the battle of WW racism, because Snape is firmly aligned with Lucius on that matter, end of story. Now Snape thinks that Voldie is a bit loony, as the premise here, so its not a far leap from Simple Snape to Snape thinks that Neville is the prophecy boy. It couldn't possibly sit well with pureblood idealist Sevvie that LV decides the boy born in July that is more powerful than he is a stinking half blood! Snape: "Ahem your Lordship,,, I thought we had agreed that pureblood was supreme... surely, naturally the Pureblood boy is the more powerful of the two, no?" Valky From catportkey at aol.com Mon Feb 21 02:31:14 2005 From: catportkey at aol.com (catportkey at aol.com) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:31:14 EST Subject: Harry has PTSD Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124906 When I first read Order of the Phoenix, I assumed that Harry was going through "testosterone poisoning" which has the lovely side effects of being overly moody. But as I thought about it, his symptoms seems to relate to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. It would seem logical that a child from ages 11 to 15, who has had to choose between fight or flight, would obtain some of the PTSD symptoms. Combine this with the fact that he feels he's being left in the dark by the one he trusts (DD) can spark high emotional outbursts also toward the ones he loves (H and R). Symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder include, but are not limited to: * Difficulty sleeping. * Outbursts of anger or irritability. * Difficulty concentrating. * Constantly fearing for your safety. * Becoming overly startled when someone surprises you. * Feelings of intense guilt (especially if you survived when others died). Some people experience all or only a few of the symptoms. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 02:42:18 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 02:42:18 -0000 Subject: Simple!Snape? (was: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124907 Valky: I have another opinion entirely. I quite firmly support the bulk of Lupinlore's simple Snape hypothesis. Frankly, I think he is almost as simple as all that. Nasty, petty interested in Dark Arts, Self preservation and thinks Voldemorts insane.... yep I agree. But Lupinlore there is one important peice of the Simple Snape puzzle, that I believe needs more emphasis. Snape is a pureblood supremist. He might think Voldie has lost it in the old rationale department, but he kind of thinks that of DD as well. It has neither to do with their alignment in the battle of WW racism, because Snape is firmly aligned with Lucius on that matter, end of story. Now Snape thinks that Voldie is a bit loony, as the premise here, so its not a far leap from Simple Snape to Snape thinks that Neville is the prophecy boy. It couldn't possibly sit well with pureblood idealist Sevvie that LV decides the boy born in July that is more powerful than he is a stinking half blood! Snape: "Ahem your Lordship,,, I thought we had agreed that pureblood was supreme... surely, naturally the Pureblood boy is the more powerful of the two, no?" Alla: LOL, Valky! I don't think that you and me are differ that much. I WILL completely support Simple!Snape if I get a satisfactory explanation ( to my liking of course) why Snape does not know about the Prophecy. Even without it I am in agreement with bulk of it just as you are. Now, about Snape being pureblood supremist... Are you sure that he still is? I have to confess that it would be extremely dissapointing to me to learn that even though Snape left Voldie he still supports his ideology. I also have to confess that my positive feelings for the character will decrease significantly if we learn that Snape still shouts "Purebloods rule" in the privacy of his dungeons. :o) Although I suppose that the fact that Slytherin's pasword was "pureblood" is a pretty big hint that you are right. :( I guess I want to learn that one of the reasons Snape left was him realising over time as DE that such ideology sucks big time. Just my opinion, Alla From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Feb 21 02:49:57 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 02:49:57 -0000 Subject: Simple!Snape? / Occlumency, Legilimency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124908 SSSusan: > > If these are the two missing pieces which explain everything, > > then I have another question to add to those of Neri's .... > > Why does Snape, especially after he *knows* Voldy has indeed > > returned, NOT do everything in his power to ensure that Harry is > > learning everything he can about how to defeat Voldemort? a_svirn: > Even if Snape IS committed to the DD's side (which we by no means > know for sure) he still hates Harry. It would be too much I'm > afraid to expect him to pull Lupin during their Occlumency lessons > just so Harry would feel more at ease. Besides Harry himself > wasn't helping, was he? He WANTED to be able to "read You-Know- > Who's mind", as Ron phrased it. He simply did not want to sever > this connection, because he believed it to be rather useful one. > > And even so they did some kind of progress, didn't they? SSSusan: What if I grant you this part on Occlumency? :-) Could you go a step further and explain the other two bits I asked about? Here it was: "Why does Snape not go out of his way to teach Harry EVERYTHING he can -- about Potions, about Occlumency, about what he knows of Voldemort's characture, nature, tactics, goals, etc.?? ... If Snape was hell-bent on getting Harry ready to bring down Voldy, wouldn't he ask himself, "Is what I'm doing working? Is it enough?" So, what about the first in my list [potions] and, especially, the last [teaching Harry ABOUT Voldemort]? Lupinlore has gone a different direction in answering me -- he's arguing that Snape may not know about the prophecy. That's not something you argued here. So if you believe Snape IS in the know, then why hasn't he tried to help Prophecy Boy by giving him all the insights he can about Voldemort? Siriusly Snapey Susan, still hoping *someone* will take on this question with more than a "Well, Snape's a man who has a hard time letting go of his grudges" answer. From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Mon Feb 21 03:03:40 2005 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:03:40 -0000 Subject: Whither the Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124909 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > 1) How and when did Voldy get his wand back? He was "less than > spirit" after the AK against Harry failed, which means he couldn't > have carried it with him. This is actually fairly obvious. Wormtail was the secret keeper for the location of the Potters, so for Voldemort to find them and get into their home, Wormtail would either have to accompany him there or give him a written note (like the one Harry got from DD in OoP). Given Voldemort's suspicious nature and possible resistance, I assume Wormtail was there, and so was in place to take the wand, hide it and disapparate before Hagrid (who can't apparate so had to take slower means) arrived. Once Wormtail decided to go join Voldemort in PoA, he had Voldemort's wand to use, and has indeed used it as we saw in GoF (Voldemort's wand killed Cedric but it was Wormtail who performed the curse). > We also know he didn't have it because he > said in GOF that any spell that would have helped him would have > required use of a wand. Yet, it was undoubtedly Voldy's original > wand that locked with Harry's brother wand in GOF. Yes, he needed a wand - and the physical body to allow him to use a wand, both of which only happened when Wormtail rejoined him. > 2) Relately, where did Wormtail get a wand after he ran off in the > forest in POA? Perhaps he stole Bertha Jorkins's wand? I think he was using Voldemort's wand up till Bertha Jorkins was killed (probably also by Wormtail at Voldemort's orders, as Voldemort did not yet have even the rudimentary body he got from his pet snake's venom and Unicorn blood potion). He seems to have preferred Voldemort's wand even after - e.g. to kill Cedric (perhaps Voldemort's wand is more powerfull?). Once he gives the wand to Voldemort we don't see him again with a wand, so we don't really know if he does have a wand anymore. > 3) Where did Sirius get the wand he used in OOP? And why did't he > have one in POA? Maybe a member of the Order? Or a member of the > Black family's wand? I am guessing it was either a spare wand left at his home, one of the ministry wizards working at the order who filched his wand or DD got him one. > 4) Does the MOM monitor wand usage by wizards who have achieved > majority? Probably not. Otherwise they could have tracked Voldemort easily. Salit From snow15145 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 03:28:12 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:28:12 -0000 Subject: Simple!Snape? / Occlumency, Legilimency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124910 SSSusan: > So, what about the first in my list [potions] and, especially, the > last [teaching Harry ABOUT Voldemort]? > > Lupinlore has gone a different direction in answering me -- he's > arguing that Snape may not know about the prophecy. That's not > something you argued here. So if you believe Snape IS in the know, > then why hasn't he tried to help Prophecy Boy by giving him all the > insights he can about Voldemort? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan, still hoping *someone* will take on this > question with more than a "Well, Snape's a man who has a hard time > letting go of his grudges" answer. Snow: I'll take a stab at this one Susan. The most logical answer to me would be that Dumbledore requested, as he has done in the past to the Order members, that Harry not be told too much. Dumbledore has this thing for letting others find out for themselves what's what. An example would be Dumbledore asking Harry not to mention what he had seen in the Pencieve of Neville's parents but to allow Neville to explain if and when he makes a choice to disclose that information. Another example would be when Harry asks Dumbledore why he trusts Snape and Dumbledore's reply was that it was between himself and Snape. This is all relevant to the choice concept that Dumbledore promotes. To Dumbledore, it is Neville and Snape's choice as to who to tell what to. Now how does this all relate to the question as to why Snape would not have told Harry all he could have about Voldemort. If Harry was told everything before he could comprehend it, it may affect his choice and in following suit of, should you tell someone else's background or let that person disclose that for himself. If you tell a small child something they cannot sufficiently comprehend that child may come to a childish conclusion. If the small child is given small doses of what they need to know as they grow, they are better able to understand the adult-like comprehension of the situation. If Harry were given, straightaway, all the information that he now knows about Voldemort, what might Harry's choices have been at eleven years old? Well, I guess that's how I see it anyway. Snow From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Feb 21 03:57:46 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:57:46 -0000 Subject: Some Sybil questions (or questions on the Sybil...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124911 > Hickengruendler: > > I agree with Ffred on that point. The eavesdropper was caught, after > all. If it were Peter, then Dumbledore and the Potters would have > known it and never made him secret-keeper. > > Potioncat: Well, he was caught, but then again, he wasn't.. chp 37 OoP, DD speaking "...I had not dreamed...I would hear anything worth overhearing. My-- our--one stroke of good fortune was that the eavesdropper was detected only a short way into the prophecy and thrown from the building." I don't think I did a very good job of making my point in my earlier post, so I'll try again. Notice, JKR does not tell us who the eavesdropper is, although I assume DD knows. Nor does she tell us if the person was thrown out for eavesdropping or for some other reason. It sounds at first read, as if someone saw a person easvesdropping and threw him out for eavesdropping. But, if the offense was eavesdropping, wouldn't he have been held until DD could talk to him? We've been told, DD didn't expect to hear anything important, so it doesn't seem he told anyone to watch out for eavesdroppers. It was a stroke of good fortune, it was luck, it was a coincidence. No, I think a person (either as a person or as an animal) was listening, but appeared to be doing something else. I think he was seen, and tossed out. He was tossed out because the owner didn't want him around. Maybe he was a known werewolf or a part vampire, or smelled of tobacco, or appeared as a rodent or a stray dog. Who knows? It also isn't clear when DD learned about an eavesdropper. He may not have known until later, when word got back to him that LV knew about a prophecy. And he may not have known until after GH who the eavesdropper was. So, to review, I don't think Eavesdropper was seen, tossed out, and the incident immediately reported to DD. "Well, sir, I tossed him out just when the lady got to the part about marking the child..." And if it was one of the Marauders, I don't think DD knew it until it was too late. Potioncat From gelite67 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 04:10:58 2005 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:10:58 -0000 Subject: Whither the Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124912 Angie wrote: > 1) How and when did Voldy get his wand back? > > vmonte responds: > See message from 2/12/05 - > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124430 > Angie again: Thank you. That explains that. I hadn't thought through the implications of Wormtail being the secret-keeper and him having the opportunity to hide the wand. > >Angie also wrote : > 3) Where did Sirius get the wand he used in OOP? > vmonte replied: > An escaped convict wouldn't be carrying a wand and wouldn't have > money to buy one. (During OOTP he probably had someone buy him one or had one lying around his house.) > Angie replies: I realize he wouldn't have had a wand when he first escaped, but going to the someone-else-bought-it-theory, I just wonder if any wizard is allowed to have more than one wand? > 4) Does the MOM monitor wand usage by wizards who have achieved > majority? > > vmonte said: > (Maturity?) I doubt it. > Angie again: No, I mean wizards who are at least 17, the age of majority/adulthood in the WW. The reason I qualified the question is because we know the MOM monitors the wand activity of underaged wizards (hence the Harry-Dobby flying pudding fiasco in COS and the Dementor episode in OOP). From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Feb 21 04:17:44 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:17:44 -0000 Subject: Teacher Snape (wasRe: Simple!Snape? / Occlumency, Legilimency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124913 SSSusan wrote: > Here it was: "Why does Snape not go out of his way to teach Harry > EVERYTHING he can -- about Potions, about Occlumency, about what he > knows of Voldemort's characture, nature, tactics, goals, etc.?? > ... If Snape was hell-bent on getting Harry ready to bring down > Voldy, wouldn't he ask himself, "Is what I'm doing working? Is it > enough?" Potioncat: I ask myself that every day! He knows the kid has ADHD, how can he expect him to do this sort of assignment without help....oops. wrong teacher, wrong kid. >SSSusan: > So, what about the first in my list [potions] and, especially, the > last [teaching Harry ABOUT Voldemort]? Potioncat: Snow tackled LV, I'll try potions. Why? Because he's an exceptonal Potion Maker but he's a horrible teacher. He lectures, demonstrates, explains, assigns reading and papers and he thinks the kids ought to get it. Many of them do. If they don't, it's their fault. >From Professor Snape's PoV, it's their fault because they aren't paying attention, they don't care, they don't follow directions. And he has proof, he sees it every day. It would never occur to him to do anything different. He's done his part, they have to do theirs. From his PoV, of course. Someone, I don't know who, once wrote an article about JKR and education. The writer believed JKR was showing bad teachers on purpose in the HP series as a statement about current education. Potioncat From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 04:26:41 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:26:41 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124914 >>Betsy: >...I believe that Slytherin has won the Quidditch cup every year except when Gryffindor won in PoA. (Which, funnily enough, was won not because Harry was the better player, but because he had the better broom.)< >>Alshain: >Somehow the arguments about players and brooms aren't always consistent: Slytherin played Ravenclaw in POA and won. Draco had a Nimbus 2001, Cho had a Comet Two Sixty (the broomstick Draco had as an eleven-year-old, which looked even more like a joke against the Firebolt). Why is the Slytherin-Ravenclaw and the Ravenclaw- Gryffindor games fair, but the Quidditch final isn't?< Betsy: Oh, Harry wins fair and square. Equipment and skill are all part of the game. But it raises questions for me, because of how JKR chose to write that scene. She sets up from the beginning that both Harry and Draco are very nervous about their upcoming match. And then we get detailed play by play of the game. Both Slytherin and Gryffindor are playing hard, both sides are fouling each other. Harry does an excellent feint to pull Draco off the Snitch, Draco fouls Harry to keep the Snitch free. So far so good. It's Seeker vs. Seeker, and Harry is the better player. He leads Draco around and Draco is forced to foul Harry to keep Harry from the Snitch. But then, for some reason, Harry decides to leave off being Seeker and help Angelina score. No real reason for it, game-wise. The Gryffindor team has been scoring just fine without Harry's help, and Harry is fully aware that if Draco gets the Snitch, Gryffindor will lose. And it *is* a mistake on Harry's part. Because Draco doesn't forget his duty as Seeker, and he does spot the Snitch. It comes down to a race, and Harry wins because he has the better broom. It's interesting to me, not because I think Draco is secretly the better Seeker, but because I wonder why JKR chose to have Harry win on equipment rather than skill. He *has* the skill - JKR has shown us that time and time again. But why, for the big game, does she have Harry win because *his* pure-blooded rich father figure got him the better broom? Maybe it's nothing, maybe JKR just chose to raise the tension of the win by having it come down to a race. But, you know... I question. Betsy From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Feb 21 05:02:02 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 05:02:02 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124915 > I only have to remember his campaign for Buckbeack execution and > Hagrid firing by exaggerating his injuries and that would be > enough for me . > > Just my opinion, > > Alla Valky: With this I entirely agree Alla, but I also wonder just what exactly are we seeing in Draco here? Are we seeing a boy who aligns genuinely with the ugly bigotry of his house and finds elite joy in cruelty to an inferior being, or are we seeing a boy not unlike James Potter stupidly availing himself to the cause of a flailing ideology. The most powerful wizard in James time was Voldemort, he reigned terrifyingly over people like Lupin and Hagrid, and from their perspective Lord Voldemort was the destroyer of their kind. In the present day, Dumbledore is proclaimed most powerful and through his influence, as we overhear in the Borgin and Burkes scene in COS, the pureblood supremists are fearing the destruction of their livelihood. >From *a* neutral standpoint on the livelihood of the Malfoys, which I would like to propose Draco has, Dumbledore is a threatening force upon the livelihood of Draco's family and those who follow him (his disciples) are perpetuance of the threat. James I believe held a similar regard of Snape as Draco does to Hagrid. Snape to James was a percieved "disciple" of the master power standing threat to the life his father taught him to value, Hagrid to Lucius is a percieved "disciple" of the Dumbledorian progression over the life his Father taught him to value So I proffer a consideration of Dracos actions that they may be based in a preservation of something dear to his heart, and not rather to an intent to simply do harm on the grounds of an idealism that he doesn't fully comprehend, yet. He may simply be out to "save" his own family from the menace of Dumbledore. Perhaps his actions may not be quote so heartless as they seem. Valky From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 05:06:30 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 05:06:30 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124916 >>Betsy: >And he's been set upon by a mob, which is repulsive to me. I despise mob justice.< >>Alla: >I am assuming that when you say "mob justice" you mean fight at the end of GoF. It is funny that usually I also despise mob justice, but as I said before I absolutely don't mind what Draco got from Gryffindors. I guess it is because I think that Draco brought it upon himself and therefore richly deserved it. NOBODY invited him to Gryffs appartment and especially nobody was interested in listening to his threats to Hermione.< Betsy: Yes - I was talking about the end of GoF and the end of OotP (and you could throw in the fight in OotP too). OotP could be excused. Maybe. He and Crabbe and Goyle attempted to ambush Harry and a larger group overpowered them. There's an element of defense there that was missing in the GoF scene. Which was highly revolting to me. I don't think Draco or Crabbe or Goyle even grabbed their wands. Plus, they were attacked from behind by wizards two years their senior, plus, they were stepped on while unconscious, plus, they were never checked on, no adult was notified. It was all rather cold-blooded and ruthless, to my mind. >>Alla: > Could Gryffs handled it better? Sure, I guess. But I firmly believe that they were provoked by death threats to Hermione, therefore again hurt/comfort fails spectacularly in my eyes. "Just deserts", definitely.< Betsy: They could have handled it like Gryffindors. There was nothing brave or honorable in their attack. The whole, "death threat," argument is fairly weak to me. Typical justification of mob justice, actually. "He had it coming," is a popular excuse. >>Alla: >So, yes, even if Draco loses spectacularly. I cannot remember single occasion where he loses UNFAIRLY. Even when he was turned into ferret, he started a fight, remeber? :o)< Betsy: Draco started a fight with *Harry*. Harry didn't turn Draco into a ferret, a teacher with a grudge against his father, did that. Draco *always* loses unfairly. He's always set upon by much greater odds or by adult wizards with far greater skill. It's bizarre to me, Alla, that you can get so outraged about Snape taking away points from Harry for admitting to fighting in the halls, but when Draco is caught doing the same thing you're all for physical and emotional punishment of a fairly extreme nature. Obviously, you feel Draco is evil - should be shot at dawn. Why? >>Alla: >So,punishment can be very over the top, but since I don't think that general idea of the punishment was unfair at all, I cannot sympathise with Draco much. I mean, it is a cruel punishment for sure, but the initial offense was bad enough.< Betsy: Draco shot a hex at Harry. And he missed! No one was hurt. Heck, the twins have done worse to people they *like*. Draco calls people names, he writes cruel songs about them, he may design a few badges. Has Draco ever physically hurt anyone? He gets pounded on, all the time. And the punishment has never come close to fitting the crime. >>Alla: >I also don't see Draco as underdog. I see Snape favouring him over and over again during his lessons.< Betsy: Yes, one teacher quite likes Draco. One. In the entire school. Who does Harry have on his side? Oh yes, the *headmaster*. Plus, the one, lone teacher who likes Draco is charged with protecting Harry's life. Weigh them on the scales, Draco is still very much, the underdog. Betsy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 05:38:58 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 05:38:58 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124917 Betsy: Yes - I was talking about the end of GoF and the end of OotP (and you could throw in the fight in OotP too). OotP could be excused. Maybe. He and Crabbe and Goyle attempted to ambush Harry and a larger group overpowered them. There's an element of defense there that was missing in the GoF scene. Which was highly revolting to me. I don't think Draco or Crabbe or Goyle even grabbed their wands. Plus, they were attacked from behind by wizards two years their senior, plus, they were stepped on while unconscious, plus, they were never checked on, no adult was notified. It was all rather cold-blooded and ruthless, to my mind. Alla earlier: Could Gryffs handled it better? Sure, I guess. But I firmly believe that they were provoked by death threats to Hermione, therefore again hurt/comfort fails spectacularly in my eyes. "Just deserts", definitely.< Betsy: They could have handled it like Gryffindors. There was nothing brave or honorable in their attack. The whole, "death threat," argument is fairly weak to me. Typical justification of mob justice, actually. "He had it coming," is a popular excuse. Alla: Well, I am actually at loss how to respond to it, to tell you the truth and I am not kidding. Let's look at the scene again, shall we? "The door of the compartment slid open. "Very clever, Granger," said Draco Malfoy. Carabbe and Coyle were standing behind him. All three of them looked more pleased with themselves, more arrogant and more menacing, than Harry had ever seen them. ... Trying not to think about it, are we?" said Malfoy softly, looking around at all three of them. "Trying to pretend it hasn't happened?" "Get out," said Harry. He had not been this close to Malfoy since he had watched him mutterring to Crabbe and Goyle during. Dumbledore's speech about Cedric. he could feel kind a kind of ringing in his ears. His hand gripped the wand in his robes. You've picked the losing side, Potter! I warned you! I told you you ought to choose your company more carefully, remember? When we met on the train, first day of Hogwarts? I told you not to hang around with riffraff like this!" he jerked his head at Ron and Hermione. "Too late now, Potter! They'll be the first to go, now the Dark Lord's back. Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers first! Well - second - Diggory was the f-" It was as though someone had exploded a box of fireworks within the compartment." - GoF, p.729, paperback, am.edition. Malfoy shouted a "death threat" . You call it an excuse for mob justice. I call it a justifiable provocation for what Malfoy and Co got, when they appeared uninvited in Gryffs appartment. Harry tries to tell him to get out. Does Draco listen? No, not really. Instead he tells him that his best friends will be the first one to die soon AND he gloats over Cedric death. Yep, I understand Harry's reaction perfectly. Would I advocate physical violence in RL, if someone is provoked? Nope, unless it is a self defense and here I see a signs of both ( of course it looks more like provocation to me, but in fictional reality I can afford to gloat a little bit over Draco's demise) Betsy: Draco started a fight with *Harry*. Harry didn't turn Draco into a ferret, a teacher with a grudge against his father, did that. Draco *always* loses unfairly. He's always set upon by much greater odds or by adult wizards with far greater skill. It's bizarre to me, Alla, that you can get so outraged about Snape taking away points from Harry for admitting to fighting in the halls, but when Draco is caught doing the same thing you're all for physical and emotional punishment of a fairly extreme nature. Obviously, you feel Draco is evil - should be shot at dawn. Why? Alla: Because Draco to me represents ideology, which I despise with great passion, because people of my ethnicity suffered from such ideology all their lives in my former country( I mentioned several times that I see antisemitism as most close metaphor for "purebloodism" in RL, therefore it does strike a nerve with me.). I am NOT inclined to see Draco's threats as "empty", because I know that person does not says such serious words unless he/she means them. I also like being manipulated by JKR. If she gave me one small hint , tiny one that Draco may be redeemed in the future, I would probably be more charitable towards him. Alla: I also don't see Draco as underdog. I see Snape favouring him over and over again during his lessons.< Betsy: Yes, one teacher quite likes Draco. One. In the entire school. Who does Harry have on his side? Oh yes, the *headmaster*. Plus, the one, lone teacher who likes Draco is charged with protecting Harry's life. Weigh them on the scales, Draco is still very much, the underdog. Alla: Since we probably see Potions classes in the most detail, that is what matters to me. You know, if I had SEEN how other teachers treat Draco badly at their lessons, I could have changed my POV. Right now all that I see is Snape doing unfair treatment of Harry and favouritism of Draco, therefore I don't see Draco as underdog at all. JKR is very good at manipulating me. Just my opinion, Alla From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 06:14:37 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 06:14:37 -0000 Subject: Does Dumbledore love Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124918 "lupinlore" wrote: > Hamlet is more in line with Greek Tragedy > whereas HP seems to be more in line with > Christian allegory. That is the worst insult I've ever heard somebody make about the Harry Potter books. > I wouldn't call Hamlet insipid. One of the great understatements of all time! > Rather I would say the final act is melodramatic > and over the top to the point of losing emotional > impact for many modern people Well . If it takes 400 years before most people start to think the Potter books have lost their emotional impact I'd say they were doing rather well. > Now, if Harry were to, for instance, win and > live but be permanently scarred in some way, > THAT would be both more realistic and more > emotionally evocative. Ok, I admit that is not a bad point. > If Harry were to slide into permanent bitterness > and becomes another Snape, for instance, > we are into the over the top, eye-rolling > territory again.* In the 20 years since Harry killed Voldemort he has become the most respected and feared professor at Hogwarts. On the first day of class as Harry glanced over a list of his new first years he saw a name he recognized. He looked down on a terrified looking eleven year old boy with a hooked noise and greasy black hair and sneered, "Mr. Snape! What would I get if I added powdered root of asphodel to an infusion of wormwood?" "I don't know sir," said the little boy. "Let's try again." Said Harry in a hard cold voice, "Snape, where would you look if I told you to find me a bezoar?" The little boy looked like he was on the verge of tears when he croaked out in a very small voice, "I don't know sir". "And what is the difference, Snape" Harry roared just inches from the trembling boy's face "between monkshood and wolfsbane?" Harry could see he was going to have fun for the next seven years. THE END Eggplant From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 06:19:23 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 06:19:23 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124919 Betsy: Draco started a fight with *Harry*. Harry didn't turn Draco into a ferret, a teacher with a grudge against his father, did that. Draco *always* loses unfairly. He's always set upon by much greater odds or by adult wizards with far greater skill. It's bizarre to me, Alla, that you can get so outraged about Snape taking away points from Harry for admitting to fighting in the halls, but when Draco is caught doing the same thing you're all for physical and emotional punishment of a fairly extreme nature. Obviously, you feel Draco is evil - should be shot at dawn. Why? vmonte responds: I'm not answering for Alla but I just couldn't help comment on your post. Draco cannot (and should not) be compared to Harry. Draco is not a sweet boy who is being picked on by the other students. Draco is the ONE picking on the other students! And I do not feel sorry for him because he is a lame wizard. He should spend his extra time taking DADA lessons from Snape, rather than looking for trouble. And if he doesn't like getting trounced he should stop being such an ass. He goes out of his way to bully anyone he sees fit. What goes around comes around! Vivian From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Feb 21 08:10:22 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:10:22 -0000 Subject: Does Dumbledore love Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124920 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > > "lupinlore" wrote: > > > Hamlet is more in line with Greek Tragedy > > whereas HP seems to be more in line with > > Christian allegory. > > That is the worst insult I've ever heard somebody make about the Harry > Potter books. > Chuckle. To each his/her own, Eggplant. But I do stick to my characterization. > > In the 20 years since Harry killed Voldemort he has become the most > respected and feared professor at Hogwarts. On the first day of class > as Harry glanced over a list of his new first years he saw a name he > recognized. He looked down on a terrified looking eleven year old boy > with a hooked noise and greasy black hair and sneered, > "Mr. Snape! What would I get if I added powdered root of asphodel to > an infusion of wormwood?" > "I don't know sir," said the little boy. > "Let's try again." Said Harry in a hard cold voice, "Snape, where > would you look if I told you to find me a bezoar?" > The little boy looked like he was on the verge of tears when he > croaked out in a very small voice, "I don't know sir". > "And what is the difference, Snape" Harry roared just inches from the > trembling boy's face "between monkshood and wolfsbane?" > Harry could see he was going to have fun for the next seven years. > As I say, this ending would be worth an eye-roll and a snort of contempt. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Feb 21 08:11:47 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:11:47 -0000 Subject: Harry has PTSD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124921 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, catportkey at a... wrote: > When I first read Order of the Phoenix, I assumed that Harry was going > through "testosterone poisoning" which has the lovely side effects of being overly > moody. > But as I thought about it, his symptoms seems to relate to Post-Traumatic > Stress Disorder. > It would seem logical that a child from ages 11 to 15, who has had to choose > between fight or flight, would obtain some of the PTSD symptoms. Combine this > with the fact that he feels he's being left in the dark by the one he trusts > (DD) can spark high emotional outbursts also toward the ones he loves (H and > R). > > Symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder include, but are not limited to: > * Difficulty sleeping. > * Outbursts of anger or irritability. > * Difficulty concentrating. > * Constantly fearing for your safety. > * Becoming overly startled when someone surprises you. > * Feelings of intense guilt (especially if you survived when others died). > > Some people experience all or only a few of the symptoms. > Well, I certainly think this is a legitimate provisional diagnosis. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Feb 21 08:26:28 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:26:28 -0000 Subject: Simple!Snape? (was: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124922 > > > Lupinlore: > I don't think he has done this, either, Susan. I tend to think that > Snape DOESN'T know all the prophecy, or maybe anything except that > their IS a prophecy. > > > > Alla: > > Lupinlore, I was ready to embrace your Simple!Snape wholeheartedly, > till Susan's question stopped me. :o) > > It is quite reasonable to believe that Snape does NOT know about > the prophecy, but I happen to think that Snape is a pretty good > candidate for the identity of the eavesdropper. I mean who else do > we have? It could not be Peter because then ( as other poster > argued) Dumbledore would have made sure that he was not made SK. > > I can think of Mundungus, I suppose, but that is about it. Do you > have any other good candidates? > Well, I don't think we have ANY good candidates at the moment, Alla. We just don't have any evidence to go on. Given that, anything would be pure speculation. Simple!Snape (or what I would call realistic!Snape) is an attempt to apply Occam's razor to the facts we now have. That is, it's an attempt to come up with an explanation that requires the fewest possible major assumptions about facts not in evidence. The idea that Snape was the one to overhear the prophecy would be a major assumption based on no evidence, and thus has to be discarded by the rules of Occam's razor. However, we DO know that Snape has made very little effort to teach Harry as one would reasonably expect given the prophecy. Therefore, I would say that, based on the evidence we now have, the only reasonable conclusion is he DOESN'T know the prophecy. That may of course be upset by future revelations, but for now I just think it's the scenario that best fits the evidence when you apply Occam's razor (i.e. go with the solution that requires the fewest major assumptions about facts not currently in evidence). Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Feb 21 08:49:57 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:49:57 -0000 Subject: SWAN, SIDD, and SILL: Wild Snape Scenarios Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124923 Okay, I've written quite a few posts about realistic!Snape. Just for fun, lets look at some Bangy!Snape possibilities. I like the whole SWAN scenario from Pippin (like in terms of finding it interesting and amusing). It does answer some things. I think the Snape-as-half-vampire thing has been shot down in flames by JKR, but the rest works. But why stop at the idea that Draco is the son that Snape wanted to have. Why can't he BE Snape's son? He is described as pale, thin, and having blond hair. That describes Lucius, but also Narcissa. Draco could just take after his mother like Harry takes after his father. Now, if Draco IS Snape's son (let's call it SIDD, Snape is Draco's Daddy) wouldn't that be a pip? Snape's hatred of Harry escalates year after year because he sees his own son constantly humiliated at the hands of James' brat. The past is replaying itself before his eyes, and once again Dumbledore is standing aside and beaming benignly while a Snape is abused and humiliated by a Potter! The problem with SWAN or SIDD is that, under these scenarios, why does Snape not do more to wean Draco away from Voldemort? But they both would make for interesting bangs. Now, let me give you a REAL bang. What if it isn't Narcissa Snape loves? What if it's Lucius? Lets call that one SILL (Snape is Lucius' Lover). SILL has the same advantage as SWAN and SIDD in explaining why Snape favors Draco, although it has the same disadvantage as well with regard to why Snape doesn't try to wean Draco from Voldemort. But SILL explains even better why Snape starts at Harry's mention of Lucius. He is terrified his beloved his about to be sent to Azkaban. It also could explain how Snape could be the "one who has left me forever" and still retain good relations with the Malfoys. Lucius is in effect torn in loyalty. He still believes in Voldemort, but cannot let go of his love for Severus. Ah, the power of the human heart! A single tear rolls down my cheek as I think of it. Yes, this type of thing can be a WHOLE lot of fun. Lupinlore From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 10:49:07 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:49:07 -0000 Subject: Whither the Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124924 > > Some wand-related questions: > > 1) How and when did Voldy get his wand back? He was "less than > spirit" after the AK against Harry failed, which means he couldn't > have carried it with him. We also know he didn't have it because he > said in GOF that any spell that would have helped him would have > required use of a wand. Yet, it was undoubtedly Voldy's original > wand that locked with Harry's brother wand in GOF. > 2) Relately, where did Wormtail get a wand after he ran off in the > forest in POA? Perhaps he stole Bertha Jorkins's wand? > > 3) Where did Sirius get the wand he used in OOP? And why did't he > have one in POA? Maybe a member of the Order? Or a member of the > Black family's wand? > > 4) Does the MOM monitor wand usage by wizards who have achieved > majority? I tend to think not, because if so, how could they deny > that Voldy is back? Also, wouldn't they have been able to track down > Wormtail if he was using Bertha's wand? Not to mention, wouldn't > Hagrid's wand usage would have been discovered long ago (wonder if he > used his before he reached majority -- shoudn't that have been > noticed?)? Finwitch: As for 1) and 2)-- well, apparently Wormtail took Voldemort's wand - and er - used it. Dunno where he hid it or if he carried it with him (he left his own behind, of course. Necessary to fake his death and frame Sirius...) As for 3)... well, I highly doubt they'd let anyone going to Azkaban High Security Cell for life to have a wand! So of course Sirius didn't have a wand in PoA. As for the one he has in OOP, I have several theories for that one. 1) As he only threatened Bertha with it, but didn't shoot any spells (correct me if I'm remembering wrong), it may well be a Fake Wand Fred&George gave their idol, Mr Padfoot. He was sacrificing his life so Harry would be protected against Voldemort's posession... 2)It's possible that at some point (like when Sirius was in the south sunbathing or whatever) - a phoenix (proably Fawkes as he was communicating with Dumbledore) donated him a feather. And I guess he was able to find a wand-quality-tree somewhere... and then he *made* the wand himself. Or Dumbledore did. I doubt Ollivander would, Sirius being a wanted man, you know... 3) He found it in the 12 Grimmauld Place (his mother's, probably). 4) Someone (Dumbledore? Remus? Weasley? One of the Order's Aurors?) bought him one. As for a wizard being allowed to have more than one wand... well, I'd say they are *allowed* but most won't bother. Charlie must have bought a new one; Olliwander has thousands because he sells them; and I suspect that Aurors, at least, are permitted to have as many as they see fit. I'm telling you, I doubt Ollivander would ask any questions if Moody, Kingsley or Tonks wanted to buy a wand. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 11:05:51 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:05:51 -0000 Subject: Simple!Snape? (was: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124925 > > Valky: -- Snape is a pureblood supremist. He might think Voldie has lost it in > the old rationale department, but he kind of thinks that of DD as > well. It has neither to do with their alignment in the battle of WW > racism, because Snape is firmly aligned with Lucius on that matter, > end of story. > > Now Snape thinks that Voldie is a bit loony, as the premise here, so > its not a far leap from Simple Snape to Snape thinks that Neville is > the prophecy boy. > > It couldn't possibly sit well with pureblood idealist Sevvie that LV > decides the boy born in July that is more powerful than he is a > stinking half blood! > > Snape: "Ahem your Lordship,,, I thought we had agreed that pureblood > was supreme... surely, naturally the Pureblood boy is the more > powerful of the two, no?" > > > > Alla: > > LOL, Valky! I don't think that you and me are differ that much. I > WILL completely support Simple!Snape if I get a satisfactory > explanation ( to my liking of course) why Snape does not know about > the Prophecy. Even without it I am in agreement with bulk of it just > as you are. > > Now, about Snape being pureblood supremist... Are you sure that he > still is? I have to confess that it would be extremely dissapointing > to me to learn that even though Snape left Voldie he still supports > his ideology. I also have to confess that my positive feelings for > the character will decrease significantly if we learn that Snape > still shouts "Purebloods rule" in the privacy of his dungeons. :o) > > Although I suppose that the fact that Slytherin's pasword > was "pureblood" is a pretty big hint that you are right. :( Finwitch: I think he is. He left Voldemort because he found out Voldy had a Muggle father! Doesn't this show? He's nasty to Muggle-born Hermione, and Harry - whose dead father he loathed and whose mother was Muggle- born. Neville-- well, I guess he feels that a pureblood (who also just happened to be the other boy for the prophecy) unable to properly control his magic etc. One who shows a total lack in all things that Slytherin valued.. well, he's disappointed. Indeed - between Harry, Hermione and Neville, his ideology is practically questioned and proved faulty. And he doesn't like it at all. Finwitch From naama_gat at hotmail.com Mon Feb 21 11:40:36 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:40:36 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124926 > Are we seeing a boy who aligns > genuinely with the ugly bigotry of his house and finds elite joy in > cruelty to an inferior being, or are we seeing a boy not unlike > James Potter stupidly availing himself to the cause of a flailing > ideology. > > The most powerful wizard in James time was Voldemort, he reigned > terrifyingly over people like Lupin and Hagrid, and from their > perspective Lord Voldemort was the destroyer of their kind. Why, then, did the Weasleys and the Potters fight against him? > > In the present day, Dumbledore is proclaimed most powerful and > through his influence, as we overhear in the Borgin and Burkes scene > in COS, the pureblood supremists are fearing the destruction of > their livelihood. Are you suggesting that DD is the WW Lenin? In what other way is he a threat to the Malfoy's livelihood? > > From *a* neutral standpoint on the livelihood of the Malfoys, which > I would like to propose Draco has, Dumbledore is a threatening force > upon the livelihood of Draco's family and those who follow him (his > disciples) are perpetuance of the threat. James I believe held a > similar regard of Snape as Draco does to Hagrid. Snape to James was > a percieved "disciple" of the master power standing threat to the > life his father taught him to value, Hagrid to Lucius is a > percieved "disciple" of the Dumbledorian progression over the life > his Father taught him to value. But one form of life has value, whereas the other doesn't. JKR is not a relativist. One side is dark, one side is light - it is therefore just and right to protect the one side, and wrong to >protect the other. > Naama From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Mon Feb 21 12:22:59 2005 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:22:59 -0000 Subject: Who is the better player? (was: Draco = Evil?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124927 > Betsy: > But then, for some reason, Harry decides to leave off being Seeker > and help Angelina score. No real reason for it, game-wise. The > Gryffindor team has been scoring just fine without Harry's help, and > Harry is fully aware that if Draco gets the Snitch, Gryffindor will > lose. And it *is* a mistake on Harry's part. Because Draco doesn't > forget his duty as Seeker, and he does spot the Snitch. It comes down > to a race, and Harry wins because he has the better broom. > > It's interesting to me, not because I think Draco is secretly the > better Seeker, but because I wonder why JKR chose to have Harry win > on equipment rather than skill. Julia: That's very interesting what you're writing and I know what you want to say but still I can't agree with you. Maybe it's right that in this scene it was Draco who acted as a good Seeker but I don't feel sorry for Draco. It's not that he hasn't got money to buy the same broom as Harry has. Apart froom that, I think that JKR has two goals in this scene: One was to make Harry win this game, and the second to show us that it is Harry who really is good at Quidditch. In my opinion Quidditch is a team game and without good cooperation a team cannot win. Harry presents a better attitude than Draco does. He (Harry) feels that if he can he should help his teammates and that's why he helps Angelina score (he also knows that he can afford it cause he has the best broom). This is something Draco would never do and that's what makes him a worse player than Harry. I think that's what JKR tries to show us here - not the fact that Harry wins because he is simply fastest but that he can be a part of a team and this is the main difference between him and Draco. Of course it would be better if wasn't for the fastest broom that Harry wins but as I said Draco is rich and he can afford it (but as we know even with the better broom he still loses :D) From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Feb 21 13:20:46 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 13:20:46 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124928 > Valky previously: > > Are we seeing a boy who aligns > > genuinely with the ugly bigotry of his house and finds elite joy > in cruelty to an inferior being, or are we seeing a boy not unlike > > James Potter stupidly availing himself to the cause of a > flailing ideology. > > > > The most powerful wizard in James time was Voldemort, he reigned > > terrifyingly over people like Lupin and Hagrid, and from their > > perspective Lord Voldemort was the destroyer of their kind. > Naama: > Why, then, did the Weasleys and the Potters fight against him? > Valky now: I am sorry Naama, I don't understand the question. Are you asking me if I think the Potters and the Weasleys were afraid of Voldemort? Because I don't think that they were. or are you asking me if I think they were wrong to fight? Because I don't think that either. > > Valky previously: > > In the present day, Dumbledore is proclaimed most powerful and > > through his influence, as we overhear in the Borgin and Burkes > > scene in COS, the pureblood supremists are fearing the > > destruction of their livelihood. > Naama: > Are you suggesting that DD is the WW Lenin? In what other way is > he a threat to the Malfoy's livelihood? > Valky: Poor history skills make it hard for me to answer that. The way I see that Dumbledore 'threatens' the livelihood of the Malfoys is that they have enjoyed elitist privilege as recognised purebloods, and that as Dumbledores influence in The WW grows "pure blood is counting for less and less". I do not think that DD is wrong or unjust in his cause. I think that the waning of the Malfoys unfair privilege is a good thing in itself. But I do wonder if Draco has a concept of that. Is it possible that he merely sees his family in fear of it, and wishes to be of service to their cause. Does he just feel their emotions and project them? > > Valky previously: > > From *a* neutral standpoint on the livelihood of the Malfoys, > which I would like to propose Draco has, Dumbledore is a > threatening force upon the livelihood of Draco's family and those > > who follow him (his disciples) are perpetuance of the threat. > > James I believe held a similar regard of Snape as Draco does to > > Hagrid. Snape to James was a percieved "disciple" of the master > > power standing threat to the life his father taught him to > > value, Hagrid to Lucius is a percieved "disciple" of the > > Dumbledorian progression over the life his Father taught him to > > value. > Naama: > But one form of life has value, whereas the other doesn't. JKR is > not a relativist. One side is dark, one side is light - it is > therefore just and right to protect the one side, and wrong to > >protect the other. > > > > Valky: Well yes I agree with that and I was going to say so in my other post. However I don't think to mean that the whole scenario will close on a relativistic standpoint. Just that perhaps there is a relativistic standpoint in which 'Draco Malfoy' can be percieved to be redeemable. It's all theory, I just wonder, thats all. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 13:39:58 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 05:39:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050221133958.17730.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124929 --- dumbledore11214 wrote: > > Malfoy shouted a "death threat" . You call it an excuse for mob > justice. I call it a justifiable provocation for what Malfoy and Co > got, when they appeared uninvited in Gryffs appartment. > Actually, it wasn't a death threat; Draco didn't threat to kill anyone. He made an observation about who would be likely to get whacked and definitely made it clear that it was all fine by him, but technically he didn't utter a death threat. A technicality, perhaps, but one crucial to Draco's character. A man of action, Draco is not. A blabbermouth, Draco definitely is. This falls into blabbermouthing territory. On the whole I think Betsy is loading too much weight onto a straw man; Draco is simply not a sympathetic character and there really is not much wiggle room - to date - on that point. Up to the end of POA, I'd have given Draco a pass for simply going along with his father but by GOF and definitely by OOTP he's old enough to account for his own opinions and choices. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From earendil_fr at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 14:20:41 2005 From: earendil_fr at yahoo.com (earendil_fr) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:20:41 -0000 Subject: Simple!Snape? (was: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124930 > Alla: > > LOL, Valky! I don't think that you and me are differ that much. I > WILL completely support Simple!Snape if I get a satisfactory > explanation ( to my liking of course) why Snape does not know about > the Prophecy. Even without it I am in agreement with bulk of it just > as you are. Earendil now: Maybe Snape *does* know about the prophecy, but then maybe he also knows it was made by Trelawney. Just imagine Snape asking DD why HP should be protected etc., and getting the answer: "Well, because Sybill Trelawney prophecized (sp?) that one day, the boy would save the WW from LV, of course!" Trelawney's predictions being what they are, I wouldn't blame Snape for not believing this one (assuming Snape isn't the eavesdropper of course), even if DD does. Earendil. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Feb 21 14:21:50 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:21:50 -0000 Subject: SWAN, SIDD, and SILL: Wild Snape Scenarios In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124931 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > Okay, I've written quite a few posts about realistic!Snape. Just for fun, lets look at some Bangy!Snape possibilities. > > I like the whole SWAN scenario from Pippin (like in terms of finding it interesting and amusing). It does answer some things.< Pippin: Thank you:-) Lupinlore: I think the Snape-as-half-vampire thing has been shot down in flames by JKR, but the rest works. < Pippin: Nah, she just winged it ;-) The quote gives some can(n)on to people who would *like* to shoot the theory down in flames (the vast majority, I admit) but the equivocal wording also gives some armor to the rest of us. When she really wants to shoot a theory down she can do it -- AFAIK nobody familiar with the relevant quotes is still holding out for 'Harry will be an animagus' or 'Harry will be a teacher at Hogwarts'. To me, making something a mystery for seven books almost guarantees a bangy solution, in the first place because it isn't much of a puzzle otherwise, but also because even if the books aren't about the puzzles, they are about the growth of the main character. If Harry's understanding of Snape at the end of Book Seven is exactly what it was at the end of Book One ; ie he's a nasty git who for some inexplicable reason was trying to keep me alive, then Harry won't have grown very much. Lupinlore: > The problem with SWAN or SIDD is that, under these scenarios, why does Snape not do more to wean Draco away from Voldemort?< Pippin: It parallels Harry being left with the Dursleys, doesn't it Pippin From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 19:23:03 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:23:03 -0000 Subject: Neville's nerves (Castles in the air?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124932 > >a_svirn responded: > Well, I am not sure. I mean, yes SOMEHOW Snape is definitely > involved, but, why would HE torture the Longbottoms? He IS rather > bitter and vindictive, but there has been not a single hint in canon > so far that Snape and the Longbottoms were at outs. He does not make > a secret of his hatred towards Potter Sr. but he has never ever > mentioned Frank Longbottom. > > vmonte now: > Well, he can't if he doesn't want to look suspicious does he? > a_svirn replies: If his priority were not to look suspicious he could cease to bully Griffindors for start. At least those Griffindors whose parents were victims of DE attacks. I'd say he positively delights in looking suspicious. > > >a_svirn: > Also Snape certainly doesn't strike me as a type to risk everything > in order to bring LV back. And neither does Lucius for that matter. > He was faring just fine without his Lord and Master after all. And > in his Welcome Speech LV did make his displeasure of Lucius known. > He said something about being constantly on the alert, but I don't > think LV was fooled. And take Crouch Jr. ? he positively loathes > Snape and the Malfoys! > > vmonte responds: > Really? Why did Lucius give Ginny the diary then? a_svirn: Well, we know why. At least if we are inclined to believe DD. He wanted to get Arthur Weasley out of the picture, because he was getting very much in the way with his Muggle protection Act and spared no effort to undermine Lucius' influence in the Ministry. And if he managed to kill two birds with one stone and get DD out of Hogwarts, so much the better. It was Tom Riddle who wanted to get back at Harry, Lucius was more interested in the Weasleys at the time. I don't quite see where did Dobby come into all this, and how much did Snape know about the scheme, but then CoS is probably the most mysterious HP book so far. a_svirn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 19:42:56 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:42:56 -0000 Subject: Simple!Snape? (Castles in the air?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124933 > > vmonte responds: > I really cannot comment on how Snape is actually working (outside of > Hogwarts) for the Order. And I wonder why was called "Snivelus" in > school? He also reminds me of Draco, who (so far) appears to be a big > coward. a_svirn: We don't know if he was not called Snivelus in school. Potter Sr. and Sirius did call him thus, but surely they were biased? It is pretty much like Malfoy Jr. and Co parading about Hogwarts with "Potter stinks" budges. It the pensive episode he doesn't come across as a snivelling and grovelling coward. a_svirn From ladywood_acciopotter at yahoo.co.uk Sun Feb 20 21:28:12 2005 From: ladywood_acciopotter at yahoo.co.uk (ladywood_acciopotter) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:28:12 -0000 Subject: Did JKR cheat with the prophecy? No Cigar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124934 Hello everyone! I'm Lady Wood and this is my first time here... I've read some of the recent messages in the group before joining and I must say I was delighted to come upon it. It's really refreshing to find a place where we can have interesting, intelligent discussions about Harry Potter. Since I've missed a big part of the discussion, I may simply be stating here what was already stated by someone else, but here it goes... I don't believe the prophecy restricts one's choice. It simply forsees how aperson is going to act. However, there are two different aspects that I think should be considered in the story: First, I think that the whole "problem" in the books was that one of the parts directly involved in the prophecy (Voldemort) got to know of it beforehand and, therefore, probably changed the course of his actions. If we consider this to be true, then it makes sense to say, for example, that Voldemort marked Harry because he knew of the imminent threat he represented and, by doing so, he proved the prophecy to be correct. On the other hand, though, if we take the prophecy as already having acknowledged that Voldemort would get to know of it, it said what it said, predicting exactly how the Dark Lord would act after hearing about its existence. I'm not sure if I'm making much sense here, but... it's a bit like a reverse logic to time traveling... supposedly, you have the original past and then the future, but, once, in the future, you go back to the past and change it, the supposedly "original past" then never takes place, given it was already modified... Lady Wood http://www.acciopotter.com From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 12:38:04 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:38:04 -0000 Subject: SWAN, SIDD, and SILL: Wild Snape Scenarios (and Lucius!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124935 Lupinlore: Lucius is > in effect torn in loyalty. He still believes in Voldemort, but cannot > let go of his love for Severus. Ah, the power of the human heart! A > single tear rolls down my cheek as I think of it. > > Yes, this type of thing can be a WHOLE lot of fun. > > Oooh. Precious. Precioussss. Ahem, right, sorry. Yes, yes yes, indeed...Redeemable!Lucius, clearly, is all sorts of interesting possiblities. (I've adopted him as a pet theory you see. I think everyone should have one. Precious.) It's Lucius who is going to betray Snape to Voldie, breaking poor Severus heart. (and probably getting it eaten by Nagini while Voldie watches.) Hm. No, that dosen't work. Um... *Draco*, the silly twat, looking for approval from Lucius (who has too busy paying attention to Snape to pay any to him) or Narcissa (likewise) is going to hand Snape into Voldemort, not realising that he's tearing apart one of his parents (heck, why only one?) dear hearts. Lucius will then proceed, for love of Snape, to turn coat, and possibly find himself having to fight his own son. (It's not Lucius who's the corroptive influence on the needing to be redeemed Draco. It's the other way round!) Or, it could be Lucius that dies saving Snapes cover, and in memory of that, Snape will attempt to redeem Draco, to set him upon a more reighteous path, in accord to his fathers dying wishes as he recants a lifetime of evil, for love of Snape. Northsouth From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 14:16:49 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:16:49 -0000 Subject: Whither the Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124936 > > Angie: No, I mean wizards who are at least 17, the age of > majority/adulthood in the WW. The reason I qualified the question is > because we know the MOM monitors the wand activity of underaged > wizards (hence the Harry-Dobby flying pudding fiasco in COS and the > Dementor episode in OOP). A minor quibble - Neither the flying pudding nor, IIRC, Blowing up Aunt Marge were done with a *wand*. I think the ministry has some way to track all magic done anywhere, but it seems unlikelier that they can track the activities of a certain wand, especially from afar. If they could, tracking down Voldemort or DD would have been much easier, and they could have been able to notice LV return, or spot Kingsley doing an Imperius in the middle of a meeting of Funde and DD, etc. Northsouth From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Mon Feb 21 17:27:31 2005 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:27:31 -0000 Subject: Whither the Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124937 On a discussion on how Voldemort or Sirius got wands > Finwitch: > 1) As he only threatened Bertha with it, but didn't shoot any spells > (correct me if I'm remembering wrong), it may well be a Fake Wand > Fred&George gave their idol, Mr Padfoot. He was sacrificing his life > so Harry would be protected against Voldemort's posession... > > 2)It's possible that at some point (like when Sirius was in the south > sunbathing or whatever) - a phoenix (proably Fawkes as he was > communicating with Dumbledore) donated him a feather. And I guess he > was able to find a wand-quality-tree somewhere... and then he *made* > the wand himself. Or Dumbledore did. I doubt Ollivander would, Sirius > being a wanted man, you know... > > 3) He found it in the 12 Grimmauld Place (his mother's, probably). > > 4) Someone (Dumbledore? Remus? Weasley? One of the Order's Aurors?) > bought him one. > > As for a wizard being allowed to have more than one wand... well, I'd > say they are *allowed* but most won't bother. Charlie must have > bought a new one; Olliwander has thousands because he sells them; and > I suspect that Aurors, at least, are permitted to have as many as > they see fit. I'm telling you, I doubt Ollivander would ask any > questions if Moody, Kingsley or Tonks wanted to buy a wand. > > Finwitch I remember reading that Olivander was the best wand maker, not the only one. I'm guessing that Sirius got one from another source, maybe the Kmart of wand makers, something generic for those that can't afford Olivander. Also, he was out of the country, there was most likely no problem in purchasing one. Plus, as I've mentioned before, there may be a good underground business in black market wands. Wands that were stolen and then used for crimes, like a lot of guns here in the U.S. Casey From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Feb 21 17:49:50 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:49:50 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124938 Betsy: > Yes, I do think the ferret bounce went *far* across the line of > normal student discipline. SSSusan: Yes, I think we get this from McGonagall's reaction. Betsy: > I expect Gryffindors would get a certain amount of pleasure in > seeing an enemy of their house taken down in such a humiliating > fashion. SSSusan: Yes, I believe they would **at this point** in their history with Draco. Who knows how they would have reacted if C!M had pulled this when they were all first years. By this point there is a 4-year history of nastiness between them and so, yes, I think some of the Gryffs likely found this scenario amusing. Betsy: > Draco has lost his father; his family name has been besmirched. > The mature response is to seperate Draco from his father's sins and > feel compassion for the boy who is suffering. Again, not something > I expect the Gryffindors to do.... SSSusan: See, I have a hard time with statements like "his family name has been besmirched" and "Draco has lost his father." "Has been besmirched" and "has lost" imply a degree of passivity which I don't find in this instance. Who's besmirched the family name? No one. Draco's father has brought these things upon himself & his family by his own choices & actions; the things didn't happen *to* him. One reaps what one sows, no? And while Draco was not involved in the actions directly, don't all signs indicate that he approves of his father's choices & actions? As for the mature response being to separate Draco from his father's sins in order to feel compassion for Draco, well, how `bout the reverse? Should Draco be able to separate Harry from who/what his parents were [Draco's dad's boss's enemies] and feel compassion for this boy who TRULY lost his father... AND his mother... and not just to prison, but forever? I see myself as a pretty compassionate person, a pretty sympathetic person and, yes, a pretty mature person. Yet I don't think Draco does a thing to convince anyone they should separate him from his father's sins or feel compassion for his "loss." I certainly feel little compassion for him as a reader. Betsy: > I'm not trying to say that the Trio and Draco are on equal footing > when it comes to compassion, either. Harry, for one, is quite able > to sympathize with others. Hermione can as well. Ron... I'm not > as sure of. Draco is more self-involved than they are. But to say > he has no compassion at all... There isn't enough canon to say yay > or nay here, that I've seen. SSSusan: I see what you're saying ? that Draco hasn't shown compassion to the Gryffs, as the Gryffs haven't shown compassion to him. But I would ask, who started them along the path to being one another's enemies? Again, I think Draco has been much more active at cultivating the enmity than the Gryffs. Betsy: > I agree that Draco *wants* to be taken seriously, especially by > Harry. And as he has been presented so far, he's a nasty, petty > little child who could well be seduced by the Death Eaters into > their cause. But, JKR drops enough textual contradictions > regarding Draco that I wonder if there isn't more to him than > currently meets the eye. > I feel sympathy towards Draco because he always loses so > spectaculary, and sometimes quite unfairly. And he's been set upon > by a mob, which is repulsive to me. I despise mob justice. In the > Harry Potter books, Draco is the underdog. SSSusan: I just don't see these textual contradictions. Draco wants to be taken seriously, especially by Harry, but **as a threat**, not as a person or an equal or a friend. Draco is, to quote from an offlist exchange [::waves at Nora::], the Energizer Bunny of Schoolboy Nasties. He keeps coming and coming and coming at H/R/H/N. And he is the epitome of mob mentality, isn't he?? Always bringing Crabbe & Goyle et al. along with him while he threatens or provokes, getting a whole crowd to wear those despicable badges and to sing "Weasley is our King," setting up the fake dementor scheme in front of the whole school & during a Quidditch match. There's nothing *private* or one- on-one about his attacks (except for that very last one in OotP ? which I took quite seriously indeed because it was so different from all the others, but that's another post perhaps). Draco is not the underdog of the HP books any more than he makes himself one by his own behaviors. *Harry* has the awesome burden of having to take on Voldemort & his DEs repeatedly, hence *Harry* is the underdog of the HP books. Siriusly Snapey Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 17:46:40 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:46:40 -0000 Subject: Whither Sirius's Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124939 Angie wrote : > I realize he [Sirius] wouldn't have had a wand when he first escaped, but going to the someone-else-bought-it-theory, I just wonder if any wizard is allowed to have more than one wand? Carol responds: Remember Ollivander's remark in SS/PS about Lily's *first* wand? Maybe as witches and wizards grow older and more powerful, they frequently replace the wand that chose them as an eleven-year-old with a more powerful wand suited to them as a young adult. (Harry and Tom Riddle would be exceptions as the wands that chose them as children were unusually powerful.) Maybe Sirius replaced his old wand when he wanted to become an animagus and left it at home in 12 Grimmauld Place, where he would have been unable to retrieve it until his parents were dead and he had escaped from Azkaban. Just a suggestion. BTW, I don't for a moment believe in the Simple Snape hypothesis but have no time to argue the matter and no access to my books. Carol, who is flying to Costa Rica this afternoon and asks that no list members e-mail her offlist until February 26, when she'll be home and catching up on everything, including, if possible, this list From stix4141 at hotmail.com Mon Feb 21 18:58:21 2005 From: stix4141 at hotmail.com (stickbook41) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:58:21 -0000 Subject: Many sleepless nights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124940 Salit wrote: As for Harry, they [the Dursleys] clearly do not love it, are scared to death that his true heritage and abilities will come to the surface and believe that keeping him downtrodden will snuff his magical ability. So from their perspective they are doing it for his own good. I believe their attitude towards him is abusive but keeping him with them is the lesser of two evils (the other being the risk to his life). Carol adds: Notice that they're afraid to leave Harry alone in the car or the house. Petunia (IIRC) actually says, "And have him blow up the house?" She, at least, is aware that the house at Godric's Hollow blew up, and I think she's aware (through DD) that baby Harry somehow defeated Voldemort at the age of fifteen months. They're quite literally terrified of his power, afraid that they'll meet the same fate as Harry's parents if Harry's magic is allowed to develop. No wonder they want to squash it out of him. stickbook, delurking: I'm a big fan of the idea that Petunia knows way more than she lets on, and was thrilled when she answered Vernon's question about the dementors at the beginning of OotP. Just to play devil's advocate, what if Petunia has another reasoning behind her want to squash the magic out of Harry? This is a woman who watched her only sister disappear into the Wizarding World, which eventually claimed her life in a violent and horrific way. Perhaps there is something in Petunia that wants to *protect* Harry. But why? And what stopped the Dursleys from shuttling Harry off to the orphanage? They clearly won't keep anything near them that they don't like. My hypothesis: Petunia put her foot down. -stickbook, who apologizes for not responding in a timely manner. From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Mon Feb 21 19:19:22 2005 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 19:19:22 -0000 Subject: Simple!Snape? (was: Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124941 > Earendil now: > > Maybe Snape *does* know about the prophecy, but then maybe he also > knows it was made by Trelawney. Just imagine Snape asking DD why HP > should be protected etc., and getting the answer: "Well, because > Sybill Trelawney prophecized (sp?) that one day, the boy would save > the WW from LV, of course!" > > Trelawney's predictions being what they are, I wouldn't blame Snape > for not believing this one (assuming Snape isn't the eavesdropper of > course), even if DD does. > Julia: Hey, I don't know if I'm right but I think that it's pretty obvious that Snape doesn't know about the prophecy. First of all I doubt DD told somebody about prophecy(except the Potters and maybe Longbottoms). He seems to think that it's better for you not to know about the horrible stuff. What's more even if DD told somebody I'm sure it wasn't Snape - he is a double agent and DD risks that if SS gets to know about the prophecy Voldie would be able to 'read it in SS's mind'. IMO Snape knows about the prophecy but only about the first part of it - probably every colse follower of Voldie had to know about it. So that brings me to the conclusion that Snape knows that either Neville or Harry could be The One. So basicly he knows nothing. I don't know if it explains his behaviour however there is no way that Snape nows the full version of the prophecy - it would be very risky to tell him. Julia, who now wonders if there was somebody who knew about the prophecy except DD, Potters and Longbottoms... From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 19:23:52 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 19:23:52 -0000 Subject: Whither the Wand -Sirius & More In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124942 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > > Angie wrote: > > 1) How and when did Voldy get his wand back? > > > > ...edited... > > > > >Angie also wrote : > > 3) Where did Sirius get the wand he used in OOP? > > vmonte replied: > > An escaped convict wouldn't be carrying a wand and wouldn't have > > money to buy one. (During OOTP he probably had someone buy him one > or had one lying around his house.) > Angie replies: > > I realize he wouldn't have had a wand when he first escaped, but > going to the someone-else-bought-it-theory, I just wonder if any > wizard is allowed to have more than one wand? > bboyminn: Let's not forget that Sirius spent a certain amount of time out of the country. Remember Harry received letters delivered by large tropical birds? So, it's entirely possible that Sirius bought a wand while he was out of the country (in continental Europe, Africa, Asia, ...etc...). As to how he was able to buy a wand, let's remember that he was able to buy a Firebolt Broom for Harry. If there is one and only one wizard's bank in the world, then it wouldn't have mattered where Sirius was, he could have withdrawn money from his account remotely, much the way we might withdraw money from a branch bank or from an ATM/Cash machine. If other parts of the world have other wizard banks, then Sirius would only have to hang around until money was transfered from Gringott's to the new foreign bank. If he can buy a Firebolt without detection, then he could certainly transfer money without detection. Which, of course, always brings up the question, how was Sirius able to do ANY banking when he was a fugitive? My answer to myself has always been that the Bank Goblins don't seem to be on the best of terms with the wizard's government. I'm sure they feel the confidentiality of their client's personal financial affairs is none of the governments damn business. I don't see the Goblins acting as agents of the government or cooperating in helping them catch criminals unless those were crimes directly against the Bank. That's the governments business, the Goblins business is to guard their clients finances which is something that is very personal and private, and something the Goblins would take very very seriously. This does bring up another question though. Sirius left home when he was young, and using the money he inherited from his Uncle, Sirius got a place of his own. What happened to that place? One could speculate it sat empty for 12 years while Sirius was in prison, but even a living space that is paid for still requires on-going payment for taxes and city services like sewer, water, lights, gas, etc.... I guess the easiest answer is to simply say he rented a place to live, even though that's not how I originally read it. Another alternative is to say that when Sirius went to prison, everything he owned, since he has a life sentance, was given to his parents. That could account for Sirius's living space (flat, house, whatever...) being taken care of and his wand being available to him at Grimmauld Place. Small problem her too though, Sirius parents and all other senior relatives appear to be dead. Sirius's mother seems to have died not long after Sirius went to prison, while that doesn't effect his wand being at Grimmauld Place, it doesn't leave anyone to take care of his real estate. > > 4) Does the MOM monitor wand usage by wizards who have achieved > > majority? > > > > vmonte said: > > (Maturity?) I doubt it. > Angie again: No, I mean wizards who are at least 17, the age of > majority/adulthood in the WW. The reason I qualified the question is > because we know the MOM monitors the wand activity of underaged > wizards (hence the Harry-Dobby flying pudding fiasco in COS and the > Dementor episode in OOP). bboyminn: I agree with Vmonte; I doubt it. I have previously speculated that the Ministry's primary magical detection is much like muggle weather radar. It's looking for /storms/ of magic. It's looking from intense bursts of magic that could potentially represent magical disasters which may need intervention by the Accidental Magic Revesal Squads and/or by the Obliviator Squads. When they see a /storm/ of magic on the detectors, they can probably then consult more specific magic detectors that would given them a better idea of what kind magic was being performed which in turn would help them determine if intervention was needed. I do believe they monitor underage magic more closely than general magic. We must remember that there are many thousands of wizard in the UK and it would be next to impossible to monitor them individually. Consider how many people that would require. In addition, we must remember that those thousands of wizards are doing magic all the time, so the magic detectors would be constantly going off. That said, I don't think they are monitoring underage magic as closely as many people have lead themselves to believe. I think what is distorting people view of the monitoring of underage magic, is that Harry specifically is being monitored very very closely. We can't take the level of monitoring on Harry and transpose that the all other underage wizards. Remember, Fred and George are engaged in magical research in their bedroom all the time. Although, I suspect Fred and George walked a very fine line. At some point, if their magical activity went beyond a certain level, they would have gotten a warning from the Ministry. But I don't think the Ministry can waste it's resources on every single little case of underage magic taking place in the magical world. We must also note that supervised underage magic in magical space (witness Fred and George) is far less serious than underage magic in muggle space and/or in the presents of muggles. Underage magic in muggle space is a very serious problem that would likely require a swift and sure response on the part of the Ministry. Magic in private, supervised magical space, again Fred and George at the Burrow, would be no more that a mischief crime, and would not require intervention. So, we must be careful to not tranfer what happens to the closely monitored Harry and apply it to the rest of the wizard world. Harry is a special case. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Feb 21 19:48:41 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 19:48:41 -0000 Subject: Does Snape know the prophecy? (was: Simple!Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124943 Earendil now: > > Maybe Snape *does* know about the prophecy, but then maybe he > > also knows it was made by Trelawney. Just imagine Snape asking DD > > why HP should be protected etc., and getting the answer: "Well, > > because Sybill Trelawney prophecized (sp?) that one day, the boy > > would save the WW from LV, of course!" > > > > Trelawney's predictions being what they are, I wouldn't blame > > Snape for not believing this one .... Julia: > Hey, I don't know if I'm right but I think that it's pretty obvious > that Snape doesn't know about the prophecy. > What's more even if DD told somebody I'm sure it wasn't Snape - he > is a double agent and DD risks that if SS gets to know about the > prophecy Voldie would be able to 'read it in SS's mind'. SSSusan: I'm afraid I don't think it's obvious at all. What would this mean in light of DD's repeated, "I *trust* Severus Snape" remarks? Do you think he exaggerates the degree of his trust, just to get Harry to possibly consider trusting Snape? I guess I've taken it more at face value -- DD *really* does trust Snape. And if DD trusts him, and is going to ask Snape to play important roles in the Order (which I believe he has/does), then why would he not share the content of the prophecy with Snape? I find Earendil's scenario rather interesting -- that Snape does know but doubts the source much more than DD does. :-) > Julia, who now wonders if there was somebody who knew about the > prophecy except DD, Potters and Longbottoms... SSSusan: I realize I have been going on the assumption that several of the members of The Order know of the prophecy. I assumed that Arthur & Molly, Sirius, Lupin, Snape & likely Moody each know about it. Do others think I'm wrong in this belief? Siriusly Snapey Susan From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Feb 21 20:48:13 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:48:13 -0000 Subject: Does Snape know the prophecy? (was: Simple!Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124944 > > SSSusan: > I realize I have been going on the assumption that several of the > members of The Order know of the prophecy. I assumed that Arthur & > Molly, Sirius, Lupin, Snape & likely Moody each know about it. Do > others think I'm wrong in this belief? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Well, it depends on what you mean by "Know of" and "Know About." I think it's fairly obvious that at some point they found out a prophecy exists. However, I don't think we have any evidence for WHEN they found out, and I certainly don't think we have any evidence for them knowing the CONTENTS of the prophecy. I suspect that many of the Order members, especially the Weasleys, only found out about the existance of the prophecy during Harry's fifth year. And I strongly doubt that any of them, including Snape, know the contents. Your point about DD trusting Snape is a good one, but I don't think it really speaks to whether Snape would know the prophecy. If DD has witheld the prophecy from Snape, it isn't, I suspect because he doesn't trust Snape, but because this is a very personal piece of information related to Harry and DD sees it as HARRY'S privilege to determine who knows about it. As someone (and I can't remember who it was) pointed out a couple of months ago, DD is privileged to know a lot of secrets about a lot of people. However, just because he knows them doesn't mean he thinks they are HIS secrets to give out. In fact, that is the very hallmark of a trustworthy person - he doesn't give out other people's secrets, even to people he himself trusts. This argument might well be used for the REASON DD trusts Snape. That is, he constantly says he trusts Snape, but he won't tell Harry why. Is that because he doesn't trust Harry? I don't think so (I know Harry is connected to Voldy, but I happen to think he wouldn't tell Harry even if there was no connection with Voldemort). He won't tell Harry because this is a secret about Snape he is entrusted with and he won't reveal it except under dire necessity or unless Snape gives him permission. Similarly, I suspect he sees the prophecy as a secret about Harry that he won't reveal except under the same circumstances. He probably gave the Order the absolute minimum amount of information they needed to function (and probably too little at that, judging by OOTP). Now, you can say that this policy of DD's is objectively rather foolish. He is putting the WW in danger because of his sense of responsibility toward certain individuals. But we have already seen that DD admittedly sometimes puts personal affection/sense of personal duty over grander considerations. That isn't very satisfactory to the people involved. His answers to Harry about why he trusts Severus are an implied "None of your business." I strongly suspect his answers to Severus about his policies toward Harry are a similar "None of your business." And thus we get to the mystery of why DD has not acted sooner and more strongly to defuse the poisonous relationship between Harry and Severus. I think maybe, in part, it's because in order to do that he would have to reveal secrets to each of them about the other, and he feels he has no right to act in that manner. Once again, you can argue that is a foolish policy, but I think its one very consistent with the Dumbledore we have seen to this point, and with the strengths and flaws that have been revealed about his character. Lupinlore From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 21:55:53 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:55:53 -0000 Subject: JKR cheat with the prophecy - Point of Destiny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124945 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > bboyminn/steve: > > > > ... Exactly what is the /fixed/ destiny> stated by The Prophecy? > > Everything about it is based on assumptions and interpretations > > which are all a form of choices. > > > > So, back to the basic premise, how is the future fixed, and how > > are our choices limited beyond the way that they are always > > normally limited? > > > Lupinlore: > > Because you simply can't have a prophecy if the future ISN'T fixed > into a particular pattern (which may include branch points, however > as the branch points are themselves fixed .... > ... Prophecies are based (on) ... a future that is fixed and will > come to be (or more formally a certain pattern of branchpoints which > is fixed, with certain branches disappearing as further perceptions > of the future reveal which branches will become actual) - that is > the very definition of a prophecy .... Another way of putting it is > that if true prophecies exist the branches that become actual don't > depend on free choices made at those branches. > > ...edited... > > Lupinlore bboyminn: Before we part ways on this subject, let me take one more stab at it, but from a slightly different angle. You say the future is fixed, but I see the future that is Prophesied as being variable and uncertain. I base my position of the vague, esoteric, highly subject to interpretation language of the Propehcy. Where is this /fixed point/ in the future that you see, and what do you base it on. I'm going to try and paraphrase your position, just to make sure I understand it, and thereby make sure we aren't arguing apples against oranges. I say that we can infer no more than that Harry and Voldemort (we /assume/ Harry and Voldemort) have intertwined destinies. That at some point their fates will come together, but how, when, were, under what circumstances, and to what end are all variable and subject to free choice and freewill. Any choice can be made along that way, and that choice will alter the nature of the outcome. Let me call the uncertain variable point where Harry and Voldemort's fates come together 'The Point of Intersection'. Fate has decreed that the 'Intersection' will eventually come, but when, were, how, and to what outcome is variable. You on the other hand appear to be saying that there is a fixed unvariable point at a fixed time, in a fixed place, under fixed circumstance, and with a fixed outcome existing at some place in the future. Let me call this fixed point, 'The Point of Destiny'. Expanding my impression of your statements, you acknowledge the /appearance/ of Freewill along the way, but seem to imply that destiny will force a person's choices. In any given moment in life we are face with a range of choices. I can keep typing, or I can get up and go to the store; I have choices. But you are implying, relative to this specific prophecy, that those choices, and the apparent freewill associated with them, are an illusion. That at every critical moment of choice, which you refer to as 'branches', fate and/or destiny will subconsciously force the choice that leads to a predetermined outcome. At critical points, destiny will force Harry to make choices that lead to a predetermined outcome; to an absolute immutable Point of Destiny. How am I doing so far? I may not have stated it perfectly, but is that the gist of what you are trying to say? But I must ask, what is that 'Point of Destiny', and how and where is it so rigidly defined in the Prophecy, or more subtly, where and what is implied in the future? Yes, I know, JKR already knows what is going to happen, so in that sense, the future is sealed. What will be will be and nothing can change it. But from within the story, and from our view as readers, Harry has many choices that can lead to different outcomes. Remember we are arguing how the Propehcy forces the future, not how the author forces the future. So, some person somewhere is born in a month that we can reasonably, but not absolutely, assume is July of some year that we are assuming is the year the prophecy was made. That person will have a power that some Dark Lord knows not, and that person will have the power to vanquish some Dark Lord somewhere at sometime. Most critical and defining is '...either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives...". That certainly thrust their fates together in a big way, but it defines a fate-forced intersection of destinies. It doesn't seem to force a specific immutable destiny on either of them. The who, what, when, where, why, and the outcome are all variable. Arguements here in this group and others as to whether Harry will live or die in the process of defeating Voldemort, seem to solidly point to a variable outcome. I have even speculated ways in which Harry could die to fulfill the Prophecy which would leave Voldemort vulnerable to defeat, but not truly and completely die which would allow Harry to be revived (happens in real-life all the time). Harry lives, Harry dies, Harry is resurrected are all very possible outcomes when analyzed from within the story, or from outside the story as a reader, and none of which violate the Prophecy. The Prophecy is vague enough to allow for variable outcomes. So, I see my fated but variable 'Point of Intersection', but I can't seem to find your immutable 'Point of Destiny'. Can you help me out there? If nothing else, did I at least come close to understanding your position? Steve/bboyminn From ryokas at hotmail.com Mon Feb 21 22:46:20 2005 From: ryokas at hotmail.com (Miikka R.) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:46:20 -0000 Subject: Can the MoM's self-defense booklet backfire? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124946 Yet another idea that I had in chat. It's stated at the end of book five that the Ministry will be distributing basic DADA instructions during the summer to every wizarding home. All's well and good, until you realize that the Death Eaters will be getting them too. There's really no feasible way of preventing them from laying hand on any copies. This means that Voldy will be getting a chance to read exactly what the Ministry is suggesting to its subjects, analyze it for weaknesses and formulate counter-plans. To paraphrase Sun Tzu, the best way to wage war is to attack the enemy's strategy. Unless the authors and the readers figure out that the opposing side is going to have access to exactly the same information, there's going to be trouble. Furthermore, how effective will the thing be? It's good to teach every possible person to repel Dementors, yes, but this war isn't going to be an open one. As we've seen, the second war consisted of guerrilla activity and psychological warfare, not open conflict. Given this model, attacks will be well-planned and researched, and with a good force behind them. Your average witch or wizard will not stand much of a chance when surprised (as is most likely to happen) by a DE death squad. It might even be counterproductive - making some victims fight when they would've been better off running, et cetera. Or, to go all Quibbler for a moment, it might be meant to improve morale more than chances of survival. PS. Cmbrichards, I just realized that I should've called the results of your proposition a witch-hunt. Why do I always think of these things a day too late? - Kizor From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Feb 21 23:41:44 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:41:44 -0000 Subject: JKR cheat with the prophecy - Point of Destiny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124947 > > bboyminn: > > Before we part ways on this subject, let me take one more stab at it, but from a slightly different angle. You say the future is fixed, but I see the future that is Prophesied as being variable and uncertain. Pippin: I *think* what Lupinlore is saying is that if Harry and Voldemort cannot avoid the intersection of their fates no matter how vaguely this is foretold, then their ability to affect their future by their choices is limited. Neither Voldemort nor Harry (if the prophecy refers to them) can save themselves from the confrontation to come by deciding to become a shoe salesman in Poughkeepsie. This would contradict the message that we can choose to be what we wish. However, I wonder if this is Rowling's message. IMO, the books say that our choices show what we are and make us different from one another, but where do they say that we are whatever we choose to be? Dumbledore warns that many of the things people wish for are not real or possible. He also says that Kreacher is what wizards have made him, with the implication that Kreacher is not what he chose to be. Pippin From gelite67 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 00:49:54 2005 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:49:54 -0000 Subject: Whither Sirius's Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124948 -> > Angie wrote : > > I realize he [Sirius] wouldn't have had a wand when he first > escaped, but going to the someone-else-bought-it-theory, I just > wonder if any wizard is allowed to have more than one wand? > > Carol responds: > > > BTW, I don't for a moment believe in the Simple Snape hypothesis but > have no time to argue the matter and no access to my books. > Angie simply wonders what the simple Snape hypothesis is and what it had to do with her question! :) From gelite67 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 00:54:39 2005 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:54:39 -0000 Subject: Whither the Wand -Sirius & More In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124949 ---> > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > > > > Angie wrote: > > > 1) How and when did Voldy get his wand back? > > > > > > > ...edited... > > > > > > > >Angie also wrote : > > > 3) Where did Sirius get the wand he used in OOP? > > > > vmonte replied: > > > An escaped convict wouldn't be carrying a wand and wouldn't have > > > money to buy one. (During OOTP he probably had someone buy him one > > or had one lying around his house.) > > > > Angie replies: > > > > I realize he wouldn't have had a wand when he first escaped, but > > going to the someone-else-bought-it-theory, I just wonder if any > > wizard is allowed to have more than one wand? > > > > bboyminn: > > Let's not forget that Sirius spent a certain amount of time out of the > country. Remember Harry received letters delivered by large tropical > birds? So, it's entirely possible that Sirius bought a wand while he > was out of the country (in continental Europe, Africa, Asia, ...etc...). > > As to how he was able to buy a wand, let's remember that he was able > to buy a Firebolt Broom for Harry. If there is one and only one > wizard's bank in the world, then it wouldn't have mattered where > Sirius was, he could have withdrawn money from his account remotely, > much the way we might withdraw money from a branch bank or from an > ATM/Cash machine. > > Angie again: But I would assume the Ministry doesn't keep any watch on who purchases brooms and would keep some track of wand purchases. Then again, if Sirius bought it in a foreign country, then the British MOM probably wouldn't know. Wonder why Sirius didn't get a broom for himself while he was at it? Answers have a funny way of leading to more questions, do they not? From bbkkyy55 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 02:43:42 2005 From: bbkkyy55 at yahoo.com (bbkkyy55) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 02:43:42 -0000 Subject: Dumbledor'es Plan Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124950 bbkkyy55 wrote: > > In DD's talk with Harry at the end he responds > in answer to H asking "Voldemort's going to try other ways of coming > back, isn't he?" DD says "....not being truly alive, he cannot be > killed." He'll regain life eventually somehow, indeed he must for Harry to finally kill him. Angie responds: Wow! I hadn't thought of this before I saw this post, that Voldy would have to be made "killable" again. Perhaps taking Harry's blood in GOF is what will do it. I had always thought the reason DD looked triumphant in GOF when Harry told him Voldy could touch him was that would somehow make Voldy more vulnerable, or would allow Harry to "siphon" some of Voldy's powers or something like that. But maybe that is what will ultimately allow Harry to kill him. bbkkyy again: What I was trying to get at is, at the end of OOP I hated DD for the way he treated Harry. But now I'm thinking, I notice often older folk, and I'm not young, are less worried about problems than younger folk. Probably a result of wisdom and experience gained through the years. I feel guilty for being so upset with DD, maybe he has a better handle on things than I think. I do not think, however, that he is all knowing. He (DD) certainly made some errors in OOP, which he even admited. Maybe he allowed Harry to go after the stone because he knew certain things had to happen. DD just watched and only interfered when necessary. Harry (and I) were mostly worried about Voldy coming back. DD wasn't worried so much about that. He was only trying to protect Harry and limit Voldy's advantage as much as possible in order to allow Harry time to grow up and understand the whole situation better. I still wish DD had told Harry about the prophecy sooner, as a suppose we all do. I also am dying to find out about the Harry's blood in Voldy thing, and also what part Wormtail will play??? From empooress at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 03:24:13 2005 From: empooress at yahoo.com (Kim McGibony) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:24:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Did JKR cheat with the prophecy? In-Reply-To: <1108905173.7677.79603.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20050221032413.77810.qmail@web52104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124951 Having read a great number of post on this topic, there's this one nagging thought that keeps occuring, about one must die by the hand of the other. The thought is that somehow this is connected with the hand of glory which Harry saw in that shop in Knockturn Alley. It always seemed to me that the hand of glory was something we would be seeing again. Empooress __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From geekessgoddess at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 20:01:31 2005 From: geekessgoddess at yahoo.com (Freud) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:01:31 -0000 Subject: De-bunking Count Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124952 These theories that continue to circulate about Snape being a vampire truly astonish me. I don't want a supernatural explanation for his Snape-i-ness....I like to think his persona is a by-product of his own self-centered, egotistical creation. Also, I don't find it logical. He sits at the head table and eats in public in front of the students. (Vampires don't eat real food...) He teaches class during the daytime and indeed seems awake at all hours. (Only a vampire who has lived for centuries can endure sunlight.) And yes, I know he teaches in a dungeon, but there has to be enough light for the students to safely heat their cauldrons. Otherwise Dumbledore would do something about that. Snape whines and behaves most childishly in public when he is ticked off about something. (Vampires don't whine about revenge, they take it!) His dark apparel, snide behavior, overdone huffing and puffing, and the slamming of drapes seems rather forced - a melodramatic effect engineered for the purpose of intimidation rather than natural behavior. (Vampires don't have to make up dramatic gestures to be intimidating.) He squealed on Lupin. Even Snape couldn't be such a hypocrite. He appears to obey Dumbledore. Why would a creature as powerful as a vampire do that? Finally, JKR, when directly asked if Snape is a vampire, gave a negative. So do we believe the author or not? Megan: Is there a link between Snape and vampires? JK Rowling replies -> Erm... I don't think so. http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm JK Rowling's World Book Day Chat, March 4, 2004 Voldemort is kinda like a vampire though. He drinks blood. He drinks snake venom. But I don't see any "Voldemort is a vamp" theories out there. tabekat - who think Snape is much too big of a whiner to make a good vampire From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 22:32:33 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:32:33 -0000 Subject: Simple!Snape? / Occlumency, Legilimency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124953 > SSSusan: > What if I grant you this part on Occlumency? :-) Could you go a step > further and explain the other two bits I asked about? > > Here it was: "Why does Snape not go out of his way to teach Harry > EVERYTHING he can -- about Potions, about Occlumency, about what he > knows of Voldemort's characture, nature, tactics, goals, etc.?? > ... If Snape was hell-bent on getting Harry ready to bring down > Voldy, wouldn't he ask himself, "Is what I'm doing working? Is it > enough?" > > So, what about the first in my list [potions] and, especially, the > last [teaching Harry ABOUT Voldemort]? > > Lupinlore has gone a different direction in answering me -- he's > arguing that Snape may not know about the prophecy. That's not > something you argued here. So if you believe Snape IS in the know, > then why hasn't he tried to help Prophecy Boy by giving him all the > insights he can about Voldemort? a_svirn: I think that it's simply not up to Snape to decide what Harry is allowed to know and what he should be taught. This is DD's prerogative exclusively. And as I wrote in earlier posts DD's approach is to fill Harry in to a certain extent but not "more that he needs to know". The way it looked in OotP, in DD's opinion the less he knows the better. He decided that Harry was not ready to handle the truth about the Prophesy, but thought it would be prudent to teach him Occlumency. So he ordered Snape to take care of it. I doubt that Snape WANTED to teach Harry about Voldemort in the first place, but even if he did he would not go against DD's orders. Also, we must not forget that Harry is not the member of the Order, and therefore is not entitled to the classified information. And again, it's DD's place to decide when he is going to be allowed to join the Order, not Snape's. There is also a little matter of Harry's not trusting Snape. He would have probably either dismissed everything Snape has to say as irrelevant or decided to act in a way directly opposite to Snape's instructions. As for potions, I think it is rather unjust of you. Hardly Snape's fault that Harry's not cut out to be a potion-maker. As for whether he knew about the Prophesy. We can only guess of course, but I rather think that DD haven't divulged the whole of it to anyone. (And if Snape was the eavesdropper he new only the fist part). He might have told the gist of it to Sirius, because he recognised him as a rightful guardian (and in magical world it's likely more than just a formality), so Sirius could have challenged some of his decisions concerning Harry. But I am not sure. a_svirn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 23:01:33 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:01:33 -0000 Subject: Does Snape know the prophecy? (was: Simple!Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124954 > SSSusan: > I'm afraid I don't think it's obvious at all. > > What would this mean in light of DD's repeated, "I *trust* Severus > Snape" remarks? Do you think he exaggerates the degree of his trust, > just to get Harry to possibly consider trusting Snape? a_svirn: That's just it, we don't know. "It's 'classified information, until such time as the JKR sees fit to release it,' after all". > > I guess I've taken it more at face value -- DD *really* does trust > Snape. And if DD trusts him, and is going to ask Snape to play > important roles in the Order (which I believe he has/does), then why > would he not share the content of the prophecy with Snape? a_svirn: I agree, if he says he trusts Snape so he does. However, with DD trust may come in varieties. He may trust Hagrid "with his life", but I doubt he would trust him with a really important secret, unless he WANTS him to let it slip for some reason. He might trust McGonagall, but sees no need to fill her in about his theories concerning the nature of Harry's connection with Voldemort and about the prophesy. He might believe that when all's said and done Snape's loyalty lies with the Order, but he would be foolhardy indeed not to think of a possibility of Snape's having an agenda of his own. That's always the way with double-agents, after all. a_svirn From easimm at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 22:59:07 2005 From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:59:07 -0000 Subject: Does Snape know the prophecy? (was: Simple!Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124955 I think most people in the order know only what LV knows about the prophesy. One reason is that it provides DD with an incentive for all order members to stay extra vigilant for the sake of the Potter and Longbottom families and the two boys in particular. Also, if an order member is captured, LV doesn't learn anything new about the prophesy. A second reason I think the members know is the reaction of Sirius and Lupin to Harry's revelation that he isn't taking Occlumency lessons anymore. They say that there is absolutely nothing, (emphasis) "absolutely nothing" more important. In my opinion, nothing could be more important for the future of the world than safeguarding the tool (Harry) that could somehow prevent an immortal magical tyrant from gaining world domination. In one of my previous messages discussing Snape's Hero Complex I mentioned that Snape's hatred of Harry (and Neville) could be understood better if it had to do with Snape's desire to be the Hero and his knowledge that Harry (or Neville) had more important roles than he just because of destiny. (I still haven't finished that thread - I have to write why Snape's Hero complex plays into his reasons for becoming a death eater. Someday if I'm bedridden with a broken leg for a few days straight I might finish! MMM, maybe I'll go skiing!) The previous message I mentioned is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/119148 -Snorky Dreaming of skiing ! On Slippery old snow! Unfortunately, snorkacks always fall with style. From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Mon Feb 21 23:30:30 2005 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Richard Jones) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:30:30 -0000 Subject: Some OOTP Questions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124956 I've started to reread OOTP and I have some questions I hope you can all help me with. (I tried to do some searches but didn't get anything.) (1) Owl Post. The owls get from the Ministry and the Burrow to Harry's house in Little Whinging within minutes ? faster than owls can really fly. So how does owl post work exactly? (2) Why wasn't Ginny affected by the music box that made everyone else sleepy? (OOTP ch. 6, p. 115 US ed.) (3) The Twins. Molly says after Ron is made Prefect "That's everyone in the family!" (OOTP 9/163) Is that just a set up for George's joke ("What are Fred and I, next door neighbors?") or is it something more? (4) The Boggart. Mad-Eye looks at the boggart in the desk draw with his magic eye. So he saw it in its "pure" form. But in POA Lupin said no one had ever seen what a boggart really looks like. (5) The Guard. Why was only Arthur walking Harry to the Ministry for his hearing (OOTP 7/122) when they such a big deal about having a guard (and advanced guard) to get Harry to 12 Grimmauld Place and to the train station? (6) Elevators in the Ministry. Why do they need so many elevators (lifts) inside the Ministry, and why are there crowds waiting for them? Couldn't most of the people just apparate? That is how Arthur normally gets to work. I could see people with large packages maybe not able to apparate, but couldn't most people? Richard Jones From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 23:45:24 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:45:24 -0000 Subject: Whither the Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124957 Casey: > I remember reading that Olivander was the best wand maker, not the > only one. I'm guessing that Sirius got one from another source, > maybe the Kmart of wand makers, something generic for those that > can't afford Olivander. > > Also, he was out of the country, there was most likely no problem in > purchasing one. > > Plus, as I've mentioned before, there may be a good underground > business in black market wands. Wands that were stolen and then used > for crimes, like a lot of guns here in the U.S. a_svirn: There also wands whose owners have died. If Neville could use his father's wand, so could Sirius. Also Grimauld 12 is just the place for "illegal" wands to be found. The way all Blacks seemed to devote themselves to all kind of fishy "Dark" activities, they could certainly use a spare wand. Could have collected them from their murdered enemies for centuries. a_svirn From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 01:50:17 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 01:50:17 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124958 SSSusan: See, I have a hard time with statements like "his family name has been besmirched" and "Draco has lost his father." "Has been besmirched" and "has lost" imply a degree of passivity which I don't find in this instance. Who's besmirched the family name? No one. Draco's father has brought these things upon himself & his family by his own choices & actions; the things didn't happen *to* him. One reaps what one sows, no? And while Draco was not involved in the actions directly, don't all signs indicate that he approves of his father's choices & actions? As for the mature response being to separate Draco from his father's sins in order to feel compassion for Draco, well, how `bout the reverse? Should Draco be able to separate Harry from who/what his parents were [Draco's dad's boss's enemies] and feel compassion for this boy who TRULY lost his father... AND his mother... and not just to prison, but forever? I see myself as a pretty compassionate person, a pretty sympathetic person and, yes, a pretty mature person. Yet I don't think Draco does a thing to convince anyone they should separate him from his father's sins or feel compassion for his "loss." I certainly feel little compassion for him as a reader. vmonte responds: Great post SSSusan! I agree completely. I cannot feel compassion for Draco because he lacks the ability to feel compassion for others. Draco is simply horrible, and not a very smart villain. * He brags when he should keep his mouth shut * He warns when he should keep his mouth shut * He announces when he should sneak attack He does not have the ability to think things through--and is not a long-term planner. Harry is definitely going to have to save this kid's life at some point. Vivian From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 02:14:03 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 02:14:03 -0000 Subject: Did JKR cheat with the prophecy? (Hand of Glory) In-Reply-To: <20050221032413.77810.qmail@web52104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124959 Empooress wrote: Having read a great number of post on this topic, there's this one nagging thought that keeps occuring, about one must die by the hand of the other. The thought is that somehow this is connected with the hand of glory which Harry saw in that shop in Knockturn Alley. It always seemed to me that the hand of glory was something we would be seeing again. vmonte: I think that hand is coming back too. My theory is that the hand of glory belongs to what was left of Voldemort at Godric's Hollow. (It's interesting that Harry wrenches his hand from the H of G during CoS, while Draco asks his father to buy it for him. Is there symbolic meaning to this scene? I think so). I also keep thinking about how Voldemort made Wormtail chop off his hand in GoF (not that I feel sorry in the least for Wormtail). I'll crack up if that hand was all that was left of Voldemort at GH. Vivian From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 02:23:28 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 02:23:28 -0000 Subject: De-bunking Count Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124960 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Freud" Freud wrote: These theories that continue to circulate about Snape being a vampire truly astonish me. I don't want a supernatural explanation for his Snape-i-ness....I like to think his persona is a by-product of his own self-centered, egotistical creation. Also, I don't find it logical. He sits at the head table and eats in public in front of the students. (Vampires don't eat real food...) He teaches class during the daytime and indeed seems awake at all hours. (Only a vampire who has lived for centuries can endure sunlight.) And yes, I know he teaches in a dungeon, but there has to be enough light for the students to safely heat their cauldrons. Otherwise Dumbledore would do something about that. Snape whines and behaves most childishly in public when he is ticked off about something. (Vampires don't whine about revenge, they take it!) His dark apparel, snide behavior, overdone huffing and puffing, and the slamming of drapes seems rather forced - a melodramatic effect engineered for the purpose of intimidation rather than natural behavior. (Vampires don't have to make up dramatic gestures to be intimidating.) He squealed on Lupin. Even Snape couldn't be such a hypocrite. He appears to obey Dumbledore. Why would a creature as powerful as a vampire do that? Finally, JKR, when directly asked if Snape is a vampire, gave a negative. So do we believe the author or not? Megan: Is there a link between Snape and vampires? JK Rowling replies -> Erm... I don't think so. http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm JK Rowling's World Book Day Chat, March 4, 2004 Voldemort is kinda like a vampire though. He drinks blood. He drinks snake venom. But I don't see any "Voldemort is a vamp" theories out there. vmonte replies: I think what you are saying Freud is that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and not a bat. Vivian--Sorry, I couldn't help myself. From kcawte at ntlworld.com Tue Feb 22 02:38:16 2005 From: kcawte at ntlworld.com (Kathryn) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 02:38:16 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: De-bunking Count Snape References: Message-ID: <421A9B18.000001.00728@KATHRYN> No: HPFGUIDX 124961 Vivian Also, I don't find it logical. He sits at the head table and eats in public in front of the students. (Vampires don't eat real food...) He teaches class during the daytime and indeed seems awake at all hours. (Only a vampire who has lived for centuries can endure sunlight.) K I snipped the rest of the post although what I have to say applies to that equally as much. I though the above quotes would be enough to illustrate my point though. Where are you getting all these hard and fast rules about Vampires from? There are hundreds of different Vampire myths from around the world - you could find a type of vampire that could or couldn't do absolutely anything if you wanted to. Plenty of vampires in either legend or modern fiction eat real food (it doesn't usually give them any nourishment but they *can* do it). Some vampires are completely immune to sunlight, some have to be very old, some merely have to have a sire with the ability to withstand it etc etc. I seem to remember that in Buffy it was only *direct* sunlight that was a problem, ambient daylight was fine - So Sev should be fine except when outside then, and even then we have enough cloudy days in this country that you could argue we don't know he's ever been outside in direct sunlight. The fact is that we know almost *nothing* about how vampires work in the Potterverse so there really is no way to judge whether Snape exhibits vampirelike characteristics. We have no idea what JKR considers vampirelike characteristics *are*! Having said that I don't believe Snape is a vampire either - although we have read about a certain animosity between Potterverese werewolves and vampires and I can't think of anyone who likes our resident werewolf *less* .. K [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 02:40:21 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 02:40:21 -0000 Subject: Some OOTP Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124962 Richard Jones wrote: (2) Why wasn't Ginny affected by the music box that made everyone else sleepy? (OOTP ch. 6, p. 115 US ed.) vmonte responds: I think she was affected, but her instinct to close the box was stronger. And yeah, it definitely means something. I think that like Harry, it will turn out that Ginny is one tough witch. Vivian From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 02:45:58 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 02:45:58 -0000 Subject: De-bunking Count Snape In-Reply-To: <421A9B18.000001.00728@KATHRYN> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124963 Kathryn wrote: Vivian Also, I don't find it logical. He sits at the head table and eats in public in front of the students. (Vampires don't eat real food...) He teaches class during the daytime and indeed seems awake at all hours. (Only a vampire who has lived for centuries can endure sunlight.) K I snipped the rest of the post although what I have to say applies to that equally as much. I though the above quotes would be enough to illustrate my point though. Where are you getting all these hard and fast rules about Vampires from? vmonte responds: Hey, these are not my comments listed above. Vivian :( From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 02:52:01 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 02:52:01 -0000 Subject: Who is the eaveadropper? Was :Re: Simple!Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124964 Alla earlier: It is quite reasonable to believe that Snape does NOT know about the prophecy, but I happen to think that Snape is a pretty good candidate for the identity of the eavesdropper. Lupinlore: Well, I don't think we have ANY good candidates at the moment, Alla. We just don't have any evidence to go on. Given that, anything would be pure speculation. However, we DO know that Snape has made very little effort to teach Harry as one would reasonably expect given the prophecy. Therefore, I would say that, based on the evidence we now have, the only reasonable conclusion is he DOESN'T know the prophecy. Alla: Your explanation makes a lot of sense and yes, I realise that I am mostly speculating at this point, but still... somebody has to be the evesdropper, right? Do you agree that it is unlikely to be a character we haven't heard about so far? I don't know I just think that Snape as the one will be Bangy enough and will make sense. There is a big possibility of me being wrong of course. JMO, Alla From kcawte at ntlworld.com Tue Feb 22 02:55:39 2005 From: kcawte at ntlworld.com (Kathryn) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 02:55:39 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: De-bunking Count Snape References: Message-ID: <421A9F2B.000001.00452@KATHRYN> No: HPFGUIDX 124965 vmonte responds: Hey, these are not my comments listed above. K Drat, sorry - the post was a couple of nested replies and I must have got a little confused as to who I was replying to - could someone put me straight about who I *was* answering? K [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 02:59:33 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 02:59:33 -0000 Subject: De-bunking Count Snape In-Reply-To: <421A9F2B.000001.00452@KATHRYN> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124966 vmonte responds: Hey, these are not my comments listed above. K wrote: Drat, sorry - the post was a couple of nested replies and I must have got a little confused as to who I was replying to - could someone put me straight about who I *was* answering? vmonte responds: It was Freud. See message 124952. Vivian From MadameSSnape at aol.com Tue Feb 22 03:31:57 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:31:57 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Can the MoM's self-defense booklet backfire? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124967 In a message dated 2/21/2005 5:58:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, ryokas at hotmail.com writes: Furthermore, how effective will the thing be? It's good to teach every possible person to repel Dementors, yes, but this war isn't going to be an open one. As we've seen, the second war consisted of guerrilla activity and psychological warfare, not open conflict. Given this model, attacks will be well-planned and researched, and with a good force behind them. Your average witch or wizard will not stand much of a chance when surprised (as is most likely to happen) by a DE death squad. It might even be counterproductive - making some victims fight when they would've been better off running, et cetera. Or, to go all Quibbler for a moment, it might be meant to improve morale more than chances of survival. =========== Sherrie here: I rather got a chuckle out of that - the first thing I thought of was all the "atom bomb drills" we used to have when I was in elementary school. As if sitting in the hallway, or under our desks, with our hands behind our heads was going to protect us... They were useless exercises, really, from a practical standpoint - but it was doing SOMETHING. It's like the first-aid pamphlets a lot of people keep in their homes - most people wouldn't know the first thing about using them, but they're nice to have around, just in case. Sherrie "My best friend is the man who'll give me a book I ain't read." - A. Lincoln [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Tue Feb 22 05:28:59 2005 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (Shanoah Alkire) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:28:59 -0000 Subject: SWAN, SIDD, and SILL: Wild Snape Scenarios (and Lucius!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124968 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "northsouth17" wrote: > > Or, it could be Lucius that dies saving Snapes cover, and in memory > of that, Snape will attempt to redeem Draco, to set him upon a more > righteous path, in accord to his fathers dying wishes as he recants > a lifetime of evil, for love of Snape. > You forgot "Snape's attempts at redeeming Draco then end with Draco betraying him, and Snape dying in a bitterly meaningless and ironic death." at the end there... ;) --Arcum From bob.oliver at cox.net Tue Feb 22 05:48:47 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:48:47 -0000 Subject: JKR cheat with the prophecy - Point of Destiny Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124969 Let me try to cut to the chase and give an illustration of what I'm getting at. Suppose you entered a room and saw a large curtain closing off the back half. One of your friends goes up and sticks his head through the curtain. He yells "There's a Doberman Pinscher in a tutu back here!" At that moment he has made an observation, i.e. a statement about the factual and existing state of affairs in the universe. The observation, i.e. the statement, can be either true or false. If it accurately states a real set of facts about the universe, it's true. If not, it's false. Now, and this is very important, if the observation is true, there is no way that any choice can make it false. It reflects a real and existing state of affairs. The observer cannot wish these things away or choose for them not to be so. The people who listen to him can choose to believe him or not, but they cannot by their choices affect the actual truth or falsehood of the observation. If there is a Doberman in a tutu in the back of the room, there is a Doberman in a tutu in the back of the room and no choice will change that. Lastly, there is nothing the OBSERVED can do to change it either. The Doberman cannot make any choice that will change the truth of the observation. He IS in the back of the room and he IS wearing a tutu. Now, suppose that the curtain rerresents a barrier in time as well as space. The observer, whom we shall now call the prophet, sticks her head through. She yells, "Voldemort is marking a kid as his own on Halloween night 1981!" Either what she says is true or it is false. If it is true (as DD assumes Trelawney's prophecies are true) then it represents a real state of affairs about the universe and no choice can change that. The prophet can't wish it away. The observers can make no choice to change it. And, very importantly, neither Voldemort nor the others the prophet sees can make any choice that will change this state of affairs. In order for the prophecy to be true it is a factual statement. Voldemort IS marking a kid in 1981 and therefore he WILL mark the kid in 1981. If there were any way to avoid it the observation would not be about a real and existing state of affairs, and the prophecy would not be true. Now, what if the prophet warned the kid's family not to be in a certain place on Halloween? If they are able to make a choice based on that info, then Voldemort will not mark the kid. But then the prophet will not see the marking and warn the family. But then Voldemort WILL mark the kid. But then the prophet WILL see the marking and warn the family. But then Voldemort WILL not .... A time paradox results. As a paradox of that type by its nature defies the laws of logic and causation, logic dictates it can't happen. What has been seen cannot be changed. Now, it is possible for a prophet to see something she can't determine, and either/or. That is a branch point. But logic dictates that if a prophet can see a fixed branch point, she can see what branch will be taken (or a more powerful prophet could, at any rate). The only way around that is to say "The Universe Just Doesn't Work That Way." Okay, but that is an arbitrary statement and not valid once you allow for the possibility of true prophecies UNLESS you have some way of empirically experimenting with prophecies, which we do not. That is if it is possible to make a true prophecy about the existance of a branch point, logic dictates, in the absence of empirical evidence to the contrary, that it is possible to make a true prophecy about what branch will be taken. You have simply introduced an arbitrary limitation on the power of prophecy for no justifiable reason. The other way around this is to postulate that causality flows in both directions. The past affects the future and the future affects the past. This seems attractive at first until you work out its implications. If causality can flow backwards in time, it means that none of our pasts are fixed and none of our memories and recollections are reliable, since they are constantly changing to adapt to the new state of affairs. Even worse, unless you have a way of standing outside of time you couldn't test such a proposition, given that your own memory is constantly changing. That is, you can't say "we'll send a message back in time and see if X changes," because if X does change your memory will change with it, making it seem as if X HASN'T changed. Lupinlore From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 05:54:08 2005 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:54:08 -0000 Subject: JKR cheat with the prophecy - Point of Destiny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124970 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > > bboyminn: > > > > Before we part ways on this subject, let me take one more stab > at it, but from a slightly different angle. You say the future is > fixed, but I see the future that is Prophesied as being variable > and uncertain. Doddiemoe here: Prophecies are variable and uncertain...prophecies depend upon the decions those involved make...hence voldemort...hence Harry...and perhaps Neville(in some worlds).. But if Harry has vanquished Voldemort before at 18 mos.....then perhaps Harry has already done the vanquishing(in his crib at 18 mos. old..) then who is left to eliminate voldie? I hate the prophecy because I read it as that the dark lord had already been vanquished...(and had he not?)) Prophecy does not equate destiny....nor does the prophecy deem Harry obvliviate! Hence Trelawney can predict alll she wants.....but Firenze will give balance..(here is where we will see Ron/Hermione come into play again)....If Fireinze thinks/believes that Harry will be the savior..then his predictions are outside that of trelawney... Upon this, we can gather that from the first book, Harry plays a more important role... AND, after book five..we know that DD doesn't know what the centaurs know....(I'm quite sure than DD never saw a muggle or wizard ride upon the back of a centaur before Haryy had in book one..DD's first glimpse through Hagrid in all likelihood) Please note that DD never saw this...just relies upon Hagrid seeing it. Irregardless of what the prophecy means....given the amount of years that have gone on...the points of destiny are simply too great. Doddie > > Pippin: > > I *think* what Lupinlore is saying is that if Harry and Voldemort > cannot avoid the intersection of their fates no matter how vaguely > this is foretold, then their ability to affect their future by their > choices is limited. You are absolutely right...However, we must therefore consider that Harry's (or anyone in his camp) All have fates of their own which leads to greater and more prolific intersections..... The only thing we can be sure of is that at the very least...the prophecy is simply an "outline"... From bob.oliver at cox.net Tue Feb 22 06:10:44 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 06:10:44 -0000 Subject: Who is the eaveadropper? Was :Re: Simple!Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124971 > > Alla: > > Your explanation makes a lot of sense and yes, I realise that I am > mostly speculating at this point, but still... somebody has to be > the evesdropper, right? > > Do you agree that it is unlikely to be a character we haven't heard > about so far? > No, actually, I don't. I don't think we have enough evidence to even make THAT sort of statement with any degree of confidence. Lupinlore From kempermentor at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 06:56:17 2005 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 06:56:17 -0000 Subject: Who is the eaveadropper? Was :Re: Simple!Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124972 Alla wrote: Your explanation makes a lot of sense and yes, I realise that I am mostly speculating at this point, but still... somebody has to be the evesdropper, right? Do you agree that it is unlikely to be a character we haven't heard about so far? Lupinlore disagreed: No, actually, I don't. I don't think we have enough evidence to even make THAT sort of statement with any degree of confidence. Kemper disagrees as well: But for different reasons. I don't think discovering who is the eavesdropper is important. I speculated that the Dark Lord (I'm assuming LV is the DL) killed the eavesdropper because the prophecy/prediction/implied possibility contained info about "the one (not Neo)with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord" and I believe the Dark Lord wouldn't want that knowledge/prophecy/... circulating among his ranks or the wizarding world. One might ask, "How did the Dark Lord know that DD wouldn't tell anyone who would listen?" Another might answer, "The Dark Lord was kicking the poo out of the Order and the WW prior to a certain Monday and Halloween night. So it can be easily assumed that the Dark Lord could reasonably guess how his nemesis would respond by respecting/honoring the privacy of whom the prophecy/prediction may be about (I think Lupinlore has addressed this, sort of, in a different post). Of course, the Dark Lord would see DD's respect of others as a weakness and a possible reason for the Dark Order doing so well in those dark times. Just some assumptions and speculation. No doubt I will be wrong come July. -Kemper From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 07:29:27 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:29:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who is the better player? (was: Draco = Evil?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050222072927.53339.qmail@web31106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124973 Julia: Of course it would be better if wasn't for the fastest broom that Harry wins but as I said Draco is rich and he can afford it Arynn: What about in CoS when Draco has the better broom, but Harry still wins against him in a race for the snitch? --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From naama_gat at hotmail.com Tue Feb 22 07:31:32 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:31:32 -0000 Subject: Resolving (?) the Riddle Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124974 Since reading OoP, I've come to (slowly) realize that the main questions in HP revolve, not Harry Potter, but Voldemort. Aftera all, JKR often signals the reader via names (Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, Dolores Umbridge, etc.) - surely "Riddle" must be significant?! Then came the interview, where JKR directed us to think of the two questions: 1) Why didn't Voldemort die in GH? 2) Why didn't DD try to kill him in the MoM? ( (Even before this I thought that since we had been given sufficient information regarding Harry's survival, it was *Voldemort's* that remained as a mystery. I have to admit, though, that DD not trying to kill Voldemort didn't strike me as a mystery.) If Voldemort is the main mystery, then resolving this should give us the answer to these two questions. I.e., it's not about what happened in GH (were Snape/Lupin/Pettigrew there? etc.) and it's not about DD's convoluted strategies, or about ESE!Lupin - the answers should arise from understanding Voldemort. Voldemort's unique state of being >From the very beginning, Voldemort is described as other than human. The first intimation is Hagrid's "there's not enough human left in him to die" (paraphrase). At the end of PS, in what seems almost a fulfilment of this cryptic utterance, we get to actually see Voldemort - and he is indeed described as having inhuman, *snake like* features. In the following books, every time Voldemort makes an appearance there are allusions to his snake like appearance or to his snake companion (or both). Now it screams at me - as though JKR was hammering it into our heads, but until OoP I didn't see the significance. However, when Harry felt Voldemort's presence within him as a snake, I sat up and started taking notice. If the emotional/mental presence of Voldemort is snaky, then it has to mean that, in some very deep way, going a long way beyond appearance, he *is* a snake. This special state - part human, part snake, is unique to Voldemort. Snakiness and Vol-de-mort-ism When Harry meets Tom Riddle, he looks human. DD says that when Riddle surfaced as Voldemort, hardly anyone reconized him as the boy he had been, because he had undergone so many *dark and dangerous transformations*. Since the DEs recognised Voldemort post- resurrection, he must have been snake-like before. We know, from Voldemort's words in the graveyard, that his transformations had one purpose - immortality. From this we can conclude that his snakiness is linked to the search for immortality. Not long ago, I posted here on what I called snake immortality and phoenix immortality (msg. 110260). In summary: Snakes are symbols of immortality, due to their ability to shed their skins. The skin that is left behind looks like the snake itself, but is only a shell, a fake. The snake thereby "cheats" death by leaving behind something that looks like it, but escapes with his essential being (body) intact. The phoenix, on the other hand, truly dies. His body turns to ashes. When the phoenix is born again, this is therefore true resurrection. So, in contradistinction to the phoenix, the snake would symbolise immortality achieved through fake dying or cheating death . This, then could be the answer to JKR's first question: In GH, Voldemort, part snake, "shed" an external aspect of himself (his body), but retained his essential being (some kind of spirit, vapor..). Snaky!Voldemort theory can also provide the answer to the second question. A snake sheds it's skin because it outgrows it. So each shedding of the skin marks a stage in the snake's growth. This biological trait connects with Sybil's (second) prophecy, in PoA: the Dark Lord will arise *stronger and more terrible* than before. If DD knew that when Voldemort resurrects again, he will have grown stronger and more dangerous, then it makes moral sense to not try and kill him. I say moral sense, because up until now, I could only conjecture that DD hadn't tried to kill Voldemort because he knew Voldemort would eventually return again. But it never really satisfied me, because the moral choice would be to save lives *now* by reducing Voldemort to vapor again: because if he did manage to resurrect, then he's back at square one, not any worse than before. But if Voldemort will return stronger, more difficult to fight, more difficult to overcome - then it is was right for DD to not try and kill him. One person, dual nature Another thing that made me sit up in OoP was the cryptic "divided in essence". Several have conjectured that this refers to Harry and Voldemort. It's possible, but not really satisfying. Harry and Voldemort are two individuals. There is a connection between them, but why should there be any question about them sharing essence? More importantly, the one smoke snake divides into two snakes. It's clear why a snake stands for Voldemort, but surely it's inappropriate as a representing Harry? There is no proof either way, but for now I'd like to consider a different possibility - that it refers only to Voldemort. In fact, going on what I've said before, we *know* that Voldemort is a being that is "divided in essence" - part human, part snake. Thinking of Voldemort in this way - one person, two essences, it struck me quite forcefully how similar it is to the orthdox creed regarding Christ - that he is one person, but two natures - human and divine. The negative parallels are striking. Where Christ is human and divine, Voldemort is human and snake - where snake is the negative of divine both in that divine is more than human and snake (as an animal) is less, and in the Satanic connotations of snakes. Secondly, Christ is *fully* human and fully divine. Voldemort is *partially* human, partially snake. His double natures are both flawed, imperfect, debased. Once I started thinking of Voldemort as a dark, twisted mirror image of Christ, several things fell into place, thematically. For instance - Voldemort took the flesh and blood of others for his own resurrection, where Christ giving his blood and flesh for the redemption of others. Or the really disturbing suffering Harry went through OoP because he insisted on the truth of what he had witnessed. He is a martyr in the original early Christian sense: "The Greek word martus signifies a witness who testifies to a fact of which he has knowledge from personal observation... The disciples of Christ were no ordinary witnesses such as those who gave testimony in a court of justice. ... the witnesses of Christ were brought face to face daily, from the beginning of their apostolate, with the possibility of incurring severe punishment and even death itself. ... the term martus came to be used in the sense of a witness who at any time might be called upon to deny what he testified to, under penalty of death." (from www.newadvent.org/cathen/09736b.htm) And the obvious - that the only character who resurrects is Voldemort. And that where Christ is pure Love, Voldemort never felt love at all (and therefore doesn't understand it), and basically stands for Hate. Which means... what? The theory of Voldemort was meant to be a "theory of everything". But while this prespective does reveal a coherent structure, I am still very unclear as to it's final significance: What does it *mean* that Voldemort is a dark Christ figure - when the narrative is clearly about Harry? How does the mysterious force that is Harry's (Love, I'm sure) fits with this Voldemort theory? The whole scar thing - the connection between Harry and Voldemort - how will that play out? Finally, how will Voldemort be vanquished? Naama From naama_gat at hotmail.com Tue Feb 22 07:36:14 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:36:14 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124975 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > > Valky previously: > > > Are we seeing a boy who aligns > > > genuinely with the ugly bigotry of his house and finds elite joy > > in cruelty to an inferior being, or are we seeing a boy not unlike > > > James Potter stupidly availing himself to the cause of a > > flailing ideology. > > > > > > The most powerful wizard in James time was Voldemort, he reigned > > > terrifyingly over people like Lupin and Hagrid, and from their > > > perspective Lord Voldemort was the destroyer of their kind. > > > > Naama: > > Why, then, did the Weasleys and the Potters fight against him? > > > > Valky now: > > I am sorry Naama, I don't understand the question. Are you asking me > if I think the Potters and the Weasleys were afraid of Voldemort? > Because I don't think that they were. or are you asking me if I > think they were wrong to fight? Because I don't think that either. The Weasleys and the Potters are pure-bloods. According to your scenario, then, they should be on Voldemort's side and not on the half-bloods/Muggle born side. Naama From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Feb 22 08:05:02 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:05:02 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124976 > Valky previously: > Are we seeing a boy who aligns > genuinely with the ugly bigotry of his house and finds elite > joy in cruelty to an inferior being, or are we seeing a boy not > unlike James Potter stupidly availing himself to the cause of a > flailing ideology. > > > > > The most powerful wizard in James time was Voldemort, he > reigned terrifyingly over people like Lupin and Hagrid, and from > their perspective Lord Voldemort was the destroyer of their kind. > > > > > > > Naama: > Why, then, did the Weasleys and the Potters fight against > him? > > > > > > > Valky said: > > > > I am sorry Naama, I don't understand the question. > > Naama replies: > The Weasleys and the Potters are pure-bloods. According to your > scenario, then, they should be on Voldemort's side and not on the > half-bloods/Muggle born side. > Valky again: Ohhh yes now I see. Well the answer to that is that I believe that label Blood Traitors that the Weasleys are flogged with by the puritans is something that goes waaay back in their history, and that they haven't profited from being pure-blooded since. And the Potters well, I think the Potters were just a rare kind of people, a bit like a family of Dumbledores. From bbkkyy55 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 03:00:07 2005 From: bbkkyy55 at yahoo.com (bbkkyy55) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:00:07 -0000 Subject: Harry has PTSD Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124977 catportkey suggests Harry has PTSD. I agree totally. That poor boy, I wanted to give him a big hug in OOP. I believe his blow up in DD's office was very good for him, also the cry he had at the lake over Serius's death. I hope in book 6 someone decides Harry needs some TLC (and maybe special lessons in Occlumency from DD, an early license to apparate and a big bottle of aspirin). It would be hard to believe anyone could continue on without some consideration. I note the Order showed up at the train station to support Harry, and He really appreciated it. He's made of tough stuff but there is a limit. Jean B. From kempermentor at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 08:13:01 2005 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:13:01 -0000 Subject: JKR cheat with the prophecy - Point of Destiny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124978 Lupinlore wrote: Let me try to cut to the chase and give an illustration of what I'm getting at. Suppose you entered a room and saw a large curtain closing off the back half. One of your friends goes up and sticks his head through the curtain. He yells "There's a Doberman Pinscher in a tutu back here!" At that moment he has made an observation, i.e. a statement about the factual and existing state of affairs in the universe. The observation, i.e. the statement, can be either true or false. If it accurately states a real set of facts about the universe, it's true. If not, it's false. Now, and this is very important, if the observation is true, there is no way that any choice can make it false. It reflects a real and existing state of affairs. The observer cannot wish these things away or choose for them not to be so. The people who listen to him can choose to believe him or not, but they cannot by their choices affect the actual truth or falsehood of the observation. If there is a Doberman in a tutu in the back of the room, there is a Doberman in a tutu in the back of the room and no choice will change that. Lastly, there is nothing the OBSERVED can do to change it either. The Doberman cannot make any choice that will change the truth of the observation. He IS in the back of the room and he IS wearing a tutu. Kemper now: This kind of reminds me of Schrodinger's Cat. Schrodinger's Cat is way of describing a principle of quantum theory, Superposition. But let's use Filch's Cat for the example. You place the living Mrs. Norris into a thick lead box. At this point you know that Mrs. Norris is, unfortunately, alive, but... milliseconds before you slam the lid down on the box, you quickly throw a glass-vial of cyanide in the box. Now, you don't know if the vial has broken or not, so you don't know if Mrs. Norris is alive or dead. Quantum Law says that Mrs. Norris is both alive and dead--she is in a superposition of states. (An aside... I believe there is a room in Dept of Mysteries that whose mystery is on the quantum/subatomic level) Mrs. Norris' superposition disapperates when you open the box and OBSERVE whether Mrs. Norris is alive or dead. The prophecy is kind of like Filch's (Schrodinger's Cat), all the possibilities of the prophecy exist until after they are observed. Let's use LV. We throw the Dark Lord into a much bigger box. Milleseconds before we slam the lid shut, we hand the Dark Lord Baby Harry and Baby Neville and toss in his wand. We know that the Dark Lord knows that both BH and BN were born to those who have thrice defied him, and that both were born as the seventh month dies. We know that the Dark Lord will probably /want/ to kill both, but we don't know /which one/ he will attempt the AK on first: will it be Baby H or Baby N. (For this example we will assume that he can only attempt to kill one of them as that will be the "mark him as his equal' part and therefore his only attempt at the AK will rip him from his body) So, according to Quantum Law the two possibilities that occur in this situation are 1. The Dark Lord attempted to AK Baby Harry 2. The Dark Lord attempted to AK Baby Neville or if we prefer, and I do, the two possibilities are 1. Harry is the boy who lived 2. Neville is the boy who lived Again, both of these possibilities exist simultaneously UNTIL we open the box and OBSERVE which is true. In that observation, we find out what the Dark Lord's choice, free and clear, was. Kemper, who is feeling pretty bad ass about this post and who is eagerly waiting how Lupinlore, Steve or others(quantum physicists who will tear my post to shreads) might respond From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 08:25:07 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:25:07 -0000 Subject: JKR cheat with the prophecy - Point of Destiny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124979 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > Suppose you entered a room and saw a large curtain closing off the > back half. One of your friends goes up and sticks his head through > the curtain. He yells "There's a Doberman Pinscher in a tutu back > here!" > > ...edited... > > Lupinlore bboyminn: Well, I guess you were right, we are at a stalemate. The real question now comes down to the question of clarity of vision. In your illustration, someone looked beyond the curtain of time and saw a 'Doberman in a tutu'. That's crystal clear, BUT Sibyll Trelawney does NOT see or give prophecies with that degree of clarity. She sees the future, but she sees it through the /haze/ of time, space, and the limits of human understanding, and only expresses it in vague, sometimes symbolic, language. I would agree if Trelawney said, Harry Potter will be born on July 31, 1980 and he will have a power unknown to Lord Voldemort which will ultimately lead to Voldemort's defeat which will occur on June 24, 1998 at 10 minutes to midnight. But she doesn't. She doesn't mention Harry, Neville, or Voldemort. She doesn't specifically state, she implies a month but not a year. She implies a person, which from analysis can actually be one of two people, assuming all assumptions leading upto that conclusion are correct. She doesn't mention Voldemort, only the Dark Lord which Dumbledore assumes is Voldemort. ...and so on and so forth. This is not a prophecy of a clearly seen and absolutely defined future. So she doesn't look beyond the curtain of time, as you suggest, and say, I see a Doberman in a tutu. Instead she says she sees something dark, dangerous, and animal-like which is ensnared in something frilly. We are then left to try and interpret what that all means. It not a question of the /truth/ of what she sees, because as you point out, she sees what she sees, and she sees it because it's true. It's the future which, from her perspective, is as ridgedly defined as history. I'll give you that much. But look at what she actually said, she said very little, none of which was clear. Again, The Prophecy doesn't define an absolute future, but implies the broad and general /nature/ of a future which is not ridgedly define. Assuming all assumptions are correct, all we really know is that Harry, maybe Neville, and Voldemort have a shared destiny. But given the unclear and ill-defined nature of that destiny, it can play out in a variety of ways. So, I agree, if all assumptions are correct, Harry has an inescapable destiny; malleable, but inescapable. So, even if he runs away to Australia and avoids Voldemort, Harry's life will be haunted by the specter of the Dark Lord, and by the guilt of having abandon Britain and of allowing Voldemort to win. So, in that sense, he can never truly escape his share destiny with Voldemort. But, he can effect how that destiny plays out. At least, that's how I see it. I certainly can't see the crystal clear absolutely defined immutable future that you claim the Prophecy defines. That level of detail and precision simple don't appear in the Prophecy that I read. So, again, ...stalemate; you see some immutable clarity of vision, while I see a vague malleable haze. Only time will tell. Steve/bboyminn From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Tue Feb 22 08:35:45 2005 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:35:45 -0000 Subject: Some OOTP Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124980 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Richard Jones" wrote: > (1) Owl Post. The owls get from the Ministry and the Burrow to > Harry's house in Little Whinging within minutes ? faster than owls > can really fly. So how does owl post work exactly? Delivery owls are magical, my guess is that they are using a kind of apparation (like house elves) to the approximate location of the person they are trying to reach (how they get there so fast always seemed less interesting to me than how in the blazes they know where to find the person, but no humans can somehow use that ability to track anyone down). > (4) The Boggart. Mad-Eye looks at the boggart in the desk draw with > his magic eye. So he saw it in its "pure" form. But in POA Lupin > said no one had ever seen what a boggart really looks like. We don't know what exactly it was that Moody saw. Also Lupin may have been mistaken or simply unaware that Moody's eye could see through walls. > (5) The Guard. Why was only Arthur walking Harry to the Ministry for > his hearing (OOTP 7/122) when they such a big deal about having a > guard (and advanced guard) to get Harry to 12 Grimmauld Place and to > the train station? Well, the guard did not need to be as large. It was so because so many wizards volunteered to come and because of Moody's paranoia. Nevertheless they did need several people. It was called soon after the dementor attack on Harry, which all in the OoP (including DD) attributed to Voldemort. It made sense to assume that the DE's may be watching the house waiting for Harry to get out. Also, it was at night and going a fairly long distance (from Surrey to London). On the day of the hearing however, none of the bad guys knows where Harry is. They can't be waiting around Grimauld Place, they haven't a clue that Harry is there. Also, it is daytime, Harry and Arthur only travel inside London and are always surrounded by people while doing that. In addition, the bad guys have been spending their efforts more productively on ensuring that the hearing ends with a conviction, by changing the time and venu, failing to notify both Harry and DD of the fact, and changing it from a hearing into a full fledged trial led by two collaborators (Fudge and Umbridge). Much better for them to let that play out than to attempt another attack. The guard is heavy again however, on the day the kids go back to Hogwarts. In this case, I think the intent was not only to protect Harry but his friends as well, probably figuring that those who try to hurt him may do so by hurting his friends. Notice that both Hermione and the Weasley children are always under guard now when they are not at Hogwarts. > (6) Elevators in the Ministry. Why do they need so many elevators > (lifts) inside the Ministry, and why are there crowds waiting for > them? Couldn't most of the people just apparate? That is how Arthur > normally gets to work. I could see people with large packages maybe > not able to apparate, but couldn't most people? I believe that, just like Hogwarts, you can't apparate into the ministry. You can only apparate to the entrance. Very rational security measure. Note that Voldemort was waiting in the entrance hall (where the statues were) but did not try to get inside. Salit From jhloux at att.net Mon Feb 21 14:32:21 2005 From: jhloux at att.net (Jon Loux) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:32:21 -0000 Subject: Did JKR cheat with the prophecy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124981 Lupinlore: > > > It seems to me that a strong case can be made that JKR has cheated > > > rather badly by introducing the prophecy as worded in OOTP. I > > > don't mean that she has done something immoral or even something > > > uninteresting from a literary point of view. However, she has > > > tried to emphasize, time and again, the power of personal choice. > > > Then she introduces a prophecy that, by its very nature, so strongly > > > restricts the scope of personal choice as to make it meaningless, or > > > nearly so, in some contexts. This brings up another ancient dilemma. Free will vs. Predestination. Someone mentioned Oedipus. Did Oedipus have any choice in his actions? Here's an even better question: Would Oedipus have killed his father and married Jocasta had Tiresius just kept his damn mount shut and there had been no prophecy? Prophecies have a nasty habit of causing the thing they foretell. In the Mahabharata, Kristna, who is the incarnation of the eternal God, tells Arjuna that everything happening on earth (which happens to include a global war and the destruction of the known world) is preordained. All of the kings on earth are incarnations of gods and demons and this current war is a spill over from a war in heaven. It's the exact same question posed in the Nature vs. Nurture argument. Does our environment shape us? Our genes? Do we have any choice at all? Works that include prophecy seem to rule out any choice. Tolkien uses the same motif in The Silmarillion where all of history is played out by an angelic choir before the creation of the world. When all of the choices are made and the conflicts resolved, it is replayed, redundantly, in time and space. Prophecies can be worded just ambiguously enough so you can't be sure what they mean (Macbeth, for instance.) But in the end you discover what it really referred to (Birnham Wood? Not of woman born? Pretty clever, but weren't the witches playing with Macbeth and propelling him to his destruction by providing him with misleading prophecies?) You can look at it as just a story. After all, every story has an ultimate authority predetermining all of the actions of the players and weaving their fates: The author. She is the demiurge of the Potter universe. She is the one singing the songs outside of time, and then redundantly replaying them on paper. Nice work if you can get it. On Voldemort, the Evil Overlord. I just hope when he is finally defeated he has the decency to say: "Curses. Foiled again!" Jon. Admin team note: This post asks some interesting questions, but we would ask that only answers directly relevant to the Harry Potter series are posted to the main list. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 08:52:09 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:52:09 -0000 Subject: JKR cheat with the prophecy - Point of Destiny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124982 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor" wrote: > > Lupinlore wrote: > > Suppose you entered a room and saw a large curtain closing off the > back half. One of your friends goes up and sticks his head through > the curtain. He yells "There's a Doberman Pinscher in a tutu back > here!" > > At that moment he has made an observation, i.e. a statement about > the factual and existing state of affairs in the universe. > Kemper now: > This kind of reminds me of Schrodinger's Cat. Schrodinger's Cat is > way of describing a principle of quantum theory, Superposition. > > But let's use Filch's Cat for the example. You place the living > Mrs. Norris into a thick lead box. At this point you know that Mrs. > Norris is, unfortunately, alive, but... milliseconds before you slam > the lid down on the box, you quickly throw a glass-vial of cyanide > in the box. Now, you don't know if the vial has broken or not, so > you don't know if Mrs. Norris is alive or dead. Quantum Law says > that Mrs. Norris is both alive and dead--she is in a superposition > of states. < > ...edited... > > Again, both of these possibilities exist simultaneously UNTIL we > open the box and OBSERVE which is true. In that observation, we > find out what the Dark Lord's choice, free and clear, was. > > Kemper, > who is feeling pretty bad ass about this post and who is eagerly > waiting how Lupinlore, Steve or others(quantum physicists who will > tear my post to shreads) might respond bboyminn: Kemper; no argument from me. I think you very clearly illustrated how the future is not fixed until it becomes the past. My quarrel with Lupinlore is about detail. My impression is that Lupinlore seems to think that The Prophecy very clearly and precisely defines the future, and that it is impossible to escape that level of detail. But I simply don't see the detail. The Prophecy is not very precise, it doesn't mention specific dates, it doesn't mention specific people, it doesn't clearly define specific events, it doesn't mention the specific actions of any of the unmentioned but involved people. All we really know, which we reached from assumptions and interpretations, is that Harry and the Dark Lord have a shared destiny. They have been thrown in a box that represents their shared destiny, the actions of each party are indeterminate, the result in indeterminate; all options, all choices are open until they are made, and the final outcome will be based on the choices made inside that box. They can't escape the fact that they have been thrown into the box; that is their Prophecy defined destiny, but the can choose what they do in the box, and those choices determine the outcome. That's all I'm trying to say. Steve/bboyminn From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 09:08:31 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:08:31 -0000 Subject: Who is the eaveadropper? Was :Re: Simple!Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124983 >Alla wrote: Your explanation makes a lot of sense and yes, I realise that I am mostly speculating at this point, but still... somebody has to be the evesdropper, right? Do you agree that it is unlikely to be a character we haven't heard about so far? >Lupinlore disagreed: No, actually, I don't. I don't think we have enough evidence to even make THAT sort of statement with any degree of confidence. >Kemper disagrees as well: But for different reasons. I don't think discovering who is the eavesdropper is important. I speculated that the Dark Lord (I'm assuming LV is the DL) killed the eavesdropper because the prophecy/prediction/implied possibility contained info about "the one (not Neo)with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord" and I believe the Dark Lord wouldn't want that knowledge/prophecy/... circulating among his ranks or the wizarding world. vmonte agrees with Alla: I think the eavesdropper is definitely someone we know. The fact that Dumbledore does not mention his or her name to Harry is probably because this person now works for the Order or is someone JKR doesn't yet want us to know was there. Whenever there is a scene were it would be logical for Harry to ask a question and he doesn't, it usually means that JKR doesn't want us to have that information yet. If I were Harry I would have asked: "Professor Dumbledore, who was the eavesdropper?" In fact there are many places were Harry should have asked for information and he doesn't. Some of my questions would include: What spell was Luna's mother doing when she died? Why are the Bloody Baron Bloody, and Sir Nick almost headless? What happened to Harry's grandparents? Is Flamel now dead or is he still getting his affairs in order? How did Dumbledore and Flamel actually meet? Was DD once Flamel's apprentice? What's the deal with Grindelwald? Also, if he was defeated by Dumbledore in 1945 at which point did DD then return to teach at Hogwarts during Riddle's time? To who does the brain that attacked Ron belong to? I know there are more I just cannot remember them now. Vivian, whose four-year-old son told her (while watching the PoA movie) that the reason why Sirius was so mad in the Shrieking Shack was because he was dirty and needed a bath. From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Tue Feb 22 09:19:07 2005 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:19:07 -0000 Subject: Did JKR cheat with the prophecy? No Cigar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124984 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > Because you simply can't have a prophecy if the future ISN'T fixed > into a particular pattern (which may include branch points, however as > the branch points are themselves fixed it does, by certain of the > rules of formal and symbolic logic, boil down to the same thing. Even > quantum indeterminacy is actually more formally known as quantum > determinacy in certain kinds of discussions). I'm afraid a discussion > about prophecies vs. predictions IS a discussion about fixed future > vs. free will. Prophecy in fantasy series is a tool to setup the unsuspecting hero and the people surrounding him to some climatic ending (Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series is another example where the orphan hero is the prophecied saviour of the world, completely unbeknown to him, how he (gunk, it's *always* a "he", never a "she"...) evolves into the role, with prophecies playing a central part; even Lord of the Rings has some prophecies involved, e.g. Aragorn and the King of the Dead). I think that prophecy is not so much an inescapable setup where no matter what the person does, the result is foretold. It is more a guide to all involved. It limits everyone's choices, and clarifies their roles. But by their literary nature, prophecies are cryptic, vague, can be interpreted in many different ways and, in both the Harry Potter saga and the Wheel of Time (and probably other similar stories I haven't read), the fact that the people involved - on both sides - generally interpret them incorrectly (including the hero himself), is an integral part of the story. In that respect, I believe the role of the prophecy is also to affect the outcome by its very existence. The fact that people know the prophecy changes the way they act - something like quantum physics - the presence of the observer affects the behaviour of the observed elements... on the whole, a prophecy does not force the events. People reach where it leads through a series of personal decisions and seemingly inevitable conflicts. They have a choice to not accept their role and act accordingly - that choice usually leads to the dark side victory, so of course the noble hero ends up taking the right path. But the prophecy doesn't tell them that they are bound to win nor provides any practical advice on how to get there or what the cost to the hero of taking that path will be. The climatic battle may be foretold, but it gives no clue to the hero as to what he needs to do. Interestingly in both the Harry Potter saga and the Wheel of Time, the hero is completely outgunned by the evil lord he is supposed to vanquish. In HP's case, it is clear that intensive study in his remaining years at Hogwarts, while usefull, is not what will lead him to defeat Voldemort who was much more knowledgable and experienced, even when he was Harry's age, let alone many decades later. In that respect, the prophecy does not tell Harry anything new. It only serves to quash any expectation that he can somehow compromise or evade the conflict with Voldemort. Salit Predictions are based on calculation made from a > certain point in time given certain assumptions that have to be worked > into your equations. Prophecies are based on direct perceptions of a > future that is fixed and will come to be (or more formally a certain > pattern of branchpoints which is fixed, with certain branches > disappearing as further perceptions of the future reveal which > branches will become actual) - that is the very definition of a > prophecy (or of a true prophecy, anyway, which is what DD, anyway, > thinks he's dealing with). Another way of putting it is that if true > prophecies exist the branches that become actual don't depend on free > choices made at those branches. Rather the pattern of branches itself > arises due to the fact that the prophet doesn't have a clear enough > vision to percieve which branches WILL become actual. > > Actually, we are steering VERY close to Frank Herbert here, as the > entire metaphysics of the DUNE series is based on the difference > between calculation of the future (i.e. prediction) and direct > perception of the future (i.e. prophecy) and what that means for > choice and free will. Herbert, in turn, based a lot of his > metaphysics on the discussions of predestination found in in the > writings of formal theologians such as Augustine, Aquinas, and Edwards. > > But, at his point, I think the discussion is exhausted. This is the > type of thing that ends up going round and round in arguments of ever > greater complexity until everybody ends up with a migraine. > > You think she hasn't cheated because free will and prophecy can exist > together (prophecy and prediction are rather similar). I think there > is no way she can't have cheated very badly because prophecy and > prediction are qualitatively different things and true prophecy by > definition rules out the existance of free will as it is commonly > understood. Fair enough. Let's shake hands and move along. > > > Lupinlore From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 09:29:04 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:29:04 -0000 Subject: JKR cheat with the prophecy - Point of Destiny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124985 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > > bboyminn: > > > > Before we part ways on this subject, let me take one more stab > at it, but from a slightly different angle. You say the future is > fixed, but I see the future that is Prophesied as being variable > and uncertain. > Pippin: > > I *think* what Lupinlore is saying is that if Harry and Voldemort > cannot avoid the intersection of their fates no matter how vaguely > this is foretold, then their ability to affect their future by their > choices is limited. ...edited... > > ...edited... > > Pippin bboyminn: One of the points I tried to make with my 'Freezing Rain Tommorrow' Prophecy illustration was that /normal/ life always limits our choices, and thereby limits our ability to affect the future. 'Rain tomorrow' forces choices on me. As does countless other aspects of daily life; car, job, money, school, home, parents, marriage, kids, weather, geography, health, talent, intelligence, luck, etc, etc, etc.... Even to the point where we can say that fate/life/whatever literally forced us to make certain decisions. The questions is, how far beyond the way in which life's choices are commonly and normally resticted does this specific prophecy take Harry and/or Dumbledore? Beyond but not far beyond, I am inclined to think. They have a destiny that they can not escape. Choices are limited by that destiny, just as so many other aspects of life limit our choices. But I still feel strongly that they have not lost freewill. Destiny is not dictating every critical choice they make along the way. They still control how destiny will play out. In the simplest terms, they can't affect what, but they can affect how. Steve/bboyminn From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Tue Feb 22 09:47:16 2005 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 01:47:16 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR cheat with the prophecy - Point of Destiny In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55941726.20050222014716@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 124986 Tuesday, February 22, 2005, 12:13:01 AM, kempermentor wrote: k> who is feeling pretty bad ass about this post and who is eagerly k> waiting how Lupinlore, Steve or others(quantum physicists who will k> tear my post to shreads) might respond I found your little thought experiment very intriguing, and the Schroedinger's Cat analogy was downright brilliant! My only problem with it is this -- Where does Lily fit into it all? It's her protection that causes the AK to fail. Would the same events have played out if V had gone after Neville first? Maybe the thing that redeems the prophecy is that it's self-fulfilling -- It comes true if and only if V believes it. -- Dave From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Feb 22 09:56:15 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:56:15 -0000 Subject: Grindelwald When? WAS Who is the eaveadropper? Was :Re: Simple!Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124987 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > > What's the deal with Grindelwald? Also, if he was defeated by > Dumbledore in 1945 at which point did DD then return to teach at > Hogwarts during Riddle's time? > Valky: hmm quick calculation, Tom was born 1927 yes? then Grindelwald was defeated the year after he graduated.... This could be an interesting clue we missed. Dumbledore found Tom Riddle out for a sneaky Dark Arts student, and a year later he defeats the Bad dude of the time... Maybe that is connected in some way. Something that DD realised through having been Toms teacher was the answer to Grindewalds downfall? or is 1927 the wrong date? From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Tue Feb 22 10:16:22 2005 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:16:22 -0000 Subject: Does Snape know the prophecy? (was: Simple!Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124988 > > SSSusan: > > I realize I have been going on the assumption that several of the members of The Order know of the prophecy. I assumed that Arthur & Molly, Sirius, Lupin, Snape & likely Moody each know about it. Do others think I'm wrong in this belief? Siriusly Snapey Susan >lupinlore: > Well, it depends on what you mean by "Know of" and "Know About." I > think it's fairly obvious that at some point they found out a prophecy > exists. However, I don't think we have any evidence for WHEN they > found out, and I certainly don't think we have any evidence for them > knowing the CONTENTS of the prophecy. I suspect that many of the > Order members, especially the Weasleys, only found out about the > existance of the prophecy during Harry's fifth year. And I strongly > doubt that any of them, including Snape, know the contents. > > Your point about DD trusting Snape is a good one, but I don't think it > really speaks to whether Snape would know the prophecy. If DD has > witheld the prophecy from Snape, it isn't, I suspect because he > doesn't trust Snape, but because this is a very personal piece of > information related to Harry and DD sees it as HARRY'S privilege to > determine who knows about it. > Julia: I agree with lupinlore. it's highly doubtful that somebody from the Order knows about the content of the prophecy. I had a feeling that at the end of OotP when DD tells Harry about his future it was like revealing a secret. However I still maintain my statement that it would be VERY risky to tell anybody (who is not connected to the prophecy) about what the prophecy is truly about. And apart from the fact that it should be Harry's privilege to decide who knows about it, DD's decidion was also determined by the danger of allowing anybody to know Harry/Vodemort destiny... Julia From naama_gat at hotmail.com Tue Feb 22 11:07:16 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:07:16 -0000 Subject: JKR cheat with the prophecy - Point of Destiny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124989 Just a few snippets... Lupinlore: Let us look at how this plays out with Dumbledore, a character we have been discussing a great deal lately. I don't mean to imply that the prophecy ONLY affects DD, but lets use him as an example. Particularly, lets see how the prophecy plays out in the questions of 1) Harry and the Dursleys, 2) DD's love for Harry vs. his love for the Wizarding World. Of course you could argue that one is often faced with restricted choices in life. But rarely choices THAT restricted, and NEVER restricted by prophecy. Thus the prophecy becomes a rather clumsy, and badly failing, slight of hand to get DD off the hook. Naama: Although this group has been discussing DD's actions extensively, I don't think that's the focus of the books. So, I don't think that JKR meant for the prophecy to "get DD off the hook", but to put Harry in a certain, very difficult and dramatic, position. Lupinlore: Because you simply can't have a prophecy if the future ISN'T fixed into a particular pattern (which may include branch points, however as the branch points are themselves fixed it does, by certain of the rules of formal and symbolic logic, boil down to the same thing. Even quantum indeterminacy is actually more formally known as quantum determinacy in certain kinds of discussions). Naama: But does a prophecy mean that all the future is fixed, or just that one thing that will come to pass? For instance, this prophecy says that someone who has the power to vanquish Voldemort will be born, that Voldemort will mark him as his equal, etc. But it doesn't say that Voldemort *will* be vanquished. So, the outcome isn't fixed, and therefore (going by your line of thinking, I think) there is freedom of choice regarding that. Yes? Naama From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Tue Feb 22 11:22:10 2005 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:22:10 -0000 Subject: JKR cheat with the prophecy - Point of Destiny In-Reply-To: <55941726.20050222014716@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124990 Dave: > My only problem with it is this -- Where does Lily fit into it all? > It's her protection that causes the AK to fail. Would the same events have played out if V had gone after Neville first? > > Maybe the thing that redeems the prophecy is that it's self- fulfilling > -- It comes true if and only if V believes it. > > -- > Dave Julia: I think that this whole prophecy is really tricky thing. You see, lest's call the time when Trelawney makes a prophecy PRESENT and the time when it's fulfilled FUTURE. IMO the whole thing is about that PRESENT is strongly detemined by FUTURE and vice versa. This is the nature of prophecy. When Trelawney makes this specific prophecy she tells DD about what EXACTLY is going to happen even though DD doesn't realise it yet (cause he doesn't know the future). How can we know that it doesn't concern Neville? How can we now know that the prophecy was never about Neville? Because the last part of the prophecy (about marking as an equal and powers that voldie knows not) can't refer to Neville. It's refering to what Lily did. This part is about the role of Lily - it was because of her that Harry has a power that Voldie doesn't know. Of course DD couldn't know about it because as I said HE doesn't know the future so he felt obliged to protect both Baby Naville and Baby Harry. He didn't know about what Lily will do. But Trelawney predict it. The significant part of the prophecy which tells us that it couldn't have been Neville and that the prophecy was in first place refering to exactly what happened in GH is the part about 'Voldemort marking the baby as his equal'. IMO it was a separate prediction that Voldie will choose Harry - because HARRY is his equal not Neville. I know it's really complicated what I'm trying to say. Hmm... Let's look at the prophecy once again. I will show us that the prophecy isn't determining the circumstances that can lead to chosing Harry or Neville - IMO it's predicting not only that it will be Harry - that Voldie will choose him but also the sacrifice of Lily. "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches" - can refer to every child that will be soon born "Born to those who have trice defied him, born as the seventh month dies" - refer to the child of Longbottoms or Potters, they will have a child in late July (seventh month!) "and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not" - it can refer only to Harry - he anly can be marked as equal to Voldemort and Voldemort can mark only him as his equal. This is the part which refers also to the sacrifice of Lily which provided Harry the power that Voldie doesn't know. Of course you may ask how we can be sure that Mrs Longbottom wouldn't have done the same thing as Lily. I'm sure that she would have done the same but I'm sure that she wouldn't have had the chance - Voldemort would have never marked Neville as his equal. I even believe that the prophecy had been changed after trelawney started saying it. After the words "born as the seventh month dies" the eavesdropper was thrown out of Hogs Head - that event determined the rest of prophecy about marking as an equal. The fact that Voldemort knew only the first part led to decidion about choosing the most dangerous child - his equal. The prophecy is a tricky thing cause it connects present and future. It's good to realise that every action can affect future and when the prediction is made it includes every action that can affect the future (for example an eavesdropper). The prophecy isn't a possibility of what may happen in the future depending on our choices.It predicts our choices (nothing can change it - neither going into hiding nor choosing Peter as a secret keeper...) Julia From bob.oliver at cox.net Tue Feb 22 12:20:40 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:20:40 -0000 Subject: JKR cheat with the prophecy - Point of Destiny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124991 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" wrote: > > Just a few snippets... > > > Lupinlore: > > Let us look at how this plays out with Dumbledore, a character we > have been discussing a great deal lately. I don't mean to imply that > the prophecy ONLY affects DD, but lets use him as an example. > Particularly, lets see how the prophecy plays out in the questions of > 1) Harry and the Dursleys, 2) DD's love for Harry vs. his love for > the Wizarding World. > > > > Of course you could argue that one is often faced with restricted > choices in life. But rarely choices THAT restricted, and NEVER > restricted by prophecy. Thus the prophecy becomes a rather clumsy, > and badly failing, slight of hand to get DD off the hook. > > > > > Naama: > > Although this group has been discussing DD's actions extensively, I > don't think that's the focus of the books. So, I don't think that JKR > meant for the prophecy to "get DD off the hook", but to put Harry in > a certain, very difficult and dramatic, position. > > Hmmm. I would agree to a point, in that as you say Harry is the focus of the books. Therefore the prophecy's interactions with his character are the most important. But I don't think it's necessarily appropriate to dismiss the interactions with the other characters as mere side effects. I was using DD as an example, and I agree that this is a secondary example. However, I still rather think many of the effects represent deliberate actions on JKR's part to try and obviate some of the very issues we have discussed so extensively. And I think that she fails rather badly in that. Lupinlore From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Tue Feb 22 12:25:56 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:25:56 -0000 Subject: Harry has PTSD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124992 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bbkkyy55" wrote: > > catportkey suggests Harry has PTSD. > While Harry displays some of the diagnostic criteria of PTSD as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, he most emphatically fails to display one crucial symptom: that is, an intense desire to avoid thoughts/recollections of the traumatic event. Harry, by contrast, wants to shout Voldemort's return from the rooftops. OOP begins with Harry going through elaborate pains to attempt to eavesdrop on the evening news to overhear news of Voldemort. Someone suffering from PTSD would have taken pains to avoid hearing the news. Throughout OOP, Harry is quick to proclaim the fact that Voldemort is back, even when it is to his personal detriment to do so (e.g., in his confrontations with Delores). The only sign of reluctance to discuss Voldemort is at the first meeting of the DA, but that's only because he (not without reason) feels everyone is there merely to gawk at him. But when even so unsympathetic an interviewer as Rita Skeeter queries him, he is more than happy to relate the whole saga. Bottom line - being a fictitious character, Harry has those elements of PTSD that help advance the plot (e.g., the hypersensitivity, the outbursts of intense emotion), but fails to manifest those symptoms which would not. - CMC From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 12:26:49 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:26:49 -0000 Subject: De-bunking Count Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124993 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Freud" wrote: > tabekat - who think Snape is much too big of a whiner to make a good > vampire Finwitch: Yes, well -- how about half-vampire? Being half-vampire (Meaning his Father was one) or born-vampire (meaning his mother was bitten while pregnant) - and thus considered low by many in wizarding World AND full, chosen Vampires. I don't know if there's anything on this except for Lupin's 'vampire- essay' he claimed to discuss with Harry&Ron after Snape found the map, apparently just to get at Snape (who had issued that werewolf- essay). Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 13:04:08 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:04:08 -0000 Subject: Harry has PTSD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124994 CMC wrote: > > While Harry displays some of the diagnostic criteria of PTSD as > described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American > Psychiatric Association, he most emphatically fails to display one > crucial symptom: that is, an intense desire to avoid > thoughts/recollections of the traumatic event. Harry, by contrast, > wants to shout Voldemort's return from the rooftops. Finwitch: Ah - but that holds true only if we consider Cedric's death as the only trauma behind it. If, however, we consider the loss of his PARENTS, well... Harry's taking pains to avoid the Dursleys - (running from Dudley, mostly) - or wanting to be away from Aunt Marge... and of course, his loneliness and lack of support makes it worse. Recovery begins when the first Letter arrives. And then he got Quirrellmort to deal with... and he's alone again. (But mind you, Harry's doing this because he couldn't bear losing Hogwarts!) Then there was the basilisk - and he's alone again. (and losing Ginny AND Hogwarts would be even more of a stress than the fight). Of course in PoA, he's reached the limit. Aunt Marge blows up. (And Harry still wanted to be away from her to avoid the stress...). And this year, it's time for Harry to start dealing with Great Trauma One. Dementors bring the memory he's mainly forgotten back to him. He's terrified of these feelings - (which is why his boggart is a Dementor). And it's not just Dementors, either - the unsigned permission slip also reminds him of what he doesn't have: Parents. In the end, Harry has, in part at least, solved his problem - shown by his Patronus Charm holding and chasing the Dementors off. In the end of GoF, Death of Cedric becomes Trauma Two for Harry. We're not seeing Harry for a month - and then we're off to OOP(what happened during that month? shock? Avoiding stress? I'd say that not knowing is worse than knowing all the bad things...). Arrival of the Dementors forces Harry to start dealing with the Cedric Trauma - and he's older, and he's gone trough this before - but he still needs to let his anger out. So he yells at the first safe people he meets: Ron and Hermione. (Not a co-incidence that the thought of them also drove away the Dementors...) BUT: he's off for his NEXT Trauma: His method of relief for PTSD causes legal problems... Enter Umbridge; Enter Discredit; ... Loads of things piling up. He knows what he must do now, though - let the anger out before someone blows up. (Maybe he was starting to figure that hurting himself is a good way to deal with his frustration? He's just doing it so that he's not losing the support of his friends) and in the end, it's losing Sirius. Now, Harry's not staying in shock- stage. No. He's desperate. He wants to follow Sirius to death but can't, so he's on with anger-mode again and off hurting someone else. And then he's throwing stuff in Dumbledore's office until the anger wears off. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 13:45:19 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:45:19 -0000 Subject: Questions Harry 'should?' have asked... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124995 Vivian spurted out a few questions: > In fact there are many places were Harry should have asked for > information and he doesn't. Finwitch thinks there are emotional instory-reasons overruling logical curiousity as to why Harry doesn't ask. (and Dursley upbringing Harry still needs to grow out of). Some of my questions would include: > > What spell was Luna's mother doing when she died? Finwitch figures it was an experimental spell (or was it a potion?) but any way, it may have been one that er - sent her beyond the Veil (without her body, I assume). > Why are the Bloody Baron Bloody, and Sir Nick almost headless? Finwitch recalls Sir Nicholas explaining the dull axe and the executioner who wasn't up to the job. (Terrible way to die. I'd guess guillotine cut off some heads of those in Headless Hunt). As for the Bloody Baron -- well, Harry ought to ask Bloody Baron if he wants to know. It's not anyone else's business to tell. Most likely, though - it's to do with the way he died. > What happened to Harry's grandparents? Finwitch would like to know that, too. Probably they're dead or othervise unreachable. Maybe Harold Potter is in Norway, Sweden and/or Finland studying Crumble-Horned Snorkacks-- lucky for Harry, when he's in Sweden, he happens to meet Luna Lovegood and hears that Harry is alive... (Hmm-mm. I wonder what those creatures would be like flying reindeers, and only the purehearted/innocents can see them?) > Is Flamel now dead or is he still getting his affairs in order? Finwitch would like to meet Mr and Mrs Flamel within the books... > How did Dumbledore and Flamel actually meet? Was DD once Flamel's > apprentice? Ah yes... well, who can say. I'd presume Dumbledore did want to learn alchemy so he sought out the unquestionable master of the art - Nicholas Flamel, maker of the Philosopher's Stone - which alchemists all over were trying to accomplish. Hmm-mm. Wonder how Nicholas recieved him? > What's the deal with Grindelwald? Also, if he was defeated by > Dumbledore in 1945 at which point did DD then return to teach at > Hogwarts during Riddle's time? Because he loves Hogwarts, and because educating the young is the best and most peaceful way to change the World... > To who does the brain that attacked Ron belong to? Does it matter? What matters most to me is WHAT KIND OF SCAR DID IT CAUSE? > Vivian, whose four-year-old son told her (while watching the PoA > movie) that the reason why Sirius was so mad in the Shrieking Shack > was because he was dirty and needed a bath. I think your son knew the truth and meant many sorts of dirt at once... mental included. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Feb 22 14:27:09 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:27:09 -0000 Subject: De-bunking Count Snape In-Reply-To: <421A9B18.000001.00728@KATHRYN> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124996 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kathryn" wrote: > > The fact is that we know almost *nothing* about how vampires work in the Potterverse so there really is no way to judge whether Snape exhibits vampirelike characteristics. We have no idea what JKR considers vampirelike characteristics *are*! > > Having said that I don't believe Snape is a vampire either - although we have read about a certain animosity between Potterverese werewolves and vampires and I can't think of anyone who likes our resident werewolf *less* > .. > Pippin: Animosity between Potterverse vampires and werewolves? Where? Not only do we not know enough about Potterverse vampires to rule Snape out, we don't know enough about Rowling to say that she never gives trick answers. She has said that she won't be "full and frank" in her interviews, that readers like to be tricked, and after announcing that everything we read on the website would be true, she used it to make us think that she was still working on the HBP when she had finished it. Fool me twice... Whatever the explanation for Snape's eccentricities, I don't think it can be that he's just, well, eccentric. A lot of wizards are eccentric, but it's usually clear even with them when a character is hiding something. Snape is obviously hiding something about his background (Rowling *says* it's hinted at) beyond having been a Death Eater. With that missing bit of information, the reader should be able to go back and explain it all to himself without Snape having to pause somewhere in the end chapters of Book Seven and say: *This* is why I looked white as a youngster but I'm yellowish now, and *this* is why I wouldn't eat at Sirius's house, and *this* is why I was fascinated with my reflection in the Foe Glass, and *this* is why Lupin assigned the vampire essay and *this* is why the Marauders hideout was behind a mirror and *this * is why I never go out in daylight if I can avoid it, so you rarely see me at a Quidditch game although I am an avid fan. So I challenge the debunkers: can you come up with *one* missing bit of information that explains *all* of the above? Pippin From kempermentor at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 14:41:58 2005 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:41:58 -0000 Subject: JKR cheat with the prophecy - Point of Destiny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124997 Dave made a response: My only problem with it is this -- Where does Lily fit into it all? It's her protection that causes the AK to fail. Would the same events have played out if V had gone after Neville first? Maybe the thing that redeems the prophecy is that it's self- fulfilling -- It comes true if and only if V believes it. Then Julia: How can we know that it doesn't concern Neville? How can we now know that the prophecy was never about Neville? Because the last part of the prophecy (about marking as an equal and powers that voldie knows not) can't refer to Neville. It's refering to what Lily did. This part is about the role of Lily - it was because of her that Harry has a power that Voldie doesn't know. Kemper Now: How can it not refer Neville? Later, you wr The significant part of the prophecy which tells us that it couldn't have been Neville and that the prophecy was in first place refering to exactly what happened in GH is the part about 'Voldemort marking the baby as his equal'. IMO it was a separate prediction that Voldie will choose Harry - because HARRY is his equal not Neville. IMO it's predicting not only that it will be Harry - that Voldie will choose him but also the sacrifice of Lily. "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches" - can refer to every child that will be soon born "Born to those who have trice defied him, born as the seventh month dies" - refer to the child of Longbottoms or Potters, they will have a child in late July (seventh month!) "and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not" - it can refer only to Harry - he anly can be marked as equal to Voldemort and Voldemort can mark only him as his equal. This is the part which refers also to the sacrifice of Lily which provided Harry the power that Voldie doesn't know. Of course you may ask how we can be sure that Mrs Longbottom wouldn't have done the same thing as Lily. I'm sure that she would have done the same but I'm sure that she wouldn't have had the chance - Voldemort would have never marked Neville as his equal. Kemper now: You say the prophecy can't refer to Neville because of Lily's sacrifice, then you later say that it is possible Alice (or Frank for that matter) would have made the same sacrifice (Blood Protection Charm), but then you take that, IMO, very real possibility away with the weakest of assumptions: Alice wouldn't have had the chance. Why would that be assumed? She thrice defied LV. It's easy to assume that she was pretty tough, determined and talented. Is it so easy to dismiss that? To go back to the prophecy... The Dark Lord will mark him as his equal... not his mom. -Kemper From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Tue Feb 22 14:52:27 2005 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:52:27 -0000 Subject: De-bunking Count Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124998 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Message 124952 Freud: > Voldemort is kinda like a vampire though. He drinks blood. He > drinks snake venom. But I don't see any "Voldemort is a vamp" > theories out there. "K": Voldemort having vampire-like qualities has been discussed. I personally believe he is part-vampire along with who knows what else. Here is a list of where vampires are mentioned in the books. I won't claim it is a complete list as I may have missed some. Keep in mind there could be other hints about vampires without that specific word being used. ~*SORCERER'S STONE*~ CH 4 SECOND YEAR STUDENTS WILL REQUIRE: Voyages with Vampires by Gilderoy Lockhart pg 44 CH 5 I've g-got to p-pick up a new b-book on vampires, m-myself." He (Professor Quirrell) looked terrified at the very thought. pg 70 They say he (Professor Quirrell) met vampires in the Black Forest... pg 71 Vampires? Hags? Harry's head was swimming. pg 71 His (Professor Quirrell) classroom smelled strongly of garlic, which everyone said was to ward off a vampire he'd met in Romania and was afraid would be coming back to get him one of these days. pg 134 ~*CHAMBER OF SECRETS*~ US Version CH 6 Harry and Ron sat down at the Gryffindor table next to Hermione, who had her copy of Voyages with Vampires propped open against a milk jug. pg 86 Hermione closed Voyages with Vampires and looked down at the top of Ron's head. pg 88 Hermione sat down on a stone step and buried her nose in Voyages with Vampires again. pg 96 Ron whipped out his Spellotaped wand, but Hermione shut Voyages with Vampires with a snap and whispered, "Look out!" pg 97 ...and a vampire who had been unable to eat anything except lettuce since Lockhart had dealt with him. pg 161 ~*PRISONER OF AZKABAN~* UK Version CH 3 Harry had never met a vampire, but he had seen pictures of them in his Defence Against the Dark Arts (DADA) classes, and Black, with his waxy white skin, looked just like one. pg 34 CH 10 ...examining a tray of blood-flavoured lollipops...'Urgh, no, Harry won't want one of those, they're for vampires, I expect, ' Hermione was saying. pg 147 CH 14 'Er - not now - I was going to go to the library and do that vampire essay for Lupin-' pg 204 'Harry, Ron, come with me, I need a word about my vampire essay. Excuse us, Severus.' pg 213 Ch 22 'Wonder what they'll give us next year?' said Seamus Finnigan gloomily. "Maybe a vampire,' suggested Dean Thomas hopefully. pg 313 ~*GOBLET OF FIRE*~ US Version CH 9 "but I'm a vampire hunter. I've killed about nine so far____'. pg 126 CH 10 "Last week she was saying we're wasting our time quibbling about cauldron thickness, when we should be stamping out vampires! As if it wasn't specifically stated in paragraph twelve of the Guidelines for theTreatment of Non-Wizard Part-Human ---(Percy) pg 147 ~*ORDER OF THE PHOENIX*~ US Version CH 20 "Ran inter a couple o' mad trolls on the Polish border, an' I had a sligh' disagreement with a vampire in a pub in Minsk..." pg 426 CH 31 He was finding it very difficult to remember names and kept confusing dates. He simply skipped question four: In your opinion, did wand legislation contribute to, or lead to better control of, goblin riots of the eighteenth century? thinking that he would go back to it if he had time at the end. He had a stab at question five: How was the Statue of Secrecy breached in 1749 and what measures were introduced to prevent a recurrence? but had a nagging suspicion that he had missed several important points. He had a feeling vampires had come into the story somewhere... pg 725/us FB The centaurs objected to some of the creatures with whom they were asked to share "being" status, such as hags and vampires... FB/xiii QTTA Translyvania has been mentioned. QTTA mentions a Quidditch team from Translyvania and vampire bats. ~~The final between Transylvania and Flanders has gone down in history as the most violent of all time and many of the fouls then recorded had never been seen before-for instance, the transfiguration of a Chaser into a polecat, the attempted decapitation of a Keeper with a broadsword, and the release, from under the robes of the Translyvanian Captain, of a hundred blood- sucking vampire bats. pg 40~~ In short: SS There are books on vampires. pg 70 Vampires are in the Black Forest. pg 71 The kids believe garlic will ward off vampires. pg 134 COS They are studied. pg 44 Hermione seems to enjoy reading about them. pgs 86,88,96,97 POA They are studied in the Dark Arts class. pg 34 They have waxy, white skin. pg 34 Kids know there are vampires around. pg 319 GOF There are vampire hunters and some believe it is a noble job. pgs 125-126 Some believe vampires should be stamped out. pg 147 OOP A vampires was in a pub. pg 426 A vampire was in Minsk. pg 426 Vampires were on the O.W.L. test. pg 725 FB Centaurs object to them. FB/xiii ____________________________________________________ The word 'vampire' is not actually used here but there is a reference to garlic being used to ward off Harry. ...George pretended to ward Harry off with a large clove of garlic when they met. ss/pg 210 "K": I believe there's a bit of Voldemort that does live inside Harry and the above could be just another clue. Of course with Voldy being a combination of whatever immortality experiments he used, a little garlic isn't going to do anything to him. But it can be a clue from the author. ...George pretended to ward Harry (Voldy-thing inside Harry) with a large clove of garlic when they met. From peckham at cyberramp.net Tue Feb 22 15:39:27 2005 From: peckham at cyberramp.net (luna_loco) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:39:27 -0000 Subject: Can the MoM's self-defense booklet backfire? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 124999 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miikka R." wrote: > > Yet another idea that I had in chat. It's stated at the end of book > five that the Ministry will be distributing basic DADA instructions > during the summer to every wizarding home. > > All's well and good, until you realize that the Death Eaters will be > getting them too. There's really no feasible way of preventing them > from laying hand on any copies. This means that Voldy will be getting > a chance to read exactly what the Ministry is suggesting to its > subjects, analyze it for weaknesses and formulate counter-plans. To > paraphrase Sun Tzu, the best way to wage war is to attack the enemy's > strategy. Unless the authors and the readers figure out that the > opposing side is going to have access to exactly the same information, > there's going to be trouble. The guides will probably be similiar to the type of information many muggle police departments provide to help reduce crime. General advice such as locking your home and broom, keeping your valuables out of site, being aware of your surroundings, joining with other witches and wizards to form community watch programs, and the best ways to contact the Ministry if you notice something out of the ordinary. On top of this, the ministry can add a paragraph or two about how to deal with dementors, methods to resist an Imperius curse, and other likely threats. The idea is not to change the Stan Shunpikes of the wizarding world into trained hit wizards. The Ministry does not need to advertise all the details of it's anti-Voldemort plans either. Just raising the general awareness of the wizarding community as a whole, and thus reducing the number of easy targets, can go a long way in reducing Voldemort's influence. Allen From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Tue Feb 22 15:49:06 2005 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:49:06 -0000 Subject: JKR cheat with the prophecy - Point of Destiny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125000 >> Then Julia: > > How can we know that it doesn't concern Neville? How can we now know that the prophecy was never about Neville? Because the last part of the prophecy (about marking as an equal and powers that voldie knows not) can't refer to Neville. It's refering to what Lily did. This part is about the role of Lily - it was because of her that Harry has a power that Voldie doesn't know. > Kemper Now: > How can it not refer Neville? Later, you wr > >> The significant part of the prophecy which tells us that it couldn't have been Neville and that the prophecy was in first place refering to exactly what happened in GH is the part about 'Voldemort marking the baby as his equal'. IMO it was a separate prediction that Voldie will choose Harry - because HARRY is his equal not Neville. > >> IMO it's predicting not only that it will be Harry - that Voldie will choose him but also the sacrifice of Lily. > > "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches" > - can refer to every child that will be soon born > "Born to those who have trice defied him, born as the seventh month > dies" > - refer to the child of Longbottoms or Potters, they will have a > child in late July (seventh month!) > "and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have > power the Dark Lord knows not" > - it can refer only to Harry - he anly can be marked as equal to > Voldemort and Voldemort can mark only him as his equal. This is the part which refers also to the sacrifice of Lily which provided Harry the power that Voldie doesn't know. > > Of course you may ask how we can be sure that Mrs Longbottom > wouldn't have done the same thing as Lily. I'm sure that she would > have done the same but I'm sure that she wouldn't have had the > chance - Voldemort would have never marked Neville as his equal. Kemper now: > You say the prophecy can't refer to Neville because of Lily's sacrifice, then you later say that it is possible Alice (or Frank for that matter) would have made the same sacrifice (Blood Protection Charm), but then you take that, IMO, very real possibility away with the weakest of assumptions: Alice wouldn't have had the chance. Why would that be assumed? She thrice defied LV. It's easy to assume that she was pretty tough, determined and talented. Is it so easy to dismiss that? To go back to the prophecy... The Dark Lord will mark him as his equal... not his mom. > > -Kemper Julia again: I really don't know why you think that it's the weakest assumption that Alice wouldn't have had the chance to sacrifice her... I think you didn't understand me. IMO there couldn't have been any chance for Mrs Longbottom to do it because of the part of prophecy "and DL will mark him as his equal" (which btw is BEFORE the statement about the powers of the baby - provided by mother's sacrifice - so it can indicate that the choice will be made before the sacrifice. This part didn't refer to Neville and will never do - Neville has NEVER been Voldemort's equal (halfblood) so Alice couldn't make her sacrifice because Voldemort wasn't predicted to be after Neville. I didn't question Alice's abilities or powers I'm sure that if she were Lily she would have done the same BUT she never got the chance!!!! Neville was NEVER meant as a target. Julia From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Tue Feb 22 16:56:11 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:56:11 -0000 Subject: Resolving (?) the Riddle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125001 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" wrote: Naama: > Since reading OoP, I've come to (slowly) realize that the main > questions in HP revolve, not Harry Potter, but Voldemort. Aftera all, > JKR often signals the reader via names (Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, > Dolores Umbridge, etc.) - surely "Riddle" must be significant?! > we *know* that Voldemort is a being > that is "divided in essence" - part human, part snake. > > Thinking of Voldemort in this way - one person, two essences, it > struck me quite forcefully how similar it is to the orthdox creed > regarding Christ - that he is one person, but two natures - human and > divine. Renee: I've got very little to add to this. But assuming that Riddle's first name, Tom, is indeed short for Thomas, it is another reference to the character's dual nature. IIRC, Thomas means "twin" in Aramaic (or Hebrew). So this would reinforce your analysis. Naama: > The theory of Voldemort was meant to be a "theory of everything". But > while this prespective does reveal a coherent structure, I am still > very unclear as to it's final significance: > What does it *mean* that Voldemort is a dark Christ figure - when > the narrative is clearly about Harry? Renee: If you replace 'dark Christ' by anti-Christ, we would have a reference to the Apocalyps - another indication that the HP series is meant to be a piece of Christian literature about the ultimate battle between Good&Evil and Light&Darkness, and that Harry is a Christ figure. (I'm sure his family name, Potter, has come along repeatedly as a reference to God.) The old cosmic drama disguised as a book about a magical schoolboy. Renee From jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 20:17:27 2005 From: jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com (jmgarciaiii) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:17:27 -0000 Subject: Snape and Quirrell in the Dark Forest Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125002 Delurking here for a moment... While rereading the canon--in anticipation of July 16th--I ran across the passage in PS/SS where Snape and Quirrell are discussing things in the Dark Forest: ------------------------QUOTE---------------------------------- Below, in the shadowy clearing, stood Snape, but he wasn't alone. Quirrell was there, too. Harry strained to catch what they were saying. "...d-don't know why you wanted t-t-to meet here of all p-places, Severus..." "Oh, I thought we'd keep this private," said Snape, his voice icy. "Students aren't supposed to know about the Sorcerer's Stone, after all." Harry leaned forward. Quirrell was mumbling something. Snape interrupted him. "Have you found out how to get past that beast of Hagrid's yet?" "B-b-but Severus, I ---" "You don't want me as your enemy, Quirrell," said Snape, taking a step toward him. "I-I don't know what you ---" "You know perfectly well what I mean." An owl hooted loudly, and Harry nearly fell out of the tree. He steadied himself in time to hear Snape say, "--- your little bit of hocus-pocus. I'm waiting." "B-but I d-d-don't ---" "Very well," Snape cut in. "We'll have another little chat soon, when you've had time to think things over and decided where your loyalties lie." He threw his cloak over his head and strode out of the clearing. ------------------------UNQUOTE---------------------------------- Question: Wouldn't this make Snape a useless spy? (To say nothing of an endangered one...) Voldemort would know (directly if he was hiding under the turban, indirectly if he wasn't at the time but took up subturban residency later and learned through Quirrell, right? Thoughts? -Joe in SoFla From jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 20:44:59 2005 From: jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com (jmgarciaiii) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:44:59 -0000 Subject: De-bunking Count Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125003 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > we don't know enough about Rowling to say that > she never gives trick answers. She has said that she won't be > "full and frank" in her interviews, that readers like to be tricked, > and after announcing that everything we read on the website > would be true, she used it to make us think that she was still > working on the HBP when she had finished it. Fool me twice... Let's revisit that answer JKR gave on the Snape/vampire matter, shall we? Megan: Is there a link between Snape and vampires? JK Rowling replies -> Erm... I don't think so. It is within the realm of the plausible JKR willfully took that question to mean "Is there any link between Snape and any vampires" and her answer meant "No, Snape has no links to any other vampire." Notice, if you would, what the question was NOT. ("Is Snape in any way a vampire?") More tellingly the answer was NOT "Snape is in no way, manner, shape or form any sort of vampire." [snip] > So I challenge the debunkers: can you come up with *one* > missing bit of information that explains *all* of the above? I am reminded of Sherlock Holmes (which I strongly urge everyone to read) when he said, in _Sign_of_Four_: "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" -Joe in SoFla From pegruppel at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 21:01:49 2005 From: pegruppel at yahoo.com (Peggy) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:01:49 -0000 Subject: Snape and Quirrell in the Dark Forest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125004 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jmgarciaiii" wrote: > > Delurking here for a moment... > > While rereading the canon--in anticipation of July 16th--I ran > across the passage in PS/SS where Snape and Quirrell are discussing > things in the Dark Forest: > > Question: Wouldn't this make Snape a useless spy? (To say nothing of > an endangered one...) Voldemort would know (directly if he was > hiding under the turban, indirectly if he wasn't at the time but > took up subturban residency later and learned through Quirrell, > right? > > Thoughts? > > -Joe in SoFla Peg: Joe, this has been bugging me, too, along with the scene in the Pensieve from GoF, when DD stands up and announces to the Wizengamot (in front of Karkaroff!) that Snape has been a spy for the "good guys" and has been passing information at great personal risk. The only even faintly plausible explanation that I can think of is that Snape is *such* a skilled Occlumens that he can look LV in the eye (or not, the DEs seem to do a lot of grovelling at their master's feet) and deny that he ever did any such thing, and be believed. This looks like a great big, screaming, fanged Flint to me. Peg From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Feb 22 21:29:54 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:29:54 -0000 Subject: De-bunking Count Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125005 In Post 124996 Pippin wrote: >snip< and *this* is why the Marauders hideout was behind a mirror...>snip< Potioncat: I missed that. The Marauders had a hideout behind a mirror? I'd like to go back and read it. Can you give the chapter? Note, I think the canon below was submitted by Koinonia...I hope I didn't get that wrong. I do see that I've snipped the appropriate books in my effort to snip correctly, but going up thread should clear that up.(Potioncat) Koinonia wrote: > ...and a vampire who had been unable to eat anything except lettuce > since Lockhart had dealt with him. > pg 161 > ...examining a tray of blood-flavoured lollipops...'Urgh, no, Harry > won't want one of those, they're for vampires, I expect, ' Hermione > was saying. > pg 147 > > "Ran inter a couple o' mad trolls on the Polish border, an' I had a > sligh' disagreement with a vampire in a pub in Minsk..." > pg 426 Potioncat: I copied all these entries because they seem to indicate one thing: vampires eat. Potioncat who doesn't have a strong opinion about "Count" Snape, but also doesn't think JKR's comment nixed the theory. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 21:33:55 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:33:55 -0000 Subject: JKR cheat with the prophecy - Time Will Tell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125006 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Julia" wrote: > > Julia again: > > ... > I think you didn't understand me. IMO there couldn't have been any > chance for Mrs Longbottom to do it because of the part of > prophecy "and DL will mark him as his equal" (which btw is BEFORE > the statement about the powers of the baby - ... so it can indicate > that the choice will be made before the sacrifice. This part didn't > refer to Neville and will never do - Neville has NEVER been > Voldemort's equal (halfblood) so Alice couldn't make her sacrifice > because Voldemort wasn't predicted to be after Neville. > > I didn't question Alice's abilities or powers I'm sure that if she > were Lily she would have done the same BUT she never got the > chance!!!! Neville was NEVER meant as a target. > > Julia bboyminn: The problem is that you are making the same /assumption/ that Dumbledore made. You are assuming you know why Voldemort went after Harry first. It's entirely possible it was the (figuratively) flip of a coin; heads-Harry first, tails-Neville second, or it could be that the opportunity, via Peter-the Secret Keeper, to attack the Potters came up first, so Big-V attacked Harry before Neville. There is nothing but Dumbledore's assumption that Voldemort consciously choose Harry, it may have been random chance, coincidence, or bad luck. Also note that Dumbledore says the it's NOT the mark on Harry's forehead that /marks/ him, it's Voldemort's choice. In addition, since the Prophecy plays out over many many years, it's nothing but a guess as to whether one specific event actually is the fulfillment of the vague language of the Prophecy. It's entirely possible that somewhere in the next two books, Voldemort will somehow mark Neville as an equal. Keep in mind that in Brit-Speak, 'mark' doesn't always mean to place a physical mark upon. It also means 'to make note of' as in 'mark my words' which means 'make a note of my words'. So, the whole fulfillment of the Prophecy is based on assumptions and best-guess interpretations. Some say that Harry's first encounter fulfills much of the Prophecy; Harry is chosen, Harry is given power that the Dark Lord doesn't understand, Harry is marked, the Dark Lord is vanguished. Of course, others believe that many of those events are yet to come. So, the first interpretation implies that Harry has already vanguished Voldemort, given that apparent fulfillment, should/could/would Harry vanquish him again? The Prophecy doesn't say Harry will vanquish the Dark Lord twice. So, is the /Vanquishing/ the Prophecy speaks of in the past, or is it yet to come? Is the TRUE prophecied /marking/ in the past or yet to come? It begs the question, does the prophecy force the future to fit the prophecy, or do we take life-events and through assumptions, interpretations, and best-guesses force them to fit the prophecy? Only time will tell ...or will it? Steve/bboyminn From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Feb 22 22:39:58 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:39:58 -0000 Subject: Snape and Quirrell in the Dark Forest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125007 "jmgarciaiii" wrote: > > While rereading the canon--in anticipation of July 16th--I ran > > across the passage in PS/SS where Snape and Quirrell are > > discussing things in the Dark Forest: > > > Question: Wouldn't this make Snape a useless spy? (To say > > nothing of an endangered one...) Voldemort would know (directly > > if he was hiding under the turban, indirectly if he wasn't at > > the time but took up subturban residency later and learned > > through Quirrell, right? Peg: > Joe, this has been bugging me, too, .... > The only even faintly plausible explanation that I can think of is > that Snape is *such* a skilled Occlumens that he can look LV in > the eye and deny that he ever did any such thing, and be believed. > This looks like a great big, screaming, fanged Flint to me. SSSusan: This is one of those questions which arises so frequently that it must be high on *many* people's "bugging me" lists. The most common explanation for why this would NOT necessarily give Snape away (and the one I believe) is as follows. 1) Presumably NO one besides Quirrell knew Voldy was back at this point. 2) NO one knew Voldy was glommed onto the back of Quirrell's head. 3) If Snape suspected Q. of trying to get the Stone, he would therefore have been suspecting him of wanting it for his OWN [Q.'s] purposes, not to help a Voldy-Snape-wouldn't-have-known-was-back. 4) Thus, if ever questioned by Voldy, Snape could claim either that: a) he was trying to stop Quirrell from gaining immortality [thus reserving that possibility for LV when he did come back]; or b) that he was acting as a Hogwarts teacher who knows nothing about Voldy's return should have acted -- telling a fellow staff member that DD expects his loyalty. Siriusly Snapey Susan From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 11:34:02 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:34:02 -0000 Subject: Lucius, and Snape, and Draco. still wild .(was SWAN, SIDD, and SILL: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125008 > Arcum: > You forgot "Snape's attempts at redeeming Draco then end with Draco > betraying him, and Snape dying in a bitterly meaningless and ironic > death." at the end there... ;) Yup. Irony. Wheres theres Irony, theres hope, right? Snape is exactly the sort of character who deserved a perfectly ironic death. It's our responsibility to find it! DESMOINES (Draco Ends Snape's Misery. Oedipal Irony, Narcissa Elegantly Sobs) (That makes no sense, I just wanted to try coming up with an acronym.) I still say that Lucius loves Draco, (whats the point of pureblood ideology if not family?) and Draco's death is going to be significant to Lucius, in a major, seek-redemption-now sort of way. Northsouth From ct_lovell at juno.com Tue Feb 22 15:45:44 2005 From: ct_lovell at juno.com (abcwv2004) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:45:44 -0000 Subject: Snape's family killed? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125009 I have been a lurker for a while but this is the first message I have posted. Please forgive me if this topic has been talked about already. My theory is that Snape was married with a child. His wife and child were then killed by Voldemort. This was more than likely an accident. Maybe they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Voldemort, being completely evil, showed no remorse or regret about the incident. This could explain why Snape changed sides, why he is so angry, and why DD trusts him so much. I would like to hear some thoughts on this theory. Feel free to try and debunk it. Clare From sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk Tue Feb 22 19:41:43 2005 From: sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk (sandra87b) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:41:43 -0000 Subject: Harry's grandparents. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125010 I might have missed this somewhere along the line, but what happened to both sets of Harry's grandparents? I would have thought they would have had a pretty good claim on the orphaned child, and Dumbledore would have no right or authority over them to say/choose who raises Harry, and where he should be raised. I can't think where it was mentioned. Sandra From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 22:13:53 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:13:53 -0000 Subject: Snape and Quirrell in the Dark Forest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125011 --- "jmgarciaiii" wrote: >> Question: Wouldn't this make Snape a useless spy? (To say nothing of > an endangered one...) Voldemort would know (directly if he was > hiding under the turban, indirectly if he wasn't at the time but > took up subturban residency later and learned through Quirrell, > right? > -Joe in SoFla a_svirn: Know what? I agree this is a highly interesting episode but do we really know what it WAS all about? What Harry heard was a snippet of a conversation, and even this snippet he didn't hear properly (an owl conveniently hooted at the most interesting moment). Harry concluded that Snape was after the Stone and frankly it did sound that way. If Voldemort regarded Snape as another aspirant for the Stone it's hardly disqualify him as a spy. LV entertains no illusions concerning his followers' faithfulness and greed. a_svirn From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Feb 22 22:59:13 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:59:13 -0000 Subject: De-bunking Count Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125012 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > In Post 124996 Pippin wrote: > >snip< and *this* is why the Marauders hideout was behind a > mirror...>snip< > > Potioncat: > I missed that. The Marauders had a hideout behind a mirror? I'd like to go back and read it. Can you give the chapter? OOP ch 17 --(Sirius speaking) "There used to be a pretty roomy secret passageway behind that big mirror on the fourth floor, you might have space to practice jinxes in there--" "Fred and George told me it's blocked," said Harry, shaking his head. "Caved in or something." PoA ch 10 (Fred speaking) "Don't bother about with the one behind the mirror on the fourth floor. We used it until last winter, but it's caved in--completely blocked." > Potioncat: > I copied all these entries because they seem to indicate one thing: vampires eat. Pippin: Here's another one: (Neville speaking) PoA ch 14 p 227 US hardcover "I don't understand that thing about the garlic at all--do they have to eat it, or--" Pippin From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 23:06:11 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 23:06:11 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125013 >>SSSusan: >Draco is not the underdog of the HP books any more than he makes himself one by his own behaviors. *Harry* has the awesome burden of having to take on Voldemort & his DEs repeatedly, hence *Harry* is the underdog of the HP books.< Betsy: I agree that in the overall theme of the books, Harry is the underdog. He's facing an overwhelming evil, and he's just a school- boy. But in the story as it is at Hogwarts, school-boy vs. school- boy, Harry is *not* an underdog. Not by any stretch. He's well known, he's rich, he's sporty, the majority of his teachers like him, his headmaster loves him, and even when he breaks school rules, he usually winds up winning house points. In an essay on Narrator vs. Authorial Voice, No Remorse wrote, almost as an aside: "Now while an omniscient narrator would manage to get across the idea of Harry as shy and only accidentally elitist, while keeping a lot of his angst intact, Harry would be less sympathetic anyway. Harry's self-image is very important to the tone of the books. Because Harry sees himself as this poor, marginalised orphan, we see him that way. If Harry's self-image had to compete with the image everyone else has of him, we could find ourselves sympathising with someone else; and consequently with this character's image of Harry. We don't. We are supposed to side with Harry and we tend to just do that." (If anyone's interested in the rest of the essay, you can find it here: http://www.livejournal.com/users/no_remorse/48210.html ) Of course, I'm not trying to argue that Harry is a bad kid and that we as readers shouldn't feel any sympathy towards him. But as far as life at school goes (and this is the only life of Harry's that Draco is aware of) Harry is the big man on campus. When the yule ball was held in GoF, Harry had older women throwing themselves at him, and ending up going with one of the prettier girls of his year (as per Dean anyway, IIRC). Harry gets to be Seeker his first year - something Draco really wanted. Harry has the better broom. After Harry's arrival, and directly because of his actions, Gryffindor starts winning the house cup each year. I agree that Draco brings a lot of his grief on himself. He so wants to beat Harry and it always ends in failure. He should probably write defeating Harry off as a lost cause and slink off down to the dungeons. But he's a tenacious little bastard (love Nora's "Energizer Bunny of Schoolboy Nasties" btw ) and so he'll keep trying and trying. Weirdly enough, this is one of the things I like about Draco. For all that we describe him as cowardly and pathetic and weak, he will not give up, no matter how badly he's been hit before. (As an aside, I think if JKR would let Draco win now and again, I'd have less sympathy for him as a reader.) >>SSSusan: >Draco's father has brought these things upon himself & his family by his own choices & actions; the things didn't happen *to* him. One reaps what one sows, no? And while Draco was not involved in the actions directly, don't all signs indicate that he approves of his father's choices & actions? >As for the mature response being to separate Draco from his father's sins in order to feel compassion for Draco, well, how `bout the reverse? Should Draco be able to separate Harry from who/what his parents were [Draco's dad's boss's enemies] and feel compassion for this boy who TRULY lost his father... AND his mother... and not just to prison, but forever?< Betsy: This is where folks got confused last time. Let me try and be clearer. *I* feel sympathy for Harry. *I* feel sympathy for Draco. I do not, however, expect either boy to feel sympathy for *each other*. Not in this situation. Draco won't care that his father was trying to kill Harry. He just cares that his beloved father was taken away and by that spoiled brat Potter, who always gets what he wants. Harry won't care that Draco is now fatherless. He just cares that Lucius is evil, part of the reason Sirius died, and Draco is just a spoiled little Malfoy, and probably as bad as his father. Same with the "compassion" argument. I do not expect to see a Gryffindor showing compassion towards a Slytherin. Nor do I expect to see the reverse. Those two houses have been enemies for so long (something that I think has been forshadowed to change) that it would be wildly out of character and widely disapproved of within each house for one to show compassion towards another. And because these books are being told from a Gryffindor's point of view, we have yet to have an opportunity to see a Slytherin show compassion, be it Draco or Pansy or Flint or Nott. I doubt, however, that it means that Slytherins (or Draco) are completely unable to show compassion. That's the only point I'm trying to make. That we will not see Slytherin house or a Slytherin character in a complete three dimensional way until Harry allows one into his inner circle. Whether that Slytherin will be Draco, I don't know. I really don't. I *hope* he will be. He's a nasty little kid, but he is just a kid, still. There have been hints that his home life is not as happy as Harry et al believe it to be, or as Draco says it is. Draco definitely marches to his father's drum, and if he keeps doing so, he'll end up a Death Eater and most likely dead (I think he'd be a dismal failure as a Death Eater). I think the deck has been stacked against him, and so I hope to see Draco catch a break. There are a few contradictions that *I've* seen in the text. A lot of folks disagree, and I do recognize that I'm grasping at straws (throws a wink at Magda), which is why I'm not comfortable putting my money on a "good" Draco in the end. But I'm still crossing my fingers. :) Betsy, who not only snipped SSSusan fairly ruthlessly but also quoted her out of order. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 23:35:37 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 23:35:37 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125014 >>Richard Jones >I've started to reread OOTP and I have some questions I hope you can all help me with. >(3) The Twins. Molly says after Ron is made Prefect "That's everyone in the family!" (OOTP 9/163) Is that just a set up for George's joke ("What are Fred and I, next door neighbors?") or is it something more?< Betsy: I've always read this scene as a bit more of "toxic mom" Molly coming out. I don't think she does it consciencely, but Molly is excellent at setting part of her brood against the others. The twins are her favorite weapon, though I think she thinks she's trying to keep the twins in check. But after comments like what you quoted above, it's no wonder the twins go out of their way to make Ron's job as Prefect hard. Molly did similar things to Percy. The twins made his life fairly hellish as well. I know the Weasleys are supposed to be the "perfect" family, but IMO, Molly is far from the "perfect" mom. Betsy From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Wed Feb 23 00:17:27 2005 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:17:27 -0000 Subject: JKR cheat with the prophecy - Time Will Tell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125015 > > Julia > > > > ... > > I think you didn't understand me. IMO there couldn't have been any > > chance for Mrs Longbottom to do it because of the part of > > prophecy "and DL will mark him as his equal" (which btw is BEFORE > > the statement about the powers of the baby - ... so it can indicate > > that the choice will be made before the sacrifice. This part didn't > > refer to Neville and will never do - Neville has NEVER been > > Voldemort's equal (halfblood) so Alice couldn't make her sacrifice > > because Voldemort wasn't predicted to be after Neville. > > > > I didn't question Alice's abilities or powers I'm sure that if she > > were Lily she would have done the same BUT she never got the > > chance!!!! Neville was NEVER meant as a target. > > > > Julia > > > bboyminn: > > The problem is that you are making the same /assumption/ that > Dumbledore made. You are assuming you know why Voldemort went after > Harry first. > > It's entirely possible it was the (figuratively) flip of a coin; > heads-Harry first, tails-Neville second, or it could be that the > opportunity, via Peter-the Secret Keeper, to attack the Potters came > up first, so Big-V attacked Harry before Neville. > > There is nothing but Dumbledore's assumption that Voldemort > consciously choose Harry, it may have been random chance, coincidence, > or bad luck. > Julia: Ok, I agree with you that i based my theory on DD's assumptions and we can't tell if they're true or not. However, I don't think that it was only "a luck" that Harry was the first baby to go after. It seems rather strange that Voldemort didn't think about where to go first - he isn't stupid, he is rather intelligent and IMO he had to follow some logical assumption - and it's highly possible that what DD think is really true. I simply think that it was too important for Voldemort to choose the baby at random. He had to have some plan, some logical plan. > Also note that Dumbledore says the it's NOT the mark on Harry's > forehead that /marks/ him, it's Voldemort's choice. Julia: But don't you think that this two things are basicly the same? I mean the scar on Harry's forehead is the effect of Voldemort's choice. But I agree with you - the choice was first so this marks him before we can see any sign of it. > In addition, since the Prophecy plays out over many many years, it's > nothing but a guess as to whether one specific event actually is the > fulfillment of the vague language of the Prophecy. It's entirely > possible that somewhere in the next two books, Voldemort will somehow > mark Neville as an equal. Keep in mind that in Brit-Speak, 'mark' > doesn't always mean to place a physical mark upon. It also means 'to > make note of' as in 'mark my words' which means 'make a note of my > words'. Julia: I still keep in mind JKR's words that she made that prophecy very carefully... Still, I think it's rather safe to assume that what happened in GH was a partial fulfillment of the prophecy. But of course generally speaking we can never be sure if the specific even is a fulfillment or not. However in this case... it seems to complicated for the children book. Of course I don't say that Neville won't play a significant role in the next two books - I'm sure this character will be highly relevant to the plot. > So, the whole fulfillment of the Prophecy is based on assumptions and > best-guess interpretations. Some say that Harry's first encounter > fulfills much of the Prophecy; Harry is chosen, Harry is given power > that the Dark Lord doesn't understand, Harry is marked, the Dark Lord > is vanguished. Of course, others believe that many of those events are > yet to come. So, the first interpretation implies that Harry has > already vanguished Voldemort, given that apparent fulfillment, > should/could/would Harry vanquish him again? The Prophecy doesn't say > Harry will vanquish the Dark Lord twice. So, is the /Vanquishing/ the > Prophecy speaks of in the past, or is it yet to come? Is the TRUE > prophecied /marking/ in the past or yet to come? Julia: I highly doubt that marking is yet to come and that vanquishing the dark Lord mentioned in the prophecy refers to the events in GH. I think that the prophecy can be fully understand and correctly interpreted only when it is considered as a whole - so we have to take into consideration the whole text of the prophecy at the time. And when we do it we see that Harry couldn't have vanquish DL already because the prophecy states "neither can live while the other survives". Harry survived and Voldie still lives - the prophecy wasn't fulfilled. As to /marking/ I don't think that where should be any doubts here too. I mean, Harry is marked in both ways - he has a scar and there is a mental connection between him and Voldie. Red Hen states that Harry has been marked even by a part of Voldie's soul! IMO we cannot question that! And also, it's Harry who is a hero of the series and there is only two books left - I think it's safe to assume that he has been already marked! (and that it wouldn't be Neville in the end cause Harry is the hero not Neville!) > > It begs the question, does the prophecy force the future to fit the > prophecy, or do we take life-events and through assumptions, > interpretations, and best-guesses force them to fit the prophecy? > > Only time will tell ...or will it? > > Steve/bboyminn Julia: I think that the prophecy simply predicts the future and is meant to predict what exactly is going to happen - without any chance for changing (by choices of free will) it after it was made. And the case is to interpret it correctly - and I this is the role of DoM. Julia From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Wed Feb 23 00:28:32 2005 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:28:32 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125016 > >>Richard Jones > >I've started to reread OOTP and I have some questions I hope you > can all help me with. > > >(3) The Twins. Molly says after Ron is made Prefect "That's > everyone in the family!" (OOTP 9/163) Is that just a set up for > George's joke ("What are Fred and I, next door neighbors?") or is it > something more?< > > > Betsy: > > I've always read this scene as a bit more of "toxic mom" Molly > coming out. I don't think she does it consciencely, but Molly is > excellent at setting part of her brood against the others. The > twins are her favorite weapon, though I think she thinks she's > trying to keep the twins in check. > > But after comments like what you quoted above, it's no wonder the > twins go out of their way to make Ron's job as Prefect hard. Molly > did similar things to Percy. The twins made his life fairly hellish > as well. I know the Weasleys are supposed to be the "perfect" > family, but IMO, Molly is far from the "perfect" mom. > Julia: I've read an essay at Ren Hen: http://redhen-publications.com/Weasleys.html about Molly and the whole Weasley family and I can assure you that I now see Molly in completly different light. Now the Weasleys don't seem to be lucky to have each other... really worth reading! As to the quote - I'm very suspicious about tha one too. I can't imagine that mother can ever be in such state of shock that she can'r remember her two sons. But I don't know what to think about it. Maybe she is refering to some other family - not the Weasleys? Because I refuse to believe that the twins and Ginny don't belong to the Weasley family... or that molly forgot about it! Julia From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 01:53:38 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 01:53:38 -0000 Subject: Resolving (?) the Riddle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125017 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" wrote: > > Since reading OoP, I've come to (slowly) realize that the main > questions in HP revolve, not Harry Potter, but Voldemort. (snip) > > Then came the interview, where JKR directed us to think of the two > questions: > 1) Why didn't Voldemort die in GH? > 2) Why didn't DD try to kill him in the MoM? Snipped a Brilliant post! Tonks now: Steve and I were discussing DD and LV a few weeks ago. I think that we concluded that DD doesn't try to kill LV because LV takes possession of any person that AK's him. LV survives because he possesses others. Steve said that at GH, since LV was the one to use the curse and it rebounded to kill him that he had no other body to possess and therefore became *mist*. I think your theory can also fit with this concept. I have a theory that the reason that Jesus tells us not to return evil for evil is that the evil a person gives out causes more evil to exist in the world. One could say that it makes LV stronger. I think that when a person makes the choice to do an act of evil, such as an unforgivable curse, they are giving LV more power. This negative power or evil is increased both in the person and in the world on a comic scale. When we turn from evil LV becomes a little weaker. This I believe is true in the RW as well. (On some level the WW, MW, and RW are one.) Even the RW wizards and witches have a saying that what you give out comes back to you 3 fold. It is called the *Rule of Three*. If you give evil out it comes back 3 times as much. Now it is interesting that 2 things as diverse as Christianity and real witchcraft say the same thing on this topic. And of course we can see it is true in practice in the RW. If someone wrongs you and you take revenge, things often go from bad to worse. Whereas, if you respond in a loving way it can neutralize some of the evil. I think that this neutralizing effect can have cosmic significance. Will we ever really know how much all of the acts of love, and especially sacrificial love that occurred during the Second World War actually kept Hitler from winning? I wonder what a scientist would say about this concept. Is there any quantum physics, string theory or whatever that would have any bearing on the concept of what you give out comes back stronger? Or types of energy neutralizing each other? I know that some say that the energy of Love is a higher frequency energy and that evil is a weaker lower frequency. That is what philosophy says. What would science say? I love your idea of the 2 natures of LV. As Renee said in her post, this makes LV the anti-Christ. I think many things are coming together here. Again thank you for such a through provoking post. Tonks_op From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 00:13:52 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:13:52 -0000 Subject: Resolving (?) the Riddle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125018 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" wrote: > > One person, dual nature > > Another thing that made me sit up in OoP was the cryptic "divided in > essence". Several have conjectured that this refers to Harry and > Voldemort. It's possible, but not really satisfying. Harry and > Voldemort are two individuals. There is a connection between them, > but why should there be any question about them sharing essence? a_svirn: You know, that's funny ? I have a similar theory, but not quite. Although, I admit until certain point my reasoning is somewhat similar to yours. I agree about snakiness, and non-humanness of Voldemort etc, BUT: You say: "There is a connection between them, but why should there be any question about them sharing essence?" The thing is we have enough clues by now to assume that this connection ? whatever it is ? is the crux of the matter. The whole story starts and ends (as we know on the best authority) with the Scar, which represents the connection. We know that Harry lived because of Lilly's sacrifice. Of course there could be more to it than that, but this explanation seemed satisfactory enough to Riddle, so we can accept it too. But why, and more importantly HOW did LV survived? We know that his human body disintegrated and all his powers but one (the ability to share others' minds) gone. What does it leave? And where did the rest of his powers go? Funnily enough we know that at least some of it went to Harry. The issue first arises in CoS when everyone believes that Harry is the heir of Slytherin because of his ability to talk to snakes; and Harry himself is troubled by his "second slytherin nature" that had been detected by the Hat from the start. This is where we learn that LV unwillingly transmitted part of his powers to Harry via the connection forged by the failed curse. Now, Harry who was still new to the WW might not think it a peculiar occurrence and therefore did not pursue the issue, but we know better by now, don't we? What exactly does it mean "transmitted some of his powers"? Was it all that he transmitted, or did he pass on something else for a good measure? Something that would account for Harry's hidden slytherin qualities? Something that makes Harry look similar to Tom Riddle? (A fact Riddle had commented upon, which DD found interesting). How did it come about that part of his abilities stayed with him and part went to Harry? It would probably sound farfetched but I think that the answer is indeed in this divided "snake-human" nature of LV. Both LV and DD have strongly implied on number of occasions that LV is not quite human. Although at the face-to-face confrontation DD calls LV "Tom" usually he insists on calling him by "his proper name ? Voldemort" which suggests that he is no longer Tom Riddle (who was just a human being albeit a magical one). On the other hand, LV identifies himself with Tom Riddle. I think it leaves us with a somewhat composite part-human-Riddle, part-Voldemort-snake-monster being. And whichever way you look at it the Riddle part is still mortal because of it humanness and, more importantly, WAS mortal at the night in GH. If I am right so far, what did happen when the Curse backfired? He lost his body ? that much we know for certain. His snake-monster immortal part stayed behind in a somewhat vapory state. Did the TomRiddlish rest of him die then? Hardly, because if that were the case there would be no hope for him to be resurrected completely. Where did it go then? I hate to say it, but it looks like it went straight to Harry through this proverbial connection. Which stands to reason, after all a living soul (or whatever JKR choose to call it) can only dwell in a living body. And in OotP we are given enough hints to suspect that there is something rather alien in Harry, something that he started to feel after LV had risen again. Something that DD is able to detect looking in his eyes. And finally something that activates the connection between Harry and LV. Could it be that it is that missing tom-ridlish mortal part of Voldemrt? If I am right that would be the key to the part of the prophesy LV didn't learn: "And either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives". LV must get rid of Harry in order to recover his third missing "tomriddlish" part otherwise he is not properly alive, and should he succeed Harry wouldn't be alive any longer. At least not as "Harry Potter" (LV could possibly decide to exchange his artificially made body for Harry's"). That's what the final confrontation will be about ? the battle for the soul, not just some sophisticated wizarding duel. That's why DD was so pleased that despite the fact that Harry couldn't close his mind to LV he expelled him with his hart. a_svirn From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 02:25:34 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 02:25:34 -0000 Subject: JKR cheat with the prophecy - Point of Destiny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125019 Julia again: I really don't know why you think that it's the weakest assumption that Alice wouldn't have had the chance to sacrifice her... I think you didn't understand me. IMO there couldn't have been any chance for Mrs Longbottom to do it because of the part of prophecy "and DL will mark him as his equal" (which btw is BEFORE the statement about the powers of the baby - provided by mother's sacrifice - so it can indicate that the choice will be made before the sacrifice. This part didn't refer to Neville and will never do - Neville has NEVER been Voldemort's equal (halfblood) so Alice couldn't make her sacrifice because Voldemort wasn't predicted to be after Neville. I didn't question Alice's abilities or powers I'm sure that if she were Lily she would have done the same BUT she never got the chance!!!! Neville was NEVER meant as a target. vmonte responds: It's not until after the attack that everyone realizes that Harry has become the one marked by Voldemort. Before the attack the prophecy could have been about either child, Harry or Neville. And if both mothers had performed the same spell on their child, then technically, the same result (vapormort) would have happened at the Longbottom house. And this brings me to another thought. Why wasn't Alice and Frank killed I wonder? The DEs seemed very happy and willing to kill entire families before the Longbottom attack. I wonder if they were afraid to kill Alice in case she had the same sort of protection Lily did. Vivian From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 02:26:56 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 02:26:56 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125020 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Julia" wrote: > > > > >>Richard Jones (Snip) Molly says after Ron is made Prefect "That's > > everyone in the family!" (OOTP 9/163) Is that just a set up for > > George's joke ("What are Fred and I, next door neighbors?") or is it something more?< > > > > > Julia: > > I've read an essay at Ren Hen: > http://redhen-publications.com/Weasleys.html > about Molly and the whole Weasley family and I can assure you that I now see Molly in completly different light. Now the Weasleys don't seem to be lucky to have each other... really worth reading! > > As to the quote - I'm very suspicious about tha one too. I can't > imagine that mother can ever be in such state of shock that she > can'r remember her two sons. But I don't know what to think about > it. Tonks here: I read the Ren Hen article and I do not agree with it. But this post got me to thinking. There is another part in SS/PS where Molly gets the twins mixed up and they say "honestly woman and you call yourself our mother". What if she isn't their mother? What if the twins and Ginny are the children of Molly's bother that was killed in the War? They don't mention it because Molly and Arthur treat all of the kids the same. And Ron would have been about a year old at the time, and Ginny a baby. Only the older kids know and no one ever discusses it. It would be a kick wouldn't it. Harry gone to live with his Aunt. And Fred, George and Ginny gone to live with theirs, and the vast difference in the way that the orphans are treated. Would be like JKR to do something like that to us. It is a bit odd for Molly to forget that she has 3 other children who have not been prefects. She was so excited that it slipped out. Only rational explanation IMO. Tonks_op From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 02:42:45 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 02:42:45 -0000 Subject: JKR cheat with the prophecy - Time Will Tell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125021 >Steve/bboyminn wrote: In addition, since the Prophecy plays out over many many years, it's nothing but a guess as to whether one specific event actually is the fulfillment of the vague language of the Prophecy. It's entirely possible that somewhere in the next two books, Voldemort will somehow mark Neville as an equal. Keep in mind that in Brit-Speak, 'mark' doesn't always mean to place a physical mark upon. It also means 'to make note of' as in 'mark my words' which means 'make a note of my words'. vmonte responds: It's not just Brit-Speak, Americans, use it in the same ways. Vivian http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=mark From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 02:46:22 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 02:46:22 -0000 Subject: LV - ugly baby Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125022 Does anyone have any idea how it is that LV lost his body, became vapor and later appears as an ugly baby in the graveyard?? If he is mist, where did this physical baby thing come from? And what is it? At one point I thought it was an Incubus, but I really don't know much about them and I am not sure if they look like a baby. What is the ugly baby thing?? Tonks-OP From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 02:47:53 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 02:47:53 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125023 Tonks here: I read the Ren Hen article and I do not agree with it. But this post got me to thinking. There is another part in SS/PS where Molly gets the twins mixed up and they say "honestly woman and you call yourself our mother". What if she isn't their mother? What if the twins and Ginny are the children of Molly's bother that was killed in the War? They don't mention it because Molly and Arthur treat all of the kids the same. And Ron would have been about a year old at the time, and Ginny a baby. Only the older kids know and no one ever discusses it. It would be a kick wouldn't it. Harry gone to live with his Aunt. And Fred, George and Ginny gone to live with theirs, and the vast difference in the way that the orphans are treated. Would be like JKR to do something like that to us. It is a bit odd for Molly to forget that she has 3 other children who have not been prefects. She was so excited that it slipped out. Only rational explanation IMO. Alla: I don't agree with Red Hen's article either for the most part of it. I mean, I would be the last one to call Molly a "perfect mother". She is far from it, IMO, but no way I would call her a toxic mother, either. I see Weasleys as loving family and really, if we were to do some comparison of families in the series, I don't know whether there are families who are presented in more favorable light than Weasleys. ( Sure, some parts of Molly's parenting REALLY gets to me. Strangely enough, "robes scene" is probably one that gets to me the most. But I only have to remember Molly's boggart scene and I can forgive her many things. I see a mother who loves ALL her children and who is terrifying of losing ALL her children in war. Tonks, yes, the assumption about Fred and George being Molly's nephews was made at some point ( I think). I think you are the first one to include Ginny in it though. I am not sure if I agree with it, especially about Ginny, but in any event I don't think Molly forgot about twins on purpose. Just my opinion, Alla, whose favourite Weasleys ARE twins and Ginny. From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 03:07:11 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 03:07:11 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125024 Betsy: I've always read this scene as a bit more of "toxic mom" Molly coming out. I don't think she does it consciencely, but Molly is excellent at setting part of her brood against the others. The twins are her favorite weapon, though I think she thinks she's trying to keep the twins in check. But after comments like what you quoted above, it's no wonder the twins go out of their way to make Ron's job as Prefect hard. Molly did similar things to Percy. The twins made his life fairly hellish as well. I know the Weasleys are supposed to be the "perfect" family, but IMO, Molly is far from the "perfect" mom. vmonte responds: You obviously don't come from a large family. This particular scene with Fred and George made me laugh because it's a typical moment in my family. My mother will look right at me and call me by my sister's name, or my cousin's, or her sister's, etc. And I'll often joke in the same manner as Fred and George. My mother's response is always: "You know what I mean!" Molly is not a bad mother. She is tired and stressed out and has a large family to take care of. She cares about her children and is over protective because she is still traumatized by what happened the first time Voldemort was in power. Remember that she lost both her brothers (along with their wives and children) in the first war. Vivian From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Feb 23 03:32:13 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 03:32:13 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125025 > Betsy, who not only snipped SSSusan fairly ruthlessly but also > quoted her out of order. SSSusan: I have NO problem w/ snipping ruthlessly or rearranging the order of comments as long as things still make sense... and they do. Besides, I'm going to rearrange yours, too. :-) Betsy: > That's the only point I'm trying to make. That we will not see > Slytherin house or a Slytherin character in a complete three > dimensional way until Harry allows one into his inner circle. > Whether that Slytherin will be Draco, I don't know. I really > don't. SSSusan: I couldn't agree with this more. I suspect if these books were written from a Slytherin's PoV, we'd be saying the same thing -- that we'll never see a 3-D Gryffindor, as opposed to just a bunch of "goody-two-shoes," until one of them entered the Slytherin inner circle. Betsy: > He's a nasty little kid, but he is just a kid, > still. There have been hints that his home life is not as happy as > Harry et al believe it to be, or as Draco says it is. Draco > definitely marches to his father's drum, and if he keeps doing so, > he'll end up a Death Eater and most likely dead SSSusan: As long as you would also cut James & Sirius some slack for the pensieve scene with Snape by saying they were just *kids.* If you do, then you're consistent in your view. If you don't, then I'd point out that they're close to one & the same thing: mean, nasty, bullying behavior from 15-year-olds. Betsy: > But he's a tenacious little bastard (love Nora's "Energizer Bunny > of Schoolboy Nasties" btw ) and so he'll keep trying and > trying. Weirdly enough, this is one of the things I like about > Draco. For all that we describe him as cowardly and pathetic and > weak, he will not give up, no matter how badly he's been hit > before. (As an aside, I think if JKR would let Draco win > now and again, I'd have less sympathy for him as a reader.) SSSusan: And here's where we still differ. If Draco's "losses" were in everyday, run-of-the-mill, non-morally-charged things like being passed over for the Quidditch team or for Prefect or for getting points taken away unfairly by a teacher who just doesn't like him, I might be able to feel bad for him. As it is, I see his "losses" coming out of his own poor or immoral or cruel choices. So I just still see very little to like about him or his behavior. Siriusly Snapey Susan From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 03:52:49 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 03:52:49 -0000 Subject: LV - ugly baby In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125026 Tonks wrote: Does anyone have any idea how it is that LV lost his body, became vapor and later appears as an ugly baby in the graveyard?? If he is mist, where did this physical baby thing come from? And what is it? At one point I thought it was an Incubus, but I really don't know much about them and I am not sure if they look like a baby. What is the ugly baby thing?? vmonte responds: HAHA. I don't know? Maybe he possessed a snake he came across somewhere. He seems to really like to possess other people, maybe he can do the same with snakes. Vivian From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 04:03:44 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 04:03:44 -0000 Subject: Resolving (?) the Riddle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125027 a_svirn wrote: If I am right so far, what did happen when the Curse backfired? He lost his body ? that much we know for certain. His snake-monster immortal part stayed behind in a somewhat vapory state. Did the TomRiddlish rest of him die then? Hardly, because if that were the case there would be no hope for him to be resurrected completely. Where did it go then? I hate to say it, but it looks like it went straight to Harry through this proverbial connection. Which stands to reason, after all a living soul (or whatever JKR choose to call it) can only dwell in a living body. And in OotP we are given enough hints to suspect that there is something rather alien in Harry, something that he started to feel after LV had risen again. Something that DD is able to detect looking in his eyes. And finally something that activates the connection between Harry and LV... vmonte responds: We've talked about this before about a year ago and then again a few months ago. I've also thought about this possibility and Red Hen also has this theory. It's called the Changeling!Harry variant theory. http://www.redhen-publications.com/Changeling.html Vivian From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 04:52:22 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 04:52:22 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125028 Betsy: But he's a tenacious little bastard (love Nora's "Energizer Bunny of Schoolboy Nasties" btw ) and so he'll keep trying and trying. Weirdly enough, this is one of the things I like about Draco. For all that we describe him as cowardly and pathetic and weak, he will not give up, no matter how badly he's been hit before. (As an aside, I think if JKR would let Draco win now and again, I'd have less sympathy for him as a reader.) SSSusan: And here's where we still differ. If Draco's "losses" were in everyday, run-of-the-mill, non-morally-charged things like being passed over for the Quidditch team or for Prefect or for getting points taken away unfairly by a teacher who just doesn't like him, I might be able to feel bad for him. As it is, I see his "losses" coming out of his own poor or immoral or cruel choices. So I just still see very little to like about him or his behavior. Alla: Bingo, Susan. I don't see Draco's losses are morally "neutral" at all, therefore I would like him much more if he actually ... stopped trying, took a breath and realised that he is fighting not only LOSING battle, but WRONG battle, because I believe that right and wrong as moral pirnciples are absolute in "potterverse" ( Lupinlore and Nora argued it so well some time ago). Dumbledore's side is set up as a Right one and Voldemort as Wrong one, therefore yes, I think that Slytherins, including Draco have much MORE difficult road in front of them, ( if Draco is going to travel this road at all, which I HIGHLY doubt) than Harry and Co do, because they are already on the RIGHT side as far as author is concerned, IMO. I mean sure Trio also has a lot of personal development to do, but on a big scale their hearts are in the right place , while Draco's... well, not. Just my opinion of course, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 04:56:48 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 04:56:48 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125029 >>Betsy: >I've always read this scene as a bit more of "toxic mom" Molly coming out.< >>vmonte responds: >You obviously don't come from a large family. This particular scene with Fred and George made me laugh because it's a typical moment in my family. My mother will look right at me and call me by my sister's name, or my cousin's, or her sister's, etc.< Betsy: Actually, I *do* come from a large family, and yes, calling someone by the wrong name is a common and funny part of being in a large family. (In our family the list wasn't complete until you'd run through the dogs' names, too. ) However, that's not what Molly is doing. In her subtle way (and I hope it's unconscious - though the Redhen article has me rethinking that - thanks Julia!) Molly has just set the twins on Ron. She has just made absolutely sure that Fred and George will see Ron as an enemy. And it works. The twins give Ron a much harder time than usual in OotP. And I do think the proof is in the pudding. Her three oldest boys have little to do with her. (Bill and Charlie are out of the country and Percy has refused her entrance to his place.) Ron has resented Molly since we first meet him in PS/SS, and Ginny ignores any rules Molly sets down. Strangely enough, I think the twins have the closest relationship with Molly. They are in open war with each other, but it's one of the twins that goes to hug Molly when Arthur is hurt in OotP, and it's Percy's refusal to see his mother that seems to really upset the twins, IIRC. There's a seriously unhealthy relationship going on there, and I wonder how it will affect the twins later on in life. I think Bill and Charlie get on by shutting their mother out of their lives. Walking away from his family may well do Percy worlds of good. I don't know if the twins are capable of doing a similar thing. >>Vmonte: >Molly is not a bad mother. She is tired and stressed out and has a large family to take care of. She cares about her children and is over protective because she is still traumatized by what happened the first time Voldemort was in power. >Remember that she lost both her brothers (along with their wives and children) in the first war.< Betsy: I think Molly *does* love her children. She's just... not very good for them. She sets them against each other, makes sure the twins have someone in the family to terrorize, doesn't try and stop their rather vicious bulling, and tries to pound the other children into molds of her own making. Yes, she lost her brothers, and yes she fears her children dying -- but encouraging the twins to attack Ron and Percy is not a healthy response to the stress. It's also not the common activity of a large family. It didn't happen in my family, thank goodness. We are all proud of each other's achievments, and were allowed to grow in which ever direction we wished -- something Molly seems reluctant to give her children, unfortunately. Betsy, who appreciates her mom even more now! From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 05:17:45 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:17:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and Quirrell in the Dark Forest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050223051745.23573.qmail@web31102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125030 Joe: While rereading the canon--in anticipation of July 16th--I ran across the passage in PS/SS where Snape and Quirrell are discussing things in the Dark Forest: Question: Wouldn't this make Snape a useless spy? (To say nothing of an endangered one...) Voldemort would know (directly if he was hiding under the turban, indirectly if he wasn't at the time but took up subturban residency later and learned through Quirrell, right? Thoughts? -Joe in SoFla Arynn: When I first read the book, and found out that Quirrell was the actual bad guy, I immediatly came up with this thoery. It surprises me that other people didn't think of it too, though only time will till if I am right. As Harry is listening to the conversation, he assumes that Snape is after the stone. When he later finds out more info, he then assumes that Snape was actually tring to find out if Q was after it. Maybe the real answer is somewhere in between. My theory: Snape knew that Q was after the stone and he needed to figure out how much info Q had, so he pretended to be after the stone himself. Even If Voldy had been there at the time (I assume he was) this wouldn't have sent any of his alarms off. Voldy is a smart man, and he knows that his followers are selfish people, that's why he needs to keep them in check with fear and blackmail. If he found out that Snape was after the stone, he probablly assumes that he would be after it for himself. If I were an evil genius like Voldy, I would be surprised if a follower like Snape would be so loyal to DD that he would pass over an awesome posession like the stone. In fact knowing his followers like he does, he would expect them to want the stone. If I were Voldy in this situation, I would see which of my followers (Snape or Q) got the stone, whichever it was is obviously the better (and therefore more useful) wizard. After he got it, I would make myself known to him, and get it from him. If he is loyal, then I have a new ally, if he is not then I kill him, and take it anyway. Well that's my thoery anyway, do with it what you will. --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 05:25:25 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:25:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050223052525.90491.qmail@web31111.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125031 Betsy: I think Molly *does* love her children. She's just... not very good for them. but encouraging the twins to attack Ron and Percy is not a healthy response to the stress. Arynn: I must have missed the part where she encourages the twins to attack their siblings, if it does exist, please point it out, cos that would be significant. But, as far as I can tell, she only ever cries when Percy is mentioned in OotP. And I think I would have noticed if she had done anything of the sort with regards to Ron (who is one of my two favourite characters). But if I'm wrong, please tell me!! --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 05:43:40 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 05:43:40 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125032 >>SSSusan: >As long as you would also cut James & Sirius some slack for the pensieve scene with Snape by saying they were just *kids.* If you do, then you're consistent in your view. If you don't, then I'd point out that they're close to one & the same thing: mean, nasty, bullying behavior from 15-year-olds.< Betsy: Hmm. I had to think about this one, 'cause I've posted on this very subject and don't want to get caught out in an opposing quote! But, I believe that I do give Sirius and James *some* slack. In that, I fully believe that James *does* grow up and finally makes his stated ideology his own. I think Sirius had a little further to go, and I'm not sure if he made it or not. The fact that he does move out of his parents home a year after this incident gives me some hope. I think Lily was a big help for James, and poor Sirius got Azkaban - so I think James matured a bit more than Sirius was given a chance to. Though, I'd also point out that Draco has never done a similar thing to Harry. Not that he wouldn't want to, of course. But that JKR never wrote such a scene for Draco (which would *really* solidify his reputation as a nasty little bully) is an example of Draco's general failure to fulfill the "school bully" role, correctly. (Strangely enough, I think Fred and George fit that bill a bit better.) Also, as far as we know, James and Sirius never recieved punishment for their behavior. (And we *do* know that Sirius almost killed a fellow student, without much punishment.) Which is also not typical for Draco. >>SSSusan: >And here's where we still differ. If Draco's "losses" were in everyday, run-of-the-mill, non-morally-charged things like being passed over for the Quidditch team or for Prefect or for getting points taken away unfairly by a teacher who just doesn't like him, I might be able to feel bad for him. As it is, I see his "losses" coming out of his own poor or immoral or cruel choices. So I just still see very little to like about him or his behavior.< Betsy: Yeah, I don't see a real meeting of minds occuring here either. I just don't see Draco as being *that* cruel, or full out evil anyway. He's petty, yes, and rather nasty. But none of the pranks he's pulled (or attempted to pull anyway) would have resulted in a student's death. (Even the dementor trick was meant to just throw Harry off his game. I don't think Draco and Flint *really* thought Harry would pass out and fall off his broom. They weren't real dementors after all.) The worst thing Draco attempted to do was to ambush Harry on the train. I doubt he was considering *killing* Harry (would fifth years even know how to kill with their wands?), though he probably would have kicked him while he was down. So far, nothing JKR has had Draco do has passed into horribly bad behavior, IMO. Bad behavior, yes - but not *horrible*. And, as I've gone into before, Draco's punishments are so often *way* above and beyond whatever crime he commited it almost negates the wrong he did (or attempted to do) in the first place. So, I still like the boy, and hope he's got a brighter future than Death Eater dead man waiting for him. Betsy From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 05:56:16 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 05:56:16 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: <20050223052525.90491.qmail@web31111.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125033 >>Arynn: >I must have missed the part where she encourages the twins to attack their siblings, if it does exist, please point it out, cos that would be significant. But, as far as I can tell, she only ever cries when Percy is mentioned in OotP. And I think I would have noticed if she had done anything of the sort with regards to Ron (who is one of my two favourite characters). But if I'm wrong, please tell me!!< Betsy: She doesn't come right out and tell Fred and George to make Percy's and to a certain extent Ron's life a living hell, but Molly does make sure to constantly hold Percy up to the twins as the "good" son, from PS/SS on. And she pushes Ron into that role in OotP. By praising Percy and then Ron and constantly brow-beating the twins and holding up their "better" brothers as proper role models, Molly is setting the twins up to resent Percy and then Ron. As I said earlier, I don't think she knows what she's doing (I hope anyway). But by forcing her children to compete for her affection and praise Molly is not creating a healthy home or a healthy sibling relationship. And her behavior helped drive Percy away. It will be interesting to see what will happen with Ron. Maybe the war will distract her and she won't lose a fourth son. (Plus, I'm not all that impressed with her tears in OotP, now that I think about it. Molly is ensuring that her remaining children will see Percy as the enemy and refuse to forgive his breaking away from her and Arthur. Proper parental behavior would be to keep the children out of it.) Betsy From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 06:58:21 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:58:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050223065822.96689.qmail@web31110.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125034 Betsy: She doesn't come right out and tell Fred and George to make Percy's and to a certain extent Ron's life a living hell, but Molly does make sure to constantly hold Percy up to the twins as the "good" son, Arynn: Okay I see where you are coming from. I can relate to the fact that if you are constantly compaired to siblings in a bad way it can hurt the relationship with the parents and the brothers. In my case(as in Fred and George's) I was the one causing the trouble in the house, but I fixed the prolem by the time I was 14. It seems to me though, that all of the Weasly kids seem to disregard what Molly says. As in my childhood, I assume that it's the case where if you explode so often, it's much less impressive when you do get mad. My father was the calm one so we knew that if we got him mad, we were really out of line (I've done it twice in my lifetime), mom on the other hand, would yell at us daily. This seems the perfect example of the Weasley way. Betsy: (Plus, I'm not all that impressed with her tears in OotP, now that I think about it. Molly is ensuring that her remaining children will see Percy as the enemy and refuse to forgive his breaking away from her and Arthur. Proper parental behavior would be to keep the children out of it.) Arynn: Normally I would agree, but they are in hiding, and there aren't many oppourtunities to get away when you live in a house, full of all these people, that also doubles as a strategic headquarters for fighting evil. The whole time that Harry was there Ron, Hermione, Fred, George, and Ginny never even leave the house. My family was in a shelter during Hurricane George and we stayed in a large office buliding on base in a room about a third of the size of the great hall of the HP movies. There were 15 families in there with us for a week. Tensions got pretty high, especailly among the smokers who couldn't go out to smoke. We didn't even have ekeltricity for half the time. There were quite a few shouting matches and tears. Luckily the MP were there to keep order. --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From empooress at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 04:34:56 2005 From: empooress at yahoo.com (Kim McGibony) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:34:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Some OOTP Questions In-Reply-To: <1109061688.12374.21275.m10@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20050223043456.76972.qmail@web52104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125035 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Richard > Jones" > wrote: > > > > (5) The Guard. Why was only Arthur walking Harry > to the Ministry for > > his hearing (OOTP 7/122) when they such a big deal > about having a > > guard (and advanced guard) to get Harry to 12 > Grimmauld Place and to > > the train station? While we do hear a great deal about the guard for Harry going to Grimmauld Place and the train station and nothing about such an arragement when Harry goes to the MOM for his hearing, I had always assumed that there was a guard even if it wasn't mention. Others, perhaps transfigured or under invisiblity coats. Going to Grimmauld Place would required a heavier guard as he is being taken to a secret place and perhaps it was thought that since dementors had been involved that they might have tipped off DEs as to that location. And pretty much everyone in the WW would know when the train leaves for Hogwarts. Travelling thru muggle London on the subway would seem to present less of a threat and would most certainly have not been a mode of transportation used by most wizards. Empooress __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Wed Feb 23 10:00:46 2005 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:00:46 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125036 > Tonks: > What if she isn't their mother? What if the twins and Ginny are the children of Molly's bother that was killed in the War? > >They don't mention it because Molly and Arthur treat all of the kids the same. And Ron would have been about a year old at the time, and Ginny a baby. Only the older kids know and no one ever discusses it. It is a bit odd for Molly to forget that she has 3 other children who have not been prefects. She was so excited that it slipped out. Only rational explanation IMO. Julia: yes, it was an explanation I was looking for. Now that I think about it it seems rather possible. But... If the Prewetts broter had children where are their wives? Where are the mothers of the twins and Ginny? Still I think if it isn't the true we can be really close. Alla: > I see Weasleys as loving family and really, if we were to do some comparison of families in the series, I don't know whether there are families who are presented in more favorable light than Weasleys. ( > > Sure, some parts of Molly's parenting REALLY gets to me. Strangely enough, "robes scene" is probably one that gets to me the most. Julia: I agree that the Weasley family is presented in a very favorable light but still it's not perfect. There is a conflict between Molly and Arthur and there are other little situations that gives us some true insight (like 'that's everybody in the family!') I don't get this 'robes scene' though... Can you explain what you're thinking about? What about it really gets to you? >vmonte: >You obviously don't come from a large family. This particular scene with Fred and George made me laugh because it's a typical moment in my family. My mother will look right at me and call me by my sister's name, or my cousin's, or her sister's, etc. And I'll often joke in the same manner as Fred and George. My mother's response is always: "You know what I mean!" Remember that she lost both her brothers (along with their wives and children) in the first war. Julia: Yes, there is something about large families that mothers (and gradmothers) do. I'm almost always called by the name of my sister, or my aunt... But, what makes you think that the Prewetts brother had wives?? >Betsy: >I think Molly *does* love her children. She's just... not very good for them. She sets them against each other, makes sure the twins have someone in the family to terrorize, doesn't try and stop their rather vicious bulling, and tries to pound the other children into molds of her own making. Julia: This time I, sadly, can agree with you. You see my mother does the same thing sometimes. I don't think she is doing it on purpose still it hurts sometimes. Of course she doesn't approve of any terrorizing or thing like that but she often interrupts us when me and my sister are having a fight and she stands on her side which makes my even more furious and at that time I hates my sister even more then... I think the same thing is with Molly - she really tries to help but fail to see that she only makes the thinks worse... Julia From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Wed Feb 23 10:12:30 2005 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:12:30 -0000 Subject: How did Dumbledore know about Potters death? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125037 I don't know if someone mention this theory before cause I can't find the right thread... I think that since Dumbledore and the Potters were then in the Order they were in some way connected. So that when some of them die or is in a great danger the other know about it - or maybe just Dumbledore knows. That's why he was able to send Hagrid there (probably he knew through the same system that Harry is still alive)to get baby from the ruins... Just the thought, sorry if that idea's been already discussed Julia From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Wed Feb 23 10:31:45 2005 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:31:45 -0000 Subject: LV - ugly baby In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125038 > Tonks wrote: >Does anyone have any idea how it is that LV lost his body, became vapor and later appears as an ugly baby in the graveyard?? If he is mist, where did this physical baby thing come from? And what is it? > At one point I thought it was an Incubus, but I really don't know much about them and I am not sure if they look like a baby. What is the ugly baby thing?? > > vmonte responds: > HAHA. I don't know? Maybe he possessed a snake he came across > somewhere. He seems to really like to possess other people, maybe he can do the same with snakes. > Julia here: Or it's what you become when you are really really bad? :D heh... I really don't know... i found a description of it from the Goblet of Fire: "It was as though Wormtail had flipped over a stone and revealed something ugly, slimy, and blind - but worse, a hundred times worse. The thing Wormtail had been carrying had the shape of a crouched human child, except that Harry had never seen anything less like a child. It was hairless and scaly-looking, a dark, raw, reddish black. Its arms and legs were thin and feeble, and its face - no child alive ever had a face like that - flat and snakelike, with gleaming red eyes. The thing seemed almost helpless; it raised its thin arms, put them around Wormtail's neck, and Wormtail lifted it." It seems to be something that doesn't exist in the normal world... but maybe it's a creature of WW that Voldie was able to posess? OR maybe when you're really really bad and posess a body you change it in some way? Just a thought Julia From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Feb 23 11:23:37 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:23:37 -0000 Subject: De-bunking Count Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125039 > > > > In Post 124996 Pippin wrote: > > >snip< and *this* is why the Marauders hideout was behind a > > mirror...>snip< > > > > Potioncat: > > I missed that. The Marauders had a hideout behind a mirror? > I'd like to go back and read it. Can you give the chapter? > > > OOP ch 17 --(Sirius speaking) > "There used to be a pretty roomy secret passageway behind that > big mirror on the fourth floor, you might have space to practice > jinxes in there--" > > "Fred and George told me it's blocked," said Harry, shaking his > head. "Caved in or something." > > PoA ch 10 (Fred speaking) > "Don't bother about with the one behind the mirror on the fourth > floor. We used it until last winter, but it's caved in--completely > blocked." > Valky: Yeah *that* hideout, where Peter Pettigrew spent year OOtP... because it's not really caved in, that's just a trick of the eye Tom Riddle Ginny conjured in year COS.... But I am not sure why that would point to Snape being a vampire? Are you saying that Our Marauders *chose* a place that Sevvie would by impulse steer well clear of? That kind of makes sense I suppose. OTOH what about the foe glass, Pippin? Whose foe glass does he appear in? Crouch!Moody's? If that's the case it could also be explained as Sevvie was curious as to why he was Moody's foe, when they are supposedly on the same side. Or maybe he was keeping and eye on it so that he could avert "Moody"'s eye from it and avoid him seeing what might be truth about Snapes alignment in the foe glass.. I just might try to debunk Vampire!Snape, I am fence sitting at the moment... I don't think that Lupin is a veangeful type, he probably set the essay as a cute joke I'd say, but then again I could be convinced otherwise.... Valky From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 11:36:13 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:36:13 -0000 Subject: Molly is not ESE! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125040 Betsy wrote: However, that's not what Molly is doing. In her subtle way (and I hope it's unconscious - though the Redhen article has me rethinking that - thanks Julia!) Molly has just set the twins on Ron. She has just made absolutely sure that Fred and George will see Ron as an enemy. And it works. The twins give Ron a much harder time than usual in OotP. And I do think the proof is in the pudding. Her three oldest boys have little to do with her. (Bill and Charlie are out of the country and Percy has refused her entrance to his place.) Ron has resented Molly since we first meet him in PS/SS, and Ginny ignores any rules Molly sets down. vmonte responds: The twins do not see Ron as the enemy. (I'm sorry, but isn't there anyone on this site that has grown up with a family that teases each other?) My brother is very much like F&G and he is deeply loved by my entire family--relatives included. He is the first person anyone calls when they are in trouble; and the first person invited to any party. He is the one person in my entire family that has the ability to diffuse tense moments in such a way that lets everyone know when we are taking ourselves too seriously. Percy unfortunately, has no sense of humor about himself. I love the scene were F&G give Neville a canary cr?me and Neville turns into a canary. I like that Neville is able to laugh about it just as much as everyone else--that says a lot about him, IMO. Percy on the other hand, would not have handled that well. And I do not believe that F&G hate their brothers. They are joking around and are obviously the clowns of the family. In fact, I think that the fact that they are disappointed in Percy for not going to the hospital points to the fact that they care about him and are upset by what he is doing. And Percy is behaving very badly (I keep hoping that he is working for Dumbledore as a spy or that he will realize what a jerk he has been). Bill and Charlie are grown men with their own lives; and that is the reason why they live outside the country (not because they hate their mother). What I am sure about though, is that this family will stick together when things get tough (unlike the Malfoys). Vivian From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Feb 23 11:38:38 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:38:38 -0000 Subject: Snape's family killed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125041 > Clare: > My theory is that Snape was married with a child. His wife and > child were then killed by Voldemort. This was more than likely an > accident. > Maybe they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Voldemort, > being completely evil, showed no remorse or regret about the > incident. This could explain why Snape changed sides, why he is so > angry, and why DD trusts him so much. > > I would like to hear some thoughts on this theory. > Valky: No debunk yet Clare, I too think that Snape is married. I think his wife is either dying, or else is a ghost. I don't think he has children. IIRC Severus doesn't stay at Hogwarts over Christmas, but OTOH he doesn't appear to have a happy home life to speak of either, so my money is on an existing, but tragic one. As for that being to do with Voldemort and the DE's I think, yes, it probably has. Though I wouldn't be quick to assume that Sanpes wife was an entirely innocent person. Perhaps she was DE, too. I think that whatever tragic thing might have happened to Severus' hypothetical family it *would* have *something* to do with his loyalty to Dumbledore. But I am wandering onto highly speculative ground there. Got any canon Clare? From bob.oliver at cox.net Wed Feb 23 12:32:31 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:32:31 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys, the Weasleys, Hagrid, and Snape: Nice people get a pass Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125042 There has been a lot of discussion about several topics that I think come together. One discussion has been about the Dursleys and Dumbledore. One has been about Snape. One has been about Molly and her parenting techniques. And we have had plenty of discussions in the past about Hagrid and his teaching techniques. Now, I think this raises some interesting points. Why do those of us who despise the Dursleys not get upset when Molly seems to play favorites? Why do those of us who despise Snape not get upset at Hagrid's teaching, which is physically if not emotionally dangerous. Well, the answer of course is that the Weasleys and Hagrid are nice and Snape and the Dursleys aren't. Therefore the former get a pass to a certain extent and the latter don't. And, here is the clencher, I think THAT IS PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE. Now, why? This seems rather unjust, doesn't it? Why should Snape be castigated for snarling comments and Hagrid be given, by and large, a pass for using hyppogriffs? Why should Molly get a pass for behavior that would seem to incite friction among her children and the Dursleys not be given a pass for the different ways in which they treat Harry and Dudley? Well, the answer is that niceness is, for some bizarre reason, rather undervalued in these discussions. The fact is that it isn't very easy to be nice. It is MUCH easier to be cruel, snarky, and uncaring of other people's feelings. People who are nice show that they are willing, to use DD's language, to do "what is right rather than what is easy," not just in the huge questions but, what is harder perhaps and maybe even as important, in the small, everyday things of life. Let's face it, the small things ARE life. And by their behavior, Snape and the Dursleys show they are not, in the matters that make up the vast majority of life, willing to follow the precepts of "right over easy." Therefore, we are perfectly justified in drawing conclusions about them from their daily behavior, and acting toward them in ways consonant with those conclusions. There is a reward in life for being good on a daily basis, or being "nice" if you want to use that term. And the reward is that people are willing to be around you, to get to know you, and to feel compassionate about the problems you face. That often equates into being willing to forgive you daily lapses. If you are not "nice" then you aren't going to get the same consideration. It's the way the world works. Now, people who are good in extraordinary things but not daily things don't get this reward. They get other types of rewards, certainly. I don't think Snape should go to Azkaban for being a DE because he is genuinely trying to make amends, for whatever reason even if it is self-preservation. But it would be inappropriate to excuse his behavior because of his activities for the Order. That is a reward he has not earned. He has earned his freedom, yes. He has earned his place in the Order, yes. He has earned Dumbledore's trust, yes. But he has not earned everyday compassion for his problems and a limited pass for his faults. That is the reward of people who are good in a way he is not. Now, you might say compassion isn't something that should be earned, and goodness is not something that should depend on rewards. I can see the moral argument there, but the fact is that just ain't the way the world works, particularly on the day to day basis on which daily goodness, or "niceness" operates. So, I would say the distinction between "nice" and "good" is false, and misleading (and I would point out it isn't one that JKR herself ever uses, unless I've forgotten something). Rather the distinction is between two different kinds of goodness. Each kind of goodness represents doing what is right rather than what is easy, but in a different type of situation. And each brings with it its own rewards. So, in sum, we give Hagrid a pass and not Snape. And it is perfectly fair and appropriate to do so. And we give Molly a pass and not the Dursleys. And it is perfectly fair and appropriate to do so. Lupinlore From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 12:58:17 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:58:17 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125043 Betsy: Though, I'd also point out that Draco has never done a similar thing to Harry. Not that he wouldn't want to, of course. But that JKR never wrote such a scene for Draco (which would *really* solidify his reputation as a nasty little bully) is an example of Draco's general failure to fulfill the "school bully" role, correctly. (Strangely enough, I think Fred and George fit that bill a bit better.) Also, as far as we know, James and Sirius never recieved punishment for their behavior. (And we *do* know that Sirius almost killed a fellow student, without much punishment.) Which is also not typical for Draco. Alla: Draco dressed up as Dementor hoping that Harry will fall off his broom and falling from the broom could have nasty injuries after it, no? And we don't know that James and Sirius were never punished, actually. We only know that they were not expelled and Hogwarts has plenty of punishments besides that one. :) Betsy: (Even the dementor trick was meant to just throw Harry off his game. I don't think Draco and Flint *really* thought Harry would pass out and fall off his broom. They weren't real dementors after all.) Alla: Draco knew how Harry reacted to real Dementor. Since he did not experience such reaction, I think he assumed that Harry reacted so badly to the looks of real Dementor. So, I think he meant exactly that. JMO of course, Alla From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Feb 23 13:21:59 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:21:59 -0000 Subject: Some Sybil questions (or questions on the Sybil...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125044 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Potioncat: > Well, he was caught, but then again, he wasn't.. > > chp 37 OoP, DD speaking > "...I had not dreamed...I would hear anything worth overhearing. My- - > our--one stroke of good fortune was that the eavesdropper was > detected only a short way into the prophecy and thrown from the > building." > > I don't think I did a very good job of making my point in my earlier > post, so I'll try again. Notice, JKR does not tell us who the > eavesdropper is, although I assume DD knows. Nor does she tell us if > the person was thrown out for eavesdropping or for some other reason. > > It sounds at first read, as if someone saw a person easvesdropping > and threw him out for eavesdropping. But, if the offense was > eavesdropping, wouldn't he have been held until DD could talk to him? > We've been told, DD didn't expect to hear anything important, so it > doesn't seem he told anyone to watch out for eavesdroppers. > > It was a stroke of good fortune, it was luck, it was a coincidence. > No, I think a person (either as a person or as an animal) was > listening, but appeared to be doing something else. I think he was > seen, and tossed out. He was tossed out because the owner didn't want > him around. Maybe he was a known werewolf or a part vampire, or > smelled of tobacco, or appeared as a rodent or a stray dog. Who knows? > > It also isn't clear when DD learned about an eavesdropper. He may not > have known until later, when word got back to him that LV knew about > a prophecy. And he may not have known until after GH who the > eavesdropper was. > > So, to review, I don't think Eavesdropper was seen, tossed out, and > the incident immediately reported to DD. "Well, sir, I tossed him > out just when the lady got to the part about marking the child..." > And if it was one of the Marauders, I don't think DD knew it until it > was too late. > Potioncat Hickengruendler: Yeah, I see what you mean, and I guess it is possible. But I don't think it's very likely, it doesn't really convince me. For example, Dumbledore was in Sybill's room when she made the prophecy. Therefore I suppose the spy listened on the door. And even if it was not the direct reason for throwing him out, I would assume that if Aberforth caught somebody spying on his brother, he would have told Albus. Especially because Albus is the leader in the fight against the most dangerous dark wizard. And at least after Dumbledore learned that Voldemort was after the Potters, he should have suspected the person who spied on him and mentioned it in front of James and Lily. It just seems too much of a stretch for me if Peter were the spy. Personally, I think Snape was the one who spied on Dumbledore, and that's why Dumbledore didn't tell Harry the spy's name, because he wants them to work together and knows that Harry would hate Snape even more if he found out. Then something happened that made Snape changing sides, and he was also the one who tried to warn Dumbledore and the Potters that Voldemort was after them. Therefore Snape is both partly responsible for the Potter's death, but also somebody who wanted to save them. Hickengruendler From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Feb 23 14:51:00 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:51:00 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125045 - > Julia: > yes, it was an explanation I was looking for. Now that I think about it it seems rather possible. But... If the Prewetts broter had > children where are their wives? Where are the mothers of the twins > and Ginny? Potioncat: Checking the dates as given by the Lexicon, it would be possible for the twins and Ginny to be Molly nephews and niece. And it wouldn't be unheard of for both a husband and wife to be killed. But I hope this isn't what JKR is doing. My reason is for a RL example, but one an author could make a mistake in. If Molly and Arthur took the three kids as their own kids, they wouldn't think of them as nephews and niece after 11 years. It might be what JKR is doing, but it is a mistake. On the other hand, I only have one other explanation: Ginny isn't old enough to count yet. And no one ever expected the twins to be in the running. They never wanted to be prefects, or pretended they didn't want to be perfects. It was still an unfortunate thing to say. Potioncat From meriaugust at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 14:50:46 2005 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:50:46 -0000 Subject: LV - ugly baby In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125046 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > Does anyone have any idea how it is that LV lost his body, became > vapor and later appears as an ugly baby in the graveyard?? If he is > mist, where did this physical baby thing come from? And what is it? > At one point I thought it was an Incubus, but I really don't know > much about them and I am not sure if they look like a baby. What is > the ugly baby thing?? > Meri here: IIRC in the Ressurection scene in GoF LV says something to the effect that Wormtail was able to do magic that returned him to/created a temporary, rudimentary body, ie: the scaly baby thing. So maybe Wormtail isn't as inept with a wand as we think. Meri - shuddering just to think about how this is going to look in the upcoming medium who shall not be named...shudder... From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Feb 23 15:17:37 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:17:37 -0000 Subject: De-bunking Count Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125047 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > But I am not sure why that would point to Snape being a vampire? Are you saying that Our Marauders *chose* a place that Sevvie would by impulse steer well clear of? That kind of makes sense I suppose.< Pippin: There are seven secret passages marked on the Marauder's Map (POA ch 10). According to the twins, Filch knows about four of them, but does not know about the one-eyed witch, or the one behind the mirror. If Filch had known about those passages before the Marauders, the Marauders would not have been able to explore them and they wouldn't be on the map. So those four must have been revealed to Filch in the Marauders time, probably through young Snape's information, since he was always following them around trying to get them in trouble. That leaves three other passages. We know that Snape discovered how to enter the Whomping Willow. Snape also seems to suspect the One eyed witch, but not to have learned how to open it. But it appears that he never learned about the passage with the mirror. Why? It could be that they chose it because it would repel Snape, or more likely it repelled Snape and that's why it remained undiscovered. As for the Foe-glass, of course Snape could have had other reasons for wanting to see what it would show him -- but it can't have been to distract Crouch!Moody since he was unconscious at the time. It may also be significant that the Marauder's secret means of communication, and one that Sirius gives to Harry specifically because he is concerned about Snape, is a mirror. Also, the Stone is hidden behind a mirror. Voldemort would not be able to use vampire!Snape to get at it. Pippin From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Feb 23 15:25:57 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:25:57 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003c01c519bb$f9aed310$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 125048 Potioncat: Checking the dates as given by the Lexicon, it would be possible for the twins and Ginny to be Molly nephews and niece. And it wouldn't be unheard of for both a husband and wife to be killed. But I hope this isn't what JKR is doing. My reason is for a RL example, but one an author could make a mistake in. If Molly and Arthur took the three kids as their own kids, they wouldn't think of them as nephews and niece after 11 years. It might be what JKR is doing, but it is a mistake. On the other hand, I only have one other explanation: Ginny isn't old enough to count yet. And no one ever expected the twins to be in the running. They never wanted to be prefects, or pretended they didn't want to be perfects. It was still an unfortunate thing to say. Potioncat Sherry now: I was raised from when I was six to when I was 14, by my dad and his second wife. They divorced when I was 14. However, in all those years, and all the years since, that woman has been my mother. She has not loved me or treated me differently than the two children she and Dad had together. My own mother is alive, but this other woman is my mom in all the ways that count. It doesn't seem like Molly, after all those years would separate the twins in her mind that way, not her blood children. I rather think her comment was more a thing of, well, that's everyone in the family who could possibly be a prefect, so far. We know the twins had no interest in it at all. As far as how the twins react to Ron's becoming a prefect, I never took that to be anything but a lot of teasing. I'm the oldest in my family, and though all my siblings know my love for them, I might have teased them like that, and they would tease me just the same. The twins aren't mean to Ron, they just give him a bad time. Ron's dread of standing up to the twins in his role as prefect strikes me not as fear, but rather, just a matter of not doing that to older prankster brothers. In similar situations, my siblings would never have done such a thing to me. Even though I am the rule follower in our family, for the most part, I wouldn't have taken points from my siblings either. I only ever told my parents something my brother did once, that I thought was serious enough to need parental intervention and involved possible harm to another person. And 30 years later, I'm the only one who remembers the incident, because I still feel guilty about ratting on my brother. I think Molly is a wonderfully loving mother, and I'd loved to have had a mother like her. You never have to wonder how she feels about her kids. She gets angry with all her might, but she loves them with all her might, too! Go Molly! Sherry From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 16:06:48 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:06:48 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125049 Potioncat wrote: "Ginny isn't old enough to count yet. And no one ever expected the twins to be in the running. They never wanted to be prefects, or pretended they didn't want to be perfects. " Del replies: That's the way I always took it. There's another thing: the Weasleys'y hair. The kids all have their *Arthur*'s hair. So the Twins can't be Prewetts. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 16:23:34 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:23:34 -0000 Subject: Molly is not ESE! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125050 vmonte wrote: "Percy unfortunately, has no sense of humor about himself." Del replies: Agreed. But does that mean that the Twins have a right to persecute him the way they do? Does it mean that they have a right to demand that he develops a sense of humour? I have friends who have no sense of humor, and I refrain from the slightest teasing with them, because I just know they won't get it and can get hurt easily. Inversely, I have friends who just love being teased, so I engage in heavy teasing with them. Learning how people like to be treated and acting accordingly is part of loving them IMO. vmonte wrote: "I love the scene were F&G give Neville a canary cr?me and Neville turns into a canary. I like that Neville is able to laugh about it just as much as everyone else--that says a lot about him, IMO. Percy on the other hand, would not have handled that well." Del replies: I personally hated that scene, because laughing at myself like that is *exactly* what I would have done in Neville's shoes, except that I would have done it because I had no self-esteem at his age. I believed that I was such a failure that I deserved to be made fun of and that I had no right to stand up for myself. And Neville is not so far from that kind of thinking, or he wouldn't introduce himself as "nobody" in OoP. vmonte wrote: "What I am sure about though, is that this family will stick together when things get tough (unlike the Malfoys). " Del replies: I wouldn't bet on it. Things have already gotten tough, and we've seen the Weasleys start to disband while the Malfoys have gotten closer together. Percy opposed his father throughout OoP, while Draco supported his, even when Lucius was sent to prison. Del From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 23 16:47:14 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:47:14 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Dursleys, the Weasleys, Hagrid, and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050223164714.50276.qmail@web86207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125051 --- lupinlore wrote: > Why do those of us who despise Snape not > get upset at > Hagrid's teaching, which is physically if not > emotionally dangerous. > > Well, the answer of course is that the Weasleys and > Hagrid are nice > and Snape and the Dursleys aren't. Therefore the > former get a pass to > a certain extent and the latter don't. And, here is > the clencher, I > think THAT IS PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE. > > So, in sum, we give Hagrid a pass and not Snape. > And it is perfectly > fair and appropriate to do so. Your point of view is a popular one. Indeed, it seems that Rowling herself shares it. But it's by no means a truth universally acknowledged. Hagrid may be good source of moral support for Harry, but if I had to choose an Order member (or a teacher) between Hadrid or Snape, I would choose Snape any day. Hagrid dumps his problems on the Trio constantly: Norbert, Buckbeak trial, Grawp etc. Need I mention a little incident with Fluffy? As for teaching, he competes for the spot of worst Hogwarts teacher with Binns and Trelawney. And it's possible to argue that he wins the competition: you can learn history of magic from the books, and it appears that Trelawney teaches the techniques properly for the interested students. But with the care of the magical creatures, if your teacher failed you in practical studies, then it was a wasted time. How practical are flobberworms and double-ended newts? (And before you say that Snape is worse as a teacher - I'll believe it when I hear a Ravenclaw say he is a bad teacher). Yes, Hagrid is improving, but the Ravenclaws still think he isn't good, and Hermione thinks Grubbly-Plank is a better teacher. She only retracts this statement when bullied by Harry. To summarise: no pass for Hagrid from me. "Not everyone who licks you clean is your friend", as Nobody used to say. Irene ___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Wed Feb 23 17:23:08 2005 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:23:08 -0000 Subject: De-bunking Count Snape/Foe Glass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125052 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Valky (message 125039): > OTOH what about the foe glass, Pippin? Whose foe glass does he > appear in? Crouch!Moody's? If that's the case it could also be > explained as Sevvie was curious as to why he was Moody's foe, when > they are supposedly on the same side. Or maybe he was keeping and > eye on it so that he could avert "Moody"'s eye from it and avoid >him seeing what might be truth about Snapes alignment in the foe >glass.. Pippin (message 125047): >As for the Foe-glass, of course Snape could have had other >reasons for wanting to see what it would show him -- but it can't >have been to distract Crouch!Moody since he was unconscious >at the time. "K": Why in the world, with everything else going on at the time, is Snape so interested in the Foe-Glass? I can't decide. But JKR does bring up the Foe-Glass again in OoP ~"Hey, Harry, what's this stuff?" asked Dean from the rear of the room, indicating the Sneakoscopes and the Foe-Glass. "Dark Detectors," said Harry, stepping between the cushions to reach them. "Basically they all show when *Dark wizards or enemies* are around, but you don't want to rely on them too much, *they can be fooled..."* oop-ch 18-pg 391-us * my emphasis From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Feb 23 17:53:07 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:53:07 -0000 Subject: Further thoughts on who knows what about the prophecy, particularly re: Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125053 So I was sitting at my son's biddy basketball practice yesterday... and, well, this can become quite tedious, as some of you know... so I started thinking some more about the prophecy and who knows what about it... and I had rather an epiphany of sorts in regards to Snape. I have no idea why I never asked this question before ?- surely most fans did ages ago. In spite of my HP moniker, I am actually not a Snape *apologist.* A few here may know that I've adjusted my thoughts regarding Snape somewhat in the past 2 years. This bit about the prophecy has the potential to adjust those even further. I've gone off, on more than one occasion, about how it makes no sense for Snape to treat Harry as he does, at least to the extreme that he does, if he wants Prophecy Boy to trust him and to learn from him. I've argued that a person *truly* committed to bringing down LV would find a way to set aside his petty, and even his deep, hurts and dislikes for the good of the cause: read, to ensure that the brat Potter is learning what he can about potions, occlumency, Voldy and Voldy's tactics. I realize now [rather a duh] that these arguments (or complaints, if you will) have been based upon the assumption that Snape *knows* part or all of the prophecy. I'd like to consider the possibilities. POSSIBILITY ONE: SNAPE KNOWS (some or all of) THE CONTENTS OF THE PROPHECY This raises many questions. How would he have found out? When would he have found out? What would it mean if he knows? *He might have been the Hog's Head eavesdropper, in which case he would know only the first portion of the prophecy. *LV might have told him during his DE service, in which case he would know only the first portion of the prophecy. *James or Lily might have told him [highly unlikely, I'll acknowledge, but trying to cover the bases here], in which case he might know the first part or the full contents. *DD told him because: **he wanted to enlist his help and thought he should know this **he told all of The Order **he told key Order members [possibly including Snape, Black, Lupin, McGonagall, M/M Weasley] based upon their roles/interactions with Harry IF Snape knows the first part of the prophecy, he knows either Harry or Neville is the wizard who possesses the power to vanquish Voldy. If this is fact, would it explain Snape's harsh, crappy & *singularly* negative treatment of Harry & Neville? I think not. IF Snape knows the prophecy in toto, he knows Harry is the one with the power to vanquish Voldy. If this is fact, would it explain Snape's harsh, crappy & *singularly* negative treatment of Harry? I think not. POSSIBILITY TWO: SNAPE DOES NOT KNOW (any of) THE CONTENTS OF THE PROPHECY For this to make sense with what we have seen so far, we would have to assume that Snape is the kind of guy who would simply *do* whatever DD asked of him without question, without the requirement of a rationale being given. Is this believable? *I* got the sense at the end of GoF, when DD sent Snape on his mysterious, presumably highly dangerous mission, that they had already discussed this in advance, because Snape understood the risk in what was being asked of him. Would it make sense that DD would discuss SOME such matters of importance to the war effort and not others? Possibly.... Certainly Snape's not knowing would explain much more of his manner with Harry. That is, it would free him to truly believe Harry is NOT special or important. It would make his unwillingness to change his methods & tactics for a clearly not-learning-to-full-capabilities Harry more understandable. It might mean that he simply believes DD favors Harry for no reason other than an old fondness for James & Lily. So what would be the ADVANTAGES or DISADVANTAGES of telling Snape and/or others about the prophecy? ADVANTAGES: *Those who are fighting Voldy would know of Harry's absolute importance *They would understand the need to watch Harry closely, to protect him, and to teach/show/tell/train him fully DISADVANTAGES: *The potential for a leak, deliberate or otherwise; hence: **LV/DEs could find out **Harry could find out **The WW at large could find out Question: So would each of these be a bad thing? In what way(s)? *If there is still a suspicion that Snape is a double-agent (or that someone in The Order is a spy for LV), this knowledge would make him/her more inclined to "serve up" Harry. *It would make it easier to target others close to Harry as a way of drawing him out, a la Sirius. So what do others make of this? Would the disadvantages of sharing the prophecy with Snape or others have outweighed the advantages of sharing it? What are the odds that Snape has learned of the prophecy in one of the above ways? What are the odds that he hasn't a clue? For me, if Snape does NOT know -- and if one believes Snape is the kind of man who could follow orders blindly while still holding onto his resentments & loathing -- then his behavior towards Harry finally makes sense. If he in fact DOES know all -- or even part -- of the prophecy, then I still hold to my previous gripes about his inability to treat Harry like the valuable resource he is [beyond saving his life on occasion :-)]. One final thought. If NO ONE besides DD & Harry presently knows the contents of the prophecy, will we now see DD telling a selection of others, now that Harry does know? Will DD consider the failure of Occlumency, for instance, and see the need for (key) Order members to know *why* DD has issued the instructions he has? Will he let Harry choose whether to tell others? Siriusly Snapey Susan From ryokas at hotmail.com Wed Feb 23 18:11:14 2005 From: ryokas at hotmail.com (Miikka R.) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:11:14 -0000 Subject: De-bunking Count Snape/Foe Glass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125054 > Why in the world, with everything else going on at the time, is > Snape so interested in the Foe-Glass? I can't decide. But JKR does > bring up the Foe-Glass again in OoP One possiblity is that he was checking if his cover had been blown. A full-strength Lord Voldemort whom you've betrayed might show up rather clearly. - Kizor From kreneeb at hotmail.com Wed Feb 23 18:25:52 2005 From: kreneeb at hotmail.com (Kasey Baker) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:25:52 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Further thoughts on who knows what about the prophecy, particularly re: Snape References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125055 Siriusly Snapey Susan: I've gone off, on more than one occasion, about how it makes no sense for Snape to treat Harry as he does, at least to the extreme that he does, if he wants Prophecy Boy to trust him and to learn from him. I've argued that a person *truly* committed to bringing down LV would find a way to set aside his petty, and even his deep, hurts and dislikes for the good of the cause: read, to ensure that the brat Potter is learning what he can about potions, occlumency, Voldy and Voldy's tactics. I realize now [rather a duh] that these arguments (or complaints, if you will) have been based upon the assumption that Snape *knows* part or all of the prophecy. I'd like to consider the possibilities. kitten: I'm sorry for snipping your post Susan... I don't know if Snape knows about the Prophecy or not, you brought up some interesting points that made me want to bring something up that I had notice and hasn't really been discussed on this forum (I think-g-) I always thought that it was interesting that Harry and Neville... the two boys who are associated with the Prophecy... the Heir and the Spare, if you will... are the two kids that Snape is the Hardest on... is there a connection between the two boys and the prophecy and Snape's treatment of them? I'm not a Snape apologist either... but I do think is the most interesting character in the entire series.... kitten... TTFN [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Feb 23 19:02:34 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:02:34 -0000 Subject: Further thoughts on who knows what about the prophecy, particularly re: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125056 SSSusan wrote: > So what would be the ADVANTAGES or DISADVANTAGES of telling Snape > and/or others about the prophecy? p Potioncat: Very nice post, BTW. When I first read the prophecy I thought, "We already know that." Then I realized the readers can guess Harry will be the one to defeat LV because he's in the title. But the members of the WW don't know that. They just know he somehow survived LV's attempt to kill him. But what about this? DD doesn't tell anyone because people have a tendency to either sit back and let the prophecy come true, or people try to interfere with it. So telling people like Molly or McGonagall might affect how they treat Harry or how they react to the threat of LV's return. DD may not want Harry venerated, but he doesn't want good people to do nothing while they wait for a promised outcome. What if Snape knows part of the prophecy and thinks these are the two best chances of defeating LV...they should be doing better. That is, instead of thinking he needs to prepare them, he's frustrated that they don't already have the skills that he thinks they should have. After all, they're supposed to be special. I can't put my finger on it, but Snape has a reason, within his own mind, to treat these two boys the way he does. And I don't think it's an old grudge or old life debt. His behavior seems one of irritation or frustration. Potioncat From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 19:20:49 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:20:49 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys, the Weasleys, Hagrid, and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: <20050223164714.50276.qmail@web86207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125057 Irene: > As for teaching, he competes for the spot of worst > Hogwarts teacher with Binns and Trelawney. And it's > possible to argue that he wins the competition: you > can learn history of magic from the books, and it > appears that Trelawney teaches the techniques properly > for the interested students. But with the care of the > magical creatures, if your teacher failed you in > practical studies, then it was a wasted time. How > practical are flobberworms and double-ended newts? Finwitch: I don't think so. As for Norbert & Buckbeak, well- The Trio volunteered - and Hagrid never so much as *suggested* anything. Gawp, though - he asked, but only because Umbridge&Fudge had been plotting against him, and centaurs didn't want him in the forest for doing the right thing... Harry never needed to do anything anyway. and well: Hippogriff - well, I'd say it IS a good thing to learn how to treat one - (hmm.. God Rest Ye Merry Hippogriffs; I could eat a Hippogriff; etc. Looks like everyone's talking about Hippogriffs) Draco does a trick and Hagrid, losing confidence about student-safety so he gets to the Flobberworms (SAFE. You can't get safer than them). The blast-ended Skrewts: well, Harry needed SOME experience, I suppose, since they were in the Maze (only reason they existed, I suppose). And what about the Nifflers? And Hagrid shows them invisible creatures, Thestrals... (and why now? For Harry, perhaps? Because Harry needed to know he's not crazy for seeing them when most don't... not a bad idea, either) Always things outside books. Teaching how to calm a monster... and wouldn't you say that Hagrid usually knows what he's doing (Boring Flobberworms and experimental Skrewts not counting, everyone makes errors). For someone who can (somewhat) tame or befriend a giant spider like Aragog -- has the respect of a centaur for the care he shows to the creatures... A proud centaur respecting someone who's NOT a centaur? I don't know if Firenze respects many wizards - or witches for that matter. I think Hagrid has a great deal to teach - he's just with things outside regular OWL-NEWT- stuff (which you moust likely CAN learn from books anyway -- like offering milk to the Hedgehog-looking things... what sort of *practical* lesson do you need for that?). Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 19:31:31 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:31:31 -0000 Subject: Harry's grandparents. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125058 Sandra: > I might have missed this somewhere along the line, but what happened to > both sets of Harry's grandparents? I would have thought they would have had > a pretty good claim on the orphaned child, and Dumbledore would have no > right or authority over them to say/choose who raises Harry, and where he > should be raised. I can't think where it was mentioned. Finwitch: I think I read somewhere(could be JKR's webpage or an interview) that 1) They're dead 2) They're of no importance to the story. Of course, nothing prevents a fanfic about Mr or Mrs Potter coming out - someone who's been out of touch - who only now finds Harry's whereabouts and indeed, just the fact he's still alive (say, he works in the DoM, with the Veil, and saw Harry there; Then, it won't be hard to find Harry's address... The workers are protected by Fidelius, so Harry couldn't KNOW anything...) Finwitch From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 19:38:26 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:38:26 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys, the Weasleys, Hagrid, and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: <20050223164714.50276.qmail@web86207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125059 Irene wrote: > Hagrid may be good source of moral support for Harry, > but if I had to choose an Order member (or a teacher) > between Hadrid or Snape, I would choose Snape any day. > > Hagrid dumps his problems on the Trio constantly: > Norbert, Buckbeak trial, Grawp etc. > Neri: Isn't that what friends are for: to be a moral support and help with problems? Hagrid didn't dump Norbert and Buckbeak on the trio - they volunteered. He dumped only Grawp on them, and even that only in case he'll have to leave, and he didn't have anyone else to ask and Grawp was family. You don't abandon family, even if they're giants. > As for teaching, he competes for the spot of worst > Hogwarts teacher with Binns and Trelawney. How > practical are flobberworms and double-ended newts? > Neri: At least from the trio's POV, Hagrid has been the most practical and useful teacher at Hogwarts. Since he was made a teacher his lessons always come handy: PoA: knowing how to control a hippogriff was necessary for saving Sirius. GoF: knowing the weak spots of a blast-ended Skrewt was needed to win the TWT. OotP: Knowing the properties of thestrals was needed to reach London in a hurry. Only Lupin (dementors, boggarts, gryidylows) and perhaps Flitwick (levitation, summoning) were that useful. As for Snape, he was a teacher of the trio for five years, not only two and a half like Hagrid, and yet his lessons came useful only once - the Polyjuice Potion, and even that not directly - Snape only mentioned it in class and (involuntarily) supplied the ingredients, but Hermione had to learn how to brew it from a book. > Irene: > (And before you say that Snape is worse as a teacher - > I'll believe it when I hear a Ravenclaw say he is a > bad teacher). > Neri: The Ravenclaws WOULD think that Hagrid is a bad teacher. He's not the scholary type. He didn't even finished four years at Hogwarts, and he talks funny. Few Ravenclaws will be able to see past that. However, note that it was Luna, who in the beginning of OotP though Hagrid was a joke, who suggested using the thestrals as transportation, while relying on Hagrid's teaching that "they are very good at finding places"). As for Snape, we don't know what the ravenclaws think about him. The only person in five books who said he was a good teacher was Umbridge, and we all know what are her standards. Neri From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Feb 23 19:38:39 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:38:39 -0000 Subject: De-bunking Count Snape/Foe Glass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125060 > >"K" wrote: > > Why in the world, with everything else going on at the time, is > > Snape so interested in the Foe-Glass? I can't decide. But JKR does > > bring up the Foe-Glass again in OoP > Potioncat: GoF chapter 35: The foe-Glass appears 3 times with a clear image. Each time it shows DD, McGonagall and Professor Snape. Only once is Professor Snape noted as looking at the images in the foe-glass. The images are not, strictly speaking, a reflection. The three images are glaring into the room, although the actual individuals are doing other things. But, is JKR telling us that the three are loyal and trustworthy? Or that they are all foes of Barty Crouch? And is Snape looking in it because he's never seen himself? Or is he concerned about his own loyalty. Or is he concerned about McGonagall's loyalty? And does the fact that he's a foe of Barty Crouch Jr, mean he's loyal to DD? Potioncat From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Feb 23 19:42:03 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:42:03 -0000 Subject: What is Snape knows (was: Further thoughts on who knows what ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125061 Potioncat: > What if Snape knows part of the prophecy and thinks these are the > two best chances of defeating LV...they should be doing better. > That is, instead of thinking he needs to prepare them, he's > frustrated that they don't already have the skills that he thinks > they should have. After all, they're supposed to be special. > > I can't put my finger on it, but Snape has a reason, within his own > mind, to treat these two boys the way he does. And I don't think > it's an old grudge or old life debt. His behavior seems one of > irritation or frustration. SSSusan: I understand what you're saying about this general inkling that Snape has a reason.... But if you're right, what the hell would explain Snape's giving in to the irritation and frustration? If he's convinced Harry & Neville are important *and* ANNOYED that they're not better prepared/more skillful, then why doesn't he figure out how to DO something about it instead of just going on being awful to them, ensuring they'll be suspicious & resentful of him? If you're right that Snape knows they're special, then presumably DD knows Snape knows. Why wouldn't he & DD, then, discuss any concern or annoyance Snape has over their abilities or lack thereof? Siriusly Snapey Susan, enjoying knowing someone else thinks Snape may know, but kinda hoping someone else will provide a really convincing argument that Snape doesn't know. You know? :-) From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Feb 23 22:21:36 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:21:36 -0000 Subject: Harry's grandparents. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125062 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > Sandra: > > > I might have missed this somewhere along the line, but what > happened to > > both sets of Harry's grandparents? I would have thought they would > have had > > a pretty good claim on the orphaned child, and Dumbledore would > have no > > right or authority over them to say/choose who raises Harry, and > where he > > should be raised. I can't think where it was mentioned. > > Finwitch: > > I think I read somewhere(could be JKR's webpage or an interview) that > > 1) They're dead > 2) They're of no importance to the story. Hickengruendler: It was in the march chat last year. The link should be at Quick Quotes Quill. However, although she said, that they are not particularly important, she also promised us, that we will learn a bit more about them. Many fans (and I, too) think, that Voldemort or some Death Eaters killed them, too, at least the Evans parents, and that this has something to do with Petunia's hatred for the wizarding world. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 22:22:23 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:22:23 -0000 Subject: LV - ugly baby In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125063 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: > Meri: > IIRC in the Ressurection scene in GoF LV says something to the > effect that Wormtail was able to do magic that returned him > to/created a temporary, rudimentary body, ie: the scaly baby thing. So maybe Wormtail isn't as inept with a wand as we think. Tonks now: That would be some pretty advanced magic. Not quite the same as creating out of nothingness, but pretty darn close. SO it seems that the powers of the Dark side are almost as great as the powers of the Light. I guess the key word here is *almost*. Scary. Tonks_op From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Feb 23 22:46:52 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:46:52 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys, the Weasleys, Hagrid, and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125064 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > Finwitch: > > I don't think so. As for Norbert & Buckbeak, well- The Trio > volunteered - and Hagrid never so much as *suggested* anything. Gawp, > though - he asked, but only because Umbridge&Fudge had been plotting > against him, and centaurs didn't want him in the forest for doing the > right thing... Harry never needed to do anything anyway. Hickengruendler: Still I thought he was pretty sneaky in this scene. I know he was genuinely concerned for his brother, and I really appreciate that, but he didn't even seem to think about the possibility that Grawp is a danger for Harry and Hermione, inspite of the fact that he nearly killed Hermione and that he gravely wounded Hagrid himself. Sorry, but this scene made me dislike Hagrid. I think he went too far, here. > and well: Hippogriff - well, I'd say it IS a good thing to learn how > to treat one - (hmm.. God Rest Ye Merry Hippogriffs; I could eat a > Hippogriff; etc. Looks like everyone's talking about Hippogriffs) > Draco does a trick and Hagrid, losing confidence about student- safety > so he gets to the Flobberworms (SAFE. You can't get safer than them). Hickengruendler: Yes, I agree. You could say that Hagrid shouldn't have started with the big animals, and IMO it was to be expected, that in a group of teenagers are a few who don't listen. Therefore it was irresponsible to teach them the Hippogriffs, however, I'll grant Hagrid that he had nearly no teaching experience at this time, and probably wanted them to teach something fun. The real blame belongs IMO to Dumbledore for hiring Hagrid instead of Grubbly-Plank, just because he obviously likes Hagrid and (understandably) feels sorry for him and although Hagrid had no teaching experience at all. And Hagrid does have some high points as a teacher, the Nifflers for example were really fun, and the Thestrals also were very good. But all in all, my sympathy is with Parvati and Lavender. I wouldn't want to have Hagrid as a teacher, too dangerous. > > The blast-ended Skrewts: well, Harry needed SOME experience, I > suppose, since they were in the Maze (only reason they existed, I > suppose). Hickengruendler: The problem with the Skrewts is, that it was implied that Hagrid breeded them. Therefore if he hadn't done it, there would have been no Skrewts at all, and therefore no need to defeat one in the maze. I'm not 100% sure, I know that it was said in the books, and I don't know where exactly. It might have been in Rita's article, and in this case, it surely is not very reliable. However, the fact alone that not even Hermione recognised them when she first saw them, strongly suggests to me, that it's the truth. Even if not, at this point Hagrid couldn't have known that Harry would need to defeat one, since he wasn't chosen as a champion yet, and therefore it wouldn't have made any sense to teach them Harry and the others. Hickengruendler From drednort at alphalink.com.au Wed Feb 23 23:40:15 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:40:15 +1100 Subject: Fred and George - Prefects? In-Reply-To: <003c01c519bb$f9aed310$0400a8c0@pensive> References: Message-ID: <421DAF0F.16676.4B3C2B5@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 125065 I've been following the discussion on Fred and George, and Molly's apparent mistake in forgetting them in 'Order of the Phoenix' when she talks about all the family being Prefects, and I'd just like to mention a possibility I raised many months ago, which nobody seemed to think particularly viable. I am not saying I necessarily agree with this - but I'm offering it as a possibility. I actually wonder whether or not, Fred and George are actually, secretly Prefects. Appointed in secret by Dumbledore. At most schools, there would be absolutely no reason for such an appointment to be secret - but Hogwarts seems slightly different in this regard. At Hogwarts, Prefects are expected to deal with dangers to other students. They are left in charge when there is a need for protection from Sirius Black, they are involved in patrolling the school when students are being petrified. They seem to have some authority over the ghosts... there's real powers. It seems to me plausible that being a Prefect at Hogwarts might actually bestow powers on a student within the school. It may open secrets and paths to them. Dumbledore seems to be fairly good at working out what might happen in his school. If the position of prefect bestows real powers, and he is somehow aware of what might happen in the school during the Order of the Phoenix (where it will become necessary for students to fight the authority of the school), it would seem to me rather possible that he might have appointed certain students secretly as prefects - students who normally wouldn't have such a job - troublemakers who are, nevertheless, on the side of 'good' when it comes to the really important things. If he has done this with Fred and George, and Molly is aware of it, it might explain her comments - and George's response may be a subtle reminder that she's risking blowing their cover. Evidence for this theory... well, it's admittedly very weak. The first piece of evidence I can find is Molly's statement. In the following, page numbers relate to British editions. The second relates to Peeves. In Philosopher's Stone, Percy has this to say: "'You want to watch out for Peeves,' said Percy, as they set off again. 'The Bloody Baron's the only one who can control him, he won't even listen to us prefects. Here we are.'" (PS, p.96) Percy implies here that Peeves *should* listen to prefects. They should have authority over him. Now, this could just be Percy pompousity. But if it is true, the following from Order of the Phoenix is interesting: "And Peeves, who Harry had never seen take an order from a student before, swept his belled hat from his head and sprang to a salute as Fred and George wheeled about to tumultuous applause from the students below and sped out of the open front doors into the glorious sunset." (OotP, p.595). The third piece of evidence is probably even weaker. In Chamber of Secrets: "'Password?' she said as they approached. 'Er -' said Harry. They didn't know the new year's password, not having met a Gryffindor prefect yet, but help came almost immediately; they heard hurrying feet behind them and turned to see Hermione dashing toward them." (CoS, p.66). Note - passwords are revealed to the Prefect's who reveal them to other students. In Goblet of Fire: "'Password?' she said as they approached. 'Balderdash,' said George, 'a Prefect downstairs told me.'" (GoF, p.169) It is possible that he's telling precisely the truth (and this 'evidence' is weakened by the fact that in Chamber of Secrets, Hermione has also been told the password before she arrives at the door, so it does happen). But I'm offering it as a potential point. It seems to me JKR would have put some clues somewhere in the text, if this had any chance of being the case. Note - I am not saying I believe this has happened. Just offering it as a potential possiblity. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Feb 24 00:12:52 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:12:52 -0000 Subject: De-bunking Count Snape/Foe Glass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125066 Pippin (on the secret passage behind the mirror): It could be that they chose it because it would repel Snape, or more likely it repelled Snape and that's why it remained undiscovered. It may also be significant that the Marauder's secret means of communication, and one that Sirius gives to Harry specifically because he is concerned about Snape, is a mirror. Also, the Stone is hidden behind a mirror. Voldemort would not be able to use vampire!Snape to get at it. Valky: Well I did wonder what would happen if Vampire!Snape faced the mirror of Erised. If your foe glass premise is correct and Snape *wants* to see what he looks like, then he *would* probably see himself in Erised, since it shows not reflections but Hearts desires. James and Sirius' communication mirrors are interesting but other than Harry chancing upon seeing that SS reflection were missing sometime in the future, it doesn't seem a significant thing to me. As for the secret room, well that makes sense. It does appear to have remained undiscovered by Snape which is odd, because he's really snoopy and suspicious. But I think that this room has been mentioned over and over for other reasons, namely to remind us that Peter knows about it and that Tom Riddle was actively roaming the halls of Hogwarts at the time it was caved in. Still, all in all the evidence for Sevvie being mirror shy is pretty solid, and I can't think of any reason pertaining to Peter or TR that would make the *mirror* a significant element of the whole thing. The FOe Glass: " ....... a sense of power radiated from Dumbledore as though he were giving off burning heat. He stepped into the office, placed a foot underneath Moodys unconscious body, and kicked him over onto his back, so that his face was visible. Snape followed him, looking into the Foe-Glass, where his own face was still visible, glaring into the room. Professor McGonagall went straight to Harry. " Pippin: As for the Foe-glass, of course Snape could have had other reasons for wanting to see what it would show him -- but it can't have been to distract Crouch!Moody since he was unconscious at the time. Valky: Yes he was I see. So out with that one, it does strike odd that Snape would look at the Foe Glass upon entering the room, and even more odd that the text does make a note of saying that his face is *visible glaring into the room* which implies that the image is pretty clear. Snape does have an idea what is going on, he does know that he is a foe of the man unconcious on the floor anyhow, because he has heard Crouch!Moody yackiting on about the year past... or tangentially.... his face is glaring into the room, he's pretty angry, what's he angry about? Theres a list as long as my arm of things Barty Crouch said that could answer that... but I am pretty sure we can scratch Crouch wants to kill Harry off that list. Snapes not angry about that. I think OOtP reveals that Snape doesn't care much for the real Moody so you can scratch that too. That leaves among many: Another! ridiculously bad choice for the DADA teaching job over himself, by DD.. All the things Crouch!Moody got away with throughout the year... Ferret Draco, cheating for Harry in the Triwizard cup... Then theres the more sinister sounding ones like... Barty going on and on about all the other faithless cowardly DE's ... None of it points to Vampire!Snape.. which is the real problem with Snape, you never really know which tangent to shoot off on.. Koinoinia quoted OotP: "Dark Detectors," said Harry, stepping between the cushions to reach them. "Basically they all show when *Dark wizards or enemies* are around, but you don't want to rely on them too much, *they can be fooled..."* * my emphasis Valky: Hmmm I can't remember clearly, but I think I dismissed this statement when I read it in OOtP as a mistake by Harry, that he hadn't yet put two and two together about all the times he'd been fooled by someone saying the Dark Detector wasn't working. Like the Sneakoscope in POA, and the foe glass shapes early in GOF. I take that as a clue that we should reassess our assumptions about what Dark Detectors have been telling us throughout the books. Kizor: One possiblity is that he was checking if his cover had been blown. A full-strength Lord Voldemort whom you've betrayed might show up rather clearly. Valky: That's possible too. Potioncat: But, is JKR telling us that the three are loyal and trustworthy? Or that they are all foes of Barty Crouch? And is Snape looking in it because he's never seen himself? Or is he concerned about his own loyalty. Or is he concerned about McGonagall's loyalty? And does the fact that he's a foe of Barty Crouch Jr, mean he's loyal to DD? Valky: Questions questions. Vampire!Snape does nothing to answer the questions about Snapes Loyalties. That's probably my main reason for avoiding it. I really want the answer to those questions, more than anything else. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Feb 24 01:20:28 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:20:28 -0000 Subject: What is Snape knows (was: Further thoughts on who knows what ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125067 Siriusly Snapey Susan, enjoying knowing someone else thinks Snape may know, but kinda hoping someone else will provide a really convincing argument that Snape doesn't know. You know? :-) Valky: Sorry SSSusan but I don't think it can be argued that Snape doesn't know the prophecy at least in part. Anyone who tries will be shot down in flames, methinks by most of the stuff, you yourself, have said. For example: SSSusan : *I* got the sense at the end of GoF, when DD sent Snape on his mysterious, presumably highly dangerous mission, that they had already discussed this in advance, because Snape understood the risk in what was being asked of him. Valky: Looking at the canon evidence: >From The Order POV Snape is an Occlumens - he is hiding something from Voldemort. Dumbledore has planned a mission for Snape in which he poses as a faithful DE - Snape was doing this thing in OOtP Dumbledore asks *Snape* to teach Harry Occlumency - Harry asks *Snape* what is in the Dept of Mysteries? Harry was told to stay out of it, Sirius was told to stay out of it, everyone in the Order was staying out of it, and called the Prophecy a weapon, except *Snape*. >From the DE POV Lucius was leading the group going after the prophecy - Lucius and Severus are closer than Severus to other DE's None of them or their allies could tell Voldemort the *rest* of the prophecy... Not even Kreacher. And from everyones POV Dumbledore has vanished from the face of the earth. Somebody is helping the DE's towards the prophecy, evidence points to Snape. So he knows *of* it enough to be able to tempt Voldemort with it. Somebody knows the beginning of the prophecy, other than LV, and Snape must be using his Occlumency for something, hence Snape knows what LV knows, and therefore must have some knowledge *of* the prophecy contents. Occlumency would probably end up pretty useless if Voldemort knows more than Snape. Imagine Snape saying "I've heard about a weapon in the Dept of Mysteries...." Voldemort legilimens him and is blocked... "Well you know less about it than I do Severus... Forget You!" But if Snape says "About the contents of that prophecy... " Voldemort "Yes I am still pretty peeved about that Severus, somebody duped me." Snape "Well no, there is more *to* the prophecy... " Voldemort Legilimens Snape and sees Snape knows the beginning of the prophecy then he is blocked "Well then you might be useful to me yet Severus... tell me what you *do* know.." SSSusan: IF Snape knows the first part of the prophecy, he knows either Harry or Neville is the wizard who possesses the power to vanquish Voldy. If this is fact, would it explain Snape's harsh, crappy & *singularly* negative treatment of Harry & Neville? I think not. Valky: I think yes, but with a lot of speculative stuffing to hold it upright. Just with what we've got the only way to explain Snape's nastiness is that he is nasty, but he seems to want Harry to fail, while he wants Neville to succeed, which I think directs towards speculation about Snapes view on blood status. PotionCat: But what about this? DD doesn't tell anyone because people have a tendency to either sit back and let the prophecy come true, or people try to interfere with it. So telling people like Molly or McGonagall might affect how they treat Harry or how they react to the threat of LV's return. DD may not want Harry venerated, but he doesn't want good people to do nothing while they wait for a promised outcome. What if Snape knows part of the prophecy and thinks these are the two best chances of defeating LV...they should be doing better. That is, instead of thinking he needs to prepare them, he's frustrated that they don't already have the skills that he thinks they should have. After all, they're supposed to be special. SSSusan: If you're right, what the hell would explain Snape's giving in to the irritation and frustration? If he's convinced Harry & Neville are important *and* ANNOYED that they're not better prepared/more skillful, then why doesn't he figure out how to DO something about it instead of just going on being awful to them, ensuring they'll be suspicious & resentful of him? Valky: I agree with both of potioncat's statements, and one supports the other. Notice that Snape *does* appear to be interfering in the outcome of the prophecy. He *really* gets on Harry's back telling him he is *not* special, all the while telling Neville *he* is not living up to the standard he should be.. and Neville really *is* doing hopelessly. Neville is his prophecy boy. SSSusan: If you're right that Snape knows they're special, then presumably DD knows Snape knows. Why wouldn't he & DD, then, discuss any concern or annoyance Snape has over their abilities or lack thereof? Valky: Oh I am sure they do, but when has DD ever let one of SS's plaints make his decisions for him. Most likely he "calmly" tells Severus over and over that they are exactly, both doing as they should be, and no interference is necessary.... hence Snape's extreme frustration. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 02:53:42 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 02:53:42 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125068 Lupinlore: Now, why? This seems rather unjust, doesn't it? Why should Snape be castigated for snarling comments and Hagrid be given, by and large, a pass for using hyppogriffs? Why should Molly get a pass for behavior that would seem to incite friction among her children and the Dursleys not be given a pass for the different ways in which they treat Harry and Dudley? Well, the answer is that niceness is, for some bizarre reason, rather undervalued in these discussions. The fact is that it isn't very easy to be nice. It is MUCH easier to be cruel, snarky, and uncaring of other people's feelings. People who are nice show that they are willing, to use DD's language, to do "what is right rather than what is easy," not just in the huge questions but, what is harder perhaps and maybe even as important, in the small, everyday things of life. Let's face it, the small things ARE life. And by their behavior, Snape and the Dursleys show they are not, in the matters that make up the vast majority of life, willing to follow the precepts of "right over easy." So, in sum, we give Hagrid a pass and not Snape. And it is perfectly fair and appropriate to do so. And we give Molly a pass and not the Dursleys. And it is perfectly fair and appropriate to do so. Alla: Great post, Lupinlore. While I agree with 95% of it, I want to register one minor disagreement. I am most certainly much more willing to forgive Molly's and Hagrid's daily lapses than Snape and Dursleys for the precise reasons you so eloquently stated, but I don't think that I am going to give Hagrid high pass as a teacher simply because he is nicer than Snape. As a person and friend to the Trio, YES, definitely,as a teacher - NO. He cannot maintain discipline and yeah, to start with hypogriffs, not very wise, I'd say. Nevertheless, Hagrid most definitely gets points from me for trying to be a good teacher. As other argued he has no prior teaching experience and I think he definitely improved from PoA to OOP. I also want to thank Neri for bringing up the point I never thought about - Hagrid's teachings are indeed come in handy for the Trio in every book. So, I am rethinking Hagrid's academic usefullness. Maybe he IS knows what he is doing, teaching-wise or maybe his syllabus even been approved by Dumbledore. :o) Hickengruendler: Still I thought he was pretty sneaky in this scene. I know he was genuinely concerned for his brother, and I really appreciate that, but he didn't even seem to think about the possibility that Grawp is a danger for Harry and Hermione, inspite of the fact that he nearly killed Hermione and that he gravely wounded Hagrid himself. Sorry, but this scene made me dislike Hagrid. I think he went too far, here. Alla: I understand where you are coming from , nevertheless I consider this scene to be the perfect example of Hagrid's lapses in judgment. He did NOT think it through, definitely. I can forgive him though because I don't think that if he would imagine for a second that Hermione or Harry will be harmed, he would asked them to do that. Grawp, on the other hand, I would love to be harmed severely enough for him not to ever appear in the books again. :o) Just my opinion, of course Alla From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Feb 24 03:16:57 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 03:16:57 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys, the Weasleys, Hagrid, and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125069 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > There has been a lot of discussion about several topics that I think > come together. One discussion has been about the Dursleys and > Dumbledore. One has been about Snape. One has been about Molly and > her parenting techniques. And we have had plenty of discussions in > the past about Hagrid and his teaching techniques. > > Now, I think this raises some interesting points. Why do those of us > who despise the Dursleys not get upset when Molly seems to play > favorites? Why do those of us who despise Snape not get upset at > Hagrid's teaching, which is physically if not emotionally dangerous. > > Well, the answer of course is that the Weasleys and Hagrid are nice > and Snape and the Dursleys aren't. Therefore the former get a pass to > a certain extent and the latter don't. And, here is the clencher, I > think THAT IS PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE. > I also want to point out (thank you Nora!) that INTENTIONS seem to be very important in the Potter Universe. That is, what you intend to do is what determines the morality of your actions and the reward you deserve. Now, this may seem to be contradictory with some things I've said before, since back on the Christian Platonism thread I said in that context that personal intentions and understandings aren't important. I'm using intention here is a different way than I was in that thread. I mean here "does the person intend to do good in an ordinary daily situation or, in the grand scheme of things, do they intend to support Dumbledore?" As I said on the Christian Platonism thread, supporting Dumbledore seems to be the sin quae non of grand Goodness in the Potterverse, and supporting Voldemort the definition of grand Evil. I think this helps us get at the reason most of us (at least most of us who have expressed our opinions) can't see any hope for Draco. His intentions are so boldly and inherently bad that they mark him as evil in the context of the Potterverse in both big and small things. Hagrid, on the other hand, has blatantly good intentions in all things, and is therefore marked as good. With regard to Snape and the Dursleys, the intentions of the Dursleys are somewhat mysterious but its hard to see how they can be anything but mostly bad in everyday matters (and we don't know what they know about the big situation). Snape, well... let's just say that whatever his intentions in grand matters, its hard to see that he means well in daily things, and therefore he can't be called good in the full sense of the word. Once again, I think the distinction between "good" and "nice" is more fandom than canon, and I suspect that will become clearer as we go along. In the end I think we will see there are many kinds of goodness and many kinds of evil, and I'm not entirely sure that we are going to see (as many in the fandom assume) a message the goodness in great things negates/overrides the evil of small things. Just for now I will point out that Dumbledore has never said "Severus Snape is a good man." He has said he trusts him, which is entirely different. Nor has JKR ever (that I know of) talked about a distinction between "nice" and "good." The closest she has come is to say that Snape has "latent good qualities," which ain't a ringing endorsement of the nice/good distinction. As for Sirius statement that "The world isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters," that cuts more against Snape than for him. (BTW, I don't think Snape is going to betray DD, but I do think there is a very good chance the darker side of his personality will lead him to do something truly terrible, that in its turn will require him to take drastic steps for redemption. Snape's attraction to the Dark Arts and the destructive mores they represent is presented in a manner very similar to talk of an addiction. Addicts sometimes fall of the wagon and do very bad things. And once you fall off, getting on your feet again is all the harder). Now, what about Percy? He's good in the everyday sense, or at least he's polite. But he works against Dumbledore, and thus the hard logic of the Potterverse morality condemns him. There you have it. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Feb 24 03:28:53 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 03:28:53 -0000 Subject: Harry's Lies Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125071 Over on the Sugarquill, I saw a couple of comments that I thought might be worthy of discussion here. Madam V. Hunter said: "Harry does not often behave like an honest person, but his dishonesty is not about telling a certain number of untruths. Harry is brave, but is he brave enough to tell Mrs. Weasley that he gave Fred and George the money for their business? He didn't do anything wrong. Fred and George are his friends. Harry had a great deal of money he didn't want any part of and Fred and George wanted to make an investment he believed in. So why is he reluntant to be honest with this woman who has shown him nothing but warmth. Harry tells us why. He doesn't trust that her love for him will survive her dissaproval. He saw the way she treated Hermione, he's watched her disapproval of her children: What are Fred and I, next door neighbors? Molly doesn't began to understand or appreciate how much Sirius means to Harry--anything she is going to say about Sirius is eventually going to alienate him. So with Molly, Harry has begun a tradition of being dishonest--not lying necessarily, but telling her what he thinks she wants to hear because he believes that is the only way he can keep her love and affection. Harry's dishonesty here is not shown as an admirable trait. It is very sad. He's afraid to be honest because he's afraid that this woman will stop loving him. That's no way for a child or teenager to feel about their parent figure. A child who is afraid that Mom or Dad will dissaprove of them to the point of rejection will never tell a parent the truth. Children so afraid of parent's rejection have done some very sad things:running away,keeping abuse secret, or even harming themselves. Harry has done all the above. We're looking for the scars of the abuse Harry's suffered with Petunia and Vernon. I think this is it." In reply to which Grace has Victory wrote: "I think this is the crucial issue with honesty. The problem is not whether Harry has a character flaw (because everyone has some, and this one makes him more human) but whether JKR recognises that this particular trait is a flaw. And we don't know. It's something we won't know until the end of the series. I don't think JKR would ever go to the extreme of promoting dishonesty. But I do sometimes wonder whether it's a moral blind spot for the author, and that she hasn't noticed how many casual lies Harry tells." So what are we to make of Harry's lies? How do they fit with his psychology? How do they fit with the morality of the Potterverse? Lupinlore From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Thu Feb 24 03:50:06 2005 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (imamommy at sbcglobal.net) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 03:50:06 -0000 Subject: Molly is not ESE! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125072 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > Snip > >I "vmonte" wrote: > "I love the scene were F&G give Neville a canary cr?me and Neville > turns into a canary. I like that Neville is able to laugh about it > just as much as everyone else--that says a lot about him, IMO. Percy > on the other hand, would not have handled that well." > > >Del replied: > I personally hated that scene, because laughing at myself like that is > *exactly* what I would have done in Neville's shoes, except that I > would have done it because I had no self-esteem at his age. I believed > that I was such a failure that I deserved to be made fun of and that I > had no right to stand up for myself. And Neville is not so far from > that kind of thinking, or he wouldn't introduce himself as "nobody" in > OoP. > > vmonte responds: > I guess I'm interpreting that scene differently than you are. Neville > is not like Percy. Percy would have gotten mad, but not Neville > (JMO). I really don't think that Neville was upset, humiliated, > tortured, etc. I truly think that he understand that F&G were playing > and not being cruel. (And I'm not saying that F&G haven't done some > stupid things). Lucius, Snape, Draco, Umbridge, and Voldemort on the > other hand, do not have a sense of humor about themselves, and they > are truly cruel. > > Vivian I think this incident may actually have helped Neville feel part of the group. Also, IIRC, Gred and Forge didn't specifically hand him the canary cream, he took it from a range of choices. The twins even seem to have forgotten which sweets were jinxed. I can never remember anyone in Gryffindor picking on Neville. I would guess maybe he does get picked on by students in other houses, and he may not be exactly popular, but I don't think his fellow Gryffindors treat him badly. Now, you may argue that HRH have an air of superiority, and I might be inclined to agree with you; after all, why do we not have HRHN to deal with? But I don't think they've ever treated him badly to his face, nor do they have much to say about him with the exception of him invinting Hermione to the Yule Ball. Harry, through better knowledge and understanding, has a lot of compassion for him, and is impressed by his efforts in the DA. So HRH are not actively seeking him out; they are a pretty strong team already, but they aren't mean to him. This dynamic may even change given the last several chapters of OOP. I also think they are entitled to not have to seek him out. Some people are just friends more naturally. Harry and Ron had a sort of instantaneous, bosom friend moment on the train. Hermione, after the episode with a troll, became a very good friend as well. There have been many people in my life who I have not become good friends with, even if there was no reason why I shouldn't, simply because there was not that spark of friendship. Whew! So I don't think the Gryffindors are mean to Neville. imamommy Who wonders if noone will respond now that she's spent so much time answering hypothetical arguments to her case. From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 03:53:14 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 03:53:14 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys, the Weasleys, Hagrid, and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: <20050223164714.50276.qmail@web86207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125073 Irene wrote: Hagrid may be good source of moral support for Harry, but if I had to choose an Order member (or a teacher) between Hadrid or Snape, I would choose Snape any day. Hagrid dumps his problems on the Trio constantly: Norbert, Buckbeak trial, Grawp etc. Need I mention a little incident with Fluffy? As for teaching, he competes for the spot of worst Hogwarts teacher with Binns and Trelawney. And it's possible to argue that he wins the competition: you can learn history of magic from the books, and it appears that Trelawney teaches the techniques properly for the interested students. But with the care of the magical creatures, if your teacher failed you in practical studies, then it was a wasted time. How practical are flobberworms and double-ended newts? vmonte responds: It's a good thing they have Hagrid as a teacher IMO. Harry learned how to fly a hypogriff from Hagrid, which came in handy when he and Hermione saved Sirius in PoA. Harry learned what Thestrals were from hagrid, which also came in handy at the end of OOTP. He taught Harry about the newtsamathings and they showed up in the GoF maze. It seems to me that Hagrid's classes have been very helpful indeed. Vivian From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 04:09:55 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 04:09:55 -0000 Subject: Molly is not ESE! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125075 Del wrote: Agreed. But does that mean that the Twins have a right to persecute him the way they do? Does it mean that they have a right to demand that he develops a sense of humour? I have friends who have no sense of humor, and I refrain from the slightest teasing with them, because I just know they won't get it and can get hurt easily. Inversely, I have friends who just love being teased, so I engage in heavy teasing with them. Learning how people like to be treated and acting accordingly is part of loving them IMO. vmonte responds: We are not talking about friends here we are talking about family. These boys have grown up together. I'm sure that Fred and George have been the way they are now from birth. I'm sure they teased Percy at ages 4,5,6,etc. The twins cannot change their personality any more than Percy can. And I'm pretty sure they are used to each other by now. I think it's important to have a sense of humor about yourself. My brother and my cousins teased me relentlessly, and I laughed right along with them. Sure, sometimes we would cross the line, but we would apologize and or forgive each other. There is a difference between making fun of someone with malice (like Malfoy), and having fun with someone because you are teasing/having fun (which in my family is a sign of endearment). I'm pretty sure that JKR isn't painting F&G to be in anyway like Draco. >I "vmonte" wrote: "I love the scene were F&G give Neville a canary cr?me and Neville turns into a canary. I like that Neville is able to laugh about it just as much as everyone else--that says a lot about him, IMO. Percy on the other hand, would not have handled that well." >Del replied: I personally hated that scene, because laughing at myself like that is *exactly* what I would have done in Neville's shoes, except that I would have done it because I had no self-esteem at his age. I believed that I was such a failure that I deserved to be made fun of and that I had no right to stand up for myself. And Neville is not so far from that kind of thinking, or he wouldn't introduce himself as "nobody" in OOP. vmonte responds: I guess I'm interpreting that scene differently than you are. Neville is not like Percy. Percy would have gotten mad, but not Neville (JMO). I really don't think that Neville was upset, humiliated, tortured, etc. I truly think that he understood that F&G were playing and not being cruel. (And I'm not saying that F&G haven't done some stupid things). Lucius, Snape, Draco, Umbridge, and Voldemort on the other hand, do not have a sense of humor about themselves, and they are truly cruel. Vivian From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Feb 24 04:38:05 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 04:38:05 -0000 Subject: Hagrid IS a good teacher!! WAS Re: Hagrid and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125076 > Lupinlore: > Now, why? This seems rather unjust, doesn't it? Why should Snape be castigated for snarling comments and Hagrid be given, by and large, a pass for using hyppogriffs? Valky: Because Hippogryffs are no less dangerous than some of the explosions in Snape's dungeon, for a start. When Malfoy *deliberately* incenses Buckbeak, Hagrid shows that he has enough control and respect over Bucky to prevent a serious incedent. The trial is a SHAM, Draco and the other students weren't in real danger from Buckbeak while Hagrid was there watching, and I don't recall him sneaking off for a smoko during the lesson, so he is NOT irresponsible as far as I'm concerned. Snape OTOH *is* denying his students a sense of protectedness when they make potions, and people have been sent to the Hospital Wing from Snapes class as well. Not just Hagrids. I am not giving Hagrid a free pass to be irresponsible. I stand firm that he IS a better more responsible and caring teacher than Snape. Full stop. Valky From dontask2much at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 04:42:19 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 23:42:19 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Lies References: Message-ID: <003b01c51a2b$39bed210$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 125077 >Lupinlore said: > So what are we to make of Harry's lies? How do they fit with his > psychology? How do they fit with the morality of the Potterverse? > Charme: While I understand the questions, I am bothered by them in some weird way. Maybe it's because many of JKR's religious critics pontificate frequently over their perceptions that the HP series lends itself to a mixed message regarding moral and ethical "rules" like not telling lies, and perhaps that's what twists me about the questions. I also don't think you'll like my answer to them :) As I travel the Internet and other messageboards, I feel there's one morally important aspect I think is overlooked to the question of what to make of Harry's "lies." Morality is a complex thing, and you can't take just the "lies" as a judgement of someone's ethics or character; indeed, no one is perfect, fictional character or otherwise. Compare Voldemort and Harry, for example. While both characters pursue what they want or believe (lies included), this does not dictate moral equivalence: Voldemort's are in pursuit of his desire to rule the WW and Harry's are in pursuit of justice and honor. One should be judged by the sum of his actions and decisions as the kind of moral or ethical person he is and not every little detail judged independently. No doubt Harry has lied, but why he lied matters to me in how I perceive his moral and ethical nature. Clearly, when Harry insists to Umbridge that Voldemort has returned (several times, if I recall correctly) and then is *punished for telling the truth*, this depicts his nature as dedicated to the truth even in the face of punishment (you don't hear him go blabbing about his Umbridge quill punishment - Ron discovers it) and a fact of canon which is often forgotten in the discussions I've seen. The consequences of our actions, as DD says, are complex and cannot always be predicted. Therefore, the road to hell can be paved with good intentions (and you may pay the toll) or the road of the righteous can lead you down the road hell, too. You just don't know all the time how it will all turn out in the long run. While I believe lying for personal gain or to forward a personal agenda is wrong, I also believe that you are morally and ethically obligated to lie in certain situations where, say, life would be at risk should you tell the truth. In other words, I'm perfectly comfortable with Harry's lies and rule breaking as long as it's in pursuit of the concepts I value highly: life, liberty, security and the pursuit of happiness. Charme From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 04:47:54 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 04:47:54 -0000 Subject: Hagrid IS a good teacher!! WAS Re: Hagrid and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125078 Valky: Because Hippogryffs are no less dangerous than some of the explosions in Snape's dungeon, for a start. When Malfoy *deliberately* incenses Buckbeak, Hagrid shows that he has enough control and respect over Bucky to prevent a serious incedent. The trial is a SHAM, Draco and the other students weren't in real danger from Buckbeak while Hagrid was there watching, and I don't recall him sneaking off for a smoko during the lesson, so he is NOT irresponsible as far as I'm concerned. Snape OTOH *is* denying his students a sense of protectedness when they make potions, and people have been sent to the Hospital Wing from Snapes class as well. Not just Hagrids. I am not giving Hagrid a free pass to be irresponsible. I stand firm that he IS a better more responsible and caring teacher than Snape. Full stop. Alla: LOLOL! Great post, Valky. Actually I agree with you that on that particular lesson Hagrid behaved VERY responsibly. What I was questioning and still am is whether it was wise to start with Hypocriffs in the first place, not how he conducted the lesson itself. Second point - you KNOW how I feel about Snape's teaching skills. :o) I am not sure though why you think that Snape denies his students the sense of protectedness during the lessons. I am speaking purely about technical safety. Are you saying that there are some precautions which need to be taken during potions lessons and Snape fails to exercise them? I absolutely agree with you though that Hagrid is more CARING teacher than Snape. :o) JMO, Alla From dontask2much at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 05:02:38 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:02:38 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Dursleys, the Weasleys, Hagrid, and Snape: Nice people get a pass References: Message-ID: <007701c51a2e$103e8e00$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 125079 "lupinlore" wrote: >> >> There has been a lot of discussion about several topics that I think >> come together. One discussion has been about the Dursleys and >> Dumbledore. One has been about Snape. One has been about Molly and >> her parenting techniques. And we have had plenty of discussions in >> the past about Hagrid and his teaching techniques. >> >> Now, I think this raises some interesting points. Why do those of us >> who despise the Dursleys not get upset when Molly seems to play >> favorites? Why do those of us who despise Snape not get upset at >> Hagrid's teaching, which is physically if not emotionally dangerous. >> >> Well, the answer of course is that the Weasleys and Hagrid are nice >> and Snape and the Dursleys aren't. Therefore the former get a pass to >> a certain extent and the latter don't. And, here is the clencher, I >> think THAT IS PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE. >>I think this helps us get at the reason most of us (at least most of >>us who have expressed our opinions) can't see any hope for Draco. His >>intentions are so boldly and inherently bad that they mark him as evil >>in the context of the Potterverse in both big and small things. >>Hagrid, on the other hand, has blatantly good intentions in all >>things, and is therefore marked as good. Charme: First, I don't feel sorry, despise, or provide a pass for the Dursleys. The Dursleys are what they are due to a problem with their own perceptions of themselves, beginning squarely with Petunia IMO. I see it that Petunia has displaced her need for "normalcy" into a self deception which has grown exponentially as such delusions always do to include areas outside those of the original intent: her perception of Dudley is a prime example of such extremes. I hate to say this but the same applies for Draco; although if you think of it, other than resting his laurels on his pureblood status, what else has the kid got really? Have we seen what he really is? As far as Molly is concerned, show me a family that isn't dysfunctional in some way (nobody is perfect, WW or RL included.) The jury is still out on Snape IMO - we don't have enough info about Snape to assess his complete moral compass, however that doesn't mean I have to like some of his (or any of the other characters noted above) more questionable actions. :) Charme From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 05:04:14 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:04:14 -0000 Subject: Harry's Lies In-Reply-To: <003b01c51a2b$39bed210$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125080 Lupinlore said: So what are we to make of Harry's lies? How do they fit with his psychology? How do they fit with the morality of the Potterverse? Charme: While I believe lying for personal gain or to forward a personal agenda is wrong, I also believe that you are morally and ethically obligated to lie in certain situations where, say, life would be at risk should you tell the truth. In other words, I'm perfectly comfortable with Harry's lies and rule breaking as long as it's in pursuit of the concepts I value highly: life, liberty, security and the pursuit of happiness. Alla: Hi, Charme! I absolutely agree with this paragraph you wrote, but I don't believe you addressed the first quote. Not that you are obligated of course, but I would love to know what you think. :o) Yes, I am comfortable with Harry's lying too when it is for the noble purpose of saving somebody, but are you specifically comfortable with Harry telling twins not to tell Molly about him giving them the TWT money? Do you agree that Harry is lying because he knows that Molly dissaproves of twins' venture and that by association she will "stop loving Harry", if she learns about that? Do you think that in this instance Harry's lying could be looked at as the scars of his abusive upbringing showing up - namely his inability to trust that adult can held PERMANENT genuine affection for him even if said adult ( Molly in that instance) can disagree with his actions? Thank you, Alla From dontask2much at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 05:15:38 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:15:38 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Lies References: Message-ID: <00a401c51a2f$e18063c0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 125081 > Alla: > > Hi, Charme! I absolutely agree with this paragraph you wrote, but I > don't believe you addressed the first quote. Not that you are > obligated of course, but I would love to know what you think. :o) > > Yes, I am comfortable with Harry's lying too when it is for the > noble purpose of saving somebody, but are you specifically > comfortable with Harry telling twins not to tell Molly about him > giving them the TWT money? > > Do you agree that Harry is lying because he knows that Molly > dissaproves of twins' venture and that by association she will "stop > loving Harry", if she learns about that? > > Do you think that in this instance Harry's lying could be looked at > as the scars of his abusive upbringing showing up - namely his > inability to trust that adult can held PERMANENT genuine affection > for him even if said adult ( Molly in that instance) can disagree > with his actions? > Charme: No, thank YOU, Alla :) Yep, actually I am ok with it - I think Harry is damaged emotionally somewhat by his Dursley upbringing and doesn't want to upset the "apple cart." I also think Harry's decision to ask the twins not to tell Molly was also precipitated by Mr Weasley telling the twins NOT to mention to Molly that he knew they gambled their savings at the QWC. Thus, in some circles it can be perceived he had someone he respected rather show him the way ;) Charme From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Feb 24 05:16:53 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:16:53 -0000 Subject: Hagrid IS a good teacher!! WAS Re: Hagrid and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125082 > Valky: > Snape OTOH *is* denying his students a sense of protectedness when > they make potions, . > Alla: > > I am not sure though why you think that Snape denies his students > the sense of protectedness during the lessons. I am speaking purely about technical safety. Are you saying that there are some > precautions which need to be taken during potions lessons and Snape fails to exercise them? > Valky: Well actually I've checked closely and it seems *technically* Snape has the whole show running like clockwork... But Snape does not *offer* the kids a protective arm from dangers beyond their control. He in fact deliberately denies it. In GOF Snape takes Trevor in front of the class and feeds him the shrinking potion Neville made. No one in the class knows what will happen if the potion fails, they just know it probably will fail. The students, especially Neville, but in fact ALL students are under Snapes threat here, he is weilding power over them ALL because none knows the outcome of a failed potion except him. The potion works, and Snape is mightily dissapointed that Hermione undermined his little power trip by helping Neville. It can be argued that the "Slytherins" feel protected by Snape but this is not as a teacher but as a Housemember. I think, OOtP Snape did tell the class that they could test their own dangerously incorrect potions if they got it wrong. Almost all students fend for themselves in the dungeon, as a Potions class there is no sense of protectedness. Hagrid never told Draco he would have to fend for himself. Valky From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 07:10:33 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:10:33 -0000 Subject: Harry's Lies In-Reply-To: <00a401c51a2f$e18063c0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125083 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Charme" wrote: > > > Alla: > > snip) > > Do you agree that Harry is lying because he knows that Molly > > dissaproves of twins' venture and that by association she will "stop loving Harry", if she learns about that? > > > > Do you think that in this instance Harry's lying could be looked at as the scars of his abusive upbringing showing up - namely his > > inability to trust that adult can held PERMANENT genuine affection for him even if said adult ( Molly in that instance) can disagree with his actions? > > > Charme: > (snip) I also think Harry's decision to ask the twins not to tell Molly > was also precipitated by Mr Weasley telling the twins NOT to mention to Molly that he knew they gambled their savings at the QWC. Tonks jumping in here: I think the reason that Harry tells the twin not to tell anyone is that Harry doesn't want people to think that he is rich and being a big man by giving money away. Also he is protecting the twins who would have to explain to their mother *why* they don't have their savings anymore. And he doesn't want Molly to make the twin give it back to him. I don't think that Harry has a problem trusting adults. I also don't think that Harry is afraid that Molly won't love him anymore. I think that on a deeper level Harry knows and understand most people better than we think he does. Tonks_op From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Feb 24 08:05:39 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:05:39 -0000 Subject: Harry's Lies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125084 Alla said: > > > Do you think that in this instance Harry's lying could be looked > at as the scars of his abusive upbringing showing up - namely his > > > inability to trust that adult can held PERMANENT genuine > affection for him even if said adult ( Molly in that instance) can > disagree with his actions? > > > > > > > > I don't think that Harry has a problem trusting adults. I also don't > think that Harry is afraid that Molly won't love him anymore. I > think that on a deeper level Harry knows and understand most people > better than we think he does. > > Tonks_op I'm going to have to disagree with you here, Tonks. I do think Harry very much has a problem trusting adults, as illustrated in OOTP. It's not surprising considering the abuse he's suffered, and it is encouraged by the attitudes of the adults around him, but it's nevertheless there. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Feb 24 08:13:56 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:13:56 -0000 Subject: Phoenixgod's theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125085 > > Consider something else. What if Harry had decided to throw himself > into his role as the Boy Who Lived and used his fame and fortune to > bad ends once he discovered that he had both in the wizarding world? > I can easily envision a scenario where Harry finds out he has wealth > and fame from Hagrid and decides to go overboard with both as a > reaction against his years of abuse. DD would have created the > problem he was trying to stop. > > I personally think that the best thing DD could have done would have > been to fake Harry's death and hide him somewhere else, like France > or America, as just another war orphan. He could have played kindly > old Grampy Albus until Harry was old enough to go to Hogwarts and be > revealed to the world again. > > phoenixgod2000 I've been thinking about this one a lot, and I have to say I agree with you Phoenixgod. Primarily because it's impossible to take Lord Comic Book and his Keystone Kops seriously as they have been written. Given Albus' supposed power, it's simply impossible to believe he could not have protected Harry in this way. Now that means that: 1) Albus is lying (I don't think so) 2) Albus has some reprehensible scheme to "toughen Harry up" (I don't think so) 3) Albus bungled badly and needs to own up to that fact (ding, ding, ding) 4) Albus just didn't give a d**n (don't think so, but that speech at the end of OOTP makes me wonder) IMO the scene at the end of OOTP is just the tip of the iceberg of the issues Albus needs to roll up his sleeves and address. The man has caused Harry an enormous amount of pain. It's time he faced that fact. Lupinlore From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 08:36:16 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:36:16 -0000 Subject: Harry's Lies - and he knows it - That's important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125086 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > Lupinlore: > > ...edited... > > So what are we to make of Harry's lies? How do they fit with his > psychology? How do they fit with the morality of the Potterverse? > > Lupinlore bboyminn: I've touched on this before. There is one very critical /event/ in the books that tells us about the quality of Harry's lying and the quality of his charater. In every case, when it doesn't otherwise distract from the story, when Harry lies, the narrative says Harry lied. - Example from OotP - 'Aren't you... aren't you worried about the Ministry of Magic hearing?' said Hermione quietly. 'No,' Harry lied defiantly. - end quote - On other occassions, the narration mentions that Harry can't look his friends in the eye when he tells them a lie, and these are usually very small insignificant lies like telling Hermione he's done his homework.. On another occasion, Harry tells some casual lie to Hagrid, and in the narrative, Harry reflects on how guilty he feels, lying to Hagrid is not like lying to anyone else. JKR usually doesn't have to say this, most of the time it's obvious. So why does she make a point of it? For Illustration- If this statement occurred in the next book... 'I don't know what the Prophecy said,' Harry lied. Since we know this isn't true, the story is just as well served by saying... 'I don't know what the Prophecy said,' Harry said. Again, we the reader, with our special insight, already know it's a lie, why would the author need to point that out to us? Why? Because, that narration is a reflection of Harry's inner psychological life. JKR specifically says '...Harry lied...' because she wants us to know that Harry is well aware that he is lying. She wants us to know that Harry's conscience is making him aware that he is doing something he shouldn't. That conscience, that awareness, helps endear us to Harry. That awareness of his own lying, those guilty feelings, are our inner clues to the fact that Harry is a moral person. That he is well aware of right and wrong. We all tell lies. If there is one among us who hasn't, then they are an extremely rare individual indeed. Instead of holding Harry to some theoretical moral standard that no one can live up to, I think it is fairer to look at the grand scheme of things, and measure Harry's overal character, and not judge him by hand picking specific events. Life is never black and white, we all live in shades of gray. To judge the characters in the books, you can't look just at Snape and Harry's relationship to judge Snape. We need to judge Snape across his past, present, and future. The same is true of Dumbledore. We can point to many mistakes Dumbledore has made, many things that Dumbledore did that people think were horribly wrong. But again, he should not be judged on those specific events, but across the arc of his life, and across the arc of his full character. We should not judge Harry on the little white lies that we all tell, but on the quality of character he displays when it really counts. As far as Harry not telling Molly about the money he gave Fred and George, let's not lose sight of the fact that he DID tell Molly, or at least he told Ron it was OK to tell Molly. Harry knew Molly didn't approve of Fred and George starting a joke shop. He simply didn't want to get himself or the twins in trouble, and he, in narrative, expresses quilt/conscience about not telling her. Once it became apparent that not telling was going to cause more trouble, he told right away. As long as we see this awareness of his action in Harry's internal landscape, and as long as Harry is aware of his lying, we and Harry are OK. We know that underneath the moment is someone of conscience. The time to start worrying is when these little things pass by and Harry doesn't give them a seconds thought, when the sense of right and wrong are lost, then it time to worry and wonder. Just calling it like I see it. Steve/bboyminn From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Feb 24 09:03:52 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 09:03:52 -0000 Subject: Harry's Lies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125087 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > Over on the Sugarquill, I saw a couple of comments that I thought > might be worthy of discussion here. Madam V. Hunter said: > > "Harry does not often behave like an honest person, but his dishonesty > is not about telling a certain number of untruths. Harry is brave, but > is he brave enough to tell Mrs. Weasley that he gave Fred and George > the money for their business? He didn't do anything wrong. Fred and > George are his friends. Harry had a great deal of money he didn't want > any part of and Fred and George wanted to make an investment he > believed in. So why is he reluntant to be honest with this woman who > has shown him nothing but warmth. Harry tells us why. He doesn't trust > that her love for him will survive her dissaproval. He saw the way she > treated Hermione, he's watched her disapproval of her children: What > are Fred and I, next door neighbors? Molly doesn't began to > understand or appreciate how much Sirius means to Harry--anything she > is going to say about Sirius is eventually going to alienate him. So > with Molly, Harry has begun a tradition of being dishonest--not lying > necessarily, but telling her what he thinks she wants to hear because > he believes that is the only way he can keep her love and affection. > > Harry's dishonesty here is not shown as an admirable trait. It is very > sad. He's afraid to be honest because he's afraid that this woman will > stop loving him. That's no way for a child or teenager to feel about > their parent figure. A child who is afraid that Mom or Dad will > dissaprove of them to the point of rejection will never tell a parent > the truth. Children so afraid of parent's rejection have done some > very sad things:running away,keeping abuse secret, or even harming > themselves. Harry has done all the above. We're looking for the scars > of the abuse Harry's suffered with Petunia and Vernon. I think this is > it." > > > In reply to which Grace has Victory wrote: > > "I think this is the crucial issue with honesty. The problem is not > whether Harry has a character flaw (because everyone has some, and > this one makes him more human) but whether JKR recognises that this > particular trait is a flaw. > > And we don't know. It's something we won't know until the end of the > series. I don't think JKR would ever go to the extreme of promoting > dishonesty. But I do sometimes wonder whether it's a moral blind spot > for the author, and that she hasn't noticed how many casual lies Harry > tells." > > > So what are we to make of Harry's lies? How do they fit with his > psychology? How do they fit with the morality of the Potterverse? > > First, not telling something is not lying. Secondly, I find both quotes childish in their black and white perception of ethics. Children are taught that "it is wrong to lie", because they are too young to be taught the nuances of adult behavior. And how can you teach it anyway? The subtlety of the new hairdo: if it's your best friend, *some* honesty is required (the exact measure depending on a multitude of factors, such as revamp possibilites and emotional fragility); if it's a colleague - a complimentary comment is almost a must (unless it's absolutely horrible, in which case you don't say anything)... etc. And the situation always changes slightly if you are asked for your opinion. So, in not telling Molly Harry was engaging in that kind of ordinary, day to day, negotiations and deliberations of social interaction. In other words, it is (more or less) morally neutrel. Naama, who never buys pens if she can help it ... From docmara at comcast.net Wed Feb 23 14:09:13 2005 From: docmara at comcast.net (docmara1) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:09:13 -0000 Subject: Harry has PTSD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125088 "Caius Marcius" wrote: > Bottom line - being a fictitious character, Harry has those elements > of PTSD that help advance the plot (e.g., the hypersensitivity, the > outbursts of intense emotion), but fails to manifest those symptoms > which would not. > Hi everybody, I've been lurking for many months but this is my first post. I'm a psychologist in real life when I'm not reading Harry Potter or LOTR :) Actually, Harry does display all the requisite symptoms of PTSD in OOTP. The event or events were horrifying, overwhelming and involved intense fear, helplessness, or horror. The traumatic event is reexperienced in at least one way (recollections, dreams, etc.), persistent avoidance *and numbing of general responsiveness* -- this doesn't necessarily mean avoiding thinking or talking about the trauma. While this does happen in many instances, in others, people become consumed with elements of the trauma (eg. a survivor of 9/11 compulsively reading everything he can find about the event and subsequent responses of government to the event)it also includes restricted "range of affect" (i.e. having trouble feeling certain feelings -- like affection or happiness), a sense of foreshortened future, feeling of detachment or estrangement from others. Also, persistent symptoms of increased arousal -- sleep disturbance, irritibility, outbursts of anger, difficulty concentrating, hypervigilance, exaggerated startle response. And last, the symptoms interfere with a person's functioning in significant ways. I don't have my Harry Potter books here (but I do have my DSM ;)) so I can't cite specific canon, but I think that seeing Harry as suffering from PTSD does make sense. That's not *all* he's experiencing (experiencing a trauma in the midst of adolescent development is really a double-whammy), and I've sure seen more extreme cases of PTSD, but it does, for me, make Harry's behavior throughout OOTP make a whole lot of sense. And don't get me started on the lack of quality mental health care in the WW -- though, given Harry's history, it's not his natural inclination to look for emotional support, but rather, to muscle through on his own...it's taking him a long time to begin to believe that he can count on others -- and there are times when he's sorely disappointed when he does. Anyhow, just thought I'd pitch in to clear this small point up :) Thanks for all the amazing discussion! Mara From Unicorn_72 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 14:44:18 2005 From: Unicorn_72 at yahoo.com (Unicorn_72 at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:44:18 -0000 Subject: Snape's family killed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125089 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > > Clare: > > My theory is that Snape was married with a child. His wife and > > child were then killed by Voldemort. This was more than likely an > > accident. > > Maybe they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Voldemort, > > being completely evil, showed no remorse or regret about the > > incident. This could explain why Snape changed sides, why he is so > > angry, and why DD trusts him so much. > > > > I would like to hear some thoughts on this theory. > > > > Valky: > No debunk yet Clare, I too think that Snape is married. > I think his wife is either dying, or else is a ghost. I don't think > he has children. IIRC Severus doesn't stay at Hogwarts over > Christmas, but OTOH he doesn't appear to have a happy home life to > speak of either, so my money is on an existing, but tragic one. > > As for that being to do with Voldemort and the DE's I think, yes, it > probably has. Though I wouldn't be quick to assume that Sanpes wife > was an entirely innocent person. Perhaps she was DE, too. I think > that whatever tragic thing might have happened to Severus' > hypothetical family it *would* have *something* to do with his > loyalty to Dumbledore. But I am wandering onto highly speculative > ground there. Got any canon Clare? Karen: You know I have also been thinking something along these lines as well lately. But most of mine is from interviews I've read from Rowling so....it could be totally wrong given the fact a couple could be taken to mean anything. Oh yea, I didn't know Snape was not at Hogwarts during Christmas..somehow I though he was...I missed that...draws a blank as to where that is in the books?? Dang I wish my memory was better! But back to the idea I was thinking. I remember in one interview I think someone asked if Snape was in love or loved someone..sorry I don't have the exact quotes guys, I'm just going by what I remember so this could be totally screwed up. But she said something to the effect of thats a bad idea and who would want him in love with them...I think she added we would find out why she said that later? I know this is not an exact quote but its close I believe. Then There was a question in an interview about were any of the staff at hogwarts married..and she said they were or some where and that we would find out more about it later. The another question that caught my eye recently was why do Sirius and Snape hate each other so much...again the answer was sort of their is more to the story and you will find out why they hate each other. So, I was thinking Perhaps Snape was married and his wife was somehow killed by Death Eaters or Voldemort for whatever reason. I had not though about the accident theory..somehow I was thinking maybe she was considered disloyal to the Dark Lord...but meh I don't know since this is all guessing. But the quote about why would you want him in love with you that its a bad idea...it almost makes me thing....could he have been the one to get her killed because she...maybe switched sides or...something to that affect?? I was also thinking perhaps, from the last Rowling quote about Sirius and Snape hating each other....what if they were in love with the same girl? I know a lot of pepole suspect that Snape was in love with Lily...but what if there was someone else and Sirius might have been his rival...and not James. It seems to me from the books that Sirius hates Snape more than James...but I guess that was because we only have a couple of things to show James, and he is dead, but we had Sirius alive for a while to have them confront each other...still this was just an Idea I had from one interview question..so I am probably way off mark. From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Thu Feb 24 09:06:52 2005 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 09:06:52 -0000 Subject: What is Snape knows (was: Further thoughts on who knows what ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125090 > Valky: > I agree with both of potioncat's statements, and one supports the > other. Notice that Snape *does* appear to be interfering in the > outcome of the prophecy. He *really* gets on Harry's back telling > him he is *not* special, all the while telling Neville *he* is not > living up to the standard he should be.. and Neville really *is* > doing hopelessly. > Neville is his prophecy boy. > > Most likely he [DD] "calmly" tells Severus over and over that they are > exactly, both doing as they should be, and no interference is > necessary.... hence Snape's extreme frustration. Julia: There is an interesting observation you make. Do you really think that Snape think that Neville is a prophecy boy? (I agree with the statement that SS knows only the first part of the prophecy - the same part Voldemort knows) Of course from SS's POV there are some indications that probably make him believe that Neville is the one for example that he is pureblood and SS probably thinks Voldie is pureblood too. However, I don't think that SS is so not observant spy that he didn't realise that Harry throughout the 5 years of Hogwart was the one who dueled with Voldie many times and that DD favours him not Neville. Maybe the source of his frustration is the feeling that Harry interferes Neville with his 'saving-the-world' instinct?? Julia From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 17:34:28 2005 From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:34:28 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys, the Weasleys, Hagrid, and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125091 --- "lupinlore" > Well, the answer of course is that the Weasleys and Hagrid are nice > and Snape and the Dursleys aren't. Therefore the former get a pass to > a certain extent and the latter don't. And, here is the clencher, I > think THAT IS PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE. > Lyra: Well, yes, people who seem nice probably do get a pass. But, in the books, as in RL, nobody is really consistently nice, are they? The Dursleys are probably perfectly nice to 99.9 percent of the people they come in contact with -- coworkers, teachers, neighbors, etc. It's just Harry and the rare other wizard they meet who are not treated nicely. Snape seems quite civil to McGonnagall and the other staff members we see him interact with; he's quite pleasant to Lucius, and for all we know, to all the Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs he teaches. And Molly, while generally nice in her own special way, has a bunch of prejudices that keep her from being nice to everyone -- how "nice" was it to publicly question whether the newly-bitten werewolf should be the same room with Arthur, two weeks away from the full moon? How "nice" is it to grumble about the train station "crawling with muggles" when those muggles are just going about their business, same as the Weasleys? (seems to me she makes other derogatory comments about muggles as well, but I can't recall any specifics). So, while niceness might be undervalued, it's also hard to get a handle on and use as a measure of someone's goodness. From frnsic1 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 05:37:48 2005 From: frnsic1 at yahoo.com (Sally Waddle) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:37:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Further thoughts on who knows what about the prophecy, particularly re: Snape Message-ID: <20050224053748.68909.qmail@web61305.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125092 potioncat: I can't put my finger on it, but Snape has a reason, within his own mind, to treat these two boys the way he does. And I don't think it's an old grudge or old life debt. His behavior seems one of irritation or frustration. a thought: If Snape was the eavesdropper and heard the first half of the prophecy, he may well be disgusted the the job of ridding the WW of Voldemort (which IS the ultimate DADA job) belongs to one of two young boys, both of whom he regards as incompetent. He hates that his ultimate survival depends on either Harry or Neville (as, many years earlier, it depended on James). We all know that Harry has many positive wizarding qualities, but to Snape, he (1) is not a pureblood, and (2) "lacks the discipline" necessary for good potionmaking and occlumency. Neville is obviously a lower-than-average wizard (so far). I imagine our dear Snape is absolutely livid that one of these two boys controls his fate! "frnsic1" From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Thu Feb 24 09:33:28 2005 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 09:33:28 -0000 Subject: Harry's Lies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125093 > Tonks: I think the reason that Harry tells the twin not to tell anyone is that Harry doesn't want people to think that he is rich and being a big man by giving money away. Also he is protecting the twins who would have to explain to their mother *why* they don't have their savings anymore. And he doesn't want Molly to make the twin give it back to him. > I don't think that Harry has a problem trusting adults. I also don't think that Harry is afraid that Molly won't love him anymore. I think that on a deeper level Harry knows and understand most people better than we think he does. Julia here: I absolutely agree with you! I personally think that this disscusion doesn't have too much sense. As I see it, Harry didn't tell Molly, NOT lied to her! So what's the problem? He just didn't want her to know it because he would feel uncomfortable with it. We all do it all the time! Harry is a normal kid he knew Molly wouldn't approve so he didn't tell her. That's ALL. I think he is not afraid that she won't love him anymore - I think he is simply terrified how she will react - maybe she would yell on him or tell the twins that they don't need charity etc! It's the same thing when you and your sibiling are 14-15 years old and you didn't tell your parents that your sister/brother went to the party without them knowing it. No harm is done! About trusting adults - I think that Harry is too trusty when it comes to anyone - he trust DD, Lupin, the whole Order - he even trusted fake Moody and Tom Riddle and Sirius in PoA! I think that his problem is that he trust too easily... Someone mention that he doesn't trust adults especially in OOTP - I think that in this book he is problem is 'adolescent agonising' and the part of it is not trusting adults. But in earlier books we can see what he is really like! Julia From geekessgoddess at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 08:21:55 2005 From: geekessgoddess at yahoo.com (Freud) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:21:55 -0000 Subject: Snape is not a believer... (was Further thoughts on who knows what about the prophecy, particularly re: Snape) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125094 SSSusan wrote: POSSIBILITY ONE: SNAPE KNOWS (some or all of) THE CONTENTS OF THE PROPHECY (Siriusly Snapey Susan) Good thought provoking Post SSS.... Possibility Three: Snape knows, but doesn't accept the prophecy as legitimate. In my opinion, Snape does know about the prophecy from DD but there is no way his ego will allow him to believe that a young wizard like Harry or Neville can defeat Voldemort. Oh, he humored DD by giving Harry some half-baked occlumency lessons, but it seems to me he never took the task seriously, and he didn't seem too concerned about Harry's safety. Even if Snape did believe Harry or Neville were special by "prophecy" I don't think it would make a difference in how he treats them. Snape resents gifted people and he is not going to give them positive attention. Whether Harry is the propecy child or not, there is definitely something magical about Harry, and everyone can see it but the stubborn Mr. Snape. tabekat, who hopes that one day Neville or Harry or Hermione will punch Snape in his long un-shapely nose.... From LauraHerndon at mail.clayton.edu Wed Feb 23 18:21:16 2005 From: LauraHerndon at mail.clayton.edu (Laura Herndon) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:21:16 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: De-bunking Count Snape/Foe Glass Message-ID: <0F4C300640723C4DB4643C979986D9833750F0@io.ccsunet.clayton.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 125095 "K": > Why in the world, with everything else going on at the time, is > Snape so interested in the Foe-Glass? I can't decide. But JKR does > bring up the Foe-Glass again in OoP Kizor: One possiblity is that he was checking if his cover had been blown. A full-strength Lord Voldemort whom you've betrayed might show up rather clearly. - I'm inclined to think Snape was seeing himself in the Foe-Glass as his own worst enemy. -LH From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Thu Feb 24 09:47:58 2005 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 09:47:58 -0000 Subject: Molly is not ESE! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125096 > vmonte: > Lucius, Snape, Draco, Umbridge, and Voldemort on the > other hand, do not have a sense of humor about themselves, and they > are truly cruel. Julia: hehe... Do you REALLY think that Voldemort and Lucius don't have a sense of humour about themselves?? hehe... it'a a joke :D Julia From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 18:59:00 2005 From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:59:00 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys, the Weasleys, Hagrid, and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125097 Lyra (that'd be me) wrote something like: The Dursleys are probably nice in their dealings with 99.9 percent of the people they meet... Lyra, hastening to amend that post before everyone thinks she's mental: Ooops, by "The Dursleys" I meant Petunia and Vernon, NOT Dudley. I think the elder Dursleys know they have to play nice to get ahead. Dudley, on the other hand, is horrid, and no one besides his mother is confused about what little Duddykins is. (I suspect Vernon has a pretty good idea of how Dudley behaves, but unfortunately finds this behavior quite acceptable, perhaps even something to be proud of. ) (I'm still being moderated, or reviewed, or whatever, and my other post has not made it up yet, so I can't stick this onto that as a thread, unless some nice elf steps in.) Admin Team note The nice (but inefficent) elf concerned unfortunately failed to notice this in the queue and so didn't edit it together with Lyra's last message. She will now go and iron her hands. Ouch! From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 24 10:05:53 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:05:53 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid IS a good teacher!! WAS Re: Hagrid and Snape: Nice people get a pass Message-ID: <20050224100553.11223.qmail@web86209.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125098 > Valky: > Because Hippogryffs are no less dangerous than some of the > explosions in Snape's dungeon, for a start. > > Snape OTOH *is* denying his students a sense of protectedness when > they make potions, and people have been sent to the Hospital Wing > from Snapes class as well. Not just Hagrids. Yes, Potions are dangerous. Yes, Snape lets his students know that from the beginning and reminds them often that even the slightest mistake can be fatal. I actually think it would be wrong for any Potion teacher to instill in the students the sense of being protected, as in "oh, it does not really matter if I get the potion wrong, the teacher won't let me come to any harm". In Hagrid's lesson in question, Draco acted the way he acted not only because he is a stupid git, but because he had this sense of protectedness: "you are not really dangerous, are you?". Irene ___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From irishwynch at aol.com Wed Feb 23 19:09:55 2005 From: irishwynch at aol.com (irishwynch at aol.com) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:09:55 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry has PTSD Message-ID: <129.57419569.2f4e2f03@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125099 >>catportkey at aol.com writes: When I first read Order of the Phoenix, I assumed that Harry was going through "testosterone poisoning" which has the lovely side effects of being overly moody. But as I thought about it, his symptoms seems to relate to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder<< I attributed Harry's behavior to Voldemort become stronger. Similar to the pain Harry would get whenever Voldemort was near in the previous books, only this time, it was the fustrated feelings Voldemort was experiencing in trying to obtain the prophesy being transferred to Harry. Marla [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Wed Feb 23 21:32:49 2005 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Richard Jones) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:32:49 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125100 >From reading these posts, I guess the politics in the Weasley family are more complex than I imagined! The idea that the twins and Ginny may not be Molly and Arthur's biological children is certainly interesting. There may be something to that. The very first words we hear from Fred and George in the series are (I don't have the book here) something like "And you can yourself our mother!" If the twins and Ginny are nephews and a niece, they must be from Arthur's side of the family unless Molly and Arthur did something to magically change their hair color to red to make them appear part of the family. Richard Jones From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 24 10:11:33 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:11:33 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Dursleys, the Weasleys, Hagrid, and Snape: Nice people get a pass Message-ID: <20050224101133.11602.qmail@web86209.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125101 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > I also want to point out (thank you Nora!) that INTENTIONS seem to be > very important in the Potter Universe. That is, what you intend to do > is what determines the morality of your actions and the reward you > deserve. I'm afraid this is a bit like an own goal for you. If intentions count so much, then Snape gets a pass for his treatment of Neville: his intentions are to make the boy learn his potions, whatever it takes. So that should excuse the less than perfect implementation methods for the said intentions, right? :-) Irene ___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From aleenakenobi at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 02:29:58 2005 From: aleenakenobi at yahoo.com (aleenakenobi) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 02:29:58 -0000 Subject: Robes (was The Harry Stuff...and a query...) In-Reply-To: <8qp4ek+dccf@eGroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125102 Commenting on message #2219: > > Scott wrote: > > I can't decide whether they should have an open front or be > > more like the style of a choir robe...any ideas? Ebony: > I used to imagine their regular class robes were like informal lab > coats until I joined this forum in July. The best example I can > give is from the chapter illustration in the American edition of > GoF, Chapter 17, "The Four Champions". Underneath his robe, Harry > is *clearly* wearing regular Muggle clothing. > > However, someone pointed out to me that there is indication that > these robes could be worn without street clothing underneath. I know it's really late to reply.. (I'm new and reading all the messages) but in many cases in the books, we see characters who've been warned of having their robes reveal their knickers or being flipped over to reveal underwear. It's my guess that the robes are one pieces and at least during the school days have no muggle clothing worn underneath. Alerius From jmrazo at hotmail.com Wed Feb 23 22:19:42 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:19:42 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125103 > > Alla: > > I don't agree with Red Hen's article either for the most part of it. > I mean, I would be the last one to call Molly a "perfect mother". > She is far from it, IMO, but no way I would call her a toxic mother, > either. Sorry Alla, I have to disagree with you. I would even go further than a Toxic Mother. I think Molly is flat out Toxic to just everyone. Practically the only arguements that happened in the Order scenes other than Snape/Sirius were caused by or inflated by Molly. Her reaction to Sirius at the begining of the novel was one of the most reprehensible in the book. She accusssed a man who had been wrongly tortured for *twelve Years* of not wanting what's best for Harry. The guy who broke out of an unbreakable prison just so he could save his godson, but she apparently doesn't think that's good enough. Disgusting. Everyone drags out the sorry old song about her speaking too harshly just because she loves Harry and so we all should forgive her. Sorry, I don't buy it. There are things you don't say and and things you can't take back once they are. Plus she treats Arthur like absolute crap and that I cannot abide. > Sure, some parts of Molly's parenting REALLY gets to me. Strangely > enough, "robes scene" is probably one that gets to me the most. The robe scene bothers me too, but its just an example of what really bothers me about her parenting in general > But I only have to remember Molly's boggart scene and I can forgive > her many things. I see a mother who loves ALL her children and who > is terrifying of losing ALL her children in war. She absolutely loves her kids, I don't think that anyone would ever seriously argue otherwise, but as a teacher who has to deal with pushy parents every single day, loving your kids doesn't mean you're doing whats right for them. I know plenty of parents who coddle their children, refuse to punish them for anything, punish them for everything, give them nothing, give them everything, believe that the only dreams they should have are the ones the parents give them, and so on ad infinitem. Molly may love her kids but her love isn't doing them any good. She does not get a pass on her attitude from me just because she loves her kids. That does not excuse either her actions or her talk, IMO. > Alla, whose favourite Weasleys ARE twins and Ginny. I hate to disagree with you Alla, but I'll figure out some way to get you off the Ginny love train :) phoenixgod2000, who just got off a week of parent/teacher confrences, which has probably affected his judgement and magnified the Molly hate From collegegirl200521 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 01:29:53 2005 From: collegegirl200521 at yahoo.com (jina haymaker) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:29:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Hagrid as teacher (was Re: The Dursleys, the Weasleys, Hagrid, and Snape: Nice people get a pass) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050224012953.70583.qmail@web52601.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125104 Irene: > As for teaching, he competes for the spot of worst > Hogwarts teacher with Binns and Trelawney. And it's > possible to argue that he wins the competition: you > can learn history of magic from the books, and it > appears that Trelawney teaches the techniques properly > for the interested students. But with the care of the > magical creatures, if your teacher failed you in > practical studies, then it was a wasted time. How > practical are flobberworms and double-ended newts? I don't think that Hagrid was that bad of a teacher, after all he really didn't get educated much from Hogwarts since he got expelled. He is just teaching what he knows, while yes, it is a little bit too much, at least the kids won't forget anything that they learned in his classes. "collegegirl200521" From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 10:25:26 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 02:25:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050224102526.5686.qmail@web31103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125105 Richard Jones: If the twins and Ginny are nephews and a niece, they must be from Arthur's side of the family unless Molly and Arthur did something to magically change their hair color to red to make them appear part of the family. Arynn: Not an important point, just thought I'd mention: Molly has red hair too! Her whole family might have red hair for all we know. Besides, this whole thoery sounds a little too much like we're looking for the one armed red headed gunman on the grassy knoll. Why would JKR confuse her (mostly young) readers with this parental roulette? I'm not knockin' anyone, and mean no disrespect. :) --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From collegegirl200521 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 00:42:20 2005 From: collegegirl200521 at yahoo.com (jina haymaker) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:42:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: What if Snape knows (was: Further thoughts on who knows what ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050224004220.69878.qmail@web52608.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125106 Potioncat: > What if Snape knows part of the prophecy and thinks these are the > two best chances of defeating LV...they should be doing better. > > > I can't put my finger on it, but Snape has a reason, within his own > mind, to treat these two boys the way he does. And I don't think > it's an old grudge or old life debt. His behavior seems one of > irritation or frustration. I think that Snape knows the first part of the prophecy, the only part that Voldy heard. Voldy probably told most of his DEs and thinking that Snape would be loyal to him, Voldy told him. But I don't think that Snape really treats him the way he does because of the prophecy, he just wants to toughen them up....yeah that's right...lol, Snape has his reasons for acting the way he does, I guess. "collegegirl200521" From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 10:40:25 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 02:40:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid IS a good teacher!! WAS Re: Hagrid and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050224104025.15649.qmail@web31102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125107 Valky: Snape OTOH *is* denying his students a sense of protectedness when they make potions, and people have been sent to the Hospital Wing from Snapes class as well. Not just Hagrids. Arynn: All of the times That I can think of that students had to go to the hospital wing (or other healing) from his class were Harry's, Longbottom's, or Draco's fault. 1. Harry and Draco try to curse each other in the hall and the spells deflect and hit Hermy and CrabbeorGoyle? (this actually happened in the hall outside the class before it started) 2. Harry throws a firework into Draco's cauldron to distract Snape so Hermy can steal potion ingredients. Snape needs to deflate various people's body parts. 3. In PS Longbottom melts a cauldron and potion goes everywhere, but I don't recall how Snape handled this. Please remind me of anything I'm forgetting, including the PS incident. --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 24 10:44:10 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:44:10 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Dursleys, the Weasleys, Hagrid, and Snape: Nice people get a pass Message-ID: <20050224104410.17938.qmail@web86208.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125108 Neri wrote: > Neri: > Isn't that what friends are for: to be a moral support and help with > problems? I'm not saying that Hagrid as Keeper of Keys and Grounds is not a wonderful friend for Harry - he is, no argument here. But Hagrid as a teacher should not resort to his students for a moral support and practical help. > Neri: > At least from the trio's POV, Hagrid has been the most practical and > useful teacher at Hogwarts. Since he was made a teacher his lessons > always come handy: Well, as I said, Rowling likes him, so I expect he will continue to give useful lessons. :-) Hmm, I wonder - what if Harry defeats Voldy with the help of flobberworms, would that be a surprising enough ending? :-) > As for Snape, we don't know what the ravenclaws think about him. The > only person in five books who said he was a good teacher was > Umbridge, and we all know what are her standards. That's why I'm holding my judgement. So far he seems to be a good teacher for certain kind of students - those who are interested and capable. But if it turns out that even these students think otherwise, I'll join the mob and declare him bad teacher through and through. Irene ___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From cmjohnstone at hotmail.com Thu Feb 24 10:52:54 2005 From: cmjohnstone at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:52:54 -0000 Subject: LV-ugly baby Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125109 Meri wrote: IIRC in the Ressurection scene in GoF LV says something to the effect that Wormtail was able to do magic that returned him to/created a temporary, rudimentary body, ie: the scaly baby thing. So maybe Wormtail isn't as inept with a wand as we think. Meri - shuddering just to think about how this is going to look in the upcoming medium who shall not be named...shudder... Leah: This is from GOF: "..poor wizard though he is, Wormtail was able to follow the instructions I gave him, which would return me to a rudimentary weak body of my own....a spell or two of my own invention..a little help from my dear Nagini...a potion concocted from unicorn blood and the snake venom Nagini provided...I was soon returned to an almost human form and strong enough to travel". What isn't clear to me is whether all the hubble-bubble ingredients listed by VM were used by Wormtail in creating the rudimentary body or whether they were used for strengthening and refining that body. It's also not clear whether the help provided by dear Nagini was limited to the venom, or whether there was something additional. It may be Nagini's input which gives VM his snake like appearance, but the reactions of the DE circle suggest this is nothing new. Clearly, Nagini played a role in VM's makeshift reincarnation. I wonder what role she has played before in his quest for immortality. VM obviously had Nagini with him in Albania, (unless we are to assume that Wormtail somehow acquired her). As Vapourmort he does not appear to have had the power to summon her or otherwise bring her to him, so was she already there? Was she the reason Vapourmort fled to Albania rather than, say, the Amazon rainforest? Have the DEs seen Nagini before- they don't seem too surprised to have a large serpent circling around them? But, if she was there, why didn't VM possess her? And Nagini seems to be the one being for whom VM has anything approaching affection ("my dear Nagini"). I would think she had perhaps had another form as a love of Tom Riddle's if JKR had not said that was impossible. Leah (who wonders whether Albania and Albus are just coincidental similarities or if there is something there) From sylviablundell at aol.com Thu Feb 24 11:02:58 2005 From: sylviablundell at aol.com (ladyramkin2001) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:02:58 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys, the Weasleys,Hagrid and Snape: Nice people get a pass Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125110 Lyra wrote: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125111 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Arynn Octavia wrote: > Valky: > Snape OTOH *is* denying his students a sense of protectedness when > they make potions, and people have been sent to the Hospital Wing > from Snapes class as well. Not just Hagrids. > > Arynn: > All of the times That I can think of that students had to go to the hospital wing (or other healing) from his class were Harry's, Longbottom's, or Draco's fault. > > 1. Harry and Draco try to curse each other in the hall and the spells deflect and hit Hermy and CrabbeorGoyle? (this actually happened in the hall outside the class before it started) > 2. Harry throws a firework into Draco's cauldron to distract Snape so Hermy can steal potion ingredients. Snape needs to deflate various people's body parts. > > 3. In PS Longbottom melts a cauldron and potion goes everywhere, but I don't recall how Snape handled this. > > Please remind me of anything I'm forgetting, including the PS incident. > > Valky: But what does that mean Arynn? That it wasn't Draco's fault he deliberately sabotaged Hagrids lesson? Or are you referring to the Blast-ended Skrewts as being an irresponsible choice on Hagrids behalf? You're probably comparing to the BES (cute acronym for those who are having trouble with Up-ended Newts etc) to the dangers of Snapes lessons so I'll answer that. True the Blast-Ended Skrewts were not docile creatures, neither was Hagrid Monster book, but in all honesty I find that as evidence that Hagrid can be annoyingly dedicated to his art sometimes, but not evidence of irresponsibility. He's a bit of an old geek Hagrid, and he did put Madam Pomfrey in a tailspin over the Skrewts but I would reserve my judgement on Hagrids experiment for now, especially as to it being irresponsible. I think his classes on Magical creatures are laden with important experiences. In Australia Hagrid would probably be a local hero, lovingly preserving the dangerous but vitally important ecological structure. What he does is cool, and he teaches something better than fear. Valky From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Feb 24 11:43:36 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:43:36 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys, the Weasleys, Hagrid, and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: <20050224101133.11602.qmail@web86209.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125112 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Irene Mikhlin wrote: > > > I'm afraid this is a bit like an own goal for you. If > intentions count so much, then Snape gets a pass for > his treatment of Neville: his intentions are to make > the boy learn his potions, whatever it takes. So that > should excuse the less than perfect implementation > methods for the said intentions, right? :-) > > Irene > And why on Earth are you so sure that is Snape's intent? I would say, judging be his behavior, that he has little interest in whether Neville learns potions or not. Snape's intentions at this point are about as clear as a foggy midnight. Lupinlore From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 24 11:56:44 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:56:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Dursleys, the Weasleys, Hagrid, and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050224115644.51393.qmail@web86211.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125113 --- lupinlore wrote: > > And why on Earth are you so sure that is Snape's > intent? I would say, > judging be his behavior, that he has little interest > in whether > Neville learns potions or not. Snape's intentions > at this point are > about as clear as a foggy midnight. > Let's do the following: first you decide whether you want to argue SimleAndNasty!Snape, or ComplexAndMysterious!Snape, and then I'll find good intentions that could explain his treatment of Neville. But no mix and match please! :-) Irene ___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Feb 24 11:57:08 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:57:08 -0000 Subject: Hagrid IS a good teacher!! WAS Re: Hagrid and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: <20050224100553.11223.qmail@web86209.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125114 > > Valky: > > Because Hippogryffs are no less dangerous than some > of the explosions in Snape's dungeon, for a start. > > Snape OTOH *is* denying his students a sense of > protectedness when they make potions, and people have been sent to > > the Hospital Wing from Snapes class as well. Not just Hagrids. > > Irene: > Yes, Potions are dangerous. Yes, Snape lets his > students know that from the beginning and reminds them > often that even the slightest mistake can be fatal. I > actually think it would be wrong for any Potion > teacher to instill in the students the sense of being > protected, as in "oh, it does not really matter if I > get the potion wrong, the teacher won't let me come to > any harm". > > In Hagrid's lesson in question, Draco acted the way he > acted not only because he is a stupid git, but because > he had this sense of protectedness: "you are not > really dangerous, are you?". > Valky: Ok that makes a fair point. And I don't doubt that Draco underestimated Hagrids point about the violent tendencies of a Hippogryff. But to counter that evidence Hagrid *was* trying to show that the sentience of a Hippogryff makes him emotionally responsive. Potions are not emotionally responsive sentient things, and therefore Hagrids teaching in that respect shouldn't be compared to Snapes. Follow my instructions carefully was said by both teachers, this can be dangerous if you don't was also said by both teachers, the correct method for success was carefully spelled out by both teachers. The point I make about difference is that Hagrid handled the situation responsibly in his example as an adult who knows what he's doing he controlled Buckbeak and he was concerned for the well being of the child. Snape tends more to abuse his position in that regard, he diminishes the situation, which is not so bad I guess, but then he shows no responsible concern for the wellbeing of the child. Hence why I say that the children do not feel protected. From josturgess at eircom.net Thu Feb 24 12:06:47 2005 From: josturgess at eircom.net (mooseming) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:06:47 -0000 Subject: What is Snape knows (was: Further thoughts on who knows what ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125115 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" > > > Siriusly Snapey Susan, > enjoying knowing someone else thinks Snape may know, but kinda hoping > someone else will provide a really convincing argument that Snape > doesn't know. You know? :-) Ha! As my Granny used to say you want your cake and eat it too! Well the answer may be in motivation. If Snape has no time for `foolish wand waving' then I should think Diviniation, and Trelawney in particular, have no currency with him. Not even on his radar. Snape may know about the prophecy but that doesn't mean he BELIEVES or TRUSTS it, he may even resent it. If that is sufficient motivation for you I'd quit reading here, if not, then you may be interested in the following. I believe the key to Snape's behaviour is his arrogance. Confidence requires appropriate appreciation of true worth, pleasure in achievement, understanding and support of failure, acceptance of the whole and its unique place in the universe. Contrastingly arrogance is an exaggerated sense of one own importance. Exaggerated because the world does not reflect this view. The arrogant have not made their peace with the world. Arrogance, as I understand it, is born from lack of confidence, it is the refuge of the unloved and unappreciated, it is the rebellious victim who cries `I'll show you what I'm worth, I'm better than you' whilst at the same time fearing `I'm worthless because X (someone significant) says so'. It is also the refuge of the over indulged (i.e. Dudders) where the significant X rewards indiscriminately, conflict is born when the individual meets the outside world and their behaviour is not received well and often rejected. The most arrogant are born from a combination of the two approaches, truly destructive parenting! If the snippet we saw of Snape's memory of the small boy cowering before an overbearing, bullying male and a submissive, bullied female is a view of his parents then Snape is a prime contender for arrogance. The arrogant will always be angry with others for not seeing them as they see themselves whilst simultaneously fearing that others perceptions are right. This conflict may drive them to prove their own view and over achieve, which in turn inflates their self importance which is not sufficiently acknowledged, which drives them etc etc. Alternatively they may refuse to join the battle and withdraw to a position of `I would win but playing the game is beneath me', they are apt to change allegiance if they feel they are under appreciated. Never resolving their true value in the greater world, the arrogant remain isolated, they have difficulty in accommodating the perspective of others and tend to be egocentric. The arrogant are drawn to situations and people that most represent the internal conflict, unable to resolve it internally they seek external solutions, they will place greater emphasis on the behaviours and opinions of those they both despise and fear. In according them this extra (usually) negative attention they perversely bestow the other with greater importance in the very act of trying to diminish them. So where does this leave Snape? We are led to believe that Snape has switched sides which suggests a grievance with Voldy. This grievance, in accordance with his egocentricity, is most likely to be personal. It doesn't matter if you favour lollipops or not, there are other possible contenders: his mother, his father, his own pride which will not withstand mockery or perceived betrayal, simply promoting Bella over his head would do it for Snape. Snape will be out for revenge, he HAS to prove he is better than Voldy, better than Voldy`s opinion of him. The prophecy however undermines his plans, how can he prove his worth if someone else is destined to defeat Voldy. Snape won't take kindly to people muscling in on his turf. Then again who believes in prophecies anyway? Snape doesn't want to believe the prophecy. Snape needs to believe he is master of his own destiny, if he is not then how can he ever know/prove his true value? If the world is beyond his control he will never be able to tell if success or failure are his alone, he needs to know so that he can, once and for all, defeat those nasty nagging doubts that tell him he's nothing, worthless, wrong. Despite Snape's feelings about the prophecy it has conferred upon Neville and Harry an importance that Snape envies. This alone would focus Snape`s attention on them. That the source is dubious simply rubs salt into the wounds. Snape, with all his insecurities, would be both threatened by Harry and Neville because they are perceived as more important than him (could even BE more important than him) and dismissive of them because they are clearly beneath him. Incredibly he may hate Neville more than Harry because he's NOT prophecy boy. He blames Neville for not being competent enough to usurp Harry. Bad enough that there is a boy being lauded as superior to him but that the boy should be Potter is infuriating, in some way this is Neville's fault for not being good enough. Finally (thank god you cry!) what would be Snape's worst nightmare? He falls out with Voldy, switches sides, reports Voldy's knowledge of prophecy and attack on Potters/Longbottoms, sees chance to ambush Voldy is thwarted and ends up saving Neville and Harry in the process .. Kismet, you've gotta laugh. Regards Jo From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Feb 24 12:11:15 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:11:15 -0000 Subject: Robes (was The Harry Stuff...and a query...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125116 > Commenting on message #2219: > > > Scott wrote: > > > I can't decide whether they should have an open front or be > > > more like the style of a choir robe...any ideas? > > Ebony: > > However, someone pointed out to me that there is indication that > > these robes could be worn without street clothing underneath. > > > I know it's really late to reply.. (I'm new and reading all the > messages) but in many cases in the books, we see characters who've > been warned of having their robes reveal their knickers or being > flipped over to reveal underwear. It's my guess that the robes are > one pieces and at least during the school days have no muggle > clothing worn underneath. > > Alerius Valky: Hello and welcome Alerius, OMG are you really tackling all 120 thousand messages, WOW! Make sure to bring any interesting ones you find to the front page for us... :D The message your responding to here was probably pre Goblet Of Fire, (believe it or not, HPFGU has been going that Long!!) It definitely preceeds the Snapes Worst Memory Chapter of Order of the Phoenix. OTOH I still do wonder about Muggleborns, perhaps they might wear "normal" clothes underneath their robes anyway being unused to Wizard stuff. And also thinking about evolutions of style and fashion, the showing underwear scene is a scene from 1970's Hogwarts, (helpful stuff: check out timelines at the hplexicon) things may have evolved since then, just a tad. Anyhow, here's to all new members at HPFGU. Especially the ones prepared to bring up interesting, everything old is new again subjects like this one!! Thanks Alerius! Valky From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 24 12:13:33 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:13:33 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid IS a good teacher!! WAS Re: Hagrid and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050224121333.24770.qmail@web86208.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125117 --- Valky wrote: > Follow my instructions carefully was said by both > teachers, this can > be dangerous if you don't was also said by both > teachers, the > correct method for success was carefully spelled out > by both > teachers. The point I make about difference is that > Hagrid handled > the situation responsibly in his example as an adult > who knows what > he's doing he controlled Buckbeak and he was > concerned for the well > being of the child. Snape tends more to abuse his > position in that > regard, he diminishes the situation, which is not so > bad I guess, > but then he shows no responsible concern for the > wellbeing of the > child. Hence why I say that the children do not feel > protected. I'm afraid I can't agree. Snape acts at all times during the potions lessons as an adult that knows what he is doing. Whenever the situation requires medical treatment, he either does it himself, or dispatches the student to the hospital wing. What do you mean by the wellbeing, by the way? If it's the physical, medical thing, then I think they are fully protected and Snape demonstrates as responsible a concern as can be wished from any potions teacher. But if you mean it in the emotional sense then yeah, no concern whatsoever for the poor wee children. I fully blame Malfoy for the hyppogrif incident, BTW. I just disagree that in this particular case Hagrid demonstrated his superiority over Snape in any way. Irene ___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Feb 24 12:13:06 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:13:06 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys, the Weasleys, Hagrid, and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: <20050224115644.51393.qmail@web86211.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125118 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Irene Mikhlin wrote: > --- lupinlore wrote: > > > > And why on Earth are you so sure that is Snape's > > intent? I would say, > > judging be his behavior, that he has little interest > > in whether > > Neville learns potions or not. Snape's intentions > > at this point are > > about as clear as a foggy midnight. > > > > Let's do the following: first you decide whether you > want to argue SimleAndNasty!Snape, or > ComplexAndMysterious!Snape, and then I'll find good > intentions that could explain his treatment of > Neville. But no mix and match please! :-) > > Irene > Chuckle. Sorry, but I think that would just degenerate into yet another shouting match very quickly. I will say this by way of clarification, however. Remember that I delineated good in everyday affairs and good in large affairs. Each comes with their own intention. And I deny that one can override the other (i.e. that Snape intends to be good in the battle against Voldemort and that is a reason to disregard his daily behavior). I think that what we are talking of is intent to be good in everyday affairs, that is intent to be good in the daily sense, what many people call "nice." I see no evidence of that intent on Snape's part. Therefore, he has to be judged by his lack of intentions unless you want to go back to the old "nice isn't good" argument, the validity of which I deny. So, I don't think I've really committed a safety (which is what I take it you mean be "own goal.") I've only denied a common premise used in arguing that Snape is "good." Lupinlore From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Feb 24 12:39:00 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:39:00 -0000 Subject: Snape's family killed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125119 Clare: > > My theory is that Snape was married with a child. His wife and > > child were then killed by Voldemort. This was more than likely > > an accident. > > > > Valky: > > No debunk yet Clare, I too think that Snape is married. > > I think his wife is either dying, or else is a ghost. I don't > > think he has children. IIRC Severus doesn't stay at Hogwarts > > overChristmas, but OTOH he doesn't appear to have a happy home > > life to speak of either, so my money is on an existing, but > > tragic one. > Karen: > > You know I have also been thinking something along these lines as > well lately. But most of mine is from interviews I've read from > Rowling so....it could be totally wrong given the fact a couple > could be taken to mean anything. > > Oh yea, I didn't know Snape was not at Hogwarts during > Christmas..somehow I though he was...I missed that...draws a blank > as to where that is in the books?? Valky: My memory is not all that perfect either, but I'm sure he was absent from Hogwarts at Christmas every year, I am not even sure if he was at the Yule Ball, I think I'd remember his dress robes if he was. > Karen: > But back to the idea I was thinking. I remember in one interview I > think someone asked if Snape was in love or loved someone..sorry I > don't have the exact quotes guys, I'm just going by what remember > so this could be totally screwed up. But she said something to the > effect of thats a bad idea and who would want him in love with > them... Valky: That's about it Karen, in a nutshell. I think JKR said who would want Snape in love with them... exactly. > Karen > So, I was thinking Perhaps Snape was married and his wife was > somehow killed by Death Eaters or Voldemort for whatever reason. I > had not though about the accident theory..somehow I was thinking > maybe she was considered disloyal to the Dark Lord...but meh I > don't know since this is all guessing. Valky: Ooooh I like that a lot Karen actually. Perhaps she tried to leave *him* because of some unpalatable goings on, but he got a teeny bit obsessed. I would go so far as to think Jo was alluding to Snape as one who couldn't take a rejection very well. Karen: > It seems to me from the books that Sirius hates Snape more than > James...but I guess that was because we > only have a couple of things to show James, and he is dead, but we > had Sirius alive for a while to have them confront each > other...still this was just an Idea I had from one interview > question..so I am probably way off mark. Valky: No I think you're right again Karen. Sirius definitely hates Snape *the person* with more of a passion than James ever did. This could have something to do with a lady, I wonder if it's Florence? From Snarryfan at aol.com Thu Feb 24 12:43:26 2005 From: Snarryfan at aol.com (evita2fr) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:43:26 -0000 Subject: Trevor and Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125120 Just a little thing I thought about the Trevor scene in POA. There's no doubt Snape is a sadist. I think he threat to kill Trevor to make Neville react, but it's not the point. Though, I wonder if cuddle is in the vocabulary of a slytherin, and how they comfort someone. Anyway, forget the potion, the threat, Hermione and the rest, just what happened after, when Snape hold the tadpole: "Snape, looking sour, pulled a small bottle from the pocket of his robe, pured a few drops on top of Trevor, and he reappeared suddenly, fully grown." Beside the fact he has the antidote on him, why did he give it to Trevor? He could 'accidently let down Trevor' in a full sadist-mode, or let him like he was and give the tadpole back to Neville , he didn't have to cancel the potion. A nice, good teacher yes, but Snape? Christelle From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Feb 24 13:03:01 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:03:01 -0000 Subject: What is Snape knows (was: Further thoughts on who knows what ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125121 > Jo wrote of Snape: > playing the game is beneath me', they are apt to change allegiance > if they feel they are under appreciated. Valky: Yeah I see it, but doesn't he feel sometimes underappreciated by DD too. By your reasoning put with mine Snape is likely to be tempted *back* by some promise of personal glory... > Jo: > We are led to believe that Snape has switched sides which > suggests a grievance with Voldy. This grievance, in accordance > with his egocentricity, is most likely to be personal. ..edit.. > Snape will be out for revenge, he HAS to prove he is better than > Voldy, better than Voldy`s opinion of him. > Valky: Dumbledore treads a fine line with him too, In that case, right? All seems rosy in OOtP when Snape lauds DD's greatness to Harry though doesn't it? And then there's Snape saying to Harry that wizards like Dumbledore can be match to Voldy, but he kind of alludes to himself being no match... Jo: > Finally (thank god you cry!) what would be Snape's worst nightmare? > > He falls out with Voldy, switches sides, reports Voldy's knowledge > of prophecy and attack on Potters/Longbottoms, sees chance to > ambush Voldy is thwarted and ends up saving Neville and Harry in > the process .. > Valky; Well well, thats a very intriguing theory. What could Snape have done that saved Harry at GH? Indulge me please... :D > Kismet, you've gotta laugh. > Agreed. He just asks for it.. ;D Valky From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 13:05:49 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:05:49 -0000 Subject: What is Snape knows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125122 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mooseming" wrote: > Mooseming: > > Snape may know about the prophecy but that doesn't mean he BELIEVES > or TRUSTS it, he may even resent it. I would say that this is an eminent possibility, but here is a slight variation: there's a difference between 'knowing' something (Dumbledore told me) and KNOWING something (I saw that rat myself!). That's certainly a thematic problem, the question of "Do I rely on this person or do I need to actually have the proof myself?". Ron believes in Dumbledore, so he 'knows' that Snape is trustworthy, but Ron knows that he does not KNOW that Snape is trustworthy. This is the problem when you do not bother to actually explain to people why they should believe things, but go 'trust me'--you rely on a different category of knowledge. And Snape certainly strikes me as the type to have some similar problems, because of... > I believe the key to Snape's behaviour is his arrogance. > Contrastingly arrogance is an exaggerated sense of one own > importance. Exaggerated because the world does not reflect this > view. The arrogant have not made their peace with the world. > The arrogant will always be angry with others for not seeing them > as they see themselves whilst simultaneously fearing that others > perceptions are right. This conflict may drive them to prove their > own view and over achieve, which in turn inflates their self > importance which is not sufficiently acknowledged, which drives > them etc etc. Alternatively they may refuse to join the battle and > withdraw to a position of `I would win but playing the game is > beneath me', they are apt to change allegiance if they feel they > are under appreciated. Never resolving their true value in the > greater world, the arrogant remain isolated, they have difficulty > in accommodating the perspective of others and tend to be > egocentric. There has been in the past (curses, Yahoomort!; out of memory?? or else I really could find this one, with a little time) some excellent discussion of Snape's actions in PoA (specifically the drive to catch Black) in these terms; Snape wants to prove to Dumbledore that he is worthy of DD's consideration by catching the traitor son (Black); and there is an eminent possibility of reading PoA as showing those motives driving Snape to some decidedly skeezy behavior (the stuff with Fudge). [But really, all throughout PoA, Snape seems to act as if the stuff with Black is all about *him* and that past incident we really don't know enough about. When you assume...] I would say that Snape's PoA attitude towards Hermione in the two incidents where he shuts her up is also indicative of a certain kind of arrogance. He is *so* convinced of his rightness that he cannot stand to be contradicted, cannot take a moment to hear another viewpoint--it enrages him. I read his treatment of Harry first class in a similar vein: he *knows* already what the kid is going to be like; better nip that in the bud. > Snape, with all his insecurities, would be both threatened by Harry > and Neville because they are perceived as more important than him > (could even BE more important than him) and dismissive of them > because they are clearly beneath him. I think this well encapsulates some of the bizzare dynamic. That said, I don't think Snape knows the prophecy. I suspect he knows of it. I suspect he's been *told* that yes, Harry Potter is very special. But I don't think he has let himself really believe that, or fully process what it means (perversely, I give Snape credit here--I think he's a smart guy, which is why this strikes me as a deliberate thing rather than a 'oh, he just can't do it'--won't rather than can't). He's a little too caught up in his own understanding of the world. I hope it doesn't whack him in the rear. Too hard. -Nora goes off to play with the 600-year old books From Snarryfan at aol.com Thu Feb 24 13:11:47 2005 From: Snarryfan at aol.com (evita2fr) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:11:47 -0000 Subject: Snape's family killed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125123 > > Karen wrote: > > > > You know I have also been thinking something along these lines as > > well lately. But most of mine is from interviews I've read from > > Rowling so....it could be totally wrong given the fact a couple > > could be taken to mean anything. > > > > Oh yea, I didn't know Snape was not at Hogwarts during > > Christmas..somehow I though he was...I missed that...draws a > > blank > > as to where that is in the books?? > > Valky: > My memory is not all that perfect either, but I'm sure he was > absent from Hogwarts at Christmas every year, I am not even sure if > he was at the Yule Ball, I think I'd remember his dress robes if he > was. > He was at the Yule Ball, exploding the bushes where the couples were, and talking to Karkaroff. It's when he said "flee if you want, I stay in Hogwart". And he was also there in POA, he received the same hat than Neville's gran in gift. But he gave it to DD. For the other, I must look: For the first, he was there. Harry try the invisibility cloak after Christmas dinner, make the book shriek, and Filch goes warn Snape. Harry found the mirror while trying to avoid them. For COS, we don't see him. And in OOTP, even Harry is not in Hogwart, so we can't know. But if we look, each Christmas, there is something who worth to stay on guard even during the holidays: The Stone and Quirrel to watch, the monster of the Chambers of Secrets (already two petrified), Sirius and Lupin (who needs his potion), the return of the Mark on his arm and Harry's participation to the Tournament. So in conclusion, we don't know if he stay because he can't go elsewhere, or if he stay because he needed to keep an eye on something. Christelle From jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 13:15:52 2005 From: jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com (jmgarciaiii) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:15:52 -0000 Subject: Snape and Quirrell in the Dark Forest In-Reply-To: <20050223051745.23573.qmail@web31102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125124 Let me try this from another tack... WHY wouldn't Voldemort know that Snape was loyal--in more than "a teacher being loyal to a headmaster" way--to Dumbledore? Discuss. -Joe in SoFla P.S. A few of the hypotheses offered seemed plausible and excellent. I must lurk less and post more. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Feb 24 13:25:17 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:25:17 -0000 Subject: Hagrid IS a good teacher!! WAS Re: Hagrid and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: <20050224121333.24770.qmail@web86208.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125125 > --- Valky wrote: > > > Follow my instructions carefully was said by both > > teachers, this can > > be dangerous if you don't was also said by both > > teachers, the > > correct method for success was carefully spelled out > > by both > > teachers. The point I make about difference is that > > Hagrid handled > > the situation responsibly in his example as an adult > > who knows what > > he's doing he controlled Buckbeak and he was > > concerned for the well > > being of the child. Snape tends more to abuse his > > position in that > > regard, he diminishes the situation, which is not so > > bad I guess, > > but then he shows no responsible concern for the > > wellbeing of the > > child. Hence why I say that the children do not feel > > protected. > Irene replied: > I'm afraid I can't agree. Snape acts at all times > during the potions lessons as an adult that knows what > he is doing. Whenever the situation requires medical > treatment, he either does it himself, or dispatches > the student to the hospital wing. > What do you mean by the wellbeing, by the way? If it's > the physical, medical thing, then I think they are > fully protected and Snape demonstrates as responsible > a concern as can be wished from any potions teacher. Valky: Definitely I agree, and it is in no uncertain way, the reason that Dumbledore entrusts the position to him, IMHO. Snape is a clinically perfect instructor in that regard. No mess no fuss. > Irene > But if you mean it in the emotional sense then yeah, > no concern whatsoever for the poor wee children. > Valky: Yes, well I do and I don't. In respect to hagrid and Snape this is where Hagrid has it over Snape. Hagrids blasted annoying sometimes but as an adult he offers a sense of confidence in his presence, it might not be taken well yet, but it's only his third year as a teacher whereas Snape has far more experience, IMO Hagrid is the one going in the right direction here. The children are going to make mistakes with either method, the better teacher, (just IMHO) is the one who can nurture the childs ability to face the consequences of their mistakes but still feel confident that they will only be expected to do as much as they can physically, mentally and emotionally handle themselves at each stage. That is as Hagrid's teaching is developing. He allows himself to be aware of the childs sense of well being and does take on himself a responsibility to that well being. Snape insists he won't take responsibility for the well being and as such uses a forceful rather than nurturing method. As far as teaching goes, there is a greater success weighing to those who have a well developed sense of consideration for the child, it needs to be balanced but that takes time. From jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 13:27:35 2005 From: jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com (jmgarciaiii) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:27:35 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125126 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Julia" wrote: > Julia: > > I've read an essay at Ren Hen: > http://redhen-publications.com/Weasleys.html > about Molly and the whole Weasley family and I can assure you that I > now see Molly in completly different light. Now the Weasleys don't > seem to be lucky to have each other... > really worth reading! After reading the RedHen thing I can say that while I agree with most of the issues pointed out, I disagree with the *maginitude* of the conclusions. I don't think, for example, Gred and Forge made Percy's life "hellish." Annoying? Yes. Exasperating? Sure! But hellish? Not a chance. I don't think Molly is toxic, just that her emotions often cloud her judgment and that has repercussions. I do not consider her to be SO dysfunctionally passive-aggressive as all that. Just my two knuts, -Joe in SoFla P.S. I must, in the interests of full disclosure, announce that (so far) my very favorite scene from the canon is, BY FAR, The Twins' exit from Hogwarts and Peeves' salute thereto. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 13:55:03 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:55:03 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125127 Phoenixgod: Sorry Alla, I have to disagree with you. I would even go further than a Toxic Mother. I think Molly is flat out Toxic to just everyone. Practically the only arguements that happened in the Order scenes other than Snape/Sirius were caused by or inflated by Molly. Her reaction to Sirius at the begining of the novel was one of the most reprehensible in the book. She accusssed a man who had been wrongly tortured for *twelve Years* of not wanting what's best for Harry. The guy who broke out of an unbreakable prison just so he could save his godson, but she apparently doesn't think that's good enough. Disgusting. Everyone drags out the sorry old song about her speaking too harshly just because she loves Harry and so we all should forgive her. Sorry, I don't buy it. There are things you don't say and and things you can't take back once they are. Alla: Oh, we are not disagreeing on THIS point at all. I also find Molly's speeches to Sirius to be absolutely disgusting. I know that she loves Harry, but I think that at that point her jealosy was speaking primarily. As in how can Harry love somebody else more than her. In fact I put them together with Dumbledore's telling Harry that Sirius did not treat Kreacher well the minutes after man died. I am not even talking about Sirius' flaws here ( G-d knows this character had plenty of them) what gets to me is the inability of both Molly and Dumbledore to RESPECT Harry's feelings towards Sirius. Hmmmm, I just had a thought , if Dumbledore indeed loves Harry as much as he claimed at the end of OOP, maybe he was jealous of Sirius too. :o) Just speculating here of course. Yes, words can hurt and even kill and there are some words you can never take back. Bravo! Phoenixgod: The robe scene bothers me too, but its just an example of what really bothers me about her parenting in general. Alla: Could you ellaborate a bit on what bothers you in general? :) I was bothered by Molly's absolutel indifference to Ron's concerns. In one of discussions about Molly in the past someone said that Molly could've at least offered to help Ron to remake the robes and I agree with it. Yes, she was stressed and tired a lot when house was ful of kids, but still... By the way, I think Ron also behaved as a prat there. :) Phoenixgod: She absolutely loves her kids, I don't think that anyone would ever seriously argue otherwise, but as a teacher who has to deal with pushy parents every single day, loving your kids doesn't mean you're doing whats right for them. I know plenty of parents who coddle their children, refuse to punish them for anything, punish them for everything, give them nothing, give them everything, believe that the only dreams they should have are the ones the parents give them, and so on ad infinitem. Molly may love her kids but her love isn't doing them any good. She does not get a pass on her attitude from me just because she loves her kids. That does not excuse either her actions or her talk, IMO. Alla: I understand what you are saying and as I said I do think that Molly's parenting has many flaws, but I will not go as far as saying that she wants to crush her children dreams. I firmly believe that her arguments with twins are caused by her concern for their future. Maybe she is afraid that their shop won't make it out there and she wants thm to have a secure job with the Minsitry, etc. I am remembering when I was younger and naive and wanted to try to get humanitarian education back in Ukraine and my parents knew for a fact that I won't be able to get there no matter how hard I study, because jews were simply not allowed to enter ANY prestigious colleges. Do you know how many arguments I got into with my parents, who BEGGED me to try to go to college to study math ( it was a bit easier to enter technical colleges, still not a guarantee). Not for a second I questioned their love. Well, of course they supported me at the end and of course I failed the entrance exams for couple years. :o) Alla, whose favourite Weasleys ARE twins and Ginny. Phoenixgod: I hate to disagree with you Alla, but I'll figure out some way to get you off the Ginny love train :) Alla: Snort. You have to try REALLY hard. :o) Just my opinion of course, Alla From charlot7542 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 14:51:51 2005 From: charlot7542 at yahoo.com (charlot7542) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:51:51 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor's dark side Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125128 After following the discussion about Molly and the Weasleys on this forum I went over to Redhen's website and there read a very interesting article about the differences between the Hogwarts houses. http://www.redhen-publications.com/Hufflepuff.html While Redhen focuses particularly in this discussion on Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw, there are a few comments about Gryffindor versus Slytherin, which ring true with some things I've been thinking about over the past few months. There's been a lot of discussion on the appearance so far of Slytherin as the "bad" or "dark" house and the necessity for Rowling to show pretty soon a "good slytherin" or risk dooming all Slytherin kids as "irredeemably evil" simply by virtue of their house at the tender age of 11. This I absolutely agree with. What I contend, however, is that if you show both good and bad aspects of Slytherin, there must be both positive and negative aspects of the perceived attributes of all the houses. And I think, that while Slytherin and Gryffindor seem on the face of it, absolutely opposed, in practice there are a number of worrying similarities. It is said that Gryffindor values most bravery above all other attributes. The flip side of this is of course a tendency for recklessness and hotheadedness (see Harry's ill-advised trip to the Ministry in OotP and practically all of Sirius behaviour). This in itself is quite different to the calculating perception of those snide Slytherins. But the other attitude connected to bravery is arrogance. I would argue, that although Harry with his "saving people thing" rushes to the aid of others with the best of intentions, often without reference to those in authority, there is an underlying arrogance, which accompanies his attitude - the idea that it is not necessary for him to consult others because he IS the best person for the job. Of course we saw this attitude coming to the fore in OotP in his rants to Ron and Hermione about everything he had accomplished in the past (sorry, don't have the exact quote). And then there was the very blatant arrogance displayed by Harry's own father and his buddies in the penseive scene. So far, so good - certainly its been commented on that the arrogance displayed by the 15 year old James and his penchant for bullying is in itself very Slytherin-esque. But what's more interesting is Redhen's contention that the driving force behind Gryffindor is not so much a magnanimous bravery, but rather a desire to be "admired". It is this wish to be looked up to or praised, which is the root cause of the broad stroked and generally admirable actions of the Gryffindors (not the other way round). For the most part, because Gryffs want admiration, their actions are by their very nature admirable. But the desire to be admired can also be perverted. Case in point is James and his bullies again, who walked around the school as if they owned it and in order to preserve this image might resort to tactics, which were less than kind, even downright cruel (Lily's comment about James cursing people in the halls). Peter Pettigrew fits very well too in this pattern - his desire to be admired by association with the "popular" kids. So does Lupin - his inability to reprimand James and Sirius for their actions because of his desire according to Rowling to be liked. Then there's Percy Weasley, who has never seemed to fit the Gryffindor mould particularly well, but with this criteria is perfectly understandable - the continued reference to his prefect status and indeed the rift with his family because his perception of what is admirable within the wizarding world diverges with that of Arthur and Molly. Think Hermione with her constant need to be academically brilliant and praised by students and teachers alike. And of course there's Ron, who desires above all (at least in his first year) to be head boy and quidditch captain - these things are widely perceived and easily recognisable labels of success. Harry himself could be said to be put in Gryffindor because he wished to live up to that admirable memory of his parents as painted by Hagrid. The darker aspect of the Gryff's wish for respect and esteem can be seen in figures like Ludo Bagman, Gilderoy Lockhart, even Cornelius Fudge - in such cases the need for praise and to be thought well of overrides the original wish to perform fully admirable deeds in order to achieve admiration. Instead we get the appearance of such with highly ambiguous moral implications. Probably the major difference between Gryffindor and Slytherin then is that Slytherins don't care so much about what others think as long as they achieve their ends. Others are beneath them anyway. On the other hand Gryffs, while subconsciously believing like the arrogant Slytherins that others are beneath them, still want the admiration and love of those around them - which in its worst form is like the simpering awe of Pettigrew. The only person who doesn't fit this mould is Neville, but then as Redhen says, he really doesn't fit in any house (including Hufflepuff), but that's a whole other argument.... Anyway, just some thoughts.... Charlotte, who fully expects to be shot down in flames for this post :-) From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Feb 24 15:57:46 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:57:46 -0000 Subject: Resolving (?) the Riddle Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125129 Replying to Renee and Tonks here. Renee: If you replace 'dark Christ' by anti-Christ, we would have a reference to the Apocalyps - another indication that the HP series is meant to be a piece of Christian literature about the ultimate battle between Good&Evil and Light&Darkness, and that Harry is a Christ figure. (I'm sure his family name, Potter, has come along repeatedly as a reference to God.) The old cosmic drama disguised as a book about a magical schoolboy. Naama: The thing is, Harry really isn't a Christ figure. I have thought long about this . Harry, in my understanding, is Everyman. The closest thing to a (good) Christ figure that we have is Dumbledore. His name, his being, the connection/identification with the phoenix - he is, if not Christ, the personification of Light and morality. Tonk: Steve and I were discussing DD and LV a few weeks ago. I think that we concluded that DD doesn't try to kill LV because LV takes possession of any person that AK's him. LV survives because he possesses others. Steve said that at GH, since LV was the one to use the curse and it rebounded to kill him that he had no other body to possess and therefore became *mist*. I think your theory can also fit with this concept. Naama: It's a neat idea. My only reservation is that Voldemort tells the DEs what happened to him in chronological order. ASFAIR, he tells about the attack and the rebounded curse, that he found that he had survived, fled from the Aurors, forced himself to exist, and only then realizing that he could still possess and actually doing it. I know that it doesn't absolutely mean that these things actually happened in rigid order, but still... Tonks: If someone wrongs you and you take revenge, things often go from bad to worse. Whereas, if you respond in a loving way it can neutralize some of the evil. Is there any quantum physics, string theory or whatever that would have any bearing on the concept of what you give out comes back stronger? Or types of energy neutralizing each other? I know that some say that the energy of Love is a higher frequency energy and that evil is a weaker lower frequency. That is what philosophy says. What would science say? Naama: I am, frankly, not a fan of this type of belief. My own, very common sense, belief is that love/hate/feelings/attitudes/thoughts impact the world only through the agent's actions (making your child feel loved is the closest thing to an unmediated effect, but it is still mediated through actions, expression, words, tone of voice, look in the eyes, etc.). In any case, the question here is, does it apply to the books?. Does love/hate have an unmediated effect in the Pottervers? And the answer is 'no'. Lily's protection is the closest thing to that, but even there, the sacrifice triggers 'ancient magic', which causes the protection. It's interesting, in fact, to look at some of the situations JKR puts Harry in as opportunities for his internal emotions/qualities to have direct impact on outcome. E.g., the possession. Because Voldemort was *inside* Harry, the love Harry has could expell him directly (without magics). And, by having their wands link, Harry could overcome Voldemort through a direct contest of wills. Tonks : I think that when a person makes the choice to do an act of evil, such as an unforgivable curse, they are giving LV more power. Naama: I have one main problem with this: it makes Voldemort the cosmic force of Evil, the Devil himself, and I think that it's important for the story that we never lose sight that Voldemort is, ultimately, human. (This is underlined by DD addresses him as Tom.) Naama From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Thu Feb 24 15:57:16 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:57:16 -0000 Subject: FILK: Kill Him Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125130 Kill Him To the tune of Tell Him by The Exciters - Words and Music by Bert Russell Hear the song at: http://members.fortunecity.com/oldies19/oldiesbutgoodiesT.html Dedicated to Pippin (great to see you filking again!) THE SCENE: Somewhere remote. LORD VOLDEMORT breaks out in cheerful song, accompanied by his highly trained CHORUS OF DEATH EATERS VOLDEMORT: I know something about death As well as being bad Now that I've got some of his blood Let's get rid of him `Cause I want him to know It's 23-Skidoo Make him not to breathe Here's what I must do: VOLDEMORT & CHORUS Kill him so he'll never overcome me/you Kill him so he'll never overwhelm me/you Kill him, kill him, kill him, kill him, I/you vow VOLDEMORT: I know something about hate, you find your foe and then Break him, then you annihilate His crass existence If you want him to be hit by homicide If it would make sense to make him past tense VOLDEMORT & CHORUS Kill him so he'll never supercede me/you Kill him so he'll never circumvent me/you Kill him, kill him, kill him, kill him, I/you vow VOLDEMORT: Ever since this thing began, he's thwarted every plan He ought to be cremated, `cause I know that Trelawney Spoke of a threat that she prognosticated, oh yeah! I know something about fraud You use the hidden hand Show him what my wand is made of Shan't incantatem Then young Potter will see my great coup de grace Take his life tonight, Avada Kedavra! (CHORUS) AND VOLDEMORT (Kill him so he'll never overtake you) oh, yeah (Kill him so he'll never overturn you) yeah (Kill him, kill him, kill him, kill him, you vow) I won't let him go, now (Kill him so he can't exterminate you) oh, yeah (Kill him so he can't eliminate you) yeah (Kill him, kill him, kill him, kill him right now) VOLDEMORT: Just take his life, it's yours, and kill him .. (Fade-out) - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.at.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 16:04:56 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:04:56 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125131 Finwitch: As I view Molly-- well, drawing out that Azkaban in questioning Sirius' role as godfather - that was just LOW. Disgusting thing to do -- (whereas Sirius was trying to give her a good example, concerning Fred&George...: "It's your parents' decision".) And Dumbledore wasn't giving much respect for that role, either. (Orders on what to tell/not to tell Harry? Ignoring Sirius when coming up with the Occlumency Plan (I mean, really - if Dumbledore had explained it to Sirius while Harry was visiting Arthur - and then Sirius explained it to Harry, maybe Harry WOULD have learned it?). Or was Dumbledore falling for the old 'I don't think he'll approve so let's not tell him?'. But back to Molly - Her kind advice (first impression) and even scolding Ginny about wanting to go and see Harry; the hug for Harry; Apparently she also listened to Ron who took stand for Sirius... Still, we know why Harry won't tell things to her. He did consider the Weasleys in the beginning of GoF, he considered his friends, the Dursleys even; he considered Dumbledore. He outs them all, one by one, and the one whose like a parent: the adult wizard who cares and to whom he can turn for advice without having to feel embarrassed - Sirius. (I guess it'll be Lupin now - we DID hear his role would be big in Book 6). Finwitch From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 17:34:02 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:34:02 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor's dark side. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125132 "charlot7542" wrote: > there is an underlying arrogance, > which accompanies his attitude > the idea that it is not necessary > for him to consult others because > he IS the best person for the job. It's not arrogance if it's true and in stopping dark wizards Harry almost always is the best person for the job. > we saw this attitude coming to the > fore in OotP in his rants to Ron > and Hermione about everything he > had accomplished in the past What's wrong with that, every word Harry said was true. Harry had accomplished extraordinary thing in his short life, for Harry not to have noticed that he had unusually powerful abilities he would have to be living in a dream world. And after he had risked his life and suffered the tortures of the damned for other people it's not unreasonable to expect a little gratitude, at the very lest expect not to be despised for it as Harry was during most of OOP. > Then there's Percy Weasley, who > has never seemed to fit the > Gryffindor mould particularly well You said was need a good Slytherin (Phineas Nigellus perhaps?) and I agree, we already have a bad Gryffindor, Percy. Eggplant From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Thu Feb 24 17:57:01 2005 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:57:01 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125133 Wow, I am really surprised at the Molly (& Ginny) hate. I wasn't angered by her reaction to Sirius at all. She and Dumbledore *did* know Harry better than Sirius. Not only that but Sirius hadn't shown maturity at all, only a reckless attitude better seen in young teens. I would have figured that Harry was reckless enough and didn't need to be encouraged to be even more so. Nor do I believe that Molly is toxic, or even a bad mother. She does some things wrong, but as a parent of two grown children I know there are some things I would just love to go back and change. I also don't think the fact that Bill and Charley moved far away is an indicator of her lack of parenting. Does that mean parents of children that join the military service are bad? That if you got the opportunity to get a challenging job (curse breaker or working with dragons) in another country you wouldn't go, instead settling on a ministry job to stay close to home? I think it's a testament to her and Arthur that their children are adult and strong enough to make a life for themselves. You know, I've always rolled my eyes when someone says that fandom (especially slash fandom) is misogynic but now I'm starting to wonder. What does it say when two "normal" women are vilified and only the bookish (Hermione) and the oddball (Luna) females are acceptable? Casey From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Feb 24 18:25:04 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:25:04 -0000 Subject: What is [if] Snape knows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125134 > > Siriusly Snapey Susan > > enjoying knowing someone else thinks Snape may know, but > > kinda hoping someone else will provide a really convincing > > argument that Snape doesn't know. You know? :-) Mooseming: > Ha! As my Granny used to say you want your cake and eat it too! > Well the answer may be in motivation. If Snape has no time for > `foolish wand waving' then I should think Diviniation, and > Trelawney in particular, have no currency with him. Not even on > his radar. > > Snape may know about the prophecy but that doesn't mean he > BELIEVES or TRUSTS it, he may even resent it. Nora expanded: > I would say that this is an eminent possibility, but here is a > slight variation: there's a difference between 'knowing' > something (Dumbledore told me) and KNOWING something (I saw > that rat myself!). That's certainly a thematic problem, the > question of "Do I rely on this person or do I need to actually > have the proof myself?". Ron believes in Dumbledore, so he > 'knows' that Snape is trustworthy, but Ron knows that he does > not KNOW that Snape is trustworthy. SSSusan: Elsewhere Pippin wrote a summary of her thoughts about what Snape and others know about the prophecy, and in that she suggested that Snape likely knows only that there *is* a prophecy, and not of its contents. Snape's mission at the end of GoF, then, could have been that of going to Voldy in an attempt to get back into his good graces by telling him that if Voldy could merely possess the prophecy, he would be able to destroy Harry Potter. This clearly does not require Snape to, himself, believe such is true about the prophecy. Nor would he need to know what the prophecy contains. (Though he might have supposed its general gist by now.) So, we have here so far: Me, who's always thought Snape knew at least part of the prophecy up to now and therefore could NOT understand Snape's treatment of Harry & Neville [125053]; Potioncat, who thinks perhaps Snape knows but is frustrated by the two potential prophecy boys, who seem so lacking in necessary skill [125056]; Valky, who believes Snape knows enough *of* the prophecy to tempt Voldy with it *and* that Snape may believe Neville is the real Prophecy Boy [125067]; Freud, who believes Snape knows but does not believe [125094]; Jina, who thinks Snape knows the first part but treats H/N as he does in order to toughen them up [125106]; Mooseming, who's suggesting that Snape may well know but can't bring himself to believe in it, in large part because of his own arrogance [125115]; Nora, who agrees with much of Mooseming's analysis [see above] but thinks Snape knows nothing of the prophecy [125122]; and Pippin who believes Snape is aware of its existence but likely does not know the contents because DD wouldn't have seen a need for Snape to know its particulars [offlist]. This is an interesting mix of possibilities, is it not? Let me tell you why I'm leaning towards Mooseming/Nora, with perhaps a sprinkling of Pippin as backup. Mooseming wrote: > Confidence requires appropriate appreciation of true worth, > pleasure in achievement, understanding and support of failure, > acceptance of the whole and its unique place in the universe. > Contrastingly arrogance is an exaggerated sense of one own > importance. Exaggerated because the world does not reflect this > view. The arrogant have not made their peace with the world. > Arrogance, as I understand it, is born from lack of confidence, it > is the refuge of the unloved and unappreciated, it is the > rebellious victim who cries `I'll show you what I'm worth, I'm > better than you' whilst at the same time fearing `I'm worthless > because X (someone significant) says so'. SSSusan: I have read before about Insecure!Snape, but this [sadly much- snipped] analysis is the most lucid and believable one I have read. It explains adequately what could be going on in Snape's mind such that I can actually comprehend how he could both *know* the prophecy *and* still treat Harry & Neville as he does. Brilliant, imo. Pippin, otoh, has provided a possibility for why Snape might truly still be in the dark about the prophecy's specifics, which, as I said in my original post in this thread, was the only possibility I could then see for his treatment of H/N. Either way, I'm a lot farther along than I was before. :-) One final comment. Mooseming said this: > We are led to believe that Snape has switched sides which suggests > a grievance with Voldy. This grievance, in accordance with his > egocentricity, is most likely to be personal. It doesn't matter if > you favour lollipops or not, there are other possible contenders: > his mother, his father, his own pride which will not withstand > mockery or perceived betrayal, simply promoting Bella over his head > would do it for Snape. SSSusan: Add to this possibility the one Kneasy has proposed -- that Snape was married w/ a child and that these persons died either at Voldy's hand or at his instruction. Would also fit, no? Gee, I hope we get some answers on this in 142 days. Siriusly Snapey Susan From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Thu Feb 24 18:28:59 2005 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:28:59 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor's dark side In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125135 Charlotte: It is said that Gryffindor values most bravery above all other attributes. The flip side of this is of course a tendency for recklessness and hotheadedness (see Harry's ill-advised trip to the Ministry in OotP and practically all of Sirius behaviour). This in itself is quite different to the calculating perception of those snide Slytherins. But the other attitude connected to bravery is arrogance. But what's more interesting is Redhen's contention that the driving force behind Gryffindor is not so much a magnanimous bravery, but rather a desire to be "admired". It is this wish to be looked up to or praised, which is the root cause of the broad stroked and generally admirable actions of the Gryffindors (not the other way round). For the most part, because Gryffs want admiration, their actions are by their very nature admirable. But the desire to be admired can also be perverted. Julia here: Yes, I agree with you. I always thought that Jo couldn't have created only 'good' and 'evil' houses. Gryffs are arrogant and want to be admired - that's very true! But I think that we sometimes see things from the wrong POV. You see, IMO bad attributes of students aren't considered when choosing a House. I really think that even Slytherins aren't chosen because they're evil. They simply value other things. But still... when growing up in a specific House we are becoming more and more Gryffindors, Ravenclaws, Slytherins and Hufflepuffs... And this is the problem - mainly with Harry. He wasn't like that when he was younger, but he get used to being a Gryffindor and he started to be arrogant. The whole atmosphere is Hogwart isn't helping too - Gryffindors are seen as 'heros'. But, the House-characteristic thing is rather complex - as our personalities so it's hard to determinate one or even a couple of specific features that every member of a house have. Different people - different personalities - even in the same house. Charlotte: Probably the major difference between Gryffindor and Slytherin then is that Slytherins don't care so much about what others think as long as they achieve their ends. Others are beneath them anyway. On the other hand Gryffs, while subconsciously believing like the arrogant Slytherins that others are beneath them, still want the admiration and love of those around them - which in its worst form is like the simpering awe of Pettigrew. Julia: What's more can I say? I completely agree with you. I think that this is the main difference between this two Houses. Continuing what I said above, I think that this is the attitude towards friends, enemies, school, life in general that determines the choice, not the specific features (like he is brave, she is kind, he is tolerant, he is intelligent, she is a social person etc). Because one can be a social person and brave and the other can be an outsider but still brave and they could be in the same house! Charlotte: The only person who doesn't fit this mould is Neville, but then as Redhen says, he really doesn't fit in any house (including Hufflepuff), but that's a whole other argument.... Julia: Here I can't agree. I think that Neville fits in Gryffindor - his attitude is very Gryffindor-ish: he is loyal to his friends, rather brave (DoM battle)... maybe he isn't confident and arrogant - but hey, he doesn't have to have ALL the Gryffindor's qualities as long as he has some of them and the other features doesn't overshadow them! Julia From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Thu Feb 24 20:02:56 2005 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:02:56 -0000 Subject: Further thoughts on who knows what about the prophecy, particularly re: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125136 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com SSSusan (message 125053) > IF Snape knows the prophecy in toto, he knows Harry is the one >with the power to vanquish Voldy. If this is fact, would it >explain Snape's harsh, crappy & *singularly* negative treatment of >Harry? I think not. ~snip~ >If he in fact DOES know all -- or even part -- of the > prophecy, then I still hold to my previous gripes about his >inability to treat Harry like the valuable resource he is [beyond >saving his life on occasion :-)]. "K": This is where I differ from many people. I believe Snape does know at least a portion of the prophecy *because* of the way he treats Harry and Neville. Snape is the hardest on these two boys and they just happen to be the two connected with the prophecy. It basically comes down to whether one believes Snape is teaching the boys what they need to do in order to be ready for Voldemort. I do not want to get into one of those long discussions of *why that style of teaching won't work* or *why it does work*. He *IS* preparing the two, IMO. I also don't believe the Occlumency lessons were a failure. That too has been discussed numerous times. As of this momement I believe Snape is on the side of Snape and he does want Voldemort defeated for his own personal reasons. If Harry and/or Neville is his best option for that to happen then Snape will see to it they are prepared. I believe he is doing that. "K" From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Feb 24 20:34:30 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:34:30 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125137 Phoenixgod: > The robe scene bothers me too, but its just an example of what > really bothers me about her parenting in general. Alla: > I was bothered by Molly's absolutel indifference to Ron's > concerns. In one of discussions about Molly in the past someone > said that Molly could've at least offered to help Ron to remake > the robes and I agree with it. Yes, she was stressed and tired a > lot when house was ful of kids, but still... By the way, I think > Ron also behaved as a prat there. :) SSSusan: What about the possibility that Molly is embarrassed that she can't afford better? Speaking as a parent meself, I know there are times when it's not exactly fun to have to reveal to your children that you CAN'T do something/buy something because there simply aren't means. On a *good* day, you might find a way to openly discuss this with the kids so they can learn something from it. On a *different,* not-so-good day, you might just look away and tersely avoid admission that you weren't able to do better. Ron did let her have it a bit, and that may have contributed to her embarrassment. If he'd reacted differently, maybe she'd have been less humiliated and been more inclined to have considered the possibility of mending them. Siriusly Snapey Susan From martyb1130 at aol.com Thu Feb 24 15:57:48 2005 From: martyb1130 at aol.com (martyb1130 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:57:48 EST Subject: Dobby a Parallel to Kreacher? Message-ID: <1e0.3670d7c8.2f4f537c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125138 I could not help but draw a connection between Dobby and Kreacher. They both dislike there masters so much, that they are both willing to go out of there way to help the opposing side. In Dobby's case he came to warn Harry about what was going to happen in his second year at Hogwarts. In Kreacher's case he went and told Narcissa Malfoy about Sirius and his semi secrets. In both cases both House Elves broke some form of agreement with there masters, yet neither get punished for it (accept in Dobby's case by himself) Brodeur [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 22:27:21 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:27:21 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125139 >>Casey: [snipped and rearranged by Betsy] >Wow, I am really surprised at the Molly (& Ginny) hate. >You know, I've always rolled my eyes when someone says that fandom (especially slash fandom) is misogynic but now I'm starting to wonder. What does it say when two "normal" women are vilified and only the bookish (Hermione) and the oddball (Luna) females are acceptable?< Betsy: Ginny hate? Where did you find that? I know some folks don't like how Ginny burst onto the scene all sporty and flirty and girl-power- y. But I've taken that as more of a hit on JKR for not setting up the Ginny personality a bit better. So it was more of an author critisism than "Ginny sucks!" (though I could be wrong about that). I myself, while agreeing that JKR could have done better at forshadowing Ginny's emergence, quite liked Ginny in OotP. She makes a nice contrast to Hermione (as does Luna - who I love). But I think you're going a bit far to say that disliking Molly and Ginny, and liking Hermione and Luna, is misogynistic. It makes it sound like there's only a few accepted ways to be a good woman, and if you break out of them by being smart or, god-forbid, eccentric, you've lost any claim to being considered female. Which sounds like a throw back to a 1950's way of looking at women. Not a good thing, IMO. >>Casey: >I wasn't angered by [Molly's] reaction to Sirius at all. She and Dumbledore *did* know Harry better than Sirius.< Betsy: I'll buy that Dumbledore knew Harry better than Sirius (maybe), but Molly? How does she know Harry better than Sirius does? She's been around him for a grand total of maybe a month, when you add it all up. Harry is the best friend of the son she most ignores. Harry keeps Molly at arms length; he *never* confides in her. Whereas Harry has been in correspondence with Sirius throughout GoF. I would also argue that Sirius had a better instinct in wanting to share all information with Harry. Something Dumbledore admits he should have done at the end of OotP. And regardless of knowledge of Harry, Molly was downright rude to Sirius in having the argument in front of the children. (She was rude to Sirius throughout OotP, IMO. It was Sirius' house, and Molly took it over. I think it's how she delt with the stress of the situation - so I don't condemn her competely - but Molly did behave badly.) >>Casey: >Nor do I believe that Molly is toxic, or even a bad mother.< >I think it's a testament to her and Arthur that their children are adult and strong enough to make a life for themselves.< Betsy: I don't think Molly is completely bad. But I do think she is toxic. I don't get the impression that her kids like being around her. I also don't recall her giving her children much praise, at all. She trys everything possible to force the twins away from their jokeshop (even when it seems to be working) and into the Ministry (which would have been a disaster for both the twins and the Ministry). And is she proud of Charlie and Bill's occupations? I rather got the impression that it was the Ministry or nothing for Molly. The Weasley home is so hostile to Percy that he spends all of his time locked away in his room, coming out only for meals, and Molly exasperates the problem by encouraging the twins hatred for their brother. (And I do think they hated Percy, even before he left them. The twins were absolutely merciless towards Percy, never giving him a break or any kind of sympathy. IMO, they go far beyond normal sibling teasing.) Betsy From martyb1130 at aol.com Thu Feb 24 15:59:22 2005 From: martyb1130 at aol.com (martyb1130 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:59:22 EST Subject: Why warn Harry? Message-ID: <15.3f42f35c.2f4f53da@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125140 In the COS why was it that Dobby came to warn Harry not to go back to school? He did not have two muggle parents, therefore he would not be in any direct danger of what was happening that year. The heir was only looking to kill mudbloods, not half bloods correct? Brodeur [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dontask2much at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 23:25:04 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:25:04 -0500 Subject: Molly & Snape Similiarities (was Mother Molly) References: Message-ID: <018301c51ac8$12b5e8a0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 125141 >>>Casey: [snipped and rearranged by Betsy] >>Wow, I am really surprised at the Molly (& Ginny) hate. > >>You know, I've always rolled my eyes when someone says that fandom > (especially slash fandom) is misogynic but now I'm starting to > wonder. What does it say when two "normal" women are vilified and > only the bookish (Hermione) and the oddball (Luna) females are > acceptable?< > > Betsy: > > But I think you're going a bit far to say that disliking Molly and > Ginny, and liking Hermione and Luna, is misogynistic. It makes it > sound like there's only a few accepted ways to be a good woman, and > if you break out of them by being smart or, god-forbid, eccentric, > you've lost any claim to being considered female. Which sounds like > a throw back to a 1950's way of looking at women. Not a good thing, > IMO. > Charme: I read some of the comments made on this topic and others in HPfGU and you do get a sense that the persons making those comments are overly critical and judgemental based on individual actions rather than the sum of the whole of what a character (regardless of sex) is about. Funny...Molly reminds me of someone else hotly debated on HP messageboards in the vast world of the Internet: Snape. IMO, there are some clear simliarities in some of their personas - possible examples, her cutting comments to Sirius in OoP (reminiscent of Snape and Sirius' exchange) and her ability to accurately assess Fred and George are lying to her about having more of their "candies" prior to leaving for the QWC (similiar to his interaction with Harry on any number of occassions, usually when Harry is perceived to be breaking "rules".) While not as specifically focused as Snape's "favoritism" of the Slytherin crowd and Draco Malfoy, Molly's got her favorite too, doesn't she? Just something to think about... Charme From tonisan9 at hotmail.com Thu Feb 24 20:17:33 2005 From: tonisan9 at hotmail.com (tonihollifield) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:17:33 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor's dark side. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125142 Charlotte wrote and Eggplant Responded: > > > Then there's Percy Weasley, who > > has never seemed to fit the > > Gryffindor mould particularly well > > You said was need a good Slytherin (Phineas Nigellus perhaps?) > and I agree, we already have a bad Gryffindor, Percy. > I would think that the ultimate example of the "bad" Gryffindor would be Wormtail. Nothing that Percy has done so far can compare to Wormtail's betrayal of the Potters. While one could argue that Percy betrayed his family (I wouldn't argue that, but one could), his "betrayal" was not the direct cause of anyone's death. I do agree with Charlotte that a need to be admired seems to be present in many of the Gryffindors introduced. No doubt Wormtail thought that betraying the Potters would make him Voldy's right-hand man (sorry, no pun intended), in a position to be admired by the other DEs, and the wizarding world as a whole when Voldy finally succeeded in taking over. Toni From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Thu Feb 24 18:09:05 2005 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Richard Jones) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:09:05 -0000 Subject: Fred and George - Prefects? In-Reply-To: <421DAF0F.16676.4B3C2B5@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125143 Shaun Hately argues that Fred and George were appointed "secret Prefects" by Dumbledore and offers three reasons for it. I disagree with all of them. First, the scene we have been discussing about Molly saying "that makes everyone in the family." That means that Molly knew they were Prefects, and George's response was a subtle reminder that she's risking blowing their cover. But there is nothing in the way JKR wrote the scene that suggests that. It wasn't as if Fred and George exchanged quick glances and George blurted out something -- George apparently just acted with indignation. Second, Peeves apparently obeyed Fred and George, unlike other students. "And Peeves, who Harry had never seen take an order from a student before, swept his belled hat from his head and sprang to a salute as Fred and George wheeled about to tumultuous applause from the students below and sped out of the open front doors into the glorious sunset." (OotP, p.595). But I don't think this passage should be read as Peeves taking orders from anyone. He was going to give Umbridge hell anyways and didn't need to be commanded. He is just enjoying the moment (as much as we all did, I think). Third, George knew the password in COS. Shaun admits the argument is weak. And wouldn't Fred and George be too young that year to be Prefects at all? They are two years older than Harry, so they would only be fourth years in COS. But the main reason I doubt this theory is that Fred and George have now left school and we haven't heard anything about them being "secret Prefects." If they did anything at all during their school years as secret Prefects, wouldn't we have heard about it by now? Richard Jones From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 17:12:01 2005 From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:12:01 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys, the Weasleys,Hagrid and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125144 > > Lyra wrote: > bitten werewolf should be in the same room with Arthur two weeks away > from the full moon? > Sylvia wrote > If it were my husband in the room with a werewolf, I should be > publically questioning it too. She has just seen her much-loved > husband at death's door and now finds he is in the same ward as a > freshly-bitten werewolf and you expect her to be nice! I have no > doubt the hospital has means, magical or otherwise, of restraining > the unfortunate werewolf when the full moon comes, but given the ease > with which Lockhart manages to wander about unsupervised, I'm not > sure how much confidence I place in that > The Molly-bashing season seems to have started early this year. > Sylvia (who can't think why everyone is so hostile to this lovely > woman) Lyra responds: Yes, but a werewolf is only dangerous at the full moon. And Molly, who has spent copious amounts of time in the company of one Remus Lupin, knows this from personal experience. To me, her reaction isn't just not "nice", it's as insensitive as backing away from a cancer patient as if he were contagious. (I wasn't really Molly-bashing; I quite like her and was as surprised as you to find out there are people in the world who don't share that feeling. This just wasn't her finest moment.) From MadameSSnape at aol.com Thu Feb 24 23:46:17 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:46:17 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's family killed? Message-ID: <194.394478fd.2f4fc149@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125145 In a message dated 2/24/2005 7:40:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, Aisbelmon at hotmail.com writes: My memory is not all that perfect either, but I'm sure he [Snape] was absent from Hogwarts at Christmas every year, I am not even sure if he was at the Yule Ball, I think I'd remember his dress robes if he was. =============== Sherrie here: He was present at Hogwarts during Christmas in PoA - remember the cracker with the vulture hat? And he spent the Yule Ball stalking the magical garden, blowing up rosebushes, sniping at Karkaroff, and taking points off students caught snogging in the bushes. Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 20:45:04 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:45:04 -0000 Subject: Trevor and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125146 I always wondered what on earth did Trevor DO in the classroom?! Is it a normal practice for Hogwarts students to bring their pets into potion laboratories? Somehow I doubt it. Maybe having a familiar to disrupt his lessons on top of having a roomful of incompetent dunderheads was just the last straw for Snape's patience? Not that I approve his approach, mind. a_svirn From jmrazo at hotmail.com Thu Feb 24 21:07:29 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:07:29 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor's dark side In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125147 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "charlot7542" wrote: > It is said that Gryffindor values most bravery above all other > attributes. The flip side of this is of course a tendency for > recklessness and hotheadedness (see Harry's ill-advised trip to the > Ministry in OotP and practically all of Sirius behaviour). This in > itself is quite different to the calculating perception of those > snide Slytherins. I agree with this. > But the other attitude connected to bravery is arrogance. No more so than the intelligence of Ravenclaws can lead to arrogance. Or the ambition of Slytherins can lead to arrogance. I would say that Hufflepuff are probably the least prone to arrogance because the traits that house admire generally lead to self effacing people, although Zackarius Smith seems to be pretty arrogant in OOTP, so I guess even Hufflepuffs can be arrogant. > I would argue, that although Harry with his "saving people thing" > rushes to the aid of others with the best of intentions, often > without reference to those in authority, there is an underlying > arrogance, which accompanies his attitude - the idea that it is not > necessary for him to consult others because he IS the best person > for the job. Actually, in all of the books Harry searches desperately for someone else to take the responsibility but in every one of them the adults are either not present or they let him down in some way. He never goes looking for trouble. Of course we saw this attitude coming to the fore in > OotP in his rants to Ron and Hermione about everything he had > accomplished in the past (sorry, don't have the exact quote). I read that scene totally differently. I thought Harry had quite a low self esteem and needed to say those things out loud to remind *himself* of all the things he had accomplished. The very opposite of arrogance. But what's more interesting is > Redhen's contention that the driving force behind Gryffindor is not > so much a magnanimous bravery, but rather a desire to be "admired". Except for bravery isn't about being admired. Being brave is about making sacrifices. Bravery is the reason why Harry stands up to Umbridge, why Hermione struggles to free the house elves in the face of predjuce, and why Ron walks in a spider filled woods. Its also why James walks to his death at Voldemorts wand and Sirius Black struggles to maintain his sanity in the prison of the dammned. None of those actions are because the people doing them want to be admired. They are either done despite other people saying they could not or should not be done, or they are done in the dark where no one would see. > Then there's Percy Weasley, who has never seemed to fit the > Gryffindor mould particularly well, but with this criteria is > perfectly understandable - the continued reference to his prefect > status and indeed the rift with his family because his perception of > what is admirable within the wizarding world diverges with that of > Arthur and Molly. Wouldn't Percy be more admired by people for sticking by his family. Isn't by taking the less popular choice of going with someone he believes is right, brave? Percy is a true believer in Fudge and defying his parents takes a lot of courage. > Think Hermione with her constant need to be academically brilliant > and praised by students and teachers alike. Except for her beliefs are unpopular and she doesn't seem to care about being admired by students. She is a teacher pleaser but that is countered by her strong social stances, which most teachers and indeed most people believe are wrong. > And of course there's Ron, who desires above all (at least in his > first year) to be head boy and quidditch captain - these things are > widely perceived and easily recognisable labels of success. Ron's greatest triumpts and most Gryffindorish actions were the ones done when no one was watching. Ron doesn't brag about his Chess Game in PS and he doesn't brag about going into the chamber of secrets in CoS. Both would garner him far more attention than being headboy, but he still keeps his mouth shut. > Harry himself could be said to be put in Gryffindor because he > wished to live up to that admirable memory of his parents as painted by Hagrid. Partly, but living up to someone elses image of admiration and doing something *for* admiration are very different. Harry goes out of his way to avoid attention in almost all cases. > The darker aspect of the Gryff's wish for respect and esteem can be > seen in figures like Ludo Bagman, Gilderoy Lockhart, even Cornelius > Fudge - in such cases the need for praise and to be thought well of > overrides the original wish to perform fully admirable deeds in > order to achieve admiration. No evidence that any of them were Gryffindors. > Probably the major difference between Gryffindor and Slytherin then > is that Slytherins don't care so much about what others think as > long as they achieve their ends. Others are beneath them anyway. The exact opposite is true. Ambition requires the approval of others because you cannot gain social power without other people giving it up. Just because so one is beneath you doesn't mean you don't need them. True bravery is standing up for the unpopular and paying the price for standing up. Every Gryffindor you mention has, in one way or another, paid a price for being brave In conclusion, while some Gryff's have demonstrate arrogance, it is neither more or less present that any other quality. And Gryffindor Bravery is not connected to social admiration in any way. phoenixgod2000 From MadameSSnape at aol.com Thu Feb 24 22:46:30 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:46:30 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125148 In a message dated 2/24/2005 5:14:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net writes: If the twins and Ginny are nephews and a niece, they must be from Arthur's side of the family unless Molly and Arthur did something to magically change their hair color to red to make them appear part of the family. =========== Sherrie here: Sorry - I got the impression from the books that the WHOLE Weasley family had red hair - including Molly. Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 00:42:30 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:42:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Dursleys, the Weasleys, Hagrid, and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050225004230.40426.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125150 --- lyraofjordan wrote: > And Molly, while generally nice in her own special way, has > a bunch of prejudices that keep her from being nice to everyone -- > how "nice" was it to publicly question whether the newly-bitten > werewolf should be the same room with Arthur, two weeks away from > the > full moon? How "nice" is it to grumble about the train > station "crawling with muggles" when those muggles are just going > about their business, same as the Weasleys? (seems to me she makes > other derogatory comments about muggles as well, but I can't recall > any specifics). So, while niceness might be undervalued, it's also > hard to get a handle on and use as a measure of someone's goodness. And how "nice" was it to deliberately send Hermione a very small candy egg in GOF while sending Ron and Harry large ones filled with chocolate and toffee, just because Rita Skeeter wrote an article about Hermione being Harry's girlfriend and breaking his heart? The same Rita Skeeter who writes lies about Arthur - and thus the same RS that Molly knows shouldn't be trusted. There was something really small, petty and mean-spirited about that gesture. If she hadn't sent Hermione anything at all, that would have been understandable because Ron is her son and Harry doesn't have any parents to send goodies and Hermione does so it would have been Harry in danger of being left out. But to deliberately send an insulting gift and to be cold to the girl afterwards until Harry loudly confronts her about it, thus forcing her to change her manner - that really told me a lot about Molly's character. And don't tell me she was in "mother bear defending her cub" mode over possible hurt to Harry - she KNOWS that Rita Skeeter lies and isn't to be trusted. Molly is a nice person as long as she gets her own way, and when she doesn't, she's not shy about using her personality as a battering ram to get what she wants or to force people to give in to her. She makes vulgar scenes in public (berating Arthur over the stictches in the hospital until everyone scurried away to leave them alone), fawns over those of her children who achieve public success ("That's everyone in the family!" - lovely comment in front of Fred and George, wasn't it?) and treats her husband like he was one of the kids (and not one of the brighter ones at that) in front of the kids, which doesn't exactly reinforce his standing, does it? It's a good thing that Molly is "good", 'cause she sure ain't "nice". Magda Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 00:54:38 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:54:38 -0000 Subject: De-bunking Count Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125151 Pippin: There are seven secret passages marked on the Marauder's Map (POA ch 10). According to the twins, Filch knows about four of them, but does not know about the one-eyed witch, or the one behind the mirror. If Filch had known about those passages before the Marauders, the Marauders would not have been able to explore them and they wouldn't be on the map. So those four must have been revealed to Filch in the Marauders time, probably through young Snape's information, since he was always following them around trying to get them in trouble. That leaves three other passages. We know that Snape discovered how to enter the Whomping Willow. Snape also seems to suspect the One eyed witch, but not to have learned how to open it. But it appears that he never learned about the passage with the mirror. Why? It could be that they chose it because it would repel Snape, or more likely it repelled Snape and that's why it remained undiscovered. As for the Foe-glass, of course Snape could have had other reasons for wanting to see what it would show him -- but it can't have been to distract Crouch!Moody since he was unconscious at the time. It may also be significant that the Marauder's secret means of communication, and one that Sirius gives to Harry specifically because he is concerned about Snape, is a mirror. Also, the Stone is hidden behind a mirror. Voldemort would not be able to use vampire!Snape to get at it. vmonte responds: Ok, Pippin. I have to say this is good stuff you have here. And I have noticed that even in the HP movies Snape often moves like Bella Lugosi. Do you think that Snape (like Lupin) has been a "creature of the night" since he was a child? Or, do you think that Snape became a vampire after meeting up with Voldemort? Do you think that Voldemort is also a vampire? Do you think that Snape is half vampire? I think I remember watching an old vampire movie in which the head vampire is killed and his servants/minions regain their humanity. Is this why you think that Snape is on DD's side? Because he needs to "vanquish" Voldemort in order to reclaim his humanity? I wonder if Snape thinks that the prophecy is about himself? Although, he was born in January so that cannot be right. There must be some reason why JKR keeps making vampires references. If he's not a vampire now he may become one in the future I suppose. Vivian From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 01:32:53 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 01:32:53 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125152 Casey wrote: Wow, I am really surprised at the Molly (& Ginny) hate. I wasn't angered by her reaction to Sirius at all. She and Dumbledore *did* know Harry better than Sirius. Not only that but Sirius hadn't shown maturity at all, only a reckless attitude better seen in young teens. I would have figured that Harry was reckless enough and didn't need to be encouraged to be even more so. Nor do I believe that Molly is toxic, or even a bad mother. She does some things wrong, but as a parent of two grown children I know there are some things I would just love to go back and change. I also don't think the fact that Bill and Charley moved far away is an indicator of her lack of parenting. Does that mean parents of children that join the military service are bad? That if you got the opportunity to get a challenging job (curse breaker or working with dragons) in another country you wouldn't go, instead settling on a ministry job to stay close to home? I think it's a testament to her and Arthur that their children are adult and strong enough to make a life for themselves. vmonte responds: I agree with you. And I believe that children love her dearly and will miss her when she gets killed in book 6. Oh yeah, I think that Molly is getting set-up for death. I just hope she takes down a couple DEs with her. Casey wrote: You know, I've always rolled my eyes when someone says that fandom (especially slash fandom) is misogynic but now I'm starting to wonder. What does it say when two "normal" women are vilified and only the bookish (Hermione) and the oddball (Luna) females are acceptable? vmonte responds: LOL! They don't like Hermione and Luna either. One is too pushy and a know-it-all, and the other one is too weird for them. I like all four. Vivian - who dislikes 3 HP females: Umbridge, Bella, and Trelawny From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 20:49:48 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:49:48 -0000 Subject: Snape and Quirrell in the Dark Forest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125153 Joe in SoFla wrote: > WHY wouldn't Voldemort know that Snape was loyal--in more than "a > teacher being loyal to a headmaster" way--to Dumbledore? a_svirn: How does this episode make Snape appear loyal to the Headmaster? If anything it makes him look like a rival thief. Something I am sure LV would understand at least, if not forgive. a_svirn From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 23:35:21 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:35:21 -0000 Subject: Why warn Harry? In-Reply-To: <15.3f42f35c.2f4f53da@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125154 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, martyb1130 at a... wrote: > > In the COS why was it that Dobby came to warn Harry not to go back to school? He did not have two muggle parents, therefore he would not be in any direct danger of what was happening that year. The heir was only looking to kill mudbloods, not half bloods correct? Because Tom Riddle's ultimate goal was to kill Harry, not mud- bloods, he says so at the chamber of secrets when he reveals his true identity to Harry. Juli From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Thu Feb 24 23:38:40 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:38:40 -0000 Subject: Fred and George - Prefects? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125155 Richard Jones wrote: > Shaun Hately argues that Fred and George were appointed "secret Prefects" by Dumbledore and offers three reasons for it. I disagree with all of them. ... snip... I agree with you Richard, F&G have absolutely no interest or whatsoever in becoming prefects, life to them is all about having fun. They sort of remind me of the Marauders, they just wanted to have some fun. Besides, what would be the point of secret perfects? to spy on Harry and Co? Juli From charlot7542 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 01:51:21 2005 From: charlot7542 at yahoo.com (charlot7542) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 01:51:21 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor's dark side In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125156 I wrote: > > But the other attitude connected to bravery is arrogance. Phoenixgod2000 responded: > No more so than the intelligence of Ravenclaws can lead to > arrogance. Or the ambition of Slytherins can lead to arrogance. I > would say that Hufflepuff are probably the least prone to arrogance > because the traits that house admire generally lead to self effacing > people, although Zackarius Smith seems to be pretty arrogant in > OOTP, so I guess even Hufflepuffs can be arrogant. Now me: I agree with this - in fact I was trying to argue that Slytherin house doesn't have the monopoly on negative characteristics. If you look at the way Draco is portrayed, probably one of the first things you would call him is arrogant - I just happen to think that Harry and many of the Gryffindors share that quality. It's just that it comes accross in a more subversive way because Harry is himself a Gryffindor. I wrote: > > I would argue, that although Harry with his "saving people thing" > > rushes to the aid of others with the best of intentions, often > > without reference to those in authority, there is an underlying > > arrogance, which accompanies his attitude - the idea that it is > not > > necessary for him to consult others because he IS the best person > > for the job. Phoenixgod2000 responded: > > Actually, in all of the books Harry searches desperately for someone > else to take the responsibility but in every one of them the adults > are either not present or they let him down in some way. He never > goes looking for trouble. Now me: How can you say Harry never goes looking for trouble after the whole debacle at the end of OotP? If it weren't for Hermione's cautioning he would have headed there straight away without reference to anyone. I wrote: > Of course we saw this attitude coming to the fore in > > OotP in his rants to Ron and Hermione about everything he had > > accomplished in the past (sorry, don't have the exact quote). Phoenixgod2000: > I read that scene totally differently. I thought Harry had quite a > low self esteem and needed to say those things out loud to remind > *himself* of all the things he had accomplished. The very opposite > of arrogance. Now me: It's amazing how many different interpretations there can be of a particular scene. I guess we'll have to disagree on this one. I absolutely think Harry said these things to remind Ron and Hermione of his accomplishments (in the absence of Dumbledore to rant at) - he hardly needed to remind himself as he'd been brewing on it over an entire month at the Dursleys. I wrote: > But what's more interesting is > > Redhen's contention that the driving force behind Gryffindor is > not > > so much a magnanimous bravery, but rather a desire to be "admired". Phoenixgod2000 responded: > Except for bravery isn't about being admired. Being brave is about > making sacrifices. Bravery is the reason why Harry stands up to > Umbridge, why Hermione struggles to free the house elves in the face > of predjuce, and why Ron walks in a spider filled woods. Its also > why James walks to his death at Voldemorts wand and Sirius Black > struggles to maintain his sanity in the prison of the dammned. None > of those actions are because the people doing them want to be > admired. They are either done despite other people saying they > could not or should not be done, or they are done in the dark where > no one would see. Me again: Sorry I wasn't clear - I shouldn't have linked bravery with admiration in such a way. Of course, there are are a number of fine attributes associated with Gryffindor and genuine bravery is one of them. I just think that often an admirable quality can be perverted and that possibly Gryffindors, being used to praise and admiration for their bold actions might begin to crave the admiration for its own sake. And that sometimes if this happens, the desire for admiration might become an addictive and the driving force. I guess the motivation for any action would be different depending on the circumstances. Brave deeds at their best are motivated by love and a belief in the rightness of one's cause. At their worst, they are motivated by a desire for praise. I guess your average Gryffindor has at some point been motivated by both ends of the scale. Having said that and for the record, I think that Harry standing up to Umbridge probably is more recklessness and adolescent pique than bravery. I also think that the way Hermione sticks up for House Elves with little regard for their feelings is entirely based upon a recognisible system of morals which are deemed admirable in the muggle world. > I wrote: > > Then there's Percy Weasley, who has never seemed to fit the > > Gryffindor mould particularly well, but with this criteria is > > perfectly understandable - the continued reference to his prefect > > status and indeed the rift with his family because his perception > of > > what is admirable within the wizarding world diverges with that of > > Arthur and Molly. Phoenixgod2000 responded: > Wouldn't Percy be more admired by people for sticking by his family. > Isn't by taking the less popular choice of going with someone he > believes is right, brave? Percy is a true believer in Fudge and > defying his parents takes a lot of courage. Me again: No, the way Percy perceives things is that Arthur in particular is regarded as an embarrassment at the ministry - there's no way he wants to associate himself with someone who is thought to be a joke to his colleagues. Percy thinks he IS making the popular choice. I wrote: > > Think Hermione with her constant need to be academically brilliant > > and praised by students and teachers alike. Phoenixgod2000: > Except for her beliefs are unpopular and she doesn't seem to care > about being admired by students. She is a teacher pleaser but that > is countered by her strong social stances, which most teachers and > indeed most people believe are wrong. Me again: You're right that Hermione certainly is a teacher pleaser - she loves the admiration she gains from being a top student. It is through her academic talents that she differentiates herself from the mass. I agree that she has a strong social conscience, even if it is somewhat misdirected (and to some extent based upon admirable muggle models of liberal thinking) Again, I don't think that Gryffindors have no admirable traits. Moreover, not every aspect of their character can be determined by the dictates of the house. It simply accounts for some common characteristics. And Hermione does like to be admired and praised. I wrote: > > And of course there's Ron, who desires above all (at least in his > > first year) to be head boy and quidditch captain - these things > are > > widely perceived and easily recognisable labels of success. > Phoenixgod2000: > Ron's greatest triumpts and most Gryffindorish actions were the ones > done when no one was watching. Ron doesn't brag about his Chess Game > in PS and he doesn't brag about going into the chamber of secrets in > CoS. Both would garner him far more attention than being headboy, > but he still keeps his mouth shut. Me again: What about the way he behaves in PoA after his encounter with Sirius Black? (when Sirius breaks into Gryffindor common room and stands above Ron's bed in the middle of the night searching for Peter the rat) Ron loves the attention and embellishes the story every time he tells it. What about his reaction to winning the Quidditch cup in OotP? Once again loving the attention gained from his admirable victory. Like Hermione, Ron of course possesses a genuine bravery, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't like being admired. I wrote: > > Harry himself could be said to be put in Gryffindor because he > > wished to live up to that admirable memory of his parents as > painted by Hagrid. > Phoenixgod2000: > Partly, but living up to someone elses image of admiration and doing > something *for* admiration are very different. Harry goes out of his > way to avoid attention in almost all cases. Me again: Harry doesn't like the attention he receives for simply being Harry Potter, for simply having the scar on his forehead, essentially something he himself didn't do anything to achieve. I would argue that considering the sorting hat's comment that Harry has a strong desire to prove himself, that he would like the opportunity to live up to his reputation. He wants to earn an admirable reputation of his own. I wrote: > The darker aspect of the Gryff's wish for respect and esteem can > be > > seen in figures like Ludo Bagman, Gilderoy Lockhart, even > Cornelius > > Fudge - in such cases the need for praise and to be thought well > of > > overrides the original wish to perform fully admirable deeds in > > order to achieve admiration. > Phoenixgod2000: > No evidence that any of them were Gryffindors. Me again: I have a strong feeling that Ludo Bagman and Gilderoy Lockhart do say at some point that they were Gryffindors, but I may be wrong. In any case I was using them as examples of what can happen if a desire to be admired becomes addictive. Same goes for Fudge - you're right I have no evidence of his house, but I can conceive of him being in Gryffindor for the reasons stated. I wrote: > > Probably the major difference between Gryffindor and Slytherin > then > > is that Slytherins don't care so much about what others think as > > long as they achieve their ends. Others are beneath them anyway. > Phoenixgod2000: > The exact opposite is true. Ambition requires the approval of others > because you cannot gain social power without other people giving it > up. Just because so one is beneath you doesn't mean you don't need > them. Me again: Actually I think not - ambition doesn't require that people like you. You merely need them to either respect you or to give them something they want in return for their support - I think that the stereotypical Slytherin way would use the latter method. Gryffs on the other hand, truly want to be loved and looked up too simply for being themselves. Not because they bribed others for it. Charlotte. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 03:46:28 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:46:28 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) / Nice people get pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125157 > Betsy: And don't tell me she was in "mother bear defending her cub" mode over possible hurt to Harry - she KNOWS that Rita Skeeter lies and isn't to be trusted. Alla: I don't justify Molly's action here, BUT I think that it could be indeed she in her "mother bear mode". Why are you so sure that Molly knows that Rita lies and not to be trusted? Could you give me a quote? I read it as Molly's sincere belief that Rita was correct. It does not mean that Molly was right to judge Hermione so fast, but she really does not know her well. Betsy: The Weasley home is so hostile to Percy that he spends all of his time locked away in his room, coming out only for meals, and Molly exasperates the problem by encouraging the twins hatred for their brother. (And I do think they hated Percy, even before he left them. The twins were absolutely merciless towards Percy, never giving him a break or any kind of sympathy. IMO, they go far beyond normal sibling teasing.) Alla: I am not one of those who considers Percy already "evil and lost cause", but I don't have much love for him either, frankly. Is it possible that something went wrong with Persy, NOT with all other Weasleys? I strongly disagree that twins hate Percy and teased him more than others ( well, I love them after all), but EVERYBODY in the family teases Persy. Are you saying that Bill and Charley also hate him? "Bill's table caught Charlie's with a huge bang and knocked one of its legs off. There was a clatter from overhead, and they all looked up to see Percy's head poking out of the window on the second floor. "Will you keep it down?!" he bellowed. "Sorry,Perce," said Bill, grinning. "How're the caudron bottoms coming on?" "Very badly," said Percy peevishly,and he slammed the window shut. Chuckling, Bill and Charlie directed the tables safely onto the grass, end to end, and then, with a a flick of his wand, Bill reattached the table leg and conjured tablecloths from nowehere." - GoF, p.60, paperback. Just my opinion, of course. Alla From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Fri Feb 25 03:26:39 2005 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Richard Jones) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:26:39 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125158 Sherrie wrote: > Sorry - I got the impression from the books that the WHOLE Weasley > family had red hair - including Molly. Richard Jones: According to the HP Lexicon, the books never actually say whether Molly's hair is red or not, but it "probably" or "almost certainly" is red (citing POA chapter 1). From shelbyleigh at gmail.com Thu Feb 24 16:32:19 2005 From: shelbyleigh at gmail.com (Shelby Leigh) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:32:19 -0500 Subject: Taking a stab at fanfiction - some questions Message-ID: <7a9a102f050224083235a103d6@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125159 I have been lurking for a while, trying to get the groove of the group. I have tried to keep pace with all of the posts but ... well, let us say I may have missed some things. I am not sure if anyone reads fanfiction or if the group supports it. Nevertheless, I am going to ask the questions. They are research questions so that I can keep my characters in character and the storyline near canon. 1. Do you think Molly and Arthur have pet names for each other? Do you think they married out of love? 2. What about the Malfoys, did they marry out of love? Do they have pet names for each other? Do they sleep in the same room? In the same beds? 3. Can Crookshanks communicate with Remus when he is in his werewolf form? Would Crookshanks recognized Remus in his werewolf form? 4. If Harry were unplottable would Hedwig still be able to find him? 5. Now that Sirius is dead, would Remus kill Peter if he were to capture him? Would he take him back to stand trial? Please let me know if I should not ask any other research question. I apologize if this is not the correct form. Thanks in advance for all of the assistance. ShelbyLeigh -- Take some time out for Memories from the oven http://www.scribblerscorner.com/article_view.php?articleid=1870 written by ShelbyLeigh Are you trapped in a Winter Wonderland travel downunder via Dreaming of Dolphins http://www.scribblerscorner.com/article_view.php? articleid=1837 written by ShelbyLeigh From drednort at alphalink.com.au Fri Feb 25 05:00:21 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:00:21 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fred and George - Prefects? In-Reply-To: References: <421DAF0F.16676.4B3C2B5@localhost> Message-ID: <421F4B95.16816.6FB1F8@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 125160 On 24 Feb 2005 at 18:09, Richard Jones wrote: Richard: > Shaun Hately argues that Fred and George were appointed "secret > Prefects" by Dumbledore and offers three reasons for it. I disagree > with all of them. Cool. I like disagreement. (-8 Richard: > First, the scene we have been discussing about Molly saying "that > makes everyone in the family." That means that Molly knew they were > Prefects, and George's response was a subtle reminder that she's > risking blowing their cover. But there is nothing in the way JKR > wrote the scene that suggests that. It wasn't as if Fred and George > exchanged quick glances and George blurted out something -- George > apparently just acted with indignation. Well, while I am presenting this as a possibility not necessarily something I believe to be true, I see no reason at all that Fred and George would have needed to 'exchange quick glances' before one of them responded. Fred and George seem to be to be pretty good at keeping secrets, and if you are trying to maintain a cover of any sort, you need to act quickly if someone puts it at risk. As for there being nothing in the way JKR wrote the scene that suggests this, probably true enough - except for the fact that she has a mother who, if anything, seems to be *overly* involved in her son's lives, apparently forgetting about two of them. Richard: > Second, Peeves apparently obeyed Fred and George, unlike other > students. "And Peeves, who Harry had never seen take an order from a > student before, swept his belled hat from his head and sprang to a > salute as Fred and George wheeled about to tumultuous applause from > the students below and sped out of the open front doors into the > glorious sunset." (OotP, p.595). But I don't think this passage > should be read as Peeves taking orders from anyone. He was going to > give Umbridge hell anyways and didn't need to be commanded. He is > just enjoying the moment (as much as we all did, I think). On this I disagree, this passage should be read as Peeves taking orders from someone because it explicitly says just that. He also responds by saluting them which is the traditional response to the acceptance of an order, but whether JKR would be aware of that. Richard: > Third, George knew the password in COS. Shaun admits the argument is > weak. And wouldn't Fred and George be too young that year to be > Prefects at all? They are two years older than Harry, so they would > only be fourth years in COS. Ah, no - you're incorrect here. George did not know the password in CoS. George knows the password in Goblet of Fire (p.69). When he is a sixth year, and therefore would be old enough to be a prefect Richard: > But the main reason I doubt this theory is that Fred and George have > now left school and we haven't heard anything about them > being "secret Prefects." If they did anything at all during their > school years as secret Prefects, wouldn't we have heard about it by > now? No, definitely not, in my view. In fact, if this was the case, it'd be a serious mistake to expose them for a number of reasons. Firstly, who could say that only Fred and George were appointed in this way? If there is some reason for appointing secret prefects, perhaps to do with the magical defences of Hogwarts, or the ability to give ghosts orders, etc, it's possible that a few of them were appointed. If Fred and George revealed they had been appointed in this way, it would make it far more likely somebody would look for others who might still be within the school. It would also make it more difficult for Dumbledore to do it again. If something like this was being done, you would keep it secret for as long as possible. Secondly, I suspect quite strongly that Fred and George are now, or soon will be (if they can get around their mother (-8), members of the Order of the Phoenix. If it became known, somehow that they had been given an office of special trust by Dumbledore while they were at schoool, then those under Voldemort, would certainly be more likely to suspect them of possibly being tied up in the activities of the Order. Thirdly, from what I can recall, Harry has had a total of about five minutes with the twins since they left school, so even if they wanted to tell him (and they might not, if they have an ounce of tact, considering Harry is not a prefect) they haven't really had time. We see things mostly through Harry's eyes. We know things, mostly, because Harry knows them. Like I say, I'm not convinced of the ideas I am arguing for here. I do think there is likely *something* going on with Molly Weasley's misstatement - this is just offered as a suggestion. Of course, if it somehow turns out to be true, I will proudly claim all kudos being offered (-8 Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Feb 25 06:11:42 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 06:11:42 -0000 Subject: Taking a stab at fanfiction - some questions In-Reply-To: <7a9a102f050224083235a103d6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125161 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Shelby Leigh wrote: > > I have been lurking for a while, trying to get the groove of the > group. I have tried to keep pace with all of the posts but ... > well, let us say I may have missed some things. > I am going to ask the questions. They are research > questions so that I can keep my characters in character and the > storyline near canon. > Shelby: > 1. Do you think Molly and Arthur have pet names for each other? Do you think they married out of love? > Valky: *snicker* Interesting question. The answers IMHO are Yes (guffaw!) and Yes.. Shelby: > 2. What about the Malfoys, did they marry out of love? Do they have pet names for each other? Do they sleep in the same room? In the same beds? Valky: Hmmm this is more difficult, we know nothing about Narcissa really, except Sirius' somewhat one-colour opinion of all her actions. I would be inclined to say No Lucius probably didn't marry for love, I doubt he does anything "for" love or "for" anything that isn't himself frankly. They might *not* sleep in the same room or have any real relationship at all. We haven't seen it. > Shelby: > 3. Can Crookshanks communicate with Remus when he is in his werewolf form? Would Crookshanks recognized Remus in his werewolf form? > Valky: I don't think so. Canon suggest Crookshanks is an excellent communicator, but Werewolves as per the books are apparently unreachable. Shelby: > 4. If Harry were unplottable would Hedwig still be able to find him? > Valky: I would speculate yes on this one, there is definitely an emotional connection between them that might be more powerful than a spell. Shelby: > 5. Now that Sirius is dead, would Remus kill Peter if he were to > capture him? Would he take him back to stand trial? > Valky: Couldn't say for sure. I think Sirius was more likely the driving force of the veangeful emotions so it's probably a no. Still there might be more to Remus than we know. Shelby: > Please let me know if I should not ask any other research question. I apologize if this is not the correct form. > Valky: As far as I can guess they seem like valid canon topics for discussion, so I think all will be well with this, I think. From empooress at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 06:34:03 2005 From: empooress at yahoo.com (Kim McGibony) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:34:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <1109257263.15940.66961.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20050225063404.43115.qmail@web52105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125162 We keep hearing over and over that Dumbledore trusts Snape and various arguments have been put forth to exlain why this is so. I think the answer was revealed in the pensieve, Lily defending Snape. Perhaps this was not the only time she did so and this was what caused Snape to become a spy for Dumbledore. As we know that Lily and James were fighting against Voldemort and Snape was a spy prior to Godric's Hollow. Empooress __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball. http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/ From martyb1130 at aol.com Fri Feb 25 06:07:43 2005 From: martyb1130 at aol.com (martyb1130 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 01:07:43 EST Subject: Why warn Harry? Message-ID: <97.59f46d2c.2f501aaf@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125163 > Brodeur: > In the COS why was it that Dobby came to warn Harry not to go back > to school? The heir was only looking to kill mudbloods, not > half bloods correct? Juli: > Because Tom Riddle's ultimate goal was to kill Harry, not mud- > bloods, he says so at the chamber of secrets when he reveals his > true identity to Harry. This was not so the whole time though. When Harry and Tom are in the Chamber he states that he no longer cares about killing mudbloods, and that his main focus was killing Harry. It is not possible that Dobby knew what he was planning or thinking before any of it happened. Brodeur From sylviablundell at aol.com Fri Feb 25 10:59:09 2005 From: sylviablundell at aol.com (ladyramkin2001) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:59:09 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125164 I have to take issue with Betsy's comment "It was Sirius' house and Molly took it over". Doesn't she get any credit for the massive cleaning efforts she put in, while Sirius sits around feeling sorry for himself? If they'd waited for Sirius to do something, they would all have starved to death or caught some foul disease from the mess in the place. Betsy: >The Weasley home is so hostile to Percy that he spends all of his time locked away in his room, coming out only for meals. Hands up all owners of teenagers who recognise this pattern of behaviour. I sure do. Sylvia From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Feb 25 11:11:35 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:11:35 -0000 Subject: Why warn Harry? In-Reply-To: <97.59f46d2c.2f501aaf@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125165 > > Brodeur: > > In COS why was it that Dobby came to warn Harry not to go back > > to school? The heir was only looking to kill mudbloods, > > not half bloods correct? > > Juli: > > Because Tom Riddle's ultimate goal was to kill Harry, not mud- > > bloods, he says so at the chamber of secrets when he reveals his > > true identity to Harry. > > Brodeur: > This was not so the whole time though. When Harry and Tom are in > the Chamber he states that he no longer cares about killing > mudbloods, and that his main focus was killing Harry. It is not > possible that Dobby knew what he was planning or thinking before > any of it happened. > > Valky: I think the forgotten element here is who planted the diary in Hogwarts? Its *his* intentions that got the book back in circulation, and *they* are probably the intentions on Harry, that worried Dobby so fearfully. Lucius had his own ends to accomplish through planting the diary on Ginny. I have laid down all the grounds for this theory before on HPFGU a while ago, so while I dig up that thread I'll give you the outlay of my theory to ponder. Lucius intend to knock out several birds with one stone to a pinnacle end by using Tom, Ginny, Harry and the Diary. Here's a list: 1. Frame the Weasleys, namely Arthur, for Dark Magic. 2. Force impure blood out of Hogwarts (a start on getting them out of Wizardom). 3. He counted on Harry Potter to be a distraction for Tom Riddle to the death of one or the other he didn't care which. 4. Have Dumbledore declared incompetent and undermine his liberal campaign. 5. Be the master of his Wizard Kingdom happily ever after. It was Lucius who wanted the Basilisk to roam Hogwarts, for his own ends. He needed Tom Riddle to release it and therefore needed Harry Potter to keep Tom out of his way while he set about undermining his political enemies. (Weasleys and DD) This IMHO is the plan that Dobby knew of, and it probably included a fair deal more nasty stuff to follow what did happen at Hogwarts in the year of COS. Any questions? Valky From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Feb 25 11:53:10 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:53:10 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys, the Weasleys, Hagrid, and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: <20050225004230.40426.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125167 > Lyra: > > And Molly, > > publicly question[s] whether the newly-bitten > > werewolf should be the same room with Arthur, two weeks away from > > the full moon? How "nice" is it to grumble about the train > > station "crawling with muggles" > > Magda: > And how "nice" was it to deliberately send Hermione a very small > candy egg in GOF while sending Ron and Harry large ones filled with > chocolate and toffee, just because Rita Skeeter wrote an article > about Hermione being Harry's girlfriend and breaking his heart? > There was something really small, petty and mean-spirited about > that gesture. If she hadn't sent Hermione anything at all, that > would have been understandable because Ron is her son and Harry > doesn't have any parents Valky: Agreed All. There is definitely something *un*nice about Molly. And giving consideration to the examples I'd like to speculate about what that might be. Lyra noted Molly has prejudices against werewolves and muggles, while Magda noted her flock-following tendencies such as in the case of Hermione, even when she *knows* that the source is unreliable. Now if I note that the Weasley family lives under a shadow of dishonour among purebloods (Blood?traitors?) and that Molly comes from a purebloodist wizard family (Prewitts are still on the Noble Black tapestry) does it all become a little clearer? Molly and Arthur share a great deal(love for example) but they *don't* share Arthur's tolerance and liberalism and neither moreover do they share Arthurs Self-confidence that rises above all this public shame. Molly, alas, is sady affected by her blood status as a traitor. Unlike Sirius and Andromeda who *knew* they wanted to turn their backs on the purebloodist kin and had no regret or remorse for being shunned and rebuked by the ones that should love them, Molly couldn't carry anymore regret, frankly. AS blood traitors and muggle lovers they struggle, her children struggle for success, her husband struggles for respect in the Ministry, and daily she struggles for her dignity in the WW, Old Mrs Black's Portrait is not the first witch to call Molly filth and scum. No no indeed, Molly is NOT happy with her lot in life. Valky From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 12:04:09 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:04:09 -0000 Subject: Fred and George - Prefects? In-Reply-To: <421F4B95.16816.6FB1F8@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125168 Shaun wrote: Firstly, who could say that only Fred and George were appointed in this way? If there is some reason for appointing secret prefects, perhaps to do with the magical defences of Hogwarts, or the ability to give ghosts orders, etc, it's possible that a few of them were appointed. If Fred and George revealed they had been appointed in this way, it would make it far more likely somebody would look for others who might still be within the school. It would also make it more difficult for Dumbledore to do it again. If something like this was being done, you would keep it secret for as long as possible. Secondly, I suspect quite strongly that Fred and George are now, or soon will be (if they can get around their mother (-8), members of the Order of the Phoenix. If it became known, somehow that they had been given an office of special trust by Dumbledore while they were at schoool, then those under Voldemort, would certainly be more likely to suspect them of possibly being tied up in the activities of the Order. vmonte responds: I find your post quite interesting, and I think that F&G know way too much about Hogwarts for Dumbledore to not be using them for special jobs. I'm not sure whether they were appointed as prefects or not but it would be cool if they quietly did side work for Dumbledore. I have a question for you: Do you think that Dumbledore told the twins to give Harry the map? The reason why I ask this is because F&G really do something here that is very much like something Dumbledore would do. Harry is always given the materials, animals, knowledge, etc. to help him accomplish certain goals. In one of the books (maybe SS/PS during the NitWit Oddment speech) Dumbledore warns the students to not go into the forest. JKR makes a point to tell us that Dumbledore looks directly at the twins. Was Dumbledore warning/signaling them that the forest was particularly unsafe at present? What have F&G been doing in the forest anyway? I have a feeling that F&G know a lot of information that will become useful when the war breaks out fully. Vivian From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 12:09:36 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:09:36 -0000 Subject: Luna Lovegood - Werewolf Animagus?! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125169 vmonte: I remember a fan once asked JKR whether any character in the series was going to become an animagus and she stated something like: 'none of the main three.' I've been thinking about Luna Lovegood recently and I was wondering if perhaps she might become an animagus. We know that she is smart because she is a Ravenclaw, and that she seems to be very good with animals. She also tends to be a loner, and could very well have a lot of time alone to work on experiments like her mother did. Anyway, I think it would be quite funny if she were working for several years to become an animagi, hoping all the while that she might turn into a Crumpled-Horned-Snorkack, to finally realize that she is a werewolf animagus. Didn't they add this bit of information (I cannot remember if it was in the books) into the PoA movie? I sort of remember Hermione (or was it Snape?) telling the class how werewolfs are created. Animagi, or was it shape shifters, seems to ring a bell as one-way possible. It could also be that Luna is true werewolf and that her mother was killed while trying to cure her daughter. vmonte From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Feb 25 12:46:59 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:46:59 -0000 Subject: Dobby a Parallel to Kreacher? In-Reply-To: <1e0.3670d7c8.2f4f537c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125170 Brodeur: > I could not help but draw a connection between Dobby and Kreacher. > They both dislike there masters so much, that they are both > willing to go out of there way to help the opposing side. > In Dobby's case he came to warn > Harry about what was going to happen in his second year at > Hogwarts. In Kreacher's case he > went and told Narcissa Malfoy about Sirius and his semi secrets. > In both cases both House Elves broke some form of agreement with > there masters, Valky: This fascinates me, also. Wasn't there supposed to be a kind of Magic Bind of Elves to the homes of their master's? Whatever it was it appears either to be weak, or weakened. I wonder if the determination of Dobby to do right by Harry Potter "broke" it, or the eventual reward of freedom that Harry gave to Dobby in return? From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Feb 25 13:12:31 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:12:31 -0000 Subject: TBAY:NICE BUT AFRAID MOLLY - Re: Molly & Snape Similiarities (was Mother Molly) In-Reply-To: <018301c51ac8$12b5e8a0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125171 > > Charme: > Funny...Molly reminds me of someone else hotly debated on HP > messageboards in the vast world of the Internet: Snape. > IMO, there are some clear simliarities in some of their personas - > Valky: You really sparked me with this one Charme, good thoughts. I have planted a new flag firmly in my quarter flying the Not Ignorant Concerning her Extraction But Underprivileged Thereby and Always Fearful Regarding the Affect Impeding her Dynasty Molly Only Loves to Love and Yearns For Acceptance and Eventual Reunion In Everafter. NICE BUT AFRAID MOLLY FAERIE She is a bit like Snape, they come from the same half of wizardom after all, and Sirius is a rare breed. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/125167 More to follow. Valky From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 14:05:16 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 06:05:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: De-bunking Count Snape/Foe Glass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050225140516.83573.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125172 > But, is JKR telling us that the three are loyal and trustworthy? > Or that they are all foes of Barty Crouch? And is Snape looking in > it because he's never seen himself? Or is he concerned about his own > loyalty. Or is he concerned about McGonagall's loyalty? And does > the fact that he's a foe of Barty Crouch Jr, mean he's loyal to DD? > > Potioncat I assume that Snape stares into the Foe Glass in GOF because he doesn't realize that Fake!Moody is fake; and he's startled to see Dumbledore's face (and McGonagall's and his own) in the glass belonging to an old friend of Dumbledore's. What's going on? Of course they quickly find out but remember Snape's amazement at returning to the office with the veritaserum and finding Barty Crouch Jr? Surprise at the identity AND surprise as the imposture regardless of who it really was. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 14:14:37 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 06:14:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050225141437.90842.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125173 --- phoenixgod2000 wrote: > Her reaction to Sirius at the begining of the novel was one of the > most reprehensible in the book. Not to mention that her dislike of Sirius causes a major breach of security when they take the kids to meet the Hogwarts Express to go to school. Remember how Snape was able to tell Sirius that Lucius Malfoy recognized him at the train station? How did Lucius know Sirius was a dog animagus? Answer: when Sirius jumped up to lick Harry's face, Molly pushed him down, saying "Act more like a dog, Sirius!" Right, Molly: large dogs NEVER jump on people they like and lick their faces. Only goldfish do that. Right. Molly wanted to be on the scene at 12GP because she had some kind of idea of exerting control and protecting people but she's really not capable of handling the new reality the Order faces. Her belief that ignorance is some kind of protection is really quite scary. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Fri Feb 25 14:24:33 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:24:33 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: <20050225141437.90842.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050225142433.70622.qmail@web86202.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125174 --- Magda Grantwich wrote: > to school. Remember how Snape was able to tell > Sirius that Lucius > Malfoy recognized him at the train station? How did > Lucius know > Sirius was a dog animagus? Mmm, I'm not the greatest fan of Molly, but surely the simpler answer is "Peter told the DEs". Or maybe they knew that all these years through his brother, judging from Bella's way of distinguishing them - "the animagus Black". I don't believe Sirius could resist impressing his younger brother with his newly acquired animagus skills. Irene ___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 14:30:08 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 06:30:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Dursleys, the Weasleys, Hagrid, and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050225143008.90737.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125175 > Hickengruendler: > > Still I thought he was pretty sneaky in this scene. I know he was > genuinely concerned for his brother, and I really appreciate that, > but he didn't even seem to think about the possibility that Grawp > is a danger for Harry and Hermione, inspite of the fact that he > nearly killed Hermione and that he gravely wounded Hagrid himself. > Sorry, but this scene made me dislike Hagrid. I think he went too > far, here. Not to mention that bringing Grawp back to the Forest was a short-sighted move for the interests of the Order. The centaurs may be hospitality-challenged when it comes to humans but it is primarily their forest and if you don't mess with them, they don't go looking to mess with you. The Order is looking for allies for the upcoming big battle. The centaurs are powerful, articulate, capable creatures who would make good allies. Until Hagrid brings back a foreign giant who spends his time ripping up their trees. Way brilliant move there, Hagrid. I'll bet Dumbledore was quite pleased with that little bit of news when he heard it. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 14:50:53 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 06:50:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: <20050225142433.70622.qmail@web86202.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050225145053.31134.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125176 --- Irene Mikhlin wrote: > --- Magda Grantwich wrote: > > > to school. Remember how Snape was able to tell > > Sirius that Lucius > > Malfoy recognized him at the train station? How did > > Lucius know > > Sirius was a dog animagus? > Irene: > Mmm, I'm not the greatest fan of Molly, but surely the > simpler answer is "Peter told the DEs". Or maybe they > knew that all these years through his brother, judging > from Bella's way of distinguishing them - "the > animagus Black". Even if that's true, Molly's comment on the platform - surrounded by strangers and possible DE's - was at best very irresponsible. > Irene: > I don't believe Sirius could resist impressing his > younger brother with his newly acquired animagus skills. I do. I'm sure the only ones who knew were the Marauders themselves. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 14:50:59 2005 From: jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com (jmgarciaiii) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:50:59 -0000 Subject: Snape and Quirrell in the Dark Forest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125177 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > Joe in SoFla wrote: > > WHY wouldn't Voldemort know that Snape was loyal--in more than "a > > teacher being loyal to a headmaster" way--to Dumbledore? > > a_svirn: > > How does this episode make Snape appear loyal to the Headmaster? If > anything it makes him look like a rival thief. Something I am sure > LV would understand at least, if not forgive. I quote: <> This to me implies: "You, Quirrell, should be loyal to Dumbledore, as I, Severus Snape, am." For Snape to look like a rival thief, he only need get to frustrate Quirrell's efforts to steal the Stone. But Snape brings the matter of "loyalty" into the equation. -Joe in SoFla From jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 14:54:20 2005 From: jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com (jmgarciaiii) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:54:20 -0000 Subject: A bit of Lily research... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125178 I'm formulating a hypothesis and, in order to determine whether I am deranged, I need to know the following: Where (if anywhere) in the canon is it SPECIFICALLY stated (not alluded to, not obliquely mentioned, but, rather, stated outright) Lily was Muggle-born? -Joe in SoFla From ryokas at hotmail.com Fri Feb 25 15:25:51 2005 From: ryokas at hotmail.com (Miikka R.) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:25:51 -0000 Subject: A bit of Lily research... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125179 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jmgarciaiii" wrote: > > I'm formulating a hypothesis and, in order to determine whether I am > deranged, I need to know the following: > > Where (if anywhere) in the canon is it SPECIFICALLY stated (not > alluded to, not obliquely mentioned, but, rather, stated outright) > Lily was Muggle-born? > > -Joe in SoFla Harry mentions that his mother was Muggle-born when talking to Tom Riddle, and during Petunia's freakout in the first book she quotes her parents as being proud of having a witch in the family. - Kizor From jbondtoons at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 09:08:37 2005 From: jbondtoons at yahoo.com (jbondtoons) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:08:37 -0000 Subject: Peter Petigrew is the Golden Snitch Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125180 Peter is the key. In fact, JKR gives us a hint that the snitch is the 'key' in Sorceror's Stone. The game is over when the snitch is captured, but the game is not necessarily won by the seeker. With Peter's having some link to Voldemort's right hand, and Peter's indebetedness to Harry for saving his life---Peter is the elusive snitch... From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 09:53:38 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:53:38 -0000 Subject: Why is Lupin a Gryffindor? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125181 How did he end up sorted into Gryffindor? He has something of all the traits I associate with the houses - except Gryffindor. He's bookish (Ravenclaw), loyal to a fault (hufflepuff) and I might be out on a limb, but he has some Slytherinish snarkiness and diregard for rules. What he lacks, as far as I can tell, is that sort of plucky Gryffindor bravery. He's far from a coward, certainly, what with participating in the Order and everything, but it's hardly his defining trait. The only thing I can think of is that under the "what you want" Sorting method, he might have been desperate to be in Gryffindor, beacuse it's SLytherin's opposite, and he would very much want to distance himself from anything in any way associated with Dark stuff, to deny his lycanthropy. Keeping sane through the years with the werewolf thing also seems like somethign that would demand a lot of strength, but again, it dosen't quite strike me as the Gryffindorish brand of bravery. It seems to me as though he might be a better fit for Ravenclaw, or even Hufflepuff, but of course he is in Gryffindor, so i'll trust the author and assume that that is his place, I just can't quite figure out why. Northsouth From Unicorn_72 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 14:00:17 2005 From: Unicorn_72 at yahoo.com (Unicorn_72 at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:00:17 -0000 Subject: The Prophecy and Who knows, And Why Snape might not know Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125182 There has been a lot of talk about the prophecy and I hope noone has brought this theory up yet, since its hard to remember everything everyone has said. But I was leaning more towards thinking less people know about it, even people Dumbledore trusts. The reason I think on it that way is, If Voldemort wants it so bad and wants to know what it says so bad, it would seem to me all he would have to do is capture someone or a few someone's and torture them to find out the prophecy. Now, thinking in a military way, Everyone is usually on a need to know basis. So, if Dumbledore is a good leader, it would seem to me less people would know about the prophecy as possible, even his most trusted allies. That way if someone does get captured they can't give out information that they don't know, even if they are tortured. This also seems the way Dumbledore works a lot of the time...since most of the time everyone seems to be walking around in the books clueless half the time as to whats going on. (laughs) If Dumbledore went around telling everyone in the order hay..listen to this prophecy and he told everyone, then there is also a more likely chance of someone hinting or letting slip what they know to someone else.....per example Hagrid snogging drunk...well ya know harry, hes gona knock off old Voldepoop..you wait and see..its a prophecy you see.. But anyway, it just seems to me if this is something Voldemort wants so bad, why would Dumbledore be sharing it with every member of the order? If I were Snape, I would not want to know the prophecy, for my own saftey. Because if Voldemort can read minds so well, seems to me it would be more dangerous for Snape to know it. Well that is if he is even meeting with Voldemort, we still really don't know exactly what he's doing for the order. Also if we consider that Snape is not really on the good side, and is still working for Voldemort as a double spy, then if he knows the prophecy, wouldn't he have already shared it with Voldemort and hince why would Voldemort need it so bad? It would seem if he were working for Volde he would not withhold that vaulable info. meh, anway. I hope noone has brought up these theories and I'm repeating what's already been said. But anyways, there are my ideas. :-) Karen From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 15:59:06 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 07:59:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fred and George - Prefects? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050225155906.1856.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125183 --- Richard Jones wrote: > First, the scene we have been discussing about Molly saying "that > makes everyone in the family." That means that Molly knew they > were Prefects, and George's response was a subtle reminder that > she's risking blowing their cover. But there is nothing in the way > JKR wrote the scene that suggests that. It wasn't as if Fred and > George > exchanged quick glances and George blurted out something -- George > apparently just acted with indignation. The breathtaking honesty of Molly's comment tells us that as far as public acclaim is concerned, she's pretty much written Fred and George off. (Yes, yes, yes, of course she still loves them, yadda, yadda, yadda, but she'll settle for them not landing on the bottom rather than striving for the top.) And Fred and George get the message - too right they do. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball. http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/ From lszydlowski at hotmail.com Fri Feb 25 16:30:26 2005 From: lszydlowski at hotmail.com (mizstorge) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:30:26 -0000 Subject: Avada Kedavra, or Going Out With a Bang Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125184 Any theories about the unusual effects of Avada Kedavra on the Potters and Peter Pettigrew? When we've seen it used (in GoF at the cemetary by Voldemort on Cedric and by pseudo-Moody in DADA class on the spiders), there was no explosion. However, we have read about the smouldering ruins at Godric's Hollow and about poor Peter being blown to pieces. Because of Harry's recurring visions of green light, we've assumed the spell used on the Potters was AK and I think we were meant to assume AK was the spell used on Peter (of course, Peter just transformed and scampered off, but whatever was done would seem to have appeared to be AK to most of the Wizarding World) From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 18:07:46 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:07:46 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor's dark side. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125185 "tonihollifield" wrote: > While one could argue that Percy betrayed > his family (I wouldn't argue that, but one > could), his "betrayal" was not the direct > cause of anyone's death. If Percy had not betrayed Dumbledore he would still be headmaster when Harry had his dream and he wouldn't have been tricked into going to the ministry. And Sirius Black would still be alive. Yes it might have happened even without Percy's help but he certainly approved of arresting Dumbledore, and I don't think Harry is likely to forgive that. I agree Wormtail is another example of a bad Gryffindor. Eggplant From jeterluver2 at aol.com Fri Feb 25 16:30:03 2005 From: jeterluver2 at aol.com (Marissa) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:30:03 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor's dark side In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125186 Phoenixgod2000 responded: > > Actually, in all of the books Harry searches desperately for someone > else to take the responsibility but in every one of them the adults > are either not present or they let him down in some way. He never > goes looking for trouble. >Charlotte: >How can you say Harry never goes looking for trouble after the whole >debacle at the end of OotP? If it weren't for Hermione's cautioning >he would have headed there straight away without reference to anyone. Marissa: It's easy to say this after the debacle in OoTP. For four years, everytime Harry was presented with a problem and out something evil was underway, whenever he went to look for an adult they didn't believe him or weren't around. He always ended up at the end by himself having to figure it out alone. So after four years of this, why WOULDN'T he expect to have to head there straight away without reference to anyone? He's learned from past experiences that if he doesn't act quickly Voldemort will get what he wants. In PS, Voldemort would've had the Philosopher's Stone, in the Chamber of Secrets Ginny would have died, in Prisoner of Azkaban without conjuring that Patronus Sirius would've had the dementor's kiss, and in the Goblet of Fire he would've been dead if he sat around twiddling his thumbs, waiting for an adult to come along and help him. PhoenixGod2000 is completely right. From jeterluver2 at aol.com Fri Feb 25 17:41:51 2005 From: jeterluver2 at aol.com (Marissa) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:41:51 -0000 Subject: Avada Kedavra, or Going Out With a Bang In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125187 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mizstorge" wrote: > > Any theories about the unusual effects of Avada Kedavra on the > Potters and Peter Pettigrew? When we've seen it used (in GoF at the > cemetary by Voldemort on Cedric and by pseudo-Moody in DADA class on > the spiders), there was no explosion. However, we have read about the > smouldering ruins at Godric's Hollow and about poor Peter being blown > to pieces. Because of Harry's recurring visions of green light, we've > assumed the spell used on the Potters was AK and I think we were > meant to assume AK was the spell used on Peter (of course, Peter just > transformed and scampered off, but whatever was done would seem to > have appeared to be AK to most of the Wizarding World) Marissa: I've always assumed the reason that Godric's Hollow blown up was not from using AV on James and Lily, but from the fact that when Voldemort used it on Harry it bounced back and hit him. It didn't harm Harry, and Voldemort didn't die, all unusual occurences with the curse, which I thought explained the unusual occurence of the house being blown to pieces. This could be wrong, but it's always been how I interpreted it. From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Fri Feb 25 18:07:26 2005 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Richard Jones) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:07:26 -0000 Subject: Fred and George - Prefects? In-Reply-To: <20050225155906.1856.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125188 Even forgetting about the evidence for the theory(which Shaun concedes is weak), I have a basic problem with the idea of "secret Prefects": how has this theory advanced the plot any? Apparently, they can't tell anybody about the fact because DD has more of them. The idea (from vmonte) that Fred and George may have done some things for DD makes sense. But for DD to have a corps of "secret police" sounds creepy and totally out of character for DD. Remember Prefects are for maintaining order and there is zero evidence that Fred and George would want anything to do with that and zero evidence that they did in fact have anything to do with that. All in all, it seems like a very convoluted theory to try to explain Molly's remark. The "secret Prefects" seem so secret that even JKR doesn't know about them. Richard Jones From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 20:09:07 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:09:07 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor's dark side. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125189 Eggplant: > If Percy had not betrayed Dumbledore he would still be headmaster when > Harry had his dream and he wouldn't have been tricked into going to > the ministry. And Sirius Black would still be alive. Yes it might have > happened even without Percy's help but he certainly approved of > arresting Dumbledore, and I don't think Harry is likely to forgive that. > > I agree Wormtail is another example of a bad Gryffindor. Finwitch: Now I'm not entirely sure if Percy's actions can be called betrayal. (Wormtail's was, though...). Not, because... 1) Percy was no longer in Hogwarts, nor was he ever a member of the Order. (unlike Wormtail) 2) His family - well, Percy never made it a secret he disagreed with his father in Politics (his comments about the Rita Skeeter article about the Dark Mark, for example)... 3) Twins (and Ron) knew where he stood all along. 4) Percy's taken Molly's sense of 'proper' and 'following rules' to heart - while the rest of them see clearly that doing right is not about following rules and pleasing the boss/public at all. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 20:42:01 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:42:01 -0000 Subject: Fred and George - Prefects? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125190 > vmonte responds: > I find your post quite interesting, and I think that F&G know way too > much about Hogwarts for Dumbledore to not be using them for special > jobs. I'm not sure whether they were appointed as prefects or not but > it would be cool if they quietly did side work for Dumbledore. Finwitch: Well, I'd say that Dumbledore looking at them when he's talking about rules (and breaking them) - and that Nitwit-thing... well, possibly there IS something secret going on. However, I very much doubt that *any* title bestowed upon someone by anyone, even Dumbledore, would gain the respect and obedience of Peeves the Poltergeist. Because it is the nature of a Poltergeist to defy such title-based authority. Oh no - Peeves salutes them because F&G had *earned* that -- possibly by making BIGGER pranks than Peeves could even think of. (and besides, they told Peeves to do exactly what Peeves would like to be doing anyway...) Vmonte: > Do you think that Dumbledore told the twins to give Harry the map? > > The reason why I ask this is because F&G really do something here > that is very much like something Dumbledore would do. Harry is always > given the materials, animals, knowledge, etc. to help him accomplish > certain goals. Finwitch: I don't. My guess is that when Filch confiscated it no one was doing anything against the rules (remember Harry's letter?) and he had nothing but a tip-off from someone (Snape, I suppose) - so he never told Dumbledore. And I doubt that F&G ever told Dumbledore about it existing, either. They acted wholly on their own account. Sirius MIGHT have told him, but he had no time until later -- or Lupin who took it to keep, or Snape who saw it on Lupin's desk, but I just don't see anyone just come out with - oh, BTW, there was this map... not a secret, really- just didn't come up in a conversation. What goes on between AD and the twins, is mutual, genuine respect and understanding of sorts. That's how I see it... IF, however, Dumbledore did secretly employ them - well, I don't know but that slow Funeral March- thing when they sing the school song - Dumbledore using wand to the end with the twins -- and then says: "Ah, music - magic beyond all we learn here". (Were the twins, with their choice of tune saying: 'We feel the mood is like in a funeral with our studies, but we'll be dead loyal to Hogwarts anyway and try to brighten the days' - and Dumbledore's response saying he understood and accepted it?). It's like DA following Harry or Harry doing his heroics: Do it for common goal; Do it for Hogwarts; do it because it's right. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 21:24:13 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:24:13 -0000 Subject: Taking a stab at fanfiction - some questions In-Reply-To: <7a9a102f050224083235a103d6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125191 Shelby: > 1. Do you think Molly and Arthur have pet names for each other? Do you > think they married out of love? Finwitch: Don't know about pet names, but yes, they did marry out of love. ANd for those two, I add a further comment: Despite of Arthur's tendency to smooth Molly and that 'Don't tell your Mom' - *Any* time Arthur Weasley expresses an opinion ('they *are* of age, Molly, dear') Molly stops arguing and takes his side. > 2. What about the Malfoys, did they marry out of love? Do they have > pet names for each other? Do they sleep in the same room? In the same > beds? Finwitch: Well, canon doesn't tell us much, but I expect their marriage was arranged by their families. (Black and Malfoy). We *don't* know anything about them, of course... about the same bed... how do you expect they got Draco if they never slept in the same bed? > 3. Can Crookshanks communicate with Remus when he is in his werewolf > form? Would Crookshanks recognized Remus in his werewolf form? Finwitch: Hard to say - but since a werewolf loses his mind in the transformation (unless being accompanied by several friendly animagi and/or being under the influence of Wolfsbane) that is... > 4. If Harry were unplottable would Hedwig still be able to find him? Finwitch: About birds finding unplottable Harry... Hedwig -- Possibly yes, because she's Harry's Owl and there's a certain connection between them. A general Owl - think not. (but we don't know how they find the people they're carrying letters for...) Fawkes: YES. (hey, his tail-feather is in Harry's wand. Bet the bird could use that somehow...) and besides, Phoenix is powerfully magical and very fast... Some other phoenix.. I think it would be possible. (hmm-- search entire Britain/other places of Earth?) > 5. Now that Sirius is dead, would Remus kill Peter if he were to > capture him? Would he take him back to stand trial? Finwitch: I think not. He and Sirius both agreed to let Harry decide. Then again, since PP broke his promise and transformed (which even Harry seemed to agree to mean death-sentence) the answer just MIGHT depend on the phase of the Moon. (Nice Lupin wanting to kill? Oh, but it WAS full Moon - AND he just found out the rat framed Sirius... I'd say neither of them was very SANE that night...) Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 21:38:00 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:38:00 -0000 Subject: Luna Lovegood - Werewolf Animagus?! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125192 > > vmonte: > > It could also be that Luna is true werewolf and that her mother was > killed while trying to cure her daughter. Finwitch: Possible... Luna *does* refer to Moon, so maybe she IS a werewolf. But to me it seems that she's so pure and innocent that if she was an animagus, she'd be a *unicorn*! I love Luna... particularly the way she can beat Hermione Granger! Finwitch From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 21:38:49 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:38:49 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) / Nice people get pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125193 >>Betsy: >I don't think Molly is completely bad. But I do think she is toxic. I don't get the impression that her kids like being around her.< >>Alla: >I am assuming that by "her kids don't like being around her" you mean Bill and Charley, right? >I don't think I have this impression at all.< Betsy: Hmm. I had to rethink my stance here. Because Bill does seem comfortable around Molly in the quoted scene, and her nagging (cut your hair!) doesn't seem to phase him. Though I still think it's interesting that both Bill and Charlie work abroad and that even though they can both Apparate - they don't often come home for Christmas. (That's my impression anyway - I could be wrong.) I really do have mixed feelings about Molly though. I think her kids would say they love her and that she loves them, but she is such a shrew - quick to judge, quick to criticize, slow to praise, etc., etc. The way she treats Arthur is atrocious, and as others have said, I think she's quite a bigot. (Frankly, I think we have more canon on Molly's bigotry than Snape's.) And yet, she's quite motherly to Harry, and there is an overlying warmth to several of the Burrow scenes. Which makes me wonder - how does JKR see Molly? Is JKR trying to write her as a good mother and some of us just have different interpertations of what that role should look like? Or is JKR purposefully putting nails-on-the- chalkboard attributes onto her character? And if the second, why? Will Molly turn out to be some big evil? Or will there be a better, more rounded mother-figure in the last few books? Or is there a feeling that Harry doesn't *need* a mother figure? >>Alla: >I am not one of those who considers Percy already "evil and lost cause", but I don't have much love for him either, frankly. Is it possible that something went wrong with Persy, NOT with all other Weasleys?< Betsy: The twins certainly think so. Percy has the audacity to not be athletic, to be a bit of a swot, and as Vmonte (I think) pointed out, to not have a great sense of humor about himself. Percy is, in short, a bit of a sport. The twins as natural bullies (and though I like them, they never flinch from ganging up on others) torment Percy as one not like themselves, not one of their tribe. It's fairly grotesque behavior on their part, IMO. >>Alla: >I strongly disagree that twins hate Percy and teased him more than others ( well, I love them after all), but EVERYBODY in the family teases Persy. Are you saying that Bill and Charley also hate him? >"Bill's table caught Charlie's with a huge bang and knocked one of its legs off. There was a clatter from overhead, and they all looked up to see Percy's head poking out of the window on the second floor. >"Will you keep it down?!" he bellowed. >"Sorry,Perce," said Bill, grinning. "How're the caudron bottoms coming on?" >"Very badly," said Percy peevishly,and he slammed the window shut. >Chuckling, Bill and Charlie directed the tables safely onto the grass, end to end, and then, with a a flick of his wand, Bill reattached the table leg and conjured tablecloths from nowehere." - > GoF, p.60, paperback. Betsy: I left the quote in because I don't see Bill or Charlie doing any malicious teasing here. Bill poked a bit of gentle fun, in that he smiled while asking Percy about his work, but he didn't actively denigrate Percy or his paper. If the twins had behaved a bit more like Bill and Charlie, smiling at Percy's behavior, but not constantly attacking him, I think I'd be less likely to think the twins disliked their brother even before he moved out. Betsy From drednort at alphalink.com.au Fri Feb 25 21:41:56 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:41:56 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fred and George - Prefects? In-Reply-To: References: <20050225155906.1856.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42203654.10528.28A9F6@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 125194 On 25 Feb 2005 at 18:07, Richard Jones wrote: Richard: > Even forgetting about the evidence for the theory(which Shaun > concedes is weak), I have a basic problem with the idea of "secret > Prefects": how has this theory advanced the plot any? Apparently, > they can't tell anybody about the fact because DD has more of them. First of all, I am not saying that Dumbledore has 'more of them'. I merely offered that as one possible reason why if this has occurred, they may not have gone public after they left the school. Personally, I think it is fairly odd to suggest that a secret in a time of war - and that really does seem to be the type of situation dealt with here - would suddenly be revealed just because two people are no longer doing something that was secret. That is not how these things are done. But you seem to think that this would have suddenly been made public, so I gave just a couple of possible reasons as to why it might not have been. The simplest and most straightforward reason is that when you have secrets in a conflict situation, you reveal them only when you absolutely have to. Many of the major secrets of World War II (Enigma comes to mind) were not revealed for decades. As for the idea that this theory doesn't advance the plot, that remains to be seen. This is a series of seven books. The fact that everything isn't clear at the end of book five of a series is not an indication that something may not be a plot element later on. The books are rather self contained, but not completely by any means. Molly's comments have not been explained in book five. *If* they have any real relevance, the explanation is therefore going to come later on. Richard: > The idea (from vmonte) that Fred and George may have done some things > for DD makes sense. But for DD to have a corps of "secret police" > sounds creepy and totally out of character for DD. Remember Prefects > are for maintaining order and there is zero evidence that Fred and > George would want anything to do with that and zero evidence that > they did in fact have anything to do with that. One duty of Prefects is to maintain order - and it's not their most important duty at Hogwarts by any means. The primary stated purpose of a Prefect, in most schools that have them, is to provide leadership - it doesn't always work out that way in practice, necessarily, but that is generally the point. Part of this duty can involve helping to maintain order and discipline, but that doesn't mean that's all they do, and it doesn't mean it's their major function. Frankly, the most important function of Prefects at Hogwarts seems to be to keep their fellow students safe. Generally speaking that duty implies enforcing rules, because rules are necessary in a school to keep kids safe - but in certain situations, such as those that develop in Order of the Phoenix, what is needed becomes quite different. As for the idea that they are secret police - not at all. Umbridge's Inquisitorial Squad fits the mould of a Secret Police force better (and 'secret police', historically, are rarely actually secret in the sense of being undercover and hidden. To me, if Fred and George are being used in this way, they fit far more into the mould of something like Britain's Special Operations Executive (SOE) of World War II. And the establishment of something like that, would seem to be entirely in character for Dumbledore. Richard: > All in all, it seems like a very convoluted theory to try to explain > Molly's remark. The "secret Prefects" seem so secret that even JKR > doesn't know about them. To me, it seems a far simpler theory than many of the other ones people are suggesting to explain that remark. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 21:44:17 2005 From: jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com (jmgarciaiii) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:44:17 -0000 Subject: A bit of Lily research... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125195 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miikka R." wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jmgarciaiii" > wrote: > > > > I'm formulating a hypothesis and, in order to determine whether I am > > deranged, I need to know the following: > > > > Where (if anywhere) in the canon is it SPECIFICALLY stated (not > > alluded to, not obliquely mentioned, but, rather, stated outright) > > Lily was Muggle-born? > > > > -Joe in SoFla > > Harry mentions that his mother was Muggle-born when talking to Tom > Riddle, and during Petunia's freakout in the first book she quotes her > parents as being proud of having a witch in the family. Could you (or anyone) get me the exact quote? (OR at least point me to book & chapter?) TIA! -Joe in SoFla From ryokas at hotmail.com Fri Feb 25 22:20:39 2005 From: ryokas at hotmail.com (Miikka R.) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:20:39 -0000 Subject: A bit of Lily research... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125196 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jmgarciaiii" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miikka R." > wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jmgarciaiii" > > > wrote: > > > > > > I'm formulating a hypothesis and, in order to determine whether > I am > > > deranged, I need to know the following: > > > > > > Where (if anywhere) in the canon is it SPECIFICALLY stated (not > > > alluded to, not obliquely mentioned, but, rather, stated > outright) > > > Lily was Muggle-born? > > > > > > -Joe in SoFla > > > > Harry mentions that his mother was Muggle-born when talking to Tom > > Riddle, and during Petunia's freakout in the first book she quotes > her > > parents as being proud of having a witch in the family. > > Could you (or anyone) get me the exact quote? (OR at least point me > to book & chapter?) > > TIA! > > -Joe in SoFla I wasn't going to get that essay started anyway, so my Ebook collection says: "No one knows why you lost your powers when you attacked me," said Harry abruptly. "I don't know myself But I know why you couldn't kill me. Because my mother died to save me. My common Muggle-born mother," he added, shaking with suppressed rage. "She stopped you killing me. And I've seen the real you, I saw you last year. You're a wreck. You're barely alive. That's where all your power got you. You're in hiding. You're ugly, you're foul -" - CoS, chapter seventeen. "You knew?" said Harry. "You knew I'm a -- a wizard?" "Knew!" shrieked Aunt Petunia suddenly. "Knew! Of course we knew! How could you not be, my dratted sister being what she was? Oh, she got a letter just like that and disappeared off to that-that school-and came home every vacation with her pockets full of frog spawn, turning teacups into rats. I was the only one who saw her for what she was -- a freak! But for my mother and father, oh no, it was Lily this and Lily that, they were proud of having a witch in the family!" - PS, chapter four. From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 22:29:02 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:29:02 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor's dark side In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125197 > > Phoenixgod2000 responded: > > > > Actually, in all of the books Harry searches desperately for > someone > > else to take the responsibility but in every one of them the > adults > > are either not present or they let him down in some way. He never > > goes looking for trouble. > > >Charlotte: > > >How can you say Harry never goes looking for trouble after the whole > >debacle at the end of OotP? If it weren't for Hermione's cautioning > >he would have headed there straight away without reference to anyone. > > Marissa: > > It's easy to say this after the debacle in OoTP. For four years, > everytime Harry was presented with a problem and out something evil > was underway, whenever he went to look for an adult they didn't > believe him or weren't around. He always ended up at the end by > himself having to figure it out alone. So after four years of this, > why WOULDN'T he expect to have to head there straight away without > reference to anyone? He's learned from past experiences that if he > doesn't act quickly Voldemort will get what he wants. In PS, > Voldemort would've had the Philosopher's Stone, in the Chamber of > Secrets Ginny would have died, in Prisoner of Azkaban without > conjuring that Patronus Sirius would've had the dementor's kiss, and > in the Goblet of Fire he would've been dead if he sat around > twiddling his thumbs, waiting for an adult to come along and help > him. PhoenixGod2000 is completely right. Finwitch: And I'd like to add few things: 1) Dumbledore had been acting oddly all year and AVOIDING Harry. (Don't forget Polyjuice and Metamorphmagi, and Imperius -- and of course, there COULD be some other sort of controlling-spells.) 2) Then, Harry sees one of his visions which happens to save a life. While Arthur Weasley & co. thank him for it... 3) Next thing Harry hears, is Snape (whom Harry definately does not trust) telling Harry that Dumbledore (who's nowhere) has these instructions... while Sirius (whom Harry definately trusts) objects to the whole thing -- barely agreeing. 4) Let's not forget the disrecard etc. going on. 5) Troughout the year, Harry's being punished for telling the truth; he's being brave and honourable in doing so; - and all McGonagall does is - punish him MORE. 6) Just about all means of communication are monitored by untrustworthy people, OWLs intercepted etc... 7) As for Hermione: She was about to disregard her *own* idea just because Sirius supported it (an idea that was the only thing about Hogwarts Harry liked that year and kept him sane - probably even kept him from commiting suicide); As the vision comes, she speaks of saving lives like it was a bad thing... I'm saying that- all things concidered, Harry WAS doing the right thing. Reference? To whom? Sorry my dears, but under the circumstances, Harry is out of contact to anyone he COULD safely defer to. (Don't forget, Snape *does* bear the Dark Mark... and it's entirely possible that Snape's got something over Dumbledore -- putting some potion into a Lemon Drop that makes him go 'I trust Severus Snape' every time something anti-Snape comes up...) I'd say Harry DID show reference, to Sirius' earlier reaction to the Occlumency lessons - but er-- Sirius was the one Harry visioned as *tortured* and Harry didn't manage to contact him... Oh well, I suppose Harry *could* have asked Trelawney (oh, you had a vision! Of course it's true... and poor Sirius...) or Firenze (who probably wouldn't know either way). Finwitch From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Feb 25 23:39:15 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 23:39:15 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) / Nice people get pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125198 > >>Betsy: > >I don't think Molly is completely bad. But I do think she is > toxic. > Valky: I'd like to sway your opinion on that Betsy. I think I have figured Molly out and I don't think Toxic sums it up all that well. I agree that many times the consequence of certain of her behaviours is to emotionally injure her children. But her motivations haven't been clarified in discussions about it, as far as I can see, mostly because /all/ of us have been starting from the assumption that Molly is a proud liberalist and advocate of tolerance like her husband. But I have realised lately, that she is not proudly so. We have been working from the assumption that she is content to be a poor outcast Blood traitor and possesses the self confidence as well as the the will to cope with the interim debasement of her families civil rights. I think she begins and ends at will, the rest is all Arthur. IMO, Molly *is* naturally a tolerant and loving person, but not one, like Sirius, who was able to see from an early age to what extent that would affect her own choices. She was raised by purebloodists, and married into a pureblood family and not once did she consider that she would ever be outcast for her love of Arthur. Molly thought she was keeping it real all around, she was in love, she was true to the creed of her family as far as she could comprehend, and she was thought she had pleased *everyone*. But not so, because she had become a traitor to pureblood. In OOtP when Sirius shows Harry the tapestry, and all the burnholes where names used to be, I admit having the presumption that the silly old bag hadn't *hurt* anyone by it. I was wrong. There is someone who was on that tapestry that broke down in grief in the household and could barely handle a simple boggart, there is someone who was acting irritated and abrasive in the Order HQ and possessed the fervent drive to de-demonise and breathe life into the estate of her family. That person was Molly. Mrs Black wasn't a harmless old biddy trying to make a foolish point, she really did break hearts in her family with her maliciousness, and Molly is our proof. Molly is conflicted. On the one hand she loves and believes in Arthur. He is a brave and righteous man, what he does is right and she knows it deep down. But on the other hand, all this anti- bloodism is destroying her family. In daily life she struggles with poverty and blame. Dearly she would love to have more to give her children, and sometimes its sooo frustrating having to put a lot of willywacky nonsense in priority over their future. After all, she was raised believing Pure Wizard blood *is* superior, though she might not agree that its a license to be fascist and reprimanding toward the unfortunate, she certainly doesn't "entirely" doubt that a Pure Blood wizard should have priviliege in their own world. Especially her law abiding and decent family, who after all *is* Pure Wizard Blooded. But she is at pains to get this point across to her children, most of the time. Pressing them to do right, prove themselves worthy of the dignity they have been denied, get behind her cause and show that *tolerance* is not unworthiness. This is shown in her dedication to traditions, she wants her children to go to Hogwarts, get into the Weasley Family House (Gryffindor) and become Prefects and Heads and other such over achievers of lofty goals. Moreover, she *needs* it for her peace of mind. She is frequently reminded in her memory of having been told Blood traitors could amount to nothing, she needs that to be proven false, and any threat to the security that would provide her is quickly rebuked and put aside in her mind so as to forget it is happening. So she forgets that Fred and George aren't prefects, because ultimately she *needs* to deny that they aren't or else her plan has failed and her cruel family's taunts are proved correct, the Blood Traitors are nothing. And so she rewards her children materially for having fostered an alliance with her creed of righteous indignation, she wants them to believe, like she wants to believe, that Weasleys are worthy, noble and exemplary purebloods. I think Molly is a lot more vulnerable and low in self esteem than is first noticable. All she wants is to be dignified again. Valky From dorothywillis at charter.net Fri Feb 25 16:48:50 2005 From: dorothywillis at charter.net (magister96003) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:48:50 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys, the Weasleys, Hagrid, and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: <20050225143008.90737.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125199 Magda Grantwich wrote: > Not to mention that bringing Grawp back to the Forest was a > short-sighted move for the interests of the Order. The centaurs may > be hospitality-challenged when it comes to humans but it is primarily > their forest and if you don't mess with them, they don't go looking > to mess with you. The Order is looking for allies for the upcoming > big battle. The centaurs are powerful, articulate, capable creatures > who would make good allies. > > Until Hagrid brings back a foreign giant who spends his time ripping > up their trees. Way brilliant move there, Hagrid. I'll bet > Dumbledore was quite pleased with that little bit of news when he > heard it. Perhaps Hagrid's idea was to teach Grawp English, etc. so he could be used as a messinger to the giants to try to persuade them to join the anti-Voldemort forces. Dorothy (First post and nervous) From apollovibes at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 17:37:16 2005 From: apollovibes at yahoo.com (apollovibes) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:37:16 -0000 Subject: Avada Kedavra, or Going Out With a Bang In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125200 "mizstorge" wrote: > > Any theories about the unusual effects of Avada Kedavra on the > Potters and Peter Pettigrew? When we've seen it used (in GoF at the > cemetary by Voldemort on Cedric and by pseudo-Moody in DADA class on > the spiders), there was no explosion. However, we have read about the > smouldering ruins at Godric's Hollow and about poor Peter being blown > to pieces. Because of Harry's recurring visions of green light, we've > assumed the spell used on the Potters was AK and I think we were > meant to assume AK was the spell used on Peter (of course, Peter just > transformed and scampered off, but whatever was done would seem to > have appeared to be AK to most of the Wizarding World) The resulting explosion at Godric's Hollow was from the backfiring of the curse. The spell Pettigrew used probably wasn't the killing curse at all, it was probably something more along the lines of a 'grenade' type curse that resulted in a huge explosion. The killing curse did break things apart and set things on fire in the DoM, however. "apollovibes" From irishwynch at aol.com Fri Feb 25 18:30:39 2005 From: irishwynch at aol.com (irishwynch at aol.com) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:30:39 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] How did Dumbledore know about Potters death? Message-ID: <15d.4b4c814a.2f50c8cf@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125201 In a message dated 2/23/05 2:17:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl writes: I don't know if someone mention this theory before cause I can't find the right thread... I think that since Dumbledore and the Potters were then in the Order they were in some way connected. So that when some of them die or is in a great danger the other know about it - or maybe just Dumbledore knows. I would have agreed with you, that is until I remembered how it was Harry that had to notify Dumbledore in OOTP that Mr. Weasley had be injured in the the MOM, and Mr. Weasley was an active member of the order at that time. Marla [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From frnsic1 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 18:38:37 2005 From: frnsic1 at yahoo.com (frnsic1) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:38:37 -0000 Subject: A bit of Lily research... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125202 Joe in SoFla wrote: > > I'm formulating a hypothesis and, in order to determine whether I am > deranged, I need to know the following: > > Where (if anywhere) in the canon is it SPECIFICALLY stated (not > alluded to, not obliquely mentioned, but, rather, stated outright) > Lily was Muggle-born? Sorry to burst any hypothesis bubbles, but in the World Book Day Chat (4/4/04), JKR herself answers the following: question: why did voldemort pick harry and not neville? JK Rowling replies -> Dumbledore explains this in 'Order of the Phoenix'. Voldemort identified more with the half-blood boy and therefore decided he must be the greater risk. Since JKR identifies Harry as "the half-blood boy" I doubt there is any question as to Lily's parents' muggleness. "frnsic1" From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 21:20:39 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:20:39 -0000 Subject: Fred and George - Prefects? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125203 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Richard Jones" wrote: But for DD to have a corps of "secret police" > sounds creepy and totally out of character for DD. Remember Prefects > are for maintaining order and there is zero evidence that Fred and > George would want anything to do with that and zero evidence that > they did in fact have anything to do with that. a_svirn Here, here! The whole point of being prefect is to maintain the order in a very "public" and straightforward way. I have a badge and if you won't behave I make you regret. There can't be anything secret about it. Secrecy implies eavesdropping, spying and reporting. Now, even is DD stoop to such tactics, which I don't believe, I am sure Fred and George would never agree to such an offer. a_svirn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 20:48:19 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:48:19 -0000 Subject: Snape and Quirrell in the Dark Forest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125204 Joe in SoFla wrote: > > For Snape to look like a rival thief, he only need get to frustrate > Quirrell's efforts to steal the Stone. But Snape brings the matter > of "loyalty" into the equation. a_svirn: So he does. But how does it follow that it is about anyone's loyalty to Dumbledore? How does Snape's loyalty to DD justifies him trying to get past Fluffy? Or indeed to intimidate a fellow teacher to reveal his part of the "focus-pocus"? That doesn't make sense. If he was concerned about Quirrel's loyalty to DD he should have report him to DD and leave the matter in his hands. Or if he felt it wasn't sufficient he could keep vigil at the trapdoor. But NOT try to get in himself. a_svirn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 22:12:37 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:12:37 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly / playing favourites? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125205 > Alla: > > I am not one of those who considers Percy already "evil and lost > cause", but I don't have much love for him either, frankly. Is it > possible that something went wrong with Persy, NOT with all other > Weasleys? > > I strongly disagree that twins hate Percy and teased him more than > others ( well, I love them after all), but EVERYBODY in the family > teases Persy. Are you saying that Bill and Charley also hate him? a_svirn: There has been said a lot about Molly and Percy and how she plays favourites. But although she does seem frustrated, "toxic", and narrow-minded on occasion, and so on I would rather acquit her of this accusation. When it comes to Percy she is not being deliberately "unfair", she is being protective. I don't mean that she feels she must protect him from the twins (although they do get carried away on occasion). But it so happens that Percy is the most vulnerable of her children. It's nobody's fault actually, but he simply less "interesting" that his other brothers (except Ron). Bill is everyone's favourite and so he should be ? being as he is brilliant, dashing, good-looking and easy-going. Charley might be less brilliant, but he was the best Quiddich player in his Hogwarts days, and this alone makes up for quite a lot. Fred and George are extremely talented and fun to be around. Compared to this lot Percy is at a considerable disadvantage. He certainly does not lack intelligence or magical ability but among his brothers he looks just plain ORDINARY. Now, with less driven and much "nicer" person (Ron, for instance) that wouldn't be such a big deal. Ron is humbly prepared to play supporting roles for his brothers or Harry for that matter. But Percy is not "nice", he is also very ambitious, and the necessity to compete with more "interesting" brothers makes him feel very insecure. And Molly, being a mother-hen that she is, is trying to do her clumsy best to support him, to encourage him, to make it up for him. I am sure for instance, that the notion of "rewarding" her children upon being made prefects was first introduced when Percy got the badge. When she asked Ron what he would have liked to get, she mentioned Percy getting an owl, but she didn't say she bought anything for Bill and Charley. I don't think it was because she loved them less. I believe it's because for them (especially for Bill) it wasn't such a big deal. Of course he was made a perfect? who else? But with Percy everything was given a status of an achievement to be noted and admired. And so it went. She meant it for the best. She wanted to ensure that Percy felt more confident and sure of himself. Of course she achieved exactly the opposite ? he was so desperate to prove himself that he developed the sort of obsessive hypercorrection that alienate him from the rest of the family still further. But on the other hand what else could she do? Just give up on him? This seems to be approach Arthur took, but although in general I like Arthur much better then Molly I don't think much of his attitude towards Percy. a_svirn From frnsic1 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 22:42:35 2005 From: frnsic1 at yahoo.com (Sally Waddle) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:42:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A bit of Lily research... Message-ID: <20050225224235.18661.qmail@web61306.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125206 <-Joe in SoFla- I'm formulating a hypothesis and, in order to determine whether I am deranged, I need to know the following: Where (if anywhere) in the canon is it SPECIFICALLY stated (not alluded to, not obliquely mentioned, but, rather, stated outright) Lily was Muggle-born? > If none of the previous examples were enough, here's a direct quote from JKR at the World Book Day Chat (4/4/04): question: why did voldemort pick harry and not neville JK Rowling replies -> Dumbledore explains this in 'Order of the Phoenix'. Voldemort identified more with the half-blood boy and therefore decided he must be the greater risk. So... JKR is saying quite directly that Harry is "the half-blood boy." "frnsic1" From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 22:45:52 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:45:52 -0000 Subject: Fred and George - Prefects? In-Reply-To: <42203654.10528.28A9F6@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125207 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > > One duty of Prefects is to maintain order - and it's not their most > important duty at Hogwarts by any means. The primary stated purpose > of a Prefect, in most schools that have them, is to provide > leadership - it doesn't always work out that way in practice, > necessarily, but that is generally the point. a_svirn: Is there any such thing as "secret leadership?" It's something of a contradiction of terms I think. Leader can only be "public" if not to the world at large at least to a group of people he is supposed to lead. a_svirn From clehrenet_81 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 23:33:37 2005 From: clehrenet_81 at yahoo.com (Ehren) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 23:33:37 -0000 Subject: Fred and George - Prefects? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125208 Vmonte: > > > Do you think that Dumbledore told the twins to give Harry the map? > > > > The reason why I ask this is because F&G really do something here > > that is very much like something Dumbledore would do. Harry is > always > > given the materials, animals, knowledge, etc. to help him > accomplish > > certain goals. > clehrenet_81: I don't think so. In the end of GoF when Crouch Jr. is explaining how he led Potter to Voldemort he mentions the map. Pg 691 US: Crouch: "I used the map I had taken from Harry Potter. The map that almost ruined everthing." " Map?" DD said quickly "What map is this?" According to DD's reaction I do not think he was aware of the map. Besides, if the Maraders kept other secrets, like being animagi from DD, why would he know about the map? I do agree otherwise with the F&G theory. Ehren From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sat Feb 26 00:51:37 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 00:51:37 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) / Nice people get pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125209 Betsy: > Hmm. I had to rethink my stance here. Because Bill does seem > comfortable around Molly in the quoted scene, and her nagging (cut > your hair!) doesn't seem to phase him. Though I still think it's > interesting that both Bill and Charlie work abroad and that even > though they can both Apparate - they don't often come home for > Christmas. (That's my impression anyway - I could be wrong.) I am comfortable around my father now too, and we fought like cats and dogs till the day I moved out. Distance makes the heart grow fonder. Bill and Charlie can afford to be sweet to Molly, they aren't around her all the time anymore. And it did strike me as a somewhat of a rare occurence for Bill and Charile to be home. Or at least that was the impression I got. Phoenixgod2000, who wishes Bill was his big brother because he is seriously the coolest guy ever. From clehrenet_81 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 00:00:16 2005 From: clehrenet_81 at yahoo.com (Ehren) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 00:00:16 -0000 Subject: Is Snape doomed? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125210 Long time reader...first time poster, my apologies if this has already been covered. I do beleive that Snape is on DD's side whatever his motives are for being there. However, is he the DE that has left Voldemort forever? If he is I just do not understand how he could be a spy as well. If Snape was a double agent for DD during the first war (GF pg. 590-1 us paperback) and can be presumed thats what he is doing now and wouldn't Voldemort know GF713 OoP591? I mean, when Quirrel had Voldy hiding underneath his turban in SS/PS, don't you think he would have known Snape had been warning Quirrel about where his "loyalties lie". So if Voldemort knows: why is Snape still hanging out with Lucious? So if Snape really is a spy, why hasn't Voldemort figured it out an AKed him already? Unless of course Snape really is not being a spy and he is the "one who has left us forever." If thats the case its obvious why he joined DD, to help bring Voldy down and for protection only DD can provide. For the beleivers that Snape is on the good side and whether or not Voldemort will kill him, what are your thoughts? I am very anxious for JKR to tell us Snape's role in the books!!! Ehren- who is rereading all the books in anticipation of the HBP! From melclaros at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 02:04:21 2005 From: melclaros at yahoo.com (melclaros) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 02:04:21 -0000 Subject: De-bunking Count Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125211 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > There must be some reason why JKR keeps making vampires references. > If he's not a vampire now he may become one in the future I suppose. JKR *never* made a vampire reference in any way related to Snape. And yes I can hear you in the back shouting, "What about that essay?" Well what about it? A teacher of DADA assigns an essay on a "dark creature." Oooh. Forshadowing. Yes. Only no. So now it's mirrors is it? Vampires aren't "repelled" by mirrors, they just can't see themselves in them. From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sat Feb 26 02:08:04 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 02:08:04 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?FILK:_I=92ve_No_Body_=91Cause_His_Mommy_Loved_Him?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125212 I've No Body `Cause His Mommy Loved Him To the tune of You're Nobody Till Somebody Loves You (first sang by Russ Morgan in 1946, later popularized by Dean Martin) MIDI at: http://oldkunnel.net/nobody21.html Dedicated to SSSusan THE SCENE: ???? THE TIME: November 1, 1981. What is left of Lord Voldemort rues his bitter fate: VOLDEMORT I've no body `cause his Mommy loved him I've no body though I Mommy scared. I was the king, I did possess a strength unsurpassed But Lily's sting left me with less of weight, form and mass The Lord who is not named has been deleted My bod was reduced to a blob I've no body `cause his Mommy loved him I'll find myself some body to rob - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sat Feb 26 02:11:21 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 13:11:21 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fred and George - Prefects? In-Reply-To: References: <42203654.10528.28A9F6@localhost> Message-ID: <42207579.11140.11F5B5B@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 125213 On 25 Feb 2005 at 22:45, a_svirn wrote: > a_svirn: > > Is there any such thing as "secret leadership?" It's something of a > contradiction of terms I think. Leader can only be "public" if not > to the world at large at least to a group of people he is supposed > to lead. Yes, and no. A leader must to an extent be visible, certainly. That doesn't mean however, that his or her authority needs to be visible. In the situation that seems to me to possibly apply in Order of the Phoenix, Fred and George's activities to disrupt the school (either as their primary purpose, or as a cover for other things) are certainly visible and potentially inspirational to others. Any authority they have to do this, does not need to be visible if the results are. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From ReturnOfTheMutt at aol.com Sat Feb 26 02:28:33 2005 From: ReturnOfTheMutt at aol.com (ReturnOfTheMutt at aol.com) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:28:33 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fred and George - Prefects? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125214 Maybe prefects Fred and George had their titles revoked. Maybe they were offered the positions and refused. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sat Feb 26 03:01:37 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:01:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: De-bunking Count Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050226030138.40063.qmail@web53308.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125216 melclaros wrote: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > There must be some reason why JKR keeps making vampires references. > If he's not a vampire now he may become one in the future I suppose. JKR *never* made a vampire reference in any way related to Snape. And yes I can hear you in the back shouting, "What about that essay?" Well what about it? A teacher of DADA assigns an essay on a "dark creature." Oooh. Forshadowing. Yes. Only no. So now it's mirrors is it? Vampires aren't "repelled" by mirrors, they just can't see themselves in them. Luckdragon: Although Jo never alludes directly to Snape being a vampire, it makes it hard to completely rule out the idea entirely due to all the little insinuations and Jo's own drawing of Snape which can be viewed at the link below. http://piratemonkeysinc.com/images/Rowling.jpg Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/hbfile.html Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT --------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 03:44:47 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 03:44:47 -0000 Subject: Molly and Arthur Was Re: Mother Molly /Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125217 Betsy: < SNIP of mutually agreeable part> I really do have mixed feelings about Molly though. I think her kids would say they love her and that she loves them, but she is such a shrew - quick to judge, quick to criticize, slow to praise, etc., etc. The way she treats Arthur is atrocious, and as others have said, I think she's quite a bigot. (Frankly, I think we have more canon on Molly's bigotry than Snape's.) Alla: I had been thinking about the way Molly treats Arthur. Sure, I immensely dislike Molly's attempts to "handle' Arthur or lecture him, BUT I think that Arthur really does not care and hides from Molly the stuff, which is not really important on the grand scheme of things (why make my wife angry, if we can escape her temper tantrums :))and when it comes to important stuff Arthur is very capable of standing his ground. Remember Molly's and Arthur argument in PoA as to whether to tell Harry about Sirius or not. "...makes no sense not to tell him," Mr. Weasley was saying heatedly. "Harry's got a right to know. I've tried to tell Fudge, but he insists on treating Harry as a child. He's thirteen years old and -" "Arthur, the truth would terrify him! said Mrs. Weasley shrilly. "Do you really want to send Harry back to school with that hanging over him? For heaven's sake, he is happy not knowing!" "I don't want to make him miserable, I want to put him on his guard!" retorted Mr. Weasley. ..... "Well, Arthur, you must do what you think is right" - PoA, p.65-66, paperback. So, when it comes to what Arthur believes is needed to be done, he is pretty persuasive, even though they are having a heated argument. And as we know Arthur does try to tell Harry. I LOVED Arthur's attitude here. (When I reread this exchange today, I so wished for Dumbledore in OOP to adopt Arthur's attitude towards Harry). Anyway, back to Molly and Arthur. It also seems to me that Molly did not really exclude Arthur from schooling their children. "Ginny!" said Mr. Weasley, flabbergasted. "Haven't I taught you anything? What have I always told you? Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain? Why didn't you show the diary to me, or your mother? A suspicious object like that, it was clearly full of Dark Magic-" - CoS, p.329, paperback. Note, that Arthur does not say "your mother taught you", he says "I taught you" and he also says " to me or your mother". It seems to me that in the important matters Molly and Arthur ARE equal partners, even though from the first sight it may seems that the exact opposite is true. Let's also look at the scene at the end of OOP, when order finally threatens the Dursleys. I find it interesting that even though both Arthur and Molly are here, Molly does not do any talking to Dursleys AT ALL. She only addresses Harry in the beginning of the scene and at the end. Everybody else talks to Dursleys, but Molly does not. Does she trust Arthur to handle it? Seems like it to me. "Ah, Harry!" said Mr. Weasley, turning from Hermione's parents, whom he had been greeting enthusiastically, and who were taking it in turns to hug Hermione. "Well- shall we do it, then?" "Yeah, I reckon so, Arthur," said Moody. He and Mr. Weasley took the lead across the station toward the place where the Dursleys stood, apparently rooted to the floor. ... "Good afternoon," said Mr. Weasley pleasantly to Uncle Vernon, coming to a halt right in front of him. "You might remember me, my name's Arthur Weasley" - OOP, p.868, paperback. So, in short I do think that Molly respects Arthur, although we should look carefully to notice it. :o) Betsy: And yet, she's quite motherly to Harry, and there is an overlying warmth to several of the Burrow scenes. Which makes me wonder - how does JKR see Molly? Is JKR trying to write her as a good mother and some of us just have different interpretations of what that role should look like? Or is JKR purposefully putting nails-on-the- Chalkboard attributes onto her character? And if the second, why? Will Molly turn out to be some big evil? Or will there be a better, more rounded mother-figure in the last few books? Or is there a feeling that Harry doesn't *need* a mother figure? Alla: Jane Austeen is one JKR's favourite writers, no? I think Molly's negative qualities to some extent are similar to bad qualities of mothers in Jane Austeen novelas. Nevertheless, I think that in general JKR sees Molly as good mother (simply my view) if for no other reason than her children are so cool (to me at least). It can't be only Arthur's genes, right? NO, I don't think Molly will turn out to be ESE. I do think that there is a good chance of her turning out dead. Valky: So she forgets that Fred and George aren't prefects, because ultimately she *needs* to deny that they aren't or else her plan has failed and her cruel family's taunts are proved correct, the Blood Traitors are nothing. And so she rewards her children materially for having fostered an alliance with her creed of righteous indignation, she wants them to believe, like she wants to believe, that Weasleys are worthy, noble and exemplary purebloods. I think Molly is a lot more vulnerable and low in self esteem than is first noticable. All she wants is to be dignified again. Alla: Valky, this was very very interesting assessment of Molly. I am not sure I agree yet, but it sounds plausible enough. I never thought of Molly as having regrets about her pureblood status and her family status as blood traitors, but maybe it is indeed because I looked at Arthur's quiet dignity and automatically assumed that Molly holds the same views. I hope I did not misunderstand you. You definitely gave me food for thought. Just my opinion of course, Alla From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Sat Feb 26 04:19:19 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:19:19 +0000 Subject: Where does it say that Molly is a pureblood fanatic??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125218 Someone suggested that: >Molly comes >from a purebloodist wizard family (Prewitts are still on the Noble >Black tapestry) and Valky agreed that >Molly and Arthur share a great deal(love for example) but they >*don't* share Arthur's tolerance and liberalism and neither moreover >do they share Arthurs Self-confidence that rises above all this >public shame. > >Molly, alas, is sady affected by her blood status as a traitor. >Unlike Sirius and Andromeda who *knew* they wanted to turn their >backs on the purebloodist kin and had no regret or remorse for being >shunned and rebuked by the ones that should love them, Molly >couldn't carry anymore regret, frankly. I am the first person to admit that Molly gets on my nerves sometimes, but I definitely disagree with the people who have suggested that her family believed in the doctrine of pure blood, let alone that she herself does. On the contrary, we know that: 1) Molly's brothers, the Prewitts, were *killed* by Voldemort et al during the first Voldemort War. If they were in agreement with him, why would they have been killed? 2) Ron calls Salazar Slytherin a "twisted old loony" for his beliefs, and says that if wizards hadn't married muggles they would have died out. Ron, like his siblings, was homeschooled by Molly, and I think it's fair to assume that the Weasley children learned their basic values from her as well as from Arthur -- after all, they spent more time with her, since Arthur was at the Ministry. 3) Molly invites Hermione to the Burrow, to dinner at the inn in Diagon Alley, includes her on her Christmas and Easter list, etc. with only one hiatus when she believes on Rita Skeeter's authority that Hermione has been trifling with Harry's affections. (As to why she believes Rita Skeeter, Molly isn't the best judge of celebrities -- she admired Gilderoy Lockhart, too.) If Molly were really such a bigot, she wouldn't want Hermione around, and even if she put up with her, it would be easy to tell -- do you think Mundungus Fletcher is in any doubt as to whether or not Molly likes him? 4) If Molly's family had been pureblood believers, or sympathized with the aims of Voldemort, Lucius Malfoy would probably have said so. His remarks sound as if he views the Weasley family as a monolithic entity supporting all that he hates and rejecting all that he stands for. In short, being called a "blood traitor" by people like Mrs. Black and Lucius Malfoy can only be to the credit of Molly as well as to her family. Oh, and I read the remark about "swarming with muggles" as about as bigoted as complaining about traffic jams and long lines. Janet Anderson From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 05:12:33 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 05:12:33 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) / Nice people get pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125219 >>Valky: >I'd like to sway your opinion on that Betsy. I think I have figured Molly out and I don't think Toxic sums it up all that well. >I agree that many times the consequence of certain of her behaviours is to emotionally injure her children. But her motivations haven't been clarified in discussions about it... >Molly is conflicted. On the one hand she loves and believes in Arthur. He is a brave and righteous man, what he does is right and she knows it deep down. But on the other hand, all this anti-bloodism is destroying her family. >I think Molly is a lot more vulnerable and low in self esteem than is first noticable. All she wants is to be dignified again.< Betsy: I like your theories on Molly's motivations, Valky. It explains why Molly is so big on keeping her children away from Muggles and Muggle items. And it explains her somewhat old fashioned, or pureblooded, views that she and Ron (from her tutelage I'll bet) both express towards halfbreeds, while at the same time, all of her children overtly despise the pureblood mentality. However, though it's not on purpose, I still think Molly's treatment of her children is a bit toxic - in that she can be a force her children have to protect themselves against, rather than a nurturing one (though Molly can be nurturing at times). (I don't think a parent has to be consciously harmful to be a toxic influence on their children.) I mean she's not abusive or anything, and I think the Weasleys are fairly normal, with all the warts and weaknesses normality entails. But the Weasley household is not all sweetness and light and I think Molly is a big source of the problems. Arthur can be brought in for some blame as well just by his very passivity. If he'd stood up to his wife a bit more, rather than hiding out in his tool shed, maybe there'd be more balance in the children's upbringing. I wonder though, if the frailty of the Weasley household will be further explored by JKR or if she just installed those weaknesses to make the Weasley family more real. After all, no family is perfect. Betsy, who wonders if this means there really *cannot* be a OBHWF ending. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 06:13:09 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 06:13:09 -0000 Subject: Where does it say that Molly is a pureblood fanatic??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125220 >>Janet Anderson: >I am the first person to admit that Molly gets on my nerves sometimes, but I definitely disagree with the people who have suggested that her family believed in the doctrine of pure blood, let alone that she herself does. >On the contrary, we know that: >1) Molly's brothers, the Prewitts, were *killed* by Voldemort et al during the first Voldemort War. If they were in agreement with him, why would they have been killed?< Betsy: Regulus Black was killed by Voldemort because he didn't agree with Voldemort's methods, but Sirius made it clear to Harry that his family *did* believe in the importance of being a pureblood. The Noble House of Black was *not* a supporter of Voldemort - not once they realized his methods. I'm not suggesting that Molly's family had the same level of blood pride the Blacks did, but the WW is full of examples of people placing importance on bloodlines without embracing it with the fervor of the Death Eaters. (Fudge is another example.) >>Janet Anderson: >2) Ron calls Salazar Slytherin a "twisted old loony" for his beliefs, and says that if wizards hadn't married muggles they would have died out. Ron, like his siblings, was homeschooled by Molly, and I think it's fair to assume that the Weasley children learned their basic values from her as well as from Arthur -- after all, they spent more time with her, since Arthur was at the Ministry.< Betsy: I think that Molly has adopted Arthur's (and Dumbledore's) views on Muggles, and if she were asked, she'd say Muggles were very nice people who do the best they can and wizards shouldn't be mean to them. Of course, a wizard shouldn't mingle either. And there are hints of pureblooded thinking in Molly's reaction to the werewolf in Arthur's room, and Ron's own reactions to Lupin and Hagrid. >>Janet Anderson: >3) Molly invites Hermione to the Burrow, to dinner at the inn in Diagon Alley, includes her on her Christmas and Easter list, etc. with only one hiatus when she believes on Rita Skeeter's authority that Hermione has been trifling with Harry's affections. (As to why she believes Rita Skeeter, Molly isn't the best judge of celebrities - - she admired Gilderoy Lockhart, too.) Betsy: But this is the same Rita Skeeter who was discussed by the entire Weasley family as being untrustworthy at the beginning of GoF. Actually, I think the Rita Skeeter incident is a perfect example of Molly's bias. She *does* like Hermoine. She just doesn't fully trust her. I wonder what her reaction to Percy's Muggle-born girlfriend was like? And I wonder how she'd react to Ron dating Hermoine (if it ever happens)? I get the sense that deep down Molly thinks Muggles and Muggle-borns are a bit untrustworthy. >>Janet Anderson: >4) If Molly's family had been pureblood believers, or sympathized with the aims of Voldemort, Lucius Malfoy would probably have said so. His remarks sound as if he views the Weasley family as a monolithic entity supporting all that he hates and rejecting all that he stands for.< Betsy: I don't think all purebloods sympathized with Voldemort. And I don't *think* anyone is suggesting that Molly and her family were as into blood supremacy as the Malfoys are. Plus, Molly has embraced her husband's beliefs (at least outwardly). And I think Lucius would count anyone as a blood traitor who sided with Dumbledore, who has some *very* liberal views himself. >>Janet Anderson: >In short, being called a "blood traitor" by people like Mrs. Black and Lucius Malfoy can only be to the credit of Molly as well as to her family.< Betsy: To us, the readers, yes. And maybe even to the Weasley children, but I don't think there's much in canon to suggest exactly *what* Molly's beliefs are, but there's a fair bit that hint she might not be as liberal as her husband. >>Janet Anderson: >Oh, and I read the remark about "swarming with muggles" as about as bigoted as complaining about traffic jams and long lines.< Betsy: I think the word "swarming" is pretty negative. But my book (scholastic paperback) says "packed" which is much more benign. Does the British version say "swarming" or did someone misquote somewhere down the line?. Betsy From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Sat Feb 26 06:48:33 2005 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (Shanoah Alkire) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 06:48:33 -0000 Subject: Taking a stab at fanfiction - some questions In-Reply-To: <7a9a102f050224083235a103d6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125221 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Shelby Leigh wrote: > > I have been lurking for a while, trying to get the groove of the > group. I have tried to keep pace with all of the posts but ... > well, let us say I may have missed some things. > > I am not sure if anyone reads fanfiction or if the group supports > it. Nevertheless, I am going to ask the questions. They are > research questions so that I can keep my characters in character > and the storyline near canon. > Just as a note, I lot of my answers on this are based on opinion, and copious amounts of fanfiction. Still, hopefully they help. > 1. Do you think Molly and Arthur have pet names for each other? Do > you think they married out of love? I'd anticipate them having pet names for each other. They probably married out of love. I also suspect they have a hard time keeping their hands off each other, witness 7 children... > 2. What about the Malfoys, did they marry out of love? Do they have > pet names for each other? Do they sleep in the same room? In the > same beds? > No cannon evidence, but their marriage was probably arranged, based on purity of blood. Any pet names would be likely to be petty and caustic, unlike the Weasleys, who I see as more along the line of hopeless romantics. They probably slept in the same bed long enough to concieve an heir. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they slept in separate wings of the manor, and if Lucius brought attractive female visitors up to see his etchings and his pimp cane. He probably does have the pet name "Luscious". just not with his wife. No cannon, mind. Just a feeling I have, partially because I see Draco as being spoiled, but neglected emotionally, and I don't see his parents providing much in the way of role-models for him as far as being loving or caring. > 3. Can Crookshanks communicate with Remus when he is in his > werewolf form? Would Crookshanks recognize Remus in his > werewolf form? > Crookshanks would probably recognise the connection between Remus in his the two forms. He would probably be able to communicate limited amounts of information, and Remus might not fully understand, since he would have a wolves mind at the time. Crookshanks could probably manage "Follow me.", "Stay away.", and might manage "Friend. Don't Eat" with difficulty. He probably couldn't get across "Harry, Ron, and Hermione are in the clearing ahead, trying to fend off Voldemort with a lethal form of Morris Dancing. You fend off Pettigrew, while I fetch Dumbledore.", useful as it might be. > 4. If Harry were unplottable would Hedwig still be able to find him? > Hedwig, probably, if she wanted to. She is a very smart owl, and seems to have a special bond with Harry. A normal owl probably couldn't, and I doubt Hedwig under Imperio could. > 5. Now that Sirius is dead, would Remus kill Peter if he were to > capture him? Would he take him back to stand trial? > I think Remus might contemplate it, but his better nature would prevail, and he would take him in. A lot of Remus's nature stems from a conscious effort *not* to be the wolf, during his non-cursed days, IMHO, and the blood-lust involved in killing him would be enough for him to reconsider. --Arcum From kempermentor at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 09:24:01 2005 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:24:01 -0000 Subject: Luna Lovegood - Werewolf Animagus?! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125222 vmonte: It could also be that Luna is true werewolf and that her mother was killed while trying to cure her daughter. Finwitch: Possible... Luna *does* refer to Moon, so maybe she IS a werewolf. But to me it seems that she's so pure and innocent that if she was an animagus, she'd be a *unicorn*! I love Luna... particularly the way she can beat Hermione Granger! Kemper now: I love her, too. But I don't see Luna as an innocent as she saw her mom die. That seems to be a loss of innocense as far as coming-of- age stories go. If she is an animagus, I see her as a wolf only, not a werewolf nor a unicorn.... though, come to think of it... maybe the Crumple-Horned Snorkack. Kemper From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Feb 26 10:20:44 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:20:44 -0000 Subject: Where does it say that Molly is a pureblood fanatic??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125223 Valky wrote: >Molly comes from a purebloodist wizard family > > Janet: > I am the first person to admit that Molly gets on my nerves > sometimes, but I definitely disagree with the people who have > suggested that her family believed in the doctrine of pure blood, > let alone that she herself does. > > On the contrary, we know that: > 1)Molly's brothers, the Prewitts, were *killed* by Voldemort et al > during the first Voldemort War. If they were in agreement with > him, why would they have been killed? Valky: In OOtP Sirius tells Harry: The pure-blood families are all interrelated,' said Sirius. If you're only going to let your sons and daughters marry pure-bloods 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. This means that Molly and Arthur were related to the Black family, individually, not by their own marriage. For Molly to be a cousin by marriage as an individual means that she and Sirius share the same Grandparents, by Marriage, it could only mean that either Sirius or Molly married the others first cousin or possibly Sirius is Molly's second cousin. Assuming Sirius was never married and knowing that Molly married Arthur (not Sirius' first cousin) then it must be the other slightly possible answer. Molly is the older generation cousin which would mean that Sirius Mother or Father married Mollys' first cousin. Now looking at Lexicon- http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/black-family-tree-image.html we should rule out that it was MR Black because that would make Molly and Arthurs relationship too icky for words. So lets assume that Molly is a relative on MRS Blacks side, and therefore likely to have been in-law kin to the dear Araminta who tried to push a bill for Muggle hunting, and cousin to the daughters and grandaughters of lovely Elladora, who was into House-elf beheading. Come to think of it... maybe that's why there isn't a Weasley House-elf.. ;D So yeah, I think regardless of that she may have been in some good company with Gideon and Fabian, her elder female counterparts were reeeeaaally not nice people. > > Janet: > 2) Ron calls Salazar Slytherin a "twisted old loony" for his beliefs, and says that if wizards hadn't married muggles they would have died out. > Valky: Ahhh but twisted old loony is so ambiguous, it could mean that Ron has been taught by Molly not to believe in purebloodism or any thing of its nature, or it could mean Molly taught him that Slytherin was a psychopath without regards to what he *said* he believed. Actually the latter is quite likely. Calling someone twisted, to me, indicates that you think they didn't understand what they stood for, themselves. If you mean to say they were wrong and stupid you use words like wrong and stupid. When you use words like twisted you *mean* twisted: www.dictionary.com Twisted. To alter or distort the intended meaning of; To alter or distort the mental, moral, or emotional character of; Ron also shows irrational behaviour towards Hagrid and Remus when he finds out they are half-"monster", someone taught him that too. It wasn't Arthur. > 3) Molly invites Hermione to the Burrow, .... edit.... If Molly > were really such a bigot, she wouldn't want Hermione around, > and even if she put up with her, it would be easy to tell -- do > you think Mundungus Fletcher is in any doubt as to whether or not > Molly likes him? > Valky: But I never meant that Molly was *such a bigot*. What I meant was that Molly draws the line somewhere different. To Molly, theres not so much a problem with being proud of ones heritage (she is proud of her heritage and kind it's *them* that rebuke *her*) the problem is that it has gone beyond pride when people like Voldemort and Salazar start taking their fancy of carnage and chaos. Molly's stance against purebloodism is *not* so much civil or political as it is military, in her heart of hearts she might be willing to do whatever shes told to get back in the good graces of her purebloodist relatives and community, that is why she believes Rita Skeeter, and follows MR Fake Lockheart, because she longs to fit in again she longs to refocus her energies on giving her little den privilege and good standing in the community. She knows (darn it says Molly) that Arthur is doing "the best thing" in backing Dumbledore, but she can't help but wonder if it all would just be easier if they just dropped it all and made nice with pureblood wizardkind. I'm not saying she would abandon the fight against Voldemort, no not at all, but the fight against bigotry itself, well it's worth it but then again it's so awful to struggle and have nothing. She is a mother after all. To Molly Muggles are nice enough people, but she is all wizardkind through and through - muggles just can't fill the void left by the kin that reject her. Strictly politically and fancifully she will choose the wizards (even the purebloodists) over muggles, if it gives her a moment with her own kind in pleasantry. Again I stress she knows which is the good side in the war, and she is there 100% all personal battles aside. What I am saying is that Molly is not a bigot but she's not all passionately tolerant either, because she loves her own kind with a bit of nepotism. > Janet: > 4) If Molly's family had been pureblood believers, or sympathized > with the aims of Voldemort, Lucius Malfoy would probably have said > so. His remarks sound as if he views the Weasley family as a > monolithic entity supporting all that he hates and rejecting all > that he stands for. > Valky: Well no, I don't think Lucius' bigotry or any WW bigotry works that way. Andromeda, it seems was not forgiven her association with the "damned" with any regard to what shes done in the past. Nor anyone on the tapestry for that matter. And Mollys attitude to watching *every* fine detail does go to suggest that no, not even a pure pure perfect pureblood is going to be forgiven one slip up to the creed. Once you're associated with the dirty blood you're out, you're them that's it. > Janet: > In short, being called a "blood traitor" by people like Mrs. Black and Lucius Malfoy can only be to the credit of Molly as well as to her family. > Valky: Yeah, it is. But Molly is not in credit anywhere. She has to shop and live among swarms of Mrs Blacks. 12 Grimmauld Place was the first time *we and Harry got to see what Molly lives with EVERY DAY. Janet: > Oh, and I read the remark about "swarming with muggles" as about as bigoted as complaining about traffic jams and long lines. > Valky: Well, actually complaining about traffic jams and long lines is a bit akin to bigotry. Think about it. From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 10:27:40 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:27:40 -0000 Subject: Luna Lovegood - Werewolf Animagus?! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125224 > > Kemper now: > I love her, too. But I don't see Luna as an innocent as she saw her > mom die. That seems to be a loss of innocense as far as coming-of- > age stories go. If she is an animagus, I see her as a wolf only, not > a werewolf nor a unicorn.... though, come to think of it... maybe the > Crumple-Horned Snorkack. Finwitch: Well- - I'd say that the way Hermione was luring Umbridge into the Forest so she'd be attacked by centaurs was a loss of *her* innocence. Harry's intent to use crucio on Bellatrix was *his* loss of innocence - not watching Sirius go beyond, not the day he saw Cecric die - or the night he heard his parents die. I don't think that seeing death means that innocence is lost.. But oh well, I suppose my definition of innocent is somewhat wider than yours. Finwitch From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 11:59:42 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:59:42 -0000 Subject: Where does it say that Molly is a pureblood fanatic??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125225 Betsy: To us, the readers, yes. And maybe even to the Weasley children, but I don't think there's much in canon to suggest exactly *what* Molly's beliefs are, but there's a fair bit that hint she might not be as liberal as her husband. vmonte responds: Sorry, you are wrong here. The reverse is true. I've read some of the stories at Red Hen, and although I thought some were good, this particular one about Molly is dead wrong. Molly has a strong personality. There is no way that she would be able to hide her true feelings about anything. It would be quite clear to the readers of the HP books if she did not care for Hermione and Harry. The Weasley parents (both) have brought up their children to respect nonmagical folk. It is quite obvious (looking at canon) how the children (including F&G) feel towards muggles. I'm not saying that Molly is perfect, no one is, but I'd choose her to be on my side any day. I also feel bad for Molly because she is probably going to die saving one of her children--and it's probably Percy. Vivian From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 12:13:41 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 12:13:41 -0000 Subject: De-bunking Count Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125226 Message 125211 From: "melclaros" Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 9:04 pm Subject: Re: De-bunking Count Snape vmonte" wrote: There must be some reason why JKR keeps making vampires references. If he's not a vampire now he may become one in the future I suppose. melclaros wrote: JKR *never* made a vampire reference in any way related to Snape. And yes I can hear you in the back shouting, "What about that essay?" Well what about it? A teacher of DADA assigns an essay on a "dark creature." Oooh. Forshadowing. Yes. Only no. So now it's mirrors is it? Vampires aren't "repelled" by mirrors, they just can't see themselves in them. vmonte responds: I was responding to Pippin's post regarding her theory on "Vampire Snape." I think you need to address your mirrors comment to Pippin since it is her theory and not mine. (Although, I happen to think that Pippin is right about some of the vampire inferences.) Vivian From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 12:29:54 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:29:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050226122954.87308.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125227 > SSSusan: > As long as you would also cut James & Sirius some slack for the > pensieve scene with Snape by saying they were just *kids.* If you > do, then you're consistent in your view. If you don't, then I'd > point out that they're close to one & the same thing: mean, nasty, > bullying behavior from 15-year-olds.< Well, I'll cut Sirius some slack because I really believe that aside from his undoubted love for James, his friendship with Remus and a moderate fondness for those members of his family who were least like his parents, Sirius really was (up to his death) an ammoral guy who thought that if he didn't like someone it was a good enough reason to go after them. Part of his overall "I'm a Black, I don't have to explain myself" genetic coding. (He inherited more than the house from his parents, after all.) I will not cut James nearly as much slack because James was intelligent and if he had a happy homelife with good, decent parents should have known better than to do what he did for no other reason than that his pal was bored. Sorry ideology-fans, but that's canon. James was blessed with the good things in life (and I don't include money) and he should have known that what he was doing was wrong. Lily certainly did. I don't believe we're expected to see Draco as any kind of real threat to Harry (to Ron, that's another thing). As Betsy says, he's never tried to levitate anyone upside down. On the other hand, he's such a spineless little git up til the end of OOTP that anything involving risk, initiative, a minimum amount of daring and intelligence is frankly beyond his capabilities. Probably his "best" moments so far have been trying to zark Harry for insulting his mom (while overlooking the fact that Harry actually insulted him) - granted, Harry's back was turned but Draco didn't check to see if a teacher was around first and didn't care that there were abundant witnesses - this is Herculean courage for Draco. The other highlight of his career was his co-operation with Rita Skeeter in her animagus form during OOTP - he was involved in heavy duty anti-Harry stuff and he managed not to brag about it or otherwise spill the beans! Draco CAN be discreet when he wants to; who'd a thought it? Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Feb 26 12:38:36 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 12:38:36 -0000 Subject: Where does it say that Molly is a pureblood fanatic??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125228 >>Janet Anderson: >In short, being called a "blood traitor" by people like Mrs. Black and Lucius Malfoy can only be to the credit of Molly as well as to her family.< Betsy: To us, the readers, yes. And maybe even to the Weasley children, but I don't think there's much in canon to suggest exactly *what* Molly's beliefs are, but there's a fair bit that hint she might not be as liberal as her husband. vmonte: Sorry, you are wrong here. The reverse is true. ...edit.... Molly has a strong personality. There is no way that she would be able to hide her true feelings about anything. It would be quite clear to the readers of the HP books if she did not care for Hermione and Harry. The Weasley parents (both) have brought up their children to respect nonmagical folk. It is quite obvious (looking at canon) how the children (including F&G) feel towards muggles. I'm not saying that Molly is perfect, no one is, but I'd choose her to be on my side any day. Valky: Hmm I don't think Betsy doubts Molly's feelings for Harry and Hermione, (right Betsy?) I think I agree because, as I understand it, what is being said is that *Molly* might not be of a mind that this all is a thorough credit to her. It's hard to tell but the hints go to her needing approval from the community that she belongs to, including the ones that aren't aligned _ahem_ /good/. Those hints are: Her darkly serious concern for the *reputation* of Arthur at the ministry. Ron occassionally showing an irrational face when dealing with persons strange to wizard kind. Her bleating over Gilderoy *and* Hermione regardless of the obvious truth about them. Almost everything she says at 12 Grimmauld Place goes to prove her concerns for "properness" border on ridiculous sometimes. There are more, but it all says the same, Molly doesn't feel so right about being a liberal as her children or her husband do. She is a liberal really, but the consequences don't sit so obviously well with her as you're saying. All that said, I would too choose her to be on my side, in a nanosecond she is all all good IMHO. The fact that she loves wizardkind so much is not a bad thing in the slightest. It just creates conflict in her that is yet to be resolved. vmonte: I also feel bad for Molly because she is probably going to die saving one of her children--and it's probably Percy. Valky: Well Molly would certainly give it all for her children to have the best of things. But I forsee her finding out from Fred and George that she already did give them the best of things. WE will remember Molly smiling proudly over her twins, I think. Betsy: I wonder what her reaction to Percy's Muggle-born girlfriend was like? And I wonder how she'd react to Ron dating Hermoine (if it ever happens)? I get the sense that deep down Molly thinks Muggles and Muggle-borns are a bit untrustworthy. Valky: OOOOH good canon Betsy. How quickly did we dismiss Percys 'quiet' affair with Penelope. Why did he hide it at first? Was he worried about whether others approved of him dating a Muggleborn girl? I can imagine a scenario where he was worried, afraid that he might let his Mum down by giving *them* something else to smear her with... Then he talked to her about it, and she set him straight about love, and *totally* supported him in it, hang the consequences. Awwww.. Betsy: I think the word "swarming" is pretty negative. But my book (scholastic paperback) says "packed" which is much more benign. Does the British version say "swarming" or did someone misquote somewhere down the line?. Valky: Mine is a Bloomsbury edition and it says "packed" so it's likely a misquote. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 12:41:17 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:41:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Molly is not ESE! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050226124117.69035.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125229 > vmonte responds: > > The twins do not see Ron as the enemy. (I'm sorry, but isn't there > anyone on this site that has grown up with a family that teases > each other?).... > > And I do not believe that F&G hate their brothers. They are joking > around and are obviously the clowns of the family. In fact, I think > that the fact that they are disappointed in Percy for not going to > the hospital points to the fact that they care about him and are > upset by what he is doing. Of course Fred and George don't "hate" Ron and Percy. But they very much resent being compared unfavourably to them by Molly. The practical jokes they play on Percy get increasingly hostile and hurtful as they all get older. Ron is very aware of this and his idea of what constitutes proper Weasley behaviour throughout the series is whatever won't turn Fred and George against him. F&G's comment to him that he wants to be head boy is met with a dramatic denial, even though we saw in PS/SS that when he looked in the Mirror of Erised that's exactly what he saw himself as. Ron is in denial about his own internal needs as long as they might conflict with F&G's own views. I've said it before and I repeat it because it's significant: Ron has his first decent Quidditch game after F&G leave Hogwarts. This is not a coincidence. He's finally the senior Weasley at the school and can step out of the shadows of the twins. As for Percy, F&G are much more concerned about the effect his estrangement has on Molly (which is irony to the tenth power, all things considered) and seem quite prepared to write off Percy without a qualm. I think F&G spent a lot of years taking out their resentment about Molly's nagging by expending it on Percy rather than her, partly because Percy was on the spot at Hogwarts and Molly wasn't but also because F&G are the kids most like Molly and it would have been too close to home (no pun intended) to direct open animosity against her. Percy is a wonderful target and - like Snape beside the lake - has the wonderful advantage of not acting like a victim so its possible to pretend that what they're doing really isn't so bad after all. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 12:53:40 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:53:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050226125340.53204.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125230 > SSSusan: > What about the possibility that Molly is embarrassed that she can't > afford better? Speaking as a parent meself, I know there are times > when it's not exactly fun to have to reveal to your children that > you CAN'T do something/buy something because there simply aren't > means. On a *good* day, you might find a way to openly discuss > this > with the kids so they can learn something from it. On a > *different,* not-so-good day, you might just look away and tersely > avoid admission that you weren't able to do better. > > Ron did let her have it a bit, and that may have contributed to her > embarrassment. If he'd reacted differently, maybe she'd have been > less humiliated and been more inclined to have considered the > possibility of mending them. Yes, I'm sure she was embarassed that they couldn't afford better robes for Ron. But I can't think of a worse way for her to handle the issue than the way she did it - unless she'd handed the robes to him on the platform surrounded by a couple hundred people. But handing them over in front of his best friend and pretending that Ron's concerns were not valid, then yelling at him - nope, bad Molly. Ron did indeed let her have it and it was about time too. Ron's been an almost total doormat when it comes to being overlooked in his family and when he finally started tossing it back in GOF I applauded. A shame that he tossed it at Harry rather than at his family but that's another point. I'll rewrite your last sentence, Susan: "If SHE'd reacted differently, maybe HE'd have been less humiliated and been more inclined to have considered the possibility of mending them." Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 13:09:13 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 05:09:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) / Nice people get pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050226130914.62401.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125231 > Magda: > > And don't tell me she was in "mother bear defending her cub" mode > over possible hurt to Harry - she KNOWS that Rita Skeeter lies and > isn't to be trusted. > > Alla: > > I don't justify Molly's action here, BUT I think that it could be > indeed she in her "mother bear mode". Why are you so sure that > Molly > knows that Rita lies and not to be trusted? Could you give me a > quote? I read it as Molly's sincere belief that Rita was correct. > It > does not mean that Molly was right to judge Hermione so fast, but > she really does not know her well. Molly would have read the earlier Skeeter article about Hagrid with its prominent coverage of Draco Malfoy's lies, which appears in Chapter 24; and in Chapter 13, Skeeter's article about "Arnold" Weasley and his incompetence as a MOM employee appeared. So by the time the heartbreak article appeared in Chapter 27, Molly had had at least two indications that Skeeter was relying on bad sources and was writing libels about people. And Molly knows that Hermione is the third corner of Ron's and Harry's triange, that's she's her son's second-closest friend. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Feb 26 13:21:05 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 13:21:05 -0000 Subject: Molly, Motherhood, and Myopia Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125232 There has been a lot of discussion on the list about Molly and her pureblood bigotry or lack thereof. People have brought up her relations with her children, with Snape, with Sirius, with werewolves, with Arthur, with Harry, and with Hermione to argue one side or another. Let me offer a solution that many may find simplistic, but that I think is what JKR is getting at with Molly's characterization. JKR, as we have discussed at length, tends to mix strong elements of the symbolic with the realistic in her characters. Whether that works well or poorly, is a good idea of a bad idea, is a matter of debate. Nevertheless, I think it's clear that she does this. I think that Molly is meant to be, largely, a symbol of motherhood. In that she is, she bears certain stereotypical traits of the mother out of Anglo-American popular culture. She is deeply concerned with family almost to the exclusion of all else. She is fiercely protective. She worries about her children and her husband. She is a bit of a nag, but a perfectly well-meaning one. Her children and husband love her, even if they get a bit exasperated from time to time. She has an abundance of love that she is willing to share with a lonely, abused child. All of these traits are associated strongly with the Mother. In a sense, Molly is a walking incarnation of the Empress (well-favored, i.e. in its positive implications) from a Tarot Deck. But why, people ask, does she favor Percy or turn on Hermione or snark at Sirius or bully Arthur ....? Well, there is another aspect of Motherhood, it is dreadfully near-sighted. Mothers are concerned first and foremost with the nurturance and protection of the INDIVIDUALS under their care. They don't see "children." They see Ron and Ginny and Harry and so forth. They don't see "great social forces." They see the problems Arthur has at work and the pain Harry is in because someone may have broken his heart. I think that to attribute bigotry to Molly is to miss the point. Molly, I suspect, doesn't worry too much about great social issues. Now, I'm not saying she doesn't understand them or have views about them. I'm sure she does. But I just don't believe she thinks in those terms most of the time. Certainly she doesn't think in those terms during her interactions with other people, including Arthur, Hermione, Harry, Sirius, and her children. Molly worries about Arthur, about the fact that he can't get the proper credit at work. I don't suspect she routinely thinks of that as an interplay of politics and social factors, but rather as a specific situation faced by a specific man whom she loves. When Molly becomes angry at Hermione she isn't thinking of muggleborns as anything, or even the fact that Hermione is muggleborn. She's thinking that she loves Harry like a son and this particular individual is said to have hurt him. Now, you might say her leap of judgment in unfair, but it's stereotypical maternal behavior. Mothers don't, stereotypically, pause to reflect or evaluate situations objectively. They rush to protect their children against all comers. She may have liked Hermione, but it's clear she did not feel for her as she felt for Harry. Harry was one of her children, or as good as. Hermione was not. For a mother with her radically focused vision, that's all that's necessary. Exactly the same situation arises with Sirius. In THIS specific situation THIS specific individual proposed a course of action that was dangerous to one of her children. Now, the stereotypical mother is not perfect. Indeed, the symbol is fraught with tensions - tensions out of which Freud (the Viennese physician, not the group member), Jung, and others built entire careers. But overall it is a strongly positive archetype, and I think JKR sees Molly as a strongly positive figure. So, in sum, to ascribe much angst to Molly over her status in general with the purebloods, or to think she sees muggleborns as untrustworthy , etc., is, I think, to badly misunderstand her character. She is a radically non-ideological figure. I just don't think her mind works that way. Molly is concerned with individual people in individual situations. Her hopes, dreams, and fears are very concrete because the people they concern are real people, not abstractions like "pureblood," "muggleborn," or "society," or "the Wizarding World." If she feels left out of Wizarding Society I suspect she ascribes it to certain "snobbish" individuals like Narcissa Malfoy, not to the beliefs of an abstract set like "the purebloods." In fact I doubt she thinks in terms of "society" but rather in terms of which individuals will associate with which other individuals. When she says the station is "packed with Muggles" she means just that. This PARTICULAR station is packed with these PARTICULAR people who are, after all, Muggles. I doubt she even routinely thinks of "the Ministry" but rather of those "unfair people who won't promote Arthur" or those "awful people who put Harry on trial." I'm not saying she's stupid. Of course she understands the concept and reality of "the Ministry" or any other abstraction. But I don't think that's the rubric she uses on a day-to-day basis to organize the world, even rather deep down in her automatic thoughts. Lupinlore From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 13:41:05 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 05:41:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) - Correction In-Reply-To: <20050226122954.87308.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050226134105.66534.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125233 --- Magda Grantwich wrote: > The other highlight of his career was his co-operation with Rita > Skeeter > in her animagus form during OOTP - Correction: I meant Draco's cooperation in GOF. Sorry about that. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 13:47:45 2005 From: jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com (jmgarciaiii) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 13:47:45 -0000 Subject: A bit of Lily research... In-Reply-To: <20050225224235.18661.qmail@web61306.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125234 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sally Waddle wrote: > If none of the previous examples were enough, here's a direct quote from JKR at the World Book Day Chat (4/4/04): > > question: why did voldemort pick harry and not neville > JK Rowling replies -> Dumbledore explains this in 'Order of the Phoenix'. Voldemort identified more with the half-blood boy and therefore decided he must be the greater risk. > > So... JKR is saying quite directly that Harry is "the half-blood boy." Thanks! -Joe in SoFla From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 13:49:06 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 05:49:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Dursleys, the Weasleys, Hagrid, and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050226134906.49575.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125235 > Perhaps Hagrid's idea was to teach Grawp English, etc. so he could > be used as a messinger to the giants to try to persuade them to > join the anti-Voldemort forces. > > Dorothy > (First post and nervous) Don't be nervous. That's a good point, and has a good chance of being true. But I'm not sure it's worth the price of cheesing off the centaurs, whose proximity to Hogwarts makes them important to the Order. Magda (welcome to the list) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 13:51:57 2005 From: jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com (jmgarciaiii) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 13:51:57 -0000 Subject: De-bunking Count Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125236 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > > I was responding to Pippin's post regarding her theory on "Vampire > Snape." I think you need to address your mirrors comment to Pippin > since it is her theory and not mine. (Although, I happen to think > that Pippin is right about some of the vampire inferences.) I think we need to distinguish between the oblique vampire references (the essay, for example) which do not have anything to do directly with Snape and the *direct* BAT references made related to Snape. Personally, I *think* Snape is a vampire (whole or in part, or maybe just socially), but I am not certain this is so. If he isn't, no big whoop. -Joe in SoFla From jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 14:03:09 2005 From: jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com (jmgarciaiii) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 14:03:09 -0000 Subject: Snape and Quirrell in the Dark Forest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125237 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > Joe in SoFla wrote: > > > > > For Snape to look like a rival thief, he only need get to > frustrate > > Quirrell's efforts to steal the Stone. But Snape brings the matter > > of "loyalty" into the equation. > > > a_svirn: > > So he does. But how does it follow that it is about anyone's loyalty > to Dumbledore? How does Snape's loyalty to DD justifies him trying > to get past Fluffy? Or indeed to intimidate a fellow teacher to > reveal his part of the "focus-pocus"? That doesn't make sense. If he > was concerned about Quirrel's loyalty to DD he should have report > him to DD and leave the matter in his hands. Or if he felt it wasn't > sufficient he could keep vigil at the trapdoor. But NOT try to get > in himself. 1- I personally can't see to whom *else* that loyalty might be given in the context of Snape's grilling of Quirrell. 2- I think Snape's trying to get past Fluffy had to do with heading off Quirrell. 3- I further think the hocus-pocus bit was related to Quirrell's jinxing of Harry's broom. Notice that Harry's hearing of teh conversation was interrupted by an owl so that all he hears is Snape saying: " --- your little bit of hocus-pocus. I'm waiting." It is perfectly plausible Snape is asking what Quirrel was up to in jinxing Harry's broom, which Quirrel was vehemently denying. -Joe in SoFla From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Feb 26 14:14:25 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 14:14:25 -0000 Subject: Molly, Motherhood, and Myopia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125238 Lupinlore: > So, in sum, to ascribe much angst to Molly over her status in general with the purebloods, or to think she sees muggleborns as untrustworthy , etc., is, I think, to badly misunderstand her character. Valky: Au contraire Lupinlore, I think you misunderstand me. Allow me to embellish even further... Lupinlore: She is a radically non-ideological figure. I just don't think her mind works that way. Valky: I agreed for the most part about your position regarding Molly's dispassion for pureblood/nonpureblood ideology, up to this. I don't actually think that Molly is all that *radically* non idealogical. She has world views and societal opinions, true that they matter for the most part only as they relate to the people that she loves deeply, but to some degree she is liable to lean upon them for security, I think. I do really like your comparison of Molly to the Empress by the way, just don't forget she has a reversed *meaning* too. Lupinlore: Molly is concerned with individual people in individual situations. ...edit.... not abstractions like "pureblood," "muggleborn," or "society," or "the Wizarding World." If she feels left out of Wizarding Society I suspect she ascribes it to certain "snobbish" individuals like Narcissa Malfoy, not to the beliefs of an abstract set like "the purebloods." Valky: See, here's where I am misunderstood, I agree, but for two minor details that you have missed. The first - Narcissa is not the minority in this situation Molly is, so the snobbish individuals you speak of, well they constitute a greater whole than that. If the roles were reversed tomorrow and Molly's side was King even after all the Weasleys have been pained to endure Narcissa would still be treated better than Molly is now, which brings me to my next point... these people are Molly's kin and she loves them and wants to be among them. I never meant that she ascribed the blame to a group, what I was trying to say is that the community group *means something to her* as a whole and it matters to her that they love her children and her husband. This *includes* purebloodist wizards because they *are family*. Lupinlore: I doubt she even routinely thinks of "the Ministry" but rather of those "unfair people who won't promote Arthur" or those "awful people who put Harry on trial." Valky: No I disagree, Molly has a huge respect for the Ministry, as an entity, I don't think she non-regards the entity of the Wizard World or its laws at all. Though I do concur that for the most Molly doesnt really have a a great deal of regard for the Ministry or the WW as an abstraction but it does affect her children and her family as an abstraction nonetheless. So the children must be unto its approval so that they can be OK and Arthur so he can be OK and that's very important. The abstraction may not be her field of expertise, but she has a societal view and understands that the abstraction has authoritarial weight, so she doesn't disregard it. I think it would ring a bit childish to do so anyhow. Lupinlore: I'm not saying she's stupid. Of course she understands the concept and reality of "the Ministry" or any other abstraction. But I don't think that's the rubric she uses on a day-to-day basis to organize the world, even rather deep down in her automatic thoughts. > Valky: Well yes, and no for me. I think she does daily deal with a rubric that is greater than one entity at a time. The societal group as her kin is something that affects her a lot. Reread her Howler to Ron, and her dressing-down of Mundungus in OOtP Chapter 6 if you doubt. I think that society is fairly constantly on her mind, but that may be the reversed Empress implication in her character, perhaps by the end we will see Molly's card turned back to its fortunate position and that is when the societal regard will lose it's weight on her shoulders. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Feb 26 14:25:30 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 14:25:30 -0000 Subject: De-bunking Count Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125239 > melclaros wrote: > > JKR *never* made a vampire reference in any way related to Snape. And yes I can hear you in the back shouting, "What about that essay?" Well what about it? A teacher of DADA assigns an essay on a "dark creature." Oooh. Forshadowing. Yes. Only no.< Pippin: I'm not sure what you mean. Snape's werewolf essay was obviously important to the plot and, though we didn't know it at the time, connected to Lupin. Lupin's vampire essay may be completely unconnected to anything...but we are hardly in a position to say so for certain. melclaros > So now it's mirrors is it? Vampires aren't "repelled" by mirrors, they just can't see themselves in them. > Pippin: Um, if you were trying to keep anyone from finding out that you were a vampire, you'd need to stay away from mirrors, especially nice big ones mounted in public places. And if you needed to have a reflection in order to use certain magical devices, then they wouldn't work for you. Pippin From drliss at comcast.net Sat Feb 26 14:19:16 2005 From: drliss at comcast.net (Lissa Hess) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:19:16 -0500 Subject: Why is Lupin a Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: <1109374768.9662.39881.m21@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.2.20050226085420.0181c4b8@mail.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 125240 Northsouth: >It seems to me as though he might be a better fit for Ravenclaw, or >even Hufflepuff, but of course he is in Gryffindor, so i'll trust the >author and assume that that is his place, I just can't quite figure >out why. Lissa: I think one of JKR's points is that bravery comes in all forms. Look at Neville. For the entire first book we assumed he was a coward, and then Dumbledore acknowledged him for having the guts to stand up to his friends. Lupin IS very brave, in a very quiet sort of way. From the time he's been a small boy, he's been faced with prejudice and hate because of something he can't control. And yet he goes on anyway, and he keeps his perspective and his sense of humor. Lupin's not very brave at facing his friends, and he does fear rejection, as we can see. (Although I still wonder if Sirius being free wasn't part of why he left Hogwarts so quickly.) But even in OotP, where quite frankly, things suck for him, he's able to laugh at himself and keep going. And when Sirius dies, he's able to put the grief aside and keep functioning. It's a much more subtle form of bravery than what someone like Sirius possesses, but Sirius doesn't have it. When Sirius's life disintegrates, so does he. Not that I blame him (Sirius is one of my favorite characters), but he doesn't deal well with it. I think the bottom line is that people like Sirius, Ron, James, and Hermione have the courage to face the world, and people like Neville and Remus have the courage to face themselves. Lissa From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Feb 26 14:50:14 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 14:50:14 -0000 Subject: Snape and Quirrell in the Dark Forest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125241 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jmgarciaiii" wrote: > I quote: > > <> > > This to me implies: > > "You, Quirrell, should be loyal to Dumbledore, as I, Severus Snape, am." > Pippin: But isn't this exactly what a Death Eater in deep cover would say? Pretending loyalty to Dumbledore is exactly what Snape, as Voldemort's *secret* agent, ought to do, unless Voldemort reveals himself or Quirrell provides positive proof that he is Voldemort's agent. Pippin who thinks this spy stuff is a bigger headache than time turning From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 15:30:47 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 15:30:47 -0000 Subject: Fred and George - Prefects? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125242 ReturnOfTheMutt wrote: > Maybe prefects Fred and George had their titles revoked. Maybe they were > offered the positions and refused. Ginger: I had a similar thought. Perhaps MM and DD were sitting down discussing potential prefects, and came up with either Fred or George, or couldn't decide between the two, and offered prefecthood to first one then the other, or both at once, and F&G protested vehemently that it would infringe mightly upon their lifestyle. DD twinkled, and offered it to (insert prefect of that year). Molly would have been proud, but angry, thus her comment could be meant in two ways: "That's everyone in the family appointed. I'm so proud." and "That's everyone in the family, if it weren't for you two hooligans who wouldn't accept it. On the other hand, Molly could have been like a coworker of mine last fall who announced with pride that "all my kids made the varsity football team!" She got some ribbing about how her kindergartner son would manage to work it in around naptime and how her gradeschool daughters (very petite) would fit under the padding. She had, of course, meant that her 3 high school aged sons who had tried out for football had made the team. My parents do the same thing. "All our kids were in..." except for one of us who wasn't. Just generalizing that the majority were. And yes, the one left out usually has a comment, although not as witty as "next door neighbours". I'll have to try that one. Ginger, who would rather be a Molly than some of the mothers in this world if she had kids. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 15:51:41 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 15:51:41 -0000 Subject: FILK: Oh, When the... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125243 Oh, When The..., a filk based on "Oh, When the Saints Go Marching In" Dedicated to annemehr, who put the blasted tune in my head ;0) Harry, Hermione, and Ron sing as they go through the obstacle course that lead to the Philosopher's Stone: (Note: as a character drops out in canon, so does his/her singing in the filk) Trio: Oh, when the dog begins to growl, Begins to bark and snarl and howl. Just play it a mus'cal number, When the dog begins to growl. Oh, when the plant begins to snare, Begins to grab you everywhere. Just throw some light on that subject, When the plant begins to snare. Oh, when the keys begin to fly, Begin to soar both low and high. Just hop a broom and catch the blue one, When the keys begin to fly. Oh, when the game demands you play. Demands you follow rules their way. Just hold your square and heed Ron's orders, When the game demands you play. Oh, when the troll is knocked out cold, And you don't have to be so bold. Just be glad your wand has no bogies, When the troll is knocked out cold. Oh, when the door is blocked by flames, And vials and poems comprise the games. Just use your good old Muggle logic, When the door is blocked by flames. Oh, when the Stone's in Erised, And the Dark Lord's on Quirrell's head. Just be glad your skin is protected, When the Stone's in Erised. Ginger, who is surprised how much action JKR can pack into so few pages. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Feb 26 15:54:39 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 15:54:39 -0000 Subject: Who is a Vampire? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125244 Maybe one reason for JKR's "Erm, I don't think so" answer is that there is no universally accepted Potterverse answer to the question 'who is a vampire?' Like the term 'half-blood' the definition may depend on who is using the term. There could be a real life parallel with the question "Who is a Jew?" -In the past, sometimes a person who had renounced Judaism would be considered by other Jews to be legally dead, and thus no longer linked to Jews, while at the same time still a Jew as far as racially oriented anti-Semites were concerned. So JKR could have meant, "Erm, *I* don't think so (but some of my characters might.)" Pippin From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Feb 26 16:12:06 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:12:06 -0000 Subject: Molly sees herself as blood traitor? (was: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Qs)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125245 Valky: > She was raised by purebloodists, and married into a pureblood > family and not once did she consider that she would ever be > outcast for her love of Arthur. ... she was thought she had > pleased *everyone*. > > But not so, because she had become a traitor to pureblood. > > In OOtP when Sirius shows Harry the tapestry, and all the > burnholes where names used to be, I admit having the presumption > that the silly old bag hadn't *hurt* anyone by it. I was wrong. > Mrs Black wasn't a harmless old biddy trying to make a > foolish point, she really did break hearts in her family with her > maliciousness, and Molly is our proof. > > After all, she was raised believing Pure Wizard blood *is* > superior.... SSSusan: Valky, I'm curious where you are getting this info that Molly was raised with all this. Do we *know* the mentality of her parents or upon what message she was raised? Do we *know* she classes herself as a blood traitor? Or are you assuming she was raised this way because almost all pure-blooded families "surely" raise their children this way? It feels like a pretty big leap to me, but maybe I'm missing something. Siriusly Snapey Susan From stbjohn2 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 16:14:55 2005 From: stbjohn2 at yahoo.com (stbjohn2) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:14:55 -0000 Subject: Where does it say that Molly is a pureblood fanatic??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125246 > > > Janet: > > Oh, and I read the remark about "swarming with muggles" as about > as bigoted as complaining about traffic jams and long lines. > > > > Valky: > Well, actually complaining about traffic jams and long lines is a > bit akin to bigotry. Think about it. Sandy: OK, I'll bite ... why is complaining about traffic jams akin to bigotry? I do think Mrs. Weasley complaining that a muggle train station, with at least 10 muggle train platforms, is "packed with muggles" does show a certain amount of, um, something that's at least unease, possibly intolerance of muggles. After all, the station is probably also packed with wizards, since every Hogwarts student and many of their parents are there, so she's singling out one segment of humanity and not another. And who else would be at a muggle train station but muggles? That's like complaining there are so many Chinese people in Beijing. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 16:31:47 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:31:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who is a Vampire? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050226163147.48767.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125247 -- pippin_999 wrote: > Maybe one reason for JKR's "Erm, I don't think so" answer is that > there is no universally accepted Potterverse answer to the > question 'who is a vampire?' Like the term 'half-blood' the > definition may depend on who is using the term.... > > So JKR could have meant, "Erm, *I* don't think so (but some of > my characters might.)" Possible. Or she might have meant "No" but said it in a very polite way while thinking "Where do they get these ideas?" I've been on sites where people claim that "Erm" is a British expression meaning "maybe" but I don't believe it. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 16:57:09 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:57:09 -0000 Subject: Who was Draco's nanny? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125248 It occured to me that Narcissus would not want to deal with a baby. Who would have been Draco's nanny? Dobby? I would think that Dobby would have had a lot of other things to do if he was the only house- elf that the Malfoys had. Was he? If Dobby was the nanny, one would think that maybe some of Dobby's good nature would have rubbed off on the little tyke. Any thought? Tonks_op From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 18:10:29 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 18:10:29 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125249 Casey: >You know, I've always rolled my eyes when someone says that fandom >(especially slash fandom) is misogynic but now I'm starting to >wonder. What does it say when two "normal" women are vilified and >only the bookish (Hermione) and the oddball (Luna) females are >acceptable? It's very difficult to write good female characters. Even when you think you've got one down nicely, people will always see her in different ways. Take Hermione - some people see her as quick, intelligent, and loyal. Others see her as obnoxious, bossy, and annoying. The same goes in the RW. If a woman is strong an confident, others can see her as domineering and opinionated. If she's quiet, she's seen as mousy or timid. I once wrote a female character that I thought was strong and confident. My friend told me she was bitchy and self-absorbed. You can't win! Look at all the varying opinions of all the females in HP - Hermione, Molly, Ginny, McGonagall, Cho, Luna. None of us see any of them in the same way. I don't think it's misogyny, I think it's more that we hold females to different standards than males. Frankly, males have a lot more leeway. Females make a wrong move and we have 70 different names for them, none of them flattering. Nicky Joe From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Sat Feb 26 19:22:39 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 19:22:39 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Where does it say that Molly is a pureblood fanatic??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125250 Valky said: >OOOOH good canon Betsy. How quickly did we dismiss Percys 'quiet' >affair with Penelope. Why did he hide it at first? Was he worried >about whether others approved of him dating a Muggleborn girl? >I can imagine a scenario where he was worried, afraid that he might >let his Mum down by giving *them* something else to smear her >with... Then he talked to her about it, and she set him straight >about love, and *totally* supported him in it, hang the consequences. >Awwww.. I have three words for you: Fred and George. Never mind Molly, or the fact that Penelope was Muggle-born (and I agree that Molly wouldn't care, and don't think Percy would even *think* she would care). Percy was keeping his affair quiet to avoid the amount of aggravation he would get from his siblings, and Fred and George in particular. Even real-life families can be obnoxious about their siblings' love lives (says the oldest of four children), and it is clear from the expressions on the twins' faces when they finally find out about Percy and Penelope that they intend to take full advantage of the situation. Janet Anderson From kempermentor at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 19:30:12 2005 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 19:30:12 -0000 Subject: Luna Lovegood - Werewolf Animagus?! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125251 I wrote: I love her, too. But I don't see Luna as an innocent as she saw her mom die. That seems to be a loss of innocense as far as coming- of-age stories go. Finwitch responded: Well- - I'd say that the way Hermione was luring Umbridge into the Forest so she'd be attacked by centaurs was a loss of *her* innocence. Harry's intent to use crucio on Bellatrix was *his* loss of innocence - not watching Sirius go beyond, not the day he saw Cecric die - or the night he heard his parents die. I don't think that seeing death means that innocence is lost.. But oh well, I suppose my definition of innocent is somewhat wider than yours. Me (kemper) now: I'm not sure if your definition of 'innocent' is wider than mine, because I didn't discuss my definintion. I wrote about "a loss of innocence" and not that "innocence is lost." And I would argue that Harry didn't see Cedric die... he saw Cedric murdered, and that is a loss of innocence. But Harry's loss of innocence begins even earlier. For sure, by the end of PS/SS when Quirrell-mort physically attacks Harry and then -mort orders Quirrell to kill Harry. No later than this is when the innocent -one naive to the world experiences which brings realization that evil and cruelty exist (one of my many definitions for 'innocent')- Harry begins to have his innocence chipped away. In later books he: sees the 'violation' of Ginny; sees that the innocent -ones who are free of legal guilt (another definition of mine)- are treated as though they are guilty; comes to know of the deadly betrayal that lead to the death of his father and mother; is, as stated earlier, a witness to murder; is tortured by the cruciatus curse; escapes his own murder; is chased by evil men casting spells at him; closes his hand around the still-warm-but-dead Cedric's wrist; learns that a man he trusted for a school year has manipulated him and is about to kill him; ... and that's not including all the cruelty and evil in OoP. Harry wasn't picked as leader of the DA for being innocent -ignorant (yet another definition)- of the defence against the Dark Arts; but rather, the Dark Arts are against him, and it is these experiences which lead to the DA choosing him as leader. Harry is no longer an innocent... at least with regards to the Dark Arts. -Kemper who thinks he's still an innocent regarding Love From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 20:07:01 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:07:01 -0000 Subject: Molly is not ESE! In-Reply-To: <20050226124117.69035.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125252 Magda wrote: I've said it before and I repeat it because it's significant: Ron has his first decent Quidditch game after F&G leave Hogwarts. This is not a coincidence. He's finally the senior Weasley at the school and can step out of the shadows of the twins. vmonte responds: Sure, Ron is finally able to step out of the shadows of his older brothers, but this has nothing to do with him escaping bad treatment from F&G. This is more about Ron overcoming his insecurities. Ron is finally finding the courage to become his own person--without having to worry about competition with his older brothers. This is a normal part of growing up (especially in a family with so many boys), and has nothing to do with Molly pushing her children apart. That's just my opinion! Vivian From kempermentor at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 20:27:08 2005 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:27:08 -0000 Subject: Who would've Harry chosen for Sirius' rescue mission? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125253 In OoP, US pp, p761, Harry is thinking: If he could have chosen any members of the D.A. in addition to himself, Ron and Hermione to join him the attempt to rescue Sirius, he would not have picked Ginny, Neville, or Luna. Which bares the question: Who would he have chosen if he had three to choose from? I'm going to exclude the 2 obvious because they were no longer at Hogwarts: Fred and George. I would guess: Ernie, because he's a prefect which suggest some talent somewhere; Lee, because Harry would trust the twins and their friendships with others; and Katie, because she can take a hit as seen on the quiddiitch pitch during practice and on game days. -kemper From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Feb 26 21:26:54 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:26:54 -0000 Subject: Resolving (?) the Riddle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125254 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" wrote: > > Replying to Renee and Tonks here. > > > Renee: > If you replace 'dark Christ' by anti-Christ, we would have a > reference to the Apocalyps - another indication that the HP series > is meant to be a piece of Christian literature about the ultimate > battle between Good&Evil and Light&Darkness, and that Harry is a > Christ figure. (I'm sure his family name, Potter, has come along > repeatedly as a reference to God.) The old cosmic drama disguised as > a book about a magical schoolboy. > > Naama: > The thing is, Harry really isn't a Christ figure. I have thought long > about this . Harry, in my > understanding, is Everyman. The closest thing to a (good) Christ > figure that we have is Dumbledore. His name, his being, the > connection/identification with the phoenix - he is, if not Christ, > the personification of Light and morality. Geoff: Excuse me replying so late to this message. I have been away on holiday for a week and have just finished wading through 400 posts. I have, on several occasions, made similar comments that Harry is an everyman but the family name does give rise to some fascination. An interesting thought which cross my mind at this point was other parallelism between names which has been used. I know of at least two Christian books about Harry Potter which make a wordplay on his position as Seeker - because this word is frequently used by Christians to indicate a person who is searching after the real truth of Christianity. Tbe other which came to mind was a line in one of CS Lewis' "Silent Planet" science-fiction novels in which (I think) one of the eldila says to Ransom something along the lines of "You did not receive your name by chance. It indicated the task to which you were ordained." I haven't got all of my "Silent Planet" trilogy nowadays. Perhaps someone could exhume the relevant quote. From lorelei3dg at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 21:40:00 2005 From: lorelei3dg at yahoo.com (lorelei3dg) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:40:00 -0000 Subject: Juicy Tidbits about HBP? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125255 I just noticed the following over at Mugglenet: "A MuggleNet reader who is the librarian at her daughter's school today received a copy of the 'Publishers Quality Library Service' catalog. She said there is an ad in it for pre-ordering copies of Book 6 that says: 'With something huge revealed about Lily Potter, the truth about why Dumbledore trusts Snape, and a little romance for Harry, this promises to be one of his best years at Hogwarts yet.' " My first thought was of trepidation regarding Lily's revelation, but then the last bit about it being a great year for Harry leads me to think the information must be positive. So anyway, what do you all think this information may be? From ajhuflpuf at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 22:35:02 2005 From: ajhuflpuf at yahoo.com (A.J.) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:35:02 -0000 Subject: Resolving (?) the Riddle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125256 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" > wrote: > > > > Replying to Renee and Tonks here. > > > > > > Renee: > > If you replace 'dark Christ' by anti-Christ, we would have a > > reference to the Apocalyps - another indication that the HP series > > is meant to be a piece of Christian literature about the ultimate > > battle between Good&Evil and Light&Darkness, and that Harry is a > > Christ figure. (I'm sure his family name, Potter, has come along > > repeatedly as a reference to God.) > > > > Naama: > > The thing is, Harry really isn't a Christ figure. I have thought > long > > about this . Harry, in > my > > understanding, is Everyman. > Geoff: > Excuse me replying so late to this message. I have been away on > holiday for a week and have just finished wading through 400 posts. > > I have, on several occasions, made similar comments that Harry is an > everyman but the family name does give rise to some fascination. > John Granger mentions in two of his books (er, _The Hidden Key to Harry Potter_, for one) that he thinks it sounds like, if pronounced with a certain dialect, Heir-y Pater, i.e. another good candidate for Everyman. Just mentioning that, --A.J. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 23:00:13 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 23:00:13 -0000 Subject: Sexist HP Fans (was: Mother Molly) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125257 >>Casey: >You know, I've always rolled my eyes when someone says that fandom (especially slash fandom) is misogynic but now I'm starting to wonder.< >>Nicky Joe: >It's very difficult to write good female characters. Even when you think you've got one down nicely, people will always see her in different ways. >I don't think it's misogyny, I think it's more that we hold females to different standards than males. Frankly, males have a lot more leeway. Females make a wrong move and we have 70 different names for them, none of them flattering. Betsy: But your whole argument is proved wrong by this very group, Nicky Joe. How much time and energy has been spent arguing over Snape? And Dumbledore? And Arthur Weasley? And Percy? And Fred and George? Frankly, I think it's a cop out to cry sexism when folks start dissecting your favorite character (male or female). Especially when canon is being used. (And, honestly, there's nothing more *boring* than a universally loved character. The very fact that characters are brought up for discussion is a complement to their well-roundedness, IMO anyway.) Betsy From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 23:31:04 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 23:31:04 -0000 Subject: Molly and Arthur Was Re: Mother Molly /Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125258 >>Betsy: >The way she treats Arthur is atrocious...< >>Alla: >Sure, I immensely dislike Molly's attempts to "handle' Arthur or lecture him, BUT I think that Arthur really does not care and hides from Molly the stuff, which is not really important on the grand scheme of things... ...and when it comes to important stuff Arthur is very capable of standing his ground. >So, when it comes to what Arthur believes is needed to be done, he is pretty persuasive, even though they are having a heated argument. >It seems to me that in the important matters Molly and Arthur ARE equal partners, even though from the first sight it may seems that the exact opposite is true. >So, in short I do think that Molly respects Arthur, although we should look carefully to notice it. :o)< Betsy: Really good post, Alla. :) And I agree that Arthur isn't completely trampled by Molly. Otherwise I think he'd give up on his Muggle things, and I also think the Weasley kids would be a *little* bit less open-minded when it came to Muggle-borns. I just really detest that Molly scolds Arthur like he's one of her children, in front of the children (and a house guest, no less). It's highly *dis*respectful behavior, IMO. Though I also think the reason Molly is such a scold, and seems to be under so much stress it that Arthur has taken a bit of a pass on being a father towards the younger generation of Weasleys. He really should have said something to the twins about their treatment of Percy, but I think he was so busy in his shed, mucking about with his Muggle things, he misses how badly behaved his children can be. And to my mind, that means Arthur is *not* taking a stand on some important things. (Not that he's *completely* out of the picture - just not as present as he should be, IMO.) Maybe he started to give up because Molly wore him down, or maybe Molly's become such a shrew because Arthur has given up. (It's a bit chicken and egg with that one. ) But, though I'm not sure we're going to see a massive Weasley family explosion in the next few books, there is definitely some problems in the Weasley household. >>Alla: >Jane Austeen is one JKR's favourite writers, no? I think Molly's negative qualities to some extent are similar to bad qualities of mothers in Jane Austeen novelas.< Betsy: Ah, but Jane Austen was all about unhealthy family relationships. They were her bread and butter, as it were. And some of Austen's mothers were downright villainous. But I don't think JKR is taking Molly *that* far. I'm not prepared to say that Molly will turn evil, or that she'll somehow damage the Order's work. I'm leaning towards JKR creating Molly and Arthur with such flaws because she didn't want to have a "perfect" family in her books. It adds a nice nuance to the story, and gives us some interesting peeks into the WW, IMO. Betsy From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Feb 27 00:05:54 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:05:54 -0000 Subject: Weasley Types (was Molly and Arthur ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125259 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > >So, in short I do think that Molly respects Arthur, although we > should look carefully to notice it. :o)< > > Betsy: > Really good post, Alla. :) And I agree that Arthur isn't completely > trampled by Molly. Otherwise I think he'd give up on his Muggle > things, and I also think the Weasley kids would be a *little* bit > less open-minded when it came to Muggle-borns. I just really detest > that Molly scolds Arthur like he's one of her children, in front of > the children (and a house guest, no less). It's highly > *dis*respectful behavior, IMO. > Hmmm. Good points, but maybe still missing something. It seems to me that Arthur and Molly have basically worked out an arrangement suitable to their different personalities (and that, after all, is the foundation of any stable relationship). To use Briggs-Meyers Type talk, Arthur strikes me as an INFP (introverted, intuitive, feeling, percieving), whereas Molly seems an ENFJ (extroverted, intuitive, feeling, judging). Most personality analyst hold that the two middle factors are the most important for determining relationship compatibility, and Molly and Arthur match perfectly as both are intuitive feelers as opposed to sensing thinkers. Molly and Arthur's relationship is not unusual for a male INFP and a female of a different type. Male INFPs are often quiet and withdrawn, tending to identify strong areas of interest into which they put a great deal of energy. They also are very easygoing except about the things they find crucially important. The moment those boundaries or values are transgressed, they become as very much NOT quiet or compliant. Many people, particularly other men, think that INFP husbands are bullied. In point of fact the opposite is often true. They simply aren't that interested in a lot of things and are perfectly willing to let their wife take the lead. However, if the wife wants a healthy marriage, she has to learn precisely where the writ of her authority stops. My own parents were much like this. My father was perfectly willing to allow my mother to handle just about everything about the house and family, except on certain issues. On two occasions that I remember (and they were married for over 40 years which shows how wall my mother knew her bounds) my mother made the mistake of transgressing on one of his deeply held values and his foot came down hard enough to crack the foundations. Yet I would have to say both of them seemed perfectly happy and content in their marriage over the long haul. > Though I also think the reason Molly is such a scold, and seems to be > under so much stress it that Arthur has taken a bit of a pass on > being a father towards the younger generation of Weasleys. He really > should have said something to the twins about their treatment of > Percy, but I think he was so busy in his shed, mucking about with his > Muggle things, he misses how badly behaved his children can be. And > to my mind, that means Arthur is *not* taking a stand on some > important things. (Not that he's *completely* out of the picture - > just not as present as he should be, IMO.) > > Maybe he started to give up because Molly wore him down, or maybe > Molly's become such a shrew because Arthur has given up. (It's a bit > chicken and egg with that one. ) But, though I'm not sure we're > going to see a massive Weasley family explosion in the next few > books, there is definitely some problems in the Weasley household. > Problems, yes, but I think they are being exaggerated. Arthur does allow Molly to run the house. Why not? She's good at it and likes to do it. It's a classic INFP approach. But we have little evidence that the kids don't respect Arthur, which would be the case if he were not an important presence and influence. I rather suspect Arthur's approach to fatherhood involves doing "guy" things with the boys such as taking them out to the shed and having them hold his tools while he talks to them. I think some of this relationship comes through in CoS, when Ron and the twins "borrow" the car to rescue Harry and Arthur's first reaction is to say "How did it work?" If confronted about his behavior, he would probably say "Look, they were all fine, the car was fine, everything was fine. Of course they shouldn't have done it, and had Molly not been there I would have talked to them about it. But she was there and she is much better at scolding than I am, so I let her take the lead on that." As to Percy, I think his main problem is that he is a sensing thinker (I would label him an ISTJ) in a house of intuitive feelers (The twins and Ginny are probably ENFPs, and Ron is likely a male ENFJ. The older boys we don't see enough, but I suspect they are ENFP/J). His whole approach to the world is fundamentally different from everybody else in the house. That is a recipe for problems. Why did he turn out an ST? Who knows? To a certain extent maybe he was just born that way. His is not an enviable position. It is, however, not an uncommon one, and I think the Weasleys handle it about as well as a family of their kind could be expected to. Lupinlore From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Feb 27 00:46:47 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:46:47 -0000 Subject: Molly sees herself as blood traitor? (was: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Qs)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125260 Valky: > She was raised by purebloodists, and married into a pureblood > family and not once did she consider that she would ever be > outcast for her love of Arthur. ... she was thought she had > pleased *everyone*. > > But not so, because she had become a traitor to pureblood. > > In OOtP when Sirius shows Harry the tapestry, and all the > burnholes where names used to be, I admit having the presumption > that the silly old bag hadn't *hurt* anyone by it. I was wrong. > Mrs Black wasn't a harmless old biddy trying to make a > foolish point, she really did break hearts in her family with her > maliciousness, and Molly is our proof. > SSSusan: Valky, I'm curious where you are getting this info that Molly was raised with all this. Do we *know* the mentality of her parents or upon what message she was raised? Do we *know* she classes herself as a blood traitor? Or are you assuming she was raised this way because almost all pure-blooded families "surely" raise their children this way? It feels like a pretty big leap to me, but maybe I'm missing something. Valky: Hi SSSusan, I got to this conclusion by some logical deduction about Sirius' claimed relationship to Molly. I wrote it all in this post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/125223 Frankly this stuff gives me more of a headache than time-turning ever could, but the basic premise is that Molly is a first cousin by marriage on MRS Blacks side, leaving her with Elladora and Araminta as probably and Aunt and a Grandmother, and Mrs Black quite probably as a older cousin-like relative. Janet made the point that Fabian and Gideon Prewett were good Order folk and I agree, but there is a point to note in that Molly's elder *female* relatives were the likes of these nasty folk. The leap is necessary since Arthur is a blood relation to Sirius on MR Blacks side, and its fairly obvious after that that the *women* that Molly knew and loved *included* MRS Black. I can't say that I *know* who Molly's parents were, but after I landed upon the premise that Molly and MRS Black were kin, some of Mollys actions in 12 Grimmauld place suddenly began to make more sense. You also asked if we can *know* that she classes herself a Blood Traitor. I must have been misunderstood because I wasn't trying to make a point that she did. OK trying not to confuse anyone further.... Molly is *not* a purebloodist and *not* a fanatic. I have never meant to imply that in any way. She doesn't believe, in herself, that she is a Blood Traitor, but she hates being isolated from her kind because of it. Molly was raised into a culture of proud wizardkind, she does lean to the traditions and hallmarks of that culture, she does prefer being immersed in the society of wizardkind. It is *Arthur* who loves muggles, and Molly simply finds no fault with them, she just loves WizardKind most of all and has some stock in the basis of purebloodism which is unity of the kind and pride in what they are. Beyond simple matters of pride in ones heritage, Molly thinks that the purebloodism mentality is destructive and horrible. This is all what I meant when I said... > After all, she was raised believing Pure Wizard blood *is* superior.... I can see now that it was far too ambiguous, sorry. I hope I have clarified it a bit more. Valy From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 00:59:17 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:59:17 -0000 Subject: Where does it say that Molly is a pureblood fanatic??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125261 >>Betsy: >...I don't think there's much in canon to suggest exactly *what* Molly's beliefs are, but there's a fair bit that hint she might not be as liberal as her husband.< >>vmonte: >Sorry, you are wrong here. The reverse is true.< >It would be quite clear to the readers of the HP books if [Molly] did not care for Hermione and Harry.< >>Valky: >Hmm I don't think Betsy doubts Molly's feelings for Harry and Hermione, (right Betsy?)< Betsy: Right-ish, Valky. I do have *some* doubts as to Molly's feelings for Hermione, based on how quickly Molly turned on Hermione in GoF. Remember, Hermione had been developing a relationship with the Weasley family since PS/SS. She had been a guest at Molly's home, and Molly had met Hermione's parents at least once. Hermione was more than just a name her son and daughter mentioned from time to time. Now honestly, would anybody meeting Hermione think, "got to lock up my sons with *that* one around,"? And yet, Molly, after reading *one* bad article by Rita Skeeter of all people (who is clearly defined as a liar by the entire Weasley family at the beginning of GoF), suddenly decides that Hermione is the kind of girl to chase after boys based soley on their fame. Why on earth was Molly so gullible? One explanation is that Molly really *doesn't* trust Muggles or Muggle-borns. (Harry is *not* Muggle-born. And his parents are war heros. Plus, he's got the adorable little orphan factor going for him.) If you add that to Ron's natural reaction to half-breeds (Lupin and Hagrid) and Molly's own reaction to an unknown werewolf, I think there's plenty of canon to suggest Molly is really not as liberal as Arthur. >>Betsy: >I think the word "swarming" is pretty negative. But my book (scholastic paperback) says "packed" which is much more benign. Does the British version say "swarming" or did someone misquote somewhere down the line?.< >>Valky: >Mine is a Bloomsbury edition and it says "packed" so it's likely a misquote.< Betsy: Well, poo. I had a whole thesis building off the word "swarming". So there goes my, Molly is completely bigoted against Muggles, argument . But I still think that there is some latent distrust of anything not wizard in Molly, and at times of worry or stress it comes to the forefront. So she's not Death Eater, and won't become ESE, but she *is* old fashioned in her views - more so than Arthur. Betsy From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sun Feb 27 01:03:31 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 01:03:31 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: <20050226122954.87308.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125262 Magda: > I don't believe we're expected to see Draco as any kind of real > threat to Harry (to Ron, that's another thing). As Betsy says, > he's never tried to levitate anyone upside down. On the other > hand, he's such a spineless little git up til the end of OOTP that > anything involving risk, initiative, a minimum amount of daring and > intelligence is frankly beyond his capabilities. SSSusan: Perhaps we see the Dementor stunt differently then, Magda. I saw that as definitely akin to levitating someone upside down. There's Harry, perhaps a hundred feet in the air on a broomstick, and below are Draco, et al., dressed up to give the impression that they're Dementors. Draco KNOWS how Harry reacts to Dementors. So what, exactly, was he attempting with this stunt? To achieve a chuckle? Perhaps that, as well, but I saw it that he was attempting to cause Harry to faint and fall from his broom. Given that possibility, I'd say his stunt was: 1) certainly as bad as levitating someone upside down; and 2) something which involved risk, initiative & daring. I'll grant you that it didn't show much intelligence, though. ;-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 01:33:45 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 01:33:45 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125263 >>SSSusan: >Perhaps we see the Dementor stunt differently then, Magda. I saw that as definitely akin to levitating someone upside down. >...I saw it that [Draco] was attempting to cause Harry to faint and fall from his broom.< Betsy: But as the children of Hogwarts would be well aware of, it's the *presence* of a Dementor that brings about the effect. Harry faints in reaction to what the Dementor *does* to him. He doesn't faint at the thought of one. Draco implies that Harry faints because he is a coward, but I believe that Draco knows that it's actually how Harry is *effected* by Dementors that causes him to faint. Especially since Draco knows personally the difference between the *idea* of a Dementor and the actual *presence* of a Dementor. (As per the twins, Draco was effected on the train by the Dementors, himself.) Which is a really long and complicated way of saying that I think Draco's goal (and Flint's who was also involved, IIRC) wasn't necessarily to have Harry fall off his broom, but to throw him off his game and keep him from grabbing the Snitch. Not a decent goal, no, but not a murdereous one, either. Betsy, gleefully butting in. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 02:11:43 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 18:11:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050227021143.45372.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125264 > SSSusan: > Perhaps we see the Dementor stunt differently then, Magda. > I saw that as definitely akin to levitating someone upside down. > There's Harry, perhaps a hundred feet in the air on a broomstick, > and below are Draco, et al., dressed up to give the impression that > they're Dementors. Draco KNOWS how Harry reacts to Dementors. So > what, exactly, was he attempting with this stunt? To achieve a > chuckle? Perhaps that, as well, but I saw it that he was > attempting to cause Harry to faint and fall from his broom. Given > that possibility, I'd say his stunt was: 1) certainly as bad as > levitating someone upside down; and 2) something which involved > risk, initiative & daring. Of course he was trying to hurt Harry; and I would say it was even worse than levitating someone upside down. But Crabbe and Goyle were there (as usual) and so was Marcus Flint, so it's not like Draco was running any personal risk of getting punched in the nose. And Harry had no idea that it wasn't real, so that Draco (as Draco) wasn't running a risk of being ID'ed. Of course he didn't know about the patronus so that didn't work out as he'd planned (as usual)... I'm sure you don't think I was saying that Draco has never tried to hurt Harry or Ron physically; I think I made it clear that in my opinion Draco only tries to do things from a safe distance, with his toadies around him or in hiding somehow. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Feb 27 02:40:19 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 02:40:19 -0000 Subject: Who is a Vampire? In-Reply-To: <20050226163147.48767.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125265 > I've been on sites where people claim that "Erm" is a British > expression meaning "maybe" but I don't believe it. > > Magda > I also don't believe that. As I understand the British language "Erm" is a sarcastic sort of "Um". (My Mother and Grandmother and the books they bought me) So that quote can be taken as a "where do they get their ideas from?" that's makes sense to me. My inner dialect put the emphasis on the word "think" in that statement. So to me it reads. Erm.. (sarcasm) I don't *think* so. The problem with that is that it leaves me all confused.... reveals nothing whatsoever. Does anyone have a live audio copy of the transcript? Valky From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 03:06:40 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 03:06:40 -0000 Subject: Where does it say that Molly is a pureblood fanatic??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125266 Betsy: Well, poo. I had a whole thesis building off the word "swarming". So there goes my, Molly is completely bigoted against Muggles, argument . But I still think that there is some latent distrust of anything not wizard in Molly, and at times of worry or stress it comes to the forefront. So she's not Death Eater, and won't become ESE, but she *is* old fashioned in her views - more so than Arthur. vmonte responds: You constructed an entire thesis against Molly from the word swarming? How about these words: "Enemies of the heir, beware! You'll be next mudbloods!" Draco Malfoy Vivian From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Feb 27 03:35:48 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 03:35:48 -0000 Subject: Where does it say that Molly is a pureblood fanatic??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125267 > Valky said: > How quickly did we dismiss Percys 'quiet' affair with Penelope. > Why did he hide it at first? > Janet: > I have three words for you: Fred and George. > Valky: Of course, Fred and George would have factored into the equation. That's entirely true, but he's *hiding* it, dramatically... Locked in his room all summer, won't let Ginny tell anyone... *swore* her to secrecy.... It just doesn't seem to fit that he regards F&G's taunts *that* highly. Sorry, it just doesn't make sense that he would be so completely secretive to avoid a bit of ribbing, that would likely pass in time. > Valky earlier: > I can imagine a scenario where he was worried, afraid that he > might let his Mum down [but] she set him straight > and *totally* supported him in it, hang the consequences. Janet: > Never mind Molly, or the fact that Penelope was Muggle-born (and I agree that Molly wouldn't care, and don't think Percy would even *think* she would care). Valky: Oh we are *definitely* on different wavelengths here. Contrarily, I think COS points out repeatedly that Molly's opinion matters *most* to Percy of all things. COS (to Ron caught leaving the Girls Bathroom) "Get - away - from - there -" Perry said, striding toward them and starting to bustle them along, flapping his arms. "Don't you care what this looks like? ....." This is an echo of Molly, if ever I saw one. And what about counting the times Percy insist he will write to Mother if the siblings don't behave properly.. I counted thrice before Halloween, and it continued throughout the year.. Clearly, to me at least, the opinion that Percy holds in highest regard here is his mother's, and the reputation of his family is definitely on his mind throughout the entire year. The only other Weasley so deeply affected by family reputation in canon is Molly (plus a little bit of Ron), so I think Percy would *definitely* care what his mother thought of his girlfriend. The fact that Penelope is muggle-born lends from there to a lot of speculation about Molly. Valky Percy was keeping his affair quiet to avoid the amount of > aggravation he would get from his siblings, and Fred and George in > particular. Even real-life families can be obnoxious about their siblings' > love lives (says the oldest of four children), and it is clear from the > expressions on the twins' faces when they finally find out about Percy and > Penelope that they intend to take full advantage of the situation. > > > Janet Anderson From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 04:25:17 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 04:25:17 -0000 Subject: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125268 SSSusan: Perhaps we see the Dementor stunt differently then, Magda. I saw that as definitely akin to levitating someone upside down. > >...I saw it that [Draco] was attempting to cause Harry to faint and fall from his broom.< Betsy: But as the children of Hogwarts would be well aware of, it's the *presence* of a Dementor that brings about the effect. Harry faints in reaction to what the Dementor *does* to him. He doesn't faint at the thought of one. Draco implies that Harry faints because he is a coward, but I believe that Draco knows that it's actually how Harry is *effected* by Dementors that causes him to faint. Especially since Draco knows personally the difference between the *idea* of a > Dementor and the actual *presence* of a Dementor. (As per the twins, > Draco was effected on the train by the Dementors, himself.) Alla: Why children of Hogwarts would necessarily be well aware of what in the Dementor brings about the effect? It seemed to me that even Weasleys knew only because Arthur met Dementors when he went to Azkaban on business. Dementors are not necessarily the creatures about which parents would want to tell bedtime stories to their kids. :) It seemed to me that many kids had no idea what dementors are when Dumbledore gave his speech about being careful, since he explains the danger in details, not just says " Dementors. Beware. " :o) " and while they are with us, I must make it plain that nobody is to leave school without permission. Dementors are not to be fooled by tricks or disguises - or even Invisibility cloaks," he added blandly, and Harry and Ron glanced at each other. " It is not in the nature of a dementor to understand pleading or excuses" - POA, paperback, p.92, amer.ed I argued in my earlier post I think that Draco thinks exactly that - that Harry fainted because he SAW Drementor and actually per twins' words I am not exactly sure whether Draco even had time to FEEL the real effects of the Dementor. It seems to me he run away really fast as soon as he SAW Dementor. Here is what George says: "That little git," he said calmly. "He wasn't so cocky last night when the dementors were down at our end of the train. Came running into our compartment, din't he, Fred?" "Nearly wet himself," said Fred, with a contemptuous glance at malfoy - PoA, p.97, paperback. It makes perfect sense to me that Draco would think that Harry fainted because of how Dementor looks. Betsy: Which is a really long and complicated way of saying that I think Draco's goal (and Flint's who was also involved, IIRC) wasn't necessarily to have Harry fall off his broom, but to throw him off his game and keep him from grabbing the Snitch. Not a decent goal, no, but not a murdereous one, either. Alla: Betsy, I think you threw me off my track again. Sorry! Could you please explain to me what exactly Draco expected to happen when Harry saw the dementor? I'd say - " faint" will be a reasonable answer, don't you agree? Are you saying that Draco expected Harry still be in the air when he faints? What exactly do you mean by "throw him off his game"? Like provide a small distraction? But Draco KNOWS that dementors are really BIG distraction for Harry. Personally I have no doubt that AT VERY LEAST Draco intended to injury Harry and injury him badly. So, if by "throw him off his game" you meant make it impossible for him to play for quite some time, I'd agree with you. :) Just my opinion of course, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 04:37:36 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 04:37:36 -0000 Subject: Dating Muggleborns(was: Where does it say that Molly is a pureblood fanatic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125269 >>Valky said: >OOOOH good canon Betsy. How quickly did we dismiss Percys 'quiet' affair with Penelope. Why did he hide it at first? Was he worried about whether others approved of him dating a Muggleborn girl? >I can imagine a scenario where he was worried, afraid that he might let his Mum down by giving *them* something else to smear her with... Then he talked to her about it, and she set him straight about love, and *totally* supported him in it, hang the consequences. >Awwww..< >>Janet Anderson: >I have three words for you: Fred and George.< Betsy: I can buy the idea that Percy is protecting himself from Fred and George. He's probably protecting Penelope, too. (I can just imagine the kinds of pranks the twins would get up to, and I can also imagine Penelope being less than amused.) I don't think there's any clear cut examples in canon that shows exactly what Molly thinks of her sons dating Muggleborns. (If Bill marries Fleur, the half-breed, as has been predicted, that may give us a better idea of Molly's views on blood purity.) Though Molly's acceptance of Hermione as the heartless Muggleborn slut in GoF does suggest she's got certain suspicions. And if Percy picked up on Molly's lack of comfort with Muggles and Muggle-borns, he might be nervous about bringing Penelope over for dinner. And I agree with Valky that Percy would be *highly* aware of his mother's views. However, I don't know if Molly's bias (or fear of peer disapproval) would translate to frowning on Percy dating a Muggleborn witch. I could see it appearing more on how Penelope ran her household or raised her kids, if she and Percy got married. Molly as overbearing mother-in-law is very easy for me to see. Though again, canon is not clear on this point, and I don't know if it ever will be. (If Ron starts dating Hermione, it will be interesting to see Molly's reactions.) Betsy From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 05:07:28 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:07:28 -0000 Subject: Draco Dementor (was: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125270 >>Alla: >Why children of Hogwarts would necessarily be well aware of what in the Dementor brings about the effect?< Betsy: Because every single Hogwarts student experienced the effect of Dementors at the very beginning of PoA while on the train to Hogwarts. The Dementors searched the entire train. The Trio were *not* the only ones to feel what the presence of a Dementor does. >>Alla: >...I am not exactly sure whether Draco even had time to FEEL the real effects of the Dementor. It seems to me he run away really fast as soon as he SAW Dementor. >Here is what George says: >"That little git," he said calmly. "He wasn't so cocky last night when the dementors were down at our end of the train. Came running into our compartment, din't he, Fred?" >"Nearly wet himself," said Fred, with a contemptuous glance at malfoy - PoA, p.97, paperback.< Betsy: But of course Draco felt the effect. Dementors arrive, you feel the effect. That's why Draco left the corridor and ducked into a compartment on the train (even though that compartment contained Fred and George - not people he'd look to for protection, normally). He *felt* that the Dementors were bad news. Remember, Mrs. Figg wasn't incredibly close to the Dementors in OotP, nor was she their intended victim, but she certainly felt the effects of their presence. >>Betsy: >Which is a really long and complicated way of saying that I think Draco's goal (and Flint's who was also involved, IIRC) wasn't necessarily to have Harry fall off his broom, but to throw him off his game and keep him from grabbing the Snitch. Not a decent goal, no, but not a murdereous one, either.< >>Alla: >Betsy, I think you threw me off my track again. Sorry! >What exactly do you mean by "throw him off his game"? Like provide a small distraction? But Draco KNOWS that dementors are really BIG distraction for Harry.< Betsy: "Throw him off his game": Like in basketball, when the shooter is going for his penalty shot and the opposing crowd yells "air ball!" hoping to throw off his concentration and make him miss his shot. Draco et al were hoping to distract Harry so he failed to catch the Snitch (he was diving for the Snitch when they appeared) and therefore lost the game to Ravenclaw. Which would take Gryffindor out of the running for the Cup, and put Slytherin in a more comfortable position going into the final game. They (Draco and Flint) know how good Harry is. They know that a small distraction wouldn't effect Harry at all (when he's in the air, the boy is *focused*). So they choose the big distraction of showing up as Dementors, drawing Harry's attention to them and away from the game, and the Snitch. They just needed to pull Harry's attention away from the Snitch. They did not need to injure Harry or cause him to fall off his broom. If Gryffindor lost that game, it would have been the last game they played that year. Betsy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 05:12:26 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:12:26 -0000 Subject: Molly and Arthur Was Re: Mother Molly /Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125271 Alla earlier: Jane Austeen is one JKR's favourite writers, no? I think Molly's negative qualities to some extent are similar to bad qualities of mothers in Jane Austeen novelas.< Betsy: Ah, but Jane Austen was all about unhealthy family relationships. They were her bread and butter, as it were. And some of Austen's mothers were downright villainous. But I don't think JKR is taking Molly *that* far. Alla: I am not saying that JKR went that far, on the contrary. I was only saying that 'negative" qualities of Molly remind me of mothers from Jane Austeen novellas. Molly though has plenty positive qualities and in general I like her, while Jane Austeen 'mothers' characters have none, IMO. Magda: Molly would have read the earlier Skeeter article about Hagrid with its prominent coverage of Draco Malfoy's lies, which appears in Chapter 24; and in Chapter 13, Skeeter's article about "Arnold" Weasley and his incompetence as a MOM employee appeared. So by the time the heartbreak article appeared in Chapter 27, Molly had had at least two indications that Skeeter was relying on bad sources and was writing libels about people. And Molly knows that Hermione is the third corner of Ron's and Harry's triange, that's she's her son's second-closest friend. Alla: Thanks for clarification, but as Janet said - Molly is clearly not the best judge of celebrities. So, even if Rita lied in first two articles, she can still be right in this one, theoretically. I think I will agree with Lupinlore on this one - Molly does NOT treat Hermione as her child, but she certainly treats Harry like one. She thinks Hermione hurt Harry and she lashes out at her. Is it fair ? of course not, but to me it makes perfect sense if we view Molly's action as defending her child from "perceived threat". Just my opinion of course, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 05:36:31 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:36:31 -0000 Subject: Draco Dementor (was: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125274 Alla earlier: Why children of Hogwarts would necessarily be well aware of what in the Dementor brings about the effect?< Betsy: Because every single Hogwarts student experienced the effect of Dementors at the very beginning of PoA while on the train to Hogwarts. The Dementors searched the entire train. The Trio were *not* the only ones to feel what the presence of a Dementor does. Alla: Right. They experienced it,but as far as we know nobody explained it to them yet that Dementors feed on emotions, so they don't know what caused such effect. Am I missing something here? Alla earlier: >...I am not exactly sure whether Draco even had time to FEEL the real effects of the Dementor. It seems to me he run away really fast as soon as he SAW Dementor. Betsy: But of course Draco felt the effect. Dementors arrive, you feel the effect. Alla: I am still not sure how strongly Draco felt the effect, but even if he did, he has NO idea what causes such effect and looks could be that. Alla earlier: What exactly do you mean by "throw him off his game"? Like provide a small distraction? But Draco KNOWS that dementors are really BIG distraction for Harry.< Betsy: They (Draco and Flint) know how good Harry is. They know that a small distraction wouldn't effect Harry at all (when he's in the air, the boy is *focused*). So they choose the big distraction of showing up as Dementors, drawing Harry's attention to them and away from the game, and the Snitch. They just needed to pull Harry's attention away from the Snitch. They did not need to injure Harry or cause him to fall off his broom. If Gryffindor lost that game, it would have been the last game they played that year. Alla: Ummm, thanks for clarification, but you did not answer my question. Could you do it again, if you don't mind? I did not ask you what Draco and Co needed to do. I asked you what in your opinion they thought would have happened when Harry saw Dementors? They KNEW Harry fainted when Dementors came. If Harry faints, he falls off his broom. How do you arrive at " not murderous" intent? JMO, Alla, who finds editing and deleting her post for the third time to be quite annoying. :) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 06:05:18 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:05:18 -0000 Subject: Where does it say that Molly is a pureblood fanatic??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125275 >> Betsy: >Well, poo. I had a whole thesis building off the word "swarming". So there goes my, Molly is completely bigoted against Muggles, argument . >>vmonte responds: >You constructed an entire thesis against Molly from the word swarming? >How about these words: >"Enemies of the heir, beware! You'll be next mudbloods!" >Draco Malfoy< Betsy: Well, I was being a bit tongue in cheek there (hence the ). As to Draco Malfoy - I'm afraid that a thesis on his being bigoted against Muggles would be met with a collective, "duh". :) Betsy From jeterluver2 at aol.com Sat Feb 26 05:39:10 2005 From: jeterluver2 at aol.com (Marissa) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 05:39:10 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125276 Betsy: > I don't think Molly is completely bad. But I do think she is > toxic. I don't get the impression that her kids like being around > her. I also don't recall her giving her children much praise, at > all. She trys everything possible to force the twins away from > their jokeshop (even when it seems to be working) and into the > Ministry (which would have been a disaster for both the twins and > the Ministry). And is she proud of Charlie and Bill's > occupations? I rather got the impression that it was the Ministry > or nothing for Molly. > > The Weasley home is so hostile to Percy that he spends all of his > time locked away in his room, coming out only for meals, and Molly > exasperates the problem by encouraging the twins hatred for their > brother. (And I do think they hated Percy, even before he left > them. The twins were absolutely merciless towards Percy, never > giving him a break or any kind of sympathy. IMO, they go far beyond > normal sibling teasing.) Marissa: I don't understand why everyone's critisizing her so much! Did we run out of things to talk about? I mean look, Fred and George spent much more time developing jokes then on their studies to the point that they weren't doing well in school at all! They hardly tried even though they did have the potential to do well. I think that a parent who wants their children to try their hardest at school and achieve what they are CAPABLE of achieving is a good parent. What Molly really wanted was for her kids to have a secure future, and in her thinking a job at the Ministry was exactly that. She has to worry all the time about providing for them, and she wants them to do well in the world so they won't have to go though the same things she did. It wasn't a guarantee that Fred and George would be able to open the joke shop. In fact without the 1000 galleons that Harry won and gave them would they have even been able to open a shop? As to saying her children don't want to be around her, well yes sometimes they don't. But is that really unusual of teenagers? She instinctively knows when they're doing something wrong and they can't get away with anything around her. I think the scenes where's she is trying to shelter Harry is also an extremely common thing that mothers do. They don't want their children to fear, hurt, or worry if they can help it. I'm 20 years old, and my mother still neglects to tell me if someone in my family's sick or if something bad happened because she doesn't want to worry me! I usually find out from overhearing her talk about it with someone else! I had this discussion with another friend, who's in her 30's, she also said her mother doesn't tell things STILL so she doesn't have to worry. Does that mean our mothers are bad moms? I think calling Molly toxic is just ridiculous. As many mothers say "there's a method to my madness." From frnsic1 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 18:44:03 2005 From: frnsic1 at yahoo.com (Sally Waddle) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:44:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who is a Vampire? Message-ID: <20050226184403.31565.qmail@web61307.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125277 -- pippin_999 wrote: > Maybe one reason for JKR's "Erm, I don't think so" answer is that > there is no universally accepted Potterverse answer to the > question 'who is a vampire?' Like the term 'half-blood' the > definition may depend on who is using the term.... > > So JKR could have meant, "Erm, *I* don't think so (but some of > my characters might.)" frnsic1 wrote: The Snape-vampire question came from the World Book Day Chat, which I believe was online... this means JKR had to TYPE the response. She often uses "er..." or "erm..." in the books, typically to convey that a simple answer will not suffice, or that there is more to the story. That's likely what she's doing here, but it could always be a red herring. I can understand SPEAKING an "erm...", but to type it, there's likely a reason. quote from chat text: "Megan: Is there a link between Snape and vampires? JK Rowling replies -> Erm... I don't think so." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tinglinger at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 21:05:04 2005 From: tinglinger at yahoo.com (tinglinger) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:05:04 -0000 Subject: Who or what can "survive" an Avada Kedavra ? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125278 Who can survive an AK ? A vampire (though not clearly defined in the Potterverse, vampired are living dead) A phoenix (Fawkes "died" when hit by LV's AK aimed at DD at the MOM, then was "reborn" in DDs office later) Harry Potter (if indeed that was the spell that was used on him as a baby - read the descriptions carefully) Lord Voldemort (if indeed the AK was used on Harry and that spell rebounded on him. He "survived" but without his powers or his body) Any other suggestions ? From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sat Feb 26 22:07:29 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:07:29 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125279 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "xcpublishing" wrote: > Nicky Joe: >It's very difficult to write good female characters. Even when you > think you've got one down nicely, people will always see her in > different ways. I don't think that is unique to female characters. JK is still mystified by the Draco and Snape love. Every writer faces the possibility of readers seeing things in their characters that they didn't mean to incude, or didn't think they had. People read things through the lens of their own experience and focus only on certain parts, or construct backstories to explain things about a characters that need explaining. It just is what it is. Take Hermione - some people see her as quick, > intelligent, and loyal. Others see her as obnoxious, bossy, and > annoying. In fairness to Hermione, she is both of those groups. I just personally find the second more annoying than I find the first admirable. She acts too much like a second mother to Ron and Harry which I find irritating when its done by a peer. Hell, I'm still trying figure out why anyone would want to be Hermione's friend and subject themselves to her on a regular basis. The same goes in the RW. If a woman is strong an > confident, others can see her as domineering and opinionated. If > she's quiet, she's seen as mousy or timid. I once wrote a female > character that I thought was strong and confident. My friend told me she was bitchy and self-absorbed. I think that in the HP books (I can't talk about your character in particular Nicky joe since I haven't read her) JK writes with broad strokes, exaggerating everyones characteristics, because she is writing a children's series and wants to make sure that kids *get* the core characteristics of each of her characters. Thus making Hermione overly bossy and studious, to the point of ridiculousness, Cho, a giant human hosepipe, and Luna borderline autistic. Then we, a group of overanalytical adults come along and read too much into the exaggerations, which are really just there to make sure that we all see certain characteristics. At least that's what I think she is going for. >You can't win! Look at all the > varying opinions of all the >females in HP - Hermione, Molly, Ginny, > McGonagall, Cho, Luna. >None of us see any of them in the same way. > I don't think it's >misogyny, I think it's more that we hold females > to different >standards than males. Frankly, males have a lot more > leeway. >Females make a wrong move and we have 70 different names for > >them, none of them flattering. There aren't just varying opinions on the women. DD, Snape, Draco, Harry, Lupin, Ron, and James, are all debated just as hotly as the women. There aren"t many unfied opinions on this list other than Voldemort is a bad guy. I don't believe varying opinions is a dymanic born only of female characters or some kind of double standard between men and women characters. Or at least solely of a double standard (I'll get to that in a moment). People are just going to see chararacters differently and I don't think we need to look to a larger societal reason why. That having been said, I think there is a bit of a double standard. I think that female characters get away with things that male characters would not. Hermione is down right demeaning and insulting towards Ron and Harry sometimes. Imagine if it was Hermes talking to Harriet the girl who lived and Rowena the redhead sidekick. I guarantee that female readers would be up in arms over girl characters being talked to like that by a male character, especially if the male character is almost always shown to be the one who is right. Imagine if Cho were a male and he decided to start dating again after his girlfriend died three months earlier. People would be up in arms over a boy who was clearly being a 'playa'. Molly would be the worst. Imagine if Arthur talked to his wife and children the way Molly did. Imagine him taking Molly to task in the middle of the hosital or forgetting two of his children, or being rude towards female friends of his children. Groups like NOW would be in arms over the glorification of an *abusive* relationship. But hey, they're women so it must be alright. In conclusion, I don't believe that the way female characters are interpreted necessarily has anything to do with sexism or double standards, and when either is present, women characters can actually benefit from them instead of fall victim to them. phoenixgod2000, who wants to see lots of replies when he gets back from the hospital. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 22:48:44 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:48:44 -0000 Subject: Snape and Quirrell in the Dark Forest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125280 a svirn: I'll try to answer in the reverse order. > > > > Joe in SoFla wrote: > 3- I further think the hocus-pocus bit was related to Quirrell's > jinxing of Harry's broom. Notice that Harry's hearing of teh > conversation was interrupted by an owl so that all he hears is Snape > saying: " --- your little bit of hocus-pocus. I'm waiting." It is > perfectly plausible Snape is asking what Quirrel was up to in > jinxing Harry's broom, which Quirrel was vehemently denying. > a_svirn: It is plausible I agree. What I do not understand is 1) why Snape waited for so long to bring the topic. The broom-jinxing episode took place during the Gryffindor-Slythering match, and the chat in the forest occurred after the Hafflepuff-Gryffindor match. If I remember correctly there were a couple of months at least between the two. There should have been enough opportunities to discuss the matter. 2) What exactly Snape was trying to achieve? If his main concern in the matter was the safety of the Stone and that of Hogwarts students why did he try to reason with the villain who appeared to be a serious threat to both? Especially, after he tried to kill a student?! And not even straight after the incident but after some time? He should have alerted DD or even Aurors, not drag Quirrel to the Forest in hope to intimidate him. > -Joe in SoFla: > 2- I think Snape's trying to get past Fluffy had to do with heading > off Quirrell. > a_svirn: For one thing he did not have to get through Fluffy to head Quirrel off. All he had to do was to catch him red-handed in the act of getting past Fluffy. Besides, at the time Quirrell did not know how to get past Fluffy himself. He only concocted the scheme with that dragon egg during the Easter break. The episode with Fluffy took place in November before even the match with Slytherin. And the chat in the forest occurred somewhere after Charismas break. And Snape didn't exactly warn him off Fluffy. He wanted to know whether Quirrel LEARNED how to get past it. And then he proceeded to threaten Quirrel, saying something to the effect that he wouldn't want Snape as an enemy. But if he spoke as someone loyal to DD surely it was too late for that? Someone who tried to steel the Stone and kill a student was already an enemy. The way it looks Snape tried to tackle Fluffy even before Quirrel did but without success and then tried to "beat" the information about it out of Quirrel. -Joe in SoFla: > 1- I personally can't see to whom *else* that loyalty might be given > in the context of Snape's grilling of Quirrell. a_svirn: Well it's just it ? we don't know. There is always the question of loyalties where Snape is concerned and JKR delights in giving us conflicting evidence. However, I think DD was not the only one who could possibly have claim to Quirrel's loyalty. I think that Snape and Quirrel were "partners in crime" of sorts, but at some point Quirrel started to play "solo". Consider. The first time Harry sees Snape he is talking to Quirrel quietly. He certainly did not bother to converse with other DADA teachers which graced Hogwarts afterwards. Then there is all this business with the Stone protection. The way it was arranged every teacher was supposed to do his or her bit, and DD was the only one who knew the whole. It looks however that Snape and Quirrel worked on their bits as a team. Hagrid provided Fluffy, Sprout ? Devil's Snare, Flitwick charmed the keys, McGonagall did the chessmen and DD magiced the Mirror. Snape's bit was the riddle, but the solution to the Snape's riddle was also means to get trough Quirrel's flames. That means that they worked on these two obstacles together and were in each others confidences. Another thing. We only learn that Snape is a "good guy" during the last confrontation with Quirrel. But he only told us that Snape (although he hated Harry) didn't want him dead. And why should he?! That would complicate things enormously from Snape's point of view. As he put it in OotP "a lot of tedious paperwork". Not to mention Aurores all over the place. And then again who would look the most probable culprit? Everyone knew how Prof. Snape hated Harry. And notice, Quirrel didn't exactly deny that Snape was after the Stone. All he said was that Snape certainly LOOKED the part of the villain better than poor stuttering Prof. Quirrel. Harry figured that meant that Snape was innocent. But there is another possibility. Namely that Quirrel was going to go along with the "partnership plan" up until certain point and then, steal the Stone and frame Snape the way Riddle framed Hagrid. And if he could get rid of Harry somewhere along the line so much the better. I am not saying that Snape was INDEED after the Stone. But I do think that DD had known about Quirrel from the beginning, and the whole thing was set up as a trap for LV-in-the-Quirrel with the Stone as bait. And to ensure that LV would bait the hook DD used Hagrid (without him being the wiser) and Snape who pretended to be as greedy as Quirrel, thus achieving two objectives simultaneously: 1) being au current with his progress and 2) posing as a very plausible ex-DE. In which case the question of loyalty might have arisen when Snape "realised" that Quirrel was trying to betray him. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Feb 26 23:11:06 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 23:11:06 -0000 Subject: Fred and George - Prefects? In-Reply-To: <42207579.11140.11F5B5B@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125281 "Shaun Hately" > In the situation that seems to me to possibly apply in Order of the > Phoenix, Fred and George's activities to disrupt the school (either > as their primary purpose, or as a cover for other things) are > certainly visible and potentially inspirational to others. Any > authority they have to do this, does not need to be visible if the > results are. a_svirn: True, but would they behave any differently, if they were NOT appointed prefects? Chances are they would have done exactly the same even without any additional incentive. So what would be the point in appointing them? On the other hand, suppose DD did make them secret prefects in hope that they would contribute to the task of maintaining order, keeping students safe and providing them with some sort of additional leadership. But that would only mean that they failed their task miserably, because they were too busy wrecking havoc instead of maintaining order (moreover they even undermined the authority those official prefects who actually TRIED to bring some measure of control into the Gryffindor common room); they also endangered their fellow-students' health making first- years testers for their "skiving snackboxes" instead of ensuring their safety and, finally, they fled the scene leaving all concerned without benefit of their leadership. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 06:34:15 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:34:15 -0000 Subject: Draco Dementor (was: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125282 >>Alla: >Right. They experienced it,but as far as we know nobody explained it to them yet that Dementors feed on emotions, so they don't know what caused such effect. Am I missing something here?< Betsy: Why do the students need to know what *causes* the Dementor effect? I don't know what causes gravity to work the way it does. Haven't fallen off the planet yet. >>Alla: >I am still not sure how strongly Draco felt the effect, but even if he did, he has NO idea what causes such effect and looks could be that.< Betsy: Eh, looks are a stretch, IMO. Dementors look like tall creatures in black robes. The WW is full of tall folks in black robes, and they don't leave a trail of depressed people in their wake. >>Alla: >Ummm, thanks for clarification, but you did not answer my question. Could you do it again, if you don't mind? I did not ask you what Draco and Co needed to do. I asked you what in your opinion they thought would have happened when Harry saw Dementors? >They KNEW Harry fainted when Dementors came. If Harry faints, he falls off his broom. How do you arrive at " not murderous" intent?< Betsy: Once more with feeling? (That's a joke. Plus a Buffy tie-in, so two points for me!) Draco and Flint did *not* think their presence would cause Harry to faint and fall off his broom. Because Draco and Flint know that they are in fact *not* Dementors. I imagine that they thought Harry would panic when he saw what he thought were Dementors, stop focusing on the Snitch, start focusing on not fainting, and by the time he realized that he wasn't being effected by the Dementors, the Snitch would be Cho's. Simple, effective, nasty, but not murderous. Betsy From jeterluver2 at aol.com Sat Feb 26 23:56:39 2005 From: jeterluver2 at aol.com (Marissa) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 23:56:39 -0000 Subject: Molly sees herself as blood traitor? (was: Mother Molly (was: Some OOTP Qs)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125283 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > Valky: > > She was raised by purebloodists, and married into a pureblood > > family and not once did she consider that she would ever be > > outcast for her love of Arthur. ... she was thought she had > > pleased *everyone*. > > > > But not so, because she had become a traitor to pureblood. > > > > In OOtP when Sirius shows Harry the tapestry, and all the > > burnholes where names used to be, I admit having the presumption > > that the silly old bag hadn't *hurt* anyone by it. I was wrong. > > Mrs Black wasn't a harmless old biddy trying to make a > > foolish point, she really did break hearts in her family with her > > maliciousness, and Molly is our proof. > > > > After all, she was raised believing Pure Wizard blood *is* > > superior.... > > > SSSusan: > Valky, I'm curious where you are getting this info that Molly was > raised with all this. Do we *know* the mentality of her parents or > upon what message she was raised? Do we *know* she classes herself > as a blood traitor? Or are you assuming she was raised this way > because almost all pure-blooded families "surely" raise their > children this way? > > It feels like a pretty big leap to me, but maybe I'm missing > something. Marissa: Yeah I agree Susan. I don't think that Molly is prejudiced against muggleborns. I don't see the evidence that Molly was raised in this kind of environment, it seems quite the opposite to me. Her brothers, Gabriel and Fabian Prewett (JKR) were not only in the fight against Voldemort, but both were in Dumbledore's original OotP (OotP, 174) and died while fighting five Voldemort supporters. Molly knows about prejudice, and it seems to me her family's attitude was more along the attitude of the Longbottoms family. Marissa From jeterluver2 at aol.com Sun Feb 27 06:15:22 2005 From: jeterluver2 at aol.com (Marissa) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:15:22 -0000 Subject: Dating Muggleborns(was: Where does it say that Molly is a pureblood fanatic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125284 Betsy: > Though Molly's acceptance of Hermione as the > heartless Muggleborn slut in GoF does suggest she's got certain > suspicions. Marissa: I don't think that Molly thought she was a heartless muggleborn slut because she was muggleborn. This was only because she thought.. Hermione had broken Harry's heart.Do you really think that it would have made much difference if Hermione was a pureblood witch and this article had shown up? If you notice in the beginning of the third book, Molly is on perfectly friendly terms with Hermione, with the three of them giggling over a love potion in PoA. Hermione and Molly seem to get along fine, and I think if Molly had any real bigotry it would've shown beyond the fact that one time when she thought Hermione had used Harry. Marissa From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Feb 27 07:53:03 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 07:53:03 -0000 Subject: Harry's Lies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125285 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Alla: > Yes, I am comfortable with Harry's lying too when it is for the > noble purpose of saving somebody, but are you specifically > comfortable with Harry telling twins not to tell Molly about him > giving them the TWT money? > > Do you agree that Harry is lying because he knows that Molly > dissaproves of twins' venture and that by association she will "stop > loving Harry", if she learns about that? > > Do you think that in this instance Harry's lying could be looked at > as the scars of his abusive upbringing showing up - namely his > inability to trust that adult can held PERMANENT genuine affection > for him even if said adult ( Molly in that instance) can disagree > with his actions? Geoff: I think that this question of lying is one of those situations where it becomes more complex the further you dig into the topic. I agree that there are occasions where it is imperative to lie because you might be saving someone - World War II situations spring to mind here. There are also "white lies" where perhaps you perhaps dilute your answer to avoid making things more difficult. We might even lie as a form of bragging or maintaining our image and street cred - suggesting that our prowess in some area is far better than it is... Again, as with Harry, I'm sure we have all had experience of getting ourselves into a complete mess over something and have had to lie to get ourselves off the hook, knowing that we /are/ lying but doing it to save face, or save further trouble or embarrassment or worse. It is part of the "human condition" that none of us are perfect. we all have little Snape or Draco corners in our lives which we try to keep locked away. So, as a corollary to my last paragraph, no, I wouldn't agree that the lying was a necesarily a symptom of abuse when Harry was growing up. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 08:03:52 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:03:52 -0000 Subject: Is Snape doomed? Spying On and For Everybody In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125286 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ehren" wrote: > > > Long time reader...first time poster, my apologies if this has > already been covered. > > I do beleive that Snape is on DD's side whatever his motives are for > being there. However, is he the DE that has left Voldemort forever? > If he is I just do not understand how he could be a spy as well. > bboyminn: How about... ...Voldemort originally sent Snape to spy on Dumbledore. That would mean that Snape would have to join the good guys and pretend to be against Voldemort. Now after being on the good side for a while, Snape decides to really join Dumbledore's side, but obviously doesn't bother to tell Voldemort about it. That way he can stay cozy with the Dark Wizards and keep spying ON them while appearing to spy FOR them. That way, Voldemort thinks Snape is working for the Dark Side, while pretending to work for the good side. On the other hand, Dumbledore thinks Snape is working for the Light Side, while pretending to work for Dark Side. That's a double agent; working both sides against each other. So, each side expects Snape to betray them at some point in order to prove to the /other/ side the he is actually working for them. Since each side knows that Snape will have to betray them in some minor way, they can forgive those actions as long as Snape appears to also be providing valuable information to the side that appears to have been betrayed. It's a give and take situation; each side expects to lose a little now in hopes of gaining something greater later. This works out perfect for Snape. He can stay with Dumbledore and work for the school all these years, and still be friends with the Death Eater-Lucius Malfoy. Lucius has put up a respectable front to the world, but behind the scenes still supports the Dark Arts and the Purebloods. I'm sure all the Death Eaters are doing the same, and Snape is no different than any of them. He presents a respectible front as a teacher to the world, but when he and his buddies are quaffing ales and swapping stories, Snape is as /dark/ spoken as any of them. Now Voldemort comes back. It's understandable that Snape can't maintain his cover as a just-pretend-good-guy if he apparates out of Hogwarts in the thick of things. So after the fact, Snape contacts Malfoy and has him tell Voldemort that he is still spying for the Dark Side, and that he is ready to return to Voldemort's service and continue spy against Dumbledore. Of course, Snape's in the perfect position to spy because he maintained a favorable relationship with Dumbledore during all the intervening years. On the other hand, because Snape has maintained his ties and his good standing with the remaining Death Eaters, like Lucius Malfoy, he is still in a perfect position to continue spying for Dumbledore. So, since Snape has to play the role of both friend and enemy to EACH SIDE, at some point, he will have to betray each side, and at other points he will have to support each side against the other. Only in the final showdown, or some earlier heroic act, will we learn which side Snape is really supporting. Personally, I think Snape is one of the good guys, even if he isn't a nice guy. The only way I can see, or that I have ever seen, that allows Snape to return to Voldemort, is if Voldemort sent Snape to Dumbledore in the first place. > If Snape was a double agent for DD during the first war (GF pg. > 590-1 US paperback) and can be presumed thats what he is doing now > and wouldn't Voldemort know GF713 OoP591? I mean, when Quirrel had > Voldy hiding underneath his turban in SS/PS, don't you think he > would have known Snape had been warning Quirrel about where his > "loyalties lie". So if Voldemort knows: why is Snape still hanging > out with Lucius? > > ...edited... > > Ehren- > who is rereading all the books in anticipation of the HBP! bboyminn: This interaction between Possessed!Quirrel and Snape are of no consequence because Voldemort never makes his presents know to Snape. As far as Snape is concerned he is just working against Quirrel. From Snape's perspective, Voldemort doesn't come into the equation at all. So, if Voldemort never makes his presences known, how can Snape be suspected of working against Voldemort? I think at that time, Voldemort felt too vulnerable and felt the Stone was far too valuable to risk revealing himself to anyone. And since, Voldemort had been away for all those years, he had know way of knowing if Snape would continue to support him if he did reveal himself. So, Big-V played it safe and told no one. There would be plenty of time to sort out loyalties once he had the Stone and had returned himself to power. Voldemort can't blame Snape for something that Snape knew nothing about. Snape was just doing his job which was to appear loyal to Dumbledore. I've heard people argue against my position that Voldemort sent Snape to spy on Dumbledore, but they have never offered a counter-theory that even came remotely close to explaining what we clearly see is happening in the story. You heard it here first ...again. Steve/bboyminn. From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sun Feb 27 08:31:19 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:31:19 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fred and George - Prefects? In-Reply-To: References: <42207579.11140.11F5B5B@localhost> Message-ID: <42222007.3382.7ACCBB@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 125287 On 26 Feb 2005 at 23:11, a_svirn wrote: a_svirn: > True, but would they behave any differently, if they were NOT > appointed prefects? Chances are they would have done exactly the > same even without any additional incentive. So what would be the > point in appointing them? Back to my original post: "At Hogwarts, Prefects are expected to deal with dangers to other students. They are left in charge when there is a need for protection from Sirius Black, they are involved in patrolling the school when students are being petrified. They seem to have some authority over the ghosts... there's real powers. It seems to me plausible that being a Prefect at Hogwarts might actually bestow powers on a student within the school. It may open secrets and paths to them." It's this last paragraph that is a key component of this theory. Hogwarts is a *magical* place. We know that in the Wizarding World, having certain characteristics can give an entity particular powers in terms of security over magical places: "'Stand back,' said Griphook importantly. He stroked the door gently with one of his long fingers and it simply melted away. 'If anyone but a Gringotts goblin tried that, they'd be sucked through the door and trapped in there,' said Griphook." (PS, p.59) Note - the fact that some is a *Gringotts* goblin (not just a goblin) is what gives them this power. It is their association as a person of authority in a particular place that bestows this power on them. Hogwarts is one of the most significant Wizarding buildings in Britain - it certainly seems plausible that something similar applies there. Those who have positions of power and authority in the school - official power and authority - may be able to do things within its walls that others cannot. Is there any evidence for this? Maybe a little. "'Let me see, let me see...' he muttered, taking out his wand and smoothing the map out on his desk. 'Reveal your secret!' he said, touching the wand to the parchment. Nothing happened. Harry clenched his hands to stop them from shaking. 'Show yourself!' Snape said, tapping the map sharply. It stayed blank. Harry was taking deep, calming breaths. 'Professor Severus Snape, master of this school, commands you to yield the information you conceal!' Snape said, hitting the map with his wand." (PoA, p.211) As best I can work out, this is the only time in the first five books where a teacher is referred to as a Master (or a Mistress) outside of their integration into the terms Headmaster and Headmistress. Historically, Master and Mistress were the common and most correct terms for teachers in schools like those Hogwarts seems to be based on - but the term is quite a formal one today, and at Hogwarts does not seem to be in general use. Snape using it here is being oddly formal. This doesn't necessarily mean anything - he seems the type to become rather pompous in the situation he finds himself in, but I do wonder if his use of the term almost as an incantation may indicate that within the walls of Hogwarts, it may be a word of power. And therefore an indication that having a title, having a formal position within the school, matters in some fundamental way. Perhaps Prefects can freely go places other students cannot - not just because they have official authority, but because of the nature of magical defences - in the same way that only a Gringott's goblin can open certain doors, perhaps only a Hogwarts Master, Mistress, Head Boy, Head Girl, or Prefect can travel certain paths within the school. Pure speculation - but offered as a possible reason why there could be a reason to appoint someone to the position even if it doesn't change what they would do. Bear in mind that we do know that Fred and George weren't sure whether they were coming back to Hogwarts or not: "'We seriously debated whether we were going to bother coming back for our seventh year,' said George brightly, 'now that we've got-' He broke off at a warning look from Harry, who knew George had been about to mention the Triwizard winnings he had given them. '- now that we've got our OWLs,' George said hastily. 'I mean, do we really need NEWTs? But we didn't think Mum could take us leaving school early, not on top of Percy turning out to be the world's biggest prat.'" (OotP, p.205). Honestly, I only find that reason for staying only semi- believeable. It's not out of the question, but considering that they've opposed their mother in the past on the joke shop idea. It may be true, it may be partly true, or it may just be an excuse. Perhaps they planned to leave - and they were asked to stay as part of their appointment as Secret Prefects. Honestly, whether appointed or not, I can certainly see Dumbledore having spoken to them at some point and asked them to stay on simply as a matter of standing together against the threat. a_svirn: > On the other hand, suppose DD did make > them secret prefects in hope that they would contribute to the task > of maintaining order, keeping students safe and providing them with > some sort of additional leadership. But that would only mean that > they failed their task miserably, because they were too busy > wrecking havoc instead of maintaining order (moreover they even > undermined the authority those official prefects who actually TRIED > to bring some measure of control into the Gryffindor common room); > they also endangered their fellow-students' health making first- > years testers for their "skiving snackboxes" instead of ensuring > their safety and, finally, they fled the scene leaving all concerned > without benefit of their leadership. Good points here, but in my view, none are anywhere near fatal to the theory. Personally, I think the idea of maintaining order is overstated. It's a fairly important (and rather visible) part of a prefects duty at Hogwarts (and at many other schools with prefect systems) but it's not really the be all and end all, nor the core of what they are - and because it's so visible, it's the first thing that would have to go. Undermining the other prefect's authority - yes, and no. The fact is, if they can't maintain their authority in the presence of Fred and George, they're never going to be able to do their job in that regard. Learning to deal with Fred and George is an important learning experience for Hermione - I doubt they intend that, but it is. For Ron, it isn't realistic for him to deal with them anyway. Keeping students safe is important - and really does seem to be the core duty of a prefect at Hogwarts - but honestly, I don't think that they've done a bad job of that. The Skiving Snackboxes don't do any real harm - Hermione doesn't like them (and she certainly shouldn't!) doing what they are doing, but there's no real reason to suppose there's any real risk associated with them. But as for keeping their fellow students safe, which student at Hogwarts is probably most in danger. Harry. Who is next - probably the members of Dumbledore's Army. And Fred and George are in the thick of that. As for their leaving school, the way they did - well, that is a problem. Because having accepted such authority and responsibility, I can't see them laying it down easily. Except, I think they simply left a few minutes before they were pushed. I am certain Umbridge was going to expel them - the only reason she hadn't already done so, was because she wanted to have them whipped first. "It was just like the night when Trelawney had been sacked. Students were standing all around the walls in a great ring (some of them, Harry noticed, covered in a substance that looked very like Stinksap); teachers and ghosts were also in the crowd. Prominent among the onlookers were members of the Inquisitorial Squad, who were all looking exceptionally pleased with themselves, and Peeves, who was bobbing overhead, gazed down at Fred and George who stood in the middle of the floor with the unmistakeable look of two people who had just been cornered." (OotP, p.593). It was just like the night when Trelawney had been sacked... Umbridge had them - they were cornered. Their ability to do anything else was gone. I can't prove she was about to expel them after they were whipped - but JKR does invoke the scene where Trelawney was dismissed, and Fred and George have nobody at the school to save them - and Umbridge has the audience where she can show the other students what will happen to them if they continue to defy her. She'll take it. Whipping and expulsion - something that would cow most students. Fred and George turn the tables though in the only way they have left. They leave the school in a dramatic fashion. Rather than Umbridge stamping her authority on the school, they humiliate her and deny her power. "Inspired by Fred and George's example, a great number of students were now vying for the newly vacant positions of Troublemakers-In- Chief." (OotP, p.597) In leaving the school, they caused more havoc than ever before. They didn't deprive the school of their leadership - they left it as their legacy. One hundred years from now, when Voldemort is about as scary to the students of Hogwarts as Kaiser Bill is to us, students at Hogwarts will still be talking about 'doing a Weasley'. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 13:20:38 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:20:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Quirrell in the Dark Forest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050227132038.79349.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125288 --- a_svirn wrote: > What I do not understand is 1) why Snape > waited for so long to bring the topic. The broom-jinxing episode > took place during the Gryffindor-Slythering match, and the chat in > the forest occurred after the Hafflepuff-Gryffindor match. If I > remember correctly there were a couple of months at least between > the two. There should have been enough opportunities to discuss the > matter. 2) What exactly Snape was trying to achieve? If his main > concern in the matter was the safety of the Stone and that of > Hogwarts students why did he try to reason with the villain who > appeared to be a serious threat to both? Especially, after he tried > to kill a student?! And not even straight after the incident but > after some time? He should have alerted DD or even Aurors, not > drag Quirrel to the Forest in hope to intimidate him. I think he did alert DD immediately and that's why DD attended the second game - to catch Quirrell in the act when he tried it again while Snape was up in the air to grab Harry if he didn't manage to hold onto the broomstick as well as before. Harry messed up the strategy by catching the snitch so fast and ending the game in 2 minutes. So it was after their effort to trap Quirrell had been foiled that Snape and Dumbledore moved onto Plan B - confront Quirrell directly and try to frighten the truth out of him. And that's what Harry saw in the Forbidden Forest that night. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 13:33:12 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:33:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Molly and Arthur Was Re: Mother Molly /Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050227133312.29266.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125289 > Alla: > Molly does NOT treat Hermione as her child, but she certainly > treats Harry like one. She thinks Hermione hurt Harry and she > lashes out at her. Is it > fair ? of course not, but to me it makes perfect sense if we view > Molly's action as defending her child from "perceived threat". I don't think she does treat Harry like one of her children - she treats her kids like her kids and she treats Harry like he was some kind of little king. She fawns over him, usually in front of her own kids, and takes liberties upon herself (such as buying his dress robes and supplies without even consulting him) that rightly belong to a legal guardian - which she isn't. Frankly the way Molly treats Harry creeps me out completely, especially when it's accompanied by ragging on Ron or the twins at the same time. Arthur treats Harry like one of his own kids - friendly, affectionate, I'm-here-if-you-need-me, giving him information he needs and not smothering him with attention. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 13:42:32 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:42:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dating Muggleborns(was: Where does it say that Molly is a pureblood fanatic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050227134232.97603.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125290 > Marissa: > I don't think that Molly thought she was a heartless muggleborn > slut > because she was muggleborn. This was only because she thought.. > Hermione had broken Harry's heart.Do you really think that it would > have made much difference if Hermione was a pureblood witch and > this > article had shown up? If you notice in the beginning of the third > book, Molly is on perfectly friendly terms with Hermione, with the > three of them giggling over a love potion in PoA. Hermione and > Molly seem to get along fine, and I think if Molly had any real > bigotry it > would've shown beyond the fact that one time when she thought > Hermione had used Harry. Yes, but the question is: why was Molly so willing to believe that the Hermione that she knew was this heartless jade that Skeeter described? I don't think Molly is prejudiced against Muggles or muggleborns (not like the Blacks and the Malfoys) but why was she so willing to believe the worst of a girl that she already knew and liked? Possible answer: because when it comes to muggles and muggleborns, she's willing to view them with greater suspicion because she feels that they are in some way - different - from wizards, from people "like her". It's not a hostility, it's not dislike - it's just that at some level inside she still thinks they're not predictable or rational or whatever. She's definitely got an old-fashioned view about the divisions in the WW, and she doesn't really mingle much outside her own small family sphere. This lack of familiarity means that she's vulnerable to the kind of hurtful attitude that she displays towards Hermione in GOF. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From sylviablundell at aol.com Sun Feb 27 14:28:49 2005 From: sylviablundell at aol.com (ladyramkin2001) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:28:49 -0000 Subject: Erm..I don't think so Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125291 Magda wrote: >I've been on sites where people are claiming that "Erm" is a British expression meaning "maybe" but I don't believe it. You are right not to believe it, Magda. Born and bred in England, and I've never heard it used in that way. It's more often used to catch a minute to think. But "I don't think so" is often used in reply to a question so ridiculous that it doesn't deserve serious consideration.We really need a live audio copy to get the tone in which it was spoken. Sylvia (who has to admire the ingenuity of the Snape-is-a-vampire gang) From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun Feb 27 14:45:34 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:45:34 -0000 Subject: Molly and Arthur Was Re: Mother Molly /Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: <20050227133312.29266.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125292 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > > I don't think she does treat Harry like one of her children - she > treats her kids like her kids and she treats Harry like he was some > kind of little king. She fawns over him, usually in front of her own > kids, and takes liberties upon herself (such as buying his dress > robes and supplies without even consulting him) that rightly belong > to a legal guardian - which she isn't. For the first three books, Harry's legal guardian is in Azkaban. In GoF, he is abroad. In OoP, the only way he can buy supplies for Harry is via Amazon.com (which hasn't featured prominently in the Potterverse so far). What you call "fawning" I see as trying to cram 10 years' worth of maternal affection, that she knows Harry didn't have. She is pampering him because he was so deprived before - she is trying to make up the loss. And she is doing all this without any having any *obligations* toward him - as you yourself have pointed out. Pure kindness and warmth of heart. Naama From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun Feb 27 14:52:35 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:52:35 -0000 Subject: Dating Muggleborns(was: Where does it say that Molly is a pureblood fanatic In-Reply-To: <20050227134232.97603.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125293 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > > > Yes, but the question is: why was Molly so willing to believe that > the Hermione that she knew was this heartless jade that Skeeter > described? Maybe she has a thing against girls with large teeth? Or very smart, goody two-shoes girls? Or brown, fuzzy hair? Or girls she suspects her son fancies? Could she have murky psychological problems with girls who befriend her daughter? Girls who aren't interested in Quidditch? Since there's no other indication that Molly entertains anti- Muggleborn prejudice, all of the above are just as likely. More likely, in fact, given Ron's loud and completely unambigous position on the subject of Muggleborns. Naama From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Feb 27 14:59:09 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:59:09 -0000 Subject: Draco Dementor (was: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125294 Betsy: > Draco and Flint did *not* think their presence would cause Harry to faint and fall off his broom. Because Draco and Flint know that they are in fact *not* Dementors. I imagine that they thought Harry would panic when he saw what he thought were Dementors, stop focusing on the Snitch, start focusing on not fainting, and by the time he realized that he wasn't being effected by the Dementors, the Snitch would be Cho's. Simple, effective, nasty, but not murderous.< Pippin: Giving Draco murderous intent toward Harry in PoA would undermine the drama of his declaration in OOP " *I'm* going to make you pay for what you've done to my father..." (ch 38) That speech should mark a turning point. Up until then, IMO, Draco hadn't wanted to kill Harry, he'd wanted to *beat* him. Draco wanted Harry to acknowledge Draco's pureblood superiority and Harry couldn't do that if he were dead. Draco has *never* to this day tried to harm Harry when he thought a teacher was watching, except when he had orders to do it. McGonagall's reaction is also not appropriate to someone who's witnessed an attempted murder. Would she call it a 'low and cowardly attempt to sabotage the Gryffindor Seeker' if it was murder? Calling Harry the 'Gryffindor Seeker' makes it clear she's more concerned about damage to the outcome of the game than to Harry himself. IMO, Dementor stunt was all about Harry missing an easy run at the Snitch despite his superior broom, and looking like an idiot in front of a huge crowd of people for having been momentarily distracted by obviously phony dementors. A bit like someone running out on a US playing field wearing a rubber Bin Laden mask. It would be in horrible taste, but it wouldn't be attempted murder. I'm no fan of Draco, but I also have to point out that in OOP, the hungry look Draco gets as Umbridge is working herself up to use Cruciatus comes before Umbridge actually announces what she's going to do. Draco may have been anticipating a transfiguration like the one used on him. How Draco reacted once he'd heard what Umbridge had in mind we don't know. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Feb 27 15:09:56 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:09:56 -0000 Subject: Erm..I don't think so In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125295 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ladyramkin2001" wrote: It's more often used to catch a minute to think. But "I don't think so" is often used in reply to a question so ridiculous that it doesn't deserve serious consideration.We really need a live audio copy to get the tone in which it was spoken.< Pippin: As has already been pointed out, it was never spoken. It was deliberately typed, by someone who had as much time to think about the answer as she wished, and who has been known to use denial as emphasis : 'At the start of term banquet, Harry had got the idea that Professor Snape disliked him. By the end of the first Potions lesson, he knew he'd been wrong. Snape didn't dislike Harry --he *hated* him.' --PS/SS ch 8. The vampire question has been current in the fandom at least since I joined it, just after GoF. It beggars belief that JKR had never encountered it before. Pippin From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 17:47:51 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 17:47:51 -0000 Subject: Weasley Types (got really long!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125296 Just a starting note from Ginger: This is totally my opinion. Any statements made herein (except quoted material) are only my opinion and may be taken with as many grains of salt as needed, or may be thrown out with yesterday's paper. Or you can agree with them. I have no objection to that either. Lupinlore wrote: (I had a hard time snipping- so much good stuff!) Many people, particularly other men, think that INFP > husbands are bullied. In point of fact the opposite is often true. > They simply aren't that interested in a lot of things and are > perfectly willing to let their wife take the lead. However, if the > wife wants a healthy marriage, she has to learn precisely where the > writ of her authority stops. My own parents were much like this. My > father was perfectly willing to allow my mother to handle just about > everything about the house and family, except on certain issues. On > two occasions that I remember (and they were married for over 40 years > which shows how wall my mother knew her bounds) my mother made the > mistake of transgressing on one of his deeply held values and his foot > came down hard enough to crack the foundations. Yet I would have to > say both of them seemed perfectly happy and content in their marriage > over the long haul. Ginger: True! When we meet Molly and Arthur, they have been married for over 20 years. They know each other in every way. My parents are the same. Mom never changes light bulbs; that's Dad's job. No other reason than a foot difference in height, but that's the way it is. Lupinlore continues (snip) Arthur does > allow Molly to run the house. Why not? She's good at it and likes to > do it. (snip a whole lot of good stuff) Ginger again: They may be divided along gender lines that some of us may consider old fashioned, but they are old fashioned people. I am about the same age as JKR, but living on the other side of the pond, I am sure our lives have been very different. Molly is very much like the mothers of my mom's generation. I see all my aunts in her, and my mother as well. (Probably the reason I like her and other people find her scary- most people find my aunts scary.) I have to wonder if JKR is using this stereotype to make Molly more familiar to us without having to waste pages on developing her. She fits JKR's plot purposes as a stereotype. Add in the loving scenes, throw in the nagging, and you have a full character that people understand without having to do an indepth analysis into her mystery as is the case with Snape or DD. The older I get, the more I understand this generation. They knew life differently than the younger folks. They raised us to be wives and mothers (although I have never been either) not to tie us down to fit their mold, but because it was their security, and their job. I don't know if the "glass ceiling" was the same in England as it was in the US, but in their day and age, a woman just couldn't succeed in the business world. She could be a nurse, teacher, or secretary, but beyond that, the only financially secure future was to marry a man who would support her, and to be the best wife and mother she could be. It was their calling in life. It was their job, and their security. When my sister was accepted to Harvard to work on her PhD, their big concern was what would happen if she didn't find a husband there. She had been to 2 other colleges getting her BA and MA, and hadn't landed a man yet. (Her response was "I guess I'll have to try Yale" with a roll of her eyes.) This is hard for younger people to understand. When my grandmother was in nurse's school, she eloped in secret because married women couldn't be in school. Unfair? Now, yes, but back then, they didn't want to waste resources on someone who would never work in the field. And married women didn't. (Except for those like my Grandma.) This concept of men in the workforce and women in the home had been in place for centuries. Few questioned it. There were notable exceptions, but they were just that- exceptions to the rule. To expect Molly to behave with a 21st century attitude (or even one of the latter 1/4th of the 20th century) is not realistic. Now the WW seems far more enlightened on the roles of men and women than the RW. They had Headmistresses and female Ministers of Magic decades, even centuries ago. The WW seems to be pretty gender-equal. So why is Molly written as a blast from the past when women in the WW are a taste of the future? My guess is that it suits the author's purpose. As I suggested earlier, Molly is a stereotype from the past, but with added personality. She fulfills her role in the series. The WW's protrayal of women, is as we would say "it ought to be". It fulfills what I am guessing is a wish for JKR; a world where every person can live up to his/her abilities without prejudice due to gender (or race or other things which our society is still working on). When the two meet, we find ourselves noting what seems to be a clash of past and future. But is it really a clash? Haven't some women done great things in the RW when most women were housewives? Madam Curie, Amelia Erhardt, to name a couple. And don't some women now choose to stay home and raise their families when most women work outside the home? I see in Molly the old fashioned concept of motherhood that was common a generation or two ago. It's very real to me, having grown up with it, but I can see where it is jarring to those who haven't, or to those who have been the ones who went out and hammered at the "glass ceiling". As for me, I'm comfortable with who Molly is and how she is protrayed. She's a Mum. It's what she wants to be and it's what she does. Ginger, who's mother went to college, worked and is now enjoying a well-earned retirement cleaning her house. Although now Dad vacuums. It takes a couple generations to work out the stereotypes. From heos at virgilio.it Sun Feb 27 18:02:53 2005 From: heos at virgilio.it (chrusotoxos) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:02:53 -0000 Subject: Truth about Snape? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125297 Hi everyone! I haven't been in there for quite some time (exams coming, groan) but at a first glance it seems to me that nobody is discussing this: "With something huge revealed about Lily Potter, the truth about why Dumbledore trusts Snape, and a little romance for Harry, this promises to be one of his best years at Hogwarts yet." (source: Mugglenet) Question is, why???? I mean, who cares about Lily (ok, nice Lily, and I'll love to know something more about her) but we'll know in Book 6 the truth about Snape??! I was prepared to drool on it till book 7, which will probably be published in 2011... So, why Dumbledore trusts him? What did he do? And why do we know it in Book 6? Harry will finally trust him? Or Snape will die in Book 6? Please answer this! From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 18:38:25 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:38:25 -0000 Subject: Harry's Lies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125298 Alla wrote: "Yes, I am comfortable with Harry's lying too when it is for the noble purpose of saving somebody, but are you specifically comfortable with Harry telling twins not to tell Molly about him giving them the TWT money? Do you agree that Harry is lying because he knows that Molly dissaproves of twins' venture and that by association she will "stop loving Harry", if she learns about that? Do you think that in this instance Harry's lying could be looked at as the scars of his abusive upbringing showing up - namely his inability to trust that adult can held PERMANENT genuine affection for him even if said adult ( Molly in that instance) can disagree with his actions?" Del replies: This could be the case, but it really doesn't have to be this dramatic to be realistic. Lying in order to avoid getting into troubles is a very human thing to do. To me, it's just like when Harry told Hermione he had figured out the Egg Clue in GoF when in fact he hadn't, or when he told her he was practicing Occlumency when he wasn't in OoP: he just wanted to avoid getting nagged or scolded, he was never afraid to lose Hermione's love. And neither was he afraid to lose Molly's love in the example you gave: he just knew what Molly can be when she disapproves of something you did, and he didn't want to bring that kind of treatment on himself. Compare his attitude with Lupin's attitude in PoA. Lupin was so afraid to lose DD's trust that he risked Harry's life (and potentially the life of everyone in Hogwarts) rather than admitting his wrongs. But Harry easily "confessed" to Hermione and Ron, and gave Ron permission to tell Molly, just to prevent Molly from thinking that the Twins were getting their money through illegal means. Lupin has a problem with being afraid to lose the trust and affection of the people close to him, but Harry doesn't. Just my opinion of course, Del From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sun Feb 27 19:07:21 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:07:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Truth about Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050227190721.36052.qmail@web53304.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125299 chrusotoxos wrote: Hi everyone! I haven't been in there for quite some time (exams coming, groan) but at a first glance it seems to me that nobody is discussing this: "With something huge revealed about Lily Potter, the truth about why Dumbledore trusts Snape, and a little romance for Harry, this promises to be one of his best years at Hogwarts yet." (source: Mugglenet) Question is, why???? I mean, who cares about Lily (ok, nice Lily, and I'll love to know something more about her) but we'll know in Book 6 the truth about Snape??! I was prepared to drool on it till book 7, which will probably be published in 2011... So, why Dumbledore trusts him? What did he do? And why do we know it in Book 6? Harry will finally trust him? Or Snape will die in Book 6? Please answer this! Luckdragon: I don't think Snape will die in book 6. I think once it is revealed as to why Dumbledore trusts him Harry is going to be forced to do some serious thinking about his fathers actions and learn to accept that Snape is not entirely bad, and may in fact have played a protective role in both past and future attempts on Harry's life. One example of this is during the quidditch match in book one when Quirrel bewitches Harry's broom it is Snape who tries to save Harry with his own countercurse. Why would Snape protect Harry? I'm really hoping to find out there was some kind of relationship between Snape and Lily in the past that we are unaware of despite Snape seeming dislike of her which we see in canon; or it could simply be his need to fullfill his lifedebt to James. Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/hbfile.html Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT --------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Sun Feb 27 19:08:45 2005 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:08:45 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Voldemort die and why we shouldn't like Snape? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125300 I was wondering about this two questions for a long time. Both of them were sggested by JKR so I think they are rather important. She said something like: You should be wondering what he [Voldie] did to make sure that he did not die. And earlier I've read something about ahy many of us are so fond of Snape. She said that we shouldn't be because there are some really nasty things about him yet to come. Yesterday I read a short article on Harry Potter Facts and it gave me something to think about. What if it was Snape who helped Voldemort to brew a potion that will stop death? We are constantly reminded about the fact that Snape is really good at potions... so maybe this is it? This is the key to the riddle? :P IMO it could be rather good reason for not liking Snape - he was really evil and that would indicate that Snape was rather close to Voldie - maybe even he treated him better than others DEs? Sorry, if this was earlier discussed here. Julia, who won't stop liking Snape even if he was the one who helped Voldie live... From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Sun Feb 27 19:24:39 2005 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:24:39 -0000 Subject: Draco Dementor (was: Draco = Evil?(was: Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125301 > Betsy: They (Draco and Flint) know how good Harry is. They know that a small distraction wouldn't effect Harry at all (when he's in the air, the boy is *focused*). So they choose the big distraction of showing up as Dementors, drawing Harry's attention to them and away from the game, and the Snitch. They just needed to pull Harry's attention away from the Snitch. They did not need to injure Harry or cause him to fall off his broom. If Gryffindor lost that game, it would have been the last game they played that year. Julia here, Maybe you're right Betsy, but I think that their main goal was to make fun of Harry in front of the whole school. Or maybe that was behind this idea at first and they then thought it would be quite useful for them if Harry happen to lost the game. However IMO they've come up with this idea because they want to humiliate Harry. Maybe Draco thought about it, told Crabbe and Goyle and because they needed the fourth guy they asked Flint and told him that this will help the Slitherins... I really don't know why i think it is possible but IMO Draco didn't thought about injuring Harry in the first place - he thought it would be simply funny... I think that Steve also said something like this and I agree with him. Julia From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 19:29:07 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 11:29:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Opposite of Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050227192907.92003.qmail@web31109.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125302 A lot of people think of Slytherin as the opposite of Gryffindor. I think that although they are the biggest rivals among the houses, they are not opposites. I look at it this way; Hufflepuffs are loyal and fair play VS Slytherins are all for the self Ravenclaws are all for logically thinking things through VS Gryffindors are all for action You can have qualities of all of the houses, but you can still only be in one house. Hermione seems (to me at least) to be more intellegent than brave, yet she's in Gryffindor. Me: I am extremely loyal, but not at all concerned with fair play. I'm no Hufflepuff I am brave in certain situations, but not consistantly. I'm no Gryffindor. I am intellegent and studious. I am a Ravenclaw. I am ambitious and perhaps a little Machiavellian. (Yes I can be manipulative.) I am a Slytherin. So where would I go? --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sun Feb 27 19:44:52 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:44:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why didn't Voldemort die and why we shouldn't like Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050227194452.10979.qmail@web53303.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125303 Julia wrote: I was wondering about this two questions for a long time. Both of them were sggested by JKR so I think they are rather important. She said something like: You should be wondering what he [Voldie] did to make sure that he did not die. And earlier I've read something about ahy many of us are so fond of Snape. She said that we shouldn't be because there are some really nasty things about him yet to come. Yesterday I read a short article on Harry Potter Facts and it gave me something to think about. What if it was Snape who helped Voldemort to brew a potion that will stop death? We are constantly reminded about the fact that Snape is really good at potions... so maybe this is it? This is the key to the riddle? :P IMO it could be rather good reason for not liking Snape - he was really evil and that would indicate that Snape was rather close to Voldie - maybe even he treated him better than others DEs? Sorry, if this was earlier discussed here. Julia, who won't stop liking Snape even if he was the one who helped Voldie live... Luckdragon: It is highly possible Snape knows or was involved in whatever LV did to prevent his death, but if this is the case then he should also know what if anything can be done to counter the situation and get rid of LV. I think Snape was probably LV's right hand man at one point and he above anyone else should have the info, Harry needs to vanquish LV. Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/hbfile.html Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT --------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Sun Feb 27 20:43:58 2005 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:43:58 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Voldemort die and why we shouldn't like Snape? In-Reply-To: <20050227194452.10979.qmail@web53303.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125304 Julia: > Yesterday I read a short article on Harry Potter Facts and it gave > me something to think about. What if it was Snape who helped > Voldemort to brew a potion that will stop death? We are constantly > reminded about the fact that Snape is really good at potions... so > maybe this is it? This is the key to the riddle? :P > > Luckdragon: > > It is highly possible Snape knows or was involved in whatever LV did to prevent his death, but if this is the case then he should also know what if anything can be done to counter the situation and get rid of LV. I think Snape was probably LV's right hand man at one point and he above anyone else should have the info, Harry needs to vanquish LV. > Julia again: Yes, that's a good thought. But what if he doesn't know the counter- potion? Besides I don't think it is useful - Voldemort is alive again and no counter potion will kill him now, i think so... But now I think about it - what if Snape was the one who 'invented' the potion which Peter brew for Voldemort in GoF? Maybe he created something - 'in case of', before the events in GH? He could of course help Voldemort with the potion in GoF or even PoA but I don't think he is THAT evil... I think that now he is a good guy and he tries to prevent Voldie from using his potions... Julia From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Sun Feb 27 21:38:02 2005 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:38:02 -0000 Subject: Why did Draco do it? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125305 I've just reread a few first chapters of PS/SS and there is one think I can't stop thinking about. Why did Malfoy then, in the train, came into Harry's compartment? He didn't do it just to take a look at Potter but he intended to have him on his side. What for? I can't think of any good explanation... Did Lucius tell him to do this? or he was just curious? It doesn't make sense because he had to know that first, Harry isn't a pureblood, second, he is certainly not on the evil side, third, how would Harry be useful for Draco? I know that probably it wasn't good to be openly against Harry and that Lucius probably told Draco to pretend that he has nothing against Potter. But it still doesn't obligate him to make friends with Potter - everybody knows that the Malfoys isn't a welcoming, nice family - it wouldn't be suspicious if Draco would just ignore Potter. And he actually wants to shake hand with him - it wasn't just a formal think that he HAD to do because dad told him to behave... He actually wants Harry to be on his side! He is nice to him and he introduces his goons... He didn't have to do THAT! Even Snape didn't do this! I'm wondering now why Draco did it... was it because Lucius told him to do this (and if yes then why - what was the purpose of having Potter on their side???) or he just thought it would be nice to have a famous person beside him?? (but then again - everybody knows that they are on different sides - it's not the secret - at least Snape doesn't make any secret of it...) What do you think about it? Can anybody explain it to me? this is the quote btw: Three boys entered, and Harry recognized the middle one at once: it was the pale boy from Madam Malkin's robe shop. He was looking at Harry with a lot more interest than he'd shown back in Diagon Alley. "Is it true?" he said. "They're saying all down the train that Harry Potter's in this compartment. So it's you, is it?" "Yes," said Harry. He was looking at the other boys. Both of them were thickset and looked extremely mean. Standing on either side of the pale boy, they looked like bodyguards. "Oh, this is Crabbe and this is Goyle," said the pale boy carelessly, noticing where Harry was looking. "And my name's Malfoy, Draco Malfoy." Ron gave a slight cough, which might have been hiding a snigget. Draco Malfoy looked at him. "Think my name's funny, do you? No need to ask who you are. My father told me all the Weasleys have red hair, freckles, and more children than they can afford." He turned back to Harry. "You'll soon find out some wizarding families are much better than others, Potter. You don't want to go making friends with the wrong sort. I can help you there." He held out his hand to shake Harry's, but Harry didn't take it. "I think I can tell who the wrong sort are for myself, thanks," he said coolly. Draco Malfoy didn't go red, but a pink tinge appeared in his pale cheeks. "I'd be careful if I were you, Potter," he said slowly. "Unless you're a bit politer you'll go the same way as your parents. They didn't know what was good for them, either. You hang around with riffraff like the Weasleys and that Hagrid, and it'll rub off on you." Julia who is now really confused about the purpose of this encounter... From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 21:40:01 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:40:01 -0000 Subject: Double standards for male and femalle characters? Was: Re: Mother Molly In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125306 Phoenixgod: That having been said, I think there is a bit of a double standard. I think that female characters get away with things that male characters would not. Hermione is down right demeaning and insulting towards Ron and Harry sometimes. Imagine if it was Hermes talking to Harriet the girl who lived and Rowena the redhead sidekick. I guarantee that female readers would be up in arms over girl characters being talked to like that by a male character, especially if the male character is almost always shown to be the one who is right. Alla: Very interesting, as usual. Let see if it fits for me. I love Hermione in general, but I absolutely agree with you - she IS demeaning and insulting to both Harry and Ron sometimes. She usually thinks she knows what's best and quite often she does(that is not her fault, that's JKR's, who often uses her for exposition :o)), but quite often she does NOT know what's best for them. For example, I was NOT surprised at all when Harry did not listen to her and went to MoM anyway. Hmmm, Hermione, Harry tells you that his closest father figure is being tortured in his vision and he wants to go and save him and the best you can come up with is that he has "saving people thing". That was not very tactful and not very effective, IMO. Oooo, you know what it means? You probably do. It means that Ginny will be much better partner to Harry than Hermione. :o) You agree with me, right? Phoenixgod: Imagine if Cho were a male and he decided to start dating again after his girlfriend died three months earlier. People would be up in arms over a boy who was clearly being a 'playa'. Alla: Let's put it this way . If Cho was a little bit older and Cedric was her boyfriend for longer ( say they both were in their twenties), I would not be very understanding of Cho. (I'd expect her to mourn Cedric for some time) As it is, she is only sixteen, and I think the reason she wanted to date Harry was partially because she wanted to know more about Cedric's last minutes. So, what am I getting at? If Cho was a boy of the same age, I would perfectly understand it. Phoenixgod: Molly would be the worst. Imagine if Arthur talked to his wife and children the way Molly did. Imagine him taking Molly to task in the middle of the hosital or forgetting two of his children, or being rude towards female friends of his children. Groups like NOW would be in arms over the glorification of an *abusive* relationship. Alla: Probably, BUT that is if you honestly think that Molly and Arthur relationship is an abusive one. I find Lupinlore's explanation in his "Weasley types" post to be quite fitting , I also argued that in the important matters, Arthur is perfectly capable of handling himself. So, if the roles were reversed and Arthur was budgering and lecturing Molly, BUT she would still be able to held her own in the important matters, I would not consider such relationship to be abusive one. Again, there are quite a few moments when I want to slap Molly, but as another poster argued she is a Mum with all their flaws and good qualities. Phoenixgod: > But hey, they're women so it must be alright. Alla: Not for me, definitely not. :) Just my opinion of course, Alla. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 21:59:21 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:59:21 -0000 Subject: Molly & Harry (was:Molly and Arthur Was: Mother Molly /Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125307 >>Magda: >I don't think she does treat Harry like one of her children - she treats her kids like her kids and she treats Harry like he was some kind of little king. She fawns over him, usually in front of her own kids, and takes liberties upon herself (such as buying his dress robes and supplies without even consulting him) that rightly belong to a legal guardian - which she isn't.< >>Naama: >For the first three books, Harry's legal guardian is in Azkaban. In GoF, he is abroad. In OoP, the only way he can buy supplies for Harry is via Amazon.com (which hasn't featured prominently in the Potterverse so far). >What you call "fawning" I see as trying to cram 10 years' worth of maternal affection, that she knows Harry didn't have. She is pampering him because he was so deprived before - she is trying to make up the loss. And she is doing all this without any having any *obligations* toward him - as you yourself have pointed out. Pure kindness and warmth of heart.< Betsy: I agree with both of you, Magda and Naama. Molly is showering Harry with love and attention because she *is* "trying to cram 10 years' worth of maternal affection" onto him. And, as Naama says, Molly is motivated by love and kindness in doing so. But, as Magda pointed out, Harry is not *really* treated like one of her own children. When he sulks and avoids Molly in OotP, she lets him do so where she would have confronted one of her own children. And Molly showers him with the kind of praise and attention that her other children only recieve when they do something spectacular - like making Prefect. (The twins keep Molly's attention by acting out. It's negative attention, but it's more than Ron generally gets.) I don't think Molly is *wrong* in her behavior. The fact is Harry is *not* her child, and she has no legal control over him. So I think it's fine that she treats him like a beloved nephew or grandchild. I think it's good for Harry, and the Weasley kids don't seem to begrudge him the attention. I don't think Harry sees Molly as a source of advice, as he does with Arthur. I also doubt that Harry thinks Molly's love is unconditional (I honestly don't know if it is or not, myself), but he appreciates what he can get. Betsy From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 22:08:06 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:08:06 -0000 Subject: Dating Muggleborns(was: Where does it say that Molly is a pureblood fanatic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125308 >>Magda: >Yes, but the question is: why was Molly so willing to believe that the Hermione that she knew was this heartless jade that Skeeter described?< >>Naama: >Maybe she has a thing against girls with large teeth? Or very smart, goody two-shoes girls? Or brown, fuzzy hair? Or girls she suspects her son fancies? Could she have murky psychological problems with girls who befriend her daughter? Girls who aren't interested in Quidditch? >Since there's no other indication that Molly entertains anti- Muggleborn prejudice, all of the above are just as likely. More likely, in fact, given Ron's loud and completely unambigous position on the subject of Muggleborns.< Betsy: Except of course, that there *is* other indications that Molly doesn't fully trust Muggles. She expresses it by her obvious disapproval of her husband's fasination with Muggles, her refusal to have Muggle items in her house, her successful efforts to keep her children *away* from Muggles (though they live right by a Muggle village), and her introductory statement in PS/SS. There's nothing that suggests Molly hates Muggles or that she doesn't think Muggleborn wizards should go to Hogwarts, but there is enough to hint that she may be a tad suspicious of Muggles and therefore Muggleborns. And on the other hand, I don't recall Molly ever expressing a distaste for brown hair, large teeth, or non-Quidditch fans, etc. Betsy From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Feb 27 22:23:19 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:23:19 -0000 Subject: Erm..I don't think so In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125309 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ladyramkin2001" wrote: > > Magda wrote: > >I've been on sites where people are claiming that "Erm" is a British > expression meaning "maybe" but I don't believe it. Sylvia: > You are right not to believe it, Magda. Born and bred in England, > and I've never heard it used in that way. It's more often used to > catch a minute to think. But "I don't think so" is often used in > reply to a question so ridiculous that it doesn't deserve serious > consideration.We really need a live audio copy to get the tone in > which it was spoken. Geoff: Well, as a paid-up member of the English through-and-through club, I will use a long "Mmmmm" to indicate "maybe" or "perhaps". But it can be used in a number of ways and it's tone can also indicate different meanings. I wonder if it's a district thing like dialect. I speak with what most people coniider is an educated London area accent but was brought up in the north of England until the age of 9. People often use "er" to catch a moment to think. From jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 22:34:22 2005 From: jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com (jmgarciaiii) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:34:22 -0000 Subject: Snape and Quirrell in the Dark Forest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125310 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jmgarciaiii" > wrote: > > > I quote: > > > > < you've had time to think things over and decided where your > loyalties lie.">> > > > > This to me implies: > > > > "You, Quirrell, should be loyal to Dumbledore, as I, Severus > Snape, am." > > > > Pippin: > But isn't this exactly what a Death Eater in deep cover would > say? Pretending loyalty to Dumbledore is exactly what Snape, as > Voldemort's *secret* agent, ought to do, unless Voldemort > reveals himself or Quirrell provides positive proof that he is > Voldemort's agent. > > Pippin > who thinks this spy stuff is a bigger headache than time turning This scenario is entirely possible, but it depends on how skilled an occlumens is Snape (maybe he didn't "turn on" the occlumens?) relative to Voldemort's legilimency. In the interests of keeping myself sane, I'll go along with you on this, Pippin, until JRK proves otherwise. -Joe in SoFla From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Feb 27 22:36:07 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:36:07 -0000 Subject: Why did Draco do it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125311 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Julia" wrote: > > I've just reread a few first chapters of PS/SS and there is one > think I can't stop thinking about. > > Why did Malfoy then, in the train, came into Harry's compartment? He > didn't do it just to take a look at Potter but he intended to have > him on his side. What for? > I can't think of any good explanation... Did Lucius tell him to do > this? or he was just curious? > > It doesn't make sense because he had to know that first, Harry isn't > a pureblood, second, he is certainly not on the evil side, third, > how would Harry be useful for Draco? > I know that probably it wasn't good to be openly against Harry and > that Lucius probably told Draco to pretend that he has nothing > against Potter. But it still doesn't obligate him to make friends > with Potter - everybody knows that the Malfoys isn't a welcoming, > nice family - it wouldn't be suspicious if Draco would just ignore > Potter. And he actually wants to shake hand with him - it wasn't > just a formal think that he HAD to do because dad told him to > behave... > He actually wants Harry to be on his side! He is nice to him and he > introduces his goons... He didn't have to do THAT! Even Snape didn't > do this! > > I'm wondering now why Draco did it... was it because Lucius told him > to do this (and if yes then why - what was the purpose of having > Potter on their side???) or he just thought it would be nice to have > a famous person beside him?? (but then again - everybody knows that > they are on different sides - it's not the secret - at least Snape > doesn't make any secret of it...) > What do you think about it? Can anybody explain it to me? > > > this is the quote btw: > Three boys entered, and Harry recognized the middle one at once: it > was the pale boy from Madam Malkin's robe shop. > He was looking at Harry with a lot more interest than he'd shown > back in Diagon Alley. > "Is it true?" he said. "They're saying all down the train that Harry > Potter's in this compartment. So it's you, is it?" > "Yes," said Harry. He was looking at the other boys. Both of them > were thickset and looked extremely mean. Standing on either side of > the pale boy, they looked like bodyguards. > "Oh, this is Crabbe and this is Goyle," said the pale boy > carelessly, noticing where Harry was looking. "And my name's Malfoy, > Draco Malfoy." > Ron gave a slight cough, which might have been hiding a snigget. > Draco Malfoy looked at him. > "Think my name's funny, do you? No need to ask who you are. My > father told me all the Weasleys have red hair, freckles, and more > children than they can afford." > He turned back to Harry. "You'll soon find out some wizarding > families are much better than others, Potter. You don't want to go > making friends with the wrong sort. I can help you there." > He held out his hand to shake Harry's, but Harry didn't take it. > "I think I can tell who the wrong sort are for myself, thanks," he > said coolly. > Draco Malfoy didn't go red, but a pink tinge appeared in his pale > cheeks. > "I'd be careful if I were you, Potter," he said slowly. "Unless > you're a bit politer you'll go the same way as your parents. They > didn't know what was good for them, either. You hang around with > riffraff like the Weasleys and that Hagrid, and it'll rub off on > you." > > Julia who is now really confused about the purpose of this > encounter... Geoff: I can see two angles to this. >From Draco's point of view, I assume that he knows little or nothing about Harry's take of the Wizarding World. Perhaps he can get Harry on his side or at least get Harry to acknowledge him fairly affably which would improve his street cred no end in the school. Does he know that Harry is a complete tyro so he might be able to influence him? >From the story point of view, Harry's rebuff rubs Draco up the wrong way. To re-word an English saying, "Hogwarts hath no fury like a Draco scorned". The chance for peaceful co-existence seems to have been blown out of the water. The scene is set for confrontation at a slowly increasing level of hostility. Though I would still like to see some sort of rapprochement between the two of them before the end credits roll.... From jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 22:50:09 2005 From: jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com (jmgarciaiii) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:50:09 -0000 Subject: Weasley Types (got really long!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125312 Now I know why SO MANY of the characters exasperate me: I'm an INTJ. -Joe in SoFla From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Feb 27 23:11:22 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:11:22 -0000 Subject: Opposite of Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: <20050227192907.92003.qmail@web31109.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125313 > Me: > I am extremely loyal, but not at all concerned with fair play. I'm no Hufflepuff > > > I am brave in certain situations, but not consistantly. I'm no Gryffindor. > > I am intellegent and studious. I am a Ravenclaw. > > I am ambitious and perhaps a little Machiavellian. (Yes I can be manipulative.) I am a Slytherin. > > So where would I go? > > > --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) > Valky: Which of these things do you value most highly, because you would probably go there. There is an interview where JKR does talk about this question and she strongly hinted that the sorting hat puts you in the house that represents the virtue that you regard highestly. Hence why Hermione is in Gryffindor, instead of Ravenclaw. (PS Under the trapdoor) I value intellect highly (Ravenclaw), and determination (Slytherin) and Patience (Hufflepuff) are also on my list but above all I treasure daring, nerve and chivalry, so I take that to say I am a natural Gryffindor. Valky From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 20:16:52 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:16:52 -0000 Subject: Snape and Quirrell in the Dark Forest In-Reply-To: <20050227132038.79349.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125314 --- Magda Grantwich wrote: >> I think he did alert DD immediately and that's why DD attended the > second game - to catch Quirrell in the act when he tried it again > while Snape was up in the air to grab Harry if he didn't manage to > hold onto the broomstick as well as before. Harry messed up the > strategy by catching the snitch so fast and ending the game in 2 > minutes. > > So it was after their effort to trap Quirrell had been foiled that > Snape and Dumbledore moved onto Plan B - confront Quirrell directly > and try to frighten the truth out of him. And that's what Harry saw > in the Forbidden Forest that night. > a_svirn: Yes, I am with you where plan A is concerned. It's the plan B that seems somewhat faulty. If Snape and DD wanted to catch Quirrell in the act, they shouldn't have tried to intimidate him. On the contrary, they had to act as though they were already satisfied with their efforts so that Quirrel would develop a false sense of security and walk straight into the trap. Besides, what truth, they were supposed to "frighten out of him"? They already knew what he was up to. a_svirn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 20:23:23 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:23:23 -0000 Subject: Dating Muggleborns(was: Where does it say that Molly is a pureblood fanatic In-Reply-To: <20050227134232.97603.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125315 Magda Grantwich wrote: when it comes to muggles and muggleborns, > she's willing to view them with greater suspicion because she feels > that they are in some way - different - from wizards, from people > "like her". It's not a hostility, it's not dislike - it's just that > at some level inside she still thinks they're not predictable or > rational or whatever. > a_svirn: Maybe it's just when it comes to one's sons' potential girlfriends on can never be too careful. a_svirn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 21:22:12 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:22:12 -0000 Subject: Fred and George - Prefects? In-Reply-To: <42222007.3382.7ACCBB@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125316 "Shaun Hately" wrote: > They seem to have some authority over the ghosts... there's real > powers. > > It seems to me plausible that being a Prefect at Hogwarts might > actually bestow powers on a student within the school. It may open > secrets and paths to them." a_svirn: Funny, that you didn't quote the only episode that really gives SOME credence to your hypothesis about F& G being prefects and about Hogwarts' prefects wielding power over Hogwarts' ghosts. I mean the way Peeves seemed to take F & G's parting words to his heart. But then again, when it comes to wrecking havoc he WOULD be only too happy to oblige. Now, if we had any evidence that they could restrain him from doing so As for the episodes you do quote Well, the Gringott's is neither here nor there, and as for Snape ? not only he is NOT a prefect, but a Professor AND a Head of the House, but in the scene you quote when he does invoke his authority he only gets insulted for his pains. By the way it's not the first time he calls himself a Master. He did it in CoS when Lockhart bragged that brewing a restorative potion with Mandrakes would be a piece of cake for him, Snape reminded him that he was the "Potion Master in this School". Shaun Hately: > But as for keeping their fellow students safe, which student at > Hogwarts is probably most in danger. Harry. Who is next - probably > the members of Dumbledore's Army. > > And Fred and George are in the thick of that. a_svirn: Yeath, they and some 25 students besides. None of whom were appointed but invited by Hermione. A project that ultimately did cost DD his job by the way. Shaun Hately: > > "Inspired by Fred and George's example, a great number of students > were now vying for the newly vacant positions of Troublemakers-In- > Chief." (OotP, p.597) > > In leaving the school, they caused more havoc than ever before. > They didn't deprive the school of their leadership - they left it > as their legacy. > a_svirn: Do you really think that this is a kind of leadership DD expects his prefects to promote? a_svirn From tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 22:06:15 2005 From: tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com (Tayla) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:06:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Lies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050227220615.44817.qmail@web61205.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125317 Tayla: Please bear with me, I have just spent the better part of 5 hours going through all of the posts from the past two days, and honestly, I can keep silent no longer. Alla Wrote: Do you agree that Harry is lying because he knows that Molly dissaproves of twins' venture and that by association she will "stop loving Harry", if she learns about that? Do you think that in this instance Harry's lying could be looked at as the scars of his abusive upbringing showing up - namely his inability to trust that adult can held PERMANENT genuine affection for him even if said adult ( Molly in that instance) can disagree with his actions? Tayla Responds: I don?t believe that Harry fears losing love from Molly. I don?t even think that Harry realizes that Molly DOES love him! This is a boy who has grown up without love, and therefore, I don?t think he is capable of seeing that love coming from ANYONE. I think that the reason that he doesn?t tell Molly about the money is for so many reasons, First, he felt that what the twins would do with the money would help, even just a little bit. He realizes that humor and fun is going to be hard to come by, and he tells the twins such. Second, while he knows that Molly doesn?t approve of their venture, I think that he realizes more so that Molly, being the proud woman that she is, would not approve of taking money from Harry MORE. Harry keeps getting this money, which makes him uncomfortable when he is around people who are financially struggling, literally thrown back at him. He keeps trying to help out with his own money, and it keeps getting denied. By keeping it from Molly, till the deed was already done, it prevents an even more awkward situation of having your gift returned to you. Harry knows what it is like to have nothing, he identifies with the Weasly?s, probably more than they could ever understand considering they have seen his vault. Harry?s money has ALWAYS made him feel uncomfortable when he has been with the Weaslys. bboyminn: Life is never black and white, we all live in shades of gray. To judge the characters in the books, you can't look just at Snape and Harry's relationship to judge Snape. We need to judge Snape across his past, present, and future. The same is true of Dumbledore. We can point to many mistakes Dumbledore has made, many things that Dumbledore did that people think were horribly wrong. But again, he should not be judged on those specific events, but across the arc of his life, and across the arc of his full character. We should not judge Harry on the little white lies that we all tell, but on the quality of character he displays when it really counts. As long as we see this awareness of his action in Harry's internal landscape, and as long as Harry is aware of his lying, we and Harry are OK. We know that underneath the moment is someone of conscience. The time to start worrying is when these little things pass by and Harry doesn't give them a seconds thought, when the sense of right and wrong are lost, then it time to worry and wonder. Just calling it like I see it. Tayla Responds: Bravo! We all, as readers can speculate as to the motives to the characters, however we do not know what they have done, the mistakes they have made, or how these characters have developed to maturity. We are seeing things through the eyes of children, and that is something that needs to stay in our minds. While yes, these children are highly intelligent, they still have their own growing up to do, and as such, do not see things the way we adults see them. We are only now, with OOTP starting to get some more information about people like Snape, James and the others, however that information is incomplete. Through the eyes HRH, we see the unfairness of Snape?s treatment to THEM in his class, but we do not know if that is the way that Snape treats ALL Gryfindors. Therefore, we are seeing it the way they see it, with their perspective of what is fair during THEIR class. For we, the readers, we cannot look down our noses at Harry for the lies that he has made thus far, because we are all guilty of doing the same, for whatever reasons we have. For Harry, in many respects, it is a matter of comfort (I really don?t want to tell this person because it makes me uncomfortable), or a matter of, ?Oh geez, I know what they are going to say, and I really can?t deal with their response right now!? Is it wrong, IMO, no. However, I am not going to deny the fact that there have been times when I have wanted to reach through the pages of the book and strangle Harry for NOT going to DD! Tayla From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Mon Feb 28 01:11:40 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:11:40 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dating Muggleborns(was: Where does it say that Molly ... Message-ID: <1a6.3287852f.2f53c9cc@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125318 In a message dated 2/27/2005 2:08:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, horridporrid03 at yahoo.com writes: >>Magda: >Yes, but the question is: why was Molly so willing to believe that the Hermione that she knew was this heartless jade that Skeeter described?< >>Naama: >Maybe she has a thing against girls with large teeth? Or very smart, goody two-shoes girls? Or brown, fuzzy hair? Or girls she suspects her son fancies? Could she have murky psychological problems with girls who befriend her daughter? Girls who aren't interested in Quidditch? >Since there's no other indication that Molly entertains anti- Muggleborn prejudice, all of the above are just as likely. More likely, in fact, given Ron's loud and completely unambigous position on the subject of Muggleborns.< ******************************************** Chancie: I tend to agree with Naama on this point. But I see it as pretty simple. Molly isn't against Muggle-borns IMO, she's just concerned about Harry. As it has be brought up in other threads, I think that Molly thinks of Harry like he's her own child. She reads that Hermione is ripping Harry's heart out and toying with it. *Any* good mother would be angry if something like this was truly happening. If Rita had written that story about any other girl I have no doubt that Molly would have the same reaction. And it is true that Hermione has spent time with their family and she knows her fairly well. But Molly doesn't feel the same connection to Hermione as she does Harry. That's where the difference comes in, and I think it has absolutely *nothing* to do with Hermione's family tree!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 22:29:43 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:29:43 -0000 Subject: Why did Draco do it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125319 "Julia" wrote: > Why did Malfoy then, in the train, came into Harry's compartment? He > didn't do it just to take a look at Potter but he intended to have > him on his side. What for? > I can't think of any good explanation... Did Lucius tell him to do > this? or he was just curious? a_svirn: I think it's safe to assume that exactly what Lucius DID; the same was he told Draco in CoS that it's "not prudent to appear less than fond of Potter". "Julia" wrote: > everybody knows that the Malfoys isn't a welcoming, > nice family - it wouldn't be suspicious if Draco would just ignore > Potter. a_svirn: Way I see it ? everybody knows that the Malfoys are among the most ancient and noble wizarding families, veritable pillars of the society, well-known for their donations for the most worthy causes, friends to the Minister himself etc. Of course there are still some envious evil-wishers out there who won't let bygones be bygones, and who would stoop so low pursuing their own political agenda, as to try to use the gossip circulated in the days of old DE trials to besmirch Mr. M's reputation. As if they didn't know that all charges against him were dropped and he was as much of a victim of You-Know- Who as your next wizard. "Julia" wrote: And he actually wants to shake hand with him - it wasn't > just a formal think that he HAD to do because dad told him to > behave... > He actually wants Harry to be on his side! He is nice to him and he > introduces his goons... He didn't have to do THAT! Even Snape didn't > do this! > > I'm wondering now why Draco did it... was it because Lucius told him > to do this (and if yes then why - what was the purpose of having > Potter on their side???) a_svirn: I think he (or rather Lucius) did want Harry on his side. At that time Harry was an unknown quality, and Malfoy probably figured it was "prudent" to be in his good graces. And if Draco hadn't botched it from the start it could even have worked, at least to some degree. If Harry hadn't been informed that all Slytherins are no good, he could easily have ended up among them. a_svirn From tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 22:46:03 2005 From: tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com (Tayla) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:46:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mother Molly In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050227224604.76138.qmail@web61207.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125320 I would have had to snip so much, so I am snipping it all to make my post. While there have been some interesting perspectives on Molly and her abilities as a parent, I firmly believe that we are being too hard on her. Nobody is perfect, and I have to say that being a parent is sometimes too hard to deal with at times. I personally have two children, and have to say that they can drive me absolutely crazy at times! I can only imagine what it was like for Molly! I sometimes feel like a chicken with my head cut off just keeping up with my *two*, she's had seven children running around, and trying to keep up with them. When nerves get frazzled, you can sometimes say and do things that are unfair, we are only human after all. How many of us have woken up on the wrong side of the bed one morning and bit someone's head off at work because of our foul mood? Does that automatically make you a bad person, or co-worker? No, it means you're human, and you're gonna have to eat some crow later on when you have to apologize for it! We don't know for a fact that she didn't apologize to Ron later for the robe incident, probably because it wasn't important at the time, but here we are, criticizing Molly for a bad choice and calling her a "toxic" mother. That is not fair of us. I also don't think that there is anything to support that because two of her children have taken jobs far away that it is because of her methods as a parent. Children grow up, and their lives take them in different directions. Just because they didn't stay close to home doesn't make Molly a bad parent. On the contrary, we should be looking at the accomplishments that these kids have done, despite their limited means! Bill works for Gringotts! Taking cannon, that is no easy feat, probably more difficult than working for MOM! Charlie works with Dragons! While, and this is my opinion, I have always seen Percy as a status climbing drape ape, he made prefect and held down good grades. F&G are capable of so much more, but don't apply themselves, that alone is frustrating for any parent. Ron, although the youngest still seems to be a fairly well adjusted boy, and Ginny, while we didn't see much of her in most of the books (incidentally because she had a huge crush on Harry, and as such would run away in hiding whenever we the readers were around) is also a very strong young girl. I would be proud as hell if I had that many children that were doing so well. Lupinlore said it right, in *any* family that has more than one child, there is going to be bickering, harassing, fighting, and picking. IMO, where Percy is considered, he was too serious in a light-hearted family! If you ask me, took the "rearing" a little too literally for my liking! Look at Arthur, *he* even breaks the rules from time to time! Molly nagged him because of the car, and we wonder where the kids get the ideas that they do? Percy wasn't keeping things from his family because of a percieved lecture from Molly, more so I believe he was keeping to himself because he didn't want to give F&G any more ammunition to use against him, and Molly would probably slip up at some time. Percy has always shown that he was embarassed about his family and the way that would affect his abilities to "climb the drapes". Is that Molly's fault? No, he took the lessons that he was given, and judging from the fact that his older and younger siblings are adjusted well, it was how *he* took those lessons. Molly is emotional, and whether or not she is childish (and many women have this tendency) at times, that does not make her the "toxic" monster that some of these posts have tried to make her out to be. My opinion, I apologize to anyone whom I may have offended. Tayla From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Mon Feb 28 01:56:25 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:56:25 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why didn't Voldemort die and why we shouldn't like Sn... Message-ID: <1ef.369f4935.2f53d449@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125321 In a message dated 2/27/2005 12:49:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl writes: > Luckdragon: > > It is highly possible Snape knows or was involved in whatever LV did to prevent his death, but if this is the case then he should also know what if anything can be done to counter the situation and get rid of LV. I think Snape above anyone else should have the info, Harry needs to vanquish LV. >Julia again: > >Yes, that's a good thought. But what if he doesn't know the counter- potion? Besides I don't think it is useful - Voldemort is alive again and no counter potion will kill him now, i think so... But now I think about it - what if Snape was the one who 'invented' the potion which Peter brew for Voldemort in GoF? Maybe he created something - 'in case of', before the events in GH? He could of course help Voldemort with the potion in GoF or even PoA but I don't think he is THAT evil... I think that now he is a good guy and he tries to prevent Voldie from using his potions... Julia ******************************************************************** Chancie: Hmmm... When I read these posts, it brought to mind 2 questions that parts of these theories can answer. 1. Why does Dumbledore trust Snape? Perhaps, Snape did "invent" or help with the steps that caused Voldemort to stay alive, and for some reason or the other, came to Dumbledore to tell him what had happened. Resulting in Dumbledore figuring out that Voldemort would/could come back eventually, and how it would happen. 2. What was the "gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes"? Maybe, if my previous answer is true, it could be that Dumbledore had been told by Snape how to revive Voldemort, and they had done something wrong, something that put the odds greatly in Harry's favor for the ending battle. I however do disagree with Julia's thought that Snape may have helped with the potion during that year. Because if that were true, then Dumbledore wouldn't need Harry's explanation of the events at the Graveyard. And even more than that, Dumbledore would have known that Voldemort was planing his return, and he would have known about the Portkey. Unless of course, you are suggesting that either Dumbledore or Snape are secretly evil!? Or perhaps you have another theory? I admit that my thoughts are not exactly mind blowing, but if any one else has thoughts on this I would love to hear them!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Mon Feb 28 03:10:01 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:10:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Opposite of Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050228031001.38102.qmail@web31107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125322 Valky: Which of these things do you value most highly, because you would probably go there. There is an interview where JKR does talk about this question and she strongly hinted that the sorting hat puts you in the house that represents the virtue that you regard highestly. Arynn: Then I would be in Ravenclaw. I don't value my manipulativeness, I look at it as a flaw. I am proudest of my brain. But every test (online/magazines et cetera) I take says I should be in Slytherin. --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Mon Feb 28 03:16:03 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia Forstner) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 03:16:03 -0000 Subject: Why is Lupin a Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125323 wrote: > How did he end up sorted into Gryffindor? He has something of all the traits I associate with the houses - except Gryffindor. > He's bookish (Ravenclaw), loyal to a fault (hufflepuff) and I might > be out on a limb, but he has some Slytherinish snarkiness and > diregard for rules. What he lacks, as far as I can tell, is that >sort of plucky Gryffindor bravery. I don't know how to answer that other than to quote Mary Anne Radmacher-Hershey: "Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, 'I will try again tomorrow.'" --Arynn (A Lupin lover) From elanorpam at yahoo.com.br Mon Feb 28 03:28:37 2005 From: elanorpam at yahoo.com.br (Paula "Elanor Pam") Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:28:37 -0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dating Muggleborns(was: Where does it say that Molly ... References: <1a6.3287852f.2f53c9cc@aol.com> Message-ID: <00ea01c51d45$99166da0$0601010a@harrypotter> No: HPFGUIDX 125324 > In a message dated 2/27/2005 2:08:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, > horridporrid03 at yahoo.com writes: > > >>Magda: > >Yes, but the question is: why was Molly so willing to believe that > the Hermione that she knew was this heartless jade that Skeeter > described?< > > >>Naama: > >Maybe she has a thing against girls with large teeth? Or very smart, > goody two-shoes girls? Or brown, fuzzy hair? Or girls she suspects > her son fancies? Could she have murky psychological problems with > girls who befriend her daughter? Girls who aren't interested in > Quidditch? > > Chancie: > > I tend to agree with Naama on this point. But I see it as pretty simple. > Molly isn't against Muggle-borns IMO, she's just concerned about Harry. > As it has be brought up in other threads, I think that Molly thinks of Harry > like he's her own child. She reads that Hermione is ripping Harry's heart > out and toying with it. *Any* good mother would be angry if something like > this was truly happening. If Rita had written that story about any other girl > I have no doubt that Molly would have the same reaction. And it is true > that Hermione has spent time with their family and she knows her fairly > well. But Molly doesn't feel the same connection to Hermione as she does > Harry. That's where the difference comes in, and I think it has absolutely > *nothing* to do with Hermione's family tree!!! Elanor Pam: I tend to think that Molly actually felt betrayed - that this intelligent, friendly girl could do such a thing to a boy she considered part of her own family. To think that she had actually trusted her!! That she had accepted her in her own household!! Laughed along with her!! AND THEN!! Isn't there supposed to be a little basis of truth to every rumor? Just my take on her behavior. :D Molly clearly seems to me the kind to overreact, and I think that's exactly what she did. Elanor Pam From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Feb 28 04:33:07 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 04:33:07 -0000 Subject: Weasley Types (was Molly and Arthur ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125325 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > Arthur strikes me as an INFP (introverted, intuitive, feeling, percieving), whereas Molly seems an ENFJ (extroverted, intuitive, feeling, judging). (Snip) Molly and Arthur match perfectly as both are intuitive feelers as opposed to sensing thinkers. (snip) Male INFPs are often quiet and withdrawn, tending to identify strong areas of interest into which they put a great deal of energy. They also are very easygoing except about the things they find crucially important. The moment those boundaries or values are transgressed, they become as very much NOT quiet or compliant. (snip) However, if the wife wants a healthy marriage, she has to learn precisely where the writ of her authority stops. (Snip) Tonks now: Ah, and the same can be said for a relationship in which the woman is the INFP and the man the ENFJ. She can let him *think* he is the boss, but they both know the score when her foot comes down. He will know just how far he can go. Also the ENFJ would be the social one that goes out and makes friends for them both. ENFJ are fun to have around, but one does need to get them out of the house now and then or go off to a quiet place by yourself like Arthur does to his shed. Lupinlore: > As to Percy, I think his main problem is that he is a sensing thinker (I would label him an ISTJ) in a house of intuitive feelers (The twins and Ginny are probably ENFPs, and Ron is likely a male ENFJ. The older boys we don't see enough, but I suspect they are ENFP/J). His whole approach to the world is fundamentally different from everybody else in the house. That is a recipe for problems. Tonks now: Yes, I think you hit the nail on the head here. This explains why Percy seems so aloof and has that *Army Officer* *live for the rules* mentality which I find so difficult to deal with. NF's and ST's are opposites and can have difficult relationships. But the most difficult I think are those involving an NF and an NT. I think Harry in an NF and Snape is an NT. I have posted on the difficulty with these types before. Let us just say that thoughts of murder often come to mind for each of these types when thinking of the other. I realize that all of my favorite characters are NF's. Molly, Lupin, Hagrid, DD, Harry, etc. I like Hermione too, I value her intelligence and common sense. Not sure what she is and afraid to find out. Tonks_op (INFP) From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Mon Feb 28 05:43:09 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:43:09 EST Subject: The murder of Tom Riddle Sr. Message-ID: <1e5.36ad9477.2f54096d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125326 I was thinking. How is it that Voldemort was able to murder his father using an AK, without the MoM becoming involved?? When Harry was blamed for Dobby's hovering spell, and using the Patronus Charm almost immediately owls were on their way. So how if they reacted so strongly to something like that (and yes I do recognize the fact that the Ministry was after Harry in OoP, and was looking for a reason to shut him up, but still...) could an underage wizard manage to get away with using an unforgivable curse in a mostly-muggle town (I say mostly because I don't know if there were wizards there) And also, if the MoM is able to detect what magic is being done and where, then why aren't Ministry officials dispatched whenever anyone uses an unforgivable curse? It seems an easy way to find DE's. And yes I know it would be hard to monitor EVERY wizard and witch in the WW, but why not at least monitor the suspected DE's. Kind of like having a phone tap, for suspected terrorist, or major drug dealers. I'm sure someone out there can give an opinion on this one way or the other, I'd love to hear! Oh and just one more thing, I say "underage wizard" referring to Voldemort, because the murder was said to be 50 years ago. We know Tom Riddle was in school then because of the fact that "50 years ago", was when the Chamber of Secrets was opened and he was obviously still in school. I don't know what year he was in, some could argue that he was in his last year, and therefore allowed to do magic like Fred and George were. And I would say that this is possible, except for the fact that Tom wants to stay at Hogwarts over the break so he doesn't have to go back to the orphanage until next term. Another question, do any of you think that "50 years ago" seems to be a pretty important time, or am I just reading too much into these two instances? Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Feb 28 05:57:18 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:57:18 -0000 Subject: I am Woman Molly WAS Re: Mother Molly In-Reply-To: <20050227224604.76138.qmail@web61207.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125327 > Tayla: > I firmly believe that we are being too hard on her. Nobody is perfect, and I have to say that being a parent is sometimes too hard to deal with at times. > > I would be proud as hell if I had that many children that were doing so well. > Valky: So far I am in complete agreement. This half of Molly's characterisation IMO is precisely as you have put it. OTOH I am a mother too, and I know that there is more to who I am than the way I raise my kids. (Although that is a greater proportion of my life than else things usually) This is where *I* am coming from about Molly. She is an individual person (read character) with a personal *I* that is not just "Mother Weasley", and with the depth of characterisation that JKR is capable of the canon Molly WE know is likely to have this *I* persona all her own, just like the rest of us mothers. Tayla: > Percy wasn't keeping things from his family because of a percieved lecture from Molly, more so I believe he was keeping to himself because he didn't want to give F&G any more ammunition to use against him, and Molly would probably slip up at some time. Percy has always shown that he was embarassed about his family and the way that would affect his abilities to "climb the drapes". Is that Molly's fault? Valky: Sounds like you are accusing Percy. They are both imperfect, but my theory draws on the canon closeness between them to suppose that Percy was a highly aware young man who managed to attune to and perceive his mothers personal battle with her isolation as a "Blood Traitor". Children like this are usually A grade high achiever students who take responsibilties for the care of their younger siblings. Percy fits this bill perfectly. Molly is an isolated lady in the WW, we haven't been explicitly told this about Molly in canon, but the dress robes scene with Ron suggests that Molly deals with the same thing Ron does at the Yule Ball every day in her own life, Mrs Blacks Portrait gives us insight into the types of things Molly would encounter in the Wizard Mall if she came across Narcissa and her band of friends, and quite possibly other witches too, the way Arthur is denied respect at the Ministry suggests that Molly might deal with the same disregard in the WW herself, her concern for the children being seen as proper and perfectly behaved, her panicking whenever Arthur is under any threat at the ministry, and Percy's "embarrasment" about his family, REALLY back it all up. And in summation, Molly has personal stuff to deal with that *isn't* mothering. Tayla: > Molly is emotional, and whether or not she is childish (and many women have this tendency) at times, that does not make her the "toxic" monster that some of these posts have tried to make her out to be. > Valky: I hope I have shown that my personal contribution to the discussion is not with intent to prove that Molly is "toxic", but rather to prove that she is a woman of her own beyond all this contemplation of her characterisation as a mother. Tayla: > My opinion, I apologize to anyone whom I may have offended. > Valky: Not offended :D But still clarifying my position. From catlady at wicca.net Mon Feb 28 06:07:37 2005 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 06:07:37 -0000 Subject: ctl-F for YOUR name or topic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125328 Fred Manawydan wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124898 : << Just by the bye, who used to preserve prophecies _before_ the Ministry was formed? >> Maybe no one. Finwitch wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124925 : << He's nasty to Muggle-born Hermione, and Harry - whose dead father he loathed and whose mother was Muggle-born. Neville-- well, I guess he feels that a pureblood (who also just happened to be the other boy for the prophecy) unable to properly control his magic etc. One who shows a total lack in all things that Slytherin valued.. well, he's disappointed. Indeed - between Harry, Hermione and Neville, his ideology is practically questioned and proved faulty. And he doesn't like it at all. >> Snape has been teaching at Hogwarts for what, ten years, when PS/SS begins. He must have had plenty of experience with idiot purebloods and clever Muggleborns (and clever purebloods and idiot Muggleborns) in that time. Steve bboyminn wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124942 : << This does bring up another question though. Sirius left home when he was young, and using the money he inherited from his Uncle, Sirius got a place of his own. What happened to that place? One could speculate it sat empty for 12 years while Sirius was in prison, but even a living space that is paid for still requires on-going payment for taxes and city services like sewer, water, lights, gas, etc.... >> Not if it's a wizarding cottage off the Muggle maps, off the Muggle tax rolls, off the Muggle utilities, with a Muggle-repelling spell on it. Using magic to bring in water and remove sewage, using magic to make light and to make cooking/heating fires, using Floo and owls instead of telephone and post, using brooms and Apparation instead of automobiles... It could be standing abandoned with all the glass knocked out of the windows and the roof leaking. It could be standing snug and welcoming because of a preservative spell or a House Elf. It could have been confiscated and sold by the Ministry as part of the punishment for Sirius's alleged crime. It could be what DD referred to in GoF as Lupin's place ("Lie low at Lupin's"), young Sirius having willed it to his penniless friend -- young Sirius would have made a will if one of the requirements to join the Order of the Phoenix was to have a made a will. Angie wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124949 : << But I would assume the Ministry doesn't keep any watch on who purchases brooms and would keep some track of wand purchases. >> Why assume that the Ministry keeps any track of either broom or wand purchases? Richard Jones asked in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124956 : << (1) Owl Post. The owls get from the Ministry and the Burrow to Harry's house in Little Whinging within minutes ? faster than owls can really fly. So how does owl post work exactly? >> I personally like to believe that post owls travel fast and cannot be followed or tracked because they move from our normal space universe to another space, go through the other space, and return to our space at their destination -- like Anne McCaffrey's dragons going "between". Unfortunately, when JKR was asked why the PoA Ministry couldn't find Sirius by sending him an owl post letter and following the owl, she said because Sirius was Unplottable, not because post owls can't be followed. << (2) Why wasn't Ginny affected by the music box that made everyone else sleepy? (OOTP ch. 6, p. 115 US ed.) >> I guess it was something to do with her having been possessed by Diary!Tom. Valky wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124987 : << hmm quick calculation, Tom was born 1927 yes? then Grindelwald was defeated the year after he graduated.... >> It has been incorporated into some versions of the Possession theory. That TMR left school and apprenticed himself to Dark Lord Grindelwald. Then Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald (maybe he did it during school holiday so he didn't have to take time off) and the Entity fled from Grindy's dying corpse to live in TMR. With the side effect that LV fears DD because of having so vividly seen DD defeat Grindy. A_svirn wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/125018 : << Something that makes Harry look similar to Tom Riddle? (A fact Riddle had commented upon, which DD found interesting). >> But Harry looks even more like his father than like TMR, so any theory of why Tom and Harry look alike would have to explain why Tom, Harry, and James look alike. As JKR has firmly stated that LV had no children and Harry is not a descendent of Slytherin, it can't be that LV was James's father. So any other claim that the resemblance is because they're related would have to be so distant a relation as not to be dramatic, e.g. LV's mother's non-Slytherin parent was the sibling of one of James's great-grandparents. Meri wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforG rownups/message/125046 : << IIRC in the Ressurection scene in GoF LV says something to the effect that Wormtail was able to do magic that returned him to/created a temporary, rudimentary body, ie: the scaly baby thing. So maybe Wormtail isn't as inept with a wand as we think. >> One theory is that Wormtail dissected poor Bertha's body to use magic and snake-venom potions to create a Frankenbaby body that Voldemort could possess the way he possessed little animals. In that, Ugly Baby!Voldemort would still be a haunted corpse rather than alive, but at least able to hold a wand. Another theory points that in addition to magic, Vapormort had a male wizard (Peter) and a female witch (*poor* Bertha) available for his use, so the new body might have started in a more natural manner. [It couldn't have stayed natural for long; they must have used a lot of magic to develop from conception to monsterbaby in about a month == figure Peter went looking for LV in mid-June, it must have taken *some* time to find him, and then Harry 'dreamed' of LV back in the Riddle House while still at the Dursleys...] Del wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGr ownups/message/125050 : << And Neville is not so far from that kind of thinking, or he wouldn't introduce himself as "nobody" in OoP. >> "Hi, Harry," he panted. "Hi, Ginny ... everywhere's full ... I can't find a seat ..." "What are you talking about?" said Ginny, who had squeezed past Neville to peer into the compartment behind him. "There's room in this one, there's only Loony Lovegood in here --" Neville mumbled something about not wanting to disturb anyone. "Don't be silly," said Ginny, laughing, "she's all right." [I think Ginny has quite accurately understood that Neville's real objection is that he doesn't want to sit with Loony Luna.] "You're Harry Potter," [Luna] added. "I know I am," said Harry. Neville chuckled. Luna turned her pale eyes on him instead. "And I don't know who you are." "I'm nobody," said Neville hurriedly. [I see him trying to keep his name secret from Loony Luna so she can't call out "Hi, Neville" to him in public so that people tease him about knowing such an unpopular person.] Irene wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/125108 : << So far [Snape] seems to be a good teacher for certain kind of students - those who are interested and capable. But if it turns out that even these students think otherwise, I'll join the mob and declare him bad teacher through and through. >> Hermione is an interested and capable student. Is Snape a good teacher for her? On the one hand, she learned enough that she could make Polyjuice Potion in her second year. On the other hand, he's plenty mean to her. Marissa wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/125276 : << In fact without the 1000 galleons that Harry won and gave them would they have even been able to open a shop? >> Probably, but it would have taken longer. They were able to get ingredients to make stuff like Canary Creams before Harry gave them the money, and they were able to sell their wares quite profitably to their House mates in OoP, which would have provided more money for more ingredients to make more product to sell ... they would have had to start doing their manufacturing at home and selling by owl order, or selling wholesale to the existing retail joke shops. But they seemed pretty businesslike about re-investing their profits, so eventually they would have earned enough to open their own shop. From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 28 06:27:07 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 06:27:07 -0000 Subject: The murder of Tom Riddle Sr.. In-Reply-To: <1e5.36ad9477.2f54096d@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125329 chnc1024 at A... wrote: > How is it that Voldemort was able > to murder his father using an AK, > without the MoM becoming involved?? Because, as has been shown time after time, the MoM is extraordinarily incompetent. > why aren't Ministry officials > dispatched whenever anyone > uses an unforgivable curse? Probably because almost nobody at the MoM is willing to do so. The MoM is perfectly willing to harass nice little boys like Harry Potter but it would take real courage to confront a dark wizard who was powerful enough to use a unforgivable curse and was crazy enough to actually do so; unfortunately courage is a virtue in very short supply in the MoM. I'm not saying everybody at the Mom is a coward, Arthur Tonks and Shacklebolt certainly are not cowards, but they are the exception. Most MoM employees have a disability, they lack a spine. Eggplant From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 28 07:02:02 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 07:02:02 -0000 Subject: Opposite of Gryffindor?. In-Reply-To: <20050227192907.92003.qmail@web31109.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125330 Arynn Octavia wrote: > Hermione seems (to me at least) to be > more intellegent than brave qualities > values most , yet she's in Gryffindor. Hermione is very brave, not quite as brave as Harry (who is?) but she is very brave nevertheless. I agree, she is naturally brilliant but she's not in Ravenclaw because intelligence is not the quality she personally values the most. In the first book when Harry is about to risk his life Hermione hugs him and says: "Harry you're a great wizard, you know." Harry says "I'm not as good as you" and then Hermione responds with incredulity "Me! Books! And cleverness! There are more important things- friendship and bravery and- oh Harry- be careful!" Eggplant From celletiger at yahoo.com Mon Feb 28 07:09:16 2005 From: celletiger at yahoo.com (Marcelle) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 07:09:16 -0000 Subject: Typical Mothers (was: Molly & Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125331 > >>Magda: > >I don't think she does treat Harry like one of her children - she > treats her kids like her kids and she treats Harry like he was some kind of little king. snip > >What you call "fawning" I see as trying to cram 10 years' worth of maternal affection, that she knows Harry didn't have. snip > Betsy: snip But, as Magda pointed out, Harry is not *really* treated like one of her own children. snip celletiger: I do not believe the Weasley children are jealous people. There's too many of them and too much love to go around. You had better do something to specialize yourself in that fam. The way that Molly has been attacked makes me think that I'm the only person who had a mom just like Molly, and I turned out rather successful and pretty well adjusted. When I see today's music and film stars, I am so thankful that I had a mom who instilled in me uncompromising values. Molly has the unique roll of being the mom Harry never knew he needed... and while she is a tad psycho, *honestly folks*, what MOTHER isnt? Or do I just live in the southern US where all mom's are overbearing yet perfect (because they want their children to be perfect...)???? Agreeing that Molly is Conflicted, but what Madre isnt (!), celletiger From kempermentor at yahoo.com Mon Feb 28 07:11:00 2005 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 07:11:00 -0000 Subject: Magical Minority was: Molly sees herself as blood traitor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125332 I can see the argument that Molly was raised by a pure blood family and is loosely related to Mrs. Black. I prefer to see Molly as pro- magical community (as opposed to a pure-bloodist -I realize that Valkry didn't suggest she was). Most minorities throughout history they have been feared, unaccepted and slain for their differences. Many minorities have had to blend in or accept the majority's culture to survive, losing their own in the process. The magical community is a minority in the world. So even though Molly obviously doesn't hate Muggle-born witches or wizards, maybe she fears losing part of her Magical Culture to Muggle influences. How many of us hate that in the third movie, the students were going into Hogsmead wearing the clothes they wore when they walked on the set? Notice that McGonagall was wearing her robes? We, the readers, were a bit disappointed to see the `magic' taken away. It was Muggle influence on our Magical world. A few people would say that having the students wearing Muggle clothes would make it easier for the young Muggles watching the movie to identify with the Magical students. Some might say the `magic' was diluted. Others would say Magical world was gentrified. There is nothing wrong with Molly wanting to hold onto her culture, nor for wanting her children reared holding (the healthy) values of Magical culture. Molly (the reader) wants Alfonso Curon, a Muggle brought to Molly's (the reader's) world, to value her (the reader's) culture (customs presented in the books). It didn't quite happen. And Molly (the reader) is sad that she is losing some of her cultural values to Muggle influence. Apologies for using the taboo of a movie reference to illustrate a point. Kemper From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Feb 28 07:41:55 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 07:41:55 -0000 Subject: The murder of Tom Riddle Sr.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125333 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > > chnc1024 at A... wrote: > > > How is it that Voldemort was able > > to murder his father using an AK, > > without the MoM becoming involved?? > > Because, as has been shown time after time, the MoM is extraordinarily > incompetent. > > > why aren't Ministry officials > > dispatched whenever anyone > > uses an unforgivable curse? Eggplant: > Probably because almost nobody at the MoM is willing to do so. The MoM > is perfectly willing to harass nice little boys like Harry Potter but > it would take real courage to confront a dark wizard who was powerful > enough to use a unforgivable curse and was crazy enough to actually do > so; unfortunately courage is a virtue in very short supply in the MoM. > I'm not saying everybody at the Mom is a coward, Arthur Tonks and > Shacklebolt certainly are not cowards, but they are the exception. > Most MoM employees have a disability, they lack a spine. Geoff: I wonder whether Tom Riddle would have been marked as a dark wizard at this point in time? This must have been a cople of years after the Chamber of Secrets incident and even Dumbledore may not have been totally aware of what was going on; in COS, Tom admits to Harry that Dumbledore had kept a very close eye on him but he may only have had suspicions. In the case of Harry, I get the impression that a close - but long distance - watch had been kept on Harry presumably for his own safety, hence unusual spell activity would have been detected. Does the Ministry detect every spell which is used? It seems that Fred and George got up to tricks when they were underage and Hermione uses some magic in the first year- Alohamora and Petrificus Totalis come to mind. From drednort at alphalink.com.au Mon Feb 28 07:50:57 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:50:57 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fred and George - Prefects? In-Reply-To: References: <42222007.3382.7ACCBB@localhost> Message-ID: <42236811.5533.1B19FA@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 125334 On 27 Feb 2005 at 21:22, a_svirn wrote: > a_svirn: > Funny, that you didn't quote the only episode that really gives SOME > credence to your hypothesis about F& G being prefects and about > Hogwarts' prefects wielding power over Hogwarts' ghosts. I mean the > way Peeves seemed to take F & G's parting words to his heart. But > then again, when it comes to wrecking havoc he WOULD be only too > happy to oblige. Now, if we had any evidence that they could > restrain him from doing so Um, I did quote this incident. Four days ago in the very first post in this thread. It was, in fact, the very first thing I cited: "Percy implies here that Peeves *should* listen to prefects. They should have authority over him. Now, this could just be Percy pompousity. But if it is true, the following from Order of the Phoenix is interesting: "And Peeves, who Harry had never seen take an order from a student before, swept his belled hat from his head and sprang to a salute as Fred and George wheeled about to tumultuous applause from the students below and sped out of the open front doors into the glorious sunset." (OotP, p.595)." I realise that the volume of posts on the group can make it easy for particular posts to be missed - but if you haven't seen that post, then you haven't seen everything I have said, and you haven't seen the whole theory presented/ > As for the episodes you do quote Well, the Gringott's is neither > here nor there, and as for Snape ? not only he is NOT a prefect, but > a Professor AND a Head of the House, but in the scene you quote when > he does invoke his authority he only gets insulted for his pains. By > the way it's not the first time he calls himself a Master. He did it > in CoS when Lockhart bragged that brewing a restorative potion with > Mandrakes would be a piece of cake for him, Snape reminded him that > he was the "Potion Master in this School". You're correct that it isn't the first time he calls himself a Master - I had missed that previous quote. But having said that you are missing my point. No, Snape is *not* a prefect - he is however someone with a set formal position of authority in the school. And yes, he is insulted for his pains - but until he invoked his authority he got no response at all. As for Gringotts, being neither here nor there, I disagree. It seems to me perfectly plausible to assume that security that exists at one location in the Wizarding world may exist at a similar form at another location/ > a_svirn: > Yeath, they and some 25 students besides. None of whom were > appointed but invited by Hermione. A project that ultimately did > cost DD his job by the way. Yes, there are other students in the DA - but very few of them seem to be seventh years. Fred and George are very probably among the eldest of the members - and also quite probably among the most skilled. Regardles of that though, their membership of the DA and their friendship with Harry puts them in the best position possible to protect those students in the school who are probably most in danger. If that's part of a duty imposed on them, it would seem to me that they may be doing it in the best way they have. > a_svirn: > > Do you really think that this is a kind of leadership DD expects his > prefects to promote? Under normal circumstances, no. When active resistance is required against an influence of evil within the school, then, yes, I wouldn't be at all surprised. Rules and order are important to Dumbledore - but he's quite prepared to bend or break them when the cause is just. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From miamibarb at BellSouth.net Mon Feb 28 12:04:16 2005 From: miamibarb at BellSouth.net (Barb Roberts) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 07:04:16 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Typical Mothers (was: Molly & Harry) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125335 Marcelle wrote: > > The way that Molly has been attacked makes me think that I'm the > only person who had a mom just like Molly, ... and while she is a tad > psycho, > *honestly folks*, what MOTHER isnt?? Or do I just live in the > southern US where all mom's are overbearing yet perfect (because > they want their children to be perfect...)???? > > Agreeing that Molly is Conflicted, but what Madre isnt (!), > celletiger You are not alone. The new book needs to arrive soon. The list has been picking on all the good guys for the last few months--Hagrid, Lupin, McGonagall (a failed attempt, I believe) and Dumbledore. With Dumbledore? I was shocked. He has his faults, but he is the still the best (the "goodest" of the good.) And now Molly is attached. She is a quintessential mother. She's a little too paranoid perhaps, and worries far too much. And while these traits are a source of unhappiness, they may save the Weasley's from getting into certain dangerous situations. What I don't t find its that she is particularly overly protective. Overly protective? You should have seen my mother and grandmother. They would have viewed Molly as not having protected her children enough. (I also come from the southern US.) And let's face it; the wizard world is dangerous and treacherous. It seems to be in the middle of something akin to the War of the Roses. And these kids are still young and see things in a black and white manner. Easy prey, I would think, to all sorts of wizarding trickery, even if they were very talented. Actually one has to feel some compassion for any mother who has twins. With twins as bright and spirited as F & G, it is almost a form of parent-abuse. I can almost hear the other wizard mothers talking about Molly with the twins were young..."Poor Molly"..."twin BOYS" ... "red hair... "She's really going to have a time of it..."poor Molly" Barbara Roberts, who purchased a rose last year because of the name "Fair Molly" Miami, FL [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Feb 28 13:21:51 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:21:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Snape's Teaching Career - Dumbledore's idea of adult detention? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050228132151.7299.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125336 --- "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > Snape has been teaching at Hogwarts for what, ten years, when PS/SS > begins. He must have had plenty of experience with idiot purebloods > and clever Muggleborns (and clever purebloods and idiot > Muggleborns) in that time. My personal theory about Snape's Hogwarts career is that he is in "deep cover" as a potions master because it gives him the excuse to mess around with potions trying to find one that will destroy the anti-death experiments Voldemort was messing around with back in the pre-GH days (so that Voldemort will be vulnerable to mortal death again without taking Harry with him) and it also gives him access to DE's through their kids. I don't have a great worked out plan concerning this, but it's my underlying assumption regarding Snape. I just had a rather whimsical thought concerning another reason Snape is at Hogwarts: it's Dumbledore's idea of an adult-appropriate detention for Snape's foolishness in believing in pureblood superiority when he was younger. As Catlady points out, it would indeed be impossible not to have his perceptions altered by such an experience. Non-whimsically, I don't believe that Snape harbours any blood obsessive views any more and probably hadn't for some time when he ratted out on Voldemort. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Feb 28 13:28:23 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:28:23 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Posting Limits Experiment Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125337 Greetings from Hexquarters! We're writing on behalf of the List Administration Team to invite you to participate in an experiment. In anticipation of the higher posting volume which will undoubtedly attend the release of HBP, we are considering a limit of three posts per poster per day. Although many active posters post more than this occasionally, there are only a few who do so on average, so most of you won't have to change your posting style. March 1 to March 21, we will be asking all posters to limit themselves voluntarily to three posts a day. Note that this doesn't mean responding to only three posts; you're welcome to combine responses on the same thread. During the trial period this will be strictly voluntary -- we'll monitor compliance but there won't be any howlers. When it's over we'll review the results, probably with a survey of the frequent posters and a poll for the list in general, and decide whether to make this a rule -- or perhaps a guideline. We hope you'll agree that it would be worthwhile to encourage wider participation in popular threads (in January the top four posters accounted for a whopping 20% of the posts) as well as a calmer, more thoughtful atmosphere. We welcome your response. If you'd like to comment on this email, please post to the Feedback list http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback or contact the List Elves at the owner address -- please don't post comments to the main list -- that's for book discussion only! Thanks for reading! Ali and Pippin for the List Administration Team From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Mon Feb 28 15:54:06 2005 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:54:06 -0000 Subject: Where does it say that Molly is a pureblood fanatic??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125338 Betsy: But I still think that there is some latent distrust of anything not wizard in Molly, and at times of worry or stress it comes to the forefront. So she's not Death Eater, and won't become ESE, but she *is* old fashioned in her views - more so than Arthur. Casey: I think Molly is like most Wizards, she never really thought about Muggles because they aren't part of her normal day-to-day life. Once she married Arthur she would hear about the odd things Muggles did but, outside of Hogwarts, she probably never had contact with them. Yes she met the Grangers, but she doesn't really know them. Hermione did stay at the Burrow, but how much do you really know about a girl after only seeing her (IIRC) a few weeks during the summer. I doubt Molly gets long letters saying how great Hermione is from Ron. I also believe that, like many Wizards, she has a larger than life view of Harry. He is a young man that lost his parents while saving the Wizarding world. He kicks every motherly instinct she has into high gear. Also, since she isn't his parent, she hasn't had to put up with his back-talk and attitude like a real parent would have, thus dulling some of that hero polish off. As a result it's very easy to believe the gossip read in the papers. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Feb 28 16:07:52 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:07:52 -0000 Subject: Snape's Teaching Career - Dumbledore's idea of adult detention? In-Reply-To: <20050228132151.7299.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125339 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > I just had a rather whimsical thought concerning another reason Snape is at Hogwarts: it's Dumbledore's idea of an adult-appropriate detention for Snape's foolishness in believing in pureblood superiority when he was younger. As Catlady points out, it would indeed be impossible not to have his perceptions altered by such an experience. > Tonks here: Love the idea. Poor Snape. This is his punishment for his deeds as a DE. He has to teach children! It certainly isn't his cup of tea is it? Wonder how long his term in hell is? lol And on a more serious note. This *punishment* would help him see the effect of his DE past on the orphans that are left behind. Might be one of the other reasons that Snape is not pleased to have Harry and Neville in his class. Neville is not an orphan as such, but almost the same. Snape would be faced everyday with the consequences of his past mistakes. And he doesn't get the DADA job because he would enjoy that class. This thought puts a whole new light on Snape doesn't it? Tonks_op From magsthomas at yahoo.com Mon Feb 28 16:48:33 2005 From: magsthomas at yahoo.com (magsthomas) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:48:33 -0000 Subject: Typical Mothers (was: Molly & Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125340 I really don't get the "Molly-bashing" that happens... Come to think of it, I don't get the Sirius-, Snape-, Dumbledore-, Harry-, Hermione-, Ron-... you get the picture! Why? Because these characters have FLAWED personalities. It's precisely what draws us to them. They're multi-faceted -- not all facets are shiny and perfect, which means they have room to stumble and mess up, room to grow, room to be shackled by their flaws, room for the potential to overcome those faults and let their strengths win out. Would we even have this sort of discussion board about the HP series if JKR had made her characters come across as flat and one- dimensional? If Harry (or all of the other kids, for that matter) was shiny and perfect and a goody-two-shoes? These stories wouldn't have near the amount of depth or richness -- we wouldn't be cheering characters on, becoming excited by unexpected twists, etc. Even Voldemort is FLAWED, for goodness sake. The whole Tom Riddle back story makes you wonder more about the course of events that brought him to this point -- and makes you realize there are chinks in his armor that Harry will locate eventually! Back to Molly Weasley, however. Look at the other mothers we have to choose from in the series: Narcissa Malfoy: Haven't met her yet (other than in the Quidditch Cup viewers' box) and I already don't like her ;) As in, if we see more of her, she's going to be a snooty Pure-blood and at least as warped / exacting a parent as Lucius. Let's put it this way -- I don't give Lucius ALL the credit for making Draco as much of a brat as he is. Mother Black (Sirius' Mum): Don't believe I need to elaborate here. Mother Riddle (Tom's Mum): Got involved with a guy who plainly didn't have a very modern view about spouses or parenting -- look where it got him in the end! Though we don't know much about her disposition, her adoring son took offense at how she'd been made to suffer and now look where we are... Petunia Dursley: Gives into Dudley's every whim; flatly ignores (or is utterly clueless to) her son's extra-curricular activities (beating up other kids); doesn't treat her nephew, a blood relative, at all well (and what example does that set for either boy, I ask you?). Seems to be more keen on keeping up with the Joneses and catering to her husband's business prospects than developing her own spine as a woman, spouse, or mother. But JKR has hinted to us there's more to her -- I'll reserve judgment as to whether Petunia may have some degree of turn-around. Lily Potter: More to her than meets the eyes (ba-dump-bump!). Most everyone who knew her has something glowing to say about her -- not only about her, but on the positive effect she had on James. Came to Snape's defense in school. Leapt into action to defend her infant son from the Killing Curse -- sadly, didn't survive. Voldemort even told her to get out of the way -- I doubt he does that very ofen (ok, poor sense of humor on my part...). We don't know much else about her as a mother, if only because she didn't have much of a chance... Alice Longbottom: Worked high-profile, high-risk job for the MoM as an auror during the most dangerous historical period in the wizarding world to date. Was tortured mercilessly and rendered a (likely) permanent patient at St. Mungo's. Despite not being altogether with it, gives her only son bubble gum wrappers (which I interpret as some manner of message, of love, of perhaps some additional significance). Grandmother Longbottom: Thought the world of son, Frank; likely devastated by what happened to him at the hands of LV and his Death Eaters. Strikes me as being of old-school, stiff-upper-lip, all-for- the-cause mentality -- but with a modicum of tenderness at her core (which she doesn't let show very often). Very stern with Neville, no toes out of line, etc. Neville's intimidated by his Grandmother - - and, while it's clear she loves him, he isn't even close to being overdrawn on the bank of outward parental affection. Dr. Granger: A dentist who believes in clean living and healthy eating. Seems to have a healthy, positive relationship with her teenage daughter -- at least from what little we know, as she's primarily been off-stage. Doesn't approve of magically modifying one's appearance (at least not at Hermione's tender age) :D I may have missed a few, but I think I've hit the primary suspects. So now I turn to Molly... Molly Weasley: Managing household of 6 boys and one girl -- make that 7 boys, if you count husband, Arthur :D She and her spouse seem to share parenting responsibilities, although Arthur succumbs to indulging his own inventor's spirit where some of his children's exploits are concerned. While she can summon magic to her aid, she cooks, cleans, makes sure the kids have whatever clothing / supplies, etc. they need, and on down the line -- anyone who is a Mom has a sense of what "on down the line" entails. Molly was among the crowd who tried to rid the WW of LV (though we don't know much about her involvement) during his previous reign of terror. Now that LV has reared his nasty head again, Molly has firsthand insight into how dangerous he really is -- provides some degree of justification for the concern / protectiveness she demonstrates toward her brood, especially the underage ones. Molly not only invites Harry into her home, but takes him under her wing as if he was her own child. She knows Harry's grown up without his parents, she's indignant at what Harry's experienced at the Dursleys, and is concerned for his safety / health / well-being. She shows up for moral / family support when Harry's in the Tri- Wizard Tournament. She includes him in the family Christmas giving - - and it's not like the Weasleys have a lot to spend on gifts, other than an abundance of love and the choice to devote their time / talents. Over-protective? I'll grant you that, but look at all the scrapes Harry manages to get into -- it doesn't hurt that he has someone like Molly in his life, if only to know that sort of parental concern exists AND that it exists for him. Do I think Molly's perfect? As a human being, as a character in these books? No, but that's part of her charm. As a mother? If you haven't figured it out by now, whether about your own parents or by becoming one yourself, parenting isn't the easiest job in the world and there's no handbook. Molly's doing an admirable job with what she has, in spite of being under a lot of stress -- some of it self-inflicted, but some of it VERY real in light of the threat LV poses. And, in comparison to most of that list I made above, she's definitely the favored contender to win an award for "Best Mom." - Mags From ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 28 19:53:31 2005 From: ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com (ohneill_2001) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:53:31 -0000 Subject: Juicy Tidbits about HBP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125341 lorelei wrote: > "A MuggleNet reader who is the librarian at her daughter's school > today received a copy of the 'Publishers Quality Library Service' > catalog. She said there is an ad in it for pre-ordering copies of > Book 6 that says: 'With something huge revealed about Lily Potter, > the truth about why Dumbledore trusts Snape, and a little romance for > Harry, this promises to be one of his best years at Hogwarts yet.' " > Now Cory: This is just a thought, but what if by "one of his best years at Hogwarts yet," they don't mean that it's going to be a good year for Harry, but that the *book* is going to be one of the best yet? The plain language of what was said favors your interpretation, but there are a couple of factors that make me think mine is actually what the writer of the catalogue meant. First is the context -- it's an ad promoting the book, and whoever wrote it has an interest in telling us that the book is going to be the best yet (and not necessarily in giving us information about whether Harry is going to have a good year or not). Second, HBP is the second to last book in the series, and from a literary standpoint, it would be unusual for its ending to be overly positive -- typically the final book in any series has to begin with the hero at his darkest hour. Anyway -- it's difficult to say what the writer meant, but I wouldn't read too much into this ad as an indicator that Harry is going to have an extremely happy year. --Cory From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Mon Feb 28 20:05:34 2005 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:05:34 -0000 Subject: Juicy Tidbits about HBP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125342 > lorelei wrote: > > > "A MuggleNet reader who is the librarian at her daughter's school > > today received a copy of the 'Publishers Quality Library Service' > > catalog. She said there is an ad in it for pre-ordering copies of > > Book 6 that says: 'With something huge revealed about Lily Potter, > > the truth about why Dumbledore trusts Snape, and a little romance > for > > Harry, this promises to be one of his best years at Hogwarts yet.' " > > > > Now Cory: > > This is just a thought, but what if by "one of his best years at > Hogwarts yet," they don't mean that it's going to be a good year for > Harry, but that the *book* is going to be one of the best yet? Casey: I'm with Cory, I think they meant that this will be the best year yet as far as the stories go. Not for Harry because then it wouldn't be nearly as exciting. Poor boy has to suffer at least until the last book. I *am* excited about the info on Lily and Snape. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Feb 28 20:17:48 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:17:48 -0000 Subject: The murder of Tom Riddle Sr. In-Reply-To: <1e5.36ad9477.2f54096d@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125343 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, chnc1024 at A... wrote: > I was thinking. How is it that Voldemort was able to murder his > father using an AK, without the MoM becoming involved?? When Harry > was blamed for Dobby's hovering spell, ... almost immediately owls > were on their way. ...edited.. > bboyminn: For a quick overview of how I see Ministry Monitoring of Magical Occurances, see ... From: "Steve" Date: Mon Feb 21, 2005 1:23 pm Subject: Re: Whither the Wand -Sirius & More http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124942 ...scroll down to my reponse to question #4. I think we need to remember that Harry is being monitored very very closely. His level of monitoring does not reflect the level of monitoring of the wizard world in general, and the highest priority of general monitoring would be for magic in the vicinity of muggles. Underage or unauthorized magic in magical or secure spaces like the Burrow would be a somewhat minor crime compared to magic in areas where it was likely to be detected by muggles. > Chancie continues: > > ...yes I know it would be hard to monitor EVERY wizard and witch in > the WW, but why not at least monitor the suspected DE's. > ...edited... > bboyminn: The answer here is because those who were at one time suspected of being DE's have now all been cleared of charges and responsibility. In fact, people like Lucius Malfoy have actually painted themselves as victims of Voldemort rather than as supporters. Since the remaining DE's have been cleared of charges there is no logical reason for the Ministry to monitor them. On a more general scale, we must remember that there are many thousands of wizards; conservative estimates are usually around 50,000 in the UK. That's far too many people to monitor in detail. In addition, as I have already implied, the Ministry's primary reason for existing is to keep awareness of the Magical world from muggles, so that is there primary area of monitoring. Individual wizards are engaged in magic all the time and all over the countryside, that's far too much magical activity to try and sort out every detail of every event. > Chancie continues: > > Oh and just one more thing, I say "underage wizard" referring to > Voldemort, because the murder was said to be 50 years ago. We know > Tom Riddle was in school then because of the fact that "50 years > ago", was when the Chamber of Secrets was opened and he was > obviously still in school. ...edited... > > Chancie bboyminn: I have always thought the books implied that Tom Riddle at the time of his parents murder was about 16 years old. I suspected their murder was in the summer between Tom's 5th and 6th year, and the release of the Basilisk was during his 6th years. When Tom asked Headmaster Dippet if he could stay at Hogwarts over the summer holiday, that implied Tom would be back for the next school year. I'm assuming that /next school year/ would have been his 7th. During his 6th year he could have turned 17, but that seems like about the earliest it could happen. Again, that's not all fact, that's my impression of the timeline. Having said that, it's entirely possible that the Minitry did send someone to investigate the magical event in muggle space in Little Hangleton. But their concern is not to investigate the death of muggles, but to determine if, do to these events, the muggles have become aware of the magical world. Since the muggles seem to have resolved the events as best they could and closed the case, the Ministy's primary concern would be taken care of. Not to say that they wouldn't be concerned about muggles being magically murdered, and I'm sure they investigated. But the person who commited the magical murders was never seen beyond Frank Brice claiming to have seen a mysterious teenage boy, and the village would have reasonably had its own fair share of muggle teenage boys. So, they had little or no clues to go on, so they closed the case just as the muggles did. They muggles regarded it as a mysterious death, and the Ministry filed it away as an unsolved murder. Just a guess. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Feb 28 21:43:23 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:43:23 -0000 Subject: ctl-F for YOUR name or topic - Post Owls In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125344 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > > > Richard Jones asked in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124956 : > > << (1) Owl Post. The owls get from the Ministry and the Burrow to > Harry's house in Little Whinging within minutes ? faster than owls > can really fly. So how does owl post work exactly? >> > CatLady replies to Richard: > > I personally like to believe that post owls travel fast and cannot > be followed or tracked because they move from our normal space > universe to another space, go through the other space, and return to > our space at their destination -- like Anne McCaffrey's dragons > going "between". > > Unfortunately, when JKR was asked why the PoA Ministry couldn't find > Sirius by sending him an owl post letter and following the owl, she > said because Sirius was Unplottable, not because post owls can't be > followed. > > ...edited... > > Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) bboyminn: I've always speculated that Post Owls are enchanted owls. That is, they are not normal owls or owls to which wizards have applied magic, but owls that are naturally born with magical ability just as wizard and witches are enchanted magical beings. Much like House-elves, Owls have their own brand of natural magic that allows them to travel magically fast, over vast distances, and they have a natural gift for finding the recipient of the letters they are asked to deliver. It's also clear that they have intelligence and wisdom far beyond ordinary owls. We see this same magical /crossover/ in other aspects of the natural world. For example, the magical rats in the pet shop where Hermione bought Crookshanks. These rats were exhibiting behavior and intelligence that was far beyond even the smartest ordinary rats; jumping rope with their tails, the way they cued up to the edge of the cage to watch Scabbers, the way they sensed the shop-witch was trying to sell them and they resumed their show-off tail jumping. Clearly enchanted rats. But again, I believe this indicates that these rats are naturally born enchanted, not enhanted by the spells and charms of wizards. Another example, Grubbly-Plank points out that Bowtruckles (tree guardians) are most often found in trees whose wood is suitable for wand making. I believe these are trees that are natually enchanted magical trees. That's why their wood is so effective in wand making. I believe some element of this natural magical essense can manifest itself in all species of animals and plants, although, some animals and plants are far more susceptible to natural enchantement than others. On the other hand, this belief of mine doesn't elimintate or exclude the possiblity of wizards applying charms and spells to ordinary animals to create magically unique animals. I would suspect those manually enchanted animals would be for very specific purposes, and that possibility and their existance doesn't in anyway reduce my belief in natural-born non-mythical enchanted animals and plants. More examples; there are certain plants that are associated with magic through mythology, mandrake and ginsing are a couple examples (both man-root plants). I suspect, that the plants and herbs used in potions are selected from enchanted plants. Various regular animals are frequently associated with magic; ravens, crows, cats, snakes, etc.... As far as JKR's comment regarding /tracking/ post owls, I believe it can be done, but I don't believe it is an easy task, and it would be exceptionally difficult to track a personal owl like Hedwig. Hedwig has a very natural loyalty and allegiance to Harry, she would not allow herself to be tracked. She would view it as a betrayal of Harry. On the otherhand, a general owl, like a post office owl, would probably be easier to track, but would have more difficulty finding the /addressee/. Hedwig is an extremely intelligent and talented Post Owl in my opinion, and I would trust Hedwig to deliver a difficult letter far more than I would trust a general post owl. So, the combination of Hedwig's intelligence, loyalty to Harry, and exceptional talent as a post owl would make her far more difficult to track. So again, I think tracking a post owl is possible, but it is not easy, and a good post owl would actually be smart enough to actively evade tracking. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Mon Feb 28 22:05:05 2005 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:05:05 -0000 Subject: Why did Draco do it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125345 > a_svirn: > > Way I see it ? everybody knows that the Malfoys are among the most > ancient and noble wizarding families, veritable pillars of the > society, well-known for their donations for the most worthy causes, > friends to the Minister himself etc. Of course there are still some > envious evil-wishers out there who won't let bygones be bygones, and > who would stoop so low pursuing their own political agenda, as to > try to use the gossip circulated in the days of old DE trials to > besmirch Mr. M's reputation. As if they didn't know that all charges > against him were dropped and he was as much of a victim of You- Know- > Who as your next wizard. > Julia again: I quite agree with your statement about the Malfoy family - how they are seen in the wizarding community. But still I think they are evil for most of the wizards. Nobody would be particulary shocked that they aren't close to Potter - of course it might help them creating their image but it wasn't like the most essential thing they had to do. And Snape hates Harry and treats him badly from the very begining - and he is a teacher and nobody says a word! There are no articles in he newspapers: "Potter abused in school". This fact intrests me the most. Snape shows him negative feelings towards Harry openly and isn't bothered by it while Malfoy tries to actually make friends with Harry! It should be Snape if any who havee to pretend he likes Harry... The Malfoys didn't have to do it unless there were no other option, and theu had to do it!!! > a_svirn: > I think he (or rather Lucius) did want Harry on his side. At that > time Harry was an unknown quality, and Malfoy probably figured it > was "prudent" to be in his good graces. And if Draco hadn't botched > it from the start it could even have worked, at least to some > degree. If Harry hadn't been informed that all Slytherins are no > good, he could easily have ended up among them. Julia: Now i think if it wasn't one of the famous 'the life is about choices' scene... Harry chose Ron not Draco. Now we can only speculate that if he had chosen Draco would he had been sorted into Slytherin? Would he have become evil or his good nature would have won? Heh... that's something to think about... Julia From dorothywillis at charter.net Mon Feb 28 02:22:59 2005 From: dorothywillis at charter.net (magister96003) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 02:22:59 -0000 Subject: Molly, Motherhood, and Myopia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125346 Lupinlore: (snip) >Mothers are concerned first and foremost with the nurturance and >protection of the INDIVIDUALS under their care. They don't >see "children." They see Ron and Ginny >and Harry and so forth. >They don't see "great social forces." They see the problems Arthur >has at work and the pain Harry is in because someone may have broken >his >heart. (snip) I think you are right on target in your remarks, and I would like to add something. By the beginning of Order of the Phoenix Molly is terrified and almost hysterical. She is, as you point out, extremely protective of her children. This time her children are in real danger and there is not a thing she can do to protect them. She was probably only too happy to accept that Voldemort was gone for good so many years ago. Now her two eldest sons and her husband are actively involved in fighting the returned Voldemort, and the rest of the family ? except for Percy, who is a separate heartbreak -- is ready to join them. (Fred and George will certainly be joining as soon as they can convince the Order they are trustworthy.) So Molly does what she can. She does not have fighting skills, but she joins the Order and takes her turn in the various patrols, etc. She does what she can. She takes on herself the duty of providing a place where the members of the Order can come and be fed and rest and otherwise prepare to return to the fight. I read somewhere it takes twelve people in support positions in the modern military to put one person in the field. Molly is alone except for what assistance she can get from the kids and poor old Sirius. People who clean the bathrooms and make the coffee make a great contribution to a war effort, but they seldom get any of the credit and certainly almost none of the glory. Molly is making a valiant effort to keep everyone's lives as normal as possible and hide from everyone how frightened she is for them. I find the boggart scene particularly touching. "'I see them d-d-dead all the time!' Mrs. Weasley moaned into his shoulder. `All the t-t- time! I d-d-dream about it. . . .'" Then, "'D-d-don't tell Arthur,' . . . `I d-d-don't want him to know. . . . Being silly. . . .'" Molly is not perfect, but she is no monster and I like her. Dorothy From sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk Mon Feb 28 09:29:23 2005 From: sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk (sandra87b) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 09:29:23 -0000 Subject: Double standards for male and femalle characters? Was: Re: Mother Molly In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125347 > Phoenixgod: > > But hey, they're women so it must be alright. > Alla: > Not for me, definitely not. :) > Just my opinion of course, And on this subject, what about the torturing scenes where Harry has to write lines that are carved into the back of his hand? I hated that so much - it's such a twisted idea in the first place (shame on JKR), but if say Snape had given that as a punishment to Hermione and was 'overseeing' her for the duration, I believe Childline would use it to trigger a new campaign! However, the 'lady' responsible was merely exercising her authority. I refer to both writer and character, and feel rather angry about it. There's plot-development and there's character-development, and that was just a bad idea done for the sake of a cheap'n'easy answer to both. Sandra (still miffed and sickened, but nowhere near as much as one of my frend's daughters who refused to finish the book.) From snipsnapsnurr at yahoo.com Mon Feb 28 10:23:22 2005 From: snipsnapsnurr at yahoo.com (snipsnapsnurr) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:23:22 -0000 Subject: vampire snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125348 I see we are still speculating about Snape's status as a possible vampire. The latest technique seems to have something to do with the idea that there is no clear definition of who is or is not a vampire in the Potterverse. Guess what? As I recall there is not only no clear definition, there is no mention of vampires at all in any of the books. That said, let me explain what I think vampires are in the Potterverse. Muggles have legends about many things in the Potterverse. We have a vague awareness of things like giants, mermaids, centaurs, phoenixes (phoenices?), elves, werewolves, shapeshifters, etc.-- even witches and wizards themselves. Our muggle legends about these wizard realities are garbled and wildly inaccurate. The muggle vampire legends are simply another example of this. The character who conforms most closely to muggle vampire legend so far is the headmaster of Durmstrang. He is not identified as a vampire though. He is a death eater. I believe that muggle vampire legends are just garbled accounts of what would be called death eaters in the Potterverse. So to my mind, calling Snape a vampire is the same as calling him a death eater, which he isn't. At least not any more. He may still be a potentially dangerous person the same way that Lupin is though. . . From kkersey at swbell.net Mon Feb 28 22:15:26 2005 From: kkersey at swbell.net (Karen Cleary) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:15:26 -0600 Subject: Petunia's birthday - February 29? Message-ID: <422397FE.2090907@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 125349 First, a little background music: http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/pirates/html/p19.html This is going out on a limb, I know: I think Petunia's birthday is February 29th, and that she'll be receiving a Hogwart's letter when she reaches her eleventh birthday - which will occur when she is 44 years old. In the FAQ section of her web site JKR states (emphasis added): "Everyone who shows magical ability before their *eleventh birthday* will automatically gain a place at Hogwarts." Of course, anyone born on leap day - February 29 - only has a birthday every four years, so it takes awhile for those eleven birthdays to roll by. JKR has said that some character will discover magic late in life - not that I'm all that keen on considering one's mid-forties to qualify as "late in life", myself. :-| Petunia's the obvious candidate for the leap day birthday; we know something is unusual in her relations with the magical world and that she is "not a witch, but..." She is conceivably the right age. As for whether or not she's aware of her status as a potential candidate for Hogwarts, I'm not sure. She may be desparately repressing any sign of magical ability in an attempt to avoid receiving the letter, but she has right of refusal to the invitation, so although it certainly appears that Dumbledore is holding something over her head, I'm not so sure it has anything to do with attending Hogwarts. OK, so the canon's a bit thin, but it's got good filk potential, so there. :-P Karen, who is happily rediscovering this list after being swept away in the post-OotP torrent From Jen at alveymedia.com Mon Feb 28 17:50:21 2005 From: Jen at alveymedia.com (Jennifer Nielsen) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:50:21 -0700 Subject: Harry and GOF challenges Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125350 Sorry if this has been discussed before. I had a thought earlier which I?m mulling around. One of the constant themes of the HP stories is that Harry, for whatever reason, has a unique or unusual experience with an animal/object/person that he later uses to his advantage when faced with a bigger problem. Without that earlier experience, he?d have been outgunned even more than usual. For example, in PS/SS, as a punishment, Harry is taken to the forest (always seemed like a particularly harsh punishment to me, considering DD?s warning at the beginning of term, but oh well). If he hadn?t have been there, he wouldn?t have met Firenze, and created a relationship that paid off for him in OOTP. In POA, Hagrid chooses Harry to ride Buckbeak, an experience none of the other students get. He later uses that to save Sirius. And so on... So I was thinking about the GOF challenges. I think there?s a good possibility his experience with the dragons or the mermaids is going to become useful to him in the remaining two books. I wonder if Harry will use either the skills of battling dragons and merpeople or use the dragons and merpeople themselves to save the WW. Any thoughts? Jen [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 28 22:55:40 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:55:40 -0000 Subject: Weasley Types (was Molly and Arthur ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125351 >>Lupinlore: >It seems to me that Arthur and Molly have basically worked out an arrangement suitable to their different personalities (and that, after all, is the foundation of any stable relationship).< >>Betsy: >But, though I'm not sure we're going to see a massive Weasley family explosion in the next few books, there is definitely some problems in the Weasley household.< >>Lupinlore: >Problems, yes, but I think they are being exaggerated. Arthur does allow Molly to run the house. Why not? She's good at it and likes to do it. It's a classic INFP approach. But we have little evidence that the kids don't respect Arthur, which would be the case if he were not an important presence and influence.< Betsy: I really liked this post, Lupinlore. It explained a great deal about how the Weasley household works. I've taken a bit to respond, because you gave me some food for thought, and I wanted to think through my views. For the most part, I agree with your assesments, BUT (which you just knew was coming ) I have some disagreements. For one, I'm not sure that Arthur is all that respected by his children. *Harry* definitely respects Arthur, and the Weasley children definitely *love* Arthur. But with the children there's also this sense that their father is rather silly, with his Muggle obsessions, and they don't seem to take Arthur, himself, seriously. (I'm talking about the younger set here - I get the sense that Bill respects his Dad, and I'm guessing Charlie does also.) In GoF, after the ton-tongue toffee incident, Arthur is furious, genuinely outraged, and he tries to get his disapproval and anger across to the twins, and they... ignore him. They interrupt, they laugh, they talk back. And then in swoops Molly to take over (rather bossily) from Arthur, and the whole incident changes from, it's wrong to pick on Muggles (which was Arthur's point) to the twins shouldn't be working on their joke shop stuff (which was Molly's). GoF (scholastic hardback pp. 52-55) Molly treats Arthur like he's one of her children, so the children treat him the same way. It is no surprise that Percy has no respect for what Arthur does at the Ministry nor for what Arthur is trying to accomplish there. After all, Arthur's views get no respect at home, why should Percy respect him at the office? And it all culminates in Percy walking out. The Weasleys' are shocked. The readers shouldn't be. I also have issue with Molly being "good at" running the household. She is in the "everyone is clean and fed" department, but her children are lacking. Fred and George are bullies. Full stop. I like them, because they're funny and they're on Harry's side, but I'm a little uncomfortable with liking them. They are intensely cruel to those they don't like, to a level beyond anything Draco or even Dudley (the books' other bullies) achieve. And their treatment of Percy gets worse and worse as the books go on. I think many of Ron's issues arise from his treatment at home (we know his spider phobia was a lovely gift from the twins). He hates the color maroon. It's one of the first things we learn about him, and yet everything Molly gets for Ron is maroon. In fact, when we're first introduced to Ron, he's clutching sandwiches his mother made for him, and they're the kind he hates. Ron's own sense of being second-best is something he was taught at home, and throughout the books I've only seen it reinforced by his mother. (Until, of course, he becomes Prefect, which fits into Molly's definition of a "good son".) And then there's Ginny. Her personality only emerged in OotP, so she's a bit harder to judge, but one thing we learn rather quickly is that she's an accomplished liar, a very good sneak, and very good with hexes. And we learn that she aquired these skills because she felt she needed them to survive the Weasley household. Now, granted, these are rather small problems in the grand scheme of things. None of the kids look like they're on the verge of becoming drug addicts or criminals, but there's still something not quite right about the Weasley household. I know for a while there was a huge suspicion that there was a dead Weasley child somewhere (I think that suspicion was firmly squashed by JKR). Part of the suspicion was based on the gap between Charlie and Percy, and the fact that Percy doesn't have a sibling equivilent. But I think another part of the suspicion was based on a certain black cloud hanging over the Burrow, the sense that somewhere at sometime, something went horribly wrong. Wrong enough for Arthur to retreat to his shed, and wrong enough for Molly to turn into a rather inflexible household tyrant. >>Lupinlore: >As to Percy, I think his main problem is that he is a sensing thinker (I would label him an ISTJ) in a house of intuitive feelers. >His whole approach to the world is fundamentally different from everybody else in the house. That is a recipe for problems. >His is not an enviable position. It is, however, not an uncommon one, and I think the Weasleys handle it about as well as a family of their kind could be expected to.< Betsy: Do they? Percy is gone. He has disowned himself from his family, going even so far as to refuse a Christmas visit from his mother. If nothing changes, Percy could very well have a family and a life of his own which the other Weasleys will not be a part of. Arthur and Molly could well have grandchildren they will never be allowed to meet. To my mind, this is an example of out and out failure. And, honestly, I don't really blame him for leaving. Beyond the whole, "you got your job so they could use you to spy on me," argument, the twins were horrible to him. And I don't recall either parent doing anything to protect Percy from them. Instead, Molly actively fueled the twins resentment of their brother, using Percy as an instrument to bludgeon them with. Molly made it very clear that there was a war going on and Percy was on her side, and the twins were on the other. Who were the twins going to attack? Their mother, or the weak older brother who was already a family outsider? It will be interesting to see how things develop. Because, I'm honestly not sure where JKR comes down on the Weasley family. Does she think of them as a perfect example of a warm and loving family, with their little foibles sure, but generally all right? Or has she put in slowly emerging fault lines to forshadow a serious breach to the family structure? We won't know until the end, of course. But it's interesting to me that there are such disparate views on Molly and the Weasley family in general. At the very least, JKR has made these characters *interesting*, even the "good" guys. You can't ask for much more than that. :) Betsy From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 28 23:31:40 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 23:31:40 -0000 Subject: Why did Draco do it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125352 >>Julia: >I've just reread a few first chapters of PS/SS and there is one think I can't stop thinking about. >Why did Malfoy then, in the train, came into Harry's compartment? He didn't do it just to take a look at Potter but he intended to have him on his side. What for? >I can't think of any good explanation... Did Lucius tell him to do this? or he was just curious?< >>Geoff: >From Draco's point of view, I assume that he knows little or nothing about Harry's take of the Wizarding World. Perhaps he can get Harry on his side or at least get Harry to acknowledge him fairly affably which would improve his street cred no end in the school.< Betsy: Really good question, Julie. :) I agree with Geoff, whoever became friends with *the* Harry Potter would definitely be noticed (one of Draco's key motivations thoughout the books). And I think Julie's right about Draco being curious. I'm sure he grew up hearing about Harry Potter, like every other wizarding child, so why not see the mystery boy for himself? But I think there was a bit more to it too, especially when he realized that Harry was the boy from the shop. Draco was interested in being Harry's friend from the moment he saw him, before he knew who Harry was. For some reason, all his attempts at friendship were rebuffed in the dress shop, so I think Draco saw this as an opportunity to try again. Of course, since he's not sure what went wrong in the first place, he does an equally poor job on the train. One thing I'm sure of: Lucius didn't give Draco any advice in PS/SS on whether or not befriending Harry Potter was a good idea. I'm quite sure that Lucius is as hands off with Draco as he can possibly be. The one scene in CoS where we see Draco and Lucius interacting made very clear (to me anyway) that Lucius doesn't think Draco quite measures up. I imagine Lucius is one of those parents who dislikes children and are not pleased that their offspring have to go through that rather drippy and disgusting stage. (I think that part of Draco's hero-worship of his father springs from his constant attempts to win Lucius's notice and approval.) So I think Lucius would be a little too busy ignoring and avoiding his son to sit down and give him some fatherly advice on who to hang with at school. >>Geoff: >Though I would still like to see some sort of rapprochement between the two of them before the end credits roll....< Betsy: Me too, me too!! :) Betsy From Zarleycat at aol.com Mon Feb 28 23:39:55 2005 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 23:39:55 -0000 Subject: Snape's Teaching Career - Dumbledore's idea of adult detention? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125353 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich > wrote: > > I just had a rather whimsical thought concerning another reason > Snape is at Hogwarts: it's Dumbledore's idea of an adult- appropriate > detention for Snape's foolishness in believing in pureblood > superiority when he was younger. As Catlady points out, it would > indeed be impossible not to have his perceptions altered by such an > experience. > > > > Tonks here: > And on a more serious note. This *punishment* would help him see the > effect of his DE past on the orphans that are left behind. Might be > one of the other reasons that Snape is not pleased to have Harry and > Neville in his class. Neville is not an orphan as such, but almost > the same. Snape would be faced everyday with the consequences of his > past mistakes. And he doesn't get the DADA job because he would > enjoy that class. This thought puts a whole new light on Snape > doesn't it? > Marianne: I like it. But I'd like to add a thought to the DADA idea. Snape hasn't figured out that he will never get out of adult detention, and be awarded with the DADA position until he shows by his behavior or attitude that he has some understanding of how Voldy and the DEs have hurt these kids from infancy. And, if he can't or won't, DD will keep turning down that request to take over DADA. On a somewhat less silly note, I've often thought that part of what makes Snape so disagreeable and snarky to many of his students is that his sense of honor has never been fulfilled. He knows his actions as a DE were wrong, but he managed to avoid punishment when called to account. Instead of ending up in Azkaban, like many of his comrades, he got rewarded with a cushy position at a highly regarded school of wizardry. He's been forgiven, by Dumbledore, at least. I sometimes wonder if he still feels deep down that he has not atoned for his sins, whatever they may be. And that he hasn't had an opportunity to do so that he feels is equal to his past transgressions. And, being Snape, these thwarted feelings unfortunately come out in snappish behavior. Marianne From cyclone_61032 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 28 22:33:19 2005 From: cyclone_61032 at yahoo.com (David & Laura) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:33:19 -0000 Subject: Opposite of Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: <20050227192907.92003.qmail@web31109.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125358 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Arynn Octavia wrote: > I am extremely loyal, but not at all concerned with fair play. I'm no Hufflepuff > > > I am brave in certain situations, but not consistantly. I'm no Gryffindor. > > I am intellegent and studious. I am a Ravenclaw. > > I am ambitious and perhaps a little Machiavellian. (Yes I can be manipulative.) I am a Slytherin. > > So where would I go? > > > --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) David: Well Arynn, you need to put the sorting hat on. As it announced in the first book, it's never been wrong. It figures out where a person 'belongs'. You could argue that it sorts to a persons strongest trait. My own theory is that, since the houses are to be the kid's families away from home, the hat sorts a person where they can reach maximum potential. Picking on Hermione here, I agree with others that from an intelligence/book smarts angle, Ravenclaw would seem the best fit. The hat judged she needed to be in Gryff. I would say that was exactly what she needed to be the Hermione we see today. If she had been placed in Ravenclaw, would she not be just uni-dimensional into her studies. Her experiences in Gryff, I would debate anyway, have produced a much more rounded person; a lotta smarts...a little bravado...a slight disregard for rules...sounds like a good development to me. Extending this theory a little further to Neville. On the surface he does not seem the typical Gryffindor. I ask, would we see the Neville we saw developing in OOTP, if he had been placed in Hufflepuff. I don't think so. Trust the hat! David From leslie.s.bennett at lmco.com Mon Feb 28 23:18:00 2005 From: leslie.s.bennett at lmco.com (moondance241) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 23:18:00 -0000 Subject: Harry and GOF challenges In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125359 Jennifer Nielsen wrote: > > > One of the constant themes of the HP stories is that Harry, for whatever reason, has a unique or unusual experience with an animal/object/person that he later uses to his advantage when faced with a bigger problem. Without that earlier experience, he?d have been outgunned even more than usual. > > > So I was thinking about the GOF challenges. I think there?s a good possibility his experience with the dragons or the mermaids is going to become useful to him in the remaining two books. I wonder if Harry will use either the skills of battling dragons and merpeople or use the dragons and merpeople themselves to save the WW. Moondance: If the lake is connected to Gringotts, then I'd say the merpeople will play a role. Just how Harry would communicate with them I don't know. And which side would they be on? We'd like to assume the "good" side, especially because of their relationship with Dumbledore. But I don't know that its a given. It would depend on what kind (if any) power they have of their own and how big the lake is (their territory). As for the dragons, I'd say the possibility of them having a role is quite good. We learn a lot about the difficulty of containing and defeating them. Also, we're frequently reminded of the Weasely brother who works with them (Charlie? Of course I'm confusing them both now when I need to be precise!). The more detail given and the more frequently something is mentioned or talked about, the more important it is. Moondance From dorothywillis at charter.net Sun Feb 27 04:04:43 2005 From: dorothywillis at charter.net (magister96003) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 04:04:43 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys, the Weasleys, Hagrid, and Snape: Nice people get a pass In-Reply-To: <20050226134906.49575.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 125361 Dorothy: > > Perhaps Hagrid's idea was to teach Grawp English, etc. so he could > > be used as a messinger to the giants to try to persuade them to > > join the anti-Voldemort forces. Magda: > That's a good point, and has a good chance of > being true. But I'm not sure it's worth the price of cheesing off > the centaurs, whose proximity to Hogwarts makes them important to the > Order. It isn't. But Hagrid is always coming up with bright ideas that turn out to be disastrous. Dorothy From tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 22:53:23 2005 From: tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com (Tayla) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:53:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Truth about Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050227225323.43415.qmail@web61210.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125362 chrusotoxos wrote: I mean, who cares about Lily (ok, nice Lily, and I'll love to know something more about her) but we'll know in Book 6 the truth about Snape??! I was prepared to drool on it till book 7, which will probably be published in 2011... So, why Dumbledore trusts him? What did he do? And why do we know it in Book 6? Harry will finally trust him? Or Snape will die in Book 6? Tayla Responds: We care because it is going to be important! Like it or not, Lily is important, and whatever it is will have some bearing on future events, we already know this of JKR. As for Snape, I think that the debates on Snape says it all, we NEED to know! Will it change things, only time will tell, but my opinion of Snape has been steadily changing with every new bit of cannon that comes my way! Hopefully, this truth will settle the issue once and for all! *begins praying* Tayla From martyb1130 at aol.com Mon Feb 28 22:14:24 2005 From: martyb1130 at aol.com (martyb1130 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:14:24 EST Subject: Riddle's Bones Message-ID: <1ea.378a268f.2f54f1c0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 125375 Hello All! I was just reading the GOF for the seventh time and something had come across me. Towards the end when Lord Voldemort is making his potion to revive him he uses his father's bone that he dug up. How is it that his father's bones are still in his coffin? I do not know much about decay and that sort of thing but how long do bones stay underground? If Voldemort was at school many years ago, and he killed his father during those years, then how is it his father's parts are still around? "martyb1130" [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]